Evolution, Long Periods - or Days?

[Iosias]

Article is found here!

The occasion for this article is that a certain brother, who is a student at Calvin College, approached me in connection with an article in the Standard Bearer in which I wrote that the theory of evolution was taught at Calvin College. He claimed that this was not true.

In our conversation he emphasized that at Calvin no Darwinism was taught. This I readily admitted, but at the same time, I claimed that Darwinism is dead and that no one believes anymore in the theory of evolution as Darwin taught it.

He admitted, however, that at Calvin long periods of millions or even of billions of years of creation were taught instead of, as Scripture has it, days of twenty-four hours. This I claimed is the same as the theory of evolution.

Well, this may explain why I write on the above mentioned subject at the present time.

 

[busterdog]

ONe of the things us YECs have to deal with is the apparent rapid adaption of species, in order to be consistent.

On one hand, the Galapagos shows very distinct and unique traits in many species. Either God tended each area individually like a designer, or evolution happened rapidly. Or Darwin was right. Obviously we all admit micro-evolution, to some extent.

The Woodpecker is a given as an example of a very unlikely result of natrual selection. It has a hole by which its tonge can extend backwards to cushion the brain while pecking. 2-3 turns to cushion the brain, and the animal dies. Four turns and it can peck successfully. So, how does it evolve from 1 to 4 turns?

However, if the animal has in fact made this adaptation in order to succeed as a predator, did God make predators in paradise? Or did the animal evolve post-fall?

As a general proposition, this presumption that we have accurately observed animal behavior over centuries, let alone millenia is just not one that I put credence. History is generally a lousy science. It is probably most consistently wrong. But, history as a science is what is necessary to determine what the woodpecker was like 1,000 or 2,000 years ago or more.

 

[hithesh]

ONe of the things us YECs have to deal with is the apparent rapid adaption of species, in order to be consistent.

On one hand, the Galapagos shows very distinct and unique traits in many species. Either God tended each area individually like a designer, or evolution happened rapidly. Or Darwin was right. Obviously we all admit micro-evolution, to some extent.

Why even admit to that? Nothing in the Word gives evidence to that?
Admiting to it, gives evolution a leash, when you should be putting it down.

The Woodpecker is a given as an example of a very unlikely result of natrual selection. It has a hole by which its tonge can extend backwards to cushion the brain while pecking. 2-3 turns to cushion the brain, and the animal dies. Four turns and it can peck successfully. So, how does it evolve from 1 to 4 turns?

You forget the "natural selection" part. It should be noted, that if one were able to observe the Genes that govern this phenotype, he would be amazed at how few letters, out of a few billion would result in this trait. Many times, it is just one letter, altered, that leads to such things.

As you've alreay pointed out animals whose letter change resulted in "2-3 turns", would not be naturally selected, or not even afforded the oppurtinity to breed. But if one woodpecker was given the selective advantage of "turn four", this would provide the selective adantage.

Your "2-3" turns only confirms natural selection, and evolution, not the other way around.

Think of natural selection as a role of dice, that only comes about if you roll a 4, and you're allowed to roll as long as you want till you get this 4.

(one other thing, is that this woodpecker's trait "doe not evolve from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 turns. In other words, he does go through 2 and 3 to get to 4.

Rolls of dice remember?)

However, if the animal has in fact made this adaptation in order to succeed as a predator, did God make predators in paradise? Or did the animal evolve post-fall?

Ah, yes the animals in the garden of Eden only ate vegatbles, and afterwards they were punished by god for not preventing Adam from eating a particular fruit. Yes, well now I am stumped. It perhaps should not be the "fall of man" but the fall of the entire animal kingdom.

 

[busterdog]

Why even admit to that? Nothing in the Word gives evidence to that?
Admiting to it, gives evolution a leash, when you should be putting it down.

"I'm not shy, .....or proud."

--- Arlo Guthrie, Alice's Restaurant.

You forget the "natural selection" part. It should be noted, that if one were able to observe the Genes that govern this phenotype, he would be amazed at how few letters, out of a few billion would result in this trait. Many times, it is just one letter, altered, that leads to such things.

Well, yes, I would be surprised. But, what would that say about rapid adaptation post-fall?

Ah, yes the animals in the garden of Eden only ate vegatbles, and afterwards they were punished by god for not preventing Adam from eating a particular fruit. Yes, well now I am stumped. It perhaps should not be the "fall of man" but the fall of the entire animal kingdom.

We had a go on this a few months ago. Man was given dominion over the earth in Genesis. He is like a corrupt king who gave away the kingdom.

Is it fair? Or rather, if it is unfair would that make it not true? Ask the children of alcoholics -- their unfair legacy is still a fact.

Paul says all of creation groans waiting for the revealing of the sons of God.