(December 17, 2010 at 10:39 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Hi rjh4.
There aren't any examples (at least that I'm aware of). Why should there be as we are talking about the practical application of the same thing? In the version of supernatural creation you've outlined it replaces just abiogenesis, and not abiogenesis and evolution or just evolution. If one excludes the starting point (either abiogenesis or supernatural creation) both mechanisms are identical ie evolution (by means of natural selection).
Thanks for the candid response, Captain. I agree with you.
(December 17, 2010 at 10:39 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: I would take issue with a YEC interpretation however because evolution takes time.
I can understand what you are saying here. However, I think that it is evolution (common descent) that requires a lot of time, not evolution (change, say within a "kind").
(December 17, 2010 at 10:39 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: There is poor evidence for abiogenesis...
I agree.
(December 17, 2010 at 10:39 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: ...and no evidence at all for supernatural creation.
Certainly, if one takes the position that science excludes supernatural by definition, then there could not be scientific evidence for supernatural creation.
(December 17, 2010 at 10:39 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: I am therefore open to the question on how life got strated, no-one knows that - yet. But I guess we can all agree that the best chance we have of finding out is through scientific inquiry.
I am glad you are still open to the question on how life got started. Keep in mind, though, that if life did really come about by supernatural creation and you limit yourself to scientific inquiry that excludes supernatural by definition, then there would not even be a possibility of you discovering how life really came about.
(December 17, 2010 at 10:39 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: If we switch to a full creationist agenda based around ID, YEC etc which denied evolution, then there would be a difference. You have no application or predictive power in this model as it would state all things come into existence fully formed and do not change through time. Presumabley the only way to better adapt to your environment, improve crop yields, study bacterial mutation rates and develop countermeasures would be to...I guess just pray!
Here, I think you are applying a strawman argument. (Note, I am not saying that you are intentionally doing so. I am just saying that you may not fully understand the position taken in ID or YEC.) I personally do not know anyone who takes an ID or YEC position that would agree with the statement that "all things come into existence fully formed and do not change through time". I'm guessing that Statler Waldorf would not even agree with this (but he can speak for himself). I consider myself a YEC but I don't agree with this. I take a position as outlined in my last post. Thus, I think we would not disagree on much relative to operational science and the value thereof in making advances in medicine, agriculture, and a host of other areas.
