Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[Floodnut]

We should be amazed that some scientists would dismiss evolution. And what should also amaze us is how glibly Christians DISMISS SCIRPTURE in its plain and simple sense, the way in which Jesus himself took it: Viewing Adam and Eve as literal, with literal son named Abel, Viewing Noah as literal, with literal Ark saving him and his family from a literal flood.

Why do some Christians dismiss the simple sense of Scirpture?
Because it is contrary to the "evidence" of Evolution put forward by science.

Why do some Christians, this poster in particular, dismiss evolution?
Because it is contrary to the simple sense of Scirpture as put forward by Jesus.

The lines are quite clear actually.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

We should be amazed that some scientists would dismiss evolution. And what should also amaze us is how glibly Christians DISMISS SCIRPTURE in its plain and simple sense, the way in which Jesus himself took it: Viewing Adam and Eve as literal, with literal son named Abel, Viewing Noah as literal, with literal Ark saving him and his family from a literal flood.

Why do some Christians dismiss the simple sense of Scirpture?
Because it is contrary to the "evidence" of Evolution put forward by science.

Why do some Christians, this poster in particular, dismiss evolution?
Because it is contrary to the simple sense of Scirpture as put forward by Jesus.

The lines are quite clear actually.

if the "plain and simple" hermeneutic was working properly then why can't Christians agree on baptism: who when and how?

if the "plain and simple" hermeneutic was working properly then why can't Christians agree on the meaning of communion?

if the "plain and simple" hermeneutic was working properly then why can't Christians agree on church government?

if the "plain and simple" hermeneutic was working properly then why can't Christians solve the problem of denominationalism without splitting further.

if the "plain and simple" hermeneutic was working properly then why can't Christians agree on a solution, any good solution to theodicy?

btw I believe the Genesis teaches a literal historical Adam and Eve. I believe Gen 9 records a flood, but it was neither global nor universal. I do not dismiss Scripture but assent to it's being authoritative in both my life and the life of the church.

perhaps things are not nearly as simple or plain as you propose.

if you think so then please solve all these and more problems that fragment God's Church.
for if things are as plain and simple as you propose then this disagreement would be solvable.
...

 

[Floodnut]

if the "plain and simple" hermeneutic was working properly
if the "plain and simple" hermeneutic was working properly
if the "plain and simple" hermeneutic was working properly
if the "plain and simple" hermeneutic was working properly

perhaps things are not nearly as simple or plain as you propose.

if you think so then please solve all these and more problems that fragment God's Church.

for if things are as plain and simple as you propose then this disagreement would be solvable.
...

QUOTE IS ABRIDGED
I think things in Scripture are pretty plain and simple, but for many people, like you perhaps, this plain and simple hermeneutic isn't working properly. When it works properly then problems are solved. Meanwhile let every man be persuaded in his own heart, let some disregard and let some regard. I chose to disregard evolution, you chose to disregard the plain and simple sense becaus it is not working properly. There is also disagreement about the divinity of Christ, but nevertheless there remains a plain and simple true Truth. Things in general are NOT plain and simple because people are complex. So I do think so, but your arrogance in telling me to solve the problems cause by people rejecting the plain and simple sense is in itself plainly and simply silly.

The question is why do some Christians dismiss evolution. Why do you want to challange me on this? I dismisss evolution because I accept the plain and simple sense of Genesis as Jesus did. Now you want to argue about why some Christians dimiss evolution. . . KINDLY FIND SOMEONE ELSE WITH WHOM TO ARGUE.

 

[artybloke]

For a book that's written in at least two or three languages that are no longer spoken (at least in their ancient form), between 2000-3000 years old and only present on manuscripts that are at least 4-500 years younger than when they were written, nothing is simple. There's the question of translation. There's the question of which manuscripts are the correct ones.

That, and the fact that nobody reads any text with a completely empty mind: we all come at the Bible with presuppositions that we probably don't question because it never occurs to us to to question them. Things like the idea that fact = truth, myth = lie, for instance, a constant presupposition of literalists that dates possibly from the beginning of the enlightenment, but only really took hold with the rise of Positivism in the 19th century.

There's a tendency for people to think that their interpretation is so obvious that there's no possibility of any other interpretation, especially if they've grown up with it and they've never had to brush against any other opinion. Two people with "obvious" but totally opposite views of what a passage means can live in complete isolation for years. When they meet they think their opponent must be bonkers or heretical; when in fact they could both be wrong.

Any reading of the English bible is automatically an interpretation of an interpretation: translators make interpretative choices that are sometimes as much to do with their theological positions as to do with the meaning of the actual words. Not that that means the translation is "wrong" but translation is always a question of choice; there is no true-for-all-time right translation because language changes, our understanding of context changes, and sometimes we make discoveries about the text that affect even what the original words were (the ending of Mark - added by unknown hands long after the rest was written - is an example.)

A simple answer to a difficult question is nearly always the wrong answer.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

We should be amazed that some scientists would dismiss evolution. And what should also amaze us is how glibly Christians DISMISS SCIRPTURE in its plain and simple sense, the way in which Jesus himself took it: Viewing Adam and Eve as literal, with literal son named Abel, Viewing Noah as literal, with literal Ark saving him and his family from a literal flood.

You have absolutely no support for that whatsoever. Assertion is not evidence. Nowhere does Jesus say it's "literal historical fact"; it's purely your interpretation.

You really have no idea how offensive this "I take it how Jesus did unlike you" stuff is, have you?

 

[Floodnut]

You have absolutely no support for that whatsoever. Assertion is not evidence. Nowhere does Jesus say it's "literal historical fact"; it's purely your interpretation.

You really have no idea how offensive this "I take it how Jesus did unlike you" stuff is, have you?

And you think I care whether I offend you? And you have no idea do you how ludicrous it is for you to set some arbitrary requirement as to the exact words Jesus must use in order for you to take him seriously. Your appeal to the "just your interpretation" mantra is tired and worn out. Simple words make simple sense. Jesus took Genesis 1-11 as literal whether he ever used the words, "literal historical fact" or not. You really have every idea and you are full aware how offensive are your attacks on the revelation of Scripture to those who believe the Bible.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

More mere assertion, Floodnut. I must assume that you have actually no backing for those assertions at all. You know full well that I am not requiring an exact form of words - I am saying that there is no indication at all that Jesus is taking these particular events in a modernist post-enlightenment sense. Why on earth would He be?

Your problem here is equating "simple" with "literal". Care to defend that?

If I was actually attacking the revelation of Scripture, your talk of offense might have some teeth, but since I'm not, and merely criticising your assumptions of literality, it doesn't.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

QUOTE IS ABRIDGED
I think things in Scripture are pretty plain and simple, but for many people, like you perhaps, this plain and simple hermeneutic isn't working properly. When it works properly then problems are solved. Meanwhile let every man be persuaded in his own heart, let some disregard and let some regard. I chose to disregard evolution, you chose to disregard the plain and simple sense becaus it is not working properly. There is also disagreement about the divinity of Christ, but nevertheless there remains a plain and simple true Truth. Things in general are NOT plain and simple because people are complex. So I do think so, but your arrogance in telling me to solve the problems cause by people rejecting the plain and simple sense is in itself plainly and simply silly.

The question is why do some Christians dismiss evolution. Why do you want to challange me on this? I dismisss evolution because I accept the plain and simple sense of Genesis as Jesus did. Now you want to argue about why some Christians dimiss evolution. . . KINDLY FIND SOMEONE ELSE WITH WHOM TO ARGUE.

i suppose that ignoring the hermeneutical problems that denominationalism poses is a solution, of a sorts.

analogously to YECism and fundamentalism in general is an answer to science and religious liberalism.

it's not mine however. but you seem constitutionally incapable of discussing the issues without attacking people so i don't expect much from your end of the conversation.

and sadly so, i expect much more from a Christian.


.....

 

[Floodnut]

i suppose that ignoring the hermeneutical problems that denominationalism poses is a solution, of a sorts.

analogously to YECism and fundamentalism in general is an answer to science and religious liberalism.

it's not mine however. but you seem constitutionally incapable of discussing the issues without attacking people so i don't expect much from your end of the conversation.

and sadly so, i expect much more from a Christian.


.....

This so typical of you guys. You are allowed to get all teary-eyed and "Offended" but when we are offended you ridicule us, and then you have the effrontery to turn it back on us and say that WE are "attacking people."

Why do some Christians DISMISS EVOLUTION? This one dismisses it because in his approach to Scripture he sees Jesus taking the account of Genesis 1-11 as literal history, treating Abel as being Historical, just like Zacharias, treating Adam and Eve as literal, and Lot and Sodom as Literal, just like Noah and the literal worldwide flood. The original post asked a question. I answered. Now you want to tell me why my view is wrong. DUH. and here I am the one attacking. You don't make any sense, dear Mr. High and Lofty Judge of what should be expected of a Christian.
You always attack and dispute whatever I say as a Christian who believes in LITERAL CREATION, the simple sense of Genesis 1 & 2, then you go on to pronnounce on the quality of my Christian Morality, and in additon you dispute my view. DUH, and then you say I am attacking.

 

[Defiance]

Hey stumpjumper,

I am wondering if Young Earth Creationists dismiss evolution on scientific grounds or solely because of a [Bible believing] interpretation of the Bible.

For me it's both.

4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.

Um, no informed creationist would dispute point four - depending on how it is defined. Creationists believe that God created all the animals in distinct kinds that have information that allows for massive variation within that kind. Mutations and natural selection are just two methods that bring out this variation within a kind that we observe today - but that isn't evolution. In fact, according to information theory, the changes that we observe today are going in the wrong direction (i.e. information loosing) for these changes to support molecules to man evolution (which requires information gaining changes to happen).

Now I as a TE only really disagree with number five. But, lets say for instance that God used natural processes to start life. We would probably be able to uncover the process that God used and then it would be natural even though it was initiated by the supernatural.

Evolutionary theory says that God is not needed nor even required - other wise, why would atheists believe it? In fact, atheists themselves have recognised that Darwin has made their faith more logical because they can easily explain away the creative works of God for by purely naturalistic processes (Romans 1:23). All what TEs have done is just hijacked evolution and added God into the equation. However, point five is only really used against atheists who believe evolution because theistic evolutions can turn to the 'God did it' claim. They have absolutely no evidence or no idea about how 'God did it', but they believe it blindly. It's ironic that they turn to the 'Goddidit' claim that they often ignorantly accuse creationists of using when they can't explain how life came from non-life when natural processes can't explain it.

That's pretty 'scientific' now, isn't it? Doing exactly what you accuse creationists of doing! The hypocricy!

Yet most of them are very well supported by our scientific understanding of the world.

... Depending on the worldview you have. The scientific understanding of the world has very little to do with evolution. There is a difference between knowledge (that can easily be obtained through the scientific method and the physical science) and pure speculation. Macro-evolution is one such thing. It cannot be tested by the scientific method and cannot be proven by the emperical arguments that the physical sciences use in the present (see footnote 1 and 2).

Evolution (marco-evolution is what I am referring to in the majority of this post, if I am talking about micro-evolution I'll define it as that) is a story about our origins that seeks to explain the evidence (i.e. rocks, stars, fossils, plants and animals, etc, etc) of the present.

Do you dispute that these criteria are well supported by scientific inquiry?

Yes.

Do you believe that, even though these may be well supported by scientific inquiry, the only way to truly accept the Bible is through a literal reading?

I doubt that you will find one who is a 'literalist' as no one that I know of takes the Psalms literally and the other poetic books literally, per se. TEs are ignorant when they claim that those who believe the clear wording of Genesis are 'literalists'. No, they are Bible believing Christians who take God at his word (there is no symbolism, no poetical language and so on that should make us think that we shouldn't take it as it is written - I could be wrong though, so please if you have such great faith in your beliefs correct me with an example or two...). In fact, taking God at his word in Genesis is the only interpretation that makes any sense when placed in light of Scripture.

it's not mine however. but you seem constitutionally incapable of discussing the issues without attacking people so i don't expect much from your end of the conversation. and sadly so, i expect much more from a Christian.

And you're last statement to Floodnut proves that you are no better and just as attacking as he supposedly is. Have you been to the open creation/evolution forum? I have watched a few debates and let me tell you that the evolutionists are far to aggressive and disrespectful for the way that they treat creationists. They scoff and mock creationists because of their faith, and when evidence is brought forth that shakes their faith in evolutionism they fight back aggressively with the same usual tripe such as "it's lies", "what would you know, you're just a non-scientific creationist" and so on. They attack character rather than the evidence - because they don't want to deal with it in most cases.

Also, why do not the evolutionary scientists engage with debates against creation scientsts if there's this overwhelming evidence for evolution and if all creationists are liars? That makes no sense. It is obvious then, that since they do not do that and put the issue to rest once and for all, that the evolutionist is kidding himself when he says that evolution is a fact or close enough to. If there is such strong evidence, then logically they should be willing - wanting - to debate creationists and put to issue to rest by destroying the creationist argument. Why don't they?

In fact, Christians (so-called) on that forum behave and treat creationists no differently than the pagans and atheists - which isn't saying a good thing about them...

If there is one thing in the Bible that Jesus continously refutes and denounces it is hypocricy and judging others. For example, in Luke 6:41-42 Jesus says this: "Why do you look at the speck of saw-dust in someone else's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say, 'Friend, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from the other person's eye."

Something for you to think about...

Footnotes:

1. Paul Ehrilich (then Professor of Biology, Stanford University) and L. Charles Birch (then Professor of Biology, University of Sydney), "Evolutionary history and population biology". Nature, vol. 214, 22 April 1967, p. 352.

Our theory has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.

2. Professor Whitten (then Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne), 1980 Assembly Week address.

Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.

Both are evolutionists who don't question the evolutionary theory's truth.

 

[shernren]

They attack character rather than the evidence - because they don't want to deal with it in most cases.

And just what do you think you were doing in that paragraph? Besides attacking the character of evolutionists? I know my eye's all itchy and watery from that big log sticking out but I'm sure I saw something brown in yours.

I'm sure there are good proponents and bad proponents of evolutionary theory (hopefully I'm the former) as well as good proponents and bad proponents of creationist theory (and I don't see any reason yet to call you the latter). So why not discuss the theory without discussing how its proponents behave? Not all evolutionists are atheists. Not all evolutionists are trying to "explain God away" like often accused. So lay the cards down. What specifically is your problem with evolution?

 

[Defiance]

shernren,

And just what do you think you were doing in that paragraph? Besides attacking the character of evolutionists?

Using past experience to illustrate that evolutionists are no better at discussing the issues without attacking people than creationists - which rmwilliamsll was negating. Is it an attack on character when 99.99% of evolutionists whom I have run into do just that - avoid what I bring up and scoff at it? I'd say that it is stating the truth from my experiences....

As I brought up, Jesus often criticized people for being hypocrites (attacked their character) but he also said why he was attacking them and I was doing like. I have been called ignorant, arrogant (okay, maybe a touch but not intended), a liar, and the names go on. But I have never come across one who can justify that evolution (macro-evolution) is science as almost everyone says it is and when I bring it up, I get called scientifically ignorant, a religious zealot against science, and so on. All of these experiences have told me that what I said was true. Yes, I attacked the character of many evolutionists, but I also have experiences and evidence to back up my claims - just as Jesus did in his day.

I realise that not all evolutionists do that, but by far the greater majority do.

Pointing I know my eye's all itchy and watery from that big log sticking out but I'm sure I saw something brown in yours.

Probably just my brown coloured pupil, lol... See above for justification.

Besides, I don't really care that much. I can admit it, many times I'm a hyprocite - but I don't claim to be perfect. I know I'm probably not that good of a Christian, but that's why Jesus came and died. I do try, but I fail a lot. I don't have any foolish pride that prevents me from admiting I'm a bombshell of a Christian. So many times you're right, but not this time.

I'm sure there are good proponents and bad proponents of evolutionary theory (hopefully I'm the former) as well as good proponents and bad proponents of creationist theory (and I don't see any reason yet to call you the latter). So why not discuss the theory without discussing how its proponents behave? Not all evolutionists are atheists. Not all evolutionists are trying to "explain God away" like often accused. So lay the cards down. What specifically is your problem with evolution?

True, there are both good and bad proponents. I was just simply informing rmwilliamsll that his side behaves on the average, just as bad if not worse than creationists and I personally have many experiences of it and can also point to many others who have also experienced it. In other words, I have evidence to back up my statement. You had to view my point in its context to understand why I said what I said.

Probably the majority are trying to reject God and it was them who I was referring to. Evolution, by it's very naturalistic processes, says that God is not neccessary. That is just one reason why Christians should be against it. When we try and preach to others, they may ask why should we believe in God considering that he is not even needed - how would you counter that? Also, without the proper foundation for understanding the Gospel message, our culture and society will become more and more like the Greeks. And how did Peter preach to the Greeks? He went back to the beginning and removed their evolutionary view or origins and replaced it with the biblical creationary view so that they could understand the message of the Gospel. There is no logical reason why he did that if God really did create using evolutionism...

My problem with evolution:
1. Not consistent with the Bible.
2. No undisputed transitional fossil, between say an ape-like ancestor and a human.
3. Mutations and natural selection are heading in the wrong direction (i.e. information theory).

Just to name a few. There's also one other thing that really annoys me:
4. The frauds that are still in the biology textbooks today as 'evidence for evolution', e.g. Haeckal's fraud.

Bfn,
Defiance.

 

[shernren]

Probably the majority are trying to reject God and it was them who I was referring to. Evolution, by it's very naturalistic processes, says that God is not neccessary.

I know you quantified that statement saying "the majority" but I still can't help feeling offended. I can't name you a single TE here who uses evolution to reject God. And atheists don't reject God because of evolution. They might use evolution as an excuse but they're simply, well, not choosing God. Any naturalistic scientific explanation can be used as an excuse for atheism, from evolution to gravity to nuclear fusion. Gravity says God is not necessary to hold the universe together. Nuclear fusion says God is not necessary to keep the sun burning. So why single out evolution?

When we try and preach to others, they may ask why should we believe in God considering that he is not even needed - how would you counter that?

"What are the chances of evolution producing something as magnificent as the human being unless God was involved?" And at any rate that's just a dodge question like "where did Cain get his wives" or "how did angels mate humans". I'd treat your proposed question the same way i would treat those questions: turn back to the cross. Evolution or creation, Jesus died on the cross for our sins and that is the crucial (literally! ) fact that every person has to face up to.

Also, without the proper foundation for understanding the Gospel message, our culture and society will become more and more like the Greeks. And how did Peter preach to the Greeks? He went back to the beginning and removed their evolutionary view or origins and replaced it with the biblical creationary view so that they could understand the message of the Gospel.

Eh? Is that teaching methodology of Peter's in Scripture? At any rate I'm not constrained to preach the way Peter preached as long as I'm preaching the same thing he did: Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected.

1. Not consistent with the Bible.

Not if you treat Genesis 1-2 as a mythological foundation for the Jewish worldview. You can ask around. Many people do that without losing their faith.

2. No undisputed transitional fossil, between say an ape-like ancestor and a human.

Well, we don't have thaat many hominid fossils to work with in the first place so it's not surprising that they don't make enough sense yet. (You do realize you're talking to someone who believes that God literally formed a literal Adam and a literal Eve in a literal Garden of Eden? ) But for everything else, there's TO! http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC200

3. Mutations and natural selection are heading in the wrong direction (i.e. information theory).

Really? Mutations produce new information, such as with the much-loved nylon bug.

4. The frauds that are still in the biology textbooks today as 'evidence for evolution', e.g. Haeckal's fraud.

I didn't learn evolution from the textbooks. I learnt it online. And I've never seen Haeckel's embryos in my bio textbook. Hmm?

Is it an attack on character when 99.99% of evolutionists whom I have run into do just that - avoid what I bring up and scoff at it? I'd say that it is stating the truth from my experiences....

Well, I'll be generous, but still about 70-80% of the creationist websites and creationist young people I've dealt with are rather ignorant on the scientific ramifications of their ideas, unwilling to explore the way they refrain from applying "simple and plain" interpretations with other controversial passages, feel no problem quoting outdated and already disproved ideas, and all too quickly dismiss TEs as weak and compromising worldly Christians. I know because as a creationist young person I was also like this. But I choose to put aside these preconceptions every time I visit a new site or talk to someone I haven't really talked to before. And I hope you would do the same with me. I think it would be unfair for you to push your generalizations of the typical abrasive TE when dealing with one who's trying his best not to be. Okay?

 

[stumpjumper]

Um, no informed creationist would dispute point four - depending on how it is defined. Creationists believe that God created all the animals in distinct kinds that have information that allows for massive variation within that kind. Mutations and natural selection are just two methods that bring out this variation within a kind that we observe today - but that isn't evolution. In fact, according to information theory, the changes that we observe today are going in the wrong direction (i.e. information loosing) for these changes to support molecules to man evolution (which requires information gaining changes to happen).

Hi Defiance

The bolded part above is wrong. Many mutations do go in the wrong direction and "lose" information but not all and it is the ones that go in the information gaining direction that are selected.

Ken Miller has some very good articles online about all of these common claims by AIG. The above link is to the biochemical argument. Here =Miller is his evolution home page which has a lot of good articles on evolution and information gaining mutations.

Evolutionary theory says that God is not needed nor even required - other wise, why would atheists believe it? In fact, atheists themselves have recognised that Darwin has made their faith more logical because they can easily explain away the creative works of God for by purely naturalistic processes (Romans 1:23).

No. Evolutionary theory makes no such claim. The ToE is a theory of biodiversifaction by natural mechanisms. Gravity is the natural explanation for why we do not fall off the earth that I hope you accept. Do you believe that God is not required for gravity to work.

All what TEs have done is just hijacked evolution and added God into the equation.

Defiance, your entire post is littered with strawmen and misinformation. You claim me of hijacking evolution. Do Creationists hijack meiosis. All TE's do is accept the natural understanding of God's Creation. To quote Einstein: "the most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible." God is always in the equation for me.

That's pretty 'scientific' now, isn't it? Doing exactly what you accuse creationists of doing! The hypocricy!

The utter contempt from Creationists! I opened this thread to get a better understanding of why some Christians dismiss evolution. In your first post to me you have called me ingnorant, a hypocrit, and a hint at a so-called Christian. So far TE's have been insulted by every Creationist that has posted in this thread. You have done so in your first post. If you cannot discuss this issue without resorting to personal attacks please do not respond.

Evolution (marco-evolution is what I am referring to in the majority of this post, if I am talking about micro-evolution I'll define it as that) is a story about our origins that seeks to explain the evidence (i.e. rocks, stars, fossils, plants and animals, etc, etc) of the present.

If you accept micro-evolution or changes within a kind, then you must realize that mutations and selection can lead to more information. The best example is in canine evolution. Also, if you accept micro-evolution and the accepted age of the universe then I don't see how you can say that micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution.

If you do not accept the current view of the age of the universe and earth then what theory of time do you accept? Do you follow Dr. Humphrey's Starlight and Time or Gerald Scroeder's theory which shows the opposite mechanism to produce a young earth?

ITEs are ignorant when they claim that those who believe the clear wording of Genesis are 'literalists'.

The thread topic is evolution so I am talking about taking about taking Genesis 1-11 as literal not the entire Bible. Stay on topic and withold your sarcastic comments.

No, they are Bible believing Christians who take God at his word (there is no symbolism, no poetical language and so on that should make us think that we shouldn't take it as it is written - I could be wrong though, so please if you have such great faith in your beliefs correct me with an example or two...). In fact, taking God at his word in Genesis is the only interpretation that makes any sense when placed in light of Scripture.

Do you think that TE's are not Bible believing Christians? Man (under Divine inspiration) wrote the Bible. The allegorical language in Genesis would include God walking in the Garden. God breathing life into Adam and Eve. The tree of knowledge. The tree of life. The talking serpent. Etc. Etc.

And you're last statement to Floodnut proves that you are no better and just as attacking as he supposedly is. {snip}
They attack character rather than the evidence - because they don't want to deal with it in most cases.

I have not responded to floodnut but your response to me has been nothing but a personal attack and misinformation. There is not much to discuss if you hold these views of Theistic-evolutionists. If you want to provide evidence then do so. I have seen nothing but buzzwords from AIG and insulting ad-hominens in your post, however.

If you choose to respond pick one part of the science behind evolution which you wish to discuss. Macro-evolution is not testable but neither is a recent ex-nihilo Creation. All of the evidence from genetics, geology, archaeology, anthropolgy, cosmology etc point to an old universe and common ancestry of all life. That is science not theology. Science can make no claim to ontological origin and intention behind our emergence. I view God as the vision that pulled life forward and there is a lot of evidence and good arguments that this is the case.

 

[Critias]

Really? Mutations produce new information, such as with the much-loved nylon bug.

Now, you know that is not exactly correct. Mutations do not create new information that was not built on previous information that was already there.

Mutation doesn't mean new information. It means a change in the information already there. It alters information, it does not create new information from scratch.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Now, you know that is not exactly correct. Mutations do not create new information that was not built on previous information that was already there.

Mutation doesn't mean new information. It means a change in the information already there. It alters information, it does not create new information from scratch.

hence the reason life falls so naturally into nested hierarchies, vertical transmission of genetic material is the rule.

however there are a few known horizontal transfers outside of the bacteria. The best known is retroviral incorporations into the genome. I'd point to the family HERV-W for an instance of co-opting a viral genome for a placental protein.

this is actually one of the best arguments against a common designer. designers swap modules, evolution does not build chimeras, making common descent follow the vertical transmission of genetic material.

....

 

[Critias]

Then you would have to agree that evolution, in part, is about evolving it a higher life form. This "higher life form" doesn't necessarily mean better, but it does mean more complex. Complexity is not always better, as we are well aware of.

This would lead to the thought that mutation aides in evolving to a higher, more complex, life form. As we see humans are more complex, than bacteria.

For complexity to be functional on the level of a human being, intelligence must exist to guide this complexity. Mutations haven't been seen to be all that successful in the broader sense to produce the complexity needed for an evolutionary change between bacteria to man.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Then you would have to agree that evolution, in part, is about evolving it a higher life form. This "higher life form" doesn't necessarily mean better, but it does mean more complex. Complexity is not always better, as we are well aware of.

This would lead to the thought that mutation aides in evolving to a higher, more complex, life form. As we see humans are more complex, than bacteria.



For complexity to be functional on the level of a human being, intelligence must exist to guide this complexity. Mutations haven't been seen to be all that successful in the broader sense to produce the complexity needed for an evolutionary change between bacteria to man.

Lets clear up some false ideas you seem to have about evolution...



First, evolution and the act of evolving does not necessitate the increase in complexity that you seem to think it does. In parasite evolution the exact opposite is seen. The parasites loose complexity as they adapt to a specific host. The illusion of increasing complexity being necessary comes from the simple state that life started in (the exact opposite of what ID predicts). New things like eyes start off as simple because they are pieces of other organs that are borrowed to do a slightly different job, thus improvements that would seem to make them more complex are only changing their original function.



Second, that mutations alone are responsible for the changes we see in evolution. While mutations are the cause of change in DNA directly the act of natural selection is what turns the random noise of mutations into something useful. Without natural selection evolution stops. A simple analogy to how this works is the engine of your car. Mutations are like the fuel of the engine, it ignites and burns, but without the engine to control the burn rate and place the gas ignites the car will not move. Without natural selection controlling the propagation of mutation evolution would not move either.



You are right that it is design at work, but God had the brilliant idea to let nature do the work for Him, just as nature does the work of designing snowflakes for Him.

 

[Critias]

And lets just forget that around 90% of mutations are nuetral and the remaining are either harmful or considered ok.

If you want to agree to sciences' view, then you have to agree to everything it says and mutations are hardly ever beneficial, let alone one that produces the complexity we see today within human life from bacteria.

Natural Selection is not intelligent nor does it have a specific purpose in which aids in complexity.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

And lets just forget that around 90% of mutations are nuetral and the remaining are either harmful or considered ok.

Oh, I know, and it is even more complex then that. Whether a mutation is beneficial, neutral or harmful also depends on the environment and to some extent human expectations. Sickle cell anemia is neutral in most of the world from a strictly evolutionary standpoint, harmful from the human standpoint because it leads to a slightly earlier death than if one did not have it, but it is highly beneficial in areas of the world with high rates of malaria infection because it makes you immune to malaria. So what we classify as a harmful mutation today could save our lives if the environment should change.

If you want to agree to sciences' view, then you have to agree to everything it says and mutations are hardly ever beneficial, let alone one that produces the complexity we see today within human life from bacteria.

Where did I say that I didn't agree with the relation of neutral mutations to harmful or good mutations? And let me turn this around on you, if you are going to criticize science, at least criticize it for what it says. No where in science is it implied that one single mutation suddenly created human complexity from bacteria. Billions of mutations maybe, but not one.

Natural Selection is not intelligent nor does it have a specific purpose in which aids in complexity.

Neither I nor science said that natural selection was intelligent. But intelligence is not needed to form complex things. It is not needed for snowflakes, it is not needed to make us. Whether it is there or not is not something science can answer, this is one of the reasons that ID is not science, for it claims to answer in the positive, but gives no evidence or models on how they came to the positive answer. Science has long ago learned that you can't put God in a test tube and you can't keep God out of a test tube, so all that you can hope for is a consistent God. YEC and ID movements push for an inconsistent god, one that changes things for seemingly little or no real reason, and thus the antithesis of the Christian God of constancy and reason.