Jump to content

Menu

Is there a resource refuting evolution


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 291
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll bet if you googled it, you'd find a ton of websites using the "we didn't come from apes" type debate.

 

 

I'm sure. :D I was just flabbergasted that someone was still trying to use this as proof that evolution is false, when the whole thing was debunked a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the prevailing belief? Because some believe that the Bible is literal(at least parts) and can not accept anything else. It's as simple as that. I'm not being disrespectful here, but one can not disprove or debunk something that is of such importance in their life.

 

 

Well, okay. Not trying to be rude either, but I'm not arguing this. :D I was just curiously asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is, perhaps, one of the things that makes me cringe the most about creation "science," the attempt to distinguish between "micro" and "macro" evolution.

 

Me too. It's ALL microevolution.

The only thing that makes it "macro" is more years...

Kind of like saying, I believe in millimeters, but not kilometers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Me too. It's ALL microevolution.

The only thing that makes it "macro" is more years...

Kind of like saying, I believe in millimeters, but not kilometers.

 

Literally LOLing. And I needed that laugh with the day I'm having!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ummm...really? An accepted fact of science? Well, let's just say I sure hope you are right in the end. ;) This topic, however, has been debated ad nauseam on this board so I won't get into it again. Emotions run high on both sides. As to the OPs questions, I have heard good things about Evolution: The Grand Experiment by Dr. Carl Werner. It sounds like you are looking for a presentation of facts supporting both sides so that your dc can make up their own mind and/or be able to defend their belief in Creation. Lee Strobel's book The Case for a Creator is also good. :)

 

The bolded is what I was going to recommend. Also the follow-up, Living Fossils. Excellent resource, from a former staunch evolutionist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I have found is that it's pert-nigh impossible to have a discussion about evolution when we aren't speaking the same language. Those who don't believe in evolution due to religious beliefs seem (ime) to have a different definition of what evolution is than those who do believe in evolution due to scientific beliefs have. And, imo, since evolution is a scientific and not a religious concept, it seems logical to me that we should all accept the scientific definition of evolution if we're going to discuss it. But I have not found that to be true in practice ... such as the idea that micro- and macro-evolution are somehow unrelated concepts that be can taken as separate ideas that aren't dependent on each other.

 

It kinda leaves me :confused1: .

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what would be awesome? If the evolutionists on the board would just recognize that there are some threads that your input is not needed. We already know you think we're idiots. WE KNOW!!! You can leave now. Seriously.

 

Calming tea asked for very specific information. It's abundantly clear that you don't have that specific information. Despite your passionate desire for us to be enlightened, some of us still would like to gather this information. You're input into this thread is not needed.

 

If you would like to debate evolution on this board for the umpteenth time, please start your own thread.

 

It's just so uncool that these threads always get derailed.

 

 

Unfortunately, secular people do not see their actions as trying to impose their "non-religion" upon us despite the fact that they claim we are trying to impose our beliefs upon them.

 

However, we Christians also do much damage to ourselves when we refute "evolution" outright. Our first question to those denigrating our lack of faith in "evolution" should be, "What do you mean by evolution?". You see, there are many definitions for the term, "evolution". The two main terms would be: Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution.

 

Micro-evolution is gradual change/adaptation over time. This type of evolution has been proven and is a scientific fact. Think of the finches on the Galapagos Islands whose beaks change shape and size seasonally depending on the food varieties found during that season. Another example of micro-evolution would be all the different breeds of dogs and cats we have. This type of evolution is perfectly compatible with the Bible and is scientifically sound.

 

Macro-evolution is the game changer. This is the one Christians have a problem with (myself included). This is the idea that one species can "evolve" into a completely new, different, unrelated species - ape to man. Despite what evolutionists claim, there is no proof or scientific evidence of macro-evolution. Otherwise, the Theory of Evolution would be the Fact of Evolution. This is where the disparity lies.

 

So, the next time you have some secular evolutionist or just a person interested in your views ask you, "Do you believe in evolution?", don't just refute evolution outright. First ask them to clarify, "What do you mean by evolution?" Then you can interact with them on equal footing.

 

Lastly, let them troll here. Who knows, maybe someone will put a stone in their shoe that will irritate them enough to look up some of what we discuss, and they will, by God's grace, come to believe. Stranger things have happened...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Macro-evolution is the game changer. This is the one Christians have a problem with (myself included). This is the idea that one species can "evolve" into a completely new, different, unrelated species - ape to man.

 

Really, there is no evolutionary claim that men came from apes. You're arguing a strawman.

Also, statistically speaking, most Christians do NOT believe in creation "science."

 

This isn't a Christian vs. secular thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only is it incorrect, she's just reciting things many posters have already proven to her simply no longer exist within the realm of science. The ape to man thing is a non-issue. We simply do not say "we evolved from apes". We say "We share a common ancestor". That's the truth of it.

 

Plus, many other posters said it much better than I can, the whole macro/micro thing doesn't exist either. Which is what brought my original question about---WHY do some still cling to what has already been dis-proven as a way to prove their side is true and the other side is wrong?

 

And moreover, "Theory". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Plus, many other posters said it much better than I can, the whole macro/micro thing doesn't exist either. Which is what brought my original question about---WHY do some still cling to what has already been dis-proven as a way to prove their side is true and the other side is wrong?

 

 

Because that's all they have to refute.

 

And moreover, "Theory". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

 

Agree. That's another pet peeve of mine with those who like to argue science with religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And moreover, "Theory". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father.

Prepare to die.

 

 

To theory, gravity is just a theory too, but I really wouldn't recommend jumping off a building to test it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHY do some still cling to what has already been dis-proven as a way to prove their side is true and the other side is wrong?

 

 

Apologetics.

 

By misrepresenting what a thing is (purposefully or ignorantly), it's possible to prove it's wrong. To say "man came from apes" is easier to argue than "whaddya mean man is classified as an ape?" It's the reason apologists tell people that "Darwinists" expect evolution to produce a crockaduck, or exposing the brilliance of the banana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because that's all they have to refute.

 

 

 

Agree. That's another pet peeve of mine with those who like to argue science with religion.

 

 

Not arguing with you, I swear, but it makes me want to say "AND? WHY?" over and over again. LOL... But on a more serious note, it also proves to me what Albeto was saying: we need some standard in science education. Especially if we still have people who firmly believe things that have steadfastly been disproved a LONG time ago.

 

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father.

Prepare to die.

 

 

To theory, gravity is just a theory too, but I really wouldn't recommend jumping off a building to test it.

 

 

Quite possibly the most awesomest movie ever.

 

And----awwwwww but mooooom. everyone else is doing it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Lastly, let them troll here. Who knows, maybe someone will put a stone in their shoe that will irritate them enough to look up some of what we discuss, and they will, by God's grace, come to believe. Stranger things have happened...

 

 

Not likely. Most people (not speaking to anyone here--let's not get our knickers in a knot :D!) will never truly research an opposing viewpoint with an open mind. Most people are not ready for the paradigm shift that would come with a challenge to their belief system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Macro-evolution is the game changer. This is the one Christians have a problem with (myself included). This is the idea that one species can "evolve" into a completely new, different, unrelated species - ape to man. Despite what evolutionists claim, there is no proof or scientific evidence of macro-evolution. Otherwise, the Theory of Evolution would be the Fact of Evolution. This is where the disparity lies.

 

 

Last I checked creationist institutions like AIG do promote the idea of one species changing into another. For example they propose that a single cat evolved into disparate species like tigers, lions and civets, that zebras evolved from horses and so on. So the idea that creationists do not believe in so called "macro-evolution" is false. What's more....creationists believe in mega-macro-evolution because they propose that the changes that would otherwise take millions of years happened in a mere time frame 4000 or so years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not likely. Most people (not speaking to anyone here--let's not get our knickers in a knot :D!) will never truly research an opposing viewpoint with an open mind. Most people are not ready for the paradigm shift that would come with a challenge to their belief system.

 

 

True that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not likely. Most people (not speaking to anyone here--let's not get our knickers in a knot :D!) will never truly research an opposing viewpoint with an open mind. Most people are not ready for the paradigm shift that would come with a challenge to their belief system.

 

 

I'm not sure which side you are referencing, but I can assure you I HAVE seen the other side of the village and that's exactly why I stand where I do today.

 

So I have done enough research of the opposing side and I have been open to it a time before and the proof was irrefutable to me, hence why I can unequivocally say where I speak from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, secular people do not see their actions as trying to impose their "non-religion" upon us despite the fact that they claim we are trying to impose our beliefs upon them.

 

Your criticism is too general. Many secular folks do not participate in threads like these at all precisely because we do not want to impose or offend. I am agnostic and I agree wholeheartedly with Sassenach's posts. For the most part, you see some of "the usual players" arguing the presumptive secular side in these threads and, all too often, the condescension is palpable. However, these posters do not represent every secular person's point-of-view regarding the faithful. There are tolerant and intolerant secular folks just as there are tolerant and intolerant religious folks. On both sides, some like to talk and prove their points while some like to listen and reflect. Some have an open mind and some do not. Some think they know the answers and some are humble enough to know that they could not possibly know all the answers. I pass up these threads all the time because I'm not spoiling for a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood why the Creation/Evolution argument goes on...does it really matter? Nobody was there, it will never be proven one way or the other, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. OP reasons.org is a great site for the info. you have requested. :)

 

I can see why the discussion is interesting. It is fascinating to ponder the origins of the universe and the history of life on Earth. The argument is off-putting but a level-headed discussion is always fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calming Tea,

 

Disclaimer: I believe in Evolution.

 

I am so happy to hear that you want your kids to hear both sides of the story!

 

I cannot help you with Creationism beyond the current sources listed, but I strongly recommend that you share the following Nova Series with your kids. They were each produced within the past ten years.

 

Whenever individuals want to debate Evolution with me, they always ask incredibly good questions! They are good thinkers, and these are really good questions to ask! It is impressive to see laymen (non-scientists, non-Evolutionists) asking identical questions about Evolution to what scientists ask. The Creationist Community should be proud that their people are able to articulate such high-level questions.

 

However, that is where the inquiry ends. Some of these questions are parroted from a hundred years ago, and each question was resolved (in the opinion of Evolutionists) by an experiment or series of experiments. IME, these experiments are unknown to Creationists. Some of these experiments are from decades ago, so we know the answers (again, in the opinion of the Evolutionists).

 

These two series walk through the experiments on the subjects given. In this way, your children will be ahead of both the Creationist AND the Evolutionists. They will know the questions on the Creationist side, and the experiments on the Evolutionist side, so they can move on and ask some good Creationist questions that have NOT been answered so far; perhaps some from this decade rather than from a century ago.

 

Origins (also on Netflix, or may be able to watch online through pbs)

 

Becoming Human (also on Netflix Instantwatch, or may be able to watch online through pbs)

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Also, it's a little dated, but Richard Dawkins' series of Christmas Lectures from 1991 also reviews some of the research:

 

Growing Up in the Universe (possibly on Youtube).

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

I hope this post doesn't create controversy. I sincerely get REALLY, REALLY EXCITED to hear Creationists asking such good questions. It makes me hope that they will create their own experiment to answer their questions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Unfortunately, secular people do not see their actions as trying to impose their "non-religion" upon us despite the fact that they claim we are trying to impose our beliefs upon them.

 

However, we Christians also do much damage to ourselves when we refute "evolution" outright. Our first question to those denigrating our lack of faith in "evolution" should be, "What do you mean by evolution?". You see, there are many definitions for the term, "evolution". The two main terms would be: Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution.

 

Micro-evolution is gradual change/adaptation over time. This type of evolution has been proven and is a scientific fact. Think of the finches on the Galapagos Islands whose beaks change shape and size seasonally depending on the food varieties found during that season. Another example of micro-evolution would be all the different breeds of dogs and cats we have. This type of evolution is perfectly compatible with the Bible and is scientifically sound.

 

Macro-evolution is the game changer. This is the one Christians have a problem with (myself included). This is the idea that one species can "evolve" into a completely new, different, unrelated species - ape to man. Despite what evolutionists claim, there is no proof or scientific evidence of macro-evolution. Otherwise, the Theory of Evolution would be the Fact of Evolution. This is where the disparity lies.

 

So, the next time you have some secular evolutionist or just a person interested in your views ask you, "Do you believe in evolution?", don't just refute evolution outright. First ask them to clarify, "What do you mean by evolution?" Then you can interact with them on equal footing.

 

Lastly, let them troll here. Who knows, maybe someone will put a stone in their shoe that will irritate them enough to look up some of what we discuss, and they will, by God's grace, come to believe. Stranger things have happened...

 

Honestly?

 

First, the ape-into-man claim is a strawman claim that creationist make, not evolution.

 

Second, I'm a Christian and I don't need you speaking for me on the matter of evolution primarily because your views don't represent mine. They also don't represent the views of most Christians in the world today. There is really no excuse for not recognizing that Creationism is, for the most part, a view held by a population within American Protestantism but pretty much rejected by the majority of Christians elsewhere. When most Christians talk about creation they are NOT addressing YE or ID in any form. There IS a problem of language but it also exists between creationist Christians and the much, much

wider Christian family

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Honestly?

 

First, the ape-into-man claim is a strawman claim that creationist make, not evolution.

 

Second, I'm a Christian and I don't need you speaking for me on the matter of evolution primarily because your views don't represent mine. They also don't represent the views of most Christians in the world today. There is really no excuse for not recognizing that Creationism is, for the most part, a view held by a population within American Protestantism but pretty much rejected by the majority of Christians elsewhere. When most Christians talk about creation they are NOT addressing YE or ID in any form. There IS a problem of language but it also exists between creationist Christians and the much, much

wider Christian family

 

 

I was going to address this as well. I am a Christian and my faith is very important to me. I, and millions of other Christians around the world, have no problem reconciling faith and science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to address this as well. I am a Christian and my faith is very important to me. I, and millions of other Christians around the world, have no problem reconciling faith and science.

 

I agree.

 

My personal belief is that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it and HOW he did it does not matter to me. Since he created us all and created us intelligent beings, we are denying HIM when we deny scientific discovery. Science and the quest for knowledge about our world, ourselves, and how things work is a beautiful breakthtaking ride that takes a life time, and I want to impart that to our daughter. To me, there is NO disconnect between a faith in God and science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too. It's ALL microevolution.

The only thing that makes it "macro" is more years...

Kind of like saying, I believe in millimeters, but not kilometers.

 

When I hear people explaining "evolution" in the UCD meaning of the word I hear: MM become km (we all agree with this). Other mm turn into mL, through the process of natural selection, and then over time evolve into L. Still other mm turn into mg, which in turn become g. Modern km, L, and g are all related because they all share a common ancestor, the mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I hear people explaining "evolution" in the UCD meaning of the word I hear: MM become km (we all agree with this). Other mm turn into mL, through the process of natural selection, and then over time evolve into L. Still other mm turn into mg, which in turn become g. Modern km, L, and g are all related because they all share a common ancestor, the mm.

 

 

Well, actually, I meant trying to somehow divide macro from micro, but that's okay. We can go with your example, because it works too. :)

 

Once you know your math (and/or science, depending on which way you want to jump with this) you know that "mL" is nothing more than the term for "1000 cubic mm."

The gram was determined by the mass of a cubic cm of water.

 

So yes, they do indeed go back to the mm.

 

 

Interesting point, though I'll bet you didn't intend to make it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many secular folks do not participate in threads like these at all precisely because we do not want to impose or offend.

Like me. I believe given my knowledge of the members on this board, that I am the only one with a PhD in Evolutionary Biology. Please know that there are those of us who try very hard to only teach those who want to learn. I will not argue about this, ever.

 

The misunderstanding about what evolution is and is not is great. Make sure you know what you are trying to refute. The thread I linked to before is a question and answer session with no hype but only the current scientific understanding. You can read it here.

 

Ruth in NZ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, actually, I meant trying to somehow divide macro from micro, but that's okay. We can go with your example, because it works too. :)

 

Once you know your math (and/or science, depending on which way you want to jump with this) you know that "mL" is nothing more than the term for "1000 cubic mm."

The gram was determined by the mass of a cubic cm of water.

 

So yes, they do indeed go back to the mm.

 

 

Interesting point, though I'll bet you didn't intend to make it. ;)

 

 

Yes, interesting. Any I do understand what you are saying, though I was thinking more along the lines of distance turning into liquid or weight, which is back to being confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@calming tea- an excellent resource is available at ibri.org (The Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute). The site is compiled by IBRI's members (scholars with degrees in both the fields of Biblical studies and other fields-- primarily science). It's a bit challenging to navigate the website itself but the articles, reports, reviews, and resources it contains are gold. Most items deal with science/Bible topics, and the contributors are scholars (theologians, scientists, professors in higher education, etc) who are committed to truth as revealed by their particular discipline, and are also Christians committed to the complete reliability of Scripture. Most contributors (possibly all?) hold an old-earth creationist position.

 

The materials seem primarily geared toward an adult (college and graduate) audience, but are certainly valuable and accessible to homeschooling parents and their high-schoolers.

 

Highly recommended!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only is it incorrect, she's just reciting things many posters have already proven to her simply no longer exist within the realm of science. The ape to man thing is a non-issue. We simply do not say "we evolved from apes". We say "We share a common ancestor". That's the truth of it.

 

Plus, many other posters said it much better than I can, the whole macro/micro thing doesn't exist either. Which is what brought my original question about---WHY do some still cling to what has already been dis-proven as a way to prove their side is true and the other side is wrong?

 

And moreover, "Theory". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

 

Uh, actually I'm not incorrect. Here is what Berkeley.edu has to say about macroevolution:

 

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

 

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history;
there are no firsthand accounts to be read
. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

 

Once we've figured out
what
evolutionary events have taken place,
we try to figure out
how
they happened
. Just as in
microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like
, migration,
, and
are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

 

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change
if given enough time.

 

Apparently Berkeley agrees with my definitions, although I did state it in more simplistic language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Uh, actually I'm not incorrect. Here is what Berkeley.edu has to say about macroevolution:

 

 

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

 

 

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history;
there are no firsthand accounts to be read
. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

 

 

Once we've figured out
what
evolutionary events have taken place,
we try to figure out
how
they happened
. Just as in
microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like
, migration,
, and
are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

 

 

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change
if given enough time.

 

Apparently Berkeley agrees with my definitions, although I did state it in more simplistic language.

 

 

If you're not incorrect, you're not correct either. From you:

 

Macro-evolution is the game changer. This is the one Christians have a problem with (myself included). This is the idea that one species can "evolve" into a completely new, different, unrelated species - ape to man

 

You've read the above passage through your own frame I think because you've missed the point it's making and many here have made that macroevolution is the same thing as microevolution with the difference being one of scale. It's about the process of evolution in large populations over long periods of time as opposed to evolution in a small population or individual over a generation or two. It's the difference in definition of micro and macro, large scope as opposed to small scope but the object of attention is still the same thing. You may not think evolution, micro or macro or whatever, lead to speciation but that's a different matter.

 

I think what you may actually mean is that you believe in something like a Law of Evolution, that there's mutation between generations but not that that can lead to speciation. Still bunk I think, but I think it's what you're getting at. :D

 

 

You also skipped over the man to ape bit you put forth. You were and are absolutely wrong in that assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the entire thread, but if no one has suggested Case for Creation by Lee Strobel, I think it's a great place to start.

 

 

Case for Creation by Lee Strobel is a terrible place to look for resources refuting evolution. It's not only not scientific, the arguments are easily torn apart by anyone familiar with how evolution actually works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

.. Size is also another problem. When looking at the sequence from mammal-like reptiles to mammals, the size of skulls vary significantly, though they are often drawn as if they are similar. These difficulties need to be resolved before Universal Common Descent can be seen as proven as undeniable fact.

 

...

 

 

Chapter 13 in this video might be interesting for you.

 

[oversimplification] If you change the power of our jaw muscles it drastically changes our skull. [/oversimplification]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, actually I'm not incorrect. Here is what Berkeley.edu has to say about macroevolution:

 

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

 

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history;
there are no firsthand accounts to be read
. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

 

Once we've figured out
what
evolutionary events have taken place,
we try to figure out
how
they happened
. Just as in
microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like
, migration,
, and
are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

 

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change
if given enough time.

 

Apparently Berkeley agrees with my definitions, although I did state it in more simplistic language.

 

 

Thank you for this. According to the same source you quoted, "Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."

 

 

Looking around, I found TalkOrigins has a more comprehensive explanation:

 

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

 

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

 

So it seems we were both right, and both wrong! Micro and macroevolution are indeed, legitimate scientific terms (one point for you), but they are both valid concepts, accepted as fact by the scientific community (one point for me).

 

If you can conceive of small changes within a species (microevolution), what limits the process to making only small changes within a species? Why can't small changes, say over 10 million years, result in a different species?

 

The cladagram below represents the evolution of Homo sapiens and shows that humans did not come *from* apes, but from a common ancestor to other apes. This common ancestor species experienced minute mutations (microevolution), such that 8 million year later, we can confidently say we are no longer classified as the same species (macroevolution).

 

 

 

 

Hominidae.PNG

 

 

Here are some helpful (I think) links for those interested:

For beginners

For more scientifically literate folk

For kids

Interactive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit too simplified. Science is in essence deterministic, and hence have no chance of explaining any non-deterministic phenomena such as free will. Some that believe (notice the word) that all being MUST behave according to natural (ie scientific) laws in consequence reject free will.

 

Any God would almost by definition be non-deterministic, and hence outside the realm of science, even if the god was one of flesh and blood. In the same way free will is likely to remain outside the realm of science, unless it does not exist but is only an illusion as some claim.

I think I'll skip actually wading into the origins debate today, but I do want to clarify this important theological issue which has been vexing believers for ages. It is not the case that God would be 'non-deterministic' by definition. It is precisely the problem that God by definition would have to preside over a deterministic universe, because the following are considered absolutely necessary to the definition of God in the sense used by the three Abrahamic traditions:

 

1) God is all-powerful

2) God is all-knowing

3) God is the prime mover who set all things into motion

 

If God set the world into motion, then what happens is a result of his actions. If he's all-knowing, he knew what those results would be. If he's all-powerful, he could have made the outcomes whatever he chose. In light of these conclusions, which follow deductively from the very definition of God, there is no such thing as free will, because God set all of our actions into motion at the beginning of the universe with foreknowledge of the results. It's important that we have free will, because otherwise what's the moral value of anything we do? So, theologists have struggled for centuries to rationalize how we could possibly have free will without weakening the definition of God.

 

As for science, a century ago scientists really wanted the world to be deterministic, and could credibly suppose that they would eventually find out all the rules such that a sufficiently advanced computer could compute the state of the universe at any given time from any known starting state. And in the early 20th century, a few tricky puzzles in the nature of particles turned out to reveal what is now the consensus among scientists -- that the world cannot possibly be fundamentally deterministic. At the quantum level, we find that reality behaves probabilistically.

 

So in fact, the Abrahamic religions are still locked in a deterministic conundrum, because they cannot change their fundamental idea of God. But science is no longer bound to determinism, because scientists were able to change their idea of what nature was like on a basic level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not the case that God would be 'non-deterministic' by definition.

...

1) God is all-powerful

2) God is all-knowing

3) God is the prime mover who set all things into motion

 

So, an entity that is all-powerful, all-knowing and the prime mover is deterministic (completely predictable) in exactly what way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I did stroll over and read the first three pages of the "Unscientific American" thread and I'm definitely learning a lot.

 

I personally am not "one of those" who refuse to believe in evolution for religious reasons. I believe in an old earth and even if the earth isn't actually old I believe God created grown up to appear old so to me the YE/OE thing is totally pointless and not even worth my time (and yes I subscribed to Answers, bought several of his books, read his website for years, read all his articles in HSE, and just am not...uh...a follower.)

 

SO this whole thing has been really useful because honestly...I'm embarrassed...but I was hearing a different definition of evolution than what is currently believed by the Scientific community. I'm still not saying I agree with and believe in evolution as far as UCE...but what I am realizing is that I need to start over from scratch, re-educate myself and then be prepared to present whatever Science is out there, to my kids.

 

The TIm Keller article is very helpful too. One problem, as far as Christianity, that I have with evolution of humans, is that I believe all men fell in a literal Adam and then all men were saved in a literal Christ. So if there wasn't a literal Adam, it would be a pretty big problem theologically for me. However, I just got to the point where Keller talks about that in his paper. Thankfully I have always viewed Genesis as exalted prose (not meant to be totally literal) Until then, I can also shrug and just decide that God decided at what point the beings evolving were "man" and called the first one to really have the faculties that make him in the image of GOd, Adam.

 

Meanwhile, I need to print out an amazon return label for "Answers Book 1" and finish that Tim Keller article!

 

So....what do current evolutionist Scientists say that we evolved from? According to Science What were we before we were people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By God himself, of course. He is incapable of being wrong about what it is he will do.

Nice! I actually enjoyed that observation, albeit you do presumably see that that neat turn depends on equivocation in the word deterministic in my original statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice! I actually enjoyed that observation, albeit you do presumably see that that neat turn depends on equivocation in the word deterministic in my original statement.

No, not exactly. Do you mean the difference between being a believer in determinism and being itself a determined phenomenon? For a discussion of science, the important point is that the universe created by God is determined, but in fact it turns out that God's own free will is problematized by the accepted definition of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...