Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
It's been a while since I read that but I have it in my documents. I know this is a widely held belief but it is rather curious, if they are in such harmony then why would their be the need for a synthesis in the first place?
No conflict there, and this guy makes a living studying biology.
Of course there's a conflict, that has become increasingly obvious while watching them explain the genetic basis for major transitions.
Mendel was one of the first scientists to truely come up with a sound experimental design. He set limits. He studied only existing variation in terms of hereditiy. He deliberatly excluded anything that would have been the result of a mutation, or anything novel. He did not do this to "oppose evolutionary ideas" as many creationists claim. His work studied only heredity and variation and therefore cannot be used to remark on mutation anymore then a study on baby formulae vs breast milk can be used to remark on nutrition in dog food.
Your quote is not complete by the way (shall we say out of context)
I am well aware of the context and one point Darwin made is verified here. Immutablity of plants and animals is impossible to reconcile to the findings of scientific research. There are limits, that is what Mendel is saying but nature sometimes throws us a curve ball. My favorite example is the platapus, this little guy has really pushed the limits don't you think? They aren't supposed to be laying eggs, how did that happen?
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
<font color="#880000" ></font>The sum of everything = zero
Join Date: 5th April 2002
Posts: 1,973
Blessings: 35,816
Reps: 143,091 (power: 152)
Actually, I have a list of ideas how Darwinism and Mendelian genetics can be reconcilled. It would stop the Creation science movement as well as Intelligent Design in their tracts. Just eliminate the single common ancestor model that is being superimposed on real science and the problem is solved. So what do you think of my proposed solution?
That would be interesting.
What is your objection to a single common ancestor. Is it the image of a single solitary cell that somehow popped into existance as the first life form that you object to?
DO you think that plants and animals have a common ancestor?
How about macaques and humans?
Do fungi and yeats have a common ancestor?
How far back do you see evolution happening?
__________________ "We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," Pastor Ray Mummert speaking out against teaching evolution in Pennsylvania schools To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The flood becomes harder and harder to support when you get more information. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
<font color="#880000" ></font>The sum of everything = zero
Join Date: 5th April 2002
Posts: 1,973
Blessings: 35,816
Reps: 143,091 (power: 152)
I am well aware of the context and one point Darwin made is verified here. Immutablity of plants and animals is impossible to reconcile to the findings of scientific research. There are limits, that is what Mendel is saying but nature sometimes throws us a curve ball. My favorite example is the platapus, this little guy has really pushed the limits don't you think? They aren't supposed to be laying eggs, how did that happen?
They ley eggs because their ancestors laid eggs. All mammals are believed to have evolved from egg laying proto-mammals (cynodonts). That the monotremes have preserved this ancient form of reproduction is no more of a suprise then the fact that some Amazonian tribes still hunt and gather with spears and arrows in a day and age of guns.
f they are in such harmony then why would their be the need for a synthesis in the first place?
Because neither theory was a complete descrtion of reality . Each told a part of the same story. It's like having chapters 1 through 5 from one source and chapters 6 though 12.through another Put them together and you have a whole story.
That's how science works.
I once participated in a study of how the plume from a pulp mill's waste disperses in a river. THe study looked at dispersion only (using dye). WHen I explained to my dad what we were doing he commented to somehting of the effect of "why the heck aren't you guys looking for dioxins and furans comming form the pulp mill, I read about them in the paper. Who cares about plume dispersion.". I simply could not get him to understand that not every study can research absolutly everything. Each experiment, and each researcher, only looks at one piece fo the puzzle at a time.
__________________ "We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," Pastor Ray Mummert speaking out against teaching evolution in Pennsylvania schools To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The flood becomes harder and harder to support when you get more information. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
He refused to accept radiation no so much because of it's consequences to the age of the earth, but to Kelvin's assertion that everything about physics had been discovered already (except for what he refered to as "two clouds on the horizon" - being the speed of light and blackbody radiation). Of course as we all know insight into these phenomenon led to quantum mechanics and relativity.
Just a minor minor minor quibble. Wasn't the "two clouds" quote by Arthur Eddington and wasn't one of the clouds something to do with the subsequent discovery of the neutron? Or am I getting my science history wrong at this unearthly hour? (1:30 am here)
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Humanistic evolution taught in colleges...wow who would have thought. Just because the majority believe it to be true doesn't mean it is...
The 'science' of evolution is nothing short of a great delusion to lead people from the faith and belief in the one true G-d.
While you riducule the wisdom of men being foolish, I somehow doubt that when confronted with the true majesty and glory of our G-d and His Son, you will have the courage to tell Him to His face, "Your creation in six days days was allegorical leaving us with evolution as a truthful and legitimate science...more true that your word"
Again, see my reply to Jig. I think Creationists do more damage by stating that science and religion are incompatible. So, does the biology professor at Baylor lead people away from God by teaching evolution and creating a Christian study group that helps create more Christian scientists?
Humanistic evolution taught in colleges...wow who would have thought. Just because the majority believe it to be true doesn't mean it is...
You're right, Gwenyfur. In matters of science it isn't the majority that's important. It's the people who are knowledgeable in that particular area of study that are important. In this case, it is the evolutionary biologists who are important - the ones heading up these departments. An argument from authority isn't a fallacy if the authority is relevant and used to support the evidence.
The vast majority of knowledgeable scientists studying biology support evolutionary theory as the most valid explanation for the currently observed level of biodiversity.
We were created in the image of God. Right? (Don't tell me you think Genesis is wrong about this too) How could we be in His image if we evolved from soul-less ape-like creatures? God does not change. His image does not change. If we evolved and are still evolving our image has changed and is changing still. This does not fit into what Genesis states.
__________________ The Jig is up!
Jude 1:21 Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.
We were created in the image of God. Right? (Don't tell me you think Genesis is wrong about this too) How could we be in His image if we evolved from soul-less ape-like creatures? God does not change. His image does not change. If we evolved our image changed. This does not fit into what Genesis states.
Perhaps God had intended for us to reach this evolutionary state when the Bible was written, a state that bears a resemblance to God. That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for God to do - the act of creating us to this point just took a few hundred million years is all.
Perhaps God had intended for us to reach this evolutionary state when the Bible was written, a state that bears a resemblance to God. That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for God to do - the act of creating us to this point just took a few hundred million years is all.
Would a few hundred million years be nessacary to create humans for an all-powerful God? The same God who just merely spoke the universe into existence.
__________________ The Jig is up!
Jude 1:21 Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.
We were created in the image of God. Right? (Don't tell me you think Genesis is wrong about this too) How could we be in His image if we evolved from soul-less ape-like creatures? God does not change. His image does not change. If we evolved and are still evolving our image has changed and is changing still. This does not fit into what Genesis states.
So does God have a belly button, sexually reproductive organs, facial hair,etc...? Or perhaps when it talks about his image, it doesn't mean his physical image, but his spiritual image?
Also, how about those atheistic professors at Baylor? I'm sure all those professors (including the undercover atheist professor who holds the Christian study groups to promote Christian scientists) are all happy about undermining Christianity by teaching science.
Linear Mode
