For many years, I was not.........

[gluadys]

well what I believe is that God created various species.. like in Genesis.. humans, cats, eagles, roses, etc (lol that's a funny assortment )
and they can adapt to environment by changing some of their characteristics.. so for example, a bird's beak size may change, or hair colour, etc.

And a confusing one too. "roses" for example, is not a species. There are over 200 species of roses.

http://www.rose-roses.com/catalog/species.html

Ditto with eagles. 59 species.

http://www.dvercity.com/eagle_species.html

Do you consider that each was created separately or that all these species had a common ancestor?


And by "cats" do you mean domestic cats (which are all one species) or do you include wild and big cats such as lynx, bobcats, cheetahs, panthers and tigers? In the latter case do you think each of these was created separately or could they have a common ancestor?


"Human" could mean only our own species, but some include extinct species such as neandethals, erectus and others as "human" also. Do you? Do you think each such species was separately created or did they have a common ancestor?

But I don't believe in common ancestry, or that there was first inorganic matter...then organic...then DNA..then a cell...then eukaryotic cell...then a simple organism..which became more complex...etc..etc...leading to reptiles...and then to birds...etc. I believe that birds were there from the beginning, as were reptiles, and came to be at the same time. Well I may be wrong, and I'm open to that possibility.

Well the evidence certainly indicates you are wrong. Why do you think God would create this evidence?

I know that humans and chimps have similar bones, muscles, neural pathways, etc. But I don't think that's what "makes us who we are".

Isn't that just another way of saying that you don't think it is our biology that makes us what we are? Why would that be a problem in the way of accepting evolution? After all, evolution is about our biological origins. If biology does not make us what we are, then evolution doesn't either. Evolution only makes our biology.

Assuming we can transcend our biology, we can transcend our evolution. And maybe that is what makes us what we are.

I disagree that chimps can create. I know they CAN do the things you listed... yet I wouldn't call that 'creation'.

Well that is just semantics. Obviously you can define "create" as something chimps can't do. But then you can also define "create" as something humans can't do either.

I find it troubling how in some areas of science they no longer see a distinction between animals and humans.

Why? I have never understood this modern reluctance to admit we are animals. Better to be an animal than a robot. And we are certainly not plants or fungi or bacteria. Nor are we angelic spirits (nor demons either). I don't know of any Christians who questioned our animal nature before the 20th century.

Of course, we are animals with a difference. Even pagans knew that. Aristotle called us rational animals. And scripture assigns us a special place and role in nature. But it does not set us apart from nature, including our own animal nature.

I'd say that there is superficial similarity... but if you look at higher brain functions... there are many differences as well. We don't just do things "better" than animals do!! We do different SORTS of things.

Well that's because we have higher brain functions, isn't it? And we already agreed that this is where you will find the greatest degree of biological difference. But how does this make us a different kind of animal from a chimpanzee?

As for studying the biological basis of the mind.. I think it would be better if scientists stuck to studying the brain without making inferences about psychology.

I don't know if that is possible. How does one study the mind without studying the brain and vice versa?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I would urge you to reconsider the possibility of death in the world when God created paradise. After all, what was outside the Garden of Eden? Why was man given food to eat? What purpose did the Tree of Life serve if not to prevent man from dying? These things all imply some sort of physical death, do they not?

I don't know.. I think that 'death' is more than just the ending of biological life. I don't believe that there was death.. btw man (and animals) was given plants for food (it says in Genesis). Really I'm leaving all these things up to God. All I know is that because of Christ, there will be no more death for those who are saved

Why isn't altruism biology?

because it's not governed by biology? altruism is basically just helping people without expecting anything in return.. have you ever heard how the evolutionists explain it? I think it's a very weak argument. They say that you help someone in this way so that their great-great-grandkids will help your great-great-grandkids in return. There's no evidence for this whatsoever. See evolution is just becoming a philosophy..at least when we talk about psychology.

Altruism is more of a spiritual than a biological thing. A better word for it would be selflessness. isn't this a virtue?

Soon people will be saying that Christian love, and religion, and faith have 'evolved'. Actually, they are already saying that..
evolutionism has cheapened everything we value as Christians.

Maybe God is using gluadys to tell you that evolution does happen. She certainly seems to know what she's talking about.

I don't know for sure about evolution.. to be honest I don't give it very much thought. However God made us, He made us.. that is what matters the most.. I agree that Gluadys knows a lot about this topic I don't know if I can accept evolution though, at least right now. I'm not convinced that it's the truth..

By the way, we're talking about the psychology of evolution and creationism over at the Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution blog, Monica. Feel free to jump in on the conversation:
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/

And a confusing one too. "roses" for example, is not a species. There are over 200 species of roses.

http://www.rose-roses.com/catalog/species.html

Ditto with eagles. 59 species.

http://www.dvercity.com/eagle_species.html

Do you consider that each was created separately or that all these species had a common ancestor?

I know I just wrote that as an example. (that's cool how there are so many types of roses, I didn't know there are this many ) I believe that all the various species of roses might have had a common ancestor..but it was a rose, not some totally different flower.

And by "cats" do you mean domestic cats (which are all one species) or do you include wild and big cats such as lynx, bobcats, cheetahs, panthers and tigers? In the latter case do you think each of these was created separately or could they have a common ancestor?

I distinguish between domestic cats and cheetahs, tigers, etc

"Human" could mean only our own species, but some include extinct species such as neandethals, erectus and others as "human" also. Do you? Do you think each such species was separately created or did they have a common ancestor?

I don't include those species under "Human", if they existed at all that is. Honestly I think they were just types of apes. (maybe they all had a common ancestor, which was an ape)
I wouldn't categorize them as "human", because physiology isn't enough to make something a human.. it needs to be a person, in other words, to have a soul and be made in God's image. Otherwise, it's an animal.

Well the evidence certainly indicates you are wrong. Why do you think God would create this evidence?

I think that sometimes scientists misunderstand evidence. It has certainly happened in the past, MANY times. (especially in my field, cognition! There are soo many theories, and they all disagree with each other, yet each one seems supported by evidence!)

Isn't that just another way of saying that you don't think it is our biology that makes us what we are? Why would that be a problem in the way of accepting evolution? After all, evolution is about our biological origins. If biology does not make us what we are, then evolution doesn't either. Evolution only makes our biology. Assuming we can transcend our biology, we can transcend our evolution. And maybe that is what makes us what we are.

hmm. I think that it is the soul that distinguishes person from animal. But it is biology that distinguishes different types of animals. (biology also distinguishes us from animals, since we have more complex brains)

Well that is just semantics. Obviously you can define "create" as something chimps can't do. But then you can also define "create" as something humans can't do either.

I don't think it's just semantics, I think there is a very important distinction between how chimps "create" and how humans create.

Why? I have never understood this modern reluctance to admit we are animals. Better to be an animal than a robot. And we are certainly not plants or fungi or bacteria. Nor are we angelic spirits (nor demons either). I don't know of any Christians who questioned our animal nature before the 20th century.

Really? I've read that ever since the early church, there were always distinctions made between mere animals and persons. In fact it is only recently that people began blending the line that separates us from chimps, cats, etc. That's because many modern people don't believe in the soul. LOL it seems that we are saying opposite things here..

Of course, we are animals with a difference. Even pagans knew that. Aristotle called us rational animals. And scripture assigns us a special place and role in nature. But it does not set us apart from nature, including our own animal nature.

I did not say that we are separate from nature.. we have bodies like animals do, but we are a different TYPE of being.. because we have souls..

Well that's because we have higher brain functions, isn't it?

noo that's because of the soul!

And we already agreed that this is where you will find the greatest degree of biological difference. But how does this make us a different kind of animal from a chimpanzee?

look above

I don't know if that is possible. How does one study the mind without studying the brain and vice versa?

is the mind 'in' the brain? I think the brain acts more like a computer, which is operated by ..something else.. the soul, perhaps. I don't believe that consciousness is in the brain.

the brain is just a network of neurons. that is all. A very complex network, but it can't give rise to consciousness.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I read something a while ago about the differences of humans and animals, and it's related to evolution.. it's in a book by GK Chesterton called "the everlasting man". It's not a biology book, it's more..philosophy/theology.
What do you think of this chapter..
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/part1c1.htm
it goes on to chapter 2, etc:
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/content.htm

 

[Assyrian]

Assuming we can transcend our biology, we can transcend our evolution. And maybe that is what makes us what we are.

Quoted for Truth.

I think this may be what Gen 2&3 is about, God creating us, but then calling us to a morality and life above our biology. When Eve failed, it was her biology, her natural instincts that pulled her down. The fruit looked just too good.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Quoted for Truth.

I think this may be what Gen 2&3 is about, God creating us, but then calling us to a morality and life above our biology. When Eve failed, it was her biology, her natural instincts that pulled her down. The fruit looked just too good.

isn't this gnosticism? God created our "natural instincts", the problem is not that they are natural but that they are fallen. Only in the resurrection of the dead will they be restored.
Eve fell because the devil tempted her.

Your post is basically saying that God created us sinful. That is not so.

 

[Mallon]

I don't know.. I think that 'death' is more than just the ending of biological life.

We agree. So when you say you are adverse to evolution because it requires death, are you saying that animal death somehow involves more than just the ending of biological life? I'm having a hard time understanding why you reject biological evolution if you think the death spoken of in the Bible was more than simple animal death.

because it's not governed by biology? altruism is basically just helping people without expecting anything in return.. have you ever heard how the evolutionists explain it?

Sure. I've taught it from an evolutionary perspective using game theory. And it works! This isn't to say that all selfless behaviour can be explained using game theory -- even Dawkins resorts to ad hoc in order to defend his selfish gene theory once in a while. But I think you would be hard pressed to make a case that altruism cannot be at least partially explained biologically. It can and has.

However God made us, He made us.. that is what matters the most..

I agree completely.

I don't know if I can accept evolution though, at least right now. I'm not convinced that it's the truth..

What would convince you? Not that I'm particularly interested in doing so, but I'm just curious. Would it take a mound of scientific evidence or a changed hermeneutic?

 

[gluadys]

I know I just wrote that as an example. (that's cool how there are so many types of roses, I didn't know there are this many ) I believe that all the various species of roses might have had a common ancestor..but it was a rose, not some totally different flower.

So, you don't actually disagree with the idea of a common ancestor. You agree that different species can have a common ancestor. And this means you agree with speciation (macro-evolution)---that new species can emerge from older species.

Yes, the common ancestor of roses was a rose. That agrees with the theory of evolution. Perhaps that surprises you.

I distinguish between domestic cats and cheetahs, tigers, etc

Now this is interesting because many creationists are comfortable with the idea that all members of the cat family have a common ancestor. But you separate the different species of cat. Why?

I don't include those species under "Human", if they existed at all that is. Honestly I think they were just types of apes. (maybe they all had a common ancestor, which was an ape)
I wouldn't categorize them as "human", because physiology isn't enough to make something a human.. it needs to be a person, in other words, to have a soul and be made in God's image. Otherwise, it's an animal.

Basically you are reiterating that humans are more than their biology. But evolution deals only with the biological aspects of humanity. How would one tell from the skeleton of Turkana Boy whether or not he had a soul?

I fail to understand why you find it uncomfortable to think that our skeleton shares a common ancestry with his skeleton. Could we not share the same inherited biology even if we do not share the spiritual image of God?

Or do you think that, as spiritual beings, our biology would be impacted in some visible way?

I think that sometimes scientists misunderstand evidence. It has certainly happened in the past, MANY times. (especially in my field, cognition! There are soo many theories, and they all disagree with each other, yet each one seems supported by evidence!)

That's because cognition is such a new field of study and we have few ways of testing out the hypotheses. We are also constrained by the ethics of studies conducted on humans. Evolution is a much older field of study that has yielded many hypotheses for testing. And the tests of these hypotheses have consistently resulted in support for the theory of evolution. There is not much wiggle room for misunderstanding evolution today.

(biology also distinguishes us from animals, since we have more complex brains)

I don't see how having a more complex brain means we are not animals at all. To me it means we are animals with complex brains.

I don't think it's just semantics, I think there is a very important distinction between how chimps "create" and how humans create.

I don't dispute that we can speak of different categories of creation and make distinctions between them. But it is semantics that would define "create" in such as way as to exclude some creative activities from the definition of creation. For example, when we discuss creation ex nihilo, we make the point that humans are limited to creating from pre-existing materials but only God can create the materials themselves. So if you define "create" as "creation ex nihilo" you define it to exclude human creative activity. Yet it is not wrong to say humans also create though in a more limited way than God; and that chimps create though in a more limited way than humans.

Really? I've read that ever since the early church, there were always distinctions made between mere animals and persons.

Certainly, both pagans and Christians distinguished between humans and other animals. They always placed humans in a special category, distinct from and above "lesser animals". Humans were "rational animals" "urban animals" "thinking animals". Humans were self-aware in a way other animals were not; humans had a moral sense that other animals did not. And humans had a spiritual essence and spiritual awareness that was not given to other animals.

But these are all ways in which humans were distinguished from other animals. They are not a negation of the fact that humans are animals. All classifications of living beings, past and present, place humans in the category of animals because, biologically, that is what we are.

I did not say that we are separate from nature.. we have bodies like animals do, but we are a different TYPE of being.. because we have souls..

We may be a different type of animal, but we are not a different type of being. Again, you are simply saying we are more than our biology. But that is not a reason to dispute our biology and our biological origins. Having a soul adds something to what we are, but it doesn't change our biological nature--that we are animals and related to other animals.

is the mind 'in' the brain? I think the brain acts more like a computer, which is operated by ..something else.. the soul, perhaps. I don't believe that consciousness is in the brain.

the brain is just a network of neurons. that is all. A very complex network, but it can't give rise to consciousness.

Is the mind in the brain? Surely that is the question the scientists are asking. It appears you have decided on a conclusion before all the evidence is in.

 

[Assyrian]

isn't this gnosticism?

Cool! Usually I am the one saying creationists sound gnostic. It is nice to see the ball kicked back

God created our "natural instincts", the problem is not that they are natural but that they are fallen.

I am not sure the bible says that, though I know it is a long standing tradition. As far as I can see in scripture it is our sin that leads us into bondage Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.

Only in the resurrection of the dead will they be restored.

Paul tells us that in the resurrection our physical bodies will be transformed, will be made like Christ's resurrected body, but he also tells us this is not like the first man whose body was of the earth made of dust.
1Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Adam and Eve were man and wife, joined together by God and told to be fruitful and multiple and fill the earth, yet Jesus tells us in heaven there will be no marriage or taking in marriage, but we will be like the angels in heaven.

Eve fell because the devil tempted her.

Is the kettle boiling because I am making a cup of tea or because electric current is flowing through the element heating the water? Both explanations are valid. But I think you would agree Eve did not have to listen.

I find it interesting to compare the description of Eve's fall with James’ and John's descriptions of temptation
1John 2:16 Because everything in the world,
the desire of the flesh,
the desire of the eyes,
and the pride of life,
is not of the Father but of the world.

Compare that to Eve’s temptation,
Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, . . . . … the desire of the flesh
and that it was a delight to the eyes, . . . . . . . . … the desire of the eyes
and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, . . . . … and the pride of life,
she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
Although Satan tempted Eve, he did so by appealing to her desires. Isn’t Eve’s downfall precisesly what James describes. James 1: 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Your post is basically saying that God created us sinful. That is not so.

No that is not what I am saying. The desire itself is not wrong, without a desire for food we would die of malnutrition. There is nothing wrong with food either. 1Tim 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. The problem came when Eve had to choose between something that was good in itself, and obedience to God’s command.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

We agree. So when you say you are adverse to evolution because it requires death, are you saying that animal death somehow involves more than just the ending of biological life? I'm having a hard time understanding why you reject biological evolution if you think the death spoken of in the Bible was more than simple animal death.

I think we're getting too much into semantics here

I meant something more simple. Death itself is not in God's plan. Death entered the world through Adam. Christ destroyed death by dying. Now we can have eternal life. We talk about death as something natural, but it's not how God planned this world to be. It's not just a biological/natural event, it's a symptom of the fallen state of this world. That's really all that I am saying here..sorry for the confusion.

Sure. I've taught it from an evolutionary perspective using game theory. And it works! This isn't to say that all selfless behaviour can be explained using game theory -- even Dawkins resorts to ad hoc in order to defend his selfish gene theory once in a while. But I think you would be hard pressed to make a case that altruism cannot be at least partially explained biologically. It can and has.

I'm sorry I can't support this.. what about Christ dying for us on the Cross? Was there a biological reason for this too? What about the martyrs..What about all the stories of the Saints who lived selfless lives...
I think the reason selflessness exists is not because of biology, but because that is one of the ways we reflect Christ's love.. that is one of the ways we become more like Him.

I agree completely.

What would convince you? Not that I'm particularly interested in doing so, but I'm just curious. Would it take a mound of scientific evidence or a changed hermeneutic?

neither.. you know if God convicts me of it I would believe it. That's all. I'm not looking for evidence (I'd mistrust it anyway)
to be honest I do have a little problem with reading the Bible symbolically simply because if you read one part symbolically, what is stopping you from reading the whole thing that way? Soon enough, the Resurrection becomes a mere myth.. I think it's just simpler to accept it all literally, while also trying to understand the spiritual truth. You can't go wrong with that. If you treat it like a textbook, you'll lose the meaning, and if you treat it as a legend, you'll also lose it..

So, you don't actually disagree with the idea of a common ancestor. You agree that different species can have a common ancestor. And this means you agree with speciation (macro-evolution)---that new species can emerge from older species.

I believe that all roses came from a rose. To me this is more micro evolution than macro.. I don't care much what we call it though. It's just terminology.

Yes, the common ancestor of roses was a rose. That agrees with the theory of evolution. Perhaps that surprises you.

no it doesn't suprise me.. but evolution goes further than that, it goes on to say that in the beginning there were only prokaryotic cells. I however believe that there was a point when God created a rose, etc, and before then, it didn't exist. It didn't "evolve" from something.

Now this is interesting because many creationists are comfortable with the idea that all members of the cat family have a common ancestor. But you separate the different species of cat. Why?

I don't know.. look to be honest I don't think about all this very much. I'm not too interested in biology. I just believe that God made the world like it says in Genesis, that's all. If in heaven I'll find out I was wrong and He used evolution to create us, I'll accept that, maybe even laugh at myself lol. But if it turns out that literal Genesis is right, I'll be glad I believed it.

Basically you are reiterating that humans are more than their biology. But evolution deals only with the biological aspects of humanity. How would one tell from the skeleton of Turkana Boy whether or not he had a soul?

I fail to understand why you find it uncomfortable to think that our skeleton shares a common ancestry with his skeleton. Could we not share the same inherited biology even if we do not share the spiritual image of God?

that's not really what bothers me, what bothers me is when people say that we're just animals and are just like the "turkana boy" etc. In fact my professor said this today lol. It bothers me when people say that we're just animals with more complex brains. No that's not what we are, we have souls too. I guess what I'm saying is that materialism bothers me, and unfortunately many evolutionists are also materialists.

wow I'm sorry I don't have the strength to reply to this whole post.. lol.. I'm very tired right now.

Is the mind in the brain? Surely that is the question the scientists are asking. It appears you have decided on a conclusion before all the evidence is in.

why do I need evidence when I know that we are still conscious after death? the brain is just a machine isn't it? it's just neurons and signals. How can a bunch of cells 'create' or 'evolve' consciousness?

Cool! Usually I am the one saying creationists sound gnostic. It is nice to see the ball kicked back

lol

I am not sure the bible says that, though I know it is a long standing tradition. As far as I can see in scripture it is our sin that leads us into bondage Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.
Paul tells us that in the resurrection our physical bodies will be transformed, will be made like Christ's resurrected body, but he also tells us this is not like the first man whose body was of the earth made of dust.
1Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Adam and Eve were man and wife, joined together by God and told to be fruitful and multiple and fill the earth, yet Jesus tells us in heaven there will be no marriage or taking in marriage, but we will be like the angels in heaven.
Is the kettle boiling because I am making a cup of tea or because electric current is flowing through the element heating the water? Both explanations are valid. But I think you would agree Eve did not have to listen.

I find it interesting to compare the description of Eve's fall with James’ and John's descriptions of temptation
1John 2:16 Because everything in the world,
the desire of the flesh,
the desire of the eyes,
and the pride of life,
is not of the Father but of the world.

Compare that to Eve’s temptation,
Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, . . . . … the desire of the flesh
and that it was a delight to the eyes, . . . . . . . . … the desire of the eyes
and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, . . . . … and the pride of life,
she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
Although Satan tempted Eve, he did so by appealing to her desires. Isn’t Eve’s downfall precisesly what James describes. James 1: 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
No that is not what I am saying. The desire itself is not wrong, without a desire for food we would die of malnutrition. There is nothing wrong with food either. 1Tim 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. The problem came when Eve had to choose between something that was good in itself, and obedience to God’s command.

sure, I can agree with this

 

[Mallon]

I'm sorry I can't support this.. what about Christ dying for us on the Cross? Was there a biological reason for this too? What about the martyrs..What about all the stories of the Saints who lived selfless lives...
I think the reason selflessness exists is not because of biology, but because that is one of the ways we reflect Christ's love.. that is one of the ways we become more like Him.

As I said earlier, I don't think all altruistic acts can simply be attributed to the outcome of game theory. Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins, not to perpetuate the species.
That said, your focus is on human altruism. What about animal altruism? Can it not be attributed to biology? Or do you think that it, too, is spiritual in nature... that it is one of the ways they reflect Christ's love to become more like Him?

to be honest I do have a little problem with reading the Bible symbolically simply because if you read one part symbolically, what is stopping you from reading the whole thing that way? Soon enough, the Resurrection becomes a mere myth..

C'mon, Monica. You know that slippery slope argument doesn't have any merit. Surely you don't read the psalms or Jesus' parables literally. And that doesn't cause you to reject the reality of Christ's death on the cross, does it? The Bible is a collection of different types of literature written by different people at different times. To say that we must read it all literally or all metaphorically is just silly.

 

[gluadys]

I think it's just simpler to accept it all literally, while also trying to understand the spiritual truth. You can't go wrong with that.

I think you can go very wrong with that.

I believe that all roses came from a rose. To me this is more micro evolution than macro.. I don't care much what we call it though. It's just terminology.

OK, let's explain the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. You agree that all roses came from a common rose ancestor. I expect you agree that all domestic dogs came from a common dog ancestor. But have you ever noticed that we never call the many varieties of dogs "species"? That is because they are not different species. That is why breeders need certificates of the breeding history of their animals. Because if you put a pure-bred male collie in the same yard as a pure-bred female Labrador in heat, nature will take its course and the pups will be neither collie nor Lab. So despite their diversity, domestic dogs remain one species.


But the roses are truly different species. The pollen from one species of rose does not normally and successfully fertilize a different species of rose. There is no gene flow between the different species of roses. A flower that began as one species now exists in over 200 species. That means new species have been produced. And that is why it is macro-evolution.

no it doesn't suprise me.. but evolution goes further than that, it goes on to say that in the beginning there were only prokaryotic cells.

It is not evolution that says that. It is evidence that says that. The oldest fossil cells are over 3 billion years old. And they are all prokaryote cells. For 2 billion years, nothing but prokaryote cells are found. It is not until about 1.5 billion years ago that the first eukaryote fossil cells are found.

I however believe that there was a point when God created a rose, etc, and before then, it didn't exist. It didn't "evolve" from something.

Why not?

I don't know.. look to be honest I don't think about all this very much. I'm not too interested in biology. I just believe that God made the world like it says in Genesis, that's all.

Genesis doesn't tell us whether God originally made one feline species or twenty feline species. So whether you believe your kitty has a common ancestor with a lion or not makes no difference in terms of what it says in Genesis.

that's not really what bothers me, what bothers me is when people say that we're just animals and are just like the "turkana boy" etc. In fact my professor said this today lol. It bothers me when people say that we're just animals with more complex brains. No that's not what we are, we have souls too.

Did your professor say that Turkana Boy had no soul? Did he say that you have no soul?

I guess what I'm saying is that materialism bothers me, and unfortunately many evolutionists are also materialists.

If materialism is what bothers you, then that is what you should say without dragging evolution into it. Evolution is accepted by many people who are not materialist. You shouldn't judge the science because some scientists are also materialists. You don't do that when the science is meteorology or oceanography. Why make an exception of evolution?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

As I said earlier, I don't think all altruistic acts can simply be attributed to the outcome of game theory. Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins, not to perpetuate the species.
That said, your focus is on human altruism. What about animal altruism? Can it not be attributed to biology? Or do you think that it, too, is spiritual in nature... that it is one of the ways they reflect Christ's love to become more like Him?

well animals are not made in the image of God.. they're still His creatures though, so no doubt they still help each other - for whatever reason. But I don't think we know enough about animals.
You might have noticed that my argument is less against evolution as it's against evolutionISM..

C'mon, Monica. You know that slippery slope argument doesn't have any merit. Surely you don't read the psalms or Jesus' parables literally. And that doesn't cause you to reject the reality of Christ's death on the cross, does it? The Bible is a collection of different types of literature written by different people at different times. To say that we must read it all literally or all metaphorically is just silly.

but when I read the parables, it's *clear* that they can't be literal. When I read about the events, they could be either literal or symbolic.. and if I think one EVENT is symbolic, why not another?

I read the Bible literally where it is literal (the events) I believe all the miracles actually happened, I believe in the Resurrection, in the great flood, etc.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I think you can go very wrong with that.

how?

OK, let's explain the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. You agree that all roses came from a common rose ancestor. I expect you agree that all domestic dogs came from a common dog ancestor. But have you ever noticed that we never call the many varieties of dogs "species"? That is because they are not different species. That is why breeders need certificates of the breeding history of their animals. Because if you put a pure-bred male collie in the same yard as a pure-bred female Labrador in heat, nature will take its course and the pups will be neither collie nor Lab. So despite their diversity, domestic dogs remain one species.


But the roses are truly different species. The pollen from one species of rose does not normally and successfully fertilize a different species of rose. There is no gene flow between the different species of roses. A flower that began as one species now exists in over 200 species. That means new species have been produced. And that is why it is macro-evolution.

Oki I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying. I guess what I meant is that in simple terms, it's still a type of a rose.

It is not evolution that says that. It is evidence that says that. The oldest fossil cells are over 3 billion years old. And they are all prokaryote cells. For 2 billion years, nothing but prokaryote cells are found. It is not until about 1.5 billion years ago that the first eukaryote fossil cells are found.

I'm a little skeptical of basing my worldview on 'evidence' cause I don't know if it's been misunderstood, or taken out of context, or if all the evidence has been preserved over time.. there have been soo many mistakes in science because of this, and scientists don't deny this either.

Why not?

well I take the Genesis account more literally than symbolically. It's how I understood the OT from the beginning, and it helped me understand the spiritual stuff more.

Genesis doesn't tell us whether God originally made one feline species or twenty feline species. So whether you believe your kitty has a common ancestor with a lion or not makes no difference in terms of what it says in Genesis.

well I believe that since today we have domestic cats and lions, that's pretty much how it started out too.

Did your professor say that Turkana Boy had no soul? Did he say that you have no soul?

we were having a group discussion about a project, and the prof came up and started talking with us.. and he mentioned that in his opinion, we're just biological organisms, we're just a bunch of cells that evolved. I don't remember the exact words but it was along those lines. My prof is an atheistic evolutionist btw. (I'm pretty sure..) he's a good prof but I really disagree with him on this lol

If materialism is what bothers you, then that is what you should say without dragging evolution into it. Evolution is accepted by many people who are not materialist. You shouldn't judge the science because some scientists are also materialists. You don't do that when the science is meteorology or oceanography. Why make an exception of evolution?

I'm a psych. major. neuroscience, cognition, etc.
they apply evolution to everything. To human behavior, to morality, to definitions such as love or truth or faith. So in my experience, evolution and materialism get along really well and in fact that's the 'popular' way to look at things. So I admit I'm kind of biased in regards to evolution..
but I just think it limits everything to the biological level.. in my classes, and textbooks, they talk as if this is all there is, and make inferences based on it. I find this dangerous.

 

[Mallon]

But I don't think we know enough about animals.

... and we're not going to learn any more about them if we take the position that their behaviour cannot be investigated using biology.

You might have noticed that my argument is less against evolution as it's against evolutionISM..

Well, you say that, and then you say things like evolution can't happen because it contradicts your literal interpretation of Genesis. It's kinda confusing.
Still, I get that you're contrary to materialism. So am I. As gluadys says, though, you should just say that. Just because many evolutionists are also atheists doesn't make evolution wrong. Many gravitationists, heliocentrists, and germ theorists are atheists as well, and that doesn't make these scientific theories wrong by association.

but when I read the parables, it's *clear* that they can't be literal. When I read about the events, they could be either literal or symbolic.. and if I think one EVENT is symbolic, why not another?

Ah. So you don't "accept it [the Bible] all literally", as you say. You manage to distinguish between symbolic and literal meaning. So again I ask why should you fear a slippery slope of interpreting the whole Bible either symbolically or literally when you yourself allow for both meanings?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Because there is a difference between parables and events. Parables are always symbolic. But if I interpret an event symbolically then I just might start going down that slippery slope
I interpret all Biblical events literally.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I interpret all Biblical events literally.

Thats a neat trick... how do you cope with the events that contradict the accounts of other events?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

You know guys, I don't think I'm going to continue this debate. For one simple reason. I like to approach my faith simply..instead of seeking answers through intellectual pursuits, I'd rather just be lead by God to whatever He wants me to believe. If you accept evolution, good for you. I might be totally wrong about it. Maybe it helps you to think about it because you're a scientific sort of person and enjoy learning more about nature, biology, etc. With me, I mostly like just thinking about faith stuff, I don't think too much about HOW God made something happen, instead I like to think about what it means, etc. In high school I was really into philosophy, etc, but that really tempted me to pride and arrogance (not that I have anything to proud about LOLL, but I guess I'm weak)..and over time God sort of humbled me on that, and now I like simple truths about who God is, who we are, how we know Him, etc... I feel really drawn to the whole idea of approaching God like a little child and trusting Him, without this big quest for evidence and... I feel like this is enough for me, and thinking about all this evolution stuff is proving to a distraction.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

God bless

 

[Mallon]

Sorry to hear you're not interested in discussing further, Monica. You've been very gracious thus far. I admire the simplicity of your faith, but I leave you with the words of Paul: Brothers, stop being childish in your thinking. Be like infants with respect to evil, but think like adults (1 Cor 14:20).

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I think we must be simple in some ways but not in others In 1 Cor 14:20 it's talking about something specific.well for me I just find evolution distracting, that's all. I don't want to stumble because of it.been nice talking to you.God bless!

 

[USincognito]

I know I just wrote that as an example. (that's cool how there are so many types of roses, I didn't know there are this many ) I believe that all the various species of roses might have had a common ancestor..but it was a rose, not some totally different flower.

Yes, the common ancestor of roses was a rose. That agrees with the theory of evolution. Perhaps that surprises you.

Oki I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying. I guess what I meant is that in simple terms, it's still a type of a rose.

There was a first genetic rose which gave rise all the species of genus Rosa. All of those species are roses. However, Rosa falls under subfamily Rosoideae which includes strawberries and brambles. Rosoideae then is part of familyRosaceae which includes cousins apples and peaches. The influence on roses for classification of flowering plants extends to order Rosales that includes elm trees, figs nettles and canibis.
(Above order level in flowering plants, magnolias take over as the classifcational archetype).

I'm a little skeptical of basing my worldview on 'evidence' cause I don't know if it's been misunderstood, or taken out of context, or if all the evidence has been preserved over time.. there have been soo many mistakes in science because of this, and scientists don't deny this either.

This isn't skepticism. It's a form of cynicism. "What do they know, they've been wrong in the past so they're probably wrong now", is not critical thinking.

I'm a psych. major. neuroscience, cognition, etc.
they apply evolution to everything. To human behavior, to morality, to definitions such as love or truth or faith. So in my experience, evolution and materialism get along really well and in fact that's the 'popular' way to look at things. So I admit I'm kind of biased in regards to evolution..
but I just think it limits everything to the biological level.. in my classes, and textbooks, they talk as if this is all there is, and make inferences based on it. I find this dangerous.

Evolutionary psychology doesn't limit everything to the biological level in the way you seem to be characterizing it. We're humans, not bees. What it does is look to see if there are biological or evolutionary bases for human behaviors. As far as limiting the scope of study to methodological naturalism - that's the only way science can work so you problem sounds more with the scientific method than your class, professor or area of study.