http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPFi8k5IMK0
Sproul;
1) What are the main arguments for evolution? Evolution from a common ancestor best explains the fossil record. It explains why we don’t see humans buried in the same rock layers as a T-Rex, it explains why we see no vertebrate creatures before the Cambrian period and we do have vertebrate creatures afterwards. Evolution from a common ancestor best explains genetic similarities between species. It explains how two chromosomes from an ape are present as a fused pair in the human genome. Those just give two examples.
2) No Sproul, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. However life originated it is does not affect the truth or falsity of evolution, or descent with modification. Neither does evolution have anything to do with the Big Bang, with the exception that the Earth and the universe is old.
3) Micro and Macro-evolution is not a useful distinction in evolutionary theory. Often times there is more genetic variation within species than there is between species. This is because species are defined as any distinct group of creatures that can reproduce within itself. A different species develops then, when a group of creatures can no longer reproduce with another group.
4) No the question of life’s origins is not merely a question of history. If you are going to go that route you have to throw out the teleological argument, because it is based on theoretical physics which theorizes about how the universe began and developed over time and not just how it behaves today. Obviously history involves a variety of disciplines, as historians rely on scientific dating methods to figure out when an artifact is from. They use scholarly works from sociology and forensic methods from biology to analyze remains and ancient cultures.
Seriously Sproul don’t dip your fingers in so many pies. You haven’t done your homework here.
Hodges;
1) you need to read more works in the philosophy of science. Although many scientists believe that the universe is a closed system, theories such as evolution do not require such an assumption. Evolution does not imply naturalism any more than the theory of gravity or electricity does. To say that Evolution implies naturalism is like saying the Big Bang implies theism. Neither claim is true even though many people make them.
2) You raise an interesting point, how does God interact with a world dominated by natural processes? If weather patterns are responsible for tornadoes and various forces like gravity are responsible for the formation of galaxies then what is there left for God to do? The answer; everything. How? Because for one thing it is possible for something to have multiple explanations. For instance, take baking a cake. You can explain a baked cake by its dimensions, how it was cooked and prepared, the physics of how heat affects yeast etc. but you can also explain it through efficient causes such as someone wanted to bake a cake for their son’s birthday. In the same way we can ask for what reasons do galaxies form? Why do we feel pain? Or what causes the laws of physics to be the way they are? What prevents the universe from ceasing to exist? I could go on but I think I’ve made my point. God does not have to be directly involved in natural processes to be in control of all of nature in an intimate way, much like a mechanic does not have to manually run every part of a car to be considered in love with his car.
Ravi;
1) I agree with you on the bias of liberalism, but scientists reject ID for very good reasons. Take irreducible complexity for instance, as I’ve mentioned before it argues that for a system like the Bacterial Flagellum to function at all, all of its parts must be present. But this simply isn’t true, by taking a series of parts away it becomes a syringe to sting and poison enemies. Similarly contrary to Behe’s claims you do not need to have all the parts of a mouse trap for it to function as a mouse trap, you can have a 4 part, 3 part even 2 part mouse trap and it will still function. The claims of ID as well as the more extreme 6 day creationism are vacuous, the science simply isn’t there to back it up.
No comments:
Post a Comment