Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[Mallon]

I'm sorry to say it, keltoi, but I am finding it extremely difficult and frustrating to carry on a productive conversation with you. You claim to have extensive knowledge of evolution, but what "amazes" me is what little knowledge you do have of the subject. I study evolution for a living; I can recognize when someone understands the topic.
That said, your misunderstandings and preconvictions have certainly lead you to a warped view of both evolutionary science and creationism. Instead of telling TEs what they SHOULD believe in, you ought to stick around a little longer, listen, and learn why we believe what we do. Evolution does not equate with the big bang. Evolution is not due to random chance. Evolution does not deny God. You are simply repeating common midunderstandings and conflating them with Christian theology.
I hope you will continue to hang around and contribute positively to this forum, but in the meantime, I hope you would quit misrepresenting TE theology.

P.S. It's "Genesis".

 

[keltoi]

Here's a question for you: do you believe that God knit you together in your mother's womb? I certainly believe that was true for me. And yet, developmental biology says that science had it all down pat! According to developmental biology, it wasn't God who knit me together in my mother's womb, it was a sperm and an egg and DNA that did the trick. So what do I do? Do I abandon developmental biology and declare that pregnant women shouldn't consult those atheistic doctors for diagnoses? No, I take a deep hard breath and think clearly about the relationship between science and God.

We are talking evolution not biological science, again people swap topics and bring material in theat is nonsensical.

Heres what I believe and you can take from it what you will. God created Adam and Eve and when he created them he gave them the ability to reproduce in like kind. Hey it even says this in Genisis about Flora and Fauna. From here mankind reproduced according the the patern in which God set down. In like kind. No evolving not cahnge of species, but in like kind.

Face it, we Christians thank God regularly for many things which have scientific explanations. We thank God for clear weather (but meteorology "denies God"), speedy recovery from sickness (but medicine "denies God"), for a free country (but democracy and political science "deny God"), and for such simple things as electricity (is God in Maxwell's equations?) and sunlight (or in Einstein's?). We attribute many things both to immediate scientific causes and to the ultimate cause of God's will. Why is it inconsistent to say the same of evolution?

Agian this is from left field. I have never said science has not got any merit and that we cannot use it but I will continue to say that evolution is totaly opposite Biblical convetions.

Too bad for the paleoanthropologists, then. Quite frankly, why God made man in His image is a question more for God than for me.

You don't know about it do you, you can admit it you know. Accordingto evolutionary theory Cro-mags and Neandertals were mankind. If this is the case then God made them in his image. It isn't a question for God it is a question for TEs because they appear to deny in this case both evoltionary theory and Gods creations.

Because God did? Like it or not, God chose to commune with us humans, and the world we have today is a result for that, all too bad for the animal kingdom.

And I am thankful for this but read the bit above, previous 'species' of Homo were mankind and it isn't written in teh Bible tat God communed with them.

That's not really difficult. Speciation happens all the time; an interesting example is ring species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Yeah right.

 

[Melethiel]

We are talking evolution not biological science, again people swap topics and bring material in theat is nonsensical.

Evolution = biological science.

Heres what I believe and you can take from it what you will. God created Adam and Eve and when he created them he gave them the ability to reproduce in like kind. Hey it even says this in Genisis about Flora and Fauna. From here mankind reproduced according the the patern in which God set down. In like kind. No evolving not cahnge of species, but in like kind.

Define "kind". Also, the Bible doesn't say anything about bacteria, archaea, and fungi, so I guess they're free to evolve...

 

[keltoi]

Umm...Everything evolves. Unless a population is in the ideal state of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, which is pretty much impossible, it must evolve.

are you talking about evolutin as a change from one species to another or are you talking about evolution as change due to natural selection? there is a difference you know. People ave steadily grown taller due to natural selection of one sort or another. Species don't however change into another due to natural selection. A human is a Human, there are biological differences in and between different groups of Humans. This does not mean however that anyone here is decended from what evoltionary sciences classes as ancient Homonids. That is a change in species and it is not natural selection as there is no vidence of any species ever chinging from one to another. If there is this evidence would you kindly show me.

Evolution and the Big Bang are completely different concepts, from two completely different fields. The two do not touch each other in any way. Chance is the exact opposite of natural selection. Environmental pressure is what drives evolution. While the DNA mutations are by chance, they only persist in the population if selected for.

I know they are 2 different theories but they are 2 different theories that both disagree with the Genesis account of creation. Because of this small but very significant fact they are mutual in their antagonism of the Biblical account.

Now, evolution relies on living organisms to work. If evoltion is how we come to be then it stand to good reason that Genesis is completely wrong as it disgrees with it totally. Therefore the way in which the universe itself occured must be questioned and this is done through the Big Bang theory.

Accusing the opposing side of defensiveness and hypocrisy is not conducive to good debate. Let's address the posts and keep the polemics out of it. This goes for both sides.

This thread had snipes in it before I come along.

 

[keltoi]

Evolution = biological science.

Evolution = revoltion in species and it is not Biblical.

Define "kind". Also, the Bible doesn't say anything about bacteria, archaea, and fungi, so I guess they're free to evolve...

Ok and I will give you some science to go with it. Kind is same. So humans produce Humans, Orangotangs pruduce Orangotangs. Species produce in kind.

A horse and a Donkey cannot breed with each other and successfully produce a mule offspring that can also reproduce another mule offspring naturally (i.e. in kind). Some birds can but that is because they belong to the same Genus. It is a similar thing with the different species of Homonid, they are not the same genus/sub genus so they could not reproduce in kind. Therfor a new species could not evolve in this way.

 

[keltoi]

To all concerned I apologise unreservedly to those I have offended in anyway.

Blessings in Christs name.

 

[Dannager]

You need to provide a definition of "kind", keltoi. Not just examples of what is and isn't a kind - we need solid criteria for determining when two creatures are of the same kind and when they are not. Until you can provide such a definition, you don't have a working theory.

 

[keltoi]

I gave a definition of kind thanks very much. If you can't glean from simple english what it is then you cannot understand the theory. Here it is below from above.

It is a similar thing with the different species of Homonid, they are not the same genus/sub genus so they could not reproduce in kind. Therefor a new species could not evolve in this way.

In "kind" is producing the same species from reproductive activities that will be able to reproduce that species again (ie. in kind) Horses and Donkeys are unable to reproduce together in kind as they will always either throw a sterile mule (male) or a sterile female (cant rememeber the name) or a female that isn't sterile but will only throw a donkey or a horse if it does get in foal. In other words the female mule does not reproduce in kind because you don't get another mule that can reproduce but you may get a horse or donkey.

Genesis 1:20-25.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.


Each type of animal is a kind. Types that are not of kind cannot breed together and create an ongoing type.

Now that is twice I have provided a definition and even an example.

 

[Brennan]

Each type of animal is a species. Types that are not of species cannot breed together and create an ongoing type.

The purpose of using 'kind' instead of 'species' is what precisely?

Are tigers and Lions a kind?

 

[keltoi]

Each type of animal is a species. Types that are not of species cannot breed together and create an ongoing type.

Thats what I have said

The purpose of using 'kind' instead of 'species' is what precisely?

Because kind is what is used in common English language versions of the Bible. That is why I even referenced to Genesis

Are tigers and Lions a kind?

Are they of the same genus and sub genus? you tell me.

This question is just yet another side track after a point is acknowlegded, there is no real point to it except to cause further difficulty. I am not playing your game anymore. I am not repeating myself just because you cannot get what I type and I am certainly not going to get into a game of sarcasm. I have apologised once I will not do it again.

This entire thread is "Why theisitc evolution doesn't fit". I gave an example in laymans language and asked a question to which I receive a tirade of sarcasm and sillyness. I notice others have to for their POVs. It doesn't fit purely and simply because it does not fit with the Genesis account of creation.

 

[Assyrian]

To me there is no reason to believe that there is not a spiritual door that is Christ.

Do you mean Jesus exists as a sort of ghostly rectangle with a handle on his side?

Or do you mean that through a relationship with Jesus we have fellowship with God and begin a new life with our spiritual nature transformed and our minds renewed? If that is the case then 'door' is a metaphor for our relationship with God, describing putting our faith in Jesus Christ as entering a physical house through the doorway.

Can you tell me for sure that He is not a literal door?

Yes, unless the gospels are complete fantasy, in which case none of it was literal. Would the disciples have walked around Galilee and Judea talking to a literal door? I am sure the Jewish authorities would have pointed out how strange this was. Would the Roman soldiers have nailed a literal door to the cross?

 

[Melethiel]

Ok and I will give you some science to go with it. Kind is same. So humans produce Humans, Orangotangs pruduce Orangotangs. Species produce in kind.

A horse and a Donkey cannot breed with each other and successfully produce a mule offspring that can also reproduce another mule offspring naturally (i.e. in kind). Some birds can but that is because they belong to the same Genus. It is a similar thing with the different species of Homonid, they are not the same genus/sub genus so they could not reproduce in kind. Therfor a new species could not evolve in this way.

None of this goes against the Theory of Evolution. I'm assuming you're saying that kind=genus. Evolution does not say that one genus can evolve into another existing genus. That would falsify evolution. What it does say is that over time the descendants of one genus have changed enough that they can be classified in a separate branch.

are you talking about evolutin as a change from one species to another or are you talking about evolution as change due to natural selection? there is a difference you know.

Not in any textbook I've seen.

That is a change in species and it is not natural selection as there is no vidence of any species ever chinging from one to another.

Search "nylon bug".

 

[Assyrian]

Evolution is evolution, if things evolve from others then they evolve from others it is as simple as that. The misrepresentation is aligning evolution with theology.

This is a really important understanding. Hold onto it.

It must assume that though, as it denies the creative act of a devine being.

Ah now here you go, you are making the very mistake you just pointed out. You are trying to align evolution with theology. Science can tell us what happened and how, but it does not give us any ultimate whys, or tell us the significance of what happened.

Because kind is what is used in common English language versions of the Bible. That is why I even referenced to Genesis

Except that you are using a meaning of kind that isn't given in Genesis or the rest of the bible. It say the earth produced different kinds of creatures. It doesn't talk of animals reproducing in like kind, or that kinds cannot diverge in groups of animals that can no longer interbreed successfully.

You replied to Shernren's reference to ring species with a dismissive 'Yeah Right." But how does your understanding of kind fit ring species?

The Herring Gull in Great Britain can interbreed with the American Herring Gull.
Are they a kind?
The American Herring Gull can interbreed with the Vega Herring Gull in East Siberian.
What about these?
The Vega Herring Gull can interbreed with Birula's Gull.
Are we still dealing with a single kind of gull?
Birula's Gull can interbreed with Heuglin's Gull.
Still the same kind, right?
Heuglin's Gull can interbreed with Lesser Black-backed Gull.
However Lesser Black-backed Gull cannot interbreed with the Herring Gull.
So which gulls form a single kind?

 

[Mallon]

This entire thread is "Why theisitc evolution doesn't fit". I gave an example in laymans language and asked a question to which I receive a tirade of sarcasm and sillyness. I notice others have to for their POVs. It doesn't fit purely and simply because it does not fit with the Genesis account of creation.

Just because you don't like what you hear doesn't make the responses of the TEs here silly. You have received responses in direct answer to the OP. Such answers are internally consistent, and consistent with a historical understanding of both the Bible and evolution. But instead of addressing these replies directly, you have made a strawman of TE theology ("according to evolution, mold spores go to heaven"), misrepresented the theory of evolution (by conflating it with the Big Bang and abiogenesis), and even questioned the Christianity of the evolutionists here (before being forced by the mods to apologize). Anytime someone disagrees with your position, or shows it to be wrong, you accuse them (5 times) of being unable to read, while consistently and simultaneously spelling words like "Genisis", "evoltion", "espound", etc.
While I do not question your Christianity, I can't help but question your motives for posting here. Most, if not all, TEs here have been very straightforward in trying to answer your questions. And instead of responding in kind, you tell us that we should believe in the righteousness of mold spores, a statement that has been refuted in kind. Is such provoking behaviour not that of a troll?

 

[shernren]

Yeah right.

I hate to be unkind, but you ought to read my sources with the same gullibility that you read your own.

Agian this is from left field. I have never said science has not got any merit and that we cannot use it but I will continue to say that evolution is totaly opposite Biblical convetions.

For what reason? You say that "evolution excludes God". I can think of two reasons why you would say that:

1. "Evolution provides a naturalistic explanation for the origin of biodiversity and humanity, and such an explanation excludes God - in evolution random chance, not God, did everything." Well, the rest of science provides naturalistic explanations for everything else. In meteorology, say, random chance and physics cause rain to fall and the sun to shine and all. Where is God in the process? You won't find a variable labeled "God" in the equations, but He is in charge of it all nonetheless. It's the same with evolution - God is in charge, even if you can't find Him in the equations of random mutation and natural selection.

2. "Evolution contradicts the Bible's historical record of creation." Well, that assumes that the Bible's record is a historical one. If it is any other form of record, say a theological or a figurative one, then there is no contradiction between evolution's historical and scientific truth, and the Bible's theological and figurative truth, in describing creation.

You don't know about it do you, you can admit it you know. Accordingto evolutionary theory Cro-mags and Neandertals were mankind. If this is the case then God made them in his image. It isn't a question for God it is a question for TEs because they appear to deny in this case both evoltionary theory and Gods creations.

The thing is that the image of God is not something biological. A handicapped person who is missing arms and legs is still made in the image of God. Even a boy with Down's syndrome, who having three chromosome-21s is rather different genetically, is still made in the image of God. If we were to use genetic therapy to change a human's genes in the future, that human would still be considered made in the image of God.

Why? Being made in the image of God is not a biological feature - it is a spiritual feature. If you look carefully, in Genesis 2 when God breathes into Adam what does he become? That breath which animates Adam's biology only makes him a "living creature", a term which elsewhere is applied to animals. Biologically speaking we are animals. What makes man into God's image? It happens in Genesis 1: God makes man in His image, and then gives man dominion over nature - in effect establishing man as His representative in created nature. Man is made in God's image precisely when he has a spiritual relationship with God.

What does all this have to do with your question? Simply this: even if Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals were biologically the same as us, that wouldn't necessarily have made them bearers of the image of God. (They may well have been. I don't know any of them personally, and I doubt you do either, so I'm not quite sure how I'd judge.) That relationship with God is what makes us bearers of God's image and His representatives (for good or for bad) in creation. If they had that relationship, then they were bearers of the image; if they didn't, they weren't, whatever their genes and biological makeup looked like.

And I am thankful for this but read the bit above, previous 'species' of Homo were mankind and it isn't written in teh Bible tat God communed with them.

Again, they may have been biologically human, but as long as they didn't have a spiritual relationship with God, they couldn't have been human the way we are.

 

[Brennan]

This entire thread is "Why theisitc evolution doesn't fit". I gave an example in laymans language and asked a question to which I receive a tirade of sarcasm and sillyness. I notice others have to for their POVs. It doesn't fit purely and simply because it does not fit with the Genesis account of creation.

You gave an example that shows a misunderstanding of that which you purport to attack. Your argument is a strawman. This has been pointed out to you, please do not try an emotional appeal as well.

 

[gluadys]

No what I believe is evolution as a theory must espound that. If it doesn't then the theory is Bipolar and hypocritical, and does not agree with itself.

Then you are incorrect in your reasoning. Evolution is a scientific theory. Science is not theology and does not come to theological conclusions.

So it is incorrect to say that "evolution as a theory" must come to any sort of theological conclusion.

Evolution is evolution, if things evolve from others then they evolve from others it is as simple as that. The misrepresentation is aligning evolution with theology.

Exactly. Evolution cannot give theological conclusions because it is science, not theology. Yet this is what you yourself are doing. You are assuming that evolution must lead to a certain theological conclusion.

Obviously, since evolution happens, any theology must take this fact into account. But that does not necessitate any one theological conclusion. YECists include evolution in their thinking as much as OECists, IDists and TEs do. But each includes evolution in a different way with very different theological conclusions.

Oh well to please you my OP simply questions TEs ability to justify one part of common evolution a place in heaven while denying another part a place as well.

In fact, I personally believe that all of created nature will have its place in heaven. But most forms of life do not have any conscious sense of self. They are not self-aware individuals as humans are. So I don't think each individual worm or spore or spider will be "saved", but rather that worms and spores and spiders, etc. will form part of the environment of heaven as they do here on earth. The earth as a whole will be redeemed from the effects of human sin and all of creation will thus be saved. Otherwise Romans 8 makes no sense to me.

It must assume that though, as it denies the creative act of a devine being , putting absolutely everything down to chance.

No, evolution does not deny the creative act of a divine being. It is a scientific theory and as such it comes to no theological conclusions. Nor does evolution put everything down to chance. That is, as has been said, a common misunderstanding of evolution.

The way I see it is that evolution is the creative act of a divine being.

 

[pastorkevin73]

the problem is that it really doesn't matter what we believe, what is important is the text and the meaning that God wants for us to derive from it.

Hmm, where have I heard this before? Oh, I believe I said something similar and I remember a few TEs rejecting it. Funny, now a TE is using it.

 

[gluadys]

So are you saying Cro-mags and Neandertals were not intelligent? Evolutionary palaeoanthropoloigist believe they were!

Why then why not Cro-mags or Neandertals or Australopithicenes or Ardepithecus'?

Just to clarify a bit here. In scientific terminology, it is important to distinguish species and genera. It is also important to distinguish biological differences from cultural differences.

In the list above, Cro-Mag(nons), Neanderthals and Ardepithecus are each species. Australopithecine is a genus. Ardepithecus is a species of Australopithecine.

Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons are both species of the genus Homo. Neanderthals are classified as either Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis depending on whether they are considered a seperate species or only a separate sub-species from us.

Cro-magnon is classified as Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens. That's right. Cro-magnons are fully human just like us. Cro-Magnon does not indicate a biological difference. It indicates an early human culture which flourished in southern Europe about 30,000 to 50,000 years ago and left us the magnificent cave paintings from that era.

But why would this be the case? Why would God choose the species Homo Sapien Sapien to commune with, when evolutionary theory includes the species named before as Humanity.

Why not? Why did God choose Abraham rather than his brother Nahor? Why did he choose Jacob over Esau? Why did he choose David rather than one of his seven brothers?

Surely God has the right to choose as he wills without regard to human wisdom.

I don't know that evolutionary theory includes earlier Homo species as humanity. AFAIK, the term "human" applies only to Homo sapiens. However, if there were evidence that God included a wider group as "human", I would have no problem with doing so scientifically as well. OTOH, if scientists decide that all Homo species are "human", that still does not mean God would be required to commune with them all as he does with Homo sapiens.

After all, it has been seriously suggested that chimpanzees and humans ought rightly to be classified in the same genus. But changing the scientific name of chimps from Pan troglodytes to Homo troglodytes would not make chimps human.

 

[keltoi]

Evolution cannot give theological conclusions because it is science, not theology. Yet this is what you yourself are doing. You are assuming that evolution must lead to a certain theological conclusion.

No I am sayig evolution disregards theology as it does not fit the Genisis account and therefor disregards God work in creating in 6 days.

and even questioned the Christianity of the evolutionists here (before being forced by the mods to apologize).

Now here we go again, someone is asuming something they have no idea about. No Mod ever forced me or even for that matter mentioned or even insinuated I apologise. So you either need to get your facts about the hereand now straight or don't comment on them at all. In this matter you are plain WRONG.

Anytime someone disagrees with your position, or shows it to be wrong, you accuse them (5 times) of being unable to read, while consistently and simultaneously spelling words like "Genisis", "evoltion", "espound", etc.

Again you ar asuming something you know nothing about. There are medical conditions that you are now delving into and using to humiliate someone.

Thes are the rules that have been sent me:
2.1 No Flaming

You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; and
- Threats of any sort, including advocating or supporting physical or mental harm against another living creature (this creature clause does not apply to political discussions of military action, hunting/fishing discussions nor ethical discussions of capital punishment).

The problem now is that all but one person used sarcasm, loaded questions etc to cause negativity. Even from the 1st reply to my OP smart, sarcastic replies were forthcoming. Only one person who has responded to my OP has tried to discuss it without at anytime using anyform of sarcasm or put downs.

While I do not question your Christianity, I can't help but question your motives for posting here. Most, if not all, TEs here have been very straightforward in trying to answer your questions. And instead of responding in kind, you tell us that we should believe in the righteousness of mold spores, a statement that has been refuted in kind. Is such provoking behaviour not that of a troll?

Now you are calling people names. I have stated that evolutionary theory indicates these thing. I have never questioned anyones Christianity but I have replied to a comment about being Christian forum and such. I pointed out the ludicrous nature of the comment in the first place. Does anyone here truly believe that everyone who is listed in this forum as a member is a Christian. There is no way on earth anyone here could see this statment to be true. The internet is a free for all and this site has no screening procedure to block out non-Christians from this part. It is free to all to come in and post in.

And I have never said anything about the rightiousness of a mold spor but I have asked what TEs think about a common ancestor having the chance to go to heaven and why TEs think that way considering evolution indicates everything has a common ancestor. After all God created man in his image yet it appears none of you believe this common ancestor can achieve what you yourselves can. It is a valid question considering what evolutionary theory claims to be reality. It is also a question which still has not been answered without snipes and loaded comments.

If you have anything else to say to me regarding, me , my motives or your perception of them PM me as I will not be back in this thread again.