seveneyes wrote:One thing that I don't understand and I have never heard spoken about is how the heck a chance, non-intelligent function like adaptation know what adaptations to make. Sure mating with a stronger or faster mate would make stronger offspring, but other adaptations like fish coming out of water. What purpose could that serve and how would the mindless function of adaptation come to put that correct adaptation into place?
ok, so a fish is being eaten all the time and while trying to escape predators it jumps out of the water. Soon (according to evolutionist theory) it might grow wings and become a flying fish. A mindless function I do not see as being able to come to the conclusion that wings would best suit it's needs....
THe thing to understand in the thinking at work here is that evolution as a process is believed by many to be completely chance and there's no such thing as "good" or "bad" elements that evolve, there are only "successful" or unsuccessful" modification that for a variety of reasons including environment, genetic stability and long-term replication, available food supply or adaptation to a changing food supply etc. This is what the term "natural selection" is all about.
What many people are unaware of, or don't factor in when they look at the history of evolutionary science is that evolution as a theory wasn't original with Darwin. There were several before him that gave more or less similar hypotheses. What Darwin offered that was new was the concept of "natural selection" which offered an explanation as to why certain lines of evolution succeeded and why several other didn't. There hadn't been a viable explanation for this before and this was something too that the religious community appealed to beforehand as a "proof" or "evidence" of the need for recognition of God's work in selecting and designing animals and plants.
This has commonly been called since then the "God of the gaps". What it basically boils down to is a logical fallacy that fails to recognize the the absence of evidence for something is not necessarily the evidence of absence. Put another way, just because we don't have evidence that a particular event occured or process is at work, doesn't mean that we can conclude from that that the event didn't occur or such a process is at work. Pointing to a lack of evidence and making an appeal based upon that to draw a definitive conclusion may have a degree of validity in terms of the probability of the evidence existing in light of other evidence that exists and provides context. It cannot however, rule out the possibility that some such evidence does in fact exist and simply hasn't been found yet.
The problem for believers is that appealing to a God of the Gaps type argument, in effect hands a club to your detractor who then proceed to beat you with it when such evidence is found. If you claim that a lack of evidence for a natural process demonstrates the existence of God, then it's reasonable to infer that when such evidence is found that those to whom you made the original claim can then (equally erroneously by the way) assert that these material, naturalistic explanations for previously unexplained phenomena demonstrates that God doesn't exist.
In the end, in terms of the pure science of it, evolution is just a mechanism or a means by which we understand how change takes place within specific populations over time. It neither proves nor disproves God. For those (like me) who accept the existence of God and His interaction with man within His creation, it doesn't really matter to me that such a natural process exists because all that demonstrates to me is that that is a possible or probable method used by God to achieve His ends. The existence of evolution on a small or a large scale begs some questions of course but in the end science lacks the tools to generate evidence or interpret it that can prove something outside the physical and material world.
That's why those elements of evolution as a theory that are rooted in pure science and observable over time pose no threat to a Christian worldview. They simple are what they are and the issues of design and cause outside of that are superflous or secondary to the pure science of it. That's when science gives way to philosophy or religion and the questions are asked of cause and purpose. That is where the conflict lies.
What concerns me as a Christian is that many arguing in this field against evolution on the basis of their fear of the consequences or conclusion that can be drawn in the philosophical realm then go on to summarily reject the actual science of it and in so doing become what has at times sadly defined Christians who do this as anti-intellectual or unwilling to even consider the possibility that their interpretation of Scripture is as susceptable to challenge.
Not to pick on him (as I am prone to in other situations admittedly) but Ken Ham (and I use him because I just recently rewatched a 10 show series of debate with him and Jason Lisle against Hugh Ross and Walter Kaiser) repeatedly and without recognition of any challenges or evidence to the contrary continually defends his position as necessary because if anything is conceded outside of his interpretation of scripture using the literary hermeneutic he employs then in his estimation scripture is then rendered unreliable and everything else drawn from Scripture including our knowledge of God and God's plan of salvation is called into question.
To this I respond "Nonsense!!!"
What is rendered unreliable is Ken Ham's interpretation of Scripture. Theology is less defined by it's willingness to adapt and change because it's foundation is somewhat more constant that the state of science which is designed to be flexible and change regularly as more information or evidence is discovered or generated. Theology tends to resist change much more because the source of it (revealed Scripture primarily) is constant. That doesn't mean however that theology doesn't change or that Theology in the past hasn't changed in direct response to natural discoveries. Remember that an element of theological basis includes Natural Theology and it's historically been presumed that this is a contributing element to an overall theological framework. If something in that area disconnects and no longer makes consistent sense, while it's more natural and often more accurate to question science as it is the more changable and flexible side of things, but that doesn't mean that it is exlusively science that must be pushed into the mold of existing theology. Given enough time and enough evidence for something if it calls an element of interpretive theology into question, that too is a legitimate (if less common) possibility to consider.
YEC itself as it stands often accuses OEC and theistic evolutionist as having compromised with science and departing from a Biblical foundation. In a subtle way, however the same is true of the modern YEC movement. YEC is as much a reaction against modern science as what YEC proponents claim is the positive influence of it upon those who disagree with them. When you define yourself by what you are against you then cede control to define the argument to a source outside of your own belief system. That's true whether it's direct or indirect.
Anway, sorry for rambling. Hopefully this makes some sense and adds something to the conversation. If not, just let it slide by.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
