Christian Evolutionists?

[phank]

Yes P, it is cumulative but there are also paradigm shifts that can overturn past theories rather quickly.

Yes, but the new paradigm must explain the existing evidence. For example, no "paradigm shift" is going to cause mutations to stop, or the fossil record to vanish, of the observed speciation to be forgotten.

My point was that there is knowledge that is not scientific and just as true as anything discovered by science. And perhaps more so... And of course I think my God is historical, as is His Son Christ Jesus. If I didn't I wouldn't be a Christian.

We didn't communicate again. Yes, there is a great deal of knowledge that is not scientific knowledge Science has a limited scope. Within that scope, it is unchallenged.

What I meant by your god being historical is, not around today. Something that happened in the past. But I think your god is like evolution in this respect - happened in the past, still happening now. And perhaps (I'm not a theologian), acting today in the same way as in the past.

[phank]

As if science has a lock on truth.

No. Science deals with natural phenomena, seeking best-fit explanations. This is far from all there is, and these explanations are not "truth" like religious truth, they are tentative best-fit explanations.

Religion would be known by historical encounters with God - if such a God exists. Historical knowledge does not come by the kind of testing that he speaks of here.

As Tiggy points out, yes it does. You don't think archaeologists make testable predictions?

If your god were to arrive today, with no prior history, do you not suppose a religion would soon arise accordingly?

[Tiggy]

It was in response to Phank who said:

Once again, then, in science mindsets are tied to evidence. It is not at all like religion. The testing is extremely rigorous, because when it is not, someone else is guaranteed to come along and show this. Which, as you yourself point out, happens all the time. Hoyle was wrong, on the evidence. Lamarck was wrong on the evidence. You will find no eternal truths in science, only "currently best-fit" explanations. But also (and totally unlike religion) you find that science is an enterprise that requires humility. Most hypotheses are wrong, and fail the tests.

As if science has a lock on truth. Religion would be known by historical encounters with God - if such a God exists. Historical knowledge does not come by the kind of testing that he speaks of here.

OK. My point was that scientific methods can be used to test historical claims. They can be used to corroborate such stories as in the case of the Teutoburg battles, or falsify them as in the case of a literal Noah's Flood.

- T

[seer]

Yes, but the new paradigm must explain the existing evidence. For example, no "paradigm shift" is going to cause mutations to stop, or the fossil record to vanish, of the observed speciation to be forgotten.

Why not? How do you know? What if you started to find primate fossils in the strata that had dinosaur fossils? And we already went over the problem of even knowing mutations rates of the ancient past.

We didn't communicate again. Yes, there is a great deal of knowledge that is not scientific knowledge Science has a limited scope. Within that scope, it is unchallenged.

What is unchallenged? Look at it this way - both the ancient Greeks, and later science, said that the universe was eternal and fixed - one Holy Book (and only one I know of) said the universe was created i.e. began to exist. Science has caught up with Scripture.

What I meant by your god being historical is, not around today. Something that happened in the past. But I think your god is like evolution in this respect - happened in the past, still happening now. And perhaps (I'm not a theologian), acting today in the same way as in the past.

No, I certainly do not believe that the universe is either self-sustaining or self-creating. Of course that can not be proven either way. So in the sense of sustaining the universe I believe God is acting like He always acted - upholding the uniformity of nature - though miracles and personal encounters are the exceptions and not the rule.

[seer]

OK. My point was that scientific methods can be used to test historical claims. They can be used to corroborate such stories as in the case of the Teutoburg battles, or falsify them as in the case of a literal Noah's Flood.

- T

I don't think you can say that at all. First, Noah's Flood could have been regional,. Second you don't know if the future will or will not confirm a universal flood. The best you can say that is that according to the evidence we have today....

[Xru]

I don't think you can say that at all. First, Noah's Flood could have been regional,. Second you don't know if the future will or will not confirm a universal flood. The best you can say that is that according to the evidence we have today....

Yo seer - this is a subtlety that get overlooked too often, IMHO. Ya . . . science can be used to gain some insight into historical claims, but depending on how far back in time one goes, the further the less certain, the reliability and especially the interpretation of it becomes more and more tenuous.

[seer]

Yo seer - this is a subtlety that get overlooked too often, IMHO. Ya . . . science can be used to gain some insight into historical claims, but depending on how far back in time one goes, the further the less certain, the reliability and especially the interpretation of it becomes more and more tenuous.

Yes, and I'm sure T has read Karl Popper - that falsifications can also be overturned.

[Xru]

Yes, and I'm sure T has read Karl Popper - that falsifications can also be overturned.

Ya . . . I have KP but am currently into "Z" books but will get to him:)

[phank]

Why not? How do you know? What if you started to find primate fossils in the strata that had dinosaur fossils? And we already went over the problem of even knowing mutations rates of the ancient past.

And what if pigs flew? Yes, we provided large quantities of consilient evidence for mutation rates in the ancient past. If you choose not to read or understand these, that does NOT mean the issue is still open. It's not. At some point, further explanation becomes useless.

Now, if we should find primate fossils which are unequivocally datable to 100 million years ago, this would require some serious rethinking. But we have found tens of thousands of fossils, which together tell a resoundingly convincing story. Nothing remotely close to an exception. This MEANS something, at least to those not closed to any honest effort to understand.

What is unchallenged?

The efficacy of the scientific method, within the boundaries of what science can address.

Look at it this way - both the ancient Greeks, and later science, said that the universe was eternal and fixed - one Holy Book (and only one I know of) said the universe was created i.e. began to exist. Science has caught up with Scripture.

Interesting way to look at it. I wouldn't phrase it quite that way, myself, but I don't mind. to me, science has come up with a pretty good explanation for a body of cosmological evidence, collected and interpreted in the light of previous scientific findings, with the help of a good deal of observational technology. In some ways, scripture says similar things, but not based on evidence.

No, I certainly do not believe that the universe is either self-sustaining or self-creating. Of course that can not be proven either way. So in the sense of sustaining the universe I believe God is acting like He always acted - upholding the uniformity of nature - though miracles and personal encounters are the exceptions and not the rule.

I have no problem with this at all.

[phank]

I don't think you can say that at all. First, Noah's Flood could have been regional,

In fact, human settlements have most commonly been built where floods are common - shores and rivers. But I would think that a regional flood would kind of undermine the moral lessons of the tale. It was supposed to cleanse humanity, not just a tribe in the middle east.

.

Second you don't know if the future will or will not confirm a universal flood. The best you can say that is that according to the evidence we have today....

Please. The evidence against a universal flood is pervasive, unequivocal, unambiguous. That evidence isn't going to go away. The planet is lousy with geological features that not only could not have resulted from a flood, but could not have persisted through such a flood. Any future explanation must include all these features.

[Adrift]

In fact, human settlements have most commonly been built where floods are common - shores and rivers. But I would think that a regional flood would kind of undermine the moral lessons of the tale.

Not necessarily. The Promised Land is a primary focus of the Torah, and especially of Genesis. A regional flood may make more sense in that regard than a global flood.

[Wally]

Not necessarily. The Promised Land is a primary focus of the Torah, and especially of Genesis. A regional flood may make more sense in that regard than a global flood.

But it wouldn't be the flood described in Genesis.

[Wally]

It may also be useful to remember that "truth" and "Knowledge" have different meanings for religion and science.

Science takes a much humbler approach to those definitions.

[Adrift]

But it wouldn't be the flood described in Genesis.

Sure it would.

[seer]

But it wouldn't be the flood described in Genesis.

Not necessarily

http://www.reasons.org/exploring-extent-flood-part-one