Originally posted by RJHindsA useful thought experiment is to assume that the Theory of Evolution has never been stated while all other branches of science continued to develop, asking what would be different and how would the literal readings of the Bible get along then.
This is not true. No science requires the theory of evolution.
Great discoveries in science were made before the theory
was ever thought of. Do you think Newton or Franklin needed
the theory of evolution to discover gravity or electricity?
It certainly had no effect on the development of mathematics.
Even in biology and chemistry we don't need it.
Firstly, there would be geology, the evidence of changes over time in the surface layers of the Earth, evidence that fish have been deposited in sediments that are now at the top of mountain ranges far from any sea. By understanding this subject we develop skill in locating diverse materials of practical importance to our lives - coal, iron ore, oil and gas, et al. However this would bring us into conflict with the Creation story as argued by literalist Bible reading.
As an accidental biproduct, we have now to describe all these fossilised remains of creatures from various ages in the life of the planet without referring to Evolution, which seems tricky but never mind. As a minimum, we would still have the taxonomy of Linnaeus which predates Darwin by a century and would have to fit into this some form of time series, for creatures that have become extinct at different times and those that did not exist before certain times. Their time sequence is set out in the rock formations, without any Theory of Evolution. The trouble is that by this point frankly, "evolution" is just a word to desribe what we have found and any other word would have the same meaning - it describes a sequence of changes in living species over time. It is just not going to be compatible with a literalist reading of the Bible.
Maybe we could look at astrology (practised by all religious groups including Christians and even Popes). For astrology we need to predict the locations of planets over very long time periods. Christians long preferred Ptolomy's model, which accounted for the erratic movements of planets by introducing countless refinements to the ideal of circular motion around a stable Earth as required in literalist biblical reading. Copernicus offered a set of tables which even the Popes accepted, which used the hypothesis that planets orbit the Sun in ellipses, and this gave far more accurate predictions. However, it was accepted only as a clever device for calculations and suggesting the heliocentric model was actually true would have been considered heretical and atheistic, as Galileo found to his cost, because it would conflict with the Bible. Astronomy and Mathematics thus endanger literalists in a way that astrologers strangely do not!
By the way I did not dispute we had maths long before the Theory of Evolution. I said that since maths supports the theory, then to abandon that theory you will have to abandon the maths. Either the maths would have to be fundamentally wrong or the literal interpretation of the Bible would have to be fundamentally wrong and you cannot have both - you must choose.
I imagine that literalists will still want to have medicine and public health services and deal for example with the behaviour of viruses? We know there have been diverse strains of the flu virus, with new ones emerging over time (H1N1 being recently famous). What is the doctor to do - look into his microscope to check what God has been up to this week? Oh look - God has created a new variant! How is this helpful? Mathematicians can model and predict the behvaiour of a virus over time, to help devise preventive measures and evaluate interventions. Their models are build up on an understanding of evolution - in this case as applied to a virus. Medicine and public health are not compatible with literalist bible reading.
Genetics is now well established and we can even perform genetic engineering. We can use genetics to demonstrate lines of heredity that unite every living organism on the planet in well understood ways. That just is evolution, it is not even a theory of evolution it is a straight in your face display of evolution. Species are related and share common ancestors. Get used to it. None of which is compatible with a literal reading of the bible.
Let us say God created every organism and gave each one a genetic code, so that none is descended from any other but their genetic codes have the observed similarities. Let us say that is true and not argue with it. What would be a simple and practical way to describe the patterns of similarity we have found? We could do it in one word - "Evolution"! The point being that neither the name (Evolution) nor the belief that God created life adds anything to what we know already and can see with our very eyes.
Really Evolution is not a theory at all. It is a description and a useful term to capture what we see around us. Even if you got rid of Darwin from history the biblical creation story would have to remain a myth and not a literally accurate account of our history because evolution is not open to dispute.
The Theory of .... Natural Selection, which Darwin provided, was to explain how evolution happens. Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations.
Originally posted by finneganNatural selection is just another term for adaptation. Evolution
A useful thought experiment is to assume that the Theory of Evolution has never been stated while all other branches of science continued to develop, asking what would be different and how would the literal readings of the Bible get along then.
Firstly, there would be [b] geology, the evidence of changes over time in the surface layers of the Earth ...[text shortened]... and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations.[/b]
goes far beyond this in trying to say all creatures have a common
ancestor, rather than a common Designer. The theory of evolution
supposes that creatures will change (evolve) over time to a more
complex and advanced creature without any help from the Designer.
This is like saying a radio will change (evolve) to a more complex and
advanced radio until after a sufficient length of time goes by when it
changes (evolves) into a television, and on and on without any help
from the designer, because it needed no designer in the first place.
Various parts were formed by a "Big Bang" and over time these
parts came together and formed the first primative radio. This radio
and the television is the common ancestor of the computer we have
today. No designer was needed, because there is no designer. The
designer does not exist. The manual for the computer was something
someone made up long after the computer formed on its own and
therefore, it can be ignored. So let us just experiment with the
computer and we will find out what works best.
Originally posted by RJHindsThat is a terrible analogy. It is a known fact that radios do not reproduce and do not change over time. It is also a known fact that living things do reproduce and do change over time. It is also a known fact that living things can change for the better over time (farmers know this and engage in selective breeding for that reason).
This is like saying a radio will change (evolve) to a more complex and
advanced radio until after a sufficient length of time goes by when it
changes (evolves) into a television,
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsNatural selection is just another term for adaptation.... The theory of evolution
Natural selection is just another term for adaptation. Evolution
goes far beyond this in trying to say all creatures have a common
ancestor, rather than a common Designer. The theory of evolution
supposes that creatures will change (evolve) over time to a more
complex and advanced creature without any help from the Designer.
This is like saying a radio e ignored. So let us just experiment with the
computer and we will find out what works best.
supposes that creatures will change (evolve) over time to a more
complex and advanced creature without any help from the Designer.
Natural Selection explains evolution without any reference to a plan for improvement, while Lamarckism was the theory that there is a plan. Actually the two notions are in conflict and they have been tested against each other, with Natural Selection proving the better theory.
Darwin and Lamarck both thought that life had changed gradually over time and was still changing, that living things change to be better suited and adapted to their environments, and that all organisms are related. Darwin and Lamarck also agreed that life evolved from fewer, simpler organisms to many, more complex organisms.
Lamarck is best known for his Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics, first presented in 1801 (Darwin's first book dealing with natural selection was published in 1859): If an organism changes during life in order to adapt to its environment, those changes are passed on to its offspring. He said that change is made by what the organisms want or need. Lamarck also believed that evolution happens according to a predetermined plan and that the results have already been decided.
Darwin believed that the desires of animals have nothing to do with how they evolve, and that changes in an organism during its life do not affect the evolution of the species. He said that organisms, even of the same species, are all different and that those which happen to have variations that help them to survive in their environments survive and have more offspring. The offspring are born with their parents' helpful traits, and as they reproduce, individuals with that trait make up more of the population.
Darwin also believed that evolution does not happen according to any sort of plan. It happens by chance, and most "adaptations" fail. There is no plan by which things get beter and more complicated over time - that would conflict with the First Law of Thermodynamics (another piece of science, Physics, that would have to be set aside in order to accept the theory of Intelligent Design).
One way we know that Lamarck was wrong is through genetics, and we know that the only way for traits to be passed on is through genes, and that genes can not be affected by the outside world. The only thing that can be affected is which gene sets there are in a population, and this is determined by which individuals die and which ones live. The fruits of an animal's efforts can not be inherited by its offspring.
Thanks to this site: http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/cover/evolution_cover.html which explains Evolution to children so you might like it. Italics are quotes.
Evolution goes far beyond this in trying to say all creatures have a common ancestor, rather than a common Designer.
Just so and there many ways to demonstrate that all living creatures do have common ancestors. Each method supports the other with quite independent types of scientific evidence. Since there are billion of years at issue here, you have to be prepared to endure a very lengthy account in order to read through the list of every common ancestor backwards from yourself to the primordial slime, but one book in which this is set out is The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. Far from a shortage of missing links, we have so many links all lined up in a row, supported by genetic, geological and other evidence, that it is no longer in any way amusing to argue the point.
The manual for the computer was something someone made up long after the computer formed on its own and therefore, it can be ignored. So let us just experiment with the computer and we will find out what works best.
Darwin says nothing about machines or any non living object. We talk about evolution of computers quite logically though because they have evolved: they have changed gradually over time and are still changing, they change to be better suited and adapted to their environments, and they are all related. The analogy is interesting as long as you appreciate that computers have been developed in the context of competitive markets. It is now quite a common marketing strategy to put out a range of similar devices / toys / products and allow the market to select the preferred version. The competitive pressures work in markets quite like those in nature and for this reason the theory of natural selection is endorsed in a surprising manner. By contrast the idea that there is an intelligent designer driving all of this is not as helpful, when you recall the rise and fall of IBM, Microsoft (whose product is not even better than its rivals!) , and now maybe Apple... They had intelligent engineers of course, but they did not have supremely intelligent marketing experts who could plan the whole marketing cycle - they got it wrong and were displaced by better designers and that will continue as long as we avoid uncompetitive monopolies. If they were supremely intelligent in your sense, IBM would still rule the world of computers and we would not be having this debate because there would be not enough reason for computers to evolve creatively. So Natural Selection is a better model for markets than Intelligent Design and as such it is widely employed. But there are always senior managers or business people with a personality disorder who think they are supremely intelligent and merit absolute loyalty. What is ever really new?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, that is why I used that analogy, because we know it isn't true.
That is a terrible analogy. It is a known fact that radios do not reproduce and do not change over time. It is also a known fact that living things do reproduce and do change over time. It is also a known fact that living things can change for the better over time (farmers know this and engage in selective breeding for that reason).
The farmers use selective breeding to benefit the farmers, it does
not make the animal better over all. God created creatures with
the ability to reproduce; but we have not been able to do this in the
same way with our creations. God used computer programs
(DNA, Genes) in this process which also allows for the creatures to
adapt, if necessary. But He did not make the program broad enough
to do as you claim, because it says so in the Holy Bible.
Originally posted by finneganNatural selection is just adaptation, so I have no problem
[b]Natural selection is just another term for adaptation.... The theory of evolution
supposes that creatures will change (evolve) over time to a more
complex and advanced creature without any help from the Designer.
Natural Selection explains evolution without any reference to a plan for improvement, while Lamarckism was the theory that there is a ...[text shortened]... think they are supremely intelligent and merit absolute loyalty. What is ever really new?[/b]
with it because that is allowed for in the computer programs
(DNA, Genes) that God put into his living creatures. I don't
know all the details of the theory of Intelligent Design for
you are the first person that has ever mentioned such a theory.
But I do know the Designer was the God of Abraham,Issac, and
Jacob. The First Law of Thermodynamics is a law God put in
place and discovered by man, so it will not have to be set aside.
The Holy Bible clearly indicates that there is no common
ancestor to all creatures. He seperated the different "kinds"
when He made them, so they reproduce after their own
"kind". They may have common ancestors within their own
"kind", but not from another "kind". Just as we have common
ancestors from "mankind", but not from any other "kind".
Originally posted by RJHinds“....Adoption, mutation, and God creating would
I believe no discovery in science required the theory of
evolution. Adaption, mutation, and God creating would
work just fine. I have done just fine without using the
theory of evolution. I never needed it to solve
differential equations in calculus.
work just fine. ….”
Adoption and mutation combined is, in effect, evolution; no god required.
“...I have done just fine without using the
theory of evolution. ...”
that's because you evidently don't understand much about science nor do you make much use of science.
I suppose you could do just fine without using the theory of the Earth being round and not flat providing you don't understand too much about physics, gravity and planets etc and providing you don't do anything that requires the use of that theory by, say, for example, navigating around the Earth.
“....I never needed it to solve
differential equations in calculus. ...”
that's because evolution is not a theory of mathematics and also calculus doesn’t require that theory.
Giving just one example of a science that does not need a particular theory does absolutely nothing to debunk that theory.
The theory that the Earth is round and not flat is also not required to solve differential equations; so is the Earth flat?
Originally posted by RJHindsSo, you don't have an actual response for me? No one has provided me an answer to the question except for galveston. Albeit, his is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible (which is a different discussion), he as at least outlined the contradiction for me. You, on the other hand, dodge the question with an offhand remark about my age. Perhaps it's that you are too old to open your eyes or something?
Haven't you ever seen TV show "The Flintstones" or is that
too old for you?
Originally posted by ua41Sorry, I thought you might like a little joke, but apparently,
So, you don't have an actual response for me? No one has provided me an answer to the question except for galveston. Albeit, his is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible (which is a different discussion), he as at least outlined the contradiction for me. You, on the other hand, dodge the question with an offhand remark about my age. Perhaps it's that you are too old to open your eyes or something?
your not old enough to appreciate it. Your questions were,
"Now I'll ask again, what is wrong with god using evolution to come up with creation? Is there a contradiction? If so, what is it?"
God does not need to use evolution to come up with creation.
In the theory of evolution, there is the belief that all creatures
have a common ancestor. This contradicts what the Holy Bible says.
The Holy Bible clearly indicates that there is no common
ancestor to all creatures. God seperated the different "kinds"
when He made them, so they reproduce after their own
"kind". They may have common ancestors within their own
"kind", but not from another "kind". Just as we have common
ancestors from "mankind", but not from any other "kind".
We can not include horses, dogs, or apes as a common ancestor,
because they are different "kinds". "Mankind" consist of what we
call Caucasian, Negro, Hispanic, etc., because they are all the same
"kind". God created one "kind", then another "kind", and then another
"kind" and so on until "mankind", then He rested. Her provided the
computer programs (DNA, Genes) within the living creatures so they
would be able to adapt, if necessary. This is what Darwin referred to
as "natural selection". His idea that all creatures may have a common
ancestor goes beyond just adaptation and mutations. Now, I don't
know all the details as to what is to be taught by intelligent design.
But I'm sure the Intelligent Designer has to be God, because the
Holy Bible declares Him the Creator or Designer or Maker. Take
your choice. This is no joke. I hope I answered your questions.
Originally posted by RJHindsApologies if I came off as stern- I do tend to like jokes, but not if it the main point is completely ignored 🙂
Sorry, I thought you might like a little joke, but apparently,
your not old enough to appreciate it. Your questions were,
"Now I'll ask again, what is wrong with god using evolution to come up with creation? Is there a contradiction? If so, what is it?"
God does not need to use evolution to come up with creation.
In the theory of evolution, there is t ...[text shortened]... your choice. This is no joke. I hope I answered your questions.
So we all have a common ancestor- God.
I've always viewed that making these creatures according to their kind as a notion that we have all these differences amongst species/breeds/creatures/etc. derived from one inherent source. All different manifestations of one thing.
That being said, evolution could be viewed as the process that God used as deriving all these differences- hence why we call a horse and a dog a horse and a dog respectively and not as dinosaurs.
Either way, we are expressions of the same derivative.
Originally posted by ua41God is a common ancestor of Jesus the Christ, the only
Apologies if I came off as stern- I do tend to like jokes, but not if it the main point is completely ignored 🙂
So we all have a common ancestor- God.
I've always viewed that making these creatures according to their kind as a notion that we have all these differences amongst species/breeds/creatures/etc. derived from one inherent source. All different man ...[text shortened]... dog respectively and not as dinosaurs.
Either way, we are expressions of the same derivative.
begotten Son of God. God is not an ancestor of anything
or anyone else. Other things were made by Him not
evolved from Him. The Father is greater than the Son,
as Jesus pointed out, so even evolved, as most people
understand this word, is not correct, even when referring
to the Son of God. The similarities in the design of the
creatures is due to the common designer, which is God.
It is though the reproduction process that God's built-in
programs allowing for limited changes within "kinds" of
creatures; but this built-in program does not allow for
one "kind" of creature to develope into another "kind"
of creature. This is my understanding of what the Holy
Bible has to say on the subject. I believe I am correct
in this understanding until someone proves my interpretation
is wrong.