Please Define Evolutionary Creationism? I am finding the Biologos website articles defining it a bit vague. Im left with more questions than answers

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@knor

Stepwise change can produce great changes with sufficiently long time periods.

Been here, doen’t change.

Stepwise cannot cross certain divides. The “impossible” transformation is allegorically provable. It is a shame that scientists think that time can achieve anything.

No matter how long you have you will never bridge the gap between the earth and the moon (I sad bridge not traverse)

And there are various word/spelling games that show that changing one letter at a time will not produce complex words like Antidisestablishmentarianism.It is just not possible. Even if you allow letters to be swapped around there is no word that uses one less letter. There is a limit to what small steps can achieve!

@knor

The change from one living cell to organized multicell organisms is supposed to have taken a very long time but with sufficient time, it would also be possible.

Is just wishful, blind thinking. It ignores the structures of things and the rules of life. Any change must be both viable and (in terms of evolution) not detremental enough to make is uncompettetive.

@knor

Your claim suggests much knowledge about the nature and plans of God

Try reading the Bible. e get a pretty good idea. And, before you start quoting Old Testament attrocities… The truth of the Bible is a learning process for both us and the writers. They do not get it right straight away because God does/did not reveal all of Himself.

@knor

Do we really know what kind of creation reflects the nature of God?

Paul reckoned as much. Do you wish to argue with him?

The truth is, we have not yet got it right either. I am not claiming evolution is a load o rubbish, only that it has missed something. Perhaps what it has missed s outside the vision of science?

If we are going to proclaim a God of love, who cares for both weak and strong evolution fails. If we are going to proclaim an amoral God who just lets things happen then maybe evolution has a place. (But I am not happy with that view of God)

There are those who cannot see the love of God in nature. Who only see savagery, and self preservation, and the power of the tooth and claw. Those people will accept ToE without question. I, however see past that savagery to the beauty of camooflage or speed, or intelligence and also the quirky , outrageous and beauty that defies a black and white "Survival of the fittest (strongest, best adapted etc)

Perhaps it boils down to perception and personal view? Perhaps. But I will not be railroaded by people who refuse to see past the High and Mighty scientific ruling.

Richard

[TomS]

On the contrary, evolution CAN account for a lot. For example, the change from a single-cell form to a multiple cell form. That’s easy. It happens before our very eyes.

And as far as God is concerned, what is there about God that He cannot create a world of life in which evolution is operating? He can create a world of life in which reproduction is responsible for the appearance of new individuals, what limitation is there for the world of life from having a mechanism for the appearance of new species, genera, … kingdoms?
We know that the extinctions of species can take place by natural mechanisms … not so long ago, it was widely believed that that would be contrary to God’s creation.
It used to be argued that the appearance of complex structures in an adult could not be achieved by natural means, so that each individual had to pre-exist, preformed, in its ancestry, back to the time of creation.

[Roy]

@RichardG

@knor

Stepwise change can produce great changes with sufficiently long time periods.

Been here, doen’t change.

Stepwise cannot cross certain divides. The “impossible” transformation is allegorically provable.

Then prove it, or admit you can’t.

Or you could continue to blather nonsense.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@TomS

On the contrary, evolution CAN account for a lot. For example, the change from a single-cell form to a multiple cell form. That’s easy. It happens before our very eyes.

Read what I say!

Yes evolution can account for a lot but not everything! Single cell to multicell? no problem. Single cellt to human? Big problem! (Human procreation accepted)

@TomS

, what is there about God that He cannot create a world of life in which evolution is operating?

Do you actually read what I write?

Theistic evolution is evolution!

@TomS

It used to be argued that the appearance of complex structures in an adult could not be achieved by natural means, so that each individual had to pre-exist, preformed, in its ancestry, back to the time of creation.

Will you kindly stop ignoring where I am. I am not pre-evolution. I am not ignoring evolution. I am not ignoring the probability of God instigating natural processes. I am claiming that ToE is based on random, and that theistic evolution is based on Intelligent mechanisms.(with lattitude) Parameters that guide and channel. A tendnecy towards positive deviations instead of just pot luck. Selection by means other than just power, might and adapted. That is what theistic evolution is. it is not moulding things out of bare eather or Zapping a mouse into existence.

Theistic evolution is not a million miles from scientific (ToE) evolution it just involves God.

Richard

[TomS]

And randomness is part of genetics. The genetics that we inherit from our ancestors is a random selection. Evolution does guide and channel - by natural selection, for example, if not by other mechanisms. Yet no one that I know of today denies genetics and the reproduction of individuals. “Theistic genetics”? “Theistic reproduction”?
Or, in a different field, consider how probability is involved in other sciences, like thermodynamics or quantum theory. How about the probabilities in forecasting weather, or whether or where or when an asteroid will hit Earth?
How do you propose to invoove God as a determining factor, somehow or other something different happens - how do we presume to know the ways of the Lord - what extinctions can we say that God is going to decide upon? Is God going to determine that some particular gene is going to be favored?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@TomS

And randomness

Random meas you cannot identify, it does not necessarily mean chance.

@TomS

Evolution does guide and channel - by natural selection

Natural selection can only work after the changes have been made. It does not guide, it chooses. It is reactionary.

@TomS

Yet no one that I know of today denies genetics and the reproduction of individuals

Who is denying any genetics.

@TomS

Or, in a different field, consider how probability is involved in other sciences

do not care about other sciences! Chance can be built in if the net result does not matter. Who care when it rains or not as longas it doesn’t do it all the time.

I am talking about a specific part of creation. The creation of humanity. . I am not a cosmic fluke!. If ToE is as science says I would be.

@TomS

How do you propose to invoove God as a determining factor

Does no one read before writing? I have said it before and will repeat. I do not care how as long as He is there!

@TomS

Is God going to determine that some particular gene is going to be favored?

I have no idea.

I do not know how much chance is built into the system. All I know is that there is a mind involved. I do not presume to understand God or His ways, but I accept the belief that I was made by God.

Precision? Knowing? (needing to know), they are not part of the life of faith.

Richard

[TomS]

When you say that you are not a cosmic fluke, you seem to be referring to you, an individual, rather than to some collective, like the taxonomic order of Primates, or the family of African apes, or genus Homo or the species H. sapiens.
I understand that concern, that God is your Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemet.
But individuals are not the subjectt matter for evolution. Individuals have their origin in reproduction )and development) and part of the science of reproduction is genetics, and genetics says that one’s genetic makeup is a chance mixture from one;s ancestors.
Your concern, it seems to me, is with God’s role in reproduction. You seem to be comfortable with the vast reaches of evolution, the changes in populations of living things, including speciation and extinctionn,

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@TomS

When you say that you are not a cosmic fluke, you seem to be referring to you, an individual, rather than to some collective

I would not say that was an accurate understanding , but II can see why you might say it. There area number of references to the “image” of man.in Scripture that many fob off as meaning our purpose or position rather than our physical make up. There are good theological reasons for this, as well as using it as a get out to condone ToE. If you strip away the details the underlying impression is that it is the shape and form that is being reffered to. Personally I am ambivellant about needing to be a specific person. I can see justification for it in Scripture but can also see a hint, if not more, of human vanity there. clearly my precise shape is a result of genetics.

@TomS

Your concern, it seems to me, is with God’s role in reproduction.

No I do not see a need for god to measure out which colour hair, or height or nose shape i have.

It is not so much the specifics but the principle tat concerns me. I see order and diversity in creation that defies the notion of chance as a designer. There is no scientific reason why the top predator everywhere there is a plain, or limited tree cover. (excluding man) is not a Lion or a Tiger, but they have specific areas in which they rule, and even there they are not the only “top” predator", or even the only “Top Cat” There are oddities like paradise birds whose decorations cannot possibly help there abilities to avoid predation. There are creatures who do not seem to fit the mould that ToE would use to shape life. IOW Toe does not answer all the questions.
It is the concept that chance could possibly cause all the diversity and order that I fail to accept. Not to mention the “characteristics” that define certain tyoes of life, so that feathers are restricted to avians, and hair to Mammals, and Gills to fish. (Why can’t a see mammal have gills?) There is no reason with ToE for there not to be a Griffin, or a Manticore, or a Pegasus, IOW there are parameters or guidelines that defy chance,

Evolution is more complex than ToE. That is the real problem. Irrespective of Scripture, ToE still fails.

Richard

[knor (Kai)]

@RichardG

I am talking about a specific part of creation. The creation of humanity. . I am not a cosmic fluke!. If ToE is as science says I would be.

Psalm 139:13-14 tells (NIV):
"For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well."

If creation of you in your mother’s womb is the work of God, why could not the creation of humans through evolutionary processes be God’s work?

Scientists do not have methods to study God and cannot therefore say anything about the role of God in the contexts of ontogenesis or evolution. Description of the natural process does not exclude the work of God, it is just not mentioned because it cannot be studied.

God knew where the evolution is leading and could nudge the process towards the planned direction, if needed. In this sense, you are not a cosmic fluke. Science cannot say anything about this possibility as it does not have methods to study God, so it remains a matter of faith.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@knor

If creation of you in your mother’s womb is the work of God, why could not the creation of humans through evolutionary processes be God’s work?

Do you not read? Or understand?

Theistic evolution is evolution

But it is not chance!

@knor

Scientists do not have methods to study God and cannot therefore say anything about the role of God in the contexts of ontogenesis or evolution.

I have always acknowledged that and it has been thrown in my face more times than I can remember.

@knor

Description of the natural process does not exclude the work of God, it is just not mentioned because it cannot be studied.

But Science still claims to have got it right!

IOW because God cannot be found, He must not be there.(or have to account for Him)

@knor

God knew where the evolution is leading and could nudge the process towards the planned direction, if needed. In this sense, you are not a cosmic fluke

But that is not ToE it is theistic.

@knor

Science cannot say anything about this possibility as it does not have methods to study God, so it remains a matter of faith

You seem to be missing the point.

Scientific knowledge is not about faith. Science is about knowing. It is the need to know. That is the antithesis of faith. They may not be in competition but they do not sit well together. From what have seen most scientist with a faith keep them separated because they are like oil and water. In the lab science rules, outside it faith has a loophole .But in terms of proclamation, there will a bias one way or the other rather than a happy medium. In the mean time the world at large is almost forced to accept the scientific view.(Because you cannot impose faith or religion, but that does not apply to science.)

Richard

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@RichardG

Science is about knowing. It is the need to know. That is the antithesis of faith.

That’s an interesting tension to explore. There are plenty of devotionals and sermonettes to be found about “our desire for control” and how that can indeed be an obstacle to our just learning to live in trust. Jesus’ admonition about being like the birds or the lillies who neither toil nor spin - that is a universal challenge for us. So I wouldn’t single out ‘science’ as this one problem child or uniquely driven enterprise whose adherents just “need to know everything.” It’s a human condition. Everyday you get out of bed and use your open eyes and ears to keep you from getting killed as you navigate the world, you’re essentially doing what any scientist is doing … using the resources you’ve been given as inputs to help you arrive at the best conclusions and most informed courses of action that you can muster. When and where does that become “leaning on our own understanding…” in a way that goes ‘crossgrain’ to scriptural admonition? That is a question I’d love to suss out more of an answer to. But there I go again … wanting to know something! Somehow, curiosity is one of God’s great gifts to us I think … not to be squelched. I would say rather that deliberately persistent ignorance and science are the “oil and water” that just don’t mix. How faith does or doesn’t surround it all is a separate and interesting question.

[knor (Kai)]

@RichardG

Scientific knowledge is not about faith. Science is about knowing. It is the need to know. That is the antithesis of faith. They may not be in competition but they do not sit well together. From what have seen most scientist with a faith keep them separated because they are like oil and water.

In all life, it is wise to separate facts and our interpretations about the facts. Some examples:

• when someone is sick, you pray for the person and the person is healed. The facts are that the person was first sick, then not sick and there between, you prayed for the person. The conclusion that God healed the person is an interpretation because we cannot see what the Holy Spirit did.
• when you read Bible, what is written is the fact. What you think the text tells is interpretation. It is wise to be humble about the interpretation because it may be wrong.
• in conflicts between people, it is good to find out what are the facts. Both sides have their own interpretation about the situation and you do not know whom to believe unless you know the facts.
• in scientific matters, there is a need to separate what are the facts and what is the interpretation based on the facts. There may be several competing explanations (hypotheses) but the facts are independent in the sense that they do not change even if the prevailing explanation (interpretation) changes.

We should accept the facts but we don’t need to agree about the interpretation of what the facts tell. Faith affects our interpretations but does not change the facts.

[TomS]

I find it difficult to understand what you are objecting to. You seemed to have said that you have no objection to chance playing a part in nature, but object to chance playing a part in your personal origins. “I am not a cosmic fluke!”
But your latest goes on to object to inadequacies in evolution accounting for features the the larger world of life. And you have no problem with features of your body being a matter of chance. (You mention hair color. But how about hemophilia?)
How do you feel about your body, and the bodies of all people always being some similar to the bodies of chimps and other apes, among all of forms that life takes today? Is there some purpose to that “design”?
You say that you are talking about “a specific art of creation. The creation of humanity.” Yet your latest goes on about lions and tigers and more. I thought that I understood you as being concened with individual humans, not the collective “humanity” - could you explain?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@TomS

How do you feel about your body, and the bodies of all people always being some similar to the bodies of chimps and other apes,

It s a sensible and effective design, although upright walking would seem to be something that sets us apart.

In terms of construction I see no necessity for one to be related directly or indirectly to the other. Before DNA was known or mapped, connections were always morphological. It comes at little or no surprise that hmns and apes have almost identical DNA. We look very similar!. In terms of appearance and bodily functons there is little difference. The problem is that we still only know very little about DNA na dhow it is translated into boby parts and charachteristics…Any nested DNA that can be matched to fish may just be the gills that appear during the early foetus. We do not actually know.

@TomS

Is there some purpose to that “design”?

My own rectifying of science and Scripture is probably not standard, and may not even have been thought through. enough to justify. Like all, I juztapose what I have learned and studied with my faith. I did science to Collegic level so am not as ignorant as many seem to think., but I am a Christian first , not a scientist. I cannot deny what can be observed, but, as @knor said above

@knor

We should accept the facts but we don’t need to agree about the interpretation of what the facts tell.

I will freely admit that my faith affects how I view or interpret science.

@TomS

I thought that I understood you as being concened with individual humans, not the collective “humanity” - could you explain?

Scripture is about humanity not the individual. I know some will Quote
Before you were born I knew you, and chose you
as some sort proof that God is right at the root of all things, but I am not a Jew, and do not see God as manipulative as Judaism does.
However I like to think that God takes more than an impassionate and distant view of His creation, and my experiences would confirm that.
ToE tries to be self sufficient. It is Nature creating Nature without outside influence. If you strip back Genesis 1 it is precisely that view that it is trying to overthrow.

Whether humanity is created as God would look on earth, or just as God wanted, is not my concern, what matters is that it is by design, not fluke.

I have managed to find a position between the manipulating and dictatorial God and the dispassionate distant one. In my faith chance exists and is part of the freedom God allows us. Disease, even deformity is just part of freedom. Sometimes it is unfair and more than upsetting but once you start dictating or restricting, it never ends. You cant just prevent suffering or disease, it is just part of the fabric of life. Perhaps leukemia is a side effect of the mechanisms within evolution? Perhaps if that was guarded against , it might have had a knock on effect elsewhere? I do not know! I cannot explain everything , I would be God. But

It is not important to me, unlike scientists, who seem to need to know. I am quite happy to have unknowns or even logical fallacies. It is part of the way of faith.

I argue to question rather than answer. In my preaching I comfort the vulnerable and the weak, but challenge and disturb the confident ant the secure. Science (scientists) can be very secure and confident. Skepticism is a tool not a frame of mind in science.
Once a decision is made, it stays come Hell or high water.(well maybe, sometimes, highwater might adjust it)

I do not dictate, or expect others to believe as I do, but I will object or ask them to question why, if they do. If they can effectively answer and continue, so be it. What I object to is the Burrowing of the head in the sand and claiming that the question either does not exist or is invalid. (Which is what happen often with these discussions) IOW refuse to consider or question.(or understand)

Richard

[TomS]

And now, you bring up Scripture, and your interpretation.
I had thought that your complaints about evolutionary biology did not involve Scripture.
To be blunt about it, it is difficult to follow what your objections are.
You now seem to be saying that you object to the idea that “humanity”, a collective, is physically related to “ape-hood” But then, you agree that the species Homo sapiens is rather like other species, the African apes. But then, you seem to object when the subject is
you, an individual.
I’m not going chase another red herring, comparing your frame of mind as exhibited here with the frame of mind of “science” wrt skepticism. But I can’t resist pointing out the switcheroo once again between the individual and the collective.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@TomS

And now,

Perhaps my linguistic skills have faled me.

I am a Christian. Despite some people’s comments, Scripture matters to me but not from a litteral perspective I am not YEC,

If I haven’t made myself clear by now, I am sorry. There is not switching or u turens from my perspective.

Thank you for you polite exchanges, but perhaps we are done now.

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

That is an exageration, or at least, relies on a specific aspect of Evolution. The process is observable ( at least in part), but we cannot observe part examples of it in real time, all we can do is see examples of life and postulate any connections between them.

Parsing this in terms of the scientific method, we can predict what we should see and not see in the present if species share a common ancestor. This is a testable scientific hypothesis and part of the scientific method.

@RichardG

People, liile me, find it important that understandings that impinge on God, include him. The fact that you seem unwilling to see that the Bible claims not only God’s part in creation but also sovereignty, is not really my fault, but…

That is similar to the trap Christian Geocentrists made for themselves in the 1600’s. They decided that Heliocentrism couldn’t be right because it conflicted with their understanding of God and scripture. However, at least some recognized that physical reality does trump their interpretation of God and scripture:

"But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures….
. . .
Third, I say that, if there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true.
Letter from Bellarmine to Father Foscarini

In modern times, we describe this as “the map is not the territory”. If a map and your own observations of geography do not agree, is it the map or the territory that is wrong? Obviously, it’s the map. If our beliefs contradict reality, it is our beliefs that are wrong, not reality.

@RichardG

In truth, evolution is not the hot bed that this forum (et al) make it out to be. The maority of people would seem to just accept it without rationalising how that might impinge on there faith (if they have one) or not. It is taken as true because that is how it is presented.

People probably accept evolution for the same reason you accept relativity, germs, atoms, etc. Evolution is consensus science that has stood the test of time for at least 100 years since the early Modern Synthesis.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

we can predict what we should see and not see in the present if species share a common ancestor

Yeah very scientific

@T_aquaticus

This is a testable scientific hypothesis

And how exactly ae you going to witness it?

@T_aquaticus

physical reality does trump their interpretation of God and scripture:

ToE is not a physical reality. It is still a hypothesis And cannot be witnessed

@T_aquaticus

People probably accept evolution for the same reason you accept relativity,

You cannot possibly know this… It is not the same reality as a gem or even an atom. It is historic, and therefore beyond your vision.

@T_aquaticus

Evolution is consensus science

So was the flat earth

@T_aquaticus

that has stood the test of time

Again you are exaggerating. How can it stand the test of time if it still unproven?

You can “spin” all you want. Consensus means nothing in terms of truth or reality, and all you have is corroborative evidence.

I never responded to your dinosaur with feathers. A single creature out of time proves nothing. You cannot see or even follow its progeny. A duck billed Platapus,: does it’s beak make it directly related to birds?

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

Yeah very scientific

Are you saying hypotheses are unscientific?

@RichardG

And how exactly ae you going to witness it?

You don’t witness the hypothesis. You test it.

@RichardG

ToE is not a physical reality. It is still a hypothesis And cannot be witnessed

So are all of the scientific theories you currently accept.

@RichardG

So was the flat earth

A globe Earth is the scientific consensus. Are you saying you reject that as well?

@RichardG

Again you are exaggerating. How can it stand the test of time if it still unproven?

No theory in science is proven. It has stood the test of time by being tested and passing those tests. It’s that hypothesis testing thing.

@RichardG

I never responded to your dinosaur with feathers. A single creature out of time proves nothing. You cannot see or even follow its progeny.

The theory of evolution predicts that there should have been species in the past who had a mixture of dinosaur and bird features. Subsequent fossils have been used to test this theory, and it has passed with flying colors.

@RichardG

A duck billed Platapus,: does it’s beak make it directly related to birds?

They look nothing alike when considering the whole structure.

Platypus:

Duck:

As noted in 1882:

A whale, for instance, is often thought to be a fish, because it resembles a fish in form and habits; whereas dissection shows that it is beyond all comparison more unlike a fish than it is like a horse or a man. This is, of course, an extreme case; but it was cases such as this that first led naturalists to see that there are resemblances between organisms much more deep and important than appear upon the surface; and consequently, that if a natural classification was possible at all, it must be made with reference to these deeper resemblances.
–George Romanes, “Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution”, 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

Are you saying hypotheses are unscientific?

No, I am saying that if you predict you are jaundicing the findings. You find what you “expect” because you are not looking for anything else.

@T_aquaticus

You don’t witness the hypothesis. You test it.

And exactly how are you going to "test " it?

Against you predictions?

That is circular.

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

It is still a hypothesis And cannot be witnessed

So are all of the scientific theories you currently accept

So what? I do not accept this one. Sue me!

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

So was the flat earth

A globe Earth is the scientific consensus. Are you saying you reject that as well?

Of course not. You seem to be deliberately obtuse. All I am saying is that consensus can be proved wrong when the information changes. It means nothing.

@T_aquaticus

No theory in science is proven

You keep going back to that loop hole. It works inside the lab, it does not work outside it.

@T_aquaticus

The theory of evolution predicts

Always the same. We predict, ToE predicts. Woo care what yo predict if you cannot actually prove it!

@T_aquaticus

pecies in the past who had a mixture of dinosaur and bird features

And? It still proves nothing!..

The general size of a bird when compared with the general size of a dinosaur would indicate, to many, that they are not in the least bit related. it is only very recently that such a notion was actually proposed. You still can’t get round the fact that in modern fauna only avians have feathers. There is no logic for them to become class specific.if they first arose in something else.

Richard