Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[metherion]

The theory of evolution has not been observed. It is a speculative history of species. The examples of speciation that have been seen do not justify the historical claims of the theory.

Examples of speciation are not the only evidence. There are genetics. There is cladistics. There are fossils. There is the twin nested hierarchy. In person observation is not the only way to detect something, just think of archaeology, forensics, and so on.

They all assume that the theory of evolution is probably right,and they don't analyze

Analyze what? And what about people, like Dr. Francis Collins, who are Ph.Ds in biology? Are THEY not analyzing things?

I didn't deny that evolution theory takes in to account means of genetic modification.

Ahem. You said, and I quote:

The problem with theistic evolution is that it takes as a given the naturalistic theory of evolution,which does not even allow for a Creator,and which ignores the actual means by which genetic modification happens -

You clearly said that the theory of evolution ignores the actual means by which genetic modification happens.

Reproduction is God's natural means of creating creatures individually

I’ll come back to this.

But evolution theory does not focus on reproduction as the source of new species,but instead focuses upon the processes of natural selection and genetic mutation,which do not create any new creatures.

Incorrect. The only way new genetic changes can spread is by the creatures having new changes reproducing. It is a very important part.

Evolution is not about the creation of individual things.

Correct, but it has not claimed to be. It is about the rise and propagation of differing genes and alleles through organisms giving rise to change in populations.

God creates organisms,and hence species,immediately as individuals.

At what point does God create it?
Does God create it when the sperm is made? When the egg is made? When the sex act happens? When fertilizations happens? When the egg is laid, or the embryo implants on the uterine wall, or whatever analogous step? Hatching/birth/whatever?

Whatever genetic changes happen in the course of descent happens only through conception and reproduction,which are acts of immediate creation of individuals. So there is no evolution.

What is this I don’t even
First off, what do you mean by immediate creation? You’ve been using that term and I want to be clear we all know what it is.
Second, reproduction is one of the things dealt with by evolution.
Third, once the creatures are born, they have to survive long enough to propagate, propagate long enough to spread that genetic change through that gene pool, how the genetic changes affect that creature, and so on. That IS evolution.

Metherion

 

[lucaspa]

Look at what Genesis says...

Genesis 2:1-4 (NKJV)
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...

It says clearly that the biblical creation account is the "history of the heavens and the earth". If the creation account is not true, then the book of Genesis is a lie.

If Genesis is a lie, then the origin of the concept of sin is also a lie, so why believe in a messiah coming to save people from sin?[/quote]
Ah, the fears inspired by creationists put forward by an atheist. Gotta love it.

What you have here is the break between the 2 creation stories in Genesis 1-3. "This is the history of the heavens and the earth ..." is the beginning of a new story. The original Hebrew doesn't come with our chapter and verse headings. Those were put in later. Did you notice the "Lord God" instead of "God"? It's very obvious in the Hebrew. The "God" in verse 1 is "elohim" in Hebrew. The "LORD God" is "Yahweh". Elohim is used from Genesis 1:1 thru Genesis 2:3. Genesis 2:4 starts another creation story. Notice that Genesis 2:4 has what it took at least 4 days in Genesis 1 (creation of the earth and heavens) and does it within a single day! That "in the day" is also specific in Hebrew.

What this tells us is that trying to read Genesis 1-3 as literal history is the wrong way to read the text. The creation stories were never meant to be literal history. Instead, they are meant to tell theological truths. As such, they are not "a lie". The theological truths work just as well in what we know via science today as they did in the Babylonian science in which Genesis 1 is set.

You are trying to say the entire book of Genesis is a lie. That doesn't work. To say that we should reject an entire book if part of it is wrong is something we don't do. Parts of Origin of Species is wrong. Are you going to reject evolution? To be consistent you must. If you don't you are simply doing Special Pleading.

Now, Christ died for our sins. Genesis 2-3 did get a human truth correct: humans have a tendency to sin. Ironically for you, that tendency comes from evolution. Genesis 2-3 was telling us a truth, not a lie. It was simply telling it in a way the people of the time could understand.

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe the biblical account of creation would want to be a christian.

That is because you are making apologetics for atheism. You have an underlying assumption here: in order to be Christian, then you have to believe the Bible literally. That is Fundamentalism, not Christianity. Christianity has always held that God has 2 books: scripture and Creation. When there is a conflict between the 2, Christians decided that our interpretation of scripture is wrong. See the 1st quote in my signature.

The Great Commandment is true whether God created by creationism or evolution. God's Creation tells us God created by evolution. The Biblical accounts tell us things like "who created" and "why did it create".

If you don't believe the biblical account of creation, what do you believe, why, and how is it logical to believe as you do?

What, we have to believe everything in the Bible literally? Let me put this shoe on the other foot: if you don't believe Darwin when he described the evolution of wingless beetles, what do you believe about evolution and natural selection? How logical is it for you to believe as you do?

Now, take your answers to my questions about Darwin and evolution and you will have my answers to your questions. Same thought process.

 

[lucaspa]

Evolution is not something that exists as a physical thing. It is a concept of biological change. It is what supposedly happened in biological history,not a natural cause like water or sunlight.

Well, natural selection is the cause of designs in biological organisms. But I do not see how your objection is valid. Many concepts are true but don't exist as a physical thing. After all, grace is not a physical thing, but you aren't about to discard it as false because of that, are you? How about forgiveness of sins? Ist that anything but a concept?

The problem with theistic evolution is that it takes as a given the naturalistic theory of evolution,which does not even allow for a Creator,

That is false. Evolution most certainly does allow for a Creator. What evolution does is tell us how that Creator created the diversity of life on the planet. What you are doing is accepting the basic statement of faith of atheism as true. You are thinking "natural = without God". That isn't what Christians believe. Shoot, Darwin knew better! He included this in the Fontispiece of Origin of Species:

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Read those carefully. Having something "naturalistic" does not exclude a Creator. Darwin reinforced this at the end of the book:

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

Look what I bolded. That phrase is a Christian theological term, not a scientific one. You should look it up, don't you think?

and which ignores the actual means by which genetic modification happens - reproduction - and instead focuses upon processes which do not create anything in particular.

No, genetic modification does not happen by reproduction. The genes are modified before reproduction, in the sex cells before fertilization. Or in bacteria within the genome without reproduction.

Now, the reason you don't think natural selection creates anything is because you split natural selection into its 2 parts and then try to say each separate part doesn't create anything new.

Natural selection is a 2 step process:
1. Variation. Some of that variation is sexual recombination that doesn't modify genes, but changes the traits of the individual. Variation is where new designs are introduced.
2. Selection. This is not chance. It is the opposite of chance, pure determinism. Selection picks those designs which work. Inheritance preserves those good designs to the next generation.

So theistic evolutionists are inclined to deny that God creates organisms individually

Not really. Notice that Darwin above has God creating organisms individually, using the "naturalistic" processes of reproduction! Or do you think God had to miraculously create you?

Creationism has God directly manufacturing the groups of individuals that are species. One second the individual is absent and then, poof, it is present in its present form. Evolution has God sustaining the "naturalistic" processes of reproduction to create individuals and the "naturalistic" processes of natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, geographic isolation, etc. that changes populations over generations to create a new species.

 

[gluadys]

A process in not a physical thing.

A biological process consists of a series of physical, chemical, biological events which combine to produce a physical effect. Digestion, for example, is a process. I would hardly say it is not a physical thing.

The theory of evolution has not been observed.

Of course not, but evolution has been. And the theory of evolution is confirmed in that the proposed processes of evolution have been seen to be active in observed cases of evolution. That is to say, where evolution has been observed, processes such as variation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, isolation of populations, etc. have also been observed and observed to correlate meaningfully with the actual existence of evolutionary change in the population.

It is a speculative history of species.

Theory should not be confused with history. But the theory does have implications for the history of species (such as a nested hierarchy and common descent). Those implications lead to hypotheses about the history of life on earth that are testable through observation. So the speculative history is backed up by a solid base of supportive evidence that is consistent with what the theory demands.

This would suggest that the phylogenies built up through such analysis are much closer to the truth than mere guesses. And therefore the theory which is the basis of the analysis is probably very close to the truth as well.

The examples of speciation that have been seen do not justify the historical claims of the theory.

The historical claims are not based on current examples of speciation, but on the premise that speciation in the past occurs through the same processes as it does in the present. Just as the geological history of the earth is based on the premise that the geological processes we see in action today operated in the same way in the past--whether they are rapid and catastrophic like volcanoes and earthquakes, or slow like the erosion of rock by flowing water or the build-up of sediment on the bottom of a still lake. So the processes which give us new species today, such as founder's effect, allopatric speciation, gene flow, genetic drift, and so on--if they operated in the past as they do in the present, would produce similar effects.

They all assume that the theory of evolution is probably right,and they don't analyze

On the contrary they do analyze. Yes, we know that the theory of evolution is probably right through our observation of current species change. Then the record of the past is analyzed in light of that knowledge to see if it is probable that evolution is a good explanation of that record. It is.

I didn't deny that evolution theory takes in to account means of genetic modification. Reproduction is God's natural means of creating creatures individually. But evolution theory does not focus on reproduction as the source of new species,but instead focuses upon the processes of natural selection and genetic mutation,which do not create any new creatures.

Well, reproduction per se is not the source of new species. Reproduction produces new individuals. New species are produced through evolutionary changes in populations which transcend the events of individual births.

I don't know what you mean by saying evolutionary processes do not create any new creatures. Perhaps you do not understand how evolution necessitates a nested hierarchy of species, and how the practical effect of a nested hierarchy constrains future evolution.

If by "new creature" you mean one that violates the nested hierarchy of species, you won't get that from evolution.

Evolution is not about the creation of individual things.

Right! Yet you seem uncomfortable with the implications of that.

God creates organisms,and hence species,immediately as individuals.

Since a species is, by definition, a population, it cannot be created as individuals. It is, of course, composed of individuals, each of which can be immediately created. But any species which consists of only one individual cannot be an evolving species.

That is how they exist and how they come into being at conception.

That is true of individuals. It is not true of species. Species exist as groups of individuals and new species emerge as a group from within the older species.

Whatever genetic changes happen in the course of descent happens only through conception and reproduction,which are acts of immediate creation of individuals. So there is no evolution.

That is true of only one kind of genetic change: mutation. But mutation is not the key genetic change in the process of evolution. The key genetic change is a change in the frequency at which differing alleles are inherited. That change is the one that produces evolution of the species and the emergence of new species.

 

[Greg1234]

What you have here is the break between the 2 creation stories in Genesis 1-3. "This is the history of the heavens and the earth ..." is the beginning of a new story. The original Hebrew doesn't come with our chapter and verse headings. Those were put in later. Did you notice the "Lord God" instead of "God"? It's very obvious in the Hebrew. The "God" in verse 1 is "elohim" in Hebrew. The "LORD God" is "Yahweh". Elohim is used from Genesis 1:1 thru Genesis 2:3. Genesis 2:4 starts another creation story.

It signifies multiple levels of creation. The visible out of the invisible.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Look at what Genesis says...

Genesis 2:1-4 (NKJV)
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...

It says clearly that the biblical creation account is the "history of the heavens and the earth". If the creation account is not true, then the book of Genesis is a lie.

If Genesis is a lie, then the origin of the concept of sin is also a lie, so why believe in a messiah coming to save people from sin?

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe the biblical account of creation would want to be a christian.

If you don't believe the biblical account of creation, what do you believe, why, and how is it logical to believe as you do?

Because in this day and age, the Biblical account of creation is not intellectually palatable enough, so many have resolved to throw up their hands in protest and cry out saying "This isn't enough!", even in light of how an omnipotent and omniscient creator decide to put "just that" in His revealed Word. It is because we humans know better.

 

[artybloke]

Because in this day and age, the Biblical account of creation is not intellectually palatable enough, so many have resolved to throw up their hands in protest and cry out saying "This isn't enough!", even in light of how an omnipotent and omniscient creator decide to put "just that" in His revealed Word. It is because we humans know better.

Just because some people choose to worship their flawed literalistic interpretation of an ancient text doesn't mean we have to throw out the revealed Word (who is Christ, not your interpretation of the Bible!)

Fundamentalism is a lie.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Just because some people choose to worship their flawed literalistic interpretation of an ancient text doesn't mean we have to throw out the revealed Word (who is Christ, not your interpretation of the Bible!)

Fundamentalism is a lie.

Who said anything about fundamentalism? Worshipping flawed literalistic interpretations? What a racket. Does anyone who disagrees with you automatically become a fundamentalist? I simply mean to point out this mentality of downplaying the role of the Bible, like it's some embarasssing secret we have to hide.That is the only lie, by far.

 

[artybloke]

One doesn't downplay the Bible by not taking its meaning literally. In fact, if anything, we make the Bible much more beautiful and real than the narrow literalistic interpretation could ever manage. Literalism bleeds the meaning out of the Bible.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Examples of speciation are not the only evidence. There are genetics. There is cladistics. There are fossils. There is the twin nested hierarchy. In person observation is not the only way to detect something, just think of archaeology, forensics, and so on.

That other evidence is about patterns of genetic and structural traits. Scientists just assume that the patterns suggest common descent of all species,as if the patterns could only be the result of common descent,and not separate ancestries. This is just a reductionist way of saying that because different species look alike,they must be related by ancestry. It is not an experimental demonstration of relatedness,nor is it a logical explanation of the data. Descent is about reproductive connections,and that is not something that can be demonstrated with patterns of genetic and structural traits.

Analyze what? And what about people, like Dr. Francis Collins, who are Ph.Ds in biology? Are THEY not analyzing things?

I meant to say that theistic evolutionists do not analyze the theory of evolution to see if it makes sound logical connections between its hypothetical causes and effects. They take it as a given that natural selection and genetic mutation have the ability to lead to macro-evolution,even though the former is only a process of elimination and the latter only involves a small amount of traits and affects them to a limited extent and often defectively. Mutations cannot add up over millions of years to macro-evolution.

Ahem. You said, and I quote:


You clearly said that the theory of evolution ignores the actual means by which genetic modification happens.

The actual means by which genetic modifications are inherited is reproduction,but the theory of evolution ignores the fact that reproduction is firstly about the creation of individual creatures,not just the descent of genetic material. Evolution theory talks about species as if they were amorphous pools of genetic material,when in reality they exist and come into existence as individual creatures. The evolutionary view of species,which does not acknowledge their existence as individual things with specific points of beginning (conception),leads to a false view of descent and a false interpretation of genetic and structural similarities.

 

[metherion]

That other evidence is about patterns of genetic and structural traits.

Which is a large part of what evolution is.

Scientists just assume that the patterns suggest common descent of all species,as if the patterns could only be the result of common descent,and not separate ancestries. This is just a reductionist way of saying that because different species look alike,they must be related by ancestry. It is not an experimental demonstration of relatedness,nor is it a logical explanation of the data. Descent is about reproductive connections,and that is not something that can be demonstrated with patterns of genetic and structural traits.

You are incorrect again. There is no assumption, there is evidence and data and conclusions. For something to be an assumption, it must not be supported by data. Furthermore, the whole ‘because species look alike they must be related’ is a canard because there are species that look alike but are very far removed, such as echidnas/hedgehogs/porcupines, to name one example. The same way science determines if species are related is the same way that paternity/maternity tests among humans work. As it can be very easily demonstrated with genetic patterns and certain structural traits, or combinations of traits.

I meant to say that theistic evolutionists do not analyze the theory of evolution to see if it makes sound logical connections between its hypothetical causes and effects. They take it as a given that natural selection and genetic mutation have the ability to lead to macro-evolution,even though the former is only a process of elimination and the latter only involves a small amount of traits and affects them to a limited extent and often defectively. Mutations cannot add up over millions of years to macro-evolution.

So, again, what about theistic evolutionists who are evolutionary biologists like Dr Francis Collins? Are they not analyzing biology? This looks to be more of a complaint against all of evolution, not just TEs, and again it is wrong.

First off, natural selection and genetic mutation are not the only things that can lead to macro-evolution, nor have they been toted to be. There are also things such as sexual genetic combination, horizontal gene transfer, and so on. Perhaps you should brush up on your evolutionary biology before you condemn it so wrongly?

The actual means by which genetic modifications are inherited is reproduction,but the theory of evolution ignores the fact that reproduction is firstly about the creation of individual creatures,not just the descent of genetic material.

It’s about both. You are creating a false dichotomy and presenting and then repeating the falsehood that evolution doesn’t take into account that individual creatures are made. Furthermore, you are ignoring the fact that while a species is made up of individuals, overall it is a collective, and unless changes spread through the collective species, they don’t stick around past the lifespans of the individuals that carry them.

Evolution theory talks about species as if they were amorphous pools of genetic material,when in reality they exist and come into existence as individual creatures. The evolutionary view of species,which does not acknowledge their existence as individual things with specific points of beginning (conception),leads to a false view of descent and a false interpretation of genetic and structural similarities.

So you’re saying that evolution doesn’t consider that individual life forms are born as individual life forms? What?

Metherion

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Well, natural selection is the cause of designs in biological organisms.

Mutations and reproduction are the natural causes. Designs in organisms will happen even without the elimination of certain traits in a group. They are separate events.

But I do not see how your objection is valid. Many concepts are true but don't exist as a physical thing. After all, grace is not a physical thing, but you aren't about to discard it as false because of that, are you? How about forgiveness of sins? Is that anything but a concept?

Grace and the forgiveness of sins are spiritual realities. Grace is help from the Spirit of Christ in a soul. The forgiveness of sins is an act of reconciliation by God.

That is false. Evolution most certainly does allow for a Creator. What evolution does is tell us how that Creator created the diversity of life on the planet.

Evolution theory is naturalistic,which means it excludes the supernatural. And the theory practically ignores the reality of individual creation through reproduction,which is how God actually creates new kinds of creatures from prior kinds. When you say "diversity of life",what you are referring to are individual creatures with specific points of beginning or conception.

What you are doing is accepting the basic statement of faith of atheism as true.

No,I'm pointing out that the theory of evolution is naturalistic and a false explanation of the history of species.

You are thinking "natural = without God". That isn't what Christians believe.

No,I do not use the word "natural" as meaning "without God". It is methodological naturalism that excludes God,and the theory of evolution itself holds to that view,regardless of whether Christians say that God created species in the way that the theory says they originated.

Shoot, Darwin knew better! He included this in the Fontispiece of Origin of Species:

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Read those carefully. Having something "naturalistic" does not exclude a Creator. Darwin reinforced this at the end of the book:

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

Look what I bolded. That phrase is a Christian theological term, not a scientific one. You should look it up, don't you think?

Darwin disbelieved in separate creation,which is how Christians have always understood the creation of species as portrayed in scripture,and so he also ignored the fact that species exist as individually created creatures. He came to disbelieve in God.

It is a false way of thinking to claim that God has created species through processes that do not actually produce individual creatures. Natural selection and genetic mutation are not the natural means through which individual creatures come into existence,reproduction is. So we should not attribute to God a manner of creating creatures that does not itself produce them.

No, genetic modification does not happen by reproduction. The genes are modified before reproduction, in the sex cells before fertilization. Or in bacteria within the genome without reproduction.

Reproduction is the means by which genetic modifications are inherited,and the theory of evolution is about the inheritance of modifications. Whatever modifications occur in the course of descent occur through reproduction. Descent is reproduction.

Now, the reason you don't think natural selection creates anything is because you split natural selection into its 2 parts and then try to say each separate part doesn't create anything new.

Natural selection is a 2 step process:
1. Variation. Some of that variation is sexual recombination that doesn't modify genes, but changes the traits of the individual. Variation is where new designs are introduced.

What kind of variation exactly are you referring to? Sexual recombination happens through reproduction,which happens regardless of natural selection.

2. Selection. This is not chance. It is the opposite of chance, pure determinism. Selection picks those designs which work. Inheritance preserves those good designs to the next generation.

I know it is deterministic,but determinism is a narrow kind of chance.

Not really. Notice that Darwin above has God creating organisms individually, using the "naturalistic" processes of reproduction! Or do you think God had to miraculously create you?

He didn't say reproduction,he said,"secondary causes,like those which determine the birth and death of individuals". It is more likely he was referring to natural selection. Reproduction does not determine the death of individuals. Reproduction is natural a naturalistic process,it is both a natural event and an act of God. Living creatures are formed at conception by the power of God. That is what the Church teaches regarding in regard to the question of when human life begins,and it applies to all other living creatures that are formed at conception.

Creationism has God directly manufacturing the groups of individuals that are species.

The word is created or made or formed,not manufactured.

One second the individual is absent and then, poof, it is present in its present form.

It's an act of creation by God,not poof. We came into existence at conception,which is an immediate act of creation. Why do you have a problem with believing reality?

Evolution has God sustaining the "naturalistic" processes of reproduction to create individuals and the "naturalistic" processes of natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, geographic isolation, etc. that changes populations over generations to create a new species.

Naturalism is a view of nature,not natural processes themselves. Of course God sustains natural processes,but this does not mean that God has used the processes of evolution theory to do what it claims to have happened - the evolution of all species from a single ancestor. It isn't as if everything that science claims for natural processes is worthy of belief. Science takes the false naturalistic view,and it often uses faulty reasoning.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Which is a large part of what evolution is.

That is an assumption that the story of evolution happened,as if the patterns of genetic and structural similarity were proof that it happened.

You are incorrect again. There is no assumption, there is evidence and data and conclusions. For something to be an assumption,it must not be supported by data.

That's not true. We make assumptions all the time based upon information. Conclusions are often assumptions. They are not mutually exclusive. It is an assumption that patterns of genetic similarity between species are proof of common ancestry. It cannot be demonstrated that there was a common ancestry for species that have never been known to breed together.

Furthermore, the whole ‘because species look alike they must be related’ is a canard because there are species that look alike but are very far removed, such as echidnas/hedgehogs/porcupines, to name one example.

The use of genetic patterns of similarity as evidence of common descent is just a reductionist way of assuming that similarities are proof of relatedness.

The same way science determines if species are related is the same way that paternity/maternity tests among humans work. As it can be very easily demonstrated with genetic patterns and certain structural traits, or combinations of traits.

The difference is that paternity tests are done on members of the human race,whereas evolution biology claims that different species that have never been known to interbreed are related by ancestry. Genetic similarities are not necessarily sound evidence of common ancestry between species that have never been known to be capable of interbreeding.

So, again, what about theistic evolutionists who are evolutionary biologists like Dr Francis Collins? Are they not analyzing biology? This looks to be more of a complaint against all of evolution, not just TEs, and again it is wrong.

Yes,but they do not properly analyze the theory's logical relations,that is,it's hypothetical causes and effects. They should seriously think about whether natural selection,a process of elimination,really has the ability to produce the variety of species,as Darwin claimed it did,and whether it is possible for mutations,as limited as they are in the traits they affect,to have accumulated so as to lead to macro-evolution.

First off, natural selection and genetic mutation are not the only things that can lead to macro-evolution, nor have they been toted to be. There are also things such as sexual genetic combination, horizontal gene transfer, and so on. Perhaps you should brush up on your evolutionary biology before you condemn it so wrongly?

Sexual genetic combination has to do with reproduction,which is itself the creation of individual creatures,not merely a mechanism of genetic modification. Horizontal gene transfer is independent of reproduction,and so it does not itself produce new species.

It’s about both. You are creating a false dichotomy and presenting and then repeating the falsehood that evolution doesn’t take into account that individual creatures are made.

I'm talking about the THEORY of evolution,not just a concept of evolution. The theory doesn't look for the origins of species in the creation of individual creatures at conception/reproduction.

Furthermore, you are ignoring the fact that while a species is made up of individuals, overall it is a collective, and unless changes spread through the collective species, they don’t stick around past the lifespans of the individuals that carry them.

Species exist as individual creatures regardless of whether they are considered as a collective group. And groups exist as individual creatures. The survival of a species does not necessarily depend upon inherited changes - the changes are incidental to reproduction,by which they are inherited.

So you’re saying that evolution doesn’t consider that individual life forms are born as individual life forms? What?

The theory of evolution practically ignores the fact that species come into existence as individually created creatures at conception/repoduction. It focuses upon processes that do not themselves produce creatures. Because it does not recognize the reality of specific points of creation,it gets the origination of species wrong,and it cannot be reconciled with reason,experience,and the Catholic doctrine of creation.

 

[gluadys]

Mutations and reproduction are the natural causes.

Mutations, reproduction, selection (whether natural, sexual or neutral) and speciation are the natural causes of evolution.

Designs in organisms will happen even without the elimination of certain traits in a group.

I don't see how that is possible. A new design can only be reproduced by increasing the proportion of the population with the alleles for that design at the expense of other alleles. Some traits have to disappear, or at least become very rare, for a different trait to become fixed in the population.

Evolution theory is naturalistic,which means it excludes the supernatural.

All science excludes supernatural causes as scientific causes. It is not a characteristic peculiar to evolution.

And the theory practically ignores the reality of individual creation through reproduction,

As it should because evolution is a population-level process, not a change in individuals.

which is how God actually creates new kinds of creatures from prior kinds.

How can an individual be a "kind of creature"? Doesn't the assignation of an individual creature to a kind (be it species, genus, variety, class, whatever) imply it is one of a group?

When you say "diversity of life",what you are referring to are individual creatures with specific points of beginning or conception.

No, I am referring to groups of creatures united by genetic, physiological, morphological and behavioural similarities and, at the species level, by in-group reproduction. Yes, every individual in that group has a specific point of beginning in conception. But bio-diversity refers to diverse species, not to diverse individuals within the same species.

No,I do not use the word "natural" as meaning "without God".

But you do use "naturalistic" as meaning "without God". Can you clarify the difference? Can you show why, given the opposition you set up between "natural" and "naturalistic" the theory of evolution is better described as "naturalistic" and not as "natural"?

Darwin disbelieved in separate creation,which is how Christians have always understood the creation of species as portrayed in scripture,and so he also ignored the fact that species exist as individually created creatures.

I don't understand the logic here. The fact that one acknowledges the existence of species and evolutionary changes in species doesn't mean one ignores the fact of individual existence. Darwin saw natural selection impacting the survival of individuals.

My own experience is that anti-evolutionists often speak of species or even much larger groups as if the population was a single individual, forgetting that an archetypal abstract of "rabbit" really refers to a population of many rabbits and very likely many species of rabbits.

It is a false way of thinking to claim that God has created species through processes that do not actually produce individual creatures. Natural selection and genetic mutation are not the natural means through which individual creatures come into existence,reproduction is. So we should not attribute to God a manner of creating creatures that does not itself produce them.

Well, evolution is not about the origin of specific individuals. It is about changes that occur in a population over time. Take the classic case of the pepper moths in industrialized areas of England. At one point you have a population in which black morphs are rare. Later you have descendants of that population, but now it is the light-colored morphs that are rare. That is evolution. How does that ignore the conception of each individual moth? After all, it was each individual moth that was conceived and hatched into either a dark or light moth. What changed was the proportion of each type of moth in the population.

We are talking statistics here and statistics are made up of the data that pertain to each individual. But the statistics tell us the overall character of the group and does not allow us to predict the traits of one individual in the group.

Reproduction is the means by which genetic modifications are inherited,and the theory of evolution is about the inheritance of modifications. Whatever modifications occur in the course of descent occur through reproduction. Descent is reproduction.

So far, so good. But it is not just that modifications are inherited. They are inherited in statistically significant patterns. And you can't measure those patterns by looking at one individual at a time. You certainly can't measure changes in the patterns by looking at one individual at a time.

What kind of variation exactly are you referring to? Sexual recombination happens through reproduction,which happens regardless of natural selection.

No, sexual recombination is one of the means of producing variation. Natural selection doesn't enter the picture until after variations exist.

He didn't say reproduction,he said,"secondary causes,like those which determine the birth and death of individuals". It is more likely he was referring to natural selection. Reproduction does not determine the death of individuals.

I think the point is that reproduction is an instance of a process that takes place through "secondary causes". Darwin is proposing that natural selection is also a "secondary cause".

Reproduction is natural a naturalistic process,it is both a natural event and an act of God.

Now here you seem to be using the words "natural" and "naturalistic" as synonyms. I would say of evolution, as you say of reproduction, that it is both a natural event (or rather process) and an act of God. I don't think any aspect of the theory of evolution rules that out.

Naturalism is a view of nature,not natural processes themselves.

But are natural processes naturalistic? If not, why not? And why do you associate evolution with "naturalistic" rather than "natural" processes?

Of course God sustains natural processes,but this does not mean that God has used the processes of evolution theory to do what it claims to have happened - the evolution of all species from a single ancestor.

Why not? The evidence is strong for a single common ancestor. Who would set up, sustain and use the processes of common descent if not God?

That is an assumption that evolution happened,based upon the patterns of genetic and structural similarity.

That's not true. We make assumptions all the time based upon information. Conclusions are often assumptions. They are not mutually exclusive. It is an assumption that patterns of genetic similarity between species are proof of common ancestry. It cannot be demonstrated that there was a common ancestry for species that have never been known to breed together.

You mentioned earlier that descent is reproduction. And does that not imply inheritance?

Can you give me any reason why creatures inheriting similar genes would not be marked by genetic similarity? Even if they no longer find themselves in the same breeding group.

Yes,but they do not properly analyze the theory's logical relations,that is,it's hypothetical causes and effects.

I don't understand this assertion. Can you give an example of improper analysis? It is typical of scientific theories that they are analyzed for hypothetical causes and effects. These analyses are the basis of scientific predictions and guides to further research to confirm or falsify those predictions. In Your Inner Fish, Neil Shubin provides several examples of research programs that were the fruit of examining and analyzing evolutionary theory logically to develop hypotheses--and of the ensuing discoveries.

They should seriously think about whether natural selection,a process of elimination,really has the ability to produce the variety of species,as Darwin claimed it did,and whether it is possible for mutations,as limited as they are in the traits they affect,to have accumulated so as to lead to macro-evolution.

Well, they have. Natural selection is only one part of the process of evolution. On its own, what it produces is the adaptation of a species to its current environment. But what if a population is divided among two different environments? Then natural selection produces different adaptations in each--and that can lead to speciation.

Or you can get the reverse scenario. A population is divided and prevented from interbreeding. The environments may be the same, but as long as they are divided, they no longer share whatever new traits may emerge in each population through neutral evolution. So the two segments of the population accumulate a different set of new traits. This can also lead to speciation.

Both of these scenarios ARE macro-evolution.

Sexual genetic combination has to do with reproduction,which is itself the creation of individual creatures,not merely a mechanism of genetic modification. Horizontal gene transfer is independent of reproduction,and so it does not itself produce new species.

Variations, however produced, do not in themselves produce new species. Selection and reproductive isolation are further processes than need to be added to the production of variations.

This is why evolution needs to be seen as a process. It involves several different mechanisms and no one of them is capable of producing evolutionary change without the others.

Anti-evolutionists often look at each separately, note that not one on its own can produce evolutionary change and then conclude that working together they can't produce evolutionary change either. That is rather like assuming that because neither a set of wheels, nor a steering column, nor an engine nor a full gas tank can make a vehicle move by itself, the combination of them all cannot.

I'm talking about the THEORY of evolution,not just a concept of evolution. The theory doesn't look for the origins of species in the creation of individual creatures at conception/reproduction.

Since evolution is about changes in a species over generations, measured statistically, why should it look at the conception/reproduction of individual creatures? You cannot measure evolution by looking at individuals one at a time. It is only when you look at them in groups and consider what traits they have in common as a group that you can then measure changes in the group.

Species exist as individual creatures regardless of whether they are considered as a collective group.

Absolutely. But to distinguish one species from another, one needs criteria which exist in one group but not in the other and vice versa. We all know that within a species, each individual differs from the others. But that doesn't identify the individual as one of the species. It is what the individual shares with others in its own group---but not with other groups--that identify it as one of the species

And groups exist as individual creatures.

Again, absolutely. No one is disputing that.

The survival of a species does not necessarily depend upon inherited changes

True, a species can be wiped out for reasons that have nothing to do with inheritance.

The theory of evolution practically ignores the fact that species come into existence as individually created creatures at conception/repoduction.

That's because they don't. (Except in a few rare cases like the nylon bug--which, being a bacterium was not conceived anyway.) Other than such exceptional cases, no species comes into existence as a single individual. New species come into existence as groups of individuals sharing some common traits unique to themselves.

It focuses upon processes that do not themselves produce creatures. Because it does not recognize the reality of specific points of creation,it gets the origination of species wrong,and it cannot be reconciled with reason,experience,and the Catholic doctrine of creation.

So how do you see species changing over time? What is your theory of evolution that is consistent with your view of creation?

 

[Greg1234]

Mutations, reproduction, selection (whether natural, sexual or neutral) and speciation are the natural causes of evolution.

And evolution simply means change right?

My own experience is that anti-evolutionists

Anti-change proponents?

Anti-evolutionists often

....

Since evolution is about changes in a species over generations,

Yes! Evolution is simply change. Well there you have it folks. Created things do not change.

 

[gluadys]

And evolution simply means change right?

No, not simply change.

Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.​

An introduction to evolution
Emphasis added

Created things do not change.

Evidently they do. Both evolutionary change and other changes. Stars change, mountain ranges change, leaves change colour and species change via descent through genetic inheritance. Yet all of these were created.

 

[Greg1234]

No, not simply change.

Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.​

An introduction to evolution
Emphasis added

Does genetic inheritance cause a change or does it simply make a change known?

Evidently they do. Both evolutionary change and other changes. Stars change, mountain ranges change, leaves change colour and species change via descent through genetic inheritance. Yet all of these were created.

Hammers, airplanes, Pyramids...

 

[lucaspa]

Mutations and reproduction are the natural causes. Designs in organisms will happen even without the elimination of certain traits in a group. They are separate events.

Mutations and reproduction are parts of natural selection. Natural selection is a 2 step process:
1. Variation (mutations are a source of variation)
2. Selection (which results in differential reproduction).

Now, "designs" have a "particular purpose". Yes, you can get traits by genetic drift, but they don't have a particular purpose. The designs in living organisms -- eyes for seeing, hearts for pumping blood, DNA code for specifying amino acid sequences in proteins, et. -- are the result of natural selection.

It turns out that even sexual selection is related to designs that have a purpose other than attracting a mate.

Grace and the forgiveness of sins are spiritual realities. Grace is help from the Spirit of Christ in a soul. The forgiveness of sins is an act of reconciliation by God.

But they are not physical things, are they? Yet you say they are "realities". Remember what I was saying: "Many concepts are true but don't exist as a physical thing. After all, grace is not a physical thing, but you aren't about to discard it as false because of that, are you? How about forgiveness of sins? Is that anything but a concept?"

Are you arguing against what I said or supporting it? It appears to be support. BTW, my denomination -- Methodist -- has a different concept of grace than you posted.

Evolution theory is naturalistic,which means it excludes the supernatural.

That is not true. UNLESS you accept atheism a priori as true. "Naturalistic" means we cannot comment on the supernatural. What "naturalistic" means is that we don't have to invoke miracle, but we can never exclude "supernatural" as a part of "natural". Unless you an atheist, and then you do the exclusion by faith.

And the theory practically ignores the reality of individual creation through reproduction,which is how God actually creates new kinds of creatures from prior kinds.

Isn't reproduction "naturalistic"? What "supernatural" do we say happens during reproduction?

When you say "diversity of life",what you are referring to are individual creatures with specific points of beginning or conception.

What you are doing is, either accidentally or on purpose, trying to muddy the waters between "individuals" and "populations". Evolution applies to populations. Populations change over the course of generations, but the individuals within the population die with the same alleles that they are born with.

Diversity of life refers to getting populations that are different from other populations in the past and present.

 

[lucaspa]

No,I'm pointing out that the theory of evolution is naturalistic and a false explanation of the history of species.

No,I do not use the word "natural" as meaning "without God". It is methodological naturalism that excludes God

When you think that "naturalistic" leaves out God, that is atheism. Methodological naturalism does not exclude God. MN says we cannot test for God in what is "natural". MN is a limitation of science that says we can only look at the "natural" component of explanations. Before you answer, read the entire post and pay particular attention to the last 2 paragraphs, please.

Now, as to what "the theory of evolution itself holds to", let's go back to Darwin:

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

"Secondary causes" is a Christian term, and it refers to a way that God works. Darwin is specifically excluding the atheistic view: that if something is "natural", then God isn't acting. That is their faith.

Darwin disbelieved in separate creation,which is how Christians have always understood the creation of species as portrayed in scripture,and so he also ignored the fact that species exist as individually created creatures. He came to disbelieve in God.

1. Darwin never "disbelieved" in God. Darwin swung from theism to agnosticism. Agnosticism is neutral, with neither belief nor disbelief.
2. No Christian believes that species consist all the time of "individually created creatures". Do you believe that God individually creates all dogs? That is what your statement means. Prior to Darwin, Christians were doubting that species did not change. Darwin provided the mechanism -- the secondary cause -- that species would change to new species.

It is a false way of thinking to claim that God has created species through processes that do not actually produce individual creatures. Natural selection and genetic mutation are not the natural means through which individual creatures come into existence,reproduction is. So we should not attribute to God a manner of creating creatures that does not itself produce them.

Species are groups of individuals. Populations. A species is not an individual. Again, it is a group of individuals. Now, you know that individuals (particularly of sexually reproducing species) are not identical. You are not identical to your parents. OTOH, each species does not have the full possible range of a trait. Take height. Measure the height of all individual adult pygmies. You will get a bell-shaped curve, with a mean and standard deviation. Now measure the height of all individual adult Masai. You will get another bell-shaped curve. Those curves do not overlap. Although made up of individuals, the populations are distinct in terms of height.

In evolution, populations change over the course of generations. They can, and do, change enough that population B after the change is no longer population A before the change. We have 2 species: A and B. Both made up of individuals, but individuals that are different from the individuals in the other species.

So yes, the individuals came about by reproduction -- what you admit is a naturalistic process. But the species also came about by a naturalistic process: evolution. BOTH are God creating.

Reproduction is the means by which genetic modifications are inherited,and the theory of evolution is about the inheritance of modifications. Whatever modifications occur in the course of descent occur through reproduction. Descent is reproduction.

But not all individuals have the genetic modifications. That's the key. It starts out with only one individual having the genetic modification. It ends with all the individuals having the genetic modification. Without evolution, what you describe means that there are always only a few individuals with the modification. Natural selection means, after many generation, every individual has the modification. The bell-shaped curve that is the population has changed.

What kind of variation exactly are you referring to? Sexual recombination happens through reproduction,which happens regardless of natural selection.

The packages of alleles that are the sexual recombination happen by reproduction, but change in the population so that everyone has that package is the result of natural selection.

Let's take a simple example: sexual recombination of sickle cell alleles in a population in an area endemic with malaria. We start out with an individual with a mutation that gives HS: heterozygous for normal hemoglobin (H) and sickle cell hemoglobin (S). That person breeds with an HH (all there is) and produces offspring that are HH or HS. Only 1 child in 4 will be HS by sexual recombination. BUT, only those children will survive the malaria to get to adulthood. After several generations, there will be several people that are HS. They breed. 25% of the kids will be HH, 50% will be HS, and 25% will be SS by recombination. BUT, natural selection comes into play in that only the HS recombinations will be preserved. The individuals who are HH die of malaria, those of SS die of sickle cell disease. Keep this up over generations and the only package in the population is HS. The population has changed from HH to HS. Not from just sexual recombination. But from natural selection.

I know it is deterministic,but determinism is a narrow kind of chance.

Check the definition of determinism. Determinism isn't any kind of chance at all. Drop a ball from a building. Measure its velocity at different points on its way down. That velocity is a product of determinism. No chance involved.

He didn't say reproduction,he said,"secondary causes,like those which determine the birth and death of individuals". It is more likely he was referring to natural selection. Reproduction does not determine the death of individuals. Reproduction is natural a naturalistic process,it is both a natural event and an act of God.

The important part here is that reproduction is a secondary cause. That is what "secondary cause" is: a natural process which is the way God works. As you say, reproduction is the natural process which is the way God makes new living creatures. What Darwin is saying is that evolution is the natural process by which God changes populations to produce new species. Darwin wasn't leaving out God. Atheists do. And you do. Which makes you, unfortunately, an atheist.

Living creatures are formed at conception by the power of God.

So species are formed by the power of God over the course of generations using evolution.

The word is created or made or formed,not manufactured.

And how do those differ from "manufactured"? They are synonyms.

It's an act of creation by God,not poof. We came into existence at conception,which is an immediate act of creation. Why do you have a problem with believing reality?

But how about the first humans? How could those first humans have come into existence at conception? Conception requires an existing male and female to do the concepting. More importantly, it requires a human female womb to nurture the fertilized ovum! So, the creation of the first humans had to be "poof", didn't it? There were no adult humans, and then, poof, there were adult humans. That's how Genesis 1 describes it.

Naturalism is a view of nature,not natural processes themselves. Of course God sustains natural processes,but this does not mean that God has used the processes of evolution theory to do what it claims to have happened - the evolution of all species from a single ancestor. It isn't as if everything that science claims for natural processes is worthy of belief. Science takes the false naturalistic view,and it often uses faulty reasoning.

There are 2 forms of naturalism: philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is the belief that natural processes work on their own. Science uses methodological naturalism, which simply says that the natural processes are all that science can test. You said that "God sustains natural process". That statement cannot be tested. Methodological naturalism is the reason it can't be tested.

ALL the evidence we have from God's Creation says He used evolution to create all the species from a common ancestor. It's not "science" claiming this, it's God telling us this. You haven't provided any counter-evidence. All you have is a misrepresentation and obfuscation of individuals vs populations of individuals (species).

 

[lucaspa]

And evolution simply means change right?

Not how we are using it here. "Evolution" has many meanings, and you need context to figure out the right one. Yes, under some circumstances, evolution does mean "change thru time". When astronomers talk about "stellar evolution", that is what they mean: individual stars change over time.

BUT, we are talking about biological evolution, and that is more complex. The best simple definition of evolution for living organisms is "descent with modification". That is still not precise, and I can give you a more precise definition if it is needed.

Created things do not change.

They don't? Anthony says we -- you and I and every other person -- are created. Yet we change quite a bit thru our lifetime, don't we? Or do you wish to deny that you are created?

You believe God created the earth, right? Hasn't the earth changed even within recorded human history? If we look at geological history, it has changed even more.

Greg1234, you really need to start thinking about your statements before you post them. Without thinking, you really end up making making some statements that are very harmful to God and Christianity.