So, there's no question about the science of it.

[gluadys]

yet one gene can produce two complete different sets of eyes.

That is because genes are not identical to each other. Many genes come in an array of variations. Rather like variant recipes for the same dish. Aunt Sally, Aunt Clara and Uncle Pete may all make a great pumpkin pie. It is highly unlikely that they all follow the same recipe. A gene will have the same function in different species, but can have different "recipes" for building the proteins that carry out this function. And the different proteins can carry out the function in different ways, depending on the genetic "recipe" used to make the protein.

btw, such variant gene "recipes" are known technically as alleles.

I believe a rat and a fly has the same eye gene but produces total different eyes.

Eyes are not produced by a single gene. What you may mean is that both of these species use the same gene to create a specific function in the eye--such as photo-receptors. Clearly, there are also huge differences in mammalian and insect eyes as well. Insects have compound eyes while mammals use a camera-type eye. These differences will be due to different genes.

So it not so simple just scambling a few DNA around to creat different varied of eyes. Just because there different varity of eyes doesn't in any way prove evolution when even common sense could perdict that a worm's eyes doesn't need to be good as the eagle's eye. IMO this shows the creator designing eyes to fill the need of the creature. So Jesus perdict this by claiming God look after the spare. huh?

First, what do you mean by "the spare"? The spare what?

Second, as far as I know, Jesus never discussed evolution, either to support it or to dispute it. He had other things on his mind that were much more important.

Third, evolution is a way to put design into organisms. Where, when and how would God manufacture eyes outside of the bodies they are in? I can't even contemplate organisms being put together like computers on an assembly line. How would that work? But it makes a lot of sense to me that God would design eyes through evolution.

 

[gluadys]

Is the output of the process not dependant on a random input?

It is more dependant on the filtering process which selects from the random elements in a non-random way.

 

[Remus]

It is more dependant on the filtering process which selects from the random elements in a non-random way.

Regardless of how much it is dependant on the random input, it still qualifies as a random process since it does depend on it.

 

[Vance]

Regardless of how much it is dependant on the random input, it still qualifies as a random process since it does depend on it.

There is a good book I recently read called Random Designer, written by an evangelical scientist, who teaches at an evangelical college, which shows how God could easily have used a process that involves many degrees of randomness to accomplish His goals.

If we think about how God works today, we see randomness all over the place. Does God direct each breeze or weather action, or does He create the laws and forces which are at work, and then let the breeze blow where it may? Yes, God can and does intervene when He chooses to make certain things happen or not happen, but when I see a leaf fall from a tree, taking its odd and quirky path to the ground, I don't suspect that God is directing each change in direction, but rather accept that God is letting that leaf fall in a random manner according to laws (gravity, air displacement, wind movement, etc) that He put in place.

 

[Remus]

There is a good book I recently read called Random Designer, written by an evangelical scientist, who teaches at an evangelical college, which shows how God could easily have used a process that involves many degrees of randomness to accomplish His goals.

Once you appeal to God to make evolution work, you are no longer working on a scientific basis. At least that's what has been beaten into our heads.

 

[Vance]

Once you appeal to God to make evolution work, you are no longer working on a scientific basis. At least that's what has been beaten into our heads.

Oh, I don't think God set it up so that His ongoing intervention is required. I think He is entirely capable (being God and all) of creation a process that entirely accomplishes His goals, even using random pocesses, from the very beginning. If He chooses to intervene, it is not to "make evolution work", it is just to do whatever particular thing He likes, usually involved in relational issues with humans.

My point is that while God can allow things to happen randomly, He is so fully aware of what will happen that in a deeper sense, nothing is really random to God. Look at the "elect" issue. God gave us entire free will to accept or reject Him, but His is so fully aware of who will and won't do this, that He refers to those who will do so as the Elect, as if it was a foregone conclusion. This gets into the areas of "God-ness" that we can not ever hope to fully understand.

 

[Remus]

My point is that while God can allow things to happen randomly, He is so fully aware of what will happen that in a deeper sense, nothing is really random to God.

You're attempting to redefine "random". Since we both agree that He could do anything, why evolution? Why make a natural process where it looks like His intervention is not needed? It is more plausible that He created everything just as is described in the Bible and not by evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

Third, evolution is a way to put design into organisms. Where, when and how would God manufacture eyes outside of the bodies they are in? I can't even contemplate organisms being put together like computers on an assembly line. How would that work? But it makes a lot of sense to me that God would design eyes through evolution.

Yet evolution has no engine so it really empty words. Evolution has to heavily relies of the God of Luck as Vance seems to point out. So evolution is the nothing more than the God of randomness since there isn't no real engine that can build complex systems we see in nature. If God design the eye then exactly what is lefted for evolution to do? Doesn't this sounds a lot like Isreal where they continue to offered to God yet follow the nations around them by offering to idols too? Doesn't design by randomness sounds like contradiction?

 

[Vance]

You're attempting to redefine "random". Since we both agree that He could do anything, why evolution? Why make a natural process where it looks like His intervention is not needed? It is more plausible that He created everything just as is described in the Bible and not by evolution.

1. You are again begging the question of what is described in Scripture.

2. Why NOT make a natural process where it looks like His intervention is not needed? My point is that God could very well HAVE DONE IT in such a way that such His intervention was not needed. Not that He could not intervene if He chose to, but again, think about what examples we have in nature? In every other area of God's natural world, we are perfectly comfortable with the processes happening without God's ongoing and continuous intervention. Name one other natural process in which you believe God must continually intervene to make it work appropriately.

This does not mean we take God out of the process, any more than you would say God was not in the process of creating HOW the wind blows, just because you don't believe God needs to intervene to make it happen. Evolution is simply another natural process in this world God created, just like every other process. He created it, He put it in place, just like the rest of it. He need not intervene in ANY of it, but He does on occasion as He sees fit.

 

[Smidlee]

This does not mean we take God out of the process, any more than you would say God was not in the process of creating HOW the wind blows, just because you don't believe God needs to intervene to make it happen. Evolution is simply another natural process in this world God created, just like every other process. He created it, He put it in place, just like the rest of it. He need not intervene in ANY of it, but He does on occasion as He sees fit.

What natural process are you referring to? we do understand the laws which the winds are governed by . The wind obey the laws of thermodyamics which is well known so even the wind are not governed by randomness. Yet evolutionist only has randomness as even natural selection can't explain the arrival of the fittest.

 

[Remus]

1. You are again begging the question of what is described in Scripture.

In your opinion
I've only seen one person attempt to say that the Bible teaches evolution and it wasn't convincing.

My point is that God could very well HAVE DONE IT in such a way that such His intervention was not needed.

Yes, I got your point and I agreed that He is capable of it, but just saying "He could do it that way" does not bolster your argument.

Name one other natural process in which you believe God must continually intervene to make it work appropriately.

Oh, I don't believe there is one, but I also don't believe that there is a natural process that can explain the diversity of species. That's where the difference is.

 

[Vance]

What natural process are you referring to? we do understand the laws which the winds are governed by . The wind obey the laws of thermodyamics which is well known so even the wind are not governed by randomness. Yet evolutionist only has randomness as even natural selection can't explain the arrival of the fittest.

Well, I am not sure I follow you here. Yes, the wind obeys the laws of thermodynamics, and other natural forces put in place by God, but the result of these forces and their interaction is VERY random. God is not controlling them along the way. Whether the wind changes direction is purely a matter of these natural forces which may push one way or another. These random results then become part of the process itself, creating other reactions in an ongoing process which is created by God, but not "run" by God.

And the same is true for evolution. There are natural forces at work which create a certain degree of randomness, which is then itself part of the ongoing process, etc. The only random part of evolution is the variation within a given individual, but that randomness is then brought into the mix because when you look at the population as a whole, natural selection will choose among those random variations to move forward. And move forward it does.

BTW, here is some more information on Random Design:

"Random Designer proclaims a new vision of God’s creation. In easy-flowing narrative, and with practical illustrations, Random Designer explains that the randomness and chaos which play such central roles in our physical existence are actually creative. The Creator simply taps these random physical processes to accomplish His higher goal – the creation of human beings capable of consciously perceiving Him."

http://www.randomdesigner.com/resources.htm


And a review from the Christian Post:

http://www.christianpost.com/article/education/629/section/evolution.is.a.friend.of.creation.says.evangelical.professor/1.htm

 

[Vance]

In your opinion
I've only seen one person attempt to say that the Bible teaches evolution and it wasn't convincing.

No, what I meant was that you were making the statement "just as described in the Bible" as if the meaning of that Scripture was clear. The entire point of most of these discussions is that it is not clear. Thus, you are begging the primary question at issue. And, getting awfully close to a presumption, once again, that absent some particular evidence to the contrary, we should read things literally (something you indicated you don't do).

Yes, I got your point and I agreed that He is capable of it, but just saying "He could do it that way" does not bolster your argument.

My point was that I have no problem with Him having created in a way in which it does not require any intervention by Him. Your post seemed to indicate that you would have a problem with Him doing it that way.

Oh, I don't believe there is one, but I also don't believe that there is a natural process that can explain the diversity of species. That's where the difference is.

Well, that is just a difference then of whether you accept the evidence for evolution or not, which is a very different question. We were discussing whether God would have created a natural process to create the diversity we see, a process which incorporates randomness. My point is that other processes in nature involve random actions and results all the time, and evolution would just be another one of them.

Now, whether you accept the evidence that it is likely that God used this process is another matter. The point is that there is no reason why He could not or would not, in my opinion.

 

[gluadys]

Regardless of how much it is dependant on the random input, it still qualifies as a random process since it does depend on it.

Well, first one has to define "random". The most common scientific use for the term is to refer to something whose causes are too complex to permit us to predict the outcome. Like Vance's examples of the wind or the way a leaf falls. It is not that there is no cause. It is that there are many causes pushing in many directions. From time to time a relevant cause may even be the direct action of God changing a base nucleotide here or a segment of chromosome there.

But the scientist cannot make a prediction of which base nucleotide will change next or how it will change or what the impact will be. God, presumably, can. So from God's perspective what looks random to a human observer may not be random at all. All mutations could have been planned ahead of time. I don't think they were, as I don't think God micro-manages in that way, but it is a possibility.

Second, you are overlooking that the very point of a filter is to screen out randomness. Some years ago I remember a TV commercial for a coin sorter. The gizmo was a sort of bowl with trays installed at different levels, and each tray containing holes of a different size. The idea was that you could shovel a large quantity of unsorted coins onto the top tray, give the bowl a shake to send them through the holes in the trays, and you ended up with all the coins sorted very un-randomly by denomination: dimes, pennies, nickels and quarters each on a separate tray.

That is the sort of result one gets through natural selection. The environment acts as a filter letting some variations through and forbidding access to others on a highly non-random basis.

And it is natural selection, not mutations, which drives evolution. Sure a selective process needs something to select, and it is limited to what is available to select from. Selection is still not random, and a process driven by selection is not random.

 

[gluadys]

Once you appeal to God to make evolution work, you are no longer working on a scientific basis. At least that's what has been beaten into our heads.

Right. But it doesn't follow that God does not make evolution work, or create a process that works on its own.

It is simply that this proposition cannot be adjudicated by science.

 

[Remus]

No, what I meant was that you were making the statement "just as described in the Bible" as if the meaning of that Scripture was clear. The entire point of most of these discussions is that it is not clear. Thus, you are begging the primary question at issue. And, getting awfully close to a presumption, once again, that absent some particular evidence to the contrary, we should read things literally (something you indicated you don't do).

I know you claim that the creation account isn't clear, but that has yet to be established. Also, one can't approach a presumption since it is something that one starts with. I have concluded that the creation account is clear and that it does not teach evolution.

My point was that I have no problem with Him having created in a way in which it does not require any intervention by Him. Your post seemed to indicate that you would have a problem with Him doing it that way.

You're point has been duly noted.

Well, that is just a difference then of whether you accept the evidence for evolution or not, which is a very different question.

I find that the evidence for evolution lacking.

We were discussing whether God would have created a natural process to create the diversity we see, a process which incorporates randomness. My point is that other processes in nature involve random actions and results all the time, and evolution would just be another one of them.

You were discussing this. The rest of us were on a different topic.

Now, whether you accept the evidence that it is likely that God used this process is another matter. The point is that there is no reason why He could not or would not, in my opinion.

And I have agreed that He could do this. I just disagree that He actually did.

 

[gluadys]

Why make a natural process where it looks like His intervention is not needed?

Because that is the characteristic of a natural process. And God certainly appears to have intended that ordinary nature be seen as natural. Miracles, use of supernatural power, are intended for unique circumstances beyond the power of nature.

How would we recognize supernatural without the contrast of natural?

 

[Remus]

Well, first one has to define "random". The most common scientific use for the term is to refer to something whose causes are too complex to permit us to predict the outcome. Like Vance's examples of the wind or the way a leaf falls. It is not that there is no cause. It is that there are many causes pushing in many directions. From time to time a relevant cause may even be the direct action of God changing a base nucleotide here or a segment of chromosome there.

But the scientist cannot make a prediction of which base nucleotide will change next or how it will change or what the impact will be. God, presumably, can. So from God's perspective what looks random to a human observer may not be random at all. All mutations could have been planned ahead of time. I don't think they were, as I don't think God micro-manages in that way, but it is a possibility.

Your entire argument is that it could happen. I argue that it isn't plausible.

Second, you are overlooking that the very point of a filter is to screen out randomness. Some years ago I remember a TV commercial for a coin sorter. The gizmo was a sort of bowl with trays installed at different levels, and each tray containing holes of a different size. The idea was that you could shovel a large quantity of unsorted coins onto the top tray, give the bowl a shake to send them through the holes in the trays, and you ended up with all the coins sorted very un-randomly by denomination: dimes, pennies, nickels and quarters each on a separate tray.

If the number of coins that you put in is random, then the number of coins in each pile will be random. Thus, it is a random process regardless of what you qualify it with.

That is the sort of result one gets through natural selection. The environment acts as a filter letting some variations through and forbidding access to others on a highly non-random basis.

And it is natural selection, not mutations, which drives evolution. Sure a selective process needs something to select, and it is limited to what is available to select from. Selection is still not random, and a process driven by selection is not random.

Without mutations, you have no evolution. At least not in a more complex direction.

But it doesn't follow that God does not make evolution work, or create a process that works on its own.

Again, you are simply saying that it could have happened. That is not a strong argument.

 

[gluadys]

Yet evolution has no engine so it really empty words.

Sure it has. Natural selection is the engine. One might say mutations are the fuel. Together they drive evolution.

If God design the eye then exactly what is lefted for evolution to do?

My question is how does God design, manufacture and install the eye without evolution? For me it is quite easy to see how God with his wisdom and foreknowledge could manipulate the processes of mutation and natural selection so that an eye evolved. The whole process of transferring a design from the mind of God to the physical body of an organism takes place in the bodies of organisms via a known process.

How does a design become a physical, biological product in any other way? How does an eye exist even for a second without being in a body, without being attached to the nerves and muscles and blood vessels in that body?

And even if one can plausibly answer that question, how does the manufactured eye get into the body and get hooked up to the nerves and muscles and blood vessels? What is the eyeless organism doing while it is waiting for its eye? Please convince me you are not assuming that it is sitting on a conveyor belt waiting for its eye to be plugged into it.

And then tell me what you are assuming.

Doesn't this sounds a lot like Isreal where they continue to offered to God yet follow the nations around them by offering to idols too? Doesn't design by randomness sounds like contradiction?

Of course design by randomness is a contradiction. But evolution is no more random than the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[gluadys]

I find that the evidence for evolution lacking.

There is a lot of evidence for evolution. Do you think you are familiar enough with all of it to assess whether or not there is truly something still lacking?