Can you be an Evolutionist and a Christian?

[Administrator: Because this has been transferred from a Baptist Only section of the board, only registered Baptist Board Baptists will be allowed to continue in this thread.]

MASSDAK
is it possible that a person can believe in evolution and still be a Christian?

i have doubts about this one. doesn't someone have a non biblical view of who God is if they do not ascribe to the biblical account of adam and eve? can liberal religionist believe in metaphors on these type of issues and still be saved?
or are they accepting another Jesus?

i have met a methodist minister, who is pro abortion, and believes in evolution, he believes in gay special rights, and believes that satan, and hell, are a figurative of speech and mainly allegory in nature. this minister votes democratic and preaches always a social gospel instead of Christ.

* * *

DON
Does the Bible say anything against any of those issues? If not specifically, then in principle?

If yes, then it's possible this methodist minister you're talking about is a Christian who is simply misguided.

On the other hand, he might be putting his own personal views ahead of the Bible, and thus calls into question his "fruits."

If no, well, we've got a lot more discussing to do before we get onto the subject of this particular minister.

* * *

DR. BOB GRIFFIN
Personal op/ed - The Bible speaks about Jesus being the Creator in clear and absolute terms.

Does NOT believing that preclude that such a person does not believe in faith that He is the Savior? I fail to see a connection.

They are wrong. They are believing a false teaching if they deny Jesus is the Creator (which evolution inherently does, although some of the BB "evolutionists" DO believe Jesus is the first cause). That has NOTHING to do with their personal repenance and faith in Christ for salvation.

* * *

JOHNV
Is it possible that a person can believe in evolution and be a Christian?

Yes. This board is full of people who accept evolution as a credible theory and are faithful Christians. I am one.

* * *

REV. JOSHUA
Me too.

Massdak, I know several baptist ministers who hold to the views you describe and have strong, personal testimonies of their salvation.

* * *

NEAL4CHRIST
I think that creation is not a litmus test for salvation, but I would have serious concerns about someone who faithfully believes in evolution. Especially when there is so little evidence for it and it is mainly a hypothesis, not even a theory. Also, there is just as much evidence (if not far more, see ICR, Answers in Genesis, etc.) for creation. Even some secular scientists recognize the intricate design of the simplest life forms and see that there has to be more to it than simple blind chance. The way I look at is that in either case you are putting your faith somewhere...either in God as creator, or in chance and probability that life arose from nothing. And that is what evolution teaches, not that it is a mechanism of God, but there is no God and material is all there is. I personally do not understand how someone can believe evolution and be a Christian, but that is not my place to judge that person, only the Creator of all things can!

* * *

REV. G
They can believe in evolution and still be a Christian, but that goes to show that they are:
1) In need of taking the Scriptures more seriously; and
2) In need of taking science more seriously (especially the laws of thermodynamics).

Evolution is a philosophy and it is a religion, it is far from being a science. After all, it is the "theory" of evolution.


* * *

JOHNV
The question was not what evolution was, the question was if someone can believe in evolution and still be a Christian (A discussion of what evolution is would be better suited for the creation/evolution forum). The answer is "yes". As for taking scripture more seriously, I take scripture very seriously. As far as taking science seriously, trying passing science through some biblical filter is unproductive and comromises not only science but also the Bible, since it uses the Bible in a manner for which it was not written.

* * *

HOMEBOUND
Christian and Evolution. Now that is a contradiction of terms. A Christian believes in a Creator while evolutionist do not. One or the other, you choose.

As far as the minister goes, well, this passage comes to mind. 2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

If you are a Christian that agrees with evolution, then God is waiting for you to repent of your sin.

* * *

JOHNV
Agreeing with the idea that all life may be decended from a common ancestor is not a sin.

It's amusing how those opposed to evolution say that evolutionists don't believe in God, yet those Christians who don't dismiss evolution know better.

* * *

REV. G
First, I answered the primary question.

Second, I did not make a long detailed statement about evolution, except to point out that it is both philosophical and RELIGIOUS. Doesn't it seem like that is an important aspect of this question?

Third, evolution (apart from a "biblical filter") isn't good science. In fact, it isn't scientific!

Fourth, the Christian's complete worldview must be filtered through the Scriptures!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Bible isn't a science textbook, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true and accurate in all that it teaches (including creation).

* * *

BRO. CURTIS
[in response to Johnv]

The Bible is a filter ? Why can't we use the Bible for science ? To me, the Bible is the sum of all history, and to question one part of it, makes the whole thing impotent.

Which do you take more seriously, the Bible, or "science" ?

If you question the creation, do you also question the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the Tower of Babel ? Do you believe Balaam's ass spoke, with a man's voice ? Do you believe the "Fourth man in the Fire" story in Daniel ?

* * *

NEAL4CHRIST
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Rev. G and Bro. Curtis. To not take your worldview from Scripture is extremely dangerous if you are a Christian. Your faith is not separated from everything else.

And also:
As far as taking science seriously

Just because someone believes in evolution and not creation doesn't mean that they are taking science seriously. In fact, they aren't, I think. But that is another issue. As I stated previously there is a very active and vibrant field of creation science, headed by Institute for Creation Research and Answers In Genesis. These guys are scientists, not theologians! And I am familiar with science, so I am not just talking about something I have never looked into or seen the evolutionist perspective. I majored in engineering at a major state university, and the science department was not exactly creation friendly! However, as Rev. G stated, evolution is a religion or a philosophy, and it requires faith to believe it because there is no proof, just ideas. As for me, I will put my faith in the Creator of the universe!

* * *

FEARNOT
without haveing read any replys I suggest you read the book, "It Couldn't Just Happen." This is a very good book and will answer alot of scientific questions.

* * *

MATTHEW 16:24

This poor Minister, I and the Bible would consider him one of the lost people out there who does NOT have their salvation and needs to repent of his sins.

Hell a figurative of speech and evolution is two of Satans biggest lies.
The Bible is true once again,
Re:12:9: And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world : he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

How can a Christian believe that we came from apes is ridiculous!
They are not Christian! I believe Homebound listed an appropirate scripture for this.

* * *

DHK
It was Julian Huxley the great proponent of evolution after Darwin, that said: "I do not believe in evolution because it is credible, rather I believe in evolution because belief in God is far too incredible." Does not that sum it up? Even the originators of the "theory/hypothesis" of evolution come to a point where they must admit that their belief in evolution is simply because they do not want to bow down before the great Creator of the universe and own Him as their Master. That would be an admission of subservience and a logical outcome would be if Christ/God is my master, then I must obey His commandments--which the natural or unsaved man is unwilling to do. Thus the theory of evolution was devised as an alternative to belief in God Almighty.

* * *

BAPTIST BELIEVER

Yes. Many believers are theistic evolutionists.

Many believers subscribe to the biblical account of Adam and Eve, but don't interpret it in as literal a fashion as you apparently do.

Certainly. Salvation is not about having a perfect or complete theology, it is about trusting God through Christ.

The question of accepting another Jesus is more related to one's theology of Jesus than theology of the process of origins. Theistic evolutionists affirm that God is the Creator and evolution is the creative process that God chose to create the cosmos.

Lots of Methodists believe this way. Some of them clearly leave the orbit of the Christian faith like Fort Worth's Barry Bailey (former pastor of First United Methodist) preached that Jesus was not resurrected physically -- only "spiritually" in our hearts . I was stunned to her him preach that anti-Christ message on Easter Sunday morning (I was watching on television) without anyone in his congregation getting up to leave.

I didn't realize that voting straight-ticket Republican was the hallmark of Christian discipleship . Personally, I'm voting for a few Democrats tomorrow because some of our Republican candidates here in Texas have been incredibly dishonest in their campaign commercials. If they lie to me when they are running for office, what will they do when they have power?

Baptists have had a poor history of preaching social justice, so I'm probably a little more open than you to hearing this kind of message. But to preach only social justice is unbalanced.

* * *

MASSDAK
i agree with you matthew, when Gods word is distorted in a way such as evolution and other aspects, it at this point molds Jesus into a different Jesus then that of the bible. can we all agree on this? is the fact that adam and eve and the fall of man at issue here also? if we evolved then how did sin enter and death? how does this view coincide with the real biblical Jesus? this is not a post about evolution, but it is a post about a minister that has a belief in a different gospel.

* * *

BAPTIST BELIEVER

No.

They don't have to be.

I'm not really a believer in traditional evolutionary theory, but my guess is that one might say that "adam" and "eve" were the first humans who became conscious of God in the evolutionary process. (Adam and Eve would not necessarily be literal people here, but the early men and women of humankind.) Sin and spiritual death entered when they rejected God.

A better question would be, why do you believe that a belief in theistic evolution is incompatible with trusting the real Jesus.

Not necessarily a different gospel, but at least a different view of origins.

* * *

NEAL4CHRIST

Was Noah real? Abraham? Daniel? Moses? David? Solomon? Was Jesus' crucifixion literal? This is the problem of comprimising the creation account with evolution. There is nothing to say that Adam and Eve were not real, but rather they are presented as very real, especially when you think of them having relations and children with individual names. Once you establish that you can allegorize the Bible from the opening chapter, there is no stopping it. You may say that it would be ludicrous to say that Jesus' death was allegory and not literal, but you have no way to support that, because you have already established that being a viable interpretation with your allegorizing of the creation account.

* * *

DHK

That is a good question? Do you have a good answer? Jesus referred to many events in the Old Testament as actual historical events, events such as:
Jonah being three days and three nights in the belly of the whale,
The creation of Adam and Eve:
Mat.19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Abraham as an historical figure. (John 8:58)
Noah and the Flood (As in the days of Noah...
He referred to the entire Old Testament in Luke 24:44 divided into the typical three parts as the Hebrews did: "in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms."

If one cannot believe Jesus that the Old Testament was a historical book, not meant to be taken as an allegory, but taken literally, as Jesus himself understood it to be, then who can we trust?

* * *

BAPTIST BELIEVER
The story of Jonah is not at question here. This is irrelevant to our discussion of origins.

Jesus is referencing the scriptures which tell the story of Adam and Eve. Jesus is emphasizing the implications of the story, not tackling the question of the literalness of the story.

The story of Abraham is not at question here. This is irrelevant to our discussion of origins.

The story of Noah is not at question here. This is irrelevant to our discussion of origins.

What point are you trying to make here? How does this have implications toward our understanding of human origins?

You have failed to demonstrate that Jesus intended all of the Old Testament to be interpreted as literal historical events. Jesus used stories that were likely *historically* fictional (the parables) to make theological points, why do you believe that the same thing is impossible in the Old Testament?

* * *

JOHNV
Since Jesus referenced Jonah, it should be noted that and in Hebrew, Jonah was not in a whale's belly, but a big fish's belly (in other OT references, whales are referred to as such).

Now, since Jesus referred to Jonah as being in the belly of the whale (in greek, the word ketos, not ichthus is used), was Jesus "wrong", or was the importance not on the animal, but in the 3 day analogy?

Likewise, I'd infer than the importance of Geneses is not how we were created, but who created us. Whether humankind is 6000 years old, 60,000 years old, or 6 million years old is irrelevant to the simple fact that God created.

* * *

MASSDAK
baptist believer

baptist believer, you have me somewhat worried about you here, you need to know that adam and eve are not part of an primortal soup in which they were the first evolved human to know that God exist. do you really want to believe that Christ was part of the davidic line of an evolutionary host?

baptist beleaver
you may want to review your thinking on this, and trust that God made man as His word says, trust in the biblical Jesus and watch the foolish evolution stumbling block disappear

* * *

NEAL4CHRIST

I would agree that age is not as big a factor (I am a literal six day creationist), but that is not the issue at hand. Evolution is the issue. And like it or not, evolution assumes there is no God and that we came from nothing by chance. Whether you believe creation/evolution, either way it is a step of faith. I just don't understand why so many Christians want to trust that Jesus will save them yet deny that He is their Creator. Pure evolution is not compatible with Christianity. If a Christian says that God used evolution, they are simply coming up with their own opinion and placing their faith in that. My Bible says God created, not rolled the dice, and that His creation was very good, not death and struggle to arrive at man, which is what evolution proposes. And by the way, ketos is a "great fish", not necessarily a whale, as the KJV translates it. So Jesus' reference to Jonah was correct, he used the same terminology as was used in Jonah.
He did not change terms or interpret. So no, He was not wrong, and He was taking the Jonah account literal.

* * *

JOHNV
evolution assumes there is no God and that we came from nothing by chance

NO NO NO NO NO...

Evolution simply asserts all life evolved from a common ancestor. Typically, evolutionary change would have occurred when life forms are acted upon by an outside force. That change could be anything: climatic change, ecological change, etc. We see climate changes today, yet we don't describe them as being chance events. Evolution also need not happen by chance.

* * *

BAPTIST BELIEVER

</font>[/QUOTE]As I mentioned in the section you quoted, this is not my personal view of the issue. It is simply one way that some people address the issue. I am not trying to make a case for evolution (theistic or otherwise), but to address the issue of whether or not people who believe in a theistic evolutionary understanding of origins can truly be Christian. I firmly believe the answer is yes.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "evolutionary host"...

As stated before, this is not my view.

All that the Bible says about the *way* man was made tells us that he was made from the clay. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation if we are going to try to impose some sort of system on that statement.

Lots of theistic evolutionists do trust in the biblical Jesus -- and they still believe in theistic evolution. It's not a matter of intensity of faith, but theological and scientific understanding.

* * *

NEAL4CHRIST
Johnv, what about death and struggle? How was God's creation very good then if the survival of the fittest was going on? And to say that evolution does not negate God is wrong. As has been stated over and over, it is a philosophy with NO FACTS!!!! Why does a Christian want to willingly believe it but not the Bible? And when Genesis says God created wouldn't that be logical that it was there before, so God spoke it into being? To me, evolution, even if it were a mechanism, makes our God small and limited in power. I prefer to have faith in one who simply speaks and it happens!

I believe it is from a messed up theology of an omnipotent Creator because of little faithed based on a very poor scientific understanding!

* * *

JOHNV
How was God's creation very good then if the survival of the fittest was going on?
Considering you look at nature today, and see survival of the fittest take place on different scales, I guess you'd have to ask God that questions.

And to say that evolution does not negate God is wrong. As has been stated over and over, it is a philosophy with NO FACTS!!!!
As one who accepts the possibility that life may have evolved in an evolutionary manner, I can tell you that my position is not a pholisiphical one. As to your second fact, there is ample evidence to suggest it.

Why does a Christian want to willingly believe it but not the Bible?
Having disagreements about how parts of the Bible should be interpreted is a far cry from accusing someone in not believing in the Bible.

And when Genesis says God created wouldn't that be logical that it was there before, so God spoke it into being?
No one on this board denies that God is the creator of all.

To me, evolution, even if it were a mechanism, makes our God small and limited in power. I prefer to have faith in one who simply speaks and it happens!
We're also told that a minute to God is as a thousand years. Millions of years is nothing to an almighty God. Something happenning over a long period of time is no less "God speaking and it happening" than something happenning in a minute.

[ November 11, 2002, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

NEAL4CHRIST
Johnv, I am sorry but you really didn't answer much.

God's creation before the fall was very good, not after sin has entered and marred it. If you would notice in Gen. 3:17 the earth was cursed by God, so it was no longer very good.

As for facts for evolution, I would like to see or hear about them. It is all philosophy and interpretation, not scientific fact. I have been taught evolution at a very evolutionary school where I did my undergrad work. So I am not foreign to the hypothesis of evolution. Why not check out www.icr.org or www.answersingenesis.org?

As I stated earlier, once you allegorize the the creation account, where does it stop, and on what basis do you draw the line?

I am glad that you acknowledge that God is Creator of all.

I don't really understand why time keeps coming up, but I am talking about God speaking things into existence, however long it took. I believe that it is clear that man is different from every other creature from Gen. 1:26. God created things after their own kind, not one long line springing new kinds off. If you would like to talk about the issue of time in creation that could be a different thread. We are talking about evolution, survival of the fittest, etc. Does death and struggle (before sin entered) really seem like a feasible mechanism?

* * *

REV. JOSHUA

Likewise, then, God's inability to find a solution to sin without brutally executing the only perfect human being to ever live would also seem to make God limited and small in power.

If evolution is the mechanism God chose to create the world, who are we to judge?

* * *

NEAL4CHRIST

It was not the inability of God to find another way, but the only way to truly show the ugliness of sin and the seriousness of it. It shows us how serious God takes our sin and how much He loves us. "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." John 15:12-14

That is hardly an adequate comparison and not even appropriate. Like apples and oranges.

* * *

JIM1999
Outstanding Baptist theologians have embraced Theistic Evolution as far back as 1906.

One such Baptist; Augustus Hopkins Strong, President and Professor of Biblical Theology in the Rochester Theological Seminary; author of Systematic Theology, Christ in Creation and others.

To suggest Strong did not take the Bible seriously would be a great injustice to a professor whose Systematic Theology was used as a major text book in Baptist seminaries.

Theistic evolution is not to be confused with Darwinism.

* * *

NEAL4CHRIST
Yes, but during that time it seemed evolution was it. It still is promoted that way today. So people felt they needed to compromise and just say that God used evolution. But there is absolutely no need to compromise. I am not arguing that there have been great men who have believed theistic evolution, but I feel that it is a very unnecessary compromise that is really based on nothing but trying to gain acceptance with a popular worldview.

* * *

JOHNV
...in Gen. 3:17 the earth was cursed by God, so it was no longer very good
If you read it in hebrew, it's not a curse upon all of earth's creation. It's a curse in which man would have to toil the land (the hebrew for earth is "adama" which is contextually used in hebrewy as land in conjunction with husbandry of the land, or tilling of the land).

As for facts for evolution, I would like to see or hear about them.
Best left for the creation/evolution forum.

once you allegorize the the creation account, where does it stop, and on what basis do you draw the line
It's not a matter of drawing the line; it's a matter of using the writings in for the intention in which they were written. I've stated earlier that I don't believe the purpose of Genesis1 was to give us a factual account of the origin of the universe.

I don't really understand why time keeps coming up, but I am talking about God speaking things into existence, however long it took. I believe that it is clear that man is different from every other creature from Gen. 1:26. God created things after their own kind, not one long line springing new kinds off.

Yes, man has a soul. We already know that God created us in his image, but that's not referring to our physical bodies, it's referring to our souls. How we got here prior to God giving us souls is, in my opinion, trifling compared to the gift of the soul itself. Evolution doesn't discuss the soul, only the origin of the physical body.

God created things after their own kind, not one long line springing new kinds off.
We could start a whole thread on that one. That passage was onece used to argue that white folk and black folk should not mate. Suffice it to say that our like and kind are members of God's creation with souls, just like us, apart from animals with no souls.

Does death and struggle (before sin entered) really seem like a feasible mechanism?
Well, if you look at the Genesis story, when Adam and Eve realized they were naked, the covered themselves with animal skins, which means that there were animals that were killed, presumably for consumption, or by other animals for consumption. Even then, there were carnivours. The only thing we're sure of as far as that goes is that original sin forced us out of the garden. What was going on outside the garden before we left, we've not a clue.

* * *

NEAL4CHRIST
Johnv,
You seem to have the first three chapters of Genesis confused. Man did not wear skins before they sinned, only AFTER they sinned. God is the one who killed the first animals for coverings. So you have yet to explain how a very good creation would involve death and struggle before sin entered.

On the issue of allegory, who is to say that Jesus' death and resurrection didn't happen? You say that it is not a matter of drawing a line, but how could argue against that? I could say it was the swoon theory or the disciples stole the body or whatever, but you wouldn't be able to argue against it.

Before I say this I want you to know that I don't totally understand either. But in Gen. 1:30 the word translated "life" literally means "a living soul", used in reference to animals. So I don't know if I would argue that a soul is the difference between man and animal (in the sense that a soul is a life force).

If you want to talk about racism, evolution is very supportive of it, and in fact one race being better than another is a by-product of evolution. Don't you know that Hitler believed in evolution and that it justified what he did?

Just as a side note to your "facts" of evolution, you should go to www.drdino.com because Dr. Hovind has a $250,000 offer to anyone with proof of evolution. So if you know of some, you may want to go there! (If you do, I wouldn't mind having a portion of the money as a finder's fee......just joking!)

* * *

JOHNV
So were animals not carnivours until after the fall of man?

Dr. Hovind is a religious extremist, in my view.

* * *

JIM1999
The original question was: Can a person believe in evolution and be a Christian. It has been stated that one's view on origins and continuance of the species does not preclude God as the Creator and it doesn't affect one's Christology. Hence Theistic evolution. Question answered by some who do so believe.

* * *

NEAL4CHRIST
No need to be so short! I am still new here. Yes, animals were not carnivorous before Adam and Eve sinned (Gen. 1:30). As for Dr. Hovind, I am not saying that I agree with him all the time, but hey, there is $250,000 for the taking with proof of evolution! Besides, if we want to call people extremists and such, well, I would have to say that those comprising the clear teaching of Scripture with absolutely no good reason rather extreme. The reason I am so vocal on this issue is because for some reason Christians feel they must accept evolution, but there is NO reason to! That is my whole problem. Why would someone want to believe in evolution?????

Oh well, I appreciate you talking with me Johnv, hope there are no hurt feelings.

* * *

JOHNV
I don't feel that I MUST accept evolution, but I also don't feel that I MUST accept a six day creation. Further, I don't feel that a non-six day creation, or creation via evolution violate or compromise the scriptures, primatily because, as I already stated, I don't believe the purpose of Genesis 1 was to give us a factual account of the origin of the universe.

If animals were not carnivours before the six-day creation description of the fall of man, then they must have evolved after the fall, since most carnivours today would die a vegeterian diet (their digestive tracts aren't designed that way). Plus, the teeth of carnivours are not designed to cut through vegetation, but they are designed to cut through flesh. Unless God "changed" these animals after the fall to survive in a meat-only environment.

* * *

NEAL4CHRIST
Don't know, but I believe Genesis 1:30 "'And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food'; AND IT WAS SO." (Emphasis mine) So, it appears they were vegetarians. I choose to believe God's Word, not what "science" tells me. And by the way, I never said that you had to believe a literal six-day creation(although I DO (there you go Johnv)), I just have a problem with evolution, and the Christian compromise with the rest of the world.

Oh yeah, by the way. Do you believe Jesus' death/resurrection accouts are factual or figurative? Just wondering, because "science" says that it impossible to raise from the dead after being dead for three days.

Johnv, I was a lot like you before. But I came to a realization. I will never know everything (imagine that!). I come from an engineering background and I like to know how everything works. Ultimately, and I think you would agree, neither of us can prove our point. The creation cannot be repeated and observed, so we have to accept things on faith. I do not question that you are a Christian, but I do wonder why you choose to believe in evolution. However, I realized that there are some things I have to take on faith, and this is one of them. I think there is evidence for a young earth and that science fits better in young earth model. But I hope you realize, like me, that there are some things we just can't explain or know, at least for now.

* * *

JOHNV
And I was once like you, but I came to the realization that the scriptures are the beginning of faith, not the end.

Of course I believe Jesus ressurrected. It's a foundation of Christian faith. A six day creation is not. I'm amused that you agree that one need not believe in a six day creation (though some here on the board will disagree with that statement). So I'm allowed to not take genesis literally, but I can't take it less literally than you. Hmmm...

I do indeed agree with you that neither of us can prove the point. I'm not attempting to "prove" evolution. However, I believe it's possible that God used the evulotionary process to create, since there is fossil evidence to support the idea(which we need not go into here).

* * *

DHK
It should be noted that evolution, especially when it speaks of origins, is not a science at all. It is a faith. Evolution contradicts many well known laws of science. Consider first what science is. Science is knowledge: knowledge that is gained by observation, and then sorted and classified. In order to have true science one must have an observer. It is the art of observing and recording, and then analyzing your data. Who was there to observe the origin of the universe? That has an obvious answer. If man was not there, could not be there, has no way to observe the origin, then it is not science he is dealing with, it is faith. Faith deals with that which we cannot see. We walk by faith and not by sight. Science deals with the seen and the observable.

In origins evolution teaches a “big bang theory.”
In true science, the law of biogenesis says that life can only come from life. Life can never come from inanimate matter. Evolution goes against its own scientific laws.

The first law of Thermodynamics: Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. This is what the Bible teaches. Within six days God created everything. Creation then ceased. After that time matter can only be changed from one form to another, and energy can be released. Matter is not created. Evolution says that matter is created, by the very definition that we are evolving and the universe is evolving.

The second law of Thermodyamics says that there is an ever increasing amount of entropy in the universe, or all things tend toward degeneration. How true that is! My body just isn’t the same as it was 20 years ago. My car doesn’t run as well as the day I bought it, nor does it look as good. My computer is now being repaired--it does not run as efficiently as it did when I first purchased it. Everything tends to degenerate in this world. Things do not get better and better as the evolutionist says. Things are getting worse and worse, just as the Bible says it is.

Another law: Order never arises out of chaos. (Yet this is precisely what the Big Bang teaches)
Smash a watch on the cement sidewalk? Will it come together by itself into a perfectly working watch again? That is what evolution teaches. It teaches that out of a tremendous explosion came forth perfectly ordered solar systems, galaxies, and the earth itself. It takes a great amount of faith to believe in such a fairy tale. That is not science. It may be scientism--a religion, but it is not science. It is not observable. It is not factual. If evolution were true why do we not see it going on today? Where are all the missing links? The half-apes and half-men? There should be just as many of those “missing links” running around the world today as there are humans, if evolution were true. Fact is, evolutions are still hunting in vain to find their first one. They can’t because it doesn’t exist. God created the first man and woman, in the sixth day of creation between 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. It is much easier to accept God’s Word by faith, then man’s fairy-tale by faith. After all, God was there to observe what He was doing.

* * *

JOHNV
It should be noted that evolution, especially when it speaks of origins, is not a science at all.
Again, an arguement that's better taken up in the creation/evolution forum.

It is a faith.
That's a misconception that many anti-evolution folks espouse, but I disagree.

Evolution contradicts many well known laws of science.
Again, a misconception that many anti-evolution folks espouse, better taken up in the creation/evolution forum.

Science is knowledge: knowledge that is gained by observation, and then sorted and classified. In order to have true science one must have an observer.
Observation is one of the scientific methods, but not the only. Again, better taken up in the creation/evolution forum.

* * *

HELEN
If you folks will allow me for a bit, as a past moderator of years of creation/evolution forums, as a science editor, as an active member of both the Creation Research Society and the Intelligent Design movement, as a past evolutionist and current creationist...

First, there are different types of evolution. The kind of evolution that produces species is well known. A species is just an isolated breeding group which, because of the consistent inbreeding, ends up with markings or minor behaviors which distinguish it from 'sister' population groups. Hummingbirds are so precise that even though they can tell the difference between their different species, sometimes we can't unless we are quite well-trained hummingbird watchers! Dogs, on the other hand, even looking so different from one another, are all one species because they are all willing (if not always able, due to size) to breed with one another. Nevertheless, the type of change like this is a sort of 'horizontal' change -- a branching out change -- that is defined as evolution.

The evolution most people are fighting about is not this, however, but rather involves the enormous genetic and body changes which must occur to change a bacteria to a bear through time.

Can a Christian be this type of evolutionist? They may start out that way, as we all start out from different spots on our Spirit-led journey to the final truth in Christ, but I honestly don't think a born-again Christian can continue as an evolutionist.

Here is why: A born again Christian is going to be hungry for the Word of God -- his spiritual food. In reading it, the Holy Spirit is going to guide the Christian in his understanding of what is being said as Bible interprets Bible and as the Holy Spirit works in the person's heart to increase understanding. Because the Bible is extraordinarily clear about certain facts of creation, the person will find him or herself being more and more pulled away from the explanations of current science where they disagree with the Bible, and closer and closer to the Bible itself.

For me, in my field, it has been an exciting thing to see that the actual data really do support exactly what the Bible has been saying all along. I have found that God's work in nature and His Word in the Bible do not disagree: He has presented consistent and agreeing witnesses to creation.

So when I see a 'theistic evolutionist' I am always hoping I am simply seeing a very young Christian who will end up growing out of the ideas which are trying to combine world and Bible in such a way that the Bible is mangled in the process.

There is a thread on theistic evolution going on in the creation/evolution forum right now and I recommend that those interested in this thread at least read it. Back on page one or two, quite early on, there is another thread on theistic evolution which is quite interesting.

Hope that helps a little, anyway.

edit: the faith, by the way, that is involved in evolution is actually secular humanism: that humans can define and discover the truth themselves. That's not biblical either. One must choose -- humans or God where believing the truth is concerned...

Science has changed ideas so many times in the past, we really do need to look at it with a bit of skepticism when it declares something as absolutely true and it declares evolution to be! Good science does not make those statement. Good science indicates where the evidence seems to be leading and allows for discussion and disagreement.

* * *

CDGRIFFIN
That methodist minister is apparently lost. Because the Bible in the first chapter teaches against evolution. I think a real Christian could not believe teachings he does. Surely the Holy Ghost would bear witness. Evolution is against the Bible. Evolutionists are against the Bible. It is a crazy idea a saved person believing in evolution when it is so clearly against Scripture. I wonder about those who can reconcile evolution and the Bible. And abortion and sodomites are all right? What a lie! Surely how stirring the testimmony no real Christian would be fooled by such.

* * *

TRY HARD
Wow! I am so glad that this topic exists.

I have been saved for over 6 years now and I used to believe in evolution. Can one be a Christian and believe in evolution. I think "yes" because some people have been decieved into believing that evolution is fact. As they get more into the word of God, they will realize that evolution cannot co-exist with the Bible.

I am currently taking a class call "scientific origins". I have learned a lot in this class on the subject of evolution. I never realized that there was so much evidence against evolution!

[Administrator: Try Hard offered to send papers from the class to anyone interested. His or her profile may be found at
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile;u=00000947
and a private message sent from there.]

* * *

NORM
Is it possible that a person can believe in evolution and still be a Christian?

Norm: To deny the vast support of evolutionary theory will likely reflect poorly on one's credibility among reasoned individuals. Goodness, folks, time to leave the Scopes Trial behind; the Christian faith has more important issues to address than propogating antiquated and non-scientific positions opposing the general acceptance of evolutionary theory. Generally, except among some of the most religiously conservative and uneducated, the Scoopes mentality is a legacy of the past that most have moved beyond. If, however, some wish to believe in a literalist interpretation of creation and deny evolutionary theory and its empirical findings, that is fine with me, I can still fellowship and serve with such individuals. Such individuals, when in power, are likely to enact processes which would preclude those who differ from serving with them, however, if we have learned anything from some Baptist circles over the past several decades.

* * *

BOILERMAN
Evolution in no way violates any law of thermodynamics. Also, you seem to imply that evolution's status as a theory makes it somewhat dubious as a fact. This is a result of a misunderstanding on your part of what a scientific theory actually is. Every scientific discovery is explained through some theory; eg. "Theory of Relativity" "Germ Theory."

It's rediculous to believe that the entire scientific community would treat evolution as fact when there is little or no substantiating evidence for it. I believe the bible, but I also believe you have to call them as you see them. God created man via the process of evolution.

* * *

NEAL4CHRIST
Any proof for evolution anyone???? I do believe that Rev. G was correct in his assesment, what about 2nd law of thermo? And to say uneducated people dispute evolution, well, is rather ignorant (lack of knowledge, not meant to be an attack). And to call evolution a theory is being pretty generous...........

* * *

HELEN
The problem, Norm, is that there simply is no 'vast support' for evoltuion in any field. A vast amount of interpretations of data, but that is all they are. And the evidence coming in from genetics especially denies evolution is possible at all.

Please, sir, check the "Theistic Evolution Reviewed" thread down on the evolution/creation board for some responses to some of what you have stated here. And also, as a short response to the thermodynamics question, it is VERY correct to say the theory of evolution violates the generalized law of entropy although the 2LOT (second law of thermodynamics) is not actually relevant as it has to do with closed systems and the earth is not a closed system.

But allow me, at any rate, to quote you a little from P.W. Atkins' The Second Law; Energy, Chaos, and Form, from the Scientific American Library, 1994. I'll post page numbers before the quotes. By the way, he spends the entire second half of the book trying to show how evolution could happen anyway, but that aside, here:

p. 9 -- The Second Law recognizes that there is a fundamental dissymmetry in Nature: the rest of this book is focused on that dissymmetry, and so we shall say little of it here. All around us, though, are aspects of the dissymmetry: hot objects cool, but cool objects do not spontaneously become hot; a bouncing ball comes to rest, but a stationary ball does not spontaneously begin to bounce....although the total quantity of energy must be conserved in any process (which is their revised version of what Carnot had taken to be the conservation of the quantity of caloric), the distribution of energy changes in an irreversible manner. The Second Law is concerned with the natural dierection of change of the distribution of energy, something that is quite independent of its total quantity.

=====

p. 38 -- The entropy, therefore, labels the manner in which the energy is stored: if it is stored at a high temperature, then its entropy is relatively low, and its quality is high. On the other hand, if the same amount of energy is stored at a low temperature, then the entropy of that energy is high, and its quality is low.
Just as the increasing entropy of the universe is the signpost of natural change and corresponds to energy being stored at ever-lower temperatures, so we can say that the natural direction of change is the one that causes the quality of energy to decline: the natural processes of the world are manifestations of this corruption of quality.

=======

p. 57 -- Simply by accepting that jostling atoms pass on their energy at random, we have accounted for one class of phenomena in the world. In fact, this identification of the chaotic dispersal of energy as the purposeless motivation of change is the pivot of the rest of the book. The Second Law is the recognition by external observers of the consequences of this purposeless tendency of energy.

=====

pp 62-63 -- We have to interpret the dispersal of energy to include not only its spatial dispersal over the atoms of the universe, but the destruction of coherence too. Then "energy tends to disperse" captures the foundations of the Second Law.
The natural tendency of energy to disperse -- that is, to spread through space, to spread the particles that are storing it, and to lose the coherence with which the particles are storing it -- establishes the direction of natural events.
...Natural processes are those that accompany the dispersal of energy.

...As energy collapses into chaos, the events of the world move forward...Entropy must then be a measure of chaos.

Houston, we have a problem...


* * *

PAUL OF EUGENE
All living creatures manage a local decrease in entropy. This is not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics because entropy is allowed to increase even more so elsewhere. The living creature pushes off the increase in entropy into the environment and all is well with 2Lot. Hence, no problem for life OR for evolution! We've also learned to push off entropy into the environment; it happens every time we save data to the hard drive or run our refrigerators.

* * *

BOILERMAN
[responding to Helen]
Please explain in your own words how the theory of evolution defies any law of thermodynamics. Before doing this however, I suggest you consider the fact that evolution does indeed occur. You may claim that evolution is limited to "microevolution," but that does not change the fact that at least one form of evolution occurs. Therefore, if you are correct in stating that evolution defies a some law of thermodynamics (you are not), that law is incorrect, not evolution.

As a sidenote, why do you think the scientific community accepts evolution? I see only several possibilities:

1) They are stupid.
2) They are in a conspiracy to destroy religion

Which do you believe, or do you think there is some other reason I haven't listed here?

* * *

MASSDAK
more like 1.2. and 3.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

1Cr 1:20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

 

HELEN
Some responses to a few people:

To Rev. Joshua – you consistently stun me, sir. There was no ‘inability’ on God’s part to find a ‘solution’ to sin apart from ‘brutally executing the only perfect human being to ever live.’ Jesus was and is God Himself, and He was NOT executed. He Himself – as He said – had the authority to lay down His life and the authority to take it up again. He gave up His own Spirit, and no one killed Him.

Secondly, this ‘solution’ to sin did the following:
1. Still allowed man to choose to accept or reject God: it was the only way this freedom of choice could be preserved.
2. Demonstrated the meaning of love from God’s point of view.
3. Completely demolished the effects of sin in the long run.

Not too bad for a ‘solution’ which makes God seem ‘limited and small’ in your opinion.

And yes, God certainly could have used evolution. The fact is, however, that He told us what He did, and it goes by the name of direct fiat creation, not evolution. You don’t have to believe what He caused to be written in His Word, but at least don’t ignore it!

To Jim1999 – I know many theologians ‘embraced’ theistic evolution. The sad fact is that most of them from every denomination allowed themselves to feel overwhelmed by so-called science rather than trusting God’s clear word on the subject. The fact of the matter is, however, that biological evolution involving gross body changes is an impossibility genetically. The theologians who caved in to the science of the day would have been far better to have simply trusted that God knew what He was talking about all along. The more we know about genetics and the complexity of biological systems, the more we are realizing that there is no way one sort of thing can change into another sort of thing.

What is interesting is that in ‘evolutionist apologist’ circles, such as Eugenie Scott’s, while theistic evolution is given a public acceptance, that is only because of a united stand against the clear and straightforward meaning in the Bible. TE is laughed at otherwise as a royal cop-out by evolutionists. But, since it helps their cause politically, they will give it public acceptance. Essentially, however, evolution from bacteria-to-bear has its foundation in rebellion against God and the godlessness of secular humanism.

Theistic evolution is very much Darwinism, by the way, only just dressed up to try to disguise it a little.

To Johnv – You said, “ It's not a matter of drawing the line; it's a matter of using the writings in for the intention in which they were written. I've stated earlier that I don't believe the purpose of Genesis1 was to give us a factual account of the origin of the universe.” You may or may not believe it personally, John, but the clear intent of Genesis 1 was to do exactly that, as Hebrew scholars will consistently say. Now you can agree or disagree with it, but please do so on its own terms and not on terms you wish to impose upon it. It is presented grammatically and stylistically as narrative history – and that is its apparent intent. It also seems to be taken that way by every Bible writer who later referred to it, as well as by our Lord Himself.

Secondly, the soul is not limited to man. The word translated ‘soul’ is also translated ‘breath of life.’ It is nephesh, and seems to refer to the ability to respond individually to life itself as well as establish relationships across species and kind. It appears to be expressed by, but is not limited to, the complex nervous system. It was the land animals with this nephesh, or soul, who were saved on the Ark, as mentioned in Genesis 7:15. There were also, by the way, the animals commanded to be vegetarian in Genesis 1:30. Thus it is not by soul that man is created in the image of God, but rather by spirit. As Jesus told the woman at the well in John 4, God is spirit. This would not just involve the ability to react and relate and learn individually, but also to initiate based on non-physical causes, to appreciate things like beauty and music, to think in terms of distant past and distant future, to consciously plan for generations to come, to laugh at himself, to create as individual expression, to communicate abstract thoughts via abstract means (such as this), etc.

You are wrong also in saying that evolution does not discuss the soul, only the body. There are desperate efforts being made in several fields to define the soul and spirit of man as results of physical processes, and thus as part of the body. The truth is that while the soul and spirit use the body to communicate and live in the physical world, they are far more than the physical and continue on after the separation from the physical which we call death. The philosophy behind evolution must deny this or lose its distinctive of evolution being a claimed biological process or series of processes.

And just because the argument for racism earlier depended on a very faulty exegesis of the concept of ‘kind’ in Genesis in no way lessens the fact that Genesis states very clearly that life was created according to kind and was designed to reproduce within kind.

And, as mentioned, Adam and Eve did NOT cover THEMSELVES with animal skins. They went for fig leaves. God sacrificed the first animal to provide covering for their nakedness. It is also very clear in Genesis 1:29, that He gave them plants to eat, not animals.

Neal4Christ is also quite correct in saying that evolution supported racism from the beginning. Darwin spoke of favored races, and until the sixties (as in 1960’s, not 1860’s), literally every illustration of the ‘rise’ of man from the ape-ancestors shows ape-like creature  black man  white man. The Aborigines of Australia were bounty hunted simply because they were black and therefore not really human in evolutionary terms. The Bible, however, defines us all as from Adam and Eve and then from the family of Noah. Thus, biblically, we are all cousins, close or not.

As far as the ‘fossil evidence’ you mentioned, there is none. There is only interpretation of the fossils which ‘supports’ evolution – but since that interpretation is based on previous belief in evolution, it really says nothing about the fossil record.

To Neal4Christ – Hovind should not be used either as a reference or as a support of any kind. He has waffled on that $250,000 offer/bet/challenge so many times it is a total embarrassment. He also does not keep up with science and presents material which is simply not true and known by those on both sides of the fence who are actually involved in science as not true. He is a charismatic speaker, but uses his skill to combine opinion with fact and non-fact in such a way as to be completely confusing. He ends up damaging the creation stand far more than he knows. It is because of his lack of honesty in a number of areas that evolutionists have a heyday pointing to him as the ‘typical’ creationist. He is most definitely not typical of the creationists I know and work with as a science editor. Hovind is also not a doctor. His Ph.D. has been exposed as from a diploma mill and this also is an embarrassment to the creation community. We have too many extraordinarily qualified Ph.D.’s for him to make light of the degree in the way that he has.

I do want to compliment you on your clear and concise stand for the creation account of Genesis, though. Thank you very much for your willingness to take a stand there!

To Try Hard – welcome to Baptist Board! Yes, there is enormous evidence against even the possibility of evolution, let alone its historical reality. And the evidence mounts daily. Thank you for bringing that up.

To Paul of Eugene – hello there! Local decreases in entropy are those designed into the system being spoken of. Without that previous design, there would not be any possibility of a fertilized egg becoming an adult organism, of photosynthesis happening, etc. However the increase in entropy is a fact, and if the universe is 10+ billion years old, that is an AWFUL LOT of entropy happening! Total chaos should be reigning instead of intelligent life existing!

As far as computers and refrigerators are concerned, they also are not only intelligently (we hope) designed, but break down in very short amounts of time – and thus entropy marches on…

To Boilerman – You started off my mis-stating what I said in your first sentence. I specifically said that the actual laws of thermodynamics proper, and in particular the Second Law, were confined to closed systems and that the earth is not a closed system. However, as far as the more universal law of increasing entropy is concerned -- In my own words, the type of evolution which is said to have happened to change a single-celled proto-bacteria into butterflies and bears and trees and fungi requires increased specified complexity and the consistent additions to the genome of useful, readable, obeyable information. The universal trend toward increasing entropy is rightly defined by Atkins as a measure of increasing chaos. Chaos does not produce either increased specified complexity or increased useful information, but rather destroys them, thus precluding the possibility of evolution through time as a natural process.

And while I admire your absolute faith in evolution ( Therefore, if you are correct in stating that evolution defies a some law of thermodynamics (you are not), that law is incorrect, not evolution.), I prefer faith in God and His Word. You also slid around the micro/macro difference by saying that at least I admitted ‘some form’ of evolution occurred. Horizontal evolution, or simple variation within kind, is not debated. It is the evolutionary community which is attempting to define both variation and macroevolution as the same thing and that is simply and plainly dishonest and an attempt to provide themselves with support where there is none. We can get all manner of variations with the regular dog, for instance, but they are always dogs. So sign of even one of them showing up as something even starting to depart from being a dog.

Why do I think the scientific community accepts evolution? More and more are defecting from that camp, actually, and of those who hold it actively, the ‘evidence’ is always either in the other guy’s field or in pure interpretation of data based on the previous commitment to evolution anyway. In addition, the vast majority of the scientific community is not at all involved in this argument, but in many, many other things specific to their own areas of expertise.

With all that being said, I would say that those relative few who are actually involved in areas of science which have to do with the evolution/creation debate are supporting evolution because
1. Their funding/publishing right/jobs/tenure/raises depend on supporting the current paradigm.
2. Basic dishonesty
3. Lack of information

One, two, or all may apply to any one person. However not all who depend on it for their livelihood need to be accused of dishonesty, although I would say that a good many in academia are burying their collective head in the sand here. But then it is much easier to be applauded by your peers than to stand up for what you think is right. If you are thinking about right and wrong at all, for that matter…

 

PAUL OF EUGENE


Responding to HELEN's post of 11/13/02. Greetings to Helen and all who read these words.
May Jesus Christ be glorified in our lives!

Hmmm. Since when is "Darwinism" a pejorative?

Are you trying to say that the universe cannot be 15 billion years old because there would be more entropy than we observe? Are you trying to base this on your gut feelings of what entropy would do? That's not a reliable thing to go on for this kind of estimating. The amount of entropy in the universe today - which is indeed a very huge amount - works out nicely, according to the physicists I read. You should realize that since the universe is expanding, the amount of entropy per cubic meter of empty space can actually decrease. Most of the entropy of the universe is contained in the cosmic background radiation and in black holes.

Alas, the same is true for every living thing as well . . .

Who says the complexity was specified? What specification are you alleging here?

I say that the great many who are involved in areas of science which have to do with evolution/creation are supporting evolution because they have the impression it is supported by the overwhelming evidence. I share that impression with them.

 

HELEN

A question for you or anyone else, Paul: except for accidental abiogenesis, can you please tell me how theistic evolution is different from Darwinism?

Now, that was an interesting argument about the amount of entropy decreasing per unit volume if the universe is expanding. I honestly have not heard that one before. However, since entropy is disorganization, I’m not sure how you figure that. Isn’t organization irrespective of volume? In other words, to take a simple example, three points which make up a straight line are going to continue doing just that whether or not the points are millimeters apart or light years apart.

And where on earth did you get the idea that ‘most of the entropy of the universe is contained in the cosmic background radiation and in black holes”? Are you simply judging by mass per volume or what?

And, thirdly for this part, please explain quantized redshift if the universe is expanding.

About specified complexity: specification is tightly defined as having the parts to suit a purpose which could not be achieved given the existing organism without those parts. The stamen and pistil of flowers comes to mind here. Thus when I speak of increased specified complexity of an organism, I am referring to the increased number of different parts and their interactions (complexity) which perform specific functions without which that organism could not function as a living and reproducing organism. This has nothing to do with a “Specifier” if that is what you are actually acting about.

Yes, I know that many who are involved in areas of science which have to do with evolution and creation are supporting evolution because they have the impression it is supported by overwhelming evidence. The interesting thing is that the overwhelming evidence is always presumed to be in the other guy’s field. It is when they take the time to actually start looking at matters that many abandon evolution. They may simply be anti-evolutionists or they may swing all the way to some form of creation, but those who are studying the issues are leaving evolution. It is not a viable theory. This has been documented a number of times, including the book a couple of years ago, “In Six Days” which had testimonies, if you will, of fifty different Ph.D.’s from diverse fields (including biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc.)

 

PAUL OF EUGENE

Hi Helen. Have a great thanksgiving season!

Again, I hesitate to answer for whole schools of thought, but I think Darwin was basically right, although of course we've learned more since Darwin, and God is behind it all, one way or another.

It's basic to what entropy is. One way of considering entropy is disorganization. Another way of considering entropy is temperature. When only photons are involved, temperature is manifested by photons following the thermal radiation spectrum distribution. There is a lot of randomness involved but there is a energy cutoff point for any given temperature beyond which no photon goes - that is, no single photon gets to go to arbitrarily high values, not even by chance, due to the cutoff point. The randomness is, of course, your disorganization. The universe is considered to have been much hotter in the past and cooling down today. The photons in a given cubic meter of space, then, are less energetic now and there are fewer of them. This means less disorganization due to the fewer number of photons to be disorganized and the fewer choices available to the photons for expressing their randomness due to their lesser energy.

Any time anything cools down entropy is being reduced. This even includes a rock, spit out of a volcano, cooling down. It is loosing entropy. The entropy doesn't disappear; other things are being warmed up by the cooling rock.

I was regurgitating the lessons I learned from Roger Penrose, "The Emporer's New Mind", pages 342 -343. He states:

"To get some feeling for the hugeness of black-hole entropy, let us consider what was previously thought to supply the largest contribution to the entropy of the universe, namely the 2.7K black-body background radiation. Astrophysicists had been struck by the enormous amounts of entropy that this radiation contains, which is far in excess of the ordinary entropy that on encounters in other processes (e.g. in the sun) . . . . indeed, were it not for the black holes, this figure would represent the total entropy of the universe, since the entropy in the background radiation swamps that in all other ordinary processes . . . on the other hand, by black-hole standards the background radiation entropy is utter 'chicken feed'."

Advice for all our readers: Buy the book. I found it utterly fascinating, very educational, and will go a long way towards bringing the reader up to speed on entropy, and other good stuff, chances are it is in a bookstore near you.

Tifft's quantized redshift reports remain incredible to me. My reasoning is that quantum steps for the expansion of the universe in velocity increments as small as he described - 12 to 72 km/s - would be utterly swamped by normal random motion of the constituent parts of galaxies and therefore undetectable. I therefore look for the explanation on earth rather than in the heavens. Perhaps his analytical software is rounding things off somewhere at an intermediate stage of the calculations. Perhaps he is detecting the individual pixel size of his imaging chip. I suspect something like that will be the answer to his observations. Quantum steps in the red shift, if confirmed, would be such a major discovery that it could not be suppressed.

Well, when put that way, it seems to me this objection is merely a restatement in general that evolution won't work, without saying why it won't work. In particular, it seems to be ignoring the essense of TOE as to why evolution can work.

There is traffic both ways. It would be interesting to definitively survey the situation and determine which side wins the most "converts" per year. Anecdotal evidence is not a scientific survey. Joe Meert and Earl Detra have both posted in this forum evidence from their own specialities on the evolutionary side of the debate. The same thing happens in other internet discussion forums. Hey, I have an idea - we could survey our doctors. These are highly educated individuals we meet that will not, normally, have been previously selected for having any leanings one way or another. "Say, Doc, what do you think about Darwinian Evolution? Do you think its possible?"

For Thanksgiving, I'm out of town about two weeks. I'm not promising an utter respite from my posts but will be unavoidably tardy.

 

HELEN

How does your statement differ from a pagan’s point of view here, Paul? Since you do not consider the account in the Bible to be accurate, it seems to me that a statement such as yours here is something any Buddhist or believer in almost any other religion could say.

You next said:

From Barry and Helen: Paul, entropy only increases with temperature drop in a closed system. This is the study of thermodynamics and is not applicable to an open system when a forced drop in temperature may result in a decrease in entropy. In a closed system the definition of entropy increase is directly related to the progressive equalization of temperature throughout the system. If you want to use this argument, you must first argue that the universe is a closed system and at this point science cannot present a yea or nay on that.

If the universe is a closed system, and if the wavelengths of light photons in transit through the universe increase as the universe expands (if it is expanding), then the argument you present is correct.

However you totally negate your argument in your last paragraph. A reduction of entropy is an INCREASE in organization or in temperature differentiation (in a closed system). Neither is exhibited by a rock spewed out of a volcano which then cools off. Crystallization resulting from cooling is a product of the design of the atomic structure and not simply a result of cooling, or all elements would crystallize or the ones that do would only crystallize sporadically. Neither of these options is true. The heat loss which results in crystallization is now non-recoverable and thus entropy has increased, not decreased.

I was regurgitating the lessons I learned from Roger Penrose, "The Emporer's New Mind", pages 342 -343. He states:

"To get some feeling for the hugeness of black-hole entropy, let us consider what was previously thought to supply the largest contribution to the entropy of the universe, namely the 2.7K black-body background radiation. Astrophysicists had been struck by the enormous amounts of entropy that this radiation contains, which is far in excess of the ordinary entropy that on encounters in other processes (e.g. in the sun) . . . . indeed, were it not for the black holes, this figure would represent the total entropy of the universe, since the entropy in the background radiation swamps that in all other ordinary processes . . . on the other hand, by black-hole standards the background radiation entropy is utter 'chicken feed'." </font>[/QUOTE]This is assuming, first of all, the cosmic background radiation is a product of a “Big Bang.” However there is now evidence for it being something else entirely. In the Journal of Theoretics, June/July 2001, there is an article by Takaaki Musha from Japan in which he shows that the zero point energy allows the formation of tachyon pairs in the same way it allows the formation of other virtual particles. He shows that the Cherenkov radiation from the tachyons matched almost precisely the observational data for the microwave background. This currently being investigated.

However, now I do understand what you are talking about regarding the entropy and black holes. I, Helen, have a question for you, however. Are you also assuming the rate of entropy is different there than anywhere else?

Tifft's quantized redshift reports remain incredible to me. My reasoning is that quantum steps for the expansion of the universe in velocity increments as small as he described - 12 to 72 km/s - would be utterly swamped by normal random motion of the constituent parts of galaxies and therefore undetectable. I therefore look for the explanation on earth rather than in the heavens. Perhaps his analytical software is rounding things off somewhere at an intermediate stage of the calculations. Perhaps he is detecting the individual pixel size of his imaging chip. I suspect something like that will be the answer to his observations. Quantum steps in the red shift, if confirmed, would be such a major discovery that it could not be suppressed. </font>[/QUOTE]Everything you say is based on the assumption that the redshift is due to universal expansion, whereas our point, actually in line with yours, is that this is an unreasonable explanation. The quantization has been observed not just once by one person, but in an increasing number of times by an increasing number of observers. It is getting harder and harder to ignore. The clear implication is that the universe may not be expanding at all and that redshift itself is caused by something else. It is definitely not an artifact of software or anything to do with the measuring processes, for the quantization levels are larger than the limits of accuracy achieved. The smallest quantization is about ten times the size of the experimental error.

We do see a swamping of the quantization by motion in the center of the Virgo cluster of galaxies. This shows that motion of galaxies is not the cause of the redshift quantization.

Regarding you statement that quantization is a major enough discovery that it could not be suppressed, would you have any statements about
Continental shift/drift
The finite speed of light
Germ theory
Heliocentrism
Etc., etc., etc.
I am not aware, in short, of many major challenges to the existing paradigm which have later proven right which were accepted very quickly. In fact, with each of these and many more, every effort was made by the scientific community to reject and then suppress these theories until that became impossible. I have no reason to suspect that human nature has changed, in science or anywhere else.

And yes, specified complexity is definitely a solid argument for the possibility of evolution. Because of what we know of this business, it appears that evolution has itself up a blind alley of ENTROPY (among other things…) with no way to escape.

Changes happen, but evolution involving the introduction or increase of specified complexity runs against every known law in the universe and depends entirely upon the human imagination.

 

PAUL OF EUGENE

Hi Helen! I'm glad you found time to continue the discussion. I'm back from vacation too. Had a wonderful thanksgiving with family - will be home in Eugene for Christmas. May the Lord give you and yours a blessed advent season!

You asked the following:

Well, if I said the sky is blue, the pagans would agree, wouldn't they? But in case there is any doubt in your mind, I also affirm that Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God in the flesh and our salvation is dependent on his life, death, and resurrection. As for the accuracy of the Bible, it is only possible to maintain the Bible is absolutely inerrant by adopting interpretations not immediately evident from the text in various places. But that is a whole other discussion. I am content to believe it is God's chosen record of His revelation to us.

Now concerning entropy we have a lot to discuss. You posted this argument:

I'm afraid this is a misrepresentation of what happens to entropy when something cools down. Let's not bring crystallization into this, just take a rock that has already reached the final state of crystallization and is lying there on the ground, hot, having recently been spit out of a volcano. Now we go back to the same rock and it is essentially, to our notions, unchanged, but is considerably cooler. I am telling everyone that the entropy IN THAT ROCK is now less. There is, indeed, an INCREASE IN ORGANIZATION. How so? Because the very molecules that make up the rock are now vibrating more slowly and therefore their locations are more definitely specifiable. The TOTAL ENTROPY IN THE UNIVERSE has, however, increased, because the energy of heat has not disappeared, it has spread around to the surroundings. Crystallization, of course, would be a special case of increasing order and therefore decreasing entropy. It is always accompanied by a burst of heat, the "energy of crystallization", which is also the entropy that used to be in the non-crystallized material being dispersed to the surroundings as the entropy in the material that becomes crystallized LOWERS. Local entropy often decreases but total entropy never decreases.


I earlier quoted Roger Penrose, "The Emperor's New Mind", pages 342 -343. He states:

To this you replied:

You assume a linkage between the theory of how the background radiation began and how much entropy is represented by the radiation. There is no such linkage. The radiation is what it is and therefore has the entropy it has regardless of how it got there. Even if the universe is not expanding, the background radiation really has that much entropy (assuming the universe is as big as we think it is . . . )

In a black hole, the entropy represents the degree of uncertainty as to just what made up the contents of the hole. Anything, absolutely anything, could have made up a given black hole. That's a lot of uncertainty! The black hole has a temperature associated with its entropy. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you are asking here. Get Penrose's book! Its really a good book for this subject! You will like this book! (as much as you can like any modern book on cosmology . . )

Regarding Tifft's quantized redshift reports:

Then we agree, time will tell. But time hasn't told us to agree with Tifft's findings yet! And I don't see why a finding of quantization would mean the universe is not expanding, nor do I see any fundamental physical reason to link speed of light decay to redshift quantization.

Naah. Specified complexity is not a well defined term, and therefore is not useful in arguments against evolution. Entropy has been shown over and over to decrease naturally for single objects and that is all that is needed to allow for evolution to occur. Just to make this point clear, which of the following elements of TOE are against entropy?

- A given population of animals expands to the point it can support no more due to limited food supply (or space or whatever)

- Variations in the genome occur due to recombination of genes and mutations

- As they live and die, those stuck with variations that handicap them from reproducing don't reproduce as well, and those variations die out with them

- As they live and die, those blessed with variations that help them reproduce, reproduce better, and those variations remain in the genome

- These helpful variations accumulate over time and this is evolution.

OK, regardless of other problems you might have with evolution theory, do you spot any violations of entropy anywhere along the line? There aren't any, of course.

 

HELEN

Paul, when I asked you how your statement differed from a pagan’s you completely evaded the point by saying something about them agreeing the sky is blue. What I WAS pointing out was that your statement regarding creation is so vague and general that it really is no different from anyone else’s who has any pagan god in consideration. The point was, as well, that I did no see how you could therefore consider your statement biblical, let alone Christian, since Genesis is extremely specific about a number of items regarding creation.

I was not asking about Christ, either, although I am very glad you believe in Him and His work (which included creation, by the way… ). I was asking about Genesis.

And yes, I was talking about total entropy. It might be mentioned that when anything that was hot cools, it can do so spontaneously by dumping the heat into what is referred to as a ‘sink’ – which simply means the heat is now disorganized motion and non-recoverable. This is defined as an increase in entropy. The increased organization in the rock often resulting in crystallization is not a random event, but designed into the very atoms themselves via their structure. Calling this a decrease in entropy is therefore arguable.

And yes, there is a definite link between the origin of the background radiation and its representation of total entropy. For instance, if this radiation is being continually produced by some means, what would that say about entropy?

Continuing, you stated that time has not told us to agree with Tifft’s findings yet, however I think a number of scientists have started to examine the issues much more carefully than you think:

http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v26n4/aas185/abs/S5705.html
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Giovanelli/Giovan5_5.html
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf103/sf103a05.htm
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf050/sf050p07.htm
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw68.html
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/SQK-TOC.html
http://a188-l009.rit.edu/richmond/answers/controversy.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html -- one of my husband’s papers on the subject

Regarding linking a variable light speed to the quantized redshift, they are both ‘children’ of the same ‘parent’, as has been also discussed here, but are not related to each other in a cause and effect way.

Going on to specified complexity – it is a very well defined term if you read the literature, Paul. You stated, ” Entropy has been shown over and over to decrease naturally for single objects and that is all that is needed to allow for evolution to occur.”

I would ask you to point me to ONE example which is not the result of the design already intrinsic to the subject being used as the example. And that design cannot exert itself except under favorable conditions, whether we are talking about crystallization or the development of an adult organism from a conceptus.

In the following, your challenges are in italics and my responses in straight type:

Just to make this point clear, which of the following elements of TOE are against entropy?

- A given population of animals expands to the point it can support no more due to limited food supply (or space or whatever)

What on earth does this have to do with entropy at all?

- Variations in the genome occur due to recombination of genes and mutations

Many expressed variations are in ‘hot spots’ which vary back and forth, not in a continuing direction. This indicates design not evolution. In addition, these variations are simply that – variations – and have nothing to do with a change outside of the created kind. For example, blondes, brunettes and redheads are all variations, but none of them have anything to do with a human somehow departing from human-ness. This is the same with animals, plants, and bacteria; variations occur within kind, not across or outside of them.

- As they live and die, those stuck with variations that handicap them from reproducing don't reproduce as well, and those variations die out with them

Again, this is natural selection, which no one is arguing with! What on earth are you using it as an argument regarding entropy for?

- As they live and die, those blessed with variations that help them reproduce, reproduce better, and those variations remain in the genome

Give me an example, please. But again, where are you fitting entropy into all this?

- These helpful variations accumulate over time and this is evolution.

That has NEVER been seen to happen. It is PURELY a figment of evolutionists’ imaginations.

OK, regardless of other problems you might have with evolution theory, do you spot any violations of entropy anywhere along the line? There aren't any, of course.

I feel a bit along the lines of someone shown a basket of watermelons and asked, “Do you find any bad steaks in here? Of course not!” If you could please related entropy to your challenges, maybe my blonde brain could better cope with what you are getting at here.

 

DAVID COX

I would like to insert a few comments from the peanut gallery here...

From Helen:

And

It sounds to me like "design already intrinsic to the subject" refers to the physical properties of the subject and how it interacts with its environment according to natural physical laws. If this were the case, then one would be hard pressed to provide "ONE example which is not the result of the design already intrinsic to the subject being used as the example." It would be like asking for an example of something that does not act according to its physical properties and environment.

You are correct in stating that crystallization is not a random event. It is the result of the physical properties of the atoms, the environment, and natural physical laws.

Are you suggesting that there was not an entropy decrease in the crystallized object? Or are you stating that the increase in entropy of the object's environment (due to radiated heat) is greater than the entropy decrease of the object itself, resulting in a net increase in universal entropy?

Moving on...

I find this rather interesting.

Evolutionist states (generally):

1. Variation/mutation in populations happens
2. Variations are acted upon by the environment (natural selection)
3. Preferential survival/reproduction due to variations/mutations
4. Successful variations/mutations accumulate.

Creationist replies:
"But evolution violates entropy (2LOT)"

Evolutionist replies:
"What? Where?"

Creationist replies:
"None of these things have anything to do with entropy. Please relate them to entropy."

That is exactly what the evolutionists say. None of these things have anything to do with entropy.