Kurieuo wrote:Storyteller wrote:Can someone please explain (in simple terms) the difference between the two?
Am I right in thinking TE believe in evolution and PC dont?
Sure, that's easy.
Both account for the evidence that we see in the world.
Only, I believe PC fits with the facts better and makes more sense.
TE works, if you have a natural mechanism for the evolution of all life.
God creates the initial life, or even just the universe at the Big Bang, and then everything "naturally" unfolds according to God's plan and physical laws.
As such, TE still requires adequate natural mechanisms for the evolution of all life. Just like we can discover how the development of stars, planets and the like happened, we should see clear natural mechanism/s that can account for the diversity of life arising from say simple cellular life and even chemistry levels.
So then, what are adequate mechanism/s that can account for life evolving from simple to complex?
Thanks to 20th century science we now understand that biology also contains complex information content.
We are not just plasma, flesh and bone as Darwin saw, but rather have proteins that are like little machines, DNA as well RNA which performs function, carries messages and appears to follow a set instructions.
How does the information that codes for an "arm" come to be formed? What about a finger, fingernail? Coagulation (blood clotting) functionality? The eye? DNA for our brain? All our biological parts and functions can be seen as code and in informational terms.
All of the world's medical books probably just scrape the surface on all this information within our bodies, our DNA and the like. And so, if I'm to believe the "code" for a leg just naturally evolved, well I want to fairly know by what natural mechanism/s? I can see planets orbiting and the physics of the solar system is clear and makes sense to all. SO, I know planetary bodies and such naturally unfolded rather than each being created brand new.
What clear
agreed mechanisms are there for all the biological-rich information that we see?
Natural selection acting on random mutation might work if you have all the information to begin with for it to select from, but to accumulate encyclopedias of information for this or that part and bodily function just boggles my mind. Perhaps it is the coder in me, and my understanding of information theory as it applies in computing. I don't know.
SO, when asking for the mechanisms of a natural evolution of life, the best any honest scientist will give you is, "
there is no agreement, but here's what I believe..."
While some mechanisms are popularly favoured,
there is no agreement on the mechanisms involved. Even collectively, or even logically thinking about what is possible, I can't think up an adequate natural mechanism to account for massive accumulation of biological information. If we were going from complex information to simple, then certainly -- but the other way?
The main line of evidence for natural evolution of life comes via common ancestral trees.
This is seen as strong circumstantial evidence based upon logical arguments despite the mechanisms not being known or agreed upon.
BUT, for me, this isn't an open-shut case -- such can also support Progressive Creation accounts where a common designer (God) creates life brand new and/or purposefully builds upon previously existing life.
Now, I'm sure the claws will come out from those who are adamant that the ToE (in reality theor
ies) accounts for all life.
BUT, I hope that has helped you to form
your own view rather than just take on
today's popular view.
Oh, and if you haven't, then I encourage you to watch
Unlocking the Mystery of Life.