What are the evidences against natural selection and random mutations explaining the complexity of life?


(Larry Crouch) #1

I would like to know what evidence stands against the theory of evolutionary creation. Does someone have a top 25?


(Christy Hemphill) #2

There is no theory of evolutionary creationism. There is the scientific theory of evolution and the theological truth claim that God is the creator of all life. Evolutionary creationism is a theological construct, not a scientific one.


(Larry Crouch) #3

I thought the construct was based on the theory which would make them inseparably linked? But I’ll rephrase the question. I would like to know what evidence stands against evolutionary creation. Does someone have a top 25?


(Curtis Henderson) #4

A rather sizable proportion of us are evolutionary creationists. I’m not sure you’ll have a great deal of success coming up with a top 25 list of reasons to reject what we believe. Is that really what you’re asking for?


(Larry Crouch) #5

@cwhenderson Yes, absolutely. I am specifically hoping to get the information from evolutionary creationists. With a question of this importance I would expect that each of you have looked at all the evidence you can find from both sides and then looked at that evidence from every angle. I’m talking about the type of evidence that can reasonably have conclusions that support either side.


(Mervin Bitikofer) #6

You are correct that many of us have paid much attention to both arguments and counter-arguments. But we end up migrating to the side that we think prevails after all the dust has settled --and in this case one side prevailed overwhelmingly over the other.

So this is a bit like someone asking you which arguments or evidence you find most convincing to show that 2+2=6. Do you see the problem?


(Phil) #7

I agree with the above statements. Most of us have already rejected the arguments as being wrong, so would have to list what we think are false arguments.

Other than “The Bible says so” (which of course we would disagree about) what you you put forth as the top evidence?


(David Heddle) #8

Are you asking for A) scientific evidence against TOE, or B) theological evidence (reasoning) against EC?

As for A) I would say there is none. There may be nitpicking but the overall framework is scientifically sound and more or less universally accepted. As for B), in my opinion only a literalist hermeneutic applied to Genesis 1 would constitute “evidence” against EC.


(Larry Crouch) #9

These sound like disingenuous answers.
So for instance none of you have questions about how and when self awareness or conscience evolved. You have no questions as to how particles of material became self aware. What was the very first particle/organism to know what time is. How and why did that occur? What was the first organism to feel guilt. Surly water has no conscience. How do quarks and other particles develop a sense of visual or moral beauty? When did particles first worry about tomorrow? What scientific evidence is there that particles moved into these high level patterns of thought? You must explain how these characteristics evolved in the history of mere particles of energy/heat. None of you have questions? I find that very hard to believe!


(Curtis Henderson) #10

This response differs drastically from the OP. Are there unanswered questions regarding the beginnings of life? Absolutely! But that is very different from: [quote=“Hisword, post:1, topic:36424”]
I would like to know what evidence stands against the theory of evolutionary creation.
[/quote]


(Larry Crouch) #11

I disagree completely. These are not questions about origins. These are questions about how do particles evolve into thinking beings. The complexity of life includes why do some particles understand time and space while others are just parts of it. You must thoroughly consider all that evolution must produce through natural selection and mutations. All of life must be explained. This has nothing to do with beginnings of life.


(Curtis Henderson) #12

I don’t mean to trivialize the question, Larry, but evolutionary creationists will tell you that God is responsible for making humanity for what it is. Your point might be a good question for atheistic evolution, but doesn’t really apply to a high majority of this audience.


(Larry Crouch) #13

I never mentioned humanity. Many creatures display these characteristics. Do you have a dog? They feel guilt. Many creatures hide things and return later to retrieve them. Look at the ant. What about birds? Evolution either explains the transition from particles into thinking beings or it does not. Everything I’ve read on Biologos has a natural explanation for all of what we see. Do you not believe that evolution can cause these types of behavior?


(Phil) #14

I think that you have to add that it also sites God as being the first cause, and the Person wielding nature as his instrument.


(David Heddle) #15

Let us stipulate that the ToE has no explanation for how and when these evolved. That is not evidence against the theory. There is a difference between an incomplete theory and a wrong theory. Gravity is missing from the so-called Standard Model of (Particle) physics. That is not taken as evidence against the Standard Model per se, but rather that the model is incomplete. The Standard Model had a gazillion chances to make incorrect predictions-- any failed tests would have been taken as evidence against the model.


(Curtis Henderson) #16

Ok, fine… Regardless of the specific details, we affirm that God is creator and is in control of all creation. I incorrectly assumed that you were referring to humans. The overarching theme of God as creator still remains preeminent.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #17

@Hisword

Larry,

It seems to me that there is a problem with the understanding as to what it means to be “natural” in science and in Western dualist culture in general. Humans are natural in that they are a part of nature as science says and/or a part of Creation as Christianity says.

Genesis indicates that humans are a special creation, created in the Image of God. Evolution indicates that humans were created after a long process and the road to humanity traveled through many genera and species. Evolution does not negate the fact that God created humans as a special creation with a special role in the universe, but it does breakdown the false barrier between the Natural and the Supernatural.

I hope you understand that there are two “words” of God, the Bible and the Logos, Jesus Christ. Jesus is Emmanuel, “God with Us,” Who came to break down the barriers between God and humanity, the Natural and the Supernatural, that we continue to maintain through Greek based Western dualism.

Does this address your question?


(Mervin Bitikofer) #18

Okay, I think I’m getting a better sense of what you want here. And if correct, then I (personally) think these are great frontier questions, where the material meets philosophical and religious, and quite beyond what most of us here think of as mere evolution. What is consciousness? Freewill – if it exists, and so forth. I guess some materialists fancy they have reductively explained these things away, but I’m not one of them and I would guess very few other believers here would be either.

I’m not convinced that anybody has come close to laying these issues to rest, though of course I am not any authority in neuroscience or related fields so as to know what is happening with latest findings etc.

Rest assured, I have a lot of questions about these kinds of things, but I’m not holding my breath for anybody to answer them --whether from science or otherwise. If you are advancing this as a sort of ultimatum that evolutionists must meet, then you can relax. You will have set the bar sufficiently high that you will almost certainly never have to accept evolutionary theory such as it is. Many of us here don’t demand that a theory (any theory) explain everything, but are happy when a theory manages to explain a whole lot of data better than any other approach.

That said, be careful not to invite a mis-characterization what people here do claim. Nobody says that particles become people without a lot of intermediate steps any more than metallic ore becomes a jet airplane without quite a process between one and the other. [And I realize you did not say that … but some might see those implications in your wording … hence my anticipation of and answer to that]. Nor are there necessarily clean beginnings for everything. You can read now. You couldn’t as a baby. For both of those propositions to be true, some might be tempted to insist there must have been a first day you could read. Yet even if your memory was perfect there would be no such singularly identifiable day. It may be the same with beings who first became aware of guilt or beauty or engaged in higher thought. Some concepts may lend themselves to these kinds of “Dedekindian cuts” (e.g. when did humans first set foot on the moon), but some of the good questions you raise don’t seem to me to be among those.


(Larry Crouch) #19

So what I’m hearing is that apart from @Mervin_Bitikofer there has not been much deep thought about the nitty gritty details of the ToE and EC. There seem to be many different positions as a result within EC. Some of you seem to be saying that since God is in charge he steps in sometime during the 13.8 billion years and supernaturally causes particles of energy to become living beings while some of you say that occurs a very tiny step at a time over billions of years through natural selection and mutation. @heddle based on ToE what predictions can be made about how the elements within the periodic table become self aware. From an evolutionary standpoint does Oxygen gain an advantage in it’s survival if it bonds to stardust? If NO then why does it? Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe and is one of the givers of life but there seems to be very little of it available. Does that make sense in the survival of the fittest? Does the ToE predict that outcome? Many questions from those that seem to have none. Just food for thought.


(Mervin Bitikofer) #20

[quote=“Hisword, post:19, topic:36424”]
…while some of you say that occurs a very tiny step at a time over billions of years through natural selection and mutation.
[/quote][my own emphasis added]

It is one thing to put NS and mutation forward as sufficient conditions to produce what we see and quite another to think they were merely among the necessary conditions. If I’m not mistaken (and I’m sure others here will speak up if I am) there have been considerable holes poked into the confidences of those who think that N.S. + mutation are the complete and last word on evolutionary mechanisms.

Evolution doesn’t happen to elements. It only describes descent with modifications in living populations. Your questions about early elements in the universe and their relative abundances are better addressed by particle physicists or cosmologists. Biologists who deal with evolutionary questions will not have this in their professional purview.