An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Friday, July 06, 2018, 19:55 (157 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: I will respond more fully when I am at a computer, but the two points that preclude evolution are the absence of new information and the deleterious effects of mutations. Sorry to be so brief, but responding by cell phone is horrible.

As a follow up point, though, evolution only makes s sense if random chance is the only instigating force.


David: Can you tell me why you do not consider theistic evolution run by God?


Tony: I have considered it, and I am ambivalent towards it. The reason I do not include it in this hypothesis, though, is that it starts a slippery slope towards unquestioning faith. The tendency would be to answer every question with "God did it" and no further inquiry. In science, that is bad. In religion, that is bad. Further, you know as well as I do that any mention of God in a scientific hypothesis is explicitly forbidden. I feel like I am close to the truth with this, and do not want it discarded out of hand because I include God in its workings. Either this hypothesis stands or falls based solely on its scientific merit. Though, at this moment I feel like the preponderance of evidence is in my favor.

For me personally, "God did it" is a given. My digging into his creation is to examine how and why he did certain things, at least to the extent that humans can divine such things. I am ok with knowing that he made flowers give off signals that only their pollinators can detect.And I am ok with knowing that he enabled their pollinators to detect them. However, those statements do not answer HOW, though in this case, why is readily apparent. As I learn HOW he does/did things, I learn more about him, and stand humbled and in awe of his power, wisdom, and overwhelming love.

Very clear. Thank you.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum