Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[Parmenio]

I could do no better job of explaining evolution than has already been done within this thread. I applaud you all, but I am disappointed that evolution was only disputed on theological grounds, without addressing any of its tenets or substantiating evidence.

 

[withreason]

I am disappointed that evolution was only disputed on theological grounds, without addressing any of its tenets or substantiating evidence.

The substantiating evidence for Evolution is the problem! With the increase of our understanding in Micro Biology, DNA, Micro Motors, the Darwinian theory has little or, No ground at all.
It is only the hard line cynics in the Science & Education administration that keeps a persistent nose up attitude at any view of publicly admitting intelligent design, even at a risk of denying the obvious, and most reducible conclusion. The struggle to compile a theory to explain “The Bacterial Flagellum” http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flagellum_all.htm in an attempt to salvage the Darwinian theory, is still the biggest thorn in the Evolutionists side.
How does evolution compile structured & programmed information into a self compiler at a non reducible state?? It just cant happen !! this is worth lookin at too
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld001.html

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The substantiating evidence for Evolution is the problem! With the increase of our understanding in Micro Biology, DNA, Micro Motors, the Darwinian theory has little or, No ground at all.
It is only the hard line cynics in the Science & Education administration that keeps a persistent nose up attitude at any view of publicly admitting intelligent design, even at a risk of denying the obvious, and most reducible conclusion. The struggle to compile a theory to explain “The Bacterial Flagellum” http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flagellum_all.htm in an attempt to salvage the Darwinian theory, is still the biggest thorn in the Evolutionists side.
How does evolution compile structured & programmed information into a self compiler at a non reducible state?? It just cant happen !! this is worth lookin at too
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld001.html

amazing.
because of Behe's usage of the flagellum, it is now one of the widest written about systems. afaik, it is pretty evident that that it is a co-opted set of secretory proteins.

 

[Parmenio]

The evidence for evolution has been clearly stated throughout this thread. The argument that evolution cannot account for the bacterial flagellum is rather silly. Various combinations of the proteins that are used to assemble the flagellum are used in other capacities. Several of them can be assembled to create a bacterial "syringe". It just depends on the combination. If you'd like more I invite you to watch one of my favorite videos: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

It is only the hard line cynics in the Science & Education administration that keeps a persistent nose up attitude at any view of publicly admitting intelligent design, even at a risk of denying the obvious, and most reducible conclusion.

I think you mean the easiest conclusion is that "God did it." I am, I suppose, of the Theistic Evolution camp. Meaning I believe that God our creator is in charge of it all, and I accept that the method He chose to go about His creation was evolution.

I really think you should look more into the evidence that there is for evolution. Every attack by creationists on evolution as been refuted, not just disputed, but refuted. There is no debate within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. None. I really think you should look more into the evidence of evolution. I really don't see anything within it that is inherently "un-Christian" or anything of that sort. It really is the most accurate explanation for the world around us.

 

[Mallon]

Oy ve. Honestly. What is the Christian manner in which to have such a discussion about evolution? How is it possible to bear fruit when there is so much vehement unwillingness to concede? On the one hand, we have a group that insists that evolution can and does happen, based on the evidence. On the other, we have a group who insists that, despite the evidence, evolution does not and cannot happen because it is contrary to a plain reading of the Bible. Both groups are Christian, and both believe themselves to be right. What barrier must we destroy in order to have a fruitful conversation?
It's an honest question. I'm sick of bickering with fellow Christians.

 

[Mallon]

The substantiating evidence for Evolution is the problem! With the increase of our understanding in Micro Biology, DNA, Micro Motors, the Darwinian theory has little or, No ground at all.
It is only the hard line cynics in the Science & Education administration that keeps a persistent nose up attitude at any view of publicly admitting intelligent design, even at a risk of denying the obvious, and most reducible conclusion. The struggle to compile a theory to explain “The Bacterial Flagellum” http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flagellum_all.htm in an attempt to salvage the Darwinian theory, is still the biggest thorn in the Evolutionists side.
How does evolution compile structured & programmed information into a self compiler at a non reducible state?? It just cant happen !! this is worth lookin at too
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld001.html

Just FYI: Behe, the very guy who proposed the bacterial flagellum argument, subscribes to common descent (i.e. evolution). So this argument doesn't support your point.

 

[hsilgne]

On the one hand, we have a group that insists that evolution can and does happen, based on the evidence. On the other, we have a group who insists that, despite the evidence, evolution does not and cannot happen because it is contrary to a plain reading of the Bible.

I think you are answering your own question(s).

Many would submit that the evidence points to creation as described in the bible, not to evolution.

 

[Mallon]

Many would submit that the evidence points to creation as described in the bible, not to evolution.

Meh. I don't think there's much substance to such a claim, though, and I think most creationists know it. Ultimately, anti-evolutionists resort to what "the Bible plainly says." It is no secret that anti-evolutionists are almost always predispositioned to fundamentalist Christianity (at least in America). And several studies have shown that education and evolution-denial are inversely related. For YECs, the issue doesn't come down to the evidence. It comes down to an interpretation of the Bible. That's no secret.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Of course it disregards theology. All science disregards theology. Why should anyone expect the theory of evolution to be out of step with the rest of science and take theology into account?

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.

In the first place salvation is not an achievement; it is a gift.

In the second place, the common ancestor of (for example) humans and chimpanzees, is, by definition, neither a human nor a chimpanzee, but an earlier primate. That the common ancestor is not human applies even more in the cases where we are dealing with more remote relatives.

So why would a non-human ancestor stand in a relationship of sin and need of salvation with God?

 

[hsilgne]

Meh. I don't think there's much substance to such a claim, though, and I think most creationists know it. Ultimately, anti-evolutionists resort to what "the Bible plainly says." It is no secret that anti-evolutionists are almost always predispositioned to fundamentalist Christianity (at least in America). And several studies have shown that education and evolution-denial are inversely related. For YECs, the issue doesn't come down to the evidence. It comes down to an interpretation of the Bible. That's no secret.

I disagree.

YEC's consistantly show us how the evidence fits perfectly with a biblical account of creation - granted, these views are ignored and shunned by the staunch evolutionists and the main stream media. It is the people who subscribe to Darwinian evolution that continually need to modify their theory in order for the evidence to fit their beliefs.

What stands out to me as i investigate this, is the circular reasoning that evolutionists adhere to, while at the same time the YEC's have no need for this circular reasoning - their conclusions, simply put, just fit the evidence that is presented.

The more I investigate, the more I come to realize that I require more faith to buy into macro-evolution. Just my oppinion.

I should also note, as a Catholic, I have also accepted that whichever view a person holds, has no bearing on salvation, so long as the persons view does not contradict the basic tenets of our faith. That said, I am finding that the theory of evolution can be and many times is the key to a person loosing their faith in the bible and consequently, in Jesus Christ - and that is scary(and if this is the case - a very slick trick by the devil).

 

[rmwilliamsll]

YEC's consistantly show us how the evidence fits perfectly with a biblical account of creation

afaik, i have never seen any scientific evidence for YECism that was not totally refuted.

but i am always willing to look at one more piece of data, why don't you post it as a new thread here and share it with us?

 

[Xaero]

The argument that evolution cannot account for the bacterial flagellum is rather silly

It's also silly to throw this argument towards a TE because of:
Mat 19:26 ".. with God all things are possible."
So the apparent improbability of flagellum evolution should not been any problem for god.

Various combinations of the proteins that are used to assemble the flagellum are used in other capacities

yea, that's right: flagella consists of microtubuli, a tunnel-like structure of the protein tubulin that is found throughout the whole cell, as transport system, as cell stabilization and involved in cell division.
It was only a matter of time until bacteria arrived that had microtubuli attached outside the cell wall. And sure these first structures had selective advantages:

An obvious intermediate stage between spindle and cilium would be a non-swimming appendage made of microtubules with a selectable function like increasing surface area, helping the protozoan to remain suspended in water, increasing the chances of bumping into bacteria to eat, or serving as a stalk attaching the cell to a solid substrate. One can't argue that such a non-swimming appendage is merely convenient or unlikely to be selectable, as modern protist with analogous non-swimming microtubular appendages do exist and find them perfectly useful, the axopodia of heliozoa being an example.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

 

[withreason]

Just FYI: Behe, the very guy who proposed the bacterial flagellum argument, subscribes to common descent (i.e. evolution). So this argument doesn't support your point.

Michael Behe; I don’t undestant what you mean? He introduced his thesis on the irreducible complexity. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The book's central thesis is that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" at the molecular level.
“ By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution”I don’t understand your direction?
his thesis supports intelligent design, by introducing the argument of irreducable complexity.

 

[busterdog]

This simply isn't true and all intellectually honest YECs should admit that.
​

For example, the creation of limestone caverns allegedly takes enormous amounts of time and a number of them show patterns of creation and collapse and re-erosion, which allegedly takes lots and lots of time.

That's one that doesn't fit YEC, as far as I know (for whatever that is worth). I don't have an answer for that one, but lots of others impenetrable fortresses of "evidence", such as varves, have fallen and have been reconciled with YEC.

Since there are millions, if not billions, of these little niches of "evidence", the idea that they can all be addressed is exceedingly optimistic.

Some YECs simply see this process and no longer worry about isolated areas where the fit hasn't been found yet. TE does the same thing by assuming that science will some day explain the ragged edges of their own theories. We simply elevate the theological approach about the scientific approach.

That is a somewhat self-effacing explanation, even if we disagree.

 

[shernren]

That's one that doesn't fit YEC, as far as I know (for whatever that is worth). I don't have an answer for that one, but lots of others impenetrable fortresses of "evidence", such as varves, have fallen and have been reconciled with YEC.

YEC explains varves? That's news to me. Perhaps you'd want to start a new thread on that.

Since there are millions, if not billions, of these little niches of "evidence", the idea that they can all be addressed is exceedingly optimistic.

Oddly enough, I've seen far more niches that old earth theories explain and young earth theories don't, than the other way around.

 

[Parmenio]

Because of Behe's book, we have learned so much more about the flagellum and all the little systems he pointed out. Due to his assertion that evolution could not begin to make the clotting reaction happen, we learned that, yes, it can! Because the system can be reduced, and having been reduced still do functional things within the body, or, as the case may be, the cell. Irreducible complexity is just someone pointing out, "No one has fully explained how every aspect of this reaction chain came into being!". Nothing more. If you'd like evidence of reaction chains evolving from pre-existing parts, I recommend you look into the bacteria that have evolved to be able to break down jet fuel. http://www.springerlink.com/content/w365758t8uxgx2w4/

That is evolution in action. That is a completely novel reaction chain that evolved to be able to handle a man made chemical that hasn't been around for even a century yet.

Post evidence for why YEC must be right and why evolution must be wrong. We'll see if the majority of laymen here can soundly refute it or if you have a case, and the scientific community is all in on a conspiracy to hush people up about the earth only being 6k years old.

 

[Mallon]

I disagree.

YEC's consistantly show us how the evidence fits perfectly with a biblical account of creation - granted, these views are ignored and shunned by the staunch evolutionists and the main stream media. It is the people who subscribe to Darwinian evolution that continually need to modify their theory in order for the evidence to fit their beliefs.

That's a very convenient thing to say. It's almost as though there is some sort of conspiracy set against young earth creationism.
I'm a little surprised, though, that so many YECs would complain that their "science" isn't taken seriously, when own leader, Henry Morris, fully confessed that creationism isn't science.
In reality, not one creationist explanation had stood up to the rigours of testing. You don't have to believe that if you don't want to. But evolutionary science continues to march forward, making predictions, answering problems, and even saving lives. And yes, the theory gets modified as we go -- that's the nature of science. It is self-correcting. I'm surprised that you would slander evolutionary theory for changing, and then glorify static creationism as science.

What stands out to me as i investigate this, is the circular reasoning that evolutionists adhere to, while at the same time the YEC's have no need for this circular reasoning - their conclusions, simply put, just fit the evidence that is presented.

What qualifications do you have for making such a judgment? Qualifications certainly aren't everything, but I have my reasons for believing you have little-to-no formal training in the sciences. And if that's the case, how can you disparage it so?

The more I investigate, the more I come to realize that I require more faith to buy into macro-evolution. Just my oppinion.

And you're fully entitled to it. Just don't pretend it's science.

That said, I am finding that the theory of evolution can be and many times is the key to a person loosing their faith in the bible and consequently, in Jesus Christ - and that is scary(and if this is the case - a very slick trick by the devil).

Ask yourself, though -- is it evolution that causes people to fall away? Or is it a faith misplaced in a faulty understanding of Genesis that causes people to lose their Christianity?
The stats say creationists lose their faith the longer they go to school. Is that evolution's fault? Or is it creationism's fault?

 

[Mallon]

Michael Behe; I don’t undestant what you mean? He introduced his thesis on the irreducible complexity. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The book's central thesis is that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" at the molecular level.

Honest question: Have you read Behe's book? Do you know what the man is about? He confeses in his own book that he accepts evolution and common descent. He just believes God created the first cell. Read his book. Read his testimony at the Dover trial.

 

[withreason]

Honest question: Have you read Behe's book? Do you know what the man is about? He confeses in his own book that he accepts evolution and common descent. He just believes God created the first cell. Read his book. Read his testimony at the Dover trial.

I have not read, Darwin’s Black Box, I have read his editorials, and extracts from opposing arguments by Kenneth Miller, I have watched his Video’s and followed his testimony at the Dover trial.
I have reviewed his testimony and cannot find anything even remotely close to your inserted Quote.
Again….Professor Behe is the leading advocate for ID. And I still do not understand your reasoning, your direction, and your claim to Behe’s belief, there is no room for evolution in Behe's theory. Quote from Dover trial (Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms.)
Whatever his personal belief is outside of his adamantly expressed theory of “irreducible complexity” by Intelligent Design, is moot to the response of my argument!! He is not here to verify your claim of his personal belief, no matter how acquainted you may be with professor Behe.
So, I say to you my friend……….God Bless

 

[shernren]

I have not read, Darwin’s Black Box, I have read his editorials, and extracts from opposing arguments by Kenneth Miller, I have watched his Video’s and followed his testimony at the Dover trial.
I have reviewed his testimony and cannot find anything even remotely close to your inserted Quote.
Again….Professor Behe is the leading advocate for ID. And I still do not understand your reasoning, your direction, and your claim to Behe’s belief, there is no room for evolution in Behe's theory. Quote from Dover trial (Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms.)
Whatever his personal belief is outside of his adamantly expressed theory of “irreducible complexity” by Intelligent Design, is moot to the response of my argument!! He is not here to verify your claim of his personal belief, no matter how acquainted you may be with professor Behe.
So, I say to you my friend……….God Bless

Take a look at this: AiG doesn't think he's quite up to their standards of creationism ... http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/mousetrap.asp

‘if there was good evidence for it [life coming about through some sort of evolutionary process], I would just accept that.’