Answering Key Issues Against the Theory of Darwinian Evolution

[The Barbarian]

I have studied quantum physics quite heavily -- I have a PhD in particle physics. Quantum physics doesn't say what you think it says.

Evolutionary theory doesn't say what he thinks it says, either.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionary theory doesn't say what he thinks it says, either.

 

[Deborah D]

Here's part of what I quoted from him: "I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man." So yes, he was indeed talking about evolution, not merely science (although the distinction is moot since evolution is part of science). Whether he had a problem with Darwinian evolution or not I have no idea; why introduce specifically Darwinian evolution?

He's not arguing against evolution here; he's arguing against materialism. He doesn't believe that we are the product of an accident -- a belief that is quite consistent with evolution. Mind you, from what I've read of and by Lewis (which is a great deal), he was pretty skeptical about the truth of evolution, but I've never seen any suggestion that he thought evolution was per se inconsistent with Christianity.

In answer to your question about why I'm using the term Darwinian evolution, it's because that's what this thread is about--Darwin's concept of evolution.

Graham saying "whether it came by an evolutionary process..." is NOT saying that he believed that it did or that he had no problem with evolution, as you have said. Your interpretation of what he said is a real stretch. What I quoted from his website was written by people who knew Graham. I trust their interpretation of his statement over yours.

The fact is that Graham clearly stated that he believed that "God created man." If he didn't have a problem with evolution, then he didn't understand Darwin's claim that man descended from apes. So, do you suppose that he thought that God breathed His Spirit into apes, who evolved into humans? That would be completely contrary to the Genesis account of the creation of animals and man.

At what point in this "evolutionary process" was man considered to reflect God's image? Did God create apes in His image? Or did man magically change into the image of God at some point in the process? Did all humans begin to reflect God's image at the same time? Or did humans evolve to reflect His image at different times--supposedly over millions of years???

 

[The Barbarian]

In answer to your question about why I'm using the term Darwinian evolution, it's because that's what this thread is about--Darwin's concept of evolution.

That's easy to discuss. There are four points to his theory. If you disagree with it, which points do you dispute, and what's your evidence?

Graham saying "whether it came by an evolutionary process..." is NOT saying that he believed that it did or that he had no problem with evolution

It merely says that he was open to either case. Neither of those were a problem for Christian theology, so he didn't have a need to establish one or the other.

The fact is that Graham clearly stated that he believed that "God created man."

He just didn't care how that creation happened; he was good with whatever God chose, including evolution.

If he didn't have a problem with evolution, then he didn't understand Darwin's claim that man descended from apes.

You're assuming ignorance with no support for your assumption. Why would that be a problem? Breathing a soul into a particular individual is not in any way beyond God's ability, and it's consistent with Genesis.

At what point in this "evolutionary process" was man considered to reflect God's image?

Obviously, it's not a physical image. God is a spirit, and as Jesus says, a spirit has no body. The image is in our spirit and mind, not physical appearance.

 

[Deborah D]

Yes. And that's been observed. In fact, most creationist organizations like "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute for Creation Research, have openly admitted the fact. The ICR even endorsed a paper claiming that new species, genera, and families are produced by older species.

Turns out, you're wrong. There is no single bacterial flagellum. There are a number of types, some less complex than others. And the subunits are useful for other things, such as secretory apparatus. Would you like to learn about that?

You're arguing from irreducible complexity, but of course, irreducible complexity can evolve. Would you like to learn about that?

There's a nice case that I mentioned earlier. A new enzyme system evolved in bacteria by mutation and natural selection. But it also evolved a regulator, which only allows the enzyme to be produced if the substrate is present to be broken down.

So all three of these must be present for the system to work; if one is missing, it won't do anything. And yet it evolved.

I would be very interested to see proof that Answers in Genesis has said that "new species are produced by older species."

 

[Deborah D]

That's easy to discuss. There are four points to his theory. If you disagree with it, which points do you dispute, and what's your evidence?



It merely says that he was open to either case. Neither of those were a problem for Christian theology, so he didn't have a need to establish one or the other.



He just didn't care how that creation happened; he was good with whatever God chose, including evolution.



You're assuming ignorance with no support for your assumption. Why would that be a problem? Breathing a soul into a particular individual is not in any way beyond God's ability, and it's consistent with Genesis.



Obviously, it's not a physical image. God is a spirit, and as Jesus says, a spirit has no body. The image is in our spirit and mind, not physical appearance.

God made man and breathed His Spirit into man in order to make him a living being created in the image of God. My question is at what point in the "process of evolution" did man receive God's Spirit?

I edited this in order to make it as clear as possible. I would be very interested in hearing what Christians who believe that man evolved from apes have to say about this.

 

[The Barbarian]

I would be very interested to see proof that Answers in Genesis has said that "new species are produced by older species."

That's a good question. At one time, "Answers in Genesis" denied that this could happen. Later, when directly observed speciations were documented, there was a problem for them. The solution?

They decided that speciation was true, but that it wasn't really evolution after all:

"Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action."
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

Problem solved. ;D

 

[The Barbarian]

God created man and breathed His Spirit into man in order to make him a living being. So, man was created in the image of God. My question is at what point in the "process of evolution" did man receive God's Spirit?

That's a good question. And we don't know. Would it be horrible if the first two humans were H. erectus or H. heidelbergensis?

Why does it matter? But which of Darwn's points do you think are wrong? We're talking about Darwin's theory in this thread.

 

[Deborah D]

That's a good question. And we don't know. Would it be horrible if the first two humans were H. erectus or H. heidelbergensis?

Why does it matter? But which of Darwn's points do you think are wrong? We're talking about Darwin's theory in this thread.

I would think that it's obvious which of Darwin's points I think is wrong. When God created man, there was one human being on the earth. Why do you ask about what you consider to be different types of humans?

 

[Job 33:6]

That's a good question. At one time, "Answers in Genesis" denied that this could happen. Later, when directly observed speciations were documented, there was a problem for them. The solution?

They decided that speciation was true, but that it wasn't really evolution after all:

"Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action."
Speciation

Problem solved. ;D

This is hilarious. Oh what evolution is real? Ok well let's make up our own definition and move the goal post so they can't prove us wrong lol.

 

[Deborah D]

That's a good question. At one time, "Answers in Genesis" denied that this could happen. Later, when directly observed speciations were documented, there was a problem for them. The solution?

They decided that speciation was true, but that it wasn't really evolution after all:

"Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action."
Speciation

Problem solved. ;D

Here's a quote from the AIG article you provided a link for. BTW, thanks for the link.

"Created kinds are organisms representing or descended from those originally created by God about 6,000 years ago. Organisms within a created kind generally interbreed and produce only more organisms of their own kind 'within the limits of preprogrammed information, but with great variation.'5Organisms that can interbreed are of the same created kind, since God designed organisms to reproduce “after their kind.' Due to loss of information and other factors, however, some organisms lose the ability to interbreed. Created kinds correspond roughly to the family level of the current classification taxons but may vary from order to genus level.

"Although evolutionists imbue taxonomic classification with evolutionary implications—believing that the taxonomic groupings roughly depict common ancestry— taxonomy is really nothing more than a useful bookkeeping system to sort and group organisms according to their shared characteristics.

"As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. The biodiversity represented in the 8.7 million or so species in the world is a testament, not to random chance processes, but to the genetic variability and potential for diversification within the created kinds that God built into the genomes of the originals 6,000 years ago." (Emphasis was added.)

Obviously, this is an issue of semantics. I see this a lot in discussions concerning evolution. The fact is that AIG has always maintained that kinds of creatures don't naturally evolve into other kinds of creatures. For instance, there can be variations within a certain kind of animal--say dogs--but the end result after any changes is still a dog.

 

[The Barbarian]

Obviously, this is an issue of semantics.

No, it's an issue of AiG attempting to redefine a scientific term when the real one turned out to be a problem for them. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. So evolution can occur within a species (sometimes called "microevolution") or it can produce new species, (sometimes called "macroevolution")

AiG tried to redefine their difficulty out of existence. Since "kinds" is a religious term, which is undefined in scripture, it offers AiG a lot of room to obfuscate.

But no one is fooled. It's a sad commentary on a group that claims to be Christian.

Although evolutionists imbue taxonomic classification with evolutionary implications—believing that the taxonomic groupings roughly depict common ancestry— taxonomy is really nothing more than a useful bookkeeping system to sort and group organisms according to their shared characteristics.

We can test that claim. When Linnaeus first noticed the nested hierarchy of taxa it looked just like a family tree. So when genes were discovered, evolutionary theory predicted that the genes of these organisms would turn out to be organized by their evolutionary history.

And when the genes (and later DNA) of these organisms were tested, that prediction was verified. It's an insurmountable problem for creationists, but it's a verification of evolutionary theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

I would think that it's obvious which of Darwin's points I think is wrong.

So just for those of us who don't see, how about telling us which ones, and your evidence for your belief?

 

[Job 33:6]

Organisms within a created kind generally interbreed and produce only more organisms of their own kind

Created kinds correspond roughly to the family level of the current classification taxons but may vary from order to genus level.

Just dont want anyone to miss this.

Most genus of animal, if not all genus of any family of animal, do not interbreed (or produce viable offspring in the least).

And yet here we have AIG stating that kinds generally interbreed and reproduce more of their kind, but simultaneously, they roughly correspond to the family level.

They are contradicting themselves.


Its like saying that lions and tigers and pumas and cheetahs and lynx and leopards and panthers and jaguars all interbreed.

Lynx - Wikipedia

but we know that they do not (A tiger cannot interbreed with a lynx or any cats of the lynx related sub families and genus), and if any of them could, they would not produce fertile offspring.

99.99% of genus of a single family of animal, if not 100% cannot produce viable offspring (with other genus of the same family), yet here AIG is stating that a "kind" roughly correlates to a family of animal, which therefore means that differing genus of a single family of animal "generally interbreed and produce...more organisms of their own kind"

They literally contradict themselves in their own words.

 

[Deborah D]

No, it's an issue of AiG attempting to redefine a scientific term when the real one turned out to be a problem for them. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. So evolution can occur within a species (sometimes called "microevolution") or it can produce new species, (sometimes called "macroevolution")

AiG tried to redefine their difficulty out of existence. Since "kinds" is a religious term, which is undefined in scripture, it offers AiG a lot of room to obfuscate.

But no one is fooled. It's a sad commentary on a group that claims to be Christian.



We can test that claim. When Linnaeus first noticed the nested hierarchy of taxa it looked just like a family tree. So when genes were discovered, evolutionary theory predicted that the genes of these organisms would turn out to be organized by their evolutionary history.

And when the genes (and later DNA) of these organisms were tested, that prediction was verified. It's an insurmountable problem for creationists, but it's a verification of evolutionary theory.

AIG redefined an arbitrary scientific term? How dare they! Who do they think they are?

Which came first--science or God? Here's the real problem: many scientists have made a mockery of what GOD has said! It's clearly spelled out in Genesis that God created the animals to reproduce "after their own kinds." Could it be that God knew that the false concept of evolution would mislead so many people? Of course He knew that when He inspired the writing of the creation account!

 

[Deborah D]

Komatiite..., I didn't say what's in the quote box in your last post. Is that a quote from the AIG article?

 

[Job 33:6]

Komo..., I didn't say what's in the quote box in your last post. Is that a quote from the AIG article?

"Created kinds are organisms representing or descended from those originally created by God about 6,000 years ago. Organisms within a created kind generally interbreed and produce only more organisms of their own kind 'within the limits of preprogrammed information, but with great variation.'5Organisms that can interbreed are of the same created kind, since God designed organisms to reproduce “after their kind.' Due to loss of information and other factors, however, some organisms lose the ability to interbreed. Created kinds correspond roughly to the family level of the current classification taxons but may vary from order to genus level.

 

[Job 33:6]

Classifying Life

"The created kinds roughly correspond to the current classification at the family level."

"Any organisms that can interbreed are considered part of the same kind"

They contradict themselves because sub families and genus, 99% of the time, if not 100% of the time, cannot produce fertile offspring. So a "Kind" could not possibly be "roughly...at the family level".

 

[Deborah D]

So just for those of us who don't see, how about telling us which ones, and your evidence for your belief?

Why?

 

[Deborah D]

Classifying Life

"The created kinds roughly correspond to the current classification at the family level."

"Any organisms that can interbreed are considered part of the same kind"

They contradict themselves because sub families and genus, 99% of the time, if not 100% of the time, cannot produce fertile offspring. So a "Kind" could not possibly be "roughly...at the family level".

Koma..., Do you understand that the taxonomy is arbitrary? Not all animals fit perfectly into the categories or taxa. You learn this is earth science.