Evolution and how God acts

[Iosias]

1) Evolution happens:

I agree (in a micro capacity) however there is no proof as to whether it can actually accomplish what is ascribed to it in macro-evolution.

-Things mutate (observation).

Agreed however the vast majority of those mutations are deleterious, i.e. destroy information and disappear from the gene pool.

-Things with good mutations survive better in environments of limited resources (common sense).

This is circular reasoning, not common sense. Which mutations are good? Those that survive better. Ok, which ones survive better? Those with good mutations, of course.

You have a long way to go to demonstrate how often "good mutations" have in fact occurred. Most evolutionists rely upon speculation based upon assumptions to "prove" this. In other words, their observations are not sufficient to support the premise. The use the conclusion (evolution must exist) to establish the premise of good mutations.

see:

NEO-DARWINISM: A LOOK AT THE ALLEGED GENETIC MECHANISM OF EVOLUTION

Darwin's Black Box​

-Resources are limited (observation).

If resources are limited, why are populations mostly expanding? The disappearance of species are mostly down to catastrophic extinctions. Sure, some species do go extinct due to lack of resources, but that just shows that theory doesn't work, why did they not adapt to survive?

-mutations are passed on (observation).

Correct, but there are limits to what mutations can achieve in terms of progressing life. If there was no limits, why can evolution not happen in reverse?

2) Evolution is incompatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

True. But the evidence shows correlation with Genesis, like the sudden appearance of the main body types during the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestors.

3) Scripture can be interpreted literally or allegorically.

Indeed. Please could you provide your exegetical analysis for the first part of Genesis using any one of the two accepted methods, the synchronic or diachronic approach.

For the synchronic approach, be sure to show your literary criticism with genre and form analysis, narrative criticism, rhetorical criticism, lexical, grammatical and syntactical analysis, semantic or discourse analysis and social-scientific criticism.

Should you choose the diachronic approach, please show your analysis of the origin, development and the history of the text, with your textual criticism, historical linguistics, form criticism, traditional criticism, source criticism and redaction and historical criticism.

In that way, we can be sure that we should indeed read Genesis' creation as allegorical and not historical.

4) If evolution is true and allegory is a possible interpretation, it makes sense that this interpretation is true.

Please show how evolution is true given the limitations of the inductive method of science. Also, this establishes that evolution should be the standard by which the Bible should be interpreted, which is an assertion without argument. By which standard can it be determined that evolutionary theory is the interpretive framework for theological understanding? Please show from either evolutionary theory or Scripture that this is necessarily so.

5) Allegory demeans in no way the Genesis narrative or the authority of Scripture and Christian doctrine.

I fail to see the truth in that statement. Assigning the creation deed to omnipotent chance does not demean God? The gospel message is summarized as creation, fall and redemption. If we make the first one allegory, what about the other two? Is man's sinfulness just allegory for evolutionary psychology, and is redemption just allegory for societal Darwinism?

6) We already interpret scripture by science. Do you believe the sun goes round the earth? Or the world is flat? If you don't then on what grounds? None other than observation, surely! And isn't science just an extension of our observations?

No, the scientific method starts by assuming methodological naturalism. (BTW, please show why that is a valid assumption). All observations are then by default required to conform to that when hypothesis are formed.

Also, I fail to see the relevance of observations we can currently make when applied to evolutionary theory. Should you wish to apply the same arguments to evolutionary theory, then please pick any ancestor/descendant sample from the fossil evidence for evolutionary theory, and show the exact biochemical pathways by which the ancestor brought forth the descendant. We have mapped the genomes of many species, we know mutations happen (you said so, didn't you?), we know what effect a mutation will have on a specific gene, and what traits or characteristics those genes activate. Please then demonstrate the molecular evolutionary pathways from ancestor to descendant.

[I had some help with this post from guys at Puritan Board]

 

[Iosias]

Professor Edgar Andrews : Teaching the Truth about Evolution

 

[artybloke]

I agree (in a micro capacity) however there is no proof as to whether it can actually accomplish what is ascribed to it in macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution multiplied umpteen times. It's not a recognised evolutionary mechanism, just an arbitrary barrier that creationists put in the way of so-called "kinds" (that no creationist can actually define.) And there's plenty of it happening.

Assigning the creation deed to omnipotent chance does not demean God?

Who says that chance plays a significant role in evolution, apart from creationists? Do you actually know what evolution is (random mutations plus natural selection) or do you just bury your head under another strawman?

The gospel message is summarized as creation, fall and redemption. If we make the first one allegory, what about the other two?

That God created the world is not allegory. How God created the world (whether evolution or YEC) is not important. That we are sinners is again not an allegory. How we became and are sinners is again not important.

There can be a large amount of story in the redemption story without it affecting theology one bit.

 

[Iosias]

Ernst Mayer:

"The nature and cause of trans specific evolution (macro evolution) has been a highly controversial subject during the first half of this century (20th Century). The proponents of the synthetic theory (neo Darwinian theory) maintain that all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes guided by natural selection, and that macro evolution is nothing but an extrapolation, a magnification of the events that take place within populations and species. A well informed minority however, including such outstanding authorities as the geneticist Goldschmidt maintained until the 1950s that neither evolution within species nor geographic speciation could explain the phenomenon of macro evolution. These authors contended that the origin of new types and of new organisms could not be explained by the known facts of genetics and systematics."​

 

[artybloke]

That's it? Your evidence is from over 50 years ago? You are away that any scientific papers older than 10 years old on any subject are probably pretty useless?

Even if he isn't doing the usual fundagelical quote-mine misrepresentation (=lying.)

 

[JMC309]

I agree (in a micro capacity) however there is no proof as to whether it can actually accomplish what is ascribed to it in macro-evolution.

This distinction is a new one to me. Know any good explanations of it?

Agreed however the vast majority of those mutations are deleterious, i.e. destroy information and disappear from the gene pool.

Some mutations, however, help survival and so are passed on. The fact that mutations have been passed on show that these good mutations have occured, for if they had not been good, then they would have disappeared.

If resources are limited, why are populations mostly expanding?

They haven't yet reached the upper limit for resources. When limits are reached, evolution occurs. Remember evolution takes billions of years.

The disappearance of species are mostly down to catastrophic extinctions.

Caused by survival pressures which limit the resources available drastically.

why did they not adapt to survive?

Adaption takes time and is not in response to pressures. Mutations that are beneficial allow survival in these circumstances, but the mutations themselves occur beforehand.

True. But the evidence shows correlation with Genesis, like the sudden appearance of the main body types during the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestors.

Not exact correlation though, which is what the completely literalistic interpretation demands. Interesting point, nonetheless.

Indeed. Please could you provide your exegetical analysis for the first part of Genesis using any one of the two accepted methods, the synchronic or diachronic approach.

For the synchronic approach, be sure to show your literary criticism with genre and form analysis, narrative criticism, rhetorical criticism, lexical, grammatical and syntactical analysis, semantic or discourse analysis and social-scientific criticism.

Should you choose the diachronic approach, please show your analysis of the origin, development and the history of the text, with your textual criticism, historical linguistics, form criticism, traditional criticism, source criticism and redaction and historical criticism.

In that way, we can be sure that we should indeed read Genesis' creation as allegorical and not historical.

One moment...

No really, please tell me where I can find some definitions of these words and methods. I know some of them, and will post the results of my survey shortly.

Do you really endorse the historical-critical method of exegesis? Or are you just blinding me with science?

Please show how evolution is true given the limitations of the inductive method of science. Also, this establishes that evolution should be the standard by which the Bible should be interpreted, which is an assertion without argument. By which standard can it be determined that evolutionary theory is the interpretive framework for theological understanding? Please show from either evolutionary theory or Scripture that this is necessarily so.

Hmmm... Interesting. I'll get back to you.

I fail to see the truth in that statement. Assigning the creation deed to omnipotent chance does not demean God? The gospel message is summarized as creation, fall and redemption. If we make the first one allegory, what about the other two? Is man's sinfulness just allegory for evolutionary psychology, and is redemption just allegory for societal Darwinism?

I am not assigning creation to chance. God created. God sustained the evolutionary process. Moral values, for example, are evidence for this, and all attempts to reduce divine things like morality and love to scientific principles are repulsively unconvincing. I claim that God created by the method we observe and the conclusions we gain from our observations (evolution).

I used the term 'allegory,' unadvisedly. There seems to be a false dichotomy emerging between history and allegory. God's creation is historical fact. How it was done is no matter for theological dogmatism or even speculation. The fact that God created is enough for us. The first part of your summary of the good news is 'Creation,' not 'Young Earth creationism.' Nor are we arbitarily renderind certain parts of the Bible as 'allegorical,' but as part of a defence of the truth of the Bible informed by the most recent evidence. We refuse to discard the Bible in the face of evolution, so we look for what the text must mean if evolution is true. Is that so bad?

Also, I fail to see the relevance of observations we can currently make when applied to evolutionary theory. Should you wish to apply the same arguments to evolutionary theory, then please pick any ancestor/descendant sample from the fossil evidence for evolutionary theory, and show the exact biochemical pathways by which the ancestor brought forth the descendant. We have mapped the genomes of many species, we know mutations happen (you said so, didn't you?), we know what effect a mutation will have on a specific gene, and what traits or characteristics those genes activate. Please then demonstrate the molecular evolutionary pathways from ancestor to descendant.

Six feet over my head, friend, six feet over my head!

Thank you for your time.

 

[Mallon]

I just want to clarify a few things that I think JMC309 may have missed...

I agree (in a micro capacity) however there is no proof as to whether it can actually accomplish what is ascribed to it in macro-evolution.

Microevolution (intraspecific change) leads to macroevolution (interspecific change) via speciation. We can see it happen even today, so there is no doubt that microevolution can lead to macroevolution. Perhaps you can elaborate on why small changes cannot lead to bigger changes given enough time, AV1611?

Agreed however the vast majority of those mutations are deleterious, i.e. destroy information and disappear from the gene pool.

No, the vast majority of mutations are neutral, having no effect on the organism. This is because of the redundancy of the genetic code.

Correct, but there are limits to what mutations can achieve in terms of progressing life. If there was no limits, why can evolution not happen in reverse?

What do you mean by this?

True. But the evidence shows correlation with Genesis, like the sudden appearance of the main body types during the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestors.

The evidence shows no correlation with the biblical account. The so-called Cambrian "explosion" is an artifact of the preferential preservation of hard parts (like tests and shells), which did not evolve until the Cambrian. And just so there is no ambiguity, we do know of fossils from Precambrian times.

No, the scientific method starts by assuming methodological naturalism. (BTW, please show why that is a valid assumption).

Because we cannot measure God. If you feel otherwise, please demonstrate how.

Please then demonstrate the molecular evolutionary pathways from ancestor to descendant.

The inability of scientists to fully describe the molecular pathways of particular transitional fossil sequences in no way negates the theory of evolution. As laptoppop will tell you, this is a silly question to ask. Our inability to describe what causes gravity does not negate the theory of gravity, either.
That said, we get closer every day to answering the kinds of questions your friends at the Puritan board are asking. The exploding field of evo-devo has lead to all kinds of breakthroughs concerning the developmental and genetic pathways of evolution.

[I had some help with this post from guys at Puritan Board]

I can see that. You plagiarized them almost verbatim! You should tell them to avoid citing Behe when attempting to fight evolution, though. Behe subscribes to macroevolution.

 

[HypnoToad]

So you believe that there was probably some other purpose in creation which needed a greater display of power than would be necessary for evolution.

No, I didn't say "probably". I said we don't know.

What did you mean by simple?

Plain, simple, easy .... I don't really know what you want.

 

[Iosias]

I can see that. You plagiarized them almost verbatim!

For those who do not know...the thread is here. As for plagarised....they gave me the responses to use

 

[Mallon]

For those who do not know...the thread is here. As for plagarised....they gave me the responses to use

Is this going to turn into a debate between the evolutionary creationists here at CF and the YECs at the Puritan boards, with you as the go-between? If so, you might as well invite them to join here.