2 Christian biologists on evolution

[bippy123]

This is a debate between Michael Behe and professor fox , both believers .
Fox argues for evolution and Behe argues for ID.
This is a much better debate then the last link I posted .

https://youtu.be/luRGzVrr2Cs

I'd say that my position on this is slowly evolving and more closely matches Michael behes position .
Behe correctly states that Id isn't anti evolution , just anti Darwinian evolution.. Behe seems to be somewhere in between Id and evolution .

Guys let's hear your take on this debate .

[PaulSacramento]

My view has always been that the "randomness" in evolution doesn't really counter the "design" element in ID.
I believe that we were designed to adapt to randomness.
I don't think the universe/life was designed to the nth degree.
I think it was designed with the ability to adapt and evolve to it's environment and changes in its environment.

I believe that God created life, that He started the process going and designed it with the ability to survive and what we call evolution is just an expression of that design.
I believe that as sustainer of all, He is intimately involved in all that happens even if He doesn't have to "micro manage" the whole thing.
In reality, I see life being able to adapt and overcome change as a sign of a creator and not as a sign against one.
I mean, If I was to create life I would want it to have the ability to adapt and overcame change, wouldn't you?

[bippy123]

My view has always been that the "randomness" in evolution doesn't really counter the "design" element in ID.
I believe that we were designed to adapt to randomness.
I don't think the universe/life was designed to the nth degree.
I think it was designed with the ability to adapt and evolve to it's environment and changes in its environment.

I believe that God created life, that He started the process going and designed it with the ability to survive and what we call evolution is just an expression of that design.
I believe that as sustainer of all, He is intimately involved in all that happens even if He doesn't have to "micro manage" the whole thing.
In reality, I see life being able to adapt and overcome change as a sign of a creator and not as a sign against one.
I mean, If I was to create life I would want it to have the ability to adapt and overcame change, wouldn't you?

Paul that is pretty close to what Behe believes . Behe also believes in common descent as well and sees no conflict between common descent and intelligent design .

[PaulSacramento]

Yeah and the thing is, I don't like when scientists make absolute statements.
If science has taught us anything, it is to NOT make absolute statements because, tomorrow, we will find evidence to the contrary.
The evidence for what we call evolution is very strong BUT the evidence for evolution via natural selection ( with NS being totally random and by accident), is not.

[AirBetweenTheNotes]

He completed it & it was very good plus ceased from Creating, I wouldn't doubt that He keeps it all together by rolling it around like a ball in His hand or around arms & across chest like one rolling a ball around. Just for the amusement of it all but He does keep it all from coming apart as maybe a continual act of creation that invisible force holding it all together until the great uncreating or dissolutionment of everything at the atomic level but I'm not sure that creation is the word to be used here. Artistic licence applied somewhat here....

[hughfarey]

Yeah and the thing is, I don't like when scientists make absolute statements.

Hear, hear, absolutely.

If science has taught us anything, it is to NOT make absolute statements because, tomorrow, we will find evidence to the contrary.

er... we MAY find evidence to the contrary (important not to make absolute statements...).

The evidence for what we call evolution is very strong BUT the evidence for evolution via natural selection (with NS being totally random and by accident), is not.

"very strong", in some people's opinion [...] "is not", in other people's opinion (important not to make absolute statements...).

[Audie]

Yeah and the thing is, I don't like when scientists make absolute statements.
If science has taught us anything, it is to NOT make absolute statements because, tomorrow, we will find evidence to the contrary.
The evidence for what we call evolution is very strong BUT the evidence for evolution via natural selection ( with NS being totally random and by accident), is not.

I've been around scientists all my life, and it has not been my experience that they are given to
absolute statements, that being such a fundamental error.


I've been around religious people too. I have noticed a considerable tendency among them to
not just declare absolutes, but betimes to present that they themselves are infallible, having as they
do, access to infallible information.

Why do you suppose there is this difference?

[Audie]

He completed it & it was very good plus ceased from Creating, I wouldn't doubt that He keeps it all together by rolling it around like a ball in His hand or around arms & across chest like one rolling a ball around. Just for the amusement of it all but He does keep it all from coming apart as maybe a continual act of creation that invisible force holding it all together until the great uncreating or dissolutionment of everything at the atomic level but I'm not sure that creation is the word to be used here. Artistic licence applied somewhat here....

Huh?

[RickD]

Yeah and the thing is, I don't like when scientists make absolute statements.
If science has taught us anything, it is to NOT make absolute statements because, tomorrow, we will find evidence to the contrary.
The evidence for what we call evolution is very strong BUT the evidence for evolution via natural selection ( with NS being totally random and by accident), is not.

I've been around scientists all my life, and it has not been my experience that they are given to
absolute statements, that being such a fundamental error.


I've been around religious people too. I have noticed a considerable tendency among them to
not just declare absolutes, but betimes to present that they themselves are infallible, having as they
do, access to infallible information.

Why do you suppose there is this difference?

Maybe because you only notice what you want to notice?

I've noticed both, science types, and religious types, who as you say, declare absolutes regarding their beliefs.

Maybe you just need to think outside of your comfort zone.

[Audie]

Yeah and the thing is, I don't like when scientists make absolute statements.
If science has taught us anything, it is to NOT make absolute statements because, tomorrow, we will find evidence to the contrary.
The evidence for what we call evolution is very strong BUT the evidence for evolution via natural selection ( with NS being totally random and by accident), is not.

I've been around scientists all my life, and it has not been my experience that they are given to
absolute statements, that being such a fundamental error.


I've been around religious people too. I have noticed a considerable tendency among them to
not just declare absolutes, but betimes to present that they themselves are infallible, having as they
do, access to infallible information.

Why do you suppose there is this difference?

Maybe because you only notice what you want to notice?

I've noticed both, science types, and religious types, who as you say, declare absolutes regarding their beliefs.

Maybe you just need to think outside of your comfort zone.

You do love that "comfort zone" cliche, dont you? You get to imply so much with so little content.

[Audacity]

Yeah and the thing is, I don't like when scientists make absolute statements.
If science has taught us anything, it is to NOT make absolute statements because, tomorrow, we will find evidence to the contrary.
The evidence for what we call evolution is very strong BUT the evidence for evolution via natural selection ( with NS being totally random and by accident), is not.

I've been around scientists all my life, and it has not been my experience that they are given to
absolute statements, that being such a fundamental error.


I've been around religious people too. I have noticed a considerable tendency among them to
not just declare absolutes, but betimes to present that they themselves are infallible, having as they
do, access to infallible information.

Why do you suppose there is this difference?

Maybe because you only notice what you want to notice?

I've noticed both, science types, and religious types, who as you say, declare absolutes regarding their beliefs.

Maybe you just need to think outside of your comfort zone.

While it's not unusual for science types, and religious types, to misstate or overstate the issues, findings, and conclusions of their respective fields of interest, it's quite unusual for scientists and theologians to do so. Thing is, she didn't say "science types," but "scientists." There is a difference.

[RickD]

Yeah and the thing is, I don't like when scientists make absolute statements.
If science has taught us anything, it is to NOT make absolute statements because, tomorrow, we will find evidence to the contrary.
The evidence for what we call evolution is very strong BUT the evidence for evolution via natural selection ( with NS being totally random and by accident), is not.

I've been around scientists all my life, and it has not been my experience that they are given to
absolute statements, that being such a fundamental error.


I've been around religious people too. I have noticed a considerable tendency among them to
not just declare absolutes, but betimes to present that they themselves are infallible, having as they
do, access to infallible information.

Why do you suppose there is this difference?

Maybe because you only notice what you want to notice?

I've noticed both, science types, and religious types, who as you say, declare absolutes regarding their beliefs.

Maybe you just need to think outside of your comfort zone.

While it's not unusual for science types, and religious types, to misstate or overstate the issues, findings, and conclusions of their respective fields of interest, it's quite unusual for scientists and theologians to do so. Thing is, she didn't say "science types," but "scientists." There is a difference.

I guess Audie would have to explain why she compared scientists to religious people, instead of theologians, if you think it makes a difference.

Audie?

[Audie]

Yeah and the thing is, I don't like when scientists make absolute statements.
If science has taught us anything, it is to NOT make absolute statements because, tomorrow, we will find evidence to the contrary.
The evidence for what we call evolution is very strong BUT the evidence for evolution via natural selection ( with NS being totally random and by accident), is not.

I've been around scientists all my life, and it has not been my experience that they are given to
absolute statements, that being such a fundamental error.


I've been around religious people too. I have noticed a considerable tendency among them to
not just declare absolutes, but betimes to present that they themselves are infallible, having as they
do, access to infallible information.

Why do you suppose there is this difference?

Maybe because you only notice what you want to notice?

I've noticed both, science types, and religious types, who as you say, declare absolutes regarding their beliefs.

Maybe you just need to think outside of your comfort zone.

While it's not unusual for science types, and religious types, to misstate or overstate the issues, findings, and conclusions of their respective fields of interest, it's quite unusual for scientists and theologians to do so. Thing is, she didn't say "science types," but "scientists." There is a difference.

I guess Audie would have to explain why she compared scientists to religious people, instead of theologians, if you think it makes a difference.

Audie?

I noticed that too. The error on your part is not contingent on my having to explain something.
How about taking a little responsibility for yourself?


As for "theologians" i am disinclined to think they say that there is a high level of confidence that
god is real.

All of you here ( a more reasonable group to discuss than unknown unnamed someones out there somewhere) appear to "know" ( an absolute) that there is a god.
You "prove it" with your logic and you even know for a fact which god it is.

Some go further and absolutely know, infallibly, how to interpret "god's word".

Looks endemic to me. Exceptions are invited to show their hands.

[RickD]

I've been around scientists all my life, and it has not been my experience that they are given to
absolute statements, that being such a fundamental error.


I've been around religious people too. I have noticed a considerable tendency among them to
not just declare absolutes, but betimes to present that they themselves are infallible, having as they
do, access to infallible information.

Why do you suppose there is this difference?

Maybe because you only notice what you want to notice?

I've noticed both, science types, and religious types, who as you say, declare absolutes regarding their beliefs.

Maybe you just need to think outside of your comfort zone.

While it's not unusual for science types, and religious types, to misstate or overstate the issues, findings, and conclusions of their respective fields of interest, it's quite unusual for scientists and theologians to do so. Thing is, she didn't say "science types," but "scientists." There is a difference.

I guess Audie would have to explain why she compared scientists to religious people, instead of theologians, if you think it makes a difference.

Audie?

I noticed that too. The error on your part is not contingent on my having to explain something.
How about taking a little responsibility for yourself?


As for "theologians" i am disinclined to think they say that there is a high level of confidence that
god is real.

All of you here ( a more reasonable group to discuss than unknown unnamed someones out there somewhere) appear to "know" ( an absolute) that there is a god.
You "prove it" with your logic and you even know for a fact which god it is.

Some go further and absolutely know, infallibly, how to interpret "god's word".

Looks endemic to me. Exceptions are invited to show their hands.

You really are precious, Audie!

[Audie]

Maybe because you only notice what you want to notice?

I've noticed both, science types, and religious types, who as you say, declare absolutes regarding their beliefs.

Maybe you just need to think outside of your comfort zone.

While it's not unusual for science types, and religious types, to misstate or overstate the issues, findings, and conclusions of their respective fields of interest, it's quite unusual for scientists and theologians to do so. Thing is, she didn't say "science types," but "scientists." There is a difference.

I guess Audie would have to explain why she compared scientists to religious people, instead of theologians, if you think it makes a difference.

Audie?

I noticed that too. The error on your part is not contingent on my having to explain something.
How about taking a little responsibility for yourself?


As for "theologians" i am disinclined to think they say that there is a high level of confidence that
god is real.

All of you here ( a more reasonable group to discuss than unknown unnamed someones out there somewhere) appear to "know" ( an absolute) that there is a god.
You "prove it" with your logic and you even know for a fact which god it is.

Some go further and absolutely know, infallibly, how to interpret "god's word".

Looks endemic to me. Exceptions are invited to show their hands.

You really are precious, Audie!

Were you saving that bit of cleverness for whatever answer I gave?