Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[River Jordan]

I’m not pitting God or the Bible against science.

You have no problem with Christians who agree with scientists on evolution? Then what was this post about?

I’m challenging the theory of evolution

In a Christian internet forum? What do you expect to accomplish here? If you're going to make a genuine scientific case against evolutionary theory, shouldn't you be presenting it in a scientific venue?

What I reject is the idea that science must always exclude God or reinterpret Scripture to fit a man-made theory.

How do you propose scientists study and test God?

Sadly, many Christians, put more faith in a man-made theory over God's word. So, instead of giving God the Glory for creation, they give the glory to the animals of the earth, saying that the reason they are so wonderfully and beautifully made is because they evolved.

No, we just interpret scripture differently than you, which I hope you realize is very, very common in Christianity.

If someone walks away from the faith because they’ve been led to believe that evolution is a non-negotiable truth, maybe their faith wasn’t in the Cross of Christ but in the approval of the scientific mainstream. That’s not a false dilemma; that’s a necessary call to examine where our trust truly lies.

In my experiences as a youth pastor I've seen far more kids walk away from the faith due to the outrageous dishonesty from creationists and creationist organizations, and their demand that Christians have to choose between science and scripture.

You previously were trying to argue from a place of authority by pointing out that you are a biologist and that I should be listening to you because of this (This is a very weak way to argue).

I never said that once. Please don't do that.

You kept asking what my background was, and I replied by not telling you. I said, "If I tell you that I have a higher education than you, then I am making an argument from a place of authority. So, "I know more, and therefore you should listen to me". That is wrong. I would not do that. Some might, but I wouldn't. If I tell you that I have no degree and yet I am able to debate a biologist at their own game and put major pinholes in his arguments, then he is either not a very good biologist, or his theories/beliefs are very weak."

You're assuming and imagining a lot that I never said. Please stick to what I actually post.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's true, and much more civilly put than I would have, but there is also another factor. I am coming to believe that there are creationists who are just plain not aware that there a real, devout Christians who don't believe in literal inerrancy or Sola Scriptura besides a few frivolous American mainline churches, maybe. They just seem to take for granted that anyone who rejects literal inerrancy must be apostate and entirely out of line with the ancient traditional beliefs of the Church. Some know better, of course. I was once involved in a lengthy discussion with a gentleman here on CF to the effect that the Apostolic Fathers secretly believed in the Solas but were forbidden by the Pope to teach them. It seems to have escaped his attention that one of the Apostolic Fathers actually was Pope.

It's unfortunate that there's so much for Christians to argue over. Fortunately for me, I've never been firmly attached to any one denomination of the Christian Faith and have avoided being enmeshed in prolonged theological skirmishes. From what I've seen in both Church history and personal experience, just about everyone makes theological and interpretive mistakes, or they create new terms (like inerrancy or Sola Scriptura) and they not only foist those new terms upon the Christian public, but also inflate them beyond what the 1st century Church would likely ever have conceptualized or what Jesus Himself likely would have recommended.

Where mistakes could be made, I'm sure I've committed a few conceptual blunders somewhere along the way, too, in both theology and science. But I don't know what those are at the moment, and I'm sure someone will try to make a point to correct me about them and try to disabuse me of them in the process. It's just too bad that the Theory of Evolution happens to be seen some Christians as the nexus of error and apostasy. From my angle, there are more insidious things to be concerned about as a Christian than knowing exactly how the world came about, even from God's own Hand.

 

[1Tonne]

You have no problem with Christians who agree with scientists on evolution? Then what was this post about?

That is simple. It is interesting to see how many people on this thread are atheists. I can then also tailor my answers to their response.

In a Christian internet forum? What do you expect to accomplish here? If you're going to make a genuine scientific case against evolutionary theory, shouldn't you be presenting it in a scientific venue?

Yes, this is a Christian forum, which is exactly why the conversation belongs here. Evolution isn't just a scientific claim; it's a worldview-shaping idea that directly impacts how we interpret Genesis, the fall, sin, death, and ultimately the Gospel itself.
Many Christians have accepted evolution without realizing the theological compromises it demands. So I’m raising the issue here, among fellow believers, because we need to ask: are we letting Scripture shape our understanding of the world, or letting secular science reinterpret Scripture for us?
I’m not pretending this is a peer-reviewed science journal. I’m engaging in a Christian context, where truth matters, both scientifically and theologically. If evolution contradicts core biblical claims, it’s absolutely worth challenging here.

How do you propose scientists study and test God?

Science doesn’t have to study God directly, but it also doesn’t need to exclude Him by default. My point is that when scientists assume from the outset that only naturalistic explanations are allowed, they’re no longer following the evidence wherever it leads. They’re following a philosophy: naturalism.
You can’t put God in a test tube, but you can examine the design, order, and information in creation and ask whether those things point more logically to chance or intention. Science should be a tool for discovery, not a cage that shuts out any possibility beyond material causes.

No, we just interpret scripture differently than you, which I hope you realize is very, very common in Christianity.

Yes, I realise there are many interpretations within Christianity, but not all interpretations are equally faithful to the text. When Jesus and the apostles referred to creation, they did so plainly and historically, not symbolically or allegorically. The issue here isn’t diversity of opinion, it’s whether we’re allowing outside ideas to override the clear meaning of Scripture.
There’s a difference between honest interpretation and reinterpretation to fit a secular framework. My concern is that many Christians give more weight to modern scientific theories than to God’s Word, and in doing so, they shift the glory from the Creator to the creation. That’s not a harmless difference; it touches the foundation of our entire faith.

In my experiences as a youth pastor I've seen far more kids walk away from the faith due to the outrageous dishonesty from creationists and creationist organizations, and their demand that Christians have to choose between science and scripture.

I’d suggest the real problem isn’t creationists being 'dishonest', it’s that we’re in a culture where students are taught that mainstream science is the final authority, and that Scripture must be reshaped to fit it. That pressure creates confusion, compromise, and sadly, even some Christians contribute to that by mocking or dismissing belief in biblical creationism.
In my view, if a Christian leader in my church consistently undermined the authority of Scripture in that way, it would raise serious concerns about their fitness for leadership, not because they’re struggling, but because leadership demands a firm stand on the Word and not to water it down to fit their agenda.
This isn’t about science vs. faith. It’s about whether we let Scripture be the lens through which we understand the world, or let the world tell us how to read Scripture. And when Christianity becomes dependent on scientific approval, it’s building a house on sand. And we’ve all seen what happens when the winds come.

I never said that once. Please don't do that.

Here is a previous quote from you in the thread I was talking about:
"I have to ask, how do you know all that? Just below you say you're not a scientist, so how did you get to be such an expert in paleontology?" and within the same post, you said, "FYI I'm a biologist, so there's no need to lecture me about science." This was said when I was simply making a point.

Why Believe Evolution Theories?

To publicly assert that one sentence uttered by anyone “PROVES” anything, let alone that the vast majority of people in the world are utterly deluded false accusers will be seen by every wise man in the world as the ramblings of an arrogant madman, and certainly it was not the way of truth. Do...

www.christianforums.com

You then accused me of speaking as an authority when I have never claimed any authority at all. In fact, I said "I am not a scientist". You were the one who claimed authority by saying that you were a biologist, not me.
This is similar to this current thread we are in, where you accused me of being prideful when I do not believe that any of my posts have been prideful.

 

[1Tonne]

We only have to accept those explanations which are able to account for all of the evidence and are contradicted by none of it, even if they are not complete. What have you got?

That’s exactly the point; no explanation accounts for all the evidence without contradiction. Evolution is not free of challenges: the origin of life, the explosion of body plans in the Cambrian, irreducible complexity, the limits of genetic mutations. These are not minor gaps, they’re foundational problems.
What I have is a worldview that starts with the unchanging Word of God, not the shifting conclusions of men. Creation offers a framework where design, purpose, and order make sense, and where life didn’t emerge from chaos, but from intention. No model is without questions, but I’d rather place my trust in God’s revelation than in a theory that still can’t explain the origin of information or life itself.

Of your making. The "design" which is not science is the "design" of Intelligent Design theory, which is definitely not science.

That’s the convenient line, but it doesn’t hold up. Intelligent Design isn’t unscientific because it lacks evidence; it’s dismissed because it allows for a non-material cause. That’s a philosophical boundary, not a scientific one.
We infer design in other fields, archaeology, cryptography, and forensics, based on the presence of information, order, and purposeful arrangement. But when that same logic is applied to biology, it’s suddenly ruled out. Why? Not because it’s unreasonable, but because it challenges the assumption of naturalism. That’s not following the evidence; that’s restricting what counts as evidence.

So you reject without understanding any explanation of why those things aren't problems for the theory of evolution. Got it.

No, I’m rejecting the assumption that those problems have been sufficiently answered. I’m well aware that evolutionary theorists offer explanations, but explanations aren’t the same as solutions. Appealing to vague pathways, assumed transitions, or unfalsifiable mechanisms doesn’t resolve the critique.
It’s not about ignorance, it’s about whether the explanations hold up under scrutiny. And in many of these cases, they simply don’t.

Because you don't understand them yourself well enough to make sparring with you about them amusing. You have really not, yourself, answered any of our questions. That's no fun.

That’s not a rebuttal; it’s just avoidance dressed up as mockery. If my points are wrong, then refute them. But dismissing someone because they’re not 'fun to spar with' is a poor excuse to dodge the actual arguments.
I’ve stayed on topic, engaged the issues, and pointed out genuine weaknesses in the evolutionary framework. If that’s too inconvenient to address, maybe the problem isn’t the questions, it’s the lack of real answers.

Have we mislabled you? You seem to be a Fundamentalist, but there are other fringe Christian sects who may embrace the literal inerrancy of scripture without necessarily accepting all of the other four tenets.

Ah, so now we’re back to labels, not to clarify, but to discredit. 'Fundamentalist,' 'fringe,' 'sect', all convenient ways to avoid the real issue: I believe the Bible means what it says. If that’s too uncomfortable for some Christians, maybe the problem isn’t my theology. Maybe it’s their compromise.
This isn’t about fitting into your preferred category. It’s about whether God’s Word holds ultimate authority, or whether we only take it seriously when it agrees with modern theories. If the best you can do is name-calling, then maybe the real fundamentalist here is the one bowing to the dogma of naturalism.

 

[1Tonne]

A second point concerns the matter of what counts as science. It appears that at least one poster is expressing the view that in order for some model of how the world works to be labeled as science, the predictions of the model must be repeatable in the present.

While I do not have access to evidence to support my claim right now, I believe there is now widespread consensus that this is too limiting a definition. Let me illustrate by example: The Big Bang theory is a model, that model makes predictions, those predictions are not only about what we might see now, but what the historical record shows to have been the case. It is no less science in that respect; the important point is it makes predictions that are verifiable. The fact that we have to look into the past for the evidence does not make it any less "science

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree that science can make predictions about the past, and models like the Big Bang certainly attempt that. But my point isn’t that studying the past isn’t science at all, it’s that there’s a key distinction between observational/experimental science, which is testable and repeatable in the present, and historical science, which relies heavily on interpretation of unrepeatable past events.
Yes, the Big Bang model makes predictions, but those predictions are often framed within a specific philosophical commitment (naturalism), and they can’t be confirmed through direct observation or repeatable experimentation. That’s where the distinction matters.
When it comes to evolution, especially large-scale claims like the origin of life or common ancestry, we’re often dealing more with forensic reconstruction than with testable natural laws. That doesn't mean it's worthless, but it does mean we should be cautious about treating such models as unquestionable science, especially when they conflict with the plain teaching of Scripture. Blessings and thanks for the comment.

 

[1Tonne]

See, it's claims like this that make out that you think you know what you're talking about but you clearly don't. Science does not purely work on direct observation to gain data, and it can build data while looking backwards through stuff like genetics, DNA, fossil evidence and the like.

You don't know what science is, plain and simple.

If you think mocking me proves your point, it doesn’t. It just shows you're more interested in posturing than in actual discussion. I never said science only works on direct observation. I said that for a theory to be scientifically robust, it must be observable, testable, and falsifiable. That's a foundational principle of the scientific method, whether applied to present processes or historical claims.
Interpreting fossils, genetics, or DNA from the past involves assumptions. It’s not raw data giving us conclusions. It's data being filtered through a philosophical framework: naturalism. That's the part you're not acknowledging. And when a theory like molecules-to-man evolution can't be tested in real time and relies heavily on unrepeatable events, it's not on the same footing as experimental sciences like chemistry or physics.

You can disagree, but at least engage with the argument instead of trying to shut it down with insults. That’s not science, it’s arrogance.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you think mocking me proves your point, it doesn’t. It just shows you're more interested in posturing than in actual discussion. I never said science only works on direct observation. I said that for a theory to be scientifically robust, it must be observable, testable, and falsifiable. That's a foundational principle of the scientific method, whether applied to present processes or historical claims.
Interpreting fossils, genetics, or DNA from the past involves assumptions. It’s not raw data giving us conclusions. It's data being filtered through a philosophical framework: naturalism. That's the part you're not acknowledging. And when a theory like molecules-to-man evolution can't be tested in real time and relies heavily on unrepeatable events, it's not on the same footing as experimental sciences like chemistry or physics.

You can disagree, but at least engage with the argument instead of trying to shut it down with insults. That’s not science, it’s arrogance.

But there is no argument coming from you worth engaging. It's same old Creationist's Point Refuted A Thousand Times.

There is no other reason for science to view anything through naturalism because there is nothing else that science can view anything through. The supernatural, by its very nature as the supernatural, cannot be observed, recorded or studied, because it exists outside the bounds of nature. And there are many, many things in science that cannot be tested in real time, but I sure shooting know that you don't consider them as worth your time arguing against them as evolution. We have raw data: comparative DNA, genome sequences from a wide spectra of extant and a few extinct animals, we have fossils and preserved bodies, all of which point to the irrefutable fact for biological science that the forms of life as we know them to be, came about via evolution. We don't know the exact start, and the theory of evolution makes no such claims to it no matter what anyone like you says.

Facts is facts: you're not arguing against evolution from a scientific point of view, you only want to argue it from a religious point of view. And that's all there really is to it.

But there is one salient question that does need to be asked, and it's a simple yes or no answer: even if I did present evidence for any and all things you asked for, would you even consider it as evidence for the theory of evolution being fact?

 

[1Tonne]

Hey, the snowflake was a refutation of the false claim that complexity can't arise without intelligence. It's a fact that matter and energy tend to organize themselves and become more complex.

I see what you’re saying, and yes, snowflakes do show that natural processes can produce intricate patterns. But there’s a big difference between patterned complexity and functional complexity. A snowflake doesn’t store information, perform coordinated tasks, or replicate itself. The kind of complexity we see in biological systems, like DNA, the cell, or the human brain, involves specified information, feedback loops, and interdependent systems.
So, while the snowflake is a good example of how structure can emerge through physical laws, it doesn’t bridge the gap to the kind of purposeful, functional complexity seen in life, which still begs the question: where did the information and laws that govern all of this come from?

Observations of the total mass and energy in the universe are consistent with zero. The universe is a re-expression of nothingness.

Saying the universe is a 're-expression of nothingness' might sound clever, but it’s a philosophical sleight of hand, not a scientific explanation. Zero net energy doesn’t mean the universe came from nothing. It means it came from a perfectly balanced something.
'Nothing', truly nothing, has no properties, no energy, no potential, no laws. It can’t fluctuate, produce, or re-express anything. To say otherwise is to redefine 'nothing' into a version of 'something' that fits the theory. That’s not science, it’s metaphysics with a lab coat.
The bottom line remains: the existence of something rather than nothing demands an adequate cause. And absolute nothingness isn’t capable of being that cause. It's not scientific.

We've already shown you the Tiktaalik, which was predicted to exist.

Tiktaalik is interesting, but it’s far from the smoking gun it’s often made out to be. It’s a fossil of a fully formed creature with no clear, testable evidence of it being in transition. Just traits that some interpret as ‘in between.’ That’s not the same as direct evidence of a step-by-step transformation.
And even if Tiktaalik is one possible transitional fossil, that’s a long way from demonstrating how entire body plans, organ systems, and genetic codes could arise gradually through blind processes. One find that fits a prediction doesn’t close the massive gaps. It just highlights how wide they still are.

Your posts in this thread are full of condescending jabs.

You will find that I am polite to those who have opposite views to me. But when they choose to word things in a rude manner, I respond to them.

Who claims that molecules fell together to form a man? Another strawman.

Evolution is certainly falsifiable.

No one’s claiming molecules literally fell together into a man overnight. That’s not my point, and it’s not a strawman. ‘Molecules-to-man’ is shorthand for the full evolutionary narrative: that life began from non-living chemicals, gradually evolved into single-celled organisms, and ultimately produced humans through unguided processes over billions of years.
As for falsifiability, in theory, maybe. But in practice, many evolutionary claims are adjusted, reinterpreted, or pushed further into the unobservable past when contrary evidence arises. That’s not real falsifiability. That’s an ever-flexible framework.
If you’re confident it’s truly falsifiable, then tell me: what specific evidence, if discovered, would cause you to reject the idea of universal common descent?

You were the one who claimed that a heart and blood and blood vessels are all necessary at the same time. I provided two counterexamples which refuted your claim. Now you're trying to move the goalposts.

No, I’m not moving the goalposts. I’m clarifying the original point. My claim was that complex systems like the human circulatory system are irreducibly complex: heart, blood, and vessels must work together, or the system fails. Pointing to simpler systems in insects or haemoglobin-free fish doesn’t explain how a closed, high-pressure circulatory system evolved step-by-step through random mutations and natural selection.
Showing different systems doesn’t explain the origin of this one. A workaround is not a mechanism.

Define "unbroken". You want a fossil of every creature that ever lived?

No, of course not. No one expects a fossil of every creature that ever lived. But if evolution is a gradual, step-by-step process over millions of years, we should expect to find numerous clear, well-supported transitional sequences (as Darwin even claimed). Especially for major transformations like fish to amphibians, reptiles to birds, or apes to humans.
Instead, we often find sudden appearances, long periods of stasis, and isolated specimens that require a lot of interpretive stretching to fit the evolutionary narrative. That’s not an 'unbroken' chain; it’s a scattered puzzle with most of the critical pieces missing.

Except he goes on to explain that we do find the precursors in the Ediacaran epoch, which he called the Vendian.

Yes, he mentions the Ediacaran (Vendian) organisms. But simply pointing to earlier life forms isn’t the same as demonstrating a clear, step-by-step progression to the complex, fully formed body plans of the Cambrian. The Ediacaran fossils are mostly soft-bodied, ambiguous, and in many cases unrelated to later phyla. Even some evolutionary palaeontologists admit the connection between them and Cambrian animals is weak or speculative.
So saying 'we find precursors' doesn’t solve the problem, it just shifts it. The explosion of complex, fully functional organisms with distinct body plans remains abrupt and largely unexplained, even with the Ediacaran included.

 

[1Tonne]

But there is no argument coming from you worth engaging. It's same old Creationist's Point Refuted A Thousand Times.

There is no other reason for science to view anything through naturalism because there is nothing else that science can view anything through. The supernatural, by its very nature as the supernatural, cannot be observed, recorded or studied, because it exists outside the bounds of nature. And there are many, many things in science that cannot be tested in real time, but I sure shooting know that you don't consider them as worth your time arguing against them as evolution. We have raw data: comparative DNA, genome sequences from a wide spectra of extant and a few extinct animals, we have fossils and preserved bodies, all of which point to the irrefutable fact for biological science that the forms of life as we know them to be, came about via evolution. We don't know the exact start, and the theory of evolution makes no such claims to it no matter what anyone like you says.

Facts is facts: you're not arguing against evolution from a scientific point of view, you only want to argue it from a religious point of view. And that's all there really is to it.

But there is one salient question that does need to be asked, and it's a simple yes or no answer: even if I did present evidence for any and all things you asked for, would you even consider it as evidence for the theory of evolution being fact?

I’ll answer your final question plainly: yes, I do consider evidence, but evidence isn’t the same as interpretation. What I don’t accept is that every fossil, every DNA similarity, or every assumed transitional form must automatically be read through the lens of unguided evolution. That’s the issue. Not whether data exists, but how it’s being filtered. You’ve already admitted that science limits itself to naturalism. That’s not a neutral position; it’s a philosophical commitment. So when someone challenges that framework, the response shouldn’t be dismissal, it should be reflection.

Also, if you're so confident that the evidence is overwhelming, why the condescension? If my arguments are as weak as you say, engage and dismantle them. Don’t just wave them away with 'refuted a thousand times.' That’s not science; that’s intellectual gatekeeping.

So here’s my own 'salient question' back to you: If a scientific conclusion pointed clearly toward intelligent design, not in the absence of data, but because of its explanatory power, would you even be allowed to consider it within your naturalistic framework?

 

[BCP1928]

Ah, so now we’re back to labels, not to clarify, but to discredit. 'Fundamentalist,' 'fringe,' 'sect', all convenient ways to avoid the real issue: I believe the Bible means what it says. If that’s too uncomfortable for some Christians, maybe the problem isn’t my theology. Maybe it’s their compromise.
This isn’t about fitting into your preferred category. It’s about whether God’s Word holds ultimate authority, or whether we only take it seriously when it agrees with modern theories. If the best you can do is name-calling, then maybe the real fundamentalist here is the one bowing to the dogma of naturalism.

A Fundamentalist is a Christian who believes in five doctrinal statements published in a series of pamphlets called The Fundamentals: a Testimony to Truth produced by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1915. They are,
1. The literal inerrancy of Scripture
2. The diety of Christ
3. The virgin birth of Christ
4. The penalty substitution theory of the Atonement
5. The bodily ressurection of Christ.
All Christians believe at least some of these but you have to believe all five to be considered a Fundamentalist, which is why I asked.
As to being on the fringe, you are a Protestant, are you not? Most of the world's Christians are not Protestants and they belong to older traditions than yours which at least puts you off to one side. Not all Protestants sects are Evangelicals and not all Evangelical sects are Fundamentists. That's what I meant.

 

[1Tonne]

But there is no argument coming from you worth engaging. It's same old Creationist's Point Refuted A Thousand Times.

There is no other reason for science to view anything through naturalism because there is nothing else that science can view anything through. The supernatural, by its very nature as the supernatural, cannot be observed, recorded or studied, because it exists outside the bounds of nature. And there are many, many things in science that cannot be tested in real time, but I sure shooting know that you don't consider them as worth your time arguing against them as evolution. We have raw data: comparative DNA, genome sequences from a wide spectra of extant and a few extinct animals, we have fossils and preserved bodies, all of which point to the irrefutable fact for biological science that the forms of life as we know them to be, came about via evolution. We don't know the exact start, and the theory of evolution makes no such claims to it no matter what anyone like you says.

Facts is facts: you're not arguing against evolution from a scientific point of view, you only want to argue it from a religious point of view. And that's all there really is to it.

But there is one salient question that does need to be asked, and it's a simple yes or no answer: even if I did present evidence for any and all things you asked for, would you even consider it as evidence for the theory of evolution being fact?

You’ve decided I’m not worth engaging, not because I haven’t made arguments, but because I challenge your assumptions, especially the one that naturalism is the only legitimate framework for interpreting origins. That’s not science; that’s philosophical commitment. You admitted that science can only deal with the natural, which means it automatically excludes any explanation that isn’t material. That’s not a neutral view; it’s a filter.
Yes, we have DNA, fossils, and other biological data; no one’s denying that. What I’m pointing out is that interpreting that data as proof of molecules-to-man evolution depends on a prior commitment to naturalistic explanations only. You say it's 'fact,' but that word loses meaning when dissent is ruled out by definition, not data.

As for your 'salient question': Yes, I would consider evidence. That’s why I’m here. To hear it, weigh it, and compare it. The real question is: would you ever consider evidence for design; not in the gaps, but in the information-rich, functional complexity of life, or does your philosophy make that impossible from the start?

Because if your framework excludes even the possibility of design before the evidence is reviewed, then this is not a scientific discussion, it’s dogma dressed up in a lab coat.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A Fundamentalist is a Christian who believes in five doctrinal statements published in a series of pamphlets called The Fundamentals: a Testimony to Truth produced by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1915. They are,
1. The literal inerrancy of Scripture
2. The diety of Christ
3. The virgin birth of Christ
4. The penalty substitution theory of the Atonement
5. The bodily ressurection of Christ.
All Christians believe at least some of these but you have to believe all five to be considered a Fundamentalist, which is why I asked.
As to being on the fringe, you are a Protestant, are you not? Most of the world's Christians are not Protestants and they belong to older traditions than yours which at least puts you off to one side. Not all Protestants sects are Evangelicals and not all Evangelical sects are Fundamentists. That's what I meant.

For some reason, that classic Meatloaf song "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad" comes to mind; it's just that in the case of the Fundamentals as originally articulated, it's 4 out of 5 in my case.

 

[1Tonne]

A Fundamentalist is a Christian who believes in five doctrinal statements published in a series of pamphlets called The Fundamentals: a Testimony to Truth produced by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1915. They are,
1. The literal inerrancy of Scripture
2. The diety of Christ
3. The virgin birth of Christ
4. The penalty substitution theory of the Atonement
5. The bodily ressurection of Christ.
All Christians believe at least some of these but you have to believe all five to be considered a Fundamentalist, which is why I asked.
As to being on the fringe, you are a Protestant, are you not? Most of the world's Christians are not Protestants so they belong to older traditions than yours which at least puts you off to one side. Not all Protestants sects are Evangelicals and not all Evangelical sects are Fundamentists. That's what I meant.

Thanks for the clarification. I’m familiar with the historical roots of the term Fundamentalist, and yes, I affirm all five of those doctrines, as do many Bible-believing Christians. But as you’ve likely noticed, the term today is often weaponised more than defined; used to dismiss people as extreme, rigid, or anti-intellectual. That’s why I pushed back on the label, not because I reject those fundamentals, but because the tone in which it's used often aims to sideline the argument rather than engage it.
As for being Protestant, I don’t take issue with belonging to a minority position numerically. The truth isn’t determined by majority vote. My concern isn’t whether I’m in the mainstream or the fringe, but whether I’m being faithful to Scripture. That’s where the real dividing line is: not between sects or traditions, but between those who treat God's Word as authoritative and those who revise it to fit the times.

So, if we’re going to use labels, let’s use them carefully. And if we’re going to have this conversation, let’s make sure it stays focused on the claims themselves, not who’s considered fringe or central by modern standards. Blessings

 

[BCP1928]

No, I’m not moving the goalposts. I’m clarifying the original point. My claim was that complex systems like the human circulatory system are irreducibly complex: heart, blood, and vessels must work together, or the system fails. Pointing to simpler systems in insects or haemoglobin-free fish doesn’t explain how a closed, high-pressure circulatory system evolved step-by-step through random mutations and natural selection.

Random variation, not random mutation. Darwin's name for it was The Theory of Evolution by Random Variation and Natural Selection. Randomly occurring mutations play a significant role, but farther upstream in the gene expression process. But Darwin didn't know anything about genetics. He based his theory on what he could actually observe, which was the random distribution of variation in a trait and how it responded to selection.

 

[1Tonne]

Random variation, not random mutation. Darwin's name for it was The Theory of Evolution by Random Variation and Natural Selection. Randomly occurring mutations play a significant role, but farther upstream in the gene expression process. But Darwin didn't know anything about genetics. He based his theory on what he could actually observe, which was the random distribution of variation in a trait and how it responded to selection.

Thanks for the clarification. You're right that Darwin originally spoke of variation, not mutation, and that modern evolutionary theory has expanded to include genetic mechanisms he wasn’t aware of. But my core point remains: whether variation is introduced through mutations or other means, the question is whether random, stepwise changes, acted upon by natural selection, can realistically account for the emergence of complex, interdependent systems like the closed human circulatory system.

It’s one thing to observe variation within a trait. It’s another to explain how a coordinated, multi-part system evolved without collapsing at intermediate stages. That’s the challenge I’m raising.

 

[BCP1928]

For some reason, that classic Meatloaf song "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad" comes to mind; it's just that in the case of the Fundamentals as originally articulated, it's 4 out of 5 in my case.

I only get three. Penal Substitution is a Calvinist notion.

 

[JSRG]

A Fundamentalist is a Christian who believes in five doctrinal statements published in a series of pamphlets called The Fundamentals: a Testimony to Truth produced by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1915. They are,
1. The literal inerrancy of Scripture
2. The diety of Christ
3. The virgin birth of Christ
4. The penalty substitution theory of the Atonement
5. The bodily ressurection of Christ.
All Christians believe at least some of these but you have to believe all five to be considered a Fundamentalist, which is why I asked.
As to being on the fringe, you are a Protestant, are you not? Most of the world's Christians are not Protestants and they belong to older traditions than yours which at least puts you off to one side. Not all Protestants sects are Evangelicals and not all Evangelical sects are Fundamentists. That's what I meant.

It seemed odd to me for them to insist specifically on penal substitution, so I looked into the essay in the work. This did not say someone had to believe in penal substitution (which is, for the record, just one of multiple substitutionary theories). In fact, it declares "I shall not attempt to set forth any substitutionary theory of the atonement. It is not absolutely necessary that we have a theory. It may be enough for us to hold the doctrine without a theory."

The essay on the subject is not concerning the specific idea of penal substitution versus other theories, but rather critical of replacing a substitutionary atonement with what it calls "moral-influence theory" (which it defines as the idea that "the sole mission of Christ was to reveal the love of God in a way so moving as to melt the heart and induce men to forsake sin"). But it does not say that anyone must accept the specific theory of penal substitution.

 

[BCP1928]

Thanks for the clarification. You're right that Darwin originally spoke of variation, not mutation, and that modern evolutionary theory has expanded to include genetic mechanisms he wasn’t aware of. But my core point remains: whether variation is introduced through mutations or other means, the question is whether random, stepwise changes, acted upon by natural selection, can realistically account for the emergence of complex, interdependent systems like the closed human circulatory system.

It’s one thing to observe variation within a trait. It’s another to explain how a coordinated, multi-part system evolved without collapsing at intermediate stages. That’s the challenge I’m raising.

You did right putting it into one post. One of the problems we are having here is with your long posts containing a heterogehous mix of creationist talking points. It's hard to respond to them.

The short response to this one is that it is not a problem for evolution. However, the question is basically a mathematical one--I'll try to find some links when I get around to it. But random variation and selection is a very powerful stochastic process which has had wide use in applied math. These are called Evolutionary Algorithms, or EAs, and they perform many tasks in design, creating complex systems which function better than human designs and which the engineers sometimes can't even understand. Your ChatGPT runs on one.
Another short answer is this. The evolving related components of a complex system each exhibit randomly distributed variation. The selection environment for these components includes not only the environment external to the creature, but the the selective pressure exerted by the related evolving components as well.
The third short answer is harder to grasp: There is no "long term plan" in evolution. The only step in evolution is the next step. How those steps and up is entirely contingent. The fish doesn't "start out" to be a cat, it is just steered there over a long period of time by natural selection. It could have just as well become something else.

 

[BCP1928]

It seemed odd to me for them to insist specifically on penal substitution, so I looked into the essay in the work. This did not say someone had to believe in penal substitution (which is, for the record, just one of multiple substitutionary theories). In fact, it declares "I shall not attempt to set forth any substitutionary theory of the atonement. It is not absolutely necessary that we have a theory. It may be enough for us to hold the doctrine without a theory."

This is similar to Traditional Christian doctrine which holds the Atonement to be a "Mystery" which no one theory of the Atonement can adequately explain.

The essay on the subject is not concerning the specific idea of penal substitution versus other theories, but rather critical of replacing a substitutionary atonement with what it calls "moral-influence theory" (which it defines as the idea that "the sole mission of Christ was to reveal the love of God in a way so moving as to melt the heart and induce men to forsake sin"). But it does not say that anyone must accept the specific theory of penal substitution.

No, but it is a local development in many Fundamentalist sects.

 

[NxNW]

I see what you’re saying, and yes, snowflakes do show that natural processes can produce intricate patterns. But there’s a big difference between patterned complexity and functional complexity. A snowflake doesn’t store information, perform coordinated tasks, or replicate itself.

Nobody's claiming otherwise.

So, while the snowflake is a good example of how structure can emerge through physical laws, it doesn’t bridge the gap to the kind of purposeful, functional complexity seen in life,

The example served to refute your claim that complexity does not arise without intelligent design behind it.

which still begs the question: where did the information and laws that govern all of this come from?

That question is not relevant to the discussion of evolution. (Also, it might prompt the question, but it does not beg the question. )

Saying the universe is a 're-expression of nothingness' might sound clever, but it’s a philosophical sleight of hand, not a scientific explanation.

It's not clever or sleight of hand, it's a scientific observation: the sum total of mass and energy in the universe appears to be zero. If you want to define mass and energy as positive, then gravity is negative, and the two appear to cancel out. Just as it's possible to have a net worth of zero and still have borrowed cash in your hand, it's possible for planets and stars to exist in a universe that adds up to nothing. The mass and energy are borrowed from the vacuum.

Zero net energy doesn’t mean the universe came from nothing.

I never claimed otherwise.

It means it came from a perfectly balanced something.

Your evidence for this claim?

'Nothing', truly nothing, has no properties, no energy, no potential, no laws. It can’t fluctuate, produce, or re-express anything.

You're describing a pure vacuum, which is unstable. Physics predicts that it produces unstable patches which can give rise to all sorts of things, including a universe. However, it's now known that empty space has structure and weight, so what you think of as empty, really isn't.

To say otherwise is to redefine 'nothing' into a version of 'something' that fits the theory.

Nobody's redefining anything.

The bottom line remains: the existence of something rather than nothing demands an adequate cause. And absolute nothingness isn’t capable of being that cause.

Physics tells us that it is capable. I'm sure you've heard of virtual particles coming into existence, out of the nowhere, in pairs of equal and opposite charge. They exist briefly, and then destroy each other. There is very strong evidence that this happens. That's a similar example on a smaller scale.

It's not scientific.

See above. What I'm describing above was discussed by a panel of Nobel winners at a science symposium I attended. You can find plenty of info on Youtube and elsewhere on the interweb about it.

Tiktaalik is interesting, but it’s far from the smoking gun it’s often made out to be. It’s a fossil of a fully formed creature

Fully-formed? As opposed to what?

with no clear, testable evidence of it being in transition.

It fits the description of that which was predicted to exist during the era when fish would have crawled onto land. Lo and Behold, it was found.

Just traits that some interpret as ‘in between.’ That’s not the same as direct evidence of a step-by-step transformation.

A transitional fossil is one example, and nobody is claiming that it's constitutes "all the steps."

And even if Tiktaalik is one possible transitional fossil,

At least you concede that much.

that’s a long way from demonstrating how entire body plans, organ systems, and genetic codes could arise gradually through blind processes.

The processes are not blind; they are driven by natural selection. If you follow the sequence of fossils across the epochs, you can see organs developing, legs lengthening, brains growing, etc. Sorry, but you're not likely to see genetic info from a fossil unless you've got intact DNA.

One find that fits a prediction doesn’t close the massive gaps. It just highlights how wide they still are.

Are you saying that a correct prediction isn't strong evidence? That a transitional fossil doesn't help to fill a gap? That subsequent findings (which have happened) don't fill in more of the "gaps

No one’s claiming molecules literally fell together into a man overnight. That’s not my point, and it’s not a strawman. ‘Molecules-to-man’ is shorthand for the full evolutionary narrative: that life began from non-living chemicals

The origin of life is not part of the evolutionary narrative.

, gradually evolved into single-celled organisms, and ultimately produced humans through unguided processes over billions of years.
As for falsifiability, in theory, maybe. But in practice, many evolutionary claims are adjusted, reinterpreted, or pushed further into the unobservable past when contrary evidence arises. That’s not real falsifiability. That’s an ever-flexible framework.
If you’re confident it’s truly falsifiable, then tell me: what specific evidence, if discovered, would cause you to reject the idea of universal common descent?

As stated previously, a fossil rabbit in the precambrian.

No, I’m not moving the goalposts. I’m clarifying the original point. My claim was that complex systems like the human circulatory system are irreducibly complex: heart, blood, and vessels must work together, or the system fails.

You assume the components couldn't evolve separately with different functions, which then change as systems combine. As the ice fish shows, functions can change drastically.

Pointing to simpler systems in insects or haemoglobin-free fish doesn’t explain how a closed, high-pressure circulatory system evolved step-by-step through random mutations and natural selection.

You're moving the goalposts again. I provided examples that refuted your claim that the heart, blood and vessels all have exist together.

Showing different systems doesn’t explain the origin of this one. A workaround is not a mechanism.

But it did refute your claim that they all have to exist together.

No, of course not. No one expects a fossil of every creature that ever lived. But if evolution is a gradual, step-by-step process over millions of years, we should expect to find numerous clear, well-supported transitional sequences (as Darwin even claimed).

We do.

Especially for major transformations like fish to amphibians

Uhhhhhh ... Tiktaalik, anyone?

, reptiles to birds

Archaeopteryx, anyone?

, or apes to humans.

Humans are apes. I think you mean the most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans? I believe the Sahelanthropus tchadensis is a good candidate. There are a lot of offshoots and "cousin" fossils being dug up, but they all seem to converge around 5 to 6 million years ago. You're not going to find that actual common ancestor, which was actually a single individual. Good luck with that! So in reality, any fossil we do find is going to be at least somewhat before or after the split.

Instead, we often find sudden appearances, long periods of stasis, and isolated specimens that require a lot of interpretive stretching to fit the evolutionary narrative. That’s not an 'unbroken' chain; it’s a scattered puzzle with most of the critical pieces missing.

You seem to be referring to punctuated equilibrium, as Gould called it. The evidence shows that a species may remain stable for a long time, but as the environment applies pressure, changes can happen rapidly. The Cambrian seems to be a great example.

Yes, he mentions the Ediacaran (Vendian) organisms. But simply pointing to earlier life forms isn’t the same as demonstrating a clear, step-by-step progression to the complex, fully formed body plans of the Cambrian. The Ediacaran fossils are mostly soft-bodied, ambiguous, and in many cases unrelated to later phyla. Even some evolutionary palaeontologists admit the connection between them and Cambrian animals is weak or speculative.

First it was claimed that no precursors existed, and when they were found, suddenly they weren't good enough. Again, it seems like you're asking for a fossile of every single organism in the lineage before you accept that evolution actually occurs. But it does sound like you're admitting that with different species coming into existence throughout the epochs, that this clearly does not match with a creation that took place in 6 days.

So saying 'we find precursors' doesn’t solve the problem, it just shifts it. The explosion of complex, fully functional organisms with distinct body plans remains abrupt and largely unexplained, even with the Ediacaran included.

So every data point simply creates two more gaps, is that right? It's like the set of Real Numbers! If we pick two numbers, no matter how close together, we can always find more numbers in between them!