RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

  Topic: ID versus evolutionary science, Claims that ID focuses on the whole< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 36
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2002,11:39   

Cornelius states that


Unfortunately, evolution has always relied on #1 to establish itself as a scientific fact.
It seems that Cornelius may be unfamiliar with the scientific evidence supporting evolution if he believes that evolution has ALWAYS relied on #1 to establish itself as a scientific fact.

Reality will show that it is #3 and #2 which are the methods through which science has established evolution as a viable theory. I am somewhat surprised to see Cornelius make the statement and others such as    
To me it is clearly flawed, and it is little wonder that evolutionists dwell so much on #1. It clearly is the motivation for the theory.
Which suggests to me that he has not really looked at the scientific evidence supporting evolution. It may be helpful if Cornelius could help us understand how he reaches conclusions like the ones above or    
I'm merely claiming that the scientific evidence points away from this.
What scientific evidence points away from naturalistic pathways?

If Cornelius really believes that God and thus ID fails if we can show that naturalistic pathways are sufficient or that natural pathways explain the preponderance of evidence then for all practical purposes we can consider ID to be refuted. ID by itself according to Cornelius' definition seems to be providing us with nothing more to understand the world around us, it merely makes claims based on a religious motivation without attempting to provide for a better explanation than that provided by scientific inquiry. And for good reasons since I do not believe that ID in this format can do much to compete with science.
ID seems to require that we ignore the vaste amounts of data that support #2 and #3 while focusing on the strawman of #1. If Cornelius were serious about the statement that    
ID is using all our knowledge to identify evolution as flawed.
then he would not have focused on making claims that evolution focuses on #1. Hundreds, thousands of papers on evolutionary mechanisms and theory would put significant doubt on the validity or even supportability of Cornelius' claims.

Cornelius also states that

We had a good and fruitful discussion. My hunch that evolution is quite flexible vis--vis these phylogenetic results, if anything, were corroborated
seems to ignore the strengths of the phylogenetic results vis-a-vis common descent and seems to focus on the fact that scientific theory can adapt to our increasing knowledge. So far the arguments seem to not really focus on scientific arguments but rather on hand waving, strawmen arguments while ignoring the vaste amounts of evidences supporting the fact of evolution.

In a previous posting Cornelius confused my comments about nested hierarchies with correlated characteristics. Nested hierarchies are als correlated but correlated characteristics need not be hierarchical.

Finally Cornelius wondered why I made the following statement

We should be careful not to mix our faith and science, since both will suffer. -- Francis

Cornelius states that:

"This obviously does not derive from science nor the Scriptures, so I'm not sure why you say this."

If science has to give way to our theological thinking then both science and theology will suffer. Of course science and theology can live together in their own realm but when it gets misapplied like for instance found in many YEC approaches, it becomes a destructive force to science and religion. As an ex-YEC-er I have seen much of this.

In Christ

  0 replies since Dec. 27 2002,11:39 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]