If evolution is true- create life

[gluadys]

The problem is compounded since this debate is often presented- by both sides- as being between equal entities so to speak. Creationism vs Evolution, etc. If creation describes only origins and evolution describes only the current status of things, then there is no versus involved. But apparently many do not feel this way.

It is a little more complex than that.

Evolution describes a process which takes place in the present and can be understood in the present. But that process also took place in the past, and much of the present situation is a consequence of evolution which took place in the past. IOW 'evolution' refers to both the process of species change and the history of species change. The second has implications for the creationist understanding of the history of origins.

There is also the question of whether "origins" itself refers to an event or a process. For example, if by "origin of life" one means the origin of the first entity which could be called "alive" that is obviously a past event. But if one is referring to the origins of species, that is still a continuing process. If by origin of the universe, one is referring to the first micro-second of its existence, that is an event of the past. But insofar as the universe is still expanding, that is only the initial stage of an ongoing process. New stars are still forming today.

Creationists tend to think of "origin" as a single past event. That may not be an accurate way to think about origins. For example, when did creation stop? Since new stars, new animals, and other new things are still appearing, there is a sense in which we can say that creation is still ongoing and has not stopped.

 

[shernren]

The reason I confused them in my mind is that the people who I know who argue evolution imply that this is a natural process governed by chance. Improvements in life are thus spontaneous and accidental changes that stick because they work. These same people will argue he same about the ultimate origin of life

I do not think I am looking at mere speciation here however.

Given the above I feel the need to reclarify my argument.

If controlled deliberate abiogenesis seems improbable, even impossible as not one living cell has ever been generated then why should I believe that evolutionary jumps have occurred spontaneously and accidentally either. If these processes cannot be duplicated even in a deliberate manner why should I believe they explain how life has apparently developed and adapted to our world over the years.

I'm glad that you are showing mature arguments instead of knee-jerk "scientists are evil atheists!" statements. Evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis. However, it may be that the same mindset which requires evolution also requires abiogenesis.

There are two ways to look at evolution. The first is to look at all the evidence from observed speciation, paleobiology, etc. and come to the conclusion that evolution is the best scientific process that explains all of it. This is a value-neutral judgment: "evidence A is explained by theory B". By the same kind of judgment, we do not have complete evidence to point us to a scientific theory of abiogenesis. It would seem reasonable, given God's imbuing of the universe with scientific rules, that there is indeed such a theory. But until we have the evidence for it, there is no shame in saying that "God probably created life miraculously".

On the other hand, some scientists take the methodological naturalism of science and turn it into a personal worldview, ie that of atheism. Therefore for them the same worldview that demands evolution (because creation is impossible, without a God that created) also demands abiogenesis (ditto). For these scientists any proof of abiogenesis is also strengthening evidence for their worldview behind it. For that worldview, abiogenesis is inseparable from evolution since both are the only explanatory theories, in light of the "inexistence" of a Creator that could explain life otherwise. But such an inseparability does not exist for TEs.

Scientific papers are cautious. Mass media reports about these scientific papers normally aren't. Dumb reporters. XD

 

[random_guy]

I said no such thing about evolution... Just that a study of the phenomenon would eventually lead to questions about how the process originated. I understand that the theory of evolution does not address abiogenesis, my point is that creationists are not crazy for thinking that it might. Especially since evolutionists frequently attack the creationist view of origins in the midst of this debate.

The problem is compounded since this debate is often presented- by both sides- as being between equal entities so to speak. Creationism vs Evolution, etc. If creation describes only origins and evolution describes only the current status of things, then there is no versus involved. But apparently many do not feel this way.

Sorry that I missed your point. I thought that you're saying that evolution did concern abiogenesis since evolution couldn't start without it. What you're actually saying (and please correct me if I got it wrong again) is that Creationists will bring it up they believe evolution can't exist without abiogenesis and so they think they are part of the same theory.

I agree part of the problem is the vs. idea. Too often I find people often mixed anything that's anti-creation as evolution. For example, many people will say that any evidence of old Earth or geology that goes against evolution is thrown out, but, in fact, they are separate branches of science.

However, I doubt the people on this board would like the change to Creationism vs. Science.

 

[Treasurer]

I am not a scientist or anything, and not real smart either. But I was wondering, where do you thing creation/evolution is going? Anotherwords, I mean:

If evolution began say in the ocean a micro-organism/single cell. Then came to land and became living beings. So on and so forth. Then the next conclusion would be that, life would expand further, right? To the heavens.

(Just follow my thinking, life has wanted to go beyond. At least humans. Why not, life evolve into outer space?)

So in a evolutionist way of thinking would that fit?

 

[Micaiah]

A natural process, yes. Governed by chance, no. No one who understands the process of evolution would say it is governed by chance.

That is doubly true of the theistic evolutionists on this forum, for we would all agree that evolution is governed in some way by God.

But even secular evolutionists would not agree that evolution is governed by chance.

That of course is not true. Evolution is an hypothesis that claims people evolved from a simple living cell through random variation and natural selection. There is no hint of God's involvement or of God directing the process. Any hypothesis that suggests otherwise is not evolution.

How did the first living cell arise?
How did the chemical soup that supposedly gave rise to the first living cell arise?

These are questions that scientists can only speculate about. My understanding is that current theories on abiogenesis exclude God from picture.

 

[Micaiah]

Sorry that I missed your point. I thought that you're saying that evolution did concern abiogenesis since evolution couldn't start without it. What you're actually saying (and please correct me if I got it wrong again) is that Creationists will bring it up they believe evolution can't exist without abiogenesis and so they think they are part of the same theory.

I agree part of the problem is the vs. idea. Too often I find people often mixed anything that's anti-creation as evolution. For example, many people will say that any evidence of old Earth or geology that goes against evolution is thrown out, but, in fact, they are separate branches of science.

However, I doubt the people on this board would like the change to Creationism vs. Science.

I'd be interested to know how many TE's believe that God created the non living universe supernaturally and in less than six days, and that God then used evolution to create living things over millions of years. I suggest there is not one TE who would make such a claim.

TE's will typically accept secular explanations on abiogenesis in the same way and for the same reasons that they accept secular explanations on evolution. Creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

It seems to me there are some TE's who would like to go half way and suggest that secular scientific hypotheses about origins are correct but at the same time God was directing the process. You must realise that secular hypotheses exclude the supernatural. So if you want to go half way, you will have to invent the hypotheses yourself, and provide the scientific evidence and research to prove them. You cannot piggy back them on work done by secular scientists.

 

[Micaiah]

There are two ways to look at evolution. The first is to look at all the evidence from observed speciation, paleobiology, etc. and come to the conclusion that evolution is the best scientific process that explains all of it. This is a value-neutral judgment: "evidence A is explained by theory B".

Of course YEC's would counter that to arrive at such an assessment requires a person to ignore the evidence for design and the problems inherent in the TOE. Such a belief is not value-neutral.

By the same kind of judgment, we do not have complete evidence to point us to a scientific theory of abiogenesis. It would seem reasonable, given God's imbuing of the universe with scientific rules, that there is indeed such a theory.

It would be interesting to hear what secular scientists would have to say about such an approach.

But until we have the evidence for it, there is no shame in saying that "God probably created life miraculously".

That seems a fairly arbitrary way of deciding when God intervened supernaturally and when things happened without the supernatural. Ironically that is the very thing that TE's like to denigrate YEC's for doing. The difference is that YEC's accept the historical account of Creation given in Genesis indepedent of the current popular scientific hypothesis and the amount of work and experimentation that has gone into providing a rational basis for such a hypothesis.

Using this approach, if you were born in 500 AD you would have been a YEC.

 

[The Lady Kate]

That of course is not true. Evolution is an hypothesis that claims people evolved from a simple living cell through random variation and natural selection.

And since natural selection is not random (even if God doesn't direct it Himself), one cannot honestly say that the process is driven entirely by "chance." so gluadys is correct, and you are not.

There is no hint of God's involvement or of God directing the process. Any hypothesis that suggests otherwise is not evolution.

So are you saying that I am not a true evolutionist because I believe God guided the process?

How did the first living cell arise?
How did the chemical soup that supposedly gave rise to the first living cell arise?

God did it. Then He used evolution from that point. Are you labeling me "not an evolutionist" because I am not an Atheist?

These are questions that scientists can only speculate about. My understanding is that current theories on abiogenesis exclude God from picture.

Except we're talking about evolution, not abilgenesis here. even if we were, there's no reason to believe that God didn't have His hand in that as well...

 

[Micaiah]

And since natural selection is not random (even if God doesn't direct it Himself), one cannot honestly say that the process is driven entirely by "chance." so gluadys is correct, and you are not.

The important point here is to note that in the TOE, none of the processes postulated make any reference to God.

So are you saying that I am not a true evolutionist because I believe God guided the process?

Yes.

God did it. Then He used evolution from that point. Are you labeling me "not an evolutionist" because I am not an Atheist?

Yes

Except we're talking about evolution, not abilgenesis here. even if we were, there's no reason to believe that God didn't have His hand in that as well...

I'm not familiar with abilgenesis. If we're talking about abiogenesis I simply note that claiming God was at work when it becomes too hard to scientifically conceive of how something occured naturally is not a very objective way of deciding what was created supernaturally and what was the result of natural processes.

Can I suggest that you get onto one of the serious athiests forums and get their feedback on what you propose. In the end I think you will find it neither fits Scripture nor evolution/current popular scientific thinking.

 

[mindlight]

Because the evidence is overwhelming that such a process has happened. You don't have to be an eyewitness or even duplicate the process. You wouldn't expect to see major changes in any short time period. But such processes leave evidence of their occurrence that seems irreconcilable outside of evolution.

Why this obsession with duplication. I cannot duplicate a star or a thunderstorm in a lab - it doesn't mean we cannot follow the physics of these.

The ability to duplicate a process in practice implies true understanding in my view.

I can put what I like on my CV about what I can do with computers but in the end my boss will ask me to prove it. Why should scientist academics be any different. A beautiful theory can actually be madness and the proof is in the eating not the thinking about cooking in the first place.

 

[mindlight]

That is not what I am talking about however. I am talking about reproducing a speciation event in the laboratory and verifying that it was reproduced in the same manner that occurred naturally.

No, and that is predicted by evolution. It would falsify evolution if you could. However, this does not mean that at some point in the past the ancestors of cats and the ancestors of dogs could not interbreed. That is why we speak of common ancestry.

That statement may not stand up in the face of transgenic animals.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/margawati.html
We already have a number of animals containing human genes (one article I saw--I'll try to find the source--mentioned a sheep produced with 10% human cells). And a tomato which has had a fish gene inserted and the glowing rabbit whose genome now includes the photoluminescent gene of a type of jellyfish. I haven't heard of an experiment which mixes cat and dog genetic material, but in light of some of the ones already done, it would seem child's play for today's genetic engineers.


True, but you have to start small, eh? Not many years ago, this too would have been considered impossible.

Or that the theories and models are not as speculative as you think.

We've yet to see how things work out for transgenic animals - the proof there is in their ability to reproduce safely without too many mutants I suppose.

The intelligence required to create life is of an order of magnitude we have not reached and may never reach.

 

[mindlight]

A natural process, yes. Governed by chance, no. No one who understands the process of evolution would say it is governed by chance.

That is doubly true of the theistic evolutionists on this forum, for we would all agree that evolution is governed in some way by God.

But even secular evolutionists would not agree that evolution is governed by chance.

Yes of course those who accept the conclusions of main stream science and those who do not can still accept God as guiding the processes by which life came to be. God is flexible enough to permit both types of believers and he will probably put both sets right at judgment day and wipe the smug smiles off all of our faces.

The atheist worldview you outline is however chance driven in the sense that the process is meant to be an impersonal naturally spontaneous one. I think we can play with words here but in the end what we are talking about is chance, even if ,over time ,a growing measure of reason can be discerned in the process.

 

[mindlight]

I'm glad that you are showing mature arguments instead of knee-jerk "scientists are evil atheists!" statements. Evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis. However, it may be that the same mindset which requires evolution also requires abiogenesis.

There are two ways to look at evolution. The first is to look at all the evidence from observed speciation, paleobiology, etc. and come to the conclusion that evolution is the best scientific process that explains all of it. This is a value-neutral judgment: "evidence A is explained by theory B". By the same kind of judgment, we do not have complete evidence to point us to a scientific theory of abiogenesis. It would seem reasonable, given God's imbuing of the universe with scientific rules, that there is indeed such a theory. But until we have the evidence for it, there is no shame in saying that "God probably created life miraculously".

On the other hand, some scientists take the methodological naturalism of science and turn it into a personal worldview, ie that of atheism. Therefore for them the same worldview that demands evolution (because creation is impossible, without a God that created) also demands abiogenesis (ditto). For these scientists any proof of abiogenesis is also strengthening evidence for their worldview behind it. For that worldview, abiogenesis is inseparable from evolution since both are the only explanatory theories, in light of the "inexistence" of a Creator that could explain life otherwise. But such an inseparability does not exist for TEs.

Scientific papers are cautious. Mass media reports about these scientific papers normally aren't. Dumb reporters. XD

Good one!

 

[shernren]

Of course YEC's would counter that to arrive at such an assessment requires a person to ignore the evidence for design and the problems inherent in the TOE. Such a belief is not value-neutral.

How do you prove that something was designed without an argument to ignorance? Until we have positive arguments for design, instead of negative "we don't know how therefore there is no knowable how" arguments, I think it's a little early to throw all the scientific weight behind IDism.

It would be interesting to hear what secular scientists would have to say about such an approach.

Of course they'd disagree. So what? It's not as if I obey them unquestioningly. When they report the results of experiments and other scientists report that those results are repeatable, it's reasonable to trust them. But if those same scientists take those results and propound atheism - which is a very non-repeatable result for me - I'm perfectly entitled to disbelieve them.

That seems a fairly arbitrary way of deciding when God intervened supernaturally and when things happened without the supernatural. Ironically that is the very thing that TE's like to denigrate YEC's for doing. The difference is that YEC's accept the historical account of Creation given in Genesis indepedent of the current popular scientific hypothesis and the amount of work and experimentation that has gone into providing a rational basis for such a hypothesis.

So? Where does the Bible tell you that the physics of electronics are sound but the physics of nuclear decay aren't? I'm sure you would have considered it arbitrary for scientists to believe in the ether before the Michelson-Morley experiment and not after, and would have considered Einstein silly for believing in the ether before he formulated his theory of Special Relativity.

Using this approach, if you were born in 500 AD you would have been a YEC.

Why not? I would also have believed that the Sun is a big ball of fire, that there are no fossils (or if there were, that they were rigged by demons to destroy people's faith), that species do not change in any way whatsoever over time, that continents do not move, and that large space rocks do not hit earth every now and then. I would be partially or completely unaware of the existence of quantum physics, nuclear decay and nuclear particles, atoms, molecules, microorganisms, kangaroos, orang-utans, ecological webs, the greenhouse effect, the ozone layer, and negative feedback stabilization.

And I would be neither less nor more a Christian simply for that. Apparently, though, some disagree and believe that those medieval believers were more Christian for being less scientific.

 

[The Lady Kate]

[/color][/font]

The important point here is to note that in the TOE, none of the processes postulated make any reference to God.

Very few processes in much of anything make any explicit or implicit reference to God.

When I cook an omlette, I certainly don't say, "I'll need two eggs, and God."

When an Archetect designs a building, I doubt very much he/she makes references to the Almighty in the blueprint... "The support beams will hold if God allows it."

And when an accountant does my taxes, he certainly doesn't "allow for a 1040/c deduction only if God approves."

One need not mention God in every other breath in order to understand that He is in control. I have faith that He's not quite that insecure.

Yes.

It would seem that I'm living proof that you are incorrect.

Yes

See above... if you haven't yet figured out that evolution is not Atheism, then perhaps you're not ready to debate these issues.

I'm not familiar with abilgenesis.

You should familiarize yourself with it... it would be helpful.

If we're talking about abiogenesis I simply note that claiming God was at work when it becomes too hard to scientifically conceive of how something occured naturally is not a very objective way of deciding what was created supernaturally and what was the result of natural processes.

Which is exactly what YECs do... use "Goddidit" as an excuse for their own lack of knowledge... as if anything they do not understand could only be the work of the supernatural.

Can I suggest that you get onto one of the serious athiests forums and get their feedback on what you propose. In the end I think you will find it neither fits Scripture nor evolution/current popular scientific thinking.

Most of the Atheists I talk to don't seem to have issues with Theistic evolution...not that I would care if they did.

Evolution is a scientific theory which describes a process. Theistic evolution adds on to this theory by giving God the credit for guiding that process, or at the very least, setting it in motion. I do not need the approval of hard-core Atheists any more than anyone needs yours.

 

[random_guy]

I am not a scientist or anything, and not real smart either. But I was wondering, where do you thing creation/evolution is going? Anotherwords, I mean:

If evolution began say in the ocean a micro-organism/single cell. Then came to land and became living beings. So on and so forth. Then the next conclusion would be that, life would expand further, right? To the heavens.

(Just follow my thinking, life has wanted to go beyond. At least humans. Why not, life evolve into outer space?)

So in a evolutionist way of thinking would that fit?

Well, I don't think it works that way. Life from sea to lands occurred because there as an open niche (lots of resources) and no one to compete with. From land to actual ariel living, I would say would be near impossible since there's very little resources in the air, and the costs for anything non-microscopic to stay airbourne is pretty high.

 

[random_guy]

I'd be interested to know how many TE's believe that God created the non living universe supernaturally and in less than six days, and that God then used evolution to create living things over millions of years. I suggest there is not one TE who would make such a claim.

TE's will typically accept secular explanations on abiogenesis in the same way and for the same reasons that they accept secular explanations on evolution. Creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

It seems to me there are some TE's who would like to go half way and suggest that secular scientific hypotheses about origins are correct but at the same time God was directing the process. You must realise that secular hypotheses exclude the supernatural. So if you want to go half way, you will have to invent the hypotheses yourself, and provide the scientific evidence and research to prove them. You cannot piggy back them on work done by secular scientists.

I'm not following you. Could you clarify your response? Do you mean that TEists comprise their beliefs because somewhere along the line, they must add God into their beliefs which is anti-science?

 

[humbledbyhim]

Sure...I'll find out when I ask Him.

I wanted to comment on this. While we are a curious people, and should want to know certain things. I believe that we are allow the pursuit of satisfying our curiosity to sometimes over shadow the pursuits that matter, holiness and love.

 

[gluadys]

That of course is not true.

It is true.

Evolution is an hypothesis that claims people evolved from a simple living cell through random variation and natural selection.

And natural selection is not chance. Without natural selection there would be chance variation, but no evolution.

There is no hint of God's involvement or of God directing the process. Any hypothesis that suggests otherwise is not evolution.

That depends on how you look at it. The scientist can only describe the process and, to some extent, the history of evolution. Just as the scientist can only calculate the law of gravity or the distance and composition of a star. The scientist qua scientist cannot speculate on why these things exist or whether they have a meaning or purpose. But when she takes off her lab coat and thinks about these things as a human being, then she will see what her beliefs lead her to see. And if she is a Christian, she will see the hand of God in what she studies as a scientist.

How did the first living cell arise?
How did the chemical soup that supposedly gave rise to the first living cell arise?

You know by now that these are not questions which refer to evolution.

These are questions that scientists can only speculate about. My understanding is that current theories on abiogenesis exclude God from picture.

Your understanding, then, is incorrect. They do not exclude God. However, they assume that God may have used natural (secondary) means rather than direct supernatural action (miracle).

Natural =/= Godless.

Only an unbeliever would assume this meaning. Christians should correct unbelievers when they misuse the term "natural" as excluding God.

 

[random_guy]

The ability to duplicate a process in practice implies true understanding in my view.

I can put what I like on my CV about what I can do with computers but in the end my boss will ask me to prove it. Why should scientist academics be any different. A beautiful theory can actually be madness and the proof is in the eating not the thinking about cooking in the first place.

I definitely don't agree with this. Sure, being able to duplicate process implies better understanding, but not being able to duplicate a process doesn't mean we don't understand the process.

For example, we can't duplicate a hurricane, does this mean we don't understand hurricanes? To be honest, your work as a programmer (? correct me if I'm wrong) is completely different from academic jobs.

It's really hard to explain, but one way to examine it is kind of like the difference between an engineer and a scientist. A scientist comes up with the theories, the engineer applies them. Both are important, and both use different metrics to rate performance of work. I don't think your example applies to scientific research.