Does teaching evolution harm Christianity?

[UTEOTW]

"The quotes of the evolutionists don't claim that they don't believe in evolution. They don't claim that they don't believe the evidence favors evolution. They simply highlight candid acknowledgements about the state of the hard evidence. ... Actually, no. They are admissions. The context shows that the evolutionists have an explanation... not that what they said wasn't true as stated."

Not at all.

You can only turn them into "admissions" by removing the context of what they were actually talking about.

Again take a look at the Futuyma quote. He is going through discussing numerous known transitional series. He follows this with a statement that points out that it is gradual series that we have found few of.

That word gradual is key. Because we don't find gradual series. Gradual means that the whole population gradually and steadily turns into something else. Instead what we find abundantly is that populations split or branch with the larger group remaining in relative stasis while the smaller branch evolves into something else. And these changes are not steady and linear, either. They are very jerky, sometimes going this way and sometimes the other. We see this over and over in both modern examples of observed speciation and in the examples from the fossil record. Evolution is generally anything bu gradual.

Futuyma then points out that YEers can only chose to deny "the richness of paleontological collections, by denying the transitional series that exist, and by distorting, or misunderstanding, the genetical theory of evolution."

But JWI pulls out the one phrase that sounds good to his ears without that nasty context around it and pretends that something is being admitted when the text around the selected quote says something completely different.

Just how can you think that we can be fooled into believing that a brief quote in the middle of a section talking about how rich the fossil record really is can be saying that the fossil record is poor?

Maybe a few more examples from his quote spamming are in order.

 

[UTEOTW]

"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)

This is another quote where context is key.

He is not saying that examples of evolution are rare. He is saying that phyletic gradualism is rare. That is the idea that species gradually and steadily change from one form into another. Gould argues that instead that new species arise more often from branching and from relatively rapid periods of change. There are abundant transitional series that show that this is the case. Perhaps the horse series is the most famous. But this is where Gould gets PE from. The observed changes are not slow, steady and linear but are instead branching and jerky.

Your quote is follwed by the following which puts what I have said back into Gould's own words.

There is an alternative, however. Perhaps the fossil record is not so hopeless, and the observation of no change within species and sudden replacement between them reflects evolution as it actually occurs. Recall Chapter 26: Large, successful, central populations are resistant to evolutionary change. Small, isolated, marginal populations may speciate. The process of speciation, though slow to a human observer (hundreds or thousands of years), is geologically fleeting. In most geological situations, and at most rates of sedimentation, a thousand years translates into a single bedding plane, not a thick sequence of rock. Thus, if speciation is the dominate mode of evolution, we should expect to see exactly what we do see: the unchanging species represents a successful central population; its sudden replacement by a descendent records the migration into the ancestral area of a descendant that arose rapidly in a small population at the edge of the ancestor's geographical range. Thus, it is possible that most evolution occurs in the mode of speciation and that phyletic evolution is relatively unimportant.

So basically Gould says that we don't find smooth, linear transformations and instead find lots of highly branching, jerky transformations. So you just cut off the part about what we do find and pretend that we do not find anything. Even most of our modern day examples of speciation follow the branching off of a small population model that is also observed in the fossil record. It is what we should find.

Do you also see the connection here back to the Futuyma use of the word "gradual?"

 

[UTEOTW]

"It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180)

Oh the irony....

But first, your source has blown the citation. The quote actually comes from a book called Scientists Confront Creationism which is edited by Laurie R. Godfrey.

And now for the delicious irony.

The quote is from a paragraph attacking dishonest uses of quotations!!!

In using selected quotations of paleontologists to buttress their own position, creationists have unwittingly entered one the most controversy theoretical and methodological debates in contemporary paleontological systematics. Inasmuch as this debate in has ensued for over a decade in the scientific literature, it is surprising that the creationists have not mentioned its existence (either the creationists are unfamiliar with the scientific literature or they have failed to understand the importance of that literature or they have simply chosen to ignore the problem and adopt a strategy that promotes their theological, not scientific position). The debate centers on the scientific methods used to postulate and test hypotheses of ancestral-decendant relationship. Traditionally, paleontologists, including most quoted by the creationists, have had a conviction that the stratigraphic position of the fossil taxa is a primary criterion with which to postulate ancestral-descendant relationships, whereas recent critics of this methododology have stressed the importance of a critical analysis of morphological characteristics ([deleted references]). If the stratigraphic position of a fossil is an important criterion for recognizing it as an ancestor, it should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position. There is no doubt the reason for many of the quotes cited by the creationists about the prevalence of gaps, but other citations or distortions, tailored to suit the creationists' own purposes. For example, in 1972 Schaeffer, Hecht, and Eldredge published an influential paper in which they were critical of paleotological methodology about the construction of ancestral-descendant hypotheses. In support of his argument that there are no transitional forms, Gish (1979, p. 169) quoted from a review of that paper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Three paleontologists (no less) conclude that stratigraphic position is totally irrelevant to determination of phylogeny and almost say that no known taxon is derived from any other.

[Van Valen 1973, p. 488]

Although the Van Valen quote gives the appearance of support for Gish's argument against transitions, a reading of Schaeffer et al. (1972) shows that Van Valen is overstating their position. They clearly do not believe that stratigraphy is "totally irrelevant" for examining ancestral-descendant hypotheses nor do they deny the possibility of identifying ancestral species. Rather than engage in a critical analysis of the scientific issues raised by Schaeffer et al., Gish prefers to use Van Valen's statement in a highly biased manner. Gish's unfamiliarity with the scientific literature adds irony to this example: Van Valen, perhaps more than any other contemporary palentologist, has postulated innumerable phylogenetic connections among fossil taxa and thus offers the poorest support for Gish's viewpoint of anyone he could have misquoted.</font>[/QUOTE]Even better and with additional irony, later on it is said

But the use of quotations is not an appropriate way to decide scientific issues, and if one examines the fossil record objectively, there is no doubt that intermediate taxa - mosaics of primitive and derived characters - exist for many major groups.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)

You are kidding, right?

This is too funny.

Eldredge was summarizing another's position from 50 years before and you quote it as if it is his own opinion. Too rich.

Simpson suggested -- as had Dobzhansky (1941) briefly before him; indeed, the theme goes back to Darwin -- that the gaps perceived between low-level taxonomic groups such as species and genera almost always reflect the artifact of such geologically induced gaps. But, he went on, gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record. Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlocking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.

There have been more than a few fossils found in these areas since Simpson said this over 60 years ago.

It is amazing that someone can think that it is OK to pretend that a summary of another's position can rightly be quoted as being the person's actual opinion.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)

Context is your enemy once again. Let's just go to the quote.

Superb fossil data have recently been gathered from deposits of early Cenozoic Age in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming. These deposits represent the first part of the Eocene Epoch, a critical interval when many types of modern mammals came into being. The Bighorn Basin, in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains, received large volumes of sediment from the Rockies when they were being uplifted, early in the Age of Mammals. In its remarkable degree of completeness, the fossil record here for the Early Eocene is unmatched by contemporary deposits exposed elsewhere in the world. The deposits of the Bighorn Basin provide a nearly continuous local depositional record for this interval, which lasted some five million years. It used to be assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together in such a way as to illustrate continuous evolution. Careful collecting has now shown otherwise. Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time. David M. Schankler has recently gathered data for about eighty mammal species that are known from more than two stratigraphic levels in the Bighorn Basin. Very few of these species existed for less than half a million years, and their average duration was greater than a million years.

So it seems that Stanley was talking about a single geographic location during a particular period of time. Yet you remove the context and try to make it apply to the fossil record in general.

I find it unbelievable that people can do this kind of quoting with a straight face and believe that God would want them to be doing such in His name.

 

[UTEOTW]

"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 million years ago. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then." ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)

Let's just do the errors in the attempt at quoting first.

The first sentence is from one section of the paper and the second is from another. But don't let a little thing like a major section break stop you from stitching together parts.

The phrase "phylum level" is "phylum-level" in the original.

The phrase "Body plans" is "Bodyplans" in the original.

The quote misrepresents by leaving out the later explanation.

Two long-debated explanations for this trend are that (a) developmental mechanisms became canalized or at least constrained so as to preclude the specification of great novelty and (b) the filling of the environment by early Phanerozoic diversifications preempted the ecological opportunities that were once available to organisms with distinctive bodyplans [refs]. The relative significance of these respectively internal and external controls is difficult to determine at present; new paleontological and developmental evidence will be required to assess their relative strengths [refs].

So you selectively quote an observation and present it as a problem when the the author follows the observation with why this should be so.

 

[Helen]

Let's deal with a whole article instead of a quote.
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Evolution_Rationality_vs._Randomness.asp

Evolution is impossible.

That's it.

Therefore it follows that teaching this lie to anyone is not good and certainly potentially harmful to anything else they might believe true.

 

[Scott J]

Interesting and accurate article. It is in general agreement with my argument that naturalism unreasonably and artificially limits what can be "true" or "scientific".

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_4273152,00.html

 

[Scott J]

UTE, Did you ever answer the OP question?

I appreciate your general demeanor in debate but find it somewhat unusual that you don't participate in any debates except for those on evolution. I also don't recall you having cited scripture in these debates.

So, I am interested in your answer. Can you build a proper sotierology and respect for NT scriptures from the theory of origins you espouse? Is your idea that man somehow received a soul after billions of years of evolution anything more than a very shaky bridge? You have shown that you believe the opinions of naturalists are not only authoritative (virtually infallible) but worthy of zealous defense...

Will you do the same for scripture? Where is scriptue valid? When is it invalid? What is the rule that we are to use to determine which supernatural claims are true and which are myth/allegory?

I personally have no more difficulty believing that God spoke the world into existence in 6 days than believing that He raised a truly dead man after three days and at various times defied the laws of nature. Why do you?

 

[Scott J]

Futuyma then points out that YEers can only chose to deny "the richness of paleontological collections,

So pointing out problems is denial, right? IOW's, evolutionists don't want to deal with creationists' objections and counter arguments so Futuyma should get away with handwaving in your mind?

by denying the transitional series that exist,

Yes. Notably we don't deny the evidence just the way evolutionists arrange it to support evolution. That isn't dishonest at all. In fact, it is dishonest to say that "series" "exist" when all that actually exists are fossils that evolutionists conveniently arrange according to their presuppositions.

and by distorting, or misunderstanding, the genetical theory of evolution."

A veiled statement of arrogance. IOW's, since creationists disagree with the evolutionists' reading of evidence they must be lying or ignorant.

That's a pretty convenient way to rationalize ignoring or else smothering a counter-argument. It is a common historical practice to suppress your opposition when you feel threatened by them.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Helen:
Let's deal with a whole article instead of a quote.
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Evolution_Rationality_vs._Randomness.asp

Evolution is impossible.

That's it.

Yes, let's look at the whole article instead of quote mines.

His major point boils down to this.

Proteins are complex coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 200 amino acids. The observed range is from less than 100 amino acids per protein to greater than 1000. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids that join in varying combinations to produce the proteins of life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein of 200 amino acids is 20 to the power of 200 (i.e. 20 multiplied by itself 200 times), or in the more usual 10-based system of numbers, approximately 10 to the power of 260 (i.e. the number one, followed by 260 zeros!). Nature has the option of choosing among the 10 to power of 260 possible proteins, the 3 million proteins of which all viable life is composed. In other words, for each one correct choice, there are 10 to power of 254 wrong choices!
...
Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion non-viable proteins -- and pulled out the one that worked.

And then repeated this trick a million times.

I do not know about his understanding of statistics, but he makes a simple error here which dooms his conclusion.

He assumes that there is only one of those possible amino acid sequences that would perfrom each of those functions. But recent analysis has shown that many, many possible sequences can perform the same function. As an example, for just the protein cyctochrome c, it is estimated that there are 10^61 possible sequences that would have the same function as the cyctomchrome c that your body is using right now.

So it is not a matter of picking the right oe, it is a matter of picking one among many that works.

Which leads into another point. With all of these possible sequences that exists for each function, it is observed that almost all genes belong to one of a relatively few number of families in which they are all related genetically even if they perform widely different functions.

This is to be expected based on what we currently know. It seems that duplication and subsequent mutation is the primary method of generating novel genetic sequences. Since new genes are made from copies of old genes, it is reasonable to assume that they should group in such a manner.

And yes, I already know the ad hoc story that you will use to try and cast doubt. But here is the difference. There is evidence for what I propose actually happening. We observe dupplication and mutation leading to new genes and we see in the genome where this has happened in the past.

I will refer you back to an earlier post where the evidence for just such a process is outlined for globins.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3200/2.html#000018

Here is another similar example. In this case, there is an insertion which becomes an exon through mutation leading to a new gene. Funny thing is, the version from before it became a useful exon is still scattered through other species that branched off from the lineage after the insertion but before the mutation to an exon. Why else would such a useless bit be scattered about in such a manner?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3200/2.html#000019

Therefore it follows that teaching this lie to anyone is not good and certainly potentially harmful to anything else they might believe true.

Funny that we have had two long threads on The Lie of Evolution, neither of which have demonstrated the assertion. But we do have questionable YE activities listed.

 

[UTEOTW]

"UTE, Did you ever answer the OP question?"

Yes.

Wow. This thread seems to have taken off.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />:Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
I know you all disagree with me but evolution should be taught as truth. It is clearly and solidly defended scientifically. What shouldn't be taught in churches is that evolution contradicts with the bible. That is what shakes people's faith when a false dichotomy is presented.

Feel free to disagree with evolution and consider it false. Feel free to believe in YEC and consider it true. Create false dichotomies and you shake people's faith.

Those who teach evolution should also not create the false dichotomy that it contradicts the bible. Certain interpretations of genesis like YEC sure, but not the bible. And most teachers who are knowledgeable about evolution and sources on the internet knowledgeable about evolution do not make this claim.

I am not sure I could have put it any better.

Evolution is no threat, by itself, to Christianity any more than any other truth is a threat.

The problem comes from both sides. And from both sides the problem is the false assertion that there is an incompatibility between the two. From the side of the believers, this gives some the impression that they must choose between the two which can be a real problem for those who hold both to be truth. From the side of nonbelievers comes the problem of those who look for an excuse to reject God and so they concoct a conflict in order to dismiss the Bible and God.</font>[/QUOTE]"I appreciate your general demeanor in debate but find it somewhat unusual that you don't participate in any debates except for those on evolution. I also don't recall you having cited scripture in these debates."

As to the second part, for this particular topic, it is my opinion that the actual mechanics of creation are not detailed in the Bible. My opinion is the the creation account is meant to establish facts that lay the foundation for everything else. God as Creator of all. Man as being in the image of God spiritually, with a soul. Man as sinful and in need of a redeemer. Even setting the stage where only perfect God, as Son, is able to be that redeemer. Since I don't think that the Bible addresses evolution any more than it adresses string theory, I am not sure what scripture I would quote to support either theory. IMHO, neither are addressed.

As to the first part...

I used to be more involved in other topics. Much of that has waned although I will chime in occasionally. Some of it has to do with the simple fact that there are so many knowledeable folks around here. I read a lot of other threads, but usually someone has already said something close to my opinion and said it better than I could. So I lurk.

This particular topic is quite interesting to me. Some of it deals with how I gave up on YE. The kinds of things that I see as misrepresenting the case, such as quote mining, was what drove me to examine a wider range of possibilities than YE to begin with. I was content being YE. But when I started reading YE material, I quickly became convinced that they would not have to stoop to such tactics if they had the truth on their side. So I examined other ideas. I was more of an OEer for a while before becoming TE.

This is also another matter. While I am interested in this topic, it can be very divisive. So I chose not to talk about it much in the real world. Few people that I interact with daily have any clue of my opinions. So this becomes somewhat of an outlet for the topic. If you join the discussion, then you have made a consciencious choice to be here. I even try and warn people off sometimes if it appears that they might have trouble dealing with the issue.

"So, I am interested in your answer. Can you build a proper sotierology and respect for NT scriptures from the theory of origins you espouse? Is your idea that man somehow received a soul after billions of years of evolution anything more than a very shaky bridge?"

I don't personally feel that I have to stray from NT scriptures. I have even expressed unease at straying from literal readings of OT material. I have honestly admitted that I don't know how it all fits together. And I have had to decide that I am OK with that. We often hear people exclaim that they don't understand everything now and likely will not until they get to heaven. Why should this be any different?

"Will you do the same for scripture? Where is scriptue valid? When is it invalid? What is the rule that we are to use to determine which supernatural claims are true and which are myth/allegory?"

Scripture is always valid. Man is always fallible.

I am not exalting the opinion of man as much as I am simply looking for the truth in what I see.

The situation is such that evolution is the truth on origins. It is the way things happen and happened. God's word is also the Truth. There is no allowance in my mind for picking between them. There must be a way to reconcile the two. YOu would have me choose between two things that in my mind must both be right.

I don't know how you would react if placed in the same situation. Would you, too, find a way to reconcile them as best you could? Would you give up your faith? I hope not. And I hope that those with doubts can see that you do not have to give up your beliefs if they find themselves in the same spot.

"I personally have no more difficulty believing that God spoke the world into existence in 6 days than believing that He raised a truly dead man after three days and at various times defied the laws of nature. Why do you?"

I don't. But His creation reveals that while He could have done so, that He did not do so.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"So, I am interested in your answer. Can you build a proper sotierology and respect for NT scriptures from the theory of origins you espouse? Is your idea that man somehow received a soul after billions of years of evolution anything more than a very shaky bridge?"

I don't personally feel that I have to stray from NT scriptures.

Really? Even the male and female created He them part? Even Peter's citation of a literal worldwide flood to compare to the coming destruction of the earth by fire in 2 Peter? There are other examples that have a direct bearing on this issue and whether Genesis 1-11 should be take literally or not.

That's why I have repeatedly challenged TE's to cite scripture that suggests that Genesis 1-11 is anything but a narrative.

I have even expressed unease at straying from literal readings of OT material.

That's interesting. My "unease" leads me to believe that whether the right answer within the framework of biblicaly creation has been found... there is one. You on the other hand have overcome this "unease" due apparently in part to the failings of creationists... whether those failings are real or simply your opinion.

I have honestly admitted that I don't know how it all fits together.

But you have professed to know that however it fits together... it involves macroevolution being the standard of "truth" that scripture must be bent around.

We often hear people exclaim that they don't understand everything now and likely will not until they get to heaven. Why should this be any different?

In part because the things you dispute aren't things that God remained silent about.

God said that He actively created the world... naturalism's macroevolution says He didn't.

"Will you do the same for scripture? Where is scriptue valid? When is it invalid? What is the rule that we are to use to determine which supernatural claims are true and which are myth/allegory?"

Scripture is always valid. Man is always fallible.

Then why when it comes to origins do you believe the opinions of men operating under the presuppositions of philosophical naturalism rather than scripture that establishes as philosophical supernaturalism as "fact"- and names the supernatural Ruler and Creator of the universe?

I truly believe that after what you said you went through in moving from YE to TE that you should be willing to deal with the philosophical premises of these views on origins.

I am not exalting the opinion of man as much as I am simply looking for the truth in what I see.

I disagree. When God takes credit for doing something and gives us a timeframe... you can only call it exalting man when you reference man's theories as truth over against what God said.

The situation is such that evolution is the truth on origins.

That is ultimately a metaphysical, not a scientific, conclusion. It is based on the premise no intelligent power participated in the creation of nature. And THAT... is not a scientific position.

It is the way things happen and happened.

Microevolution? Yes. Macroevolution? Not proven by any stretch.

God's word is also the Truth. There is no allowance in my mind for picking between them. There must be a way to reconcile the two.

So you bend scripture to bow down in front of a theory of man... a theory by the way that answers the question of creation with, "God didn't do it".

YOu would have me choose between two things that in my mind must both be right.

No. I would have you understand that the philosophies underlying the scriptures and evolution are mutually exclusive. Naturalism says that the spiritual either doesn't exist or doesn't matter with regard to the natural world. It says that only what is material is "real". That's why you see academic efforts to explain emotion, morality, and various other things via evolution.

Supernaturalism accepts that the spiritual and physical are intertwined. That the material, natural world is ultimately dependent on the spiritual for its existence and continuance.

Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
1:17
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

This is clearly the scriptural assumption that should be made before considering origins.

The third philosophy is spiritualism... and while alien to the western paradigm, it is no more invalid than naturalism. It simply assumes that nothing in the natural world is real- which like naturalism denies scriptural truth.

I don't know how you would react if placed in the same situation. Would you, too, find a way to reconcile them as best you could?

I was. I grew up in a Baptist church but there was virtually no teaching on origins. Two of the SS teachers were also science teachers and could not to this day tell you their positions from anything I heard in school or church.

I was an AP student. I took the advanced science classes where evolution was basically inserted by default. I created all sorts of ways in my mind that both could be true.

It was only when I kept asking why and reached evolution's philosophical underpinning did my opposition to it harden.

Would you give up your faith? I hope not.

No. I would demand that any view on origins conform to the scriptures upon which my faith is founded and from which my God and Savior is declared.

And I hope that those with doubts can see that you do not have to give up your beliefs if they find themselves in the same spot.

But by your own admission, you did give up beliefs. You stopped believing what the Bible said about origins not because the Bible changed or because you discovered some new truth in its pages but because you felt creationists were often in error or deceptive and were willing to accept the naturalist's answer because it sounded good.

One of the things that bothers me though about your conversion is that evolutionists have been guilty of the exact same things you condemn creationists for. I am not excusing anyone. Just simply pointing out that you seem to have a lower tolerance for one side's transgressions than the other.

"I personally have no more difficulty believing that God spoke the world into existence in 6 days than believing that He raised a truly dead man after three days and at various times defied the laws of nature. Why do you?"

I don't. But His creation reveals that while He could have done so, that He did not do so.

That's the point UTE. His creation does no such thing. That's why evolution's accommodation of the evidence simply isn't good enough if you truly examine it critically.

That's why I find evolution's arguments completely unconvincing when they are ultimately founded on the premise that evolution must be true since it is the only available theory that obeys naturalism.

If you assume a Designer, you can develop legitimate alternate means for explaining the evidence.

I used the example of Stonehenge. It certainly could have been created by extraordinary natural processes. No one believes that it occurred naturally. Virtually everyone believes it was created. It has order. It may even contain information and function.

So why on earth should anyone believe that DNA is the result of natural forces? There is far more order and information in DNA than Stonehenge... but since it relates to origins, evolutionists demand that there must have been a process even though the most "parsimonious" reason for coded information is intelligence.

God put His thumb print on the basic element of life on earth... and naturalists refuse to see it.

Why would you follow people so blinded by a godless philosophy?

 

[JWI]

Excellent points Scott as always.

The Theory of Creation as understood from the Genesis 1 account has never changed. This theory has been from the beginning, before man ever studied origins scientifically.

Even many evolutionist admit that the true scientific evidence supports creationism far better than evolution.

So the theory of creation based on the Bible has never ACCOMODATED the evidence. No, just the opposite, the true evidence supports the Bible naturally.

It is evolution that has evolved many dozens of times. The true evidence does not support the theory. The theory has been modified many times in order to accomodate the true scientific evidence.

God has not changed one word of His creation account. And yet, not one shred of scientific evidence proves it wrong.

But evolution has been challanged by scientific facts many times, and has had to modify itself in a vain attempt to support the evidence.

This is why fantastic theories like Puncuated Equilibrism and the Hopeful Monsters theories have had to be theorized, to TRY to explain the missing transitional fossils. The very theories prove a lack of scientific findings to support evolution. They argue a lack of evidence as evidence. How silly.

Evolutionists do not believe evolution because it fits scientific fact better than creationism. They believe evolution because the theory denies God.

 

[UTEOTW]

Good evening JWI.

I did several more of your quotes. Did you get a chance to read them? They are scattered over the last couple of pages.

You still think quote mining is acceptable?

"The Theory of Creation as understood from the Genesis 1 account has never changed. This theory has been from the beginning, before man ever studied origins scientifically."

Really?

I believe St. Augustine lived well before Darwin.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. 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. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J., 2 vols. (New York: Newman Press, 1982).

 

[UTEOTW]

"It is evolution that has evolved many dozens of times. The true evidence does not support the theory. The theory has been modified many times in order to accomodate the true scientific evidence."

Then I wish someone would get around to presenting that "true scientific evidence." All I have even seen supports evolution.

And of course science changes as we learn more facts. That is the whole point, really. If we knew everything, there would not be a point in doing the research. If we were not willing to change ideas and opinions and go where the evidence leads, then there would be no need to do the work. We could sit aroung never learning, never advancing.

I guess you also think that we should throw out all physics because we have learned that the atom is not the smallest bit into which matter can be divided. And let's not go to the doctor because they keep chaging their minds nad the causes of different diseases and somethimes they even want to use new treatments.

"God has not changed one word of His creation account. And yet, not one shred of scientific evidence proves it wrong."

That's right. There is nothing that proves the Bible wrong. Of course you are also presenting a false dilemma by asserting that it is at odds with evolution.

"Evolutionists do not believe evolution because it fits scientific fact better than creationism. They believe evolution because the theory denies God."

That is an insult to the many Christians who happen to accept evolution. It is also an insult to the hard work that thousands and thousands of scientists have invested through the years. Roughly half of scientists in this country are creationist, mostly theistic evolution, and you insult them with your baseless charge that they are out to "deny God."

 

[UTEOTW]

"This is why fantastic theories like Puncuated Equilibrism and the Hopeful Monsters theories have had to be theorized, to TRY to explain the missing transitional fossils. The very theories prove a lack of scientific findings to support evolution. They argue a lack of evidence as evidence. How silly. "

Yes, please tell me where anyone today advances hopeful monsters.

What is really silly is that you keep posting that PE is based on a lack of evidence and ignore repeated post showing the actual evidence on which it is based. Could you at least address the evidence that refutes your position once before you make the assertion again?

Here is my most recent post. Again. [SIGH]

This deserves a response.

You continue to falsely assert that PE is based on a lack of evidence and you refuse to address that material presented that shows that just the opposite is true.

Perhaps you could use the paper which introduced the world to PE to make your point.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf

Or, maybe you respond to this from the last time you made these claims.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3200/8.html#000119

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You are reading something into the page which is not there. Could you please tell just where in that little phrase you get the idea that it is suggesting that "transitions between major catagories of organisms" are missing?

You will not be able to because it is not there.

But since when did Wikipedia become THE authority? Let's look at what some other references have to say.

How about no less an authority than Gould himself?

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species—more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years.

We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

So, if you are correctly representing PE, why is it that the originator of the idea says that transitions are abundant in the fossil record?

So, if you are correctly representing PE, why is it that the originator of the idea says that the theory explains actual trends in the actual fossil record and is not based on a lack of evidence as you keep falsely asserting?

[Also notice that little hyperlink thingy. I gave you a quote and a link where can go read the whole thing although it is unlikely that anyone would think that I am misrepresenting Gould.]

As to your claim that PE has anything to do with transitions at higher levels, I'll again let the originators speak.

PE is a model for discontinuous tempos of change at one biological level only: the process of speciation and the deployment of species in geological time.

Gould and Eldredge. (1977) "PE: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology 3:115.

One more for you.

Because they feel that PE was concocted to "explain away" a purported lack of transitional fossils, some critics have maintained that Eldredge and Gould based their theory of PE on negative evidence. This is a strange argument, however, since the paper where they first proposed PE was completely based on two independent paleontological studies (on pulmonate gastropods and on Phacopsid trilobites), which they described in detail with extremely good temporal resolution. Using positive evidence, these studies showed stasis and rapid evolution that supports the PE model. Furthermore, Gould and Eldredge's second PE paper also extensively analyzed well-resolved paleontological evidence in support of their hypothesis.

That said, PE indeed was hypothesized to explain paleontological discontinuities, but specifically discontinuities between species only, not major taxa. Even young earth creationists hold that "microevolutionary" processes result in new species from closely related species, like the various gastropods, trilobites, and equids considered in the two PE papers.

http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html

Did you get that? The theory is based on evidence, not a lack of evidence.</font>

 

[UTEOTW]

"This is why fantastic theories like Puncuated Equilibrism and the Hopeful Monsters theories have had to be theorized, to TRY to explain the missing transitional fossils. The very theories prove a lack of scientific findings to support evolution. They argue a lack of evidence as evidence. How silly"

Or since you like quotes so much, perhaps we could use some of the quotes that have been dug up recently while refuting your quote mining. You did introduce these guys to us yourself. I assume that this means that you value their opinions.

Contrary to Creationist claims, the transitions among vertebrate species are almost all documented to a greater or lesser extent. Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds; the therapsids provide an abundance of evidence for the transition from reptiles to mammals. Moreover, there are exquisite fossil links between the crossopterygian fishes and the amphibians (the icthyostegids). Of course, many other ancestor-descendent series also exist in the fossil record. I have mentioned (Chapter 4) the bactritid-ammonoid transition, the derivation of several mammalian orders from condylarthlike mammals, the evolution of horses, and of course the hominids.

The creationist argument that if evolution were true we should have an abundance of intermediate fossils is built by denying the richness of paleontological collections, by denying the transitional series that exist, and by distorting, or misunderstanding, the genetical theory of evolution.

But the use of quotations is not an appropriate way to decide scientific issues, and if one examines the fossil record objectively, there is no doubt that intermediate taxa - mosaics of primitive and derived characters - exist for many major groups.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else.

Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing.

Certainly, Archaeopteryx is a transitional form from reptile to bird, but the question is: what type of reptile?" ... The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution...

 

[JWI]

UTEOTW

First, I think it is fine that you quote St. Augustine. I am not afraid of his opinions whatsoever.

However, I do not see Augustine mentioning science in any way. It is just a blanket statement saying that many Christians are ignorant of science. Might have been more helpful if he named specifics.

On the other hand, many of the quotes I have given by evolutionists have stated specific problems with the theory. Many have said there is no clear cut transitional fossil record that can withstand serious scrutiny.

I know you get tired of me bringing up Punk Eek, but it is a theory that accomodates the true fossil record. It attempts to explain the real "gaps" that many evolutionists openly admit. Gaps is a misleading term. Gaps really translate into NO EVIDENCE.

You say I don't understand Punk Eek. You are wrong. I understand it easily. It says that evolution speeds up dramatically at times. During these fast periods of evolution, there is not enough time to leave a fossil record of the transitional fossils. And so "gaps" should be expected.

This is ridiculous and you know it. A lack of evidence is simply that and no more.

And you call this real science?? Baloney.

What you and other evolutionists will not admit is that you really do not have scientific evidence.

Can you imagine a prosecutor in a crime trial arguing that a lack of evidence is proof that the defendent is guilty??

"The defendent is smart. He covered up his crime and got rid of all the evidence. So a lack of any evidence is proof that the defendent committed the crime."

That is absolutely asinine. But that is exactly what the theory of Punk Eek claims as proof.

Now evolutionists can conveniently claim that fossils that show a huge gap are related. There is no longer a need to show a smooth, gradual transition as evolution once argued should exist.

And as I've said a dozen times, the very fact that these very theories exist PROVE that true transitional fossils do not exist.

But you will not admit the obvious.

You argue endlessly that similarity means relation. Now, that could be true. But it is not necessarily true. It might mean nothing at all.

And creationists have argued similarity argues for a single designer. This is just as valid a claim as evolutionists.

The truth is, no-one knows what similarity means. And so it is not evidence for either side.

But I can admit that. You can't. But it is not scientific.

The creation account in Genesis 1 has not changed one word. It was around well before science studied origins. So it cannot possibly accomodate the evidence because it was before the evidence and has not changed.

Not once has the Bible account had to modify or change. It fits the real fossil record quite naturally. It is evolution that has had to come up with ridiculous theories to accomodate fact.

And this alone violates Occam's Razor which says the simplest explanation should be accepted.

It is clear that no-one can talk to you. You blindly accept "science" over God's Word, even though science has been wrong hundreds of times.

God's Word has never been shown to be wrong. And many great and notable people have tried to show so.

Genesis says God created all life within the six day creation. The only creature God mentions as being taken from another is Eve taken from Adam's rib. Adam was taken from the dust. The Bible specifically says so. This is not a matter of Christians mistranslating the Bible. I find that to be a very dishonest claim. You know that is not the case.

Go verse by verse through Genesis 1 and explain what God really means if we have mistranslated it.

Enlighten us.

 

[UTEOTW]

"First, I think it is fine that you quote St. Augustine. I am not afraid of his opinions whatsoever.

However, I do not see Augustine mentioning science in any way. It is just a blanket statement saying that many Christians are ignorant of science. Might have been more helpful if he named specifics."

From what I understand of the Augustine work which I cited, he stresses that his interpretation of Genesis IS literal but it is still a different interpretation than what you and the other YEers come up with. The six days of creation are not physical days but instead have a spiritural meaning. Here is an article on Augustine's views from which I pulled the translation of his quote.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html

"On the other hand, many of the quotes I have given by evolutionists have stated specific problems with the theory. Many have said there is no clear cut transitional fossil record that can withstand serious scrutiny. "

Please look at the last few pages and even through the other threads in which we have both participated. What you are calling "problems" in your quote mines tend to go away when the quote is examined in context.

If you think you have a great quote and can provide a link to where the original can be read in context, please supply it.

But if you will look at the post before your last post, you will see quite a few quotes pulled directly from the materials you have mined that strongly contradict your assertions about them.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3217/18.html#000257

"I know you get tired of me bringing up Punk Eek, but it is a theory that accomodates the true fossil record. It attempts to explain the real "gaps" that many evolutionists openly admit. Gaps is a misleading term. Gaps really translate into NO EVIDENCE. "

COULD YOU PLEASE, ONCE, BEFORE YOU REPEAT THIS FALSE ASSERTION AGAIN MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH THE MATERIAL WHICH HAS NOW BEEN MOVED TO THE TOP OF THIS PAGE WHERE IT IS SHOWN THAT PE IS BASED ON OBSERVED TRENDS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3217/18.html#000256

"You argue endlessly that similarity means relation. Now, that could be true. But it is not necessarily true. It might mean nothing at all.

And creationists have argued similarity argues for a single designer. This is just as valid a claim as evolutionists. "

You sell my position very short if you think it is mere similarities that lead to the conclusion of common descent. It is the very details of the patterns of similarity. For example, from the last page, could you please explain just how a common designer leads you to a better explanation of the pattern of shared retroviral inserts between the species?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3217/16.html#000235