HumbleThinker

A couple of points: 1) Evolution is not mentioned in the Bible, so it is incorrect to say that "God said there is no evolution in Genesis." At best, you are being too loose with your words here. More accurate would have been to say that "I conclude that the Bible leaves no room for evolution in the Creation account," or something to that effect. 2) Dinosaurs died long before even the most proto of human species existed. One word in one book of the Bible should not cause as to believe something that contradicts all known evidence within God's Creation. Thoughts?

But it's more specific than that. It's not even so much the amount of things in our DNA that we share with other animals such as ERVs and sequences though this is of course important, but the ratio of what we share and what we don't share aligns with other independent lines of evidence that tell us how much we're related to other animals and the predictions of evolutionary theory made by scientists. When all this is considered, it becomes a matter of probability and parsimony; we reflect on which is more likely and more parsimonious: that God created unique kinds of animals with patterns of DNA and other apsects that form nested hierarchies among themselves, or that the animals themselves are related via heredity? It wouldn't matter if the DNA were 99 percent the same as the animals. If God took the same material and fashioned all the animals and the humans out of it, the DNA would be almost the same. This doesn't create a huge amount of evidence that evolution is true. It doesn't even show a probability it is true. It doesn't show God was trying to play games with our minds to make us think evolution is true. It is no different than me taking a single piece of clay and fashioning completely different things out of it. My mention of monkeys to humans is hardly a straw man argument. When I was in school, they used to show the old Darwin ape to man pictures. I didn't come up with it. Darwin, the creator of the theory of evolution did, so if it is a straw man argument, it was Darwin's straw man argument, not mine. Mutations are generally not positive. They are usually negative changes that can take place, like a mutation where a person is born deformed in some way. It is not generally something where a species gets stronger, as evolution claims. I don't see any evidence that evolution has ever taken place. It makes far more sense to me to believe God created each animal pretty much as they are. You might have different types of cats get together to come up with a new species of cat, or two dogs can be bred to come up with a new species of dog, but a dog never becomes a cat. Likewise, I don't believe an ape ever became a man. I don't believe an ape-like creature ever evolved into a man, and once again, I don't believe there is all this overwhelming evidence that shows evolution is true. This argument ignores a couple of points, though: 1) God is omnipotent, so He can do whatever He wants. He isn't constrained by what He thinks He did or should have done. So this give us two lines of thinking. First, God, could have fashioned any number of different kinds of life, using many different sorts genetic or even non-genetic sources of heredity, and an innumerable amount of genetic codes just for DNA alone, but instead made just about every if not every life on this planet carbon-based, DNA based except for viruses IIRC, and all but the slimmest using the same genetic code and the ones that are different differ just slightly. So the odds that a being that does as He pleases would create life with this much unity is incalculable. When looked at another way, since God is omnipotent, it is equally likely that, if He did take "the same material and fashioned all the animals and the humans out of it," He did so through evolution as through any other mechanism or lack of natural mechanism. Thus the only manner in which we can judge what He did, or more precisely what the natural expression of what He did supernaturally, is through the study of His Creation. And His Creation shows us that He ordained evolution to be the natural mechanism for the diversity of life on earth just as He ordained gravity and all the other forces of the universe. 2) When you say" It doesn't show God was trying to play games with our minds to make us think evolution is true," it seems to presuppose that evolution is true, thus forcing us to not look at scientific evidence objectively but to purposely filter it to meet our preconceived conclusions. This action does not resemble the one that the God I worship, and I would venture yourself, would need us to commit it. If the evidence draws us to a conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt, then the conclusion is likely reflective of God's work. Thus the evidence for evolution is indeed not God trying to play games with us, but God revealing His works through His Creation, which Scripture implies and explicitly states He does in numerous instances such as Job 12:7-12. 3) Are you talking about the "March of Progress?" That wasn't Darwin, but a popular science magazine in 1965. If this isn't what you are talking about, then please point me to it. Either way, even if the image was depicting evolution as "a monkey changed forms over the years and became a human being," which it doesn't, it would simply be an erroneous picture. All kinds of erroneous scientific ideas get into the laymen realm, such as the idea of a "missing link." And even if Darwin did author that picture, it has been over 150 years since he published. Evolution has changed drastically since then, particularly with the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics to create the modern synthesis. But all this aside, do you understand that evolution neither works on an individual level, nor involves populations physically turning into other species or even giving birth to other species? 4) Mutations are actually overwhelmingly neutral. This is a common misunderstanding. 5) Evolution makes no such claims of "species getting stronger." This is also a common misunderstanding. The general idea is that genes that cause their holders to survive long enough to reproduce or are neutral are selected for by being passed down to the holder's offspring. What determines whether the holder survives to reproduce is generally the gene's affect on the organism's overall fitness. Strength is a grave oversimplification of fitness. Malmmals were much weaker than dinosaurs, but they were selected for real quick after the meteor hit, drastically changing the environment, thus drastically changing the determination of who was fit and who wasn't. This is a general view of evolution. If you would like to discuss the evidence, such as ERVs, then let me know, as they are mathematically and biologically more significant than you are making them out to be.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense. Just a bit of a nitpick. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time, and the ToE is the theorized mechanisms by which this happens. This can occur without a population evolving into another species, such as a population of bears evolving a higher frequency of white fur vs. brown fur over multiple generations for various reasons. Speciation is more like a result of this action, usually over geologic time, but varies depending on the mutation rate and generation time. You are correct though that evolution has not been shown to apply to changes in such things, though the usage of morality itself could have evolved. I'm not familiar with what the current proposal for that is. No, only if you agree to allow morality to be reduced to physical properties. Why would you give that ground? Giving or taking ground doesn't factor into my decision, so I'm not particularly sure how to answer that question. Personally, I just want to be accurate. We do have ethology, which is the study of animal behavior, and we have a strong basis for more than a few of our instinctual behaviors being evolutionary holdovers from our ancestors (think all of baby's instinctual behaviors/reflexes, fight or flight response, etc.). And we know that more animals than just us are social creatures with social norms, so if we look at morality from the perspective of societally handed down rules of behavior, it's not unthinkable to say that morality itself as a construct evolved even if our specific behaviors or specific morals fall outside the realm of evolution. But if morality did evolve, it certainly is a lot less clear cut than if we're talking about antibiotic resistance or limb evolution. I might suggest that you've given over too much ground to the materialists unwittingly here. That we share some common behaviors with animals doesn't seem to have much to do with what actually is right and wrong, good and bad. Categories seem to be a bit confused here, here the simple distinction between looking at what is, descriptive, and what ought to be, normative. If were talking morality in metaphysical terms (ie. "what actually is right and wrong"), then certainly evolution has nothing to do with that as it is not biological.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense. Just a bit of a nitpick. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time, and the ToE is the theorized mechanisms by which this happens. This can occur without a population evolving into another species, such as a population of bears evolving a higher frequency of white fur vs. brown fur over multiple generations for various reasons. Speciation is more like a result of this action, usually over geologic time, but varies depending on the mutation rate and generation time. You are correct though that evolution has not been shown to apply to changes in such things, though the usage of morality itself could have evolved. I'm not familiar with what the current proposal for that is. No, only if you agree to allow morality to be reduced to physical properties. Why would you give that ground? Giving or taking ground doesn't factor into my decision, so I'm not particularly sure how to answer that question. Personally, I just want to be accurate. We do have ethology, which is the study of animal behavior, and we have a strong basis for more than a few of our instinctual behaviors being evolutionary holdovers from our ancestors (think all of baby's instinctual behaviors/reflexes, fight or flight response, etc.). And we know that more animals than just us are social creatures with social norms, so if we look at morality from the perspective of societally handed down rules of behavior, it's not unthinkable to say that morality itself as a construct evolved even if our specific behaviors or specific morals fall outside the realm of evolution. But if morality did evolve, it certainly is a lot less clear cut than if we're talking about antibiotic resistance or limb evolution.

I do. I also cannot vouch for the statements about God Bless America (I'm pretty sure, but I could be confusing this with another song) or "under God" being banned in schools. All that I have taught in and been in still allow this. Children are of course allowed not to participate if they wish, Plus "under God" was put in the pledge during the 50s to separate us from the "godless commies" anyway, so that isn't that big of a deal anyway. It's interesting belonging to a Methodist church because the average age of a United Methodist these days is if not in the 50s then the 40s. We're an old bunch.

But it's more specific than that. It's not even so much the amount of things in our DNA that we share with other animals such as ERVs and sequences though this is of course important, but the ratio of what we share and what we don't share aligns with other independent lines of evidence that tell us how much we're related to other animals and the predictions of evolutionary theory made by scientists. When all this is considered, it becomes a matter of probability and parsimony; we reflect on which is more likely and more parsimonious: that God created unique kinds of animals with patterns of DNA and other apsects that form nested hierarchies among themselves, or that the animals themselves are related via heredity?

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense. Do you believe that a monkey changed forms over the years and became a human being? Another nitpick, but this isn't actually what evolution predicts would happen, so if he did believe this he would not be believing in evolution. First, if by monkey you mean ape, then this hypothetical ape did not change into anything but an ape because humans are by definition apes. Second, individuals do not evolve, they only mutate and then have the potential to spread this mutation through the population if they reproduce. Third, speciation does not occur through mutation, which is what I am presuming you mean through the usage of "change" (forgive me if I am mistaken). If we're going to talk about evolution, I think we should go to great lengths to be sure we are speaking of it correctly. If we are just talking about strawmen, then we won't be talking about reality and thus not have a very meaningful discussion.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense. Just a bit of a nitpick. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time, and the ToE is the theorized mechanisms by which this happens. This can occur without a population evolving into another species, such as a population of bears evolving a higher frequency of white fur vs. brown fur over multiple generations for various reasons. Speciation is more like a result of this action, usually over geologic time, but varies depending on the mutation rate and generation time. You are correct though that evolution has not been shown to apply to changes in such things, though the usage of morality itself could have evolved. I'm not familiar with what the current proposal for that is.

This is a perfectly good question, but from a pragmatic standpoint, I've really found it to be a dead end. One of two things quickly happen. First, it boils down to the pro side claiming that the nay side is committing No True Scotsman fallacies and the nay side claiming that accepting creationism/not accepting evolution is a genuine article of either salvation or being a good Christian, usually involving evolution being incompatible with the Bible. Or it goes the other direction and quickly spirals into a tangent discussion about various interpretation methods for understanding the Bible or the scientific merits or lackthereof of evolution. So it's a good question worth thinking about, but it sort of burns itself out really quickly. But to answer your question, the Bible says the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, identifies the Gospel as Christ and Him crucified, and identifies a Christian as one who testifies that Christ is Lord from His mouth and believes this in their heart that God raised Him from the dead. Maybe there is room to speak about whether accepting evolution makes you a good/bad Christian, but I don't see room to say it is a salvation issue. It's not an article of faith. Being a good Christian is not a salvation issue. Neither evolution nor creationism are mentioned in the Bible, much less as salvation issue. We can speak about whether Genesis 1 agrees with or corresponds to creationism, but creationism itself is certainly not mentioned in the Scripture.