Theological Problems with God-guided Evolution

[The Barbarian]

On 11/22/2021 at 8:33 AM, RV_Wizard said:

Heresy is proclaiming a lie as a truth.

No.   "Heresy is any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs, in particular the accepted beliefs of a church or religious organization."

Since neither YE creationism nor any other particular interpretation of the creation story in Genesis has been church doctrine for any of the major branches of Christianity, you can be a YE creationist and still not be a heretic.   Or you can accept various other interpretations of scripture without being a heretic.    The only time when this can lead you into heresy is if you would say one of those various interpretations was the only Christian interpretation.

On 11/22/2021 at 8:33 AM, RV_Wizard said:

Evolution relies on benevolent mutations creating new characteristics and encoding them into the reproductive system. 

No.  Random mutations.    Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for showing that mutations do not arise in response to need.   Most mutations don't do very much at all.   A few are harmful.   A very few are useful.   Natural selection sorts it out for the particular environment and population.

But evolution isn't merely about increasing fitness, although it often does that.   Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is.  What do you think it is?

On 11/22/2021 at 8:33 AM, RV_Wizard said:

Even when mutations are forced over thousands of generations, there is no evolution. 

So, that says you don't know what evolution is.   Maybe if you looked it up, it would help you.

On 11/22/2021 at 8:33 AM, RV_Wizard said:

We look at similar fossils and arrange them as "must have been" developed in a sequence. 

No.   That's the kind of fairy tales many YE creationist organizations teach you.   So long as you don't understand it, you're easy prey for those people.   Not all of them.  Many honest YE creationists will admit there is much evidence for common descent.    Would you like to see what they have to say about it?

On 11/22/2021 at 8:33 AM, RV_Wizard said:

However all are complete as they are with no transitional fossils.

That's a testable assumption...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid
primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the
phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors.

Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for
macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

On 11/22/2021 at 8:33 AM, RV_Wizard said:

It led to the belief in the 1930's that some races were more evolved than others, and that inferior races were to blame for all problems. 

Darwin actually causes a huge reaction by creationists when he correctly predicted that if you took "savages" and brought them to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishmen.    

Yet into the 1990s, YE creationists like Henry Morris were still blathering about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people.   Would you like to see that?    Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races, which is a major conflict with many YE creationists.   Not all of them, of course.

On 11/22/2021 at 8:33 AM, RV_Wizard said:

It is a theory based in the rejection of the Scriptures

Seems unlikely since Darwin wrote that God created the first living things.   Maybe you should check that assumption a little?    People are often down on things they aren't up on.   Might be good for your walk with God to learn a little about it.

 

[Guest]

On 11/29/2021 at 2:29 PM, The Barbarian said:

That's a testable assumption...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid
primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the
phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors.

Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for
macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

Is there a testable assumption that would take an inanimate object (like rock) and turn it into a animate object (like an organism)?

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Is there a testable assumption that would take an inanimate object (like rock) and turn it into a animate object (like an organism)?

That’s not a relevant response to the post you quoted. The OP (as well as the post) is about God-guided evolution. Evolution refers to biological change over time. It does not address abiogenesis.

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Is there a testable assumption that would take an inanimate object (like rock) and turn it into a animate object (like an organism)?

The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory.  

However, we have God's word on it.  Would that be enough for you?

 

 

[Sparks]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That’s not a relevant response to the post you quoted. The OP (as well as the post) is about God-guided evolution. Evolution refers to biological change over time. It does not address abiogenesis.

Evolution theory attempts to explain the formation of the universe, the Earth and Life.  It's such a wimpy theory, though, that evolutionists have had to claim 'biological change over time.'  Well yeah, micro-evolution, which does not even qualify as Darwinian Evolution, would qualify as changes over time, but it would not change anything from primordial soup, to what we see today, even given trillions of years.

I don't think God would waste His time with Macro-Evolution since He is capable of doing what He said He did.  It's most likely He just formed the animals, within days, like He said He did (Occam's razor, and the Bible).

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

Evolution theory attempts to explain the formation of the universe, the Earth and Life. 

You've been really misled about that.   Darwin's theory is about living populations and how they change over time.

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

It's such a wimpy theory, though,

Let's ask a YE creationist who actually knows what it is...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.

https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

I don't think God would waste His time with Macro-Evolution

I don't think it's a good idea to tell God what to do.   Why not just accept it His way?

 

[Sparks]

35 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You've been really misled about that.  

Or you have.

36 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Let's ask a YE creationist who actually knows what it is...

I have already responded to this in another post.  Very smart guy, but no evolutionary evidence presented. 

37 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Why not just accept it His way?

I already have.  He told you what He did.

[The Barbarian]

You've been really misled about that.  

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

Or you have.

Nope.  I actually know what the theory is about.   I used to teach biology.

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

Let's ask a YE creationist who actually knows what it is...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.

https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

I have already responded to this in another post

Apparently not.   In fact, Dr. Wood has a PhD in the relevant field, and is merely honest enough to admit the truth.   You don't have any understanding of the theory (you for example thought it was about the origin of the universe, of the earth, and of life) and it tripped you up.   Before you lecture about something, it's a good idea to know something about it.

If you were willing to just let God be God and accept it His way instead of yours, this wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Sparks]

21 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.  I actually know what the theory is about.   I used to teach biology.

Does not matter that you taught biology when macro-evolution is not happening.  You have never observed it.

22 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Apparently not. 

Yeah, I did.

22 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

If you were willing to just let God be God and accept it His way instead of yours, this wouldn't be a problem.

You might take your own advice, here.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory.  

However, we have God's word on it.  Would that be enough for you?

Yes it is.  I was just wondering (honestly) if your study and knowledge of evolution also touched on that.  Honestly, this wasn't a trick question on my part and if it is beyond the OP, you need not answer.