. I try not to interpret Genesis too much and as far as I'm concerned what matters is that God created. Clearly thats all God intended us to know and thats what we are finding out from ID. 
Replace all the naturalist part with divine intervention, and you're left without any form of evolution.MM wrote:I have complained in a great deal of threads that atheists have placed naturalistic causes within the theory of evolution. However, they have no proof for them and should not be part of it. My stance is this: replace the naturalist part with the ID part and you have my theory.
So I'm wondering what kind of "evolution" (if you could call it that) do you believe in? Do you believe any natural processes at all took place to evolve new species of life, or do you believe that God simply created life brand new each time a new species came onto the scene? The former is what I believe strikes a cord, and is something that really can't really be advocated in Scripture, especially for the creation of humanity who are a brand new creation. Evolution is the improvement of something simple towards something complicated. It does not need naturalism to achieve this (unless you advocate that God can't do it, which is absurd).Replace all the naturalist part with divine intervention, and you're left without any form of evolution.
Humanity is a brand new creation. Remember, I don't even believe we originated on earth, so humans really are no business of mine as far as evolution on Earth is concerned. However, you are giving me two choices when there are a lot more than two. Like I said, atheists use "luck" as a catalist for mutations in evolution. I use God. The only disagreement me and an atheist would have(apart from naturalism), is on whether evolution was a single branched out line. I don't think so. I think it started out at 3 points (a terrestrial unicellular organism, an aquatic one and an aerial one). At any rate, why can't God just make creatures evolve? It is not denied by the bible, nor is it illogical. The only creature that the bible gives a detailed description of how it was created is Man. Everything else is open for debate.So I'm wondering what kind of "evolution" (if you could call it that) do you believe in? Do you believe any natural processes at all took place to evolve new species of life, or do you believe that God simply created life brand new each time a new species came onto the scene? The former is what I believe strikes a cord, and is something that really can't really be advocated in Scripture, especially for the creation of humanity who are a brand new creation.
Nope. Both Darwin and Wallace (who co-discovered natural selection) were Christians when they did so. Science is only methodologically naturalistic, which is why theists can do science. Darwin even attributed the origin of life to God.Here's my problem with your argument, K:
In the strictest sense, you are absolutely right. ID, in its purest form, doesn't negate evolution, theistic or not. There are plenty of interpretations of the various observations that we can play with . . . neither system--if weonly consider the evidence--rules out the other.
What is the problem here is the philosophies that underlie each. Darwinian evolution simply presupposes philosophical materialism.
Points to creator=not science.The problem with ID, is that it tries to bring "supernaturalism" into science by claiming that such-and-such flagellum *has* to have a designer, instead of leaving it as a non-scientific opinion to be shared by more religious scientists.
So sayeth the great one. What is part of the natural world? Ifone beleive in philosophical pyhsical materialism than no God, if one beleive in spoiritual materialism, than no natural world. This is junk, science is clearly scared of the arean of ideas, and trys to monopolize thought. If on ebelieve in God they can still apply logic and reason and investigate with the same world and evidence that you see. Hey if you wanna shut your eyes to what you don't wanna see that's your problem, but if you wanna use your mind and enter the arena of ideas, instead of attck other thoughts or views than come ahead,; otherwise go sitin the corner with the crying baby that science has become.jettlogic wrote:I haven't read all the posts, but underpinning science is METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM. (yes, I'm shouting), NOT philosophical materialism.
The break in your analogy here is that we can actually make useful predictions about radioactive decay, AND THEY HOLD. Yet predictions made on the basis of Evolutionary Theory simply just don't hold up. You'd see a lot of Christian evolutionists if the theory held up, but it doesn't. There is no gradual change of species in the fossil record as was predicted by TOE, the number of species living today is decreasing not increasing, and there's simply no labratory evidence that new species can be formed through natural selection. TOE states that that with enough generations I should be able to create fruit flies that cannot breed with natural fruit flies, are florescent pink, can change to neon green at will, and have wiskers, fur, and a tail like a cat, and that can breathe under water. And for the record their lifespan is so short that you can replicate the sort of generation count that would have been available through the cambrian explosion for many creatures.jettlogic wrote:If you think God can choose the time of decay of an atom, then you should have no problem thinking God chooses the path of some brand of theistic evolution. But that is a religious belief.
