[__ Science __ ] Can Creationists Accept Evolution?

[AIG.com]

Evolution is antithetical to Scripture, even within a young-earth creation paradigm.

Continue reading...

 

[Milk-Drops]

I would settle for understanding and not misrepresenting the theory.

 

[Barbarian]

Many creationists now accept the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes new families of organisms. They just don't want to call it what it is. Evolution, remember, is just a change in allele frequencies in a population. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa; speciation in other words.

 

[Barbarian]

AIG writes:
"Once properly defined, it should be obvious that evolution is antithetical to Scripture. Scripture teaches that God made the various kinds of organisms to reproduce according to their respective kinds."

It says animals were created according to their kind, but it doesn't say they reproduce according to their kind. That is AIG's revision of scripture to make it more acceptable to them.

AIG falsely claims that Darwin thought all organisms had a common ancestor. He did not. He suggested that there may have instead been a few kinds that gave rise to others. I'm thinking that this is more of an issue of ignorance on the part of AIG than an intentional attempt to mislead us.

Today, we have genetics which confirms common ancestry of all organisms on Earth, but Darwin did not have that evidence and so did not make the claim.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I would settle for understanding and not misrepresenting the theory.

Check out Discovery Institute. For another interesting film is “No Intelligence Allowed.” Because scientists are in an unbiased pursuit of truth profession.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Check out Discovery Institute. For another interesting film is “No Intelligence Allowed.” Because scientists are in an unbiased pursuit of truth profession.

I have seen it. I know the doc has a lot of issues giving the full explanation and reasons for why a professor or researcher has been dismissed.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I have seen it. I know the doc has a lot of issues giving the full explanation and reasons for why a professor or researcher has been dismissed.

The problem is it’s a repeated story of drink the evolution Koolaid or you’re out. It’s not one time. And scientists are otherwise ready to be unethical. They steal and lie and the epidemic of non-repeatable papers is growing and they know it.

 

[Milk-Drops]

The problem is it’s a repeated story of drink the evolution Koolaid or you’re out.

Of evolutionary biology or any magor biology field. Its similar to a mathmatician hetting kicked out for thinking multoplication is a farce.

It’s not one time. And scientists are otherwise ready to be unethical. They steal and lie and the epidemic of non-repeatable papers is growing and they know it.

Who are they? The movie plays on conspiracy thinking and hides that many of the people kicked out were doing underhanded shenanigans. Such as slipping their papers past peer review and living about credentials.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Of evolutionary biology or any magor biology field. Its similar to a mathmatician hetting kicked out for thinking multoplication is a farce.

No, not at all. Not even close.

Who are they? The movie plays on conspiracy thinking and hides that many of the people kicked out were doing underhanded shenanigans.

Where? What is the evidence for this?

Such as slipping their papers past peer review and living about credentials.

Darwin’s theory slipped past peer review.

 

[Barbarian]

Check out Discovery Institute. For another interesting film is “No Intelligence Allowed.” Because scientists are in an unbiased pursuit of truth profession.

This is the clown who said it was scientists who were shoving his relatives into the ovens in the Holocaust:
When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that's where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that's where science leads you.

Ben Stein Quote

When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the...

libquotes.com

Here's what the Jewish Anti-Defamation League has to say about his attempt to link science and Hitler:

New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.
Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.

https://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29786_ADL_Denounces_Ben_Steins_Expel

Stein has no integrity and no shame. He will say whatever he thinks might sell his anti-American ideas.

 

[PrimFinallyFoundGod!]

Yes. I believe in both things. I think science is actually God's power. Or at least, a form of it anyway. "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Only transferred" ... well it had to start at some point didn't it? And I think the answer is God. This is his creation. And just like anything carefully crafted it becomes more complex and changes over time (evolution). I understand most Christians don't think this way though and I respect people's right to see things different. The most important thing is being a good person and living a life doing good and in God's word.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Many creationists now accept the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes new families of organisms. They just don't want to call it what it is. Evolution, remember, is just a change in allele frequencies in a population. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa; speciation in other words.

Hello, Barbarian.

In the piece, the AIG writer states:

Evolution, according to evolutionists, means “All life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother. Through the process of descent with modification, this common ancestor gave rise to the diverse species that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.”4 In other words, evolution (as the word is commonly understood) is an explanation for the entire diversity of life on earth. Once properly defined, it should be obvious that evolution is antithetical to Scripture.

I agree with him here. If you believe in Macroevolution, let me ask you something, and it's been since college that I even cared about this subject, so I may be out of the loop concerning modern evolutionary thinking. But does their model still rely heavily on punctuated equilibrium or not? I found it extremely dubious and rejected the theory lock-stock-and-barrel because of it. The only way they were arriving at evolution from nothing 30 years ago was by painting mythical little dots all over the place to account for a lack of actual physical evidence in the fossil record.

 

[Hidden In Him]

It says animals were created according to their kind, but it doesn't say they reproduce according to their kind.

Not sure of your point here. You seem to be honoring the veracity of scripture here, which states that God created all life after its kind.

 

[Barbarian]

Not sure of your point here. You seem to be honoring the veracity of scripture here, which states that God created all life after its kind.

All Christians do, I suppose. The issue is that "evolutionists" are good with the way He did it.

 

[Hidden In Him]

All Christians do, I suppose. The issue is that "evolutionists" are good with the way He did it.

If you believe all animals were created after their kind, how do you reconcile that with a belief in Macroevolution?

 

[Barbarian]

In the piece, the AIG writer states:

Evolution, according to evolutionists, means “All life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother. Through the process of descent with modification, this common ancestor gave rise to the diverse species that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.”4 In other words, evolution (as the word is commonly understood) is an explanation for the entire diversity of life on earth. Once properly defined, it should be obvious that evolution is antithetical to Scripture.

Yeah, they can never get that right. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that all organisms on Earth have a common ancestor. Darwin, for example, thought that it might be that there were a number of first organisms, not merely one. Genetics tells us that all organisms we know about, had a common ancestor. This is why scientists didn't actually know about it, until Mendel's work was rediscovered and then DNA analyses showed this to be the case.

BTW, Darwin could have been right; there might have been several different forms of life that appeared initially. God says that the Earth brought forth life, but doesn't say how many times that happened. We only know that one form is the ancestor of all living organisms today. Others might have appeared and died out.

But AIG continues to struggle with understanding what evolutionary theory is actually about.

If you believe in Macroevolution

We have observed cases of that, so it's not a matter of belief. It's just what happens. BTW, AIG has now admitted that new species, genera, and sometimes families of organisms come from earlier forms. They just don't want to call it "evolution." Microevolution is change in alleles within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa.

macroevolution

Definitions ​

• noun Large-scale evolution occurring over a very long period time that results in the formation of new species and higher-level taxonomic groups

macroevolution — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

But does their model still rely heavily on punctuated equilibrium or not?

Observed speciations generally, but not always, occur in small, isolated populations that would leave relatively little fossil or other evidence. Moreover, population genetics confirms that most species evolve fairly rapidly (small populations do this readily) and then once adapted to the new environment, evolve very little for a very long time. Darwin mentioned this in his book; a well-fitted population in a constant environment will be prevented from evolving much by natural selection.

found it extremely dubious and rejected the theory lock-stock-and-barrel because of it.

It comes down to evidence. And it's been observed to be a fact of the way most evolution happens.

The only way they were arriving at evolution from nothing 30 years ago was by painting mythical little dots all over the place to account for a lack of actual physical evidence in the fossil record.

That's another reason why evolution has won over so many scientists. When I was young the list of predicted transitional fossils was very long, but the number of such fossils found were much smaller. Then people located the predicted transitionals for:
Ungulates to whales
Reptiles to mammals
Non-Avian dinosaurs to birds
lizards to snakes
Primitive anapsids to turtles
Fish to Tetrapods
Forest apes to humans
The list goes on and on. Because theories are evaluated on whether or not their predictions are verified, this is very good evidence for evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

If you believe all animals were created after their kind, how do you reconcile that with a belief in Macroevolution?

That's how they were created. God uses nature to make living things. As you know, macroevolution is an observed fact. AIG even admits new genera and sometimes higher taxa come from earlier groups.

 

[Barbarian]

I understand most Christians don't think this way though and I respect people's right to see things different. The most important thing is being a good person and living a life doing good and in God's word.

Of course. A creationist who loves God and his fellow men, and strives to do God's will is no less a Christian than the rest of us.

 

[Hidden In Him]

We only know that one form is the ancestor of all living organisms today.

That's how they were created. God uses nature to make living things.

I have to step out, and will likely not be able to look at your sources until tomorrow. But if you could, I still don't follow how you can be reconciling the above statements with "And God created all things after their kind."

 

[Barbarian]

I have to step out, and will likely not be able to look at your sources until tomorrow. But if you could, I still don't follow how you can be reconciling the above statements with "And God created all things after their kind."

I just accept the way He did it. Do you believe He created you?