Theological Problems with God-guided Evolution

[teddyv]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It's the sort of deviousness we've come to expect from creationists.   But we should keep in mind that for every dishonest creationist, there are probably several honest creationists who would be appalled by that kind of attempted deception in God's name.

 

True. I know I fail at it at times, but I try to be specific about organizations like AiG and folk who adhere to young earth doctrine.

[Sparks]

7 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I showed you the scientific definition of macroevolution.  

You don't represent all of science.

8 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Facts say we are.   The same facts can be used to show you are related to others in your family.   No point in denial.

I have already explained, DNA is not a floor plan. It's a parts list.

9 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You've been misled by that.   Homeobox genes, for example,  specify organization.  If it was a parts list,whales would be more closely related to fish than to us. 

This is silly.  God made each animal, uniquely.  We are not descendants of anything.  DNA Barcoding has shown all kinds showed up at roughly the same time.  You would have to break several scientific laws for the dumb evolution theory to work.  Evolution THEORY has never left the theory stage, so you might as well quit trying to state it as fact.

16 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I taught biolgy, including evolutionary theory.  You just don't know what it is.  

So you keep saying, but you cannot prove this out here in a forum.  Besides, teaching a theory does not make the theory reality.  You have no evidence for Darwinian Evolution.  Period.

[tim_from_pa]

On 6/3/2021 at 6:26 PM, one.opinion said:

A recent thread on quote-mining Darwin was getting off track, so hopefully, this new thread will keep the other from being derailed. I'm going to share a few things up-front before asking for feedback.

*  I am a follower of Christ and my allegiance is to Him only. I accept evolution (as a tool in God's hands), but I don't owe anything to evolution.

*  I accept the inerrancy of Scripture. I will not agree 100% of the time with 100% of my brothers and sisters in Christ on exactly what a Biblical passage means, or how it should be read. However, that does NOT mean that I only believe certain parts of the Bible or that I am calling God a liar.

*  I grew up in a family where I was taught Young Earth Creation. However, as a Biology major as an undergraduate and through the process of earning a PhD degree in a molecular virology lab, I became convinced that there was too much evidence supporting evolution to be ignored.

*  Additionally, I discovered time and again that I was taught poorly regarding "facts" pertaining to evolution or a young earth.

*  I have taught Genetics, Cellular and Molecular Biology, Molecular Biology, and several other topics related to evolution (which is a molecular process at its root) for over 20 years, so I have a pretty decent grasp of the molecular details. However, my intention with this thread is not to discuss scientific evidence for/against evolution/YEC, there are plenty of other threads here.

*  I would like to use this thread to demonstrate how a follower of Christ can, in good faith, still accept the biological process of evolution.

So, without further ado, these are the major theological points that I gather from Genesis 1-3.

1. God is creator of ALL things. I believe that the original audience for these chapters was a group of people that had just escaped 400 years immersed in a culture teeming with false gods. This was an important reminder for them.

2. God made humans special - in His likeness. We possess something that is unique among living creatures. This is quite likely something more than just bigger brains and the ability to talk. I believe our Imago Dei is spiritual, not physical.

3. Humans tragically chose their own way, rather than following God's specific instructions. This not only affected Adam and Eve (which I believe to be real people, and not just literary archetypes), but the rest of humanity. We are doomed to sin and its consequences.

4. God promised a way of deliverance. This was not spelled out in detail in Genesis 3, but it foretold of the coming Messiah.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is His choice to take on human form and limitations, lead a perfect and sinless life, die in order to overcome the power of sin and death, and come back to life to offer a new, spiritual life to all those that would receive Him.

This Gospel is not predicated on what we believe about the age of the earth. That topic is of much lower importance.

So having now given this introduction, let's talk! I'll be very happy to discuss any objections, but do hope we can keep the conversation calm and considerate.

I'm not a biology major, I am more into physics and astronomy.  However, I long abandoned the "young earth" theory due to the fact that the same consider the creation of the stars at the same time.  The problem is that if everything was within 6000 years old, we'd see nothing past 6000 light years, not billions. Why, our own galaxy is 100,000 light years across and we see some of that as the "milky way" so it's beyond any argument the immense age of things.

Instead, I embraced the "gap" theory of an unspecified time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 as the passage that the earth was without form can equally be translated became without form or a waste and desolation.  The bible teaches there were cataclysms that visited this earth so much so that the so-called "conspiracy theorist" Christians believe in another planet (or maybe a brown dwarf) with a highly eccentric orbit that comes by once in awhile and causes mayhem.  Nevertheless, there was a point in time where God made Adam (not a man-like creature per se)  And was told to replenish the earth.  If we go to a carnival and ask for a refill on their souvenir cup, that presupposes it was filled the first time. Same with "replenish" as that same command was given to Noah.  

So who knows what was running around between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2?  And for how long?  The bible does not say.  It only says there was some sort of flood "face of the waters" as was a flood with Noah later.  At some point in time, the Lord wanted man (Adam) to be like him to rule and reign over the earth (in which I have theological reasons why that is not to be discussed here).  

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

You don't represent all of science.

I showed you the scientific definition for macroevolution.   Creationists used to accept that as well, until they realized that speciation and evolution of higher taxa is a fact.  Then they redefined it to exclude any obeserved evolution.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

I have already explained, DNA is not a floor plan. It's a parts list.

Nope.   DNA only codes for proteins.   No such part list.   God's creation is a lot more interesting and complex than creationists would like it to be.  Would you like to learn how homeobox genes specify structure and order?

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

God made each animal, uniquely. 

That's man's revision of God's word.    Not what it says in Genesis.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

DNA Barcoding has shown all kinds showed up at roughly the same time.

Nope.  It's actually helped to identify more recent species.  Some classes like cephalopods and bony fish, are very ancient.   Others, like mammals, are fairly recent.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

You would have to break several scientific laws for the dumb evolution theory to work. 

Sounds like a testable assumption.  Name those laws, and we'll take a look at it.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

You have no evidence for Darwinian Evolution.  Period.

Well, lets see what an informed YE creationist has to say:

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

And do tell us what scientific laws you think rule out evolution.  Don't forget.

 

[Sparks]

56 minutes ago, tim_from_pa said:

I'm not a biology major, I am more into physics and astronomy.  However, I long abandoned the "young earth" theory due to the fact that the same consider the creation of the stars at the same time.  The problem is that if everything was within 6000 years old, we'd see nothing past 6000 light years, not billions. Why, our own galaxy is 100,000 light years across and we see some of that as the "milky way" so it's beyond any argument the immense age of things.

God said he stretched out the heavens, and the three methods used to measure astronomical distance are very limited.  By very, I mean extremely limited.

[Sparks]

1 minute ago, The Barbarian said:

I showed you the scientific definition for macroevolution. 

Yes, but speciation is not macro-evolution.  Its speciation.

2 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.   DNA only codes for proteins.   No such part list.   God's creation is a lot more interesting and complex than creationists would like it to be.  Would you like to learn how homeobox genes specify structure and order?

You would do well to learn that creationist believe the story of creation that God himself told us, in Genesis (yeah, he wrote that part).

3 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

That's man's revision of God's word.    Not what it says in Genesis.

Evolution theory is man's revision of God's word.  Evolution theory is a religion.

5 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.  It's actually helped to identify more recent species.  Some classes like cephalopods and bony fish, are very ancient.   Others, like mammals, are fairly recent.

Nice theory. 

5 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Sounds like a testable assumption.  Name those laws, and we'll take a look at it.

Entropy
Biogenesis
Mendel's Laws of Genetics
Spontaneous Generation
Law of Information Systems
Specified Complexity
Irreducible Complexity
Statistical Mathematics
Natural law
Beneficial Mutation
Genetic Complexity
and Information Theory

Good luck!

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Entropy
Biogenesis
Mendel's Laws of Genetics
Spontaneous Generation
Law of Information Systems
Specified Complexity
Irreducible Complexity
Statistical Mathematics
Natural law
Beneficial Mutation
Genetic Complexity
and Information Theory

Entropy - The law of entropy does not apply because the earth biosphere is not a closed system.

Biogenesis - I think you mean abiogenesis, but regardless, this is not relevant because evolution deals with living things. It does not address the question of how abiogenesis occurred.

Mendel's Laws - Mendel proposed two laws, the law of segregation and the law of independent assortment. Neither of these contradict evolution.

Spontaneous generation (see biogenesis above)

Law of Information Systems - this deals with computer science and management, and cannot be accurately applied to biological systems.

Specified Complexity - Complex biological systems exist. That does not mean they could not evolve.

Irreducible Complexity - irreducibly complexity exists, both at the system and the molecular level, but there is no way to show that irreducibly complex things could not have evolved from more basic components. You may remember one of our first conversations about the irreducible complexity of the cardiovascular system and how many organisms have much simpler systems than our own. While the cardiovascular system may be irreducibly complex in the current state in the human body, other organisms may be missing components that are essential in ours.

Statistics - This is a rather broad claim. Statistics do not show that evolution cannot occur.

Natural law - I don't know what your claim is here.

Beneficial mutation - mutations occur all of the time, most are neutral, some are deleterious and some are beneficial. I am not sure what you are implying with this argument.

Genetic complexity - Genes and genomes are complex. However, that does not mean that they could not evolve.

Information theory - is this different from the "Law of Information Systems"?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We are clearly going to have very different views on certain areas of science. However, we have very similar views on the sinful state of humanity, our need of a Savior, and God's miraculous and wonderful provision for a plan to bring us back into redemption. There is nothing in our opposed science views that keep us from a shared view of the wonder of the Gospel.

[Sparks]

17 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Entropy - The law of entropy does not apply because the earth biosphere is not a closed system.

Biogenesis - I think you mean abiogenesis, but regardless, this is not relevant because evolution deals with living things. It does not address the question of how abiogenesis occurred.

Mendel's Laws - Mendel proposed two laws, the law of segregation and the law of independent assortment. Neither of these contradict evolution.

Spontaneous generation (see biogenesis above)

Law of Information Systems - this deals with computer science and management, and cannot be accurately applied to biological systems.

Specified Complexity - Complex biological systems exist. That does not mean they could not evolve.

Irreducible Complexity - irreducibly complexity exists, both at the system and the molecular level, but there is no way to show that irreducibly complex things could not have evolved from more basic components. You may remember one of our first conversations about the irreducible complexity of the cardiovascular system and how many organisms have much simpler systems than our own. While the cardiovascular system may be irreducibly complex in the current state in the human body, other organisms may be missing components that are essential in ours.

Statistics - This is a rather broad claim. Statistics do not show that evolution cannot occur.

Natural law - I don't know what your claim is here.

Beneficial mutation - mutations occur all of the time, most are neutral, some are deleterious and some are beneficial. I am not sure what you are implying with this argument.

Genetic complexity - Genes and genomes are complex. However, that does not mean that they could not evolve.

Information theory - is this different from the "Law of Information Systems"?

You gave it a nice try, and no, I meant biogenesis. 

[one.opinion]

13 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You gave it a nice try, and no, I meant biogenesis. 

Well, ok... obviously biogenesis is not an issue, then.

Since you may not have read all the way down to the bottom of the post, I'm going to paste the last paragraph here again.

We are clearly going to have very different views on certain areas of science. However, we have very similar views on the sinful state of humanity, our need of a Savior, and God's miraculous and wonderful provision for a plan to bring us back into redemption. There is nothing in our opposed science views that keep us from a shared view of the wonder of the Gospel.

[AandW_Rootbeer]

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I get that you're not happy to learn about this.  But natural selection is the antithesis of chance.   That was Darwin's great discovery.   It's not about chance.

No, but as you learned, natural selection is one agency of evolution. and yes, evolution does follow natural laws.

You have that backwards, too.   First natural selection has no intent; so no murder involved.   Just organisms that are more fit, leaving more offspring.   And of course, it tends to preserve useful traits and new mutations.   That's been repeatedly demonstrated.  Would you like me to show you some more examples?

And if you think God does not cause death and pain in His divine providence, you are rebelling against His word:

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Accept it His way, not the way you'd like it to be.
 

 

In terms of Evolving into a newer Species for [[SURVIVAL]] or Adaption, all it has is INTENT!   So, you are trying to add Murder to God's Creation whether you accept it or not.