Why are we done here? Are you offended by me using a mocking name to refer to your beliefs? Does that make you less interested in having a discussion about whether or not they are correct? Does it make it more difficult for you to grant me the charity necessary to have a good faith discussion?

Hi, OP.

I am not the least bit offended by your use of the term "Cannibalism Paradigm." You are welcome to refer to Christianity by any term you like. If you read my post #14, I never even HINTED that I objected to the term. I was trying to elicit a clarification of how Christianity and Cannibalism are related. That's why I asked you if the term cannibalism was a reference to the Lord's Supper. Its possible that I will actually agree with and even LIKE the term as a reference to Christianity.

I want to learn more. Clarification appreciated.

Thanks!

What clarification is needed? I wanted a name for Christianity that Christians would find degrading to use. There is no additional idea here to clarify, just a rhetorical meanness.

Please explain what you mean by "Darwinism" or as you like to call it, "from the goo to the zoo to you" in a way that doesn't contradict your prior statements about Darwinism.

Since I still don't know how cannibalism relates to Christianity, I don't find your innovation degrading in the least. In my view, you might want to find a term more catchy and less stupid for Christians to find it degrading.

"From the goo, to the zoo to you" rolls off the tongue and is kinda funny in a juvenile kind of way.

It also succinctly, though obviously oversimplistically,, conveys the idea of the evolutionary sequence of moving from simple life to animals to people. Its a tad snarky, but not offensive.

Your innovation, in my opinion, fails completely as a rhetorical device because it makes literally no sense (to me, anyway).

So at some point are you going to answer my question about Darwinism, because so far you haven't been able to get past my rhetorical device to my question even though it doesn't affect you.

Okay, I'm done discussing your derail of our discussion.

I affirm the non-controversial claim that species evolve over time (Micro evolution).

I deny the controversial (at least for members of the YEC crowd) claim that species evolve into new species (Macro evolution).

So, our definitions of "Evolution" are essentially identical in the sense that we both believe that species evolve.

Darwin himself wrote that he expected the fossil record to exhibit a plentitude of transitory fossils. That has certainly NOT happened, hence the development of therories such as Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium Theory.

I'm mostly interested in whether you think Darwinism, understood as the theory that species evolved by a way of natural selection, is consistent with biblical Christianity, since you've given inconsistent answers ITT to that question.

I believe that a "theistic" version of Darwinism (if that is even possible) COULD be consistent with biblical Christianity.

Since I don't believe that Darwin dealt with cosmogony, I believe that some version of theistic Darwinism could be consistent with biblical Christianity, although would not be consistent with a YEC literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2.

You've been presented with cases on this board plenty of times, you have ignored them each and every time. It's probably about time you stop pretending to ask questions.

You don't want to see the evidence, you obviously see these theories, their use and their evidence as some sort of threat to your religion and you don't want that or can't accept it.

Fine. Ignore it and move on.

Is it, though?

If gradualism were true, there should be literally millions of transition-fossils in the fossil record. There are very few fossils that are even purported to be transition-fossils. That is why the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory was proposed by Gould: The paucity of transition-fossils in the fossil record.


Evolutionists and YEC "see" the exact same evidence. All evidence is filtered through a worldview.

My religious beliefs aren't the least bit "threatened" by Evolution. I have acknowledged several times in this Forum that there are devout, highly intelligent Christians who accept (Theistic) Evolution.

Well, it's funny to simple-minded folk like myself.

Stephen J Gould, the well-known evolutionary biologist, so-called because he vigorously agreed with the consensus, common descent? Whose cherry-picked quotes from YEC's annoyed him so much, he released the following:


That Stephen J Gould?


This is misdirection, an attempt to hide a dogmatic position that would otherwise be the glaringly obvious problem. e.g.

"We all have biases. Mine is that the Bible is ultimate authority, I reject explanations that don't align with it. What's yours?!"

Do you think it adds to the quality of the conversation?

Yes.

I am, of course, aware that Gould was an Evolutionist. That's why I quoted him. If you'd like, I would be happy to quote other Evolutionists who have acknowledged the paucity of transition-fossils in the Fossil Record.


Everybody rejects explanations that don't align with their Ultimate Authority.

Since you asked, what is your Ultimate Authority? And why do you trust it?

SJG did no such thing, as I quoted above. His PE hypothesis (which has little support in evolutionary biology) was that common descent happened more like a flight of stairs than as a continual slope, but have no doubt that the flight of stairs and the slope both happened over equally long periods of time.


Can you define "Ultimate Authority"?


It's not a term I have ever used. I would probably say that I am at the mercy of how my mind understands reality, just as it is for everyone.



I can't imagine deferring to a learned theology over how reality appears to be. For example, if 'someone' (*wink*) told me that I do actually believe in God because scripture says everyone believes in God, and I'm just "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" - the person telling me this believes it because of Biblical authority. But since I know I do not believe in God, it is just evidence that the scripture they believe in is false.

I'm not aware of any inexplicable lack of fossils. Heck, even recent remains of the billions upon billions of creatures that die each year aren't really peppered all over the place, and they don't even have the excuse of decay or being covered up on a geological timescale.

I'm however aware that YECs and ID proponents have been lying about the fossil record for many decades, and likely convinced many people, you included.

I don't know what an "evolutionist" is.

Creationists obviously don't see the same evidence as others. Proponents of intelligent design have done a remarkable of job and thrown hundreds of millions of dollars into ensuring that such evidence doesn't reach people, especially children. Private religious schools, home-schooling, sponsoring politicians to alter curriculums and pressure on media (especially conservative media) to not mention such things.

They also likely live within religious bubbles where mentioning evolution for what it is (the most successful model in modern biology and one of the strongest theories in scientific history) is seen as sinful and antithetical to their beliefs.

Why do you keep misquoting people like Gould then? Even after his own explicit statements explaining why this representation is wrong. I seem to recall it is not the first time you do this, and I suspect it won't be the last.

Hi, t_d.

I will do some research on the actual writings of Dr. Gould. If I have misrepresented his views, I will acknowledge that fact and apologize accordingly.

In the spirit (so to speak) of "From the goo to the zoo to you", Daniel Dennett has titled his latest book: From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds.

https://www.amazon.com/Bacteria-Bach.../dp/0393242072

Hope Original Position doesn't find the title too offensive.

Did you do this research?


You never responded with what you mean by Ultimate Authority.

No. When my local library opens back up, I can "check out" a relevant Gould book.


Sorry about that, Chief.

In the following passage from Dr. Jason Lisle's book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation (page 260), Lisle is responding to a reader (referred to as J.) of one of his articles who claimed: "The need for an absolute authority is a religious one, not a scientific one.":

With all respect, this is philosophically absurd. All arguments must terminate in an ultimate standard -- an authority that is held to be unquestionable. Otherwise, the argument would go on forever and could not be completed. Thus, everyone has an ultimate standard/authority. However, like J., most people have not given much thought to what their ultimate standard is, and whether or not it is really consistent.

Doesn't your state (California?) library system have online borrowing options, whether audiobooks or electronic copies?



No worries. I actually gave it a bit of thought after my initial reply, and already had a good idea how you'd define it (and you did).

I'm sympathetic with this J. - informally, Lisle's question sounds something like "We Christians get our ultimate authority from God, what God do you unbelievers get your ultimate authority from?!!"

From what I can tell, Lisle is an adequately qualified astrophysicist. His philosophical meanderings however leave a lot to be desired. And I'm just speaking as someone with great interest but little formal education in philosophy. Probably just like Lisle.

For certain types of Christian apologists, who don't seem to have any recollection of what it was like not being a believer (despite making that all-important "I used to be an atheist" claim), it's like they can't imagine that other people's lives, especially non-believers, are not simply mirror images of their own, just with small substitutions.

"So if you don't pray to God, who do you pray to?"

And "who is your ultimate authority, against whom all arguments are held up against that ultimate standard?" is just asking "who's your God?"



Are you familiar with the concepts behind internal justification vs external justification?

Here's where I think it gets interesting and important. Presuppositionalists will implement external justifications that support their beliefs. E.g. I can know x because God (external) has made it so that I can know x.

But when they ask non-believers to justify their beliefs and positions, they insist on being answered according to internal justifications. That switch is a bit sneaky, right? Because with internal justifications they can be continually asked "how do you know that?", "could you be wrong about that?", "how can you know you are right about anything, to any degree?"

An unprepared non-believer might find themselves rather lost and confused. That's the whole idea of course. The Presuppers get to point to their external justification without pushback while the dirty heathens are stumbling around trying to figure out what, if anything, they can claim to know - using internal justifications alone. And COULD THEY KNOW THAT THEY KNOW? (The K-K principle).

If both groups could answer how they want, you'd still have the presuppositionalists pointing to God (external) as being the reason why whatever is the case. But you'd also have thre non-believers pointing to reality (external) as being the reason why whatever is the case.

When you dig into the internal justifications, which I think is where the more interesting responses will be found, both Christians and non-believers can be found struggling similarly to one another with justifying themselves and their positions.

Ultimately, I'd put it this way, for internal justifications: we are all at the mercy of our presuppositions, and the experiences we've had in life that influence how and why we come to believe what we do.
That is all of ours Ultimate Authority - our collection of axioms, and presuppositions, and experiences.

I should probably not post while under ther influence of Ambien...however, re-reading my longwinded post, the final paragraph sums up what "Ultimate Authority" refers to imo:

Probably.

Right. So, who or what is your ultimate authority, and why do you trust it?

Lisle "brags" in one of his blog articles (I think) that he never took a Philosophy class in college. I have a B.A. in Philosophy, and taught part-time for several years for the Coast Community College District in Orange County (California).

Would you like to name some names here? Or is this just kinda random speculation?

That sounds right.

No. I'll keep reading to find out...

Sorry, I don't see anything "sneaky" going on there. The question is straightforward: Who or what is your ultimate authority, and why do you trust it? It's not some "gotcha" question; everybody has an utlimate authority, even if not everyone has carefully thought through exactly what it is.

The above reminds me of W.V.O. Quine's Web of Belief. It seems to me that the difficulty with the WOB view, is that it essentially nullifies Propositional Knowledge, although it seems to maintain Knowledge by Aquaintence (sic).

Anyway, thank you for your thoughtful post.