Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Questions Answered
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Creationism Vs. Evolution
First of all, I'd like to point out that this planet is FULL of interdependencies. If you think about your own body, all of your organs operate with each other. They cannot function without the others. Granted, there are a few exceptions, just like in environmental science. Inside of an ecosystem, each plant, animal and water source depend upon each other. Eliminate one species and see what havoc unfolds. Eliminate one kidney and the rest of your body surely suffers. Eliminate a water source, the ecosystem dies. Eliminate your heart, you Die. There is no way my head can wrap around the idea that all of this "Just Happened." It's too complex. Even if One element of an ecosystem came together spontaneously, what are the odds that the rest of the ecosystem that that one piece needs, is spontaneously "popped" into existence at the exact time it was needed. I have a hard time believing in coincidence anyway, but this is WAY too much.
Thoughts?
Let's discard some misunderstandings, first. Evolution doesn't describe how life began; only what happened since then. We do not know how life began. That's still a nice big hole for the creationists. (Old-earth creationists, not new).Evolution postulates two pillars: natural selection and common descent. This was all a bit more theoretical until the study of genetics came along, and explained HOW it works. Now, there is simply no question but that evolution happened and continues to happen. Darwin was right.
So, to say evolution is "just a theory" is a bit misleading. Gravity is "just a theory." Relativity is "just a theory." Many things are "just a theory" and always will be, long after 99.99% of scientists accept them as unquestionably true. Nobody thinks things are going to start falling upward tomorrow.
So, if the wish is to preserve the Genesis story, it is best to scrap the traditional understanding and rethink it.
I don't think we need to scrap anything. They all intertwine. We can hit them up individually if you like, but it'll be weird.First of all, We can agree that Life had to come from somewhere... I have read studies that when certain chemicals mix and react with each other in certain atmospheres, they can produce organic matter. This substance could potentially support life, should it grow there. Now how that will happen, nobody knows. Why? Because Life comes from LIFE. There has been no other way since the creation of time. Planets can create Organic matter, but not Living matter.
Evolution suggests the mutation of genetic DNA to create stronger creatures... yes? And coupled with Darwinism, the weak creatures die out and do not reproduce while the creatures with stronger features reproduce and carry on the species blood line... Yes?
Lee did a good job clearing up misunderstandings. The "just a theory" thing is weak since gravity is also "just a theory." Evolution is about what happened to the stuff, not about where the stuff came from.I find #4 in your original post most interesting to talk about.
As for interpreting the Genesis story literally, you'd have to believe in a flat earth:
http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllab...
Kris wrote: "Evolution suggests the mutation of genetic DNA to create stronger creatures... yes? And coupled with Darwinism, the weak creatures die out and do not reproduce while the creatures with stronger features reproduce and carry on the species blood line... Yes? "Pretty close. I'd rephrase just a bit:
1. Evolution is not directed...mutation is random. Evolution doesn't have a purpose, it just happens by accident.
2. "strong" and "weak" is a bit oversimplified, probably stemming from the "survival of the fittest" phrase. "Fittest" may not have anything to do with weak or strong; merely that which best helps a life-being survive and reproduce. If black moths can hide from birds better than orange moths, the black ones will survive to pass on their genetic code. If longer-necked giraffes can reach more leaves ... you get the idea.
Do you know where this information come from. It was my understanding that it comes from studying fossils.
David wrote: "Lee did a good job clearing up misunderstandings. The "just a theory" thing is weak since gravity is also "just a theory." Evolution is about what happened to the stuff, not about where the stuff..."I have been interested in the posts around this topic and thank everyone for the lively discussion. I have a minor point to add. With regards to the term the "Theory of Gravity" I should point out that several high school textbooks I teach from don't call it "The Theory of Gravity" but rather "The Law of Universal Gravitation." It's a law because there are mathematical descriptions for the gravitational force of attraction and the energy of gravitational potential that has not been violated after extensive testing and these equations allow elaborate quantitative predictions. We have been able, for example, to predict the motion of a projectile (Voyager) out of the solar system with great accuracy.
Does the Theory of Evolution enjoy the same level of mathematical predictability? From where I sit, it does not. If I ask "when will the next step in human evolution occur and what will our descendants look like?" I don't think there is the kind of clear cut mathematical prediction (perhaps I will be corrected by the responses)that is commonplace when applying the Law of Gravitation and indeed other well established theories and laws in physics and chemistry.
To me the Theory of Evolution is a descriptive theory that with it's very long time scale, its many degrees of freedom using divergent and convergent evolution, has the ability to rationalize virtually every similarity and difference between species alive today and found in the fossil record, but has great difficulty making any meaningful prediction about what will happen in the future. In that sense, its vehement proponents not withstanding, it does not enjoy,in my view, the stellar record of prediction that say, Law of Gravity, Law of Thermodynamics, Atomic Theory, or Quantum Mechanics enjoys.
Peter, that's an interesting question. While mutation is random, I wonder if the "theory of evolution" is predictable under laboratory conditions, by noting for example which conditions are conducive to survival of a strain of virus, and observing whether that strain "accidentally" evolves. I do not know.I know evolution is backward-verifiable. We find, for example, that we have one less chromosome than primates (23 pair instead of 24), so one might wonder how that could happen if we evolved from the same ancestor? Well, genetics to the answer: we found precisely the two chromosomes that combined to make one, by examining the structure before and after.
I've reduced it all to: there's GOOD science - and bad science. After observing the world of evolutionary science for 20 years...I lump it under bad DESPERATE science. :DBut to each there own!
My favorite thing I heard recently is:
How does evolution and fairytales agree? In order for a frog to turn into a Prince all you need is TIME and CHANCE.
And people say creationists are gullible. :D
Rod, BHA HA HA HA HA!!!!!When it comes to studying fossils for genetic information, you really don't have much fact and a lot of assumption... Taking an already dead critter and comparing it with other already dead critters doesn't tell you much about that critters Life. When examining a fossil, you have like... A photo's worth of information. There are certain things you could figure out from a photo of me, but you couldn't know as much as you would need to know my family tree, who I love or much of any value from my life.
There are a few facts you can retrieve from fossils and be sure they are certain. It's more likely that these similar fossils are actually similar species, rather than an evolving species. Most folks like to overlook the fact that genetic mutation always goes backwards. There are no progressive genetic mutations. Viruses don't mutate to be stronger... New stronger ones come around.
Rod wrote: "I've reduced it all to: there's GOOD science - and bad science. After observing the world of evolutionary science for 20 years...I lump it under bad DESPERATE science. :DBut to each there own!
..."
Rod, when even scientific evidence fails to impress you, what possibly can? This is why when you say things like "I have never seen a convincing argument (for this or that)" I tend to ignore you; you have probably encountered a hundred convincing arguments.
I get it. There just isn't enough fact in the data to make this theory believable... let alone a law. It's all a bunch of educated guesses.
How much evidence do you need, Kris? It has survived 150 years of study intact. Genetics didn't contradict it, but rather validates it. The fossil record agrees with it. It's hard to imagine science proving any theory more thoroughly.
I disagree. It has survived merely because we can't hand God over to the Nobel panel.
Mutation is always negative. Never positive. Not even in controlled experimental situations.
lol. It has survived because science can only validate it and cannot contradict it, with 150 years of study.Positive mutation is more rare than negative. Most commonly, it is neutral. But the labels of "positive" and "negative" beg the question; we sometimes don't know which are positive and which are negative, until the habitat is further studied. So most scientists don't think in terms of positive or negative ... just random, which may or may not aid in survival.
Kris, don't think that I am arguing against some form of intelligent design, that God is not the creator, or that he didn't lend a hand here or there to keep evolution on the right track. I really don't have a studied opinion on that. I'm just pointing out the facts as we know them ... that the scientific evidence VERY strongly supports common descent and natural selection...strong enough that it's long past time to be simply considered a fact, alongside many other proven theories.
Ok... call it neutral mutation. Even if an animal mutates and has a double tail... Natural selection kicks in and if that tail has served it well, this critter will pass this dna along to it's offspring and they POTENTIALLY Could come out with an additional tail too... Right? I don't think so. That would be a recessive gene. There have to be Two Recessive genes to reproduce that trait. So this wild beast of two tails, must find himself a mate that carries the genetic trait of having two tails to be able to pass it on. IF that is even possible, the babies would Also have to mate with such a specimen. If Wild Beast Number One has randomly mutated to have this double tail... the odds of others "Randomly Mutating at the precise time to reproduce" are Highly unlikely. it would be more likely that a new species altogether was intelligently created.Now I didn't mean to make you feel like I thought you were an evolutionist. I was just begging you to point me in this direction so I could make my point. :)
Good comment above Peter, and good stuff from everyone else too. I'll offer two quotes I find helpful.*Tim Keller in the Reason for God:
“What can we conclude? Since Christian believers occupy different positions on both
the meaning of Genesis 1 and on the nature of evolution, those who are considering Christianity as a whole should not allow themselves to be distracted by this intramural debate. The skeptical inquirer does not need to accept any one of these positions in order to embrace the Christian faith. Rather, he or she should concentrate on and weigh the central claims of Christianity. Only after drawing conclusions about the person of Christ, the resurrection and the central tenets of the Christian message should one think through the various options with regard to creation and evolution” (Keller, 94)
*Augustine in his commentary on Genesis:
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous things for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but the people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason” (Augustine Genesis 19:39)
I think Augustine's quote needs to be read and re-read by Christians today. From where I sit, Christians tend to act like we're experts on everything simply because we are Christians and read the Bible.
Jesus said love God with all your MIND. Thus, if you want to engage with people on science, study science. This does not mean watch Answers in Genesis videos, it means read Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True and Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker and other books on evolution. Because we run the risk of making a minor issue a major one and thus pushing people away from faith who might otherwise be interested.
CJ, what does your post have to do with creation/evolution?
Kris, lemme understand...are you arguing that even micro evolution is impossible?
I see adapting and physically evolving as two different things.Which micro-evolution is more Darwinism than it is evolution. Ya the two are linked, but they're different. Survival of the fittest is different than physically changing.
So, you agree that evolution is happening around us, but you don't think it happens in any big way, right? You realize we have fossils that show many evolutionary links, having been dated precisely as expected for transitory states, but you don't think fossils are to be trusted, right? You recognize that genetics predicts exactly what must have happened if humans and primates evolved from the same ancestor, and this genetic trail is observed, but you don't think it proves anything.And the reason you don't believe what you see is because of your understanding of recessive genes, right?
ok, I'm off to learn more about recessive genes to understand your objection to evolution.
Fair enough CJ.But I don't think that your point fits specifically into the questions 1-4 that Kris began with in the first post. She started the discussion on those.
Actually, your point might fit in with #2...
Kris, I've having trouble finding much of anything that helps support your objection. I'm not an expert here: I found the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium:http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultr...
Can you point me to studies that side with YOUR conclusion?
Good luck Kris. Lee loves his beliefs - I doubt any information you give him will open his eyes.Have you ever looked into the problem of Peer Review Lee? Or do you ASSUME evolutionary science is flawless and unquestionable because it was touched by scientists?
Lee quote:
" You realize we have fossils that show many evolutionary links, having been dated precisely as expected for transitory states..."
"BAhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!" Thanks Lee - that was funny.
Why do you always sound exactly like all the atheists I argue with Lee? Doesn't that scare you? You have alot in common with 18 year old, pot smoking, immorally rebellious atheists, who claim to have the truth for life, the universe, and everything.
If your enemies have become your friends - that's a danger sign. WAKE-UP.
Haha, and why did Jesus eat with tax collectors and sinners? I think, as followers of Jesus, we lost the right to use "sounding like the enemy" as an argument for why someone is wrong. Heck, it might be an argument for someone being right!
It's one thing to be in the company of people: it's another to be in total agreement with them.
You're in denial, Rod. Maybe I sound like everybody you argue with because they all point out the same truth which you refuse to hear.I just finished reading the flagship of Intelligent Design: Of Pandas And People. I'll be reviewing it in a couple days.
Rod said: "Or do you ASSUME evolutionary science is flawless and unquestionable because it was touched by scientists?"
This shows a complete misunderstanding of the scientific process. Nobody believes any kind of science is flawless. It's a rough-and-tumble, bumbling way of approaching the truth.
Evolutionary ideas have evolved, too; we realize many of the mistaken ideas Darwin had, such as the idea of smooth transitions. We adapt as we learn, and there are still many issues. That doesn't mean evolution isn't the best answer we have, supported by so much evidence that most learned people simply consider it a fact.
I tackled Of Pandas and Penguins on my website, and didn't find it as bad as its reputation. http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2013/0... (in intro to the controversy over the book)
http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2013/0... (my actual review)
I wonder what exactly we DO agree on Lee?
Yeah, it's strange, Rod. I've never encountered anyone quite like you, and I get the feeling you've never encountered anyone quite like me. Rock on.
Lee, back to what we were talking about. Do I believe in evolution? No. I can see characteristics changing, but that doesn't mean that the species is EVOLVING. I'm not saying that mutations don't happen. I'm saying they don't happen and provide a survival benefit. The appearance of people change (micro-evolution as some call it - changing from Tall Dark skinned folk to a people of short fair skinned folk), but this is not evolution because their DNA structure has not changed. There has been no genetic material Added or taken away. Only the Phenotype through the dominant alleles have been expressed. DNA contains Many genes. These genes are where your physical traits are created/exposed. Many different combos can be used to create a new member of the same species. Never does the DNA change to "evolve."Also. To say that all species essentially came from the same species and evolved into their own species over time cannot be. Each species has it's own DNA. Humans have human DNA. Chickens have chicken DNA. Frogs have Frog DNA. Cross-breed a horse and a donkey and you get a sterile hinney. Cross-breed a lion and a tiger and you get a sterile Liger. It cannot be because different DNAs cannot cross and continue to reproduce. They could not have come from the same strand of DNA.
Evolutionists think that the Australopithecine is the pre-ancestor to the human, but really it's just an extinct primate. The modern human fossil records show that they existed before the Australopithecines and thus, the Australopithecines had nothing to do with the existance/evolution of humans. Many believe that the use of tools was also evolutionary support, but almost all forms of humanoids have been found to have used the same tools (just some from different materials).
Kris, it sounds like your beliefs are somewhat in line with Of Pandas and People. Rod, on the other hand, holds to traditional Creationism, with a literal Adam and Eve about 6,000 years ago.From wikipedia: "Australopithecine" actually refers to several species, from about 2.7 to 4 million years ago. The "Homo" genus dates back to about 2.4 million years ago, and might have descended from some sort of Australopithecine ancestry. Where do you disagree with this?
Australopithecine refers to several species... ok... The same with Hominids... If you'd like to look at this from the "evolutionist's standpoint," The hominids still existed prior to the Australopithecines by about 10-15 million years. It's only been about 2.3 Million years that they were considered the homos (habilis, erectus, sapiens). It is still clear that they are all different species. Some existed at the same time, some did not.
I also agree with Genesis just as Rod does. I also do not believe that there is anything wrong with science. I believe that science is us learning the "mechanics" behind how God put this big planet together, rather than trying to disprove He created it. Some people think that you can agree wholly with creationism and evolution. I do not.
I'm not really following you Kris, if you are pointing out a problem with evolutionary thought.http://www.scientific-art.com/portfol...
I don't see science as trying to disprove God created anything. It seeks to uncover what happened. There are plenty of gaps left where God could have stuck his finger in the process, for those who wish to believe.
You're still neglecting the fact that DNA doesn't change within a species.Nor can it "mix" with another strand of DNA. (Lions/Tigers)
Well, it can, it just won't continue on in reproduction. The reproduction is halted with that offspring.
So, to say that a turtle mated with a carnivorous bird and created an avian reptile, is just not possible. Nor is it possible for the DNA of a turtle, just happen to freak out and create a Bird turtle instead of a turtle. I know I know... evolutionists say "It's doesn't JUST HAPPEN! It happens over billions of years!!" Well, actually it doesn't. It can't. The reason it can't is because the DNA is too different. It boils down the the animal's DNA, not just physical characteristic. It would take more than just differing genes to create a new animal... even over millions or billions of years. The error rate of this theory is less than 1% per billions of DNA replications whereas evolutionary theories are based on fossil records. Which the fossil records can still support the creation of new species.
So let me make sure I understand your objection. Suppose animal group A (all the same animals) gets divided into groups A1 and A2 by some natural phenomenon. Evolutionists propose that groups A1 and A2 can grow different over tens of thousands of years, until eventually they cannot interbreed. You are denying this possibility, right?
Kris wrote: "So, to say that a turtle mated with a carnivorous bird and created an avian reptile, is just not possible. Nor is it possible for the DNA of a turtle, just happen to freak out and create a Bird tu..."No, I don't think this is what evolutionists are saying. See the above...
Not what I'm saying. If an animal group gets split up into groups A1 and A2 they will, over time, develop different characteristics, but they won't change into different animals. Like I said earlier - people can change across the board from being tall and having dark skin to being short and having fair skin if that's what the genes come out as, but they won't change into lions.
ok. Well, the fossil record convinces scientists that they DO change, DNA mutates, and the study of genetics shows us how. So your beliefs differ from what mainstream study tells us. That's ok I guess, but from my perspective, I see no reason not to ride the current best theory when it is so convincing.
Oh CJ... You can do better than that... I was disappointed...Ya, Lee. We're just not going to agree there. Oh well. I'm not surprised. You probably aren't either. :)
How about proof of creation? I heard it put by a very well-known evangelist that Creation IS proof of a Creator, just like a painting is proof of a painter. The painting could not have come into being without a painter. The same goes for creation. Creation could not have come into existence without a Creator. Thoughts?
C.J. wrote: "Kris,Does your logic apply to the invisible God you believe in? How did God come into existence? Have you ever considered that WE created God from our imagination?
Come on, you can do better : )"
LOL I don't know an Atheist that HASN'T asked me that. I'm sure you always get the same answers from Christians too. God is infinite.
Lee wrote: "ok. Well, the fossil record convinces scientists that they DO change, DNA mutates, and the study of genetics shows us how. So your beliefs differ from what mainstream study tells us. That's ok I gu..."You're right, Lee. It is possible for DNA to mutate. What happens when it does, though? In adults, if you have a mitochondrial DNA mutation, it can lead to any of the following diseases: Neurological (Which can cause migraines, strokes, epilepsy, dementia, myopathy, peripheral neuropathy, DIPLOPIA, ATAXIA, speech disturbances, sensorineural deafness), Gastrointestinal (which can cause problems with constipation, irritable bowel, DYSPHAGIA), Cardiac (which can cause heart failure, heart block, cardiomyopathy), Respiratory (wich can cause respiratory failure, nocturnal hypoventilation, recurrent aspiration, pneumonia), Endocrinal (which causes diabetes, thyroid disease, parathyroid disease, ovarian failure), Ophthalmological (which causes optic atrophy, cataract, ophthalmoplegia, PTOSIS)
DIPLOPIA: Double vision; derived from the Greek diplous, meaning double, and ops, meaning eye.
ATAXIA: The loss of the ability to coordinate muscular movement.
DYSPHAGIA: A difficulty in swallowing.
PTOSIS: The abnormal lowering or drooping of the upper eyelid that is caused by muscle weakness.
DYSTONIA: A neurological movement disorder that is characterized by involuntary muscle contractions that might cause twisting or jerking movements of the body.
PANCYTOPAENIA: A deficiency of all blood cells including red cells, white cells and platelets.
OPHTHALMOPLEGIA: Weakness of one or more of the muscles that control eye movement.
PEARSON SYNDROME: A severe disease during infancy that affects bone marrow and pancreas function owing to large-scale rearrangements of the mitochondrial genome.
Down Syndrom is also a DNA mutation... Cystic Fibrosis, Klinefelter Syndrome, Sickle Cell Anemia (some like to argue that this is actually a bonus because those that have it are more immune to malaria... hardly a bonus...)
So I mean... Ya! Mutation is awesome!
Yeah, Kris, God really screwed up if the only reason he allowed replication was to cause disorders. Pretty stupid design if we are already perfect, eh?However, it God invented replication in order to set evolution in motion, it was an absolutely brilliant idea! Kudos to the God of evolution!
A few points I'd definitely like to address in this discussion are:
1. Evolution/Darwinism
2. Proof of Creation
3. Where does LIFE originate? Can it spontaneously "POP" into existence?
4. Does a higher moral law than humans' exist? (If you're wondering why I bring this up, It would probably make more sense to the evolutionist - will elaborate more later or perhaps start another thread)