How evolution undermines Salvation

[Mersenne]

Next up: how gravity undermines salvation. After that: how calculus undermines salvations.

Sorry, evolution just is, it’s happening and we’ve observed it. If evolution undermines your view of salvation, that’s a problem with your view, not with evolution.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m uncomfortable with the notion of the body as merely a tool for the soul.

My understanding is that we are creatures of both body and soul and that they are equal parts of the whole.

I never said the body was merely a tool for the soul, I said that rationality is fundamentally immaterial. The body and soul are a single unit, but the rational function of the soul does not originate from physical causes, and therefore can’t be reduced to the evolutionary process.

Things like the senses, however, can be reduced to physical causes, despite the fact that the immaterial rational soul animates them in the case of humans.

I’m speaking only of rationality being seperate from evolutionary causes, and that is only one aspect of our soul, albeit the aspect that sets it apart from the “sensitive” and “vegetative” souls despite the fact that it shares in their functions.

Peace and God bless!

 

[danielsgram]

Hi GoldenArrow:

I believe that Evolution can stop and that Man has stopped evolving.

Like I pointed out in another thread. Evolution is not scientific. It is a belief system, therefore a philosophy or a religion. Notice there is no scientific reply there is “I believe”. As we all know, the Catholic creed begins with “I believe”

I believe in GUIDED EVOLUTION,

IMHO there needs to be scientific proof of this but since there isn’t; again it is a philosophy or a religion.

that there is no such thing as chance, that every creature has a purpose in God’s plan. Even the Dinos had a purpose, though I cannot say what it was for certain. Maybe God was just messing around. Who knows.

This I believe as well but I believe it by faith.

As far as Man goes, I believe Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapiens, the first creatures made in the image and likeness of God.

Again faith.

I

believe the evolution of Man stops with Homo Sapiens because God wants it to. Man is God’s masterpiece.

Since there is no scientific proof of this, it must be “believed”. One needs faith.

Evolution doesn’t undermine Salvation if seen in this light.

But if what you believe is wrong, then it does undermine salvation IMHO.

Donna

 

[antimon]

is it any difference whether God gave soul to a humanoid monkey or to a heap of clay?

 

[TomBosco]

Next up: how gravity undermines salvation. After that: how calculus undermines salvations.

Sorry, evolution just is, it’s happening and we’ve observed it. If evolution undermines your view of salvation, that’s a problem with your view, not with evolution.

There is another view that is legitimate and your condescention does not win the argument. “Poo Poo” is the typical argument when someone questions the truth of evolution. Not even hardcore evolutionists compare the THEORY of evolution with mathamatical science. Get real. The holes in the theory of evolution are enormous and are filled in with “evidence” based on predetermined conclusions. I’m not saying that a literal seven days of creation is in order but to say that evolution is a fact is just not science, it’s philosophy. Do not condescend regarding things that are only speculation. Serious scientists question evolution because the fossil record disagrees with it. We have observed that evolution as layed out by Darwin 150 years ago is scientifically impossible. Read some new books with arguments against random evolution (Darwin). Why would anyone be hell bent on defending a scientific theory from a time when people didn’t even know that germs caused colds?

 

[levi86]

I have been thinking about this and realized that evolution undermines God’s plan of salvation.

There is nothing about evolution that says after man comes around evolution must stop, rather man must keep evolving as should everything else. At this point Jesus taking on human nature simply took on a stage of human evolution not a single once and for all defined human nature. Working both back in time and in to the future evolution means man isnt unique because at each extreme only semi-humans exist, for example where was the line drawn between monkey and man, and at what point was that individual created in God’s image? Monkeys are not created in God’s image, only full humans are. It also undermines the fact Adam was a unique individual but rather now he is simply the first of the monkey men with future men (and somehow women) evolving around him.

As for the future, what happens when man evolves into something else? They are no longer created in God’s image nor are they under the salvation plan.

Human evolution has almost slowed to zero. In the past hominids evolved due to their inability to adequately control their external environment. For some time now hominids (Homo sapiens, sapiens) have been able to control their environment to such an extreme that evolution no longer applies to our species. Man will not evolve to a point that is distinguishable from the human nature of Christ.

This however is coming from a purely natural perspective. Who knows what kind of evil human cloning/genetic engineering will unleash on the world.

 

[Mersenne]

There is another view that is legitimate and your condescention does not win the argument. “Poo Poo” is the typical argument when someone questions the truth of evolution. Not even hardcore evolutionists compare the THEORY of evolution with mathamatical science. Get real. The holes in the theory of evolution are enormous and are filled in with “evidence” based on predetermined conclusions.

There are holes in our understanding of gravity. That doesn’t make gravity non-existent or a weak theory.

I’m not saying that a literal seven days of creation is in order but to say that evolution is a fact is just not science, it’s philosophy.

No, actually, it’s science; science has established evolution as a fact.

Do not condescend regarding things that are only speculation.

It’s not speculation.

Serious scientists question evolution because the fossil record disagrees with it.

No they don’t.

We have observed that evolution as layed out by Darwin 150 years ago is scientifically impossible.

Parts of it, but 99% of it has been verified as true.

Read some new books with arguments against random evolution (Darwin).

Darwin never said evolution was random.

Why would anyone be hell bent on defending a scientific theory from a time when people didn’t even know that germs caused colds?

Like gravity?

Why would someone be hell bent on destorying the most well supported idea in all of science? Oh, I know, because it disagrees with your groundless beliefs, therefore, it is wrong, even if you have no understanding of science at all.

 

[steveandersen]

Human evolution has almost slowed to zero…

I don’t know it this is true.
Yes there are no real isolated populations any more.
And yes there are a lot of us.
BUT
The emergence of lactose tolerance in some adults is a fairly recent adaptation in response to the domestication of animals.

Sickle cell is a recent adaptation to malaria.

I guess that with technology “recent” is a relative term.

 

[Orogeny]

Why would anyone be hell bent on defending a scientific theory from a time when people didn’t even know that germs caused colds?

How do you know that germs cause colds? That is only a scientific theory and, in fact, there are those who say that germ theory is bogus.

unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.html
tuberose.com/Germ_Theory.html
cancerchecklist.com/essays/germ_theory.html
whale.to/v/disease2.html

Their claims are just as valid as those who say things like “Serious scientists question evolution because the fossil record disagrees with it.”

In fact, Donna would, if she is intellectually honest, insist that germs don’t cause diseases because there is no PROOF that they do, only evidence. Since that evidence can be interpreted by some to mean that the germs are present only because the person is diseased, that makes it obvious that those who agree that germs cause disease are only interpreting it that way because of their pre-existing world view. Right, Donna?

Peace

Tim

 

[Melchior]

There are holes in our understanding of gravity. That doesn’t make gravity non-existent or a weak theory.

No, actually, it’s science; science has established evolution as a fact.

It’s not speculation.

No they don’t.

Parts of it, but 99% of it has been verified as true.

Darwin never said evolution was random.

Like gravity?

Why would someone be hell bent on destorying the most well supported idea in all of science? Oh, I know, because it disagrees with your groundless beliefs, therefore, it is wrong, even if you have no understanding of science at all.

Could you exaggerate any more? The most well supported idea in all of science??? And here I thought there were dozens of fields of science that were observable, testable and reproducible unlike speciation. I will be sure to tell my some Organic Chemists and molecular Biologists I work with they are in the wrong field.

Gravity’s effects are constantly observed. The whole gravity and evolution “gotcha” phrase is so apples and oranges it is ridiculous.

Can you tell us how nearly all mutations science has ever encountered has a negative affect or at nest a neutral effect?

Broad, exxagerated statements do not convince anyone of the veracity of your arguments especially when you say silly things that Dawkins would have giggled at.

 

[steveandersen]

Could you exaggerate any more? The most well supported idea in all of science???

Yup pretty much.
If you disagree please provide data that does not support it or your alternative explanation.

And here I thought there were dozens of fields of science that were observable, testable and reproducible unlike speciation.

What makes you think that evolution is not observable, testable, and reproducible?

Gravity’s effects are constantly observed.

as are the effects of evolution

The whole gravity and evolution “gotcha” phrase is so apples and oranges it is ridiculous.

Hardly
We can observe the effects of gravity and make predictions based on how we think it works. But we really have no good idea yet as to the mechanism. (force at a distance without a medium sounds kinda hokum to me )
We actually have a much better handle on evolution than gravity

Can you tell us how nearly all mutations science has ever encountered has a negative affect or at nest a neutral effect?

Why do you think mutations must have a negative effect?
You probably have several of them right now.

One of the principals of evolution is that most variance would have to be neutral or beneficial. Otherwise they wouldn’t get established in a population. Evolution really doesn’t care too much about mutations in an individual… it is variance within and between populations that matters.

 

[Mersenne]

Could you exaggerate any more? The most well supported idea in all of science??? And here I thought there were dozens of fields of science that were observable, testable and reproducible unlike speciation. I will be sure to tell my some Organic Chemists and molecular Biologists I work with they are in the wrong field.

Speciation has been observed, we have numerous examples despite the obvious practical difficulties.

Gravity’s effects are constantly observed. The whole gravity and evolution “gotcha” phrase is so apples and oranges it is ridiculous.

Evolutions effects are constantly observed…

Gotcha.

Can you tell us how nearly all mutations science has ever encountered has a negative affect or at nest a neutral effect?

Because “negative” is relative to the environment the species is in. Generally a species has spent millions of years adapting to its environment, so most mutations seen over short periods will be neutral or harmful, but we have plenty of examples of benefitial mutation. Some bateria, for example, have evolved to eat man made products that did not exist in the past. While this mutation would have been harmful to the bacteria before the modern age, once a unfilled niche becomes available, speciation happens quickly. The question becomes, why do you assert that there is a magic barrier stopping speciation from happening? Where is your evidence?

Broad, exxagerated statements do not convince anyone of the veracity of your arguments especially when you say silly things that Dawkins would have giggled at.

Every educated person on this board can tell you’ve clearly never read a thing dawkins has ever wrote so save your pretentious attitude for an area you are more familiar with. Broad, simple statements are the way to deal with people making ridiculous claims that betrays a profound lack of effort to find the truth. If someone says the earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese it’s not worth your effort to track down scientific studies that prove conclusively the moon is made of rock, to go toe to toe, horns locked, having to disprove every crazy thing they might make up. You just say “the moon is made of rock, we’ve been there, we’ve seen it, I’ve touched a moon rock” and leave it at that, because anyone who is willing to learn can find plenty to confirm that.

There is far more evidence out there that evolution is true then the moon is made of rock, so don’t find it suprising if people treat you as if you’re playing solitare with half a deck.

 

[Melchior]

Yup pretty much.
If you disagree please provide data that does not support it or your alternative explanation.

What makes you think that evolution is not observable, testable, and reproducible?

as are the effects of evolution

Hardly
We can observe the effects of gravity and make predictions based on how we think it works. But we really have no good idea yet as to the mechanism. (force at a distance without a medium sounds kinda hokum to me )
We actually have a much better handle on evolution than gravity

Why do you think mutations must have a negative effect?
You probably have several of them right now.

One of the principals of evolution is that most variance would have to be neutral or beneficial. Otherwise they wouldn’t get established in a population. Evolution really doesn’t care too much about mutations in an individual… it is variance within and between populations that matters.

So you agree that Evolution is the most well supported idea in all of science? If so list all the hard sciences and explain how evolution could possibly be the most supported idea?

Lord have mercy when we have so many Christians making common cause with atheists.

 

[Melchior]

Speciation has been observed, we have numerous examples despite the obvious practical difficulties.

Evolutions effects are constantly observed…

Gotcha.

Because “negative” is relative to the environment the species is in. Generally a species has spent millions of years adapting to its environment, so most mutations seen over short periods will be neutral or harmful, but we have plenty of examples of benefitial mutation. Some bateria, for example, have evolved to eat man made products that did not exist in the past. While this mutation would have been harmful to the bacteria before the modern age, once a unfilled niche becomes available, speciation happens quickly. The question becomes, why do you assert that there is a magic barrier stopping speciation from happening? Where is your evidence?

Every educated person on this board can tell you’ve clearly never read a thing dawkins has ever wrote so save your pretentious attitude for an area you are more familiar with. Broad, simple statements are the way to deal with people making ridiculous claims that betrays a profound lack of effort to find the truth. If someone says the earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese it’s not worth your effort to track down scientific studies that prove conclusively the moon is made of rock, to go toe to toe, horns locked, having to disprove every crazy thing they might make up. You just say “the moon is made of rock, we’ve been there, we’ve seen it, I’ve touched a moon rock” and leave it at that, because anyone who is willing to learn can find plenty to confirm that.

There is far more evidence out there that evolution is true then the moon is made of rock, so don’t find it suprising if people treat you as if you’re playing solitare with half a deck.

Speciation has been observed? Really can you show me a picture? Who observed it happening? This is truly revolutionary.

I cannot compete with such arrogance have fun mocking instead of engaging in honest discussion.

 

[masterjedi747]

So you agree that Evolution is the most well supported idea in all of science? If so list all the hard sciences and explain how evolution could possibly be the most supported idea?

I don’t care if it is “the most” well-supported idea in all of science or not. That’s such a broad claim, and you’re the only person I see proposing it here. It doesn’t have to be “the most” of anything when it comes to all of science. Maybe the atomic theory is actually the “most well-supported”…it doesn’t matter. What it is is the most well supported idea in the realm of biology (name removed by moderator)articular. And for very good reasons. It’s also the only explanation that fits all of the facts without requiring God to have rigged the fossil record and the universe as a whole in an effort to decieve the scientific investigations of mankind.

Lord have mercy when we have so many Christians making common cause with atheists.

Lord have mercy when we have so many Christians willing to deny objective reality just because it’s a position that the atheists happen to accept. Because in this case, like it or not, they’re right. (It’s the illogical conclusions that they draw from it that are wrong.) And the more you deny it, the more you’re only going to help convince them that Christians are unreasonable people who deny the facts in order to justify their beliefs.

Once again, I’m going to have to request that you PICK UP A COPY OF THE BOOK IN MY SIGNATURE. AND READ IT. PLEASE. If you really need me to, I’ll go ahead and buy you a copy for Christmas. But look into it, please. The author is a practicing Roman Catholic, and although I think his philosophy could use a little bit of work (more emphasis on Divine Providence, specifically), he is by far one of the the best I’ve come across when it comes to the compatibility of religion and evolution. If you read it and still disagree, I’d be very surprised.

 

[steveandersen]

Speciation has been observed? Really can you show me a picture? Who observed it happening? This is truly revolutionary.

The ever-popular observed instances of speciation link
Section 5 contains the work you are asking about

I count 6 different mechanisms (not counting the myriad Drosophilae experiments)

 

[Melchior]

I don’t care if it is “the most” well-supported idea in all of science or not. That’s such a broad claim, and you’re the only person I see proposing it here. It doesn’t have to be “the most” of anything when it comes to all of science. Maybe the atomic theory is actually the “most well-supported”…it doesn’t matter. What it is is the most well supported idea in the realm of biology (name removed by moderator)articular. And for very good reasons. It’s also the only explanation that fits all of the facts without requiring God to have rigged the fossil record and the universe as a whole in an effort to decieve the scientific investigations of mankind.

Lord have mercy when we have so many Christians willing to deny objective reality just because it’s a position that the atheists happen to accept. Because in this case, like it or not, they’re right. (It’s the illogical conclusions that they draw from it that are wrong.) And the more you deny it, the more you’re only going to help convince them that Christians are unreasonable people who deny the facts in order to justify their beliefs.

Once again, I’m going to have to request that you PICK UP A COPY OF THE BOOK IN MY SIGNATURE. AND READ IT. PLEASE. If you really need me to, I’ll go ahead and buy you a copy for Christmas. But look into it, please. The author is a practicing Roman Catholic, and although I think his philosophy could use a little bit of work (more emphasis on Divine Providence, specifically), he is by far one of the the best I’ve come across when it comes to the compatibility of religion and evolution. If you read it and still disagree, I’d be very surprised.

If you go back to the thread I was responding to I was not the one who first said it. I was responding to it. Plus you have a really norrow view of biology, evolution is not the most well supported idea in the realm of biology. That is silly. The vast majority of biologists never have evolution touch their work because most of them work for a living in actual science not in theory land. Molecular and cullular Biologist do alot of work in drug discovery etc. and it has nothing to do with evolution. Certainly evolution is one area of study but it is not how most biologists make their living.

As for the rest, there are millions of intelligent, educated people who do not believe in speciation for the very reason that they have looked at the evidence and found it wanting. That was why I am so aggravated. This nonsense that anyone who think has to believe in macro-evolution despite the huge gaps in evidence and contradiction in the theories. There is a reason people reject it. People who enjoy science and make use of it everyday (not flat earthers blah blah). We vaccinate our kids, take vitamins and have advanced degrees. We just refuse to be lemmings because people make a strong claim where they have no right.

You cannot logically call a theory fact when it has never passed the rigors that move theory into the fact category. You folks are just getting ahead of yourselves and the rest of us are here to give you some perspective.

Bottom line: The jury is still out, don’t go spending what the court has not yet awarded you.

 

[Mersenne]

Speciation has been observed? Really can you show me a picture? Who observed it happening? This is truly revolutionary.

I cannot compete with such arrogance have fun mocking instead of engaging in honest discussion.

I’m not mocking you. I’m stating facts. What more do you want me to do, track down the original research papers on the subject? Oh, okay. Here you go.

Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15.

Van Valen, Leigh M. and Virginia C. Maiorana, 1991. HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74

Zimmer, Carl. 2006. A dead dog lives on (inside new dogs).
scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/09/an_old_dog_lives_on_inside_new.php

Newton, W. C. F. and Caroline Pellew, 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. Journal of Genetics 20(3): 405-467.

There’s dozens more, let me know and I’ll hunt them down.

 

[steveandersen]

So you agree that Evolution is the most well supported idea in all of science? If so list all the hard sciences and explain how evolution could possibly be the most supported idea?

It is consistent with the preponderance of the data and is supported independently by paleontology, genetics, microbiology, biochemistry, astronomy, geology, geo-chemistry, taxonomy, climatology, anatomy, physiology, paleobiology, ichnology, zoology, botany…I would run out of space before I could list all the hard sciences that support it. (Not to mention the soft sciences)

Whether it is “the most” is hard to determine (I’m not sure how you would measure that) for a non-expert like myself but National Geographic had a great article on this (winter 04-05 sometime?) and their expert contributors used those words so I feel confident repeating them.

Lord have mercy when we have so many Christians making common cause with atheists.

Why do you think evolution common cause with atheists?
It is part of general revelation and a celebration of Creation.

 

[hecd2]

I’m not mocking you. I’m stating facts. What more do you want me to do, track down the original research papers on the subject? Oh, okay. Here you go.

Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15.

Van Valen, Leigh M. and Virginia C. Maiorana, 1991. HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74

Zimmer, Carl. 2006. A dead dog lives on (inside new dogs).
scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/09/an_old_dog_lives_on_inside_new.php

Newton, W. C. F. and Caroline Pellew, 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. Journal of Genetics 20(3): 405-467.

There’s dozens more, let me know and I’ll hunt them down.

Here are some more:

Find out about mudskippers or cichlid fish or Anopheles gambiae or Ensatina salamanders or Drosophila pseudoobscura or Larus gulls.

These from just two journals:
Aury et al, *Global trends of whole-genome duplications revealed by the ciliate Paramecium tetraurelia,*Nature 444, 171 - 178 (09 Nov 2006)
Kutschera, *Mudskippers undermine ID claims on macroevolution, *Nature 439, (01 Feb 2006)
Strumbauer and Meyer, *Genetic divergence, speciation and morphological stasis in a lineage of African cichlid fishes , *Nature 358, 578 - 581 (13 Aug 1992)
Irwin et al, Speciation in a ring , Nature 409, 333 - 337 (18 Jan 2001)
Barton and Hewitt, *Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones, *Nature 341, 497 - 503 (12 Oct 1989)
Sorenson et al, *Speciation by host switch in brood parasitic indigobirds, *Nature 424, 928 - 931 (21 Aug 2003)
Noor, Speciation driven by natural selection in Drosophila, Nature 375, 674 - 675 (22 Jun 1995)
Rieseberg et al, Hybrid speciation accompanied by genomic reorganization in wild sunflowers, Nature 375, 313 - 316 (25 May 1995)
Greig et al, Hybrid Speciation in Experimental Populations of Yeast, Science 29 November 2002 298: 1773-1775,
Irwin et al, Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species, Science 21 January 2005 307: 414-416
della Torre et al, Speciation within Anopholes gambiae, Science 4 October 2002 298: 115-117
Tauber and Tauber, Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci: Evidence from Natural Populations in Two Habitats, Science 23 September 1977 197: 1298-1299

My prediction: the creationists will not look up a single reference. They are engaged in a fundamentally dishonest mode of debate. They ask for evidence and when you give it to them they claim that it is too difficult for them to read. They want the strawman of proof in 20 words for the evolution of fish to amphibians in one generation. Slippery.

Alec
evolutionpages.com