Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Mike Manea.
And this is precisely the problem: we mistake ‘open’ for ‘ easy.’
Think for a moment of the civil rights movement. That movement would not have succeeded under a monarchy or a dictatorship. However, just because it took place under a democracy did not mean that it would be successful without careful planning, hard work and sacrifice.
With virtually every other approach creationists have taken, scientists had legitimate concerns. With this approach there are no legitimate objections based on their own rules of engagement. Does that mean it will be easy? Definitely not. But if we don’t make the effort we have only ourselves to blame for the success of evolution and our inability to reach people with the gospel.
Table of Contents
Mike Manea Also Commented
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman:
Yes, lots of people are making significant efforts. Lots of people have been making significant efforts for a century and a half now. And, fifty years from now they will still be making significant efforts though our situation by then will likely be quite a bit worse.
With this approach however, if we play our cards right, there is a descent chance that in as little as five years we can introduce something that will completely change the game for us. So I apologize if I’ve offended in any way, but, at least in my opinion, this matters.
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
Sean,
I don’t think you quite get what I am saying but I’m in the middle of a business trip and don’t have time to write more now. On my “Intelligent Adventist” Facebook page I have an article where I explain myself in more detail. I will respond some time next week.
Thanks
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman:
Neither Intelligent Design nor the Catastrophic/Flood Model are scientifically valid models. Methodological Naturalism is a cornerstone of modern science and both these models fail in that respect. Intelligent Design directly while the Flood model (itself potentially naturalistic) fails in that it conflicts with other related scientific disciplines, biology, paleontology etc.
Popularity has nothing to do with it. Science is an open platform. There are systems in place such that, if there are problems with one model, better models can be introduced (relativity superseded Newtonian physics etc.). The fact that in spite of this Evolution remains uncontested in the scientific arena is, in my opinion, our fault entirely. We could have taken our beliefs, came up with a naturalistic hypothesis to test out those beliefs, made predictions, done the research etc. Today, there could have been an alternative school of thought among scientists helping to give credibility to our message with rational, educated people. Our inaction here makes us equally guilty as we would be if we stood by and did nothing while our government did away with the Separation of Church and State clause.
