Questions about Theistic Evolution...

[Skilletdude]

Ok so I was taught regular science in school and YEC in church... I don't quite buy a YE theory but I'm not completely sold on the OE theory either (I don't think either has it quite right IMO as both have holes from the way I see it). And I don't see how can people can balance theistic evolution with the Bible.

I just wanted to find out more from people who believe theistic evolution. More precisely why you believe it or how you believe it while believing the bible too. I'm just curious, I'm not trying to debate or anything...

I guess my main problem that's been bugging me when I try to apply theistic evolution to my beliefs. The main one being... well... evolution (to a point... I don't think I buy animals becoming a completely new species ala dinosaurs into birds etc). I could be ok with it though until you get to man coming from apes... Basically because well the Bible flat out says God created man from dust and then states elsewhere many times Adam was the first man. I know that some view the Genesis creation as metaphorical and I could be ok with that if it wasn't taken so literal by so many others in the bible.

How do you reconcile this in your beliefs? How do you explain it? When does Genesis pass over into being literal? Or do you feel the whole thing is metaphorical? I'm just curious this, isn't an attack or anything I'm just genuinely curious. There was a thread and I can't seem to find it but this was somewhat discussed and I wanted to ask more about it.

 

[Assyrian]

What you need to realise is the bible is full of references to God making people and whole nations from clay. It say he made you from clay too.
Job 10:9 Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust?
Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Psalm 103:14 For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust.
Eccles 3:20 All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.
Isaiah 29:16 You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me"; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?
But God making us from dust does not mean we were not conceived the traditional biological way. If God making Adam from clay is a metaphor, then it is one of the most common metaphors in the bible.

I don't think the creation account are taken literally anywhere in the NT. Interpreting Adam and Eve as a lesson in marriage and divorce is not a literal interpretation, it is a lesson you could take from a parable just as easily as a literal account. Interpreting Adam and Eve as an allegory for Christ and the Church is definitely not literal.
2Cor 11:2 for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
Eph 5:31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
Paul also tells us Adam is a figure of Christ Rom 5:14. Paul was much more allegorical in his interpretation of Genesis than any TE I know, the problem is people approach what he says from a literalist perspective and assume he is talking literally. If you want to know how NT writers treated the day of creation, read how the seventh day is treated in Hebrews 3&4.

 

[shernren]

Firstly, we must agree that interpreting the Bible can be difficult in general, even in passages that have nothing at all to do with origins. As such, we need to approach our own interpretations with some skepticism (and be forgiving when others don't - after all, our interpretations are our vantage points, and learning to criticize one's own vantage point is a subtle and difficult skill). I am glad that you are asking tough questions of TEs.

There are three main theological ramifications of evolution. The questions are:
- How do we read the Bible?
- How do we reconcile divine action to a mechanistic universe (or is it even mechanistic)?
- How do we reconcile humanity's biological origins to the doctrine of original sin?

Now the first two questions have already been discussed heavily in the light of heliocentrism, and the conclusions drawn there are readily applicable to the passages that concern our origins. But the third is a uniquely evolutionary question. I think my views on the matter are that:

- Whatever our specific views, we must agree that sin is an intrusion into God's good plan, against which He showed both His displeasure and His redemptive victory by Jesus' death and resurrection, and which He will one day remove from creation at the end of all things.
- As such, if we agree that sin is an intrusion, we must also agree that there must have been a first sin, or a first sinner.
- However, Scripture is vague about the exact mode by which sinfulness is transmitted. What little evidence there is shows that the transmission of sinfulness is not strictly biological (for one, if it were, it would be subject to all the modifications possible to biological science, which would mean that humanity could remove its own sinfulness).
- The Bible establishes that spiritual solidarity can be created outside of biological relations. Thus, for example, Romans 5 considers Christians to be in Christ, despite the fact that we are in no way descended from Christ, or even (except most fleetingly) related to Him. If one does not need to be descended from Christ to be in Christ, then why should one need to be descended from Adam to be in Adam?
- Thus if spiritual solidarity does not require biological descent, the question of the biological nature and identity of the first sinner becomes obsolete. It does not matter if Adam was a first person or a first community, for we are still identified in solidarity with his or their first sin.

The other TEs here will have much to say; this is my small contribution. For a more in-depth look at these ideas, you may want to read a debate I had with a creationist over these matters: http://www.christianforums.com/t7305187/

 

[gluadys]

I just wanted to find out more from people who believe theistic evolution. More precisely why you believe it or how you believe it while believing the bible too. I'm just curious, I'm not trying to debate or anything...

No need to cover again the excellent replies of Assyrian and shernren. Let me touch on just two points.

I guess my main problem that's been bugging me when I try to apply theistic evolution to my beliefs. The main one being... well... evolution (to a point... I don't think I buy animals becoming a completely new species ala dinosaurs into birds etc).

Basically you are making a distinction evolution doesn't make between speciation (as we see in experiments with fruit flies) and "a completely new species". As far as the history of evolution is concerned, birds are not a completely new species. They are a sub-variety of dinosaurs, just as the newly produced populations of fruit flies are still varieties of fruit flies. But in the case of birds, you have the product of a much, much longer time-line of evolution, so the differences are more dramatic.

Humans also carry biological reminiscences of their ancestors, even remote ancestors like fish. See "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. Probably available at a near-by library.

When does Genesis pass over into being literal? Or do you feel the whole thing is metaphorical?

There is probably no hard and fast dividing line between literal and metaphorical anywhere in scripture. Even when we have accounts of people we know are historical, they are not necessarily totally literal. But it would also be incorrect to say it is all metaphorical. Basically, there was no distinction between "history" and "story" when the bible was written. Story was their history, so all their history contains elements of story.

The difficulty many moderns have is in taking story as seriously as the biblical writers did. We are too apt to think that saying something is a story means we can dismiss it as of no value. And you get that from both extremes. Atheists say "the bible is only a book of stories so it's not true". And creationists echo "If you think the bible is a book of stories, you are declaring you don't believe it is true."

I think the bible is a book of stories inspired by God for all the reasons Paul tells Timothy. And some of the stories contain what we today call history in greater or lesser degree. But the degree of history in a story is not the criterion of how true or useful the story is.

One might say that the point of biblical stories is not to tell us history, but to tell us what history means--and if that requires some material that is not strictly history, so be it.

 

[Papias]

As gluadys said, previous posters covered a lot, so I'll add just a little.

First, theistic evolution supports and reinforces core Christian doctrines like the fall, the need for redemption, the creation by God, and so on. It does this while honoring the rest of God's revelation, which is the natural world. An honest God would not reveal one thing through the evidence from the natural world, and something else through scripture. The evidence from the natural world is clear that evolution is as well an established fact as gravity, and so it is a good thing that scripture supports this. There is a reason why so many theologians from so many different denominations see Theistic Evolution as completely Christian. You can see that there are thousands of them here: The Clergy Letter Project

Skilletdude wrote:

The main one being... well... evolution (to a point... I don't think I buy animals becoming a completely new species ala dinosaurs into birds etc

One species evolving from another species to make a new species is not disputed. There are tons of examples, including examples observed by scientists today (Culex molestus, apple maggot fly, italian wall lizard, monkeyflower, and many more). In fact, creationists themselves have given up disputing it now, moving the goalposts to genus, family or order by redefining "kind".

I could be ok with it though until you get to man coming from apes..

Human evolution from apes is very clear. Not only are there tons of fossils and other clear evidence, but you might want to read about endogenous retrovirusus (Evolution 101: Molecular Evidence 5: Endogenous Retroviruses), and a lot more obvious evidence. The nice thing is that this is compatible with both Christianity and Scripture.

Basically because well the Bible flat out says God created man from dust

And also says that God brought the Jews out of Egypt "on eagles wings", or "with his outstretched arm", or that a beautifuly woman has fruit on her face (see song of solomon), or that there is an army of zombies (ezekiel). There are metaphors throughout the Bible. Since the Bible is written by God, and when God was on earth in the form of Jesus, he used tons of parables and metaphors, then why is anyone surprised that he uses metaphors in Genesis (as we know he does in Genesis, such as the serpent striking the heel, and so on).

Seeing Adam's origin as a metaphor makes more sense that seriously trying to convince people that we worship a God who made people by literally performing mouth to nose resuscitation on a mudpie.

and then states elsewhere many times Adam was the first man.

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including whole churches) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today. [/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

Remember that there is variation, and that mutations are in individuals before they spread to the rest of the tribe. So as the whole community gradually evolves from ape to human, whatever characteristic is used to define "being human", one individual will be the first to cross that line.
Of course, all humans will be descended from him, just as they are all descended from others as well. Think of that mayflower club, which only allows members who are descended from the few people who came over from Europe on the mayflower. That club today has thousands of members, and in a few thousand years or so, literally everyone on earth will be descended from those on the mayflower. The same holds true for an individual, so long as they have a few kids. Thus, if you have a few kids, it is very likely that in a few thousand years, literally everyone on earth will be descended from you as well. It's all a mix. So, coupling that with the thing above about the literal Adam, it all works well - many TE's believe that there was a literal Adam, who was the first person, who sinned causing the fall, and who is the ancestor of all of us. It's all completely consistent with what science has found.

I'm just curious this, isn't an attack or anything I'm just genuinely curious.

Thanks for the nice post. It's great to see someone openly and honestly learning about all views. That's a good thing regardless. You also might want to learn some at this website, which has huge amounts of information and endorsed by major institutions like the Smithsonian, the National Academies of Science, and so on.

An Index to Creationist Claims

Have a blessed day-
Papias


[/FONT]

 

[mmmcounts]

Ok so I was taught regular science in school and YEC in church... I don't quite buy a YE theory but I'm not completely sold on the OE theory either (I don't think either has it quite right IMO as both have holes from the way I see it). And I don't see how can people can balance theistic evolution with the Bible.

I just wanted to find out more from people who believe theistic evolution. More precisely why you believe it or how you believe it while believing the bible too. I'm just curious, I'm not trying to debate or anything...

Broadly speaking, there's sort of just one YE theory. There's also just one Old Earth theory that is entirely naturalistic, but between the two, there's a variety of Old Earth theories (significantly older than 10,000 years or so, anyway) with varying levels of naturalism and different ways in which it comes about.

I don't believe in a young earth because I came to the conclusion that the Bible doesn't force you in any particular direction, so you're left with measuring the age of the earth. It is measurable, and it's quite old. So that's how I wound up at an Old Earth conclusion.

I guess my main problem that's been bugging me when I try to apply theistic evolution to my beliefs. The main one being... well... evolution (to a point... I don't think I buy animals becoming a completely new species ala dinosaurs into birds etc). I could be ok with it though until you get to man coming from apes... Basically because well the Bible flat out says God created man from dust and then states elsewhere many times Adam was the first man. I know that some view the Genesis creation as metaphorical and I could be ok with that if it wasn't taken so literal by so many others in the bible.

How do you reconcile this in your beliefs? How do you explain it? When does Genesis pass over into being literal? Or do you feel the whole thing is metaphorical? I'm just curious this, isn't an attack or anything I'm just genuinely curious. There was a thread and I can't seem to find it but this was somewhat discussed and I wanted to ask more about it.

You're certainly going right for the most difficult and contentious issue possible. Even when you go to some of the best scientists who are also Christians, put them on a stage for an open forum, and ask them to address questions from the perspective of a variety of disciplines (astronomer, physicist, chemist, biologist, etc.), it's hard to get a straight answer on that. I tried. Made a couple of attempts. It's hard to get anything definite, even in the form of "definite possibilities."

One possibility, though, is that these descriptions of God putting the breath of life into dust or God creating man in His own image might bear itself out in some kind of pre-human homonid as "the dust" and when God brought about a change in such a creature such that it was then able to be sentient and have knowledge of Him, that was when it/they became "image bearers," as it were. That doesn't really cover the thing with the ribs or the snake or paradise, but it's one of the big things.

 

[Verticordious]

The root of the problem is that YECs use the Bible to interpret reality, rather than using reality to interpret the Bible.

For example, most YECs, and even some OECs, believe that pain was introduced in to the world as a punishment for sin. Clearly this cannot be true, however, as pain is necessary for long term survival. Pain is what allows our bodies to respond to things in the environment, such as temperature. There is a genetic disorder, known as CIPA, that prevents people from feeling physical pain, and despite what YECs might have you think, it is very deadly. Without the ability to feel physical pain the body is unable to cope with the environment around it, resulting in most people with CIPA dying before age 3, and nearly all before age 20.

Instead of accepting this fact about reality, YECs try to make stuff up to explain why people wouldn't need pain. In the past YECs have tried to claim that thermodynamics did not exist before sin, which would make CIPA less deadly (though not completely), but no thermodynamics results in even more problems than being unable to feel pain does. Without thermodynamics the entire universe cannot function ta all. In attempt to explain this, YECs now claim that God's sustaining power (whatever that is...) allowed the Universe to function even without thermodynamics, and he withdrew his sustaining power and instituted thermodynamics as a punishment for Adam's sin. Rather than admit their theology is wrong, they make stuff to try and "prove" that reality is wrong.

Another example of their bad theology is their ignoring of the very first verse in the Bible. In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Did anyone see a time in there? Or perhaps a date? The days of creation take place after the Earth and the Universe have already been created. Even if the days were 24-hour days, which they are not, that still does not allow any date of creation to be established by scripture alone. Any attempt to establish an age of the Earth or Universe based upon scripture alone would be completely impossible because Gen 1:1 is untimed and undated.

There is also no conflict between the Bible and evolution. The Bible is concerned with man's spiritual origin and nature, not man's physical origin or nature. YECs are much too concerned physical things, which is why they are so opposed to evolution of any kind. The Bible, however, is concerned with spiritual things (meaning our relationship with God). The Bible was written to tell us about how God created us spiritually with the ability to choose between right and wrong, that our choice to do wrong has broken our relationship with him, and that he has given us the opportunity to repent and renew our relationship with him through what Christ has done. What we are physically is not related to what we are spiritually.

The only conflict with the Bible and evolution would be Darwinian Evolution. The idea that random changes have eventually produced humans is not compatible with a creator, or science for that matter. The Bible repeatedly talks about God having planned things ahead of time, but something that is random is, by definition, not planned. To whatever extent evolution occurs, it was designed to occur. Evolution is an engineered process, not a random process.

 

[Papias]

Verti wrote:

The only conflict with the Bible and evolution would be Darwinian Evolution. The idea that random changes have eventually produced humans is not compatible with a creator, or science for that matter. The Bible repeatedly talks about God having planned things ahead of time, but something that is random is, by definition, not planned. To whatever extent evolution occurs, it was designed to occur. Evolution is an engineered process, not a random process.

The word "random", like many other words, can mean different things in different contexts. For instance, "random" can mean:

1. "outcomes having an equal probability" as in These dice are random.

Or, it could mean:

2. "No one is directing this process", as in the pattern of raindrops is random.

In the first definition, evolution is NOT random. Mutations appear to be random, but evolution, because it is guided by natural selection, is not random in anyone's worldview (except a creationist's strawman worldview). The fact that wolves and tasmanian wolves evovled to fit a predatory, forested niche, and that no blue whales are in that niche, shows that.

In the second definition, that comes down to faith and worldview, and is outside of the realm of science. I think #2 is what you are aiming at. However, because YECs so often bait and switch these so as to cast doubt on science, you might want to be careful in how you present them.

For instance, in addition to God being behind the process, many Christians (including the Pope) suggest that God may be behind the many beneficial mutations we see, making sure they happen according to his plan. To us, mutations would still appear to fit #1, but this would be another example of God working through the real world, through natural means, for his creation.

Papias

 

[solarwave]

Hey,

I see where you are comming from because I come from a church in which most people believed in YEC, but luckly it wasn't a belief that was taught to children or teenagers as doctrine. So I'll try to give my reasoning.

Luckly I have always held science highly along with reason and faith and that they are compeletly compatible with each other since God is true and both science and faith give truth.

Heres my view of the Creation story/s: I take the two storys (the two being Genesis 1 and Genesis 2) as being metaphorical, storys with a deeper meaning than what is on the surface. I know many areas of science disprove Genesis 1 as being physically true, but then what physically happened doesn't matter. I believe that if Genesis were written today it would not be a strickly scientific account of creation because that defeats the whole point. The point if to express spiritual truths and mankinds relationship to God and reality.

Genesis 2 could be seen as more likely to be physically true, but I have found it makes more sense for this to be metaphorical too. Evolution disproves it and there is alot of evidence for evolution. I see why people don't like the idea of man being evolved from animals but in my opinion this isn't humbleness. Humans like being special and at the centre of things, look at when people discovered the earth wasn't the centre of the universe and how the church reacted. The thing is we can be special in the eyes of God, but that has nothing to do with where we are, what we are made of, what we do, or where we came from, it is purely Gods grace and love.

As for other people in the Bible taking Genesis literally. Firstly this doesn't mean they thought it was literal, because I have many times talked about Genesis as if it were literal to make a point, but when in fact I don't it isn't. But I think it is the case that those who wrote the Bible did think Genesis maybe have been literal, but this doesn't make it true. The writters of the Bible weren't infallible, and (I maybe be wrong) it seems to me that whenever someone in the Bible refers to Creation they do it to make a different point, not to affrim the literalness of the method of creation. So it is the main point which the Bible is trying to make in these times, not the side point about creation.

When does Genesis turn literal? Well for me it is with Abraham.

Augustine offers this advice: "In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture."

 

[gluadys]

Verti wrote:




The word "random", like many other words, can mean different things in different contexts. For instance, "random" can mean:

1. "outcomes having an equal probability" as in These dice are random.

Or, it could mean:

2. "No one is directing this process", as in the pattern of raindrops is random.

In the first definition, evolution is NOT random. Mutations appear to be random, but evolution, because it is guided by natural selection, is not random in anyone's worldview (except a creationist's strawman worldview). The fact that wolves and tasmanian wolves evovled to fit a predatory, forested niche, and that no blue whales are in that niche, shows that.

In the second definition, that comes down to faith and worldview, and is outside of the realm of science. I think #2 is what you are aiming at. However, because YECs so often bait and switch these so as to cast doubt on science, you might want to be careful in how you present them.

For instance, in addition to God being behind the process, many Christians (including the Pope) suggest that God may be behind the many beneficial mutations we see, making sure they happen according to his plan. To us, mutations would still appear to fit #1, but this would be another example of God working through the real world, through natural means, for his creation.

Papias

I second what Papias says above. One has to take care as to which meaning of "random" fits the context. "Random" in the first instance is not a threat to Christian faith, since scripture plainly says that things which appear random in this sense are under God's control and come within his sovereign will.

I would add that one needs to be equally careful with the terms "Darwinian" and "Darwinism". Verti speaks of "Darwinian evolution" as if there were another option. But the only other once-credible option (Lamarkian evolution) was falsified more than a century ago. The only evolution we see in nature is Darwinian evolution.

However, scientists define "Darwinian" differently than most anti-Darwin creationists. To a scientist "Darwinian evolution" means "the process of evolution which depends primarily (though not exclusively) on variation and natural selection as first described by Darwin." To anti-Darwinians it seems to mean "an undirected process that excludes God".

The second definition is not a hypothesis that can be scientifically tested and so is not part of the scientific meaning of "Darwinian". Understood scientifically and from a theistic perspective, "Darwinian evolution" may well be directed in some way by God's will and purpose.

 

[Greg1234]

The root of the problem is that YECs use the Bible to interpret reality, rather than using reality to interpret the Bible.

Scientific evidence is used. Had there never been a bible in existence, the evidence would still be there. One goal of developing and sustaining the "literal vs allegorical" debate remains the same. To divert attention away from the raw scientific data dsproving Darwinism by drawing a scenario where the only thing hindering a belief in microbe to man is the interpretation of the bible. As long as people are over there arguing about whether it should be taken literally or allegorically, then nobody is presenting scientific evidence against it. Therefore, the only thing observed on the outside, is "science vs literalism". Thats why these arguments are are planted and carefully nurtured.

For example, most YECs, and even some OECs, believe that pain was introduced in to the world as a punishment for sin.

Are you mistaking suffering with pain? Pain can also be said to be a part of man's amenability to physical law.

In the past YECs have tried to claim that thermodynamics did not exist before sin

What does this have to do with the fact that man is created. You do realize that for a man to feel pan, there needs to be a man first. This is Creationism.

Another example of their bad theology is their ignoring of the very first verse in the Bible. In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Did anyone see a time in there? Or perhaps a date?

This isnt relevant. Whether the earth is 6 trillion years old or not is apart from the fact that bacteria remain bacteria. There is also the issue of relation. Creationism has now exclusively become "YECism". The reason for that is simple. With the employment of YECism, the age of the earth is now inexplicably tied to the creation of man sharing a direct relationship. Hence, no longer is there the need to refute the scientific evidence against random mutational origin. All you have to do is address the age of the earth. In essense the mechanism beng devolped works like this. If the universe is billions of years old, all arguments against Darwinism fails. Its quite convenient.

There is also no conflict between the Bible and evolution. The Bible is concerned with man's spiritual origin and nature, not man's physical origin or nature

.
The physical is a reflection of the spiritual. The man is all inclusive, three fold, in the mental, spiritual and physical.

What we are physically is not related to what we are spiritually.

You have to be joking. Is that what they tell you. Well you would have to discard that fact if you want to believe in Darwinism so it makes sense. And what are you discarding. The non physical image of man, or God. This is purely atheism.

To whatever extent evolution occurs, it was designed to occur. Evolution is an engineered process, not a random process.

Thats nice.There is no place in random mutations for God or any type of intelligence. You are well aware of that. So is the full Darwinist. It doesnt matter anyways.

 

[Papias]

Greg wrote:

There is no place in random mutations for God or any type of intelligence. You are well aware of that.

Greg, what evidence do you have to support that? Or do you commonly make statements regardless of whether or not you have evidence for them? (such as saying you could design a nested hierarchy of cars?)

Many Christians, including the Pope, do see a place for God in providing the many beneficial mutations we see. Are you saying you know theology better than the Pope?

Papias

 

[solarwave]

All you have to do is address the age of the earth. In essense the mechanism beng devolped works like this. If the universe is billions of years old, all arguments against Darwinism fails. Its quite convenient.

It all working well together doesn't make it false, the very opposite.

There is alot of evidence for the Big Bang, an Old Earth and Evolution and the fact YEC is taken down by any one of these doesn't make those three things wrong.... again the very opposite is true.

The reason I argue for TE is that YEC presents an unrealistic understanding of reality (IMO) and so diminishes Christianity IMHO.

 

[Greg1234]

Many Christians, including the Pope, do see a place for God in providing the many beneficial mutations we see.

tsk

Are you saying you know theology better than the Pope?

Papias

Nice.

 

[Verticordious]

I second what Papias says above. One has to take care as to which meaning of "random" fits the context. "Random" in the first instance is not a threat to Christian faith, since scripture plainly says that things which appear random in this sense are under God's control and come within his sovereign will.

I would add that one needs to be equally careful with the terms "Darwinian" and "Darwinism". Verti speaks of "Darwinian evolution" as if there were another option. But the only other once-credible option (Lamarkian evolution) was falsified more than a century ago. The only evolution we see in nature is Darwinian evolution.

However, scientists define "Darwinian" differently than most anti-Darwin creationists. To a scientist "Darwinian evolution" means "the process of evolution which depends primarily (though not exclusively) on variation and natural selection as first described by Darwin." To anti-Darwinians it seems to mean "an undirected process that excludes God".

The second definition is not a hypothesis that can be scientifically tested and so is not part of the scientific meaning of "Darwinian". Understood scientifically and from a theistic perspective, "Darwinian evolution" may well be directed in some way by God's will and purpose.

If you think Darwinian evolution and Lamarckian evolution are the only two types of evolution then you must be reading material that is 70+ years old. Research as far back as the 1940s was done by Barbra McClintock has shown that DNA changes are the result of an engineered processes. McClintock found that when she damaged a chromosome the DNA would find a segment of code similar to what was damaged and copy it. That's not random.

[FONT=&quot]Barbara McClintock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/FONT]

Further research done by people such as James A. Shapiro that DNA change is due to DNA's ability to splice itself into hundreds of thousands of pieces and recombine into an organism with some new feature. Shapiro also points out that such an event is not an isolated occurrence, but an event that happens regularly in some organisms.

There is abundant evidence that internal genetic engineering systems have been major actors in natural populations and in genome evolution. Our own survival literally depends upon genetic engineering. Our immune system cells form an essentially infinite array of antigen recognition molecules by rearranging and specifically mutating the corresponding DNA sequences. In some organisms, genome restructuring is part of the normal life cycle. In the ciliated protozoa, for example, the germ line genome is regularly fragmented into hundreds of thousands of segments, which are then processed and correctly reassembled to create a functioning somatic genome of radically different system architecture.

-James A. Shapiro
[FONT=&quot]The Significance of Cellular Activity in Genome Reorganization = Formatting and reformatting the genome for computation and exp[/FONT]

With 100,000 pieces, the number of possible combinations for the DNA to reassemble into is along the lines of 10^180,000. That's a one with 55 pages of zeros after it in Times New Roman size 10 font. If nothing but random chance was involved, even one single successful reassemblage from any organism in the entire history of the universe would be statistically impossible, yet DNA does so on a regular basis. Clearly such an event does not qualify as random in any sense of the word. It was designed to happen.

A random explanation of evolution also offers no practical application. Companies are not going to get rid of their research and development team in favor of relying on random manufacturing errors to make a better product. An engineered explanation of evolution would, however, have practical application. Once we understand exactly how DNA is programmed to do what it does, we could use that knowledge as a template for writing the next generation of computer software and operating systems.

Engineered Evolution perfectly fits the definition of science. Engineered Evolution is observable, it is systematic, it is testable, and it is repeatable. Any kind of evolution involving random chance, however, is not scientific. Evolution due to random chance could theoretically be observable, but it would not be systematic, testable, or repeatable. Random simply happens when it happens, and that's not science.

 

[matthewgar]

If you think Darwinian evolution and Lamarckian evolution are the only two types of evolution then you must be reading material that is 70+ years old. Research as far back as the 1940s was done by Barbra McClintock has shown that DNA changes are the result of an engineered processes. McClintock found that when she damaged a chromosome the DNA would find a segment of code similar to what was damaged and copy it. That's not random.

[FONT=&quot]Barbara McClintock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/FONT]

Further research done by people such as James A. Shapiro that DNA change is due to DNA's ability to splice itself into hundreds of thousands of pieces and recombine into an organism with some new feature. Shapiro also points out that such an event is not an isolated occurrence, but an event that happens regularly in some organisms.
With 100,000 pieces, the number of possible combinations for the DNA to reassemble into is along the lines of 10^180,000. That's a one with 55 pages of zeros after it in Times New Roman size 10 font. If nothing but random chance was involved, even one single successful reassemblage from any organism in the entire history of the universe would be statistically impossible, yet DNA does so on a regular basis. Clearly such an event does not qualify as random in any sense of the word. It was designed to happen.

A random explanation of evolution also offers no practical application. Companies are not going to get rid of their research and development team in favor of relying on random manufacturing errors to make a better product. An engineered explanation of evolution would, however, have practical application. Once we understand exactly how DNA is programmed to do what it does, we could use that knowledge as a template for writing the next generation of computer software and operating systems.

Engineered Evolution perfectly fits the definition of science. Engineered Evolution is observable, it is systematic, it is testable, and it is repeatable. Any kind of evolution involving random chance, however, is not scientific. Evolution due to random chance could theoretically be observable, but it would not be systematic, testable, or repeatable. Random simply happens when it happens, and that's not science.

Ehhhh....uhhh....you do know that evolutionary designing of electronics and other things via errors is already implemented? Many chips and such right now are designed using this method, where they take the current method and make changes after changes using a evolutionary algorythem to find what is the most efficient design. The changes and such are random, but the computer is looking for what improves the product and discarding what doesn't.

 

[gluadys]

If you think Darwinian evolution and Lamarckian evolution are the only two types of evolution then you must be reading material that is 70+ years old. Research as far back as the 1940s was done by Barbra McClintock has shown that DNA changes are the result of an engineered processes. McClintock found that when she damaged a chromosome the DNA would find a segment of code similar to what was damaged and copy it. That's not random.

How DNA changes is not really pertinent to how evolution happens. Evolution has never been random in the first place since natural selection is a non-random change in species.

Changes in DNA are changes in molecules, not species. And if some are engineered, that only favours a theistic evolution position that God can work through mutations to guide evolutionary changes according to his purposes. It is what happens next--the relative success of new variants generated by these mutations--that constitutes evolution.

It is still a Darwinian process as long as the genetic variation preceeds the impact of the environment on the variation (natural selection). But it is not "Darwinism" defined in a way to exclude God as many neo-creationists do.

Very interesting stuff though. Cellular life still has lots of surprises for us evidently.

 

[Papias]

Virti, could you please be more clear in your posts about which "random" you are using? Otherwise it's too hard to tell exactly what you are saying, and I assume you wouldn't intentionally use the "random" bait and switch tactic we so often see.

Specifically, Random could mean:

1. "outcomes having an equal probability" as in These dice are random.

Or, it could mean:

2. "No one is directing this process", as in the pattern of raindrops is random.

Remember that TE's don't claim evolution to be random by def. #2, only that mutations appear random only by definition #1.

Thanks.

Research as far back as the 1940s was done by Barbra McClintock has shown that DNA changes are the result of an engineered processes.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. McClintock found some really cool DNA repair mechanisms that have evolved in corn plants, and many others have subsequently been found in other metazoans, like ourselves. Dr. McClintock's work fully supported evolution by natural selection, especially since her repair mechanisms are an expected outcome of selection.

If there weren't many mutations, they wouldn't have evolved. None of her work is anything but a confirmation of evolution, nor does it support creationism. If anything, it shows another source of variation for natural selection to act upon.

Engineered Evolution perfectly fits the definition of science. Engineered Evolution is observable

Could you give examples of when "non human" engineered evolution has been observed giving a new species?

Any kind of evolution involving random chance, however, is not scientific. Evolution due to random chance could theoretically be observable, but it would not be systematic, testable, or repeatable. Random simply happens when it happens, and that's not science.

This makes it sounds as though you don't understad the scientific method. Are you serious saying that any random (def #1) can't be studied? Do you know about the whole field of probability/statistics?

Further research done by people such as James A. Shapiro that DNA change is due to DNA's ability to splice itself into hundreds of thousands of pieces and recombine into an organism with some new feature.

Shapiro is a bit of a borderline case. He does actually understand his field of bacterial DNA, but seems to make statements far beyond his own work, and unsupported by his or anyone else's work. Mainly, he argues that there is a lot of damage repair other DNA modification mechanisms in DNA. OK, fine - that's undisputed. All of those sources of variation, just as mentioned by me earlier and by gluadys, are simply additional sources of variation. Shapiro's view that this is the dominant or even only driver behind speciation ignores literally mountains of evidence that shows species after species forming by gradual changes in response to the environment.

Shapiro has plenty of peer -reviewed papers that describe DNA repair mechanisms. He doesn't appear to have published much of his "speciation only or mainly by DNA repair" stuff in peer reviewed journals, giving the appearance that collegue in his field would see the problems with his extrapolations. He does have a section in a mostly good evolution book:

Evolution from molecules to men - Google Books


However, what I've seen from Shapiro suggests that he fully accepts both the 4.5 billion year age of the earth as well as the evolution of life from prokaryotes to people. He merely seems to be arguing for another source of variation, one that everyone agrees exists, but that only he in his field (among thousands of other bactierial DNA experts) sees as the main source of speication. So, since you are basing your argument on McClintock and Shapiro, do you agree with them on the age of the earth and on the evolution of humans?

Have a good day-

-Papias

 

[Papias]

'looks like verti was a hit and run poster.......

Papias

 

[shernren]

McClintock found that when she damaged a chromosome the DNA would find a segment of code similar to what was damaged and copy it. That's not random.

Nope, she found that transposons are always copying themselves around the genome, whether their corresponding copies are damaged or not - though of course the easiest way to prove that a transposon is copying itself in the chromosome is to knock it out somewhere and see if it can be found again. If DNA really has such awesome error-repairing codes, I'd love to see it fix the GULO pseudogene ...