The Lie of Evolution

[NobleMouse]

See, posts like this show the person posting them isn't really using arguments to find out the truth, but is rather constructing arguments artificially to make his own point.

Because every student of evolution will tell you that by the time anything came along that could possibly be called human, the structures of sex . . . male and female . . . had long been established.

So evolution in would never disagree with the statement In the beginning, humans were made male and female . . . ( ) true? ( ) false?

We would all check true.

Yet here you are claiming we would say otherwise.

And that is how you judge science all up and down the line, it is why science fails in your eyes. You make it fail.

Thank you for the replies. I do like science, and and don't see most science as a failure... but find the conclusions of historical science questionable when it goes against the word of God. It is unfortunate when the conventional wisdom gained through science is used to reinterpret and redefine the word of God though - again, something that really didn't start with much notice until the 18th century. Now the most significant thing about this statement by Jesus to me is not just the male/female aspect, but the "He made them (humans) - not He made some kind of simple life, then evolved that life through progressively complex forms and ultimately into humans - that is an assumption made that comes nowhere from scripture. Clearly, and in contrast, scripture states God directly formed man from the earth and breathed life into his nostrils - really no room for evolution unless one just says it's all allegorical - but there are no convincing arguments to that end and I've already provided support around why yom should be interpreted as a 24-hr day in Genesis 1, so we don't have the large window of time needed for evolution either.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Thank you for the replies. I do like science, and and don't see most science as a failure... but find the conclusions of historical science questionable when it goes against the word of God. It is unfortunate when the conventional wisdom gained through science is used to reinterpret and redefine the word of God though - again, something that really didn't start with much notice until the 18th century. Now the most significant thing about this statement by Jesus to me is not just the male/female aspect, but the "He made them (humans) - not He made some kind of simple life, then evolved that life through progressively complex forms and ultimately into humans - that is an assumption made that comes nowhere from scripture. Clearly, and in contrast, scripture states God directly formed man from the earth and breathed life into his nostrils - really no room for evolution unless one just says it's all allegorical - but there are no convincing arguments to that end and I've already provided support around why yom should be interpreted as a 24-hr day in Genesis 1, so we don't have the large window of time needed for evolution either.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

Well that puts you right back into the realm of denying the rotation of the earth. Because there is absolutely no reason to read into scripture anything except that it is the sun that rises and sets and moves across the sky, and those upstart astronomers who deny that scripture and claim the earth rotates are merely putting the assumptions of man into conflict with the statements of scripture.

Personally, I am quite willing to accept the descriptions of the sun rising and setting as simply spoken as men understood things at the time, and I don't really seek to claim that as a contradiction with science today. But I do claim the right to do exactly that same thing, again, with the age of the earth and evolution, and I think it is foolish to allow the one non-literal interpretation and deny the right to use the other non-literal interpretation.

 

[NobleMouse]

Well that puts you right back into the realm of denying the rotation of the earth. Because there is absolutely no reason to read into scripture anything except that it is the sun that rises and sets and moves across the sky, and those upstart astronomers who deny that scripture and claim the earth rotates are merely putting the assumptions of man into conflict with the statements of scripture.

Geocentrism is not taught by the Bible and originates from Claudius Ptolemaeus back in the 2nd century. Those who believed in this idea often, and incorrectly, cited various scriptures in an attempt to support this position. See link for short article on this topic:
Does the Bible teach geocentrism?

Personally, I am quite willing to accept the descriptions of the sun rising and setting as simply spoken as men understood things at the time, and I don't really seek to claim that as a contradiction with science today. But I do claim the right to do exactly that same thing, again, with the age of the earth and evolution, and I think it is foolish to allow the one non-literal interpretation and deny the right to use the other non-literal interpretation.

Creation account vs. idea of geocentrism that originated outside of the Bible is not really an apples-to-apples comparison. There are entire chapters written in the Bible about creation, with many references (hundreds) from both the OT and NT, including Jesus himself, affirming the creation account, not just a few sparse passages that make short reference to the earth and the sun. See link for list of references to creation account:
List of Bible References to Creation

Rejecting and redefining the creation account always requires, to some extent, also having to dismiss or redefine hundreds of scriptural passages. Liberal theologians today are doing exactly this in an attempt to harmonize the Bible with beliefs held within mainstream science. Now, I could just as well turn your line of reasoning around here and say because you don't accept the Genesis account of creation as literal, you also do not believe that by accepting Christ as your savior that you will literally live forever with him--I could argue:

1) John 3:16 does not mean you will live forever, physically. No one can refute that 100% of the time, regardless of social class or quality of life, everybody dies - this is a fact. What this verse means is that you will live forever in the hearts and minds of those whom you loved, in the same way Christ loved the Church.

2) John 5:13-14 again does not imply you will literally spend eternity with God, to ignore empirical, directly observable, scientific fact is simply incredulous to the obvious. This again points to that when we ask God to enter our hearts, He hears us and we can have confidence that when His love flows into and through us that we will remain forever in the lives of those we touched for His glory and kingdom.

Now, the two above arguments are complete heresy - I don't accept them and you don't either. This is not what is taught in the Bible. You and I both believe that because we've placed our complete faith and trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross and accepted Him as our Lord and Savior that we will actually live forever, spending eternity with God, given new glorified physical bodies no longer subject to the power of sin, in fact no longer even in the presence of sin. Passing through death into eternal life, being with Christ, obnoxiously contradicts all natural laws, observations, and evidence to the contrary. When we die we will be immediately taken into His presence (faster than the speed of C). All this in spite of the glaring evidence that suggests once death comes calling, that is the end. If I can believe all of this to be true (which in no uncertain terms, I unequivocally do - because Jesus said so), then there remains no grounds for reason to doubt a beginning of all things that also contradicted the natural laws that God upholds today (because God said this is what He did, when He did it, and how He did it). Although my arguments above are obviously not true, it could be said that are better substantiated than the arguments for evolution because death has been directly observed billions upon billions of times, both in the past and it continues here in the present. Yet, empirical evidence is superseded and made false by the truth of God's inerrant word.

Paul, you are using a naturalistic lens to interpret the beginning of creation, yet you know it to be true and do accept that God operates supernaturally. Evolution is a very well-formed and comprehensive theory, but God said He did it differently. I don't reject evolution because it's a bad or a 'dumb' idea, I reject it because God said He did it differently - it's the same way you and I both reject that our physical death will be the end of us: because God has told us we will be with Him in eternity; by grace through faith, in Jesus Christ.

Respectfully and humbly in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Paul, you are using a naturalistic lens to interpret the beginning of creation, yet you know it to be true and do accept that God operates supernaturally.

God made nature and when we listen to the voice of nature we are listening to the voice of God.

Evolution is a very well-formed and comprehensive theory, but God said He did it differently. I don't reject evolution because it's a bad or a 'dumb' idea, I reject it because God said He did it differently - it's the same way you and I both reject that our physical death will be the end of us: because God has told us we will be with Him in eternity; by grace through faith, in Jesus Christ.

Respectfully and humbly in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

I understand your point of view, but I don't accept it; I accept your right to accept it.

But there is one thing I urge you to consider.

You can't know that the Bible is the word of God except by confirming evidence, and your way of interpreting it runs into so much evidence against the Bible as to call your reasons for accepting the Bible into question.

Many people will turn away from Christianity because people like you tell them they must give up their understanding of reality.

 

[NobleMouse]

God made nature and when we listen to the voice of nature we are listening to the voice of God.

By the 'voice of God is found in nature', what you're really saying is man's conclusions from scientific research. As has already been attested to, secular science is not referring back to the Bible when forming hypotheses/theories to see if it aligns. The claim is that it is not a scientific book, which is odd - where does the ability to perform the scientific method come from, who made what is being studied?Are man's conclusions somehow at a higher plane of truth than what God tells us in His word (the source of truth)? Who told you the earth was billions of years old? Not God, man did. Who told you that you evolved from a single-celled organism? Not God, man did. In short: God is not giving new revelations to those who work in the scientific field that contradicts His own word. Any contradiction only exists when one presupposes ideas like billions of years and evolution, which neither have been directly observed, and neither are even remotely eluded upon in the Bible.

Why are you insisting upon a naturalistic explanation for that which was created supernaturally? Here's a quick test: Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead supernaturally. What natural law(s) explains this? Because you cannot come up with one, do you conclude the event never happened, that it was poetic or allegorical? Maybe Lazarus was just 'spiritually' dead, not physically?

I understand your point of view, but I don't accept it; I accept your right to accept it.

Thank you, and likewise. There is no reason any believer cannot accept as complete truth, both what God tells them about the future and about the past. To pick one and not the other seems odd, a kind of incongruity of faith in God.

But there is one thing I urge you to consider.

You can't know that the Bible is the word of God except by confirming evidence, and your way of interpreting it runs into so much evidence against the Bible as to call your reasons for accepting the Bible into question.

Oh? How is it that some come to faith in accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior at a very young age (a young child) before having performing any kind of in-depth technical analysis of evidence in the world around them to support their belief? We are called to live by faith, to have faith like a child (see 2 Cor 5:7, John 20:29, and Matthew 19:14) - not by sight. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Now you're circling back around to the 'evidence' argument again which I've already spoken to so I'll try to be brief. The (interpretation of) evidence for billions of years and evolution solely exists in the minds of man; nowhere has God revealed this. When debating interpretation of the word of God vs interpretation of evidence, the word of God here does not require "interpreting", it's what it says and is supported throughout scripture. There are words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that can succinctly convey very long periods of time, but God never communicated long periods of time in the creation account, and as such is why we don't see it written in a way to convey long periods of time. This is in fact why we see 'yom' in the context of evening and morning and in sequenced numerals - because the 6 days were normal-length days, all connected together with no 'long-age gaps' in between. By contrast, all scientific evidence requires interpreting, which is influenced by the lens of one's worldview.

Many people will turn away from Christianity because people like you tell them they must give up their understanding of reality.

Well, let's see. The following article cites Pew Research, summarizing:

"Further, about half of those people said that a lack of belief caused them to leave their faith, citing, among other things, "science" and "lack of evidence" as reasons for this skepticism."
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-24/more-americans-are-ditching-religion-pew-study-says

People are actually pointing TO what is taught in secular science as their reason for leaving the Christian faith... you see, ideas of billions of years and evolution really do conflict with the word of God. These people are exchanging what is true for that which is not true. And so it bears repeating, God did not tell us billions of years or evolution, man did - God did not reveal the theory of evolution to man through nature as some new revelation, and I've already established that men like Darwin, Lamarck, and others before them devised evolutionary theory in the absence of scripture (see link on Darwin, for ex.)
Darwin on a Godless Creation: "It's like confessing to a murder"

By contrast, groups like ICR, CMI, AiG, and other YEC scientists are saying, "WHOA! Stop the show folks, there IS evidence supporting real scientific models based on a young earth and young universe, consistent with the word of God - don't go throwing your faith away just because secular science is telling you that you have no creator, you evolved over billions of years, and everything just spontaneously came into existence from a big bang billions of years ago without a creator God."

For the people that reject Christianity on the basis that YEC's say the Bible is true regarding our origin and that there is evidence that supports this view, what's their defense going to be when they stand before God and are judged? "Well God, I turned away from Christianity because some people were saying I could take you at your word regarding creation and that there was evidence supporting this, but this conflicted with what man told me was true about where I came from." I'd be really surprised if they could even finish the sentence before realizing that what they were giving was not a good excuse.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . For the people that reject Christianity on the basis that YEC's say the Bible is true regarding our origin and that there is evidence that supports this view, what's their defense going to be when they stand before God and are judged? "Well God, I turned away from Christianity because some people were saying I could take you at your word regarding creation and that there was evidence supporting this, but this conflicted with what man told me was true about where I came from." I'd be really surprised if they could even finish the sentence before realizing that what they were giving was not a good excuse.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

For people who reject the evidence of evolution and the truth of the great age of the earth, what is their defense going to be when they stand before God and are judged? "Well God, I turned away from reality because some people said that I had to believe only your Word in the Bible and could not accept evidence from your Creation, so I believed them . . ." I'd really be surprised if they could even finish the sentence before realizing that what they were giving was not a good excuse.

 

[NobleMouse]

For people who reject the evidence of evolution and the truth of the great age of the earth, what is their defense going to be when they stand before God and are judged? "Well God, I turned away from reality because some people said that I had to believe only your Word in the Bible and could not accept evidence from your Creation, so I believed them . . ." I'd really be surprised if they could even finish the sentence before realizing that what they were giving was not a good excuse.

God will never pour out wrath on someone for placing their trust in Jesus and holding faithfully to His word, believing all of it to be true and rejecting what secular, mostly non-bible believing scientists, have said to the contrary--you know that. Instead, they may hear "well done good and faithful servant." By what reasoning do you believe God would find fault in one of His children for believing every word in His book? Would He admonish them scornfully, calling them a fool for believing what He said? Really? See Matthew 18:3.

Perception is reality and as far as the origin of life goes, reality is formed on either the perception that God's word is true (God created man on day 6 as He says), or on the perception that man's unobserved theory (evolution) is true. I would argue the 'real' reality is as God defines it, not how man (re)defines it.

Paul, I'm not looking to score points here or to be 'right'. God is right and His word is true, and as an undeserving wretch I desire to be faithful to His word and continue to grow in my faith. With that in mind, in forums such as these with topics and ideas that bring God's word under question, I'm always going to have something to say on the matter. I feel our discussion has been very good - I've found it both enjoyable and challenging - making me research both scientific and theological sources before forming my responses to make sure I'm not just 'making things up' that neither creationist scientists or theologians support (and also making sure my arguments against secular science are believed by others than just myself).

We could certainly continue going back and forth, re-hashing the same arguments (me bringing up creationist research and scripture and you bringing up research by secular scientists), but I'm inclined to see if you want to just wrap things up here as I don't know if there would be much more value in it for either of us. What do you say brother?

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

God will never pour out wrath on someone for placing their trust in Jesus and holding faithfully to His word, believing all of it to be true and rejecting what secular, mostly non-bible believing scientists, have said to the contrary--you know that. Instead, they may hear "well done good and faithful servant." By what reasoning do you believe God would find fault in one of His children for believing every word in His book? Would He admonish them scornfully, calling them a fool for believing what He said? Really? See Matthew 18:3.

Perception is reality and as far as the origin of life goes, reality is formed on either the perception that God's word is true (God created man on day 6 as He says), or on the perception that man's unobserved theory (evolution) is true. I would argue the 'real' reality is as God defines it, not how man (re)defines it.

Paul, I'm not looking to score points here or to be 'right'. God is right and His word is true, and as an undeserving wretch I desire to be faithful to His word and continue to grow in my faith. With that in mind, in forums such as these with topics and ideas that bring God's word under question, I'm always going to have something to say on the matter. I feel our discussion has been very good - I've found it both enjoyable and challenging - making me research both scientific and theological sources before forming my responses to make sure I'm not just 'making things up' that neither creationist scientists or theologians support (and also making sure my arguments against secular science are believed by others than just myself).

We could certainly continue going back and forth, re-hashing the same arguments (me bringing up creationist research and scripture and you bringing up research by secular scientists), but I'm inclined to see if you want to just wrap things up here as I don't know if there would be much more value in it for either of us. What do you say brother?

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

That makes sense, we could easily continue back and forth forever, we both know that. If we were actually speaking, I'd have to use my strangely pathed laryngeal nerve to say it makes sense . . . that nerve trapped under a heart artery ever since our physical fishy ancestors set it up that way (it made sense at the time) . . . but I'm only typing, so that's not an issue here.

 

[NobleMouse]

That makes sense, we could easily continue back and forth forever, we both know that. If we were actually speaking, I'd have to use my strangely pathed laryngeal nerve to say it makes sense . . . that nerve trapped under a heart artery ever since our physical fishy ancestors set it up that way (it made sense at the time) . . . but I'm only typing, so that's not an issue here.

Good deal!
Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design | The Institute for Creation Research
Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[GBTG]

I am new here and excuse me if might be a little blunt... but man you guys get into the weeds!

Macro-evolution, no, not possible as is described in Genesis "after their kind", meaning speciation is set by God (who created genetics).

Micro-evolution very possible hence all the varieties within a species such as dogs; Chihuahua to Great Dane. (also what Darwin observed).

Darwinian evolution was not Darwin's intention nor idea.

“Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" -Charles Darwin

Regards, GBTG

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Good deal!
Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design | The Institute for Creation Research
Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

All kinds of nonsense are posted in that reference. For example:

"Blechschmidt notes that "no organ could exist that is functionless during its development," an axiom that also applies to the nervous system.1" Apparently Blechschmidt is unaware of the female uterus present in developing baby girls.

"Of note is the fact that the longer left RLN works in perfect harmony with the right laryngeal nerve, disproving the faulty design claim." As if the ability to compensate for the varying lengths somehow proves design instead of evolution.

'Other cases exist of one nerve splitting off early and providing direct innervations, and another taking what seems like a circuitous route. One example is the phrenic nerve that arises in the neck and descends to connect to the diaphragm. This is a necessary path, since the pericardium and diaphragm arise in the septum transversum (a thick mass of tissue that gives rise to parts of the thoracic diaphragm and the ventral mesentery of the foregut) in the neck area of the early embryo."

As if other examples of evolved instead of created paths cannot exist.

That's how creationist never see evidence for evolution. They just keep saying it isn't there, even though its right there in plain sight.

 

[NobleMouse]

All kinds of nonsense are posted in that reference. For example:

"Blechschmidt notes that "no organ could exist that is functionless during its development," an axiom that also applies to the nervous system.1" Apparently Blechschmidt is unaware of the female uterus present in developing baby girls.

"Of note is the fact that the longer left RLN works in perfect harmony with the right laryngeal nerve, disproving the faulty design claim." As if the ability to compensate for the varying lengths somehow proves design instead of evolution.

'Other cases exist of one nerve splitting off early and providing direct innervations, and another taking what seems like a circuitous route. One example is the phrenic nerve that arises in the neck and descends to connect to the diaphragm. This is a necessary path, since the pericardium and diaphragm arise in the septum transversum (a thick mass of tissue that gives rise to parts of the thoracic diaphragm and the ventral mesentery of the foregut) in the neck area of the early embryo."

As if other examples of evolved instead of created paths cannot exist.

That's how creationist never see evidence for evolution. They just keep saying it isn't there, even though its right there in plain sight.

Meh, the sentiment is the same towards evolutionary theories that have never been observed. Here's an experiment: Prove that 2 + 2 =4.

Step 1. Hold out your left hand with your middle and index fingers extended.
Step 2: Hold out your right hand with your middle and index fingers extended.
Step 3: Count sequentially from left to right - 1, 2... 3, and 4. Proof that 2 +2 = 4

Next experiment: Prove that single-celled organisms became humans with the same type of observable evidence. Maybe someone will have an answer... in a couple billion years. This will be my last post in this specific thread.

"Reepicheep"

 

[JDD_III]

Unfortunately, this poll was doomed from the start I am afraid to say, despite good intentions!

It allows for the strawman low-hanging-fruit rebuttal that "evolution is a proven fact."

In other words, you need to define what you mean by evolution (as 1-2 others have alluded to but this has not really formed a dominant part of the discussion).

This thread also suffers from another number of strawmen/misnomer arguments, such as, you cannot operate in science outside of the paradigm of evolution (false, many do, and do very well) and that everyone who rejects "evolution" (needs defining) is a religious creationist and/or there are only 2 options and/or no self-respecting scientist rejects mainstream "evolution".

I also do not think that the "lie" is per se a lie around the observable evidence but rather the general suppression of alternative interpretations or other evidence. A good example is given in Meyer's book "Darwin's Doubt" about the irrational suppressive and bullying behavior that ensued from publishing of particular articles that challenged the mainstream view on this. This is quite different to other realms of modern science, and is not surprising given the world-view implications of one particular interpretation of the evidence vs another.

Some other points for me to ramble on about:

- The laryngeal nerve is a low-blow, especially the way this was written above in response to quite a gracious statement. To me, it highlights the arrogance of man in today's society, especially with ref to science and in particular in ref to origins of man. It is pure arrogance as it assumes we are in a position to understand the intent of a potential design, and because we cannot understand or make sense of a feature of the design therefore we reject the possibility of design. Yet science is not in a position of all-knowing. There are many examples of this approach failing. Take the eye - long taught and scoffed at by evo biologists like Dawkins that no designer in their right mind would design something like that...until a few years ago when it was determined the way the cells sat and the position of the optic nerve were in fact near perfect for its function and completely optimal in its structure to focus light with as little loss of vision as possible. Cue the evo's like Dawkins now saying "how great evolution is, to get to an optimal structure over millions of years!". Tails you win Heads I lose. There are plenty of other examples where "bad design" has now been shown to be highly optimal. Just because something looks "bad" from a design perspective now assumes we understand how the structure works in concert with everything else. And let's be honest, when it comes to development we still have a lot to be learned. oh and by the way, what if God wanted to design this nerve exactly like this to achieve his purpose of humbling the intellect of man and man's pride in the day of his revealing and judgement? As already mentioned, please see Job - who is the clay to tell the potter you are doing it wrong?

- My ref to either accepting creation vs evo - see "the third way of evolution" and the growing list of scientific affiliates: List of scientists who think that a fresh look at evolution is needed | The Third Way of Evolution

- The idea that YEC's hold to their views on creation purely due to Genesis is a fallacy. The whole premise of the Christian faith is in opposition to the premise of evolution. Evolution requires death and disease (mutation - of which far, far more are deleterious than beneficial); Christianity teaches "death entered the world through the sin of one man" and that is juxtaposed to what Christ has done (through His singular death, life has come). The Bible is quite clear that death and disease did not exist prior to the Fall. That is the whole point of restoration. It is not simply due to a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Gen - the whole salvation account relies on God's creation falling due to man's disobedience. This is a huge challenge to overcome if death was the mechanism for God's creation.

- Trying to perform science on a miracle. As already alluded to in this thread; how would a scientist know that Lazarus was raised from the dead? How would his previously decomposed parts look, at the cellular level? How from that could you determined they were ex nihilo created? What about 20,000+ loaves of bread and fish? If a scientist had taken these away to examine, after they were ex nihilo created (which the Bible claimed they were - you cannot get that much food from 5 loaves and 2 fish, there had to be ex nihilo creation involved), how could they determine with the scientific method that these were created ex nihilo? Likewise, creation was one massive miracle, according to the Bible (formed out of nothing, from God's command). Science will never come to the conclusion that this was the case (not least because the modern scientific method relies on the a priori assumption of naturalism) so are we really surprised when the observed around us doesn't look exactly like "creation" in our simple minds should look? Which is why God revealed in His Word....

- Assuming Adam & Eve and creation as we see it now were similar pre-Fall. This one is not talked about much in these debates, and I would not want to be dogmatic in it, but I suspect that our future physical bodies (Christians) will be much more like the Adamic pre-fall body. I do not think it was just a case of his mind being unaware of nakedness etc, but I believe it was quite different. But it was a physical body. We see this with the resurrected Christ. He had a physical body, with physical marks, could eat physical food and interact with the physical world yet could also walk through walls, appear and disappear in places. I think our bodies will be the same, and maybe Adam & Eve's original was different still. Trying to "wind back the clock" and say this is how Adam was on creation therefore is a bit futile, potentially. I also believe the curse would have had a greater effect initially in the winding down (genetic entropy if you like). I also suspect pathogens like viruses derived from existing mammalian or similar genomes that budded off. I think we have ERVs the wrong way around, as an example. Again, wouldn't want to be dogmatic on this but when you look at things through a different lens, it opens up other possibilities that can fit the evidence and maintain God's Word.

- The unscientific nature of origins in today's modern science. Lastly, I think it is useful to remind ourselves of the hypocrisy that evolution and other "origins science" brings to the table. There is literally no evidence to counter such engrained theories of life. Like I said earlier, when the eye is found to be of an optimal design, evolution did it. When we see "junk DNA" - it is evolution. When remnant DNA from old ancestors are no longer there, evolution cleared this out as it was a waste to continually copy these genes...(!). When function is found for junk DNA, exactly what we expect from efficient evolution. When the eye independently evolves something like 26 times, convergent evolution. Then you get the really lazy science. For example, why did giraffes develop long necks? To reach food up high. That is not science. That is just-so story-telling. There is no evidence for such an interpretation - and begs the question the massive physical strain to have such a long neck on the animal makes you wonder why if other animals existed fine without a tall neck, how did that get selected for - yet they are pervasive. And noone likes to stand up and say, "hang on a second, thats not scientific. that is speculation at best and we have no idea why giraffes evolved" because that calls into question their arguments. You also see this with origins of the universe. Chances of this universe existing by chance based on fundamental properties necessary for its existence following the big band - something like 10 to the power of (10 to the power of 123). Infinitesimally small. Therefore, there must have been near infinite universes from some magical universe generator to avoid Occam's razor and not infer a designer. Yet whenever you invoke a God it is "fairy tale" as there is "no evidence" (which interestingly shows people who use such an argument do not even understand what the word evidence means)...one rule for one...

 

[stevevw]

Should Evolution Be Taken Seriously By Christians?
My Opinion Is No! What Say You?​

I agree that Darwins evolutionary theory or what is now the Neo-Darwinian modern synthesis in not necessarily a lie but a hypothesis that is gradually being shown to be incorrect. It is part of the age of scientific materialism which has formed a particular worldview about how life and existence came about and exists. As time goes by and we make new discoveries things will change just like other ideas have changed. Evolution has already changed with the modern synthesis and it will change again which is happening now. If we look back in history we can see that there have been a lot of ideas that have been proven wrong.

The only problem is from a believers point of view who believes that a creator or intelligent agent is involved in how life came about and exists is that one scientific idea that was proven wrong will end up being replaced by another that will probably be proven wrong again because they are not considering Gods part in the scheme of things and are restricting the possibilities. That is only natural because science does not include the supernatural. The interesting thing is though how new discoveries are pointing to design in nature and existence but the scientific sector is trying to attribute that design capability to naturalistic causes which can take some explaining and almost as much belief.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Unfortunately, this poll was doomed from the start I am afraid to say, despite good intentions!

It allows for the strawman low-hanging-fruit rebuttal that "evolution is a proven fact."

Well, yes it is, as well proven as things get proven in court to allow us to condemn criminals to prison.

In other words, you need to define what you mean by evolution (as 1-2 others have alluded to but this has not really formed a dominant part of the discussion).

Common descent of all life as a consequence of innumerable changes from first life will do as a definition.

This thread also suffers from another number of strawmen/misnomer arguments, such as, you cannot operate in science outside of the paradigm of evolution (false, many do, and do very well) and that everyone who rejects "evolution" (needs defining) is a religious creationist and/or there are only 2 options and/or no self-respecting scientist rejects mainstream "evolution".

"self respecting" is not the criterion that matters here. Who rejects evolution is not the concern here.

I also do not think that the "lie" is per se a lie around the observable evidence but rather the general suppression of alternative interpretations or other evidence. A good example is given in Meyer's book "Darwin's Doubt" about the irrational suppressive and bullying behavior that ensued from publishing of particular articles that challenged the mainstream view on this. This is quite different to other realms of modern science, and is not surprising given the world-view implications of one particular interpretation of the evidence vs another.

Griping because your ideas are not accepted is not enough to get your ideas accepted. It takes evidence. Like what Darwin brought to the table.

- The laryngeal nerve is a low-blow, especially the way this was written above in response to quite a gracious statement. To me, it highlights the arrogance of man in today's society, especially with ref to science and in particular in ref to origins of man. It is pure arrogance as it assumes we are in a position to understand the intent of a potential design, and because we cannot understand or make sense of a feature of the design therefore we reject the possibility of design. Yet science is not in a position of all-knowing.

Your position is now that no matter what the evidence, we just don't understand it unless it agrees with your position. I'm not going to accept that.

There are many examples of this approach failing. Take the eye - long taught and scoffed at by evo biologists like Dawkins that no designer in their right mind would design something like that...until a few years ago when it was determined the way the cells sat and the position of the optic nerve were in fact near perfect for its function and completely optimal in its structure to focus light with as little loss of vision as possible.

??? Sure, backwards facing receptor cells are optimal? Well, we'll have to feel sorry for the poor squids and octopi, they have receptor cells facing forward. If one is actually better than the other, then one was designed suboptimally. But if they evolved, no one is on the hook for designing suboptimal optics.

Cue the evo's like Dawkins now saying "how great evolution is, to get to an optimal structure over millions of years!". Tails you win Heads I lose. There are plenty of other examples where "bad design" has now been shown to be highly optimal.

It is true that evolution explains a lot of things with just one great concept. That is the hallmark of great scientific theories.

Just because something looks "bad" from a design perspective now assumes we understand how the structure works in concert with everything else. And let's be honest, when it comes to development we still have a lot to be learned. oh and by the way, what if God wanted to design this nerve exactly like this to achieve his purpose of humbling the intellect of man and man's pride in the day of his revealing and judgement? As already mentioned, please see Job - who is the clay to tell the potter you are doing it wrong?

Indeed, you continuing rejection of what God really did, which we are able to figure out based on the clues God left us in the stars, the rocks and the genomes, is not going to go well with you before Him on judgement day. But God is merciful. Your telling the Potter He did it wrong can be forgiven.

- The idea that YEC's hold to their views on creation purely due to Genesis is a fallacy. The whole premise of the Christian faith is in opposition to the premise of evolution. Evolution requires death and disease (mutation - of which far, far more are deleterious than beneficial); Christianity teaches "death entered the world through the sin of one man" and that is juxtaposed to what Christ has done (through His singular death, life has come). The Bible is quite clear that death and disease did not exist prior to the Fall. That is the whole point of restoration. It is not simply due to a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Gen - the whole salvation account relies on God's creation falling due to man's disobedience. This is a huge challenge to overcome if death was the mechanism for God's creation.

Adam, the first ensouled man, had a chance to escape death. Death came to humanity because of Adam. But of course dinosaurs killed things millions of years before there were people.

- Trying to perform science on a miracle. As already alluded to in this thread; how would a scientist know that Lazarus was raised from the dead? How would his previously decomposed parts look, at the cellular level? How from that could you determined they were ex nihilo created? What about 20,000+ loaves of bread and fish? If a scientist had taken these away to examine, after they were ex nihilo created (which the Bible claimed they were - you cannot get that much food from 5 loaves and 2 fish, there had to be ex nihilo creation involved), how could they determine with the scientific method that these were created ex nihilo? Likewise, creation was one massive miracle, according to the Bible (formed out of nothing, from God's command). Science will never come to the conclusion that this was the case (not least because the modern scientific method relies on the a priori assumption of naturalism) so are we really surprised when the observed around us doesn't look exactly like "creation" in our simple minds should look? Which is why God revealed in His Word....

You are rambling instead of reasoning.

For example, why did giraffes develop long necks? To reach food up high. That is not science. That is just-so story-telling. There is no evidence for such an interpretation - . . . ..

Well, it certainly seems to work for the giraffes.

 

[Job 33:6]

I agree that Darwins evolutionary theory or what is now the Neo-Darwinian modern synthesis in not necessarily a lie but a hypothesis that is gradually being shown to be incorrect. It is part of the age of scientific materialism which has formed a particular worldview about how life and existence came about and exists. As time goes by and we make new discoveries things will change just like other ideas have changed. Evolution has already changed with the modern synthesis and it will change again which is happening now. If we look back in history we can see that there have been a lot of ideas that have been proven wrong.

The only problem is from a believers point of view who believes that a creator or intelligent agent is involved in how life came about and exists is that one scientific idea that was proven wrong will end up being replaced by another that will probably be proven wrong again because they are not considering Gods part in the scheme of things and are restricting the possibilities. That is only natural because science does not include the supernatural. The interesting thing is though how new discoveries are pointing to design in nature and existence but the scientific sector is trying to attribute that design capability to naturalistic causes which can take some explaining and almost as much belief.

You challenge Darwinian gradualism, but not evolution or on descent. You position is more like Michael behe, rather than someone like a...ken ham. But you do not appear to clarify on that in your posts, nor do you elaborate on what it means for your views of Evolution of life at large.

 

[JDD_III]

Well, yes it is, as well proven as things get proven in court to allow us to condemn criminals to prison.

No, incorrect. Those evidences are based on learned information from observations. Noone has observed the emergence of new, complex biochemical pathways or new protein folds produced at giving rise to novel and unrelated specificities due to random processes.

Common descent of all life as a consequence of innumerable changes from first life will do as a definition.

In answer to that definition then, this is an extrapolation and not observations that are like for like (and other explanations are available)

"self respecting" is not the criterion that matters here. Who rejects evolution is not the concern here.

Read the responses. People here are defending evolution (UCD) based on the "fact" that you cannot perform good science if you do not subscribe to it, thus inferring this is a necessary criterion. Given you are so easily accepting of inferences, I am surprised you were unable to make this one.

Griping because your ideas are not accepted is not enough to get your ideas accepted. It takes evidence. Like what Darwin brought to the table.

This is not a scientific discussion - it is a theological one. Science cannot answer all questions. You speak from human wisdom alone with such an argument. If you want that to be the sole criterion for consideration, you are better off going to a scientific forum.

Your position is now that no matter what the evidence, we just don't understand it unless it agrees with your position. I'm not going to accept that.

I'm not asking you to accept my position. My beliefs and faith do not rest on other humans acceptance. Neither does my belief fade or decrease due to lack of human acceptance.

Secondly, it is not my position. It is the position of Jesus and of God's revealed Word.

??? Sure, backwards facing receptor cells are optimal? Well, we'll have to feel sorry for the poor squids and octopi, they have receptor cells facing forward. If one is actually better than the other, then one was designed suboptimally. But if they evolved, no one is on the hook for designing suboptimal optics.

Now you are arguing with science. And from ignorance.

Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision

You do realise that squids and octopi have different needs for vision and live in different environments to humans. Of course you do. You are being obtuse.

It is true that evolution explains a lot of things with just one great concept. That is the hallmark of great scientific theories.

"A theory that explains everything is a theory that explains nothing." (- a quote from one of the most respected 20th century scientific philosophers)

PS - before you say it - God is not a "scientific theory"

Indeed, you continuing rejection of what God really did, which we are able to figure out based on the clues God left us in the stars, the rocks and the genomes, is not going to go well with you before Him on judgement day. But God is merciful. Your telling the Potter He did it wrong can be forgiven.

I am thankful for God's forgiveness of my innumerable sin and His love for me in providing a sacrifice for my sin for which I could never offer anything good and of myself to make amends or have peace with Him, except through Jesus.

I also thank God for His infallible and true Word, for His wisdom that is infinitely beyond anything man can think or dream of.

Adam, the first ensouled man, had a chance to escape death. Death came to humanity because of Adam. But of course dinosaurs killed things millions of years before there were people.

None of which is found within the Bible.

You are rambling instead of reasoning.

The foolishness of God is wiser than all of the wisdom of man.

Well, it certainly seems to work for the giraffes.

It certainly does. What amazing design!

 

[stevevw]

You challenge Darwinian gradualism, but not evolution or on descent. You position is more like Michael behe, rather than someone like a...ken ham. But you do not appear to clarify on that in your posts, nor do you elaborate on what it means for your views of Evolution of life at large.

That's because I do not have a position because I do not know and cannot be sure about what and how things happened in the past and because things are continually changing in the present. I have not said I support any form of evolution in so far as there was a universal common ancestor and all life has gradually morphed from that. I just do not know and the evidence is not clear enough. I may take some aspects of different ideas from others but I do not necessarily go along with their entire theory or idea about how things happen. I do not think we can totally disregard any of the ideas and all have some merit and I do not think we can claim anything is definite. All I know is the evidence seems to point to some design or at least some common natural laws involved in how life came about and evolved and there are many mechanisms in which life uses to change.

Darwin's ideas were all the rage to begin with but then they were questioned because people began to see that the concept did not cover everything that was being seen such as with Mendels ideas with genetics so the new synthesis was formulated around the early part of the 1900s with Neo-Darwinism. Now it is being challenged again with what is being called an extended synthesis. Some are even saying that Neo-Dawinism is wrong as far as the main driving force for evolution or change in living things and there are other mechanisms more responsible which I tend to agree with based on the evidence. We have a more complete understanding today and Darwin and others nearly 100 years ago did not so we are in a better position to know.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

One thing people often dont realise is that Darwin was funded by people who wanted an excuse for keeping the slave trade. He is usually referred to as being funded by the scientific community, but what they dont say is a lot of the money came from the slave trade and one of the criteria he was given was to produce scientific evidence that would "prove" that the Africans, etc in the save trade were lower than white people and it was therefore akin to using animals for work. The very route of the theory of evolution is evil.

I believe that God formed the earth and everything in it, but what I dont know is how. I tend to go with the creating animals as they are now but it is possible He created them through a slow process that the world sees as evolution.

What is important is that we agree that God caused it, however He did it.

 

[NobleMouse]

That's because I do not have a position because I do not know and cannot be sure about what and how things happened in the past and because things are continually changing in the present.

Hi Steve, I really like your statement here because it shows that from observation and study, we really do not know and cannot be sure about what and how things happened in the past, and as you pointed out, things are continuing to change here in the present. The key is: we were not here in the past - in fact, none of us were here just 100 years ago. That said, we do have good records from 100 years ago so when questions come about as to what life was like then, it is very reasonable that we can accurately make this determination. What about 2,000 or 5,000 years ago? Well, there were still written records of events and people - 2,000 years was about the time of 4 gospels of Jesus were written on the life of Jesus, including the miracles He performed and we trust these. Not nearly as much is found beyond 5,000 years; however, the written record is again where we turn to give us a picture of people and events from this time.

We don't have a written record dated from the very beginning; however, we do have a written record of the beginning (Bible). A question each of us has to wrestle with is: Is this record from man written by man, or is it from God written by man? I say it is the latter. After all, if we cannot trust the word of God regarding our beginning, why do we place so much trust in what He has to say regarding our ending (physical death, but raised to new and eternal life in Jesus Christ - which we are saved by grace through faith in Him and it is through Him and Him alone in which we are saved). I ask rhetorically, "Any takers in this forum who want to debate the truth of God's word on the topic of spending eternity with Him in heaven?" I also ask, "Any scientific evidence that this is what actually will happen when we die (unless raptured first)?" I suspect the answer to both is "no." If I had to guess, I think most OEC's and theistic evolution proponents would agree with the Bible unless they feel 'evidence' shows to the contrary. Seems to be a rather low view of scripture and a small view of God to accept one's interpretation of evidence over His word. It also shows a logical contradiction in the sense that when people die, "evidence" shows they cease to live - it's the end, yet these same OEC's and theistic evolutionists will (as they often call out against their YEC brothers and sisters) "ignore the glaring evidence", "the fact" that death is the end and this "incredulity" is simply because it "stands in opposition to their position of what they want to believe." Looking at the number of messages on your profile, I'm sure you've been around the forum long enough to be quite familiar with the words I've quoted and have seen them used many times in these debates in favor of long ages and evolution.

The Bible is clear on creation - I (and other YEC's) believe in a 6-day creation and ~6k years after that because this is what we're given in His word. Without getting into scripture (though am happy to quote verses to support this view), let's just stop and think about the nature of God and His relationship to us. Without question, we (people) are God's crowning creation - made in His image and His likeness. Absolutely nothing else within creation is at par with 'man.' God does not desire to have a relationship with anything other than 'man'. In fact, God sent His only son to die on a cross, to become sin, so that we could have His righteousness (as is demanded by a perfect and holy God). His love, mercy, forgiveness, and grace towards us is without measure and we were bought with a price that can never be repaid. God loves us so much, and in the creation account we read we were created on day 6 after God had lovingly spoken all things into place for the purposes He has for us. Does it not then seem strange then that God, would have instead waited ~13.8B years before creating man somewhere in this creation account? Doing what? Does it not seem strange that He would rather have spent hundreds of millions of years instead just watching dinosaurs eating each other? Does it not seem strange that the God who lovingly made us fearfully and wonderfully as we're told, that He instead had very little involvement and just let us come about by chance... just the happenstance of genetic mutations and natural selection over millions of years? These are just a few of the major theological difficulties that OEC's and theistic evolutionists have to overcome with when painting a picture of a rather uninvolved, distant, and seemingly disinterested God. This does not at all sound like the God who sent His only son to die for you and me, it does not at all sound like the God who is interested in the salvation of our souls, the condition of our heart, our love for our neighbor, our willingness to forgive one another as we have been forgiven, to love our wives as Christ loved the Church, etc... The nature of God is unchanging, and so it cannot be that we have a God like the one portrayed by an OEC/evolutionary view, because every word of scripture tells us He loves us, He is with us, He sent His only son to die for us, He indwells those who have accepted Christ, He is very intimately interested in - He has numbered our days and the hairs on our heads. God says He created us on day 6 (formed from the dust of the ground and breathed into our nostrils) and that a day was a day, not billions of years. There's no creating man from dust, if some primitive man already existed and was already experiencing death before sin.

Just some things worth pondering.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"