Evidence for God from Science

I disagree, like any other Christian, that we evolved from apes. However, the Bible does not say hopw God populated the earth with plants and animals(apart from saying that it was some sort of growth or metamorphosis, rather than things coming out of thin air). There is no situation in the Bible where God breaks His own physical laws when He performs a miracle. Why is Evolution such a bad theory? If we take the extremely low chance and throw it out the window (the assumption that God exists, the odds become 100%), and that mixed with the fact that Genesis could be interpreted as if to support the theory, and in addition, since we do not know an alternative process, why not just accept it?

Hi M,

I have seen a lot of Christians indicate a belief that somehow the account of creation in Genesis is compatible with a big bang and subsequent evolution. However, the comparison is not that clear. Let's look at this:

Day 1: God created light, and separated this from the darkness.
Day 2: God separated water from the sky.
Day 3: God created land and vegetation on the land.
Day 4: God created the stars and the sun and the moon.
Day 5: God created life in the sea, and birds in the sky.
Day 6: God created land animals and man.

The account is written from an earth-centric view. For example, the earth could not have existed before the sun and moon, if we are to believe the big bang theory. Also, on day 3, plants are created, each to his own kind, before there was a sun to enable photosynthesis. Even if each day represents millions of years, it still does not work. If the stars, sun and moon are created on day 4, what was the light that was created on day 1? This shows that the sequence described in Genesis does not tie in to what scientific theory shows.

I personally believe that we try to read too much into the creation account in Genesis, that we should know that there was creation, rather than try and figure out how it happened from Genesis, which is most likely a symbolic account.

On to evolution...the ToE states:
"Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time; in the context of the life sciences, evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a group - a population of interbreeding individuals within a species. Since the emergence of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant."

There are two main areas in evolution:
"Microevolution refers to small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over the course of a few generations. These changes may be due to a number of processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection. Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution.

Macroevolution refers to large-scale changes in gene-frequencies in a population over a long period of time, and is usually taken to refer to events that result in speciation, the evolution of a new species. While microevolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory to the satisfaction of most observers, macroevolution has to be inferred from the fossil record, the traits of extant organisms, and comparisons of molecular evidence (DNA). Its precise mechanisms are an active topic of discussion amongst scientists."

Microevolution has been observed and confirmed, and is not under any doubt. Macroevolution, however, as you can see from even the scientific community, is not a proven theory. This is also where ID and evolution part ways, and in general terms, where the conflicts with the Bible arise. Genesis clearly states that God made animals and plants each to their own kind, i.e phyla at the high level, or species one level lower. This is also where ID argues that design comes in, in the unique coding of DNA to enable the necessary complexity in various lifeforms. The TOE as can be seen above, states that all life came from a single cell-organism, and through any of the 4 processes of gene selection, gene drift, mutation and natural selection, we arrived at the complex coding present in DNA, and also accounts for all phyla or species. That shows a clear conflict between the two beliefs, and in my opinion, makes it hard for someone who believes in a Creator and his creation, to also buy into the TOE.

But what about if God just coded all of this in the beginning into the single cell organisms, and then stood back and let things happen on their own ever since, and is not involved daily, is that not a credible comparison to Genesis? That is the deist view that Anthony Flew just accepted. That is not credible because of:
1. Genetic limits - new species cannot be made by combining genes unintelligently.
2. Cyclical change - even genetic changes within species are subject to cycles, ref Darwins finches.
3. Irreducible complexity - systems that cannot exist because a predecessor won't work, and cannot evolve.
4. Non-viability of transitional forms - TOE states for example, that birds evolved from reptiles. There is no chance of survival for a transitional form between those two.
5. Molecular Isolation - According to Denton: "At the molecular level there is no evidence of the evolutionary transition from fish>amphibian>reptile>mammal. Amphibians are always treated as transitional between fish and other terrestrial vertabrates, but in molecular terms, they are as far away from fish as any group of reptiles or mammals."

The above means that there was mass creation, during certain periods of the earths history, and that an intelligent source had to create in such a fashion that species existed separately right from the get-go, and that the only evolution that took place was within a phyla or species, i.e. microevolution.

Does this answer your question about the different types of evolution, and the difference between ID and macro-evolution, and why macro-evolution is not compatible with the belief in a creator?

Thoughts?

Actually, I was thinking of something closer to "half way" between micro and macro evolution(I understand evolution quite well). Like God creating one plant and one animal, and programming their transformation. I do not believe humans evolved(hell, im even more extreme than the average Christian, and dare state we did not originate from Earth at all), but I don't see why animals couldn't have. There are stuff that, to me, shows there is some deeper programming that we don't understand.

about the genesis account, i think this site explains the day-age theory(which I currently accept) quite well, and explains why it fits scientific data.

I know about the cloud layer theory, I'm not convinced of that however. There is a difference between creating and making visible. But it does not concern me that much. Check for a PM.

No matter what I say to securlits they are convinced that Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are the same thing. Is there a website that can explain the difference? Some people sure have their minds made up

What holds up the Theory of Evolution up the the LAW of Biogenesis
life must come from life. In contrast to the Theory of Abiogenesis, being that life can arrive from non life under suitable curcumstances.

The Theory of Evolution can be divided into two parts, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution deals with small changes within a species which adapt that species to be better suited to its environment. This process is well supported with scientific evidence and doesn't conflict with a Christian understanding of reality.

Macro-evolution claims that through major genetic mutations one species can evolve into another, so over a long period of time fish could evolve into insects, birds and mammals. From this concept it's suggested that all life could have evolved from simple chemical structures, thus life could have resulted from natural processes without the need for a creator.

Macro-evolution is highly contentious and its more extreme interpretations challenge conventional Christian thinking. It's sometimes suggested that God chose to create life through evolution, however, there's now a weighty and growing body of both scientific and philosophical evidence that discredits macro-evolution. This article very briefly surveys that evidence

Micro true
macro theory
http://everystudent.com/wires/evolution.html

...........................

jettlogic wrote:I think that for Christians the whole issue has been blown out of proportion. Unless you are a YEC, you are _already_ taking genesis non-literally (esp. if you are day-age or gap)

Please bear is mind the most "literal" does not necessarily mean most "correct" for one should pay attention to various writing forms. Yet, whether Day-Age interpretation does take Scripture literally, or as literally as YEC (which I believe it does more so!), is an issue to be debated and not simply stated or declared.

jettlogic wrote:there is no extra step involved in going over to Kenneth Miller-style theistic evolution. All it requires is accepting that whoever wrote genesis would not know how to explain the history of life "the universe and everything" even if God gave him a guided tour, and consequently the message of Genesis 1 is a spiritual one about God and stuff rather than a scientific one about the history of the universe.

Voila, you can keep your most cherished beliefs AND avoid pointless debate against a scientific theory that is as well established as general relativity, quantum mechanics and the standard model (sorry, I'm a physics major).

People often state that evolution is consistent with Christianity, but such is to commit a genetic fallacy and I also believe wrong infers causation out of correlation (that is, a rejection of evolution is due to "religious" belief). It isn't just "fundamentalist" Christians who disregard evolution (especially Darwinian evolution), but rather people reject it also on a scientific basis. In addition I know Christians who do accept evolution in it entirety, and who appear to have a strong faith. Therefore, this assumption that evolution is "only" rejected because it is incompatible with a religious faith (Christian or otherwise), is I think entirely false.

Kurieuo

..................

jettlogic wrote:Ok Kurieuo, there is debate over whether Gap/Day-Age/YEC interpretations of genesis are the more accurate exegesis. Still, IMO as soon as you claim that a day is not a day you are necessarily taking an non-literal/figurative/metaphorical view.

That is the crux isn't it? Only I'm not claiming a day is not a day, or that it is somehow metaphoric. Rather I'd claim that we should take the literal meaning of yom being an unspecified period of time.

Kurieuo

jettlogic wrote:Kurieuo's claims I mistake correlation for causation in saying that most opposition to TOE comes from religion, and not for scientific reasons. However, there is a strong causation: if TOE contradicts your interpretation of genesis, you will view it as an attack on your faith, and you will oppose it. I would also like to support causation (but can't because of space limitations) by showing that Christian persons' scientific objections to TOE are so weak that they could only be an excuse for not changing some interpretation of genesis.

True, and don't get me wrong, I'm inclined to think the "genetic fallacy" may not necessarily be that fallacious. However, it also works both ways. I could claim people accept evolution for, in Richard Dawkin's words, it allows one "to be an intellectually satisfied atheist." Yet, I'm sure we could agree that it isn't fruitful to leave it at that. Especially since not all "evolutionists" are Atheists, just like not all Christians disregard "evolution." Despite whether we are all motivated by other reasons to believing something, positions should be evaluated based on their relative merits and problems.

Now I don't particularly care to try to convince you macroevolution isn't true. I've seen many satisfied Christians who accept it, so I know God still very much works with people who hold to such beliefs. And I will say that if macroevolution had a strong scientific basis, that I don't think I'd have any complaints with regards to someone accepting it as the most plausible explanation when it came to explaining the diversity in life we see. Whether or not I'd accept it as my own belief would be another question, but I think I'm honest enough to give credit to a side where I see it is due even if I would stick to a progressive creation position.

Now perhaps if a mechanism(s) are provided which have a large consensus, and which seem realistically probable to me, that I will concede "evolution" as the most probable explanation to life's diversity. I mean the mechanism is a really important issue, for I don't see it is possible (or reasonable) to believe in evolution until it is clear as to how the process of evolution happened. Until then, we just have a word for natural causation, and this kind of begs the question as to how such causation arose. Without explaining a mechanism, "evolution" essentially becomes meaningless. You may think I'm just making up this mechanism stuff not being settled upon, but scientists readily admit they aren't certain as to the exact mechanism of evolution (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html). And if they aren't certain about the mechanism(s), then what am I suppose to be believing when someone expects me to also believe in "evolution"?

In any case, I see a great deal of guidence is still required irrespective of whether such guidence happened through natural processes or direct intervention as I believe.

Kurieuo

Hi all, I'm new here, but I guess I'll just jump right in.

I originally (younger days) didn't buy into evolution because of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the universe tends toward disorder... one would argue that animals becoming more and more complex is the opposite and therefore against this law. Also, when you consider probabilities of random mutations, reproduction rates, herd sizes, and generations, I didn't think there was enough time to get it done without steering it.

Because of this, I believe in directed evolution (I guess that would be macroevolution). Look at what we are capable of doing ourselves? We can program virus's that invade cells and turn genes on or off. The DNA sequence is huge. But if turning a zebra into a horse only required flipping two (gene) switches, I'm sure there would be some scientist out there trying to do it... And if it were that easy, I'm sure he'd succeed. I'm sure if God wanted to have a zebra give birth to a horse, then a horse it will have.

On another note, Equilibrium. What happens when a pack of wolves becomes to large? They eat all the food, and then they die themselves, until the balance returns. Have we not witnessed what can happen to an environment, when we relocate a species someplace new? The new habitat is at risk of becoming unstable. For God to direct the earth in small steps allows it to balance itself with minimal impact.

I look at it this way. A talented artist, such as a sculptor, begins with a lump of clay, and presses it gradually into a general shape, steps back and looks, and then shapes further. Legs, torso, arms, head. Why not the earth? And what a beautiful piece of work.

"The heavens declare the glory of God!"

As far as time and creation days, the book "The science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder has a great view in chapter 3 & 4. Based on Einstein showing that time is a variable (scientifically proven BTW) and how moving reference frames perceive time differently. He demonstrates how 1 day can equal 8 billion years depending on where you're standing... I highly recommend it.

Sure, you could argue God could use evolution-efficient mechanisms are only necessary for people who don't have a lot of time on their hands. But there's still the lack of evidence for it. Fossil record shows sudden appearance and statis of species....and that's just one thing that comes to mind.

...................................