Special Creation/Evolution - Implications and Methods

Jeremy, thanks for your thoughtful response. Yes, if God in the flesh told me something that contradicted with anything that I believe, regardless of how deeply I believe it and regardless of the implications, I would accept it. I know that people will say that the Bible is as good as God in the flesh, but I disagree. If you think it is, then I think you worship the Bible and not God. If Abraham had had the Bible, couldn't he have challenged God: "you're asking me to do what to my son? You know what the Bible says about murder right?" Also wrt your question, I am not trying to make the case that science has provided answers that I am not willing to question.

There is definitely a bias for many scientists wrt assuming that all things can be explained with natural laws. But scientists are also very skeptical, and they are also very aware that if anyone could legitimately scientifically overturn Darwin, they would win a Nobel prize or something. So I firmly believe that it isn't simply a bias toward naturalism that has resulted in current state of evolutionary theory. It is constantly being critiqued and challenged and tested. And it stands up. Are there still questions about many of the mechanisms? Absolutely. But we know very clearly THAT it works....We're still trying to figure out some of the HOW it works.

tuscaloosatanning wrote:Given that the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic mutation don't seem capable of yielding the diversity we have today,

Adam,
Is this the consensus view of the scientific community or are you breaking with the establishment by making this statement?

kdcarden wrote: It is constantly being critiqued and challenged and tested. And it stands up.

I could be completely off here but I find this statement incredible. I understand the peer review process and I agree to the idea that it is a good system for challenging postulates but I simply do not think evolution of species is "constantly being critiqued and challenged." While this was certainly true at one time my guess is that the scientific community no longer challenges the theory of evolution but rather uses it as a prism through which all other biological research is conducted.

OK- to be clear, my position is firmly grounded in ignorance. Do you have links for any mainstream journals that have published serious challenges to evolution? (the entire idea of common descent -- not just challenges to specific parts)

Not to be flippant, but common descent is so well supported that questioning it is would be like questioning whether or not gravity works.

There are a number of non-creationist scientists though that question the random mutation/natural selection paradigm as the method for evolution. Lynn Margulis provides some of the best challenges to hyper Darwinism (although she still assumes there is a natural cause for evolution she recognizes that random mutation is probably not an adequate solution). Other non-religious scientists that have identified substantial deficiencies in the natural selection paradigm are Gould and Eldredge. I haven't read much of a couple other skeptics such as Nei and Skell, but I hear they have solid challenges. But honestly, even the most belligerent naturalists (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc) will admit that we don't understand very well the processes by which species evolve. The process is very complicated. But it is like me typing on this computer. I don't understand very well how me pressing a button on the keyboard can be translated into changes on my monitor, but I can recognize that it works. In the same way, we don't understand very well how evolution occurs, but we can demonstrate very conclusively that it has happened.

To be clear, though, even the suppositions of common descent are "put to the test" with all sorts of experiments. For instance, proteins are sequenced all the time and the divergence between species is tested against what random mutation would predict, and it is always confirmed. This doesn't explain the development of new proteins, but it does demonstrate common descent.

I would like to juxtapose two of your comments and get your take on them:

kdcarden wrote:But scientists are also very skeptical, and they are also very aware that if anyone could legitimately scientifically overturn Darwin, they would win a Nobel prize or something. So I firmly believe that it isn't simply a bias toward naturalism that has resulted in current state of evolutionary theory. It is constantly being critiqued and challenged and tested. And it stands up.

and

kdcarden wrote:Not to be flippant, but common descent is so well supported that questioning it is would be like questioning whether or not gravity works.

I think my question is this -If you have this basis of thought, that on one hand it is treated a theory on a pedestal just waiting to be toppled, but on the other seeing it as a foregone conclusion that would be ludicrous to assault, how much more prevalent do you think it is in the ranks of scientist that make their living in these areas? I was listening to Bryan Green (I think that was his name), a cosmologist, give a TED talk the other night and one of his ideas was that scientist will hold on to an idea/theory until it is so blown out of the water that it can't be held any longer, just based on the fact that they will have to completely reexamine their entire field of study. I am not saying that these ideas have been "blown out of the water", but I am suggesting that status quo, run-of-the-mill scientist are probably not going to rock the boat, so to speak, but will continue to proceed as if "it would be like questioning whether or not gravity works."

I want to be upfront as well with my own bias though. I try to start with the Bible and then see science through that lens. We all come with some bias, and it would be, like Adam stated earlier, intellectually dishonest to try to say that anyone doesn't. It is impossible to see information without a set of preconceived ideas. I just so happen to believe that the Bible is the best place to get that initial set of ideas from. Another way to see these preconceived ideas is a type of faith. I have faith that God gave his revelation in Scripture, as it is self-revealed. Another type of "faith" could be that science itself can even provide a valid view of the world around us. I believe that science can and does, but my initial starting point is with the Bible and then I proceed from there.

Jeremy, Have you looked into Divine Accommodation as a proper way of handling Genesis 1-3? Great Read as I hold everything Venema holds :
http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-response

I have seen the concept before, although I didn't know it under that term. I agree that God does this continuously with us. The article is definitely interesting. In reading through it though, this stood out to me -"Personally, the concept of Divine accommodation has been helpful to me. This is a theology that has a long heritage in Protestant circles (e.g. Calvin)." Of course I wanted to track this idea down, liking Calvin as I do.
This article, while not a response to Venema, specifically discredits the use of Calvin as a source for Divine Accommodation in evolutionary Creationism.
http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=1008&journal=1&type=pdf
Calvin used Divine Accommodation as a direct support of 6 literal days of creation, in opposition to a group that was saying that God made all things in an instant.
"Calvin writes:
I have said above, that six days were employed in the formation of the
world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had
need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the
consideration of his works. He had the same end in view in the
appointment of his own rest, for he set apart a day selected out of the
remainder for this special use. Wherefore, that benediction is nothing else
than a solemn consecration, by which God claims for himself the
meditations and employments of men on the seventh day.

Considering this, I don't think that I would use Calvin to support my scientific views, but, for someone to quote him in support of something that he obviously did not believe, is misdirected.

I will look into it more though. My only consideration of the arguments I have seen already, is that it leaves me thinking that God didn't realize that the words being written would ever be seen by anyone other than the agricultural society that it was originally written to.

I will look into it more though. My only consideration of the arguments I have seen already, is that it leaves me thinking that God didn't realize that the words being written would ever be seen by anyone other than the agricultural society that it was originally written to.

____________________
Jeremy

Or the flipside if God wrote it with our day in mind, then those 50000 years ago would have no clue and those 500 years ahead of us will deal with the same agrarian language He used for us

(stating the obvious) unless of course 6 days means literally, 6 days.