Evolution Needs to Evolve

American Specator ^ | 09/16/2011 | By Hal G.P. Colebatch

[SeekAndFind]

Professor of Atheism Richard Dawkins grows increasingly shrill. His outbursts include the following, not very recent, but typical:

__________________________________

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

__________________________________

You can, of course, make any point you like providing you don't care about first premises. One thing which evidently fails to enter Professor Dawkins' mental universe is the idea -- accepted by many scientists -- that the theory of evolution is broadly correct, but as an explanation of life and the human condition it is incomplete.

We know life exists. We also know it had to be created by some process. Biology tells us that that process was evolution. It tells us nothing about what set that process in notion, created the Earth we stand on, or created the universe from some unimaginable pre-Creation state without space or time. The idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing seems somehow unsatisfactory.

Whether the Heaven and the Earth, and human life, was created over 13.2 billion years following the Big Bang, or over six days as a literal reading of Genesis is interpreted as saying, actually does not matter.

Of course I accept evolution. I find the Biblical literalists who claim the Earth was created in six days, and who believe that we are all descended from a couple called Adam and Eve Fell who because they were tempted by a walking, talking snake, tiresome. I am more-or-less aware of the historical reasons why these fundamentalist beliefs took root and persist in some communities.

But this does not mean that evolution explains everything, or that it ought to explain everything.

[BroJoeK]

Thanks for some really great posts, makes for a good thread!

Vide's point is the important one on the issue of allegedly "missing links" -- of the many millions of species which could have left fossils, we've discovered only 250,000 according to Ann Coulter = maybe 2.5%.

So, you'd expect "missing links" to be the rule, not exceptions.

But the key idea that everyone seems to miss is that every species is a "transitional form" between whatever went before and what may come after.

Indeed, the very word "species" is so vague, that we can't really say for certain if two similar looking fossils are more-or-less the same species or not.
As proved by many examples (i.e., horses and donkeys, or brown & polar bears), the process of speciation can be gradual and incomplete over millions of years.
Breeding populations get separated by geological forces, then come back together, possibly forming hybrids, etc., etc.

In the case of human beings, we find the remains of about two dozen "species" of pre-humans dating back about 7 million years to a presumed common ancestor with chimpanzees.
How many of these two dozen or so ancient species were actual ancestors, and how many merely distant uncles & aunts?
Well the fossil record suggested that Neanderthals were not directly related, but the DNAs say maybe there was a little hanky-panky going on in back of old cave.
So much is unknown, even unknowable.

But none of that effects the facts (=confirmed observations) of evolution: A) descent with modifications and B) natural selection.
Nor does it challenge the confirmed theory of evolution: descent from common ancestors.
Nor does it effect current work on unconfirmed hypotheses such as abiogenesis.

As for the rantings of atheists, why should those effect what we understand?

Genesis 1:4+ (NIV = no detectable change from KJV)
• ...God saw that the light was good,
• ...God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.”
  And God saw that it was good.
• ...The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.
  And God saw that it was good.
• ...God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.
  He also made the stars.
  God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.
  And God saw that it was good.
• ...So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
  And God saw that it was good.
• God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.
  And God saw that it was good.
• God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

Of course, it's that word "kind" which drives our Creationist FRiends nuts, but it seems to me the answer should be quite simple: Yes or no, is God Infinite?
Could not an Infinite God have an infinite number of "kinds"?
Indeed, in the eyes of an Infinite God, could not each & every individual be its own "kind"?
If God is the giver of life itself, then how can some theory of "descent with modifications" in any way restrict God's creative power?

Finally, if God intended to keep his creative processes secret from us, do you not suppose He would have hidden them more effectively?
Surely you wouldn't suggest that God provides us with evidence confirming Evolution just to trick us?

Anyway, seems to me that last sentence from Genesis quoted above, and others like it, is the very important point:

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

[Just mythoughts]

But the key idea that everyone seems to miss is that every species is a "transitional form" between whatever went before and what may come after.

Actually what is missed is Genesis 1:2 wherein everything living up to that point was destroyed. There was nothing left to transition. Jeremiah 4:22-27; IIPeter 3:5-6

[BroJoeK]

Just mythoughts: "Actually what is missed is Genesis 1:2 wherein everything living up to that point was destroyed."

You likely mean some other verse.
Genesis 1:2 reads:

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. "

Nothing there about destroying living things.
By the way, the "waters" referred to are not earthly oceans, but water in the heavens.
And it could be more than beautiful metaphor, since scientists speculate that much or all water on earth arrived here as comets from the heavens.

Just mythoughts: "There was nothing left to transition. Jeremiah 4:22-27; II Peter 3:5-6"

These do not sound to me like the moments of first Creation, but of some later event such as the biblical flood.

What's certain is that none of the biblical authors had any real idea of the Earth's actual history, and so God's moral revelations to them had to come in forms that they could understand.
None of those moral revelations are overthrown by our more recent scientific discoveries, imho.

[Just mythoughts]

Just mythoughts: "Actually what is missed is Genesis 1:2 wherein everything living up to that point was destroyed." You likely mean some other verse. Genesis 1:2 reads: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. "

No, I do indeed mean Genesis 1:2, that word 'was' is not the correct verb, 'became' is the correct verb. The earth became without form, and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. (water... a flood)

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

All these words describe the katabolle, or used in other places as the foundation. Meaning the casting down or overthrow. (The overthrow is described in Isaiah 14:12- and Ezekiel 28:12-) Job 38 to the end is kind of an inventory of what was created and asked of Job where was he when God did this and that.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it NOT in vain (same Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:2) He formed it to be inhabited: " I AM the LORD' and there is none else.

Nothing there about destroying living things. By the way, the "waters" referred to are not earthly oceans, but water in the heavens. And it could be more than beautiful metaphor, since scientists speculate that much or all water on earth arrived here as comets from the heavens.

I won't disagree about what scientist speculate, but about the only thing they are correct about is this earth is very very very OLD.

Just mythoughts: "There was nothing left to transition. Jeremiah 4:22-27; II Peter 3:5-6"

These do not sound to me like the moments of first Creation, but of some later event such as the biblical flood. What's certain is that none of the biblical authors had any real idea of the Earth's actual history, and so God's moral revelations to them had to come in forms that they could understand. None of those moral revelations are overthrown by our more recent scientific discoveries, imho.

Jeremiah writes that everything 'living' was destroyed. NOT Noah's flood. And Peter in IIPeter 3:5-6 specifically describes that world (age) that was and is not discussing Noah's flood, as Peter discusses that time in the previous chapter.

The 'authors' were putting down what God intended them to write, and there is not a scientist ever born that has disproved what God said He did, WHY, and WHAT to expect.

[Texas Songwriter]

I think you almost made the point.....

"In the beginning, God........"

[aruanan]

Even you postulated that energy and matter are being created at the same rate as it is destroyed in your previous post.

I didn't say that. We all know that energy and matter aren't destroyed but only changed from one form into another.

[Texas Songwriter]

That's assuming a fixed amount of matter and energy to start with and a finite space within which to exist.

This is your quote from a previous post. I had written to you saying I did not know how to interpret this statement. It seemed you were putting it out there that the assumption was wrong. I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement and wrongly asssumed such.

[BroJoeK]

Just mythoughts: "No, I do indeed mean Genesis 1:2, that word 'was' is not the correct verb, 'became' is the correct verb.
The earth became without form, and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. (water... a flood)"

I don't read Hebrew, but I'd be amazed if the Hebrew word for "became" somehow got mistranslated as "was" by every ancient scholar:

Hebrew: "VH'aUrTSh HYThH ThHV VBHV VChShK 'yL-PhNY ThHVM VUrVCh 'aLHYM MUrChPhTh 'yL-PhNY HMYM."

King James: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"

American Standard: "And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"

Young's Literal Translation: "the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,"

Pal, the correct word is not "became", and whoever told you it is should be questioned carefully.

Just mythoughts: "Jeremiah writes that everything 'living' was destroyed.
NOT Noah's flood.
And Peter in IIPeter 3:5-6 specifically describes that world (age) that was and is not discussing Noah's flood,"

I'm not familiar with those events, but they appear to me to have nothing to do with Genesis 1, which begins with: "In the beginning...".
And I don't see any way you can translate "beginning" to mean there was actually something before that.

Just mythoughts: "The 'authors' were putting down what God intended them to write, and there is not a scientist ever born that has disproved what God said He did, WHY, and WHAT to expect."

Most of my posts here on the subject of Evolution include some pretty obvious and basic descriptions of the difference between science and religious faith.
By definition of the word "science" it's impossible for science to "disprove" an article of faith.
Neither science nor faith works that way.

Faith comes from the revealed word, which cannot be proved or disproved by science.
Science comes from natural methods entirely without reference to revealed Truth.
Science simply cannot speak of matters for which there is no physical evidence.

[BroJoeK]

Texas Songwriter: "I think you almost made the point.....
"In the beginning, God........" "

I didn't mention it here because I didn't think is was a point of contention on Free Republic.
But now I learn that, apparently, some people believe the "beginning" was not really the "beginning", and that something else came before it!

Oh, well...

;-)

[Just mythoughts]

Prepare yourself to be amazed, because the transition of that word to ‘was’ when it should be became is one of many words from the original Hebrew and Greek that have been transitioned.

IF it correctly read ‘became’ then Genesis, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, Job, Christ's own Words, Paul, Peter, etc., would not be so hard to comprehend. I did not write it nor did I transition the word, but I sure do appreciate the world of difference it makes to have it correctly translated.

God said he did NOT create this earth without form, void, and darkness. He said He created it to be inhabited. SO since God said he did NOT create this earth in the condition as described in Genesis 1:2, Jeremiah 4:20- IIPeter 3:5 it BECAME that way.

True science explains things, it does not make things up as it goes along. There is but one perfect scientist and that would be the Creator.... and He took the time to have somebody write down the WHY.

[Texas Songwriter]

The Beginning referenced was the beginning of the universe. Prior to that there was no time, space, matter, or energy. Then the Genesis account goes on to chronologically describe the creation. First Cause was not created. First Cause was not contingent upon any dause. He was, as Alamo-Girl often explains, I Am. He is eternal.

[BroJoeK]

Just mythoughts: "Prepare yourself to be amazed, because the transition of that word to ‘was’ when it should be became is one of many words from the original Hebrew and Greek that have been transitioned."

I doubt that, because there's no evidence for it I can find.
But, no doubt there is a story here, and just possibly I can independently confirm or refute it.

The question is whether the word normally translated in Genesis 1:2 as "was" might include the meaning of "became"?
If it did, then at most the translation is ambigious, and might support some of your other interpretations.

But even so, I see no way the word "beginning" means anything other than "beginning".

[Just mythoughts]

Just mythoughts: "Prepare yourself to be amazed, because the transition of that word to ‘was’ when it should be became is one of many words from the original Hebrew and Greek that have been transitioned." I doubt that, because there's no evidence for it I can find. But, no doubt there is a story here, and just possibly I can independently confirm or refute it. The question is whether the word normally translated in Genesis 1:2 as "was" might include the meaning of "became"? If it did, then at most the translation is ambigious, and might support some of your other interpretations. But even so, I see no way the word "beginning" means anything other than "beginning".

Seek and ye shall find.

I did not quote Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

A declaratory statement. No 'date' given as to when the beginning began, or how long this time consisted. We can get an estimate by what has been discovered.

Genesis 1:2 AND the earth (only speaks to and about the earth) (my King James places that word was in italics, which means the word used is questionable) and because of Isaiah 45:18 there can be no doubt that something happened to cause the earth to become "without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

This is NOT Noah's flood, but it is the flood that Jeremiah 4:22-27 describes where in nothing living survived. And Peter in IIPeter 3 says verse 1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance;

2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, (Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Solomon, etc.) and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Finger are tired so I am skipping verses 3-4 for no other reason.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of,

that by the word of God the heavens were of OLD, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world (age) that then WAS, being overflowed with water, perished:

Peter is referencing Genesis 1:2, directly, and verifying what Jeremiah and Isaiah penned. How one knows, because Peter already addressed Noah's flood in IIPeter 2, and Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of Adam that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. This is what Peter is speaking about of the 'old' world (age) in regards to Noah's flood.

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
Thanks SeekandFind. Not pingin', just addin'. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.

[BroJoeK]

Just mythoughts: "Genesis 1:2 AND the earth (only speaks to and about the earth) (my King James places that word was in italics, which means the word used is questionable)..."

Here's what is not questionable --
Young's Literal Translation:

Genesis 1:2 "the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,"

So, your earnest wish to read the word "was" to mean "became" is not granted by the text, according to any expert that I can find.

Just mythoughts: "This is NOT Noah's flood, but it is the flood that Jeremiah 4:22-27 describes where in nothing living survived."

I can't see what difference it makes, or what any of this has to do with discussions on the topic of evolution.

[BrandtMichaels]

Not quite there BJK [re-read verse 27]...

Jeremiah chapter 4 verse
27 This is what the LORD says: “The whole land will be ruined, though I will not destroy it completely.

Reading the surrounding passages in context indicates that the ‘whole land’ in this case is either Israel of simply Jerusalem. From a quick read I believe it is either a reference to the day of the Lord [end-times] or another time where God tells his chosen people to flee the promised land.

There were no warning for the sinners in Noah’s time. See Genesis ch 6 thru 8. And there were no people or any other lifeforms when it was formless and void.

Context, context, context!!!

[betty boop]

Finally I will take you back several hundred years to a philosopher named Leibniz, who asked the pertinent question, "If there is no God, why is there anything at all?"

Ah! Leibniz's questions! There are actually two main ones, and they are (IMHO) absolutely fundamental, in that they root or ground all human knowledge:

(1) Why are things the way they are, why not some other way?

(2) Why is there anything at all, why not nothing at all?

Question (1) cannot be answered if one presupposes that "all that there is" is the product of random development. Randomness does not have any principle that can tease "matter" into existence as particular lasting things — for the same reason that we do not find an astronomical number of "transitional species" in the fossil record....

Question (2) cannot be answered on the presupposition of randomness either. For to say that something is "random" implies the existence of something that is not random in nature. If something actually exists and persists, it seems clear to me it cannot be "random."

At this point, Christians have no trouble whatsoever in assigning the cause of specificity and lastingness, and first and final causes to God.

But Richard Dawkins — a certifiable maniac — goes ga-ga anytime anyone would suggest such a thing.

It came to my attention recently that the infamous Jeffery Skilling, of Enron fame, was a hard-core Darwinist who literally "culled" one-fifth of his employees every year to (in effect) prove Darwin's maxim of "survival of the fittest." He is also a major "groupie" of Professor Dawkins....

We can all see what Mr. Skillings has wrought.... NOT a good example to follow, IMHO FWIW.

But the attraction of Darwin for Mr. Skillings, I gather, is that Darwin is promulgating a totally amoral "sociobiology."

Thank you so much, TS, for your excellent observations!

[BroJoeK]

BrandtMichaels: "Not quite there BJK [re-read verse 27]..."
"...Context, context, context!!!"

Right, pal.
The context here is evolution, and how it relates to the Bible.
The issue of this post is whether Genesis 1:2 can be read to mean:

"And the earth became without form; and void"?

Or is the King James and other translations the only correct reading:

"And the earth was without form; and void."

That reading of "became" is used by poster "Just mythoughts" to help explain other verses in both Old and New Testaments, relating to earlier destructions of the earth -- i.e., Jeremiah 4:22-27 and II Peter 3:5-6.

Well, I am certainly not expert enough to know what those other verses refer to, but my point is that Genesis 1:2 can not be legitimately read to mean "the earth became without form..."

And yes, BrandMichaels, I understand that you desperately want to change the subject to something you feel comfortable discussing.
But I think I've already gone about as far as I can go with this.

Have a great day!

;=)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for these outstanding insights, dearest sister in Christ!

Truly Leibniz' questions "root or ground all human knowledge."

[Just mythoughts]

Just mythoughts: "Genesis 1:2 AND the earth (only speaks to and about the earth) (my King James places that word was in italics, which means the word used is questionable)..."

Here's what is not questionable -- Young's Literal Translation: Genesis 1:2 "the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,"

Young did not literally translate from the Hebrew. There mere fact that he picked hath existed ought to cause 'red' flags to go up, because hath existed is an sophisticated attempt to deceive or misdirect. We already know from Genesis 1:1 the earth hath existed.

Genesis 1:2 says AND continuation from verse 1 the earth became or elsewhere this verb is came to pass. without form does mean 'waste'.

So God planted in Isaiah 45:18 Using that very specific Hebrew word ... again 18 For thus saith the LORD That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; HE hath established it, He created it NOT in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: "I AM the LORD;

and there is none else.

So, your earnest wish to read the word "was" to mean "became" is not granted by the text, according to any expert that I can find.

Young is not an expert IF right off the bat he messes up Genesis 1:2.

Just mythoughts: "This is NOT Noah's flood, but it is the flood that Jeremiah 4:22-27 describes where in nothing living survived."

I can't see what difference it makes, or what any of this has to do with discussions on the topic of evolution.

The importance of Genesis 1:2 and allll those other Scriptures that described Genesis 1:2, is to let any one who WILL know there was NOTHING left for evolution to evolve. Every living thing in 'flesh' was destroyed. We can see all over this earth the remains that once lived, in this land before 'time', but all was destroyed. Which is why so many for a buck down through this AGE have gone to extremes to 'change' what God said happened in Genesis 1:2. You really think God did not know that some would claim evolution was the vehicle used to explain HIS creation and HIS WORK.