For Christians (or anyone else) who deny Darwinian evolution.

[Harry Nevis]

No, you believe in naturalism and the gaps in the theory of evolution are meaningless because you presuppose the conclusion that it is correct.

This is hilarious. WE presuppose the conclusion.

[Jehanne]

Steve,

I am curious to know your academic credentials?  And, why should I believe you over the National Academy of Sciences?

Dawn

I don't have a problem with the OP nor does the OP contradict anything I said -- so your dilemma is imagined. As I said several times, it is the best naturalistic theory.

If planets go around the Sun because modern physics says that they have energy, but that a force called gravity (perhaps, resulting from space-time curvature) causes them to move about the Sun in ellipses, what point would there be in saying that invisible angels are, in fact, the ultimate cause of their motion?

[downbeatplumb]

What is the alternative to evolution that they propose?

I have seen people say "design" but what does that mean?
How is the design carried out?
Where do they get the materials?
How does design make life?

Design as an idea needs to be supported with evidence but all I see is fallacious arguments against evolution.

So come on, describe the alternative in detail with supporting evidence and peer review.

[SteveII]

I don't have a problem with the OP nor does the OP contradict anything I said -- so your dilemma is imagined. As I said several times, it is the best naturalistic theory.

If planets go around the Sun because modern physics says that the have energy, but that a force called gravity (perhaps, resulting from space-time curvature) causes them to move about the Sun in ellipses, what point would there be in saying that invisible angels are, in fact, the ultimate cause of their motion?

What are you talking about and how is the relevant to anything I said?

[downbeatplumb]

If planets go around the Sun because modern physics says that the have energy, but that a force called gravity (perhaps, resulting from space-time curvature) causes them to move about the Sun in ellipses, what point would there be in saying that invisible angels are, in fact, the ultimate cause of their motion?

What are you talking about and how is the relevant to anything I said?

I think its because its the equivalent of what you are asking about evolution. Its because you are looking to old ideas that don't fit well with reallity.

[Jehanne]

If planets go around the Sun because modern physics says that they have energy, but that a force called gravity (perhaps, resulting from space-time curvature) causes them to move about the Sun in ellipses, what point would there be in saying that invisible angels are, in fact, the ultimate cause of their motion?

What are you talking about and how is the relevant to anything I said?

It simply isn't necessary to posit anything beyond the natural order to explain the existence of our bodies or our minds.

[SteveII]

What are you talking about and how is the relevant to anything I said?

It simply isn't necessary to posit anything beyond the natural order to explain the existence of our bodies or our minds.

Go ahead...as long as you realize you crossed from science into philosophy when you do. Theories (that contain gaps in our knowledge) don't magically become facts because that's how you decided to approach the problem.

[Jehanne]

It simply isn't necessary to posit anything beyond the natural order to explain the existence of our bodies or our minds.

Go ahead...as long as you realize you crossed from science into philosophy when you do. Theories (that contain gaps in our knowledge) don't magically become facts because that's how you decided to approach the problem.

Science has not fully explained gravity and where it comes from; does that mean that angels are now real?

[SteveII]

Go ahead...as long as you realize you crossed from science into philosophy when you do. Theories (that contain gaps in our knowledge) don't magically become facts because that's how you decided to approach the problem.

Science has not fully explained gravity and where it comes from; does that mean that angels are now real?

Do you image that I am making the argument that since there are gaps in our knowledge of evolution, therefore God? That is called God of the Gaps. I am not making that argument. Matter of fact, I conclude nothing from our gaps other than they are gaps. I also never made the point that evolution was therefore wrong.

[Jehanne]

Science has not fully explained gravity and where it comes from; does that mean that angels are now real?

Do you image that I am making the argument that since there are gaps in our knowledge of evolution, therefore God? That is called God of the Gaps. I am not making that argument. Matter of fact, I conclude nothing from our gaps other than they are gaps. I also never made the point that evolution was therefore wrong.

Naturalistic evolution is like gravity; where there is life, there is evolution, just as where there is matter (or, energy), there is gravity.  Neither are completely understood, but they have both been modeled exceptionally well.