From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/4/2025 2:17 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   > Thoughts on these review excerpts? Anyone read the book?   
   >   
   > Rau's six categories: "Naturalistic Evolution (NE), Nonteleological   
   > Evolution (NTE), Planned Evolution (PE), Directed Evolution (DE), Old-   
   > Earth Creation (OEC), and Young-Earth Creation (YEC). A chart in the   
   > second chapter and extensive charts at the back of the book help sort   
   > out the different models in a visual fashion."   
   >   
   > "Rau points out that each position is ultimately based on “different   
   > philosophical presuppositions that are outside the realm of science” (p.   
   > 176). The most important of these presuppositions, in Rau’s view, is the   
   > definition of science itself. For example, a definition of science that   
   > refuses to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of or   
   > interaction with a supernatural realm cuts off any inquiry or   
   > explanations that refer to the supernatural. It automatically excludes   
   > any evidence or inference that would point to an intelligent agent as a   
   > cause for the origin of life. Those who presuppose this definition of   
   > science approach questions about the origin of life looking exclusively   
   > for natural causes. Similar blind spots are caused by presuppositions of   
   > those holding other positions."   
   >   
   > "Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views   
   > regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different   
   > conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesn’t support their   
   > viewpoint, while touting evidence that does. Personally, I agree with   
   > Rau that none of the models has a complete model with adequate   
   > explanations for all of the evidence."   
   >   
   > https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/science/   
   > creation-science-intelligent-design/mapping-the-origins-debate#   
   >   
      
   The OEC and YEC can accept quite a lot of evolution.  The YEC at the AIG   
   claim that all foxes and dogs evolved from a single pair on the ark in   
   just a few thousand years when the estimate for their divergence places   
   them as distantly related as chimps and humans.  The AIG claims that all   
   cats including the sabertoothed monsters of the ice age that happened   
   after the flood evolved from two cats on the ark when they probably   
   shared a common ancestor around 20 million years ago (about the same as   
   gibbons and humans).  They also have ambulocetus on the ark instead of   
   whales when whales are expected to have all died in the flood because   
   everything with the breath of life outside of the ark perished, and   
   whales are hot blooded air breathing mammals.   
      
   Science doesn't exclude the supernatural.  The scientific effort is   
   trying to understand the supernatural (what we do not yet know as   
   existing in nature).  If some god is acting in nature we have a chance   
   of detecting those actions.  Behe claims that once we figure out how   
   everything evolved we will identify his designer's fingerprints on his   
   IC systems.  It may be possible to detect god by how it interacts with   
   nature.  Some god would just be another currently unknown aspect of nature.   
      
   Science is often defined in such a way as to exclude "god-did-it"   
   explanations for the simple reason that such explanations have a 100%   
   failure rate upon figuring out what was actually happening.  The   
   Biblical claim that some god had to open the firmament above the earth   
   to let the rain fall through has been falsified by a lot of hard work in   
   figuring out that earth has an atmosphere and there is something called   
   the water cycle at work.  Some god did not create a flat earth   
   geocentric universe.  Some god does not make babies, some god does not   
   pull the sun and moon across the sky, and no gods are needed to make the   
   seasons change.  It isn't just Biblical claims that have been shown to   
   be wrong.  None of the god-did-it claims have ever panned out, so it is   
   this 100% failure rate that require such definitions in order to keep   
   the stupid and incompetent from wasting their time, or let god-did-it   
   claims prevent inquiry into some unknown aspect of nature.  Behe has   
   admitted that the only use for believing that his IC systems exist in   
   nature is to tell researchers that they will never figure out their   
   origin because god-did-it, so it would prevent them from wasting their   
   time trying to figure it out.  The supernatural gets added to the   
   existing science when we are able to identify what it is, by how it fits   
   in with what we already understand about nature.  God-did-it claims have   
   never added anything to our understanding of nature.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)