[_ Old Earth _] Darwinism

[Barbarian]

Well, this really does get to the meat of it doesnt it? But I think exploring the meaning of the "image of God" will help explain the mystery of the soul.

I think being created in the image of God means we had the same characteristics as Him, such as righteousness and holiness (mentioned in Eph 4:24), also knowledge (mentioned in Col 3:10).

Well, potentially so. You see, the righteousness required understanding the difference between good and evil. This is what the tree was doing in the Garden in the first place.

As the serpent observed, Adam would become like God if he ate from the tree, something God later confirms.

Of course we fell short. Which is where Christ came in. He is the image of God that we were originally created as; and He is into which redeemed mankind will be transformed (described in 2 Cor 4:12-18 )

Right. The fall made us beings potentially able to have fellowship with God, but we could not be truly good. Being unable to justify ourselves, we had to have a Savior.

Christ is called "image of God" in 2 Cor 4:4 and Col 1:15. He is both the incarnate Son and the Second Person of the Trinity. I see a certain harmony between the duality of Christ who is the eternal Son of God, who became God-man, and that of our own body and soul. Hopefully Ive referred to enough scipture to support my claims.

I think that's right.

Anyways, claiming that the act in which God directly breathed life into us created our soul is interesting. I'm not sure if that can actually be proven, but I see no problem with believing that. Is there any additional scripture that supports this? Also, from what I saw of your posts, I dont really have much of a contention with you. I too believe evolution is a sound theory. But as I have said in another thread. "Science" will never find "truth", so, Im always skeptical of what "science" says.

You would make a fine scientist, then. Scientists are always skeptical of scientific claims. It's the way we sort out the good from the useless. And science does not claim to have the truth. In science, what is "true" is always provisional.

Is there additional support for the notion that man recieved a soul as the result of God tending to him personally? I don't know. It seems that even in Jesus' time, there was considerable disagreement among the Jews over the issue of an immortal soul. Some thought so, some thought not, and it seems there was even some belief in reincarnation.

I've always interpreted the story of Genesis in "what I thought" was a traditional method.

Have you read Augustine's "On the Literal Meaning of Creation"? Ironically, he tried several times to get a consistent and literal reading of it, and finally gave up. His contention was that creation itself was instantaneous, but that it then developed from there according to His will. He thought that the "days" were a literary device to explain creation to men.

That the earth was created in seven days and that man was created seperate. But you do have some interesting arguements. What were the other inconsistencies that arise when you read the creation story literally?

One that Augustine brought up. It's absurd to speak of mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution defined as a change in alleles over time can apply to both macro and microevolution. It seems to me just plain silly to say otherwise. So here we have this big, vague, (almost useless) definition for evolution which encompasses a good deal (not everything of course)-- and so ambiguity creeps in like a thief in the night.

Well, chemical reactions are defined as the interactions of valence electrons between atoms. And that takes in a lot of phenomena, too. But like "evolution", all the phenomena are related by a few common elements.

It's perfectly reasonable thing, and used throughout science.

This ambiguity is the origins of the bait and switch tactic. You start talking about microevolution (i.e. by saying evolution is directly observed) and then imply evolution in the macroevolutionary sense (which is at dispute) is therefore confirmed. Which is of course nonsense.

Scientists are usually careful to distinguish between microevolution "variation within a species" and macroevolution "variation that produces new species." Both have been directly observed. The reason that they will, if pressed, admit that there really is no difference, is that the mechanisms are the same. In fact, in the case of ring species, a micorevolutinary event may retrostpectively change to a macroevolutionary one, if part of the ring goes extinct.

I agree with you that the defintion for microevolution agreed upon by Darwinists refers to subspecies level evolution. Since there is no real difference in processes between micro and macroevolution the terms are essentially redundant when used in a Darwinistic context. Clearly I mean something else then, when I am referring to small-scale evolution. I much prefer the Creationist usage of the term microveolution in this case. I prefer the creationist meaning for the term, because I believe your analogy:

"There's a long way to go between walking ten feet and walking fifty miles, but I can tell you from experience, it's the same thing. It just takes longer."[\b]

is horribly flawed. You assume, with no good reason, that the fitness peaks occur along nice smooth gradations.

Such an assumption is unnecessary. If I'm walking, my progress indeed can be obstructed by "peaks". But in evolution, the "peaks" are not physical, but situaltional. For example, they are much less daunting when they are not already occupied. So we find that birds in New Zealand evolved to fill all sorts of niches normally occupied by mammals, which could not get to the distant islands. In fact, in a nice normal, established ecosystem, selection is largely stabilizing, and prevents evolution, as you suggest. But any number of things can disrupt that balance and lead to evolutionary change.

There is no compelling reason for this to be true. Especially considering the fact that any number of biological structures that exist are irreducibly complex

Irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution; it can occur in a number of ways, and yes, it has been directly observed to evolve.

Another fundamental problem is that of inventiveness. Evolution only works to maximize an existing hyperspace of probabilities. For example, in Dawkins biomorphs program evolution can produce amazing variation withing the hyperspace of, say, branching length or depth. However it will not evolve a gene for color. There is a very good paper on this problem at:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_top ... 00003.html
Let me know if you cannot get into it. (I'm a member of ISCID, but I don't know if its a members only thing to get into the Archive.)

Actually, we know that genetic algorithms (which are much more sophisticated that Dawkins relatively primitive simulations can indeed get out of the box and do the unexpected. Here's a good example:

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/ai/primordial.jsp

No one even knows how the evolved device works. It apparently used some unknown or undetected effect to further refine and simplify the circuit. Engineers are now using these simulations of evolutionary processes to deal with problems that resist attempts solve them by design.

Ironically, evolution is more inventive and efficient than design.

Regardless of what we call it, I see evolution below these types of roadblocks as fully observable, and fully proved. Macroevolution will involve the totality of changes between eukaryotes and say, birds.

If birds evolved from single-celled eukaryotes, that would be remarkable. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so surprising if slime molds evolved from protocists, or sponges from slime mold-like creatures, or cnidearians from sponge-like creatures, and so on. In each case, we find a host of intermediate organisms, all the way from eukaryotes to birds.

I do not think that the kind of evolution we have observed does any credit to explaining how eukaryotes could gradually evolve into birds, or even prokaryotes.

I'm guessing that you know "prokaryotes" are the most primitive organisms known.

It does no good to disparage my supposed incredulity. I'm of the opinion that my incredulity is well deserved based on the evidence. Under any other circumstance my incredulity would be considered healthy skepticism.

Indeed, most of science is based on people trying to prove that they are wrong. That's why we try to prove the null hypothesis.

In physics this kind of incredulity is allowed all the time. For the past 10 years one of my professors has been searching for cracks in the standard model. Right now he is doing so with the Belle experiment in Japan. The standard model has been proven time and time again, and yet there he is, searching for the cracks in the standard model. Why? Skepticism (and maybe boredom). Not incredulity, which is merely a red herring. Which leads me to one of the bluffs you continuously make on these forums. You insist that there is no religious dogmatism surrounding Darwinism, which is perfectly absurd.

I've spent a lifetime in biological sciences, and I haven't seen it among scientists. It's probably more common among non-scientists, who generally don't know very much about evolutionary theory. There are certainly people with vested interest in one model or another, and some people who are just plain stubborn, but "religious" is hyperbole beyond hyperbole.

I have never seen a more religiously vehement group of nonreligous people as Darwinists (you should have read an editiorial in Physics Today on the textbook controversy in Texas. If they could have spit nails at the Discovery Institute I've no doubt they would.)

Being annoyed with misrepresentation is not necessarily a religious thing.

At any rate, I can simply return the compliment, for I find your credulity to be equally damaging to your arguments. It is really easy to believe something when you are that credulous.

The bottom line is always a matter of evidence. Would you like to see some of it?

This brings me to your point about evidence. I think it is more fair to say "It depends on how you feel about the evidence for evolution." Because yes, it certainly does. You paint an unfair (and untrue) picture of the situation by implying that the evidence is simply nothing but evidence for evolution.

I'd be willing to hear about some that is evidence for something else. But no one ever offers any.

If that were the case not be swayed by the evidence would, by default, mean you are simply stupid or irrational.

Not necessarily. Two very intelligent and capable evolutionists, Kurt Wise, and Harold Coffin, would disagree. Wise has said that no amount of evidence would change his mind, since he prefers his understanding of Scripture to any evidence. Coffin testified that if he went only by the evidence, he would think that the Earth was extremely ancient.

Let us be honest, those are not exactly good initial terms for starting a debate.

These very knowledgable creationists seem to think otherwise.

If you're right, I've already lost.

That's true of any argument. If I'm right, and you disagree, you're wrong. And if I'm even a little bit good at arguing, you lose.

People can have legitimate problems with the theory of evolution based solely on the empirical evidence.

There are many, many problems in evolutionary science. There are entire journals dedicated to papers on these problems. Without problems to solve, a science is dead.

To imply otherwise is the kind of bluster I am talking about.

Perhaps we aren't talking about the same things.

Unfortunately my forrays into these discussions always prove more costly time-wise than I would like.

The subject is a difficult one, and there's a lot of evidence to go over. It's not easy to write a short post on evolution.

So you will have the divine pleasure of the last word

I would have liked a little more specificity, if you had the time.

 

[Veritas]

Well Barbarian, after doing a little bit of homework, I don't see an incredible problem with interpreting Genesis in a non-literal way. I do, however, feel that by doing this you are on a very slippery slope. And I think that is why you are met with such opposition by the other christians on this forum. By using this interpretation it can be easily missunderstood that we are claiming that the human mind is superior to God's. I'm sure you don't believe this, but I do see that as a danger. Also, if we start interpreting this part of Genesis in a non-literal way, some may jump to the conclusion that the rest of the bible could be interpreted in a non-literal way, even the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is an absurd claim, I know, but people will make it. I would like to add that Paul actually rejects the the non-literal resurrection of Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 15: 12-20.

On a positive note, it is refreshing to find that evolution really poses no argument towards the Bible. I think the argument between Creation and Evolution really cloud the real problems at hand anyway. One big problem I see is that skeptics dont understand faith. And they are justified in wanting to know what distinguishes faith from foolishness and irrationality. They do not understand that faith can sustain both the emotions and the mind. Another big problem is the fact that creationists do produce alot of bogus material which really doesnt give skeptics much confidence in creationists' or christians' reasoning capabilities.

I think the arguement for Christ should be presented another way, if nothing else, for the skeptics benefit. Wouldn't you (everybody) agree?

 

[Barbarian]

Well Barbarian, after doing a little bit of homework, I don't see an incredible problem with interpreting Genesis in a non-literal way. I do, however, feel that by doing this you are on a very slippery slope.

I've been standing in the same place on that "slope" for many years, so it can't be that slippery. :wink:

And I think that is why you are met with such opposition by the other christians on this forum. By using this interpretation it can be easily missunderstood that we are claiming that the human mind is superior to God's.

I don't see how. After all, it's His creation. And it's His book. We just have to study and learn from it.

I'm sure you don't believe this, but I do see that as a danger.

God is truth. Christians should never be afraid of the truth. If I thought that telling the truth would cause you to turn your back on God, I would let you remain ignorant. But that is not how God works.

Also, if we start interpreting this part of Genesis in a non-literal way, some may jump to the conclusion that the rest of the bible could be interpreted in a non-literal way, even the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I don't see how to do that without rejecting the Bible outright. The Resurrection is presented as an historical fact.

This is an absurd claim, I know, but people will make it. I would like to add that Paul actually rejects the the non-literal resurrection of Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 15: 12-20.

And, not surprisingly, very few Christians (the majority of whom do not take the Bible literally in all parts) think that the Resurrection was not literally true.

On a positive note, it is refreshing to find that evolution really poses no argument towards the Bible. I think the argument between Creation and Evolution really cloud the real problems at hand anyway. One big problem I see is that skeptics dont understand faith. And they are justified in wanting to know what distinguishes faith from foolishness and irrationality. They do not understand that faith can sustain both the emotions and the mind. Another big problem is the fact that creationists do produce alot of bogus material which really doesnt give skeptics much confidence in creationists' or christians' reasoning capabilities.

Both are telling criticisms. One should also mention that this is not a salvation issue.

I think the arguement for Christ should be presented another way, if nothing else, for the skeptics benefit. Wouldn't you (everybody) agree?

Yep. The Gospels are sufficient for that purpose.