Well, actually, that is an accurate portrayal of YEC's, alas. I would not use the word "pathologically" . . . that was your choice to dramatise the position . . .
I am attempting to discredit, disqualify, and dismantle the false reasoning of fellow believers.
In fact, I can turn your accusation right around and assert you are attempt to discredit, disqualify, and dismantle my character in such an accusation, and I would be right to say so. Because I believe those, like you, who oppose the plain truth of evolution are actually very sincere and are simply sincerely wrong. You on the other hand assert I think they have bad character. Please stop asserting such things, since you clearly believe asserting such things to be a sin . . . you did say, after all, trying to stand up for the truth as I do is grossly distorting the genuine faith of believers and attempting to discredit the character of fellow believers.
I do not believe those (people that is) who ascribe to the idea of billions of years and evolution are of bad character, but I do believe the theories themselves are not conclusively supported and are overenthusiastically portrayed as being more fact than theory. The general impression given nowadays is that evolution is a proven fact, on the same plane of truth as there being 24 hours in a day.
If you think evolution is as well supported as there being 24 hours in a day, that it's all fact, all vetted out, no more even a 'theory' then just direct me to the source of where I can sit and watch macro evolution happen, where I can see a single-celled life form become a complex living creature (doesn't even have to be a human or anything, I'd settle for something like... say, a noble mouse).
Quick? Darwins book has been a round over 150 years!
I don't mean quick as in how long the theory of evolution has been around, I mean "don't be so quick" as in for Bible-believing Christians to be so quick to accept the idea of evolution and just quickly throw away what they previously believed and were taught about the Bible to be true.
Well, actually, we do. You just don't admit it.
I'll await your example of macro evolution. I think what you'll provide are articles on what is widely accepted as a 'transitional' fossils... like tiktaalik or archaeopteryx or a few other common ones. These are thought to be transitional on the plain basis that they 'look' like the cross between one species and another (and of course the artist's rendering of what these transitional fossils would have looked like in real life make it seem very convincing). To really know for certain that macro evolution is happening though, we'd have to fully understand the DNA of both the supposed predecessor and what it allegedly evolved into (to clarify, by macro-evolution I mean that one species is no longer even the same species before), being able to trace where the favorable mutations occurred in the sequence, were then enhanced by natural selection, from which by the way this completely new information would have needed a mechanism that knew how to understand and interpret, then duplicate it in the subsequent offspring as the new norm. I may be wrong, but I believe most scientists in some form of biological science recognize that DNA found in fossils is very rare (which fossils themselves are already very rare) and DNA doesn't last very long (I've read in places that it is on the magnitude of only a few thousand years and the longest time period I've come across is around 800,000 years... so no DNA available on tiktaalik or archaeopteryx unfortunately). Conversely, you may be inclined to point me to current-day examples such as tiglons and mules as a form of macro evolution; however, these are both infertile and so these would not qualify either since they cannot reproduce. Further, bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant is also not an example of macro evolution since the bacteria is still bacteria... this just demonstrates adapting to the environment (ie. speciation).
I'm glad you've got brought up the "according to its kind" point. YEC creationists talk about "kind" as if it was some definate thing that keeps species within certain boundaries and never allows moving outside those boundaries. But, alas, they have never defined what a kind actually is in any precise way. Nor have they defined the mechanism that keeps speciation from diverging from whatever a kind actually is. So its not a scientific idea.
The Bible does not expound to give great detail of what is meant by 'kind' and the term 'species' is a man-made term to describe a grouping of life that is capable of sharing and exchanging DNA (breeding). I don't think it is conclusive to assume the two are synonymous though the terms are sometimes used interchangeably so perhaps they are very similar. That aside, it does not make the apparent gaps/lines that exist between different (I'll use the term) "species" suddenly disappear.
But really, "after its kind" can be noted as a reference to the whole grand scheme of life developing from a single origin. Aren't mammals all a single "kind"? And the first mammals developed "according to their kind" into the great variety of mammals we have today. Aren't carnivores a "kind" of mammal? And the carnivores developed into the various types we know today including feline and canine. And so forth. The "after its kind" is consistent with the nested hierarchy ideas of evolution!
Well, God referenced each after it's kind within a single grouping (say the birds of the air). I think this is a good indication that there are multiple kind(s) within the classification of bird, multiple kinds within the classification of life in the sea, within the kinds of beasts of the field, within the kinds of creeping things, etc... so I feel pretty confident that "kind" cannot be a reference to the whole grand scheme of life.
Yes, rapid speciation as not being a proponent for billions of years is logic, in application. The theory of evolution is based upon observable evidence and is supported, to varying degrees, using interpretations of the present observable evidence as 'favorable' to the story that life evolved from a single molecule. No scientist that ascribes to evolution can say we have traced every single evolutionary change for all forms of life back to the original primordial "Adam molecule". As such, the proposition of evolution supports itself with interpretations of the available evidence that appear favorable to that which it asserts. In the same manner, rapid speciation infers that changes actually can and do happen rapidly, so depending on how long you think it takes for a genetic mutation to take hold in a species, there is not necessarily a need for millions/billions of years. To propose that mutations occur very infrequently (necessitating billions of years) would go against present day evidence. Mutations happen regularly.
YEC's used to deny every idea of speciation. There has been some small move into the direction of supporting science, as they are dragged kicking and screaming into accepting more and more of what they used to deny.
Secular scientists used to believe in Darwinism and have now changed and modified the theory, calling it Neo-Darwinism. Were you looking to make an issue of YEC scientists supposedly changing their view on the basis of further research?? I don't doubt the possibility of your claim being true for some YEC's, though I've never met a fellow YEC proponent or seen an article or paper from a YEC scientist that held this view myself. In fact, over the multiple times I've been to the Creation Museum in KY (AiG), I've always seen their displays indicating speciation does occur... in fact, it must occur - this is the entire premise behind the theory of how Noah could have fit two of every 'kind' on the Ark - you don't fit two of every variation within a species, you just need two within a given species.
You don't seem to have learned from the rotation of the earth history between science and religion. Science never budged an inch. Religious people caved almost completely to accepting the science. (There are still some flat earth holdouts, as you know)
Science never budges an inch?... didn't I just point out that science now has the terms of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism... at one time the earth was believed to be millions of years old, then a billion, then 2.2 billion, etc... Do you really want me to start scratching around to see where science has budged all over the place? This just describes the process of discovery and is not a point of fault to one view or the other (YEC vs OEC).
God is the source of all things, including the laws of the universe that make it possible for life to evolve. It required great wisdom to make laws and a universe that could do that. Surely He didn't do that accidently. And who can say how much He personally was involved in tweaking the paths evolution took, for His purposes?
Thank you (and I mean in all sincerity brother) for sharing your view on God's involvement in evolution and opinions on the topic in general. I would agree that God is the source of all things, including the laws of the universe. I also agree He does nothing by accident. Just to learn more, do you propose (and I'm fine if this is opinion) that genetic mutations (as the primary engine required for additional genetic material) were not really a (random) mutation as is generally believed within mainstream science, but rather instead an intentional alteration by God to create new/additional DNA? I ask only because my perception of the OEC proponent is that they are intelligent and accept the theory of evolution as fact, not because they are naive, but to the contrary they are very analytically minded and find the story of evolution irrefutably compelling, having a pretty good understanding of the technical aspects of how this process works - regardless of whether they themselves are a scientist or not. To that, I would expect then that there would also be a somewhat 'technical' explanation of how God specifically directed evolution and that the standard Neo-Darwinistic evolutionary model itself may also need to be at least a little different for the OEC as compared to the rest of secular mainstream science because as you and I agree, God does not make mistakes and so for me (just my opinion) I don't see
random mutation as a likely vehicle for something that is purposefully designed with great wisdom by God to "evolve" life. So, while you and I disagree as to the timeline and 'how' behind God creating life (which is okay), I am genuinely interested in whether there is a "Christian" version of Neo-Darwinism that gives the complete picture of how evolution really works that the secular (non-Christian) scientists are otherwise refusing to accept as truth simply because they reject the idea of God.
Peace, and have a good weekend! Hope to catch up and continue next week.
