Misconceptions about Evolutionary Creationism (or Theistic Evolution)

[HarleyER]

I can't see that any of those verses informs us of pre-Adamic history.

"Since the beginning of creation which God created".... How much farther back do you want to go?

How about Luke:

Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.​

​

One can't get more specific that this. Adam wasn't the son of Kong...

But perhaps I'm confused by your statement and you agree Adam was created but simply feel the rest of the world evolved under God's created hand. Then I would call your attention to the following:

Exodus 20:8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.​

The days of the week, including the Sabbath, was mirrored after the creation of the world.

 

[sfs]

I've reviewed this information. It is still a hypothesis based upon similar occurances.

Review harder. The plot has nothing to do with similar occurrences. It's about differences.

Try again: What I showed you was data about genetics. That data shows a pattern that is predicted by common descent and is not predicted by common design. I claim this data is evidence for common design. You claim it isn't. Explain why it isn't. This time make the explanation relevant to the actual data I presented.

 

[HarleyER]

Review harder. The plot has nothing to do with similar occurrences. It's about differences.

Try again: What I showed you was data about genetics. That data shows a pattern that is predicted by common descent and is not predicted by common design. I claim this data is evidence for common design. You claim it isn't. Explain why it isn't. This time make the explanation relevant to the actual data I presented.

Well, there's the rub. For a Christian who don't believe in miracles or the scriptures as recorded, I'm not sure how to respond. And we're certainly at odds over what constitutes "evidence". You apparently believe in common descent (evolution) versus common design (creation). This negates just about everything in scripture including understanding our fallen state and the need for a Savior.

For Common Descent article: (Common Descent vs Common Design (Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - BioLogos)).

For Common Design article: (Forbidden Question: Common Descent or Common Design (Common Descent or Common Design? | Evolution News).

 

[sfs]

Well, there's the rub. For a Christian who don't believe in miracles or the scriptures as recorded, I'm not sure how to respond.

What does your belief in the Bible have to do with whether or not a piece of genetic data is evidence for common descent?

I'm not sure how to respond.

Well, you could try answering the question. I showed you data that was predicted by common descent. You claim it isn't evidence for common descent. Why? If you have a reason, say what it is. If you don't ,say that. What's complicated about it?

And we're certainly at odds over what constitutes "evidence".

Obviously. I've stated what I mean by 'evidence'. You haven't. In fact, as far as I can tell, by 'evidence' you mean 'something that agrees with what I already think.' If that isn't what you mean, say what you do mean.

You keep writing these comments yet you absolutely refuse to say anything about the subject we're supposedly discussing.

This negates just about everything in scripture including understanding our fallen state and the need for a Savior.

This is both completely false and completely irrelevant. You made a serious accusation about scientists, including me, that wasn't about the Bible. Back up the accusation or withdraw it.

 

[Buzzard3]

That data shows a pattern that is predicted by common descent and is not predicted by common design. I claim this data is evidence for common design.

It may well be evidence of common descent, but evolution by natural means can't explain the massive difference in intelligence between humans and the lower primates.
The existence of humans presents an insurmountable problem for the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution.

 

[HarleyER]

What does your belief in the Bible have to do with whether or not a piece of genetic data is evidence for common descent?

Well, you could try answering the question. I showed you data that was predicted by common descent. You claim it isn't evidence for common descent. Why? If you have a reason, say what it is. If you don't ,say that. What's complicated about it?

Obviously. I've stated what I mean by 'evidence'. You haven't. In fact, as far as I can tell, by 'evidence' you mean 'something that agrees with what I already think.' If that isn't what you mean, say what you do mean.

You keep writing these comments yet you absolutely refuse to say anything about the subject we're supposedly discussing.

This is both completely false and completely irrelevant. You made a serious accusation about scientists, including me, that wasn't about the Bible. Back up the accusation or withdraw it.

We're going round and round. Just because you "showed" me data doesn't mean anything. Data is not evidence. At best it supposition.

As a software engineer and database specialist, I've worked with data and data points all my life. I know what flaws there may be in systems and how data can be manipulated to say just about anything you want it to say. If you think that I have refused to say anything, you have yet to provide me with definitions on evidence, hypothesis, and theories.

Things do not evolve upwards. This is entropy. All systems break down. So, unless mankind has evolved towards the bottom of the chain, then what you are saying is that we run counter to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It would be interesting to hear how man, evolving from the same line as all the other creatures on this planet, could be so unique as to reason, think, plan, etc. I don't think monkeys write sonnets or contemplate their existence. No, there is a distinct difference in man from everything else that cannot be explained.

As far as backing up my accusation about scientists, heck, "scientists" today can't even tell me how many genders there are. You don't have to take my word for it. Go ahead and publish a paper saying there's only two genders and see how far you get. And you say I'm insulting them? Rather I would say they are insulting my intelligence. Scientists are still sinners at best.

If one is going to ignore what the scriptures states, then where does one draw the line? There is no accusation. One either believes the Word of God or they don't. It's that simple.

 

[sfs]

We're going round and round. Just because you "showed" me data doesn't mean anything. Data is not evidence. At best it supposition.

As a software engineer and database specialist, I've worked with data and data points all my life. I know what flaws there may be in systems and how data can be manipulated to say just about anything you want it to say. If you think that I have refused to say anything, you have yet to provide me with definitions on evidence, hypothesis, and theories.

Things do not evolve upwards. This is entropy. All systems break down. So, unless mankind has evolved towards the bottom of the chain, then what you are saying is that we run counter to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It would be interesting to hear how man, evolving from the same line as all the other creatures on this planet, could be so unique as to reason, think, plan, etc. I don't think monkeys write sonnets or contemplate their existence. No, there is a distinct difference in man from everything else that cannot be explained.

As far as backing up my accusation about scientists, heck, "scientists" today can't even tell me how many genders there are. You don't have to take my word for it. Go ahead and publish a paper saying there's only two genders and see how far you get. And you say I'm insulting them? Rather I would say they are insulting my intelligence. Scientists are still sinners at best.

If one is going to ignore what the scriptures states, then where does one draw the line? There is no accusation. One either believes the Word of God or they don't. It's that simple.

To summarize: You have offered no support whatsoever for your claim that biologists, including me, accept evolution on faith. You have provided no justification for rejecting the evidence I offered, nor have you offered any explanation for the data I showed that didn't involve common descent. You've presumed to know more about why I accept evolution than I do.

In short, you display no interest in having a real discussion about theistic evolution -- I don't know what you're doing in a discussion forum devoted to that topic, but it isn't that. Should you ever with to actually learn something about the evidence for common descent, let me know. If not, take care.

 

[sfs]

It may well be evidence of common descent, but evolution by natural means can't explain the massive difference in intelligence between humans and the lower primates.

Could you clarify -- why can't it? Do you agree or disagree that the differences in intelligence between humans and other primates result from genetic differences between the species? While we certainly haven't learned the full scope of the genetic differences involved in intelligence, we have discovered some excellent candidates. For example, this single-amino acid change that leads to more developed neocortexes in modern humans, or this survey of mutations, mostly small, in genetic regulatory regions that are important for brain development.

 

[Harry Larry]

I always thought that "survival of the fittest" could perfectly well be read as "whoever God sees to be fit will survive".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can honestly say that I don't think I've met an anti-evolutionary creationist on this forum who actually understands the position of evolutionary creation.

I was an evolutionary creationist until this last summer when I started a detailed study of Genesis 1-11. I have changed my position and believe in a literal 6 day creation as accurately recorded in scripture. If one looks at evolution carefully, it is without a doubt full of holes. I'm new here so I'm not familiar with all the arguments on this forum. However, it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does in creation. So one can believe in an unexplainable evolution model given to us by secular scientists or one can accept what the scriptures teaches as the inspired Word of God.

Ok. So, I see you're new.

... you indicate that up until several months ago, you were an "evolutionary creationist"? Would you mind sharing something about why you used to believe that way, perhaps citing the sources which influenced your perspective up until that time, and then those that influenced you to engage a detailed study of Genesis 1-11?

 

[HarleyER]

Ok. So, I see you're new.

... you indicate that up until several months ago, you were an "evolutionary creationist"? Would you mind sharing something about why you used to believe that way, perhaps citing the sources which influenced your perspective up until that time, and then those that influenced you to engage a detailed study of Genesis 1-11?

And what does evolution have to do with this discussion?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And what does evolution have to do with this discussion?

Did you look at the forum section you're in, Harley?

I've asked a simple question. I don't think it'd be too difficult for you to answer it.

 

[HarleyER]

Did you look at the forum section you're in, Harley?

I've asked a simple question. I don't think it'd be too difficult for you to answer it.

Oops. Sorry, I'm new at this and I did not notice what section I'm in.

I never really gave creation much thought. So, yes, for many years I WAS a evolutionary creationist. That is until last year when I did an indepth study of the first eleven chapters of Genesis and took a more thorough look at what the scriptures teaches. There is no doubt scriptures teaches a literal six day creation as well as a young earth view. These are recorded in specific genealogies that can be mapped in an unbroken chain from Solomon to Adam. The genealogies are very specific and clear as well as their age markers. Additionally, every writer in scripture, every book (except Esther), and Christ Himself reference the first eleven chapters of Genesis as historical fact. Genesis 1-11 is a mini Cliff Notes to the entire Bible.

Because the scriptures are clear, it is important to conform my thinking around what scripture teaches. This isn't blind faith. It is simply that there isn't evidence on either side and one has to choose what they wish to believe. Does one take it on faith that evolution happened? Or does one wish to believe what God has clearly written in scripture?

The problem most believers have is they simply don't wish to conform to the teachings of what God has revealed. People think they are "enlightened" by science when, in fact, science is often flawed in its thinking. Despite the blah-blah arguments, and frequently contradictory arguments, one often hears from everywhere, there is simply no evidence of evolution.

We understand the world around us based on the Bible. We don't understand the Bible based on what the world tells us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oops. Sorry, I'm new at this and I did not notice what section I'm in.

I never really gave creation much thought. So, yes, for many years I WAS a evolutionary creationist. That is until last year when I did an indepth study of the first eleven chapters of Genesis and took a more thorough look at what the scriptures teaches. There is no doubt scriptures teaches a literal six day creation as well as a young earth view. These are recorded in specific genealogies that can be mapped in an unbroken chain from Solomon to Adam. The genealogies are very specific and clear as well as their age markers. Additionally, every writer in scripture, every book (except Esther), and Christ Himself reference the first eleven chapters of Genesis as historical fact. Genesis 1-11 is a mini Cliff Notes to the entire Bible.

Because the scriptures are clear, it is important to conform my thinking around what scripture teaches. This isn't blind faith. It is simply that there isn't evidence on either side and one has to choose what they wish to believe. Does one take it on faith that evolution happened? Or does one wish to believe what God has clearly written in scripture?

The problem most believers have is they simply don't wish to conform to the teachings of what God has revealed. People think they are "enlightened" by science when, in fact, science is often flawed in its thinking. Despite the blah-blah arguments, and frequently contradictory arguments, one often hears from everywhere, there is simply no evidence of evolution.

We understand the world around us based on the Bible. We don't understand the Bible based on what the world tells us.

You haven't answered my question, Harley. But I see that you have attempted to redirect and reengineer this discussion.

But let's face it: there actually IS scientific evidence for evolution, and the cheap attempt to down play this fact isn't going to extricate anyone from the existential quandary that we're all in. So far, you haven't provided any analytic evaluations showing that evolution didn't happen or that it couldn't happen. You also haven't explained why that, even though mistakes are made in science, as they are in religion, this somehow verifies your criticism of scientific arguments for evolution or that those same arguments are all simply "blah-blah," as you've rhetorically spouted.

Sure we can choose to stick our heads in the sand, if we so desire, and "believe" in the Bible in a stagnant, woodenly literal way all the while face-palming and otherwise ignoring and outright dismissing various scientific evidence(S) that stare us in the face if we go look for them.

However, I'm of the mind that playing the ostrich game doesn't somehow show anyone that the Bible is true in the ways that some one person perceives and/or conceptualizes it by today's modern standards, or because some pastor simply thinks we can perfectly read and clearly know what the semantic requirements are when engaging two ancient, foreign, highly prophetic and non-scientific religions, such as we find in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Anyway, if you want to trade out an evolutionary view of the first 11 chapters of the Bible for a more Fundamentalistic one, be my guest. I'm not going to stop you. What I will do, however, is firmly counter anyone who decides to get in my face about it without my having asked them to do so, just as I would with any other topic, whether it's scientific, religious..................or political.

 

[sfs]

There is no doubt scriptures teaches a literal six day creation as well as a young earth view.

There is plenty of doubt about that conclusion. From Origen's On First Principles (3rd century):

So that what we say may be understood quite concretely, let us now bring the argument to bear upon actual passages in Scripture. To what person of intelligence, I ask, will the account seem logically consistent that says there was a "first day" and a "second" and "third", in which also "evening" and "morning" are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven? And who will be found simple enough to believe that like some farmer "God planted trees in the garden of Eden, in the east?" and that He planted "the tree of life" in it, that is a visible tree that could be touched, so that someone could eat of this tree with corporeal teeth and gain life, and, further, could eat of another tree and receive knowledge "of good and evil"? Moreover, we find that God is said to stroll in the garden in the afternoon and Adam to hide under a tree. Surely, I think no one doubts that these statements are made by Scripture in the form of a type by which they point toward certain mysteries. . . But there is no need for us to enlarge the discussion too much beyond what we have in hand, since it is quite easy for everyone who wishes to collect from the holy Scriptures things that are written as though they were really done, but cannot be believed to have happened appropriately and reasonably according to the narrative meaning.

 

[HarleyER]

You haven't answered my question, Harley. But I see that you have attempted to redirect and reengineer this discussion.

But let's face it: there actually IS scientific evidence for evolution, and the cheap attempt to down play this fact isn't going to extricate anyone from the existential quandary that we're all in. So far, you haven't provided any analytic evaluations showing that evolution didn't happen or that it couldn't happen. You also haven't explained why that, even though mistakes are made in science, as they are in religion, this somehow verifies your criticism of scientific arguments for evolution or that those same arguments are all simply "blah-blah," as you've rhetorically spouted.

Sure we can choose to stick our heads in the sand, if we so desire, and "believe" in the Bible in a stagnant, woodenly literal way all the while face-palming and otherwise ignoring and outright dismissing various scientific evidence(S) that stare us in the face if we go look for them.

However, I'm of the mind that playing the ostrich game doesn't somehow show anyone that the Bible is true in the ways that some one person perceives and/or conceptualizes it by today's modern standards, or because some pastor simply thinks we can perfectly read and clearly know what the semantic requirements are when engaging two ancient, foreign, highly prophetic and non-scientific religions, such as we find in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Anyway, if you want to trade out an evolutionary view of the first 11 chapters of the Bible for a more Fundamentalistic one, be my guest. I'm not going to stop you. What I will do, however, is firmly counter anyone who decides to get in my face about it without my having asked them to do so, just as I would with any other topic, whether it's scientific, religious..................or political.

If I read your questions it was:

you were an "evolutionary creationist"? Would you mind sharing something about why you used to believe that way, perhaps citing the sources which influenced your perspective up until that time, and then those that influenced you to engage a detailed study of Genesis 1-11?​

I believe I did answer your questions. I stated that I never really looked into the matter through scripture until last year. Like everyone else I listen to the garbage from people who pretend that evolution is real. It is about as scientific as saying there are 77 genders. What engaged me into a detailed study of Genesis 1-11 was simply our Bible study home group thought it would be interesting to study this topic.

As far as providing evidence that evolution didn't happen, can you provide evidence that it did? I don't mean some scientific mumbo-jumbo of how this gene appears to connects to that gene. I mean hard evidence. Can you recreate evolution in a test tube? Can you show how mutations from life move up the evolutionary ladder? Can you even provide skeletal evidence of evolutionary progress?

Now here's a "SCIENTIFIC" principle...things don't evolve upwards. Everything devolves. Life, nations, buildings, etc. Everything crumbles. If you don't believe me just look in a mirror and compare yourself to ten years ago. Things devolve. Now unless you want to argue that people have devolved to the bottom of the evolutionary ladder, then that would be an interesting argument.

Yes, I'm sure you don't wish to be an "ostrich". After all, it isn't politically correct. This is what the "Age of Enlightenment" is all about. Let's not look stupid. Let's chuck what God has reveal and go with man's reason. Well, look where reason and "great minds" have gotten us today. You go to a doctor's office and they have to ask you what gender you are. And you tell me that you trust scientists and not some ancient, foreign, non-scientific book?

Thanks, but I'll stick with what God tells me even if I do appear to be an ostrich.

 

[HarleyER]

There is plenty of doubt about that conclusion. From Origen's On First Principles (3rd century):

Why should I listen to Origen? He was the father of Arianism (the Son was inferior to the Father) and accused of heretical doctrine.

Exodus 20:8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.​

​

Early church fathers have some good things to say, but they're just about like everyone else, subject to error.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I read your questions it was:

you were an "evolutionary creationist"? Would you mind sharing something about why you used to believe that way, perhaps citing the sources which influenced your perspective up until that time, and then those that influenced you to engage a detailed study of Genesis 1-11?​

I believe I did answer your questions. I stated that I never really looked into the matter through scripture until last year. Like everyone else I listen to the garbage from people who pretend that evolution is real. It is about as scientific as saying there are 77 genders. What engaged me into a detailed study of Genesis 1-11 was simply our Bible study home group thought it would be interesting to study this topic.

As far as providing evidence that evolution didn't happen, can you provide evidence that it did? I don't mean some scientific mumbo-jumbo of how this gene appears to connects to that gene. I mean hard evidence. Can you recreate evolution in a test tube? Can you show how mutations from life move up the evolutionary ladder? Can you even provide skeletal evidence of evolutionary progress?

Now here's a "SCIENTIFIC" principle...things don't evolve upwards. Everything devolves. Life, nations, buildings, etc. Everything crumbles. If you don't believe me just look in a mirror and compare yourself to ten years ago. Things devolve. Now unless you want to argue that people have devolved to the bottom of the evolutionary ladder, then that would be an interesting argument.

Yes, I'm sure you don't wish to be an "ostrich". After all, it isn't politically correct. This is what the "Age of Enlightenment" is all about. Let's not look stupid. Let's chuck what God has reveal and go with man's reason. Well, look where reason and "great minds" have gotten us today. You go to a doctor's office and they have to ask you what gender you are. And you tell me that you trust scientists and not some ancient, foreign, non-scientific book?

Thanks, but I'll stick with what God tells me even if I do appear to be an ostrich.

Oh, my bad! I see that my lack of directness, along with my insufficiency in using proper grammar, syntax and word choice, has gotten in the way of our having a useful, meaningful and mutually beneficial, even educational, discussion.

In this case, please dispense with my earlier, obviously erroneous usage of the adverb, "perhaps", and perhaps try answering my question again.

Thank you.

 

[HarleyER]

Oh, my bad! I see that my lack of directness, along with my insufficiency in using proper grammar, syntax and word choice, has gotten in the way of our having a useful, meaningful and mutually beneficial, even educational, discussion.

In this case, please dispense with my earlier, obviously erroneous usage of the adverb, "perhaps", and perhaps try answering my question again.

Thank you.

 

[HarleyER]

And what precisely is your question or questions. I seem to be having some difficulties on this end.

I'm here to help.