Do you have any examples?
- Examples of what? (a) people who think that “God did it” is a reason to not investigate further, or (b) every Christian science professor that St. Roymond had regarded “God did it” as a stimulus to buckle down and figure out how, or (c) today’s average price of rice per lb. in Beijing?
1 Like
Ask Prof Dawkins or Sir Richard Attenborough (et al)
But not me, I believed in God-designed Evolution long before it was fashionable or Bio-Logos existed.
Richard
It must have been quite a process for you to come to that position, particularly with the climate of Christian thought. It’s not been an easy course for me to come to that point of view. I’m curious if you can tell sometime how you came to that conclusion. I think the power of the personal story is very strong and it helps to know how other people have struggled or dealt with things. Thanks
An example of something deemed to be not of natural origins (things the Discovery Institute is fond of claiming), and which Christian scientists are motivated to “figure out how.”
When I was at college I read a paperback entitled “Creation And Evolution”. I can’t remember who wrote it, and I didn’t keep it. I followed the line of thought ever since.Every time the subject of Gnesis came up I found myself arguing in favour of Evolutionary change, but with God at the Helm, But I was studying Biology…Science was still recovering from the Pitldown Man fiasco so Evolution, although generally accepted, was not the centre of attention that it is today.What I noticed , more than anything was the apparent necesity to make it work despite the apprent “gaps” (although even that term had not been coined yet)
Over the ears I have watched Monotremes become the linch pin of the progress to Mmammals instead of being an offshoot caused by the separation of the Australasian land mass so that Evolution took a different turn there not a stunted one. I have watched the obsession wtih Gentetical code (The double Helix was still in its infancy let alone all this sequencing stuff). The focus has got more and more microscopic to the detriment of basic physiology and Ecolology. The reason I have not kept up is that I didn’t find the research compelling or convincing. (and I still don’t)
When I was taught Biology Birds, reptiles, mammals, and Amphibians, all had unique characteristics that defined them. It was also believed that there were Giant Insects before Vertebrates came into existence. Evolution was a direct line. There were some thoughts about a tree but it was primarily one development with diversification. Even then there was argument over whether you could get from one group to the next and the need for transient species… Archaeopteryx was the first bird, and it already had all the characteristics of a bird.
When I fist saw David Attenborough trying to convince me that the hinged jaw was formed by ossifying the first section of a gill I could not believe my eys and ears. It was outrageous. There was a whole series on BBC1 about the development of Species and it was delivered as if it was common knowledge. I decided there and then that the world had gone mad.
Now I come on forums and find people arguing as if I am stupid… Hmm,. The jury is still out on that one.
I am sorry. They say a little knowledge is dangerous. My Basic Evolutionary knowledge is 40 years out of date, but I have watched Evolution become the centre of Biology with no attempt to answer the basic questions posed about transferring from an amphibian metabolism, through reptilian, to Mammal. Irreducible systems were not proposed by Creationists. They were understood by Scientists. But Science can be very focused when it wants to be. And, it would appear, can forget some things when they become inconvenient.
Richard
1 Like
What is this even relevant to? It certainly has nothing to do with evolution!
Maybe because mammals didn’t come from reptiles.
There are no metabolism changes found that are “impossible using Evolutionary change” – none, nada, zip.
Why should I ask people who aren’t qualified to give answers? Last I knew neither of them had advanced degrees in theology or even philosophy.
What you say makes it sound like you’re listening to sources that don’t understand evolutionary biology.
1 Like
Methinks you live a sheltered life.
RIchard
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but for my part it was obvious: if evolution happened, then plainly it came from God. I came to looking at evolution via studying the Hebrew text, and the text is plain that God created everything.
And the “climate of Christian thought” I was in had no trouble with evolution as the process God set up for the same reason as above: the text of the scriptures makes clear that God is the author of life, so whatever means or process is discovered as being how life developed then it was unquestionably established by God.
I’ve never understood a way of thinking that could object to anything science finds as somehow undermining the scriptures; as one of my pastors along the way pointed out, the scriptures are inspired while science is not. Our understanding(s) of the scriptures aren’t inspired, either, but the message is clear that everything that is, is from God.
2 Likes
Look, no offense intended but this is naive. As my long post explained, I have both studied and argued Evolution for most of my 60 odd years. I know what the scientific community proposes (proclaims) and God is nowhere to be seen (because God is not scientific} We can’t just shoehorn God into the current theory.
When talking with an atheist it is pointless to assume that they will accept God or His influence, and, they will be convinced that there is no need or room for God in Evolution. Even my knowledge is deemed insufficient for a discussion in a purely scientific platform. My views are mocked and my arguments dismissed. Any attempt to analyse or analogise is deemed off-topic or irrelevant.
Richard
It should be noted that supposedly irreducible systems were actually invoked in support of evolution in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Even thirty years ago when I was taking some university biology mammals were not regarded as having come from reptiles.
Are you claiming that there are things that happen that don’t come from God – or specifically that the development of life happened without God? I would really like sot see your scriptural source for calling attributing the development of life to God “naive”!
1 Like
No, just that the current view does not take God into account.
Richard
Why should that matter to my take on evolution when I first considered it?
I worry about the text of the scriptures, not what any “current view” is.
1 Like
As long as you are not getting involved in a discussion it does not. But, if you start talking about evolutionary theory you need to understand what it does and does not say, especially about God. To blindly say “God did it” is the naivety.
Richard
“Macroevolution” is a problematic term. Within biology, it typically refers to the idea that there are significant evolutionary factors kicking in at the species level and above, beyond the everyday population genetics and natural selection, as opposed to the idea that universal common descent is explained by population-level patterns. But in antievolutionary contexts, “macroevolution” popularly refers to “whatever evolution I reject” and so is unhelpful, because what evolution is rejected varies wildly. “We both reject macroevolution” can mean “I deny that variation within populations happens, and he thinks that a miracle was needed to create the first cell but everything evolved from there.” Thus, saying that there is or isn’t proof of macroevolution requires definition of what one means by macroevolution (and by proof) to actually provide useful meaning.
New species are produced by ordinary means all the time, though drawing the line between species is challenging (as expected if it is happening continually by various evolutionary patterns). For example, if we accept a definition of “species” as populations that are not able to produce fertile offspring with each other, we find that there are all sorts of blurry cases. Horse+donkey producing an infertile mule is a classic example, except for the occasional fertile mule. There are also cases where if you put individuals from different populations into the same cage, you can get babies, but they do not mix naturally because of habitat preferences or relying on different cues (such as a particular song or behavior) to get together. There are cases where population A can breed with population B which can breed with population C which can breed with population D which cannot breed with population A. There are cases where populations generally keep apart but rarely mix. There are cases where interbreeding is not rare in a certain area, but overall the two remain distinct, and the hybrids may have some disadvantage. There are cases where infection with a particular bacterium (best known with Wolbachia) causes reproductive incompatibility. Of course, “not able to interbreed” also runs into significant challenges when it comes to asexually reproducing organisms.
One easy way to make new organisms that do not interbreed with previous forms is polyploidy. Sexual reproduction involves sorting out the matching pairs of chromosomes to produce gametes with half of the starting DNA; fusing gametes then returns to the double set of chromosomes. (How much of the life cycle has the single versus the double set varies widely across eukaryotes.) If you have an extra set of chromosomes, you may be able to function just fine (doesn’t seem to work well for humans but no problem for many plants and animals), but it poses challenges for sorting out the chromosomes for sexual reproduction. If either asexual reproduction or breeding with other polyploids is an option, the new polyploid(s) can be the start of a new species. Brassicoraphanus, the rabbage, is a classic example produced by artificial crossing. Many snails in the genus Campeloma are naturally produced parthenogenetic polyploids, not breeding with the ancestral sexually-reproducing diploids.
Theologically, it is unsurprising for events not following “natural laws” to be quite rare. Unlike much mythology and fantasy fiction, miracles are rather rare in the Bible. John refers to “signs” – having a specific instructional purpose, rather than just for random convenience. “No sign shall be given to you”; “The Jews demand signs and the Greeks wisdom, but we preach…”; “Turn these stones to bread” – there are several examples of not using miracles being the right way. Even when miracles occur, they often seem to be the minimum necessary – the axe head floats but has to be fastened back on better; thousands fed from a few loaves and fish and the leftovers carefully gathered up; water turned to wine has to be served out in the ordinary manner; although walking on water is extraordinary, trudging across the lake in a storm is not exactly taking the easy way. In many cases, the miracle lies in timing and foreknowledge rather than in the physical events – Exodus mentions the wind sent to part the sea; just the right landslide can shut off the Jordan; there is a fish in the Sea of Galilee that tends to pick up shiny things but Jesus knew one with exact change; etc. Likewise, everyday experience and other historical records indicate that miracles are rare. If someone thinks their toast looks like Elvis, the likelihood that it is imagination and/or a deliberate effort to make it look that way is rather high.
Also, biblical miracles had to be clear violations of what the original audience knew were the way things normally work for them to notice. On the one hand, this goes against the “people back then were ignorant and believed this stuff”. Mary did not know the biochemistry of fertilization, but she knew that the message about having a son had omitted an essential step of the normal process. But it also goes against the “latest advance in science reveals a problem for science” approach – the miracles are evident to anyone watching. (Note, however, that many see and disbelieve – the idea that proving a miracle is a guaranteed way to convince someone is incorrect.) Romans 1 talks about God being evident to all, but does not start talking about flagellae; instead, the conscience is the prime example.
A few details: Darwin’s finches are not still finches. Darwin’s finches are tanagers that became finch-like upon finding vacant niches in the Galapagos islands. (And North American “tanagers” are cardinals that became tanager-like.)
It is not only the anti-evolutionists who use “Darwinism” pejoratively; I’ve seen it used in an evolutionary context to refer to strict gradualism (which the paper was questioning).
5 Likes
Is a term coined for changes in population as opposed to the modern view of genetics. It is only a recent change of term. Originally Evolution was viewed on a creature scale.
That is an exaggeration. Sub-species maybe. Cross-breeding is not evolution.
The fact that some species can interbreed is not a proof that they came from a common ancestor. But, the fact that reptiles and mammals cannot interbreed is more revealing about their differences and Evolution’s ability to bridge them.
Richard
What does that even mean?
?
But there’s nothing blind about it – Genesis is quite clear.
1 Like