Evolution?

[JackRT]

Most scientists still call it theory and for good reason.

In science theory is as good as it gets. Proof has no part in science but ironically disproof does.

 

[Marvin Knox]

There are two possibilities here. Either you know more about evolutionary biology than I do, and are also more aware of my own beliefs and motivations than I am, or else you're wildly accusing someone you don't know of dishonesty. Which is it?

I am wildly accusing someone I don't know of dishonesty.

How much time have you spent studying genetic data?

Probably not as much as you have.

But then I'll bet when it comes to studying scripture the shoe will be on the other foot.

If you choose o believe in upward evolution, that's up to you.

But I would hope that you'd be honest enough to admit that you don't believe it based on the plain sense of the scriptures. Rather you brought your preconceived beliefs about the truth of upward evolution and imposed them on the scriptures.

And, YES - I am charging you (and any other Christian evolutionist) with dishonesty if you will not do so.

 

[JackRT]

If you choose o believe in upward evolution, that's up to you.

As a scientist I accept the theory of evolution as a very powerful model of the fact of evolution but I am puzzled --- what is "upward evolution"? I don't think that I have ever heard a scientist use that term. Maybe it is a straw man?

 

[sfs]

I am wildly accusing someone I don't know of dishonesty.

Then I suggest that your Bible study has been sorely lacking in certain respects.

But then I'll bet when it comes to studying scripture the shoe will be on the other foot.

Could be, or you could be surprised. But since we're talking about how scientists -- including me -- think and talk about what they do for a living, studying scripture is kind of a red herring, isn't it?

If you choose o believe in upward evolution, that's up to you.

"Choose to believe"? How can somebody choose what to believe? I accept that evolution is likely a more or less accurate description of the history of life of Earth because of the overwhelming evidence in its favor. Do you actually choose to believe things, rather than believe things because they're, you know, true?

But I would hope that you'd be honest enough to admit that you don't believe it based on the plain sense of the scriptures. Rather you brought your preconceived beliefs about the truth of upward evolution and imposed them on the scriptures.

Of course I don't accept evolution based on the Bible. I also don't accept the germ theory of disease, the existence of Greenland or the orbital period of Pluto based on the Bible. Do you only believe things that are based on the Bible?

And, YES - I am charging you (and any other Christian evolutionist) with dishonesty if you will not do so.

That would be some other accusation of dishonesty. Here you're accusing me of dishonesty for calling common descent a fact.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I accept that evolution is likely a more or less accurate description of the history of life of Earth because of the overwhelming evidence in its favor.

Here you're accusing me of dishonesty for calling common descent a fact.

Which is it - "likely" more or less accurate or "fact"?

Like I said - you call it fact when you know it to simply be the "most likely" theory and have even admitted it here.

Calling it fact when you know full well that it isn't is dishonest.

Do you only believe things that are based on the Bible?

No - of course not.

But, when the Bible is in obvious conflict with a more or less accurate likely description of something, I'll place my faith on what the Bible says every time.

I intend to leave off this subject now.

You can compromise on believing all of the Words spoken out of the mouth of God if you wish.

Assuming your salvation is secure - I'll see you on the other side of this dark glass and maybe we'll run a few experiments on fruit flies together - if we can clear it with the Lord.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is priceless.

 

[Job 33:6]

No. Do you think you heard me say that somewhere?

By the way - thank you for making my point for me.

I said that they call evolution a theory for good reason.

With these other theories - you have admitted that there are good reasons why they are called theories.

What's the beef with your calling evolution a theory as most other scientists do?

If you'd like to call creationism a theory, I'll gladly join you - at least while we are looking through the glass darkly.

I am confident that when we see clearly as we are seen we will both call direct creation fact and will not even call upward evolution theory. Rather we will call it what it is - rubbish.

And so, what is the good reason for heliocentric theory being called a theory?

 

[sfs]

Which is it - "likely" more or less accurate or "fact"?

Both. It's a fact that the Earth is a sphere. It's also true that "the Earth is a sphere" is a more or less accurate statement of fact, since the Earth is really only approximately a sphere. Some aspects of what we think true about evolution may well prove to be false. I call it likely to be true because likely knowledge is the only kind humans have access to. "Facts" are things that are so likely to be true that we just treat them as true. Common descent is one of those things. (You might want to look at Stephen J. Gould's on why evolution is both a fact and a theory.)

Like I said - you call it fact when you know it to simply be the "most likely" theory and have even admitted it here.

Calling it fact when you know full well that it isn't is dishonest.

It's possible that I am so stupid as not to notice that I was contradicting myself within a single post about the very matter we're discussing (and a matter I've probably thought about at length). It's also possible that you've misunderstood me and that you should ask for clarification. Simply assuming the former to be true leads only to embarrassment for you and annoyance for everyone else.

But, when the Bible is in obvious conflict with a more or less accurate likely description of something, I'll place my faith on what the Bible says every time.

Well, you could have said that if that's what you meant. But of course, the problem is that what's in conflict with evolution is a particular interpretation of the Bible, and you don't get to dictate to the church at large the range of legitimate Biblical interpretation. If you were to engage some of those Christians who accept evolution -- and there are very large numbers of them, including many theologians -- you might come to learn why and how they reconcile Christian faith, the Bible, and science. That kind of approach won't give the jolt of self-satisfaction that comes from denouncing others, but I think it's a lot healthier for the church and even for you.

I intend to leave off this subject now.

That is unfortunate. For me, accusing other Christians of dishonesty and then refusing to engage when they defend themselves lacks intellectual integrity and shows serious disregard for Christian unity.

 

[Marvin Knox]

And so, what is the good reason for heliocentric theory being called a theory?

One reason is that it is, in layman’s terms, only a hypothesis in that it has not been proved and probably can’t ever be proved.

Another reason is that, as any scientist should be able to tell you, the sun is absolutely not the center of the solar system let alone the universe. It is assumed to be in order to form a “working’ hypothesis (and it works as that in most cases for all intents and purposes provided it is treated as a fact only within limits).

Problems arise when people (like the scientists we usually depend on for truth) allow that theory (used as a working hypothesis) to be taken out of what should be it’s limited usefulness.

When we do that we end up with warped ideas concerning the actual orbits of the planets and (in the extreme case) believing that the sun and it’s solar system is the center of the universe (which it indeed may well be - remains to be seen).

Some data glean from and used in examining the heliocentric model has been shown to be accurate. Other data has been shown to be wrong or at best only conjecture.

This is the kind of problem we get into with evolution. It (like creationism IMO) is a theory. That theory can be used as a working hypothesis in order to study origins. Some data gleaned and used is accurate and valid to use in further study of the broader subject (micro evolution or adaptational change for instance).

Others like the idea of the macro evolution we have been debating have never been shown to be true and indeed, in the opinion of many geneticists, can never be shown to be true. In point of fact – many geneticists believe (rightly IMO) that it simply could not be true in light of what we know for sure about genetics.

One of the problems I have with evolutionists is that they blur the line between fact and theory. I.e. they not only treat the theory of macro evolution as fact in order to have a working hypothesis as a lens through which to study further – they have come to believe and, most importantly, teach others that it is actual fact.

In so doing – they undermine the faith of many Christians and or cause them to stumble by compromising what they can plainly see that the scriptures actually teach (when taken at face value as a newborn babe in Christ).

When creationism is presented in schools as a theory and perhaps even used as a working hypothesis – evolutionists should have no problem with it being considered in our schools.

Likewise I (and hopefully other creationists as well) have no problem with evolution being considered in our schools so long as it remains clear that it is a theory being used as a working hypothesis and not absolute fact.

But the fact is that that line is dishonestly (as I usually put it) purposefully blurred in the case of atheistic evolutionists and also many supposed Bible believing evolutionists. IMO we have seen that happen in this thread.

 

[Job 33:6]

the sun is absolutely not the center of the solar system

If not the sun, then what is at the center of our solar system?

 

[JackRT]

Someone with an open mind sees something happening in the natural world and thinks deeply about it. After long thought she comes up with a "I think it might have happened like this." This is what is called an hypothesis --- it might also be called an "educated guess". This forms the basis for further observation and experiment. After time the hypothesis looks better and better and begins to be regarded as a theory but not quite. A good theory must be falsifiable. So after some further thought about her theory she uses it to make a prediction about something that has never been observed before. This will be the basis of a brand new experiment. If the prediction is falsified, the theory will either have to be modified or rejected outright. This has happened many times in science. If the prediction is confirmed by the experiment then we now have a solid theory. This does not mean that it is set in stone because this process of prediction, experiment and confirmation will continue. A theory can never be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt because in science it is impossible to know absolutely everything about anything. However a theory can be disproven because there always remains the possibility that at some point in time something will be observed that will negate the theory.

With what I have just said in mind, there is a very real difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Both evolution and the big bang are well established theories with enormous levels of verification. Evolution might be a little better established than the big bang but both are theories because proof only applies in mathematics and the distillation of whiskey. On the other hand creationism, in my opinion, does not even rise to the level of being a hypothesis due to a complete lack of evidence.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Common descent is one of those things.

I disagree as do many good scientists.

the problem is that what's in conflict with evolution is a particular interpretation of the Bible, and you don't get to dictate to the church at large the range of legitimate Biblical interpretation.

I have maintained here and continue to maintain that is no room in the plain words of the scriptures to "interpret" the idea of common decent and or macro evolution.

If you were to engage some of those Christians who accept evolution -- and there are very large numbers of them, including many theologians -- you might come to learn why and how they reconcile Christian faith, the Bible, and science.

That's exactly the problem as I have maintained all along here.

They have "reconciled" what the scriptures clearly say and what much of science teaches. I.e. they bring their preconceived notions about the absolute fact of evolution with them in their study of the scriptures and impose that belief system on what the Holy Spirit has written for us.

That kind of approach won't give the jolt of self-satisfaction that comes from denouncing others, but I think it's a lot healthier for the church and even for you.

It is never healthy for the church to compromise the plain truth of scripture with what the enemy says.

"Oh really? Has God really said?" is still the method of the enemy when it comes to assailing God's word.

For me, accusing other Christians of dishonesty and then refusing to engage when they defend themselves lacks intellectual integrity and shows serious disregard for Christian unity.

I have had no trouble with engaging you or anyone else here.

It just gets old defending the plain teaching of the Word of God against my brothers who don't understand they are doing the work of the enemy.

 

[Job 33:6]

If i were to consider heliocentric theory, as a theory that describes the sun being present in the center of our solar system, then I would say that, to our knowledge, this theory is fact in that the sun is factually at the center of our solar system. Which is to say that planets orbit it. Yes it is pulled by our planets as well, but as the most massive body in our solar system, it is a gravitational center.

Its not like the moon is generating all of the gravity which holds this all together.

The same goes with concepts in the theory of evolution. The concepts are well understood, just as it is understood that the suns gravitational pull allows it to be the center of our solar system.

 

[Marvin Knox]

If not the sun, then what is at the center of our solar system?

While the planets do orbit the sun - their orbits are elliptical and the sun is not the center of the solar system which has it's boundaries framed by those orbits.

The center of the solar system is a spot outside or above of the surface of the sun. That exact spot changes with the seasons here on earth and with the orbits of the other planets.

 

[Job 33:6]

While the planets do orbit the sun - their orbits are elliptical and the sun is not the center of the solar system which has it's boundaries framed by those orbits.

The center of the solar system is a spot outside or above of the surface of the sun. That exact spot changes with the seasons here on earth and with the orbits of the other planets.

So,

If we were to compare this technicality to...the theory of evolution.

What do you think that would look like?

Do you think this technicality turns heliocentric theory on its head? Of course not.

But what you seem to be suggesting, is that the theory of evolution, or even perhaps common descent as a whole, is all completely wrong. Which is like suggesting that pluto is the center of the solar system.

 

[Job 33:6]

"a spot outside or above of the surface of the sun"

And actually, to be more correct, it varies and often is within the surface of the sun.

If we were to compare this with the theory of evolution, it would be like saying "well, maybe in laymens terms, evolution and common descent are fact, just as the sun is at the center of the solar system". And in more technical terms, it would be like saying "well, maybe 80% of the time darwinian gradualism is factual, otherwise evolution might involve changes in rates of evolution or environmental drivers, horizontal gene transfer, among other things".

Which, to simplify things, is basically to say that evolution by natural selection, for all practical purposes, is factual. And that fundamental and simple concepts like the fossil record, mutations and subsequent fixation, among other basic lines of research which confirm the theory, are true.

 

[Marvin Knox]

as the most massive body in our solar system, it is a gravitational center.

No - it is not only not the physical center of the solar system it is not the gravitational center of the solar system either.

So, If we were to compare this technicality to...the theory of evolution. What do you think that would look like?

I don't know - perhaps that Mercury evolved from a sun spot breeding with a sun flare which had totally different dna?

Do you think this technicality turns heliocentric theory on its head? Of course not.

I concur with your answer. I have not suggested that it does.

I have merely suggested that we do not conflate or allow to be conflated working hypothesis - like the sun being the center of the universe or macro evolution happening - with absolute truth - like the sun not being the center of the solar system and the impossibility of macro evolution.

But what you seem to be suggesting, is that the theory of evolution, or even perhaps common descent as a whole, is all completely wrong. Which is like suggesting that pluto is the center of the solar system.

No - I have not suggested that certain portions of or areas experimented in when doing further study in evolution are wrong.

Micro evolution or adaptation, for instance, is not only useful for experimentation but is also apparently absolute fact. It is one part of evolutionary thought and observation.

Nothing like that kind of observation has ever been successfully done with macro evolution. Indeed good solid evolutionary "thought" would tell one that macro evolution is a genetic impossibility.

P.s. - so called "common descent" is absolutely wrong - as both the study of genetics and the study of the scriptures tell us.

 

[Job 33:6]

Do you accept common descent of life on earth? more or less?

 

[Job 33:6]

In laymens terms, the sun is at the center. It has been the absolute center, and will be in the future again if it were not at this instant in time.

Darwinian gradualism is comparable id say. In that there are various ways in which life evolves.

Regarding the fossil succession, Tiktaalik is regarded as an ancestor, but it could have been a related cousin that went extinct.

But these dont really change...the truth in the theory. Just as...the fact that the gravitational center of the solar system sometimes might not be within the surface of the sun (but other times it is). But, this doesnt really change, in a general sense that...the sun is at the center of our solar system.

What you seem to be doing, is denying a much large body of evidence, analogous to suggesting that perhaps venus is at the center of the solar system in suggesting that things like...common descent by evolutionary modification, is not true.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I can't or at least won't try to keep up with your posts here and answer every point.

But how about this for now.

Do you accept common descent of life on earth? more or less?

No I do not. That is if by common descent you mean universal common descent which proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

If you mean limited common descent where, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor _ the answer is yes.

The later is merely micro evolution. I.e. adaptation or a purposeful manipulation as in the case of the developmental breeding of plants and animals. There is ample evidence and experimentation concerning micro evolution.

The former is not just an adaptational or purposeful change within a "species", such as the breeding of dogs or horses (or even the different races of mankind).

Instead it is like one "genus" evolving into another. I.e. fish becoming lizards, becoming dogs, becoming chimps, becoming man. It is the premise that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.

If you simply mean by that that we all date back to the creation of life on earth by "God" as depicted in Genesis - than of course I believe that.

What you seem to be doing, is denying a much large body of evidence, analogous to suggesting that perhaps venus is at the center of the solar system in suggesting that things like...common descent by evolutionary modification, is not true.

I have neither said nor hinted at a such ridiculous notion as that of Venus being the center of the solar system.

However I have said that the notion of universal common descent is not only unproven but genetically impossible.

P.S. A person here a while back posted data on foxes in Russian being bred over a period of 50 years to become much like common house pet dogs. It was presented a "proving" evolution.

While it does "prove" micro evolution or adaptation - it in no way speaks to universal evolution or to even any form of macro evolution.

That's the problem here. Some of evolutionary theory may be fact - but the overall picture being purported here (that it was the mechanism God used over millions of years to "create" man) is not only bad theology it is not good science.