Evidence for God from Science

As Christian biologists seem to be increasingly accepting evolutionary theory as an accurate description of life's history, Dennis Venema, a geneticist at Trinity Western University, looks at the human genome and considers whether an evangelical can accept evolution.

Can an Evangelical Christian Accept Evolution? - Part 1

Dorkins wrote:As Christian biologists seem to be increasingly accepting evolutionary theory as an accurate description of life's history, Dennis Venema, a geneticist at Trinity Western University, looks at the human genome and considers whether an evangelical can accept evolution.

I'm not sure what the problem would be with a Christian accepting that God used evolution to create man, except that evilutionist would use the argument against them, "see god didn't create you, you crawled out of this goo." But I don't find this to be much of an issue. Even if man evolved through evolutionary processes there is still a lingering problem for evilutionist. Were did all the information come from? Anyways I don't personally concern myself with wither or not God used evolution. I'm more concerned with being in God's truth whatever it might be. The truths laid out here at "godandscience" concerning the Day-Age stance have been encouraging and edifying to my faith. This site freaked me out when I first came across it because of all the biblical scientific validations it demonstrated. And it still freaks me out today because of it's sheer awesomeness!

Yes, Christians can accept biological evolution. Abiogenesis and evolution are separate topics. Evolution doesn't talk about the beginning of the universe(s) either.

Oh, it's spelled "evolutionist", and most of them in the US are Christian.

If you do accept evolution, you would just end up changing your belief on how and when god made humans, not "if".
Also, I don't see atheists using evolution as an argument against believing in god for the very reason I just stated. Likewise, even if evolution could be disproven, that doesn't prove god or ID. Evolution itself is theologically neutral. It says nothing about the existence of god or lack thereof. Evolutionists aren't trying to make it a problem for people's beliefs. Inflexible believers make it a problem for themselves.

Dee wrote:Yes, Christians can accept biological evolution.

True.. They call it theistic evolution.

Dee wrote:Abiogenesis and evolution are separate topics. Evolution doesn't talk about the beginning of the universe(s) either.

Not necessarily.. There are also the studies of cosmic evolution. Then there is Pragmatism, or the philosophy of science, used as a tool to embrace Darwinain evolution. Darwin himself even conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life “by the Creator” (Origin of species, p. 316). You will find this in the back of his book in the "Conclusion" section also including in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871).

Dee wrote:Oh, it's spelled "evolutionist", and most of them in the US are Christian.

If you do accept evolution, you would just end up changing your belief on how and when god made humans, not "if".
Also, I don't see atheists using evolution as an argument against believing in god for the very reason I just stated. Likewise, even if evolution could be disproven, that doesn't prove god or ID. Evolution itself is theologically neutral. It says nothing about the existence of god or lack thereof. Evolutionists aren't trying to make it a problem for people's beliefs. Inflexible believers make it a problem for themselves.

Not exactly.. Atheists use evolution as an argument against God here all the time and elsewhere... Now there is theistic evolution which many Christians embrace, that maybe true. You could argue that evolution itself is theologically neutral, however, since we are philosophical beings there is always going to be people injecting their philosophical beliefs into their science especially around the topics of origins or the creation of new species. These basic questions are addressed in various science books. The main problem with evolution that many Christians have is that it has stronger overtones of atheistic evolution. Atheistic evolution (the philosophy of atheism injected into evolution) is a lot easier to slip into science than theistic evolution. Why? Because theistic evolution speaks of a creator, which is not easily embraced by the scientific communities nor the public school systems.

1. I chose to use "biological evolution" to add clarity in my first sentence.

2. We know a lot more about evolution and the rest of science in general than Darwin and other scientists of that time did. Darwin's religious views don't affect science either. This is an unwarranted argument from authority.

3. I typically see atheists belittling creationists by using evidence of evolution. I don't personally see evolution being used to prove god doesn't exist, but I'll take your word for it.

4. Theistic evolution as I know the term just says god setup evolution as the mechanism that was used. What actually happens in the observable world doesn't change between theistic and atheistic evolution, and the mechanism is what is taught in school. Views on god should be left out because they are irrelevant. You are right that people like to insert their philosophies and worldview.

Yes, they can be Christians, but it takes some twisting of scripture to believe the creation texts. More Biblical problems are listed below.

Here are just a few scientific problems with evolution.

Evolution challenges
Avalon and Cambrian explosions pose serious problems for evolutionists. There are no fossil ancestors for the creatures found within these two explosions. The Avalon phyla did not evolve into the Cambrian ones. In fact most were extinct by the Cambrian. There are good reasons why no ancestors existed. The oceans were too salty. There was not enough oxygen, molybdenum or phosphate and earth had just come out of a deep freeze (snowball earth). Where did all the new phyla come from? Molecular clocks, based on evolution say that animals should have evolved well into the pre-Cambrian.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/387
So much for evolutions predictions. Sounds like the first part of Day/age five "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures."

Research published in Science 5/30/2002 showed that in less than 30,000 years after the last Triassic taxa, large Jurassic theropod dinosaurs appeared. In less than 100,000 years of the Triassic-Jurassic boundary, dinosaurian diversity reached a stable maximum. After the mass extinction of Triassic taxa, where did the Jurassic dinos come from? And how did they appear so fast?

Fossils and DNA tell two different evolutionary stories. Which are you going to believe? Virtually all "evidence" for evolution is from fossils, yet DNA is the new big thing in evolution. These two papers do not leave much hope for human evolution research.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/5003.f ... 39a924d3ae
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084304.htm

Junk DNA is being found to have more and more functions, so evolutionists claiming that it is left over junk from evolution is making less and less sense.

Some Biblical problems
Genesis 2:7 and 19 leave little room for evolution. In fact Gen. 2:7 has God breathing life into the body He has just formed (also see Job 33:4). Animals have this same breath of life (neshama chayah), so Gen. 2:7 is not about God placing a spirit into a body. He is actually giving it life.

Adam's name comes from the fact that he was made from the adamah (ground). Adam is the first man, not a representative (I Cor. 15:45).

You have to make Genesis out to be a nice story with little to no historical significance. The idea that we are sinners, because of Adam, and that we need a redeemer are based on Genesis being real history.

You have to define evolution to answer this question properly.

Evolution as a narrow biological definition is accepted by most evangelical christians to the extent that it has been observed.

Evolution as a broader biological definition extrapolated back beyond what has been observed is accepted to varying degrees by evangelical christians. Ironically, there are some Young Earth Creationists who actually believe that evolution has taken place at a much higher rate than has been observed or claimend by scientists. That evolution is limited in their view to just within the same kinds of animals and plants. Evangelicals in the Old Earth Creationist camp have varying views of the presence, extent and scope of evolution believing that God's creative acts took place progressively over time.

Evolution in the broadest sent is accepted by some evangelicals in the form of theistic evolution. CS Lewis, although not strictly an evangelical, appears to have accepted this.

Evolution as a broad philiosphy defined solely within the context of methodological materialism is not accepted by evangelicals as it contradicts their world view and belief in a God who is directly and creatively engage within His creation.

Just using the term evolution without defining how you are using it will lead to confusion and argument as people hear the term differently and use it differently.

Dee wrote:1. I chose to use "biological evolution" to add clarity in my first sentence.

2. We know a lot more about evolution and the rest of science in general than Darwin and other scientists of that time did. Darwin's religious views don't affect science either. This is an unwarranted argument from authority.

It's not a black or white issue... There is a fine line between philosophical and scientific debates and many don't even realize it when they step over the boundaries. But it happens all the time..

In terms of what we label as "science" is also compounded by it's own problems such as evolution of the gaps... There is speculation and hypothesis, but nothing is really solid in science especially when we tackle origins as dayage mentioned..

Dee wrote:3. I typically see atheists belittling creationists by using evidence of evolution. I don't personally see evolution being used to prove god doesn't exist, but I'll take your word for it.

Would you believe Darwin or Ernst Mayr?

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae (parasitic wasp) with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." Charles Darwin —letter to Asa Gray.

“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer… Every aspect of the "wonderful design" so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection.” — Evolutionist Ernst Mayr (2000, Scientific American, pg. 82-83)

Dee wrote:4. Theistic evolution as I know the term just says god setup evolution as the mechanism that was used. What actually happens in the observable world doesn't change between theistic and atheistic evolution, and the mechanism is what is taught in school. Views on god should be left out because they are irrelevant. You are right that people like to insert their philosophies and worldview.

It's a touchy subject for sure and our observable world doesn't appear to have all the answers, one being that all explanations point to naturalism.. I'm not sure if you really could divorce God out of science. It seems that issues raised by a god will most likely naturally arise in biology classrooms whether it was mandated or not since the evolutionary theory was born in the theological cradle as it was with Darwin. At some point your philosophical views will intersect with your scientific views..

We're just human.. It's part of our nature..

I forgot to give the reference for animals having the breath of life (Genesis 7:21-23).

By the way, many christians that do hold to evolution adopt the Framework View.

Personally I've be left with no choice than to accept evolution. Once the facts are presented to you and it clicks, there's no going back. I didn't want to be one of those cliche ignorant christians who just deny everything.

Although the current theory is still developing so I do not see it as an ultimate answer. After all we are still searching for the more detailed origin of man.

Enginseer,

Personally I've be left with no choice than to accept evolution. Once the facts are presented to you and it clicks, there's no going back. I didn't want to be one of those cliche ignorant christians who just deny everything.

Why must you accept evolution? I find the evidence that I've seen, weak.

The research that I gave above is not about gaps in understanding, these are areas where we have very good evidence. These are not "God of the gaps." These are areas where the evidence shows that there is really something fundamentally wrong with the theory.

New research shows that four legged animals were walking on land at least 397 million years ago. This is millions of years before any "transitions" show up, even the most fish like ones. All of the fish to tetrapod "transitions" show up afterwards.

Archaeopteryx is still the oldest bird and predates any of the dino to bird "transitions."

I do not think I've seen a molecular clock, that tries to date the last common ancestor between two different species, that matches the fossil record.

Chimps are said to have 97-98% similar DNA to humans. What is not widely reported is that is only for sections of DNA that we already know are similar. This just shows how similar the similar sections are. Research done a few years ago on a large segment of DNA, 1,870,955-base-pairs long, showed the similarity to be only 86.7%. When the mtDNA was looked at the similarity was 91.1%.

Enginseer wrote:Personally I've be left with no choice than to accept evolution. Once the facts are presented to you and it clicks, there's no going back. I didn't want to be one of those cliche ignorant christians who just deny everything.

Define evolution?

For someone who believes in no God, I can understand why such a person has no choice but evolution to understand how humanity arose. It is really the only human origin story open to such a person. However, the story remains incomplete with the origins of life unexplained. To offer the words of the agnostic physicist Paul Davies (who writes in his book The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life):

• I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life's origins… Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.

Kurieuo wrote:For someone who believes in no God, I can understand why such a person has no choice but evolution to understand how humanity arose. It is really the only human origin story open to such a person.

In modern times, Lamarckan evolution has been quite popular. In antiquity, Aristotelian spontaneous generation was a competing idea. Other hypotheses have abounded over the years. Of course, none of them are borne out by the evidence. Only Darwinian evolution has such empirical support---and it is overwhelming.

However, the story remains incomplete with the origins of life unexplained. To offer the words of the agnostic physicist Paul Davies (who writes in his book The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life):

• I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life's origins… Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.

Davies was quite right. We have much to learn about the origin of life. However, this is not the least bit threatening to what we do know, which is that biodiversity has its origin in evolution by natural selection.

hatsoff wrote: biodiversity has its origin in evolution by natural selection.

God, please grant me a faith as strong as hatsoff's

FL

hatsoff wrote:what we do know, which is that biodiversity has its origin in evolution by natural selection.

Natural selection on its own can not account for all the diversity we see. It is certainly far from an agreed consensus in the scientific community.