Joined: Sep. 2006
|critical rationalist: |
|CR: Do the words found in John 1:1 have *no* meaning for you at all?|
SB: They have a great deal of meaning for me, but they have nothing at all to do with a well-warranted, empirically grounded scientific explanation.
If the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations was “with God” and “was God” in the beginning then no theory could explain how that knowledge was created.
At this point, kairosfocus snips and replaces it with this:
|kairosfocus: Here CR IS WILLFULLY DEFIANT.|
He knows there is a significant matter of his insistence on slander on the table ... I have left enough to show the problem and will remove further commentary from this unfortunately insistently disruptive and slanderous person. KF
Here's is what was snipped.
|critical rationalist: Would you agree or disagree?|
On the other hand, Darwinism is just such a theory. Specifically, its underlying explanation is that this knowledge was created via conjecture, in the form of genetic variation random to any specific problem to solve, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. The result is non-explanatory knowledge.
So, the very idea that Darwinism genuinely created this knowledge is in conflict with John 1:1. They are fundamentally at odds with each other. This is the crux of the issue, which apparently no one recognizes or wants to address.
For example, If John 1:1 does have a great detail of meaning to you, then it would come as no surprise you would fail to see ID’s lack of an explanation for this knowledge as valid criticism – since you presuppose this knowledge cannot be explained in the first place.
IOW, why would you see the lack of an explanation for something that is supposedly impossible to explain as a valid criticism? Why would Darwinism providing an explanation for something that supposedly cannot possibility be explained make it a better explanation?
Nor could you accept any theory that claims to explain what is deemed unexplainable by John 1:1.
Even if we could go back in time and you could empirically “observe” human beings evolving from a common primate ancestor, etc., all the way back, by fast-forwarding to the present, you could always retreat to the claim that this knowledge was somehow front-loaded, rather than created, to remain consistent with John 1:1. This appeal is already being made today.
So, the issue isn’t merely about “observations” – it’s about claims and explanations regarding the growth of knowledge.
While the point is arguable, it's hard to see how it can be considered slander. Similarly with the next comment.
|critical rationalist: |
|SB: Meanwhile, I will issue a challenge much less daunting than the one KF has presented. Give me one good reason to believe that unguided, naturalistic forces can, or ever did, create a new body plan.|
That’s an impossible challenge, as it conflicts with John 1:1, which you believe to be true.
Which is replaced by
|kairosfocus: Removed for cause of willful insistence on slander and refusal to reconcile the matter as a reasonable condition of further participation in UD threads posed by the undersigned. KF|
Meanwhile, StephenB makes a stand for free expression.
|StephenB: There is no relationship whatsoever between your inability or unwillingness to make a case for Darwinism and my theological orientation. I can readily understand why KF is deleting your comments.|
Thrice Quadrice banned by Uncommon Descent.
Unilateral critic of Affirmations about Uniform Distribution in the Search Space of Proteins