w81minit said:
So you are saying that the explanation of biodiversity based on observation of the changes directed by happenstance is not unpredictable? If the force that directs the change is unpredictable how can the change have been predictable?
I am not precisely sure of the meaning of your terms here e.g. "force that directs the change".
What I am saying is that history (both natural and human) consists of events in time. We do not know (though God may) what those events will be, unless we learn enough about the patterns of nature and of human behaviour to predict them. So, long ago, before observation led us to understanding the planetary cycles, we were unable to predict an eclipse and it was a mysterious and frightening event. It was often interpreted as a demonic attack on the sun or moon. But eventually we learned the natural cause of these events and learned to predict them.
In some cases, although we know the natural causes of an event, the complexity of forces leading up to the event makes them more or less unpredictable e.g. volcanoes, earthquakes. Human-caused events are sometimes fairly predictable (how an election will turn out) and sometimes not. Some events, both human and natural are statistically predictable, but not individually predictable. Insurance companies can predict within decimal points how much they will likely have to spend on compensating their clients for damage received in automobile accidents, but they cannot predict that you will be one of the clients making a claim this month.
Now what we know from geology is that the earth has gone through many natural events from ice ages to meteor impacts, to movements of tectonic plates, to mountain building, etc. which had immense impacts on the environment and the creatures living in those environments. And also through many periods of environmental stability with only minor changes. From the perspective of the creatures living at any one time, these events were unpredictable, and could not be planned for. The specific response of a specific species to a specific event cannot be predicted, just as a specific human error leading to a specific automobile accident with specific damage cannot be predicted.
However, just as insurance companies can be prepared financially to meet the contigencies of unpredictable specific accidents, creatures can be provided with a capability to respond to specific environmental/ecological changes in spite of not being able to predict what those changes will be or what specific response will be needed. That capacity is the ability to evolve.
Also, the environment is unpredictable, how can the adaptation most certainly lead to a better fit?
That is a necessary consequence of natural selection. It always leads to a better fit to the current environment. When you understand natural selection you will see why this must be so.
As a percentage how many species are extinct?
About 99%. There have been episodes of extreme environmental stress in earth's history which have destoyed over 90% of all species then alive. The living species of today are descendants of the 10% who survived. This again shows the power of evolution to rebuild an ecosystem after such times of destruction. A sort of natural equivalent to the remnant of the nation of Israel which returned to Judea after the Babylonian captivity and kept the nation and the covenant alive.
I would agree they may be temporarily better, but what of recessive traits? Once altered, the ability to return to the former state remains.
This is a puzzling question. What do you understand a recessive trait to be? How do you think it intersects with natural selection and evolution? (Remember it is a term based in genetic studies that were not correlated at the time with evolution.)
It is not always true that the ability to return to an earlier state remains.
I think these questions again reflect ignorance of the way natural selection works. It seems to be one of the most common gaps in creationist understanding of evolution.
If you can provide more detail on your current understanding, perhaps I can provide a more satisfactory answer to these questions.
The argument made was that God is lying to us because he has made it appear that the Earth is old if indeed it is not. I am indicating that if Earth (which I beleive it does) demonstrates God's character it would not be based on chance.
Why not? Now I agree that creation must reflect the character of the Creator. I am disagreeing with the conclusion that this excludes chance.
Since God made time, God made the possibility of history, and history necessarily consists of events which are not predictable to those living in the flow of history. This is irrespective of whether one considers the possibility of evolution.
Chance (from a human perspective) is part of the fabric of life and history. As Pascal once said "Had Cleopatra's nose been a fraction of an inch longer, the whole history of Europe would have been different."
One of the fundamental Judaeo-Christian-Muslim beliefs (and one that distinguishes this family of faiths from many others) is that history is real. Many faiths see history as a mere froth on a more fundamental reality which is the ever recurring cycle of time. Today once was in a former age and will be again in another. (See a modern version of this in the popular "Wheel of Time" series of fantasy novels by Robert Jordan.)
Christianity take history seriously as an irreversible sequence of events, and believes that God takes history seriously. Our God is a God who acts in history to change the flow of history.
This implies that history is open and could be different. Unpredictable things can have impacts on history. We are never slaves to the past or to a pre-determined course of events. If this were not so, even God could not act to change history from a pre-determined course.
Evolution simply says that what we take for granted in human history applies to the immense natural history that preceded human existence as well. Theistic evolutionists would add that God can act in that natural history to change its flow just as scripture assures us that God acts in human history to change its flow.
Since we believe history is real, and we believe God created time's arrow to generate the possibility of real history, we must believe it coincides with God's character and purpose for the inevitable chances of history to exist.
And I think that derives directly from the doctrine of creation. For what is creation but the opening up of possibilities which did not previously exist? A historical process open to chance is one that opens up possibilities which did not previously exist. Unlike the recurring cycle, history is creative, always pregnant with novelty, new possibilities. And so is evolution. Is this not in character with the God who proclaims "Behold, I make all things new!" ?
Are you saying that God demonstrates his love for us through evolution? Is evolution a gift of God to us? I apologize, but in my view if we all came from a common ancestor, then what makes me sentient? What makes me husbandman to the Earth? How is it that all is under Man's dominion? I can't have dominion over my cousin the chimp. He would be my brother. Instead I might need to figure out how to share the gospel with him.
Not being facetious. I am stating what I see as a problem.
I don't see what the problem is. Why would common ancestry prevent you from becoming sentient or being gifted with sentience when God wills it? It is God who makes you husbandman to the Earth. How would being a product of evolution change the fact of God's calling? All is under our dominion by God's will and command. How does evolution change that?
Why could you not have dominion over your cousin the chimp? When a monarch dies, does not his eldest child become king/queen and exercise dominion over his/her younger siblings? When someone is elected president does s/he not exercise dominion over his/her fellow citizens?
As for sharing the gospel (in appropriate form) with the chimp and other creatures, we
are called to that. Is that not why "creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God"? Romans 8:19 One of the consequences of human salvation is the restoration of the created order of harmony between creation and the creature who has been given dominion over creation. Acting for the restoration of human/nature harmony is a way of sharing the gospel with our non-human relatives.
