Destruction of the weakest' essential to evolution, prof says

[Revmitchell]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) -- A theistic evolutionist "simply cannot escape the fact that the necessary corollary to survival of the fittest is destruction of the weakest and therefore, he must view death as a primary creative force of God," a Southern Baptist professor writes in the latest exchange with The BioLogos Foundation...

...Most Christians who accept evolution tend to avoid discussion of the role death plays in their creation model, preferring instead to cast evolution in positive terms, Laing said. Yet in evolutionary thought, death actually functions as a mechanism for life, playing a vital role in natural selection by rooting out weakness, he wrote Aug. 9 in a series at BioLogos.org titled "Southern Baptist Voices."

According to Scripture, Laing noted, death is most often associated with consequences for sinful activity or the judgment of God. Death is described in the Book of Romans as the wages of sin, a snare in the Psalms and a trouble in the Book of Job.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38552

 

[Winman]

Death and extinction refute evolution, not prove it.

This is your classic phylogenetic or evolutionary tree. Evolution basically teaches that life began with one celled animals and evolved into many different complex forms.

Scientific observation refutes this. No new life form has ever been observed to spring into existence, while many thousands of animals have gone extinct. We do not have more life forms today than we had in the past as this evolutionary tree suggests, we have far less. We are going in the exact opposite direction of evolution.

So, death does not support evolution, it refutes it.

 

[OldRegular]

I say "Fire the Professor"!

 

[Crabtownboy]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) -- A theistic evolutionist "simply cannot escape the fact that the necessary corollary to survival of the fittest is destruction of the weakest and therefore, he must view death as a primary creative force of God," a Southern Baptist professor writes in the latest exchange with The BioLogos Foundation...

a

Survival of the fittest does not mean that the weakest will die out. Fittest and weakest are not synonyms. For instance, a sow bug is very weak, very soft bodied but is very fit to live in our world. So the professor seems to not understand there is a difference in the two words.

Mankind is certainly not particularly strong when it comes to strength in nature. But mankind is very fit in survival mechanisms.

Cheers. :type:

 

[Aaron]

a

Survival of the fittest does not mean that the weakest will die out. Fittest and weakest are not synonyms. For instance, a sow bug is very weak, very soft bodied but is very fit to live in our world. So the professor seems to not understand there is a difference in the two words.

Mankind is certainly not particularly strong when it comes to strength in nature. But mankind is very fit in survival mechanisms.

Cheers. :type:

Destruction of the "unfit" then. Either way, as was said, death has to be a primary creative force of God.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

a

Survival of the fittest does not mean that the weakest will die out. Fittest and weakest are not synonyms. For instance, a sow bug is very weak, very soft bodied but is very fit to live in our world. So the professor seems to not understand there is a difference in the two words.

Mankind is certainly not particularly strong when it comes to strength in nature. But mankind is very fit in survival mechanisms.

Cheers. :type:

Yes...the professor clearly DOES understand, and he knows that "weakest" and "fittest" are not synonymous words. He is using them, however, as being synonymous for the purposes only of his statement here. Moreover, he is perfectly aware of the further Evolutionistic rejoinder that "fitness" is more properly defined as the capacity to survive up until the point of (or to the end of) reproduction rather than "merely"...the survivability of ONE individual in a given species...blah blah blah.....heard it, know it, try something new. The Evolutionary account and the one from Scripture are so diametrically opposed, that they are irreconcilable: Only one false example from the Theistic Evolutionists per this article:

Schloss asked, "Is non-human death an evil?" Some argue, he said, that the early chapters of Genesis clearly depict "consumption of life and resulting death as part of primordial creation." Genesis depicts plants as given for food, "and every chomp kills."
"Nearly every time a raspberry or banana or walnut or snap pea or grain of wheat or ear of corn is eaten, one or more living organisms -- embryos -- are killed," Schloss wrote, explaining a view he does not support. "It is as much a creaturely death for these organisms as destroying an embryo or aborting a fetus is for the human organism."

These particular Bible-haters Schloss describes forget that the Scriptures speak NOTHING whatsoever of the nature that plants are "living"....The actual Bible (immaterial to the Godless Evolutionist) explains that the miracle of plant "life" was that the "EARTH" would bring forth the plants....Not that God "made" or "created" them individually. They were never given the breath of life, they were never considered anything akin to a "soul"...these are lies and distortions, and a clear understanding of the creation account clearly de-lineates between plants and animals. "Life", and the breath thereof, are properties possesed ONLY by the animals and Man....uniquely, God (PERSONALLY) gave man the "breath of life" in contra-distinction to the animals. You do not understand even the simplest basics of Scripture. You consistently preach ignorance. Your world-view is utterly corrupt beyond repair.

You are parsing words where no distinction is necessary by creating a non-existent discrepancy between "weakest" and "fittest"...just as these particlular heathens described in this article parse words with respect to a Biblical definition of what (according to God) constitutes "LIFE"....This is merely arguing about divisions and strifes of words because there is no further route to go when your world-view is utterly corrupt, Un-Biblical, and in-defensible in the face of anyone possessed of even passing understanding.

 

[OldRegular]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) -- A theistic evolutionist "simply cannot escape the fact that the necessary corollary to survival of the fittest is destruction of the weakest and therefore, he must view death as a primary creative force of God," a Southern Baptist professor writes in the latest exchange with The BioLogos Foundation...

...Most Christians who accept evolution tend to avoid discussion of the role death plays in their creation model, preferring instead to cast evolution in positive terms, Laing said. Yet in evolutionary thought, death actually functions as a mechanism for life, playing a vital role in natural selection by rooting out weakness, he wrote Aug. 9 in a series at BioLogos.org titled "Southern Baptist Voices."

According to Scripture, Laing noted, death is most often associated with consequences for sinful activity or the judgment of God. Death is described in the Book of Romans as the wages of sin, a snare in the Psalms and a trouble in the Book of Job.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38552

I wonder if BioLogos is inserting some Far Eastern pantheism into their ideology. With their belief in reincarnation their concept of death is totally different than that as taught in Scripture!