Theological Problems of Creationism

[UnderHisWings1979]

Depends on what you mean by that. They certainly could be, just as Sarah and Hagar were in Paul's letter and Melchizedek is in the letter to the Hebrews. Wouldn't mean they were fictional.

Anything can be a metaphor and also be real. Ultimately almost all metaphors go back to some reality.

No, there isn't. "Type" is a form of metaphor.

This is a matter of symantecs. Perhaps my terminology is wrong, but the point remains sound. What I was trying to say is that some metaphors use actual people, events, etc to describe a point, while others use fictional stories. Jesus used the latter in His parables. But He also explicitly stated that He was speaking in parables.

So you are not opposed to all metaphor in scripture. But I don't see that the comparison is nonsense.

I explain this in a little more depth in my previous post directly above, but basically it is the context within which we are placing the metaphor. People speak in metaphors, write poetry in metaphors. Nobody writes history books in metaphors. That is why I think it is an invalid comparison.

OTOH, if it was originally meant to be metaphor then literalizing it is not reading it "as told". In that case it is the literal reading which makes it false.

I agree. The disagreement comes in the original intent of the passage.

Either way, however, creation is real, and the creation account tells us important truths about creation and especially about the Creator.

Agreed, also.

No? Are you also equating "fiction" with "false"? Fiction is often a great way to teach truth, as Jesus did so often in his parables.

Only false in the sense that the events described therein did not actually occur, not in the sense that truths behind the events are also false. Again, this is getting, in my opinion, to the difference between historical accounts and stories. Genesis is written as a historical account and should then be read from that context.

Unfortunately hurtful things do get said on both sides. We do need to remember that we are all sincere in our beliefs, and even if we are mistaken, we should at least not attribute unChristian motives to our conversational adversaries, but accept that each is defending their own beliefs in good faith.

Absolutely, and again, I apologize if I have been guilty of this.

Currently, in biology, evolution is the null hypothesis. And actually testing out a theory requires that one tentatively assume it is true, so you have it backwards about when you say research should be done from the assumption one is wrong. One assumes it is true in order to determine how to show that it is wrong. Nearly every hypothesis is in the form of "If A is true, then B must also be true." Then one tests to see if B is or is not true. If it is not, we know that A cannot be true either.

Doing research from a null hypothesis means that your testing procedures and data analysis must assume it to be wrong. Obviously the researcher would not be doing the research if he didn't think he was right. This is similar to a court case. The defendant is presumed innocent, even though everyone thinks they are guilty. If no one thought they were guilty, they wouldn't be in court. For instance, I am currently doing research with fruit flies. It's fairly simple research, but we approach it from the angle that we are assumed wrong until proven right. Therefore, the statistical analysis of our data must remove all doubt for us to affirm the hypothesis. Otherwise, it is assumed wrong. This simply is not the case in evolutionary research. All you have to do is read a few journal articles from Nature to see the difference.

There are actual, observable differences in the way homologies and analogies form. In homologies, one can find that the homologous feature originates from the same part of the very early embryo and is governed by the expression of the same genes, even though the final form and function may be quite different. This is not the case with analogous features, which often have a different mode of development in spite of the similarity of the final form and function. So, for example, in birds, the development of the forearm includes the fusing of the digits, while in the bat, it includes the elongation of the digits on which the wing is stretched for support.

This is a particularly interesting case, for the forearm itself is homologous (same bones in modified form) while the wing is analogous (different structural form and development for the same function).

Again, I do understand the distinction. I just think that intelligent design is a better explanation.

 

[gluadys]

I do understand your point. I think it is you who is failing to understand mine. There is a huge difference between the parables of Christ, or books of poetry, and historical accounts. If I pick up a book of poetry, I can talk all I want about what the author meant when referring to this that or the author. One does not apply the same sort of interpretive license to a book on American history, for instance.

The problem is that a typical book on American history is written within a modern paradigm of what history is and how one ought to tell it. Writer and reader are operating on the same interpretive basis. We cannot assume this in the case of the biblical authors.

It's not a question of the Bible teaching us science. I absolutely do not think that the Bible is trying to teach us science. I do, however, think that the entirety of scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. And I do not think that the Holy Spirit would make mistakes in what He includes in scripture.

I don't think anyone is saying the Holy Spirit makes mistakes. We, however, can mistake the meaning of inspired scripture and the intentions of the biblical author.

The phylogenetic system classifies species based upon their genetic lineage, and there are pretty significant differences.

Yet in many cases it is more a matter of terminology than a change in phylogeny. It is rather like changing the definition of planet such that the new definition excludes Pluto. Under the morphological system, one might argue for continuing to classify birds separately from dinosaurs, while the phylogenetic system classifies birds as dinosaurs. But the defenders of the morphological classification are not disputing that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The basic phylogeny has not changed, just the way it is handled taxonomically.

Absolutely. Scientifically, and logically, I have no problem with this concept. I just have a problem with the idea that God used evolution to create the universe over billions of years, but then chose to tell us a different story. Creation is not Santa Claus.

But then I would hold that God did not tell us a different story. We have only misunderstood the biblical story as history/science when it is not.

 

[UnderHisWings1979]

The problem is that a typical book on American history is written within a modern paradigm of what history is and how one ought to tell it. Writer and reader are operating on the same interpretive basis. We cannot assume this in the case of the biblical authors.

It's a sound point, but I still disagree on its application. A change in paradigm may change the significance of certain places or people (such as comparing something to another event which would have been significant to them but would mean nothing to us now), etc, but would never change the facts of the account.

I don't think anyone is saying the Holy Spirit makes mistakes. We, however, can mistake the meaning of inspired scripture and the intentions of the biblical author.

It all boils down to our disagreement about the interpretation of Genesis as an historical account.

Yet in many cases it is more a matter of terminology than a change in phylogeny. It is rather like changing the definition of planet such that the new definition excludes Pluto. Under the morphological system, one might argue for continuing to classify birds separately from dinosaurs, while the phylogenetic system classifies birds as dinosaurs. But the defenders of the morphological classification are not disputing that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The basic phylogeny has not changed, just the way it is handled taxonomically.

There are some more significant differences than that, but I can't recite them. I will try to find a few. I do know that there are some species who have been shown phylogenetically to have different origins than originally thought based on morphological comparisons. Another example is Protista, which was once thought to be an early predecessor to plants, and is now out on its own because no one can figure out where they come from. Most evolutionary biologists recognize that there are least two unique, separate, origins for protists, but they differ on where to split and how many splits to make, so they've just left it alone for now.

But then I would hold that God did not tell us a different story. We have only misunderstood the biblical story as history/science when it is not.

This is exactly like me telling a child that he/she just misunderstood Santa Claus as history when that is not what we were telling them. I do not for a moment believe that God would do that, just as I do not believe that it is wise for parents to tell their children Santa is real. But that's for a different thread in a different forum.

 

[gluadys]

This is a matter of symantecs. Perhaps my terminology is wrong, but the point remains sound. What I was trying to say is that some metaphors use actual people, events, etc to describe a point, while others use fictional stories. Jesus used the latter in His parables. But He also explicitly stated that He was speaking in parables.

Not really. In most cases, it is the evangelist, not Jesus, who says he is speaking in parables, and the evangelist does not always tell us that either. For example, Luke does not tell us that the story of the Good Samaritan is a parable, but almost no one interprets it as anything else.

I explain this in a little more depth in my previous post directly above, but basically it is the context within which we are placing the metaphor. People speak in metaphors, write poetry in metaphors. Nobody writes history books in metaphors. That is why I think it is an invalid comparison.

Sure they do. American history was once commonly written as a parable of Manifest Destiny. Most European historians of the Victorian age wrote history as a parable of progress culminating in the marvels of European civilization which demonstrated the superiority of European over non-European civilization and justified European imperialism. Christian forms of the same historical parable presented it as the triumph of the true faith over paganism and idolatry.

Virtually all history exemplifies somebody's assumptions of the goal toward which history is moving, usually in ways that are flattering to the author's own nation and culture.

Biblical history, in a sense, is no different, for it is written by Jews for Jews, to explain their history in terms of God's purposes for them. The technical literary term for this is "myth" (not implying the common meaning of falsehood). The "myth" may be false or it may be true. In either case it can include real people and real events. The question is not whether a person existed or an event happened, but what the historian presents as the meaning and purpose of the history.

The bible calls the mythological underpinnings of Egyptian/Assyrian/Babylonian history "idolatry", and appeals to the people of Israel/Judea to hold to the true meaning of its history. Thus C.S. Lewis correctly identifies this description of the purpose of Israel's history as "true myth".

One of the things we need to watch in our own time is whether we allow ourselves to be sucked in by our own national mythologies--like the Manifest Destiny mythology of 19th century America or the "white man's burden" mythology Kipling presented to his contemporaries. The U.S. today sees itself as a guardian of freedom and democracy and presents current world history in that light. But is this mythology true? Many people on the receiving end of U.S. imperialism would say it is a form of idolatry.

In the sense that all biblical history is told (as Peter later says) as examples and illustrations of Israel's destiny and purpose, it is all told "mythologically". So was virtually all ancient history. So is most modern history though in a more veiled way to preserve the illusion of objectivity.

This doesn't mean the history is not real, or even that the "myth" is not true. God, we believe, DID really choose Israel for a unique purpose.

Nevertheless, understanding biblical history "mythically" is just as important , if not more so, as understanding it "historically"

Doing research from a null hypothesis means that your testing procedures and data analysis must assume it to be wrong. Obviously the researcher would not be doing the research if he didn't think he was right. This is similar to a court case. The defendant is presumed innocent, even though everyone thinks they are guilty. If no one thought they were guilty, they wouldn't be in court.

I understand that. Scientific work is a process of subjecting hypotheses and theories to tests that will potentially falsify them. So in a sense one is assuming that one's null hypothesis is wrong.

Yet the hypothesis will be framed in terms of it being right. Why is this particular defendent in court? Because, during the investigation of the crime, various hypotheses about various suspects were tested on the basis of "If X is guilty, the evidence should show Y" (e.g. that he could be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed). If Y is false (X was positively placed somewhere else at the time) X is dropped from the list of suspects. Charges are laid against the suspect for which the "If X, then Y" hypothesis holds true.

That does not mean of course, that it IS true, and the prosecution is still bound to show there is no reasonable doubt, because in court we begin with the hypothesis that the defendant is innocent.

For instance, I am currently doing research with fruit flies. It's fairly simple research, but we approach it from the angle that we are assumed wrong until proven right. Therefore, the statistical analysis of our data must remove all doubt for us to affirm the hypothesis.

So are you not looking for the data that would affirm the hypothesis? If you fail to find it, you will consider the hypothesis false. But to even begin the research, you have to have an idea of what evidence would affirm the hypothesis--is that not right?

How is this different from the approach taken in evolutionary research?

 

[Assyrian]

(Darwin laments the treatment of other groups by Europeans)
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178).
​

Darwin was angry about this, because he thought that all men were entitled to freedom and the right to make their own way. His opinion:

Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

Your statement does not line up with the quote.

Actually you should read the quote again, preferably in its original context. You have quoted it twice and the first version was highly distorted, and I suspect colours you reading of it the second time.

After a century and a half the career of Darwin is in no danger or ruin, it is in fact immune.

-dreams of a future for mankind when the black races of man, as well as the mountain gorilla of Africa, will hopefully become extinct, thus enhancing the chances for the evolutionary advancement of the more "civilized" races of man

-also states that both blacks and Aborigines occupy a sub-species between white Caucasians and Baboons (Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man)​

"In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate."(Descent, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man)​

At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178).​

Here is the context.

http://www.archive.org/stream/thedescentofman02300gut/dscmn10.txt
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies--between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae--between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
​

Darwin is not advocating exterminating Negros and Aboriginies or suggesting doing so will enhance the chances for the evolutionary advancement of civilised Caucasians. He is discussing the gap between man and our nearest relatives. It was used as an argument against evolution and Darwin was showing how such a gap could arise, and the way things were going, was probably going to get wider because so called civilised white races were at the time bent on the extermination of both higher apes and non whites.

As far as I can see, the only criticism that can be made is that Darwin thought Negroes and Aborigines might be less evolved than Caucasians. But Darwin lived in a world where people believed Negroes were a completely different species created separately by God, and so it was all right to exploit kill and enslave them, or they believed Negroes were the same species, descended from Adam but cursed by God so it was all right to exploit kill and enslave them. Whereas Darwin said they were the same species as us, if they were less evolved and more weak and helpless, it was all the more reason their murder and slavery were overwhelmingly evil.

In reality Darwin did not see any significant differences between the different races.

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, etc., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.
​

Darwin wasn't 'dreaming the black races of man, as well as the mountain gorilla of Africa, will hopefully become extinct'. The only hope he expressed was that the Caucasians who were then so busily exterminating everything around them would be replaced by a more civilised form of human race.

I find it very disturbing that your source, presumably Christian, for the original quote could read Darwin's book, and out of presumably a sheer hatred for Darwin and evolution, completely distort what he says as advocating genocide so Caucasians could evolve.

 

[Mallon]

It's not a question of the Bible teaching us science. I absolutely do not think that the Bible is trying to teach us science. I do, however, think that the entirety of scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. And I do not think that the Holy Spirit would make mistakes in what He includes in scripture.

I also think the entirety of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. No argument there.
But that still doesn't mean Genesis was meant to be interpreted like an American history text. In fact, I would argue that the many cosmological elements in the text shared with other ancient Near Eastern cultures ("waters of the deep", creation ex nihilo, foundations of the earth, flood mythology, etc.) attest to the very non-historical nature of the opening chapters of the Bible. This doesn't mean the Lord was lying in inspiring the Genesis authors to write about these things. It means He was accommodating His message of love and salvation to a view of the world these people were already familiar with. God wasn't out to overturn the cosmology of the Egyptians and Mesopotamians. He was out to inspire a polemic against their polytheism. And in order to do it, He got down on one knee and spoke to His chosen people using language and imagery they were familiar with (much like the incarnation of Christ).

Not true. The basic framework has been revamped as recently as the mid 90's.

Not really.

Further, there is a fairly significant debate within the scientific community about whether to continue using the current system or to switch to a phylogenetic system, because the original system based on the hierarchy of features does not agree with genetic evidence.

No, the reason why systematists are switching over to a purely phylogenetic system is because they are looking for a less subjective means of classification. The Linnaean hierarchy of Kingdom, Phylum, Order, etc. is completely meaningless because those ranks have no objective definition (kinda like "baramin"), so we're switching to classification based strictly on monophyletic clades. It has nothing to do with genetic and morphological data not agreeing. In fact, for the most part, morphology and genetics do agree.

The phylogenetic system classifies species based upon their genetic lineage, and there are pretty significant differences.

The phylogenetic system also includes morphology. It isn't based strictly on genetics. In fact, the first phylogenetic classifications (by Willi Hennig) were based strictly on beetle morphology.

Absolutely. Scientifically, and logically, I have no problem with this concept. I just have a problem with the idea that God used evolution to create the universe over billions of years, but then chose to tell us a different story. Creation is not Santa Claus.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

God bless, UnderHisWings1979.

 

[The Barbarian]

Mark, in this post:
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50613835&postcount=120

I answered your questions, and asked a few myself. Those weren't rhetorical questions. I'd like some answers.

 

[shernren]

Yea like the Australians treated the aborigines so much better:

An expansionist and rapacious capitalism — economically and militarily far stronger — was bound to embroil itself in permanent conflict and smash the Aboriginal hunter-gatherer communities through violent conquest. In the process, Australian capitalism erected a full-blown system of racial oppression, not only towards Aborigines, but against all non-white people. This was then legitimised and justified by a rich literature of racist ideology. Australia's racist past and present​

Yea right, like your history is something to brag about:

At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178).​

You preach Darwinism like it's gospel and pretend that it's the creationist that harbors racist tenancies. I've seen how you handle scientific evidence and I've seen how your incapacity for theology bends Scripture to your secular philosophy. If you truly condemn racism then you will reject Darwinism.

And oh by the way, did you know that America just elected a President who is of African decent. How many aborigines have the Australians elected to office?

Have a nice day
Mark

I've never preached Darwinism. Indeed, probably less than half the people or Christians who know me even know that I am an evolutionist. Of course I talk about nothing but evolution here, after all this is the Origins Theology forum.

Statements like that show that you know nothing about me.

That aside.

Yes, Australians have done and said some pretty terrible things in the past towards Australian aborigines. Americans have done and said some pretty terrible things in the past towards Native Americans too. And how do you think the British treated the Asian natives of the various lands that they colonized? Malaysia is still reeling in some ways from the "divide and conquer" racial policy that the British imposed as colonial masters.

Darwin may have said some pretty nasty things about blacks; George Washington certainly said some pretty nasty things about American Indians. I am not trying to say that Washington was a particularly bad man for his times, or that Darwin was a particularly good man. What I am saying is that both were simply men of their times in the racist sentiments they expressed. Evolution is not particularly racist, any more than the idea of American independence that your Founding Fathers promulgated is particularly racist.

What I am trying to get you to see is that racism is bigger than evolution. Evolution is just a scientific theory about how living things originated. If you think that evolution is a major source and reason for racism in today's world then you are running up a blind alley and, frankly, you are going to be yet another American who is completely useless in America's noble fight against the implicit racism that covers your lands and ours. You're a military man who's done time in Iraq, here's an example of racism that should resonate with you:

LeCompte also endured taunting on the battlefield. "They ridiculed him and called him a 'drunken Indian.' They said, 'Hey, dude, you look just like a haji--you'd better run.' They call the Arabs 'haji.' I mean, it's one thing to worry for your life, but then to have to worry about friendly fire because you don't know who in the [censored] will shoot you? http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/archive/28148064.html
​

Were those soldiers really fueled by evolution? Were they thinking in their minds "Okay, this guy is a Native American, he has less reproductive success than us, therefore his kind will go extinct due to evolution, therefore it's okay to taunt him and give him even more reason to fear for his life"? (As if that's evolution, at that.) Or were they simply re-enacting the basic human drive to reject and be disturbed by any "other"?

You can say any number of nasty things about me and other Darwinists. After all, you don't have the slightest clue who I am, how deeply I love God and His Bible, and how much I've had to think about the issues at hand. The more you say it, the less I'm growing to care. "Oh, mark kennedy's out hunting evolutionists again."

But racism is bigger than you and me and a pile of dry bones. Nobody is threatened when you call me a lamebrained heretic. But if you're going to consider evolution as somehow more racist than all the other theories of its time, and if - as a natural consequence - you're going to look at yourself and your other creationist conservative buddies and think to yourself "Nope, we're not like those evil liberal evolutionists, so we're not racist, we've never done a thing that could advance racism, and neither did our forefathers", then you're denying something that permeates so much of Western culture, and you're standing in the way of progress for a substantial portion of your fellow countrymen.

 

[UnderHisWings1979]

Not really. In most cases, it is the evangelist, not Jesus, who says he is speaking in parables, and the evangelist does not always tell us that either. For example, Luke does not tell us that the story of the Good Samaritan is a parable, but almost no one interprets it as anything else.

My point is that we have context to base our assumption that Jesus was talking in parables upon, because He said it. He may not have said it every time, but He did state that He spoke in parables, and explained why.

Sure they do. American history was once commonly written as a parable of Manifest Destiny. Most European historians of the Victorian age wrote history as a parable of progress culminating in the marvels of European civilization which demonstrated the superiority of European over non-European civilization and justified European imperialism. Christian forms of the same historical parable presented it as the triumph of the true faith over paganism and idolatry.

This is completely different from the context of Genesis, because they do not change the historical facts. No American historian ever wrote that the Civil War only lasted a few days, or some such nonsense.

Biblical history, in a sense, is no different, for it is written by Jews for Jews, to explain their history in terms of God's purposes for them. The technical literary term for this is "myth" (not implying the common meaning of falsehood). The "myth" may be false or it may be true. In either case it can include real people and real events. The question is not whether a person existed or an event happened, but what the historian presents as the meaning and purpose of the history.

Again, the question of this discussion is the factualy accuracy of the story. I am not talking about the meaning and purpose presented by the historian, but the facts. You claim the facts presented by the historian are not true. I believe that God would not allow untrue facts to be placed in His historical account.

The bible calls the mythological underpinnings of Egyptian/Assyrian/Babylonian history "idolatry", and appeals to the people of Israel/Judea to hold to the true meaning of its history. Thus C.S. Lewis correctly identifies this description of the purpose of Israel's history as "true myth".

Yes, but C.S. Lewis was recognizing the factual accuracy in that statement.

One of the things we need to watch in our own time is whether we allow ourselves to be sucked in by our own national mythologies--like the Manifest Destiny mythology of 19th century America or the "white man's burden" mythology Kipling presented to his contemporaries. The U.S. today sees itself as a guardian of freedom and democracy and presents current world history in that light. But is this mythology true? Many people on the receiving end of U.S. imperialism would say it is a form of idolatry.

Once again, the facts are not changed in this presentation. Your analogy doesn't hold unless you are claiming that we are changing the facts of our history to fit our agenda today, which would be lying, and I assume that is not what you are implying Moses did.

Yet the hypothesis will be framed in terms of it being right. Why is this particular defendent in court? Because, during the investigation of the crime, various hypotheses about various suspects were tested on the basis of "If X is guilty, the evidence should show Y" (e.g. that he could be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed). If Y is false (X was positively placed somewhere else at the time) X is dropped from the list of suspects. Charges are laid against the suspect for which the "If X, then Y" hypothesis holds true.

That does not mean of course, that it IS true, and the prosecution is still bound to show there is no reasonable doubt, because in court we begin with the hypothesis that the defendant is innocent.

So are you not looking for the data that would affirm the hypothesis? If you fail to find it, you will consider the hypothesis false. But to even begin the research, you have to have an idea of what evidence would affirm the hypothesis--is that not right?

How is this different from the approach taken in evolutionary research?

The point is that your hypothesis is assumed to be wrong until the research proves otherwise. Since the introduction of evolutionary theory, the hypothesis has been assumed to be right until proven wrong, which is absurd in scientific research. There are countless examples of this. For instance, evolution predicts similar levels of deviation from the original form for homologous proteins and genes. However, in many cases, this has not held true. Yet in the scientific writings, they essentially state that 'some day we'll figure this out,' and assume that evolution must still hold true. It's no different than the missing links.

I do not dispute that there is a great deal of evidence which indicates that evolution may have happened on a macro scale. Theologically, I have a serious problem with evolution. Scientifically, I have more of a problem with the way it is presented- as indisputable fact rather than as a working theory. Scientists today even recognize that our understanding of gravity is probably greatly flawed, and that is one of the most proven scientific laws we have, yet evolution is taught with greater certainty in spite of its many flaws, holes, etc.

 

[The Barbarian]

The point is that your hypothesis is assumed to be wrong until the research proves otherwise. Since the introduction of evolutionary theory, the hypothesis has been assumed to be right until proven wrong, which is absurd in scientific research.

That statement tells me you have no experience with biology at all. How do I know that? Read the literature and learn.

There are countless examples of this. For instance, evolution predicts similar levels of deviation from the original form for homologous proteins and genes.

Since it's a probabilistic process, the prediction is that it tends to be so. And remarkably, conserved biological molecules like hemoglobin, cytochrome c, and others show this to be true to a very high level of precision. You can construct the nested hierarchy of Linnaeus by using the "levels of deviation" from these molecules.

However, in many cases, this has not held true.

In some details, some aren't quite perfect. But what's remarkable is that it so closely fits phylogenies based on other data.

Yet in the scientific writings, they essentially state that 'some day we'll figure this out,' and assume that evolution must still hold true. It's no different than the missing links.

I think so. As you might know, one set of transitionals after another have been found, validating Darwin's predictions.

I do not dispute that there is a great deal of evidence which indicates that evolution may have happened on a macro scale. Theologically, I have a serious problem with evolution.

God is not required to meet your expectations of Him.

Scientifically, I have more of a problem with the way it is presented- as indisputable fact rather than as a working theory.

Since it's been directly observed, creationists have pretty much been limited to denying that giant redwoods can grow from seed, since no one has ever seen the entire process himself.

Scientists today even recognize that our understanding of gravity is probably greatly flawed, and that is one of the most proven scientific laws we have, yet evolution is taught with greater certainty in spite of its many flaws, holes, etc.

Actually evolutionary theory is more certain than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still don't know why gravity works.

 

[mark kennedy]

That statement tells me you have no experience with biology at all. How do I know that? Read the literature and learn.

I've read the literature and no one ever questions the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry. I first discovered it when studying Apologetics and seeing any miracle or supernatural event rejected categorically without a hearing. Liberal Theology has been notorious for this and TE is laced with a priori naturalistic assumptions to the point where actual evidence becomes irrelevant, unlike the genuine article of TOE.

Since it's a probabilistic process, the prediction is that it tends to be so. And remarkably, conserved biological molecules like hemoglobin, cytochrome c, and others show this to be true to a very high level of precision. You can construct the nested hierarchy of Linnaeus by using the "levels of deviation" from these molecules.

Anything that is the same is a homology argument, any divination is described in terms of selection ( positive, adaptive, negative etc). Darwin credits Lamarck with being the first to propose alternatives to miraculous interposition:

This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Preface)​

Darwin's, 'On the Origin of Species', is one long argument against special creation, always has been and always will be. The catagorical rejection comes before the empirical evidence like all a priori assumptions, it is considered a self evident fact like the existence of God or time.

In some details, some aren't quite perfect. But what's remarkable is that it so closely fits phylogenies based on other data.

It fails to provide demonstrated or directly observed molecular mechanisms responsible but instead infers from lessor evolutionary trends the major giant leaps.

I think so. As you might know, one set of transitionals after another have been found, validating Darwin's predictions.

No they don't.

God is not required to meet your expectations of Him.

No, he is just required to not act in time and space by miraculous special creation.

Since it's been directly observed, creationists have pretty much been limited to denying that giant redwoods can grow from seed, since no one has ever seen the entire process himself.

Their primary arguments include a great deal more then that, you are putting up a strawman.

Actually evolutionary theory is more certain than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still don't know why gravity works.

It's more certain because TOE as natural history is based an unquestioned naturalistic assumptions, unlike Newtons' principles of motion.

“If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment - the experimentum crucis - were found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory.” (White, the Last Sorcerer)​

Newton was the first to insist that empirically demonstrated facts must be addressed using physical demonstrations rather then deductive logic. With the exception of TOE the sciences have uniformly held to this principle of demonstration, but Darwinism always gets a pass.

 

[gluadys]

Darwin's, 'On the Origin of Species', is one long argument against special creation, always has been and always will be.

It is a bit more precise than that. It is one long argument against the special creation of each and every separate species. Virtually all creationists now agree that Darwin was right on that point. How many today would argue that every one of the Galapagos finch species was a separate, one-time, miraculous creation which has never changed its characteristics since the day it was first made?

Indeed, creationists today assert that the whole modern family of Felidae consists of descendants of the same original created cat-type species.

It is disingenuous to refer to Darwin's objections to "special creation" outside of the historical context. He was not making a categorical assertion that God never works miracles. He was saying that today's species were not among God's special miracles, but descendants of earlier species.

It fails to provide demonstrated or directly observed molecular mechanisms responsible but instead infers from lessor evolutionary trends the major giant leaps.

Given that evolution is a population-level phenomenon, could it be that its principle mechanism is not molecular?

No, [God]is just required to not act in time and space by miraculous special creation.

No, that is not the case. Evolution focuses only on the origin of species, not on all time and space and all phenomena in their embrace. Evolution is a theory that species appear as a consequence of a natural process, just as a rainbow does.

Have we stopped believing in God because we no longer believe each and every rainbow is a one-time product of a miracle? Have we stopped believing that God can and does work miraculously because we have taken rainbows out of the category of special creations and put them in the category of natural productions? Have we even stopped attributing miracles to God? You know the answer is "no" to all these questions. The fact that rainbows are due to natural rather than supernatural action makes them no less revealing of God as per Romans 1:20

The case is the same with species. All that has happened is that instead of seeing each and every species as a single miracle, we see all species as productions of nature---nature that is still willed by God, still under God's sovreignty--still a world in which miracles can happen.

Why this should be a theological problem for any Christian mystifies me.

Newton was the first to insist that empirically demonstrated facts must be addressed using physical demonstrations rather then deductive logic. With the exception of TOE the sciences have uniformly held to this principle of demonstration, but Darwinism always gets a pass.

My experience with you in the past tells me you only make an exception of evolution by ignoring the empirically demonstrated facts.

 

[UnderHisWings1979]

It is a bit more precise than that. It is one long argument against the special creation of each and every separate species. Virtually all creationists now agree that Darwin was right on that point. How many today would argue that every one of the Galapagos finch species was a separate, one-time, miraculous creation which has never changed its characteristics since the day it was first made?

I would argue that they are no more separate species than the human races are, and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

Indeed, creationists today assert that the whole modern family of Felidae consists of descendants of the same original created cat-type species.

Their ability to interbreed is problematic with defining them as separate species. This has been a rather convenient redefenition of species, for no reason other than to answer the critiques of creationists.

It is disingenuous to refer to Darwin's objections to "special creation" outside of the historical context. He was not making a categorical assertion that God never works miracles. He was saying that today's species were not among God's special miracles, but descendants of earlier species.

That's just not true. Darwin even admitted later in life that he was "running" from God when he went to the Gallapagos Islands.

Given that evolution is a population-level phenomenon, could it be that its principle mechanism is not molecular?

Nope. It either must be molecular or it must be God. Science does not allow for any other way. If you don't agree with this, try a modern course in molecular biology. Evolution must have occurred at the microscopic scale first.

No, that is not the case. Evolution focuses only on the origin of species, not on all time and space and all phenomena in their embrace. Evolution is a theory that species appear as a consequence of a natural process, just as a rainbow does.

Once again, simply not true. Though TE may pick and choose parts of evolution, on a whole, the theory of evolution encompasses the evolution of planets, solar systems, etc. Biologists study the origin of species, physicists study the other stuff, and chemists try in vain to tie it all together

Have we stopped believing in God because we no longer believe each and every rainbow is a one-time product of a miracle? Have we stopped believing that God can and does work miraculously because we have taken rainbows out of the category of special creations and put them in the category of natural productions? Have we even stopped attributing miracles to God? You know the answer is "no" to all these questions. The fact that rainbows are due to natural rather than supernatural action makes them no less revealing of God as per Romans 1:20

Does the fact that we know how a rainbow occurs make it any less miraculous? This, to me, is another problem with evolution, and with the obsession with science in general. Maybe we were actually better off not knowing how God does it, because we were more amazed by it. Does the fact that we know that God uses light difraction to create rainbows make them any less amazing? It shouldn't, but it has. Does the fact that we now know that sunsets have their brilliant colors because red is the lowest energy light wave and thus the last to disappear make sunsets any less amazing, or change the fact that they are a gift from God, and a constant reminder of His beauty? It shouldn't, but it does.

Why this should be a theological problem for any Christian mystifies me.

I think I've explained this well enough in my previous posts. The fact that you disagree with me does not negate my reasoning any more than the fact that I disagree with you negates yours.

 

[Assyrian]

Oops. Wrong place..

 

[gluadys]

I would argue that they are no more separate species than the human races are, and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

For sexually reproducing organisms the most popular current definition of species is the biological species concept. However, that was not yet current in Darwin's day. As you will know from reading Origin of Species, there was a great deal of controversy at the time over how to define species (not that there still isn't). Linneaus system was based primarily on key morphological features, but in itself it did not help to identify which features were significant for determining species boundaries. The consequence was that there were many populations that were named "varieties" or "sub-species" by some systematists, but undoubted "species" by others. Nor was reproduction used extensively as a means of distinguishing species one from another. Darwin notes that all forms of domestic pigeons can interbreed, yet it was commonly thought by breeders that they were separate species--each descended from a different wild stock. The same thinking applied to many other domesticated plants and animals. The many morphological differences in domesticated brassica were held by some to indicate different species, not many sub-species of the same wild mustard plant. The fact that they could successfully interbreed was considered less important in species definition than the evident morphological differences and the fact that they would breed true to type if not hybridized. Perhaps the clearest indication that the ability to reproduce was not considered a reliable guide to species difference is that many considered the various human populations to be different species although it was well known that all could mate and produce children successfully.

IOW, by moving to a biological species concept, modern science has actually broadened the concept of species well beyond what was current in many 19th century understandings. No one today would hold that any existing human group is a different species from any other. In fact, biologically, scientifically, our whole species doesn't even show racial differences.

The finches of the Galapagos do, for the most part, meet the biological species concept of a species---for occasional hybridization does not invalidate that. And if in some cases the incidence of hybridization rises and two or more species merge, the merged population will still meet the definition of species. They certainly met the narrower concept of species that Darwin was working with.

Their ability to interbreed is problematic with defining them as separate species. This has been a rather convenient redefenition of species, for no reason other than to answer the critiques of creationists.

That is historically inaccurate. It is, as outlined, a redefinition of species, which lays greater emphasis on the ability to interbreed than earlier concepts. But it was more to bring about a scientific consensus on what is to be called a species than any concern about creationist critiques. And, as noted, the consequence, in many cases, was to reduce the number of allegedly valid species.

That's just not true. Darwin even admitted later in life that he was "running" from God when he went to the Gallapagos Islands.

Whether or not he was "running" from God is irrelevant. It is still true that he made no categorical claim to the effect that God never works miracles. His only claim is that modern species are not special creations, but descendants of earlier species.

Nope. It either must be molecular or it must be God.

False dichotomy. Showing that it is molecular does not show that it is not God.

But I think you are referring to only the initial step of the evolutionary process: namely changes in DNA sequences. I am happy to concede that these are molecular changes. But alone, they are not evolution.

The principle means of evolution is natural selection, and that is a population-level phenomenon that involves whole organisms. This is molecular only in the sense that organisms are very large collections of molecules and the change in the distribution of phenotypes is a consequence of large-scale statistical changes due to differential reproductive success.

Evolution must have occurred at the microscopic scale first.

I would question the word "occur". It would be more accurate to say that evolution must begin at the microscopic scale. Obviously alleles must change, and each new allele is the product of a molecular event. But evolution is a process that involves more than its initial event. Mutation occurs at the microscopic level, and that is part of the whole process. But the process cannot occur only in its initial event.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. One step is not the journey. The journey has not "occurred" until all the steps have been taken and it is completed.

Once again, simply not true. Though TE may pick and choose parts of evolution, on a whole, the theory of evolution encompasses the evolution of planets, solar systems, etc. Biologists study the origin of species, physicists study the other stuff, and chemists try in vain to tie it all together

No, you are the one who is offbase here. Physicists do not discuss the theory of evolution; nor do astronomers. Biologists do. The theory of evolution is fundamental to biology. It is not a grand theory of everything.

Does the fact that we know how a rainbow occurs make it any less miraculous?

It certainly doesn't make it any less amazing. A lot depends on how one defines miracle. Many people use the term to mean "not by natural process" and if that is the prevailing definition, yes, the fact that we can describe the natural mechanisms which produce a rainbow does mean it is not miraculous.

However, I can find no biblical reason to use that particular definition. The biblical term "signs" sometimes refers to what seems to be outside of natural process and sometimes refers to what is or could be natural process. The emphasis is less on how God uses his power and more on the revelation of his power.

Furthermore, we often use the term "miracle" when we are fully aware of the entirely natural (so far as we can determine) process. We speak of a miraculous escape, though no angel appeared to remove us from danger, or a miraculous cure although we used medicine and medical treatment. We call a normal human birth a miracle.

From such a perspective, no, the fact that we know how a rainbow is made does not make it any less miraculous.

This, to me, is another problem with evolution, and with the obsession with science in general. Maybe we were actually better off not knowing how God does it, because we were more amazed by it. Does the fact that we know that God uses light difraction to create rainbows make them any less amazing? It shouldn't, but it has.

I don't think this really has anything to do with evolution and evolution should not bear the blame. I do agree that all too often we tend to take an egotistic attitude to what we "know" and develop a certain "sophisticated superiority" to what we have learned to manipulate. And I agree this should not be the case. In fact, the more we know, the more amazed we should be. I have always liked the saying attributed to Einstein that "the greater the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder." I think we do our children a great disservice in not nurturing more the sense of amazement and wonder and mystery that ought to accompany every increase in knowledge. I think not being amazed at something we know illustrates Alexander Pope's observation that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". When we cease being amazed we are still at the very threshold of knowledge and need to learn enough to achieve humility again.

A propos of this, it is discouraging to see even academic research facilities so dependent on commercial investment which is driven by the need to develop technology for control and profit. Pure research for the sheer increase of knowledge for its own sake has fallen by the wayside.

Does the fact that we now know that sunsets have their brilliant colors because red is the lowest energy light wave and thus the last to disappear make sunsets any less amazing, or change the fact that they are a gift from God, and a constant reminder of His beauty?

Not at all. And for exactly the same reason, the fact that we understand our biological kinship with other great apes does not make our human uniqueness any less amazing either, nor change the fact that we have been given a unique relationship to God.

 

[The Barbarian]

The point is that your hypothesis is assumed to be wrong until the research proves otherwise. Since the introduction of evolutionary theory, the hypothesis has been assumed to be right until proven wrong, which is absurd in scientific research.

Barbarian chuckles:
That statement tells me you have no experience with biology at all. How do I know that? Read the literature and learn.

I've read the literature and no one ever questions the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry.

You've never seen a paper in the literature that asserts a hypothesis is right until proven wrong, have you? Be honest now. There is no a priori assumption of universal common ancestry. It is accepted, because a large body of research shows it to be true. This is why I know you don't have any experience in biology.

I first discovered it when studying Apologetics and seeing any miracle or supernatural event rejected categorically without a hearing.

No paper in the literature categorically denies the supernatural.

Barbarian observes:
Since it's a probabilistic process, the prediction is that it tends to be so. And remarkably, conserved biological molecules like hemoglobin, cytochrome c, and others show this to be true to a very high level of precision. You can construct the nested hierarchy of Linnaeus by using the "levels of deviation" from these molecules.

Anything that is the same is a homology argument, any divination is described in terms of selection ( positive, adaptive, negative etc).

Show me a "divination" in the literature.

Barbarian observes:
In some details, some aren't quite perfect. But what's remarkable is that it so closely fits phylogenies based on other data.

It fails to provide demonstrated or directly observed molecular mechanisms responsible

That's another bit of evidence that you have no experience in biology. The mechanisms for evolution are well-known and demonstrated.

Barbarian observes:
I think so. As you might know, one set of transitionals after another have been found, validating Darwin's predictions.

No they don't.

Stamping your foot and denying the evidence won't help you. Let's test your belief. You give me two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected. I'll see if I can find a transitional. Do you have enough confidence to test your belief?

Barbarian observes:
God is not required to meet your expectations of Him.

No, he is just required to not act in time and space by miraculous special creation.

Or not, as the case might be. The evidence says that He did do it over time.

Barbarian observes:
Since it's been directly observed, creationists have pretty much been limited to denying that giant redwoods can grow from seed, since no one has ever seen the entire process himself.

Their primary arguments include a great deal more then that, you are putting up a strawman.

Show us, then.

Barbarian observes:
Actually evolutionary theory is more certain than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still don't know why gravity works.

It's more certain because TOE as natural history is based an unquestioned naturalistic assumptions,

Wrong again. This goes back to your unfamiliarity with the evidence. It is based on a very large body of evidence. Darwin's book is packed with it, and much has been added since. You'd be more effective against science, if you knew more about it.

[/quote]unlike Newtons' principles of motion. [/QUOTE]

If you read anything about Newton's work on gravity, you'd know that he did not explain why gravity worked. Darwin and the geneticists have made it clear why evolution works.

Newton was the first to insist that empirically demonstrated facts must be addressed using physical demonstrations rather then deductive logic.

Again, your unfamiliarity with science trips you up. In Europe Francis Bacon introduced the idea long before Newton.

Bacon's manuscripts already mention the doctrine of the idols as a necessary condition for constituting scientia operativa. In Cogitata et Visascientia operativa. Like a bee, the empiricist, by means of his inductive method, collects the natural matter or products and then works them up into knowledge in order to produce honey, which is useful for healthy nutrition.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/\


Ibn al-Haytham (basing his work on the Ionian Greeks like Democritus) used the inductive method even earlier. Bacon was familiar with his work, and enlarged on it, to produce the tradition that Newton inherited.

With the exception of TOE the sciences have uniformly held to this principle of demonstration, but Darwinism always gets a pass.

Time for you to hit the books and learn a bit on your own. Suffice to say, you've been badly misled.