two questions about evolution as I consider leaving the church

[DustinM]

1. If we accept evolution as many Catholics do, then how is it possible for God to create through evolution when evolution is a “random” process? Artificial selection (the breeding of plants and animals) works because farmers and breeders control whom each animal mates with and thus with types of offspring are created. Natural selection is random, God does not choose mates for animals in nature or for humans, and God (at least I have never heard that he does) does not shuffle human genes during the sex/fertilization act to produce the different alelle frequencies of offspring. My problem is: if evolution is random…and God is not random…then how do the two mix exactly?

Sorry I’m late!

Randomness is apparent in many things. Rolling a dice, for example. This does not exclude the existence of God.
Furthermore, one could believe that mutations are directly by God, rather than random. This is not a concept you learn in a science class room, but you’re free to believe it.

Natural selection is NOT random. It’s based on environment versus fitness and competition. Natural selection is not just about selecting a mate (which itself is non-random)! If a species dies off because the weather got too cold (for example), that is not considered random. It’s cause and effect.

If God does not shuffle genes around specifically, then so what? (Plus, you can believe He does, if you wish.)

Long story short: Evolution is not entirely random. Your misunderstanding of this is causing the problem.

As for knowing how God and evolution exactly fit: That is not something answered by evolution or theology alone. Knowing exactly how and why God does things is a question we’ve had since way before the theory of evolution!

1. If we accept that humans evolved through lower animals from the ultimate source of pond scum, then that means God simply waited for 14 billion years for us to arrive on the scene. This raises some interesting questions the main one I have is what does God intend to evolve from human beings? Once evolution is accepted it cannot remain a past event…what next? A secondary question as to the reality of original sin enters here as well. How can there be separation from God; i.e. original sin, if we are evolved animals?

As for humans being evolved from “lower” beings, how do you define “lower?” Evolution is related to a species being adapted to the environment. If a “less advanced” species (not as smart, fast, whatever) can survive the environment, than calling it “lower” is a bit off.
Evolution is not a hierarchy about which species is better or worse (which is highly subjective anyways).

We don’t know what humans will evolve into next. In terms of a “brand new species” that happens over such a long time-frame, that it’s hard to draw the species line. What we do know is that humans have undergone microevolution in just the past 100 years (not all of us evolving in the same way).

We don’t know for sure what’s next. Evolution will continue, but it’s future predicting power is not thought of in prophetic terms. It’s more like “We expect evolution to continue on a micro and macro scale. What will happen specifically, we don’t know.”
It’s also things like “If we kill bacteria with antibiotic X, we expect the remaining bacteria to develop a resistance to the antibiotic.”

Original sin is a tricky question, and I don’t consider myself qualified to answer. My general take on it is that it is a metaphor for when we started to fathom morality. (Our greater intellect allowed to realize there is a right or wrong…represented by a tree of knowledge.) Please keep in mind, this is just an idea of mine, not Catholic dogma, nor is it a scientific hypothesis.

I’ve heard great things about the work of Kenneth Miller too. I’ve yet to read his books, but his stuff up on Youtube is very interesting.

 

[latin_rite]

I would appreciate any answers that address these two questions of mine because it seems to me that if evolution is true, then several things about God would have to be true, and the picture of God here seems to be a different one from the God I thought I knew in the Church.

I sort of know what you’re going through in a way. Before i started going to religious type forums. non Catholic forums in particular. I didn’t care or think that evolution intertwined or conflicted with my faith. I could sit there and listen to someone give a lecture on evolution and totally believe it. then go to church or read the bible and totally believe genesis. Weird i know, but i could. It wasn’t until as i said i started going to christian forums or some science websites that it seemed i had to accept one or the other. its then that i started like you. to think well which is it, evolution or creation? I started to think that if i accept anything that had to do with evolution, i was somehow rejecting God. or if i rejected evolution i was must be some arrogant idiot. In the end i just thought bugger it, I’m going back to my old way of thinking. which is…both are true.And my way of thinking is.
How old is the earth? billions.
How long ago did God make the garden of eden? i don’t know
how long was Adam in the garden before he got kicked out? a day? a week? a year? hundreds of years? thousands? millions? billions?
Who knows. maybe it was a few billion years…And in that time in the garden. dinosaurs, neanderthals etc came and went. Then God kicked adam out. and it all started from there. it’s a warped way of thinking i know. and probably shows how erratic my thinking is. But i am happy with it. and to me it makes perfect sence.

• searches for my ritalin

 

[joseph_virgen]

whenever this or similar questions arise, i always guide people to do themeselves a favor and read Francis S Collins’ book entitled:
The language of God.

to date, it is the best book i’ve read on scientific evidence for the presence of God. a must read for all those who don’t really know on what side of the fence they will fall if God were to shake it.

 

[Byron_Bramwell]

One of the nice things about science is you don’t have to believe anything. Belief is not required because there’s this thing called scientific evidence. Evolution has tons of evidence. Extremely powerful evidence from analysis of DNA has made it impossible for an educated person to deny the basic facts of evolution.

Sorry, but I find your conversations with the Universe Boss to be a bit hard to believe. A one-way conversation is certainly possible. I hear this is called praying, also known as talking to yourself. When you imply God talks to you, an atheist (and maybe some theists) might question your sanity. I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you were joking.

I know my ideas may seem very strange to people who have lived their entire lives believing humans are special creations of God, created to be completely separate from the rest of nature. But the more I study evolution, the more I realize the human ape species is not that big a deal. Our biggest advantage, our larger brain, makes us better in some ways, but without our modern inventions, which most people couldn’t invent even if their lives depended on it, we could not survive in the environments other animals have evolved to live in.

Bob,

You are obviously a very intelligent fellow; there is *certainly* no doubt about that. However, I find your definition of science to be a bit vague in its delivery. Still I have a sureness that you would not be bothered by clarifying a small number of curiosities I have regarding your philosophical approach. Forgive my ignorance, would you Bob?

Firstly, you say that science is supported by evidence,* not* belief. According to the philosopher, Karl Popper, science manifests itself through testable hypothesis that carry with them the possibility for falsification. The Popperian theory of science is both well received and respected in virtually all relational fields of academia. What troubles me then, in regards to your unsubstantiated claim of science as being void of belief, is that evolution does not conform to Popper's definition. One cannot make a testable hypothesis regarding cosmological theories. The origins of things are beyond the scope of science; its main concern is rather the function of the universe and of those things that exist within it. If then, you choose wisely to pass over this option of definition, I will proceed in offering another that is hopefully, for your sake, more fitting. 
The second definition is one proposed by Philip Kitcher. It is his view that Popper goes too far in his analysis of science and does not account for logically plausible reasons for failed hypothesis. One must account for human error, unknown variables, and the like. Auxiliary hypothesis, consistent with the basic premise of the proposed theory, can then be implemented and tested in order to validate it as truly scientific. I find Kitcher's view far more suitable for you than Popper. And yet, there still lies the problem of non-testable hypotheses. The theory which you have so passionately adopted as your own cannot be, ultimately, scientifically justified upon rational grounds. For though one might witness an adaptive trait in a particular species, to induce from this the macro-evolutionary theory requires a regression of sequences and events too numerous to fathom; and, as I am sure you already know, a chasm lay between induction and certainty. 
So then, Bob, it appears the Kuhnian formulation is most applicable to your ambiguity. The scientific philosophy of Thomas Kuhn puts forth the concept that the discovery of science rests upon a given paradigm of thought. One does not pursue science in a vacuum. Each individual harbors subjective presuppositions in all spheres of life. Whether it be in the scientific, political, theological, or moral spheres: presuppositions necessarily exist. Once a particular paradigm is challenged by a high quantity of anomalies and contradicting evidences, the paradigm undergoes a transformation or reconstruction until it eventually, due to the inadequacy of its predictions, is totally abandoned for a revolutionary new paradigm. This undoubtedly resembles your definition of science more closely than the others. It is a perfect representation of the macro-evolutionary model. First, Darwinian evolution puts forth the theory of vast changes over long periods of time; requiring an enormity of transitional fossils in return. This, however, has not occurred. Therefore, a reconstruction of the theory was necessary. Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium rid the theory of the embarrassing lack of productivity in its initial hypothesis by reducing time and enhancing change. At present though, the theory has been degraded to dogma; one that cannot be opposed without being met by a religious zeal not to be matched by the whole of Christendom. Your theory is dying, Bob. I suggest you spend less time with callous attempts at dishonoring the Christian faith and more time digging. 
You see then, Bob, there is no escape from a presupposition of belief as it pertains to scientific philosophy. I am nearly sure, however, that you disagree; as your arrogance is only surpassed by your absurdity. Provide a single justification for your vainly adopted theory and I will concede defeat; a destiny most inevitable given your clear advantage in that I am but a humble and lowly theist. 

     Sincerely in Christ, 
        Byron

 

[Byron_Bramwell]

I have two questions about evolution that I need answered, and my future in the Church depends on how they are answered.

1. If we accept evolution as many Catholics do, then how is it possible for God to create through evolution when evolution is a “random” process? Artificial selection (the breeding of plants and animals) works because farmers and breeders control whom each animal mates with and thus with types of offspring are created. Natural selection is random, God does not choose mates for animals in nature or for humans, and God (at least I have never heard that he does) does not shuffle human genes during the sex/fertilization act to produce the different alelle frequencies of offspring. My problem is: if evolution is random…and God is not random…then how do the two mix exactly?
2. If we accept that humans evolved through lower animals from the ultimate source of pond scum, then that means God simply waited for 14 billion years for us to arrive on the scene. This raises some interesting questions the main one I have is what does God intend to evolve from human beings? Once evolution is accepted it cannot remain a past event…what next? A secondary question as to the reality of original sin enters here as well. How can there be separation from God; i.e. original sin, if we are evolved animals?

I would appreciate any answers that address these two questions of mine because it seems to me that if evolution is true, then several things about God would have to be true, and the picture of God here seems to be a different one from the God I thought I knew in the Church.

Tex,

Brother, I understand your problem. I too dealt with this issue for quite some time. Firstly, I do not entirely denounce those Christians who, for whatever reason, adopt a theistic form macro-evolutionary theory; however, you are correct to question the validity and compatibility of theistic evolution, as it places death before sin and thus removes both the original perfection of our Lord's creation and the promised resurrection of our Lord's body in response to our death in Adam's fall. 
I suggest you look into the works of G.K. Chesterton and what he had to say regarding Darwinian theory. Also, Micheal Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box; his formulation of irreducible perplexity is well presented. Moreover, look on You Tube for the debate with the late William F. Buckley Jr. as he, along with three others (Behe being one of them) defend Intelligent Design theory against four devout Darwinians (Kenneth Miller being one of *them*).
Still, Tex, though I do not aim to degrade your sincere concern, I do not see this particular issue being prominent enough to generate a departure from the church. May the Lord of heaven and earth reveal Himself to you by His Word.

   Sincerely in Christ, 
      Byron

 

[Wirraway]

…
I suggest you look into the works of G.K. Chesterton and what he had to say regarding Darwinian theory. Also, Micheal Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box; his formulation of irreducible perplexity is well presented. Moreover, look on You Tube for the debate with the late William F. Buckley Jr. as he, along with three others (Behe being one of them) defend Intelligent Design theory against four devout Darwinians (Kenneth Miller being one of them).
Still, Tex, though I do not aim to degrade your sincere concern, I do not see this particular issue being prominent enough to generate a departure from the church. May the Lord of heaven and earth reveal Himself to you by His Word.

   Sincerely in Christ, 
      Byron

Chesterton, who died in '36 and was not a scientist, does not have the bonafides to render a competent opinion on a 21st century science.

Behe proved to be a complete failure as a shill for ID while testifying as an expert witness in a couple of prominent cases and whose ID “theory” has been rejected by his own university.

 

[rossum]

Also, Micheal Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box; his formulation of irreducible perplexity is well presented.

Behe called his idea “Irreducible Complexity”, though I like your version of it as well

The idea of IC was proposed by Muller in 1939 as “Interlocking Complexity”, which Muller showed was an expected result of evolutionary processes. Much work since Behe has shown that IC can indeed evolve, as Muller expected. Behe has now changed his stance from “IC cannot evolve” to “IC is unlikely to evolve”. Behe has published some work on just how unlikely it is that IC can evolve: see Behe and Snoke (2004). That paper shows that a population of a billion bacteria can evolve a simple IC system in about 20,000 years:We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10[sup]8[/sup] generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10[sup]9[/sup].

rossum

 

[Fran65]

Tex,
you are correct to question the validity and compatibility of theistic evolution, as it places death before sin and thus removes both the original perfection of our Lord’s creation and the promised resurrection of our Lord’s body in response to our death in Adam’s fall.

Hi Byron,

Could you explain why theistic evolution is ‘invalid’ and ‘incompatible’ ?

I have read the above statement several times and am still unclear about your reasoning.

Thanks

Fran

 

[Byron_Bramwell]

Hi Byron,

Could you explain why theistic evolution is ‘invalid’ and ‘incompatible’ ?

I have read the above statement several times and am still unclear about your reasoning.

Thanks

Fran

Fran,

I was stating that it was not incorrect for Tex to question its validity and compatibility with Scripture. Certainly you must see some logic in the problem of death preceding sin. Unless of course you are speaking strictly of human death (as plant and cell death surely occurred prior to the fall). In this mode of thinking one can perhaps consolidate the two; however, this does not fully account for animal death, which is a very necessary element in the macro-evolutionary model. 
For billions of years death has been bringing life into the world through the gradual process of mutation, adaptation, and natural selection. My contention, and you are welcome to disagree, is that this runs counter to the Gospel, which says that God made all things good and upright; perfect and absent from all evil; and furthermore, that man brought death into the world by a willful disobedience. 
Your objection seems to rest on a definition of death that I feel to be a stretch in the plain reading of the text of Scripture. Yet, though we differ on our interpretation of Scripture, I do not see how either of us are in rebellion with the churches teaching on the matter. 
I sense that it is really yourself that is so offended by the idea of one believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis that you felt compelled to reply. Do the Creationist model offend you, Fran?

Sincerely in Christ,
   Byron

 

[Byron_Bramwell]

Chesterton, who died in '36 and was not a scientist, does not have the bonafides to render a competent opinion on a 21st century science.

Behe proved to be a complete failure as a shill for ID while testifying as an expert witness in a couple of prominent cases and whose ID “theory” has been rejected by his own university.

Wirraway,

I agree wholly that Chesterton does not have the bonafides to render a competent opinion on a 21st century science, seeing that he dead. However, to exclude those wiser men of recently passed history who did not possess certain criteria in scientific credentials would be to exclude Darwin himself, seeing that his degree was in theology of all things. 
I also disagree that Behe's work is "a complete failure." Can you honestly say that there is no plausibility in what Behe proposes while taking into account the Anthropic Principle and William Paley's teleological argument from design? They do present, whether one agrees with it or not, a coherent theory; arguably far more coherent than the Darwinian approach. 

   Sincerely in Christ, 
       Byron

 

[onenow1]

I have two questions about evolution that I need answered, and my future in the Church depends on how they are answered.

1. If we accept evolution as many Catholics do, then how is it possible for God to create through evolution when evolution is a “random” process? Artificial selection (the breeding of plants and animals) works because farmers and breeders control whom each animal mates with and thus with types of offspring are created. Natural selection is random, God does not choose mates for animals in nature or for humans, and God (at least I have never heard that he does) does not shuffle human genes during the sex/fertilization act to produce the different alelle frequencies of offspring. My problem is: if evolution is random…and God is not random…then how do the two mix exactly?
2. If we accept that humans evolved through lower animals from the ultimate source of pond scum, then that means God simply waited for 14 billion years for us to arrive on the scene. This raises some interesting questions the main one I have is what does God intend to evolve from human beings? Once evolution is accepted it cannot remain a past event…what next? A secondary question as to the reality of original sin enters here as well. How can there be separation from God; i.e. original sin, if we are evolved animals?

I would appreciate any answers that address these two questions of mine because it seems to me that if evolution is true, then several things about God would have to be true, and the picture of God here seems to be a different one from the God I thought I knew in the Church.

=onenow1, Tex appears to me you are equating your knowledge of the universe with Gods knowledge. If you at least believe God created all things, doesn’t it follow he can do it any way he likes without consulting us. Tex if we knew everything ipso facto we would be gods and that is just untenable, then there would be real chaos, could you just imagine gods against gods.

Peace, onenow1
I,m saying a prayer for you right now!

 

[Byron_Bramwell]

Behe called his idea “Irreducible Complexity”, though I like your version of it as well

The idea of IC was proposed by Muller in 1939 as “Interlocking Complexity”, which Muller showed was an expected result of evolutionary processes. Much work since Behe has shown that IC can indeed evolve, as Muller expected. Behe has now changed his stance from “IC cannot evolve” to “IC is unlikely to evolve”. Behe has published some work on just how unlikely it is that IC can evolve: see Behe and Snoke (2004). That paper shows that a population of a billion bacteria can evolve a simple IC system in about 20,000 years:We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10[sup]8[/sup] generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10[sup]9[/sup].

rossum

Rossum,

Thank you for the correction; it has been some time since I read Behe. 
It was not my intention, however, to offer to Tex an absolute proof for special Creation, but only to give a few specific works off of the top of my head that I have found helpful. I truly admire your devotion to macro-evolutionary apologetics in that the minute one  introduces even the faintest spark of a competing notion, almost instantaneously you are there as if to extinguish an unquenchable fire. I have always said that if Christians had only the same level of religious devotion as do the materialists, there would cease to be a need for evangelism, seeing that there would be no one left to convert. Bravo. 
Furthermore, in the article you referenced it is clearly stated,

“…it should be emphasized that the utility of the idealized model presented here—where there is no selective effect from duplicate genes or from intermediate states of the gene until the MR feature is completely in place in a gene and where the only mutagenic process considered is point mutations—is not dependent on a comprehensive accounting for all relevant biological processes. Rather, its usefulness lies in its ability to indicate when processes in addition to those described in the model are required to account for a feature.”

As with all macro-evolutionary proposals they rely entirely on the assumption of its premise; that being the truth of macro-evolutionary theory.

Sincerely in Christ,
Byron

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Demonstration that irreducible complexity can evolve in a relatively short period of time)

I truly admire your devotion to macro-evolutionary apologetics in that the minute one introduces even the faintest spark of a competing notion, almost instantaneously you are there as if to extinguish an unquenchable fire.

The truth matters. It should matter to every one of us.

I have always said that if Christians had only the same level of religious devotion as do the materialists, there would cease to be a need for evangelism, seeing that there would be no one left to convert. Bravo.

Regrettably, many atheists, like many creationists, are highly resistant to evidence and logic. The usual defense is to slide away from uncomfortable facts, and offer up a sophistic and perhaps sarcastic evasion.

Incidentally, IC has been directly observed to evolve. Would you like to learn about it?

 

[Byron_Bramwell]

The truth matters. It should matter to every one of us.

Regrettably, many atheists, like many creationists, are highly resistant to evidence and logic. The usual defense is to slide away from uncomfortable facts, and offer up a sophistic and perhaps sarcastic evasion.

Incidentally, IC has been directly observed to evolve. Would you like to learn about it?

Barbarian,

That sounds swell, friend.

Could you please define for me the "uncomfortable facts" that I am sliding away from? Also, as implied by your statement, what "uncomfortable facts" are atheists sliding away from? 
I try to address all of the points of my opponents, if I did not at some point I would greatly appreciate it if you brought it to my attention. 

I must say that direct observation of macro-evolution seems to be quite unlikely seeing that it is an extrapolation of micro-evolution in all supposed instances of "conclusive evidence." Yet, I am more than willing to grant that you might have something worth saying. 

Until that day.....

 Byron

 

[Byron_Bramwell]

The truth matters. It should matter to every one of us.

I am both able to agree and provide a substantial cause for my agreement. What do you say causes the value of pursuing truth over and above error?

 Sincerely in Christ, 
          Byron

 

[The_Barbarian]

I am both able to agree and provide a substantial cause for my agreement. What do you say causes the value of pursuing truth over and above error?

Two reasons; one tactical, and one global.

Tactical: it works. The universe is set up so that people who seek the truth do considerably better than those who don’t.

Global: God is not neutral in this; He is truth, and He expects us to follow it. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

They happen to match up for reasons that should be obvious.

Barbarian observes:
Regrettably, many atheists, like many creationists, are highly resistant to evidence and logic. The usual defense is to slide away from uncomfortable facts, and offer up a sophistic and perhaps sarcastic evasion.

Incidentally, IC has been directly observed to evolve. Would you like to learn about it?
Barbarian,

That sounds swell, friend.

Great. Bacteriologist Barry Hall was experimenting with cultures of E. Coli, seeing what sort of evolutionary responses he could get if he knocked out certain genes. One experiment involved the evolution of a new enzyme, by modification of an different protein over time.

But to Hall’s surprise, it didn’t end there. The bacteria eventually evolved a regulator, which turned off the new gene unless the substrate was present (which is a very good thing, because it conserves energy for the bacteria)

And so an irreducibly complex system arose with three parts, each of which had to be present for the system to work at all.

Could you please define for me the “uncomfortable facts” that I am sliding away from?

The evolution of irreducible complexity, for one. Fact is, Behe has backed away from his denial of the evolution of IC, to a mere assertion without evidence that it’s extremely unlikely. And yet, using his assumptions, it can be demonstrated to be very likely.

And Hall’s evidence shows it happens.

Also, as implied by your statement, what “uncomfortable facts” are atheists sliding away from?

**Romans 1:20 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. **

God makes it clear to anyone who will see.

I must say that direct observation of macro-evolution seems to be quite unlikely seeing that it is an extrapolation of micro-evolution in all supposed instances of “conclusive evidence.”

Perhaps you don’t know what “macro-evolution” means. Microevolution is variation within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. The first documented case was in 1904.

 

[KingAlfred]

I have two questions about evolution that I need answered, and my future in the Church depends on how they are answered.

1. If we accept evolution as many Catholics do, then how is it possible for God to create through evolution when evolution is a “random” process? Artificial selection (the breeding of plants and animals) works because farmers and breeders control whom each animal mates with and thus with types of offspring are created. Natural selection is random, God does not choose mates for animals in nature or for humans, and God (at least I have never heard that he does) does not shuffle human genes during the sex/fertilization act to produce the different alelle frequencies of offspring. My problem is: if evolution is random…and God is not random…then how do the two mix exactly?
2. If we accept that humans evolved through lower animals from the ultimate source of pond scum, then that means God simply waited for 14 billion years for us to arrive on the scene. This raises some interesting questions the main one I have is what does God intend to evolve from human beings? Once evolution is accepted it cannot remain a past event…what next? A secondary question as to the reality of original sin enters here as well. How can there be separation from God; i.e. original sin, if we are evolved animals?

I would appreciate any answers that address these two questions of mine because it seems to me that if evolution is true, then several things about God would have to be true, and the picture of God here seems to be a different one from the God I thought I knew in the Church.

No offense…but if your faith strictly depends on how these questions are answered, I think you’re naturally areligious.

 

[reggieM]

Hi Byron,

Could you explain why theistic evolution is ‘invalid’ and ‘incompatible’ ?

I have read the above statement several times and am still unclear about your reasoning.

Thanks

Fran

Byron already offered his answer, but we could also look at Darwin’s criticism of theistic evolution:

books.google.com/books?id=Mq6EEGE67ikC&pg=PA267&dq=right+variations+occurred+…+and+natural+selection+would+be+superfluous&lr=&ei=cBkBSdnLNImyyQTt84XaDQ

Darwin points out that the presence of an omnipotent deity would actually undermine his theory. He argued against theistic evolution since God guiding the process would ensure that only ‘the right variations occurred … and natural selection would be superfluous.’"

 

[Byron_Bramwell]

Two reasons; one tactical, and one global.

Tactical: it works. The universe is set up so that people who seek the truth do considerably better than those who don’t.

Global: God is not neutral in this; He is truth, and He expects us to follow it. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

They happen to match up for reasons that should be obvious.

Barbarian observes:
Regrettably, many atheists, like many creationists, are highly resistant to evidence and logic. The usual defense is to slide away from uncomfortable facts, and offer up a sophistic and perhaps sarcastic evasion.

Incidentally, IC has been directly observed to evolve. Would you like to learn about it?
Barbarian,

Great. Bacteriologist Barry Hall was experimenting with cultures of E. Coli, seeing what sort of evolutionary responses he could get if he knocked out certain genes. One experiment involved the evolution of a new enzyme, by modification of an different protein over time.

But to Hall’s surprise, it didn’t end there. The bacteria eventually evolved a regulator, which turned off the new gene unless the substrate was present (which is a very good thing, because it conserves energy for the bacteria)

And so an irreducibly complex system arose with three parts, each of which had to be present for the system to work at all.

The evolution of irreducible complexity, for one. Fact is, Behe has backed away from his denial of the evolution of IC, to a mere assertion without evidence that it’s extremely unlikely. And yet, using his assumptions, it can be demonstrated to be very likely.

And Hall’s evidence shows it happens.

**Romans 1:20 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. **

God makes it clear to anyone who will see.

Perhaps you don’t know what “macro-evolution” means. Microevolution is variation within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. The first documented case was in 1904.

Barbarian,

First, Hall's experiment: Bacteria evolves into...Bacteria. To claim this to be a macroevolutionary change requires a pinch of fiction and a pound of faith.

Second, concerning your defense of the pursuit of truth: I apologize for my assuming you to be either an atheist or an agnostic. I agree with you on the global aspect. However, tactically I cannot agree that all who search for truth do better in this world. Often has been the case that the man searching for truth is rewarded only by ridicule, suffering, and alienation. Christ exemplifies this. Yet, I understand your seeing the utility of truth and how it can make one better able to succeed in life. 

Thirdly, as to my sliding away from uncomfortable truths: Irreducible Complexity does fit into a coherentist position regarding the creationist view of the world; as does the Anthropic Principle, and a host of teleological arguments. Foremost, however, I believe Scripture to speak plainly on the matter. I personally hold to a literal six days, though I do understand the reasons behind adopting the framework hypothesis. Scripture is often both allegorical and historical simultaneously. I believe Genesis to be in this characterization. 

Fourthly, in regards to macroevolution: It is my understanding that the point of distinction between it and microevolution resides in the modifications taking place beyond the barrier of species. Hall's case does not meet this standard unless you are to define species in a way that conforms. What is your definition then?

    Sincerely in Christ,
       Byron

 

[steveandersen]

Barbarian,

First, Hall's experiment: Bacteria evolves into...Bacteria. To claim this to be a macroevolutionary change requires a pinch of fiction and a pound of faith.

Ah but you do admit that they evolved?
Once that happens you’re stuck, unless you suppose some mechanism to stop the process at some arbitrary point. The distinction between macro and micro is fictitious in my mind.

Second, concerning your defense of the pursuit of truth: I apologize for my assuming you to be either an atheist or an agnostic. I agree with you on the global aspect. However, tactically I cannot agree that all who search for truth do better in this world. Often has been the case that the man searching for truth is rewarded only by ridicule, suffering, and alienation. Christ exemplifies this. Yet, I understand your seeing the utility of truth and how it can make one better able to succeed in life.

True there are those who suffer in the pursuit of truth. But in the aggregate it is better.

Thirdly, as to my sliding away from uncomfortable truths: Irreducible Complexity does fit into a coherentist position regarding the creationist view of the world; as does the Anthropic Principle, and a host of teleological arguments. Foremost, however, I believe Scripture to speak plainly on the matter. I personally hold to a literal six days, though I do understand the reasons behind adopting the framework hypothesis. Scripture is often both allegorical and historical simultaneously. I believe Genesis to be in this characterization.

What lesson is Genesis trying to teach? That God made us. The exact details are unimportant to that Truth.

Fourthly, in regards to macroevolution: It is my understanding that the point of distinction between it and microevolution resides in the modifications taking place beyond the barrier of species. Hall’s case does not meet this standard unless you are to define species in a way that conforms. What is your definition then?

    Sincerely in Christ,
       Byron

A species is a population that is inter-fertile. The “barrier” as you put it has geographic and chronological extents. Species that differentiated themselves longer ago are completely reproductively incompatible. While in species where the separate is more recent there is some limited inter-fertility e.g. horses and donkeys or dogs and wolves.

When it comes to Bacteria, I think strain is more precise than species.