Issues with Creation

[United]

Hi All,

After reading through various threads over the last month or so, I have seen considerable discussion on scientific issues with Evolutionary theory and YEC theory. There have been some interesting posts – but few if any have dealt with scientific issues with the theory of gradual creation. i.e. creation over millions of years in an order approximately corresponding to the geological column. What problems can people see with this theory?

I ask that we only consider the scientific aspects at this point. Thanks

 

[gluadys]

Hi All,

After reading through various threads over the last month or so, I have seen considerable discussion on scientific issues with Evolutionary theory and YEC theory. There have been some interesting posts – but few if any have dealt with scientific issues with the theory of gradual creation. i.e. creation over millions of years in an order approximately corresponding to the geological column. What problems can people see with this theory?

I ask that we only consider the scientific aspects at this point. Thanks

I would say the basic scientific problem with it is that it offers no explanation of transitional fossils. Even if species are created gradually over time, if there is no genetic connection of inheritance from one to the next there is no reason why we should see species such as Acanthostega or Archeopteryx.

Most especially there is no reason we should see them at precisely the points in the geologic strata that fit with a presumed period of transition.

 

[PotLuck]

I used to be a staunch evolutionist but one issue I could not figure out was as mentioned above... "transition".
It's generally accepted in the scientific world that the strong survive. That being said if there was a transition from say a fin to a leg then there had to be some point where the apendage wasn't a fin or a leg. If not a fin then it's ability to swim is hampered. If not a leg then it's ability to walk is also degraded. Therefore the apendages would be a handicap to the animal and it could not survive since predators would take full advantage of such a handicap.

The slow formation or mutation of an animal or organism must at some point become a disadvantage where the mutation isn't quite fully formed or fully functional. Since evolution teaches survival of the fittest this was a big problem for me.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I used to be a staunch evolutionist but one issue I could not figure out was as mentioned above... "transition".
It's generally accepted in the scientific world that the strong survive. That being said if there was a transition from say a fin to a leg then there had to be some point where the apendage wasn't a fin or a leg. If not a fin then it's ability to swim is hampered. If not a leg then it's ability to walk is also degraded. Therefore the apendages would be a handicap to the animal and it could not survive since predators would take full advantage of such a handicap.

The slow formation or mutation of an animal or organism must at some point become a disadvantage where the mutation isn't quite fully formed or fully functional. Since evolution teaches survival of the fittest this was a big problem for me.

This is why major changes are fairly rare. They usually only happen when the environment changes or when the change allows an organism to access a new niche. For example, for a population of fish to aquire lungs is a difficult thing. However, if nothing has lungs, they ability to breathe just a little can be an advantage. This doesn't happen now because hybrids (amphibians, lungfish) already exist and can out perform any new comer.

 

[PotLuck]

I see.
Some believe that God mixed the ingredients, set it to simmer and watched over the stew so that it cooked just right.

God gave us science, the ability to deduce and a logical mind to show man His creation. By seeing His creation or more accurately, more of it through "modern science" we can give praise and glory to Him in ever-increasing awe. He didn't give us science to contradict His Word but to support it. It's not His Word that's misinterpreted but the data we obtain through that science. Going further, science can not prove the spiritual but the spiritual can prove the validity of science and the mind of man. And what a great gift he gave us! He wants us to know Him more, to further witness to His power and His love in caring for us.

No, science and religion are not at odds with each other. It's us and what we choose to do with what we find that is at odds.

 

[United]

I would say the basic scientific problem with it is that it offers no explanation of transitional fossils. Even if species are created gradually over time, if there is no genetic connection of inheritance from one to the next there is no reason why we should see species such as Acanthostega or Archeopteryx.

Most especially there is no reason we should see them at precisely the points in the geologic strata that fit with a presumed period of transition.

Hi Gluadys,

Thanks for your input! My response to your first point is somewhat predictable - the creation theory explains the Acanthostega or Archeopteryx as a separate creation and not a transitional species. Your second point on their timing in the geologic strata is worthy of note as it is predicted by evolution - but it does not contradict gradual creation.

I personally consider that the "transitional" fossils argument to be more of a stumbling block for evolution than creation. I have read various pro-evolutionary books which attempt to explain the gaps in the fossil record, but no such explanations are required with gradual creation - instead significant gaps are predicted by creation.

Personally I have found the evolutionary explanations on the fossil record gaps generally unsatisfying - but in all fairness I have only just started working through Lucaspa's compilation of papers on transitional species (provided in an earlier post) and maybe this will provide more background on my previous reading. (Unfortunately the references listed are not particularly accessible & will take some time to work through).

 

[artybloke]

(Unfortunately the references listed are not particularly accessible & will take some time to work through).

I wish you blessings in your quest. As long as you remember that science takes real work, you won't go far wrong. I think it was EL Mencken that said, "there is a simple, logical answer to every difficult question - and it's usually the wrong one."

The problem with creationism is that it provides lots of easy, simple answers to very difficult, complex questions. Distrust easy answers, answers that seem to fit neatly but which on closer inspection start to fall apart. If the answer is equivocal, open to new evidence and partial - it's more likely to be true, because it's more like the real world. In the real world, there are no simple answers to complex questions.

That goes for life as well as science.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You also have to take into account the trend for gaps to be filled as time goes on - the already mentioned Acanthostega is a case in point.

As regards half fin/half leg developments being useless, I refer the Hon. Poster to the Mudskipper, which does extremely well with just that.

 

[Ave Maria]

Whenever I have doubts about how the Universe was created or whatever, I think of this verse:

[bible]Proverbs 3:5[/bible]

 

[gluadys]

I used to be a staunch evolutionist but one issue I could not figure out was as mentioned above... "transition".
It's generally accepted in the scientific world that the strong survive. That being said if there was a transition from say a fin to a leg then there had to be some point where the apendage wasn't a fin or a leg. If not a fin then it's ability to swim is hampered. If not a leg then it's ability to walk is also degraded. Therefore the apendages would be a handicap to the animal and it could not survive since predators would take full advantage of such a handicap.


The slow formation or mutation of an animal or organism must at some point become a disadvantage where the mutation isn't quite fully formed or fully functional. Since evolution teaches survival of the fittest this was a big problem for me.

Nice theory, but it doesn't match reality.

Check out the coelocanth. Has lobe-shaped fins and has been swimming easily for over 300 million years. There is no evidence that Acanthostega and its kin had any difficulty swimming. And besides we also have fish today which use their fins as "legs" in much the same manner as the early tetrapods did. If I were at my home computer I would give you some links to some neat pictures.


The useless half-a-limb appears to be mythology, not fact.

btw the TOE does not say the "strong" survive. It says those best adapted to their environment are more likely to mature to reproductive age and leave offspring. Strenght may be an important factor in some species, but we cannot assume it will be in all.

 

[gluadys]

Hi Gluadys,

Thanks for your input! My response to your first point is somewhat predictable - the creation theory explains the Acanthostega or Archeopteryx as a separate creation and not a transitional species. Your second point on their timing in the geologic strata is worthy of note as it is predicted by evolution - but it does not contradict gradual creation.

Notice the difference in your last sentence.

Evolution predicts, not only transitional fossils, but the time frame in which we will find them.

But, considering these to be fossils of special creation events, we can only say that they do not contradict gradual creation.

Do you know how scientists evaluate whether a theory is true or false?

By making predictions based on the theory. Since a true theory cannot make a false prediction, if the prediction fails, the theory is considered disproved.

Another way to put it, is that evolution explains why we see sequences of similiarities and differences such that more recent species appear to be descendants of more remote species. It is because they are.

But gradual creation does not predict the particular pattern of similarity and difference we see. The pattern could be very different, and not remotely suggestive of relationship, and it would still fit with gradual creation.

Now for a scientist, the whole point of a theory is to predict and explain actual observations.

A theory that doesn't do that is pretty useless to a scientist.

I personally consider that the "transitional" fossils argument to be more of a stumbling block for evolution than creation.

Why? I have difficulty seeing how transitional fossils which were predicted by the theory and show up with the sort of characteristics one would expect, and in the places and time frames predicted would be any sort of stumbling block.

I have read various pro-evolutionary books which attempt to explain the gaps in the fossil record,

What did you find unsatisfactory about the explanations?

but no such explanations are required with gradual creation - instead significant gaps are predicted by creation.

You will have to clue me in on this one. Why does gradual creation predict gaps in the fossil record?

Personally I have found the evolutionary explanations on the fossil record gaps generally unsatisfying -

Well why are you looking only at the gaps? What about the fossils that have been found? Don't they mean something?

 

[United]

I wish you blessings in your quest. As long as you remember that science takes real work, you won't go far wrong. .

Thanks artybloke,
I'm open for the truth - be it creation or evolution. I don't think the bible precludes evolution, nor do I think science precludes creation. We can only do our best to understand what we can now, and wait for the full story at the end of our lives!

The problem with creationism is that it provides lots of easy, simple answers to very difficult, complex questions. Distrust easy answers, answers that seem to fit neatly but which on closer inspection start to fall apart. If the answer is equivocal, open to new evidence and partial - it's more likely to be true, because it's more like the real world. In the real world, there are no simple answers to complex questions.

I think the real problem with creation is that it is not easily studied, proven or disproven by science. In that sense creation is "easy". By it's very nature the scientific method generally assumes that God is not intimately involved in the processes that are being studied. But that doesn't mean creation didn't happen - only that it is not particularly fruitful for scientific study.

 

[artybloke]

I think the real problem with creation is that it is not easily studied, proven or disproven by science. In that sense creation is "easy".

Creation - that is, the theological idea that the universe is created by a diety, is not studied, proven or disproven by science, period. Any more than theologians would study the refractive index of light to tell us about the meaning of the Gospel of John. Theology doesn't mix with science.

Creationism, however, is a falsified explanation as to how that creation happened.

By it's very nature the scientific method generally assumes that God is not intimately involved in the processes that are being studied. But that doesn't mean creation didn't happen - only that it is not particularly fruitful for scientific study.

Science makes no such presumption - except that it presumes that God is not part of the method of creation. Like, for instance, the theory of relativity is E=mc2: not God=mc2 or E=mGod2, so scientific explanations of creation say that it occured through this gradual process of mutation and natural selection etc. They don't refer to God in that explanation because it isn't relevant.

Scientists who are theists, however, will say (as Christians, not as scientists)
God created the world, and this is how He did it: (through a gradual process of this, that and the other...) For the Christian, the two approaches are complementary, not contradictory. The one says who and why, the other says how. If science sticks to its own field and theology sticks to its, there's no contradiction. Once either field tries to interfere with each other, then there's conflict (as much when an atheist says that the existence of God is scientifically impossible as when a creationist tries to prove that a literal interpretation of Genesis (as opposed to a poetic/symbolic one) is "scientifically viable.")

 

[Bushido216]

Thanks for your input! My response to your first point is somewhat predictable - the creation theory explains the Acanthostega or Archeopteryx as a separate creation and not a transitional species. Your second point on their timing in the geologic strata is worthy of note as it is predicted by evolution - but it does not contradict gradual creation.

I believe the point is that gradual creation wouldn't account for genetic relatedness in species.

 

[gluadys]

Thanks artybloke,
I'm open for the truth - be it creation or evolution. I don't think the bible precludes evolution, nor do I think science precludes creation. We can only do our best to understand what we can now, and wait for the full story at the end of our lives!

May I second artybloke's answers to both your points. From the perspective of theistic evolution, neither evolution nor creation preclude each other. Evolution is a scientific name for creation and creation is a theological name for evolution.

It is creationism that conflicts with evolution, not creation. And some of us would go farther and say that creationism also conflicts with historic Christian belief as well.

By it's very nature the scientific method generally assumes that God is not intimately involved in the processes that are being studied. But that doesn't mean creation didn't happen - only that it is not particularly fruitful for scientific study.

Again for a TE, this is a false assumption. I would see God as being intimately involved with everything in nature. Just because we are able to give a coherent scientific narrative about a natural phenomenon, (and so stop ascribing it to supernatural intervention) does not mean we have banished God from the premises. God is just as conversant with natural means as supernatural means, and actually seems to prefer them.

 

[Bushido216]

Whenever I have doubts about how the Universe was created or whatever, I think of this verse:

[bible]Proverbs 3:5[/bible]

This anti-intellectualism is what's killing American schools and preventing the Church (in all of It's incarnations) from moving forward.

 

[gluadys]

I used to be a staunch evolutionist but one issue I could not figure out was as mentioned above... "transition".
It's generally accepted in the scientific world that the strong survive. That being said if there was a transition from say a fin to a leg then there had to be some point where the apendage wasn't a fin or a leg. If not a fin then it's ability to swim is hampered. If not a leg then it's ability to walk is also degraded. Therefore the apendages would be a handicap to the animal and it could not survive since predators would take full advantage of such a handicap.

The slow formation or mutation of an animal or organism must at some point become a disadvantage where the mutation isn't quite fully formed or fully functional. Since evolution teaches survival of the fittest this was a big problem for me.

Promised you some pictures.

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rhmiller/chordates1/Chordates1.htm

About half-way down are some pictures of lobe-finned fish, some of whom may have been ancestors of amphibians.

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Acanthostega_gunnari&contgroup=Terrestrial_Vertebrates

All about Acanthostega including pictures of actual fossils and reconstructed skeletons and models.

http://www.cadburylearningzone.co.uk/environment/crag/swamwld2.htm

The mudskipper--a modern fish that walks on land.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/BatFish/Batfish.htm
http://www.derwentriver.tas.gov.au/content/derwent_factfile/spothand.html

Two species of modern fish that prefer to walk on the bottom of bodies of water than to swim through them.

 

[United]

Hi Guys,



Sorry for the delay in responding – just been busy! Dare I say it – you guys seem more passionate about your evolution than most of the fundamentalists are about their creation! Anyway, to respond one at a time:

I believe the point is that gradual creation wouldn't account for genetic relatedness in species.

Hi Bushido,

Why are you convinced that a common creator would not show commonality in His design?

 

[United]

Creation - that is, the theological idea that the universe is created by a diety, is not studied, proven or disproven by science, period. Any more than theologians would study the refractive index of light to tell us about the meaning of the Gospel of John. Theology doesn't mix with science.

Helo once again Artybloke,

I agree with evolutionists that the bible in not intended to be a scientific textbook. I assume your above comment is agreeing with my comment from my previous post?

Creationism, however, is a falsified explanation as to how that creation happened.

That’s a big bold statement – swap the word “creation” for “evolution” and it sounds like something a die hard creationalist would say!

Science makes no such presumption - except that it presumes that God is not part of the method of creation. Like, for instance, the theory of relativity is E=mc2: not God=mc2 or E=mGod2, so scientific explanations of creation say that it occured through this gradual process of mutation and natural selection etc. They don't refer to God in that explanation because it isn't relevant.

I think you misunderstood my previous post. The “processes” I was referring to are (for example) – evolution, laws of motion, theory of relativity etc. I don’t see how your comments contradict my previous post. Anyway, your collective responses seem to agree with my view that creation is not easily studied by science compared to evolution.

Scientists who are theists, however, will say (as Christians, not as scientists)
God created the world, and this is how He did it: (through a gradual process of this, that and the other...) For the Christian, the two approaches are complementary, not contradictory. The one says who and why, the other says how. If science sticks to its own field and theology sticks to its, there's no contradiction. Once either field tries to interfere with each other, then there's conflict (as much when an atheist says that the existence of God is scientifically impossible as when a creationist tries to prove that a literal interpretation of Genesis (as opposed to a poetic/symbolic one) is "scientifically viable.")

I agree – for the most part. The scientific method is tattooed into my brain from my previous studies and I will always think like a scientist when it comes to technical matters. At the same time I am a passionate Christian – and there is no contradiction there. The bible isn’t a science textbook & I think creationalists do themselves a disservice when they go “out on a limb” and say that the bible precludes evolution.

Having said that, I think TE’s can go “out on a limb” saying that Genesis can only be interpreted as a poetic/symbolic one. In fact, I am surprised that so many TE’s dismiss Genesis as purely poetic or a fable without considering it as an explanation of evolution. Anyway, this is a separate topic in itself.

 

[United]

May I second artybloke's answers to both your points. From the perspective of theistic evolution, neither evolution nor creation preclude each other. Evolution is a scientific name for creation and creation is a theological name for evolution.

Hi Gluadys,


Hope you had a good weekend. You make an interesting point with your definition of creation. Can you explain why so many TE's don't interpret the term "creation" in Genesis in this way? Why do a significant number see Genesis as purely poetic, or a fable?

Again for a TE, this is a false assumption. I would see God as being intimately involved with everything in nature. Just because we are able to give a coherent scientific narrative about a natural phenomenon, (and so stop ascribing it to supernatural intervention) does not mean we have banished God from the premises. God is just as conversant with natural means as supernatural means, and actually seems to prefer them.

I think you have missed my point here. I was talking about the "scientific method", not "scientists". A Christian "scientist" can see God being intimately involved in a "process", but the scientific method can only see the "process" itself.