"Evolution is Just a Theory!" Um, no

[MaggieOH]

jdnation:

Well what I think you really mean is that God and evolution can be mutual. However the problem is, with the Jewish and Christian creator God, this is not how He claims He did it…

Evolution assumes long ages, billions of years. Genesis states 6 days and a seventh day to rest. There is no indication that the Hebrew means anything else other than literal 24 hour days.

…

I do not agree with this assessment of the reading of the Book of Genesis. The wording of the Creation account certainly lends itself to being literal to a primitive audience. However, the wording also suggests that there is a passing of an age. There is no evidence to support a literal 24 hour 6 day period for the creation of the world. On the other hand there is evidence to support that the Genesis account is an account of the eras through which the world passed before man became conscious of his own being, and his relationship with God.

Genesis tells us that God is the Creator. It also tells us that there was an orderliness in the Creation. The rythym of the Genesis account actually suggests the orderliness of Creation, thus at the end of each verse we read " There was evening and there was morning, the first day" etc. The fact that it states that there was evening and there was morning tells us that there is a passage of time, but there is no elaboration upon the actual time period.

When looking at the Genesis account we need to seek the intention of the author, that is the man who was inspired by God to edit this account and put it into writing. What are the Christian concepts that are found in the Genesis Creation account?

1. God created man in His image - that is human beings were created for the Truth. We are created to respond to God.
2. Male and female He created them - Genesis speaks of the couple, not just of man or of woman. There is no division of the sexes as we see in our world today. Love has first place in God’s plan.
3. Let them rule - man is meant to be the husband of all other creatures i.e. the farmer and keeper. Man was not created to be tyrannical.
4. Be fruitful and multiply - this is a blessing that comes with responsibility.
   5.God rested on the seventh day - that day is a holy day and different from all others.

MaggieOH

 

[PhilVaz]

jdnation << Evolution assumes long ages, billions of years. Genesis states 6 days and a seventh day to rest. There is no indication that the Hebrew means anything else other than literal 24 hour days. >>

I’m sorry, two blunders here.

(1) Christian creationist geologists knew the earth was very old well before Darwin. So it wasn’t evolution that assumes long ages, billions of years, it was Christian creationist geologists before Darwin. We didn’t know exactly how long until the discovery of radioactivity in the early 20th century.

Changing Views of the History of the Earth

(2) Also, God is still resting on the “seventh day” since the Book of Hebrews says so (Hebrews 4:3-4; Genesis 2:2-3). So the “seventh day” of a literal “24 hours” is at least several thousand years long, even if you are a young-earther.

Same old creationism on these forums, different day.

Phil P

 

[teajay]

Does anyone know of how this issue is being played out in the Jewish community? I’m just curious as to how Jewish scholars have dealt with it.

 

[mlchance]

Axion << No-one has scientifically observed or recorded one species mutate into another by the process of a random beneficial mutation that is stable, and passed on to subsequent generations, forming a new species. >>

PhilVaz:

Oops, you forgot about the Nylon Bug which evolved since 1935

Axion’s comment was specifically related to mutation of a species into a different species, and not related to a beneficial change within a species.

PhilVaz:

As for those transitional fossils I’ll just post this link again…

The above link isn’t anything but a list of alleged transitional fossils. The process of identifying an alleged transitional fossil works backwards. Unfortunately, such inductive reasoning can very well be wrong. “We have species identified; now let’s look for similarities and label those transitional.”

Notice what is missing from your link? Evidence of actual transition. What there is is this: Species A and B are similiar; therefore, they A might be transitional to B. All of the intervening steps are not available to study, so this is supposition, but, rest assured, the transition must have taken place, because otherwise our entire field of study collapses.

Can we say, “God of the gaps?”

The case for macroevolution may not be as full of holes as some people say, but it is hardly a solid case.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[jdnation]

Ey Phil P!

If all of what you say is true, I guess you have to give up Christianity then. Because, guess what, evolution is most probably true. You know Catholics said the same thing about a moving earth 500 years ago, right?

Na, I feel evolution is most certainly untrue. Catholics have said lots of things as have Christians and many others. I used to be one who believed in evolution, but after being challenged to look at it more closely, it’s so faulty it’s remarkable it’s still around… unless of course you’d assume God helped in the process. But even then when you admit the possibility of God then He could have just as well done it in 6 no?

“Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.” (Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” American Biology Teacher, March 1973)

What do you say to this guy? Hint: he was an Orthodox Christian as well as a geneticist. He therefore probably knows what he’s talking about. Someone’s “theological problems” with evolution doesn’t make the scientific evidence go away, or become any less strong.

So what? I also believed in evolution till recently. I’m sure he knows what he’s talking about in his subject of study unfortunately evolution derives itself specifically from a philosophical dogma rooted in naturalism. The evidence is interpreted to fit the paradigm…

“Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry.”

This is partially true, micro evolution is established observable fact. Macro evolution is nothing but idle speculation with no method to observe or test it. They make up mechanisms and of course find numerous problems and therefore as he says need more study. There are NO alternatives to evolution as far as naturalism goes… it’s all they’ve got that’s good enough. They are constantly learning new things but all they are finding is greater complexity and already fully functional lifeforms in the fossil record. Time has not been beneficial to them.

I hate it when people take the lazy way out and simply deny the science, and deny the evidence. Sorry, it exists. You’ll just need to work out the theology then, and maybe work on your 6-day literal interpretation of Genesis, huh?

I don’t outright deny it simply based on a Bible reading, you assume too little of me, there are plenty of well educated people who see evolution (macro) is impossible. I hate when people feel lazy to see the reality of their faulty ‘science’ because the evidence is all teh same evidence, it’s not that creationists are looking at different evidence and evolutionists are looking at different evidence. It’s the exact same thing, simply each will interpret the evidence based on an unchangable dogma. You’ll just as well need to work on your theology (scientism/naturalism whatever you wish to call it) and discover that as far as origins science is concerned it’s all a biased guessing game anyway.

 

[jdnation]

As for radioactivity you can just as easily search out rebuttals on the net if you wish. It’s not soemthing I’m well equipped to understand fully (getting into the math and all), but perhaps you might. Here at two at Christian sites:
christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-radioactive.html
answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp

And that Hebrews verse really says nothing other than God continues to rest, but there’s nothing there supporting your assertation that today is as well the seventh day. The resting refers to God’s creating power. He isn’t creating anything new. “Matter cannot be created or destroyed” I believe that is a scientific law today, consistent, no?

*"In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists. We now have a debate within the scientific community itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction.

In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process. 
 
After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end - no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers.... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. 
 
Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. 
 
The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."*

I. L. Cohen,
Mathematician, Researcher, Author, Member New York Academy of Sciences. Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.​

 

[Apolonio]

Evolution assumes long ages, billions of years. Genesis states 6 days and a seventh day to rest. There is no indication that the Hebrew means anything else other than literal 24 hour days.

Response:
I disagree. The sun did not exist in the first day of Genesis.

 

[wabrams]

I think a better question is this: How did the first life on earth begin?

I think we will eventually answer that question, but probably not in our lifetime or anytime soon. Just like with stem cell research, we need to start with the completed picture then work backwards, i.e. reverse engineering.

 

[Cherub]

jdnation:

So long story short… can the idea of evolution be compatible with the concept of a creator God? Yes.

Is it compatible with Christianity? Nope…

But of course, you are incorrect. Evolution is compatible with Christianity by virtue of its very existence. No God; no evolution.

 

[Brad]

Well - let’s put it this way:

It is not a fact.

It is not observable even once, let alone repeatedly.

It may not be a theory but, if it isn’t, it is LESS significant than a theory rather than MORE significant.

 

[Ignatius]

clarkal:

That evolution is untrue and just a “theory” is a widespread and annoying misconception.

Actually, evolution is just a theory. A lot of followers of pseudoscience have the fallen into the same misconception as yourself. At one time the theory of thermodynamics was scrutinized and tested using “the scientific method”. It was found to be irrefutable and thus became a scientific “law”. The same is true of the Law of Gravity and all other scientific laws. If you cannot prove evolution using the scientific method, it must remain just a theory. Sorry!

 

[jdnation]

I disagree. The sun did not exist in the first day of Genesis.

Well d’uh… but the point to say is that for some reason the Hebrew( And I mean the specific word day, or ‘yom’ within the context) seems to indicate that each event was still ‘regular-day’ specific… and it IS possible with God.

But of course, you are incorrect. Evolution is compatible with Christianity by virtue of its very existence. No God; no evolution

But that’s just circular reasoning. The fact is that taking the un-liberal interpretation of Christianity solely from the Bible demonstrates that no, it does not…

 

[Cherub]

jdnation:

But that’s just circular reasoning. The fact is that taking the un-liberal interpretation of Christianity solely from the Bible demonstrates that no, it does not…

This came up in a debate at college last fall. The real circular reasoning lies in the argument of evolutionists about literal biblical interpretation; they always, always want to go there, and stay there – but why, I have no idea because logically it is not a safe place. At the end of the day (Literal or Figurative) what we have is a universe created by a supernatural Judeo-Christian God who needs neither space, time, nor his own Bible to justify Him. I can no better demonstrate the supernatural than you can demonstrate a transforming ape.

 

[jdnation]

Well spoken Cherub, it is not the long ages or the macro evolutionary aspect that is the big problem though. It is the idea that death and sufferring, the mentality that the strongest survive through these means, that the least fit will perish, being a ‘perfect’ part of a paradise that God originally intended. This leads to confusion about God’s goodness, because in this scenario, such things as cruelty are not an option, but are rather preferable, because survival will often have to depend on it.

 

[rossum]

Some useful background information from Wikipedia:

In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly.

Theories start out with empirical observations such as “sometimes water turns into ice.” At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations.

Some examples of theories that have been disproved are Lamarckism and the geocentric universe theory. Sufficient evidence has been described to declare these theories false, as they have no evidence supporting them and better explanations have taken their place.

rossum

 

[Apolonio]

Well d’uh… but the point to say is that for some reason the Hebrew( And I mean the specific word day, or ‘yom’ within the context) seems to indicate that each event was still ‘regular-day’ specific… and it IS possible with God.

Response:
First, I’m not speaking of possible worlds. I do not dispute that it is possible. Second, if the sun did not exist in the “first day,” then the Hebrew writer did not mean “first day” as a 24 hour day. If we take a look at its genre, it is written in a “mythical” way. This does not mean it was fiction, but it was written in a way to express truth through archaic language. That’s what the Holy Father says and I agree.

 

[jeffreedy789]

‘evolution is just a theory!’ um, yes.

given the givens (that we’re talking about macro-evolution and not micro-… that we’re talking, in fact, about the THEORY of evolution and not the discernable evolution we see in animals and plants around us on a small scale), it is, and can only be, a theory. there is no way it can be a scientific fact, as it’s not demonstrable. it’s not repeatable.

it is, in fact, by definition, a theory.

pbs or not.

 

[MaggieOH]

jdnation:

Well d’uh… but the point to say is that for some reason the Hebrew( And I mean the specific word day, or ‘yom’ within the context) seems to indicate that each event was still ‘regular-day’ specific… and it IS possible with God.

But that’s just circular reasoning. The fact is that taking the un-liberal interpretation of Christianity solely from the Bible demonstrates that no, it does not…

Genesis says: “evening came and morning came”. It does not break up the day as if it was a literal 24 hours. Rather the language is broad enough to indicate that the author meant a passing of time before the next phase in the order of creation.

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

‘evolution is just a theory!’ um, yes.

given the givens (that we’re talking about macro-evolution and not micro-… that we’re talking, in fact, about the THEORY of evolution and not the discernable evolution we see in animals and plants around us on a small scale), it is, and can only be, a theory. there is no way it can be a scientific fact, as it’s not demonstrable. it’s not repeatable.

it is, in fact, by definition, a theory.

pbs or not.

Yes, it is true that what Darwin proposed is a theory. However, there is evidence to support the middle ground - that Genesis states God’s Truth as an explanation of why we exist in the world. The original stories were aimed at a primitive audience, and with the knowledge that is available to us today we have learned that the world was created not in a literal 6 * 24 hour days, but over a period of time that is compatible with God’s Truth.

MaggieOH

 

[jeffreedy789]

with scientific evidence, we have developed our theory that the earth was created in something other than 6 (24 hour periods).

however, as the event is unrepeatable, it can never be established as a fact. it must remain a theory, by definition.

and, incidentally, a theory i reject. but that’s beside the point.