Can you prove common descent, or disprove God created "kinds" (spin-off)

Faith & Science Conversation
41

Thanks Phil!

You may be interested in reading John Walton’s Lost World of Genesis 1, in which he outlines how God’s rest on the 7th day represents taking his seat in the temple of creation, where he rules and the seventh day continues. It is an interesting way to think of it.

Thanks for the tip. Just checked and it doesn’t seem that my local library has it, but maybe i’ll check it out if i can get a copy of it somehow.

Perhaps that wondered a bit off subject, but quite honestly, it is difficult to figure out what the subject is on this thread.!:wink:

Yes you’re right. Staying on the subject is only one of my weaknesses, definetly something i should work on.
But then again when we talk about God and his creation, pretty much every possible subject is atleast somehow bound to it so there’s that :wink:

42

[quote=“grog, post:27, topic:35535”]
The combination of a naturalistic model that relies on chance, time and energy for creation and God just creating are like oil and water. Of course nature is a beautiful God given resource which plants and animals are able to live, adapt and reproduce. But nature CREATING these things and labeling this “Of God” is about the most confusing, illogical and utterly the most statistically impossible idea one could possibly imagine…and I believe it disrespects God.
[/quote]Does this express some of the crux of your thinking? If so, it helps me to understand you, but please correct me if I’m wrong. You seem to be establishing a clear dichotomy between Nature and God. You see ‘Natural’ things as not only independent of God, but actually in some ways working against God. If this is your view, then I understand your contention that labelling Nature ‘of God’ is absurd, and that attempting to reconcile the two is ‘like oil and water.’ Your illustration of the cancer sufferer as a victim of ‘Nature’ (while ‘God’ looks on in compassion?) is a good one for this point of view.

If I were to accept its truth at all, however, I would need to know where this ‘Nature’ came from. Did God create ‘Nature’ evil? Or did he create it Good, and then allow man to spoil it?[quote=“grog, post:27, topic:35535”]Then I hear some of you say that God started the process and others that God interject sporadically in creation.[/quote]As you know, this is not my position at all; quite the reverse, I rather thought it better reflects your position. I wonder if you could clarify that, bringing this discussion back on track again. When God creates his different ‘kinds’, what is he up to? Is this part of his creation of ‘Nature’, or part of his correction of ‘Nature’, or something else? I look forward to better understanding your philosophy.

43

But what you apparently do not understand is that mere similarity is not the semi-vague notion that so impressively supports the Theory of Evolution. No, it is not just a matter of similarity. It is the patterns of similarity which are impressive. More specifically, the nested hierarchies of those patterns is what shouts Common Descent and not Common Design. (Common Descent and Common Design do NOT have equal explanatory powers.)

I know that all of that has been explained to Grog on multiple occasions (and explained in detail in various links and resources Grog has been asked to study) but he appears to operate under the mistaken notion that Common Descent and Common Design are equally valid explanations for the same evidence. They aren’t. I get the impression that because various Young Earth Creationist ministries claim that Common Descent and Common Design “look the same” and both account for the observed evidence, he simply assumes that falsehood without careful reflection. That popular YEC maxim—“Same evidence but different interpretations due to differing worldviews”—is so important to today’s YECism that it is by far the most important exhibit at the Creation Museum. (Every visitor there sees a life-size diorama of a “Biblical” scientist and an “evolutionist” scientist at a dig site. Supposedly they both observe the same evidence but the “good” scientist has an open bible in hand while the “evil” scientist is portrayed as wrong because his worldview is wrong. What is ignored is that today’s YECism typically ignores most of the scientific evidence. So it is not a matter of “different interpretation” or worldview at all. That’s why AIG, ICR, and CMI never present a point-by-point refutation of the massive categories of evidence which support the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, they never risk exposing their readers to the impressive evidence for evolutionary processes. Instead, they cherry-pick the evidence and simply cast doubt on science and scientists in general. We saw that in the recent Venema vs. Jeanson event.)

Have you published these statistics which allegedly defy Common Descent? I’d like to see them. And why do you think “common sense” trumps peer-reviewed analysis of the evidence? Frankly, whenever I’ve investigated such “common sense” arguments, they are nothing more than the Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy. I used to deny the Theory of Evolution based on my own sense of intuition, that is, my personal version of “common sense”. Evolution made no sense to me because (1) I didn’t understand how evolutionary processes operate, and (2) I had no familiarity with things like genetic algorithms, where just a few simple and “unintelligent” lines of computer code could design complex but very efficient solutions to very difficult problems. As my knowledge increased, my “common sense” took a 180 degree turn. Personal intuition is just as limited and fallen as all other aspects of our humanity. So I’m amazed that you have so much confidence in your version of “common sense.”

Agreed! Greg, so much of what you post tells us that you have no idea what evolution is and no awareness of why scientists find the Theory of Evolution so impressively and overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. And the fact that you don’t even try to interact with our answers to your questions reinforces jpm’s observation: you fear what you don’t understand, just as he grew up fearing snakes. I’m still trying to understand why you have such a fear and loathing of methodological naturalism (and why you keep confusing it with the philosophical naturalism of atheism.) God created nature and called it “very good”, so why do you treat God’s revelations in his creation as if they are somehow a denial of the Creator? And why are you so fearful of “random chance” when the Bible states that God is entirely sovereign over “chance events”, such as the casting of lots? If you’ve studied physics, you know that chance is the basis for some of the most accurate predictions in science, such as the decay rate of radioisotopes used in radiometric dating. (So if random chance is not a problem for fallible humans, why would it pose a problem for the power and sovereignty of God?)

Greg’s false dichotomies remind me of the reactions of some Christians to the physics of Isaac Newton. They didn’t like the scientific explanations for what they had previously explained through divine miracles. They preferred “God commands the angels to push the planets through the heavens on their ordained pathways” to Newton’s Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation. To them, the latter appeared to “deny the power of God”. But why? Is God any less sovereign when ruling the universe through the laws of physics he “designed” from the beginning? Why is a “divine miracle” more God-honoring than how God usually operates: through the natural processes he created and called “very good”? And why is “instantaneous” special creation of “kinds” allegedly more God-honoring than the natural processes God created so that the waters and the land would bring forth the diversity of life over many generations which the Bible actually describes? And why does Greg refuse to answers the questions addressed to him such as this one from @gbrooks9:

George noticed my growing frustration and posted this remark:

Guilty as charged. I’ve sincerely tried to be patient but I’ve become doubtful that Greg cares to learn more about the evidence and its analysis. I suspect that his opposition to evolution theory is rooted in the same kinds of fears I once had. I knew very little about evolutionary biology but my “common sense” convinced me that it was an evil plot by Satan to wipe out all that is good and Biblical. Not until I began to study Hebrew exegesis did I become aware of the vast differences between my cherished traditions about the interpretation of the Genesis texts versus what the Hebrew text actually states ( and doesn’t state.) I realized that I had been fear-driven, not truth-driven.

3 Likes
44

I am saying that the evolutionary meteorologist scientists if you will who are attempting to predict what actually occurred millions or even billions of years ago need to go back to meteorology school. The more I ask folks about their science for evolution, the more I get answers that are not logically conclusive to the claim that evolution is true and are carelessly unscientific. They are examples of assuming evolution from common decent true first and proving it later. They are practicing science which is good but then deifying it for determinations that are impossible for it to figure out.

Tell me if you know if there is one single higher level education organization anywhere in the world that would entertain the idea the real TRUTH potential God placed fully functioning plants and animals into this natural world to adapt and survive within it and then put this to the scientific tests for historical determinations about how we arrived on this planet. After all in the realm of all truth there absolutely can be two possibilities…one is A, God created the kinds and B that we evolved from bacteria. So why don’t schools consider A? And the brains that God has given us who understand statistics and are able to see in the labs that life just does not evolve from simple cells into anything that it takes more blind faith to believe in B than A! It is our sin natures that cause secularism to reign because the idea of God is repulsive to sin and selfishness. I will not equate a Christian evolutionist this way…But I would encourage that Christian to consider a better way. Am I wrong on this? Remember the Bible talks of God making foolish the wisdom of man.

This am my daughter and I were chatting…she was looking at her homeschool planner and eating breakfast while opening the work to the book of Mark. We talked about this evolution subject a bit. I explained to Kelsey how folks are suggesting that because a chimp dna pattern is similar to human that we evolved from a sub chimp species. I just don’t agree. A thought immediately came to mind while talking…Perhaps God is presenting to his chosen people a picture of the reality of the value of glory by making chimps look and seem very people-like in their outward appearance and inner structure. Where there is some beauty and glory in a human body, the fact that a chimps body which is finite and soulless and not made in the image of God is similar is screaming to human kind that God’s glory is infinitely more important than skin and bones. And that the human body and mind is only the conduit-yes just a broken clay pot that is as beautiful as the glory of God is when filling it by His Spirit. The dna that gives the brain the ability in human kind to think and feel and consider the case for a Creator and to even worship Him even at the expense of their own livelihood like the apostles as it is hugely different than that of a chimps is more than enough to differentiate the entire nature of a chimp from a human…And I believe that God created both! We once believed that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was glory central of the entire universe. WRONG on both accounts. God is the center of the universe and controls, sustains and holds the stars and planets in place by His Word. This gives true understanding to my mind about why in God’s love He had to sacrifice Himself to satisfy His justice in our place. His awesome glory is not possible for sinful humans to achieve! This is going to be a glorious Easter! I hope yours Mr. Falter.

45

Nature is not bad. Sin is. It is eternally bad to disobey God. When Adam and Eve sinned, they introduced death, disease, strife into their world including nature. Yet evolution suggests that humans were evolved on the backs of death and destruction does it not?

46

When the CSI team investigates a murder scene are they “predicting” that a murder took place or are they saying the evidence indicates a murder took place? And, BTW, the CSI team doesn’t start with the assumption that a murder took place and then try to prove it.

First nobody has ever said that evolution is “true”. Only that it has never been falsified. That is how science works.

You left out option C, God created using evolution.

Back to my favorite example. Does it rain because God poofed it into existence, because warm moist air rises, condenses, and falls as rain, or God used the natural process to rain on the just and the unjust?

2 Likes
47

Amen to that! I agree wholeheartedly with this idea, Greg.

Amen to that, too. And I hope yours will be similarly glorious.

Now let’s take a closer look at the Bible and science.

I claim that the Bible very clearly teaches that God is the one who sends the rain:

in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights - Genesis 7:4

I will give you your rains in their season - Leviticus 26:4

he will give the rain for your land in its season, the early rain and the later rain - Deuteronomy 11:14

So Samuel called upon the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day - I Samuel 12:18

Moreover, if it doesn’t rain, it’s because God withholds it:

then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you, and he will shut up the heavens, so that there will be no rain - Deuteronomy 11:17

Now Elijah the Tishbite, of Tishbe in Gilead, said to Ahab, “As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, before whom I stand, there shall be neither dew nor rain these years, except by my word.” - I Kings 17:1

When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land… - II Chronicles 7:13

Let’s use those wonderful brains God has given us to understand these passages, Greg. Would you agree with me that the Bible clearly teaches that it is God who sends the rain and God who withholds it?

48

They do consider A in religion classes, but not in science classes, because it is not science. And when science looks at the evidence, the evidence from multiple sources is consistent with some variety of your B, and there is no evidence (none) of all animals springing from “kinds” 4000 years ago. No fossils, no historical, no Biblical evidence.

4 Likes
49

“After all in the realm of all truth…” refers to philosophy and religious studies courses. They are the university departments where “the realm of all truth” is topical. In contrast, university SCIENCE departments are by definition limited to what the Scientific Method can investigate. There is no tool or procedure available to scientists which allows them to investigate deities and other non-natural (aka supernatural) entities. That is why science textbooks don’t mention God. It is a topic entirely outside of their realm of investigation. Now if you know of a way that I can conduct an experiment to determine God’s involvement, then I will agree that theology has a potential place in university science courses.

There are LOTS of “truth topics” which are not investigated in university science classes. Indeed, I had a colleague who had been a well-published scientist but he decided to get a second PhD and become a philosophy professor. When I got to know him, he was the chair of the Philosophy Dept, so one day in the faculty lounge over lunch I asked him why he made the career change. Without hesitation, he said, “I got tired of the limitations of science. So many interesting questions can’t be investigated through the scientific method.” As with so many atheist philosophers, he found Richard Dawkins very annoying. (That’s a closely related topic but I won’t pursue that tangent here.)

Why is science focused solely on natural processes? For that we can thank the many Christian philosopher of the Middle Ages who saw the limitations and obstacles which came with the former pursuit of Natural Philosophy as just another subfield of philosophy. Methodological naturalism was probably their greatest contribution to western civilization. Christian scholars like William of Ockhamm, Roger Bacon, Issac Newton, Rene Descartes, and many others—not atheists—freed us from the constraints of ancient philosophy, politics, theology, tradition, folk medicine, and authoritarian dogma in general by defining modern science as we know it today. They understood that God gave us a universe which functions according to observable processes which can be investigated and understood.

As to Greg’s “fully functioning plants and animals”, is there some variety of organism which has escaped my notice which is NOT “fully functioning?” I suppose dead plants and animals would meet that definition of being not fully functioning—but this is yet another instance where Greg appears to be chasing straw man concepts. All of the scientists and theologians I’ve known agree that all plants and animals are “fully functioning” and that is how they are able to survive.

It sounds to me like Greg wishes to turn back the progress which took science out of the philosophy department. I’ve known a lot of ID and Young Earth Creationism proponents who want to redefine science so that it includes philosophy and theology. Why? Is it because they envy the perceived prestige and influence of science in our society? That’s yet another topic for its own thread but suffice it to say that those who don’t like to be restricted to the scientific method would probably be happier with a career in philosophy or theology where virtually everything is topical to the academic discipline.

4 Likes
50

Even with the “if you will” included, I have no idea what an “evolutionary meteorologist scientist” would be. Moreover, I don’t understand why you would use the word “predict” in referring to events which happened long ago instead of in the future. These are just a few examples where I’m not so sure that we are all broadcasting on the same “wavelength” in our communications here.

Here also, I think the reason why you doubt and deny what millions of scientists and non-scientists understand and readily embrace as good science is that you have your own personal definition of words like “evolution” and even “science/scientific.” I think this explains why your posts are so saturated with straw man arguments. Is it possible that you don’t understand what evolution is and why the evidence is so compelling? Is it possible that you don’t understand how scientists determine what happened in the past and subject scientific theories to falsification testing? Have you investigated why the Kruger-Dunning Effect is so pervasive in instances where non-scientists declare the scientists wrong?

1 Like
51

This thread has gone quiet in recent hours so I will pursue a few more points:

And where the Bible does refer to animals reproducing “each after its kind”, it agrees with what evolutionary biologists have to say about reproduction: organisms produce offspring which are very much like the parents. Indeed, if ever a mating of animals produced offspring entirely unlike the parents, that would be a powerful argument against the Theory of Evolution.

How did God go about creating the incredible diversity of biological life we observe throughout our planet? I look at the evidence and can see how God designed evolutionary processes to produce new kinds of animals (that is, new varieties of animals) which can survive in changing environments. What I don’t see is scripture evidence nor scientific evidence for the relatively recent pseudoscience of “baraminology”, where the Biblical “kinds” are assigned a contrived and artificial taxonomic significance that is entirely foreign to the Biblical text.

2 Likes
52

God sends the rain and God withholds the rain. I absolutely do not believe that Nature is evil. In the book of Job somewhere, it speaks of God even feeding the lion…

Nature is not evil.

But according the Bible we are quoting, death only came to the first humans who were created by God due to disobedience to God. Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

The serpent which traditionally is considered satan even deceived Eve into believing that they would not die upon this heinous act of disobeying the God of the universe.

So it seems that nature before sin was a different type than nature today…at least as it was in the garden of eden. There are obvious remnants of beauty around this world and some of what we see in nature that we consider beautiful were actually crafted due to original sin. But God’s nature would have been better before the fall. It will be better yet one day after Christ’s return and His reign upon the earth where He will bring to judgement all evil and death, disease, suffering and strife will be no more…I believe we will work the land just like Adam and Eve were commissioned before the fall. But it won’t be the type of work that Adam was placed into after the fall either.

I must say that the more I grow in my relationship with our Lord, the more I look forward to the day I see HIm face to face!

When I say “God’s nature” I don’t mean the nature of God but the nature that God created on earth for us to live and enjoy…whew.

53

We live in a world where we are given basic tools in our brains to decipher truths. When I find a book and read a page everyone in earshot of this would immediate write me off as a loon if I would suggest that the single page was with intelligent writing upon it was possible to have come to be due to natural causes. Nature is not intelligent. And the suggestion that God used unintelligent nature for creating makes my brain stem sizzle for how nonsensical it is…we have never seen examples of life developing in the lab from simple cells even in the most perfect environment and we are foolhearty to consider this on a mass scale unless we give God a big stiffarm.

54

I believe you are so focused on trees you are missing the forest…Do you really believe that nature was able to develop a human brain that won’t work without blood, that won’t work with a pump, which won’t work without an oxygenator, which won’t work without a brain…oh back to the brain…which won’t work without blood getting nutrients which needs a stomach…which needs an intestines…on and on and on. All developing naturally from a simple cell? A brain without a stomach is non functional. A stomach without a place for excrement release is foolish. Think about what you are saying. God of course made nature. But He did not make it intelligent enough to gradually develop what we see in life today. No way. And God calling creation “good” on the back of suffering, death, disease in natural selection processes is damning to His name.

56

determinations about how life came to this earth is NECESSARILY philosophical. Think about this for a minute. If one chooses to investigate the beginnings of time and life on earth where any and all options could very well include God who miraculously intervened in a major way, and I choose to investigate it using human observational skills, then I have essentially chosen to eliminate the possibility that God intervened in a major way which then necessarily calls this idea stupid…when it all along could have been true. Think about this. I realize that it is a foolhearty task to try to find evidence for God and miracles -but no more foolhearty for trying to find evidence for naturalistic causes for life the same.

So if science is the basis for historical determinations of life and truth is that life came via supernatural, then it may be very wise to consider, along with my historical science if there are any legitimate voices out there who seem sincere in pointing to God as a point of reference and wisdom on how life came to be.

I believe that I have found that sincere voice in the Bible. I believe we use the Bible to guide our historical science instead of attempting to allow historical science to guide my Bible. That is just me.

I have been hearing over and over how there is no way that God would have put us here with scientific evidences seeming contrary to His Word because God is not a deceiver. I agree. However there is a better way to look at this. We little pion humans who have a smidgen of a fraction of the wisdom of God should look at the complex universe and consider the wisdom found in the idea that there is no way to truly come to understand how God really did all of this. He is so beyond us that observational skills alone are not capable of achieving true indicators of God’s plan and purposes at times. God is God and we are not. That is why Easter is a really good celebration!

57

@grog, you need to pay attention to what I’m describing to our Mod’s:

One:
I would like the Mod’s to take note here (@jpm, @Christy, @Casper_Hesp) . This is not the first time that Grog has criticized BioLogos positions as depicting BioLogos as an atheistic organization that does not allow for God’s involvement in writing (shall we call it for now?) the book of life!

Two:
It is also clear that @Grog has several times ignored my direct request for him to explain his inconsistency - - presumably because he thinks that if he doesn’t respond to me, I can’t flag his posting for misbehavior. Unfortunately, his refusing to respond to my request for an explanation is misbehavior in itself.

Three:
And lastly, he continues to veil his inconsistent accusations against us by constantly changing the subject instead of discussing how he can agree with Evangelical writers who describe a period of hyper-speciation after the animals were released from the Ark, while at the same time attacking BioLogos with criticisms that Speciation is logicallly impossible, and (even more preposterously) attacking BioLogos for claiming that Speciation is de-facto evidence of Common Descent.

In the post following this one, he says he now accepts Speciation… but only if the Speciation is by special creation, and not by natural processes - - which is not how several Creationist pages have described Speciation - - they describe it as a natural (certainly God-led) process in response to different ecological conditions!

In fact, in the post following this one, @Grog even claims that changes in the environment wouldn’t produce speciation - - which is how Evangelical pages have actually described as a cause of speciation - - but would destroy speciation: “… God injected in quick distribution of species by miracle [rather] than gradual evolution over eons where climate change alone would destroy the slow process before it would begin!”

Exactly how much of this silliness are we supposed to allow?
A) BioLogos is not atheistic, no matter how many times he tries to twist any discussion of Evolution into a fundamentally atheistic hypothesis.

B) Refusing to explain his inconsistent logic is the same thing as continuing to use illogical rhetoric to claim defeat for God-ordained Evolutionary models.

C) You can’t agree with post-Ark hyper-speciation in one post, and then claim that Speciation is impossible in a different post.

For these reasons, I must flag the posting above where @Grog once again argues against BioLogos as if it were a brand of atheism.

58

I am okay with speciation from a certain kind to another as that original type was capable from the genetic makeup in which it was created. From a horse could come a donkey, zebra, pony, really tiny dog sized horses and large ones pulling Budweiser wagons…maybe even giraffes. From a marsupial there could be a more vast array of options maybe… And I am much more okay with the rationale that God injected in quick distribution of species by miracle than gradual evolution over eons where climate change alone would destroy the slow process before it would begin!

But nature taking a cell and by forces of nature evolving complex life? it makes my brain split open and my eyes go crossed at the thought…and to attribute this process to God? It would be the equivalent…let me think…of a house being built by the supposed wind on a very windy day and the mayor making a major announcement to the city that Greg Rogers built the most beautiful house! How would I think about this?..first I would think, well how foolish a thought that wind can create anything. Then I would think why am I even being given credit when all I did was place the lumber…then I would think a little more and get angry because my name is being associated and muddied on the back of an insanely idiotic idea here.

59

I did not argue against speciation. Show me where. It never even came to mind. I am arguing that nature as we like to say at it is ordained by God was, is and never will be capable of producing complexity of life as we see it today from a common decent. Why is it so awful to consider that God created a horse kind with a genetic make up to speciate into a donkey, zebra, maybe a giraffe big, tiny, and middle sized horses of many varieties? This would fall directly in line with the Genesis account and fall in line with Noah. And you don’t have to have intellectual suicide to believe it rather than chance naturalism.

Common decent theistic evolution which mimics the secular models of evolution almost to a T (with some God semantics) falls better in line with the first book of the naturalistic philosopher’s Bible and not Genesis.

60

@Grog, you make me smile…

The problem is exactly that. You don’t know how to recognize speciation, because it really doesn’t come to your mind.

I have already quoted from an Evangelical page explaining how there can logically be a burst of super-fast speciation because of animals from the ark being released into completely empty niches in the environment, representing ecological changes that benefit new arrangements of genetic traits.

And you have said you agreed with this position.

And then you write something like this:

“… God injected in quick distribution of species by miracle [rather] than gradual evolution over eons where climate change alone would destroy the slow process before it would begin!”

You really have no idea what you are talking about … and can’t even own up to you intentionally (or unintentionally?) describing some completely different scenario.

Give it up, man. Go back to your blog and make up your stories there.

61

God can cause the rain by creating a heat wave that evaporates the oceans which causes clouds. Are you suggesting that God made a heat wave, or gave lots of time, or seeded the planet with bacteria, or etc etc in order for a human body to evolve slowly and gradually to gain all of the components necessary for it to be alive? How does a half heart even work? What use is an only partially evolved lung that is not quite ready to oxygenate blood?

God creating kinds of plants and animals in an instant and placing them onto a planet with perfect ingredients for life not only takes a lot less faith to believe but also is in the Bible.

I am a creationists through and through. I will never become a theistic evolutionist…ever. To me it is worse than godless naturalistic philosophy because is attributes something that makes no sense to God.