So what's unscientific about this?

In the other thread . . .TB:
"What's non-scientific about showing that:1. All known examples of observed evolution, including that on rapid generational entities such as viruses and bacteria, do not demonstrate anything other than allelic variaiton or loss of function.2. Life today and the fossil record show very few transtional forms.3. Genomes are showing us that gene families, as well as anatomies, are mosaically spread throughout life.There is absolutely nothing unscientific about the above except that you despise the connotations it carries."ddg replied:"Nothing unscientific here. However, alternate theories need to go through the proper scientific avenues (peer review, etc.)before they are adopted into a curriculum (I'm not saying yours have not, I don't know). A responsible school board will find out what what the mainstream scientific community thinks about the research and conclusions.I don't think I've declared what I despise but I do need to clarify my position. I believe in a creator. For me, the bible is a spirtual guide as opposed to literal historical text or scientific manual.
I am comfortable, in general, with the position my particular Protestant denomination takes (Prebyterian Church USA)."however, it is not necessary to understand the Genesis account as a scientific description of Creation.""We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church."EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE Primary Reference: GA Minutes 1969: 59-62
Denomination: PCUS CONCLUSION FROM THE STUDYTB:ddg, you wondered about peer-reviewing? The three points I mentioned above underpin most of YE-creationsm and are peer reveiwed in both the mainstream and creationist journals. Given those three facts I mentioned I simply don't understand why any Christian would want to trust evolutionary interpretations ahead of Scripture?The same data can be interpreted as created kinds followed by evolution. This means that God did create man in his image, male and female, man separately from animals, dogs separately from cats. And we agree with Darwin that God did not seperately create all of the Galapogas finches. We love science but see no need to go for macroevolution.That is YE-creationism, not the strawmen you hear about.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-13-2002]

(Prebyterian Church USA)."however, it is not necessary to understand the Genesis account as a scientific description of Creation.""We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church."EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE Primary Reference: GA Minutes 1969: 59-62
Denomination: PCUS CONCLUSION FROM THE STUDYPresbyterian Church (U.S.A.) - Page Cannot be FoundAdding cite link from previous thread to new thread for completeness.

TB "The three points I mentioned above underpin most of YE-creationsm and are peer reveiwed in both the mainstream and creationist journals."Fine. Whats the mainstream feedback about your conclusions? Have they been accepted?TB "Given those three facts I mentioned I simply don't understand why any Christian would want to trust evolutionary interpretations ahead of Scripture?"Perhaps I over-emphasize the salvation story of the new testament in my personal relationship with God? I don't understand the need for a literal Genesis in Abrahams Covenant.

I don't think I've ever heard mainstream feedback on those three issues in one place. Together they are quite suggestive of creation. Independently they come from the mainstream literature of course.Salvation in the New Testement is linked back to Genesis on dozens of occasions. The shedding of blood is recorded from the skins the Lord gave Adam and Eve to Abraham and Isaac's three day journey up the mountain, to the children of Israel's three day Passover journey, to the annual commemoration of Passover to Christ's fulfilment of Passover and three day journey in the grave. Man and woman are a picture of Christ and the church. Man was made in God's image. Why would you want to believe evolution?

Hi TB:"What's non-scientific about showing that:"

quote:

---

1. All known examples of observed evolution, including that on rapid generational entities such as viruses and bacteria, do not demonstrate anything other than allelic variaiton or loss of function.

---

...except for those cases where new functions, increased reaction efficiency, chromosome doubling/fusion leading to novel, environmentally beneficial karyotypes, etc, show that the statement is misleading in its implications.

quote:

---

2. Life today and the fossil record show very few transtional forms.

---

...except for the thousands of transitionals that HAVE been found. Before we get too far into this bit, you'll need to define specifically what you accept or don't accept as a "transitional". Is Eomaia a transitional? How about Eusthenopteron? Himalayacetus? Parasemionotus? If not, why not?

quote:

---

3. Genomes are showing us that gene families, as well as anatomies, are mosaically spread throughout life.

---

...except that genomes are ALSO showing evidence that there are gene families that are present across taxa - even up to kingdom - both of which observations are consistent with common descent/descent with modification and merely shows that life is messy. No one observation or line of evidence proves or disproves evolution (or to be fair, creationism). Rather, multiple converging lines of evidence are used.So no, the three aren't unscientific. They are, however, incomplete observations and seem to deliberately obscure or ignore the entire body of evidence.

Gentle bump for TB

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Why would you want to believe evolution?

---

Why does "want" even enter into it?

I also think it was not "necesary" for the Presbys to ask for Youth Trianium comments from the participants and before hearing from them deciding maybe not to have another one. This Church one really has to be "present" for to understand individual decisions that occur. As an Elder I once voted one way and &all& the other older elders the the other. Later I was privately reassured that I had voted "correctly" from the perspective of the minister who was not really 'permitted' necessarily to tell me this. He did so any way.