Creationism or Evolution?

Stay Catholic .Com ^ | 2001 | Sebastian R. Fama

[Just mythoughts]

Creationists often slam evolution as being "only a theory." But in science, isn't a theory an assumption that is backed by considerable evidence, such as the theory of relativity or the atomic theory?

There is not one single cell of evidence for that mythical hot steaming pot of primordial soup. There is not even a shred of evidence it can be tested or recreated. Now the modern evolutionists claim through their screams that pot is not part of evolution. The pot has been relegated to a secret vault labeled abiogenesis... Well, without proof that hot steaming pot ever existed, the fairy tale/tail of evolution is a man made creation without evidence. Discoveries of similar functions and likeness in species does not equate to descent.

[Fiji Hill]

Evolution is a scientific theory. The creation myths are stories backed by no scientific evidence.

[dmz]

Interestingly, and as an aside, evolution cannot be a fact because it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

<><><><

Please amplify on this point. The 2nd law of thermodynamics relates to closed systems. Please provide your rationale for suggesting that the earth is a closed system.

[Just mythoughts]

Evolution is a scientific theory. The creation myths are stories backed by no scientific evidence.

Yeah, sure. Science has such a pristine record of perfection when it comes to creating theories. Some flesh beings will have to wait until their souls return to the Maker that created them and sent them to journey this flesh age to become educated.

[Fiji Hill]

OK, so we’ve established that the theory of evolution is a silly fairy tale. So which creation story should we choose? I kind of like the Iroquois belief that the universe was created on the back of a giant turtle.

[Just mythoughts]

OK, so we’ve established that the theory of evolution is a silly fairy tale. So which creation story should we choose? I kind of like the Iroquois belief that the universe was created on the back of a giant turtle.

If that floats your boat have at it. All souls created in the first heaven/earth age will get their one on one accounting to the Creator after this flesh age ends. Peter says there are three different heaven/earth ages, and this is the flesh age, wherein the first requirement to 'see' the kingdom of God is to be born of woman into a flesh body. All souls return to the Maker that sent them, the good the bad and the independent. The Creator is the perfect judge, quite unlike flesh beings, as the Creator knows the mind/heart of each and every one of His children. As it is Written, all souls belong to Him.

[CatherineofAragon]

Dr John Ross, Harvard University:

… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

Open systems go toward disorder/chaos just as closed systems, though there are exceptions. Crystallization is one of those, though crystals tend toward order while lacking complexity, and life is distinguished by its specified complexity.

Open systems exchange matter and complexity, but raw energy can't generate the specified complex information in living things, and undirected energy does nothing but speed up destruction.

[madameguinot]

I agree. The problem is not that evolutionary theory is a THEORY, it is that Evolutionists think that random mutation over time explains all evolutionary change. It is a theory that was developed before the discovery of DNA, and all the intricacies of molecular biology.There is an interesting dispute that’s been going on in evolutionary biology for the past several years because random mutation/natural selection over and over again does not adequately explain many things. The hard core evo devos create more and more complicated theories that are highly improbable or flat impossible. Most evolutionary biologists know this, even those who are unwilling to entertain ID.

[BroJoeK]

Fama's article: "Honest evolutionists will admit that evolution is not a science.
It is nothing more than a theory, an assumption that the universe and living things created themselves by a totally naturalistic, materialistic process."

The author's misuse of scientific terms is a certain sign of his scientific illiteracy.
This implies he is not making a scientific argument, but only expressing his religion-based opinions.

In fact: the broad term "science" includes

• confirmed observations, aka "facts",
• laws which mathematically relate data points,
• hypotheses which attempt to explain relationships, causes & effects in nature, and
• theories which are hypotheses confirmed by actual observations of predicted events.

In short a confirmed theory is the highest form of scientific explanation, so saying "evolution is just a theory" is to misstate the science, and demonstrate the authors scientific illiteracy.

Fama's article: "Evolutionists reject the idea of a Creator because they claim that facts must be observable by the senses.
Thus, this would exclude God."

Some evolutionists are atheists and reject the idea of a Creator, but many are Christians, including leaders of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches.

Fama's article: "The theory of evolution contends that billions of years ago the elements which the universe is made up of were packed into a dense mass at an extremely high temperature.
The mass exploded (the Big Bang)..."

Interesting to note that Fama considers astrophysics' cosmological "big bang theory" to be a sub-set of evolution theory.
Of course, Charles Darwin never intended any such thing.
Darwin made two very simple scientific observations: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
These had nothing to do with a "big bang" or even, necessarily, with some "primordial soup".

Fama's article: "Now, if life could come into existence by chance chemical reactions, why can’t the process be repeated in the laboratory..."

Scientifically speaking, there are several hypotheses, but no confirmed theories, about how life first began on earth.
Of those hypotheses, abiogenesis and transpermia are just two.
Efforts to confirm abiogenesis by reproducing "life" in a laboratory have demonstrated that "life" is a matter of definition, but that primitive pre-life organic molecules can be produced under conditions similar to early earth.

But the notion that billions of years of early cellular evolution can be reproduced in a matter of months, even under the most controlled laboratory conditions, is inherently ridiculous.

So all "origin of life" ideas remain unconfirmed hypotheses.

Fama's article: "Just how old the fossils are, is itself a matter of controversy."

No it isn't, not among real scientists.
The evolutionary time-line is well established and repeatedly confirmed through world-wide geological stratigraphy, dozens of radiometric dating techniques, DNA mutation rate analysis, and inputs from many other branches of science.

There is no scientific evidence challenging the accepted evolutionary time-line.

Fama's article: "...the fossil record contains no transitional forms.
Transitional forms are not important to evolution - transitional forms are evolution.
No transitional forms means no evolution!"

The question of "transitional forms" is a matter of perspective.
At its most basic level, every life, including you and me, is a "transitional form" between our ancestors and our descendants.
Research shows that every generation inherits a small number of more-or-less random DNA mutations, making the generation unique and "transitional" between ancestors and descendants.

Most DNA mutations are harmless, or get weeded-out by Natural Selection, and that is why species can live with little visible change for millions of years (the average is approx. one million years).
But when the environment changes (hotter, colder, wetter, dryer, new predators, etc.) and a species must either change or go extinct, then changes can be relatively rapid -- perhaps thousands instead of millions of generations.

As for the alleged absence of "transitional forms", in fact the fossil record is chock full of them, this being just one small example:

Fama's article: "The function of DNA is more complex than a computer’s.
Is it not reasonable to conclude that something this complex had an intelligent designer?"

By definition of the word "Christian", all Christians believe in an Intelligent Designer -- of the Universe, of its physical laws, of Earth itself, and of all life that has ever appeared here.
The scientific question is: what processes did God use to create everything we see?
The scientific answer, in part, is "evolution".
Christians and others who believe that God used evolution to create what we see are called "Theistic Evolutionists".

Theistic Evolutionism is the teaching of most Christian churches, including Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox.

Fama's article: "Within the human body there are a number of irreducibly complex systems.
That is, systems that would not function if they were any simpler."

This often repeated assertion is disproved by innumerable examples from both existing species and the fossil record.
In fact, every "modern" feature can be found in more primitive forms -- in living, fossils and/or embryonic development.

skipping down to Fama's conclusion: "Either an intelligent being created everything out of nothing, or nothing created everything out of nothing.
Which do you suppose is more likely?"

All Christians believe that God created everything out of nothing.
The question is whether He used evolution (as we understand it) to accomplish His purposes?
Those of us, including (if I understand correctly) recent Popes, who think God used evolution are known as theistic evolutionists.

[allmendream]

+1

[BroJoeK]

CofA: "Open systems exchange matter and complexity, but raw energy can't generate the specified complex information in living things, and undirected energy does nothing but speed up destruction."

"raw energy"? "undirected energy"?
These words have nothing to do with the real questions, which involve the long-term effects, over billions of years, of conditions (sunlight, temperature, water, organic chemicals, etc.) which are ideal to sustain life-as-we-know-it.
Are these same conditions adequate to create simple life-as-we-define-it from complex organic pre-life chemistry?

Answer: hypothetically, yes, but this is not yet confirmed, and represents only one idea among several of how life originated on Earth.

[OldNavyVet]

Brilliant! ... Bravo! ... Thank you!

Recommemded reading (if You haven't already) is Darwin's Ghost by Steve Jones. It's a thoughtful, eye-opening, and modern update - chapter by chapter - of Darwin's original work.

[CatherineofAragon]

"Are these same conditions adequate to create simple life-as-we-define-it from complex organic pre-life chemistry?"

The answer is no.

There is no such thing as "simple life"; even a single-celled amoeba is incredibly complex. It simply could not be produced by chance, no matter how much time nor how many elements were involved. Richard Dawkins, the atheist, admitted that one cell's DNA contains about 4000 books of 500 pages each of information. Put another way----if a modern hard drive were to have the same “data density” as a cell’s nucleus, one typical hard drive would be able to store almost 6.9 × 1013 GB of data. That’s the equivalent of all the data on the internet 140 times over.

Logic, and simple common sense, show us this is not chance, but the product of design.

[OldNavyVet]

It simply could not be produced by chance, no matter how much time nor how many elements were involved.

That same idea can be found in Darwin's "Origin" and Steve Jones' "Darwin's ghost." Both books include four chapters (on geography) about our 4.5 billion year old planet.

[allmendream]

A species of amoeba can have a genome over 100 times larger than a human being. Only someone ignorant of biology would consider it a form of “simple life”.

Is your faith contingent upon scientists not being able to make simple life forms from raw elements and energy? So long as that bar has not been cleared you have faith, but when and if they ever do - your faith is shaken?

If the raw elements of the universe can produce replicating complex systems then once again I stand in awe of the laws of the universe set down by the ultimate law giver.

The complexity of life is just another gap in human knowledge that “god of the gaps” theologists want to fill with miraculous intervention. That hasn't had a very successful history and is rather shoddy theology.

[Fiji Hill]

The John T. Scopes Trial (The Old Religion's Better, After All)--Vernon Dalhart And Company (1925)

[BroJoeK]

CofA: "The answer is no.
There is no such thing as "simple life"; even a single-celled amoeba is incredibly complex."

But there are many forms of simpler "life", or "pre-life", or "not-quite-life" -- among which viruses, and that prion which may or may not cause mad cow disease, come to mind.

Physical evidence, from Canada and elsewhere shows earliest pre-life residue dating back over 4 billion years.
Evidence of the first simple cells comes from rocks a billion years younger.
Mulitcelled creatures came two billion years after that, etc.

So none of this happened overnight.

[CatherineofAragon]

"Scientifically speaking, there are several hypotheses, but no confirmed theories, about how life first began on earth."

"Some evolutionists are atheists and reject the idea of a Creator, but many are Christians, including leaders of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches."

"Some" evolutionists are atheists? According to Discovery News, the National Academy of Science found that belief in God is as low as 5.5 percent among biologists, and as low as 7.5 percent among physicists and astronomers. These folks, obviously, must find a way to explain away the origin of life without bringing God into the equation. Clearly they will flit from hypothesis to hypothesis, untll one or another is disproved or doubted. Christians have the truth and should hold to it.

"No it isn't, not among real scientists."

::::Grin:::: "Real" scientists---meaning those who believe in evolution, I assume---the majority of whom are atheists. So, belief in God is okay, as long as you can find a way to fit it into atheistic dogma.

Nope.

"By definition of the word "Christian", all Christians believe in an Intelligent Designer -- of the Universe, of its physical laws, of Earth itself, and of all life that has ever appeared here. The scientific question is: what processes did God use to create everything we see? The scientific answer, in part, is "evolution". Christians and others who believe that God used evolution to create what we see are called "Theistic Evolutionists".

You're correct about the terminology, but a theistic evolutionist is the same as a straight homosexual. Regardless of how many popes or learned men identify themselves as such,the two are mutually exclusive. As I said before, evolution states man appeared recently, after millions of years of animals and other life-forms suffering, sickening, killing, bleeding, and dying. The Bible states that suffering, sickness, blood, and death entered the world at the start, after the fall of man. The two beliefs are a contradiction and cannot be resolved.

Jesus said in Matthew 19:4, and again in Mark 10:6, that God made male and female at the beginning. Evolution, as stated above, demands one believe that humans evolved lately. The two beliefs are a contradiction and cannot be resolved, and worse, Christians who say they are also evolutionists are, unwittingly (I hope), painting Jesus Christ as a liar.

There are other dangers inherent in theistic evolution.

We know that God is good, kind, loving, and perfect; theistic evolution misrepresents Him as a being who is the author of millions of years of suffering and death, by His own design.

We know that God is the Father and Maker of all things; theistic evolution reduces Him to a "God of the gaps", to whom credit is given only for those things man can't explain.

We know that we, as humans, are caught in sin, and the only way of redemption is through Jesus Christ. Evolution makes the original Fall, and the concept of sin meaningless----therefore there is no need for a Savior. Our very need for salvation is undermined.

The great majority of evolutionists regard Adam as a myth. Yet Jesus was a direct descendant of Adam. To accept the mythology of Adam puts one in danger of doing the same to Jesus and His redemptive work.

There are more, but it's abundantly clear that believing in evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. They contradict one another and cannot be resolved.

[CatherineofAragon]

We were discussing “simple” life, per your earlier post. Now it’s “simpler” life?

The point concerning simple, or your more recent, “simpler” life stands. There’s no such thing. It’s far too complex to have evolved.

[OldNavyVet]

Richard Dawkins, the atheist, admitted that one cell's DNA contains about 4000 books of 500 pages each of information.

If that impresses you, so should this from Steve Jones:

"About a thousand genes are shared by every organism, however simple or complicated. Although their common ancestor must have lived more than a billion years ago, their shared structure can still be glimpsed. It shows how the grand plan of life has been modified through the course of evolution."

Source: "Darwin's Ghost," page 284.