Pelathais,
So as not to continue hijacking Apocrypha’s thread, I would like continue our dialogue (which has diverged into a more scientific tone) on a fresh strand. If our readers are interested, the prequel can be viewed here:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=26662
(I’m hoping this thread title will encourage the more hesitant posters to get involved). Coadie and Timmy, please continue to chime in, but I also invite more voices like Digging4Truth and MissBrattified, who were baited and snubbed by clgustaveson here:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=24443
To prove that I can be dispassionate as well as being a man of reason, I concede to your point that I am indeed limited in my understanding, (particularly on issues of quantum mechanics, biochemistry, and crocodile handling).
It is also my wish to properly acknowledge the truth of certain of your statements. It is indeed the case that:
1. Macroevolution is a widely accepted concept within the scientific community.
2. There exists a general consensus among scientists that populations evolve.
3. There exists a general consensus that evolution is the primary mechanism.
So moving on, I would like to go back to my contention with the proliferation of scientific labels. Many times, the terms “macroevolution” and “species” are grossly misused, i.e., the same terms can oft describe two different phenomena. I look no further than many scientific articles on the newsstands as a reference. So I will level the same accusations at evolutionists who employ these tactics that you earlier tried to thump me for (concerning my usage of “complexity”). Also, evolutionists need to clearly define the term “species” once and for all. Explain it clearly beforehand, especially when discussing with scientifically-challenged folk like myself. I may need to elaborate more.
Now what is it exactly that I believe? Glad you asked.
A) I do not ascribe any credence to abiogenesis, the “Primordial soup” theory, the Clay theory, or similar ones. I believe in the creation model wholeheartedly. I must add here that I am not dogmatic about my view of
how this occurred. I can fully appreciate God utilizing any of the above mechanisms to bring about our universe, if he so desired. He is sovereign, is he not? I think you would agree that it becomes mostly conjecture after that. And frankly, I don’t think a dichotomy should be forced for either the allegorical or literal Genesis account.
B) I am not, and will probably never be completely convinced of the
exact age of the Earth. I think the numbers have been revised several times during my schooling, (understandably so). With that said, I am totally open-minded to the idea that it could be 4.5 billion years old. After all, I am not ignorant of the general consensus among professional scientists, and the mounting evidence (such as what you and others have presented). I don’t completely rule out the idea of a young earth either, as God can manipulate the laws of nature if he so pleases, right? I don’t pretend to understand God’s mind or his reasoning, (
1 Corinthians 1:27-29), (
Isaiah 55:8) and hope I’m not alone. Honestly, it really isn’t something that I’m that passionate about, especially since other topics require more of my attention, such as salvation, relationships, and banana-pineapple milkshakes.
(p.s., I’m a biz major anyway, why would I care, right?).
C) At this point in time, I cannot agree with certain conclusions of (micro-) or macroevolution. I personally do not choose to operate from the viewpoint that we are descended from other life forms (of a different genus). It cannot be demonstrated conclusively that we are even descended from our most similar primate, apes. As I stated, theoretically, manipulation of the human genome is so sensitive, that even 3-5% could produce a creation resembling a banana with lobster arms! So 98% isn’t really that close in my opinion. Gaps in the macro, discontinuity in the micro…I have other reasons, but for space sake, I’ll hold for now.
D) I also agree with the implicit conclusion of Intelligent Design, obviously! It is only logical to present the argument, and is no less scientific considering how the fields of design, physics, biochemistry, and others are becoming more and more integrated as we attempt to understand our environment. I definitely don’t see a reason to limit our perception to evolution. We say that folks in the I.D. movement have the burden of proof, but what about the holes in the evolutionary fossil record? Maybe Irreducible Complexity shouldn’t be shunned so quickly, either. What does the data necessitate?
Perhaps our beliefs are closer than you think. I like to think of myself as fitting nicely somewhere among the moderates. The issues have become deeply polarized over the years, and for the wrong reasons in my opinion. Well, I think I heard the hammers being cocked somewhere about midway through, so I’ll shut up now…
Threaded Mode
