Help w/ understanding Discovery Insitute news article

[Multivitamin]

Okay, so I was reading about extinction on the Discovery Institute website, and I found this article about microevolution. The forum says I can't post external links, but you can find it on the Discovery Institutes's website, it's titled "microevolution in action" It seemed pretty cool until I read all of it.

The Discovery Institute is one of the biggest pro-creationist groups in the USA, and this article AGREES with "Darwinian Evolution." It matches a text book we had to buy for Animal Anatomy.

Help me understand it, because I'm really confused, sorry this is going to be a long post.

The author says he witnessed "microevolution in action" because he studied fish. He says that micro evolution are small changes in a kind of animal over time, are real. Like how we can breed dogs into breeds like Labradors and Collies without it creating new species, since only God the Father makes new species. Small changes happen over time, but those small changes never add up to big changes, because if they did it would be evolution, which isn't real.

He said a small change could stop two groups of fish from mating together, which is no big deal since it's not a big change.

But the "Darwinism" based text book says that one of the way new species are made is that 2 populations stop breeding together, and that's the definition of a new species.

So the Discovery Institute and my "Darwinism" textbook agree that populations of animals can change so they don't breed anymore, the split into two groups. Science says it's the definition of making a new species. THERE'S NO WAY MY DARWIN TEXT BOOK AND THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE AGREE, IS THERE?!

Because then I chose two different kinds of bears, because I didn't believe it was true. Polar bears and brown bears. And I found a picture on the internet of one a hunter shot that was half brown bear and half polar bear--so like the Discovery Institute said AND the text book said, they were the same animal, but they had enough little changes so they didn't mate anymore.

But polar bears and brown bears are DIFFERENT SPECIES, they have different names and places they live, but they're not different species because they can mate--I am SO CONFUSED.

The website with the polar bear that was half black bear also had a picture of a half wolf half dog--BUT GOD CREATED WOLVES AND DOGS SEPERATELY and Adam named them with different names, how come THEY can mate but a dog can't mate with a brown bear like a polar bear can!?!

Help!


.

 

[laptoppop]

The Discover Institute is NOT a creationist organization. They are an ID (intelligent design) group who see God's hand in creation, but do not necessarily reject evolution (helped by God) as the mechanism.

There are a number of creationist groups, such as
http://www.icr.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.creationresearch.org
http://www.creationontheweb.com/
http://www.creationism.org
http://csm.org.uk/
http://www.nwcreation.net/

and others.

 

[mark kennedy]

Discovery is a group of brilliant and courageous scholars and scientists that actually suggest God as an explanation for our ultimate origins. It's called natural theology and it was a common view among scientists since the dawn of time, that is of course until the rise of Darwinism.

I recognize that they are not creationist for one reason, they do not question human ape ancestry. That is my sole issue and if Adam had parents then I would have a hard time taking any Old Testament historical narrative seriously. It wouldn't change my convictions regarding Jesus Christ since they have all but abandoned any hope of discrediting the New Testament. It has passed every test of historicity known to man so they would appear to have simple resolved to ignore it entirely. Even a large number of professing Christians claim to believe the New Testament but do not show the slightest interest in it.

They know the Discovery Institute is not a Creationist organization, the reason they are ridiculed is because they are theistic. In this day and age that make you a target. Discovery has made some wonderful progress in offering alternatives to atheistic science. They actually have a world class Liberal Arts University and they promote home schooling.

They are not creationists but at least they are not atheists.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[laptoppop]

What I find fascinating is how they get attacked by many other TEs. The TEs love to talk about how they are Christians (which I do not doubt), but when it comes to evidence that supports God having a hand in His creation, they attack right alongside atheists.

 

[mark kennedy]

What I find fascinating is how they get attacked by many other TEs. The TEs love to talk about how they are Christians (which I do not doubt), but when it comes to evidence that supports God having a hand in His creation, they attack right alongside atheists.

That is something that has fascinated me about this whole subject. I tried in vain to find a skeptic to examine the evidence regarding the New Testament witness. On the rare occasion that I encountered someone they quickly ran out of answers. Creationism would appear to be very different in that modern secularists are confident that their position is quite unassailable.

Over the years I have come to realize the reason for the intensity of their attack on religious doctrine. They are desperate to convince creationists that they have mistaken a myth for factual history. I would have willingly identified myself as a Theistic Evolutionists had it not been for one simple fact. The true theistic evolutionists (ID scientists and scholars) received the same contempt and mindless attacks that creationists have suffered and their arguments remain the same.

To tell you the truth I am honored to be have my worldview identified with the Intelligent Design movement. Creationists know it's not creationism and Intelligent Design proponents know that it's not creationism. The fact that secular scientists can't tell the difference tells me one thing. They are either grossly ignorant of the faith they seek to ridicule or simply disingenuous with regards to the implications of the actual evidence. In many cases I have found them to be guilty of both.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Digit]

What I find fascinating is how they get attacked by many other TEs. The TEs love to talk about how they are Christians (which I do not doubt), but when it comes to evidence that supports God having a hand in His creation, they attack right alongside atheists.

Now THAT is what gets me. Posting in the origins board, is very much like posting on the GA/CvsE boards...



I get the same feeling anyhow.

Digit

 

[Digit]

To tell you the truth I am honored to be have my worldview identified with the Intelligent Design movement. Creationists know it's not creationism and Intelligent Design proponents know that it's not creationism. The fact that secular scientists can't tell the difference tells me one thing. They are either grossly ignorant of the faith they seek to ridicule or simply disingenuous with regards to the implications of the actual evidence. In many cases I have found them to be guilty of both.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Wait, you have me interested there. I am learning more about TE and I had some misunderstandings already, so there is obviously a lack of communication somewhere, where we get our wires crossed that leads to larger issues. Wikipedia has it down as a form of Creationism. Apparently there are forms now... It would appear to me that the main difference is the nature of the intelligence.

Cheers,
Digit


P.S. What was this thread about, as the first post simply links to Creationist sites? (sorry I've been busy and neglected the board recently)

 

[mark kennedy]

Wait, you have me interested there. I am learning more about TE and I had some misunderstandings already, so there is obviously a lack of communication somewhere, where we get our wires crossed that leads to larger issues. Wikipedia has it down as a form of Creationism. Apparently there are forms now... It would appear to me that the main difference is the nature of the intelligence.

Cheers,
Digit

The only thing Intelligent Design has in common with Creationism is that it concludes an intelligent designer, that is understood to mean God. It is categorized as a form of creationism simply because it concludes God as an explanation indicating the evidence leads one to God as the logical conclusion.

Creationism is a Christian doctrine, it represents the traditional views of the church on the book of Genesis as an historical narrative. The central issue is Adam and the New Testament affirms in no uncertain terms that Adam was specially created and not evolved from apes. Intelligent Design proponents have never questioned human ancestry going back to a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Adam as the first man is essential doctrine because of the importance of original sin in Christian Theology. To deny original sin is to deny one of the foundational precepts of the Gospel, that you are indeed a sinner.

Intelligent Design is what they used to call Natural Theology. It's a belief that God is evidence in the things that are made. This was the prevailing view in Darwin's early years and he says in his autobiography that initially he accepted it without question and learned it by rote:

Darwin on Paley:

In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was, also, necessary to get up Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy. . . The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the Academical Course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust I was charmed and convinced of the long line of argumentation. (Charles Darwin. Autobiography)​

NATURAL THEOLOGY by William Paley

P.S. What was this thread about, as the first post simply links to Creationist sites? (sorry I've been busy and neglected the board recently)

I think the intention was to point out the differences between Intelligent Design and Creationism but I'm not entirely sure.

 

[keyarch]

Intelligent Design proponents have never questioned human ancestry going back to a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

-----
I think the intention was to point out the differences between Intelligent Design and Creationism but I'm not entirely sure.

Mark,
As you might remember, I have been connected with the Intelligent Design movement for almost two years now as part of a invitation only Yahoo news group. What I can say, is that many of the participants are Christian and Creationist that would be welcomed in this sub-forum. For necessity of the point in their title, they try not to bring their individual faith into the movement. If you were to do a poll, there are probably more OEC than YEC and a few TE mixed in (and a few other faiths).

I think their main goal is for the public to open up to the evidence (both scientific and otherwise) that points to an Intelligent Designer of what we find around us and in the universe. In addition, they are fighting the exclusive teaching of Darwinist evolution and the "faith" system of "naturalism" and/or "materialism" in our school system that is without criticism.

I consider these goals are very commendable, and the arguments useable for creation evangelism.

Many quotes are taken out of context or twisted around later to the reporter's perspective. Like the issue of common decent. If someone like Michael Behe is asked if he believes in common decent, and he replies that he hasn't studied the issue and accepts the findings of the scientific community; it is then twisted around that he believes man came from apes. But, that's not what he said. He is merely acknowledging that he doesn't know from a scientific point of view because he hasn't researched it. He said the same thing to me in an email a while back when I asked him about the age of the earth. If you read his book (Darwin's Black Box) you will see that the whole purpose of the book is to dispel the notion that the Darwinian form of evolution (random mutation and survival of the fittest) could ever produce even the simplest form of life. What he wouldn't be able to speak to, is how far natural variation of species would go in eventually producing a new sub-species (micro-evolution). I've also seen him referenced as a non-believer, but he is actually a Catholic.

So I think as Christians, we should understand why they can't "officially" take a stand with regard to religion, but that they are fighting the same types of issues as ICR and AiG and other creationist organizations, and should be welcomed by us and their arguments used to our advantage in the war against Satan.

 

[laptoppop]

I'm just getting started with Behe's latest book, just released. From what I gather so far, he definitely accepts the "common descent" part of evolution - which to me would put him squarely in the TE camp. On the other hand, much of his work is very outstanding, and supports any form of theistic involvement, from TE to YEC.

 

[keyarch]

I'm just getting started with Behe's latest book, just released. From what I gather so far, he definitely accepts the "common descent" part of evolution - which to me would put him squarely in the TE camp. On the other hand, much of his work is very outstanding, and supports any form of theistic involvement, from TE to YEC.

I pulled the following questions and answers from the Kansas School Board Hearings. He stated earlier that he was a liberal in his theology. I'm not sure if that puts him in the TE camp (since he opposes Darwinian Evolution), but I guess you have to determine that yourself.

Question to Mike Behe:
13 Q. Do you accept the general principle of common
14 descent, that all of life is biologically
15 related to the beginning of life?
16 A. My position is similar to Professor Nord's, one
17 or two ago, that depending on what you mean by
18 common descent, I do believe in biological
19 continuity of organisms, yes.
20 Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by
21 common descent to prehominid ancestors?
22 A. With that exception in mind, depends on what
23 you mean by common descent, yes, I do.

Prior to this he said:

"Secondly, descent from a common ancestor, the question here is: What does descent from mean? If that means that neo-- if Neo-Darwinian mechanisms are adequate, fully adequate for the explanation, I don't believe that. But if design or theological explanations are allowed to account for explaining at least part of what happens in evolution, then I accept that. And the same regarding our descent from prehominid ancestors. Yes, of course, I think that's true, but I think it's true only in the sense that I think we need to appeal to ideological explanations because Neo-Darwinian explanations aren't adequate to account for all of that evolutionary development."​

Biological Continuity
A basic tenet of modern science is the idea of biological continuity, the idea that, once established, all life comes from life.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark,
As you might remember, I have been connected with the Intelligent Design movement for almost two years now as part of a invitation only Yahoo news group. What I can say, is that many of the participants are Christian and Creationist that would be welcomed in this sub-forum. For necessity of the point in their title, they try not to bring their individual faith into the movement. If you were to do a poll, there are probably more OEC than YEC and a few TE mixed in (and a few other faiths).

I remember you were telling me about that, it sounds like an interesting group. It's just that for me the issue is primarily a doctrinal one with strong roots in my Christian Apologetics studies. The Creation/Evolution controversy became an interest of mine when I began to notice it was the only issue of Biblical historicity that skeptics had any interest in. Adam cannot have ape ancestors, that would cut the Bible to the quick right at it's core, the testimony of God's work in the world.

They take there stand against Darwinism and in that I fully support and celebrate their efforts. The point I was making is that Intelligent Design is simply not a religiously oriented movement. True, many religious people are involved and I have realized that for some time.

I think their main goal is for the public to open up to the evidence (both scientific and otherwise) that points to an Intelligent Designer of what we find around us and in the universe. In addition, they are fighting the exclusive teaching of Darwinist evolution and the "faith" system of "naturalism" and/or "materialism" in our school system that is without criticism.

It's not just the public schools, you have a zero tolerance for the Bible as legitimate history throughout Academia. I've seen it first hand and that bias consumes them.

I consider these goals are very commendable, and the arguments useable for creation evangelism.

I know I have gotten a lot of mileage out of them. My best arguments have come straight out of their own scientific literature that most evolutionists won't even bother to read.

There are differences between ID and Creationism but seeing them portrayed in the same light is highly flattering for me personally.

Many quotes are taken out of context or twisted around later to the reporter's perspective. Like the issue of common decent. If someone like Michael Behe is asked if he believes in common decent, and he replies that he hasn't studied the issue and accepts the findings of the scientific community; it is then twisted around that he believes man came from apes. But, that's not what he said. He is merely acknowledging that he doesn't know from a scientific point of view because he hasn't researched it. He said the same thing to me in an email a while back when I asked him about the age of the earth. If you read his book (Darwin's Black Box) you will see that the whole purpose of the book is to dispel the notion that the Darwinian form of evolution (random mutation and survival of the fittest) could ever produce even the simplest form of life. What he wouldn't be able to speak to, is how far natural variation of species would go in eventually producing a new sub-species (micro-evolution). I've also seen him referenced as a non-believer, but he is actually a Catholic.

He is pretty stand offish on the subject but bear in mind he never questioned Darwinism until realized there were questions. I honestly think if the ID arguments were applied to the evolution of the human brain Darwinism would be in ruins. I have yet to see a single evolutionist suggest the vaguest molecular mechanism for it.

To tell you the truth I think we will see it eventually used, or at least something a lot like it.

So I think as Christians, we should understand why they can't "officially" take a stand with regard to religion, but that they are fighting the same types of issues as ICR and AiG and other creationist organizations, and should be welcomed by us and their arguments used to our advantage in the war against Satan.

I certainly welcome their contributions and I have the highest regard for Paul Little and Michael Behe. Their emphasis on the scientific principles is remarkably detailed and precise. I see a lot of good things happening there.

Grace and peace,
Mark