Does evolution contradict creationism?

Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

[shubi]

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

[shubi]

What post no. was your description of alleles?

[shubi]

Yeah, I know hostility is not necessarily a sin. In fact, my hostility to those that demean God, like creationuts is something He approves of.

[longshadow]

"Newbies of Dubious Provenance" placemarker

[balrog666]

You know... hostility is not a sin. As a matter of fact in the Old Testament God commanded that Israel should go to war with other nations several times.

Yes! Of course that led to slaughtering many women, children, and babies. My, how brave they were for their strangely petulent god!

[Safrguns]

There is still a lot more which science cannot explain than what it can, with any level of certainty. Man's pride in self through science is best demonstrated by the rejection of that which cannot be understood or comprehended. Rejection of the supernatural is nothing less than a rejection of God. You simply cannot claim a belief in God and the Bible, and also reject the countless supernatural events which God has used throughout history to demonstrate to us that we are not supreme in the universe. God's account in Genesis where He forms a statue from mud and breaths life into it does NOT jive with evolution's suggestions that we came from a pool of slime.

[sayfer bullets]

Creation vs Darwinism, Evolution vs ID...

Darwinism makes atheism intellectually fulfilling. And it does all this against the background of a certain panoramic grandeur. But evolution is a broader concept than Darwinism.

Darwinist arguments often assume that intelligent design, for example, is antievolution. That is simply not true. Intelligent design advocates affirm evolution as such, they simply deny that Darwinism provides an exhaustive explanation of the process. However, one of the criticisms leveled against intelligent design is its apparent need to assume the occasional intervention of an outside intelligent agent. That, its detractors claim, is unscientific.

Why such an appeal is unscientific is not clear since scientists qua scientists make it all the time. Indeed, the somewhat dubious distinction between "artificial" and "natural" rests on it.

We can spot the activity of mind behind an arrow head or a bird nest (or a scientific theory for that matter!), but apply the same principle to biological structures or biochemical processes and the ID advocate is accused of doing something illicit. I suspect that is because the materialistic agenda that came to dominate science in the early twentieth century and later captured it is offended by the claim. But that agenda can no more sustain itself than intelligent design can.

Both positions are inferences that are fundamentally faith based. And that means that in mainstream science the majority rules. It's known as consensus. Thus it is worth pointing out that when "science" demands to be shown a miracle, it is demanding to be shown what it believes (note that word) could not possibly exist. Therefore it seeks to be shown in order to debunk, and debunking in any way, no matter how implausible, will suffice. What accounts for such a prejudice if not bias? I would point out that there is another name for such conjectures: Just So Stories. And that is, all too often, what the Darwinist offers. It's a kind of promissory note, an appeal to a hoped for payoff in the future.

[kipita]

"If anything can pass into, or out of, a system, we say it is an open system. If only matter can pass into, or out of, a system, but not energy, then we call it a closed system. If neither matter nor energy can pass into, or out of, a system, then we call it an isolated system.

Biological systems are not isolated or closed systems as they depend on the energy from an outside source: .......... Sunlight.

"Order" in biological systems is only made possible by the consumption of energy that is produced at the cost of increasing entropy in the Sun."

Right! But other planets in our solar system are open, the planets around some of the other stars are open, the effect of gravitational forces are open, yet the observable forces in the universe are entropy forces. Furthermore, being a analytical chemist, all that I have observed (dead things)follows entropy. From a very general perspective, I think the different "driving" forces represent lifeless (entropy) vs. life (evolution/creationism) and, to say the least, Earth is very unique.

[kipita]

PP: Unfortunately, you as a scientist, have no grasp of the 2LoT.

Because SETI has not found other intelligence, does not mean it doesn't exist. That's called argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). I hope you don't consider your proposition logical. What kind of scientist are you? Computer Science doesn't count by the way.
___________

Some would argue your SETI point based on the existence of God, some would argue based on the existence of other less desirable things, to say they do, in fact, exist.

And yes, the 2LoT is based on a set of conditions, as STP would be for a Chemist. But like the Ideal Gas Law, how many gasses in an open system follow it, none, because the law is based on a closed system which doesn't exist in nature, or in the universe. For brevity, what I attempted to say was that the observable universe and non-living forces on Earth are driven by one force and the living things on Earth are driven by a different force. Based on the knowledge we humans have, the closest scientific terms we have to describe these forces are entropy-evolution. Without evolution, every thing that happens in the universe (including Earth) can be "generally" understood based on the knowledge we now have. But life, and the predictability of life evolving, is still a bit fuzzy, to say the least.

[kipita]

Ironic, I searched the Internet and found the following, which is a better argument from a fellow chemist.

"According to modern evolutionary theory, the recipe for life is a chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; add a pinch of phosphorus and sulfur, simmer for millions of years, and repeat if necessary. As a Ph.D. organic chemist, I am trained to understand the principles of chemistry, but this is not how chemicals react. Chemicals reacting with chemicals is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions do not produce life. Life must create life. In the chemical literature, there is not a single example of life resulting from a chemical reaction. If life from chemicals were possible, it would be called spontaneous generation, an idea that scientists once thought happened in nature. Centuries ago, scientists used to believe that bread crumbs turned into mice because if you left bread crumbs on a table and returned later, the crumbs were gone and only mice were present. When true science got involved, they learned the truth that bread crumbs only attracted the mice that ate the crumbs. These scientists were quick to propose a theory that sounded reasonable until, that is, they studied the process and learned otherwise.

Proteins and DNA are complicated chemical molecules that are present within our body. Cells which make up the living body contain DNA, the blueprint for all life, and proteins regulating biochemical processes, leading scientists to conclude these components are the cause of life. While it is true that all living bodies have proteins and DNA, so do dead bodies. These chemicals are necessary for life to exist, but they do not "create" life by their presence; they only "maintain" the life that is already present. However, this is not the only problem with the "life from chemicals" theory.........."

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-374.htm

[shubi]

THE TOE DOES NOT SUGGEST WE CAME FROM SLIME, YOU MORON!!!

We have said this over and over and over and all you guys can do is bring up this stale defeated nonsensical argument.

Is your faith so shakey that you can't believe God is smarter than you are?

[shubi]

"Darwinist arguments often assume that intelligent design, for example, is antievolution
"

Its not an assumption. ID inserts the same idiotic claim that the TOE speculates on original creation. IT DOESN'T!

Why would an omniscient and omnipotent God have to continually intervene in a system He designed (evolution)?
How could you tell if He did? ID is not science. It is an attempt to insert your cult into schools. If your kids learn ID instead of biology, they will be more stupid than my grandkids and lose all the good jobs to them.

[shubi]

Sigh...life from chemicals is not a theory. It is one hypothesis.

If that hypothesis were "proved", would you stop believing in God? That seems to be your fear. Not much faith there for you, is there?

[shubi]

"If anything can pass into, or out of, a system, we say it is an open system. If only matter can pass into, or out of, a system, but not energy, then we call it a closed system. If neither matter nor energy can pass into, or out of, a system, then we call it an isolated system.

Biological systems are not isolated or closed systems as they depend on the energy from an outside source: .......... Sunlight.

"Order" in biological systems is only made possible by the consumption of energy that is produced at the cost of increasing entropy in the Sun."

--Right! But other planets in our solar system are open, the planets around some of the other stars are open, the effect of gravitational forces are open, yet the observable forces in the universe are entropy forces. Furthermore, being a analytical chemist, all that I have observed (dead things)follows entropy. From a very general perspective, I think the different "driving" forces represent lifeless (entropy) vs. life (evolution/creationism) and, to say the least, Earth is very unique.

You are analytical chemist, and you post rot like this!

God help us.

[shubi]

You know, just once, I would actually like to discuss something with these airheads that ACTUALLY is in the Theory of Evolution!

We spend all our time arguing about creation of original life, which is not part of the TOE. Then they think they make some brilliant point in a strawman argument and go around proud as punch. It is so stupid and so unlike anything Jesus would do, it just makes me sick.

The worst part is they use winning a nonsensical argument with themselves as authority to impose their heretical cult on others.

[kipita]

I was speaking in pure scientific terms to someone who wants to argue a point based on science. The "rot" you speak of is the other person's response to my initial post, in which I basically stated the opposite of "rot". The link above to a fellow chemist, who stated it much better, is more worthy of a debate.

[shubi]

"For the atheist, the simple yet difficult scientific phenomena to explain is the difference between the universal Scientific God, entropy, vs. the Earthly natural Scientific God, evolution. Remember entropy, the force behind the big bang and the awesome power of the universe, predicts systems should “evolve” from a state of order to disorder. Evolution, observed on the planet Earth, predicts systems are evolving from a state of disorder to order. If the scientific God is all that is and ever was, it has the same level of confusion and identity as the Democratic Party."

You say you are arguing pure science. How do you know the force behind the big bang is entropy? How do you know there was a big bang?

Evolution doesn't predict order to disorder or disorder to order. It predicts change to insure survival.

You may think you are talking science, but I think you just think you are. The crucial debate here is biological evolution, what it contains and what it doesn't contain.

Your putting "entropy" into the mix is about the same as putting original creation into the mix. It just isn't pertinent to understanding the TOE. Thus, it is rot.

[kipita]

I'm not an atheist, so my objective was to first state how scientific atheist think and to contrast that with the theory of evolution, without going into much detail. In doing so, I came across the PhD Organic chemist's explanation, which was a much better argument against evolution.

[derheimwill]

A 5000 year-old-witness? Yes, that will do nicely.

[Jehu]

Hello fellow soldier. Two essential objections to TOE. My primary reason is not based on a scientific argument. This goes to the heart of Christian faith and deserves some study by any serious Christian. Although faith is not generated by intellect, it should be, and is, sustained by the use of our intellect. Once obtained faith must be watered and attended.

Central to the theme of redemption from sin is the idea that sin came from one man (Adam). Therefor Christ (one man) could remove ALL the sin of humanity. You must understand that in some way God looks at the human race as ONE thing, ONE entity. Yes he sees us as individuals, but he can, and does, treat us almost as a single organism. So Biblically sin must have arisen from one single source, it can be erased by a single remover.

Now God IS God, in part, because He does not violate His own laws, even to do miracles. A miracle is simply the application of a higher law or principle. Much like men can use pressure differentials induced by motion and the shape of a wing to gain flight. Has gravity been revoked? No! We just applied a different law to overcome gravity.

I say this to point out that the redemption of mankind is not magic, nor capricious. It must come about through spiritual laws God has established. Thus sin can only be forgiven by the shedding of blood. During the American Civil war, Abraham Lincoln was quoted as saying, "There must be a corresponding shedding of blood in this great war for all the blood shed by the lash." He knew for America to be forgiven for the sin of slavery...blood would have to be shed.

It is for this primary reason that I reject TOE. Man could NOT have descended from many sources (various tribes of apes). He must have descended from one set of parents. Otherwise Christ would have to have been Crucified for each line, perhaps even for EACH of us individually. A ridiculous proposition. The fact that we date history from the Birth of Christ (unbeliever or believer) is a sure indication that history was hinged on this ONE man...Christ.

Second reason is that TOE is a miserable unsupportable plastic theory. It will bend itself into any shape, explain any evidence. It is simply a tautology. The fossil record shows NO indication of the millions of transitory species that this theory says MUST have occurred. It cannot explain the Precambrian explosion of almost every form of life. It implies organic from the inorganic by existing physical laws. (a mathematical impossibility!

And there is no coordinated mathematical scaffolding for this theory. What is the driving force? What is the rate of change? Why do some species change and evolve, and other stay the same for millions of years? If competition for resources was so fierce that life went through agonizing changes...how did the smaller females of almost all species survive? Why are the necks of female giraffes two feet shorter than the males? How can anyone explain the existence of symbiotic life forms without smuggling in teleology? How can two, (or more) separate species anticipate each other's forms, needs, chemistry...before they come together in TOTAL interdependence?

TOE has all these problems and more, because it was proposed and accepted by those that were looking for a reason to reject God as the creator...before science knew things like DNA, the irreducible complexity of living cells etc... They are stuck with this, let them explain it!

[Safrguns]

In the Bible, God clearly defines a day as the 24 hours that we understand... Then He says (in the bible) that He created man in one of those days. Then atheists come along and say no... man was created from millions of years of evolution... (regardless of what your "TOE" offers as the very origin of any life itself). Then professing scientific christians come along, and say well, you know what? maybe both are right. Who is the real MORON here? God does not design some system which creates anything. He creates it himself on a daily basis by the Word of His mouth. (which is also scriptural) It is non-sensical to you because even God states that the scripture is foolishness to prideful men. I believe it was MY point that NO MAN has the ability or intelligence to even begin to understand HOW God creates, and I have no idea how you can interpret my previous post to suggest just the opposite. No,... It looks to me like you are the one with the monopoly on nonsensical arguments.