We can exchange platitudes and assertions until the cows come home. I have discussed what is termed “Complexity” for many years with those who claim to be at the cutting edge of Evolutionary theory. And they dismiss it as irrelevant or “impossible” (or just not in existence) But, they can never justify that viewpoint. All they do is show the reasons why they believe what they do. Perhaps the reason why there are so few “Missing links” or “transitional” species, is because they do not exist?
And I have yet to be shown a valid transition from reptile to mammal. (Or amphibian to reptile) Nor anything beyond a mud skipper to bridge the gap from water only to land.
The first thing that you learn in school about flora and fauna is the basic construction of each type. What defines a reptile or a mammal. Hair, scales, number of chambers I the heart, the type of metabolism, even the way the limbs turn in or out. Each “class” has certain characteristics to define them.
So, if you are going to change from one to the other you will have to change each characteristic, but, there is a reason why a mammal has hair and not scales, and there is a substantial difference in the epidermal layers. If you put hair and the related epidermis onto a reptile it would over heat. If you put scales onto a n amphibian it would suffocate. Each system needs a different set of parameters to work. And they are not interchangeable. So how can you possibly change from one to the other?
But Evolution does not seem to notice .It just claims that anything is possible given time! (and do not ask us to “prove” it. (and of course skin and internal organs do not fossilise, but we have a pretty good idea of what they must have been!)
This misunderstanding is common enough that it’s worth explaining why it’s a misunderstanding.
Evolution does not propose that there were transitions between modern organisms, just like linguists don’t think that Spanish changed into Portuguese. What evolution is about is that present-day populations share common ancestors in the past - common ancestors that do not fit into present-day categories.
This is where understanding the difference between a “stem group” organism and a “crown group” organism is helpful. That link can get you started.
Fine, as far as it goes, but how far back do you have to go before you separate the “higher” classes. We are back to the “Is it a family tree” or a family “tuft of grass”, where by everything goes back to an undefined ancestral organism and then each line becomes segregated. i.e. at what point do you distinguish an amphibian, or a reptile, or a mammal?
The traditional timeline would indicate that each class has already been established before the next one appears. However, logic would dictate the, if each organism started together the simplest would thrive first while others reach their potential, then as the higher organism take over the lower ones diminish, back to niches to which the others cannot thrive. The interference of a global disaster will of course disrupt this (death of the Dinosaurs) as long as the Mammals survive intact and can continue their development without the hinderance of a very dominant type.
Which would mean that the traditional. Fish - amphibian - reptile - mammal does not apply at all, yet I have been told already on this forum that it does.
I am the son of a Methodist minister and been brought up with God. Naturally I questioned it as a teenager but my faith is not reachable by any outside influences be they education or other faith systems. I hade an affinity for maths and science at school and studied biology right up to Collegic level, but, unlike today Evolution was not the thrust of Education. It seems today that you cannot mention anything in terms of Animals without automatically referring to Evolution. In the seventies we studied comparative physiology and Human anatomy. Ecology, Genetics and biochemistry. Each compartmentalised and not joined at the hip by Evolution. Yes we learned about Evolution but it was vague and inconclusive with no real evidence to suggest a specific order of things.
In my teens I read a book called “Creation and Evolution” it was an unremarkable paperback , probably a Christian publication but the message was that if you inserted God into Evolution then the publicised conflicts between science and God disappeared. Science became an explanation of how God worked rather than a means to prove He did not exist. I do not remember the author, I no longer have the book, but the basic ideas have remained with me.
It seems that since the opening up of China from isolating Communism there has been a massive influx of both data and ideas which has revolutionised Evolutionary theory into the prominence it has today. But, obviously, I do not have direct access to them, only the reporting through TV or the Internet, which is biased, to say the least. I do not subscribe to any Scientific journals or groups and do not wish to. Like I said, Science cannot ever disrupt my faith.
I do not think I have ever seriously considered Genesis 1-5 as real history. Methodism did not insist upon it and the Charismatic groups in College had so little knowledge of Science it was relatively easy to palm them off.
I have spent many an hour discussing Evolution on the Internet and found myself attacked by Biblical fundamentalists for accepting Evolution at all, and Evolutionist for including God in Creation. You name it, I have been called it.
I am 60. I have resolved any conflict between Science and the Bible in my own mind. I do not see the bible as an authority on scientific matters be it cosmology, medicine, or creation in general. But, likewise, I cannot accept the traditional or modern view that Evolution can create from zero by chance and “survival of the fittest”. (although it seems that survival of the fittest has taken a bit of a back seat now).
But, you must understand that I have been well schooled in physiology and comparative physiology.
I was not taught that Evolution is certain, or unimpeachable. And the basic version I was taught had so many holes you could sail an Oil tanker through them. Ok so there is a great deal more evidence and a myriad more creatures proposed (some of which seem to be fantasy to me, especially ones in Dinosaur parks or displayed in zoos) But it seems that all sense of reality left the planet around the Millenium.
So, in answer to your basic question. It has taken most of my adult life. A secure faith, and a grounding in science to come to the conclusions I have about Evolution and God. Evolution is a process of change based on basic designs from God. It would be impossible, from the evidence we have, to determine whether the simplest mammal, bird, reptile etc derived from an earlier organism or were created individually, nor when in time any particular “type” was created or formed. (or even how many or diverse the original creations were) Commonality is as much a sign of design as of ancestry. There is no reason why a designer would not encorporate similar elements that work into varying creatures. It is inconclusive at best, and a matter of faith otherwise.
One thing is almost certain. Neither the Biblical Creationists nor the die hard Evolutionists have it precisely right. The answer is somewhere in between, but how close I am to it is as unprovable as any other viewpoint. And, yes, it does boil down to personal faith.
That is something we can all agree on. Everything changes, and the amazing thing is that God moves through all those changes and culture shifts.
Remember that this is a discussion forum, and part of the purpose people hang out here is to argue and discuss various positions. So, while you will get that on the forum, the ultimate goal of BioLogos seems to me to be a quite different. The BioLogos site has a lot of information that is useful if you wish to learn more about the particular position of EC, but the goal is not to change your mind but rather to assist those who are confused in dealing with a difficult subject for many. If you change your view, fine. If not, fine, may you be blessed in life’s journey.
My views on Evolution are more fluid that my views on God. I admit to not having all the information but, it seems to me, that Evolutionists seem to ignore other aspects of Biology when forming their hypothesies, if not ignore, gloss over, or underestimate. So, I am interested in the answers given and will try not to be too sceptical or worse condescending.
Mr Giillette,
Thank you for this background. It sounds like you have been a bit of a pioneer–I don’t know of many who espoused the point of view as early as you did, particularly after the YEC movement. I appreciate your independence of thought.
I appreciate your thoughts on genetics. That does seem to be the source of astounding new evidence for our relationship to other species through shared pseudogenes, etc.