Hi Dave,
Yep- agree with you 100%. Between the "basically certain" and the "speculative" there is a broad continuum.
I see human common ancestry as pretty near certain - not "proven", but with multiple converging lines of very strong evidence supporting the same conclusion. Those on this list who dispute common ancestry are welcome to try explain this pattern in a way they find more theologically appealing - I'd like to see what they come up with.
Some days I think we're making headway on this issue as a church - and other days not. I presented a workshop recently at a Christian teacher's convention, and (I kid you not) one of the other presenters was a high school physics teacher and a full-blown geocentrist. (!!!)
So, this issue isn't going away any time soon.
Best,
Dennis
On 07/10/09 3:35 PM, "Dave Wallace" <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com> wrote:
Dennis Venema wrote:
> "Just to be clear I am not saying evolution of complex biological
> features is impossible, just not proven yet."
>
> Science doesn't offer "proof." It offers converging lines of evidence
> supported by experimentation. Not even heliocentrism is "proved."
>
When the probability of something gets high enough then I use the word
proof unless I am being pedantic which I can be, at times. And yes I
realize that nothing in the natural or even the supernatural world is
proven 100%, it all has varying degrees of probability. This is one
characteristic of what it means to be a finite person. What we see as
reality could in fact simply be a simulation on a large computer where
the recalculation interval is planck time, I don't think so but I can't
prove it one way or the other. In the sense that you are using proof I
can't even prove that my wife is a person.
In this case you are preaching to the choir.
Dave W
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 7 18:44:53 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 07 2009 - 18:44:53 EDT