Skip to comments.Is evolution fact?
Posted on 12/14/2008 8:37:32 AM PST by tpanther
Strength For The Journey New Creation People Part 1 August 4, 2005 Is Evolution A Fact?
READ: Genesis 2:1-7, Hebrews 11:1-3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. Hebrews 11:3The theory of evolution is not without its problems. One scientist says this about life starting on its own: "Amino acids would have to be arranged in an exact sequence to form a protein . . . just like the letters in a sentence. Mere laws of chemistry and physics cannot do that. The probability of a protein forming by chance would be 1064 [10 with 64 zeros after it] to 1!"
Many people assume the theory of evolution to be true. But can it be scientifically proven? Something is considered scientifically true only if it can be repeatedly verified under laboratory conditions. The claim that life sprang up on its own out of a long impersonal process cannot pass this test of truth. That is why evolution remains only a theory.
So if you're ever tempted to doubt the Genesis account of the creation story, consider the alternative. The odds against even a simple protein creating itself are astronomical. How much more reasonable to believe God and His Word: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (Hebrews 11:3).
Isn't it more reasonable to believe that God designed and created the universe? (Genesis 1:1). Dennis Fisher
All things bright and beautiful, All creatures great and small, All things wise and wonderful The Lord God made them all. Alexander
All creation points to the almighty Creator.
Variation within species is entirely consistent with God's creation and method of propagation of the species.
The problem is when the natural variation we see is extrapolated into species to species evolution, whether you call it speciation, or macro-evolution.
God goes to the trouble of explaining to us that the different groups of animals were created in different creation events, that man was created from the dust of the earth and that woman was created from man's rib. He makes the effort to tell us as much as possible, (and reasonable) so that we can be sure that not only did He do the creating, but that he did NOT evolve us from another creature.
But taking the same challenge to the same poster from thread to thread without provocation is clearly making it personal and a flame war. That is not tolerable even on "open" threads in the Religion Forum.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“God goes to the trouble of explaining to us that the different groups of animals were created in different creation events, that man was created from the dust of the earth and that woman was created from man’s rib. He makes the effort to tell us as much as possible, (and reasonable) so that we can be sure that not only did He do the creating, but that he did NOT evolve us from another creature.”
I said that evolution is entirely consistent with Christianity, not with a literal reading of the Bible. If you believe that the Bible is factual, word-for-word, then you cannot accept anything else. It’s also not science. In my opinion, God would be sorely disappointed if we didn’t use the minds that he gave us to understand his process.
Thanks for the ping!
Thank you oh so very much for sharing your insights, dear Cvengr!
I don’t know about the young earth thing...but I do know about the massive holes in evolution theory.
Sure there are holes. Are you suggesting that there are no holes in the biblical account of creation?
Show your NON-verses to prove it.
Who cares what the chances are for LIFE to arrive by chance, random selection or Space Aliens - it's what are the odds that cell critters decided to quit DYING and start SPLITTING!
I blame it on that Timothy fellow!
2 Tim 4:2
We have time...
I'll keep a sharp eye out for THIS!
If someone fails to recognize allegory, metaphor, simile and poetry in Scripture, they miss out on a lot of TRUTH.
Great point. The truth is we just don’t know that timeline. I often wonder if a thing such as time even existed then.
“If someone fails to recognize allegory, metaphor, simile and poetry in Scripture, they miss out on a lot of TRUTH.”
Precisely! Therefore, it is not a literally inerrant document. Divinely inspired, yes, but not, in general, literally true. Creation may in fact have been brought to its current state through a mechanism such as evolution. That assertion is not contradictory to your own representation of the Bible as largely symbolic.
On "open" threads in the Religion Forum, posters may attribute motives and/or read the minds of an entire group of believers. [excerpt]Ah, ok, thanks for clarifying!
We dont know, and we may never know. It's irrelevant to the TOE, since the TOE does not deal with the origins of the first lifeforms.
When somewhere in the Bible the statement is made that *God did such and such*, it doesn't take much of a stretch to think that it means what it says. That is not taking the whole Bible literally, but it is the common sense reading of that particular passage.
It does take a stretch to try to force it to mean things that it did not say or imply.
Why is it either/or with you guys? Someone comments on a common sense reading and they're labeled a *Bible literalist*. Sheesh.
Evolution is NOT consistent with the Bible and a common sense reading of the passage- Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
As far as evolution being consistent with Christianity, then perhaps you could explain why it is that Christ Himself repeatedly refers to the creation of man, male and female He [God] created them?
If it comes down to believing men or Christ, guess who gets my vote?
And what does *literally inerrant* mean?
Why do evos keep making up terms and then forcing their definitions on everyone?
Main Entry: lit·er·al
1 a: according with the letter of the scriptures b: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual *liberty in the literal sense is impossible B. N. Cardozo* c: free from exaggeration or embellishment *the literal truth* d: characterized by a concern mainly with facts *a very literal man*
2: of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3: reproduced word for word : exact , verbatim *a literal translation*
Main Entry: in·er·rant
: free from error
Main Entry: truth
1 a archaic : fidelity , constancy b: sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1): the state of being the case : fact (2): the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3)often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true *truths of thermodynamics* c: the body of true statements and propositions
3 a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality bchiefly British : true 2 c: fidelity to an original or to a standard
To say that something is the *literal truth* is to say that it’s “free from exaggeration or embellishment”. It does NOT mean that it must be taken as word for word. The Bible is true and inerrant, but to claim that people take every word as literal in the sense evos mean, doesn’t work.
Trying force someone into a non-existent framework of interpretation and then saying, *See, it doesn’t work* is disingenuous.
Just out of curiosity, how old do you think the Earth is?
If it deals with the evolution of a species, then it is completely relevant.
The first cell evolved from what?
Darwin published *The Origin of the Species.* That bacterium was a species, was it not?
I don’t know. I think it’s older than 6,000 years, but am not sure that it’s the billions that scientists say.
They have rightly pointed out that if a change in conditions occurred like is mentioned in Genesis, then it would mess up their calculations and make them meaningless.
There is also this:
The Age of the Universe
and the indication from Scripture that God created the universe pretty much as is so that it would be inhabitable.
There are several hypotheses out there on the origins of life. Some seem more plausible than others. But any of them could be true, or none, and that would make no difference to the TOE.
The first cell evolved from what?
We don't know.
Darwin published *The Origin of the Species.* That bacterium was a species, was it not?
The Origiin of Species never attempted to cover abiogenesis. Rather, it only dealt with changes in already-existing life.
So do you think the modern cosmology is as erroneous as modern biology?
It’s not “either/or”; it’s “what/how”. The bible says God created man—that’s the “what”. It doesn’t say “how” (and, no, I don’t accept the breathing of life into man’s nostrils as a literal “how”. That is a figurative statement.). “How” is the question that God has given us the smarts to figure out for ourselves. Although flawed, the Darwinism or one of its many derivatives comes awfully close to explaining the evidence that God has left behind.
Let’s not be tempted by evidence now. It’s a Trap!
“Literal Inerrancy” is exactly the foundation upon which Creationinsts base their steadfast refusal to consider anything other than the literal Genesis account of creation. It can also be found to manifest itself in the creationists’s insistence on posting scripture and dictionary definitions of obvious terms(including all subordinate usages of the term).
(If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
Yes! Now, can you name the source of the quote?
thanks, looks good, will read
The Law makes no concessions; it makes demands.
“Cursed is every man who does not abide by everything written in the book of the law to perform them,” (Gal. 3:10).
For one thing, the works, involved with God's laws to man, make it easer for folks to get along and work together in positive, benefictual manner.
I dont know. I think its older than 6,000 years, but am not sure that its the billions that scientists say.
I thought the 6000 years was just the part of the earth’s age since Adam and Eve left the garden.
Thanks for reminding me.
You must have one of the hardest Moderator jobs.
God didn't need to create anything. Why and how God does the things He does is outside my scope of knowledge. But my view of God is that He gave us a great gift when he gave us free will and a fine set of laws to live our lives by.
My view is that He gave the Universe a set of laws to live by as well and while He was at it He programmed in an ability to adapt and change.
Have no idea how God does that but have a deep and abiding faith that He did.
I believe the first line of Genesis is the absolute truth and I'm content with that.
I also believe that materialists will climb the mountain of knowledge and find guys like St Thomas and Maimonides sitting there waiting for them, which I paraphrase from something some guy much smarter than me once said.
Google is my friend: Fudd
Me, too; but I'm not quite content with only that.
I will, however, agree with Sgt. Schultz - "I know NOTHING!"
Fudd’s First Law of Opposition. I’m a fan of Firesign.
You are wrong in several aspects of what you have written.
First, there is no such thing as a Darwinist. That's a derogatory, and false, term used by some folks in an attempt to demonize those who disagree with them. You might as well complain about Newtonists, Galileoists, or Einsteinists.
Second, when some folks make claims that contradict what science has found, it is only natural for science to examine the evidence in terms of those claims--and to examine those claims in terms of scientific evidence. The claim of a young earth has not withstood that examination. Now, you can believe what you want but when you make a claim that can be examined by science, don't complain when science examines that claim. And if the claim is found wanting, don't complain about being "tripped up." Rather, examine the evidence supporting your claim.
But you are right in your final comment; if you make claims that can easily be disproved, other claims you make are certainly less credible. St. Augustine noted this centuries ago:
Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
No that would be you that are wrong Coyoteman.
“Darwinists”/”Darwinian” is a valid and apt description of people that accept the theory of evolution as a cult and not a theory. And it is they who demand others to conform to their way of thinking, lest they be sued into silence, among other things.
It is also the cult of evolution darwinist types that make comments like “injecting religion into science” or “that’s not science”.
Indeed, this very example illustrates this very truth:
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and tweaks the reactions conditions just right do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
I’ve seen this argument dismissed as “religion”, or “this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about” or “he’s just an apologist for religion”.
But there’s nothing religious about this guy’s work and he’s indeed a scientist, but this is always dismissed, for no other reason that it is the cultists that indeed have the hang-ups and do the demonizing against those that disagree with them.
First the term Darwinist, which aptly describes the yote as a devotee of Darwinism, was coined way back in 1860 by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was also known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog’.
Second, ‘Science’ as it were, has been hijacked by atheist fellows inorder to disguise their personal crusades against any notion of G-d and by default people with faith. In other words, they are not doing science any more.
Therefore any conclusion they (and the corrupt peer review system) make in the areas of science must be met with skepticism and doubt that all the facts were given correct and equal attention.
All you need is the Cambrian bunny rabbit, and you’ll have them dead to rights.
...was coined way back in 1860 by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was also known as Darwins bulldog. [excerpt]Heh, Huxley, what a guy...
"In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind--the Catholic Church."
- T.H Huxley, Darwiniana.
Last I checked, evolution is a fact about allele frequencies varying over time, and a theory of evolution is an attempt to explain this phenomenon and derive other consequences about biology from it.
The fact that arrogant materialists who have not a clue why consciousness exists at all make stupid assertions about the human mind, and purport to derive its properties from their favored theory of evolution is not interesting from either a scientific or theological standpoint.
Seeing that we and they have no idea how mind and brain are related, why are you crediting their conceit?
And why do you insist on the gradualist version of neo-Darwinism as a straw-man, when the fossil record really supports Gould’s punctuated equalibrium version? And why, pray tell, do you think that the dynamics of evolution has nothing akin the phase transitions in other dynamical systems, so that it can only produced differences of degree, rather than of kind?
Read Alexander Kalomiros’s piece if you want an answer to how an Orthodox Christian can resolve the seeming antinomy between creation and evolution. He sets it forth much better than I will. Of course, to be fair Fr. Seraphim Rose was also throughly Orthodox and was plainly a creationist (though not a naive Biblical literalist, since no Orthodox Christian is with regard to any matter addressed in the Holy Scriptures).
I would observe that only those variants of Christianity that arose since the 1500’s and seem to think that Christianity is an ideology founded on a text, rather than a way of life founded on a Person, seem to have a problem with this: vast majorities of Orthodox, Latins (and the Latin Church, since they have a centralized magisterium, and we know the Pope’s view on the matter), Anglicans, Copts, Armenians, and Assyrians, don’t seem to have the problem you Protestants (or ‘Biblical Christians’ or whatever your preferred self-designation is) do. For that matter a lot of Protestants don’t.
Why precisely do you think that Blessed Augustine of Hippo erred when he concluded that the first two chapters of Genesis could not be literally true? (I would note that St. Gregory of Nyssa was of the same mind, calling them “doctrines in the guise of a narrative,” as were the medieval Jewish sages Maimonides and Nachmanides.)
The more I consider the young earth theory, and how consistent it is with Scripture, the more I find the dual of the young earth theory to manifest profound weaknesses.
5700+ to 6000 yrs actually isn’t as absurd, IMHO, as those who propose billions of years in age with absolute conviction.
there are many things pointing to creation by God...it is just your thoughts that tend to make you doubt them that you think is you thinking which is the problem. The incredibly complex dna code which has a numeric sequence to it and is far more complex then a computer code is proof of a designer...along with so many archealogical finds that prove the accuracy of the bible. These are FACTS, not made up theories.