Are any of you Neo-Creationist mixed with some other form of creationism?

But that doesn’t address whatsoever whether a cat becoming a dog is science fiction or fantasy. I hold to my assessment: it’s fantasy, not science fiction.

1 Like

I have had a nice discussion today. I have an undergraduate back ground in German, history, Philosophy, and linguistics. I am just curious. How many of the group have backgrounds in science? God bless. I am now going to read a historical novel on the Lancasters and Yorks concerning the War of Roses.

Alright. Let’s get into the minutiae, shall we?

Do you believe monkeys could have evolved into gibbons? How about chimpanzees? Could chimpanzees and Australopithecus (Lucy, among others) have been related species? Could Australopithecus afarensis have been related to Australopithecus sediba? Could this skull have been related to A. sediba, or to Homo erectus, or to the Dmanisi fossils? Is Homo Erectus related to Neanderthals or us?

Where and how do you draw your lines of “this couldn’t have happened?”

I see that others have already addressed the “cats becoming dogs” misstatement, so I will just share one of my favorite links that illuminates really well the problem with the microevolution/macroevolution argument, and specifically why cats, dogs, and others are considered related in the order Carnivora:

Uh … Star Trek?

(Not to mention the episode of Voyager where Paris and Janeway reverse-evolve into salamanders in three days…)

I’m glad you are not mentioning that. Because it does not need mentioning.

5 Likes

Hi, the point of Deb & Lorne Haarsma’s book on origins is it presents the different world views about creation and their theological implications. I found this (and the accompanying video studies) a useful way to have the conversation with folks who are YEC or skeptical of all this “evolution”.

2 Likes

Good to know. I’ll keep that reference in my back pocket for when I need it! Thanks!

1 Like

@AMWolfe

Well executed !!!

So as a reward, I’m going to provide one of the key quotes in the link you posted… and may God have mercy on the souls of these Neo-Creationists !!!

Tactics:
“Much of the effort of neo-creationists in response to science consists of polemics highlighting gaps in understanding or minor inconsistencies in the literature of biology, then making statements about what can and cannot happen in biological systems.”

"Critics of neo-creationism suggest that neo-creationist science consists of quote-mining the biological literature (including outdated literature) for minor slips, inconsistencies or polemically promising examples of internal arguments. These internal disagreements, fundamental to the working of all natural science, are then presented dramatically to lay audiences as evidence of the fraudulence and impending collapse of “Darwinism”. [[ < Totally despicable ]]

“Critics suggest that Neo-creationists routinely employ this method to exploit the technical issues within biology and evolutionary theory to their advantage, relying on a public that is not sufficiently scientifically literate to follow the complex and sometimes difficult details.” [[ The only thing that saves is they don’t know much about science either!" ]]

"Robert T. Pennock argues that intelligent design proponents are “manufacturing dissent” in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims: “The ‘scientific’ claims of such neo-creationists as Johnson, Denton, and Behe rely, in part, on the notion that these issues [surrounding evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists… According to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit.” [[<< Behe? Misbehaving again? ]]

"Eugenie Scott describes neo-creationism as “a mixed bag of antievolution strategies brought about by legal decisions against equal time laws”. Those legal decisions, McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard, doomed the teaching of creation science as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes. Scott considers intelligent design, and the various strategies of design proponents like Teach the Controversy and Critical Analysis of Evolution, as leading examples of neo-creationism. Neo-creationists generally reject the term “neo-creation”, alleging it is a pejorative term… "

Ugh.

2 Likes

Nope it doesn’t. Surely Dr. Lamoureaux gave a better definition than that worn out misconception.

I believe that a person has a right to believe what he or she wishes. I notice that there are even Young Earth Creationists on this forum. I understand that you support your paradigm, and I respect that. Even though George is a Unitarian-Universalist, I grant him the right to believe as he does. Christy, that goes for you too. I am not here to force my opinions on anyone; on the contrary, I just want friendly and Christian conversation. Also, Dr. Lamoureux seems to be a very good Christian man. I respect him very much. May God bless you.

George:

It is good to hear from you. However, remember this one thing. We should respect each others’ opinions whether we agree with them or not. May God bless you in your efforts to find the truth.

2 Likes

@gbrooks9

Did you know that Dr. Lamoureax believes in both evolutionary creation and intelligent design. I agree with him. Remember, Theistic Evolution is a form of creationism too. That is why it is called evolutionary creation. Psalm 19 speaks of intelligent design. You may want to read it. Also, there is Progressive Creation with Common Ancestry too. You might say that I walk the line between both views of Progressive Creation. God bless everyone here.

@gbrooks9, @jpm

Did you receive my entry before this one? I am just curious. May God bless your day.

Okay, I’ve been waiting for a devastatingly witty comeback to emerge, but it hasn’t shown up. :disappointed_relieved:

@Edward,

Absolutely. Technically speaking, BioLogos is all about intelligent design too (notice the all lower case letters?) !

By definition, if you think God is guiding evolution, you have an intelligent designer implementing design!

And yet there seems to be a huge chasm between I.D. and i.d.

For example, Dr. Gauger is I.D., right? And yet she rejects common descent.

So when you write: “Dr. Lamoureax believes in … evolutionary creation” - - can you explain exactly what part of “evolution” he holds to within this category of “evolutionary creation”?

1 Like

That is a good question, George. He seems to believe that God guided macroevolution and microevolution; however, there are also nature laws through which creation also takes place. Do I come close? Your friend, Edward.

Sigh… @Edward

Have you ever heard or read about any evolutonist saying that a cat can become a dog? You writing this sentence would be like me criticizing Young Earth Creationists because:

YECs say the universe is controlled by three gods! They have thrown monotheism out the window: the names of the three gods are:

**1) The Father; **
2) The Son (even though there is no indication The Father ever had a wife); and
3) The Ghost.
[[ Let the record show that I have never actually made such a criticism! ]]

@Edward Edward, Don’t you agree that such a criticism would be laughable?

One of the principles of evolution is that evolution and common descent follows natural Nested Hierarchies.

What do I mean by this? When describing whales, no evolutionist has ever said: a whale is a mammal that became a fish. Whales are subsets of mammals… not subsets of fish.

At this point, if we were discussing this at a table, I would expect you to then say: “this is splitting hairs - - the objection is how can one kind of animal change into a completely different kind of animal”.

Fair enough … that should be what you asked about or referred to from the beginning, rather than cats can become dogs (or in my case, that YECs believe in three different gods).

First: evolution doesn’t happen to individual cats, dogs or fish. Evolution is something that happens to populations! < Please confirm that you understand this, and I don’t have to explain it further.

Second: populations tend to retain shared characteristics over time because, all things being equal (in other words, assuming no changes in the environment, etc.), most changes from the population’s “normal traits” that appear in the offspring of individual animals are usually harmful. This is one of the reasons despite the millions of humans on the Earth, we don’t have minority populations of people who look and behave like Homo erectus, or chimpanzees!. This “stable state” of a population is, generally speaking , the result of a free-exchange of genetic factors

But, when populations become divided, this makes it possible for each sub-population to respond uniquely to experiences that one sub-population has, that the other sub-population does not have. In fact, the two populations could even experience the same events, but respond differently in a way that is not shared with the other population. Without “sharing” - - sharing unique mutations or sharing influential behavioral changes that will affect the impact of old mutations - - then the two new sub-populations can “drift” in different directions.

Soon, one group is larger, while the other group might be more hairy. Another group spends more time in water, while the other group spends more time in more rocky terrain. The ones that spend more time in the water, may experience a benefit to change colors… while the other population may remain the old color.

Over a million years of separation, we could easily have a sub-population that looks very different from the original larger population, let alone very different from the new group that headed in a different direction.

Even some YEC groups accept this general principle - - because some groups argue that once animals were released from Noah’s Ark, there was a period of Hyper-Evolution, where a mating pair of a “kind” started to create lots of new similar species.

Once you accept that new species can emerge from an original pair, then the question becomes whether there is enough time for all the changes needed for making a land creature into an otter or seal to occur.

So: whales may be dramatically different from something that vaguely looks like an athletic hippo … are whales dramatically different from seals or walruses?

1 Like

@Edward

If you had “quoted” something from the “entry” in question, I would be able to answer your question.
Can you quote a word or sentence from that “entry”?

@Edward

Do you come close to answering the question? No. Not at all. Without some specifics, I can’t explain why there might be a difference between him and any ordinary BioLogos supporter.

How can you advocate an ID proponent’s “take” on evolution, if you can’t describe his “take”?

Some food for thought . . .

Psalm 139…12Even the darkness is not dark to You, And the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are alike to You. 13For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. 14I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.…

In modern times we have a field of study called developmental biology. It is a very rich and deep field, and it describes the cellular and genetic pathways that control how a multicellular, complex organism can start as a single cell and develop into the mature organism we see. For animals, this involves very complex and heavily studied genetic pathways where whole suites of genes are turned off and on in reaction to the chemicals that other cells release. While scientists may not be able to describe every single minute step in the whole process of human embryonic development, there is little doubt that it is driven by DNA and the products made from DNA.

Does this mean that Psalm 139 is wrong from a theological point of view? I would say not.

I will leave you with one of my favorite Darwin quotes:

"It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers … I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, “as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion.” A celebrated author and divine has written to me that “he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.”— Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)

1 Like