“This is why the theory of evolution is such a big issue — the theory of evolution is a jurisdictional claim that the devil is making. If we were not created in the image of God, then this means that we have no jurisdictional appeal beyond Caesar. If there is no God above Caesar, then Caesar is God. If there is a God in Heaven, and He has placed His image on us, then this absolutely requires the biblical concept of limited government” (Rules, pp. 132-133).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
Since when is evolution incompatible with being made in the image of God? Just because our simian ancestors (and their reptilian ancestors) weren’t made in the image of God doesn’t mean God can’t decide to stamp his image on a particular species at any stage of the process. Maybe all the other species that came before were a build-up to humans.
In The Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the first leader of the apes is named Caesar.
Guys, you’re reading more into my comment than what was actually there. I’m a Darwinian who doesn’t believe in young earth creationism, so for me, this entire conversation is little more than a thought experiment. The original post claims that evolution is incompatible with being made in the image of God, and it’s that limited point to which I was responding. Whatever evidence may or may not exist for either creationism or evolution, or both, there is no reason that evolution and being made in the image of God must necessarily be incompatible. In fact, many scientists who are Christians… Read more »
Of course, in evolutionism we find that evolutionism and creationism don’t have to be incompatible either. This is because, in evolutionism, anything can change into anything else. There is no genetic wall between evolutionism and creationism that gradualistic mutations can’t climb. Right?
Given enough time, evolution theory will evolve to become indistinguishable from creationism. Evolution is what brought us creationism in the first place, right? The evolutionists can’t say that their theory is immune from the forces of evolution, can they? Is the theory sacred, fixed in stone, or is it subject to micro-revision, leading inevitably to macro-revision. Uh oh.
Katecho, it would be very easy to get scientists to accept creationism. All you have to do is come up with evidence for it. You got any? And no, tossing rocks at evolution is not positive evidence for creationism.
The evidence is all around you. Life, in all its amazing complexity, exists.
Prehistory is impossible to test by experiment, so your version of prehistory is no more scientifically valid than mine.
Well, the complexity argument has pretty thoroughly been debunked, and ten minutes on google will give you all the information you need about it, so I’m not going to write a dissertation about it here. “Your version is no more scientifically valid than mine” isn’t positive proof for creationism either, even if it were true, which it isn’t. Evolution is an ongoing process that is observable today. But the real problem with your position is that there’s a whole long list of scientific disciplines — pathology, genetics, biochemistry, immunology, just to name a few — that act precisely as they… Read more »
“There’s an awful lot of science that shouldn’t work if evolution is false.”
…such as..?
I was a project manager for a major microchip company that developed a method of using bacteria as a semi-conductor — rather than spend millions of dollars trying to get rid of them, let’s make use of them instead. And the fact that the bacteria were constantly evolving had to be factored in, otherwise our results would only have been good for so many generations of the bacteria.
That sounds really cool, but is that the type of evolution that creationists have a problem with?
If creationists understood their own arguments, then yes, they would have major problems with it. Since macro evolution is nothing more than the cumulative effect of millions of micro-evolutionary events, once micro-evolution is conceded, macro evolution necessarily follows. The only way to preserve creationism is by not allowing any changes at all. (Besides which, when God created the world he pronounced it good; why is there need for any change at all to what was good? Is evolution — micro or macro — the result of the Fall? Gimme a break.) A similar problem with creationism is parasites that are… Read more »
…but did they become something other than bacteria??
I wonder how physics could work if we accept that the speed of light has not been constant over time (as in the Distant Starlight problem). How would genetics work if we have to posit two types of DNA–that which mutates and that which cannot? If evolution is false, how could scientists use fossils to predict oil field locations?
Isn’t the observable evidence all of the micro variety of evolution? If so I will point out that micro does not prove or necessitate macro.
No. There are new species that did not exist not all that long ago. It’s true that you don’t get to watch a cow turn into a passenger pigeon before your very eyes, but I took an advanced microbiology course in which, over two semesters, we did watch the evolution of a new species of bacteria. Over a period of several decades scientists have observed new species of birds emerge. It’s all there on google if you want to check it out. And enough micro changes do indeed eventually become macro. If you take an organism, make a thousand micro… Read more »
There is a difference between saying something has been debunked and and actually debunking it. The Intelligent Design crowd is prospering while Darwinian TENS is being discarded. To repeat David’s point from the “Evolution and Age” post: I cannot tell if you (EtR) are unclear of the point the people on Doug’s blog are making, or if there is some deeper confusion that is effecting your thinking, but if the argument you are making is that cross hybridization as speciation is an argument for the diversity of species across phyla, then no, that is a fallacious argument. What we do… Read more »
But that wasn’t my argument. Cross-hybridization is not speciation, and I never claimed it was. And if you spent half the time reading about the debunking of the complexity argument as you do tracking down my previous comments in earlier posts, you would see that complexity has indeed been debunked; if you are familiar enough with search engines to find something I said months ago, you should be able to run “complexity” through google. Cross-hybridization is when you interbreed two species that already exist and get something new. Speciation is when something new emerges from a single species that already… Read more »
And if you spent half the time reading about the debunking of the complexity argument as you do tracking down my previous comments in earlier posts, you would see that complexity has indeed been debunked; It took me 2 minutes to find that thread and your argument. You bailed when it got interesting and at the time, I made a mental note of you not addressing Dave’s* point. Yes, I have read the ‘debunking’ of I.D. and Dembski has admited his mousetrap example was flawed (and the debunker debunked with the caveat that his debunking had some subtlety too it.… Read more »
The absence of definitions bites again.
Dembski put forth a hypothesis named “irreducible complexity” and used a mousetrap as an example of it. This example was debunked (Dembski admits as much). However the issue is distinct from….
Intelligent Design: The hypothesis (theory?) that when we see things as complex (irreducably complex?) as the interior of a cell we are ‘correct’ to infer it was designed by an intelligence (my definition, there probably are better ones..
Timothy, do you think evolutionary biologists have never been confronted with the question of how did the eye evolve, or how did cells evolve? You really think that has never occurred to them?
Try googling “how cells evolved” and you’ll find that not only has the question already been asked, but it’s also been answered with no need for an intelligent designer. Or “how the eye evolved.”
And I don’t remember why I left the earlier discussion, but it had nothing to do with fear that I couldn’t defend my position. I’ve had these conversations before.
David or gfkdzdds
Googling The “latest” on eye evolution appears to be the continuing saga of Nillson’s work that Berlinski eviscerated back in the early 2000’s according to
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/scientific_american_makes_bold047651.html
Are you aware of anything ground-breaking since then?
thx.
It must be noted however that flycatchers are still flycatchers, and warblers are still warblers, as far as I know neither these nor any other have become hawks or sparrows, nor have they become, and I think this most notable,anything other than a bird.
DNA evidence is to the contrary. DNA records allow us to tell when different species diverged. For a warbler to become a hawk (assuming that was the path that was followed) takes a lot longer than any single human is going to be around to observe it, so of course you’ve never seen a warbler become a hawk. You’ve never seen the complete life cycle of a star either, for the same reason — you’re not going to live long enough. But DNA records confirm not just that species do diverge from one another, but also provide a pretty good… Read more »
I am sorry did you just say that warblers stop being warblers and become something else, and that you can confirm this empirically?
No. I said that species diverged, which means some remained warblers but some mutated to something else. And yes, that can be confirmed by DNA evidence.
The only examples of such evidence that I find, seem to require a presupposition that the species in question (pick your 2 favorite) derive from common ancestry.
I was looking for something a bit more compelling. Can you help me out here?
Let me know when prehistory is subject to experiment.
It isn’t, so the rest is just argle fargle. It’s like that brand of spam emails that goes on about how great various real products are, and therefore so is ours!
I’m eager to hear about your multiple trials lasting millions of years, with many primordial Earths (of course, even if you could synthesize a primordial Earth, how would you know what it should be like? Well, let’s not let assuming what we are trying to prove stand in the way of anything ).
So multiple trials lasting millions of years is the only way to show that evolution happened? That’s funny.
“Argument from derision” doesn’t work here. We don’t care about your derision.
You are using the word “evolution” to mean more than one thing.
Yes, to scientifically establish that all life on Earth developed from evolutionary processes, you would need actual experiments showing the same. Since they can’t be done, you can’t do it.
To establish what even ancient Israeli sheepherders must have known, that selecting certain characteristics for survival and reproduction result in movement towards more of the same within a population, you can of course use experiments.
They are two different things.
There are two separate issues here: Did life arise from evolutionary processes without the need for divine intervention, and is evolution continuing to happen now. The second question is easy: Yes. It is, and we observe it.
The first is resolved the same way any other historical inquiry is resolved: By looking at the available evidence, all of which points to life having arisen by evolutionary processes. I can’t do an actual experiment replicating that there ever were ancient Israeli sheepherders, so by your own standard I guess those didn’t exist either.
A historical inquiry into prehistory. And I’m the risible one?
Who said anything about prehistory?
if evolution is true.
Define evolution, please.
Here are 6 itemized definitions (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/the_eight_meanings_of_evolutio050011.html)
Which one are you using?
I tried clicking on your link and got an internal server error. Not having seen the six definitions, I will tell you that evolution, as with many other words, has multiple definitions depending on context. For purposes of this discussion, I’m defining it as the emergence of a new species.
The “)” at the end blew it up. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/the_eight_meanings_of_evolutio050011.html should work. From the link: “1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature. 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population. 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. “Blind watchmaker”… Read more »
For purposes of this discussion, I am defining evolution as the emergence of new species by natural selection with no need for supernatural intervention.
One other important definition that is key to this discussion is your definition of species. If you define it rather narrowly, with the difference between beak lengths differentiating finch species, then we are discussing micro-evolution. If you define species more broadly, where not only variations of previous structures, but entirely new ones (not degenerations of old ones) occur, then we are discussing macro-evolution, which is falsely inferred to be a sum of micro-evolutionary events. Such a progression is manifestly impossible. It is impossible because generating new information to make these new structures doesn’t happen without a guiding intelligence, as in… Read more »
“Mutation never produces improved information” is simply wrong.
It may be useful to provide a documented example (other than the trivial reversion of a previous mutation).
Thank you for the definition.
Again, my sole point is that image bearing and evolution don’t have to be incompatible
Alright, given what evolution is defined to be…how does one tell when one’s form counts as “bearing the image of God”? And, if one can tell when a form counts as an image-bearer, what happens when that form goes extinct or evolves into another form?
To the Administrator.
This thread is a good example of why comment depth needs to be increased (if possible).
thx
Yes, most mutations are harmful, and organisms with them quickly die off so you don’t see them. To a casual observer, evolution appears to be an unbroken line of success only because the multitude of failures didn’t survive to pass along their genes. Helpful mutations, however, do survive. If all mutations survived, you would very quickly see just how blind that watchmaker really is.
Great reply gfkdzdds, and this PhD in science agrees: Christ is the answer. I also want to make it as clear as possible to everyone, Eric the Red included, that he is arguing using 19th and 20th century arguments. Biology is the fastest advancing scientific discipline right now. Eric is ignoring (or ignorant of) the new science and attempting to make a big deal about how a bacteria he used to work with “evolved into a new species.” Actually, all that happened was that it adapted into at most a subspecies that will still reproduce with similar bacteria through conjugation.… Read more »
David, same question I posed to Timothy: Do you think it has never occurred to evolutionary biologists to ask how evolution can account for one cell becoming 250 different cell types? It has, and that question has been answered. Since you’re a PhD, you know that the answer is far too complicated to put in a comment here, but the information is out there for anyone who wants to look. And your incredulity is not a scientific argument.
“your incredulity is not a scientific argument.” Neither is your misdirection and your attempt to disqualify a practicing scientist. ” Do you think it has never occurred to evolutionary biologists how evolution can account for one cell becoming 250 different cell types? It has, and that question has been answered.” Sure they have, its what they do. Your assertion that it has been answered is demonstrably false: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/05/the_deeper_issu095891.html Let’s go to Eric’s ‘argument’ technique here (excuse me while I adopt the ‘katecho’ voice). Eric never makes an argument; Eric asserts and disqualifies any opposing assertion based on his assertions. When… Read more »
Easy issue first, your eye-is-more-complicated-than-a-worm argument is an example of undistributed middle. No need for any science at all; a rudimentary understanding of logic will suffice.
I’m not disqualifying David from anything. I’m sure his credentials are impeccable and he’s very good at what he does. I’m merely pointing out the flaws in his argument. And, for your second logical fallacy of the day, you’re now arguing from authority.
You are pointing out the flaws in David’s argument with:
“
1. You think scientists haven’t considered this?
2. Its out there on the internet.
”
Brilliant, Eric. Simply brilliant.
Timothy, the practical problem is that I would have to write a thousand word dissertation to do justice to how the eye evolved or how cells evolved. I don’t have time, nobody here is likely to read it anyway, and anyone with access to google can find it on the net for themselves. Not only has it been done; it’s been done by people with far better credentials and writing skills than I have. I assume you know how to use a search engine. Google “how the eye evolved” and you’ll find plenty. If you really are that helpless, let… Read more »
Timothy, the practical problem is that I would have to write a thousand
word dissertation to do justice to how the eye evolved or how cells
evolved. I don’t have time,
“
1. I cannot
2. It out there on the Internet.
Now about the logic of revisiting the debate over the evolution of the eye.
That little thing in the parenthesis that read:“(possibly flawed)”
was a subtle clue that you missed stating that I understood my premises where perhaps incorrect.
David, the other issue, let’s be honest, is that within your paradigm evolution can’t have happened, Genesis is simply dispositive. Most scientists would probably be willing to take a look at creationism if there were positive evidence for it, bit as of now there really isn’t any. You on the other hand start from the proposition that evolution isn’t possible and that’s that.
David and gfkdzdds
You are both a blessing from God and we need your expertise here.
Evolution, and evolutionary psychology, are two different things. I don’t much buy evolutionary psychology either.
Why balk at evo psych?
Because it’s mostly culturally biased “just so” stories with no real evidence to back it up.
Evolutionary psychology has some surface plausibility, but it doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. If you want to argue that certain types of behavior make it more likely that you’ll survive long enough to pass along your genes, fine, but there’s a whole wealth of different cultures out there that do things differently and still get good results that it’s really hard to make the case that any one behavior is hard wired.
I’m not sure how much study you’ve given the field but some of the science is quite robust.
There are some scientists that I respect, like Steven Pinker, who do believe in EP, but I’ve never found it persuasive. Plus I think it gets used to justify an awful lot of bad behavior. Fraternity boys get drunk and rape women because it’s in their EP. That sort of thing.
I haven’t seen such a claim. I can see where the study of inborn differences in human behavior could get in the way of all sorts of political ax-grinding.
For purposes of this discussion, I am defining evolution as the
emergence of new species by natural selection with no need for
supernatural intervention.
Well I am a creationist, but with that definition I am an evolutionist too.
Perhaps you want a definition that is a little more discriminatory?
Hi bethyada, I am convinced that a Blog Mablog FAQ for this topic would be a great benefit towards clarity. We just spent X comments defining a term so that we so we could deal with the propositions when the time could be more productively used. To my mind, there are 3 pungent issues, each with its own definitions, that get tangled up in these threads. 1. The origin of life. ->1.a And God created them… ->1.b abiogenesis: the problem of life ‘happening’ in a purely materialistic universe. 2. The age (and origin) of the Universe. ->2.a YEC ->2.b OEC… Read more »
gfkdzdds, a little off topic, but why is the idea that the earth is not old something you struggle with? I ask in the assumption that you think it is at least possible but there are issues that you note and think important or insurmountable. If you think the position nonsensical or preposterous we don’t have to go there at the moment.
Back to the resident materialist’s attempted take-down of the YEC p.o.v, we have managed (after much tooth-pulling) to get the beginning of an actual argument from Eric (as a proxy for materialists). To wit: …. Just because our simian ancestors (and their reptilian ancestors) weren’t made in the image of God doesn’t mean God can’t decide to stamp his image on a particular species at any stage of the process. Maybe all the other species that came before were a build-up to humans. And…. For purposes of this discussion, I am defining evolution as the emergence of new species by… Read more »
First, my intent was not to persuade. My intent was to point out that the original point of this thread — that evolution and image bearing are incompatible — is not necessarily true. You don’t have to believe evolution to recognize that Doug’s original argument is a false alternative. Second, it’s rather rich that you refer to “counter voices from science” when in fact scientists are near-unanimous that evolution is true. David may well be a competent scientist, but on this issue his views are an outlier. So I really don’t think that appeals to authority are the argument you… Read more »
Eric the Red seemed to acknowledge the existence of different definitions of the word “evolution” cited earlier in this thread. Eric has stated his own definition, having to do with mere speciation in nature. (A specious definition, if I do say so.) Now Eric seems to have self-servingly assumed that this was the definition that Doug was using. Eric quickly observed that speciation is not incompatible with man bearing God’s image. Therefore Eric hastily pronounces Wilson to be offering us a false alternative. Meanwhile, the rest of us read Doug’s use of the word evolution the way Doug intended it,… Read more »
Hey, thanks for the vote of confidence regarding my scientific competence, Eric! The title of this post is “Evolution as Power Move”, and it’s not so much about appeals to authority as it is about who do we as individuals ultimately trust as authority. Do we trust God and His word regarding history, or do we trust the supposedly “near unanimous” voices of scientists? And, let’s make this clear, this is ultimately an argument about historic things, not scientific things. Eric keeps saying untrue stuff like “creationists have no evidence.” Folks, there is no set of “secret evidence” that creationists… Read more »