The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Windwalker]

I think he's saying he doesn't believe that.

Oh, I see. I misread his statement. Wishful thinking, I suppose.

 

[Windwalker]

To show that God is guiding evolution you have to find evidence that supports that, not trying to undermine the evolutionary process as such (that we know for certainty is true). It's like trying to prove calculus by showing that algebra or trig is wrong. A God-guided evolution would be an extension of existing evolution, not contrary.

I have no problem scientifically to see God in evolution, as I would not do what I see the mistake of many is in trying to fit the Genesis myth of special creation into a modern scientific view. What has to happen is to jettison the Genesis myth as a literal description of events and see it purely as allegorical. They are trying to suggest in saying God "guided" evolution, is to have this mistaken idea that humans as we are were specifically intended to appear in this biological form. It is trying to jamb a square peg of myth into the round whole of science. It is a deeply flawed approach.

If on the other hand you remove humans in this form as intentional, that is two legs, two arms, bipedal, triune brain, social creatures which drive in cars and whatnot, but rather say that ALL of evolution, the fact of evolution, is part of the "plan" of God insomuch as that God creates, then there is no conflict. There is design in the universe, to be sure, but it is a self-creating design built right into the fabric of manifest reality. Evolution is Spirit in action. It manifests creativity. The processes of evolution, how things evolve is inherent to the system that emerged out of this impulse.

That to me is evolution manifesting God, and is God in action, so to speak. But it is NOT an anthrocentric view of reality that imagines humans at the center of all creation (through evolution or special creation), in the same way humans imaged the earth as the center of the universe. It's no different in thought, and what creates the stumbling block for Creationists to accept evolution. They are unable to deal with the notion of being unseated from the special, apple-in-God's-eye view of themselves.

However, we are special. We are beautiful. And that center of the universe is in us, as it is in everything manifest in this reality.

BTW, you recommended to me before I watch that PBS special called Journey of the Universe. I just watched it recently my first time, and indeed, it reflects what I just articulated here. There is no need to reject God in creation, in evolution. Just a need to reimagine our notions how God really is.

 

[averageJOE]

The biological classification of family is documented science. So mocking when creationists use it is confusing. Natualists say family, creationists say kind. There is no documented case of observable morphological changes from one family to another.

Has anyone observed a human being created from dirt?

When a new species of animal or insect is found, was their creation observed?

 

[Ouroboros]

I have no problem scientifically to see God in evolution, as I would not do what I see the mistake of many is in trying to fit the Genesis myth of special creation into a modern scientific view.

I don't see a conflict between science, evolution, and God either. At least not using a more proper view of God.

What I'm saying though is that the ID crowd is looking for evidence to prove God's involvement in evolution, but they're going about it the wrong way. They're trying to prove how God is influencing evolution by trying to disprove evolution as a whole. Evolution is how God did it. Then go with it and expand on it. There's no conflict in nature that God made and God's way of making nature. It's this constant disconnect between goal and method. They're trying to make the goose lay a golden egg by chopping its head off.

What has to happen is to jettison the Genesis myth as a literal description of events and see it purely as allegorical. They are trying to suggest in saying God "guided" evolution, is to have this mistaken idea that humans as we are were specifically intended to appear in this biological form. It is trying to jamb a square peg of myth into the round whole of science. It is a deeply flawed approach.

Absolutely.

And as an allegory, that story is quite remarkable. I find some deep wisdom in the story without the literal interpretation.

If on the other hand you remove humans in this form as intentional, that is two legs, two arms, bipedal, triune brain, social creatures which drive in cars and whatnot, but rather say that ALL of evolution, the fact of evolution, is part of the "plan" of God insomuch as that God creates, then there is no conflict. There is design in the universe, to be sure, but it is a self-creating design built right into the fabric of manifest reality. Evolution is Spirit in action. It manifests creativity. The processes of evolution, how things evolve is inherent to the system that emerged out of this impulse.

Of course. Agree.

We are just as much designed as we are designers. Emergent properties exist all over the place, and we're not in a position to know or understand them all.

That to me is evolution manifesting God, and is God in action, so to speak. But it is NOT an anthrocentric view of reality that imagines humans at the center of all creation (through evolution or special creation), in the same way humans imaged the earth as the center of the universe. It's no different in thought, and what creates the stumbling block for Creationists to accept evolution. They are unable to deal with the notion of being unseated from the special, apple-in-God's-eye view of themselves.

Totally agree. That's how I see it too.

However, we are special. We are beautiful. And that center of the universe is in us, as it is in everything manifest in this reality.

I'm totally with you there too.

We are more than animals. We are animals, but a bit more, because we evolved to something that's unique on our planet. Every animal is special. But we have a "gift" from Nature that we shouldn't spoil. We have the chance to find the answers of how this world works and be the caretakers of life that evolved. I feel we have some responsibility because we got the chance. We are beautiful. We are the center in this place, of what we do, and our own lives. We need to make the best of it.

BTW, you recommended to me before I watch that PBS special called Journey of the Universe. I just watched it recently my first time, and indeed, it reflects what I just articulated here. There is no need to reject God in creation, in evolution. Just a need to reimagine our notions how God really is.

Exactly! (Good movie, right? But totally out there for many, I'm sure)

I feel that this reimagination (good choice of word) of God is making me more spiritual, even though I'm in a technical sense is still an atheist. A more proper term maybe would be a-traditional-theist. I don't believe in the traditional God. But I have no problem believing in Nature, Reality, Existence, Universe. And it works the way it does. And it gives us life, experience, and consciousness. It's the all powerful being, which we are part of. We made God, and God made us. It's all one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is possible that your focus on the negatives of creation causes you to miss the negatives of naturalism. Each side has a light problem. Naturalists have the horizon problem where there is not enough time in the current model for the universe to have the equal temperature that it does. Both sides take faith, I just happen to put my faith in the creation scientists side that they will work out the star light issue. There are already 4 or 5 possibilities out there.

The solution to the "horizon problem" is solved with inflation theory, which has been around since 1980.

 

[Parsimony]

It is possible that your focus on the negatives of creation causes you to miss the negatives of naturalism. Each side has a light problem. Naturalists have the horizon problem where there is not enough time in the current model for the universe to have the equal temperature that it does. Both sides take faith, I just happen to put my faith in the creation scientists side that they will work out the star light issue. There are already 4 or 5 possibilities out there.

SkepticThinker already answered that with inflation theory, but do tell me what these "4 or 5" possible explanations are that creationists have for light being able to travel billions of light-years in only thousands of years.

Before you answer, though, I would like to point out that creationism fancies itself as a science. As a science, it must base its theories on physical evidence. Therefore, there must be some observable reason to believe that light has traveled billions of light-years in only thousands of years. What aspect(s) of the Universe would bring us to that conclusion? If creationism is a science, then it cannot formulate its theories solely by relying on the Bible (i.e. the Bible says the Universe is 6,000 years old, therefore we will theorize that the Universe is 6,000 years old). It must formulate its theories by observation of the environment (i.e. such-and-such aspect of the Universe can best be explained by theorizing that it is 6,000 years old). So then, what aspect of the environment leads them to believe that light has traveled further than it should be able to?

Also, why do humans have body hair? More importantly, why do we have body hair with piloerectile muscles attached to them? Did God just liked the way it looked? Why bother with piloerectile muscles if it's just for show? Evolution can explain the existence of human body hair and their attached muscles easily.

By the way, using faith alone to justify believing that an explanation in favor of your beliefs will one day be found can be used to justify pretty much any kind of belief system ("We don't have proof that leprechauns exist, but I have faith that one day we will eventually find that proof!").

 

[Skwim]

The biological classification of family is documented science. So mocking when creationists use it is confusing. Natualists say family, creationists say kind. There is no documented case of observable morphological changes from one family to another.

Trouble is, when looking at tales like the great flood and the "kinds" of animals taken aboard the ark, there is no singular animal representative of any particular family that's capable of generating the various genera and species now in existence. Families are not represented by a singular animal or vegetation form, but represent a collection of genera that share common features not found in other families.*

To equate kind with family ("naturalists say family, creationists say kind") is nothing more than a failure to understand simple taxonomy.

Simply put, there is no super omni-mega-cat occupying Felidae, the family rank of cats, that could pump out lions, tigers, cougars, lynx, cheetahs, and all the other species of cats. Nope, Noah would have had to have taken two of each of the 35+ cat species on his boat.

So, while people like Ken Ham have concluded

"It is important to understand that the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances."
source
​

it's indicative of just how stupid creationists thinking can become when trying to make sense out of its baseless claims.


* those families with a singular genus or species notwithstanding.

 

[Parsimony]

Do you creationists agree that the following statement is true?

It is so highly unlikely that something as complex and molecule-specific as an enzyme could come into existence from natural processes alone that it is only reasonable that all functional enzymes in organisms were created as they are by a designer.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you creationists agree that the following statement is true?

It is so highly unlikely that something as complex and molecule-specific as an enzyme could come into existence from natural processes alone that it is only reasonable that all functional enzymes in organisms were created as they are by a designer.

You haven't used enough leaves and twigs here...

 

[Parsimony]

You haven't used enough leaves and twigs here...

Care to amend my statement? I'm not a creationist, by the way. I'm using the statement to lead into another point I'm bringing up.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It occurred to me today how silly this is.

Evolution a scientific study
Creationism a philosophical study

The 2 are not even related so that they can be compared.

1)Biology Scientists need to make it clear that evolution has no bearing on the condition of God.

2)Religions need to make it clear that scientific studies are human studies.

If we want to teach both evolution and creationism they should be taught under there appropriate studies(Science or Philosophy). Evolution should never be brought up in a religious environment and Creationism should never be brought up is a scientific environment.

If Scientists and Religions make this clear we will no longer need this debate room. If Scientist just do their part we can call this room Creationism (Philosophy or Science)

Creationism is not philosophy. It is pseudo-science.

 

[Ouroboros]

Trouble is, when looking at tales like the great flood and the "kinds" of animals taken aboard the ark, there is no singular animal representative of any particular family that's capable of generating the various genera and species now in existence. Families are not represented by a singular animal or vegetation form, but represent a collection of genera that share common features not found in other families.*

Very true.

The genetic variation is very large in most species. Even in humans. I remember reading a few years ago about one single gene that has over 120 variations (alleles) in the world (or more). So Noah must've had a super-DNA with over hundred variations of the same gene. Well... that defies anything we know about genetics.

And there are many of these genes.

To equate kind with family ("naturalists say family, creationists say kind") is nothing more than a failure to understand simple taxonomy.

Isn't it funny that science must first come up with the terms and the system before the creationists can hog it and claim "Oh, what we believe is something like this in science." And what they're thinking is "but we're not sure because we're just guessing based on what we read in an old book."

Simply put, there is no super omni-mega-cat occupying Felidae, the family rank of cats, that could pump out lions, tigers, cougars, lynx, cheetahs, and all the other species of cats. Nope, Noah would have had to have taken two of each of the 35+ cat species on his boat.

So, while people like Ken Ham have concluded

"It is important to understand that the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances."
​

Felidae can only give birth to felidae. ​

 

[Parsimony]

I remember reading a few years ago about one single gene that has over 120 variations (alleles) in the world (or more).

Aha! I had been looking for something exactly like this. Can you give more details?

If we assume that all human beings on the planet are descended from two people (Adam and Eve), and simultaneously predict that evolution cannot produce new functional alleles, then it would follow that the most possible functional alleles for any given human gene is four (since humans are diploid, we could assume that Eve had two different alleles per gene and Adam had two different alleles per gene).

So then, if a fifth functional allele were discovered for any gene in human DNA, that would prove either one of two things: either (1) beneficial mutations created the new allele or (2) Humanity descended from more than just two original humans. Either of these conclusions will be at odds with the current position of creationism. The issue here, of course, is defining that the fifth, sixth, seventh, etc. alleles are indeed functional. We would need to know more about the specific gene to address that, however. I plan on bringing up beneficial mutations a little later any way and will demonstrate how we know that they exist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Aha! I had been looking for something exactly like this. Can you give more details?

For example: human leukocyte antigen complex has 59 different alleles.

Ayala, F.J. et al. 1993. MHC polymorphism and human origins. Scientific American 269(6):78-83.

I can't find the one I read about right now, but it's not important. 59 is a large enough number.

Each human being carries only two of each gene. One from mom, and one from dad. So the ark must've had 30 people only to carry all the variations of the leukocyte anitgen.

Besides, 59 was the only number that that study found. There could be more for that locus alone.

If we assume that all human beings on the planet are descended from two people (Adam and Eve), and simultaneously predict that evolution cannot produce new functional alleles, then it would follow that the most possible functional alleles for any given human gene is four (since humans are diploid, we could assume that Eve had two different alleles per gene and Adam had two different alleles per gene).

Basically, yes.

So then, if a fifth functional allele were discovered for any gene in human DNA, that would prove either one of two things: either (1) beneficial mutations created the new allele or (2) Humanity descended from more than just two original humans. Either of these conclusions will be at odds with the current position of creationism. The issue here, of course, is defining that the fifth, sixth, seventh, etc. alleles are indeed functional. We would need to know more about the specific gene to address that, however. I plan on bringing up beneficial mutations a little later any way and will demonstrate how we know that they exist.

That's exactly why it is known in molecular biology that genes mutate. There are more alleles than the genesis story suggests. But who cares about hundreds of thousands of books and research papers when a 2,000 year old book written by some anonymous people says otherwise? Why trust the half a million scientists of today when you can trust a handful of sheepherders from the past?

 

[Iti oj]

Aha! I had been looking for something exactly like this. Can you give more details?

If we assume that all human beings on the planet are descended from two people (Adam and Eve), and simultaneously predict that evolution cannot produce new functional alleles, then it would follow that the most possible functional alleles for any given human gene is four (since humans are diploid, we could assume that Eve had two different alleles per gene and Adam had two different alleles per gene).

So then, if a fifth functional allele were discovered for any gene in human DNA, that would prove either one of two things: either (1) beneficial mutations created the new allele or (2) Humanity descended from more than just two original humans. Either of these conclusions will be at odds with the current position of creationism. The issue here, of course, is defining that the fifth, sixth, seventh, etc. alleles are indeed functional. We would need to know more about the specific gene to address that, however. I plan on bringing up beneficial mutations a little later any way and will demonstrate how we know that they exist.

eye color, hair color, skin color. Easy to see. Easy to understand.

 

[Parsimony]

eye color, hair color, skin color. Easy to see. Easy to understand.

Well, the problem with that is that each of those traits are coded by multiple genes. For example, if we assumed (only hypothetically), that skin color was determined by the combined factors of two genes, and each of those genes had four possible alleles, then you would have sixteen possible combinations of alleles between those two genes. If it's three genes, then that number goes up to sixty-four. If each combination resulted in a slightly different shade of skin, well, then it gets hard to use different skin tones alone to suggest that we have more than four alleles per gene.

 

[fantome profane]

Meyers has a PhD in history and taught philosophy. I'm sure he's great at what he does. He also have a master in earth science or something. But molecular biologists have criticized his book for being factually incorrect. I don't know.

The thing here though is that evolution is true. Now, it is possible that a divine force is pushing and modifying the DNA code in one or the other direction. We wouldn't really know. So, sure, let's say there is a divine force behind evolution. But... it's just another parameter to evolution, not a "devastating blow" to it. We know from the fossil record, molecular biology, and from study of distribution of phenotypes, and much more that evolution is happening as we speak, and happened millions of times over in the past (billions, trillions, whatever). It's just real based on the factual base. If God exists and created this world, he used evolution. So a book that finds out that God used evolution to create life wouldn't undo the fact that evolution is happening.

Thank you very much. But I am particularly interested in hearing what Man of Faith has to say about this book.

 

[fantome profane]

how about Stephen Meyer's "Signature in a Cell"

Man of Faith, have you read Stephen Meyer's book? What did you think of it? Do you recommend it to others? How many stars would you give it out of five?

 

[Windwalker]

Man of Faith, I'm still waiting for you to explain your understanding of Web of Life, and how to you it contradicts evolutionary theory. I'll continue to ask, because I'm deeply curious.

 

[ONEWAY]

I know I have been gone for some time (due to Thanksgiving, being sick, and my Internet being out), but I would like to try to respond to some of the arguments made against mine back on pages 11-12 of this thread (sorry to interrupt the present debate).

First, outhouse by calling creationism mythology is off no help to your argument, except for fallacious arguments (i.e. ad hominems).

Second, outhouse I disagree with the evolutionary viewpoint, because it simply, as a worldview, does not work. Let me first explain what I mean by worldview and the evolutionary/naturalistic worldview. A worldview is the set of beliefs and values through which a person sees the world. Evolution is a part of the naturalistic worldview, although some religions try to borrow from this worldview (i.e. theistic evolution). Evolution holds that change occurs over time through natural processes. I would agree that there are differences among different species, meaning I do not physically look the same as my dad, or does my son look exactly like me. I disagree with changes that would lead to a new species.

The evolutionary viewpoint is part of the naturalistic worldview, which holds to a number of key points. Naturalism holds there is no God, but only materiality. In view of this, mankind is also material and therefore morality is a human invention. Death is final, the end of the material is the end of you. Lastly, naturalism holds we live in a universe that is cause and effect.

Already, I will say the impact upon scientific motivations and interpretations should be evident. With no God and everything being material, according to the naturalistic worldview, what science discovers must mean something other than creation, so when an evolutionary scientist comes to the scientific table, he does have certain expectations he brings to the table.

In addition, I disagree with the naturalistic worldview for a number of reasons. Life does not consist simply of materiality. People can think, feel, and have emotions. People have souls and are not merely having a chemical reaction when they love someone or have an innate desire to worship. Morality is a huge problem of the naturalistic worldview. How would we say anything is either good or bad, and why would we even want to? If we are simply like animals, why not behave like animals morally? Also, what gives us any reason to trust our thoughts, if we are only machines (in view of being material)? Also, to say that there is no God and that death is final has not been scientifically proven either, it is a belief inherent in the worldview.

Practically, how does this worldview work out, if it is truly applied consistently? It leads to nihilism, in its fullest sense. Hopelessness, meaninglessness, and each person determining their own meaning for life and morality, which in itself would be meaningless and pointless. Progression (in life, technology, science, understanding, love, etc) is pointless, because progression will still mean death and meaninglessness in the end, with no hope otherwise.

But, this is not the way people live. People try to create meaning, because they were created with much they were meant to be, to do, and they were created to rightly worship the Triune God who made them to be satisfied in Him and not mud pies by the sea (to borrow from C. S. Lewis).

Third, outhouse, can you say that the whole universe, with every nook and cranny, has been overturned in search for God? Then how can you say that “no hand of deity can be attributed to anything anywhere ever, with any credibility what so ever!” I hope you are honest and answer, “No.”

Fourth, outhouse, I would like to humbly give you a word of advice, I would not recommend using wikipedia in a debate. Wikipedia is not a scholarly source and if you cited it in a college classroom your professor would not take your paper seriously and would most likely give you a low grade with remarks.

Nonetheless, I will try to briefly answer your critiques related to evidence for Christianity. Let me first say that time is on the side of Christianity, as time has passed, the archeological discoveries have only become more supportive of what is given in Scripture, the Bible. For example, at one point skeptics said they could not find any evidence of the existence of the Hittites outside of the Bible, yet years later, archeologists found evidence for the Hittites. And so it goes with much of what is found in the Bible, over time it finds more support, not less.

As to your critiques, I would answer all of them by saying neither has the Exodus, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses' existence been disproven. I would say the burden of proof is on those trying to say they did not exist, especially in view of the fact that the Bible has continually been confirmed over the years (more than 20,000 cites pertaining to the Bible have been found). William Ramsey, an atheist and a well-known archeologist, is an example of someone who went out to disprove the Bible ended up finding the biblical accounts were accurate and he ended up becoming a Christian because of what he found.

In relation to the flood, I would simply say that such accounts only confirm the Biblical flood, verifying that indeed a major flood, and I would say worldwide flood, occurred. The Bible is giving the true account of the flood, as God had caused it to be due to the wickedness of man. The other accounts point to the reality of a worldwide flood and the Bible gives the actual account of what really happened. Also, there is evidence that a worldwide flood occurred, with bones being found at great heights and characteristics of having been swept about in water, like a flood.
Also, I would point you to the cite answersingenesis.org, which will provide a much more detailed and scholarly response to each of your critiques.

Fifth, outhouse, no stone age here. I will have you know that some of the most educated people and influential people in all of history have believed the Bible and were creationists. Like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Blaise Pascal, William Ramsey, and John Ambrose Fleming, to name a few.

Sixth, Monk of Reason, when you say, “the only ones who don’t believe evolution are those that have a very rigid religious denial of it,” I could say that same of evolutionists. Evolutionists don’t believe in creation because of their rigid naturalistic denial of it. And, there are real scientists (like creationists) who do not hold to evolution, with ever increasing number.

Some scientists who hold to the biblical account of creation today are William Arion (Biochemist, chemistry), Steve Austin (Geologist), Kimberely Berrine (microbioloy and immunology), Vladimir Betin (microbiology), Ken Cumming (Biologist), and many more.

Seventh, outhouse, again I could say the same of you. Logic and reason was not used to gain your faith, and no amount of logic, reason, and education will change your faith. But would that really help anything?

Eight, skwim, I am well aware of the scientific method, but this method is not full proof, for the same reason I gave before and above (i.e. in view of the naturalistic worldview’s own presuppositions).

Ninth, skwim, the fact that the evolutionary worldview still exists as well as the Christian worldview are “good” examples of the effect of worldview on scientific investigation.

Tenth, skwim, some examples of postmodern scholars are Immanuel Kant, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Friedrich Nietzsche (he was not a postmodern thinker, but influenced postmodern thinkers greatly), Jacques Derrida, and Michael Foucault.

Eleventh, skwim, creationist scientists are just as qualified to do science as anyone else, unless someone (evolutionists) does not like the fact that they would have a say in science. Quite the reversal of Galileo’s problem I would say. Also, I described worldview above.

Twelfth, metis, I would say I know there is only one Creator from the Bible. Also, evolution is within the worldview of naturalism and it does have its own system of beliefs. For example, its belief in science. Who has ever proved science to be the primary authority for science? Also, its belief that there is no God. This is a belief, as I hinted at above with my third point. In relation to your last point, you may teach evolution in a way that seems neutral, but it does come within the foundation of a specific worldview, namely naturalism (see above along with my definition of evolution on point two).

Thirteenth, windwalker, see my points above and I would not say creationist scientist would make any more errors than the normal joe in doing science, unless you are referring to the way they interpret their results, which brings us back to worldview. Also, I would say your worldview allows you to believe in evolution and in your worldview at the same time, but still your worldview does not absolve itself of the issues regarding the naturalistic foundation and its need to make good on its own worldview claims.

Fourteen, windwalker, I see no issue with my comment about historians. Since God Himself has spoken, His inspiration of Scripture through men is not susceptible to the failures of men. God Himself has told us the way things are and who He is and why things exist.

Fifteenth, windwalker, Scripture does present its own storyline. Both liberal and conservative scholars see this. Plus, you can see this storyline for yourself as you read Scripture. The Bible's storyline, as I said before, is creation, fall (man sinned against God and sought his own way/seeking to make a god(s) of his own liking), redemption (God sends His Son Jesus Christ in order to redeem a lost and rebellious humanity), and consummation (God brings about a new creation and judges the living and the dead).

Sorry for the delayed and long post.