For many years, I was not.........

[JimfromOhio]

interested in debating in Origins Theology but now it is the election year, I am learning to understand that evolution is false because by looking at the world today, we are declining rather than improving. America's moral decline is a spiritual problem, not a political one, and its solution is the gospel, not partisan politics. Evolution in my view is the progression of human evolution that is not getting better but getting worst.

 

[birdan]

You should try to understand that the theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory, is descriptive and not prescriptive.

Do you have similar concerns about thermodynamics or atomic theory?

 

[Molal]

I would be more concerned with the theory of gravity.....

Seriously though, the theory of evolution is a well tested, well understood model that provides an explanation for all the data discovered so far. It also provides predictive abilities (as all theories do) that, when tested, have been found to be correct. Theory in science, is fact in common nomenclature.

Evolution does not provide a description of the moral degradation of society (if you could possibly point to one.......), it is about the diversity of life on earth - not moral or spiritual decline.

 

[lemmings]

How can anyone approaching their 50s say that morality is declining? When you were about 10, a man was assassinated just because he believed that everyone should have equal rights. Your grandparents’ generation would have been fighting over the rights of women. And their grandparents’ generation was fighting over the issue of slavery. It seems to me that society has been going on the right track for the past 150 years or so.

 

[Mallon]

Using words like "decline" (especially "moral decline") and "progress" to explain biological evolution betrays a deep misunderstanding of what biological evolution is. It is not steady-state climb up a ladder towards increasingly better phenotypes. It is not scaling the Great Chain of Being. I would direct anyone who thinks otherwise to this introductory website:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

 

[Chesterton]

How can anyone approaching their 50s say that morality is declining? When you were about 10, a man was assassinated just because he believed that everyone should have equal rights. Your grandparents’ generation would have been fighting over the rights of women. And their grandparents’ generation was fighting over the issue of slavery. It seems to me that society has been going on the right track for the past 150 years or so.

To be fair, there’s good and bad. In the first part of the 20th century, my mom grew up in a small to medium sized American town where people didn’t even lock their doors. Making a vow, such as marriage, and then breaking it, was considered shameful. School age children attempting mass killing sprees of their schoolmates could only have occurred in the wildest science fiction. And I have a hunch that someone in R. Kelly’s situation might have had a bit less popular success.

I’m not sure if I agree with the OP, but there is something quirky about the responses to it. I think biological evolution is necessarily related to morality; perhaps not for cows, but certainly for people.

Natural selection doesn’t “decide” things, doesn’t make choices, but people can and do. If you had asked me, pre-20th century, would man invent atomic weaponry, I would have guessed no. Why would we do that? It’s against our biological interest. On the other hand, we’ve invented medicines which destroy other life forms, which could otherwise destroy us. Those are just two examples, but it’s obvious that our moral choices also can affect our evolution. At the same time, those choices must be a result of evolution. (That last thought might not be agreeable to theists and atheists alike, I'm not sure about all TE's.)

I realize evolutionists don’t use the words “good” and “bad”, rather ones such as “advantageous” or “useful” for a given environment. The thing is, humans can choose to do something advantageous, or to do something disadvantageous in many situations. And history shows we’ve done both at different times.

Is there a legitimate puzzle here, or is it just me being confused?

 

[Molal]

Hi Chesterton,

Evolution is the theory of the diversity of life on earth - nothing more, nothing less. If YOU wish to read more into, you can - but it is wholly unsupported by the evidence.

Just my two-cents worth.

 

[Chesterton]

I believe the idea presents itself in the responses given. I see it there simply because I see it there, not because I wish to see it there. As far as it being unsupported by evidence, it appears to me it is supported, but that’s why I posted, to see what others thought.

 

[Mallon]

Those are just two examples, but it’s obvious that our moral choices also can affect our evolution. At the same time, those choices must be a result of evolution.

I think your argument hinges on that last sentence (bolded). What do you mean by it? How can you claim that choice -- an act of unfettered free will -- is somehow determined by the contingency of evolution? I don't get it.

 

[Chesterton]

I hate to answer a question with a question, but here’s what I’d like to know: You’re right that if I grant free will, that bolded part might not be true, but it could still be true if free will is a product of evolution. But I don’t know – what would a TE say - do all organisms have free will, or just the more complex ones, or just men? And if, for example, it is only man who has it, did God "infuse" a man with freedom of will at some point, or did it evolve?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I don't believe in evolution..
I just want to say though that the theory of evolution does *not* say that things are supposed to get better over time. There is no concept of "better" there, except how much "better" something is adapted to the environment. Evolution is not a progress towards better, more moral, or even more complex creatures, it's simply change over time due to changing environment.
I myself agree with micro evolution (that things change to adapt to environment..for example, what Darwin found, with the birds' beaks changing in response to food availability)
but not with macro evolution, which states that one type of species can change into another type of species, or that humans and apes have common ancestry, etc. I believe that the various species we see were made by God when He made all the animals in Genesis.
One of my reasons for this is because there was no death in the world before Adam, yet evolution requires animals to die.
However if God tells me in heaven that I was wrong about all this and theistic evolution is true after all, I wouldn't mind too much.

What I'm really against is atheistic evolution, which presupposes that everything is random and that we do not have souls.

 

[gluadys]

but not with macro evolution, which states that one type of species can change into another type of species, or that humans and apes have common ancestry, etc.

To some extent you have been misled by a false definition of macroevolution. Macroevolution simply means that as different sub-populations of a species diverge, they may break up into different species which no longer mate with each other. Speciation is macro-evolution. And when a species divides in this way, there is no changing from one type to another. Darwin's finches are an example of macro-evolution since they developed species barriers. But they are still all the same type of bird--finches---even though some now act like warblers or even woodpeckers.

This is what is expected from evolution.

As for chimps and humans, they are the same type of animal. Whatever the spiritual difference between them, biologically they are almost as similar as two different species of finches and the evidence of their common ancestry is well established.

What I'm really against is atheistic evolution, which presupposes that everything is random and that we do not have souls.

Well then the proper thing to say is that you are against atheism. Evolution is a part of nature and it is the same no matter what the beliefs of the person studying it. One person may say evolution just happens without God and another may say evolution is an expression of God's creativity. But that doesn't make the biology different or lead to two different theories of evolution.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

oh sorry I meant speciation.. I do remember this from my biology class, I just described it rather badly. I guess what I'm against is the whole idea that new species arise over time.. I mean dramatically different species, not just birds with a different colour of feathers or whatever. I mean the idea that humans, apes, etc, have a common ancenstry, and birds came from reptiles, etc.

I don't think that humans and chimps are similar at all. I know they share a lot of DNA, but if you compare humans to rats we share lots of DNA as well, lol, but we are very different. I study cognition/neuroscience and there are many differences in brain structure/function, there are brain parts that humans have, that chimps don't..
Also, I don't think that humans and chimps "are the same sort of animal". Can chimps create? Can they make up new languages, or mathematics, or art? No..

Not to mention all the spiritual differences. (we are made in God's image, we have souls, etc etc etc)

I distinguished between theistic evolution and atheistic evolution, because evolution is not just a biological theory anymore, but it's turning into a philosophy. I can see this at my university all the time. People are applying evolution to all kinds of things, which are no longer biology - things like altruism, etc.. they're applying it to psychology, which I think is wrong, because our psychology is not based on the brain only, but also on the soul. But they're denying the soul. Now evolutionists who believe in God wouldn't do this. So I think it's important to make this distinction..

Peace

 

[gluadys]

oh sorry I meant speciation.. I do remember this from my biology class, I just described it rather badly. I guess what I'm against is the whole idea that new species arise over time.. I mean dramatically different species, not just birds with a different colour of feathers or whatever. I mean the idea that humans, apes, etc, have a common ancenstry, and birds came from reptiles, etc.

Well, now you are confusing me. Are you saying you do not believe speciation ever happens? Or are you saying you do not believe in universal common ancestry? Many creationists believe in speciation and common ancestry within the "kind" i.e. that all frogs have a common ancestor. (Note there are over 3,000 different species of frogs. As a group frogs are as diverse as all mammals put together.)

Is this the sort of speciation you accept? Is this the sort of common ancestry you accept? Do you just draw the line at the common ancestry of frogs and a different form such as snakes?

I don't think that humans and chimps are similar at all. I know they share a lot of DNA, but if you compare humans to rats we share lots of DNA as well, lol, but we are very different.

Well we are not that different from rats either as we are both mammals. We are certainly much more different from frogs than from rats. And we are much more similar to chimpanzees than to rats. The commonality of DNA and even specific genes among widely divergent species is one reason biologists have concluded all life does have a common ancestry. But with chimps and humans the commonalities go right down to the chromosomes and the precise location of genes on precise chromosomes.

I study cognition/neuroscience and there are many differences in brain structure/function, there are brain parts that humans have, that chimps don't..

That's true. After all the most significant biological differences between chimps and humans are our erect stance, bipedalism and much larger and more complex brain. So that is where you will notice the most difference between the two species. But that degree of difference does not carry over into the whole organism. We have the same overall body plan, organs, skeletal structure down to the same bones, and the same muscles, nerve pathways, and blood vessels.

Also, I don't think that humans and chimps "are the same sort of animal". Can chimps create? Can they make up new languages, or mathematics, or art? No..

Chimps can certainly create. They can make and use tools. They can plan organized hunts. They have a rudimentary sense of number and they can create art. They have physical barriers to using speech for communication, but they can be taught sign language or to communicate with printed symbols.

How far are you along in your study of neuroscience and cognition? I expect that if you haven't already come across the study of animal cognition, especially in the great apes, you certainly will. It is a fascinating field.

For one perspective you might look up Apes, Language and the Human Mind by Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, et al. Another view is that of Christine Kenneally in The First Word: the search for the origins of language. I assume Stephen Pinker is required course reading.

People are applying evolution to all kinds of things, which are no longer biology - things like altruism, etc.. they're applying it to psychology, which I think is wrong, because our psychology is not based on the brain only, but also on the soul.

Psychology may not be based on the brain only, but it is certainly based to some extent on the brain. Do you think it is wrong to study the biological basis of the mind?

But I grant that neuroscience and especially neuropsychology is a very controversial field of study. It certainly doesn't help that some of the most influential researchers in the field are also strong atheists who interpret their findings in terms of materialistic reductionism.

However, none of that makes the theory of evolution a philosophy. It is a theory that brings all aspects of biology together. Including the biology of brain and how that forms the basis of the workings of the mind.

 

[Mallon]

I hate to answer a question with a question, but here’s what I’d like to know: You’re right that if I grant free will, that bolded part might not be true, but it could still be true if free will is a product of evolution. But I don’t know – what would a TE say - do all organisms have free will, or just the more complex ones, or just men? And if, for example, it is only man who has it, did God "infuse" a man with freedom of will at some point, or did it evolve?

I guess the answers to your questions depend on a lot of things. What is free will? Is it the same thing as the image of God? Regardless of the answers -- regardless of whether we evolved free will or not -- it still does not follow that choosing to follow a particular morality is determined by evolution, as you stated earlier. The ability to choose freely and to weigh the consequences of our actions may or may not be an evolutionary innovation, but the individual choices we make are in no way determined by evolution.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

well what I believe is that God created various species.. like in Genesis.. humans, cats, eagles, roses, etc (lol that's a funny assortment )
and they can adapt to environment by changing some of their characteristics.. so for example, a bird's beak size may change, or hair colour, etc. But I don't believe in common ancestry, or that there was first inorganic matter...then organic...then DNA..then a cell...then eukaryotic cell...then a simple organism..which became more complex...etc..etc...leading to reptiles...and then to birds...etc. I believe that birds were there from the beginning, as were reptiles, and came to be at the same time. Well I may be wrong, and I'm open to that possibility. But I'll only believe it if God tells me to, so I'm just mostly leaving it up to Him how He made the world. I have my opinion, but in the end I'm leaving it up to God, and I'm not as opinionated as some other creationists you'd meet.

I know that humans and chimps have similar bones, muscles, neural pathways, etc. But I don't think that's what "makes us who we are". Those are just the building blocks of the body, so to speak. THe way it's all played out is very different. I disagree that chimps can create. I know they CAN do the things you listed... yet I wouldn't call that 'creation'. They can learn many things and combine them in novel ways, BUT..that doesn't make someone an artist. Our ability to create is one of the things that make us "in God's image". I took a course called psychology of language last year.. and in it, we learned about how different animals communicate.. chimps, bees, birds.. even parrots. And the professor made it clear, that according to modern research, these animals can and do communicate with one another, but they're not able to make up new languages, like ..say.. JRR Tolkien. in other words, they don't have imagination. In the case of parrots, they learn existing words. They don't create new ones. And when chimps create "art", do they see it as art? How do we know they do? What does it mean to them?

I find it troubling how in some areas of science they no longer see a distinction between animals and humans. There is a distinction, because we have different roles in the world, God made us for different purposes. And there are many things that humans do that animals can not, not because we are 'better' but because we have different purposes, as I said..

I've studied a bit of animal cognition, but my major deals with mostly human models. I'd say that there is superficial similarity... but if you look at higher brain functions... there are many differences as well. We don't just do things "better" than animals do!! We do different SORTS of things.

As for studying the biological basis of the mind.. I think it would be better if scientists stuck to studying the brain without making inferences about psychology. I know it's asking for a lot because they want to learn more about psychology through neuroscience.. I just think there are many mistakes in the field, in the way people think. I'm not saying that I know science better than these people..obviously not.. it's just that.. Some of the stuff I learn, I don't see compatible with Christianity. If I have to choose between my faith and science, I'll always choose my faith.

But I'm not going into research anyway. I think I'll go into healthcare or something.

 

[Mallon]

One of my reasons for this is because there was no death in the world before Adam, yet evolution requires animals to die.

I would urge you to reconsider the possibility of death in the world when God created paradise. After all, what was outside the Garden of Eden? Why was man given food to eat? What purpose did the Tree of Life serve if not to prevent man from dying? These things all imply some sort of physical death, do they not?

People are applying evolution to all kinds of things, which are no longer biology - things like altruism

Why isn't altruism biology?

Well I may be wrong, and I'm open to that possibility. But I'll only believe it if God tells me to, so I'm just mostly leaving it up to Him how He made the world.

Maybe God is using gluadys to tell you that evolution does happen. She certainly seems to know what she's talking about.

By the way, we're talking about the psychology of evolution and creationism over at the Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution blog, Monica. Feel free to jump in on the conversation:
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Humans are exempt from evolution, due to dysgenics.

Do you see any sort of "decline" in any other species that disproves evolutionary theory?

 

[Chesterton]

I guess the answers to your questions depend on a lot of things. What is free will? Is it the same thing as the image of God? Regardless of the answers -- regardless of whether we evolved free will or not -- it still does not follow that choosing to follow a particular morality is determined by evolution, as you stated earlier. The ability to choose freely and to weigh the consequences of our actions may or may not be an evolutionary innovation, but the individual choices we make are in no way determined by evolution.

Okay, but that bit about choices being the result of evolution was not my main point. If you were an atheist, I could try and press a point about not having free will, but you’re a Christian, so we agree it exists.

The OP seemed to be saying that if evolution is true, we should be progressing morally, getting morally better, and since we’re not, evolution is not true. Some people, including an atheist, seemed to me to respond that morality and biological evolution have no relation. My main point was the preceding sentence: our moral choices can affect the course of evolution. You could leave out the word moral, and just say our choices, that wouldn’t matter. We can do, and have done, things which are advantageous or disadvantageous for almost any given animal population, for certain human populations, or for the human species as a whole.

When I think it through, I should have addressed my post strictly to lemmings, the atheist poster. It’s just that I sometimes can’t get clear in my head exactly what TE’s believe about these things. But you and I have the understanding that we’re sinners, so the moral aspect of it isn’t really puzzling. We do what we choose to do, and it’s not always good.

 

[Chesterton]

Do you see any sort of "decline" in any other species that disproves evolutionary theory?

My doggie just pooped on the carpet. My last dog never did that.