Distasteful...The Implications Of Evolution Before The Fall

Faith & Science Conversation
184

Thank you for posting all of this, Casper. A couple things on some of your claims…
You claim that AiG is prideful in saying that their interpretation of scripture is absolute truth. However, you seem to have no qualms with drastically reinterpreting large portions of the Bible. I do not believe that God using evolution and millions of years, yet saying that he created the cosmos in 6 days shows deceit that just doesn’t seem to fit with his character. Do you not consider it prideful to say that the “scientific” discoveries of mere humans are obviously more reliable than God’s own testimony of creation in the Bible? [quote=“Casper_Hesp, post:182, topic:36407”]
“Imagine you end up in Heaven and God tells you that you were mistaken. Imagine that He tells you that the Earth is old and that He created mankind through evolution. He kindly explains you that the Scriptures were meant to transmit spiritual teachings, not cosmology… In that case, would you call God a liar for having inspired Genesis 1-3?”
[/quote]

An interesting hypothetical. I would not call God a liar, and would readily admit that I had been wrong if presented with this situation. After all, I hold God in higher respect than I do the scriptures (but do not get me wrong, I hold the scriptures in very high regard as they are the word of God).

I would like to present you with this hypothetical:

"God is very displeased that you are reinterpreting his word incorrectly in Genesis, and, in a roundabout way, bringing down the credibility of all of His scriptures. And, as if this were not enough, you loudly trumpet these views, leading others astray into myths…What do you think of these implications of your worldview as expressed in this hypothetical? (“hypothetical is written in this way so as to remind you that I am not at all condemning anyone or anything…yet. As I’ve said before, I have problems with the BioLogos view, but I still realize the possibility that _I _ am wrong).”

Obviously, I am not that man.

You have not given any areas where their claims are faulty (other than astrophysics, which was the one that I was already award of). If you can provide me with another topic (preferably within the realms of Evolution/Biology or Paleontology/Geology), I will gladly consider using some of my valuable time in researching it.

Since (as I gather from your post) AiG people are not considered (by you) to be experts or real scientists, I shall consult the expert scientists at CMI and ICR in my (potential) critique of them. I assume they would fall into your category of “actual scientists.”

@Casper_Hesp, I am interested in hearing your thoughts about all of this!

(P.S: I know that the ce-debate is a fairly controversial topic, and tensions can heat fast when discussing it (online formats do not help at all, and, frankly, make the discussion even more heated as a hostile tone can be projected onto the comments. This post script is to say that I do not mean the tone of my comments to be hostile or combatant, these are just sincere questions and comments (and the occasional expression of slight annoyance ;)) that I have on this issue. Thank you for your understanding. One more thing:

EC (in a broad sense) is now being discussed on this website, if you wish to see what others are saying about it or weigh in. Thanks!)

185

I think he’s saying that discoveries of what God has written in nature are more reliable than YOUR MINORITY INTERPRETATION of poetry about creation in the Bible.

You’re conflating your mere interpretation with God’s testimony. That’s awfully prideful, wouldn’t you say?

186

I was thinking along the same lines. Let’s assume evolution, geology, astronomy and so forth are off the table, just as they were to the original writer and audience.

When you read Genesis, would you think it was a textbook of natural Earth science, or would you find it a revelation about the nature of God, and his relationship to humanity?
Would you put forth your interpretation as being the word of God?

1 Like
187

I have met several human adults who were not very intelligent.

1 Like
188

Domesticating a wild fox isn’t a useful adaptation?

189

Anecdotal evidence for evolution is the annual new strain of the flu. As virus are single-celled the new strain can’t be due to sexual reproduction.

190

But they do reproduce and mutate when they do so. That is all that is needed for natural selection to do it’s thing.

1 Like
191

[Edited for clarity: the phrase “usual term” has been replaced with “preferred term”!]

@bill_wald, A term preferred by some could be “Genetic Replication” … rather than “Sexual Reproduction”. As I have mentioned in other threads, creatures that developed genetic replication to perfection probably went extinct as soon as the Earth’s environment started changing more dynamically.

Life forms that could prosper while allowing a bit of error in replication would have more variation in their gene pool which allowed them to more dynamically respond to ecological/environmental changes.

192

12 posts were merged into an existing topic: “I’m not interpreting it, I’m just reading it!”

194

Hoo boy. Um.
*Viruses aren’t cells at all.
*Sexual reproduction is common among single-celled organisms (cf. yeast).
*Sexual reproduction is not necessary to get mutation, genetic diversity, or recombination.

That was a lot of error packed efficiently into a small amount of text!

2 Likes
195

No, that’s not a phrase used in any biological context, mostly because it’s meaningless. You may be thinking of DNA replication.

1 Like
196

I, Bill_II, didn’t say a virus was a cell.
I didn’t mention sexual reproduction because they aren’t cells.
I didn’t say sexual reproduction was necessary.

So what are the errors in what I said?

197

None, I was referring to @bill_wald’s words which you quoted.

198

I’ve been a biologist for almost 40 years, and never heard those two words used together like that.

In what circles is it a usual term?

2 Likes
201

My point is that the phrase is general enough to avoid objections like the one above. Replication of genetic material is a universal property of all life forms… and perhaps to a few things that some people don’t really consider is alive!

I won’t take a stand on this particular example, but some have argued that a virus is not a “living” thing.

202

I accept that you have not heard the term; I assert that it is an acceptable general term.

Let us not forget that not too long ago, the very same tag team of correspondents fell on their swords regarding the fictional nature of the phrase: “Ring Speciation.”

I was pilloried. I was denounced. I was scorned. All in all, a pretty big day or two for me.

And then I produced citations to peer reviewed articles where the phrase “Ring Speciation” was not only used in the narrative - - it was used in the article titles as well.

We all survived it.

203

Domestic dogs are genetically wolves not foxes. Domestication is not the same as selective breeding to obtain chihuahuas out of wolves. Many dogs bred for certain aesthetic characteristics have less desirable health and survival characteristics like chronic back problems. An adaptation is selected for naturally by environmental and reproductive advantages, it isn’t imposed by a human breeder. Of course breeding leads to desirable traits, that is the whole point of animal husbandry, but it isn’t natural selection at work, so it shouldn’t be used as an example of microevolution.

1 Like
205

@Christy

Nice!

@bill_wald, think of it this way: Evolutionists talk about

“Natural Selection”.

Animal breeders routinely use

“Man-made Selection”,
or some other such clever phrase.

1 Like
206

That debate is actually a very fun one to have. One of the first things to recognize is our tendency as humans to see things as black and white, or require reality to fit into neat little categories. The problem is that sometimes reality is a spectrum that doesn’t fit neatly into human made boxes.

On one side of the spectrum you have humans, fish, trees, and bacteria. These are all things that are accepted as living by nearly everyone. On the other end of the spectrum you have transposons, which are little pieces of DNA that can get duplicated and inserted into the host genome. The human genome has millions of transposon insertions. In between the two extremes you varying degrees of host dependence and life histories.

For example, viruses may have once been living organisms similar to bacteria. Even now there are species called “obligate intracellular parasites” that have to live inside of another cell in order to live and replicate (e.g. Chlamydia). It could be that viruses were once obligate intracellular parasites that lost their own genes for replicating their own genome, allowing the host genes to take over those roles. Are obligate intracellular parasites not alive because they can’t live out in the environment all on their own? Most scientists still say that these parasites are alive, even though they could be seen as failing one of the requirements for life.

In the end, the argument over what is living and what is not is nothing more than a semantic argument. It is more interesting to study how these things work and interact.

4 Likes
208

What you asserted is there in black and white: “The usual term used is “Genetic Replication””. That’s wrong, and it’s unhelpful since the phrase has no clear meaning and is different from terms used millions of times in the scientific (and lay) literature. In other words: the phrase is not the “usual term” for anything at all, and moreover it is confusing. If you are keen to help people understand science, then you should avoid concocting new and unclear phrases and labeling them “usual terms.” Actually reading science is a good antidote to this, in my experience.