Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[Biblewriter]

As one of the few actual scientists here, I can assure anyone and everyone that evolution is so far from being proved as actual scientific fact, that the proponents of this theory have had to resort to numerous ploys to prevent the release of actual facts that throw doubt upon the theory.

But I will address only one of these hard facts here.

It is a well known fact that what the geological record actually shows is a long series of stable ecosystems, each of which suddenly appeared, flourished virtually unchanged for a long period of time, and then suddenly disappeared, only to be suddenly replaced by a completely different stable ecosystem.

This is not some creationists dream world, but what is known to essentially all scientists. The only problem is that they have almost universally failed to realize the significance of this well known hard fact.

The suddenness of the transitions between these well known and named geological epochs simply leaves zero room for the ages required for such transitions to take place by the normally assumed process of natural selection of random mutations.

 

[J. Elias]

Well, for one, I would say it's a far cry from being an "overwhelming" theory. There are even atheists that contend that the odds of evolution happening by random mutation and natural selection are vanishingly small. I even seem to recall one study done showing that the odds were somewhere around 1:10^300, or "mathematically zero chance" 6 times over. (I'm not sure where I found that, sorry folks)

But all of that aside, the "problem" of evolution for us Christians is really no problem at all unless we make it one. The atheist still has to explain causation, fine tuning, irreducible complexity, and other issues.

As mentioned in the OP, some biblical scholars suggest that the Genesis creation story resembles a myth; allow me to explain. Essentially, the two creation stories in Genesis (yes, there are two stories!) are very much fable-like, almost what we would call a sort of folklore-type story. The stories are also somewhat similar to other creation stories we see dating back to Mesopotamia, in that there are literary parallels and such that we see in the narrative. However, the Genesis stories are quite unique from all other "creation myths" of the day, as we see the Hebrew God being depicted as characteristically different from other gods of other religions. In addition, the Torah was not compiled until (traditionally) the time of Moses, meaning these "creation fables" were passed down through the Israelite people for generations before being finally written down. (I just wrote a big essay on this, guys, so I'm super excited to share!)

However, this is not to say that the stories are any less "true" because they are not necessarily scientifically accurate. Rather, it misses the whole point! The point of the narrative is not to show HOW the world was created, but WHO created the world. In contrast to the violent, chaotic, pantheistic creation stories, the Genesis stories tell of a single, caring, powerful God who speaks forth light into existence and has reality bend to His voice, but then kneels in the dirt and carefully, lovingly sculpts man out of the dust, and then breathes His very breath into the man, that man can become a living soul.

You see, when we move past all the scientific, nit-picky, how-was-it-done scientific mindset and instead just read the poetic, bedtime-like story of the creation narrative, we come away with a much different perspective. God didn't choose to reveal HOW He created the world, but rather, with these stories, God demonstrates to us WHO He is! How powerful, majestic, authoritative He is, and how loving, tender, and passionate He is, and how special we as human are. (Just read the story like a story and you'll see what I mean!)

I mean, the Bible is God's self-revelation to man; it's a work of poetry, not a scientific journal. Even if God were to explain everything about Him to us, we wouldn't be able to understand it. Instead, He gave us stories that we can understand and pass down to our children, and show them who God is and what He's like. In a way, it only gives us a sort of fragmented picture that we can resonate with and learn from, instead of a huge concept that we can't grasp. It's much like how we would tell one of Aesop's fables to teach a moral lesson to our kids rather than delving into a philosophical analysis of the nature of morality and how it pertains to the individual and society.

Truly, I think it's the most beautiful way God could have shown Himself to us. Stories, in many ways, give far more depth of concept than science ever can.



(If anyone is interested, I have a full essay on comparing the Hebrew Narrative and the Enuma Elish, PM me if you'd like to read it)

 

[Indent]

As one of the few actual scientists here, I can assure anyone and everyone that evolution is so far from being proved as actual scientific fact, that the proponents of this theory have had to resort to numerous ploys to prevent the release of actual facts that throw doubt upon the theory.

But I will address only one of these hard facts here.

It is a well known fact that what the geological record actually shows is a long series of stable ecosystems, each of which suddenly appeared, flourished virtually unchanged for a long period of time, and then suddenly disappeared, only to be suddenly replaced by a completely different stable ecosystem.

This is not some creationists dream world, but what is known to essentially all scientists. The only problem is that they have almost universally failed to realize the significance of this well known hard fact.

The suddenness of the transitions between these well known and named geological epochs simply leaves zero room for the ages required for such transitions to take place by the normally assumed process of natural selection of random mutations.

I don't approve of the self-appointed authority on science.

The scientific consensus does not change because a random "scientist" comes along and says so. That's not how science works, and that's not how academia works.

You remind me of the Discovery Institute, and organization that attempts to be "academic" but resorts to obscurantism, misrepresents informations, and outright lies.

There is, however, a geological record that makes the flood and Genesis narrative next to impossible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Please answer my question. If a celestial body can come from a different kind of terrestial body, according to that very scripture, why can the flesh of man not come forth from the flesh of animals?

Scripture says we have a soul, body, and a spirit and that our spirit returns to God. The spirit does not evolve or transform into a terrestrial body. They are separate things that are linked together when a person is alive (and yet they are separate when the body dies). But the spirit is not the flesh. Just as the flesh of birds and the flesh of fish are not all the same. The Bible says not all flesh is the same. Yet, you are saying that this is not true. I am going to stick with the Bible instead.


...

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

However, there is no transitional fossils in abundance, though. There is no findings like that. . . . .
...

Your assertion about a lack of transitionals is . . . . uninformed. You should check out the examples cited here.
http://transitionalfossils.com/

In particular, we have, these days, a nice set of transitional fossils for whale evolution from land animal to sea animal.

And we have a lot of transitional fossils from hominid to mankind now. Have you heard of "Homo Erectus" and "Homo Heidelbergensis"?

 

[hedrick]

For something to be Created, there has to be a Creator. (GOD)The universe didn't just show up or a BIG bang made it all happen..

Unfortunately it did. We can talk about what resoonsibility God had for the process, but I'm not willing to talk with people who reject consensus science as a description of what happened.

 

[Biblewriter]

I don't approve of the self-appointed authority on science.

The scientific consensus does not change because a random "scientist" comes along and says so. That's not how science works, and that's not how academia works.

You remind me of the Discovery Institute, and organization that attempts to be "academic" but resorts to obscurantism, misrepresents informations, and outright lies.

There is, however, a geological record that makes the flood and Genesis narrative next to impossible.

Your opinion about me is trivial. But the HARD FACT that I discussed is WELL KNOWN. In fact, without even one exception, every geologist with whom I have ever discussed this has, at first, denied it, and then, after consideration, admitted that he was personally aware of the fact that it was correct.

 

[Armoured]

Your opinion about me is trivial. But the HARD FACT that I discussed is WELL KNOWN. In fact, without even one exception, every geologist with whom I have ever discussed this has, at first, denied it, and then, after consideration, admitted that he was personally aware of the fact that it was correct.

And how many geologists is that?

 

[pat34lee]

Well of course, just because its there, its an attachment site. But the tendons and ligaments and muscles don't need their attachment site to look like the remnant of a tail.

And another funny thing . . . . those species who still have tails don't have them, their tails stick out, you know, and don't provide that attachment point you claim to be so important.

And that doesn't bother them. Oh dear, how do they manage, without that attachment point?

Why aren't Fords and Chevys exactly the same? There can only be one
best way to make a car. Or is there? God didn't have to worry about
patent infringement, so he was free to make everything as he wanted.

 

[1213]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

I think it is sad if people take explanations as evidence. All kind of explanations could be made about the origin of life and they could be really impressive, it would still not mean that they are true.

The problem with the evolution theory is that there is really no direct evidence for it, if it means that species should be able to evolve from single organism to this variety of species that we can nowadays see. If it would be real natural thing, it should be possible to demonstrate it and for example breed mouse in to a fish by selecting suitable individuals.

However, some kind of evolution is probable even fi we believe what the Bible tells, because for example there was 8 people that are ancestors of all modern people and now we have great variety of different looking people. So obviously some kind of “evolution” happens and some heredity matters may be true. The same can be with all animals. In the ark, there may have been only one couple of bears and all modern bear species are offspring of those original bears.

Many things in evolution theory can be true at the same tie with the Bible. However, I think evolution is not good word for the matters that can really be observed. I would rather use word degeneration or devolution, because all seems to be going less than they were before.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What's evolution doing anyway ... besides causing others to abandon their faith?

Evolution hasn't caused me to abandon MY faith . . . it has merely helped inform my faith, as does every word that proceeds from God.

Which was here first? evolution or creation?

Evolution IS creation, and God is in charge of it.

Did Adam believe in evolution? Noah? Abraham? Moses?

Noah, Abraham, Moses - my guess would be they never heard of it. Adam? He's a special case, who knows what esoteric knowledge he picked up before being expelled from the garden.

It wasn't until Darwin wrote, The Preservation of Favoured Races that evolution became a dangerous alternative.

Evolution was a scientific point of discussion before Darwin. Darwin gave us a theory that explains how evolution happens, based on variations and natural selection. The theory was also developed independently by Wallace, so even if Darwin had never lived, by now we would have the theory of evolution anyway. Science had advanced to the point that the nailing down of the theory was inevitable.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The problem with the evolution theory is that there is really no direct evidence for it, if it means that species should be able to evolve from single organism to this variety of species that we can nowadays see. If it would be real natural thing, it should be possible to demonstrate it and for example breed mouse in to a fish by selecting suitable individuals.

Mouse to fish would take too much time. But the very thing you ask for here has been demonstrated by the great variety of dog breeds, for example.

 

[pat34lee]

I wonder if God tried to explain it all and Moses was just like, "What?" That would make a great comic strip.

Consider this. Adam was perfect, both physically and mentally.
Noah lived 600 years and mankind has been going downhill
ever since. Moses lived 120 years, had the best education that
could be bought, and most likely had an IQ that our best and
brightest could only dream of.

 

[pat34lee]

"Macro" and "micro" evolution are terms made up by YEC people. It's a goal post shift. There is no such distinction.

It's words. If you prefer, use adaptation (true) and evolution (false).
Same difference.

 

[pat34lee]

Evolution was a scientific point of discussion before Darwin. Darwin gave us a theory that explains how evolution happens, based on variations and natural selection. The theory was also developed independently by Wallace, so even if Darwin had never lived, by now we would have the theory of evolution anyway. Science had advanced to the point that the nailing down of the theory was inevitable.

Evolution was part of the Hindu religion long before Christianity.
And it is still a religion today, not a science. It is exactly the same
as creationism, except the gods involved are chance and time.

 

[Biblewriter]

And how many geologists is that?

Of those that were professionals in the field, four or five.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Your assertion about a lack of transitionals is . . . . uninformed. You should check out the examples cited here.
http://transitionalfossils.com/

In particular, we have, these days, a nice set of transitional fossils for whale evolution from land animal to sea animal.

And we have a lot of transitional fossils from hominid to mankind now. Have you heard of "Homo Erectus" and "Homo Heidelbergensis"?

Nope. These are not transitional fossils. They are simply different species. The article itself does a play on words and says that there does not need to be direct ties between the two animals in order for it to be a transitional fossil. That kind of defeats the purpose of it being transitional if you cannot connect the dots.


...

 

[Biblewriter]

Unfortunately it did. We can talk about what resoonsibility God had for the process, but I'm not willing to talk with people who reject consensus science as a description of what happened.

Actually, everyone that has even the beginning of an understanding of what science is, knows that "consensus" has nothing to do with science. Its probative value is zero.

When I was a University student studying senior level genetics, it was common knowledge that the human cell contained 24 pairs of chromosomes. This was the consensus, accepted by everyone, and not even the subject of debate. But, just as I was finishing my studies, a single student in Japan insisted that the human cell he was examining only had 23 pairs of chromosomes, not 24. Less than two months later, the "consensus" had changed. Now everyone knew that the human cell actually contained 23 pairs of chromosomes, not 24.

(And if that "dates" me, so be it.)

The progress of science has always been built upon those that have dared to challenge the "consensus" view. And simply accepting the "consensus" view, without questioning it, is a sure fire way to absolutely guarantee that you will make zero progress in whatever happens to be your field.

But arrogantly dismissing all challenges as failing to meet the "consensus" view is the standard practice of pseudo-scientists that are more interested in defending a certain viewpoint than in anything even resembling real scientific discussion.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The problem with Evolution is if mankind was a single celled organism at one point in time, then that means murder does not exist. For it would be just one single celled organism eliminating another singled celled organism by the process of natural selection.


...

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure the ToE would make some things nonsense, such as a view of the Bible that believes the books have to be perfect and historically accurate all the time. But that view is not a core part of our faith. Christianity can survive without it.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Don't you have faith and hope?