Good for that clergyman. Young earth creationists at least in part agree with him.
Young earth creationists embrace speciation. Young earth creationists believe that God created “kinds,” to use the biblical designation. From those kinds, species developed, generally from a loss of genetic diversity in the original kind.
Young earth creationists embrace adaptation. They find that organisms were created with the ability to adapt to different environments.
Young earth creationists see natural selection at work. But natural selection is not evolution. It selects from what is available, but does not create new genetic information. It accounts for the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.
YEC also accepts the idea of survival of the fittest. How is fitness defined? By definition, those individuals that survive are the fittest, so in that sense, the idea is tautological.
It seems you are asserting that God, using his intelligence, intervenes in the evolutionary process by providentially providing new information. That is certainly contrary to what most evolutionists believe–that it is only a natural process, and that no intelligence is involved. It seems you are in a small minority position among evolutionists, and hold a position that most would find completely contrary to evolutionary theory.
I accept that evolutionary belief is not monolithic. It is fine with me (although my permission is immaterial) that you hold that contrary position. But it does complicate the discussion when there are widely disparate views in play.
I find your argument flawed. There is no necessary or logical connection between denying evolution and denying God’s sovereignty. I deny evolution because I don’t think that neo-Darwinian evolution is true. I both deny evolution and firmly believe in God’s sovereignty and his ability to providentially intervene. God can do whatever he wishes.
What YEC can’t explain is the nested hierarchy that exists across the claimed created kinds. This nested hierarchy is found in the morphology of living species, the morphology of fossil species, and in the genomes of both extinct and extant species. YEC’s can’t explain the pattern of transition and transversion mutations when comparing genomes between created kinds. They can’t explain the difference in sequence conservation between exons and introns. They can’t explain the distribution of orthologous ERV’s. They can’t explain the correlation between ratios of isotopes in rocks and the morphology of fossils below those rocks. There is mountains and mountains of data that evolution easily explains but which YEC has no comprehensible explanation.
Let’s look at another example, a gene called cytochrome C (cytC). The human and mouse version are 90.5% similar. The human and chicken cytC genes are 81.6% similar. If we compared the mouse and chicken cytC genes, what would YEC’s expect to see for the similarity between the genes, and why?
Science is not ontological naturalism. It is methodological naturalism. Science can not tell us that God is not guiding mutations, only that the process of mutation that we see occurring naturally is statistically consistent with a lack of guidance. This is only a statistical statement, not a philosophical statement of the true nature of the process.
I would also say that the theistic evolution view is found throughout nature. People will heal from injuries in a manner consistent with natural processes, but people will still believe that God was part of it. People will claim that God blessed them by sending rain during a drought, even though the weather could easily be explained in purely natural terms. I would argue that theistic evolution is completely consistent with the overall outlook of the vast majority of Christians if we take a broader view of nature.
Ken Ham denies evolution because it contradicts the interpretation of the Bible he believes is necessary. For him, it isn’t a matter of evidence. It’s a matter of sticking to a theology he believes he has to stick to, no matter what the evidence shows.
It seems you are asserting you know not what. What did I say? I said the neutral drift and the neutral theory of evolution can produce complexity and new information. I did not say God directly inserts new information.
How does God work in providence? It is a wonderful mystery. Did Moses see God’s hand or feel his breath when the Israelites went through the Red Sea? They were at the right place at the right time. I expect you should remember some of God’s providences in these accounts: Factual evidence for Christians to rejoice in, remember and recount, and for true seekers to ponder. Can you point to any single instant and say “There it is, God did that, and I can show it scientifically!”?
Why are you arguing YEC? I am not YEC! I don’t even deny the existence of the evolutionary process. I just deny its scope. Do you really expect me or anyone else to list every irriducable system? How long have you got?
There are none so blind as those who will not see…
It applies to you, and may apply to me. I see yourr evidence. it just does not convince me. You do not even see mine.
God works sovereignly and providentially though evolution
Conclusion:
Therefore, to deny evolution is to deny God’s providence and sovereignty.
Your argument is a valid argument–your conclusion follows from your premises. But a conclusion of a valid argument is only proven if the premises are true. But since your premise that evolution is true is false, so your conclusion is also false.
Since special creation is true, I also hold to the truth God’s sovereignty without holding contradictory positions and experiencing cognitive dissonance.
But because you believe evolution is true, you probably don’t experience cognitive dissonance either. Dissonance arises from contrary beliefs.
Talk about a straw man! Evolutionary creationists by definition believe the universe was created by God, who has ultimate knowledge and wisdom. Just not in the way YEC or ID proposes. When you try to “reverse engineer” the universe, and say that its properties then prove God, it just does not work. It is like presenting a snowflake and calling it proof of God. Philosophically, it sort of works, but it is not evidence of proof.
That’s because ID/creationists have yet to create a scientific hypothesis to test. Just having an opinion isn’t science. Arguing against competing theories is not evidence for your own theory.
That actually is pretty close to my feelings on the subject. It sure beats the alternative:
Premises:
God’s word states that a young earth is true.
Christianity is based on God’s word.
Conclusion: If the earth is not young, then Christianity is baseless.
Unfortunately, the latter is what many YECs teach and many atheists believe.
@cewoldt is YEC, and that was who I was repsonding to.
I expect them to supply evidence for their claim that IC systems can’t evolve, or are even a problem for evolution. At one point, IC systems were even expected to be a product of evolution.
All I am seeing is your uninformed opinion that biological complexity can not evolve, or that there can be no transitional stages for the systems you describe. You are supplying no evidence for those claims.