Does biology need the theory that all life shares a common ancestor?

Faith & Science Conversation
127

Ad homs like this are not helpful in the debate. Instead we should try to help him to overcome his deadlock with evolution. If someone feels his worldview questioned the existentialist fears that arise from
that threat make people respond more emotional than intellectual. Thus we should help them to overcome that fear.

The problem I see with the teaching of evolution is that it is used by the religiophobes to argue God to be obsolete by having found an alternative explanation for human existence. This is not part of teaching evolution but of teaching atheism. Once one understands that Evolution is not a random process but the slow unfolding of a plan - as implied in the word - it is easier instead of rejecting it to look for a better explanation of the process.

The big confusion created by Darwin was the comment of “survival of the fittest” which let people confuse fitness with physical strength. To claim it to be adaptability to outwit others to starve them of their food sounds equally cruel thus makes it unacceptable for those believing in a loving God caring for his creation and being just. It is only when you understand the rule by which evolution is controlled that you can see where a just and loving God is in control of the process. Once you understand that the selection is not based on “survival fitness” but on the judgement by the system authority (as not to use the term God to put the existentialist fear into the religiophobics) if they are capable to love thy neighbour like thyself, e.g. are not selfish but care for others thus stabilise the system (to avoid the red towel word creation) life with evolution becomes easier.
Now on atheist websites my comment that all laws are based on the ability to love thy neighbour as any system is stabilised by this rather simple function I get usually accused of nonsensical drivel. However in the case of evolution this is perhaps becoming more acceptable thanks to the mathematics of game theory. I admit it does not look obvious to most as complex math rarely is, but that evolution punishes selfishness is by now established game theory
or as Nature puts it:
Extortion subdues human players but is finally punished in the prisoner’s dilemma
e.g. love rules.
Now let’s tell that to the rocks and be surprised to find that even they know :slight_smile:

128

Origin of the species largely argues for the similarity between “breeding” (selection by humans who want a particular trait) with changes in environmental pressures (arid landscape, seashore, etc) as a way in which animals naturally change (i.e., natural selection).

Darwin never described the process as survival of the fittest, it was Herbert Spencer, who tried to apply this to economics. Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia … Survival of the fittest does lead to triumphalist nonsense like social Darwinism and some atheists endorsed it, but there seem to be some Christians who buy into similar nonsense such as Ayn Rand.

indeed, by Grace we proceed

1 Like
132

I have deleted some posts that seemed to be mostly telling other people what is wrong with them and how to communicate. They weren’t moving the discussion forward.

Let’s get back to discussing ideas.

1 Like
133

@cwhenderson

This is the first time I’ve seen this tendency interpreted … very helpful point to remember for future discussions!

134

Not at all. To the contrary, I present a solid case showing Darwinism to be illogical to which I get all kind of emotional responses, and not just here, but from virtually everyone everywhere. The guaranteed strong emotional response it the best proof that Darwinism is far from the objective science claimed, but a religion instead. Making Evolution your religion is fine with me as long as you understand your own position.

Darwinism and this caricature are not the only two alternatives.

135

A strong emotional response is to be expected when someone observes the behavior of an under-trained speculator who thinks he has disproved something that he doesn’t understand … and all the while in a room filled with people who are not Darwinists.

As for your comprehension of the concept of “kind” or of the concept of “species”, I haven’t seen any indication that you can discuss either topic.

1 Like
136

Frankly, I don’t believe you. I suspect that you are suffering from Donzhansky’s Delusion: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

1 Like
137

[quote=“gbrooks9, post:105, topic:35756, full:true”] … this doesn’t explain the incredible consistency we find in the fossil record …
[/quote]
Most of us have to rely on palaeontologists to tell us the truth about what is or isn’t in the fossil record. I suspect most palaeontologists are atheists who have a “vested interest” in selling evolution to anyone willing to listen. I simply don’t trust the opinions of such scientists to be objective.

Pierre-P. Grasse: “Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis … [paleontologists then] interpret fossil data according to it … The error in their method is obvious.”

Likewise, I don’t trust the opinion of any evolutionary scientist - atheist or theist - to be objective. I suspect that your average Biology graduate has been so thoroughly indoctrinated into accepting the evolution paradigm that they literally can’t think any other way.

Whom should a Christian trust? The Word of God or atheism-inspired “science”?

Satan “deceives the whole earth” and is “the father of lies”.

1 Like
138

You make a valid point.

1 Like
139

Yeah, right … John Paul II’s “inter-faith” madness was model Catholicism and doctors never make a false diagnosis.

140

Darwinism is by definition illogical as it means different things to different people. It appears to me that you have a problem with the concept of evolution / common descent element of Darwin’s theory and the idea of natural selection as it excludes the role of a materialistic creator, e.g. a God that made mud pie humans. To me the description of the origin of species as described in Genesis has always been a poetic description of reality that made the concept of Genesis accessible to children and “primitive men” e.g. people who could not read or write but had common sense and could relate to the material through personal experience. In doing so it allows to describe reality in a way that encompasses the description of the metaphysical part of reality that escapes the materialistic description of evolution in scientific textbooks, but allows its audience to form a meaningful interaction with reality. I guess the writers did not imagine how primitive men would become when having acquired the skills to read and write but lost their ability to understand poetic language and context due to their materialistic worldview.

The limitation to think of God as a materialistic/physical being is the problem of materialist thinking that does not occur for people who accept evolution as a way of God handling the process through his will in a non material way from a different dimension.
The best way to overcome the problem of evolution to be uses as an argument by atheists against the existence of God is not to try to tell them it does not work because it does not involve God but by explaining that from your understanding it appears to be a process that is governed by the God given rule to love thy neighbour and we can only believe from the the fossil evidence or the description in Genesis that certain species appeared in a sequence over time and are interrelated in their physicality by common features, but have not been able to observe the process experimentally to explain the leaps in evolution. Its a bit like Legoland were also no one is surprised to find that all the houses can be traced back to common elements.
Perhaps the biggest emotional objection to the concept of “natural selection” is to accept that God would use a random process and extinction as a tool for progression, thus make people think this process not to be God like, lacking the elements of love and direction/purpose. But nothing could be further from the truth, as the ability to allow a system at random is a sign of omnipotence that it can control any possibility and represents fairness. Also the problem of extinction is a non-problem from the viewpoint of God as to him extinction does not exist as a problem. It is only a problem to fallen mankind as the “extinct” vanish from living in the material dimension we trapped ourselves in through the fall.

1 Like
141

Illogical is not “different things to different people”.

Rather than guessing, I invite you to read and understand my arguments: http://nonlin.org/evolution/

In essence, here are the problems:
a. “Natura non facit saltum” (gradualism) – argument is illogic and contrary to molecular/atomic physics as well as contrary to sexual reproduction
b. “Randomness” is unknowable and “Random creates” has never been demonstrated
c. “Natural” in natural selection - everything is natural; this religious argument does not comply with the scientific method, is unsupported, and beyond the competence of claimants
d. “Unguided and Purposeless” – argument is illogical and, since selection is guided and purposeful, the outcome must be as well guided and purposeful
e. Selection and Survival are one and the same - the selected survive and the surviving have been selected
f. “Fit” as in “survival of the fittest” cannot be measured except as “survival” (circular logic)
g. “Four or five”…or LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) makes no sense because in a generic “primordial soup” scenario if one happens, then many happen …unless said soup is magical(?)
h. There are no examples whatsoever of “Arising” as in “Arising of Everything” and “Life vs. Entropy”
i. “Benefit” and “optimization” – there’s nothing wrong with these anthropic concepts, but they are utterly incompatible with the mechanistic universe envisioned by Darwin and his followers

144

[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:141, topic:35756”]
In essence, here are the problems: [/quote]

a. “Natura non facit saltum” (gradualism) – argument is illogic and contrary to molecular/atomic physics as well as contrary to sexual reproduction
[I’ve never seen anyone prove a useful point with this.]

b. “Randomness” is unknowable and “Random creates” has never been demonstrated
[You keep forgetting where you are; God is with us & with God there is no randomness.]

c. “Natural” in natural selection - everything is natural; this religious argument does not comply with the scientific method, is unsupported, and beyond the competence of claimants
[Natural Selection is the least arguable part of Evolutionary theory. It merely means the environment shapes the results of the alleles that are transmitted to future generations. You are arguing over shadows.]

d. “Unguided and Purposeless” – argument is illogical and, since selection is guided and purposeful, the outcome must be as well guided and purposeful
[This is a useless dispute since, as I’ve mentioned before, we have God involved in our process and so there is nothing without God’s purpose.]

e. Selection and Survival are one and the same - the selected survive and the surviving have been selected
[Now if you could only figure out how to use these terms correctly. Synonyms are allowed in Science.]

f. “Fit” as in “survival of the fittest” cannot be measured except as “survival” (circular logic)
[“Survival of the Fittest” is an archaic term avoided by most serious readers of Evolutionary science.]

g. “Four or five”…or LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) makes no sense because in a generic “primordial soup” scenario if one happens, then many happen …unless said soup is magical(?)
[I don’t even know what you are talking about here.]

h. There are no examples whatsoever of “Arising” as in “Arising of Everything” and “Life vs. Entropy”.
[Entropy is irrelevant to the study of Evolution when a Sun is the energizing and organizing engine for 5 billion years and more. That’s how we go from hydrogen gas to planets filled with carbon and oxygen.]

i. “Benefit” and “optimization” – there’s nothing wrong with these anthropic concepts, but they are utterly incompatible with the mechanistic universe envisioned by Darwin and his followers
[Honestly, you really don’t seem to pay attention to your surroundings. Are you saying that we promote a mechanistic universe? The BioLogos mission statement expressly rejects such formulations.]

3 Likes
145

@Dredge,

I recommend that you stop categorizing Christian scientists, who are everywhere around you on this site, as Satan-deceived and untrustworthy.

The reason why Creationists are allowed to participate is to provide an exchange of information and views … not to have someone stand up on a stool and preach the gospels to evil scientists.

2 Likes
146

So in other words, every time you present your “solid case,” virtually everyone everywhere vehemently disagrees with you. Faced with that situation, most rational people would say to themselves, “Self, everyone everywhere seems to think my idea is wrong. Is it possible that I am wrong?”

Obviously, you are not most people …

4 Likes
147

Are you genuinely saying that no one has ever, in the months you have been posting, responded with any valid logic or facts which would cause you to adjust any points of your case? And that therefore, somehow, everyone else’s position isn’t “objective science, but a religion instead”?

I’m sorry you have been failed so badly. I hope that at least you can understand your own position.

3 Likes
148

Sorry, I meant to debate Darwinism is illogical it you do not agree on a definition first.

a Natura non facit saltum

In order to do a salto you get the in small training steps. It does not mean that you can’t make one, just that you get there in small steps.

Randomness is unknowable and Randomness creates.
if you are in control of a system randomness is your friend as it is a fair system to create change. It is actually highly predictable as if you look at radioactive decay, you know the event to be totally random, but you have certainty that it will happen.

The negative interpretation of certain terms used to describe evolution appears your personal problem. Just keep your cool and don’t worry. If someone declares evolution to be a random and purposeless process, just ask them how they justify themselves and their ability to argue. However you bark against the wrong tree if you think that people here explain evolution in an irrational way to explain away God. Like Dredge you make the mistake to think of science or evolution of the domain of atheism because they use their ill-conceived concepts of the two try to forge that division. Don’t give them that justification

2 Likes
149

You’re not making any effort to understand these points, hence your incoherent comments.

The topic of this thread is Darwinism which is exactly what I am addressing. There is no God and no BioLogos in Darwinism, so from what position are you arguing pro-Darwin and against me?

What does BioLogos even stand for? Evolution is God-less by definition, from day one to today.

See above… Once you accept God, then the whole Evolution thing becomes utterly irrelevant. What are you saying? That God uses the evolution mechanism to create us? Who cares? It’s like saying the iPhone is made in China - whatever province - of ‘x’% Malaysian components, etc. when in fact what matters is that Apple created the iPhone in response to ‘y’ succession of events.

150
  1. By definition, every new idea goes against the consensus. There would be no progress if we all behaved like sheep.
  2. In addition, it’s not quite 100% as I do not preach to the choir (like the ID people).
  3. Yes, I ask myself and I ask you - “Is it possible that I am wrong?”. Feel free to reply with your carefully considered counterarguments and I promise to not reject them out of hand.

See above. Some counterarguments have helped me refine mine, and I thank those people for their thoughts. Feel free to present yours.

Not happening. Let’s discuss after you read this: http://nonlin.org/gradualism/ (just so I don’t repeat myself).

You miss my point. Once again, read this first http://nonlin.org/random-abuse/ and then let’s discuss.

151

Well, yes, that’s exactly what I (and many others) have stated here and elsewhere. [quote=“NonlinOrg, post:149, topic:35756”]
Who cares? It’s like saying the iPhone is made in China - whatever province - of ‘x’% Malaysian components, etc. when in fact what matters is that Apple created the iPhone in response to ‘y’ succession of events.
[/quote]

I won’t speak for anyone else here, but I tend to agree with you here, as well. I can’t say that the origins of humanity are not important, but the origins issue pales in comparison our sin, Jesus Christ’s ultimate sacrifice on our behalf, and His victory over death through His resurrection. Here we can find community regardless of differing views on science.

4 Likes