Making waves (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, June 20, 2013, 19:00 (3980 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: If God created the evolutionary mechanism, but stepped in to do a bit of separate creating whenever he felt like it, with us as the prime example - which is perhaps Tony's belief and yours ... the bible would indeed be correct. But separate creation is anti-evolution. Ergo the bible would still be anti-evolution.-DAVID: You have finally hit upon it. What I believe and I think Tony does. Separate creation without evolution is what I have never discussed in relating evolution to the bible.-But now that you have opted explicitly for separate creation at least of humans, I trust you will withdraw your statement that the bible is not anti-evolution.-TONY: You are making distinctions that need not be made. To evolve means to change. The biblical writings do not argue against change. They argue against abiogenesis. They argue against cross-species boundary crossing, i.e. a bird from a reptile. But you are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Change happens! It has been observed! However, abiogenesis has not been. Species spontaneous generating or morphing into other species has not been.-Distinctions have to be made if you insist that the bible is not anti-evolution. We need not argue over abiogenesis. It is irrelevant to evolution, even though atheist evolutionists believe in it. "How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated" (Difficulties on Theory). And although evolution means change, when we are discussing the Theory of Evolution (I'm giving it capitals to emphasize the point) we mean something quite different, as you very well know. Common descent of ALL species, or what you call "cross-species boundary crossing" is the basis of the whole theory. This runs right through Origin. In his rejection of separate creation,for instance, Darwin asks: "Why should all the parts and organs of many independent beings, each supposed to have been separately created for its proper place in nature, be so commonly linked together by graduated steps?" (Difficulties on Theory). Apply this to chimps and humans, and you will understand why the theory rests on what ALL species (including birds and reptiles) have IN COMMON.-The rest of your post is dedicated to your scepticism concerning the common descent of unrelated species, and of humans and simians, with the following conclusion:-TONY: This gives us one REALLY strong point of discussion. Where the bible discusses science that we have observed, it agrees. Where we get tripped up is with the conjecture regarding things that have NOT been observed. On one side, you have the evolutionist arguing that their conjecture is correct, on the other, you have the theist claiming that their (evolutionists) conjecture is wrong.-As I have repeatedly emphasized, my objection was to the statement made by you and David that the bible is not anti-evolution. Do by all means let us debate the pros and cons of Darwin's theory, but please let us drop the pretence that the bible is not opposed to it. As a "strong point of discussion", I'd be most interested to know how you think your God might have (tentative auxiliary!) created humans. Do you, for instance, think he started from scratch with a handful of dust and his own formula for turning dust into flesh and organs etc., as per Genesis, or do you think he grabbed hold of a few existing simians and ... using psychokinesis? ... changed them so that they could walk upright and develop big brains, or did he separately create primitive hominids and let them evolve into homo sapiens, or keep dabbling with them till they were "sapiensed" to his satisfaction? My question may sound frivolous, but it isn't meant to be. It ties in with the panpsychist theory which I have been toying with, and of which David is understandably sceptical, though he refuses to be drawn on the equally nebulous subject of how God might possibly have worked his magic.