I'm no expert on evolution, but the little I know is highly convincing. This is what keeps me from fully embracing orthodoxy and christianity altogether since everything hinges on the truth of Adam and Eve.
You might be interested in Rupert Sheldrake. He has a theory of "morphic resonance" that seems pretty compelling, and he also talks about the inheritability of acquired characteristics. It seems to me he throws a very scientific wrench into theories of genetic evolution 🤓
Basically, genetics doesn't actually encode nearly as much information as people thought it did, so there's still a huge gap in scientific models of say, how your arm cells know how to be an arm and not a leg. His theory includes fields that give shapes to things, and it accounts for a lot else besides. It's worth looking at.
Can't find this book anywhere - except used on Amazon in not the best condition for $676.99. Publisher is out of stock and they don't know if/when they'll be reprinting the book.
If I understand your video correctly, are you arguing that scientists can't infer about the past in Earth's history because, after the fall (and the resulting corruption it had), the world has experienced a radical change in its laws and nature, making scientific inferences about it speculative? In other words, would you say that when some scientists infer millions of years (contrary to young-earth creationism), they are presupposing a uniformity and consistency in nature that doesn't actually exist due to their denial of the historical reality of the fall?
I'm no expert on evolution, but the little I know is highly convincing. This is what keeps me from fully embracing orthodoxy and christianity altogether since everything hinges on the truth of Adam and Eve.
You mean micro or macro evolution?
@neptic Fathers have you watched any of Jonathan Pageau’s videos on symbolism?
Yes. I've also bought some books on the topic as well, most of which I haven't been able to read yet.
You might be interested in Rupert Sheldrake. He has a theory of "morphic resonance" that seems pretty compelling, and he also talks about the inheritability of acquired characteristics. It seems to me he throws a very scientific wrench into theories of genetic evolution 🤓
Morphic Resonance? I've never heard of it.
Basically, genetics doesn't actually encode nearly as much information as people thought it did, so there's still a huge gap in scientific models of say, how your arm cells know how to be an arm and not a leg. His theory includes fields that give shapes to things, and it accounts for a lot else besides. It's worth looking at.
@@joachim847 I'll have to give it a look.
@@joachim847 Rupert Sheldrake's stuff just seems like new age ideas repackaged in scientific jargon.
@@NepticFathers I guess he does live in the woo-woo end of the spectrum, but I don't think that makes his science bad 🤔
Can't find this book anywhere - except used on Amazon in not the best condition for $676.99. Publisher is out of stock and they don't know if/when they'll be reprinting the book.
Best bet is to find someone who has a copy and to borrow it, or perhaps find one in a parish library.
i have the pdf if you still want it
@@MarcoSilesio can I have the pdf? Can't find the book anywhere either and can't afford the Amazon price
If I understand your video correctly, are you arguing that scientists can't infer about the past in Earth's history because, after the fall (and the resulting corruption it had), the world has experienced a radical change in its laws and nature, making scientific inferences about it speculative? In other words, would you say that when some scientists infer millions of years (contrary to young-earth creationism), they are presupposing a uniformity and consistency in nature that doesn't actually exist due to their denial of the historical reality of the fall?
Christ is risen, amen☦️