Does "Sin" Prove Evolution to be Incorrect?

[Tristen]

Hi Kingdombrat,

I think it would first be beneficial to define what you mean by “evolution”. One of the main problems I see with discussing “evolution” is that it can refer so many different things; i.e. Natural Selection, mutations, adaptations, speciations, changes in allele frequencies, any population change, Common Ancestry etc..

I am what most people would call a young earth creationist (YEC). Yet of the above list, I only contest Common Ancestry – because that is the only one of these ideas that is at logical odds with the most straight forward reading of scripture. By all the other 'definitions', I could be legitimately considered an evolutionist.

Usually, “evolution” does not technically refer to the “origin” of life. However, it is fair to suggest that the secular Common Ancestry story assumes a naturalistic origin of life - and therefore the two can not be readily disassociated from each other. Also, there is a “General Theory of Evolution” that incorporates the naturalistic origin of life into the definition.

When dealing with scientific ideas, I would also avoid using absolutist terms such as “prove” and “disprove”. Proof is a mathematical term – not a scientific one (though commonly misused to exaggerate confidence in ideas beyond what is scientifically justifiable). Legitimate science does not deal in absolutes. Perhaps 'falsify' and 'verify' would be more suitable.

So if I understand your question;

In nature, we observe the pattern that things tend to move from high order to low order (or chaos). For example, with DNA – we observe high genetic diversity and integrity moving towards low genetic diversity and integrity. I would therefore suggest that the Biblical pattern of God creating uncorrupted creatures who were subsequently subjected to corruption, better reflects that observed pattern than the 'onwards and upwards' pattern proposed by the secular story of a simple common ancestor 'evolving' from non-life, into many, highly-adapted, complex forms of life.

 

[The Barbarian]

 

11 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Let's entertain this idea for a moment.   Let's put Adam and Eve into the Homo Sapien category as being who God chose to hand out the original human [Soul].

 

Let's say this is fact and there are tons of concrete evidence to back this up.   It's more than a Theory, it's God's Theory!

I don't think we can assume that Adam and Eve were anatomically modern humans.    I don't know what species of human it was for which a pair received a living soul.    I don't think it matters, since God chose not to give us those details.

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

I think it would first be beneficial to define what you mean by “evolution”. One of the main problems I see with discussing “evolution” is that it can refer so many different things; i.e. Natural Selection, mutations, adaptations, speciations, changes in allele frequencies, any population change, Common Ancestry etc..

Good point.   I suggest we use the scientific definition:   "change in allele frequency in a population over time."     As Darwin said "descent with modification."

Mutations, natural selection, and adaptations are agencies of evolution.  Common ancestry and speciation are consequences of evolution.

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

I am what most people would call a young earth creationist (YEC). Yet of the above list, I only contest Common Ancestry – because that is the only one of these ideas that is at logical odds with the most straight forward reading of scripture. By all the other 'definitions', I could be legitimately considered an evolutionist.[/quote]

You accept three of the four points of Darwinian theory, and maybe the fourth, depending on how far you are willing to accept speciation.

Quote

Usually, “evolution” does not technically refer to the “origin” of life. However, it is fair to suggest that the secular Common Ancestry story assumes a naturalistic origin of life - and therefore the two can not be readily disassociated from each other. 

Since it's not part of the theory, and since even Darwin just suggested that God created the first living things, I don't think this is true.

Darwin's concept of origin of life can't be in evolutionary theory, since he attributes it to God, and science is too weak a method to include the supernatural.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Also, there is a “General Theory of Evolution” that incorporates the naturalistic origin of life into the definition.

The scientific theory of evolution, not some "general theory of evolution" is the one scientists accept.    Since "evolution" merely means "change" (Darwin only used it once in his book) you could apply it to formation of stars, fashion, demographic changes, and so on.   Probably not a good idea, if you want to clearly discuss the real one.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

When dealing with scientific ideas, I would also avoid using absolutist terms such as “prove” and “disprove”. Proof is a mathematical term – not a scientific one (though commonly misused to exaggerate confidence in ideas beyond what is scientifically justifiable). Legitimate science does not deal in absolutes. Perhaps 'falsify' and 'verify' would be more suitable.

Right.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

In nature, we observe the pattern that things tend to move from high order to low order (or chaos). For example, with DNA – we observe high genetic diversity and integrity moving towards low genetic diversity and integrity.

In evolution, we see both higher diversity and lower diversity, depending on the population and the selective pressures.   Would you like to see some observed examples?

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

I would therefore suggest that the Biblical pattern of God creating uncorrupted creatures who were subsequently subjected to corruption, better reflects that observed pattern than the 'onwards and upwards' pattern proposed by the secular story of a simple common ancestor 'evolving' from non-life, into many, highly-adapted, complex forms of life.

Actually the theory does not predict "onwards and upwards."    Darwin, as you know, was content to accept that life was brought forth by the Earth, but with God's having created it to do so.   That is a religious belief, and is what God tells us happened.

And complexity once achieved, hit a high level rather quickly.    The big delay was in producing eukaryotes; the eukaryotic cell took over a billion years to evolve.   Complex metazoans took only tens of millions of years, and once bilateralization and hard exoskeletons evolved, most of the phyla we have today appeared in perhaps ten million years.    So "complexity" isn't much of an issue in evolution.   We see continuing diversity, but also periods when diversity was greatly reduced.   There are always new innovations, but old ones disappear from time to time.    From the Cambrian on, there wasn't much increase in diversity or complexity, although life moving from the sea to the land and air can be considered a radical change.

As you probably know, speciation usually begins with a small population with much less diversity, and then procedes to a new species, with increasing diversity (the "founder effect").    And when a species reaches an environment with many empty niches, there is often a sudden radiation of new species, as populations adapt to fit them.    The Galapagos finches and the fruit flies of Hawaii are examples.

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by The Barbarian

[teddyv]

8 hours ago, Paul James said:

No.  I just read and believe what the Bible actually says.  I agree with the Bible because it is God's communication with mankind.  It clearly indicates that the universe created in six days, and has clear descriptions of what was created on each successive day.   I don't agree with those who say it all happened over billions of years.   If God wanted us to know that, He would have said so.

This would appear to be at odds with your previous post.

[Paul James]

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

This would appear to be at odds with your previous post.

How so?

[teddyv]

55 minutes ago, Paul James said:

How so?

Well, previously you wrote:

Quote

The reason why you can't see that Genesis 1 is absolutely true and that evolution is a total lie is that God has deliberately sent a delusion to those who refuse to believe the gospel of Christ so that the only option for them is the Judgment.

Those who are genuinely born again of the Spirit of God know clearly that evolution is a lie and have absolutely no problem with Genesis 1 being literally true - that God spoke each stage of the universe and the world in an instant of time without having to use anything like evolution.  One instant there was nothing and the next a whole universe of stars and planets spreading out almost to infinity.

Concerning Christian "experts", anyone can put on the Christian "badge" and call themselves Christian, but that doesn't mean that they are genuinely born again of the Spirit of God.

This seems pretty unequivocal that anyone who subscribes to evolutionary theory (or an old earth for that matter) cannot be born-again Christians. This also suggests a purity test for a 'true' Christian.

[Guest kingdombrat]

18 hours ago, Tristen said:

Hi Kingdombrat,

I think it would first be beneficial to define what you mean by “evolution”. One of the main problems I see with discussing “evolution” is that it can refer so many different things; i.e. Natural Selection, mutations, adaptations, speciations, changes in allele frequencies, any population change, Common Ancestry etc..

Good point made.   I was thinking that perhaps if I used Adam and the Creation Story we might look at "Evolution" from the point of the homo sapien and just before to establish where some might think to as which point in human evolution does the sin equation originate.   From a Creation point we know it is with Adam.   But for those who look at Evolution being the process of God's Creation, are they assuming sin began when humans evolved to a point of cognitive and rational thinking?

Quote

I am what most people would call a young earth creationist (YEC). Yet of the above list, I only contest Common Ancestry – because that is the only one of these ideas that is at logical odds with the most straight forward reading of scripture. By all the other 'definitions', I could be legitimately considered an evolutionist.

Usually, “evolution” does not technically refer to the “origin” of life. However, it is fair to suggest that the secular Common Ancestry story assumes a naturalistic origin of life - and therefore the two can not be readily disassociated from each other. Also, there is a “General Theory of Evolution” that incorporates the naturalistic origin of life into the definition.

Agreed!   I am just loosely using the term "Evolution" here for conversation sake.

Quote

When dealing with scientific ideas, I would also avoid using absolutist terms such as “prove” and “disprove”. Proof is a mathematical term – not a scientific one (though commonly misused to exaggerate confidence in ideas beyond what is scientifically justifiable). Legitimate science does not deal in absolutes. Perhaps 'falsify' and 'verify' would be more suitable.

I am quite amazed how Science has put forth their environment on a imagination to question to seeking answers to formulating Theories without getting into classifications like proofs and truths.   It's true to them, but not necessarily true across the board in general.

Quote

So if I understand your question;

In nature, we observe the pattern that things tend to move from high order to low order (or chaos). For example, with DNA – we observe high genetic diversity and integrity moving towards low genetic diversity and integrity. I would therefore suggest that the Biblical pattern of God creating uncorrupted creatures who were subsequently subjected to corruption, better reflects that observed pattern than the 'onwards and upwards' pattern proposed by the secular story of a simple common ancestor 'evolving' from non-life, into many, highly-adapted, complex forms of life.

A good way of deducting here.   But in general language terminology, I am seeking the point in Evolution that equals the point of Adam's [Awareness] to understand he sinned and now his life would be forever changed by that sin.

 

Of course, some will say man evolved to become Adam, to become Aware, and from then on Evolution as a Theory and the Bible catch up.

Edited December 13, 2020 by kingdombrat

[Paul James]

5 hours ago, teddyv said:

Well, previously you wrote:

This seems pretty unequivocal that anyone who subscribes to evolutionary theory (or an old earth for that matter) cannot be born-again Christians. This also suggests a purity test for a 'true' Christian.

Replacing God's clear account of how He created the universe with evolution is basically a denial of God's Word.   It is saying that God did not tell the truth in Genesis 1.  Seeing that the Bible says that God's Word is the truth (John 17:17), anyone who says that Genesis 1 is not the truth, cannot really depend on any other part of the Bible, because if one part of the Bible is unreliable, then other parts also are.   It means that God either lied, or He didn't inspire the Bible at all.   I cannot see that any genuinely born again believer can hold that God is a liar or that the Bible is just the work of men and not of God at all.

[enoob57]

For sure when perversion of the plain sense of Scripture is seen it is NOT of God.... but whether the one doing so is just one who is duped or actually knowingly perverting that for perversion sake would take some time to discern... I have held many beliefs that in study and time no longer hold due to growth in God's Word...