Creationists, I'd be interested in learning about your knowledge o

[Enoch2021]

Hello Jerry,

 

In response to your question in the OP, here are my thoughts:

 

I believe an evolutionary bioligist or population geneticist asked to define biological evolution would simply say evolution is a change in the distribution of alleles over time. Or a more simplified version which is also quite accurate, a change in the genome over generations. In other words when there is a gene variation which gives a group of animals some slight advantage over its neighbors, over time that gene variation will become prevalent throughout the population and you have evolution. That is, IMO, how mainstream secular science strictly defines evolution. It is worth noting that all Creationists and Evolutionists realize that this happens continously in nature, as there are countless examples of this documented in the scientific literature (e.g. three-spine sticklebacks, the infamous peppered moths, and many, many others). So biological evolution in its strictist sense in not a theory or hypothesis or fill in the blank, it is merely a term which denotes a process we observe in nature, much like the term gravity.

 

As a Biblical Creationist, I can firmly say I believe in biological evolution to the same extent and in the same way that I believe in gravity. So we can all just get along...right? Well, of course we all know it's not that simple. Most biologists do research that is unrelated to evolution (as defined above) and, therefore, often incorrectly equate the term "evolution" with the Theory of Common Descent** (we Creationists do this a lot too). Really, it would do everyone a real favor if we could all be a little more precise on what we mean by the terms we use. In fact, you've got to give Creationists some credit for trying to relabel evolution (as defined above) as "microevolution" in order differentiate it from the Theory of Common Descent or "macroevolution" (although these terms have their own issues).

 

Mainstream science has been oddly reluctant to make the distinction between evolution (as defined above) and Evolution (Theory of Common Descent). This may be because there is much to gain from keeping the terms together. You see, a scientist can honestly say, "We see evolution (as defined above) happening all around us," and the classroom/television audience hears "We see Evolution (The Theory of Common Descent) happening all around us." Afterall, it doens't sound very impressive to say, "We see changes in allele distributions happening all around us." In marketing, this would be called bait and switch, in logic this would be called equivocation, but in science this is called acceptable. 

 

The real issue worth discussing is whether the changing genomes over time (which we have termed biological evolution) can be invoked as an explanation for the existence of all lifeforms arising from a single early lifeform**. This is a fantastic claim worthy of scrutiny. For my own part, I believe evolution cannot account for the origination of the enormous complexity seen in the world today but that this stems from an inteligent designer...IMO, the God of the Bible. Ultimately, I'm a Creationist because I believed what the Bible had to say about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so I decided to take His word for the beginning of the book as well. 

 

Hold the Fort,

Ehud

 

 

====================================================================================

 

 

" This may be because there is much to gain from keeping the terms together. .... We see changes in allele distributions happening all around us." In marketing, this would be called bait and switch, in logic this would be called equivocation, but in science this is called acceptable.

 

Bullseye!! 

[OneLight]

This is a Christian Forum where we do discuss matters concerning scripture, and it will be centered up Christian beliefs.  If anyone wishes to discuss evolution without creationist commentary, I suggest another site.

 

Thread closed.