[__ Science __ ] Evolution Is a Scientific Law?

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

I think "contingency" has a somewhat different meaning than the common notion of "chance." Contingency, as I see it, means something not caused by anything. Rolling dice does not involve contingency; the outcome of the roll is due to understandable physical processes. But it certainly involves chance, as people generally consider the word to be.

God seems to favor this understanding:

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

What I am saying is that it does not make logical sense to say that God purposefully created man via a process the outcome of which He had not determined. If, by Choice, He did not know the outcome of the process then it cannot be said that He purposefully created man.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

It's because there is nothing in nature that shows a directed goal, other than fitness. Darwin's discovery was that evolution proceeds with a tendency to increase fitness in a population. Science can't consider the supernatural.

But scientists can. At least some of us. And those of us who can, see the hand of God in nature.


Strictly speaking, we can't logically prove a negative. We are essentially saying that some things happen for which there is no cause. For quantum events, no cause is detectable. But maybe St. Tom's observation matters here. God can use contingency as easily as necessity to effect His will.

The only reason anyone would say that nothing in nature shows a directed goal is because it has already been determined that nothing in nature can be seen to show a directed goal as a philosophical principle.
Iow, circular logic.
This is where I think it is perfectly reasonable to detect design by intention in nature.
As for your statements concerning quantum events, you contradict yourself within two sentences. First you acknowledge that a negative cannot be proven, but then nevertheless you maintain that quantum events are uncalled simply because we have yet to detect a cause. That is the same as saying a negative has been proven by science.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Good point. In fact, the geologic column is inconsistent with a single flood event. We find, in the column, deserts and forests that would have had to have formed in the middle of the Flood. Even worse...

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to
come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by
Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon [or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one
hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one-third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs:
toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.

At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Dr. Wise goes on to suggest possible ways to explain this issue in creationist terms, but as of yet, that hasn't worked out. One of the more interesting and speculative possibilities is:

Collected evidence from sightings of Nessie, Champs, and other similar sightings at similar latitudes has suggested that they might be living examples of the archaeocete Basilosaurus (old name Zeuglodon). If so, then its elusive nature and low population density might suggest how the pre-Flood whales survived the Flood without representation in Flood sediments. In any case, the capture of an actual Basilosaurus would go a long way towards solving this mystery.
ibid

Thanks for your post on geology. I will respond asap.

 

[Barbarian]

The only reason anyone would say that nothing in nature shows a directed goal is because it has already been determined that nothing in nature can be seen to show a directed goal as a philosophical principle.

It's intrinsic in the methodology of science. It can only consider measurable things in the natural universe. But it's methodological, not philosophical. Science doesn't deny the supernatural; it just can't consider it. There is a philosophy of science, but science is not a philosophy.

Unless one scientifically sees intent (such as one does in fire investigation, archaeology, and so on) there's no way for science to do that. The "invisible things, clearly seen" mentioned by St. Paul are apprehended only by other ways of knowing.

This is where I think it is perfectly reasonable to detect design by intention in nature.

Science does that constantly. We can see intent in the evidence of things left by humans and sometimes by other animals. The hand of God is more subtle than science can perceive.

As for your statements concerning quantum events, you contradict yourself within two sentences. First you acknowledge that a negative cannot be proven, but then nevertheless you maintain that quantum events are uncalled simply because we have yet to detect a cause. That is the same as saying a negative has been proven by science.

The link points out this philosophical issue. We define those things as irreducibly random for which no cause can be detected. God could be rigging things so as to make an unstable nucleus decay on schedule. But it seems rather unlike Him, given everything else in nature. It seems to me that contingency is a reality in our world and God's use of contingency is more subtle than we can understand.

 

[Barbarian]

Ha, thats way over my head.

When I say evolution....

Big bang
Earth Billions of years old.
Humans coming from amoeba.

None of that is evolution.
Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
Your last comes close, but of course, Amoebae have evolved too far in their own direction to have given rise to humans.

I never had any interest in Science even from a very young age.
Just never bought into any of it.

It's a tinkerer's game. Like evolution, it's trying, testing, refining, until something works. The major basis of science came from Ionian Greek philosophers, but there were contributing elements from many other cultures. Arabic and other Islamic scholars kept the ancient learning during the Dark Ages, and when that was taken up by the Renaissance scholars, that was the beginning of the golden age of science, where we are now.

I have done some studies in the past, that show how science came from the Bible.

It seems clear enough that the scholastics of Europe had a lot to do with it. It's probably no coincidence that some of the great early European scientists were clerics or theologians.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Good point. In fact, the geologic column is inconsistent with a single flood event. We find, in the column, deserts and forests that would have had to have formed in the middle of the Flood. Even worse...

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to
come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by
Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon [or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one
hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one-third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs:
toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.

At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Dr. Wise goes on to suggest possible ways to explain this issue in creationist terms, but as of yet, that hasn't worked out. One of the more interesting and speculative possibilities is:

Collected evidence from sightings of Nessie, Champs, and other similar sightings at similar latitudes has suggested that they might be living examples of the archaeocete Basilosaurus (old name Zeuglodon). If so, then its elusive nature and low population density might suggest how the pre-Flood whales survived the Flood without representation in Flood sediments. In any case, the capture of an actual Basilosaurus would go a long way towards solving this mystery.
ibid

Greetings,
There were a couple of articles about this at ICR. Let's start out with the following:

Whale Fossils Confirm Post-Flood Boundary

Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D., and Tim Clarey, Ph.D. In 2018, as a complement to ICR’s ongoing megasequence research, ICR scientists Drs. Jeffrey Tomkins and Tim Clarey described the beginning of a research project to document fossils formed late in the Genesis Flood.1 Earlier, our study of global...

www.icr.org

 

[hawkman]

Man's body, like that of other animals was from the Earth.

Is man an animal ?

 

[Barbarian]

Is man an animal ?

Yep. More specifically a primate. The thing is, because of that living soul God gives each of us directly, were are more than merely animals.

 

[hawkman]

Yep. More specifically a primate. The thing is, because of that living soul God gives each of us directly, were are more than merely animals.

Are there primates with living souls and primates without living souls ?

 

[KV-44-v1]

Just accept allegories and parables as they are.

I'm.

God isn't lying if He uses allegory.

Nor is He stating things that really happened.
Allegories are not assertions of fact, so their truth value is neutral, yes?

Jesus isn't lying if He used parables.

The worLd's focus is attacking Genesis, the foundational history. The majority of man, who is fallible and fallen, will tend to discredit/disbelieve it as legit history, even if that means allegorifying it. If what God first said is just a story and not History then how do we know for sure that everything else God is saying isnt just more story that represents something else?

Muslims could insist that the quran is all allegory, too. That it is ""true"" despite the nature of allegory inherently not being what really happened in the past, but a representation to make a point.
Saying "true allegory" is like saying "dog egg".

God didn't talk about evolution

Historical science

or DNA or protons.

Real time (observational/operational) science.

Again, Yec IS FROM the Bible. Why are you scared of the generations? You never answered me if you used that generation-based calculating method I gave you twice.
You admit that K2KE is, AT BEST, an extra Biblical idea. So obviously the one from the Bible is stronger than something foreign.

You're trying to force Him to be science and technology.

Urgh, God creating is in NO WAY a science or tech matter.
it was SUPERNATURAL.

applying science to God's ORIGINAL Creations is a NONSEQUITUR.
God does the impossible. Was God setting back the sundial shadow science or supernatural? Was God parting the Red Sea science or miracle? Jesus turning water to wine, science or miracle? Ax head floating, science or miracle? Virgin birth, science or miracle? Jesus' resurrection, science or miracle? God creating everything, science or miracle?

Now you see how SILLY it is to assume that God made inferior animals that have to "get better" for their surroundings. But really they had all the stuff they needed to be the best in situations. Can't improve on perfect.
The best an animal can do in this fallen world today is simply specialize, ditch certain genes/features and focus more resources into specific areas to get optimal results for whatever. But this specialization will NEVER result in K2k evo. News alert, we are now approaching the limit horses can run. If your belief was true they should keep getting faster and faster with no end in sight.

Who is more powerful, hmmmmm? A God who puts so much info into animals, makes them all within a few REAL days, or one who has to figure out new designs from evo algos over long spans of time?
Do you really believe that creation is too big and unpredictable for God? Because that's what your view implies.
It's not some "yec belief", if you insist that it is then you artificially make your belief unfalsifiable. Instead of writing it off as "yec superstition" try to argue why you think it doesn't come to that conclusion. Or better yet admit that the Yec are right on that.

Every time so far you have not addressed that God's Omniscience renders evo algos SUPERFLOUS.

The Bible is about God and man and our relationship.

Yes, and in what way does Genesis being real history contradict that? Answer: no.

Without Genesis as actual history, important things are left out and we have no sure foundation. Genesis highlights WHY we need God.

If you don't get that, you're missing His message to you.

You are missing the message that death is an enemy. If God created using death He would not call it an enemy.
The Biblical text reveals that death came through one man. If you are going to make the fall a spiritual death-only fall then why not make the tree of life involve only spiritual life? Inconsistent. How do you know the tree of life wasn't a potential second test? Mabye Adam and eve had the POTENTIAL to pass the knowledge of good & evil test, and test 2 would be the tree of Life. After all, God drove them out of the Garden of Eden. Genesis 3:22

That would be as bad as taking away the figurative parts of Genesis. Why not just accept each as it is?

I'm.
You are trying to merge the worLd's guesses of the past with the Word.
If you claim that Yec is "limiting God" by saying "His designs", then by your logic you are the limiter.

Also, scenario:
Bible studier: "God created instantly in a short span instead of expreimenting and cobbling over vast ages."
Random evo man: "Oh youre limiting God."

Fun fact, God did not use design PROCESSES. He already knows what He wants to do. He does it. No "process" anything.

YE creationism is more than a "folktale."

yup, its true. Trueeeeee.

But accepting Genesis for what it is, rather than forcing a literal revision of it,

Where is the so called "literal revision"? I bet i wont get an answer on this.
By that logic you are also forcing a "literal revision" on my replies to you here.

certainly is better than the modern invention of YE creationism.

You have not shown that the only time Yec was believed by anyone, was times after SDA "made" it. You already admitted that people believed Yec before SDA previously. So did you not believe your admission?
WHO "invented" it, then, if it was indeed "invented"?

Pretty sure people have believed Yec for 1000s of years and that OE and K2ke were made afterward.

Here's some facts and quotes on Augustine:
"
It is true that Augustine’s beliefs were different in places from those of modern creationists. Like Philo, Augustine believed for a long time that God created everything at once and that the six days of creation should be considered symbolic. His position though was based upon a Latin translation of the Apocrypha verse (Sirach 18:1) that failed to translate the Greek adequately. This reads in the Latin translation as “He that liveth for ever created all things together [or simultaneously]” (or qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul),32 and this appears to have coloured his belief. However, in the earlier Greek the passage reads as panta koinee, which can be rendered as ‘all things in fellowship’, implying that God created the world as an integrated whole.33

For the early Christians it was held that 6,000 years had not passed by that time since the foundation of the world.
However, in later writing Augustine seems to have moved towards acceptance of temporal creation days, although with remaining concern that the creation account mentions the passage of morning and evening on Days 1 to 3 prior to the formation of the sun and moon on Day 4. Augustine speculated in The City of God about whether there was some material light or whether the light during those three days was that of the heavenly City of God shining upon the newly formed Earth. However, he urges us to believe it whether we understand it or not. He writes:

“But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world’s creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive … what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it.”34

Augustine’s difficulty seems to be that of reconciling creation by an eternal God, who dwells outside of time, with the creation of matter in a temporal reality. But as with the origin of this world, Augustine is critical of those who propose long ages for the creation of man, believing instead that mankind was created in time in the recent past.

“As to those who are always asking why man was not created during these countless ages of the infinitely extended past, and came into being so lately that, according to Scripture, less than 6,000 years have elapsed since He began to be. … For, though Himself eternal, and without beginning, yet He caused time to have a beginning; and man, whom He had not previously made He made in time, not from a new and sudden resolution, but by His unchangeable and eternal design.”35

creation.com/creation-millennium-church-fathers
"

 

[KV-44-v1]

"""" Yep. More specifically a primate. """"

No. That's only a technicality, not fully true.
Only man has the brain compatible with having an actual "high caliber" (for lack of a better term) soul.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Yep. More specifically a primate. The thing is, because of that living soul God gives each of us directly, were are more than merely animals.

"But was it all "very good"? Beneath Adam's feet would lay the fossils of billions of animals, many giving evidence of traumatic death. And who were the long extinct dinosaurs? Had God been experimenting, trying to find something He could call His image? Did He not know what He wanted? Was He not powerful enough to create it without so many missteps? If the creation and redemption of man was His purpose, why did He wait so long? And why did He use the process of the extinction of the unfit to create? His very nature ultimately impelled Him, the Fit, to die for the unfit. In redemption, He would strongly denounce personal works as a method of salvation. Would He have used survival of the fittest as His method of creation and accept "glory" from His creation on this basis? No, the righteous God revealed in Scripture would create just as described in Genesis One. Creation would be orderly and wise, with man and his walk with God the result. It would be deathless and sinless, compatible with the all powerful, Holy, life-giving Creator's label as "very good"

from Icr.org
Please do try to rebut the arguments used. Don't let the source dissuade or deter you from such.

 

[Barbarian]

Greetings,
There were a couple of articles about this at ICR. Let's start out with the following:

Whale Fossils Confirm Post-Flood Boundary

Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D., and Tim Clarey, Ph.D. In 2018, as a complement to ICR’s ongoing megasequence research, ICR scientists Drs. Jeffrey Tomkins and Tim Clarey described the beginning of a research project to document fossils formed late in the Genesis Flood.1 Earlier, our study of global...

www.icr.org

From the link:

Unfortunately, some creation scientists have prematurely placed the post-Flood boundary at the end of the earlier Cretaceous System. So, how do they explain the sudden appearance of whale fossils beyond this boundary? They claim these large marine mammals evolved rapidly from ancestors that walked out of the Ark.10

But did whales really evolve from land-dwelling Ark ancestors?
That brings up a host of problems for a YE believer.
1. Hyperevolution of new taxa from all families of animals after the Ark would have required new species popping up monthly. Yet no one thought that was worth even commenting on. So we know that isn't a viable belief.
Originally whales, like Ambulocetus were land-walking animals. As a number of YE creationists have admitted, the fossil record shows a clear transition from land-dwelling to obligate marine animals. But it's not just the fossil record; it's genetics and anatomy that clearly show this to be the case.
Some suggest that these whales were fossilized in localized post-Flood catastrophes, but pervasive global distribution of whale fossils debunks this claim. Even secular research has shown that a massive global extinction event that involved many marine mammals occurred near the top of the Pliocene (uppermost Neogene), just below the Quaternary boundary.11 The global Flood easily explains this apparent extinction.
This is not consistent with the evidence:

Nature 26 June 2017

The Pliocene marine megafauna extinction and its impact on functional diversity​

...Reconstructions show that from the late Pliocene onwards, the global area of the neritic zone significantly diminished and exhibited amplified fluctuations. We hypothesize that the abrupt loss of productive coastal habitats, potentially acting alongside oceanographic alterations, was a key extinction driver. The importance of area loss is supported by model analyses showing that animals with high energy requirements (homeotherms) were more susceptible to extinction.

This, as YE creationist Dr. Wise admits, would have to be in post-flood deposits, assuming that the Flood story is literally true. Even then, one would have to add "world-wide" to the Biblical account, but it still wouldn't explain the geologic evidence.

 

[KV-44-v1]

First you acknowledge that a negative cannot be proven

I think they can. For example, did our sun go supernova?
No, the sun did not go supernova. We have much proof, like scientific instruments havent detected it, we are still alive, etc.

 

[KV-44-v1]

the fossil record shows a clear transition

I can set up cars and trucks to "prove" they evolved.
you may say "Oh but we know they are inorganic". Yes, and we know God's Word strongly implies that kinds aren't going to turn into other kinds. Period. No exceptions.
Genesis 1:11

How do you know "let the earth bring forth" isn't "allow the earth to"??

 

[KV-44-v1]

Reconstructions

What reconstructions?? Based upon what assumptions about what details??

show that from the late Pliocene onwards,

Does "the pliocene" rely on assuming deep time as literal (as opposed to figurative) truth?

the global area of the neritic zone significantly diminished and exhibited amplified fluctuations. We hypothesize that the abrupt loss of productive coastal habitats,

Yes, a guess, nothing more. Why not accept God's certain History in Genesis? Why risk man's guesses?
What happened in Genesis is certain, what MAY HAVE happened in the evolutionism story is guess based.

Genesis is a position of knowledge and rock, but k2k evolution (not cafpt or speciation ----- but the socalled "big effect" ) is one that makes one believe that God left us in the dark, and therefore a position of ignorance, and one of sand, since it and beliefs involving it change so often.

potentially acting alongside oceanographic alterations, was a key extinction driver. The importance of area loss is supported by model analyses showing that animals with high energy requirements (homeotherms) were more susceptible to extinction.

This, as YE creationist Dr. Wise admits, would have to be in post-flood deposits,

What is the "this"?

assuming that the Flood story is literally true.

'World appeasers' assume the uber amounts of time story is literally true.

Even then, one would have to add "world-wide" to the Biblical account, but it still wouldn't explain the geologic evidence.

The term "Trinity" is not in the Biblical account either. But we get that knowledge FROM the Bible anyways.

 

[Barbarian]

Does "the pliocene" rely on assuming deep time as literal (as opposed to figurative) truth?

Evidence shows how that works.

Nature 26 June 2017

The Pliocene marine megafauna extinction and its impact on functional diversity​

...Reconstructions show that from the late Pliocene onwards, the global area of the neritic zone significantly diminished and exhibited amplified fluctuations. We hypothesize that the abrupt loss of productive coastal habitats, potentially acting alongside oceanographic alterations, was a key extinction driver. The importance of area loss is supported by model analyses showing that animals with high energy requirements (homeotherms) were more susceptible to extinction.

Yes, a guess, nothing more.

Notice the evidence, supporting the hypothesis. You missed that. Read the report. Their hypothesis is confirmed by the cited evidence.

Why not accept God's certain History in Genesis?

I should be asking you that. Instead of adding things to it, why not just accept it as it is? If you feel the need to expand on it, or "make it clear", then you're changing it.

What is the "this"?

The geological and environmental changes. Either they happened gradually over a long period of time, or they happened cataclysmically in the supposed worldwide flood. But the fossil record of cetaceans contradicts the cataclysmic doctrine of YE creationism.

'World appeasers' assume the uber amounts of time story is literally true.

You don't have to appease the world. Just accept it His way.

Even then, one would have to add "world-wide" to the Biblical account, but it still wouldn't explain the geologic evidence.

The term "Trinity" is not in the Biblical account either. But we get that knowledge FROM the Bible anyways.

The trinity is frequently mentioned in the Bible.

Matthew 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

But nowhere is a worldwide flood cited in the Bible.

 

[Barbarian]

I can set up cars and trucks to "prove" they evolved.

Nope. You've confused analogy with homology. And human artifacts with natural things. Huge errors.

you may say "Oh but we know they are inorganic".

Well, it's one of those things that derails the idea of "design." Like Paley's watch. If Paley had used a natural object, no one would have see any design in it.

 

[Barbarian]

Are there primates with living souls and primates without living souls ?

We being primates, and God saying that we have living souls, we can answer the first as being true. God doesn't say if there are any other beings with living souls in our world. (other than spirits He created) My guess is that there aren't any on Earth.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, and we know God's Word strongly implies that kinds aren't going to turn into other kinds.

Sorry, that's wrong. In fact, He never mentions the issue at all. He doesn't talk about nuclear fusion in the Bible either. For the same reason He doesn't mention evolution.

Period. No exceptions.
Genesis 1:11

The Earth brought forth all living things as He intended. The issue is that you don't approve of the way it was done.

How do you know "let the earth bring forth" isn't "allow the earth to"??

Since He created the world to bring forth life, I don't see a difference. He could have chosen to poof each thing into existence by magic. But instead He chose to use nature to make living things. I have to conclude that it was the right way.