[_ Old Earth _] Why Evolution is True

[WX2009]

Barbarian, what exactly do you believe about evolution? Do you believe that God created everything and then it just started evolving or what? I've read your posts and I can tell that you obviously are in support of evolution but I was wondering what exactly you believe about it.
The reason I ask is because you have to be careful how much you say science accounts for. God declares Himself in the bible to be the Creator of all things, it's one of the things that makes Him God. I don't have a problem with evolution as far as things changing and stuff like that but if you're saying that God didn't create our universe originally then you are rejecting an important truth about who God is: that He is the Creator of all things.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, what exactly do you believe about evolution?

That's like asking what I believe about physics. It's a huge field, with many, many things in it. Can you be more specific?

Do you believe that God created everything and then it just started evolving or what?

Christian theologians, like St. Augustine, well over a thousand years ago, concluded that God created the universe from nothing, and all things then developed from that primitive universe as He intended. That's about right, I think.

I've read your posts and I can tell that you obviously are in support of evolution but I was wondering what exactly you believe about it.

As I said, it's a huge field. Can you be more specific?

The reason I ask is because you have to be careful how much you say science accounts for.

Science is a very limited method. It only works for the physical universe. So science can tell you how life changes over time, but it can't tell you anything about God. Science can't talk about God. But scientists can.

God declares Himself in the bible to be the Creator of all things, it's one of the things that makes Him God. I don't have a problem with evolution as far as things changing and stuff like that but if you're saying that God didn't create our universe originally then you are rejecting an important truth about who God is: that He is the Creator of all things.

Fortunately, what science has learned about evolution is perfectly consistent with God's creation.

 

[WX2009]

Fortunately, what science has learned about evolution is perfectly consistent with God's creation.

Well, that's what I'm talking about. You see, this is a hot area of debate which is why I wonder what side of it you are on. It sounds like you believe similarly to what I believe. I have a degree in meteorology and I am with you when you say that science doesn't dispute with the fact that God created everything. However, evolution and science are inextricably linked in the mind of an atheist. Not that I'm saying we should "throw the baby out with the bath water" so to speak, and reject all of evolution but you do realize that Darwinian evolution clearly states that ALL things have a common ancestor and this DOES clash with what the bible teaches about His creation.
I don't have a problem with God's creation changing over time to some extent but at the same time atheists deny completely that you can acknowledge science appropriately without accepting the theory of evolution to be absolutely true...and when they say absolutely true, they mean that the entire universe is here as a result of blind, indifferent physical forces that we can describe mathematically.

So you believe that God created the heavens and the earth and.....?? What about man? Are we descended from apes or are we in God's image like it says in the bible? I'm just curious about what you would say about the origins of our universe and the origin of mankind.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, that's what I'm talking about. You see, this is a hot area of debate which is why I wonder what side of it you are on. It sounds like you believe similarly to what I believe. I have a degree in meteorology and I am with you when you say that science doesn't dispute with the fact that God created everything. However, evolution and science are inextricably linked in the mind of an atheist.

And many Christian fundamentalists. But I don't rely on either group for my religious beliefs. Both of them have some basic errors in their thinking.

Not that I'm saying we should "throw the baby out with the bath water" so to speak, and reject all of evolution but you do realize that Darwinian evolution clearly states that ALL things have a common ancestor and this DOES clash with what the bible teaches about His creation.

No, I don't see that. In fact all living things were brought forth from the Earth, according to God, but He doesn't give any details as to how that happened, or whether it was by common descent or not.

I don't have a problem with God's creation changing over time to some extent but at the same time atheists deny completely that you can acknowledge science appropriately without accepting the theory of evolution to be absolutely true...

I know some who don't. In fact, Joseph Stalin outlawed evolutionary theory in the Soviet Union, and killed and imprisoned those who accepted Darwin's theory. I'm pretty sure he was an atheist.

and when they say absolutely true, they mean that the entire universe is here as a result of blind, indifferent physical forces that we can describe mathematically.

Which has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Darwin said that God created the first living things.

So you believe that God created the heavens and the earth and.....?? What about man? Are we descended from apes

We are apes, actually. And we are descended not from apes as we know them today, but from animals that we'd probably think of as apes or as rather odd humans.

or are we in God's image like it says in the bible?

Yes, that's true, too. But the "image" is not of a physical form, but of our understanding of good and evil as moral beings. God has no physical form.

I'm just curious about what you would say about the origins of our universe and the origin of mankind.

Evolution is indifferent to the way the universe originated. But the Big Bang has a great deal of evidence going for it. The origin of mankind is a matter of when God gave two people immortal souls. I don't know when that happened. If it happened to H. erectus or H. sapiens, would it matter? And if so, why?

 

[WX2009]

And many Christian fundamentalists. But I don't rely on either group for my religious beliefs. Both of them have some basic errors in their thinking.

I agree that Christian fundamentalists have flaws but neo-Darwinism is a little more dangerous to the Christian faith than you are thinking. Christian fundamentalists do present their own dangers to the true Christian faith and I'm not saying we depend on them for answers or something but you really have to be careful how far "down the road" you get from the real Christian message.

No, I don't see that. In fact all living things were brought forth from the Earth, according to God, but He doesn't give any details as to how that happened, or whether it was by common descent or not.

I disagree here: 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

After God says that it was good here, he's establishing that he is now complete with the animals and He is going to move onto something different which we see discussed here.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
I agree about the metaphysical aspects of God's character which are reflected in mankind like you said, but it's more than that. He talks about the different "kinds" of animals being created and then He establishes man as the ruler of those animals. That doesn't indicate to me that man was once one of those animals himself.

I know some who don't. In fact, Joseph Stalin outlawed evolutionary theory in the Soviet Union, and killed and imprisoned those who accepted Darwin's theory. I'm pretty sure he was an atheist.

Joseph Stalin was a special case, I don't think I have to make much of an argument there. He didn't want ANY kind of dogma ruling over the minds of the people. You know "some" who don't accept Darwin's theory, they would be the exception to the rule, my friend.

and when they say absolutely true, they mean that the entire universe is here as a result of blind, indifferent physical forces that we can describe mathematically.

Which has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Darwin said that God created the first living things.

.

I don't know which evolutionary theory you are talking about, but the one I'm talking about involves blind, pitiless, physical forces interacting with one another and that is the SOLE mechanism for evolution. Darwin may have said that God created the first living things, I haven't looked into that, but neo-Darwinists are quite far removed from such thinking.

Evolution is indifferent to the way the universe originated. But the Big Bang has a great deal of evidence going for it. The origin of mankind is a matter of when God gave two people immortal souls. I don't know when that happened. If it happened to H. erectus or H. sapiens, would it matter? And if so, why?

Not to the neo-Darwinist it isn't and that's what I'm trying to explain. They connect the blind, natural forces that spawned our universe to those that are responsible for Darwinian evolution. To them, you cannot separate the two and that's why you have to be careful what you believe about it or you'll take God out of the picture entirely. I think it does make a difference because the bible tells the story of a special kind of creation, a creation completely in God's image. You say that God has no physical form....what about when he took the form of Jesus Christ? He was a human being as we know human beings today was he not? To make man in God's image is not merely a reference to the spiritual. It is an intimate portrayal of God creating his mirror image. An image that reflects the key aspects of every part of his being and that includes the physical. Why else would he distinguish between the rest of the animals and man? Why wouldn't he say "then God looked upon His creation and chose an X (call it an ape, or a chimp, or whatever) to rule over the rest of the living creatures".
He doesn't say that. He creates a separate, unique being in His very image....an image that Jesus Christ would take on when He walked the earth.

 

[Barbarian]

I agree that Christian fundamentalists have flaws but neo-Darwinism is a little more dangerous to the Christian faith than you are thinking.

Can't be. Science can't address questions of faith.

Christian fundamentalists do present their own dangers to the true Christian faith and I'm not saying we depend on them for answers or something but you really have to be careful how far "down the road" you get from the real Christian message.

There are a number of forms of creationism that aren't opposed to Christian faith at all. Only YE creationism directly opposes God's word.

Barbarian observes:
No, I don't see that. In fact all living things were brought forth from the Earth, according to God, but He doesn't give any details as to how that happened, or whether it was by common descent or not.

I disagree here: 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Nothing at all about how it happened, except that the earth brought forth living things. Which is what science is coming around to accept. Consistent with what we know about common descent.

After God says that it was good here, he's establishing that he is now complete with the animals and He is going to move onto something different which we see discussed here.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Yes, our bodies were created like the other animals, but we also got an immortal soul, which is what is different.

I agree about the metaphysical aspects of God's character which are reflected in mankind like you said, but it's more than that. He talks about the different "kinds" of animals being created and then He establishes man as the ruler of those animals. That doesn't indicate to me that man was once one of those animals himself.

We still are animals. Our bodies are not what make us special.

Barbarian, regarding the notion that atheists think evolutionary theory is necessary:
I know some who don't. In fact, Joseph Stalin outlawed evolutionary theory in the Soviet Union, and killed and imprisoned those who accepted Darwin's theory. I'm pretty sure he was an atheist.

Joseph Stalin was a special case,

He took atheism to an extreme, yes. And therefore rejected evolutionary theory. On the other hand, the majority of the world's Christians accept that evolution is consistent with our faith.

and when they say absolutely true, they mean that the entire universe is here as a result of blind, indifferent physical forces that we can describe mathematically.

Barbarian observes:
Which has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Darwin said that God created the first living things.

I don't know which evolutionary theory you are talking about, but the one I'm talking about involves blind, pitiless, physical forces interacting with one another and that is the SOLE mechanism for evolution.

Rainfall involves blind, pitiles physical forces interacting with one another, but that's not part of evolutionary theory, either. The universe is not aware, it's not kind, and it has no feelings. God is not the universe. It's just the way He does things here.

Darwin may have said that God created the first living things, I haven't looked into that,

Charles Darwn, last sentence of The Origin of Species(1872edition):
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

but neo-Darwinists are quite far removed from such thinking.

Thomas Hunt Morgan, the geneticist who did more than anyone to produce the the modern synthesis, sometimes called "neo-Darwinism", was a devout Christian. So was Theodosious Dobzhansky, another founder.

Barbarian observes:
Evolution is indifferent to the way the universe originated. But the Big Bang has a great deal of evidence going for it. The origin of mankind is a matter of when God gave two people immortal souls. I don't know when that happened. If it happened to H. erectus or H. sapiens, would it matter? And if so, why?

Not to the neo-Darwinist it isn't and that's what I'm trying to explain.

I suspect you don't really know what "neo-Darwinism" is.

They connect the blind, natural forces that spawned our universe to those that are responsible for Darwinian evolution.

That doesn't reject God any more than the blind, natural forces that produce thunderstorms. Nature is the way God does most things in this world. A hammer is a blind, uncaring object, but I can use it to build a desk for my daughter.

To them, you cannot separate the two

Clearly, Morgan saw a difference. So do the rest of us. Nature is not God. It is not even a conscious entity.

and that's why you have to be careful what you believe about it or you'll take God out of the picture entirely.

Accepting God's creation only enriches one's faith. If one is inclined to atheism, then everything can be seen as validation for atheism. If one, like the founders of neo-Darwinism, is inclined to see God in creation, then the universe speaks to them of creation.

I think it does make a difference because the bible tells the story of a special kind of creation, a creation completely in God's image. You say that God has no physical form....what about when he took the form of Jesus Christ?

Precisely. He took the body of a human. Humans do not take the form of God. We are in His image in our souls, not our physical form.

He was a human being as we know human beings today was he not? To make man in God's image is not merely a reference to the spiritual. It is an intimate portrayal of God creating his mirror image. An image that reflects the key aspects of every part of his being and that includes the physical. Why else would he distinguish between the rest of the animals and man?

Because we are like Him in spirit. And we know good and evil, which other animals do not.

Why wouldn't he say "then God looked upon His creation and chose an X (call it an ape, or a chimp, or whatever) to rule over the rest of the living creatures".

Probably, because he wanted to emphasize that man too was from the earth. An animal like the others, until He gave us immortal souls.

He doesn't say that. He creates a separate, unique being in His very image....an image that Jesus Christ would take on when He walked the earth.

What you are claiming is that God is made in our image, and wasn't that way until Jesus was born. An essential attribute of God is that He is unchanging, so this cannot be right.

 

[lovely]

It still blows my mind to think that people deny 'design' when we can see it in our own biology...when we can repair our body's systems, develop and use medicines to target problems, and even invent mechanisims to replace parts...now even 'grow' those part from our own cells all through reverse engineering! It's just unscientific and illogical to deny design as the basis our existence.

 

[Barbarian]

It still blows my mind to think that people deny 'design' when we can see it in our own biology...

So far, whenever we find the cause of anything in biology, it turns out to have been done by natural processes, not design. God does most things by natural processes in this world. And research now indicates that evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for complex problems. Engineers are now looking to nature to solve some of those problems. The processes are called "genetic algorithms", and they are the antithesis of design. But they can do things design can't.

As usual, God knew best.

when we can repair our body's systems, develop and use medicines to target problems, and even invent mechanisims to replace parts...now even 'grow' those part from our own cells all through reverse engineering! It's just unscientific and illogical to deny design as the basis our existence.

See above. Not only does the evidence indicate an absence of design in nature, it's also theologically unsound to attribute imperfection to God. It is an implicit blasphemy to demote him to mere "designer." He is the Creator.

 

[lovely]

God, our Designer, our Creator, used design (genetic code, information) as a basis for any and all 'natural' processes (computations)...much like the computer, which is more of man's imitation of God's design. The computations can only happen because there is an input of information from a designer (Designer). There is no evidence that backs up the idea that creation is absent of design, especially not 'genetic algorithims', because they are only more evidence of a great design. The fall is the reason there is sin and imperfection, but God is merciful to all of us and has made a way for us, being a Knowing God, because of His ability to design from a timeless perspective.

 

[Barbarian]

God, our Designer, our Creator, used design (genetic code, information) as a basis for any and all 'natural' processes (computations)

Even without the theological problems of supposing that God is a mere "designer", every time we discover the cause of something in nature, it's a natural cause, with no design involved. And since information arises naturally in nature, it's clear that He is not a limited designer, but an omnipotent Creator. Design is the function of limited beings, not God.

...much like the computer, which is more of man's imitation of God's design. The computations can only happen because there is an input of information from a designer (Designer). There is no evidence that backs up the idea that creation is absent of design,

The problem is rather that there is no evidence of design.

especially not 'genetic algorithims', because they are only more evidence of a great design.

Genetic algorithms are the antithesis of design. Engineers have learned that systems that evolve are more effective for complicated problems than design. God had it right, as usual.

The fall is the reason there is sin and imperfection, but God is merciful to all of us and has made a way for us, being a Knowing God, because of His ability to design from a timeless perspective.

He is greater than that; He created a world where amazing things arise without design.

 

[Sparkey]

[quote="The Barbarian":3gzeerki]But I think creation is much more likely than ID.

Didn't you write earlier that you are not a creationist? But then you claim you are a Christian?

[/quote:3gzeerki]Should I cry "foul"?
Remember that the Bible says, "If Christ be not raised from the dead our faith is in vain," it doesn't say, "if you believe in evolution your faith is in vain."

A friend just reminded me while talking about this on the phone that our words should be filled with grace and only seasoned with salt. I'm maybe like The Barbarian in this too, being too salty for my own good sometimes, but don't use me as an example. Christ is our only right example.

~Sparrow


Why was Jesus born?
Jhn 18:37 KJV - Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
But I think creation is much more likely than ID.

Should I cry "foul"?
Remember that the Bible says, "If Christ be not raised from the dead our faith is in vain," it doesn't say, "if you believe in evolution your faith is in vain."

God doesn't really care if you accept the way He did creation. But my faith is stronger and richer as a result of accepting it. It might be so for you, too.

 

[VenomFangX]

Evolution is a fact, with a huge volume of evidence to support it with day to day practical applications.
Some people tend to pretend the world is a magical place and totally mystical but at the end of the day you need to go with the evidence. Evolution is the golden thread that runs though all of biological science. At the creation of the Universe I have faith the God created the instrumentation that enabled evolution to take place. I do not see how evolution and science contradict to me at all, except that there is no scientific evidence of a creator: there does not need to be. Well my faith carries me over that bridge.
The ID theory does not wash with me either and I would be inclined to follow the reasoning of Richard Dawkins on this one, that there is a difference between designed objects and designoid living things.
Designed objects are clearly man made whereas designoid objects are the result of evolutionary processes over a huge amount of time. All of Gods work.

yours

ÒõýþüäðýóÖ

 

[Sparkey]

The writer above clearly states, "Evolution is a fact."

Well, if we define "evolution" to mean change in the gene pool of a population over time, sure. That's a fact. It's observable and testable. If that is the only thing meant by the term "evolution" then fine. I'm good with that. Who can argue with indisputable facts?

Paul@treetop.demon.co.uk[/email]]

An important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypotheis is
that it be "falsifiable". This means that there must be some
experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue.
For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about
the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced
results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is)
falsifiable.

On the other hand the theory that "there is an invisible snorg reading
this over your shoulder" is not falsifiable. There is no experiment
or possible evidence that could prove that invisible snorgs do not
exist. So the Snorg Hypothesis is not scientific. On the other hand,
the "Negative Snorg Hypothesis" (that they do not exist) is
scientific. You can disprove it by catching one.

 

[VenomFangX]

:amen

 

[VenomFangX]

You cannot, evolution is a product of Gods divine ability to create us.
yours

ÒõýþüäðýóÖ

 

[Barbarian]

Er, what does "molodikh" mean? (if that's the correct transliteration)

 

[VenomFangX]

üþûþôых is Ukrainian while üþûþôøх is Russian it means "young" or Youthful,
Translit is Molodeeh
yours

ÒõýþüðýóÖ