Genesis is generally referred to as being defined as "beginning", "beginnings" or more rarely "coming into being".
And right in the first verse of the first book, both chronologically and in location within the collection of books known collectively as "the Bible" it makes an explicit, controversial claim.
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
The first couple of chapters present the Creation twice; first a broad overview, then a retelling highlighting the key event.
These chapters are at the heart of why the debate over phrases such as "evolution", "intelligent design", "theistic evolution" exists, should exist, and must exist.
I would reference II Timothy 3:16 for one reason; when it says "ALL Scripture is inspired by God" it comes from the Greek word Theopneustos" which literally means God-breathed.
Genesis being part of Holy Scripture*, if the account of how the world was created is false, then all of Scripture can safely be discarded and, indeed, per its own claims, SHOULD be discarded. (I Corinthians 15:19)
Thus the truth or falsehood of the claim that God created the heavens and the earth, and did so in the manner prescribed, is fundamental to accepting or rejecting the other words found within the Holy Writ.
Of course, there is a major problem with the issue. Specifically, if the Bible is accurate, then there were three beings present at creation; God, the Spirit of God (verses 1-3) and the one who would later be known as Jesus (John 1:1).
The nature of these three as three separate yet one is an issue unresolved by man for centuries and unlikely to be resolved prior to judgment when God may choose to reveal this mystery.
Be that as it may, there were no human witnesses until Adam and subsequently Eve were created.
The same, of course, holds true for the other major hypothesis of how the earth came into being, that is evolution. The idea that life started 'somehow" and through a variety of mutations became other sorts of life eventually resulting in humans is a brief description that hardly gets into the depths of the hypothesis...
Then again, it is all but impossible to describe accurately what evolutionary hypothesis is since it is in a constant state of flux. Earth age fluctuates wildly, with 4.55 billion years or so being one common number, another being a few hundred million years either way from about 13.7 billion years.
This is an important distinction since the widely differing quantities of time result in very different ideas of when, how, and through what steps the process was accomplished.
It is not out of a desire to be unfair to one point of view that I cannot formulate the latest idea; it is because there is no general consensus on how it happened, simply an oft-cited "widely held view" that it did.
So what we have are two different ideas of where the world came from which result in two very different views of the meaning of life.
Of course, saying two views is a broad oversimplification of the situation. Even within those who claim to believe in God there are shades of grey in how they interpret Genesis.
Theistic evolutionists, terrified of appearing the fool, hedge their bets by calling the very book they claim to believe a liar, positing millions of years between each "day" of Creation.
One reason for this is the very idea that the earth is several billions of years old.
There is indeed one passage in Genesis that presents the possibility of a great deal of time passing, depending on your reading of verses one and two.
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light; and there was light."
And by the end of verse 5, it explicitly states, "And the evening and the morning were the first day."
It can certainly be one possible understanding of this that time did not begin for a period of...well, for lack of a better word, time for years, centuries, millenniums, or even epochs before God created light.
Chapter 2, verse one thru three seem to indicate otherwise, seeming to quite clearly state the work was accomplished within 7 days.
This is troubling for people who take at face value the idea that the earth is billions of years old.
I find it troubling that people are troubled by this.
If indeed there is a God of such power, vision, and will that could and did create the heavens, earth, and everything living within the earth, then certainly He has the power to create it with all the attributes of an earth of great age; mineral deposits for the use of people could be created, for example.
At the same time, whether there was a period of time between verse 2 and 3 of chapter one or not, the Bible unequivocally makes a claim that tears apart the root of evolution.
"...And the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind...", "...And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind..." (verses 11-12), "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and God saw that it was good." (25)
So a couple of very important points here.
1) Each thing listed produced "after his kind". Change between species...a fish becoming a bird, a monkey becoming a man, a tree becoming a fish...these controvert the "God-breathed" scripture. One or the other can be true...but not both.
2) If God created imperfect, unfinished beings, he would not have then declared it to be good, nor rested from the"work which He had made" since it was unfinished.
There is one other very important point to make from the Scriptural account of the beginning of life. It is a very unpopular point with people, but if there is a God, His statement supersedes the desires of "enlightened" people.
Animals were created after their kind. Plants were created after their kind.
Man is created in the image of God (vs. 26-27).
Man is created in a different manner. He is explicitly given dominion over animals. This is not to advocate animal cruelty, but it is an indictment of the "animal rights" movement which puts animals on the level of humanity.
They are not. They are not designed to be equal, to have equal importance or equal roles.
There is one further dispute Genesis has with evolution. Skip ahead a few chapters to chapter 7, when the flood occurs. Inside the ark are 2 of unclean and 7 of clean animals, Noah and his family. Outside the ark is complete, utter destruction. "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died."
Polystrate fossils, inverted strata, the results of the Mt. St. Helens eruption, and other evidences certainly point to the probability that a catastrophic event of a worldwide nature took place.
Those of us who accept the Scripture, where it speaks to history, to be accurate, thus believe those evidences most likely stem from the flood related in these passages.
Since there are genealogies from Adam and Eve and then, other genealogies begun stemming from Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth, it rapidly becomes quite clear that evolution and the Bible are quite incompatible.
If one is true then the other is false. And vice versa.
It is an important debate. If the Biblical account is true then the rules God set forth apply whether we like them or not.
Conversely, if the Biblical account is false then we are free from the moral strictures found therein and able to generate morality based on our own thoughts and wishes.
Suddenly Hitler is evil only to people who disagree with him. Manson should be considered a hero.
The person who declares any other person wrong or evil without adding the phrase "in my opinion" has indicted them self with the deepest shrouds of hypocrisy since right and wrong have no foundation, being merely the result of personal opinion, perhaps influenced by the prevailing wisdom of the day.
Clearly I find it of utmost import to research the truth or falsehood both of Creationism and evolution.
I have spent several weeks doing that once again...it is a practice of mine to research the most recent developments.
Oddly, in Creationism, the most recent developments are repeatedly two-fold:
1) people giving up their faith and trying to harmonize their compromised religious views with the latest bright lights of evolutions
2) people realizing the incompatibility of Scripture with monkeys turning into humans and returning to the Scriptural view.
In proponents of evolution, it is a constant moving target as new research proves the last "next great idea" was fatally flawed.
So they replace it with the theme "there are so many proofs of evolution that we do not need to show any, but we will show why the evidence for the opposing side does not mean what it says."
Ultimately, belief in Creation or belief in evolution puts a person clearly, irrefutably on one side or the other; belief in Scripture or lack thereof.
Those who believe in Scripture would be well served to spend more time following it.
Those who don't...well, it already does not affect them, so they should be really, really sure. The cost if wrong is high.
* The books considered part of Holy Scripture is a fascinating and deep study far too involved for the scope of this piece. For clarity, I consider only Genesis to Malachi and Matthew to Revelation to comprise completely and entirely the true Scriptural canon; 66 books gathered into one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
"Conversely, if the Biblical account is false then we are free from the moral strictures found therein and able to generate morality based on our own thoughts and wishes."
That's been working well for me. I don't believe in the Bible but for some reason I still get great pleasure from being a civilized person and from going out of my way to help other people, especially older people. And I do these things expecting no reward in a magical heaven, so my moral values are real.
I have some minor corrections for you if you don't mind.
You wrote "Then again, it is all but impossible to describe accurately what evolutionary hypothesis is since it is in a constant state of flux. Earth age fluctuates wildly, with 4.55 billion years or so being one common number, another being a few hundred million years either way from about 13.7 billion years."
13.7 billion years is the current estimate for the age of the entire universe. About 4.5 billion years is the estimate for the age of the earth. Notice that our planet is only about one third the age of the rest of the universe.
Evolution is no longer an hypothesis. It was fair to call it that in 1859. In 2011 it's a basic scientific fact.
Evolution has been defined accurately for a long time now. Why don't you use google and look it up.
Your "a constant state of flux" is an interesting choice of words. It's true that there will always be research opportunities in evolutionary biology (and that's a good thing), but the basic facts are settled, including for example the fact that we share an ancestor with chimps.
I may or may not have some more to say about your post, if I find any more misconceptions and if I have the time. Thanks for letting me write this comment here.
I don't want to annoy the heck out of you, so I'm going to at least try to make this my last post.
You talked about "belief in evolution". A biologist would never say that. Basic scientific facts like evolution are not beliefs. It's not necessary to "believe" in evolution or have faith that evolution is true, because evolution has tons of extremely powerful evidence, especially from molecular biology.
You falsely claimed that biologists say "there are so many proofs of evolution that we do not need to show any"
That's crazy because biologists love to talk about the evidence for evolution. They write entire books about it. I suggest, if you're going to be an evolution denier the rest of your life, you should at least try to understand what it is you're denying. There are countless books I could recommend, but if you only have time to read one book about evolution, I would recommend the easy to read and interesting "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne, published in 2009 so the information is current. Jerry Coyne is one of the best biologists in the world and he works at one of the best universities in the world, the University of Chicago. He describes countless different evidences for evolution. Please read it so that you can at least write knowledgeably about the subject.
Thanks again for letting me visit here. Best of luck to you sir.
First off, thank you for your coments. I appreciate anyone stopping bny, particularly those who do not go intead violent, vitriolic rants but instead have things to say.
It is good that you have that mindset, though arguably a contradiction of evolutionary values which tend towards more self-serving goals.
Even setting aside that, the idea that helping other people is good comes from where? What defines that as being good?
as for the age of the earth;
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/earths-magnetic-field-is-35-billion-years-old/
claims that for earth itself as just one of many, many examples which is what I have continued to find. Estimates of earth and/or universe age fluxuate wildly.
As for the definition of evolution, perhaps the best understood one in general terms is that postulated by U of B
It was apparently also a wrestling stable...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS242&defl=en&q=define:evolution&sa=X&ei=rO4jTdnOBo70swOFteGhCg&ved=0CBsQkAE
though that joke might not be as funny as I find it.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml
Regardless, the definition of evolution wherein they discuss one species becoming another has zero proof.
The same holds true for the idea humans and simians have a common ancestor.
I have read many of the discussions involving similarities and percentages and also discussing why the differences matter more than the similarities and I find both stances to have one thing in common (which I admit true in my own case as well); the resulting belief depends on the bias going in. And must.
The basic faxts are far from settled for either side. In fact, many anti-evolutionists have used the words of prominent evolutionists such as Mayr, Gould, Dawkins, and others to demonstrate the holes in the hypothesis
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
It is something that demands research both by proponents and opponents, because the turth or falsehood of how we came to where we are now hads a huge impact on where we should go.
I will check out Coyne, but even the briefest perusal of the subject indeed finds example after example after example of people claiming there are so many proofs of evolution they need demonstrate none of them
perhaps I am using the wrong search terms when doing this research on the internet or it is also possible our local library system does not have the books needed on the subject, but I have found terms such as "proofs for evolution" have poor results.
I am still able to do the majority of my research from pro-evolution sites...a strange phenomenon, perhaps, but I believe the best arguments for it will be found there, not on sites dedicated to refuting it.
whoops. I do need to agree on one thing...that link said 3.5 billion, which I have read 13.5 billion dozens of times. Definitely an error on my part regarding earth age on that point. Sorry about that.
Most people in Europe are baffled by the problems people in the US seem to have with the theory of evolution.
The mechanisms of evolutions fit perfectly into the theories and findings in the scientic fields of microbiology, biochemistry, genetics, geology, plate tectonic, archeology, physics, etc.
So — what’s the special problem with this theory?
Is this antagonism towards a certain scientific theory, which worldwide is regarded as valid as any other scientific theory (like, for example, the theory of electricity or plate tectonics) —just because it is perceived to be in contradiction with a religious text written at the end of the iron age?
The Germans have a saying "Es kann nicht sein, was nicht sein darf" or, loosely translated "Anything not allowed just is not possible".
Is this really the reason to discard a valid theory?
In Europe this reminds us of other, earlier findings in other fields of science like astronomy, which challenged the religiously asserted geocentric model.
No one is in doubt now that science was right then, and no one can now understand the turmoil originated by the theory of heliocentrism.
It is highly likely that the resistance to the theory of evolution will be seen just in this light in some centuries, even in the US.
[I had to split my original comment into two parts because it was too long — sorry about that.]
[Part 2]
Concerning the basis for ethical behavior:
"Conversely, if the Biblical account is false then we are free from the moral strictures found therein and able to generate morality based on our own thoughts and wishes.
Suddenly Hitler is evil only to people who disagree with him. Manson should be considered a hero."
Not really.
Ethical behaviour is manifest in most higher developed species, including humans.
It is an intrinsic trait, which ist rather obvious if one takes a look at the most secular societies.
According to sociologic, psychologic and economic research people living in predominant secular countries –e.g. all Scandinavian countries and Japan– even in the absence of strict civil and criminal laws tend to live in societies with stable welfare systems, highest rate of alphabetization and educational standards, cultural standards, highest rates of income, highest rates of mental health, even the highest rate of contentment in conjunction with lowest criminal rates, lowest rate of corruption, etc. in worldwide comparison.
(Sources: "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" in "Journal of Religion & Society, vol. 7 (2oo5)", Phil Zuckerman’s "Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment" (2008), "Second European Quality of Life Survey" by the "European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions" (2008), et al.)
Welcome ,Rudee. Thanks for stopping by.
Unfortunately, the claim that evolution theories fit these fields has major, glaring holes; the oft-cited discrepancy with the second law of thermodynamics, the way nature tends to destroy the 'different", the way mutations are overwhelmingly harmful, etc.
On top of that, as admitted by even leading evolutionists in a couple of the links I left in my last reply, evolution is still (and, I would contend, always will be) based more on desire and faith than any factual foundation.
Thus the problem with it for those of us who see the harm it does.
on your reference to things such as Galileo, it took 24 years and jealousy from other scientists of the day to turn what was at first accepted into something that led to a trial. Had Bellarmine not feared another Bruno case, it most likely would have gone relatively unchallenged and become accepted for what it is...scientific fact.
What is truly sad is you can still attend nonsensical conferences arguing Galileo was wrong and the catholics right.
Instead, the evils of the Inquisition got involved and later lazy teaching methods turned the events on their head.
The idea that ethical behavior is intrinsic to people has several falws.
First, how does one define ethical?
For thousands of years slavery was considered not only ethical but the natural order of things.
Warfare was considered a glorious endeavor and the mighty warrior of far more value than the greatest artist.
Second, just looking at people shows this is not a valid line of reasoning.
There is a reason things such as "toddlers rules" are considered funny. They reveal a truth that unless and until trained otherwise, children trend towards self-centered and even at times cruel.
Meanwhile, things such as welfare systems are highly debated as to whether they are a good thing or an evil.
(I should point out on this last I tend to take a view that straddles some interesting lines in that helping the helpless was a major tenet throughout Scripture with the caveat that those who would not work were not to eat either)
Interesting points made by both visitors that highlight why this is such an important issue that needs careful and thorough thought and deliberation.
I encourage all readers, both pro-God and pro-evolution, to research these things very seriously and sincerely for yourself.
There is a lot of ground to cover and so long as you are relying on folks such as Human Ape, Rudee or myself to do your work for you...you are relying on us to work through our bias to present evidence that controverts our points. A dangerous path to take.
Two things, Darth —
the majority of scientists in the worldwide scientific community does NOT seem to have a problem with the "glaring holes" in the theory of evolution.
A worldwide conspiracy?
Not very likely, as the philosphy of science (based on Karl Popper) defines the possibility of falsification of a theory as one of the main mechanisms in the process of structuring of knowledge.
Scientists don’t even have a problem with the second law of thermodynamics, as this applies only to closed thermodynamic systems. Earth is an open system.
The nearest possible description of an astronomically closed system would be a whole solar system, although even that is not entirely closed.
Secondly, I also have to make a short remark regarding "ethical behaviour":
you misinterpreted my words. I did not speak of intrinsic traits in the behaviour of single individuals, I spoke of intrinsic ethical standards in _societies_.
These standards may be change in details over longer periods of time (self-determination, for example, as defined in the Declaration of Human Rights is a rather new concept, even both parts of the bible accept slavery).
But there _are_ ethical standards concerning killing, betrayal, theft, respect for elders, etc., which every known society of humans in history objected to.
And not only human societies — these standards have been found in groups of apes and other animals, too.
This is where my main argument comes in:
todays secular societies (i.e. societies, which do NOT base their values on religious scriptures of any kind) have higher standards of iplementation of human rights than religious societies.
And even the individuals in these secular societies behave more civil and ethical according to the Declaration of Human Rights than individuals in even moderate religious societies.
It all comes down as a question of upbringing and education.
"the idea that helping other people is good comes from where? What defines that as being good?"
From me. Ain't I a genuis? I figured out all by myself what's good. Guess what? It was a bit easier than what I used to do for living, which was develop and code custom made computer software for large corporations. After doing that stuff, figuring out that helping older people is a good thing to do, wasn't really all that difficult. Perhaps most five years could do it.
My point is, magic god fairies are not necessary for these things.
You also talked about your problems with evolution. I'm going to save myself some time -- I would like to ask you to simply see this post on my blog which explains some extremely powerful evidence for our evolutionary relationship with chimps. And when reading this stuff, please remember that this is only an extremely tiny fraction of the evidence for the established scientific fact that we share an ancient ape ancestor with modern chimp apes, and oh by the way humans are one of the modern ape species which means your dead Jeebus was an ape, which means Christians worship a dead ape, and ain't the religious implications interesting?
Here it is and I bet you just might learn something, especially if you check out the videos.
Human chromosome 2 and chimpanzee chromosomes 2p & 2q
Many thanks for letting me comment here.
Rudee,
the majority of scientists believing one way or the other is, like anything else, one factor...but not one to put a great deal of stock in.
Leading scientific thought agreed with bleeding people recently enough that Washington followed that principle and killed himself.
Leading scientific thought put recapitulation in textbooks. Etc.
And just as the charge could be leveled (I do not agree with it but would certainly understand a person with a different belief system who discounted religious principles making the claim) that the religious world takes what it wants to believe regardless of evidence, so can that charge be leveled against a belief system that is based more on desire and hope than anything else such as evolution.
I also find myself more and more skeptical of revolutionary finds after the repeated frauds splashed on front pages to prove evolution...Piltdown man, Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor, Java Man, Orce Man, lack of fossil record, etc.
Cry wolfr enough times and it stops being believable.
As for the closed system... I have seen many arguments on both sides of it with the ones that make the most sense so far being those who call it both.
Which does not change the fact the earth is within the universe which is subject to those laws, as is the earth itself. The earth is unquestionably degenerating.
Interestingly enough, there is one argument I have always wondered at not hearing more in FAVOR of evolution when the 23nd law is discussed.
There is one very clear place where things are IMPROVING as opposed to degenerating...the accomplishments of mankind.
Technology has improved at a staggering pace. We have traveled into space. We have sent vehicles unbelievably far from earth and still received images and readings from them.
The thought of doing this for even men such as Kepler, at the forefront of their time, was incomprehensible.
I remain surprised that it seldom is brought up as an example of improvments.
As for intrinsic...we may not be operating on the same understanding of the word.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic
If something is not natural to someone but must come through training and education, it cannot, by definition, be intrinsic, whether it is an individual, a community, a nation, or anything else.
I cannot think of a single society throughout all of recorded history where any society had universal agreement. There has always been a significant dissenting quantity.
The closest thing I can come up with off the top of my head to dispute my point would be some Native American societies which most closely espouse the ideas that TODAY are considered ethical.
But those ideas are in a constant state of flux, with things found acceptable a hundred years ago, a decade ago...in some cases just a couple years ago...now found reprehensible and things found reprehensible now considered admirable and praiseworthy.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered good because of....what?
(I happen to agree with most if not all the tenets found therein, in interest of full disclosure).
Many nations today disagree heartily with part or all of it, usually for some self-serving reason. Even the nations which claim to espouse the values (to our shame including these here United States) contradict the parts of it that are not convenient.
Certainly the ideas should be taught and trained into people...though interpretations of what are meant often seem to difer.
But that is a far cry from having good naturally within us. Most of us, as humans, require training. There are exceptions, for which we should all be thankful.
Human, I did go to your site, but must admit about the 3rd paragraph was offensive enough and dismissive enough of anyone who does not agree with your views that I could not justify continuing.
Sorry about that, but thank you for contributing to this discusssion as reasonably as you have. I believe it makes for a very good thing for all concerned to hear from those who do not agree with them.
We’ve got more than one topic open to discussion, Darth, so I’ll start with the philosophy of science.
You cited the Piltdown man, Nebrasca man, etc.
These are brilliant examples for the proceedings in science as they HAVE been proven to be false.
Science works like that:
finding a phenomenon, a sample set of data, a fossil, scientists start to formulate a hypothesis.
This hypothesis is set up in a way that it can be FALSIFIED (and NOT proven).
Is it consistent with the other findings in that field of science?
Does it contradict other current theories in other fields of science?
If not, it’s a working hypothesis, slowly evolving into an accepted theory.
As a theory it still has this "safety catch": when data are presented that contradict the theory, the theory has to be changed or discarded.
What most people not literate in science do not know — crying "Wolf!" is part of the scientific system.
(This revisional process of science has, after all, as you pointed out yourself, given us the opportunity to reach for the stars. Literally.)
So if you, Darth, are in doubt about evolution, a theory the overwhelming majority of scientists worldwide accept as the best theory in this field so far, it is entirely YOUR opinion.
But do not hope to convince other people with no or other religious background to endorse your personal set of beliefs.
Next topic:
"intrinsic" and other expressions - - English is not my native language and I have to look up many expressions.
That’s why I was just now tempted to say, regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics: "Go and ask a astro-physician about open and closed thermodynamic systems", meaning, of course, an astro-physicist.
And ask a geologist as well.
They will explain why your assumption that the earth is "unquestionably" degenerating is highly questionable.
(Where did you get that information, by the way?)
Next:
Improvement.
Your definition of improvement is solely anthropocentric, that may be the reason why nobody comes up with it when discussing evolution.
In Africa tuberculosis is spreading at a breathtaking rate.
For Myobacterium tuberculosis this can definitely be seen as an improvement.
"Improvement" taken out of any context cannot, as you can see, be regarded as a valid argument for or against evolution.
Cultural improvement even less.
Now for the last part:
Ethics.
Although you cannot see any common moral traits in different human societies now and in the past, anthropologist will by all means be able to point out some values which are shared by all of them.
They include the orders not to kill, to steal, to betray, etc. within the population of the tribe or group or later on the society.
This does not necessarily, I think I have to emphasize this, apply to individuals outside the group or other tribes. Nor will it prohibit ritual killings, as in the aztec culture.
These human sacrifices, however, were made for the sake of the tribe.
Interesting as the question of the origin of morals may be, there is one question for which you have not given any explanation, yet:
why are predominant secular societies and individuals in predominant secular societies so much better at passing on moral standards to their offspring than even moderately religious societies?
Is there something wrong with education in these societies and has that anything to do with religion?
These moral standards include a great part of the ten commandments, by the way, a standard which religious people (and you, Darth W.) should approve of quite heartily.
I hope I used the right expressions this time, thanks for answering me none the less.
I note the post human left has disappeared. I will state for the record, I did not delete it, though I was going to respond to it, so I will do that, first, before addressing Rudees well thought out, reasonably presented posts.
Human, and all other visitors, you are appreciated when you make your points in respectful, respectable manners.
I do not discourage dissent but make a point of engaging in it.
However, I do have certain strictures...one being I neither appreciate nor will stand for blasphemy such as the above still-there deliberate mis-spelling of Jesus and false assertion he was an ape.
As for your references to the 98% similarities, I assume you are referring to the mtDNA timing, which itself refutes the connection.
Aside from that, let us see what evolution proponent Elain Morgan said in The Aquatic Ape: A Theory of Human Evolution
"Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by compariosn of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances." p. 17-18
And taking into account the 2 - 4% variance:
"The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size."
Evolution: Theory in Crisis , Michael J Denton
As Don Benton pointed out, "Due to the cost of substitution of one gene for another in a population, it would take over 7x10 to the 11th power years of human-like generations to substitute the 120 million base pairs. Or in 10 million years only 1667 substitutions could occur, or 0.001% of the difference."
Human/Chimp DNA similarity, CREATION ex nihilo, Vol. 19, #1 Dec. 96-Feb. 97
I could go on and on about the discrepancies within and about evolution, the arguments within the various fields approaching it that demonstrate your claim that the hypothesis of evolution is accepted, but your ad hominem attacks in the deleted comment, on your web site, and in the aforementioned post point out it has no value.
You accuse me of being unwilling to listen despite the fact I have repeatedly demonstrated at least a passing familiarity with the works of leading lights in pro-evolution.
I suspect the reverse is not true; if I were to ask if you have ever done a study on the prophecies of the Bible and how many have been shown fulfilled and how many shown false, I suspect the answer would be no. Sad.
Rudee, what you say is true...finding the defects is good. The problem is...they are still often taught as truth despite having been not just findings that turned out to not be what they were purported but outright frauds.
Haeckels is the most famous, but the horse drawings and others abound.
As Stephen J. Gould, hardly someone who believes in Creation, pointed out, "Haeckel's drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literature: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent..." Natural History , Stephen J. Gould, p. 45
It is a sad truth that as recently as 1998 I could point to high school text books teaching recapitulation.
Even during some of the research surrounding these conversations I came across claims recently made that human embroyos have gills...still perpetuating the falsehood.
More to the over arching point, that is the history of 'evolutionary proofs"; misinformation, deceptions, outright frauds.
It is why Lewontin famously said, "...must stick to philosophical materialism regardless of the evidence".
Or Colin Patterson said, "Is the theory of evolution by natural selection proved? Some may be disconcerted by a negative answer....the theory is not scientific by Popper's standards." Patterson, Colin, Evolution, , p. 144 and 149
And so forth.
There is a pattern to the claims of evolution. The fossil record came up blank, the lack of evidence overwhelming, and at some point, as Matthews said in his introduction to The Origin of the Species , "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation, both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof".
So when all the 'proofs' of evolution prove to be no proof at all but more often than not outright frauds, it becomes what ever some of its foremost proponents claim it to be...a faith.
Rudee, what you say is true...finding the defects is good. The problem is...they are still often taught as truth despite having been not just findings that turned out to not be what they were purported but outright frauds.
Haeckels is the most famous, but the horse drawings and others abound.
As Stephen J. Gould, hardly someone who believes in Creation, pointed out, "Haeckel's drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literature: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent..." Natural History , Stephen J. Gould, p. 45
It is a sad truth that as recently as 1998 I could point to high school text books teaching recapitulation.
Even during some of the research surrounding these conversations I came across claims recently made that human embroyos have gills...still perpetuating the falsehood.
More to the over arching point, that is the history of 'evolutionary proofs"; misinformation, deceptions, outright frauds.
It is why Lewontin famously said, "...must stick to philosophical materialism regardless of the evidence".
Or Colin Patterson said, "Is the theory of evolution by natural selection proved? Some may be disconcerted by a negative answer....the theory is not scientific by Popper's standards." Patterson, Colin, Evolution, , p. 144 and 149
And so forth.
There is a pattern to the claims of evolution. The fossil record came up blank, the lack of evidence overwhelming, and at some point, as Matthews said in his introduction to The Origin of the Species , "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation, both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof".
So when all the 'proofs' of evolution prove to be no proof at all but more often than not outright frauds, it becomes what ever some of its foremost proponents claim it to be...a faith.
I have always found it is pretty well established things are running down. Hence concerns over global warming, conserving resources, etc. They are diminishing.
Any object deterioates on its own. Start with a new car and it soon becomes rusted metal if not cared for.
New shoes wear out.
Physical capabilities of people diminish with age.
Conversely, what examples are there of things that violate that principle? I honestly cannot think of one. There very well may be one, but I cannot think of it.
Aas for improvement being anthropocentric...what basis should it be on? A parasite destroying being taken as improvement is certainly a novel approach. yes, my approach very much starts with being centered on mankind.
Which brings us somewhat back to the importance of the topic that started all this.
If evolution were the way life began then seeking the next evolution or advancement, regardless of who/what was helped or hurt would make sense.
With God having created it, then the effect on mankind would and does take precedence.
I do not necessarily agree with your assessment that secular societies are better at passing them on.
The US has become among, effectively speaking, the most secular of societies and I would argue it is among the most troubled.
Historically speaking, perhaps the most successful state at establishing secular values was France which led to the French Revolution...a horrifying episode in human history.
At the same time, perversions of Scriptural teachings led to things just as if not more evil such as the Inquisition, the Crusades, rtc.
If a society were to truly follow Biblical principles there would be a vastly different outcome, but as even the Bible itself states, that is never going to happen.
As for the 10 commandments...they are definitely good things to live by (though two were not brought forward under the new Covenant...a technical point I suspect is not within your frame of reference. If you are interested, i will be happy to explain it) but seldom followed.
It is an unfortunate truth that even the vast majority of those claiming to follow the precepts of Scripture reject them, either in part or whole, through their actions.
That may be the greatest tragedy of history.
Darth —
I think that this will be my last comment on this topic as I have the feeling that you prefer to mine quotes of works you yourself haven’t read (and don’t intend to read, I presume).
Most of the quotations you cited have been taken out of context or haven’t been followed up — Colin Patterson’s critique, for example ("[…] the theory [of evolution] is not scientific by Popper’s standards") was countered by Karl Popper himself, who points out that his methodology was misunderstood by Patterson:
"It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."
If you try to actually READ Stephen J. Gould’s books (or Coyne’s, Shubin’s, de Waal’s, Dawkins’s, etc.) instead of just quoting convenient excerpts of books you found on religious websites you might even find the evidence for evolution you have been so far looking for in vain.
And now for the last time, I’m afraid, a last small little hint concerning the methodology of "scientific theories": they are NOT everlasting truths, formulated to be "proven", they are "the best explanations for a phenomenon up to this day", they are formulated to be refuted.
Certainly scientists look for supporting evidence for these theories, but scientific theories are NEVER "proven".
At most they can be "not yet refuted", "not yet falsified".
This way science has taken us to the moon and beyond.
A last remark regarding "secular societies" (and their ability to bring forward moral conduct –as mentioned in the Commandments, in the old or new version– in individuals as well as in the whole society) — please read my first comment here again:
I did NOT speak of the US (which definitely is NOT, as you claim, "effectively speaking, the most secular of societies" — you should visit Northern Europe for a try) or postrevolutionary France.
I put forth the predominant secular societies of the Scandinavian countries (and Japan).
If you mention that you are a practicing Christian in Scandinavia you will look into blank eyes.
But if you unfortunately get into a situation where you need help, it will be provided immediately, no questions asked.
Even you, Darth, conceded that your personal help is given only under certain conditions, and to legitimate this you cite the bible.
We have a paradoxon here, don’t we?
Quite obviously religion is an obstacle to attain moral conduct according to the bible.
Thank you for your civility to let me comment here, anyway, Darth.
I think that our little conversation is not going to lead anywhere if we keep it up, so good luck — and do try to read the books you excerpted.
They will show lots of evidence in support of the theory of evolution, althought they will not prove it.
Nothing will.
Just as nothing will "prove" the theory of, say, the thermodynamics or the theory of acoustics.
I have read far more of those books than I would like to admit to because they all have the same theme.
No need to seek them on religious websites as most of them really stand out in read through of the books.
And are often enough on evolution websites, which are actually what i spend far more of my time on when performing research.
This was an unusual conversation in that you and I actually tend to address what the other said, whereas most evolution and Creation websites seem to lose themself in their own little world.
In a few days I will try to post a summation of all the comments. Was entertaining.
May your paths be well lit.
Post a Comment