I’ve read that Archaeopteryx is a fossil that sits in isolation in the fossil record, and is not supported by further “transitionals”. It’s possible that this creature is a separate creation and is not a transtional between dinosaurs and birds at all.
I could accept divinely-guided evolution of non-human creatures, but when it comes to humans, I don’t think I can get past Genesis 2:7 - the special creation of man from inanimate matter. In seems undignified to me that man, who is made in the image of God, should have evolved from a lower creature and did not come into existence as a separate creation.
Anything is possible. What is scientific? What is plausible?
You have been misinformed, my brother. Even with such matters as the evolution of feathers before and after Archaeopteryx, much work has been done. For instance…
Anything can be a special creation! Literally nothing can disprove this hypothesis. It just doesn’t make for a very good explanation of the observed facts, whether from the fossil record or the genetic record.
3 Likes
I used to be so sure of my literalistic reading of Genesis that I categorically rejected anything to the contrary and invented all sorts of conspiriacy theories about atheist scientists and so on. But gradually I came to accept the scientific evidence regarding an old earth, old life and an apparent evolution of that life from simple beginnings. I then reinterpreted the biblical text to suit. This has not way diminished my belief in a Creator, my respect for the Bible or Christian (in my case, Catholic) doctrines and dogmas.
I really can’t see how it helps the Chirstian cause to reject scientific evidence based on an erroneous interpretation of Scripture.
1 Like
I think progressive creation is a very good explanation for a fossil record that shows an overall evolution, but is characterised by large gaps, sudden appearance, stasis and a lack of transitionals between the large groups.
Progressive creation also accounts for morphological changes that otherwise require far-fetched “scientific” explanations by evolutionists - for example, how and why does the jaw-bone of a reptile becomes the inner-ear bone of a bird? Or why would a dinosaur evolve very complex structures like feathers to keep warm when simple hair would suffice?
By proposing progressive creation, I’m not trying to advance science; I’m trying to provide an explanation of the scientific evidence from a Christian point of view. But I’m not alone - evolutionary (materialistic) explanations of the fossil record don’t advance science either. Of what practical use are stories about a rodent evolving into a whale, a hominid evolving into a human, or how feathers might have evolved, for example?
As for genetics, the evidence for evolution is beyond my understanding - as I suspect it is for many evolutionists who cite such evidence.
Thanks Edgar for your response above. I used to hold to a progressive creation view very similar to yours. For me, it was illuminating to learn about the conditions required for fossil formation. There is this widespread assumption that if an organism existed, we should see evidence in the fossil record. In reality, the vast majority of deceased organisms disappeared without ever leaving a trace. It’s worth checking this out.
You are not alone in this view. It’s probably one of the most common reasons given for rejecting EC. Common ancestry with non-human species confounds our anthropocentric expectations of the way we expect God to create us as his image-bearers. But recall that in scripture God is often doing things in ways that confound our expectations. The kingdom came like a mustard seed not a military coup as was the Jewish expectation. The incarnate Son of God crucified for sinners was a stumbling block for the Jews and folly to the Greeks. If you can accept these realities, it seems less of a stretch to think he also made his image-bearers in a way that defies our expectations.
8 Likes
Hey Edgar, based on your posts you’re obviously a bright guy. I’m confident that some basic comparative genomics would be completely accessible to you. To me, the most compelling data points are the vast array of extremely specific mutations that we share with chimps (not % genomic similarity as some would infer). For me this sealed the deal for EC beyond reasonable doubt. There are some fairly basic articles available for review on the BioLogos site. Glad to see you here on the forum brother.
3 Likes
Geologists were going toward millions of years as the age of the earth long before Darwin published his book. If you read the history of the determination of the earth’s age you will notice that biology is never mentioned. Despite what those of the YEC frame of mind are lead to believe.
3 Likes
Perhaps you should actually read what Gould has written.
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”–Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory”
" Some discoveries in science are exiting because they revise or reverse previous expectations, others because they affirm with elegance something well suspected, but previously undocumented. Our four-case story, culminating in Ambulocetus , falls into the second category. This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology. I cannot imagine a better tale for popular presentation of science, or a more satisfying, and intellectually based, political victory over lingering creationist opposition. As such, I present the story in this series of essays with both delight and relish."–Stephen Jay Gould, “Hooking Leviathan By Its Past”
" For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis , with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?"–Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory”
5 Likes
We have transitional fossils that fit into those gaps.
2 Likes
You reject those conclusions, as already shown. You reject Gould’s conclusion that there are transitional fossils that fit into those gaps.
1 Like
These are fairly annoying questions considering you have yet to present any coherent alternatives to one of the most powerful and well documented “school of thinking” in human civilization.
Cherry-picking challenges like the one you post above doesn’t have much of an impact when we take the “high altitude” view of the comparative evidences:
A) There is no theory or scenario that explains why no large mammals appear in the fossil record until after the extinction of the dinosaurs - - as reflected by the fact that virtually all dinosaur fossils are found below the KT (irridium) layer - - while all large mammals (including humans!) are found above the KT layer.
B) Primitive plant life that Evolution says went extinct by the time of various phases of the dinosaur period is found only below the KT layer.
C) Why would God use Special Creation to create a human genome filled with hundreds of thousands of deactivated virus genomes?
Let’s read Genesis 2:7 - -
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Have you been keeping up with the so-called “Genealogical Adam” scenario?
In this scenario (or group of scenarios), both Adam and Eve are acknowledged to be created by God, by means of Special Creation.
But then after they are ejected from their home in Eden, Adam and Eve are expelled within close proximity of a significant human population (sometimes called the pre-adamites), that was described in Genesis 1:
Genesis 1:27
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
There are ongoing differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:
In Genesis 1, God speaks of every tree “upon the face of all the Earth”.
Gen 1:29
“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”
There is no special reference to Eden, or to a tree that would not be for humanity to eat. It would appear that as of the conclusion of Genesis 1, Eden does not yet exist.
Let’s compare it to the section in Genesis 2 on trees:
Gen 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Here we find a very different tone. God speaks of “every tree of the garden” … not every tree on Earth, despite the fact that the one tree excluded is also in the garden.
Evolution works by making small modifications to existing structures. I am not an expert in such things, but the obvious explanation is that whatever type of skin system dinosaurs possessed before feathers appeared, proto-feathers were a more natural next step for evolution to take than proto-fur would have been.
I should add that I don’t think your dermatologist would agree that hair is simple. Have you ever looked at a diagram of all the components of hair? And, for contrast, did you look at the stepwise development of the feather that I posted earlier? I’m not sure this is such a slam-dunk as you imagine.
Rodents don’t evolve into whales. But small early mammals (ancestors of both rodents and whales, which would be early boreoeutherians, about 100 million years ago) did eventually develop into slightly larger ungulates (grazers), and some of these slowly became adapted for life along the water’s edge, and some of these slowly adapted to life in the water, and some of these became fully aquatic, and some of these over millions of generations became much larger and their teeth modified into baleens.
Anti-evolutionists like to make evolution sound ridiculous with such leaps as “rodents to whales” but If you look at all the steps from early mammals to modern whales, and imagine them happening over 100 million years (imagine ten to a hundred million generations of life), it’s really not all that ridiculous.
5 Likes
Maybe so. But it’s not a very good explanation for ERVs
2 Likes
It took a bit of Googling but I found what appears to be the quote you are using.
It is quoted on various anti-evolution websites and appears to be taken from a lecture he gave at at Hobart & William Smith College on February 14, 1980. If that is correct then the paper he was giving at the lecture was “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” which you can read here. It appears he was discussing stasis as it applies to evolution and he wasn’t arguing against evolution in any form or fashion.
Context is always important and to be honest most of the sites where I found this quote are indulging in quote mining.
6 Likes
Thanks, Edgar…I understand where you are coming from. I have not settled a lot of things in my mind – for ex who was Adam etc…And Eve, of course. Takes two after all!!!
But yes, I found myself struggling with the fact that people like it when some discovery confirms the biblical text but then it is some sort of plot or demonic conspiracy when it comes to anything that challenges or demands a different look at Genesis 1 and 2…I also would not say that this has changed my belief in God and Jesus and so on…but it has given me new things to think about.
You make a valid point. Here is another one (maybe): It’s a long time since I studied statistics, but I seem to remember that one requires a surprisingly small sample size of a population to deliver a certainty of more than 90%. Not sure if this principle can be applied to fossils or not.
Thank you for your thoughts … it is unwise to try and ‘second-guess’ how God operates, to be sure.
In one of Creed’s recited by Catholics at Mass, we say Jesus was “begotten, not made” by the Father. I like to think there is a kind of parallel to this in the creation of man - Adam was not the offspring of a pre-existing creature, but was created from nothing. Plus there is a point of Thomistc philosophy that I have mentioned before - to create a creature from nothing is far more reflective of God’s power and glory than modifying a pre-existing creature.
Oh, thanks, there may be some hope for me - my father used to say I have brains, but don’t like to use them. Sometimes I’m not very bright at all.
I’ve tried reading stuff on genetics but I quickly realized it’s not something that can be readily understood by laymen. I could read the conclusions of the experts (both evolutionist and creationist), but without profession training, I have no way of evaluating the veracity of such conclusions. This unfortunately represents a weakness in my position.
Besides that, even if the genetic evidence is compelling, I will still have trouble overcoming my psychological attachment to the special creation of man … and I can’t see how I can get around the theological implications of Genesis 2:7.
Thanks.