June 3rd 2012, 05:39 PM #1
For Scrawly. Those two WLC links you provided.
In your Macroevolution the evidence thread you offered two links from WLC. You were hoping for comment. Given that the thread is becoming bogged down with other things, I’ll make a couple of quick comments on your links, here.
First this one, in which Craig begins to address the question asked at the start, with ...
Originally posted by WLC link above
Metaphysical considerations underpin all human thinking, not just those of theology, philosophy and Darwinism.
And this seems to be a big mistake that IDers make. Whenever they discuss science, it seems to be in terms of biology generally and Darwin’s version of evolution specifically.
However, Darwin’s idea on evolution is only a part of evolutionary theory and it’s only a much, much smaller part of science.
Hence to couch this claim in terms of Darwinism is misleading.
Metaphysical considerations underpin all science, and so WLC’s opinion here, covers all science, not just Darwin's version of evolution and Lane's religious convictions.
The same point can be made - about bringing the non-natural/supernatural into all other science. The problem is, no one has been able to show how to do this and have a productive scientific methodology in the process. Not in the case of evolutionary biology specifically, and not in the case of science generally.
It’s why belief that God exists, or belief that God does not exist is kept out of science. Scientists simply get their test tubes out and explore the natural world and report on these explorations. They leave their speculations regarding God’s existence or non existence to any books they might write, or radio/TV interviews they might make.
Then there is this from WLC, with Craig writing:-
Originally posted by WLC above link
The origin of life is essentially a question of chemistry. Certainly Darwin’s considerations (and/or other considerations) come into the question once a replicator comes about. Nevertheless, the origin of that replicator is largely a question of chemistry and physics.
Another point needs to be made and it illustrates the claim I made above, about the fruitfulness of bringing the supernatural into natural science. If you look at evolutionary biology research papers, they are full of mechanistic explanation based on real live tests done in laboratories, and real live tests done in the field.
I’ve yet to see anything like this from any supernatural concept that’s attempted to be brought within the domain of science.
Once the claim is made - “God created that particular animal” - where do you go from there?
On the other hand, insofar as ToE is, like any other science, a field of continuing exploration, discovery, and explanation, then it continually demonstrates where it goes from “That animal evolved”. Articles in research journals illustrate this point repeatedly.
Natural/empirical science is all about mechanistic explanation and the testing of those explanations. By mechanistic I mean a nuts-and-bolts kind of explanation, with evidence presented by a scientist kind of saying, "Here, come to my lab and I'll show you what I mean."
No one has ever been able to show how to do this kind of thing by invoking the supernatural.
That God/the supernatural exists or not, is a matter for the faith of the individual. It's a practical consideration that's allowed science to work.
Last edited by wattsr1; June 3rd 2012 at 05:48 PM.rjw
June 9th 2012, 10:45 PM #2
Re: For Scrawly. Another quick comment.
Another quick comment, from the following link:-
Originally posted by WLC at above link
There is the possibility that the author did intend it that way, namely six consecutive 24 hour days. But so what? There are texts in the Bible which literally claim that it rains because God tells the rain to fall; that frost forms when God blows with his breath; that droughts occur because God commands them to; that we know absolutely nothing about how babies are knitted together in the womb. Nowhere, in the (Protestant) Bible, as far as I know, does it even hint that God created natural processes to cause weather phenomena, either in part or in total. It’s clear, God does these things by his direct command or direct action. Nowhere in the Bible, does it say, as far as I know, that we actually do have some idea as to how babies develop in the womb.
So it would seem that if the author of these associated verses did actually mean what he/she wrote, yet creationists don’t take them literally. They accommodate the literal meaning of these verses with the scientific (meteorological and developmental/embryological) theories of men.
Hence there is no reason why the authors of those texts in Genesis did not mean what they wrote, and just like creationists don’t take the meteorological and embryological verses on face value, so there is no need for the believer to take the verses in Genesis on face value.
They point to the ultimate authority of God in/over what we refer to as “creation” or “nature”, and that’s it. This is perhaps the safest message that can be taken from those verses.
Yes, there is every possibility that the author(s) of Genesis knew that those text were a poetic idea, or a narrative they knew not to be factually correct. I doubt if we have the evidence to say one way or the other.
I come across an awful lot of YECs who maintain that ToE is bunk because we were not there to observe macro evolutionary events happening, because they occurred in the past. It’s as if the evidence that past events leave in the present for us to observe, count for nothing.
The irony of the above argument is that these same creationists claim that the Bible was written by God, or that God inspired the writing of the Bible. Yet those very same creationists were not there to observe the process of the writing of any Biblical text. It all happened in the past. They appear to think that they have eyewitness accounts, namely the accounts of the authors of those words. But again, no creationist was there to observe those words being written to ensure that the authors were:-
2) Telling the truth,
3) Not misunderstanding what they claimed to have seen, (that is, they could have been thinking they were telling the truth, but were mistaken),
4) Indeed being guided by God,
Last edited by wattsr1; June 9th 2012 at 10:47 PM.rjw
By wonbyone in forum Civics 101Replies: 33Last Post: April 10th 2010, 07:27 AM
By kendemyer in forum Archaeology 201Replies: 74Last Post: May 12th 2004, 03:45 PM