Microevolution/Progressitive Creation

[Anonymiss]

Hello everyone.
How do most people here interpret it - I don't quite understand the subject.. Do you believe species of organisms that share many similarities (both physically and genetically) just appeared out of "thin air" at some point in history,, or having evolved (makes much more sense to me) from already existing predecessors (first chordates > fishes > amphibians > reptiles > mammals) but with some modifications/deletions/replacements in functionless introns and as pseudogenes (of which is shared by humans and gorillas yet not chimps according to this source).

Do Progressive Creationists who deny macroevolution, in general also deny (or at least question) the common ancestry we humans share with other mammals,, and further down the line - reptiles, birds, amphibians and fish?

[DD_8630]

In other words, at which point do Creationists stick the arbitrary micro-/macro- divide. Macroevolution, in the sense that Creationists use it, is simply long-term microevolution.

[Anonymiss]

In other words, at which point do Creationists stick the arbitrary micro-/macro- divide.

Exactly my question.

*Awaits for Progressive Creationists' answers/thoughts on this*

[Kurieuo]

Hello everyone.
How do most people here interpret it - I don't quite understand the subject.. Do you believe species of organisms that share many similarities (both physically and genetically) just appeared out of "thin air" at some point in history,, or having evolved (makes much more sense to me) from already existing predecessors (first chordates > fishes > amphibians > reptiles > mammals) but with some modifications/deletions/replacements in functionless introns and as pseudogenes (of which is shared by humans and gorillas yet not chimps according to this source).

Do Progressive Creationists who deny macroevolution, in general also deny (or at least question) the common ancestry we humans share with other mammals,, and further down the line - reptiles, birds, amphibians and fish?

AiG is a strange place to be quoting if asking this question of OEC PCs.

As for the micro/macro debate, this has been fleshed out many times here. Do a few searches on the differences. Despite what many who don't believe in God say in online discussion boards micro/macro was not coined by "creationists". There are obvious distinctions. As I see it, macroevolution requires full encyclopedias of new genetic code not previously existing in a biological species. Microevolution evolution does not. Genetic drift is not enough to explain the large-scale evolution required for speciation.

I see that the evidence in the fossil record points to a Common Designer. This Designer appears to have created in bursts. We see in the fossil records bursts of new life - one of the reasons Gould and Eldredge posited their evolutionary theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. As a programmer may make use of frameworks and templates, the evidence also appears to reveal that this Designer reused existing code for some reason or another. Obviously God could have chosen to create from scratch, but it can be seen as more efficient of God to reuse what already was created rather than recreate the wheel each time. Why not? If this seems strange, it simply comes down to ones personal taste and ideas about how God should have created, not how God did actually create. If human beings are creative (some of us obviously more creative and artistic than others and love getting right into painting, sculpting or what-have-you), and human beings are made after God's likeness, then why think the most creative and greatest Artist (God) would just create all at once in an unintimate manner and be done with it? Such a concept sounds thoroughly saturated with secularised thought to me, not Theistic and certainly not the personal God Christianity believes in.

One might say this (God reusing bits of genetic code and templates) is "common ancestry" albeit of a theistic kind. Yet, as carbon-based lifeforms we share a common element with all living earthly creatures. Should this be called common ancestry just because we share common elements? Obviously by "common ancestry" one means one particular creature over time evolved and branched off two or more lineages. So for example, humans and chimps share a common ancestor because they both naturally evolved from some common creature. However, while there are similarities between kinds and species, the distinctions are so far wide and the distance between each often a blink of an Earth eye given its 4.5 billion year old history (sometimes the order of species even the wrong way around as otherwise predicted by evolutionary thought), that such makes me feel God did not evolve one species into the next (such as Theistic Evolution would have it and thus "common ancestry"), but rather God intimately created each creature brand new stitching and molding together previously created genetic code.

What true science attempts to unravel are facts. From commonly held facts anyone should be logically free to deduce their own theories free of philosophical prejudice whether Atheistic, Theistic, Deistic, Pantheistic or whatever else there might be. What we have in our day and time is a philosophical prejudice which is bound to metaphysical naturalism. No other conclusion is considered acceptable or tolerable today even when the same facts are agreed upon.

Many think the argument of "creation" vs "natural evolution" comes down to a misunderstanding of facts or a lack of knowledge. I've debated long enough to realise more is at play. One sticks to their guns no matter what evidence is put forward. And it seems to me reasonable to conclude that on both sides we have equally knowledgeable, logical and intellectual people. Yet, a rift miles apart exists. Why? The reason lies not in understanding, but our freedom to choose what we believe based upon what we know and our entire collective existence of experiences, where we were born, who we know, certain realisations in life and so on and so forth. I believe all these things and more are the cause of differences, but as a Christian attempting to figure out why so many miss the obvious I see, I put such down to a divine illumination of some sort being required. The Atheist, the person who does not believe in God's existence, must also put a reason to it. What reason do they have for why equally knowledgeable and reasonable people believe differently to them? Illusion or delusion are some reasons that have been offered by mainstream secular philosophical thinkers.

So looks like there is stand-off and we are left with epistemological uncertainty. We do not absolutely know either way, but we stick to what we believe we do know. That is, unless something changes on a personal level in life.

On a side note, it is such realisations that helped this board to move away from Theistic/Atheistic debates. On the older board that was once was here, heavy and hot-heated debating is all that seemed to happen. It was destructive and only seemed to cause further resentment and divide between opposing sites. It made for a hostile and unfriendly atmosphere. Many posters at some time or another left, and only those who enjoyed causing division seemed to remain. So I helped to shape a new board and its purpose to be more oriented towards Christian beliefs as advocated by the founder of GodandScience.org, myself and other moderators at the time. Many non-Christians found and still find this intolerable, that a Christian board actually be allowed to run with its beliefs as though they are right. Yet, such a decision was made not out of ignorance or arrogance, but out of understanding that an insurmountable stand-off exists between both sides and no profit comes from the hostile atmosphere that is caused by both sides continually banging their heads against each other. As such this board was made unapologetically and distinctly Christian in flavour, aimed fostering a solid and friendly rational Christian community while answering sincere and hard questions by those who may not be Christian but rather on the fence.

I have finished my ramble now, but I think I well and truly covered your original question and a whole lot more.

[Anonymiss]

Here's my take... I decided to shift to Progressive Creation, but I still don't reject macroevolution like many others seem to.. I'm convinced that our lineage goes all the way back to fish, and that homo sapiens is a species of ape - what I think happened was that ID/God played a role in the emergence of new species/genuses via evolution of existing species/clades. At the same time however, I'm not convinced of the theory of a common universal ancestor.

[ugo]

Hi Kurieou

Well said about what this site is about and how people became "negative".
I would say I dis-agree with many on this site so far about many things pertaining to evolution (being a young earther) but often its not what you say but how you say it. Its not worth fighting over it as we have one baptism, one Holy Spirit, One God who is in all, through all and over all. Praise God. We have unity in diversity and Salvation is not works through being a creationist, an evo believer or any other origins belief.
So well done on what you said.
But i have a bone to pick with you.
"why think the most creative and greatest Artist (God) would just create all at once in an unintimate manner and be done with it?"
Who said that he would have been less creative or less intimate by creating in six days? Well you did actually.
He gave breath to Adam, He gave life from dust. Pretty intimate if you ask me. Pretty creative stuff.
He pulled Eve out from His side. Now thats creative!!! Look what He created! Amazing stuff.
He continues to create as he "holds the Universe together".
He even created the sun after the plants. Now how did He do that. Wow!
Even in Revelation the sun will be gone and its His glory that lights the New City of Jerusalem.
Our God is an awesome God of creativity.
Praise God!

[Kurieuo]

Hi Kurieou

Well said about what this site is about and how people became "negative".
I would say I dis-agree with many on this site so far about many things pertaining to evolution (being a young earther) but often its not what you say but how you say it. Its not worth fighting over it as we have one baptism, one Holy Spirit, One God who is in all, through all and over all. Praise God. We have unity in diversity and Salvation is not works through being a creationist, an evo believer or any other origins belief.
So well done on what you said.
But i have a bone to pick with you.
"why think the most creative and greatest Artist (God) would just create all at once in an unintimate manner and be done with it?"
Who said that he would have been less creative or less intimate by creating in six days? Well you did actually.
He gave breath to Adam, He gave life from dust. Pretty intimate if you ask me. Pretty creative stuff.
He pulled Eve out from His side. Now thats creative!!! Look what He created! Amazing stuff.
He continues to create as he "holds the Universe together".
He even created the sun after the plants. Now how did He do that. Wow!
Even in Revelation the sun will be gone and its His glory that lights the New City of Jerusalem.
Our God is an awesome God of creativity.
Praise God!

I do not know what you are arguing against so will just leave any response.

[Kurieuo]

Here's my take... I decided to shift to Progressive Creation, but I still don't reject macroevolution like many others seem to.. I'm convinced that our lineage goes all the way back to fish, and that homo sapiens is a species of ape - what I think happened was that ID/God played a role in the emergence of new species/genuses via evolution of existing species/clades. At the same time however, I'm not convinced of the theory of a common universal ancestor.

Here are the positions as I see them:

1/ Progressive Creation (PC) would have God intimately involved with the creation of each new species.
2/ Evolution (speciation) would have each new species evolving from each other.
3/ Theistic Evolution (TE) would have God creating the initial seed of life with the potentiality of all the diverse life we see, and then structuring the world and events in the world in such an intricate fashion that all life remarkably unfolded according to God's plan despite all odds.

Given these positions, I am not sure I fully understand what role you assign to God with his creation via evolution. Are you agreeing with TE (as described in 3 above), or do you believe God was more intimately involved with the creation of each new species as they arose? If the former, that is your prerogative. However, if the latter, then what function did evolution (macro) have if God was intimately involved?

[Anonymiss]

I can believe the thought of "God intimately involved with the creation of each new species", but idea of him simply created *poof* new species or biological families of organisms out of thin air - I find to be utterly absurd.. I think he did it progressively through already existing groups of organisms. Just because macroevolution takes too long for us to observe first hand during our short lifetimes,, doesn't mean it never happened... But like I said the process of it must have been guided through Intelligent Design. (sorry for sounding a bit redundant)

I think I'm borderline between TE and PC, but guess I lie most in the Theistic Evolution side of the spectrum,, as in regards to macro/micro evolution aspect of it - I find TE the more believable of the two.

[Kurieuo]

I can believe the thought of "God intimately involved with the creation of each new species", but idea of him simply created *poof* new species or biological families of organisms out of thin air - I find to be utterly absurd.. I think he did it progressively through already existing groups of organisms. Just because macroevolution takes too long for us to observe first hand during our short lifetimes,, doesn't mean it never happened... But like I said the process of it must have been guided through Intelligent Design. (sorry for sounding a bit redundant)

I think I'm borderline between TE and PC, but guess I lie most in the Theistic Evolution side of the spectrum,, as in regards to macro/micro evolution aspect of it - I find TE the more believable of the two.

Progressive Creation believes God created life progressively throughout different eras in Earth's history. It is an understanding of the Genesis creation account which interprets the six "days" of creation in Genesis as six epochs rather than a full rotation of Earth. For example, see RTB's Creation Timeline Chart. As life on Earth died out and became extinct throughout various eras, PC believes God replenished the Earth with more life.

Regarding your comments about God creating organisms "out of thin air" being absurd, well I would agree. Why would God need "thin air" to create something? Seriously though, I do understand what you mean by this statement. And I do also think it is absurd for someone to posit God created something from absolutely nothing. Yet, there was God Himself doing the creating, so God actually created something which did not previously exist through Himself rather than from nothing.

If you believe in God, as it is apparent you do, than somewhere along the line I'd assume you believe God created something which did not previously exist. Whether God's creation of something which did not previously exist extends to various distinct species, an initial seeding of life, or our physical universe, somewhere along the line I assume you would believe God created something which did not previously exist. Certainly such things being created from absolutely nothing is absurd, but throw God into the equation and we have God creating through Himself and not really from nothing.

My response here also touches upon theological matters do with God's relationship to His creation. I believe all of creation has its existence in God (Panentheism - "all in God"). Apart from God, nothing exists. God did not create anything apart from Himself, but rather within Himself. As such, God is for me quite literally everywhere. In this view, God does create anything from nothingness which I agree is quite absurd. This theistic position should not be confused with Pantheism ("all [is] God"). Panentheism is very different to Pantheism.

[Anonymiss]

The creation timeline's interesting, thanks!

Anyways (more of my ramblings), some here will probably disagree with me - I firmly believe humanity is still very much a part of the animal/mammal kingdom in biological terms... but it's our soul and corresponding mental capacities/tendencies, that set us apart from our predecessors - ascending/transitioning us to be more God-like (at least that's how I interpret the Genesis verse of God making man in his image). Basically beings with God-like qualities enclosed in animal bodies...

In a sense I also feel strongly allied to my fellow "lower" animal beings, and believe a dog or cat has sentient capabilities.

[dayage]

This discussion shows why Day-Age is a better term than Progressive.

As far as when God stepped in, it could be at a species level or at the genus level. Here is where more research is needed. There are about 12 ways to define a species, so it can be confusing.

As far as humans evolving, I believe that God created them from scratch. The Bible states that God bara (brought into existence) man and asa (built) man. When He built Eve He bana (refabricated). So I would expect to see bana used for the different creative acts if evolution was true, but it is not used.

DNA shows that Neanderthals were not our ancestors. Teeth studies show that from homo erectus on back all developed at the same rate as wild chimps. Neanderthals were not much different. They were animals not human.

As far as fossils showing evidence for human evolution, here is research done in 2000. Researchers look at two groups of living primates. They built evolutionary trees from the cranial and dental evidence and then compared it to trees built with DNA evidence. The bones did not mach the DNA. Guess what, all we really have is bones.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/5003.f ... 39a924d3ae

Here is a quote:

The results of the parsimony and bootstrap tests indicate that
cladistic analyses based on standard craniodental characters cannot
be relied on to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships of the
hominoids, papionins, and, by extension, the fossil hominins. More
problematically, the tests suggest that such analyses can strongly
support phylogenetic hypotheses that are misleading. For example,
the bootstrap-based tests indicate that craniodental data can return
impressive levels of statistical support (e.g., 97%) for patterns of
phylogenetic relationship that are most likely incorrect. In other
words, cladistic analyses of higher primate craniodental morphology
may yield not only ''false-positive'' results, but false-positive
results that pass, by a substantial margin, the statistical test favored
by many researchers.

[Anonymiss]

So by "Day/Age" does it refer to the 6 days God made Earth, the animals and then man (but in the perspective of the pdf timeline that "K" posted)? I would agree then that it's a more accurate term to use..

I heard that humans are from a different line than neanderthals, and did not hybridize.

[dayage]

Hi Anonymiss,

Yes Day-Age refers to the six periods of earth's formation. They are ages not 24-hour periods.

As far as the chart goes, I tend to try and be more specific as to when the creative acts took place. This is by no means perfect and the end of Age three is still tricky, because of the way it is written. Here is how I see it so far:

"In The Beginning"
Starts: ~13.7 Bya (creation of the universe)
Ends: ~4.53 Bya (sun is about 25% dimmer, earth covered by water and thick proto-atmosphere)

Day/Age One
Starts: ~4.52 Bya (moon forming collision removes the proto-atmosphere)
Ends: ~3.85 Bya (main bombardment period ends)

Day/Age Two
Starts: ~3.8 Bya (after bombardment period ends and atmosphere can settle. Possibly clearing steam, allowing permanently separated ocean and cloud layers)
Ends: ~3.3 (3.6?) Bya continent formation begins

Day/Age Three
Starts: ~3.3 (3.6?) Bya first supercontinent Vaalbara forms
Ends: ??? (Let the land produce vegetation)

Day/Age Four
Starts: ??? (See age three)
Ends: ~575 Mya Avalon Explosion or ~543 Mya Cambrian Explosion

Day/Age Five
Starts: ~575 to 543 Mya
Ends: by 10 Mya

Day/Age six
Starts: by 10 Mya (appearance of mammals that live alongside humans) wolf, bison, mammoth, skunk, etc.
Ends: ~70 Kya (Humans created)

Day/Age Seven
Starts: ~70 Kya
Ends: At the creation of the New Heavens and New Earth

[ugo]

Hi Guys

The days in Genesis are indeed days and one day being 24 hours.
The word Yom is used many times for days so why would it not mean day this time in Genesis?
Moses wrote Psalms 90.7 In this Psalm, Moses compares 1000 years to a single day or a watch in the night. In the next verse, he compares human lives to grass. He says that the grass sprouts in the morning and withers in the evening. Realistically, grasses live at least several days or weeks before dying. Evening and morning in this example do not refer to a 24-hour period of time. But the word Yom is not used here.
Some have taken the passage above to mean that one day is exactly one thousand years, but it is not a mathematical formula since 1000 years is compared to both yesterday (24 hours) and a 3 hour watch in the night. It appears more likely that they mean that the Lord exists completely outside of our time domain and can look upon all of our life's history at one time simultaneously, as he wishes. He obviously created the universe with our beautiful planet and all its wonderful living things as He wished and on His own time basis.

Here is the issue guys. Why, if the days were a "period" of time, would God, in His Ten Commandments, expect the people He chose, Israel, to rest on the Sabbath? God Himself and His chosen ones literally believed it to be a 24 hour period.
The 24 hour day aplied to the Bible makes sense and when you begin to go for a "period" of time you find contradictions as I have outlined.