Evolution is both a fact and a theory

[Vance]

Yes, but not through dinosaurs. Please, do some reading.

Here is an essay called "Evolution for Christians". I have a couple of quibbles with it, but overall it is very good.

http://www.berea.edu/SpecialProject/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp

 

[ChrisS]

Okay, so you believe that fish became several different species, Mammals anphibians, and such. And you believe that Whales are a living testamony to that.

 

[Vance]

Okay, so you believe that fish became several different species, Mammals anphibians, and such. And you believe that Whales are a living testamony to that.

Listen, this could take all night, and I have to go play with my own kids for a while. Do some reading. Start with that article. Read up on evolutionary development from a source besides Creationist ones. Then come back and we can talk.

 

[Bobdolerson]

There are a lot of reasons that I would disbelieve Evolution...

To start, the new cosmology (Big Bang and it's accompanying theoretical underpinning in general relativity) points to a definite beginning of the universe. This is extremely antimaterialistic. You can invoke neither time nor space nor matter, energy or the laws of nature to explain the origin of the universe. General relativity points to the need for a cause that transcends those domains; namely, God.

Next, I’d say 'anthropic fine-tuning'. This means, basically, the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and our universe have precise numerical values that could have been otherwise. That is, there's no fundamental reason for these values to be the way they are. Take universe expansion. Fine-tuned to one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. This means, if it were changed by one part in either direction (slower or faster) we could not have a universe capable of sustaining life; so says Stephen Hawking. Fred Hoyle said, 'A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellilect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.'

Perhaps it looks fine-tuned because it is?

Next, I would say the origin of life, and the origin of information necessary to bring life into existence, is an argument for the sake of theism. Life at all points requires information, which is stored in DNA and protein molecules in substantial amounts. Here, an idea for an Intelligent Creator isn't what is thought of as an 'argument from ignorance'. This infers design because all other theories fail at this point (natural evolution, etc.) and, the only possible creator of such substantial information at the point of origin for all known things is God.

Then, there's the evidence for design in molecular machines that defy explanation by natural selection. These integrative, complex systems in biological organisms (called 'irreducibly complex') include signal transduction circuits, sophisticated motors and all kinds of biological/chemical circuitry. All of these biological machines need all of their various parts in order to function, but how could it ever be built by a process of natural selection/evolution, acting on random variations? Evolution only preserves things that perform a function. In other words, they preserve things that help the organism to survive to the next generation.

The problem is, these micro-motors perform nothing unless all parts are present and working together in close coordination with each other. Evolution couldn't build a system like this, it can only preserve them, and it's virtually impossible for evolution to take such a huge leap and create the entire system as a whole.

I personally would see these biological systems as evidence for Intelligent Creation, seeing as every time we see such an 'irreducibly complex' system now, an intelligent being is behind it.

More evidence biologically, the Cambrian Explosion is another example. This “biological big bang” happened during a trivial amount of time (geologically, anyway). Here, around 35 completely unique body plans (skeletal structures) came into existence. You have a huge jump in complexity; it's sudden, and there are no transitional intermediates, no fossils to explain this sudden gap. In normal experience, information is the result of conscious activity, and here we have the geologically sudden explosion of massive amounts of biological data (needed for these body plans), far beyond what evolution can produce.

Finally, I’d say human consciousness would definitely support theism. We're not a computer made of meat. We have the capacity for self-reflection, representational art, language, creativity...science can't account for this kind of consciousness coming merely from physical matter interacting in the brain. Where did it come from?

 

[bluemarkus]

this one nailed it for me:

if sin came into the world through adam, and if adam was the first man (he has a family tree), not a ghost or picture or whatnot.and if death is the inevitable climax of sin.

how

can there have been evolution with years and years of dying and successing steps of development of beings ?



greetings in christ

MB

 

[gluadys]

this one nailed it for me:

if sin came into the world through adam, and if adam was the first man (he has a family tree), not a ghost or picture or whatnot.and if death is the inevitable climax of sin.

how

can there have been evolution with years and years of dying and successing steps of development of beings ?



greetings in christ

MB

Since there is conclusive evidence of death before Adam or any human existed, it follows that your premises are incorrect.

The appropriate course to take is to revise your premises to better fit the evidence.

 

[gluadys]

There are a lot of reasons that I would disbelieve Evolution...

To start, the new cosmology ....

Next, I’d say 'anthropic fine-tuning'. ...


Next, I would say the origin of life, and the origin of information ...

All good stuff, but none of it has anything to do with evolution. All you have outlined could be true and evolution still happens. All you have outlined could be false and evolution still happens.

Anything that occurs prior to the actual existence of life does not impinge on the theory of evolution. Evolution is a process that occurs in living populations. What preceded the existence of living populations (even how life came into being) is not relevant to evolution.

The theory of evolution does not require that what precedes evolution (creation of cosmos, fine tuning of natural laws, origin of life) occur by only naturalistic means. It doesn't even require that evolution occur by only naturalistic means.

Then, there's the evidence for design in molecular machines that defy explanation by natural selection.

This is just an argument from incredulity. No one knows what can and cannot evolve. The argument from design actually poses more problems for special creation than for evolution. There are all sorts of biological features that suggest incompetent and/or cruel design that don't fit well with a Christian conception of a benevolent deity. But they can be well explained by an amoral process such as natural selection.

All of these biological machines need all of their various parts in order to function, but how could it ever be built by a process of natural selection/evolution, acting on random variations? Evolution only preserves things that perform a function. In other words, they preserve things that help the organism to survive to the next generation.

And evolution can also co-opt things that already have a function for a different function. That is how many biological machines can be built.

I personally would see these biological systems as evidence for Intelligent Creation, seeing as every time we see such an 'irreducibly complex' system now, an intelligent being is behind it.

And TEs see evolution as process designed and used by an intelligent Creator.

More evidence biologically, the Cambrian Explosion is another example.

Out of date argument. We have far more evidence of pre-Cambrian life than existed 150 years ago.

Finally, I’d say human consciousness would definitely support theism. We're not a computer made of meat.

I agree entirely. But this is not a reason to toss out evolution, since evolution does not preclude theism.