If evolution were wrong, it means ...

[lucaspa]

Juvenissun posed this question on another thread. It is a distraction on that thread, so I decided to start a new one.

So, let me start it:

"If evolution were wrong, , it means ..."

At this point I would ask you to say what you mean by "evolution". To me evolution is a scientific theory about how the diversity of life arose on the planet. It is descent with modification. That's it. It does not include abiogenesis, geology, formation of the planets, or the origin of the universe.

If evolution is wrong, it means that some or all species did not originate by descent with modification. What that entails would depend on the theory that replaced it. And special creation cannot. That theory has already been falsified.

One possibility is that extraterrestrials used life on earth as a genegineering experiment. This, of course, has profound theological implications. It would mean we were not created by God, but by ET.

Another is that there is life on other planets and that, somehow, the DNA from that life can travel thru space (on meteorites or comets?) and somehow integrate itself in genomes of life on the planet. Thus we have discontinuities between genomes. However, phylogenetic analysis pretty much rules this out.

All in all, there is no reasonable possibility right now that evolution is wrong. It has been so strenuously tested that there are very few tests it could possibly fail; we have tried all the tests. Right now the only data that would call "descent with modification" or common ancestry into question would be to find mammalian fossils in Cambrian or pre-Cambrian strata.

 

[Garrett V. F.]

What that entails would depend on the theory that replaced it. And special creation cannot. That theory has already been falsified.

No it hasn't. With an infinite God, what wouldn't be possible? That's not to say that God didn't work via evolution, but it hasn't been falsified. As far as I know, it can't be. And, if it has been, a short summary on your part would be appreciated.

 

[lucaspa]

No it hasn't. With an infinite God, what wouldn't be possible?

God could possibly have done special creation. But the evidence He left us in His Creation says He did not.

Special creation can be falsified. Special creation, remember, is a specific how that God created by. As such, it does make testable statements. The problem being that, when tested, those statements turn out to be false.

For instance, in a symposium held at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, 26-28 March, 1992, Michael Behe deduced that special creation would mean no intermediate species between land animals and whales. Unfortunately, that same year Gingerich found those very fossils that special creation says cannot exist.

Another deduction from special creation is that DNA sequences are going to be independent observations. Think about it: special creation of the initial creatures of some taxa with no possibility that those taxa can transform to another taxa. That's the broadest form of special creation out there. Instead of a common ancestor, God specially created the basal forms of the major taxa: worms, angiosperms, bacteria, ferns, vertebrates, insects, etc. and then evolution diversified within these (very) basic kinds.

So, DNA sequences from corn, say, would be independent observation from our DNA sequences, and the DNA sequences of worms, insects, etc.

In the last 20 years technology of automated DNA sequencers and supercomputers has made sequencing of DNA very easy, so that now labs routinely sequence large amounts of DNA. Now large data sets of of hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences, each of which has thousands of nucleotides, are now routinely being analyzed. These data sets transcend species that any broad theory of special creation would have to place in different "kinds". This is called "phylogenetic analysis".

So, what has been the result? ""As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along: Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections." DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997. Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.

That falsifies special creation.

Like you say, it does not falsify that God created.

So, whatever happens to evolution in the future, special creation is falsified. God simply did not create that way. He could have, but He didn't.

 

[gluadys]

My attention was recently drawn to this 2004 talkorigins post by a former young-earth creationist who chose to name Henry Morris as the young-earth creationist who had the most influence on him. The full post is here: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2004

I want especially to draw attention to this paragraph (with emphasis added) because I think it illustrates the gravest danger of the young-earth position.

Essentially, it was Morris and his errors that convinced me that creationism was wrong. Morris was so wrong about science that he had to deny the clear evidence of the creation itself! Morris did more than that. He convinced me that one could not maintain a literalist viewpoint of Scripture without having to add to it, ignore parts of it, explain away plain statements or make them mean what they don't mean and depreciate the role of the writers and make them mere automata of the Author -- when the Scripture itself makes clear their active role in the formation of Scripture. He forced the Scripture out of its grammatical and historical context to become a statement of science.​

As this person found out, if evolution is wrong, we can no longer believe either creation or the scripture. We have to distort both to make them fit a literalist interpretation of scripture.


Fortunately, as outlined in the complete post, this person came upon a good Christian teacher who helped him accept science. So he is able to end up with this good news.

In the end, I found that losing faith in Creationism did not mean losing faith in Christ, abandoning my faith, the Bible, or justifying sin. What it did mean is that I could know that God revealed Himself to men as they were able to understand, that God gave them what they could handle. And His revelation was never about revealing the world, but Himself and His character. God wanted men to know Him. The unfolding of the world He left to mankind. I still seek to know and do His will. I pray. I study the Scriptures. I tell others of Christ's salvation. I seek God's blessing in my life, and He has blessed!​

 

[lucaspa]

Fortunately, as outlined in the complete post, this person came upon a good Christian teacher who helped him accept science.

That is good. So many creationists end up deciding that if a literal interpretation of scripture is wrong, then God does not exist.

What it did mean is that I could know that God revealed Himself to men as they were able to understand, that God gave them what they could handle. And His revelation was never about revealing the world, but Himself and His character. God wanted men to know Him. The unfolding of the world He left to mankind.

He said that nicely. I totally agree. We can go to God's Creation to figure out how God created. And we can do that as we learn and grow and are able to understand the how. Revelation needed to tell humans that God existed and a bit about His character.

But we also learn more about God's character as we grow and learn. Humans in the OT could not understand anything other than a god being a tribal god. So that is how God had to reveal Himself. But later, when humans understood that humanity spanned all tribes, then God could reveal that He was God to everyone, not just one tribe or nation.

Also, God reveals Himself to individuals today. The idea is to have a personal relationship with God. I think a reason creationists/Biblical literalists cling so hard to an "inerrant" Bible is that they, as individuals, do not have that personal relationship (altho many of them claim they do). Thus, they require creationism to be correct so they can "prove" God to themselves. If they had the personal relationship, they would not need science to "prove" God. The relationship would do it.

Thomas Aquinas wrote some of the most elegant logical arguments for the existence of God. But later in life he had a personal experience of God that made all his previous logical "proofs" moot. In his own words, "all that I have written seems like straw to me."

I can't help but feel that, if creationists did have the personal relationship with God, then they wouldn't cling to their Bibles or creationism.

 

[Bushido216]

Lucaspa! I need to troll this forum more often. How goeth my good man?

 

[juvenissun]

I would like to repeat my point which has been posted a few times, but did not get a good response:

If evolution is wrong, then creation is right. There is no third option.

Evolution describes the nature. If something is not natural, then it must be supernatural.

 

[juvenissun]

To the "worship the words" problem:

A royal servant of king "obeys" king's word. The word is from the king. So to obey the word is to obey the king. If the servant can not see/hear the king, then if he does not obey the word, then he does not obey the king.

We obey the words in the Scripture. It does not say, at all, that we worship the words. It is a wrong, and illogical argument.

Let me help you to identify the true question: Are the words in the Bible really the words of God? Those who you accused to worship the words say yes. And you, as a result, say no. In fact, it still circles back to the literal vs. metaphor debate.

 

[Mallon]

I would like to repeat my point which has been posted a few times, but did not get a good response:

If evolution is wrong, then creation is right. There is no third option.

CA510.1: Problems with evolution as evidence for creation.

 

[Bushido216]

I would like to repeat my point which has been posted a few times, but did not get a good response:

If evolution is wrong, then creation is right. There is no third option.

Evolution describes the nature. If something is not natural, then it must be supernatural.

A thing stands or falls on its own merits, not in relationship to some other paradigm. If the paradigm of special creation is wrong, it is wrong, regardless of anything else happening in the world.

 

[jpcedotal]

If evolution were wrong, , it means absolutely nothing. One can't prove a religion right or wrong.

 

[Mallon]

If evolution were wrong, , it means absolutely nothing. One can't prove a religion right or wrong.

Great soundbite. Bad science.

 

[juvenissun]

CA510.1: Problems with evolution as evidence for creation.

None of these alternatives can stand with just a little more thinking.
For example, theistic evolution is still evolution. If evolution is wrong, then theistic evolution is also wrong. It is not independent and is not an alternative.

There is no alternative. If evolution is wrong, then creation must be right.

However, if evolution is right, then creation could either be wrong, or could still be right. Theistic evolution fits the latter case.

 

[Bushido216]

You're not getting it. This is a very, very simple concept.

Evolution's being right or wrong has NOTHING to do with special creation being right or wrong. To wit, evolution being the correct paradigm does not falsify special creation. The lacunae in the support for special creation makes it wrong.

SC is wrong all by itself. It has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[dad]

At this point I would ask you to say what you mean by "evolution". To me evolution is a scientific theory about how the diversity of life arose on the planet. It is descent with modification. That's it. It does not include abiogenesis, geology, formation of the planets, or the origin of the universe.

Well, as long as we start the evolving with created kinds, that is OK.

If evolution is wrong, it means that some or all species did not originate by descent with modification. What that entails would depend on the theory that replaced it. And special creation cannot. That theory has already been falsified.

Descent from a created kind, with modification.

One possibility is that extraterrestrials used life on earth as a genegineering experiment. This, of course, has profound theological implications. It would mean we were not created by God, but by ET.

Meaningless doubts and speculation. Maybe they could write a big book of fulfilled prophesies, so we could see their cleverness?! The bible is already mostly fulfilled. A done deal. We also set our calendar to the life of Christ. He was observed risen from the dead, the central fact of history and prophesy. Let' see ET do that. Actiually, how about we even just see ET!

Another is that there is life on other planets and that, somehow, the DNA from that life can travel thru space (on meteorites or comets?) and somehow integrate itself in genomes of life on the planet. Thus we have discontinuities between genomes. However, phylogenetic analysis pretty much rules this out.

Good. I won't bother, then. Meaningless speculation.

All in all, there is no reasonable possibility right now that evolution is wrong. It has been so strenuously tested that there are very few tests it could possibly fail; we have tried all the tests. Right now the only data that would call "descent with modification" or common ancestry into question would be to find mammalian fossils in Cambrian or pre-Cambrian strata.

No too many Men coming from Eden died in that era. They lived a thousand years, by which time, it was no longer that era!

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa! I need to troll this forum more often. How goeth my good man?

Pretty good. How goes it with you?

I should say, however, that I seem to be getting into trouble. Again. My posts concluding that Biblical literalism/Fundamentalism are false idol worship are getting reported, then removed for "consideration".

Once upon a time I was a moderator in this board. I wonder if I still am?

 

[lucaspa]

Well, as long as we start the evolving with created kinds, that is OK.

What is a "kind"? Creationists have been working on that one for decades and can't come up with a consistent classification. Originally is was "species", since "species" is Latin for "kinds". That does seem to have fallen out of favor. Right now, evolution is descent with modification from a common ancestor.

Descent from a created kind, with modification.

Then you need to come up with a list of created kinds.

Meaningless doubts and speculation. Maybe they could write a big book of fulfilled prophesies, so we could see their cleverness?!

What does prophecy have to do with this? We are talking about scientific theories to replace evolution. In that regard, these hypotheses are appropriate. In fact, one of them was introduced by a creationist witness at the Arkansas Trial in 1982.

The bible is already mostly fulfilled.

Are you defending God or defending the Bible? Which is more important to you: God or the Bible?

We also set our calendar to the life of Christ.

So? Jews don't. Neither do the Hindus. Neither do the Chinese, or Japanese. In fact, only a minority of people in the world set the calendar to the birth of Jesus. We do because of belief.

He was observed risen from the dead, the central fact of history and prophesy.

From a scientific pov, that was not "observed". The observation does not qualify as a scientific one. You and I believe the accounts are accurate, but that doesn't make it "fact".

BTW, the Raelians claim to have seen ET.

Good. I won't bother, then. Meaningless speculation.

Well, there is that evidence of life on the Martian meteorite. Also, this is the "meaningless speculation" that the creationist witness introduced at the Arkansas trial. So your fellow creationists do not agree with you.

No too many Men coming from Eden died in that era. They lived a thousand years, by which time, it was no longer that era!

But the mice, moles, voles, etc. would have died in that era. After all, their lifespans were not a thousand years, were they? And, of course, there were all the men that weren't in Eden; the ones that had girl children so that Cain and Seth could have wives. Their lifespan was not that long, was it?

 

[lucaspa]

I would like to repeat my point which has been posted a few times, but did not get a good response:

If evolution is wrong, then creation is right. There is no third option.

I gave you two third options. In fact, one of them was given by a creationist witness as the Arkansas trial in 1982. That blunder caused the judge to note that even creationists had more than 2 options.

Evolution describes the nature. If something is not natural, then it must be supernatural.

But is something "natural" missing the supernatural? IOW, do you have only 2 choices here: natural without supernatural, or supernatural not natural?

 

[lucaspa]

To the "worship the words" problem:

A royal servant of king "obeys" king's word. The word is from the king. So to obey the word is to obey the king. If the servant can not see/hear the king, then if he does not obey the word, then he does not obey the king.

We obey the words in the Scripture. It does not say, at all, that we worship the words.

Let me ask you this: is Scripture the only words of God? Do we understand God only from scripture?

Also, what do you do with Mark 10 and Matthew 14 where Jesus tells you scripture is not the words of God?

 

[lucaspa]

If evolution were wrong, , it means absolutely nothing. One can't prove a religion right or wrong.

I would argue this. Theists have been proving religions wrong for millenia. After all, wouldn't you consider the Norse or ancient Greek religions to be proved wrong?

So, why are they wrong? How did theists do this?