Fast Evolution Confirms Creationist Theory

A tenet of creationist theory maintains that creatures are designed for robust speciation. Although they cannot change into fundamentally different kinds, creatures can rapidly express a wide diversity of traits to fit changing environments. "Fast evolution affects everyone, everywhere" is one headline1 from the theme of the Royal Society's life science journal in January, 2017.2 But its content further bolsters creationist theory.

The pace of change within organisms is a keen topic of interest. One reason many people doubt evolution is that no one has ever seen one kind of creature change into another. Plant and animal breeders have never done it in thousands of years of concerted effort. Even experiments intended to force evolution along by inducing radical genetic mutations in breeding pairs result in crippled, but not basically transformed, prodigy. Remarkably, both creationists and evolutionists are content with this fact.

He created perfect.

But the very mechanism that allowed for change and variety didn’t remain perfect after sin corrupted everything.

Just because God is perfect and creates perfectly, doesn’t mean it’s obligated to stay perfect.

Once entropy enters the picture, deterioration will be sure to ensue.

And some day, God WILL correct it all and restore it to it’s original, as He intended it perfection.

When HE decides, not us.

But we are not abandoned and left to fend for ourselves. He’s got a master game plan and it’s working out.

And it WILL be made right in time.

it is I think called the mitochondrial Eve Project if memory serves me correctly- it was years ago i studied it-

[[I figured the old ages of the early folks in the Bible (several hundreds of years old) was due to the lack of “sin” and genetic defects.]]

It was- there were genetic defects (after the fall) but they weren’t as prevalent as today-

[[now increasing with modern advancements in medicine.]]

Yep- we have more genetic defects, but we’re able to control them better with modern medicines- there are several reasons also for longer average lifespan- people used to literally work themselves into an early grave- poor nutrition (scarce food) hard work, hostile environments- diseases were rampant and devastating with not much hope of getting to docs etc-

We’ve certainly come a long way as for combating genetic defects and increasing the average lifespan- but yeah, we’ll never get to hundreds of years again I don’t believe-

Ken- not to belabor the question too much hopefully- but your question is a good one and one that is attempted to be used by agnostics and atheists to ‘disprove the existence of a loving God’

Their reasoning goes, as mentioned before, only applied to animals this time:

1: Gratuitous pain inflicted on ‘the innocent animals’ would not exist if there were a loving God

2: If there were gratuitous pain and suffering experienced by ‘the innocent animals’, a loving God would eliminate it immediately

3: Since Gratuitous pain and suffering exist for ‘the innocent animals’, a loving God does not exist

The problem with this though is that we, as finite limited knowledge creations, see the pain as gratuitous when it is not- gratuitous means that there is no sufficient reason for it- We think of say a bluejay off in the deep woods somewhere, never coming into contact with people. our society, or whatever, living with some sort of cancer, or bird flu, or whatever, and dying after a prolonged bout of suffering, and we can see ‘no good reason’ for the animal having to go through such an ordeal

In other words, it would seem that, judging only with our finite knowledge, that the world is full of ‘pointless evil’ and this ‘pointless evil’ points to the notion that a God of love couldn’t possibly exist

The problem of human suffering is a bit easier to decipher- ie pain and suffering are needed in a moral atmosphere to test the responses of a fallen people - ie: Without the possibility of immorality (ie resentment, bitterness- rejection and finally disobedience) one can not choose morality- one is simply bound to morality without a choice (ie: the robot argument- God wanted men with free wills, not robots that blindly obey)

the problem of animals suffering however, is a bit tougher- however, the fact is animal sufferings do not just affect the animal or even just other animals, it affects human agents as well because we are aware that such suffering occurs- and it puts us to the test of whether or not we accept God’s Sovereign right to allow such suffering of ‘innocent animals’ or not-

So the suggestion that ‘innocent animal’ suffering is ‘gratuitous’ (without purpose) is incorrect- there are other reasons for suffering I’m sure, but the above one comes to mind for now-

Is it justifiable to allow animals to suffer just to test the reaction of man? Perhaps not if that were the only reason for the suffering- but there are other reasons as well- I’m sure- A loving God would indeed not allow gratuitous suffering- purposeless suffering- we must keep in mind, that His ways truly are above our way- That is not a cop out to the question, as We can, with some effort I believe, know some of the reasons- one of which was explained above-

(There is also a line of thought that animals do not experience pain and process it the same way that man does- and that they may be spared the emotional pains that make suffering in humans as bad as it is- there is a book called ‘Nature red in tooth and claw’ which tackles this and delves into neurological differences (something about animals lacking a ‘second neural pathway’) as well as other biological differences between man and beast- and how that affects emotional responses to pain and suffering or basic animal responses to the same as the case may be-

My thoughts are getting a bit scattered now- Perhaps there are easier to understand explanations out there- I’ve not looked much into the issue- but i shall later as it’s a good question-

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.