Natural selection, naturally wrong

[Aussie Pete]

The "natural man" might not be able to speak to spiritual matters, but when it comes to matters concerning natural processes, virtually everyone can observe, learn, and do science. Thats the beautiful thing about this gift of divine grace, as I see it; science transcends our differences regarding culture, social location, language, religion, etc. Science often enjoys widespread intersubjective agreement, including evolution. That's a beautiful gift to humanity. To reject that not only makes people of faith look foolish for reasons that have nothing to do with Christ but it also denies a divine gift for reasons that have nothing to do with Christ. Evolution is not a matter of spiritual discernment. Rejecting it, however, is spiritually wrong-headed. In this case, you're making a category mistake and misusing scripture.

What part of "In the beginning. God created............" is misusing scripture? Creation is not evolution. It is unbelieving Christians who follow the world's empty philosophies that bug me. They are worse than evolutionists because Christians have access to the truth. Evolution is based on uprovable premises that start with denying the reality and nature of God. My Bible says that the fool says in his heart that there is no God. Some of the most intelligent people prove themselves to be ignorant and foolish. Truth is truth. Either God is Creator or the whole of Christianity is false. You can't have it both ways.

Not every scientist accepts evolution. I regularly read articles by Christians who are scientists. Evolution is easily debunked, if an individual has an open mind.

Science is as flawed, corrupt, dishonest, self serving and ignorant as any other human endeavour. Sure, it has greatly benefitted mankind. It has also produced weapons that could end the human race.

 

[public hermit]

Evolution is based on uprovable premises that start with denying the reality and nature of God.

That's not accurate. It doesn't even ask the question about God since it's not in its purview.

Either God is Creator or the whole of Christianity is false

That might be, but evolution doesn't deny the Creator. Again, it's not the job of scientific methods or theories to determine whether or not there is a Creator God. If a scientist tells you there is no God, that statement would not be a scientific statement but a metaphysical claim. Does that makes sense? You seem to have a non-existent opponent. If you are not convinced by the supporting body of evidence for evolution, fine. But Christian faith does not fall away with accepting it. If it does, there's either a flaw in one's theological framework, in their understanding of science, or in their ability to distinguish between the two.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Darwin discovered exaption.

The idea that the function of a trait might shift during its evolutionary history originated with Charles Darwin (Darwin 1859). For many years the phenomenon was labeled "preadaptation", but since this term suggests teleology in biology, appearing to conflict with natural selection, it has been replaced by the term exaptation.

The idea had been explored by several scholars[a] when in 1982 Stephen Jay Gould and Elisabeth Vrba introduced the term "exaptation"...Exaptations include the co-option of feathers, which initially evolved for heat regulation, for display, and later for use in bird flight. Another example is the lungs of many basal fish, which evolved into the lungs of terrestrial vertebrates but also underwent exaptation to become the gas bladder, a buoyancy control organ, in derived fish.[11] A third is the repurposing of two of the three bones in the reptilian jaw to become the malleus and incus of the mammalian ear, leaving the mammalian jaw with just one hinge.[12]

Exaptation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Because "natural selection" is a less expressive variant on the phrase "natural processes of selection" (NPS), exaptation assists survivability amidst NPS.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

The "natural man" might not be able to speak to spiritual matters, but when it comes to matters concerning natural processes, virtually everyone can observe, learn, and do science. Thats the beautiful thing about this gift of divine grace, as I see it; science transcends our differences regarding culture, social location, language, religion, etc. Science often enjoys widespread intersubjective agreement, including evolution. That's a beautiful gift to humanity. To reject that not only makes people of faith look foolish for reasons that have nothing to do with Christ but it also denies a divine gift for reasons that have nothing to do with Christ. Evolution is not a matter of spiritual discernment. Rejecting it, however, is spiritually wrong-headed. In this case, you're making a category mistake and misusing scripture.

Absolutely, provided that concepts in "evolution" aren't taken in an essentialist sense (misusing all language). "Evolution" comprises correlated phenomena.

If adherents of religions cut corners, agnostics lose the chance to benefit from science too (what you bind on earth).

 

[Diamond72]

"Natural Selection" is supposedly the mechanism for evolution.

For theistic evolution natural selection is just for fine tuning so the species can adapt to the environment. With evo devo the results are going to turn out the same because of the laws of nature. Science can not tell us where the laws that regulate this universe come from. They can only study the effects of the law and not the law itself. We know God is a God of absolute, precise justice and He does not violate His law. That is why Jesus had to go to carvery.

 

[Aussie Pete]

For theistic evolution natural selection is just for fine tuning so the species can adapt to the environment. With evo devo the results are going to turn out the same because of the laws of nature. Science can not tell us where the laws that regulate this universe come from. They can only study the effects of the law and not the law itself. We know God is a God of absolute, precise justice and He does not violate His law. That is why Jesus had to go to carvery.

Adaptation is not evolution. Evolutionists had no real evidence for evolution so they hijacked adaptation and called it evolution. All know for sure is that God created all things through Jesus, simply by speaking them into existence. The exception is man, who God formed from the dust. I don't know how anyone can infer evoloution from that.

 

[Aaron112]

Science is as flawed, corrupt, dishonest, self serving and ignorant as any other human endeavour. Sure, it has greatly benefitted mankind. It has also produced weapons that could end the human race.

Whether it has benefited humans remains to be seen/revealed. The harm might outweigh the benefits by ten-thousand or even a million-fold. Reports I've read in the last year show that the earth itself is past the point of no return due to man's involvement.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That's not accurate. It doesn't even ask the question about God since it's not in its purview.



That might be, but evolution doesn't deny the Creator. Again, it's not the job of scientific methods or theories to determine whether or not there is a Creator God. If a scientist tells you there is no God, that statement would not be a scientific statement but a metaphysical claim. Does that makes sense? You seem to have a non-existent opponent. If you are not convinced by the supporting body of evidence for evolution, fine. But Christian faith does not fall away with accepting it. If it does, there's either a flaw in one's theological framework, in their understanding of science, or in their ability to distinguish between the two.

Evolution indeed denies that God is creator. The Bible states that God simply spoke everything into existence. Either you believe that or you do not. The exception is man. God formed man, breathing into him the breath of life. Hence, man is unique. Evolution denies this also. The earth cannot possibly be as old as evolutionists claim. The moon is moving away from the earth. If the earth was so old, the moon would be no longer subject to earth's gravity and the seas would not be subject to lunar tides. Coast lines would be entirely different as erosion still takes place. If the earth was that ancient, there would be nothing left to erode. Etc. etc.

 

[Diamond72]

The exception is man, who God formed from the dust. I don't know how anyone can infer evoloution from that.

Science puts a lot of effort into understanding how man went from hunter gather to a civilized food producer at the time of Adam and Eve. We are told that God breathed life into Adam and this is something Science is not going to understand. If it were not for Noah, civilization would have been lost and man would have gone back to being a hunter gather.

 

[Aaron112]

If it were not for Noah, civilization would have been lost and man would have gone back to being a hunter gather.

If not for Yahweh's Plan and Grace,
if not for Noah and the seven saved on the ark from the flood,
man would have been extinct totally.
Extinct men cannot hunt nor gather !

 

[Sir Joseph]

Natural Selection Is Darwin’s Genie – CEH

crev.info

"The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

"Natural Selection" is supposedly the mechanism for evolution. There is no reason to believe this, but science has never needed a reason to reject God, His word and His ways. I've mocked evolution in the past by talking about the Evolution Fairy sprinkling evo dust around to produce new life forms. It's about as sensible as any other godless theory.

The linked article is a breathtaking expose of how evolutionists bald faced contradict themselves with the principle of natural selection. I won't go into details. The article speaks for itself.

I found the article written with far more scientific insight and intellect than any ignorant high schooler could produce. It is however, a refutation of evolutionary theory and soliciting comments on it Aussie Pete is asking for trouble. First, most Bible believing creationists don't care enough about the subject to read the article, and second, most don't know enough about the subject to understand or defend it. However, the outspoken evolutionists are much more empowered with the material they've been taught on the subject, be it right or wrong.

I've learned not to argue this topic with strong evolutionists because evidence is interpreted through our world view lens. If one has a Biblical world view, there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the Genesis creation account over current evolutionary teaching. But if one has a secular world view, there is 1000 times more material available to support evolution over creation. Of course the atheist or irreligious will choose to believe and defend the latter while the Christian or Catholic should believe the former. However, such is no longer the case since even the masses of Christians, Catholics, churches, and seminaries have embraced the evolutionary world view. This is the sad state of liberal Christianity today: not respecting the authority of the Bible, choosing instead to believe man's word over God's word.

I'll not defend or argue the article here to those who reject the Bible, but for those that want to believe in both the Bible and science, understand that the two are entirely compatible. In this case, it is true that Darwin popularized evolution because of his mechanism theory of natural selection. However, natural selection actually reduces information in the DNA gene pool, thus countering the process of evolution, not enabling it. The fact is that any new tissue, organ, or life matter requires additional information - far more than any mutation process would allow. The evolutionists try to explain away this huge reality, but this point alone negates the theory of evolution. And if one were to defend the theory in other ways, natural selection would certainly not be the right evidence to propose.

I'll ignore all objections here and move on to other more productive discussions.

 

[The Barbarian]

I've learned not to argue this topic with strong evolutionists because evidence is interpreted through our world view lens.

There is an objective reality, and evidence can show you what it is. Fact is, the evidence is heavily stacked against special creationism, and even knowledgeable YE creationists admit the fact.

If one has a Biblical world view, there is overwhelming scientific evidence to s usupport the Genesis creation account over current evolutionary teaching.

Show us that. What do you have?

Of course the atheist or irreligious will choose to believe and defend the latter while the Christian or Catholic should believe the former.

Seems like you have more issues to resolve than a problem with the evidence, Most of the world's Christians are Roman Catholic. Not that you aren't a Christian if you aren't Catholic, of course. Most Christians belong to denominations that admit that evolution is consisted with God's creation. And no, that doesn't mean you have to accept evolution to be a Christian. Just don't make an idol of your position and insist other Christians have to accept it.

However, natural selection actually reduces information in the DNA gene pool, thus countering the process of evolution, not enabling it.

Loads of misconceptions there. First, mutation increases information in a population. Natural selection may preserve or reduce that information. But of course, you've wrongly assumed that evolution is an increase in information. It's merely a change in allele frequency in a population. Sometimes, as in the case of humans, there's some loss of information to make us what we are. Other times, such as in certain fish, it's an increase in information. I suspect you don't know what "information" means in terms of genetics. What do you think it means?

The fact is that any new tissue, organ, or life matter requires additional information - far more than any mutation process would allow.

Well, that's an odd belief. Show us your numbers. The evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system has been observed directly, so I'm pretty sure you're going to have some trouble with those calculations. Do you even know how to calculate genetic information? Show us.

I'll ignore all objections here

Wise move, I think. I suspect you've gotten into waters way over your head.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution indeed denies that God is creator.

Can't. Evolution is just the observed phenomenon of changing alleles in populations. There is evolutionary theory, proposed by Darwin, but Darwin wrote in his book that God just created the first living things. As observed before, people who think they hate science don't know what it is.

The Bible states that God simply spoke everything into existence.

God says that the Earth brought forth living things. You either believe this or you don't. However, it has nothing to do with evolution, which is not about the origin of life. See above.

If the earth was so old, the moon would be no longer subject to earth's gravity and the seas would not be subject to lunar tides.

Sounds unlikely. Let's see your numbers.

Coast lines would be entirely different as erosion still takes place.

So does uplift, vulcanism, etc. Show us your evidence,

If the earth was that ancient, there would be nothing left to erode.

Uplift of the Andes, the Himalayas, and the Cascades (among many other things) refutes that belief.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Science puts a lot of effort into understanding how man went from hunter gather to a civilized food producer at the time of Adam and Eve. We are told that God breathed life into Adam and this is something Science is not going to understand. If it were not for Noah, civilization would have been lost and man would have gone back to being a hunter gather.

Not just civlisation. If not for Noah, The human race would have been extinguished completely.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Whether it has benefited humans remains to be seen/revealed. The harm might outweigh the benefits by ten-thousand or even a million-fold. Reports I've read in the last year show that the earth itself is past the point of no return due to man's involvement.

People have been predicting catastrophe for humanity for decades. There are way too many assumptions made to know the future. It is God who decides, not man. God created man to rule and reign over God's creation. God will have His way, in spite of the best or worst that man can do.

 

[saurab]

Natural Selection Is Darwin’s Genie – CEH

crev.info

"The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

"Natural Selection" is supposedly the mechanism for evolution. There is no reason to believe this,

First of all, the quote is misleading. It should read the brute not the natural man.

Now about natural selection. What exactly evolves now that humans have been created as the second greatest creation of God after angels ? It is the feelings that evolve. And the man who has these feelings also evolves spiritually, like Jesus who had tremendous feelings for God and Man.

 

[Aussie Pete]

First of all, the quote is misleading. It should read the brute not the natural man.

Now about natural selection. What exactly evolves now that humans have been created as the second greatest creation of God after angels ? It is the feelings that evolve. And the man who has these feelings also evolves spiritually, like Jesus who had tremendous feelings for God and Man.

Feelings evolve? What does that mean? Narcissists are ruled by feelings, is that a good thing? Anger is an emotion driven by pride. Is that evolution at work? If so, what is the mechanism? It's not natural selecetion, because all people with bad feelings (whatever that means) would be weeded out.

I don't know where you get "brute" from. Not the original Greek, that's for sure. The word is "psychikos" which is to do with the soul. The soul of man is the seat of his natural life. The Christian has spiritual life and we are called upon to deny the natural life of the soul. Luke 17:33 "He who seeks to save his "psychen", translated life or soul, depending on the version. Same root as "natural" in 1 Corinthians 2:14.

 

[The Barbarian]

Adaptation is not evolution.

You've confused that term.

Getting a sun tan is adaptation but not evolution.
Random genetic change in a population is evolution, but not adaptation.
Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is adaptation and evolution.

Again, those people who think they hate science don't really know very much about it.

 

[Diamond72]

Again, those people who think they hate science don't really know very much about it.

That door swings both ways. The people that hate religion do not know much about it.

 

[Diamond72]

First of all, the quote is misleading. It should read the brute not the natural man.

Not at all.
The Greek for natural is psychikos, the word we get Psychology from.
The word for man is anthrop the word we get an·thro·pol·o·gy.