Christian Doctrine of Omnipresence to Blame for the Triumph of Darwinism

So I was reading through the Origin of Species lately and Darwin pointed out that the creationist doctrine of speciation, namely miraculous special creation, was ad hoc when he observed different species of plants producing different quantities of variation. I see nowhere in Scripture to support the idea that God acts directly into the natures of creatures excepting of course the Genesis creation account and then Gen. 11 with the tower of Babel. It is traditional Orthodox Theology, Westminster Confession Chapter on Providence, that God does not cause everything directly (Occasionalism) but Providentially works through second causes. The solution to Darwin then is to recognize that the deists were right on the doctrine of omnipresence. 1 Kings 8 and Gen. 11 make very clear that God's dwelling place is the heavenly sanctuary, not everywhere.

 

No, the reason “Darwinism” triumphed is because it’s claims can be proven and the claims of religion cannot be proven.

 

The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Volume 2, By Charles Darwin, 209-210, Darwin admitted "we cannot prove that a single species has changed".

https://books.google.com/books?id=q...zAC#v=onepage&q="in fact, the belief"&f=false

 

I'm atheist now, but I'll verify your reading of the Biblical view of God's location. The Bible states that Satan is the god of this world and is present in it, while God is in heaven, not on earth.

I'm not a Darwinist, but the existence of ring species is an interesting case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

 

Yeah, that was a long time ago. We have evidence now. That is how science works.

 

Cool story. Unfortunately for you, there has been over a century of research on the topic of evolution to prove that it’s real since Darwin’s time.

That’s why religious people call it Darwinism instead of evolution. Because Darwin’s theory has inevitable flaws that they can attack as long as they ignore then overwhelming mountain of research done since his time to prove the theory of evolution to be undeniable reality.

Not even Darwin himself can discredit evolution, no matter how much quote mining you do.

 

The evolution of species is the only acceptable theory because it is the only one with evidence. The religious would do well to say that god created evolution be content with that.

 

Just to be clear, are you speaking about evolution or adaptation? Evolution to me implies that there is a higher form than your present self, that you are in the process of becoming. Doe's evolution ever stop? If not what is life aspiring to become? What is life's end goal? To become one with the Creator. OR there is no purpose for evolution. Changing physically just for the sake of changing serves no purpose. You could argue that evolution proves the existence of the Creator. Otherwise it's a futile use of time and energy as I see it. You're a shrub let's say and you eventually evolve into a bird. By changing form, you've done nothing positive for either the shrub or the bird.

 

I said evolution so that is what I posted about. Evolution implies nothing at all. A number of things can cause a mutation in the DNA base. What natural selection does is adopt the ones that work well for the species and eliminate the bad ones over time. The selection mechnism is death. The bad mutations cause the species that have it to die out. So what natural selection does is improve the species making it more adaptable to its ecology.

Natural selection never stops because mutations do not stop. Life aspires to nothing. It simply ends with death. Natural selection serves a critical purpose. As I said, it makes a species more adaptable to its ecology.. If you want a spiritual creator then just consider that the creator created natural selection as the method for species to strengthen and adapt. If you prefer the natural world to have created it simply call it mother nature or the laws of physics.

Evolution is a theory, not a physical law. However, there are no competing theories because this one appears best to explain the observable evidence.

 

Care to show us where Darwin tells us with proof, how life began.

I can't seem to remember it.

 

Define species first.

 

Look it up for yourself. It is a taxonomical relationship required that animals have to share in order to reproduce.

 

When external or internal forces influences biological entities to change, that's adaptation. In a stable environment, I believe the adaptations cease because there is no need to change. If however the mutations never stop, then the biologic, with no external or internal influences, is striving to become something else and IMO that implies, to me, a creator. I'm a huge believer in purpose and in not being a cosmic accident.

 

We aren't talking about external forces. We are talking about mutations - changes in the DNA base. If you want a creator that's fine as I said. But the observable evidence points to natural selection. You need to connect your creator to the natural selection process. It is as simple as that.

 

I just did make such a connection. You're claiming that mutations occur randomly and repeatedly. I'm saying that something caused that mutation to occur. There was a colony of lizards living in a cave. Somehow the cave exit collapsed and there wasn't any source of light in the cave. The colony eventually lost their eye balls. Eyeballs were of no use and no longer served a purpose. If one of these lizards mated with a seeing lizard, the no eyes trait would not have been passed on which is what evolution is - the process by which beneficial traits spreads throughout a population. If an animal is perfectly adapted to it's environment, then why are they mutating?

 

That is a mystery. Mutations occur randomly, as you say, during the reproduction process. Science doesn't know why. Science doesn't know the answer to a lot of things. That is why it continues to investigate and experiment.

I'm not sure that any creature is perfectly adapted. I would say probably not. And, of course, the ecology changes over time.

 

The shark, and sturgeon and xylocanth have not evolved it seems. In any case there seem to be mutations that enhance and mutations that completely becomes a different species. Supposedly lizards turned into birds. Turning into a bird isn't a trait that the lizard cared much for and I don't see what it did for the bird, most being seed eaters, seeds are on the ground with the lizards. Being able to fly might help them to find seeds but then they have to get back on the ground. Lizards can climb trees so that eliminates the need to nest in a tree. My point is, in some animals and plants I suppose, there's a complete metamorphosis, a becoming something else entirely. And it's hard for me to see it as a random act because it suggests, at least to me, that there's a progression involved that is not of a random nature.

 

No, Darwinism has never been proven.

"Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington."

https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/

 

Here is the #1 flaw of Darwinism: Nothing can evolve unless it already exists.

 

Evolving into another species is indeed a progression. A slow one. It takes millions of years. It isn't random. Natural selection separates the bad mutations from the good ones.

 

Darwinism dominated because we found the fossils to confirm evolution is happening.

 

The problem here, is either a god needs to be responsible for everything everywhere without even a single exception, or you don't need a god at all.

 

Which version of Evolution then do you believe in?

 

The only one? One what? Model? If that is the case that doesn't make evolution true. Dawkins and Einstein admitted that you can use Geocentrism as a functional model. The same goes for Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry, pace Morris Kline. I have even seen Nasa documents that say they use the Flat Earth model.

 

So then bacteria and viruses which reproduce asexually are not species then.