KINDS and ADAPTATION

[Donray]

EarthScienceguy wrote:

I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.

God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.


In another topic when I asked EarthScienceguy what he believed instead of evolution he wrote back the above. I asked him several times to explin his theory and he incapable of explanation and debate of his theory.
I would like to find from any Christians that believes like EarthScienceguy something about this belief and some proof using known fossils and how these fit in.
How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans? If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA.

Since this theory uses “kinds of animals� that a lot of creationist do could someone list all the kinds that were on the ark and then the list of animals, insects, bacteria, etc that these kinds adapted into. Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?

What is adaptation and not evolution? Does it have anything to due with DNA changing? Could someone point out all the articles that support this theory? I would hope that there is a list of science articles that shows your science of adaptation of kinds on the ARK to all the diversity we have.

I would like to have a debate on this theory since Christians like to debate evolution we should have this debate also.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 347 by Still small]

Further to my previous post, looking at the creationist theory of evolution offered by Still small, after the heading ‘What then is the Theory of Creation?’, there’s a table comparing theories. I’ll point out one glaring error made, which is such an important one, that it really needs to be understood by everyone involved in this discussion.

Against the Phenomenon/Condition of ‘Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms’, the table states that neither a creationist, nor a scientific theory of evolution is falsifiable.

The philosopher Karl Popper held that any scientific proposition must be falsifiable, and while he originally claimed Darwin’s theory of evolution was unfalsifiable, he later changed his mind. Among other possibilities, if it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits, or if it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations, those would effectively falsify the overall theory. The fact that no such things have ever been observed simply demonstrates the remarkable strength of the theory.

There’s also the claim that the theory of evolution has been falsified against the Phenomenon/Condition of ‘Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information’, but the associated footnote 8 doesn’t back this up with any references to the ‘growing body of evidence’ claimed.

If anyone else wishes to comment on other aspects of the table of comparisons, I’d be grateful. I’m not confident, based on the ad hominems and straw-men arguments presented at the top of the article, that the table is in any way objective and unbiased.

Getting nearer the end of the article, under the heading ‘Where is the Theory of Creation documented?’, I just found a list of books, which are being offered for sale by various creationist publishers, plus links to journals along with this comment:

Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications.  The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism� therefore comes as no surprise.

So another ad hominem to add to the list.

The final conclusion states:

By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the “theory of creation� not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart.

The only thing presented in the entire article that comes close to this is the comparison table, which is shockingly biased. And then the whole article wraps up with further ad hominem attacks against the Talk.Origins website, which seems to be the whole focus of its author.

Since I started compiling this post, I note Still small has replied, including this:

I believe I have supplied a significant amount of information in the various links.

Well, that’s technically true. However, one has to question the relevance and utility of that evidence, particularly when you have stated so clearly that:

I BELIEVE GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS, THE EARTH AND THE ORIGINAL KINDS 6,000 TO 10,000 YEARS AGO.

When the evidence against this view (‘Young Earth Creationism’) is so overwhelming, it’s no wonder that no-one is taking much notice of such information.

As an example of what I mean, Nicholas Steno (who was a Catholic priest) published a treatise on fossils back in 1669. That influenced a number of people who were interested in calculating the age of the earth, including John Phillips in 1841, who estimated Earth was about 96 million years old. The discovery of radiometric dating led to a series of calculations which only ever increased the estimated age of the Earth, from Boltwood (1905: up to 570 million years old), to Arthur Holmes (1927: 3 billion years) before the National Academy of Science appointed a special committee in 1931 to investigate and conclude that radiometric dating was the “only reliable means of pinning down geological time scales�.

In conclusion, science finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles... and not in attempting to fit that data into an existent hypothesis.

[Still small]

I have linked for your benefit an article, A Theory of Creation which explains briefly the Theory of Creation plus contains a list of books where a more detailed explanation is given.

I did follow the link to that article, as you suggested.

Paragraph 1 (“Feigned(?) Ignorance�) is basically an ad hominem attack against one particular group of people at a particular website. It does absolutely nothing to present any scientific theory. So already, we’re off to a poor start.

True, the opening paragraph is stating the purpose of the article, being to refute the oft made claim that Creationists don’t have a Theory of Creation, a claim quite often made on the Talk.Origins website. The reason that I listed this particular article was in answer to Donray’s request, being “But I will you ask you for a book that explains creation as accepted by at least 80% of your creationists�. This article lists a number of books where such a theory is given.

From paragraph 2 (“What is a Scientific Theory?�):

The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism.  It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific� than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God.

This should raise an immediate red flag to any general reader, particularly when their own definition of “science� is:

systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

<bolding mine>

A common tactic used by some creationists is to create an equivalence between a belief system and scientific enquiry, by either labelling science as a ‘belief system’, or by labelling creationist theory as science (often using the phrase ‘scientific history’). Good scientific theory simply follows the observable evidence. It’s not ‘anti’ anything, and indeed - if done properly - actively tries to falsify its own theories rather than fit evidence to a preconceived idea. The argument here demonstrates a false equivalency fallacy.

Firstly, the paragraph’s definition of “science� made no reference to a belief system. It was, in fact, a quote from the Webster’s Dictionary. The reference to a ‘belief system’ was in relation to ‘naturalism’ which, by definition, is a belief system -
“Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Nat´u`ral`ism
1. A state of nature; conformity to nature.
2. (Metaph.) The doctrine of those who deny a supernatural agency in the miracles and revelations recorded in the Bible, and in spiritual influences; also, any system of philosophy which refers the phenomena of nature to a blind force or forces acting necessarily or according to fixed laws, excluding origination or direction by one intelligent will.� (Emphasis added)- (url=https://www.webster-dictionary.org/defi ... naturalism]link[/url]
A definition of doctrine is -
“doc•trine (ˈdɒk trɪn)
n.
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion.
2. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of a Church..�. - (Emphasis added) - Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary,

The article, therefore, made no attempt to make “an equivalence between a belief system and scientific enquiry�. While “science� is not ‘anti anything’, ‘naturalism’ does exclude any intelligent direction or origination, anything which is not natural, for example, the supernatural.

While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God.  “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,� they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.�

This is a straw-man fallacy, as it’s putting a weak argument into quotes as if it were the general view of evolutionary scientists, which it certainly isn’t.

Whether the author is attempting to describe the ‘general view of evolutionary scientists’ or not, do you claim to speak on behalf of the majority? If so, on what basis? Also, while you may claim, according to your interpretation of the passage, that it is a strawman argument against ‘evolutionary scientists’, it is a position, that I, myself hold and attempted to explain in my reply in
A Universe from Nothing ....Post 91.

In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists!

Another straw-man fallacy. The criteria for any successful theory of evolution are only that it accurately and fully explains observations of species change over time. Not that it conforms to any particular philosophy. I’d encourage readers to look at this article which quotes one of my most valued books (“The Demon-haunted World�) on what a proper scientific ‘toolkit’ (or mindset) looks like:

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/0 ... arl-sagan/

I note in the article that in the list of pitfalls to avoid, especially in relation to my last point, pitfall #4 - “appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. . . . This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.� (Emphasis added)

Later on in the paragraph, there’s a table comparing creationist and scientific characteristics. In the last row, they compare ‘Primary means of criticizing
 counterpart system� and the table footnote adds:

...evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions...

We see yet another ad hominem attack, and an attribution of ‘religious predispositions’ to scientists where none exist, while at the same time claiming ‘citation of empirical data’ for themselves. The evidence of their own table in fact supports the very opposite conclusion to the creationist view.

The selection which you have quoted comes from the actual description of the table as a whole, not as a footnote - “Table 1.  Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science.� - Rather than “an attribution of ‘religious predispositions’ to scientists where none exist�, would you prefer the term ‘paradigm’ or ‘worldview’? Also, what empirical evidence have you against creationism? Especially when viewed under the dictionary definition of ‘science’ in the point you, yourself highlighted - “systematized knowledge derived from observation�. This would preclude from the realm of actual science any phenomenon which has not been directly observed or recorded for future observation. This would preclude everything prior to man’s existence, whether it be 6 million years ago or 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Events may be inferred or assumed but that does not meet this criteria for science. The evidence is subject to interpretation and that done according to one’s ‘worldview’, ‘paradigm’ or ‘belief system’.

In summary, it’s taken me some considerable time to properly absorb and consider just the introduction in this article, and I have found it to be riddled with fallacies. However, in the spirit of fairness, I will continue reading it when I have more time, and post some more of my thoughts.

I appreciate your willingness to persist with this material but forgive me if I’m of the opinion that you are approaching it with a degree of negativity. (I shall attempt to reply to your post 348 shortly.)

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 347 by Still small]

I BELIEVE GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS, THE EARTH AND THE ORIGINAL KINDS 6,000 TO 10,000 YEARS AGO.

So you are a young earth creationist (YEC). Unfortunately, there is just too much hard scientific evidence against this idea for it to be correct. To believe such a thing means you must reject a great deal of geology, archeology, anthropology, chemistry, physics, biology, etc.

If there were only one of these subjects that had one small subsection that disproved YEC, then it could be debated. But when all of them (and more) show that the earth and the universe must be far older than 10,000 years, the preponderance of the evidence has to be favored and YEC discarded. It is so very clearly wrong.

The religious groups who try to reinterpret biblical stories to make them compatible with modern science (eg. assigning random, long, periods as "days" during the creation event, claiming the old ages of people were actually months instead of years and then at some point things converted back to years, interpreting geologic strata as having been caused by a global flood, etc.) have to distort the original stories so much that they become purely open to interpretation and opinion and so lose their meaning in any literal sense. In that case, why bother trying to make these old myths and fables compatible with modern science? It is a waste of time because they cannot be made compatible.

It would make a lot more sense to just state that belief in these old religious tales is a position of faith, and leave it at that. There is no need in that case to try and force compatibility with modern science, which is a losing proposition.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 349 by Still small]

I’m not a fan of the long nested quote, so I just wanted to touch upon three things from your response.

1) No refutation of my claims of ‘ad hominem’, so thank you.

2) Why go back to 1913 for a dictionary definition of naturalism? The online Webster definition is:

“a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance
specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena�

<bolding mine>
No need for any biblical reference.

3) You stated:

This would preclude from the realm of actual science any phenomenon which has not been directly observed or recorded for future observation. This would preclude everything prior to man’s existence, whether it be 6 million years ago or 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

Only if indirect observation was ignored. Your point may be valid within some rigourous philosophical framework, but in the real world of scientific endeavour, disciplines such as physics,geology, archaeology and palaeontology, can work astonishingly well without direct evidence.

Saying (in effect) “we don’t know the past with 100% certainty� doesn’t in any way negate the volume of evidence that we do have to support the theory of evolution.

[Still small]

[Replying to post 348 by Diagoras]
In respect to your comment about falsifiability regarding the table section ‘Phenomenon/Condition of ‘Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms’ and Karl Popper’s comments, I may have to concede that point (but I reserve the right to further investigate and change my position )

As for the section ‘Phenomenon/Condition of ‘Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information’, and the lack of references in the associated footnote 8, may I suggest two papers - The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations and The Most Famous Evolution Experiment of All Time Shows that Evolution Goes the Wrong Way

As for charges of ad hominems by the article’s author, might I point out the sub-title, being “A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists�. The article is responding to criticism on a particular website. Might I also point out that the purpose of ad hominems is to ‘attack the claim-maker’ so as to avoid dealing with the ‘claim’. Might I point out that in this article, the claim is being dealt with by listing aspects of the Theory of Creation plus writings where detailed descriptions can be found. These writings, though publicly available, have for one reason or another, apparently been missed and therefore denied by the ‘claim-makers’. They, like many others, should research their topic more thoroughly before attacking it. If criticising someone for their criticism appears biased or an ad hominems, so be it.

Getting nearer the end of the article, under the heading ‘Where is the Theory of Creation documented?’, I just found a list of books, which are being offered for sale by various creationist publishers, plus links to journals along with this comment:

Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications.  The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism� therefore comes as no surprise.

So another ad hominem to add to the list.

Firstly, as an alternative, can you provided a list of books containing a true and correct interpretation of the Theory of Creation offered for sale by various naturalistic evolutionary publishers?
As for the criticism, by attacking ‘strawmen’ arguments or ‘caricatured “creationism�’ by the ‘claim-makers’, clearly gives the impression that they either have not properly ‘researched’ their topic or cannot actually dispute it, thus choosing to ‘destroy’ an argument of their own making. It is not so much an attack on the ‘claim-makers’ but that their argument fails due to not dealing with the true topic under discussions, namely the Theory of Creation as presented.

The final conclusion states:

By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the “theory of creation� not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart.

The only thing presented in the entire article that comes close to this is the comparison table, which is shockingly biased. And then the whole article wraps up with further ad hominem attacks against the Talk.Origins website, which seems to be the whole focus of its author. (Emphasis added)

That is correct, the actual purpose of the article was attacking the falsehoods made on that particular website. The purpose, though, of my listing or linking it was to provide Donray with a list of sources for the Theory of Creation, as asked.

Well, that’s technically true. However, one has to question the relevance and utility of that evidence, particularly when you have stated so clearly that:

I BELIEVE GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS, THE EARTH AND THE ORIGINAL KINDS 6,000 TO 10,000 YEARS AGO.

When the evidence against this view (‘Young Earth Creationism’) is so overwhelming, it’s no wonder that no-one is taking much notice of such information.

Firstly, allow me to be a bit more specific - I believe God created the Heavens, the Earth and the original kinds 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, relative to the Earth. Unfortunately you, as many others appear to do, are mistakenly confusing my rejection of your interpretation of the evidence with rejection of the evidence, itself. I am rejecting an interpretation based on the usual naturalistic materialists a priori of uniformitarian belief that ‘the present is the key to the past’. I, on the other hand, believe there is sufficient evidence for catastrophism as an explanation of that which we see. As for your list of persons attempting to calculate the age of the Earth, a point in time unseen by any human, upon what a priori were they basing their estimates?

In conclusion, science finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles... and not in attempting to fit that data into an existent hypothesis.

Yet, you appear content to base your interpretation of the ‘actual empirical data’ on unproven/unprovable assumptions or a priori. Go figure!! Would that not also be ‘attempting to fit that data into an existent hypothesis’?

Have a good day!
Still small

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 352 by Still small]

There are a few questions and claims to answer in your post, so let me apologise at the outset if I miss any that you particularly felt needed a response. It's mainly due to available time for discussion that I have to 'pick and choose'.

Re: 'The Most Famous Evolution Experiment'. I followed the link and read the article. There are a few terms and criteria that the author introduces without proper justification (e.g. the notion of 'fitness'), but two particular points I want to make are:

1) Where else has this paper been published, apart from on the 'Feed My Sheep Foundation' website? Has there been any peer review of the paper? I think not, because of...

2) Once you get down to the conclusion, there's a real sting in the tale:

The Bible teaches that because of Adam’s sin (see LogosRa.org article for genetic evidence for a literal Adam and Eve ancestry) we live in a fallen creation that is subject to the “bondage of decay� (Romans 8:21).

Can we be confident that the author hasn't started from a biblical claim of 'bondage of decay' and just worked backwards from the conclusion to make the data fit? That is simply not science.

Turning to this question:

can you provided [sic] a list of books containing a true and correct interpretation of the Theory of Creation offered for sale by various naturalistic evolutionary publishers?

No, I can't. Firstly, I don't think non-Christian publishing houses are categorised that specifically, so there wouldn't be such a thing as a 'naturalistic evolutionary publisher'. Secondly, even a publisher that was focused on ToE books wouldn't offer your type of book for sale because it's not of interest to their target audience. As an 'olive brach' to find some middle ground, I can offer the opinion that both 'sides' by definition tend to avoid publishing books that support the other. That's just representative of the divide between scientific naturalism and religious belief.

And relating to your YEC beliefs:

I am rejecting an interpretation based on the usual naturalistic materialists a priori of uniformitarian belief that ‘the present is the key to the past’. I, on the other hand, believe there is sufficient evidence for catastrophism as an explanation of that which we see. As for your list of persons attempting to calculate the age of the Earth, a point in time unseen by any human, upon what a priori were they basing their estimates?

<bolding mine>

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the bolded point. It seems to me that you view science as simply 'an interpretation', but that catastrophism has 'sufficient evidence' and somehow isn't an interpretation itself?

And this:

Yet, you appear content to base your interpretation of the ‘actual empirical data’ on unproven/unprovable assumptions or a priori.

(I think this still relates to 'age of earth' calculations, but you may be making a wider point?)

Can you be specific about exactly which unproven/unprovable assumptions you are referring to?

For example, from my perspective I can offer:

"Assuming a god as the creator of the universe is both unproven and unprovable."

[Still small]

I’m not a fan of the long nested quote, so I just wanted to touch upon three things from your response.

I apologise then but I only do so to avoid the need to flip back and forward between posts to understand the reference.

(1) No refutation of my claims of ‘ad hominem’, so thank you.

I may have done so in a following post, being that what you referred to as ad hominem may not, technically be so. The purpose of ad hominems is to ‘attack the claim-maker’ so as to avoid dealing with the ‘claim’ whereas, in this article, the claim of ‘no Theory of Creation’ is being dealt with.

(2) Why go back to 1913 for a dictionary definition of naturalism? The online Webster definition is:

“a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance
specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena�

<bolding mine>
No need for any biblical reference.

Might I say this may be due to the fact that in 1913, there may have been little or no ‘political correctness’.

Only if indirect observation was ignored. Your point may be valid within some rigourous philosophical framework, but in the real world of scientific endeavour, disciplines such as physics,geology, archaeology and palaeontology, can work astonishingly well without direct evidence.

Saying (in effect) “we don’t know the past with 100% certainty� doesn’t in any way negate the volume of evidence that we do have to support the theory of evolution.

‘Indirect observations’, are only an interpretation as to what may have actually occurred. Again, all evidential interpretations, whether they be naturalism or creationism, are subject to one’s bias or a priori .

Have a good day!
Still small

[Still small]

There are a few questions and claims to answer in your post, so let me apologise at the outset . . . .

No problem, we are all ‘time poor’ to one extent or another.

Re: 'The Most Famous Evolution Experiment'. I followed the link and read the article. There are a few terms and criteria that the author introduces without proper justification (e.g. the notion of 'fitness'), but two particular points I want to make are:

1) Where else has this paper been published, apart from on the 'Feed My Sheep Foundation' website? Has there been any peer review of the paper? I think not, because of...

I am not sure where else this may have been published but does that determine the truth of the subject? Maybe its acceptability but does it prove its factualness? I mainly listed it as an example of that in the first paper - The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations of which, so far, I have yet to see any comment by yourself or others. Also, please feel free to critic the second paper where you believe it to be wrong.

(2) Once you get down to the conclusion, there's a real sting in the tale:

The Bible teaches that because of Adam’s sin (see LogosRa.org article for genetic evidence for a literal Adam and Eve ancestry) we live in a fallen creation that is subject to the “bondage of decay� (Romans 8:21).

Can we be confident that the author hasn't started from. . . a biblical claim of 'bondage of decay' and just worked backwards from the conclusion to make the data fit? That is simply not science.

No more so than we can be confident that Darwin’s ToE didn’t stem from a rejection of or refusal to accept the possibility of a Creator God and thus ‘just worked backwards from the conclusion to make the data fit’.

And relating to your YEC beliefs: . . .

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the bolded point (a priori of uniformitarian belief that ‘the present is the key to the past’). It seems to me that you view science as simply 'an interpretation', but that catastrophism has 'sufficient evidence' and somehow isn't an interpretation itself?

I am sorry if I gave that impression but no, I recognise that science (according to the Webster’s on-line dictionary) is “3 - a - : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method� being “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses� (again from the Webster’s on-line dictionary). Science is the gathering of data which is then interpreted and usually done according to one’s a priori regardless of whether it be naturalism or creationism (or uniformitarianism or catastrophism). It is not so much that I think that catastrophism ‘isn't an interpretation itself’, I just believe that it is a better fit as an explanation of all the evidence.

And this:

Yet, you appear content to base your interpretation of the ‘actual empirical data’ on unproven/unprovable assumptions or a priori.

(I think this still relates to 'age of earth' calculations, but you may be making a wider point?)

Can you be specific about exactly which unproven/unprovable assumptions you are referring to?

Assumption such as a constant rate of radiometric decay, papers which I have linked before that show that it can vary. The amount of variation possible has not and cannot be determined from present decay rates. Plus complications such as ¹⁴C found in places where it shouldn’t be (according to currently accepted theories). Fossils, supposedly millions of years old still with traces of genetic material, etc. Unproven a priori such as the formation of stars and planets which, according to current naturalistic theories does take millions, if not billions of years. But these are all unproven theories which are used as a priori. Again, don’t get me wrong, we all have a priori of one nature or another. It is just matter of which is a better fit for the evidence. While I have done a great deal of investigation into naturalistic methods before ruling them out, how much investigation have you done into genuine creationistic methods (beyond the petty ‘god dunnit’, ‘god-magic’ and ‘invisible sky daddy’ style comments)?

For example, from my perspective I can offer:

"Assuming a god as the creator of the universe is both unproven and unprovable."

Yes, you can offer that and as I’ve explained elsewhere, He cannot be proven by the scientific method but that doesn’t rule out philosophical, logical and theological methods. It’s just a matter of whether you are prepared to put in a genuine effort before dismissing it.

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 355 by Still small]

No more so than we can be confident that Darwin’s ToE didn’t stem from a rejection of or refusal to accept the possibility of a Creator God and thus ‘just worked backwards from the conclusion to make the data fit’.

Do you geniunely believe that Darwin and early proponents of ToE had a refusal to accept a Creator God as even the slightest component of their reasons for development of the theory? They were trying to explain observations of the natural world, and ToE is what came out of those efforts. There are no indications in their early writings (or do you have some reference to refute this?) that their ideas for ToE in any way stemmed from a rejection of the existence of a god being of some type. They did "work backwards" from observations because that is how science works when its goal is to explain observations, but there is no indication that belief, or not, in the existence of gods had anything whatsoever to do with their work or conclusions.

Science is the gathering of data which is then interpreted and usually done according to one’s a priori ...

You've used a priori many times before with the implication that science can be interpreted in different ways, and it is just a matter of that interpretation that is important. This is certainly true for some of the "soft" areas of science such as philosophy, but it is not true for the "hard" sciences such as mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, etc. Of course there are open, unsolved problems such as explanations for origin of life, dark matter and energy, etc., but those are recognized as such. You can't say that F=ma, or P=mv are a priori's that are open to interpretation, or that the formation of rust on an iron object can be interpreted in any other way besides oxidation to form Fe2O3. Science is built on many similar fundamental axioms and relationships that have been proven to be correct, and are not open to anyone's interpretation.

Radioactive decay rates have never been shown to vary by any significant amount in legitimate, accepted experiments. Creationists are constantly misinterpreting things such as the clearly unfounded "soft tissue in dinosaur bones" fiasco, carbon 14 in diamonds, using carbon dating on things known to be far beyond its roughly 40,000 year limit, or when it is known to have problems such as in freshwater mussels and certain other sea creatures:

https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-cre ... -14-dating

Organizations like ICR referenced in the above article, AIG, etc. attack only those areas of science that disprove a young earth, or other aspects of their religious beliefs, and you don't hear a peep from them on unrelated science areas that don't specifically contradict their religious beliefs. That should tell you something. They "reinterpret" only certain observations that conflict with their religious beliefs to try and support their claim that their creationist views are consistent with modern science, and to try and discredit those cherry-picked areas of science (eg. radiometric dating) that prove that their views of a young earth are wrong. Most of science is not built on subjective a priori assumptions ... it could bever have achieved what is has if that were the case.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 355 by Still small]

No more so than we can be confident that Darwin’s ToE didn’t stem from a rejection of or refusal to accept the possibility of a Creator God and thus ‘just worked backwards from the conclusion to make the data fit’.

It's only known as Darwin's theory because he was the first past the post in having it published. A short delay and we could be referring to Wallace's theory of evolution. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace)
The evidence all converges to the same conclusion regardless of who is given the credit for the theory. Many people over the centuries before these two had inklings of the same notion regarding the origin of species. A really good book on that is
Darwin's Ghosts: In Search of the First Evolutionists
by Rebecca Stott