Creation evolution: Is this a contradiction?

[mark kennedy]

I'm begining to think that evolution is more the answer for the YEC creationist then the enemy. We have in Genesis the description of a rather large Ark that housed all the archetypes (for lack of a better term) for all the immense diversity of species that exist in our various ecosystems. I honstly think the only real difference between the evolution of the neodarwinian and the YEC creationist is the timeline.

I have yet to see a single creationist arguement that evolution (the change in gene frequencies in populations over time), does not happen. What they deny vigerously is that, the gradual accumulations of slight successive random variations, is anything more then a fantasy. That's why the exaggerated timeline is nessacary, they have to get from unicellular protoorganisms to the complex diversity of the modern world. This is supportable from both the fossil record and modern genetics.

If I am right then this would effectivly neutralize, the unicellular common ancestor model, to a falsified hypothesis.

Your thoughts...

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I'm begining to think that evolution is more the answer for the YEC creationist then the enemy. We have in Genesis the description of a rather large Ark that housed all the archetypes (for lack of a better term) for all the immense diversity of species that exist in our various ecosystems. I honstly think the only real difference between the evolution of the neodarwinian and the YEC creationist is the timeline.

I have yet to see a single creationist arguement that evolution (the change in gene frequencies in populations over time), does not happen. What they deny vigerously is that, the gradual accumulations of slight successive random variations, is anything more then a fantasy. That's why the exaggerated timeline is nessacary, they have to get from unicellular protoorganisms to the complex diversity of the modern world. This is supportable from both the fossil record and modern genetics.

If I am right then this would effectivly neutralize, the unicellular common ancestor model, to a falsified hypothesis.

Your thoughts...

There is a lot more of a difference then just a timelime. Animals only being forth after their kind according to God. That goes against the evolution idea. The order of things created is completly different then that of the evolution idea. The idea that there was death and suffereing is only an evolutionary idea, not a Biblical one. The idea that man was not created at the start but billions of years later is only the idea of an evolutionist thinker, not a Biblical thinker. The idea that meat eaters were around before the fall is the idea of evolutionists, not the Bible. Need I go on?

As for your 2nd part of the post I have yet in all my years seen any proof for evolution. Evolutionists see a smaller beak size or losing the ability to fly as evolution. I'm sorry but that's the opposite of goo to you evolution. We see limitations in changes that can occur and no new information being added, this points to YEC. I could list many other evidences that point to YEC but I don't have the time right now to do so.

 

[Vance]

At the risk of being asked not to post here, I will just add some useful information very relevent to this post. At least one of the major Creationist organizations, Asnwers in Genesis, follows your model exactly. It says that not only does evolution happen, it HAD to have happened after the flood to explain the diversity of species. It just had to happen a LOT faster (with LOT being a major understatement) than posited by evolutionary biologists.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

At the risk of being asked not to post here, I will just add some useful information very relevent to this post. At least one of the major Creationist organizations, Asnwers in Genesis, follows your model exactly. It says that not only does evolution happen, it HAD to have happened after the flood to explain the diversity of species. It just had to happen a LOT faster (with LOT being a major understatement) than posited by evolutionary biologists.

At the risk of misquoting AIG you should have added. I know AIG very well and have talked to them in person, over the phone and via e-mail many times. They believe variation has happened. They would shy away from using the word evolution. Evolution, as the term normally is used, doesn't happen. The meaning being that new information develops that can change 1 cell organisms into humans over billions of years. Evolution is a bunch of wishful thinking by people who want to explain things naturally and not have to admit the history of the Bible is true.

 

[Vance]

Yes, they would shy away from using the term "evolution" to describe the process they believe in. It does, however, match exactly with the most common definition of evolution given by evolutionary biologists. What you describe above is the theory of common descent which is based on the mechanics of the evolutionary process. This is where the "fact" of evolution (the mechanics for change), and the "theory" of evolution (an explanation of the variation of species based on the mechanics) often get confused. AiG believes in the mechanics of evolution (the "fact" everyone agrees upon, but yes, they know it would cause confusion, so they don't call it evolution), but AiG disagrees with the theory that these agreed mechanics are the cause of all the diversity of life we see today.

I think that was nuetral and non-debate-like enough to qualify as a valid post. :0)

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Yes, they would shy away from using the term "evolution" to describe the process they believe in. It does, however, match exactly with the most common definition of evolution given by evolutionary biologists. What you describe above is the theory of common descent which is based on the mechanics of the evolutionary process. This is where the "fact" of evolution (the mechanics for change), and the "theory" of evolution (an explanation of the variation of species based on the mechanics) often get confused. AiG believes in the mechanics of evolution (the "fact" everyone agrees upon, but yes, they know it would cause confusion, so they don't call it evolution), but AiG disagrees with the theory that these agreed mechanics are the cause of all the diversity of life we see today.

I think that was nuetral and non-debate-like enough to qualify as a valid post. :0)

Let me quote AIG for themselves. Just throwing around a term like evolution as you do is very misleading.

"‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off."

 

[adam149]

I'm begining to think that evolution is more the answer for the YEC creationist then the enemy. We have in Genesis the description of a rather large Ark that housed all the archetypes (for lack of a better term) for all the immense diversity of species that exist in our various ecosystems. I honstly think the only real difference between the evolution of the neodarwinian and the YEC creationist is the timeline.

Evolution posits that death and suffering have been with us since the beginning and change gradually moves upward and becomes more advanced as we go, from single-celled creatures to invertebrates to vertebrates to man, and onward, etc.

Biblical creation posits that God created all of the original kinds with a massive amount of information and perfect genes to begin with, with no errors or anything else. Then man sins and death and suffering enter the world. From these kinds spring degenerate copies whose information content is degrading and no longer completely accessible, and is becoming full of mistakes and problematic mutations, etc.

So the difference is like this:

Creation model--> \ / <--Evolution Model
Time Progression ----->

I have yet to see a single creationist arguement that evolution (the change in gene frequencies in populations over time), does not happen.

That's because we know this happens. Yet this is not the correct definition of evolution. Evolution, properly defined by evolutionists is:

the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960)

Creationists do not disagree with the other 'definitions' because they are blatantly obvious. Besides, defining evolution as "a change in gene frequencies over time" is a blanket statement which is all-inclusive since everything is going to have change in gene frequency over time at one point or another. But, if a definition includes everything, it means absolutely nothing, because everything is included in the definition, which makes the definition irrelevent and therefore useless. It's like saying "evolution is change." Everything changes all the time, thus, it can make no sense as a definition, because definitions are meant to aid people in differentiating between things.

What they deny vigerously is that, the gradual accumulations of slight successive random variations, is anything more then a fantasy. That's why the exaggerated timeline is nessacary, they have to get from unicellular protoorganisms to the complex diversity of the modern world. This is supportable from both the fossil record and modern genetics.

This is a confusing paragraph. You use the word "they" several times without defining who the "they" is that you're talking about.

I should also point out a few things. FIrstly, creationists do not deny that slight successive random variations accumulate (btw, almost the exact words of Darwin; a nice touch). We merely deny that this does any good for evolution at all and is a downward trend. The point is not minute variation, the point is where the information comes from for said variations, if we are talking the GTE of "fish-to-Gish" change.

See this chapter from Refuting Evolution:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter2.asp

Also see this chapter from Refuting Evolution 2:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp

and this assortment of articles on natural selection and information theory:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp

If I am right then this would effectivly neutralize, the unicellular common ancestor model, to a falsified hypothesis.

Your thoughts...

Naturally, I agree. Interestingly enough, so do some evolutionists (see C. Schwabe and G. Warr, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 27(3), Spring 1984, pg. 465-485). They argue that, based on molecular datasets, it is probable that animals originated from distinct types which then branched out through adaptation to form the current species and subspecies. This is what creationists have predicted all along.

Also, creationists do not believe in "rapid evolution" as others have claimed in this thread. Creationists believe in speciation, which can be rapid when most of the available nitches are not filled, such as after a natural catastrophe, like Mount St. Helens. Speciation could easily have occured since the flood, as Woodmorappe conclusively proves (Woodmorappe, J., Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, pg. 187-213).

In

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Very well put Adam. The meaning behind the definition makes all the difference when it comes to this topic. It's important to understand what YEC's typically believe when it comes to changes that we know to be fact in the world of biology.

 

[Word of Peace]

At the risk of being asked not to post here, I will just add some useful information very relevent to this post. At least one of the major Creationist organizations, Asnwers in Genesis, follows your model exactly. It says that not only does evolution happen, it HAD to have happened after the flood to explain the diversity of species. It just had to happen a LOT faster (with LOT being a major understatement) than posited by evolutionary biologists.

Science shows that variation and natural selection can indeed happen very quickly under the right conditions, but it has yet to show anything happening besides variation or loss of existing information.

The equivocation of this type of change and the addition of new information is one of the many instances of this type of logical fallacy that hold up the evolutionary theory.

 

[Beowulf]

I think the world is waiting for proof that evolution is true that they can understand without being an academic with a PHD in genetics. It's taught as true in the schools so of course the student is going to believe it as true whether they know genetics are not.

We, the majority of the world, accept the earth is not the center of the universe since anyone with a telescope and a very simple list of observations can prove it to themselves quite easily. The simple list I'm talking about didn't come easy, it took a lot of work.

Maybe when science can bring evolution to some simpler terms, terms a layman can understand, there would be a better chance of it's overall acceptance.

 

[Vance]

But they HAVE overall acceptance, even by a majority of Christians, especially Christian scientists. It must not be *that* hard to understand. It is only here in the US, where the Creationist ministries have been active since the mid-Seventies, that we have any significant doubt.

Also, regarding geocentrism, keep in mind that even after that telescope was there, and the observations made, it took the Catholic Church 200 years to accept the secular scientific proposition over its own literal interpretation of Scripture, and there were some Evangelical holdouts until the 1960's. There are even to this day some who insist that heliocentrism is a fraud perpretated by atheistic scientists bent on destroying Christianity.

People's ingrained beliefs based on their sincere interpretation of Scripture is often hard to overcome, no matter how compelling the evidence.

But enough, I have overstayed my welcome, I am sure.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

But they HAVE overall acceptance, even by a majority of Christians, especially Christian scientists. It must not be *that* hard to understand. It is only here in the US, where the Creationist ministries have been active since the mid-Seventies, that we have any significant doubt.

Also, regarding geocentrism, keep in mind that even after that telescope was there, and the observations made, it took the Catholic Church 200 years to accept the secular scientific proposition over its own literal interpretation of Scripture, and there were some Evangelical holdouts until the 1960's. There are even to this day some who insist that heliocentrism is a fraud perpretated by atheistic scientists bent on destroying Christianity.

People's ingrained beliefs based on their sincere interpretation of Scripture is often hard to overcome, no matter how compelling the evidence.

But enough, I have overstayed my welcome, I am sure.

This debate shouldn't even be taking place in this forum but I had to reply since there was many things you stated that are so very far from the truth. There are scientists all over the world who believe in a young earth. Europe, New Zealand, Australia and Canada to just name a few I know off the top of my head. There have been many young earth believing scientists in the past as well that are well regonized. Anyways, majority belief doesn't make something true. There are more nonchristians then Christians, using that logic Christianity isn't true.

 

[Vance]

True, this should not have turned into a debate. But I still think that compiling a list of NON-Creationist scientists who accept the scientific claims I mentioned would be a very useful project. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the relevant fields, this should be easy if they are there in any significant numbers. Please check out my bumped post in the main forum regarding scientific acceptance of Creation Science propositions.

 

[Beowulf]

The problem with evolution is that experiments can't be setup and run to develope a result time and time again. How do I do that in the lab?
We can use science to gather the data yes, (I uphold science in that respect) but that's all science can do. To come to conclusion still takes a step of faith. I can say that this data and that data may point to this conclusion or that conclusion.

It's like forensics. In some cases the evidence is undeniable but other cases a conclusion must be drawn whether right or wrong. The evidence of evolution still requires conjucture for the last step toward conclusion.

The first scientist to prove, undeniably, that evolution is fact will win so many awards his renown will be forever impressed into the history books. No one person has yet to put all the pieces together into a step-by-step process. This needs to be done and it will entail a lot of work if it's at all possible.

 

[Beowulf]

There is no lack for the desire of glory in mankind. So far no one person, no one science establishment, no one corparation has stepped forward to take the coveted award of proving evolution. If it could be done you can bet your bottom dollar it would have already been so.
Darwin made the assumption, others have added to that. Yet others have investigated previous claims and built their own cases. But who has yet to claim responsiblity for proving evolution? Man's yearning for glory is just too strong to be ignored.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

True, this should not have turned into a debate. But I still think that compiling a list of NON-Creationist scientists who accept the scientific claims I mentioned would be a very useful project. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the relevant fields, this should be easy if they are there in any significant numbers. Please check out my bumped post in the main forum regarding scientific acceptance of Creation Science propositions.

I know of several examples where evolution believing scientists later accepted the scientific claims. The thing is that they then become "Creation" scientists. It's almost like asking a scholar who researched the Bible closely to accept what the Bible says as true and expect them to remain a nonchristian at the same.

 

[mark kennedy]

I enjoyed going through the responses and have yet to follow all the links. I am picking up a little confusion over what evolutionary biology is, and how it is properly defined in the modern synthesis, theistic evolution and creationism. I have a post to work on in the formal debate forum but I'll be back soon to elaborate on what I mean by evolution for the creationist.

In the mean time maybe you guys could offer a good working definition that expands the working definition I offered:

Evolution-The change in gene frequencies in populations over time.

I am not fishing for a debate here, just trying to get a good working definition that distinguishes the old earth universal common ancestor and YEC.