Do Evolutionary Theory And Scripture Contradict Each Other?

Faith & Science Conversation
199

I find this to be a rather strange conclusion for someone to make when they are a professional scientist.

Analysis of Ring Species and “virtual Ring Species” conform to the principles of ToE. They are almost real time exemplars of evolution.

The evolution of bacterial and viral vectors conforms to Evolutionary theory.

I think our “First George” will find that any specific example he might offer of a non-testable hypothesis can be matched with a testable one, when structured in a normative syntax that allows for a test.

Archaeologists and Molecular Biologists make all sorts of testable hypothesis using Evolutionary theory. Some hypotheses are found correct; some are found incorrect. Mileage will vary.

Predictions about what we would find in the whale genotype about baleen whales is a well known example. And the recent Harvard “bacteria table” (in high speed video) would have been impossible to have designed and filmed if bacteria genotypes didn’t respond as predicted to stressors in the bacteria culture.

If Evolutionary Theory had failed any of its fundamental premises generations ago (regarding common descent or speciation), there wouldn’t be a BioLogos today.

3 Likes
200

I think your comments would be useful if you consulted a few text books dealing with the philosophy of science and how scientists and philosophers, view laws of science. There you will find well constructed arguments for and against particular views - and you may find that even advocates of ToE are willing to admit it is sematic in nature - their persuasive case is that it provides explanatory power to various branches of biology. Your examples simply show that change occurs over time - hardly stuff to worry professional scientists.

1 Like
201

I don’t really see that as misleading by ignoring–they are simply misrepresenting the evidence IMO because they can’t explain twin nested hierarchies.

202

These comments are hardly a refutation.

203

If you aren’t familiar with nested hierarchies, why are you recommending checking out a link that mentions neither the term nor the concept of nested hierarchies?

204

Very familiar with his work. Tomkins seems like a nice guy, but his study is deeply flawed. The data is freely available and I reproduced his work for fun. I found he made some large errors, by excluding some basic controls. Including the controls, we find the human/chimp reads similarity is about 98%. For comparison, the similarity of mice/rats is about 80%.

MIce and rats are the same “kind.” Seems that humans and chimps are too. =)

I could show you his error if you are interested.

3 Likes
205

On the page you linked above you said, “If the Atheist/Evolutionary worldview is indeed true, that the universe, and ultimately life, were created by natural processes, and that there is no God, or afterlife, then any religion which claims to have a truth other than that is false.”

Why do you think atheism and the evolutionary model of biological diversity are one and the same thing? The evolutionary model is no more atheistic in “worldview” than the model of plate tectonics or the weather cycle. As Christians, we affirm that God works in and through all natural processes (including the weather cycle, plate tectonics, and natural selection) since by him and through him and for him all things are created and hold together. The evolutionary model being true does not rule out God’s work in nature or his authority over nature or his ability to use natural processes to accomplish his will.

I don’t believe any of the truth claims in the Bible because science “proves” them, I believe them because I have made an a priori commitment to accept them as God’s true revelation of himself and his work in our world. But believe the Bible and science both describe a single true reality, so if what science calculates about reality conflicts with what I think the Bible says about reality, then I need to figure out where I am understanding something wrong.

2 Likes
206

It was just a link to an AIG article about DNA/Genetics… I thought it would be applicable.

What do you think of my other link?

207

@Swamidass

I would be interested in seeing the error…[quote=“Swamidass, post:204, topic:36218”]
Including the controls, we find the human/chimp reads similarity is about 98%. For comparison, the similarity of mice/rats is about 80%.
[/quote]

However…
One thing I’ve always wondered…
How exactly do we figure out the percentage similarity between organisms’ DNA???

208

@Christy
Note:
One thing (of the many) that_I_ have learned from participation on this site (and from a different post on the same site as the link in question) is that Evolutionists can be informed, and be sincere Christians. However…
Evolution (in the broad sense) gives lots of credibility to Atheism, since it:
A) Allows life (and anything/everything for that matter) to come into existence without God, or any supernatural entity.
B) How do we know science is right about MACROEVOLUTION? (I apparently have to start distinguishing again, judging from a reply by gbrooks9):

(I take it by “speciation” you are speaking of MICROEVOLUTION)

As for that, I thought @GJDS summed it up pretty well:

@gbrooks…that does not appear to be a good refutation to his refutation.

If something as scientifically unsound as Evolution conflicts with the Bible in a profound way (and yes, I consider throwing away [or dismissing as allegory/fable] several [highly important] chapters worth of scripture profound) I think the “science” of fallible human beings is what should first be doubted. As @GJDS seems to be implying, we have never observed MACROEVOLUTION…even in the fossil record (some say we have, but these specimens are rather questionable).

@gbrooks9
Maybe it’s time to take BioLogos down?
Regarding speciation: Microevolution (correct me if I’m wrong [I should really make an abbreviation for that] seriously). No problem! It’s been observed on many occasions (some of them mentioned by @gbrooks9)
Regarding common descent: A few questions: How could all of the vastly different life forms we see today have evolved from mutations (when we see that mutations lose genetic information, not create it, or at least cause detriments to the survival of the mutant organism (especially in bacteria)? Why don’t we find any (or at least way way more) credible transitional forms in the fossil record? If the Earth is billions of years old, why isn’t there WAY more sediment in the oceans?

Even if that gets shot down, there has to be (may I be so bold as to say there is?) at least ONE fundamental premise of Evolutionary Theory that has failed.

Let’s not jeopardize the future of this discussion.

In all seriousness, people, I have many, many questions about evolution, they only keep increasing, (most I haven’t even asked yet) and I really want answers to all of them (and I do not count “unenlightened YEC” or “that hardly poses a problem to EC” as an answer. I haven’t gotten MUCH of that from this forum however.)

Also in all seriousness: I make no claims to be any smarter or wiser than anyone (in fact, I am certain that you ALL are much more knowledgeable on these topics than I). I look forward to seeing this microscopic cross-section of my questions list answered! Thanks!

210

@J.E.S
Regarding common descent: A few questions: How could all of the vastly different life forms we see today have evolved from mutations (when we see that mutations lose genetic information, not create it, or at least cause detriments to the survival of the mutant organism (especially in bacteria)?

1.You forget that the BioLogos model is Not atheistic. With God, All things are possible. Your definition that Evolution cannot exist if information is lost is, basically, a crank theory. If a fish becomes an amphibian with lungs while losing its fills, how do you quantify information? Are lungs more or less information than gills are? When a proto-whale population loses its hind limbs, does that mean it hasn’t evolved? There are no real answers for such “information” questions so your objection is impossible to quantify or validate.

Part 2 of the answer is that the question of speciation doesnt rest on gain or loss of information. It depends upon loss of reproductive compatibility. (Is that loss of information? Or a gain in information that the original population doesnt have? Or both?)

Once one sub-population is cut off from further genetic exchanges, the drift towards other sides, shapes and mechanisms for adaptation become inevitable if millions of years are available.

You ask:
Why don’t we find any (or at least way way more) credible transitional forms in the fossil record?

This is another crank refutation. The discovery of any newer fossil, sharing traits with an older fossil form, automatically makes the older fossil transitional - - except if it has been determined by other means that the older fossil represents a population that went extinct without propagating some subsequent population with a new phenotype.

You write:
If the Earth is billions of years old, why isn’t there WAY more sediment in the oceans?

What do we have under vast hectares of ocean sediment? We have hectares of sedimentary rock! The continent’s, except for some exceptional areas, are piled high with sedimentary rock. And these continents and ocean bottoms ride crustal plates that slowly but inevitably shuffle along - - either to destruction (!) as they dive deep into The Earth’s mantle… or to elevation (!) as massive mountain ridges of sedimentary rock. Of course, surely there are also pockets of volcanic rock scattered throughout. This is the first I’ve heard this particular attempt at refutation. I suspect it is rarely used because the answer is so obvious.

1 Like
211

Because the amount of sediment in the oceans is not inconsistent with an ancient earth. The Answers in Genesis claim uses outdated figures, makes an unrealistic assumption that modern sedimentation rates must always have been the same as they are today, disregards the fact that most sediment gets deposited in river deltas and fjords, not in the open ocean, and also disregards continental uplift.

See Loading... for an analysis.

1 Like
212

Thanks for sharing. In another article he writes:

I am now partially convinced that Andrew Snelling has long abandoned the young-Earth worldview, but continues to write for them because it is his favorite job. After presenting pages of evidence in favor of conventional radiometric dates, he inserts a de facto pronouncement to the contrary, as though he’s tempting his colleagues to catch on. For the record, I claim no authority as a judge of Snelling’s sincerity, but personally I find it difficult to explain his writings otherwise.

https://ageofrocks.org/2014/09/15/andrew-snelling-proves-the-accuracy-of-radiometric-dating-in-one-graphic/

213

I suggest you start separate threads with your individual questions so people can focus on the evidence for each one. This would also be helpful for other people who have similar questions because it would keep the answers more organized and easy to find.

2 Likes
214

There are numerous resources online to answer these questions. I’m not dismissing your questions here, but suggesting that your internet perusal should probably include not only AiG resources, but also perhaps rebuttals to AiG claims – again, assuming you are interested in reading viewpoints that differ from yours.

1 Like
215

[quote=“J.E.S, post:206, topic:36218”]
It was just a link to an AIG article about DNA/Genetics… I thought it would be applicable.[/quote]
I know precisely what it is. It’s only applicable as evidence that you’re missing most of the evidence.

Since you asked, aren’t you curious about nested hierarchies and why AIG doesn’t mention them? Even though a nested hierarchy is the only figure in the most important book by the man (Darwin) with whom they are obsessed?

What are they afraid of?

[quote]What do you think of my other link?
[/quote]Not much. It won’t tell you about nested hierarchies, will it?

216

[quote=“J.E.S, post:208, topic:36218”]
One thing (of the many) that_I_ have learned from participation on this site (and from a different post on the same site as the link in question) is that Evolutionists can be informed, and be sincere Christians. However…[/quote]

Are you an Evolutionist (why the capitalization?), JES? I call myself a biologist, because I do biology. I don’t call myself an Evolutionist, because I don’t do evolution.

In fact, individuals don’t evolve, only populations do. I find that most people who deny evolution aren’t even aware of that basic distinction. Are you?

Do you deny that any evolution occurs or has occurred?

Are you a Heliocentrist?

[quote]Evolution (in the broad sense) gives lots of credibility to Atheism, since it:
A) Allows life (and anything/everything for that matter) to come into existence without God, or any supernatural entity.[/quote]

Since evolution is populations of already living things changing over time, it is not abiogenesis. Why are you conflating them?

The term is useless to any understanding unless you define it. How does macro differ, mechanistically, from micro?

May I take it that you are avoiding all mention of mechanisms? Please define your terms mechanistically; then we might have a productive conversation.

[quote]If something as scientifically unsound as Evolution…
[/quote]You haven’t shown that evolution is scientifically unsound, JES. It’s hard to imagine that you’d judge with so little background and evidence. You’ve never even heard of nested hierarchies!

1 Like
217

J.E.S., the traditional definition of macroevolution has been “evolution beyond species boundary”. (I have to grit my teeth a little to write something like “species boundary” but, nevertheless, that is how macroevolution has often been used.) Of course, most scientists don’t distinguish between “macroevolution” and “microevolution” because there is no identifiable boundary between them—and even Young Earth Creationists like Ken Ham have been rather nebulous about their almost-definitions of terms like kind and species and evolution.

218

There are many things that we have never observed, yet we are confident about our scientific inferences about them.

Have you ever observed a sub-atomic particle? Here’s something interesting: No one has observed a sub-atomic particle! Instead, particle physicists have accumulated overwhelming evidence to infer the existence of sub-atomic particles.

No one has ever observed a hydrogen ion and a hydroxide ion combine to form a water molecule. But the evidence that supports the inference that H+ and OH- combine to yield HOH is overwhelming.

Have you ever observed tectonic plates travel thousands of kilometers? No one has observed tectonic plates travel thousands of kilometers. Yet scientists are very confident that mountains of evidence (literally, heh!) support the inference of plate tectonic movement. Even YEC Ph.D. geologists (a tiny group) believe that tectonic plates have traveled thousands of kilometers.

No one has observed tobacco use cause lung cancer. We have observed smokers who get cancer, but observing the actual biological mechanisms in operation across decades in an individual is a different type of observation.

Your statement that no one has ever observed what you have called macroevolution is meaningless to a scientist. What’s meaningful is a discussion about what inferences can be scientifically inferred from scientific observations.

And it turns out that the evidence that supports inference to evolution is overwhelming.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

3 Likes
219

Perhaps you haven’t, but scientists certainly have. (And I have as well, but it is far more important to me that scientists have published many examples in peer-reviewed journals.)

Here’s some good information on this topic: