Re: How God can create through evolution:
Posted: Mon May 02, 2016 6:41 am
Hi Rick, I have listened to Hugh Ross several times, and visit 'reasons.org' from time to time, so I think I have some idea of Ross's ideas, but I have not read his book. However, I shall be delighted to both read and discuss it, and it is downloading onto my ipad as I type. From what I read in the (continuously updated) 'addendum' to the book, at http://www.reasons.org/resources/predictions, it appears that in observational practice, there is likely to be so little difference between Ross's RTB model and conventional evolution as to make it very difficult to distinguish between them.
There are a few predictions which clearly discriminate between RTB and evolution, some of which have failed even in the few years since the publication of his book. Prediction 21, for instance, says (for RTB): "As astronomers discover more planets, they will find increasing evidence that analogs of the solar system and Earth similar enough to permit the existence of advanced life are either rare or nonexistent." Actually, of course, the list of potentially habitable exoplanets is ever increasing, and more detailed observation of these planets, which can find more evidence that perhaps a planet is not suitable for life after all, is not preventing the list increasing. Other Predictions simply mis-state the Evolutionary position in order to support the RTB position. Prediction 19, for instance, says, for Theistic Evolution: "Research increasingly will show that life has been abundant and widespread on Earth throughout the past 3.8 billion years", compared to RTB's "Research increasingly will show that life has been abundant and widespread on Earth throughout the past 3.8 billion years except for very brief intervals after mass extinction events." This is a false dichotomy. Evidence for mass extinctions is already well-established under conventional evolutionary theory, such that both the abundance and spread of life is recognised as having decreased drastically after them. It would have been more honest for the RTB prediction to read something like: ""Research increasingly will show that life has been abundant and widespread on Earth throughout the past 3.8 billion years, but became entirely extinct for very brief intervals after mass extinction events." This, however, is not borne out by the stratigraphical evidence, where some organisms appear almost unchanged in the fossil record on both sides of the geological indication of the mass extinction.
Anyway, I now have 'More than a Theory' in front of me. Would you like to point to any page at all which presents non-biblical evidence for a hypothesis for the development of life other than that of evolution?
As a footnote, it may seem to some creationists that my exclusion of the bible as acceptable evidence demonstrates a preformed atheistic position, but that's not true. It is simply that belief in the words of a book, in the absence of any other confirmation, must be rooted in faith rather than reason, and are therefore not able to be rationally challenged. They may, of course, be entirely true, literally or conceptually, but that does not make them scientific evidence. I believe most creationists understand this, and, at least when attempting to defend their position rationally, use the bible as support for their other evidence, not the other way round, although theologically the reverse could be the case.
There are a few predictions which clearly discriminate between RTB and evolution, some of which have failed even in the few years since the publication of his book. Prediction 21, for instance, says (for RTB): "As astronomers discover more planets, they will find increasing evidence that analogs of the solar system and Earth similar enough to permit the existence of advanced life are either rare or nonexistent." Actually, of course, the list of potentially habitable exoplanets is ever increasing, and more detailed observation of these planets, which can find more evidence that perhaps a planet is not suitable for life after all, is not preventing the list increasing. Other Predictions simply mis-state the Evolutionary position in order to support the RTB position. Prediction 19, for instance, says, for Theistic Evolution: "Research increasingly will show that life has been abundant and widespread on Earth throughout the past 3.8 billion years", compared to RTB's "Research increasingly will show that life has been abundant and widespread on Earth throughout the past 3.8 billion years except for very brief intervals after mass extinction events." This is a false dichotomy. Evidence for mass extinctions is already well-established under conventional evolutionary theory, such that both the abundance and spread of life is recognised as having decreased drastically after them. It would have been more honest for the RTB prediction to read something like: ""Research increasingly will show that life has been abundant and widespread on Earth throughout the past 3.8 billion years, but became entirely extinct for very brief intervals after mass extinction events." This, however, is not borne out by the stratigraphical evidence, where some organisms appear almost unchanged in the fossil record on both sides of the geological indication of the mass extinction.
Anyway, I now have 'More than a Theory' in front of me. Would you like to point to any page at all which presents non-biblical evidence for a hypothesis for the development of life other than that of evolution?
As a footnote, it may seem to some creationists that my exclusion of the bible as acceptable evidence demonstrates a preformed atheistic position, but that's not true. It is simply that belief in the words of a book, in the absence of any other confirmation, must be rooted in faith rather than reason, and are therefore not able to be rationally challenged. They may, of course, be entirely true, literally or conceptually, but that does not make them scientific evidence. I believe most creationists understand this, and, at least when attempting to defend their position rationally, use the bible as support for their other evidence, not the other way round, although theologically the reverse could be the case.