How to deal with evolution?

[Joykins]

It says we evolved from ape like creatures.

The question, "why are monkeys still around?" is adequately explained under evolutionary theory. The answer is: monkeys, are, like us, an end-point of their own evolutionary development, although they and humans have a common ancestor that was neither human nor monkey.

 

[arunma]

The question, "why are monkeys still around?" is adequately explained under evolutionary theory. The answer is: monkeys, are, like us, an end-point of their own evolutionary development, although they and humans have a common ancestor that was neither human nor monkey.

Actually...

Assuming evolutionary theory were true (which it isn't, of course ), I'm fairly certain that there isn't any end-point to the evolution of an individual species. Theoretically, humans could continue to evolve into another species. But of course, we happen to have a biologist on this thread, so perhaps he can clarify what I've said.

After all, though you want to defend evolution, and I want to refute it, it is important for both of us to fully understand the theory first.

 

[handmaiden97]

Thanks everyone for the responses.



You know, you've given me an interesting idea. Unfortunately, this paper is worth the majority of my grade for the class. But as I said earlier, it wasn't that big of an issue, since in this case, I could simply choose a topic that has nothing to do with evolution. Perhaps I could write two papers, one for a grade (having nothing to do with evolution, of course), and one for an explanation of why I do not believe in evolution. Do you think this would be a good way to witness to Christ? Or would it simply be seen as foolishness?

sorry I was not here to respond sooner. I think it would be a great idea, and as you resuerch the scientific evidences that refutes evolution it will surely strenghten your faith. Who knows maybe even it will minister to your teacher. I know of a man who came to christ when he bagan to see the errors in the evolution theory. Once people understand evolution is not fact and begin to see the world was designed and not an accident, it makes you realize their much me a designor.

debating with him would not be loving but sharing your beleifs in a respectful way is a good thing!

 

[98cwitr]

Actually they don't share 99% of the exact DNA. If you want to read more I wrote an article on this a while back. You can read it here.

good article, thanks!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

sorry I was not here to respond sooner. I think it would be a great idea, and as you resuerch the scientific evidences that refutes evolution it will surely strenghten your faith. Who knows maybe even it will minister to your teacher. I know of a man who came to christ when he bagan to see the errors in the evolution theory. Once people understand evolution is not fact and begin to see the world was designed and not an accident, it makes you realize their much me a designor.

debating with him would not be loving but sharing your beleifs in a respectful way is a good thing!

There is no scientific or Biblical data that refutes the theory of evolution. There are, however, literally millions of volumes of scientific data that support the theory of evolution. And there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that refutes the theory of evolution. The arguments from both science and the Bible used to disprove the theory of evolution are based upon serious misunderstandings of both science and the Bible. It is not just a coincidence that 99.9% of biologist and geologists who have earned a Ph.D. firmly believe in the theory of evolution, and that the very large majority of the scholars of the Old Testament believe that Genesis 1-11 belongs to the genre of literature known as “epic literature,” and that the stories in that part of Genesis have very little if any basis of historical fact.

There is no question whatsoever that in order to have the genetic diversity present today that it would have been necessary for more than 1.5 million genetically discrete populations of animals to have been aboard the Ark had there been a world-wide flood that covered the highest mountains. Creation “scientists” know this for a fact but they throw up a smoke screen for the layman saying the “kinds” in the Bible does not equal “species.” Of course “kinds” in the Bible does not equal “species” but that fact could not possibly be more irrelevant and every creation “scientist” knows that for a fact but they are not about to admit it to the lay population. And they compound this deception by arguing that the “kinds” in Genesis are really “families” of animals even though they know for a fact that they are arguing for a genetic impossibility. This is nothing but deliberate and willful deception. But the more one studies the writings of creation “scientists” and checks out their claims, the more and more they will learn that their claims are fraudulent, deliberate and willful deception.

Not long ago the Institution for Creation Research had to completely redo their web page after they were exposed for grossly misrepresenting the academic qualifications and appointments of the creation “scientists” living today. To deliberately and willfully represent a teacher in a two-year community college as a professor of geology at a major university is nothing short of outright fraud! And to do this on a regular and consistent basis as a matter of course is absolutely reprehensible. But when one has no data and no authorities on their side, what else can they do but deliberately and willfully distort and mishandle the data and deceive the gullible public into believing that there is a disagreement among scientists today regarding the validity of the theory of evolution? However, even after all of their gross exaggerations regarding the academic qualifications and appointments of the creation “scientists” living today, they still have only a few dozen of them opposed to well over 100,000 real scientists all over the world. Therefore they lie some more and falsely claim that the number of scientists who believe in young earth creationism is growing when in fact it is rapidly declining to near zero. When one has the truth on his side, he does not have to lie to defend his position.

I do not know a whole lot about the quilt-making techniques in 17th century Virginia, and for me to argue with those who do would only make my ignorance of the subject more and more obvious. When sharing the gospel with those who need to hear it and believe it, I do not believe it is particularly helpful to make a fool of one’s self.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Actually...

Assuming evolutionary theory were true (which it isn't, of course ), I'm fairly certain that there isn't any end-point to the evolution of an individual species. Theoretically, humans could continue to evolve into another species. But of course, we happen to have a biologist on this thread, so perhaps he can clarify what I've said.

After all, though you want to defend evolution, and I want to refute it, it is important for both of us to fully understand the theory first.

The ability for any population of plants or animals to evolve is dependent upon the genetic diversity in that population and upon changes in the environment of that population. There is on the internet a very good document on evolution prepared for the general public by delegates representing eight scientific societies. These societies have all endorsed the final document and are as follows:

American Society of Naturalists
Animal Behavior Society
Ecological Society of America
Genetics Society of America
Paleontological Society
Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution
Society of Systematic Biologists
Society for the Study of Evolution

Additional endorsement by:

American Institute of Biological Sciences

This document is nearly 90 pages long, but it is an excellent introduction to the theory of evolution. Here is the table of contents:

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PREAMBLE
I. INTRODUCTION
II. WHAT IS EVOLUTION?
III. WHAT ARE THE GOALS OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY?
A. Subdisciplines of Evolutionary Biology
B. Perspectives from Evolutionary Biology
IV. HOW IS EVOLUTION STUDIED?
V. WHY IS EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY IMPORTANT?
VI. HOW DOES EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY?
A. Human Health and Medicine
B. Agriculture and Natural Resources
C. Finding Useful Natural Products
D. Environment and Conservation
E. Applications beyond Biology
F. Understanding Humanity
VII. HOW DOES EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY CONTRIBUTE TO BASIC SCIENCE?
A. A. Accomplishments in the Study of Evolution
B. B. Contributions to Other Biological Disciplines
VIII. WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY?
A. A. Applied Science
B. B. Basic Science
IX. MECHANISMS FOR MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE FUTURE
A. Advancing Understanding through Research
B. Advancing Understanding through Education
C. Advancing Understanding through Communication
X. CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
I. EVOLUTION: FACT, THEORY, CONTROVERSY
II. HOW THIS DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED
III. GLOSSARY OF FREQUENTLY USED TERMS


Here is the link to this document:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html

 

[gwilenius]

Consider writing about microevolution, which is a proven fact. In writing your paper, you can argue that "evolution" as it is taught promotes genetic advancement, but in reality, all species have genetic loss as time goes on (e.g. dogs have less genetic information than wolves - wolves have genetic material to produce any breed of dog, but you will never be able to produce a wolf from any combination of purebred dogs). You could tie this in with chaos theory and entropy, but a more biblical relation would be one of death and decay through sin (entropy is just one "natural" process through which sin works). I think this would be an interesting topic, prove a point of de-evolution and counter evolution head-on using the same scientific tools evolution uses to make its assertions. You can easily trash evolution without using scripture.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You can easily trash evolution without using scripture.

Yes, one can if his reader knows nothing about evolution. But, of course, if he does, one will only be making a ludicrous fool of one’s self! BAD, BAD idea!

 

[gwilenius]

Yes, one can if his reader knows nothing about evolution. But, of course, if he does, one will only be making a ludicrous fool of one’s self! BAD, BAD idea!

Why is that? Macroevolution is just an extrapolation of microevolution - Evolution relies on the unproven (and unprovable) principles of uniformalism. There is plenty of evidence for microevolution, but little for macroevolution. Assuming you accept uniformalism and assuming you accept significant gaps in fossil record, then it is relatively easy to accept evolution - I am suggesting focussing the report around these aspects.

Or are you implying that discrediting evolution without scripture is a bad idea? I know a great number of researchers who, just on the mention of the Bible, they will slam shut the door of reasonable discourse based on their preconceptions or malconclusions the Bible is not a reliable source of information. I prefer to open doors slowly rather than pounding through;

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

The question, "why are monkeys still around?" is adequately explained under evolutionary theory. The answer is: monkeys, are, like us, an end-point of their own evolutionary development, although they and humans have a common ancestor that was neither human nor monkey.

I agree, it's not a very good argument for us creationists to use. Of course evolutionists use terrible arguements as well at times. Such as "human eyes are inferior to those of an octopus". The obvious problem with an argument like that is the the octopus lives in the water and humans don't so the eyes need to be designed differently by God.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Or are you implying that discrediting evolution without scripture is a bad idea? I know a great number of researchers who, just on the mention of the Bible, they will slam shut the door of reasonable discourse based on their preconceptions or malconclusions the Bible is not a reliable source of information. I prefer to open doors slowly rather than pounding through;

It's rather easy to disprove evolution using scripture. Watching an evolutionist try to prove evolution using scripture is certainly an interesting ordeal though.

(Genesis 1:21) So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Obviously by reading this verse and many others in Genesis 1 you can see one kind of animal did not evolve from another kind. This verse really flies in the face of the evolutionists because they believe water creatures turned into land creatures who turned into bird creatures. Evolution idea flies in the face (no pun intended) of what God has told us.

Also the order of creation goes against the evolution idea so you can point to that (ex. sun created after the earth). You can also point to scripture that shows death and suffering was a result of sin, not a process put in place at the start to power evolution so that man could finally come about. There is plenty more but that should be enough for now.

 

[Soldat_fur_Christ]

Ok, Princeton Guy,

If evolution in the sense of macroevolution is possible... let's look at it like this (using evolution's arguments) and let us reason it through...

I've been through Biology, and know a lot about it...

Ok, 13.7 Billion years ago, we have the Big Bang initiated by God. Alright, the universe starts, and everything's a swerling mass... planets and the different suns don't exist yet, because matter just came into being.

They slowly progress for millions of years coming together, and earth is eventually created, along with the other planets and the thousands of stars/suns.

Alright, lets stop here, and reason. In Genesis, isn't it more logical for God to have created everything in an instant, instead of starting it as a process to take billions of years to form? Why would God want to make it so everything slowly comes around?

Then 4.5 Billion years ago... God puts DNA, and other proteins on the earth, in ooze, or whatever there was. Over more millions/billions of years, we're suppose to think that they start coming together to form things, and animals begin to form... But they have to go through natural selection, and as a result, millions of creatures die as a result, for one to come through, and keep evolving. Not to mention things like limbs, and eyes have to evolve correctly to what we have now?

Now doesn't Genesis make more sense?

Then we come about to the ape creatures that Humans "evolved" from, going against what God told Moses to write in Genesis about Adam and Eve, we evolved from a common ancestor, that still magically has to evolve correctly in order to survive.

It isn't Logical!!! Macro-Evolution is bogus! It's more sensible for Genesis to be true, then evolution being real, in the sense of macroevolution.

 

[Joykins]

It's rather easy to disprove evolution using scripture. Watching an evolutionist try to prove evolution using scripture is certainly an interesting ordeal though.

I am unsure what the purpose would be in doing either.

 

[Joykins]

Alright, lets stop here, and reason. In Genesis, isn't it more logical for God to have created everything in an instant, instead of starting it as a process to take billions of years to form? Why would God want to make it so everything slowly comes around?

Time is nothing to God. As the Bible says, a thousand years is like a day to God. God created time and thus is not limited to its constrictions, nor can we assume that he experiences it the same way we do. We cannot guess at what God's motivations are based on what makes sense to us in terms of time.

Then 4.5 Billion years ago... God puts DNA, and other proteins on the earth, in ooze, or whatever there was. Over more millions/billions of years, we're suppose to think that they start coming together to form things, and animals begin to form... But they have to go through natural selection, and as a result, millions of creatures die as a result, for one to come through, and keep evolving. Not to mention things like limbs, and eyes have to evolve correctly to what we have now?

Now doesn't Genesis make more sense?

Then we come about to the ape creatures that Humans "evolved" from, going against what God told Moses to write in Genesis about Adam and Eve, we evolved from a common ancestor, that still magically has to evolve correctly in order to survive.

It isn't Logical!!! Macro-Evolution is bogus! It's more sensible for Genesis to be true, then evolution being real, in the sense of macroevolution.

This argument boils down to "it's simpler and makes more sense to me, so it must be true."

My only quibble is that certain (usually called "literal") interpretations of Genesis conflict with what we currently understand of the physical evidence of origins. So either:

1. This interpretation of Genesis is wrong and our understanding of the evidence is right.

2. This interpretation of Genesis is right and our understanding of the evidence is wrong.

3. This interpretation of Genesis and our understanding of the evidence are both wrong.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I am unsure what the purpose would be in doing either.

The purpose is to align our worldview with those of God's. We do that by digging into the scriptures like the Bereans and finding out what the truth it. That's why when such a popular idea like evolution comes around we need to see how it lines up with scripture. We shouldn't try to line up scripture to fit popular ideas. Sadly though this often isn't the case.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Time is nothing to God. As the Bible says, a thousand years is like a day to God. God created time and thus is not limited to its constrictions, nor can we assume that he experiences it the same way we do. We cannot guess at what God's motivations are based on what makes sense to us in terms of time.

A day is like a thousand years passage is not referring to creation. We need to remember the key is context, context, context. The days in Genesis are numbered days that are marked with morning and evening. Also in other books of the Bible such as Exodus treat the days of creation as being literal 24 hour days.

 

[arunma]

A day is like a thousand years passage is not referring to creation. We need to remember the key is context, context, context. The days in Genesis are numbered days that are marked with morning and evening. Also in other books of the Bible such as Exodus treat the days of creation as being literal 24 hour days.

Actually, there are other reasons than the "thousand years" verse in the Psalms for which we could take the days in Genesis as not literal, 24-hour days. I haven't personally done in-depth research into old earth creationism (or young earth, for that matter), but many theologians seem to have proper exegetical reasoning for believing in this theory.

When it comes to various creation theories, I do not want to assert any specific theory as an unquestionable dogma. I certainly think that your young earth beliefs also have merit, and I think this is something that all Christians should examine, at some point. But beyond belief in special creation, I think it would be unwise to require that Christians believe in a specific theory of creation.

 

[Joykins]

The purpose is to align our worldview with those of God's. We do that by digging into the scriptures like the Bereans and finding out what the truth it. That's why when such a popular idea like evolution comes around we need to see how it lines up with scripture. We shouldn't try to line up scripture to fit popular ideas. Sadly though this often isn't the case.

And when I dig into the scripture and find it (by which I mean the "literal" understanding of it) does not seem to correlate with the world as I experience and understand it, what are my options?

The simplest and most obvious conclusion--the one that "just makes sense"--would be to dismiss scripture as a fairy tale.

Is that the conclusion you are pushing for?

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

And when I dig into the scripture and find it (by which I mean the "literal" understanding of it) does not seem to correlate with the world as I experience and understand it, what are my options?

The simplest and most obvious conclusion--the one that "just makes sense"--would be to dismiss scripture as a fairy tale.

Is that the conclusion you are pushing for?

What I would recommend is seeing why your view of the world is that way. There are honest scientists the look at the science and don't see goo to man evolution or billinos years being so. It's not strictly because that is what the Bible says and that is that. I myself have a interest in science. I took it in high school but never at a college level. Even so I enjoy reading secular articles and books, even those by evolutionists. I don't see a problem with my view of a young earth and instant creation of animals kinds with the evidence revealed to us in nature. It seems to me you are being honest with this situation and am glad we can have discussion like this.

 

[arunma]

What I would recommend is seeing why your view of the world is that way. There are honest scientists the look at the science and don't see goo to man evolution or billinos years being so. It's not strictly because that is what the Bible says and that is that. I myself have a interest in science. I took it in high school but never at a college level. Even so I enjoy reading secular articles and books, even those by evolutionists. I don't see a problem with my view of a young earth and instant creation of animals kinds with the evidence revealed to us in nature. It seems to me you are being honest with this situation and am glad we can have discussion like this.

I agree with you, except that when I look at Scripture, I see old earth creation rather than young earth.