Why should christians trust evolutionists?

[albrecht]

You are correct there, because according to evolution, there is absolutely no "why" as to why we are here. According to evolution, we are all the accidental by-products of a ginormeous cosmic burp.

Evolution says nothing about why we are here in the same way that the theory of gravity doesn't. It's a scientific theory, not an existential philosophy.

Is that why every evolutionary textbook starts with something along the lines of..." Some many billions of years ago all there is was compressed into the area the size of a period on this page. When the energy built up enough..BANG! and everything we see came about..."?

This is the sum of the theory of evolution: "Populations of interbreeding and reproducing organisms have descended with modifications from other populations of interbreeding and reproducing organisms that lived before them." The Big Bang theory itself not a theory of how life started.

I thought evolutionary theory was a natural attempt to explain how everything got here natural.

It explains the diversity and differentiation of species.

I have a theory on that too, it's called Genesis.

Genesis and evolution are not competing ideas. Genesis isn't even a scientific theory, for one thing. And it's not even about scientific knowledge. So I don't get your point here.

 

[Greg1234]

It explains the diversity and differentiation of species.

Doesn't Creationism already explain the diversity and differentiation of species (Creation, adaptation, degradation)?

 

[Keachian]

You are correct there, because according to evolution, there is absolutely no "why" as to why we are here. According to evolution, we are all the accidental by-products of a ginormeous cosmic burp.

Well sure, the problem isn't that there is no reason but rather that the naturalist is separating the natural from the supernatural, something which was put forward by Kant and does not reflect the understanding of the Bible of God and his creation. That he is in control of all and that nothing exists apart from him. So in this way the understanding should shift from us cutting up a pie and saying that God is responsible for this bit or that bit, but rather God is responsible for all phenomena that we have observed and that we are attempting to explain through our current Science.

Is that why every evolutionary textbook starts with something along the lines of..." Some many billions of years ago all there is was compressed into the area the size of a period on this page. When the energy built up enough..BANG! and everything we see came about..."?

Well that's a rather rudimentary understanding of Big Bang cosmology. and no the book I have that could be considered closest to a Biology text book starts like this:
"I will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species."

Not even the books I have on cosmology start like that, here's how one starts: "None of the books in my father's dusty old bookcase were forbidden."

But those are probably more layman than actual textbooks on the subjects. In comparison here is how one of my textbooks starts: "An enumerable, or countable, set is one whose numbers can be enumerated: arranged in a single list with a first entry, second entry, and so on, so that every member of the set appears sooner or later on the list."

I thought evolutionary theory was a natural attempt to explain how everything got here natural.

evolutionary theory deals solely with the diversity of life.

I have a theory on that too, it's called Genesis.

It doesn't though, it just says that there is diversity in life

 

[Keachian]

Doesn't Creationism already explain the diversity and differentiation of species (Creation, adaptation, degradation)?

adaptation and degradation, you'd be calling on at least some level of concordism to drag those kicking and screaming out of the Bible.

 

[good brother]

This is the sum of the theory of evolution: "Populations of interbreeding and reproducing organisms have descended with modifications from other populations of interbreeding and reproducing organisms that lived before them."

Which is ironic, because when a creationist says that all the diversity of life came from populations of interbreeding, the creationist is laughed at for such a ridiculous thought. Talk about a double standard.

The Big Bang theory itself not a theory of how life started.

How did life start?

It explains the diversity and differentiation of species.

I think the Bible says that each creature shall produce offspring according to their kind, so like a protoceratops, triceratops, and a styracosaurus all come from their same kind. You know, diversity?

Genesis and evolution are not competing ideas.

There is absolutely nothing compatible about the two. One says God did it all, the other says mutations did it all. How is that NOT competing?

Genesis isn't even a scientific theory, for one thing.

You are correct again, Genesis is not a theory. It is presented as fact and that is how I take it.

In Christ, GB

 

[albrecht]

Which is ironic, because when a creationist says that all the diversity of life came from populations of interbreeding, the creationist is laughed at for such a ridiculous thought. Talk about a double standard.

Not really.

How did life start?

There are many different theories on how life started. Evolution is not a theory about how life started.

I think the Bible says that each creature shall produce offspring according to their kind, so like a protoceratops, triceratops, and a styracosaurus all come from their same kind. You know, diversity?

It's not enough to have an idea about the diversification of species. The idea has to be good, i.e. supported by evidence.

There is absolutely nothing compatible about the two. One says God did it all, the other says mutations did it all. How is that NOT competing?

Evolution doesn't say mutations did it all. Are you at all familiar with the theory of natural selection or is this conversation as pointless as I think it is?

You are correct again, Genesis is not a theory. It is presented as fact and that is how I take it.

Personally, I prefer looking directly at the universe God created for my information. But go ahead, worship your book.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Apparently what you will and won't buy is completely arbitrary and has no basis in evidence, so what should I care?

I’ll just disregard this, because it is not only blind to Biblical truth but scientific truth as well. Apparently, your perception is heavily misguided. I can easily demonstrate to you how what I will and won’t buy is rooted in objectivity in both theology and the sciences.

Then you apparently believe that the Bible isn't reconcilable with experienced reality.

Our experienced reality is limited to what we can see and understand in this specific point in time. I am not God, and neither are you. It is foolish to define experienced reality as what we understand it to be, while allowing that to trump what we are told it is from the Word of God. Are splitting seas and talking donkeys a part of experienced reality, or do you think those are just myths as well? I read of a God who can raise up a nation for Himself from rocks, that’s reality. It is irrelevant if the Genesis creation account is to be an allegory, God is able to do whatever He wants, and He doesn't need our permission or approval.

They are different but not incompatible.

Using this logic, “any” explanation can technically be compatible. This has nothing to do with the actual accuracy of that explanation as the cause.

And yet there are volumes of natural theology that consider evolution to be a proven fact.

Which is the absolute tragedy, also considering what a fallacy it is to call evolution a “fact” to begin with. You do not really "believe" in science if you go about calling evolution a fact, this is just a giant band wagon of the modern age.

Only in the same sense that the theory of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, and the theory of relativity are "popular modern world views."

It is a fallacy to equate these on the same plane as evolution. This serves as the reason for why I believe evolution to be a cause for misconceptions, scientific misguidance, and even intellectual debilitation. Gravity, thermodynamics, and (to a certain degree) relativity are all demonstrable apart from their theoretical components. Evolution is purely dependant on its theoretical components and wholly contingent on our perception of the geological record. We cannot see, observe, or even test Darwinian processes, which is why evolution remains nothing more than a theory. And it isn’t a very good one, regardless of how desperately it is defended.

Right, go ahead and discount the geographical evidence, the fossil evidence, the experimental evidence, the genetic evidence, the viral evidence, the paleontological evidence, the anatomical evidence, the geological evidence, and so on. While you're at it, simply deny that we can know anything about the universe. That way you can go ahead and believe whatever shoddy pseudoscientific refuse you like. Oh wait - that's what you're doing already.

The question is if you can begin to elaborate on how these quote unquote "evidences" actually serve as evidence, that is if they even do such to begin with. In my experience, most cannot do much more than spit out laundry lists without even understanding how such evidences are fundamentally connected to the theory. You do not present anything concrete, so forget about this "pseudo scientific refuse" and "scientific denial" that you are accusing me of, it is just silly.

Genetics and virology do not prove the Darwinian process to the exclusion of all else, understand that. It identifies certain commonalities among certain groups at the molecular level, that's it. It is not any proof for the process of Darwinian evolution as Darwinian evolution is a large scale "macro" process.

This leads to a false dichotomy - either you believe evolution is "true" or settle for "pseudo-science". That is not to say that there are other processes responsible for biodiversity that we simply cannot know from a naturalistic point of view. The foolishness of a materialistic approach is thick, in that whatever is accepted or rejected is based on our ability to comprehend it. Do you not forget that God is pseudoscientific by definition?

The fossil evidence not only poorly supports the theory, but often serves as the counter evidence, so I don't know why you would mention it.

Geology and geography are completely arbitrary when considering the scope of Darwinian evolution, again presenting "evidence" that isn't evidence. This won't go much further than help identify causes and effects for the distribution and variation of species, not the large scale divergence Darwinism attempts to dictate as reality.

Contrary to what you may believe, scientific literacy isn't incompatible with Christianity. I am a Christian (Episcopalian, to be specific), I just refuse to support poor arguments for distorted versions of Christianity.

Scientific literacy is one thing, evolution is another. The great irony is that I understand how scientific literacy is fully compatible with the Bile, but evolution is not wholly scientific to begin with, and is what will lead to distorted versions of Biblical accounts.

There is evidence for evolution, and no scientific evidence for "creation science" or Intelligent Design. That's all I'm saying.

If you are a Christian as you stipulate, I suggest you learn your place. You can surely get up there one day and tell God all about this shoddy man-made idea they called "evolution" and see what He thinks. I am not particularly devoted to creation science or ID, thought I am more inclined to associate with those than evolution. This is just pure silliness. In case it hasn't clicked, God's creative processes are not contingent on your ability to comprehend them.

It's a question of the presuppositions you make.

Not an issue as long as the context is made clear.

I'm not misrepresenting you. I'm just saying that your own beliefs are about as well supported as those of any other equivalent flat-earther or astrologer. That's not misrepresentation, that's fact. I understand that you probably don't believe in those things, but the reality is that they are just as well supported as your beliefs about evolution.

You do not present any “facts” here, just to clarify.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Evolution doesn't say mutations did it all. Are you at all familiar with the theory of natural selection or is this conversation as pointless as I think it is?

I have the response to your previous comment done but unfortunately I am having weird issues with formatting texts.

You do know that natural selection does not provide a basis for universal common ancestry and the divergence of species, do you? If you argue this, then you do not understand evolution nor natural selection.

The random mutation is the "deus ex machina" of the life sciences. The way that evolution implicates this genetic occurence is a terrible joke - and in case you didn't know, evolution is change through natural selection and random mutations. It's in the definition.

But go ahead, worship your book.

Really? Like really?

 

[conamer]

Thank you for your reply.

I was talking about what I have witnessed. For example, the other day I took my family to the zoo. The man giving the "educational talk" with the exotic birds gave a sermon on evolution, and included a defense of adultery, supposedly because "we are just sophisticated animals", and it is unnatural to be faithful to one person for all your life. This really annoyed me, and makes me think that evolution too often goes hand in hand with anti-christian propaganda.



The book about the philosophical ramifications of darwinism that influenced me most is "Architects of the Culture of Death" by de Marco and Wiker.



If you do not consider PP to be a moral abomination, there is not much point discussing this matter with you. We obviously have little in common on a moral plain. PP is nazism alive today.



You make a good point. The crux of the matter is whether evolution contradicts Scripture.



The Church Fathers say otherwise. Their interpretation of Genesis is that God created everything at once, out of nothing. Evolutionary ideas had been around for a long time, ever since Epicureus, the materialist philosopher of the III century B.C. (I think).



Do you really think that it is a "lunatic conspiracy theory" to claim that global warming is a sham? Have you ever considered the existence of powerful oligarquies, who manipulate the financial markets, pressure governments, and control the mass media? Ever wondered about freemasonry? Bilderberg? Conspiracy is plausible, you just have to discern between true conspiracy and fantasy. Like that film with Mel Gibson. Does anyone know the one I mean? He played a conspiracy theorist, who was suddenly under attack from powerful people trying to kill him. The only problem was that he didn´t know which of his crazy theories was the one that turned out to be true!

I am inclined to believe evidence that comes from sources I have reasons to trust, or at least no reason to distrust; not sources controled by big money and anti-christian lobbies. If you think that science is somehow above this, you are very wrong. There is big money in science, and guess who pulls the strings, when it comes to research funding? The number of scientists who have got the sack for daring to publish papers in favour of intelligent design shows there is a built-in prejudice against faith in the science establishment. How did that get there? That´s another matter; the fact is that it is there.



If John Paul II and Benedict XVI wish to believe in evolution, that is their affair. I do not have to believe everything the Pope believes as a personal opinion. If they solemnly declare something as dogma, that is an entirely different matter. However, that almost never happens, especially not these days, when ambiguity is favoured over doctrinal clarity. Neither of these Popes have declared anything binding on catholics about evolution.

Evolution is an attempt to explain how we came to be in a no-God senario/antichrist. They contradict each other, in spite of what our theistic evolution friends say.

 

[albrecht]

You do know that natural selection does not provide a basis for universal common ancestry and the divergence of species, do you? If you argue this, then you do not understand evolution nor natural selection.

The theory of natural selection is a theory of the mechanism behind evolution and the divergence of species.

The random mutation is the "deus ex machina" of the life sciences. The way that evolution implicates this genetic occurence is a terrible joke - and in case you didn't know, evolution is change through natural selection and random mutations. It's in the definition.

I was addressing the claim that "mutations did it all," not saying that mutations had nothing to do with it.

Really? Like really?

Yes. Some people seem to forget that the Bible is not the end in itself. It is a guide for the Christian life and salvation. It is not an idol or a magic 8-ball that pronounces inerrantly on science and history; it is not a substitute for looking at the universe God made. Scripture is not "God on earth." The Bible is the book of the church. It contains the Word of God but it is not identical to the Word of God. It is a great aid to Christian faith, life, and salvation, and a sacred one at that, but it is foolish to think that the Bible is a reliable source of information on absolutely everything.

 

[albrecht]

Evolution is an attempt to explain how we came to be in a no-God senario/antichrist.

No, it isn't.

They contradict each other, in spite of what our theistic evolution friends say.

They don't contradict each other at all, in spite of what our creationist and other superstitious friends think the Bible says.

 

[Keachian]

I'll stress again that theistic evolutionary thought and structures are not or should not be trying to appeal to concordism, this is part of what YEC fail to understand, the other thing that I find reprehensible about the YEC view point is the philosophical concordism that they tell us to read out modern ideas out of an Ancient Near East text.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

The theory of natural selection is a theory of the mechanism behind evolution and the divergence of species.

Natural selection produces the variation of species, not the divergence of entirely new ones which are indistinguishable from its predecessors.

I was addressing the claim that "mutations did it all," not saying that mutations had nothing to do with it.

Saying that mutations "did it all" is not entirely inaccurate, perhaps "most of it" is better - at least mostly all significant evolution is purportedly a product of such mutations. Considering how the genetic gap between human brains and those of our nearest alleged ancestors translates to thousands of mutations in thousands of different genes, for example. "Deus ex machina"

Yes. Some people seem to forget that the Bible is not the end in itself. It is a guide for the Christian life and salvation. It is not an idol or a magic 8-ball that pronounces inerrantly on science and history; it is not a substitute for looking at the universe God made. Scripture is not "God on earth." The Bible is the book of the church. It contains the Word of God but it is not identical to the Word of God. It is a great aid to Christian faith, life, and salvation, and a sacred one at that, but it is foolish to think that the Bible is a reliable source of information on absolutely everything.

I understand this. What I was objecting to was your uncalled for comment on those who simply wish to take those words for what they are and you equating that with worshipping a book.

 

[gluadys]

Evolutionary theory has nothing to say on why anything exists. It's not a theory of the beginning of life. It's not a theory of why there's something rather than nothing. Evolutionary theory pertains to the diversity of species.

You are correct there, because according to evolution, there is absolutely no "why" as to why we are here. According to evolution, we are all the accidental by-products of a ginormeous cosmic burp.

You are misreading albrecht and you are mistaken about the theory of evolution. It is not true that according to evolution there is absolutely no "why" as to why we are heer.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to say on why anything exists. That is evolutionary theory does not say "We exist because...." But evolution also does not say "We exist for no reason at all." The theory of evolution takes no stand on whether or not there is a why for our existence.

It is not true that according to the theory of evolution we are all accidental by products of a cosmic burp. In the first place the theory of evolution is about biological change, not about cosmology.

In the second place the theory of evolution takes no stand on whether or not we are here as an accident or for a reason. All it deals with is the empirical evidence of our evolutionary origin.

I thought evolutionary theory was a natural attempt to explain how everything got here natural.

No, evolution is not a theory about everything. You seem to be mistaking evolution for the whole of science. But even the whole of science doesn't have a theory of everything yet.

It is the quest of science to determine what the natural causes of processes and events in nature are. It is not the quest of science to prove that everything comes about by natural rather than supernatural causes. If something does not have a natural cause, it is a miracle, and falls outside of science. It it is not a miracle, then it has a natural cause and scientists try to find out what it is.

Either way, God is the ultimate cause. Natural does not mean "no God allowed". Unless, you think God never uses natural causes to accomplish his will.

There are two possible antonyms for "natural". One is "supernatural" To say something happened naturally means no mysterious, magical, miraculous, inexplicable power was used.

The other possible antonym is "artificial" i.e. made by human artifice, manufactured. In this case to say something happened naturally means it happens without interference by humans. Natural light, for example, is sunlight, not electrical light. In this second meaning "natural" basically means "God did it." Or do you think God does not provide natural sunlight?

 

[Mr.Waffles]

No, it isn't.



They don't contradict each other at all, in spite of what our creationist and other superstitious friends think the Bible says.

#1 Read post 83

#2 Theistic evolution, as I said, is ultimately useless and an oxymoron. As evolution has nothing to do with theology and is rendered obselete outside of a fallen state where death and decay are realities.

 

[albrecht]

Natural selection produces the variation of species, not the divergence of entirely new ones which are indistinguishable from its predecessors.

Microevolution and macroevolution are basically identical processes. The only difference is the length of time being considered.

Saying that mutations "did it all" is not entirely inaccurate, perhaps "most of it" is better - at least mostly all significant evolution is purportedly a product of such mutations. Considering how the genetic gap between human brains and those of our nearest alleged ancestors translates to thousands of mutations in thousands of different genes, for example. "Deus ex machina"

The rate of mutation is not a constant for all species. Other factors, such as natural selection, and allele drift and flow, for example, also play a significant role. So, no, it's not a deus ex machina.

I understand this. What I was objecting to was your uncalled for comment on those who simply wish to take those words for what they are and you equating that with worshipping a book.

It was not uncalled for. "Worship" was maybe the wrong word. "Idolatry" is a more fitting one.

 

[albrecht]

#1 Read post 83

Done. Your point?

#2 Theistic evolution, as I said, is ultimately useless and an oxymoron.

It has not proven so in any of the theological works that accept it.

As evolution has nothing to do with theology and is rendered obselete outside of a fallen state where death and decay are realities.

Evolutionary theory does not make reference to theology, but that doesn't mean that evolution doesn't have theological significance. There is a difference.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Microevolution and macroevolution are basically identical processes. The only difference is the length of time being considered.

Doesn't get more fallacious than this. The magical inferrance of time doesn't count for anything, by the way.

The rate of mutation is not a constant for all species. Other factors, such as natural selection, and allele drift and flow, for example, also play a significant role. So, no, it's not a deus ex machina.

You have no idea, do you? Or is it you prefer not to?

It was not uncalled for. "Worship" was maybe the wrong word. "Idolatry" is a more fitting one.

I am sorry, but this is getting flat out stupid. Yes, it is uncalled for. Just because one may not share the same perspective as you and wishes to take certain words literally does not equate with worshipping a book and being guilty of idolatry.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Done. Your point?

My point is that I gave my REPLY to that last post of yours, in which I more or less debunk what you had presented. You are apparently a layman who cannot do some honest and objective thinking for himself, or else I wouldn't be here trying to break this down for you.

Evolutionary theory does not make reference to theology, but that doesn't mean that evolution doesn't have theological significance. There is a difference.

It has no theological significance, none whatsoever. Maybe you would understand why if you'd spend less time looking into evolution and more into theology, while remembering which takes priority.

 

[albrecht]

Doesn't get more fallacious than this. The magical inferrance of time doesn't count for anything, by the way.

In terms of evolutionary change, time is immensely significant. Microevolution and macroevolution have the same mechanisms of evolutionary change. Macroevolution is the same process on a larger scale.

You have no idea, do you? Or is it you prefer not to?

What do I have "no idea" about?

I am sorry, but this is getting flat out stupid. Yes, it is uncalled for. Just because one may not share the same perspective as you and wishes to take certain words literally does not equate with worshipping a book and being guilty of idolatry.

Insisting on a peculiar cartoonish interpretation of the Bible, without regard to any other evidence including observable processes of the universe God created, does indeed constitute a form of idolatry.