Do Evolutionary Theory And Scripture Contradict Each Other?

@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

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

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/

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

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

[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?

[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

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.

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

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:

Though I hesitate to use the terms, macroevolution is just microevolution over very long ages, so there is really no difference except for age. This appears to be why some YEC adherents are so adamant about the 6000 year threshold, as they realize that time is the real enemy of their interpretation and so draw a line in the sand there.

5 Likes

@jpm
@cwhenderson
@Chris_Falter
@gbrooks9
@benkirk
@Christy
@pevaquark

I’m beginning to think that this is the best way to go…

Anyhow…I’ll address a few things…[quote=“cwhenderson, post:214, topic:36218”]
again, assuming you are interested in reading viewpoints that differ from yours.
[/quote]

@cwhenderson: I would not be here if I wasn’t interested in reading viewpoints that differ from my own…I think that is obvious.

If you wish to talk further about this with me, I would invite you to visit https://www.ce-debate.org/discussion-debate …as for scientifically unsound… An interesting thought when talking with you all: The most glaring errors of evolution are here fixed by saying that there is a God, and that he guided the evolutionary process. It doesn’t seem to work without that…however, this brings me back to my original problem with EC: Evolution can’t work without God helping it, and we know that there is a God, and we know that Evolution happened, therefore, God must have used evolution to develop life. If that’s not the argument, feel free to correct me. It just strikes me as highly pretentious that EC places the “knowledge” gathered by fallible humans on the same level (dare I say,a higher level?) as/than God’s word. And you can deny that, but it strikes me that BioLogos would not exist if people did not idolize science in this way…

@benkirk: I have a great deal of prime learning years left. Considering this: 1) there are many, many things that I have not even heard of. 2) I have plenty of time to learn about them. Even if I die without learning all there is to know about “nested hierarchies” it really won’t matter…which slides well into the last point I wish to make in this current discussion:

“While it is interesting, and, if I say so myself, fun to discuss these topics, the only thing that really matters is believing that Jesus Christ came to be the Second Adam (undo the effects of the fall), in that He died on the cross to atone for my sins, your sins, and the sin of the whole world, and on the third day rose again from the dead, conquering death, and that He lives and reigns for all eternity (and with The Father and The Holy Spirit is one God, now and forever). That, my friends, is the message of Christianity. If your belief in evolution somehow stops you or discourages you from believing it, then evolution is not worth it.”

I have theological problems with evolution. Cramming macroevolution into Genesis would mean that there was death before the fall (according to the paradigm that you seem to be presenting), and the scriptures also say “the wages of sin is death.” For more biblical evidence, sin is a repulsive thing to God (and if you don’t believe that, you have some far more serious theological issues than evolution). He would not call a sinful world “very good.” There was no sin before the fall into sin…so why do you say there was death? And then…if sin is simply a natural thing (not really evil) that’s always been around, what did Christ come to save us from? God says of the Tree of Knowledge: “The day you eat of it, you shall surely die.” The ultimate consequence of it is not “falling into sin” the evil is DEATH! Eating from that tree was mankind’s first act of rebellion against God, making him sinful, an object of God’s wrath. And the end effect of that is both physical death and eternal spiritual death in hell. Death is not good, or natural. It is a curse. And by virtue of our sinful nature, we deserve it.

But thanks be to God that Jesus, through his death on the cross, has conquered death, that his sacrifice has cleansed us from our sins, and that the Holy Spirit has created Christian faith within our hearts, so that we become the children (instead of the enemies) of God.

Regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not, I hope that you all will celebrate Christ’s victory over our enemies sin, death, and the devil, tomorrow (or whatever day you worship), and rejoice in the FREE gift of forgiveness, and peace with God that we are given through Jesus’ sacrifice.

God bless you,
J.E.S

There are two deaths in the Bible. Physical death and spiritual death. God told Adam that if he ate of the fruit that on that day he would surely die. How long did Adam live after eating the fruit? A lot longer than a day so God was speaking of spiritual death. This is why we need a redeemer. Not to save us from physical death but to save us from spiritual death. No where does Genesis say there was no physical death before the fall. Spiritual death began at the fall.

1 Like

Sorry, Jonathan, that didn’t come across the way I intended it. What I mean is, there is a LOT of material you could read that could answer some of the questions you have. Some of this material is from different Christian viewpoints, while others are atheistic. I honestly don’t know how much you would want to read from those. I’m trying to offer information rather than rude behavior, but Google searches on some of these questions you have heard (does mutation ever benefit organisms? why aren’t there more transitional fossils? why is there not more ocean sediment?) followed by “debunk” or “refute” often turn up numerous links to scientific answers to those questions.

I (and quite a few others here) do believe that God created through evolution. But (and I’ll only speak for myself here) my belief in God’s creation is due more to my faith in the Bible than by weaknesses in the theory of evolution. Don’t get me wrong, there are certainly questions remaining, like abiogenesis, but there is a tremendous amount of evidence supporting evolution.

Science is indeed a human endeavor, carried out by fallible humans, but so is theology. Science is not as capricious as you suggest, and theology is more variable than you admit. History has told us numerous times that theology can also be in error (ask Galileo and Copernicus or any of the millions of innocents abused by the Crusades or Inquisition). God’s Word is infallible, but our interpretation of it certainly is.

This concern can be addressed theologically. It is reasonable to say that the wages of sin is spiritual death, otherwise, why didn’t Adam and Eve die on the spot? True, Jesus Christ offers spiritual redemption through His physical death, but He clearly did not die so that our physical bodies would live forever. From a scientific standpoint, the lack of death would be a huge problem if it lasted for a significant time. Nutrient recycling depends on the death of old organisms to give “building blocks” to the new. That’s completely setting aside the issue of what would happen if bacteria also never died, but exponentially grew forever.

1 Like

Me: You’ve never even heard of nested hierarchies!

[quote=“J.E.S, post:221, topic:36218”]
@benkirk: I have a great deal of prime learning years left.[/quote]

What does time have to do with my point?

And you therefore have plenty of time to consider the relevant facts before making any judgment, so why are you rushing to one without the most fundamental information?

[quote]Even if I die without learning all there is to know about “nested hierarchies” it really won’t matter…
[/quote]My point is not that you don’t know all there is to know, but that you don’t know anything about them.

If you want to have an informed opinion, it matters a lot.

@cwhenderson

I (and I’m pretty sure that other scientifically minded people here would like to do this too) would really like to examine the pre-fall world to see how that sort of thing would work…unfortunately, we will probably never know. I would submit that the “way stuff worked” changed dramatically after the fall.

Here is a verse from I Corinthians:
"For the trumpet shall sound and the dead will be raised, imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

            Death is swallowed up in victory.
            O death where is your victory?
            O death where is your sting?

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Great verse (as usual, any mistakes are purely my own).

Christ physically died, and saved our souls, and also our bodies, from death.

@J.E.S

It doesn’t require idolizing science to arrive at the conclusion that the plain reading of Genesis is not compatible with how the Natural World actually works.

I don’t idolize science when I explain how the Water Cycle makes rain… and that sometimes God may harness the Water Cycle when he wants rain.

“I (and I’m pretty sure that other scientifically minded people here would like to do this too) would really like to examine the pre-fall world to see how that sort of thing would work…”
That is pretty much what geology and paleontology and astronomy, and archeology and such does, and has found that there is no evidence of a big transition, but a gradual progression over time. Can you give evidence of anything otherwise?

Here is a pretty long but interesting blog about the fall you affine interesting:

As to death and afterlife etc, I enjoyed Wright’s “Surprised by Hope” although need to reread as a little deep.
It is good to hear your thoughts. I it helps to understand where you are coming from, and as your views are representative of many, that understanding can help us relationally

@benkirk

One more thing… now that I see this, it’s occurred to me that my last post appeared to make you rather defensive…

I also realize that it is hard to accurately exhibit sentiments over this system of communication, so
note that I may be misinterpreting your post. And as I’ve said earlier. I don’t get the “unenlightened YEC” thing MUCH…

@jpm

This was rather where I was going with some of the things in my “monstrous post (:wink:)” as in: if the amount of salt in the ocean increases every year, and if “the present is the key to the past (uniformitarianism),” and the earth is billions of years old…why don’t we find a lot more salt?

I’m truly just curious about these things, and I find it more rewarding to discuss and debate here, as the BioLogos position (as it has God) is actually plausible. Furthermore, I appreciate that BioLogos actually tries to encourage discussion, as opposed to sites and organizations that simply say “there is no debate” (I’ve gotten that too), and dismiss you, continuing to teach evolution as fact while having no pretext that it may be false (BioLogos, if I’m not mistaken, would not have set up this discussion forum if it was 100% sure of it’s position).

Anyhow, I think I shall start a new discussion thread (along with this one) that will delve into more specific questions…I hope to see you all there.