The Problem with the ID Argument

This part I agree with. So far you have not been successful.

1 Like

Worth underlining:

And why is that? (That was a rhetorical question.)

Bingo.

2 Likes

God made nature, and it can not act contrary to God. Only mankind has that capacity, so you can trust nature.

All things are possible, like Evolution for example, and the Science we use to examine Nature - God’s very good Creation - means sometimes we can figure things out.

2 Likes

You don’t need the peer review part.

1 Like

That’s an excellent analogy. The fact that ID proponents refuse to go further indicates that at some level, they know they don’t have anything worthwhile.

3 Likes

We know that providence happens. Do we know how God does it? No. The examples in scripture are plentiful, and in Christians’ lives past and present. Did the crossing of the Red Sea break any natural laws?

A working definition of providence might be “God’s using the natural order of things but with supernatural timing and/or extent and placing.”

A similar instance I would suggest is Joshua’s long day. My conjecture is that it was, in God’s providence, a massive temperature inversion causing a large and long lasting superior mirage (though that’s a technical term, it was especially ‘superior’ since it was very notably God’s hand :slightly_smiling_face:). It was massive in that the temperature inversion extended well beyond the horizon and lasted for an exceptional length of time and causing the sun to stand still in the sky, and the earth, for all intents and purposes, to stand still as well. Scripture only really necessitates that the sun and moon stood still – in the sky.

2 Likes

That applies to abiogenesis and evolution as well. Evolution was designed. Can science prove it? No.

40 posts were split to a new topic: Dale, Rich, and Greg discuss providence and Genesis

Right. The earliest scientists didn’t have didn’t necessarily have contemporaneous peer review, but they still discovered truths about nature.

I think it’s worth being a little bit more specific here. We may not know exactly how God does things, but science does give us ideas and I might even say limitations on our interpretations. We can know things about the world. For the Christian, while the Bible is our final authority on all things pertaining to faith, we may use the results of science to help test our interpretations.

3 Likes

A post was merged into an existing topic: Dale, Rich, and Greg discuss providence and Genesis

A post was merged into an existing topic: Dale, Rich, and Greg discuss providence and Genesis

Are you aware that many scholars including @swamidass now think that Darwin’s theory is outdated, to the point of severely criticizing IDers when they attack Darwinism, arguing that they attack a straw man version of contemporary evolutionary theory.

I am not saying that most of ID books are targeted exclusively to scholars but to both scholars and the general public. For example, « Darwin Devolves » or « Darwin’s Doubt » fall is this category.
Now, it happens that some ID books are targeted exclusively to scholars. I can give you the following 3 examples:

https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/8818

Yes. That is why I specifically referred only to the basics of the theory. The theory as a whole has undergone significant revision over the years, as will happen with good theories.

3 Likes

On what basis do you assert this?

2 Likes

Yeah, nobody agrees that either of those books is targeted to scholars as well as the general public.

What sort of scholars? And that was two examples.

3 Likes

It stopped being Darwin’s theory the moment he proposed it. Scientists don’t own theories. Once a theory is proposed it is either disproven or accepted after further testing. As a theory is tested, it will necessarily be refined. It is really strange that creationists think the refinement of scientific theories is a problem.

If you want to challenge the theory of evolution then you need to challenge the theory as it stands today. It doesn’t make much sense to challenge a 60 year old theory that people have already left behind.

2 Likes

This conversation has gone on too long, and is dominated with off topics, some of which are important, but now buried in this thread. I encourage that those still involved in this conversation, pick up interesting threads in new topics. This thread will close, however, now.