The Theory of Evolution stated clearly

[SteveF]

Steve wrote:

However, the argument remains the same: "Similarity is evidence of common ancestry." This is simply not a valid assumption, nor a scientific argument. Special creation explains the same evidence very admirably, and does not require just-so stories requiring continuous magic in a universe without a magician.

Hi Steve, how would you respond to Francis Collins argument in this video in which he discusses genetics? I’m certainly not a scientist but it sounds scientific to me. The particual part I’m asking about starts at the 45th minute and last for 5 or 6 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y

Steve wrote:

The absence of necessary fossils documenting.....

I’ve read that fossils are rare and require specific circumstances to form. In fact, I’ve heard they’ve only found fossils records of about 5 percent of species currently known. If fossil records were the only thing that determined existence of a species then I would need to deduce that 95 percent of species living today don’t exist. (I’m simply trying to bring balance to this argument)

Steve wrote

1) The origin of life (evolution does not apply to prebiotic development, so natural selection cannot be invoked);

5) Evolution has been increasingly critiqued for its total inability to account for metaphysical realities like consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. These are human realities which cannot be adequately accounted for by appeal to merely physical activity of neurons.\

I don’t follow these two arguments. If an atheist is trying to use evolution as one of their arguments, fine. But why would a scientist need to prove either of these if they are simply making observations about evolutionary science.

For example, if a scientist is studying the effects of nutrition on our body, would we not listen to them if they couldn’t explain the origin of life or where the conscience came from? Similarly, a biologist may not be able to explain these things (although a Christian would certainly attribute them to God’s creative design) but I think they could certainly observe and provide evidence of evolution without providing ultimate answers.

I wanted to also make a comment, not direct to you, Steve, or anyone else.

It seems to me, that science has introduced things that some Christians have found challenging; whether it’s the earth not being the center of our solar system or evolution. Sometimes our response is to deny the findings and claim they are anti-Christian. This in turn, seems to have caused scientists, and many others, to think that science has disproven Christianity.

This, in turn, makes some of us feel that science is at against Christianity and we must disprove it to protect ourselves from error. This in turn makes scientists, and others, think all the more that the discoveries they are making must simply be debunking religion.

This cycle of thinking is why I think people like Richard Dawkins, falsely; use some scientific arguments to try to disprove the existence of God.

I say, drop the whole cycle. Engage in scientific study. If we find things that don’t line up with all our thinking why should that be a surprise! But never feel threatened. Whether you think evolution is true or not, our position should never be simply defensive but sincerely open to all discoveries we may make in God’s glorious creation.

[morbo3000]

The reason there is a line... the reason there are limits to change... is because you can only shuffle a deck so many ways... and deleting or disfiguring cards NEVER produces any new information. Some mutations can, strangely enough, prove beneficial, but they never ADD information (genetic code). Without new cards, you can only go so far.

This is a common claim of young earth creationism against evolution. This is all "science blah blah blah genetics blah blah science.." to me because I am not informed in this area. But evolutionists aren't whistling in the dark on this one either. I know this is interpretation of evidence again. But young earth creationism sometimes sounds to me like evolutionary scientists are self-deluded morons, so I want to show that there is an intelligent other side to the discussion. My Google search terms came from Matt's post: "how do genes add information" if anyone wants to read more on it.

From: Talk Origins http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

[morbo3000]

It seems to me, that science has introduced things that some Christians have found challenging; whether it’s the earth not being the center of our solar system or evolution. Sometimes our response is to deny the findings and claim they are anti-Christian. This in turn, seems to have caused scientists, and many others, to think that science has disproven Christianity.

This, in turn, makes some of us feel that science is at against Christianity and we must disprove it to protect ourselves from error. This in turn makes scientists, and others, think all the more that the discoveries they are making must simply be debunking religion.

This cycle of thinking is why I think people like Richard Dawkins, falsely; use some scientific arguments to try to disprove the existence of God.

I say, drop the whole cycle. Engage in scientific study. If we find things that don’t line up with all our thinking why should that be a surprise! But never feel threatened. Whether you think evolution is true or not, our position should never be simply defensive but sincerely open to all discoveries we may make in God’s glorious creation.

Totally agree. And you've hit the nail on the historic head. When Galileo declared that the sun revolved around the earth (which I believe some here disagree with) it undermined the authority of the church (catholic at the time) And yet Galileo was no atheist. Christian History magazine wrote: Galileo Galilei, though famous for his scientific achievements in astronomy, mathematics, and physics, and infamous for his controversy with the church was, in fact, a devout Christian who saw not a divorce of religion and science but only a healthy marriage: "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."

I believe that the fringe on both sides of this argument misrepresent the relationship between science and faith. Some atheists use evolution to explain away God. But they do not represent the majority of science, nor all of evolutionary theory. Similarly, some Christians use creationism to claim that evolutionary scientists are godless. But they do not represent the majority of Christians. And I can already hear the fringes of both: Atheists: "True scientists would never believe in God." Christians: "True Christians would never accept evolution."

Neither science nor faith need to be the enemy of the other.

[mattrose]

I am a young earth creationist. And I love science.

Some evolutionists (whether Christian or non-Christian) would insist that those two statements cannot be reconciled.

I, too, am certainly no expert when it comes to these discussions. I can only state my opinion on the evidences and arguments that I've come in contact with. I've read plenty of both answers in genesis type material, intelligent design material, naturalistic evolution material, talkorigins articles, etc. I've sat in on seminars and debates.

All I can do is believe the side that seems to make the most sense to me... and that is young earth creationism. That being said, I don't think I need to be as dogmatic about young earth creationism as Ken Ham might want me to be. I certainly believe non young earth creationists could be right... and I certainly believe many of them love and follow Jesus. I don't think this issue needs to take center-stage (as Answers in Genesis seems to suggest at times). Indeed, I've pretty much stopped debating this issue for the past 4 or 5 years b/c my position is ridiculed to such a degree and I'd rather focus on Jesus.

All that being said... it is very... easy.... to just pick on the extreme positions (atheistic evolutionism and young earth creationism) and color them as crazy. It's always easier to pick some middling position and act as the voice of reason. But we need to leave room for the possibility that in some cases, the extreme positions are actually the right ones. Young earth creationism should not be ridiculed in my opinion. While there are some YECists that speak of science as the devil's playground, most all YECists that I've met love science. They just interpret evidence differently (for instance, after reading the talk origins article morbo just posted.... 3 times... I still don't see how any of it refutes the general premise that mutations don't add new information. Their evidence that mutations DO add new information is that some mutations duplicate existing information? Or, the idea that a deleted info can be re-acquired? Or the idea that natural selection works with mutation? None of these approaches touch on the real issue at hand. And the 4th one is just an assertion without content. Is it not convincing enough to elaborate on?). If they want to make the argument that mutations can add new and beneficial information, they need to do a better job of it to convince this guy.

[steve]

It is a shame that the publicity campaign for evolution has managed to make every dissenter out to be antiscientific. I am no scientist, but I am not antiscientific. However, I approach scientific evidence that is presented to me in an argument the same way I approach biblical or theological evidence that is presented to me by someone with a theological point to prove—namely, as a reasonable skeptic.

I am not interested in the majority vote—either among scientists or among theologians. I am interested in looking at the evidence, and recognizing what it does and what it doesn't prove. If there is evidence that proves evolution (or even suggests it as the most reasonable postulate) its advocates have not brought it to my attention. It is that simple. There are ideologues in science and in theology. I do not respect either.

At the end of my last post, I asked an honest question. Here it is again:

Where is this so-called overwhelming evidence for evolution?

I would genuinely enjoy seeing it answered. If it cannot be answered (and this is my suspicion, having read Dawkins and many of the best advocates), then why should I feel pressured to come over to a view that lacks an adequate evidential foundation from one that provides a more adequate explanation?

I'm a reasonable man.

[morbo3000]

Matt, et al...

I don't mean to disrespect at all.

I wrote:

"I believe that the fringe on both sides of this argument misrepresent the relationship between science and faith. Some atheists use evolution to explain away God. But they do not represent the majority of science, nor all of evolutionary theory. Similarly, some Christians use creationism to claim that evolutionary scientists are godless. But they do not represent the majority of Christians. And I can already hear the fringes of both: Atheists: "True scientists would never believe in God." Christians: 'True Christians would never accept evolution.'"

The keys with that paragraph are "some." I didn't speak disparagingly of either viewpoints. My problem is how the certain fringe people one each side misrepresent each other. And it is only the extremes that do it. I've heard basic respect for evolutionary scientists so far in this thread. And I don't intend to disrespect people those who believe in a young earth. I don't have a horse in this race. Except.. I minister to atheists and agnostics. They need to know that not all Christians are scientific bigots. There are some. Years ago, I got Creation Research whatever's (don't remember their name) newsletter. One of the guys stated that if you believe in evolution, you must not be a Christian. That's hogwash. The only thing I've done in this thread is point out that evolutionary scientists have answers to the claims of young earth creationism. Just as the young earth creationists have answers to the claims of evolutionists.

[mattrose]

I did not feel disrespected. I knew you weren't accusing me (or anyone here) of being 'anti-science.'

I was just stating the pro-science mentality of many YECists.

I am curious if you find the talkorigins article you posted impressive. I do not. Not only is it poorly organized/worded, but it actually doesn't make a strong case, in my opinion. And that's my point. If the evidence REALLY IS on the side of Darwinian Evolution, its advocates have done a pretty terrible job of teaching it well. Their habit seems to be to make BIG statements and then state a number of small evidences, but the evidences usually turn out to be things that both sides agree with!

[morbo3000]

I am curious if you find the talkorigins article you posted impressive. I do not. Not only is it poorly organized/worded, but it actually doesn't make a strong case, in my opinion. And that's my point. If the evidence REALLY IS on the side of Darwinian Evolution, its advocates have done a pretty terrible job of teaching it well. Their habit seems to be to make BIG statements and then state a number of small evidences, but the evidences usually turn out to be things that both sides agree with!

I only scanned the article. They were neither impressive nor unimpressive to me. They were simply adequate for me to know that there is another intelligent opinion. But the reason for looking it up was that I thought the creationism statement that "information isn't added" was a BIG statement. So I was just looking to see how evolutionists handled that question.

Like I said.. I don't have a horse in the evolution race. It is too much information for me to try and process to have an opinion.

The races I do have a horse in are cosmological. Age of the universe, age of the earth. Also, eschatology, textual and historical criticism, and Modernity. For the most part, I'm part evangelist in those areas, meaning that I am reaching out to atheists, agnostics, secularists in a way that is unique. I am quite liberal in a lot of areas. But I am passionate about Jesus and his spirit. I'm not a follower of anything-goes-ism. Jesus was/is radical. And if the spirit isn't at work today, it's just a bunch of history. But because I am more modernist in some areas, it is easier for me to build bridges.

My wife asked me last night "why are you doing this?" meaning discussing things. She knows that I disagree with some things. I said "because it is interesting." I learn from the discussions. I have a friend who is quite polar opposite than me. But because we respect each other, we can agree to disagree on issues that some christians would not be able to have fellowship over. So, it's useful for me to have these conversations.. to let iron sharpen iron. And also, because I respect a lot of people's opinions on here so that I can get trustworthy answers to my own questions.

[backwoodsman]

In general, when someone says "all" or "nothing" or "everything" or "not one shred" their case is exaggerated.

I find that, the more willing the speaker is to objectively evaluate competing views, the less likely he is to be exaggerating.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... dence.html
http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... lution.htm
http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/ex ... ution.html
http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... lution.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=fossil+e ... e&ie=UTF-8

I'm sure you'll find a way to shoot all this down.

When I saw that list of links I was hoping to see the evidence they claim to present. But what's there is:

(a) Scientific evidence that proves neither evolution nor creation, but is simply what's been observed; and

(b) Interpretations of that evidence that claim it proves evolution, with not even a mention that there's another theory (creation) that, from a scientific point of view, fits the evidence better and is therefore the more likely explanation of the evidence.

Put more simply, there's no evidence there to be shot down. There is, however, speculation and theory presented as though it were hard evidence, as people tend to do when they've bought into an idea so thoroughly that they're unwilling or unable to objectively evaluate competing ideas, or even to see their ideas' internal contradictions. It seems even scientists aren't immune to such foibles of human nature.

You and others might find some interesting reading material here:
http://www.reasons.org/explore/topic/evolution

[morbo3000]

You and others might find some interesting reading material here:
http://www.reasons.org/explore/topic/evolution

What an awesome website. Thanks for sharing. It addresses two of my big issues.. age of the universe, and global flood. Also, I see Hugh Ross is quoted, whom I respect.

Thanks again.