Re: What prevents evolution?
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is inevitable
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think your premises establish this. You would need another one, somthing like - Some genetic differences produce advantageous survival characteristics in the phenotype.
[ QUOTE ]
So, what prevents evolution from occuring? If if it does occur, how can you claim that it "isn't science" ?
[/ QUOTE ]
I've never made either of these statements. It's possible I've said evolution isn't science without qualifying it, but what I've meant and as far as I know have always said is atheistic evolution isn't science. There is no possible way any scientist can know whether or not God is ultimately responsible for any evolution that does occur. People like Dawkins say that evolution makes God unnecessary. People like Sagan say the cosmos is all there is, was or will be. These statements and others like them are unscientific.
Much depends on what you mean by evolution. I've said before no one I know doubts that black moths transform into white moths, that the beaks of finches change over time, that the modern horse is somewhat different from the prehistoric horse, etc.
At one level I seriously doubt what is sometimes called macro evolution which is basically that all life forms have a common ancestor. I see no way whatsoever this can be scientifically established. I think the fossil record tends to disprove this rather than prove it. If one of the requirements of science is that it make accurate predictions I don't see how the one common ancestor theory can ever rise above the theoretical level.
At another level, even this isn't the real issue. I take on the fossil record at times, especially the human fossil record, because I think it's bogus from what I've seen, and also because I really want to know if it does establish the descent of man from primates. I discuss other aspects of evolution as well. But these are all side issues. The only real issue that matters is the question of God. The Bible doesn't say that evolution didn't occur anymore than it says the earth is the center of the universe, the earth is not a sphere or the earth is 12000 years old. These are all errors in interpretation, sometimes reasonable errors, sometimes intentionally false misrepresentations. One of the problems is that the word evolution is a red flag. It has a history and stands for more than simple change in life forms. It's also often used in a vague, ill-defined and equivocal manner. The opponents are often talking about two different things. Also, many vocal evolutionists, like Dawkins, are also stridently anti-religious. They directly and indirectly assert that evolution proves that God doesn't exist. When you put it like that I will deny evolution every time.
I submit to you that if science got rid of its insistence on ascribing evolution to chance, if Dawkins would retire to a chicken farm, and if scientists would do science and stop preaching against a God they can never prove doesn't exist, much of the controversy between ID and evolution would disappear. I firmly believe there is no conflict whatsover between genuine science and genuine Bible interpretation.
|