5 Common Objections to Evolutionary Creationism

hi dr gary. ok. lets check your points from a scientific prespective. if we will see that we have a better explanation then we should accept the id position.

you said:

" (1) whales have small bones in their pelvic region that serve no apparent function but are located right where the pelvic girdle would be in a mammal with hind legs, "-

true. but now we know that this structure is actually a part of the whale reproduction system :

so there is no evidence for evolution here. actually- its a fasle prediction of the evolution theory.

" (2) baleen whale embryos develop teeth (like all fossil whales) that are never used, but later get reabsorbed and replaced by baleen,"-

first- human ebryo also have a gills-like structure. but we know that this stucture never develop into gills but a part of the human throat. even more- some scientists claim that this whale stucture is a part of the whale depelopment process:

"But Louis Vialleton (1859–1929), who was Professor of Zoology, Anatomy and Comparative Physiology at Montpelier University, southern France, argued:

“Even though the teeth in the whale do not pierce the gums and function as teeth, they do function and actually play a role in the formation of the jaws to which they furnish a point d’apui on which the bones mold themselves.”"-

so again- no evidence for evolution here.

" whale embryos start with nostrils at the front of the snout (like the oldest fossil whales and most mammals) but changes in the size and shapes of facial bones move the nostrils to the top of the skull -

its very similar to the common similarity argument. airplane and car both have wheels (even in the same place). but it doesnt prove a commondescent but a commondesigner.

, "(4) there are whale-like fossils (based on anatomy of skull and skeleton - no weird assumptions here) with limbs that end in hooves, (5) there are whale-like fossils with a “double-pulley” astragalus bone in the ankle, a bone that was before these discoveries absolutely diagnostic for even-toed hoofed mammals and found in no other animal group, "-

if it have a legs- then its not a whale. very simple.

“(6) genetic comparisons of many genes shared among living mammals show that whales are more similar to even-toed hoofed mammals than to any other mammals, and most often closest to the hippopotamus.”-

even if its true so what? chimp is the closest to human then any other ape. but from morphological prespective actually the orangutan is the closest to human. so what is the real phylogeny then?

" Please note that there is nothing in this list that is debatable based on assumptions or atheism."-

again- we need to assume that the evolution is true to accept those points above. but if evolution isnt true- then they are not valid.

now- we actually can show that the evolution of whale is impossible. for example: some whales species has a sonar system. we know that a minimal sonar need at least 3-4 parts for its function. so the sonar cant evolve step wise from non sonar. therefore we know that a whale sonar cant evolve from a whale without it.

so- 1) we dont have any scientific evidence that the whale evolved from a non whale and 2) we know that this evolution is impossible step wise.

yours sincerely

@dcscccc

For those Christians who believe in God AND Evolution, it’s a good thing that BioLogos believes God BRIDGES the evolutionary gap for very tricky evolutionary developments!
Your disputations about this or that species is really aimed at Atheists, wouldn’t you say?

Agreed?

George

@dcscccc
Thanks for your reply. It is clear to me (and I hope you will agree) that you are wholly committed to rejecting any evidence for evolution no matter what might be presented. I suggest that we should be honest with each other and acknowledge that our disagreements are not really about natural observations at all, but what we believe are allowable natural discoveries based on biblical interpretations and theology. If you have predetermined that evolution cannot be valid, then I understand that you will always have some kind of counter to every bit of evidence. But this is, of course, a non-productive merry-go-round.

Part of my intent in presenting the list of evidence for ungulate-to-whale evolution (a very abbreviated list at that) was to show how many diverse observations point to an evolutionary creation scenario that are not explained under other creationist proposals. At some point, I believe we need to acknowledge that the overall weight of different evidences is what is so compelling as support for evolution, even if you can dismiss one item or another. But I must say that most of your quick dismissals don’t directly address what the evidence is implying.

Before I go on, thanks for the reference on the function of whale pelvic bones in penis support. I had heard that suggestion before, but not seen this new study. I applaud you for providing a function for the whale hip bone. The thing is that the whale pelvic bone is STILL evidence for evolution. The penis in all male mammals with hind limbs is anchored to the pelvic bone that also supports the limbs. Is it just coincidence that whales have a comparable bone precisely in the region of the body where hind limbs are present in fossil whales?

You missed the point about embryonic teeth and nostril migration in whales. The real question is why do teeth develop AT ALL in an animal that that will only need baleen as an adult? The presence of temporary teeth is explained under an evolutionary scenario, but makes no sense in a specially created or designed animal. Likewise, why don’t the nostrils of whales develop directly at the location of the blowhole rather than begin at the tip of the snout where they are located in older fossil whales and other mammals?

I am very surprised at your simple suggestion that if it has legs, then it’s not a whale. This reminded me that years ago Duane Gish used to argue that since Archaeopteryx had feathers, it was simply a bird. But the skeleton of Archaeopteryx is unmistakably a bipedal, thecodont reptile by almost all of its features - it’s a dinosaur with feathers. In the same way, the limbed whale fossils I mentioned are unmistakably whale-like by criteria of their teeth and skull (included a reduced zygomatic arch, and large poorly attached tympanic bullae). Especially important, the presence of HOOVES and a double-pulley astragalus bone are remarkable confirmations of evolution because they wonderfully fit previous stated predictions that whales evolved from hoofed ancestors.

Finally, comparisons of genetic sequences are particularly powerful evidence for an evolutionary past, as they have, in most instances, confirmed evolutionary phylogenies that were developed previously from other criteria. Humans are not morphologically closest to orangutans, and the genetics confirms that humans are closely linked to chimps and bonobos. But here is the real point: why should humans be extremely close in genetic sequences to any of these particular primates if it is not due to an evolutionary ancestry? It is not sufficient to say it is because they are all primates. I fully believe God knew we would discover these things. Can we really quickly dismiss the information?

I conclude with a repeated exhortation: There is so much positive evidence for evolution in God’s natural creation that I believe we must engage it head on as a real aspect of God’s creative artistry – for His glory, for the health of the church, and for an effective witness for Jesus.

2 Likes

26 posts were split to a new topic: Is evolution inherently atheistic?

hi dr gary. i will response to you later. by the way- what is the names of the fossils you are talking about(ambulocetidae?)?

thanks…

Brad,
Is this latest from AIG on topic? It is a little silly scientifically but there might be some deep theology questions in it for you and Jim.

@BradKramer

Brad - great to see that you are still checking the thread. First and foremost I’d like to thank you and Jim once again for all the great contributions you are making both online and in the real world towards promoting a better understanding of evolution in Christian realms. I share your concern that misunderstanding of science is a major reason for the secular/Christian divide we see today and I certainly appreciate your contributions.

I have two questions related to the topic of the article.

First, I wonder if your conversations also gave you some insight about whether there are online resources where non-BioLogos Christians question and discuss their own views much like we do over here. There is no substitute for in-person interactions like you and Jim promoted at this meeting but maybe there are also ways in which all of us can help clarify questions from those camps by engaging with them online?

Second, you gained very valuable insight from the interactions described in this article and I am glad that those who interacted with you were able to at least realize that it is possible to be a serious Christian and not deny evolution. My question is - how can more of us promote the same kind of understanding at our own churches? I know the BioLogos website has the Common Questions sections and some links to resources for study groups but do you also share some of your handouts and related materials that could serve as offline/in-person conversation starters?

That is very interesting. Can you please tell me where I can find more information on how much the main categories of Christian groups are losing millennials due to science? I’ve done a fair amount of looking into survey’s but I haven’t found that information. I have a strong desire to help college students see there is a way to be in a science friendly faith community (sort of small group churches) in college, and hopefully beyond college. So that kind of information would be very helpful.

1 Like

Hi dcscccc,

Present-day cetaceans such as dolphins have four limbs, like all good mammals (which are tetrapods) should. They only have them as embryos, though - they have hindlimb buds that start at the right time for a mammal to have hindlimb buds, and then later hindlimb development stops and they regress. Why might this be the case, do you think?

Dennis

It comes up a lot on homeschooling boards. There are usually some lively conversations happening at the Well Trained Mind forum. Most of the participants are women who homeschool, though sometimes fathers and teachers or curriculum developers chime in.

If you search over there for YEC or old earth or Ken Ham or evolution some such related term, you can usually find threads that got a lot of action from all points on the spectrum.

It’s cobbled together from a couple of sources. Here’s three articles with good data:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/12/living/pew-religion-study/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/young-millennials-losing-faith-in-record-numbers/2012/04/19/gIQA9QoxTT_story.html
http://pressreleases.religionnews.com/2015/11/30/are-young-people-losing-their-faith-because-of-science/

1 Like

That’s a great list of “cobbled” references . . . Nicely executed, @BradKramer !

The ReligionNews.com article is quite relevant (came out just last month too!).

“The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has noted that 39% of those currently unaffiliated who grew up as mainline Protestants now believe that “[m]odern science proves religion is superstition,” and 31% identify this belief as an “important reason” they became unaffiliated.”

Naturally, the writer glosses over a detail that would be GREAT for us to know more about … how do they define “mainline Protestants” ? I would like to think this category is most Evolution-tolerant denominations. But it probably has plenty of the large Evangelical groups that are anything but Evolution-tolerant.

http://pressreleases.religionnews.com/2015/11/30/are-young-people-losing-their-faith-because-of-science/

Thanks and you’re welcome! It’s difficult but rewarding work.

There’s plenty of online forums out there about origins, but they are almost always segregated by position, and some can be quite raucous. To my knowledge, this is the only forum where people of all perspectives interact on origins with a high level of civility. That’s pretty cool, in my opinion.

In a word: SLOWLY. There’s so many misconceptions and ignorance out there that introducing a new paradigm into the conversation can be very traumatic for people. I suggest getting copies of two books for people: In the Beginning, We Misunderstood and Coming to Peace with Science (and, of course, The Language of God…can’t forget that one :smile:) . Then follow up over coffee (or something) and work through the conversation slowly. Many people have such rigid categories for faith and science that it takes time to introduce new categories. And be patient and gracious.

Hi dcsccc,

Before you do more research, I have two questions to ask:
(1) If you don’t yet know the details about the several species of whale-like fossils that are incredibly important support for whale evolution, why are you already arguing that this type of evolution cannot be true?
(2) If you are going to look into these fossil forms, are you going to do so to find out whether the evidence does, in fact, support an evolutionary past, or will you be determined to find ways to reject it?
I’m guessing that you see where I am going with this.

I assume from what you have written so far that your aim will be to refute the natural evidences. But, if you are already firmly convinced that evolution cannot be valid, I will skip a back-and-forth, non-productive exchange about natural observations.

I believe it is far more helpful to address this core issue: What biblical, theological and/or philosophical reasons are motivating you to reject the possibility of an evolutionary creation view, while I am convinced that God’s biblical and natural revelations reveal a grand narrative of an evolutionary past? The answer to this foundational question is already determining how we view natural evidences.

Gary

2 Likes

hi again prof gary. im actually go by the evidences. if the evidences show us that a whale cant evolve step wise from a tetrapod- then we should accept those evidences. do you agree?

now lets check again your evidences:

if its have a function then why not? before this you said that “whales have small bones in their pelvic region that serve no apparent function”-. so in this case we may claim that its true. but we indeed found a function for this structure.

  1. what about the possibility that this stucture is actually a part of a vestigial flipper? we have evidence for this also.

so for now- we dont have any evidence that whales had legs.

i already showed that some expert claim it isnt teeth at all but a part of the embrio development. now, even if it was a real teeth- it will be evidence for degeneration and not evolution.

why not actually? maybe its need to be this way because of the complex ambrio development process. actually you said that some mammals doesnt share this trait. so doest it mean that those mammals doesnt share a commonndescent with the mammals that do have it?

i vever seen a whale with legs. do you?

not according to this:

its simple: they share a commondesigner. why 2 different cars are similar?

hey prof venema. what about the possibility that this stucture is actually a part of a vestigial flipper?

2)what about the possibility that this structure is the hip bone itself?

@BradKramer

Thank you for the pointers. At this stage, I was thinking about something at an even earlier stage than books, something that would stimulate people to simply begin asking the right questions instead of just falling in the default/common positions you list on your post. Once they’re already willing to read books about the subject then I’d say we’re already halfway there :slight_smile: Nevertheless, these are good suggestions of good books to have readily available - I’ll make sure to add them the list of introductory references.

@Christy

Thank you for the pointer to this board - it seems overwhelming with millions of posts in tens of thousands of topics in each section! Are there organizations providing YEC/OEC/ID curricula or home schooling materials for those views? How would you assess those materials in comparison with what’s available on the BioLogos website?

Gary, I think dcscccc has clearly shown the inadequacy of the whale vestigial bones theory. The vestigial bones is an out of date concept; it is clear they do have a function. The reasoning for common descent always seems to be common structures, or vestiges of common structures, backed up by a type of common genetics. The problems is that the assumptions are wrong, or at the very least inconclusive, unprovable, and unlikely. Much of this falls under the same type of wishful thinking imposed by Haeckel on his drawings of embryos, contrary to evidence and to reality. Only now the comparisons are made in a more sophisticated way, yet with pseudo assumptions and pseudo conclusions.

There is a mountain of facts, a mountain of theorizing and hypothesizing and a mountain of story-telling. To say that this fact or that fact “most assuredly would be interpreted by modern scientists as evidence for evolution” is a misleading statement. In reality, there is absolutely nothing that would not be interpreted by modern scientists as evidence for evolution… or to put it another way, there is absolutely nothing that would be interpreted by so-called “modern” scientists as evidence against evolution. So it is a meaningless statement you have made.

The reality is however, that the missing transitionals are still missing, and vastly underpopulated in the fossil record, compared to expectations. Convenient then that evolutionists after the fact would not conclude that they did not exist, according to the evidence, but rather, that they would be few in number and most would have never fossilized. Evidence, my foot. (Dcscccc is much more gracious on this point. Today I am simply irritated by such …)

But the same is true for evolutionists. They are wholly committed to rejecting or ignoring any evidence against evolution, no matter what is presented. They are wholly committed to ignoring their false predictions and conclusions in terms of its impact on the viability of the theory of E. They are wholly committed to revising their theory, rather than revising their faith in the theory. Dcscccc shows how all your comments about whale evolution are false statements, and why, and instead of dealing with this, you continue on about presenting the list of evidence for ungulate to whale evolution as if he had never spoken. Your list is imaginary and non-existent, when examined in detail, and so your list explains nothing, and so it is not at all compelling. It is only compelling and supportive for evolution if accepted at face value, and not examined in detail.

1 Like