Help with Creationism vs Darwinism

[buffalo]

Sugar Ray:

stevenandersen:

The reason I’m concerned with what most people think is because of the impact it has on society, number one.

Number two, I am interested in addressing what most people believe to be evolution because I am continually meeting people who believe I’m a nut because I do not accept that apes gradually evolved into men.

I take it that you don’t accept this either. But isn’t that what the average layperson believes evolution means? In my experience it is. And if that’s the case isn’t it important for the science and education community to clear up the misconception.

Don’t you believe the Devil is thrilled to have people walking around thinking it’s proven scientific fact that life began by accidnet and that people gradually evolved from monkeys?

When scientists and educators say evolution is proven fact I believe this is the idea that is reinforced withthin the minds of most people.

Textbooks still teach the ape to man idea in pictures. The errors need to be eliminated from the textbooks.

 

[Chris_W]

Sugar Ray:

ChrisW I agree entirley with your approach to this issue however I’m sure you will agree that there are times when we find ourselves in debtes with people who do not share our faith (which is how this thread got started by the way) and in these cases we need to keep the discussion in the realm of evidence and data. In these cases I find the evidence regarding the complexity of the universe, DNA, etc very helpful.

Interested in your thoughts.

I agree. There are two separate steps in discussing this issue with people who do not share our faith. I was hoping to have iterated that already in this thread (perhaps not well enough):

Step 1: Show that my position, admitting up front that it is based in part on my specific faith, is not hostile to reason. My position does not contradict science or reason. A person does not have to share my faith to see this point. They may argue that they do not share that faith, but the point remains that what I believe is no unreasonable (i.e. contrary to reason).

The end result or goal of this step is to arrive at the place where we can agree that the science is not without the possibility of error, nor does the science rule out the possibility that I may be correct. They may argue about probability but they must admit what I just said.

In this step, the argument can and probably should be limited to what can be known through science.

BTW, this is the very place wanerious (who is not Catholic and who is an evolutionist) and I seem to have arrived. I have not pursuaded him to accept my belief about evoution, but he also has admitted (I hope he will agree with my summary here) that my position is not impossible or contrary to reason…just highly unlikely in his opinion.

Step 2: Because science can neither prove nor disprove either position conclusively or with certainty, the debate needs to expand to evidences that fall outside the realm of science.

If, for example, wanerious and I were to take the discussion to step two, it would necessarily involve discussion about our respective religions and the ability or inability to determine with certainty what is true from a philosophical and theological standpoint. Similarly, if I were to take the discussion to step two with an atheist, it would necessarily involve discussion about the existence of God, and our ability or inability to determine with certainty what is true.

Does this help explain my methodology a bit better?

 

[Sugar_Ray]

ChrisW

I do understand and it will help me in my future discussions with others.

Thanks

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

…we have field and laboratory data that demonstrate speciation
…Since the link included observations in nature of speciation then you are wrong to say there is no evidence.

I have not seen your answer to Buffalo’s question. Does deviation mean the same thing as evolution to a new and higher life form? And does DNA increase or decrease in complexity in the “speciation” observed in your link?

steveandersen:

Besides they would be setting themselves up for a god of the gaps problem: If you say “we can’t explain X, so that means there is a God” and then someone comes along with an explanation for X you’ve got a problem.

You have also not asnwered my question: Where do you percieve a “god of the gaps” in my position?

steveandersen:

Personally I think that evolution is a great demonstration of the sublime beauty of Creation. I’m not sure why people feel somehow threatened by it.

I have answered this question, directly to you. And I asked you how you resolve the conflicts I perceive between evolution and Catholicism. Once again you have not answerded the question, other than to say you don’t see the conflict.

 

[Chris_W]

buffalo:

Textbooks still teach the ape to man idea in pictures. The errors need to be eliminated from the textbooks.

An excellent point! The misconceptions the average person has about what evolutionists assert cannot be purely the result of ignorance on the part of the average person, for the most well known visual aid to the introduction to evolution shows that very thing.

 

[steveandersen]

Sugar Ray:

stevenandersen:

The reason I’m concerned with what most people think is because of the impact it has on society, number one.

What impact on society are you concerned with?
Sugar Ray:

Number two, I am interested in addressing what most people believe to be evolution because I am continually meeting people who believe I’m a nut because I do not accept that apes gradually evolved into men.

So you’re looking for like-minded folks…ok that is understandable.
Sugar Ray:

I take it that you don’t accept this either.

Well the classic response is “men didn’t evolve form apes; they just had common ancestors” of course with modern cladisitcs (in my rudimentary understanding) organisms retain all classifications that they had at any point in their development

Or, as this humorous quote put it
You are an ape.
Your tail is merely a stub of bones that don’t even protrude outside the skin. Your dentition includes not only vestigial canines, but incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, and distinctive molars that come to five points interrupted by a “Y” shaped crevasse. This in addition to all of your other traits, like the dramatically increased range of motion in your shoulder, as well as a profound increase in cranial capacity and disposition toward a bipedal gait, indicates that you are not merely a vertebrate cranial chordate and a tetrapoidal placental mammalian primate, but you are more specifically an ape, and so was your mother before you.
Sugar Ray:

But isn’t that what the average layperson believes evolution means? In my experience it is. And if that’s the case isn’t it important for the science and education community to clear up the misconception.

Oh yes it is very important which is why, as a technical person, the recent actions by the Kansas BOE puzzle, astound, frustrate, and horrify me.

(It is probably also my motivation for participating in threads like this…science apologetics as it were)
Sugar Ray:

Don’t you believe the Devil is thrilled to have people walking around thinking it’s proven scientific fact that life began by accidnet and that people gradually evolved from monkeys?

When scientists and educators say evolution is proven fact I believe this is the idea that is reinforced withthin the minds of most people.

Perhaps but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a fact. Like I said science isn’t a democracy.
After all there are 5 billion people on this planet who have quite a different idea on Transubstantiation then the Church does. Does that make them right? Or should the Church change what it says to accommodate them?

I would love everyone in the world to have a perfect understanding of all scientific theories and theology and philosophy and everything else. But that isn’t going to happen. We all have different strengths and interests. Modern science is complex. A basic high school education should given everyone a good general grounding in the sciences but there are lots of people who learn enough to pass the course and then promptly forget.

 

[steveandersen]

Chris W:

I have not seen your answer to Buffalo’s question. Does deviation mean the same thing as evolution to a new and higher life form? And does DNA increase or decrease in complexity in the “speciation” observed in your link?

They were examples of speciation not deviation.

Evolution merely predicts that organisms will speciate if different segments of a population are isolated from each other. So a “new” species is produced. As for a “higher” species what do you mean by that? All evolution predicts is that the new species will be better able to survive in the altered environment than the previous one not that it is necessarily a “better” or more complex species.

In some examples the DNA may have gotten more “complex” but in others it may have stayed the same or gotten simpler. Sequencing a genome is a fairly arduous task and has only been accomplished recently for a limited number of species. I doubt a that data was included in the results but since not only because sequencing wasn’t available at the time of many of the experiments but also the differences between species have historically been establish without such data.

There are plenty of examples of species loosing traits as they evolved. Snakes and whales have lost their limbs for example.
Chris W:

You have also not asnwered my question: Where do you percieve a “god of the gaps” in my position?
I have answered this question, directly to you. And I asked you how you resolve the conflicts I perceive between evolution and Catholicism. Once again you have not answerded the question, other than to say you don’t see the conflict.

Well, forgive me if I’m misunderstanding your posts but I see two themes in your objections both dealing with human exceptionalism but only one of which is a potential “god of the gaps” problem

(1) as you put it “……the fact that humans have the ability to reason, free will, and a conscience, while no other living thing on earth has those attributes?”

and (2) the existence of the soul and the reconciliation of evolution with the Church’s teaching regarding Original sin, Adam & Eve, and the creation of Eve.

Number (1) is potentially problematic. Items such as free will don’t leave fossils in the classic sense but as you pointed out, behaviors can be observed and studied. There are fields such as evolutionary psychology that specialize in answering just those questions. They are relatively new fields but they do produce some interesting results. I really don’t follow them too much so I don’t know what the latest and greatest is but I have seen work that describes human behavior in adaptive terms.
My “god of the gaps” comment came along because if you’re objecting to evolution for those reasons what are you going to do if someone comes along with a good working theory for the evolution of reason?
To me that wouldn’t diminish God in the least; evolution is just the tool He used to mold the clay.

As for number (2) well you probably got me there. I’m and engineer not a theologian.

My personal interpretation is that when the first almost-humans became humans (someone had to be first) that is when they received souls. You had said that you had a problem with the fact the scientist estimate a minimum population size of 50 (500?). Well with a population of that size, everyone would be related to everyone else within a couple of generations so even if Adam & Eve were just 2 out of 50 we’d all still be descended from them. (This of course raises the potential concern of “mating with animals” or whatever almost-humans would be called just before they received a soul but that has to be far less of a moral concern than the incest implicit in a literalist interpretation of the creation story)
(And I know that the Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam shouldn’t really be used to support this but I like to think of it that way)

Some aspects of the doctrine of Original Sin have always troubled me. In particular why should I be held accountable for what my great great great …grandfather did? But I know that the existence of Original Sin is essential because if there were nothing to redeem then Jesus was just wasting his time down here. For me an allegorical interpretation of original sin and evolution fit hand in hand and answer my questions. We came from animals, we were selfish, driven by instinct, and didn’t know right from wrong. Then we evolved to be humans. We were given souls and with them the capacity to be better but because of where we came from we still have a weakness to act like our ancestors.

Not quite Church doctrine…but that is why they call it “practicing”. I never really get it right.

As for your questions regarding evolution and the origins of Eve, you’ve stumped me.

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

They were examples of speciation not deviation…

I will give it a thorough read and respond after.

steveandersen:

Well, forgive me if I’m misunderstanding your posts but I see two themes in your objections both dealing with human exceptionalism but only one of which is a potential “god of the gaps” problem

Number (1) is potentially problematic…My “god of the gaps” comment came along because if you’re objecting to evolution for those reasons what are you going to do if someone comes along with a good working theory for the evolution of reason?..

I suppose you have a point there. If the theory answering that question was credible I wouldn’t be able to use that argument any longer. However, I believe that will never happen because free will and reason and conscience have a purpose. The purpose is our ability to love (God in particular). It is for this reason we can be said to have been “created in the image and likeness of God”. This is what differentiates us most significantly from all other animals. Yes, there are survival of the species benefits as well, but those are by-products rather than the purpose of those traits.

We are the only creatures created for our own sakes. If natural causes could account for it, then the potential would have to exist that another creature could in theory develop it. What then happens to the theology of man created in God’s image and likeness?

steveandersen:

As for number (2) well you probably got me there. I’m and engineer not a theologian.

My personal interpretation is that when the first almost-humans became humans (someone had to be first) that is when they received souls. You had said that you had a problem with the fact the scientist estimate a minimum population size of 50 (500?). Well with a population of that size, everyone would be related to everyone else within a couple of generations so even if Adam & Eve were just 2 out of 50 we’d all still be descended from them. (This of course raises the potential concern of “mating with animals” or whatever almost-humans would be called just before they received a soul but that has to be far less of a moral concern than the incest implicit in a literalist interpretation of the creation story)

Some aspects of the doctrine of Original Sin have always troubled me. In particular why should I be held accountable for what my great great great …grandfather did?

Thank you for entertaining my questions. I think perhaps your ability to somewhat reconcile Original Sin and evolution are based on a bit of misunderstanding about Original Sin though.

Original Sin is not guilt passed on (that’s why the concept of that ocurring doesn’t seem right to you). Rather, it is the loss of certain supernatural and praeternatural gifts. It is like the rich man who loses his fortune on the throw of the dice. He then would be a poor man and unable to pass on his fortune to his children.

God intended A & E to pass on those gifts via hereditary means. The fact they could no longer do that is contrary to God’s plan. And since a sin is “that which is contrary to the will of God”, it is called Original Sin.

This reality (of what Original Sin actually is) necessarily requires direct decendency. A&E had to bear children who inturn bore other children and so on to the present day. Decendency form that ‘family’ so to speak as you described, is not possible. With the proper understanding of Original Sin, our ability to reconcile the two (evolution and Catholicism) vanishes.

Additionally, the idea of humans mating with the ‘brutes’ is not possible. For the congugal act is very well explained, especially in Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. That act was designed by God to reflect the communion between the persons of the Triune God. It is for that reason that divorce, and adultry, and sexual morality in general are taught as they are. The idea that God planned for man to violate the very essense of what it means to be human (as JPII describes it) right from the start defies logic.

steveandersen:

As for your questions regarding evolution and the origins of Eve, you’ve stumped me.

steveandersen, I must tell you that those areas where we as Catholics are “stumped” in reconciling the two, are really the only reasons I object to evolution. I would see it as a plausible theory were it not for those problems. But can we just ignore the problems exist in our acceptance of the theory of evolution? My heart and my intellect react against that proposal and so I must reject the theory, even if parts of it may be true. I do not know where the flaw in the theory exists, but it simply must be flawed to have arrived at the conclusions at which evolutionists have arrived.

 

[steveandersen]

……We are the only creatures created for our own sakes. If natural causes could account for it, then the potential would have to exist that another creature could in theory develop it. What then happens to the theology of man created in God’s image and likeness?

I have heard this question phrased in terms like “if we discovered extraterrestrials would that invalidate Christianity/religion?”

Must response is that
(1) I was always taught that our souls were made in his image. God doesn’t have a nose, ears, or toes.
(2) Why limit God? If He wants to create other children who am I to say He can’t? We freely admit that we do not, in fact cannot, fully understand His purposes and plans and that He reveals to us what we need to know and what we can understand. An eternal, transcendent being could very well be speaking to the methane breathers of Tau-Ceti or be grooming some arthropod to replace us in 300 million years right now. It would be an awful waste of a perfectly good universe if we were it.

……Original Sin is not guilt passed on (that’s why the concept of that ocurring doesn’t seem right to you). Rather, it is the loss of certain supernatural and praeternatural gifts. It is like the rich man who loses his fortune on the throw of the dice. He then would be a poor man and unable to pass on his fortune to his children.

That is probably the best explanation I’ve ever heard
Thanks Chris

…. Decendency form that ‘family’ so to speak as you described, is not possible. With the proper understanding of Original Sin, our ability to reconcile the two (evolution and Catholicism) vanishes.

No. I wasn’t suggesting that they’d all be cousins to Adam & Eve or something. I’m talking real literal descendants.
For example, I have two parents, 4 grand parents, 8 great grand parents etc the pyramid just get bigger as we go back. With a starting population of 50 (or even 500) even with a minimum of consanguinity, it would only take a few generations for everyone to be direct descendants of each member of the original group.
Chris W:

Additionally, the idea of humans mating with the ‘brutes’ is not possible. For the congugal act is very well explained, especially in Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. That act was designed by God to reflect the communion between the persons of the Triune God. It is for that reason that divorce, and adultry, and sexual morality in general are taught as they are. The idea that God planned for man to violate the very essense of what it means to be human (as JPII describes it) right from the start defies logic.

I’m not sure how the conjugal act is enhanced by incest being the only alternative. If I recall the sexually morality I was taught, that was high on the list of no-nos.

But how about this?
We have a starting population of 50, that’s 25 couples. Adam & Eve are the first to get souls. They only mate with each other, eliminating the “brutes” problem. In the next generation, the rest of the population is given souls by God so they still come after A&E, A&E will become the common ancestor of their descendants, and their kids have someone to marry.
Chris W:

steveandersen, I must tell you that those areas where we as Catholics are “stumped” in reconciling the two, are really the only reasons I object to evolution. I would see it as a plausible theory were it not for those problems. But can we just ignore the problems exist in our acceptance of the theory of evolution? My heart and my intellect react against that proposal and so I must reject the theory, even if parts of it may be true. I do not know where the flaw in the theory exists, but it simply must be flawed to have arrived at the conclusions at which evolutionists have arrived.

Are you trying to talk me out of the Church?

The theory speaks not a word about Adam & Eve, original sin, or any other theological matter. It cannot. It’s not its job.
There were times when folks rejected a round earth or a heliocentric on religious grounds. In time we were able to reconcile things.
I doubt that the God who gave us the gift of reason would construct a world where something that has been so rigorously demonstrated is somehow wrong. He may be unfathomable but I doubt He plays cruel jokes.

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

I have heard this question phrased in terms like “if we discovered extraterrestrials would that invalidate Christianity/religion?”

Yah, I’ve heard that too, but I’m talking about this world. I’ve toyed with that concept briefly but haven’t given it much thought because its not an issue I’m faced with. In this world, God gave mankind dominion over all the creatures of the earth. In this world mankind is unique by design and has a value higher than all other living things which is why so much of God’s Word discusses how we should treat our fellowman.

I guess I haven’t really develped my thoughts too clrearly on this, but it seems to me if another creature had the potential for reason, free will and a conscience, it would be capable of knowing and loving God just as we are, and it would be bound by right and wrong just as we are…and then we would have to be bound not to kill that creature for the value of its life would be elevated…and on and on. It would change much of what we know and understand about the role of man on this earth.

Okay, I’ll give up on that notion for now before the whole thing gets too hypothetical.

steveandersen:

(1) I was always taught that our souls were made in his image. God doesn’t have a nose, ears, or toes.

I think your understanding of that might change if you read up on the subject. I do not mean that to be insulting, really. Until recently I might have agreed with you, but I have learned (again in part through the Theology of the Body…which I have still not finished) that our bodies are very much a part of the concept of “image of God” including but not limited to the biological differences between a man and a woman.

Not that God has a physical body (well, actually He does in Jesus), but the design in His image is not limit to the spiritual realm. It includes rather significantly our physical bodies as well as our biological “programming” or instincts and desires. This is why I think it is so important to assert that our bodies did not evolve through random variation and accidental consequences.

steveandersen:

(2) Why limit God?..an eternal, transcendent being could very well be speaking to the methane breathers of Tau-Ceti…

I won’t argue that. In fact, Angels pre-existed mankind and are quite different beings altogether from us.

Hmmm. I’m now at a loss as to why we are discussing this particular topic :whacky: Oh, okay, regarding other creatures and the uniqueness of man. I don’t have an intellectual problem with aliens or whatever, though my gut rejects the notion.

steveandersen:

With a starting population of 50 (or even 500) even with a minimum of consanguinity, it would only take a few generations for everyone to be direct descendants of each member of the original group…

You lost me somewhere in there, but I’m interested in what you are suggesting. Could you try again?

steveandersen:

I’m not sure how the conjugal act is enhanced by incest being the only alternative. If I recall the sexually morality I was taught, that was high on the list of no-nos…

At least with incest, wierd as that may be to us, there can exist love and self-giving and even a life long committment and fidelity. Actually, other than for hereditary abnormalities I’m not certain of the reasons behind the forbiddence of it (never really thought to ask the question before now). Some back woods hillbilly jokes come to mind though

steveandersen:

How about this? We have a starting population of 50, that’s 25 couples. Adam & Eve are the first to get souls. They only mate with each other, eliminating the “brutes” problem. In the next generation, the rest of the population is given souls by God so they still come after A&E, A&E will become the common ancestor of their descendants, and their kids have someone to marry.

steveandersen:

A noble effort steveandersen, but that requires God giving the non-A&E offspring a soul different than the human soul, which still amounts to mating with brutes, for if the others had a human soul then they would have to have been given the same opportunity as A&E (the opportunity to exist and remain in the state of grace) or else God would’ve essentially doomed them to perdition by the mere creation of their souls (they never had a chance which seems contradictory for a perfectly just God). Or, if He did give them that chance, then they all too would’ve had to fall like A&E, in which case why teach we are all descendents of A&E?

Your idea is not without merit, but not without complications either.

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

Are you trying to talk me out of the Church? .

Of course not. However, with that question you have just answered the question you asked of Sugar Ray about the effects of the theory of evolution on society.

Have you considered the significance of the underlying reality to the question you just asked of me? Your question indicates that if you had to choose, you would choose evolution over Catholicism. So when you ask why people are concerned about evolution, the answer is because once accepted, it tends to lead to the belief that evolution is the higher truth (your response is not uncommon among Catholic evolutionists).

steveandersen:

The theory speaks not a word about Adam & Eve, original sin, or any other theological matter. It cannot. It’s not its job.
QUOTE]
Indeed. It does not. And science cannot prove. Why? Because it depends on man to interpret the scientific observations. It depends on man to pursue the kinds of experiments that will result in conclusions that ultimately reveal God. That’s why when the science contradicts the Church, it is the science that is suspect to me.

 

[Chris_W]

Here’s a general question for evolutionists (especially Christian evolutionists):

Lets say that evolution could account for much or even the majority of the living things on earth. Does evolution necessarily have to assert that mankind was also the result of that process? Would it contradict the theory of evoution as it is understood by evolutionists, to assert the potential that man (perhaps even only man) did not evolve?

If this were possible, then fossil record may merely indicate the evolution of creatures** similar** to man, but not mankind itself. This seems possible to me, with the limited knowledge I have of evolution because I am not aware that the fossil record necessarily must pertain to humans.

The reason I ask this question is this: The uniqueness of man, I believe, is not such merely out of a need for the species to survive, or adapt. For the rest of creation survives well enough without those same attributes. All Christians (and most theists in general I presume) believe man has a purpose far beyond that of the rest of creation, which establishes the reason for man’s uniqueness.

If we consider cause or need, and the effect or result, it only makes sense that the way we are is due to our purpose. This is in line even with the principle of evolution (that the way a creature is, is due to its purposes, or needs). And since our purpose is not limited to natural existence, wouldn’t it seem logical that the resulting way man is, would not be due to natural causes?

 

[Sugar_Ray]

stevenandersen and ChrisW:

If I could add to your comments ChrisW…when stevenandersen says that evolution is a fact because it has been proven and he refers us to the experiments in the link he provided, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say (I am asking both of you here) that evolution has only been proven regarding those specific organisms?

Is it not a stretch to say that simply because evolution (speciation) has been observed in a minority of organisms under specific laboratory conditions that therefore all living things evolved to their current state?

If that is the case is it not wrong for evolutionists to make the blanket statement that evolution is a proven fact and encourage the misconceptions that seem so common? And is this not the reason that the lack of transitional fossil evidence is constantly referred to by evolutions critics because without it there is no actual evidence that man evolved even if some other organisms did?

Indeed, some scientists have said that the evolution of man can never be proven because it was a complex and singular event that cannot be repeated and tested. As a result evolution must always remain a theory.

 

[buffalo]

Chris W:

Of course not. However, with that question you have just answered the question you asked of Sugar Ray about the effects of the theory of evolution on society.

Have you considered the significance of the underlying reality to the question you just asked of me? Your question indicates that if you had to choose, you would choose evolution over Catholicism. So when you ask why people are concerned about evolution, the answer is because once accepted, it tends to lead to the belief that evolution is the higher truth (your response is not uncommon among Catholic evolutionists).

steveandersen:

The theory speaks not a word about Adam & Eve, original sin, or any other theological matter. It cannot. It’s not its job.
QUOTE]
Indeed. It does not. And science cannot prove. Why? Because it depends on man to interpret the scientific observations. It depends on man to pursue the kinds of experiments that will result in conclusions that ultimately reveal God. That’s why when the science contradicts the Church, it is the science that is suspect to me.

This is is in a nutshell.

And we are wise to remember our knowledge of science is linited by our five senses.

 

[rossum]

Chris W:

Here’s a general question for evolutionists (especially Christian evolutionists):

Lets say that evolution could account for much or even the majority of the living things on earth. Does evolution necessarily have to assert that mankind was also the result of that process? Would it contradict the theory of evoution as it is understood by evolutionists, to assert the potential that man (perhaps even only man) did not evolve?

One of the great indicators of common descent is the “Twin Nested Hierarchy”. Starting from Linnaeus biologists have been buildong a tree of all species, the Tree of Life. This tree was built on the basis of the characteristics of each organism - the phenotype or physical body. Even the fact that a tree is possible is a strong indicator that common descent is the underlying driver. A pegasus, mixing avian wings with a mammalian body would not fit into the tree, but we never find such organisms in nature.

When we discovered DNA and were able to compare the DNA of different animals we got the same tree from the genotype as we did from the phenotype. There were a few minor differences, usually where the phenotype tree was doubtful, but given the number of possible different trees that could be drawn the match between the two is an extremely strong indication of common descent.

Homo sapiens fits into the tree. We are eukaryotes, bilateralians, vertebrates, tetrapods, mammals, placentals, primates and apes. As the piece you quoted in your post #126 showed in a humorous way, we fit exactly into place in the Tree of Life. As an exercise try starting from the root of the Tree of Life all the way to Homo sapiens; we meet all the criteria for all the enclosing groups described on the way. If God did make H. sapiens by an act of special creation then He did it in such a way as to make it look as if we originated by common descent. There is currently no scientific way to separate out H. sapiens from any other species; all species fit into the tree.

In short the extremely high level of matching between the phenotype tree and the genotype tree and the fact the H. sapiens fits comfortably into that tree shows that the tree is real and that H. sapiens is physically descended from the same origin as all other life on earth.
Chris W:

The reason I ask this question is this: The uniqueness of man, I believe, is not such merely out of a need for the species to survive, or adapt. For the rest of creation survives well enough without those same attributes.

All species are unique, not just man. Each species has the attributes it needs for its survival. Eagles can see far better than we can, our sight would be just a fuzzy blur to them but it is a fuzzy blur sufficient for our needs. Dogs have a far better sense of smell, but ours is sufficient for our needs. We are specialised for intelligence, so we see intelligence as important; insects do very well indeed with much less intelligence and a lot more breeding. Intelligence is only one possible strategy among many.

Intelligence is not unique to humans. It is commonplace to say “Dogs are more intelligent than cats”. We could equally say that a mouse is more intelligent than an earthworm. Dogs, cats, mice and earthworms all have some level of intelligence. If something exists in an ancestor then it can be increased by evolution. A giraffe’s ancestor had a shorter neck, an elephant’s ancestor had a smaller nose, our ancestor had less intelligence. The most intelligent land animals after us are the apes, which are closest to us in the Tree of Life. Intelligence is just another characteristic moulded by evolution to allow us to survive in our environment.

rossum

 

[Aaron_I]

If we came from the same parents and didn’t evolve, how come there are different races of people?

I am all for microevolution and natural selection as the process for it. That said, I find the assertion that macroevolution happens the same way as microevolution to be a load of ****. It is entirely illogical.

God created the soul which expressed itself in the physical realm as grammar.

 

[Sugar_Ray]

rossum:

Your post is very interesting and I’d like to learn more about the subject.

But is it really proof? Does it prove that humans evolved? Or could we not say just as easliy that it indicates a common creator rather than a common anscestor.

Aren’t we all limited to theories because the evolution of man, if it occured, was a singular complex event that cannot be repeated and tested?

That being the case shouldn’t we stop saying that evolution is settled fact? And, as ChrisW has said, shouldn’t we Christians defer to divine revelation as the higher truth?

 

[The_Barbarian]

No, natural selection, the idea that a species changes over time to adapt to its environment, isn’t evolution, meaning the gradual change of one species into another different species over time via random mutation.

Sorry, that’s wrong. Natural selection is only one part of evolution. Evolution procedes by random mutation, acted upon by natural selection. This has been directly observed.

Admittedly, but they do not change from one species into another species.

That’s been directly observed, too. Would you like an example?

Nor do living organisms evolve from nonliving matter.

Nor is that part of evolutionary theory. Wouldn’t you be more effective against evolution, if you knew what it was?

That one extinct species in the fossil record evolved into a different species isn’t a demonstration. It is an inference drawn to conform to an a priori assumption.

Nope. Inference from evidence. Would you like an example of how we know?

The effects of electrons can be readily observed. Evolution - the change of one species into another gradually over time through random mutation - cannot be observed.

Not long ago, a scientist directly observed the evolution of an irreducibly complex feature. Would you like to learn about that?

It is essentially unfalsifiable, and, therefore, more a matter of dogma than of science.

You’ ve been misled on that. A rabbit fossil in undisturbed Cambrian rocks, for example, would do it.

 

[zian]

Sugar Ray:

And, as ChrisW has said, shouldn’t we Christians defer to divine revelation as the higher truth?

If you believe that God is the author of nature, then the testimony of nature is part of revelation. I think God will be patient while we learn how to read it.

 

[Mike_Rainville]

I just started reading a new book called “Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing” edited by William Dembski. (ISI Books). I’m sure that it would help.

Evidence against the theory of evolution has been swept under the carpet, and the sound scientific evidence for design, all but ignored. The book explains the thinking and patterns of the case in its first few pages.