Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[hughfarey]

Forgive my replying that explaining my beliefs is of no relevance to my question, and will only detract from the subject of this thread, which appears to be attempting to compare Creation with Evolution (specifically macro-evolution). If macroevolution does not occur, then all I'm asking is: How do you account for the tiger? Your answer might be, quite properly for your point of view: It was created. But surely that's not as far as it goes. Is there no further speculation? Even if the 'mechanism of creation' is a contradiction in terms, which it may be, the appearance of a tiger on the earth was a physical occurrence. I wonder what the manifestation looked like. That's what scientists do - they speculate. Don't creationists? Perhaps not, but, as I frequently tell my students, answers such as: I don't know, I don't care, or it doesn't matter, true though they may be, are not in themselves scientific, and therefore cannot sensibly be part of a scientific discussion. I don't want to assume such would be the answers of the originator of this thread, especially as he or she seems to have embarked on a debate with scientists, and so presumably wants to engage in some sort of scientific way - or why bother? So how do you see creation? A bare rocky landscape which was suddenly green with vegetation, or little patches here and there which gradually spread out over the earth? Were plants created as plants, or were they created as seeds and grew into plants later? As it stands in this forum, 'creation' is nothing more than a word. Can anyone explain what it actually means?

[Philip]

Hugh, I'm curious about the HOW of Creation as well. Most people on this forum are. But, respectfully, a CHRISTIAN, whether he be a YEC, OEC, Progressive, Theistic Creationist - whatever - to have credibility with both one's faith and how that is combined with his scientific outlook - he must address the Scriptures relating to Creation. To embrace evolution, you must explain how that is compatible with Genesis accounts. And while I am an OEC/Progressive Creationist, I no longer am certain that Genesis 1 is anything about the LENGTHS of time/"days," or even the precise sequence of it/the Creation. But I do find that the theological implications of an actual Adam and Eve, created apart from any evolutionary sequence, as well as their sin and the fall, to be critical to accepting Scripture, and foundational to it's entire meaning. And so while you'll find a wide variety of viewpoints on this forum, I think you'll see that far more important to most of us here is not so much the HOW of the creation, but much more importantly, the WHY of it - and how that relates to God, the truth of Scripture, and what implications and understandings we should glean from that. If science contradicts Scripture, we either have the science wrong or our understandings of Scripture are wrong. So while you say you realize that there are "problems" to be solved - WHICH ones? Merely scientific, or both scientific and Scriptural?

[hughfarey]

I don't think Evolution is directly compatible with account of Creation as it appears in Genesis. I don't believe Genesis is a historical account of the early history of the earth. I think it is an inspired testament to man's relationship with God, and fortuitously has sufficient similarity to the early history of the earth as sometimes to be confused with it. I think Evolution is the way God planned the emergence of life, and ultimately intelligence and the ability to comprehend some of his glory. As such I see no conflict between Evolution and God. However, my personal views are trivial compared to the search for a rational explanation of the origin of life which has been going on for 100 years or so, and which is increasingly well met by the theory of evolution. The problems thrown up by new evidence are wholly scientific, and concern the precise relationships of one organism to another, the time of its emergence as a separate species, the factors which led to speciation and so on. They do not rock the foundations of the theory at all.

So much for my side of the story, now what about Creation? In a website called God and Science, in a thread called Creation versus Macroevolution, I should like to know a bit more about the science of Creation. If we can't understand how it happened, can we have any idea of what it looked like? As I said before, is the word 'Creation' all the Creationists have got?

[neo-x]

Evolution basically says that Adam and Eve were not the first homo-sapiens. That atleast means that the biblical story of creation is a theological story rather than an actual one. Our MRCAs are more than 100k years apart (going on memory here).

If Adam and eve existed:
they were not the first humans
not the father and mother of all humans
not directly handmade by God
were an ordinary couple who lived
they were the great ancestors of Noah and Abraham, their stories were passed down, finally to be written by Moses.

For many people this is like a breaking point. I have had this question to myself, if Adam and eve are not real, then what else is not real? And I think this is one reason why many stumble away from faith. Basically we have had Adam and Eve so literal and concrete in our belief systems that a hairline doubt can cause utter disbelief.

I have personally come to support the position that the genesis story is simply a way to explain things. Its a legend, passed down orally from one gen to next. I am sure, Noah, Abraham existed, but a lot of what is written about their lives is not known. For example, we read the story of Abraham from the Bible but the Talmud has many stories about Abraham which we can not affirm or deny.

[hughfarey]

Hugh, I'm curious about the HOW of Creation as well. Most people on this forum are. But, respectfully, a CHRISTIAN, whether he be a YEC, OEC, Progressive, Theistic Creationist - whatever - to have credibility with both one's faith and how that is combined with his scientific outlook - he must address the Scriptures relating to Creation. To embrace evolution, you must explain how that is compatible with Genesis accounts. And while I am an OEC/Progressive Creationist, I no longer am certain that Genesis 1 is anything about the LENGTHS of time/"days," or even the precise sequence of it/the Creation. But I do find that the theological implications of an actual Adam and Eve, created apart from any evolutionary sequence, as well as their sin and the fall, to be critical to accepting Scripture, and foundational to it's entire meaning. And so while you'll find a wide variety of viewpoints on this forum, I think you'll see that far more important to most of us here is not so much the HOW of the creation, but much more importantly, the WHY of it - and how that relates to God, the truth of Scripture, and what implications and understandings we should glean from that. If science contradicts Scripture, we either have the science wrong or our understandings of Scripture are wrong. So while you say you realize that there are "problems" to be solved - WHICH ones? Merely scientific, or both scientific and Scriptural?

I quite understand that the WHY of the universe is much more important than the HOW. However this thread, I thought, is concerned with the scientific differences between Evolution and Creation, and the evidence for each. This thread, in other words, is about the HOW. Because in general it is impossible to observe either Evolution or Creation in action, we must examine the results to derive our respective hypotheses. The whole mass of fossils, DNA, phylogeny, tectonic drift, erosion and deposition, ice ages and so on all links nicely together to suggest a billions of years old earth, the spontaneous generation of a self-replicating molecule and the whole evolutionary process. Problems that arise are among the fine scientific details of chemistry or physics and do not rock the foundations of the theory in any way. However I have yet to see any Creationist actually address the HOW of Creation at all. The results as we see them today are so clearly in conflict with Genesis that considerable modification must have occurred since it actually happened, but following the process backwards, which is what scientists do with evolution, to the original event, is never pursued. I'd like someone to pursue it.

[Philip]

The results as we see them today are so clearly in conflict with Genesis that considerable modification must have occurred since it actually happened, but following the process backwards, which is what scientists do with evolution, to the original event, is never pursued.

You would do well to read astrophysicist Hugh Ross "Creation as Science" (http://www.amazon.com/Creation-As-Scien ... s+Science). Hugh is an old earth/progressive creationist. He believes that the universe is approximately 13.73 billion years old and also that Genesis and the Bible do not contradict the known scientific evidences - in fact, he finds the scientific evidences to be in remarkable harmony with the Bible. In this book, Hugh introduces his organization's (Reasons to Believe reasons.org) testable scientific model. He states that "a valid model must stand or fall by the scientific method. It must address the WHY questions and successfully predict what ongoing research will reveal."

The Reasons to Believe model addresses: The origin and expansion of the universe; What life demands of a galaxy, star and planet; How and when life formed; How changes in the sun impacted the fossil record; The emergence and sustenance of humanity and civilization. Hugh utilizes carefully cited mainstream research studies from the world's most highly recognized scientific journals. James Tour, Ph.D. and professor of chemistry at Rice University says that, "This is the most scientifically compelling compilation I have ever read that demonstrates the work of a purposeful Creator in founding the universe, Earth and life." Further he states: "If scientists would read this book, they'd be confronted with overwhelming evidence from astronomy, biology and chemistry that would likely shake their preconceptions and change the way they teach."

Hugh, you need to read HUGH - if you are sincere about seeing what serious and respected scientists bring to the questions surrounding creation, I hope you'll read this book.

Blessings!

[ryanbouma]

The fossil record may have SOME transitional fossils but not as many as would be predicted/expected from an evolutionary perspective. The creation perspective would expect some mutation/micro evolution which would account for the FEW "transitional" fossils we have. I don't consider neanderthals to be transitional. Rather likely a different extinct species.

Hugh, who knows how God created life. Who knows how God miraculously set off the big bang. But I suspect, take your tiger for example, that the earths life and God's timing reached a point where prey was abundent and the animal kingdom could support tigers, so God created them. Probably a pair (simply based on the Adam and Eve pair). He would have just picked up the elements off the face of the earth and created. What does a scientist do when he creates synthetic compounds in the lab, like morphine. He/she takes elements that form a chemical. I imagine God did something like this, but on a God scale rather than a meager scientist.

[hughfarey]

Thank you, both Philip and ryanbouma, for your ideas. I don't think Hugh Ross's version of Creation is the same as Ryanbouma's, so I'll attempt to ask ahout them separately.

Although I haven't read Ross's book, I am loosely familiar with his Reasons To Believe site, but I'm afraid I see in its attempt to reconcile the theory of evolution with creation, much more of a distortion of the 'Book of Genesis' than the 'Origin of Species'. The evidence adduced from Science is fairly orthodox Evolutionary theory, with relatively minor credibility gaps to give a Creator something to do. The interpretation of the account of the first chapter or two of Genesis is ingenious, but wholly unlike the interpretation that was made of it for the first four or five thousand years of its existence. The main difference between this version of Creationism and Evolution is not in what actually happened, but in the probability of it happening by chance. The actual events do not seem to be in dispute.

Ryanbouma's version of Creationism is very different, and I am intrigued by his idea of the sudden appearance of two adult tigers. He does not say if he is also an old earth/progressive creationist or a young earth/seven literal days sort of creationist. I think this makes a difference. If old earth, then can I suppose the creation of tigers occurred about a million years ago, along with snow leopards and one or two other of the modern big cats shortly afterwards. Before that, there were other very similar cats, whose fossils are sporadically found in China, which presumably became extinct just before the modern tigers were created. Does that sum up that version of Creation correctly?

On the other hand, if a more literal version of Genesis is preferred, then what of silenodon and the sabretooths, whose fossils have the appearance of being much older than modern tigers. Were the fossils also created? Or were lots of different species of striped felid created separately, many of whom have since died out leaving fossil remains?

I find all these scenarios interesting, and well worth pondering further, though I have to say I don't yet find any of them very convincing.

[SonofAletheia]

The fossil record may have SOME transitional fossils but not as many as would be predicted/expected from an evolutionary perspective. The creation perspective would expect some mutation/micro evolution which would account for the FEW "transitional" fossils we have. I don't consider neanderthals to be transitional. Rather likely a different extinct species.

Hugh, who knows how God created life. Who knows how God miraculously set off the big bang. But I suspect, take your tiger for example, that the earths life and God's timing reached a point where prey was abundent and the animal kingdom could support tigers, so God created them. Probably a pair (simply based on the Adam and Eve pair). He would have just picked up the elements off the face of the earth and created. What does a scientist do when he creates synthetic compounds in the lab, like morphine. He/she takes elements that form a chemical. I imagine God did something like this, but on a God scale rather than a meager scientist.

"The total number of species that ever lived on earth has been estimated to range between 17 million (probably a drastic underestimate given that at least 10 million species are alive today) and 4 billion. Since we have discovered around 250,000 different fossil species, we can estimate that we have fossil evidence of only 0.1 percent to 1 percent of all species-hardly a good sample of the history of life!"
-Jerry Coyne Why Evolution is True

We have an incredibly small sample size of fossils at our disposal. So the fact that we do have a decent amount of transitional fossils is in fact a huge indicator that evolution is true, not that it's false.

But even if we went with your theory, there are still a number of enormous problems. First of all, the "mutation/micro evolution" would not account for this changes because they would be different species altogether (since they could not interbreed) So you would have to say that somehow God just created these creatures in-between the other two and for some arbitrary reason it has uncanny similarities with the other two.

And to go on:
Why would the most recent fossils be the most similar to the currently living species?
Why would the oldest fossils be very primitive and unlike any modern species?
Why would simple organisms be dated way before more recent complex species?
Why do we see a clear pattern of species in the fossil record timeline (primitive/simple->complex/similar to current life)

The fossils gives absolutely no evidence that all the species suddenly appear and then remain unchanged. They appear, evolve, split etc
The pattern really makes perfect sense in light of evolution while you have to twist and turn to fit the facts into a young earth creationist view

[ryanbouma]

First, I don't consider myself particularly knowledgable on this subject, or claim to have all the answers. I come here and elsewhere for answers. Not to give answers

Hugh, I believe my view is similar to Hugh Ross. I am an old earth creationist. I do believe many similar animals were created. It wasn't just a tiger. It would have been families of species. Perhaps spread out.

SonofAletheia, just because scientists say we only have a small sample of the fossils (likely) doesn't change the fact that we should see a more progressive evolution in the fossil record. We see many geological deposits that are different, yet have the same fossil. Why no change?

As for your questions - you're basically asking, why do the fossils show an order. Well that's pretty simple to answer isn't it? God told us he did things in an order in Gen 1 and the fossil record shows that. The earth couldn't support complex life at first, so the early fossils show simple life earlier and complex life later. The same way God created them. If the Bible had claimed mankind was first and then the simple things came after him, I'd be skeptical if not atheist

[SonofAletheia]

First, I don't consider myself particularly knowledgable on this subject, or claim to have all the answers. I come here and elsewhere for answers. Not to give answers

I hear ya Your humility is respectable

SonofAletheia, just because scientists say we only have a small sample of the fossils (likely) doesn't change the fact that we should see a more progressive evolution in the fossil record. We see many geological deposits that are different, yet have the same fossil. Why no change?
As for your questions - you're basically asking, why do the fossils show an order. Well that's pretty simple to answer isn't it? God told us he did things in an order in Gen 1 and the fossil record shows that. The earth couldn't support complex life at first, so the early fossils show simple life earlier and complex life later. The same way God created them. If the Bible had claimed mankind was first and then the simple things came after him, I'd be skeptical if not atheist

That's the thing though. We do see a huge amount of change and transitions in even the relatively small fossil record. We have excellent transitional fossils for humans, whales, horses, ants, birds etc
Earlier in this thread I listed a number of them to Alter, the original poster.

Edit: And like I mentioned on page 1, the fossil record is just one piece of the evidence we have for evolution. We could talk about vestiges, atavisms, dead genes, geographical patterns on continents, geographical patterns on continental islands vs oceanic islands, DNA evidence and much more

[Philip]

Although I haven't read Ross's book, I am loosely familiar with his Reasons To Believe site, but I'm afraid I see in its attempt to reconcile the theory of evolution with creation, much more of a distortion of the 'Book of Genesis' than the 'Origin of Species'.

Hugh Ross / Reasons to Believe do not believe in nor supports the various Darwin offshoots or macro evolution - they assert that there were simpler life forms followed by extinctions and new creations, along with many other creatures that were created, became extinct, and were followed by even more created animals, sea creatures, birds, etc. Also there were huge swings in climate, catastrophic events, etc. What RTB would say is that just because there were earlier and simpler life forms, followed by a series of different eras and animals that died out, that it is a mistake to believe that they are all linked. But that basic templates utilized by the Designer account for their similarity. Essentially, the planet was being prepared for mankind. The sequence of many extinctions and eras of animals that died out were essential, otherwise our modern world of fossil-fuel based energy could not exist.

You clearly need to read Hugh's book, especially as he carefully connects the known fossil record to the Bible and creation. And yet Christians believing in evolution MUST discount the Genesis explanations and sequences leading up to the creation of Adam and Eve. If Genesis is all mere allegory, then much of the rest of Scripture doesn't add up. And it should disturb anyone who is a Christian that God would have filled his word with elaborate fairy tales. Also, I would ask myself, what do I trust more, an unproven and highly problematic theory (evolution) or Scripture. Now, whether we thoroughly understand Scripture as it relates to Creation - that's another matter.

But discounting Scripture over an unproven theory whose process is unproven, widely debated (even amongst its proponents), stated to be random, unguided and has been embraced by virtually every atheistic/humanistic group since Darwin (as what else can they possibly assert about how all this came to be) - that should make one very cautious. And it should also be apparent why unbelieving scientists cling so desperately to evolution, as they won't even consider the only other possibility that comes even close to making sense, as without some evolution-like serious of unfathomable, random miracles - and a universe essentially creating itself / its precise physics and laws guiding its pathways were present at the beginning - then a God must have created it. I have no faith as powerful as a person who believes that the universe created itself.

[SonofAletheia]

And yet Christians believing in evolution MUST discount the Genesis explanations and sequences leading up to the creation of Adam and Eve.

What do you mean? As I'm sure you know, there are dozens of interpretations of Genesis 1-2 held by the leading Christians philosophers. Many of which fully support evolution and the Genesis explanations. Unless you take a strict literal interpretation of the entire Bible which I think is faulty.

If Genesis is all mere allegory, then much of the rest of Scripture doesn't add up. And it should disturb anyone who is a Christian that God would have filled his word with elaborate fairy tales.

I don't think you really believe that non-sequitur. Much of the Bible is thought to be allegorical and/or metaphorical. For example: Was Jesus literally a lamb of God? Is the New Covenant literally written on our hearts? Are we supposed to literally cut off our hands and eyes if they sin?
Not to mention entire books which most think are largely allegorical/metaphorical: Song of Solomon, Revelation, Isaiah etc

So to say that at least some of Genesis is allegorical does not in any way mean that the rest of Scripture doesn't add up. If that were the case the entire Bible wouldn't add up.

Also, I would ask myself, what do I trust more, an unproven and highly problematic theory (evolution) or Scripture. Now, whether we thoroughly understand Scripture as it relates to Creation - that's another matter.

This is a false dichotomy when you put the "or" there. You seem to think the two are mutually exclusive which is not the case. But regardless, evolution is not at all unproven or highly problematic. There is a reason why over 95% of scientist fully support it and why more and more Christian theologians are taking theistic evolution seriously.

But discounting Scripture over an unproven theory whose process is unproven, widely debated (even amongst its proponents), stated to be random, unguided and has been embraced by virtually every atheistic/humanistic group since Darwin (as what else can they possibly assert about how all this came to be) - that should make one very cautious.

But it's not unproven (quite the contrary), it's not widely debated at all (at least the major tenets of evolution). And saying that because atheists belief it we should be cautious is getting very close to the genetic fallacy.

And it should also be apparent why unbelieving scientists cling so desperately to evolution, as they won't even consider the only other possibility that comes even close to making sense, as without some evolution-like serious of unfathomable, random miracles - and a universe essentially creating itself / its precise physics and laws guiding its pathways were present at the beginning - then a God must have created it. I have no faith as powerful as a person who believes that the universe created itself.

Here you're bringing up different arguments altogether. I agree with you about the cosmological arguments and the fine-tuning arguments but they don't relate to evolution. As for the "serious of unfathomable, random miracles" I think that's fairly easy to explain if God is behind the process. The same goes for the fine-tuning arguments.

[Philip]

But it's not unproven (quite the contrary), it's not widely debated at all (at least the major tenets of evolution).

Please tell me you didn't type that with a straight face! Other than agreeing evolution occurred, scientists have been speculating and debating the mechanisms and what they think they know about it for a very long time. But if you can't show how it occurred, you can't confidently say it DID occur. Of course, you can simply say that God guided its processes. Fine. But if you are trying to deduce evolution scientifically, that seems difficult to do, especially if every time you try to defend its insurmountable problems by simply saying, "God guided it." And so He's going to create on a level of astonishing detail, create a universe, but then He's going to give us some cosmic version of the stork bringing babies when He tells us about it? Whazupwitdat? The story of Adam and Even goes far beyond figurative speech or allegory and metaphor, as it's specific truths are critical to the whole of Scripture. I'm guessing most who endorse evolution take a low view of Scripture.

And no one is saying that you can't believe in evolution and Scripture - clearly many do both. But if you doubt Scripture, you might as well throw most of the Bible out - as how do you know which parts are true and which parts are not? And if you don't know, then it is worthless to you, at least as far as being the inspired word of God. I'm not saying you can understand it perfectly. But you should not doubt its Source or its truths - IF one is a Christian. But to elevate evolution to the point that you try to fit Scripture around it - especially as it has so many unproven unknowns - that's putting faith in something you just can't know. Plus the available data can be interpreted in a way that also refutes evolution. But just about every Christian evolutionist is going to say what the Bible says about Adam and Eve's origins are allegorical. Why? Because it doesn't fit what they think they know about evolution. They are trying to interpret the Bible through the lens of unproven pseudoscience. And allegory or not, for what purpose is this strange tale of man from dust and woman from a rib? Please explain how that works as allegory, and yet fits with Scripture's teaching of the fall and its implications.

[ryanbouma]

Sonofaletheia, could you please explain how geographical patterns explain evolution? I'm not sure how geology is related at all. For the record, I do agree with modern geological science.

As for DNA, vetiges, etc. I believe there are valid explanations from a creationist perspective.

Also, yes, there are transitional fossils (not very strong ones) but like I said, they are not as you'd expect from an evolutionary perspective. So we're back to what I originally said before your post about the low number of fossils.

I've been meaning to read Why Evolution Is True. Maybe it's time