Does Evolution threaten the idea of God as a Creator?
Moderator: Moderators
Does Evolution threaten the idea of God as a Creator?
Post #1How does evolution as we understand it from Darwin through the modern ideas of geneticists and biochemists threaten the idea that God created all things, including man? Can anyone tell me where in the bible the description and details are given of how God composed material and made man, beast, plant, etc, etc. Jesus used parables to teach principles of His gospel. The Bible is full of metaphor, symbolism, and ideas to introduce doctrine, and to teach man how to pray with faith to learn the meanings behind these symbols, images, etc. The creation, as taught in Genesis shouldn't be read any different than the rest of the bible. It describes what happened in terms of symbolism and ideas, there doesn't seem to be details about the intricacies of creation.
Post #31
I watched an interesting program on Bill Moyers Faith and Reason series earlier this evening. One of the guests was Sir John Houghton, a leading British Phsyicist and climatologist.
He spoke very eloquently of his belief in God, God as creator, his Christian faith, and his belief in the reality of the resurrection.
In his view, Genesis has ample indications internal to the text that it should be taken poetically and not literally. He also spoke of the incredible power and intelligence of a creator who could desigin a universe of such complexity that the universe could evolve as it has over billions of years, and life could evolve within that universe.
He is admittedly only one example, but yet another one of an intelligent, scientifically minded person who has no trouble reconciling evolution and God as creator.
He spoke very eloquently of his belief in God, God as creator, his Christian faith, and his belief in the reality of the resurrection.
In his view, Genesis has ample indications internal to the text that it should be taken poetically and not literally. He also spoke of the incredible power and intelligence of a creator who could desigin a universe of such complexity that the universe could evolve as it has over billions of years, and life could evolve within that universe.
He is admittedly only one example, but yet another one of an intelligent, scientifically minded person who has no trouble reconciling evolution and God as creator.
-
achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Post #32
This is flirting with a side topic but I need to clarify something since this is a long way from my realm of greatest knowledge.
1) Aren't there two forms of evolution? Micro and macro? And isn't micro evolution the one which is touted by evolutionists so often because is is small changes within a set species. And isn't Macro evolution the theoretical idea that species will actually jump from one species into another, thereby changing the actual makeup of the cromozomes in the cells?
2) I am well aware of Micro evolution and accept it whole heartedly. However, is there any scientifically proven study concerning mutation or Macro evolution? Aren't they still missing their "link"? I keep hearing of "links" like "lucy" only to find out later that it was really bad science.
It is interesting that Scientist Dembski has found at least two errors with Macro evolution and one of these is refereed to by Darwin himself. In Darwin's Black box, Darwin is quoted as saying that if ever there was a system in nature which could not have been formed by small successive positive steps, his theory would have a problem.
Yet more modern science has found that this is in fact the case a lot of the time. For example, the human eye. Nature would have never formed a lens because by itself it is not useful. It has no purpose so therefore according to natural selection, it would never have been made or at the very least it would have gone away. We see this with deep water fish who have eyes that can not be used because they were never developed. There was no purpose, so the eyes ceased to exist for these creatures. Why would a lens, or a pupil or the gel inside the eyeball have been created in small steps? It contradicts the very law it is trying to support.
The other problem discovered was that taking the absolute fastest rate of mitosis of one cell, it would take trillions and trillions of years before evolution could catch up to the advancement of humans. Since the universe is only a few billion years old, this could never have happened in time, especially without a guiding force.
Christianity today march 2006 citing Dembski's book The Creation Hypothesis.
On a slightly different note, I also think it is interesting that the series of events that evolution outlines, is the same series of events that is outlined in the creation account. When you consider that Genesis was written WAY before science had any idea about the process of the formation of the earth, this becomes very interesting doesn't it?
1) Aren't there two forms of evolution? Micro and macro? And isn't micro evolution the one which is touted by evolutionists so often because is is small changes within a set species. And isn't Macro evolution the theoretical idea that species will actually jump from one species into another, thereby changing the actual makeup of the cromozomes in the cells?
2) I am well aware of Micro evolution and accept it whole heartedly. However, is there any scientifically proven study concerning mutation or Macro evolution? Aren't they still missing their "link"? I keep hearing of "links" like "lucy" only to find out later that it was really bad science.
It is interesting that Scientist Dembski has found at least two errors with Macro evolution and one of these is refereed to by Darwin himself. In Darwin's Black box, Darwin is quoted as saying that if ever there was a system in nature which could not have been formed by small successive positive steps, his theory would have a problem.
Yet more modern science has found that this is in fact the case a lot of the time. For example, the human eye. Nature would have never formed a lens because by itself it is not useful. It has no purpose so therefore according to natural selection, it would never have been made or at the very least it would have gone away. We see this with deep water fish who have eyes that can not be used because they were never developed. There was no purpose, so the eyes ceased to exist for these creatures. Why would a lens, or a pupil or the gel inside the eyeball have been created in small steps? It contradicts the very law it is trying to support.
The other problem discovered was that taking the absolute fastest rate of mitosis of one cell, it would take trillions and trillions of years before evolution could catch up to the advancement of humans. Since the universe is only a few billion years old, this could never have happened in time, especially without a guiding force.
Christianity today march 2006 citing Dembski's book The Creation Hypothesis.
On a slightly different note, I also think it is interesting that the series of events that evolution outlines, is the same series of events that is outlined in the creation account. When you consider that Genesis was written WAY before science had any idea about the process of the formation of the earth, this becomes very interesting doesn't it?
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
Post #33
No. This is a creationist distortion.achilles12604 wrote:Aren't there two forms of evolution? Micro and macro?
"There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species)." Talk.Origins Archive
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
-
achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Post #34
Lotan wrote:No. This is a creationist distortion.achilles12604 wrote:Aren't there two forms of evolution? Micro and macro?
There sure are a lot of people talking about the two different forms of evolution for it to be a creationist distortion. This includes my highschool biology teacher, my college anatomy professor, as well as quite a few written sources. There must be a lot of confused people out there if you are actually right.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #35
No, they are the same time. 'Macro' evolution can be thought of in one respect as many steps of 'micro' evolution. Think of a 'micro' evoulution as a single step.achilles12604 wrote:This is flirting with a side topic but I need to clarify something since this is a long way from my realm of greatest knowledge.
1) Aren't there two forms of evolution? Micro and macro? And isn't micro evolution the one which is touted by evolutionists so often because is is small changes within a set species. And isn't Macro evolution the theoretical idea that species will actually jump from one species into another, thereby changing the actual makeup of the cromozomes in the cells?
Think of "Macro" evolution as walking around the block.
The term 'missing' link is bad science, and it more populised by the media rather than scientists. What you are thinking of is 'transitional forms'. It is not 'really bad science' at all, unless you are taking your 'science' from such places as 'answers in genesis', and 'the creation research institute'. They have bad science.2) I am well aware of Micro evolution and accept it whole heartedly. However, is there any scientifically proven study concerning mutation or Macro evolution? Aren't they still missing their "link"? I keep hearing of "links" like "lucy" only to find out later that it was really bad science.
Demsbski is not a biologist. And you are mis quoting Behe... that was when he brought up the concept of 'Irreducible complex' as evidence of a creator. Behe, does accept evolution .. just not abiogensis. I think you are mixing up Behe and Dembski. Behe was shown to be wrong about hsi concept of "Irreducible complex" being actual evidence of a 'creator', since it has been shown thatIt is interesting that Scientist Dembski has found at least two errors with Macro evolution and one of these is refereed to by Darwin himself. In Darwin's Black box, Darwin is quoted as saying that if ever there was a system in nature which could not have been formed by small successive positive steps, his theory would have a problem.
the systems he has proclaimed to be 'IC' is not, or those systems can evolve naturally. Behe forgot to include the concept of that a 'supporting' structue can be removed, and the fact that genetic structures often have more than one function, and those functions can change.
Sigh, reading a creationist web site again? You are quite wrong about that. That 'problem' was solved by Darwin and was explained in his book 'Origin of species'Yet more modern science has found that this is in fact the case a lot of the time. For example, the human eye. Nature would have never formed a lens because by itself it is not useful. It has no purpose so therefore according to natural selection, it would never have been made or at the very least it would have gone away. We see this with deep water fish who have eyes that can not be used because they were never developed. There was no purpose, so the eyes ceased to exist for these creatures. Why would a lens, or a pupil or the gel inside the eyeball have been created in small steps? It contradicts the very law it is trying to support.
More information can be found at the following sites (different essays with dealing with various eye issues
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
That , of course, is incorrect information. Fossils have shown that an organism can go from the size of a mouse to the size of a rhino in a 'mear' 13,000 generations under the proper conditions. You are also assumping that 'humanity' was the goal. Evolution has no goal, or direction.The other problem discovered was that taking the absolute fastest rate of mitosis of one cell, it would take trillions and trillions of years before evolution could catch up to the advancement of humans. Since the universe is only a few billion years old, this could never have happened in time, especially without a guiding force.
I would say that that comparison to the 'creation account' and what we know to have occured is so far apart that you would have to be blind to make that comparison. This is particular true if you read Genesis in Hebrew,and understand the concepts. It is pretty obvious that Genesis is to be read poetically. In the English translations, you miss the puns, the politics, and the cosmological beliefs that ancient hebrews had.Christianity today march 2006 citing Dembski's book The Creation Hypothesis.
On a slightly different note, I also think it is interesting that the series of events that evolution outlines, is the same series of events that is outlined in the creation account. When you consider that Genesis was written WAY before science had any idea about the process of the formation of the earth, this becomes very interesting doesn't it?
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #36
Yes, there are. Either that, or you misunderstood them.achilles12604 wrote:Lotan wrote:No. This is a creationist distortion.achilles12604 wrote:Aren't there two forms of evolution? Micro and macro?
There sure are a lot of people talking about the two different forms of evolution for it to be a creationist distortion. This includes my highschool biology teacher, my college anatomy professor, as well as quite a few written sources. There must be a lot of confused people out there if you are actually right.
Post #37
In the old days, before we knew how the genetic control of development works, it was hypothesized that there might be "microevolution" (change in allele frequencies in populations), and some kind of "macroevolution" that would account for morphological changes of the sort we recognize between different kinds of organisms.
Now that we know how things work, the answer is easy. It's all microevolution. What determines the difference between "simple" things like bacterial antibiotic resistance and "complex" things like fins-to-feet and arms-to-wings is which genes are involved. For morphological effects, we're talking about genes that control development--transcriptional regulators, morphogens, etc. For "simple" stuff, we're talking about genes for garden-variety enzymes.
There are still those who use the terms, of course. In evolutionary genetics, "macroevolution" refers to "mutations that affect morphology." For creationists, however, it means "the creation of new families of organisms." There are those who use various definitions inbetween as well. I think the reason is that the original definition encompassed all of these ideas as A Mystery. Fragments of the original definition have been appropriated by different groups for different ideas.
Now that we know how things work, the answer is easy. It's all microevolution. What determines the difference between "simple" things like bacterial antibiotic resistance and "complex" things like fins-to-feet and arms-to-wings is which genes are involved. For morphological effects, we're talking about genes that control development--transcriptional regulators, morphogens, etc. For "simple" stuff, we're talking about genes for garden-variety enzymes.
There are still those who use the terms, of course. In evolutionary genetics, "macroevolution" refers to "mutations that affect morphology." For creationists, however, it means "the creation of new families of organisms." There are those who use various definitions inbetween as well. I think the reason is that the original definition encompassed all of these ideas as A Mystery. Fragments of the original definition have been appropriated by different groups for different ideas.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #38
Moderator Intervention
Again, discussion of IC, Dembski, Behe, and micro and macro evolution are worthy topics for debate, but not relevant to this thread, that I can see.
We have an active topic on IC here
Other relevant threads to consider might be
Evolution and COmplexity
Spot the Design for Fun and Profit
A new study on natural selection and speciation This is relevant to how so-called macro-evolution might occur, although I agree with the statement that macro-evolution is typically only used these days be creationists who wish to separate what they feel they have no choice but to accept from what they do not want to accept, and those responding to creationist claims.
There are many others. One discussing ID in general in the legal context is Kitzmiller vs Dover. Behe is quoted, as he gave extensive testimony at the trial, and it appears his notion of irreducible complexity was debunked pretty well.
Again, discussion of IC, Dembski, Behe, and micro and macro evolution are worthy topics for debate, but not relevant to this thread, that I can see.
We have an active topic on IC here
Other relevant threads to consider might be
Evolution and COmplexity
Spot the Design for Fun and Profit
A new study on natural selection and speciation This is relevant to how so-called macro-evolution might occur, although I agree with the statement that macro-evolution is typically only used these days be creationists who wish to separate what they feel they have no choice but to accept from what they do not want to accept, and those responding to creationist claims.
There are many others. One discussing ID in general in the legal context is Kitzmiller vs Dover. Behe is quoted, as he gave extensive testimony at the trial, and it appears his notion of irreducible complexity was debunked pretty well.
