I was both surprised and greatly pleased to read Dawkins' comment about design being a valid scientific hypothesis, because I came to the same conclusion about 25 years ago, when I (a biochemist) began on my path to finding Christ. The thing is, once you accept a supernatural creation as a valid scientific hypothesis, you begin examining all the evidence for it, And then, I think its inevitable that you will see its truth. That's what happened to me, praise God.
And btw, teleology is becoming much less forbidden in biology than it was in the past. A book called "Evolution on Purpose" was published in 2023 by MIT Press.
I followed pretty much the same path. Was obsessed by science and biology since third grade. Did undergraduate research at Haverford College, went onto a PhD program in molecular biology. Then 40 years as an anesthesiologist and intensive care doc.
It seemed pretty clear to me early on that Darwinian materialism could not stand against the evidence for the mind of God.
Yes. If species evolve through random mutations, one would reasonably expect to see evidence of large numbers of malformed creatures — viable mutations but deformed in some identifiable way. Where are they? What rate of mutation is required to evolve a new species? Has there been near enough time to produce as many species as we see via this process?
How is it that completely random mutations manage to produce viable organisms, when the “viable region” of the entire search space of possible mutations is so relatively tiny?
Yes, this is why macroevolution is not possible. It can be approached from different angles, including the one you mentioned. The rate of genetic mutation is pretty well understood and there is not remotely enough time for the evolution of different species to occur by that mechanism.
Microevolution, sure. We all know that’s correct. Breeding dogs, etc.
I’m amazed that Darwinian evolution is still believed by so many people. I guess they can’t bear to accept the potential alternatives.
I was both surprised and greatly pleased to read Dawkins' comment about design being a valid scientific hypothesis, because I came to the same conclusion about 25 years ago, when I (a biochemist) began on my path to finding Christ. The thing is, once you accept a supernatural creation as a valid scientific hypothesis, you begin examining all the evidence for it, And then, I think its inevitable that you will see its truth. That's what happened to me, praise God.
And btw, teleology is becoming much less forbidden in biology than it was in the past. A book called "Evolution on Purpose" was published in 2023 by MIT Press.
That's cool to hear about teleology making a comeback, Sy.
I followed pretty much the same path. Was obsessed by science and biology since third grade. Did undergraduate research at Haverford College, went onto a PhD program in molecular biology. Then 40 years as an anesthesiologist and intensive care doc.
It seemed pretty clear to me early on that Darwinian materialism could not stand against the evidence for the mind of God.
Yes. If species evolve through random mutations, one would reasonably expect to see evidence of large numbers of malformed creatures — viable mutations but deformed in some identifiable way. Where are they? What rate of mutation is required to evolve a new species? Has there been near enough time to produce as many species as we see via this process?
How is it that completely random mutations manage to produce viable organisms, when the “viable region” of the entire search space of possible mutations is so relatively tiny?
Yes, this is why macroevolution is not possible. It can be approached from different angles, including the one you mentioned. The rate of genetic mutation is pretty well understood and there is not remotely enough time for the evolution of different species to occur by that mechanism.
Microevolution, sure. We all know that’s correct. Breeding dogs, etc.
I’m amazed that Darwinian evolution is still believed by so many people. I guess they can’t bear to accept the potential alternatives.