Evolution is not dependent upon pain and death

[Vance]

Here is a great point made by Stephen Godfrey (Paleontologist) and Christopher Smith (a Baptist minister) in their new book Paradigms on Pilgrimage, one of a slew of new books by Christian authors supporting evolution. It addressed one of the primary objections Creationists have to evolution: that it is based on pain and death and, thus, not a method worthy of God. Although I have many quibbles with that Creationist position, here is what Godfrey and Smith say:


"Far from being dependent on death, the evolutionary process as seen in the fossil record is actually the antidote to death. If new species were not formed by the process of genetic variation, there would be no survivors when environmental conditions did change and existing species proved so poorly adapted to the new conditions that they became extinct. So death is not necessary for evolution, but evolution has been necessary for the continuation of life." (pages 167 and 168 – emphasis mine)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It addressed one of the primary objections Creationists have to evolution: that it is based on pain and death and, thus, not a method worthy of God.

I'm not sure that's a valid point: God was more than willing to use that method when it came to Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim.

 

[Vance]

Agreed, there are many problems with the creationist idea that death = evil, and God can not possibly use evil as a method of action. But, there you go. We have both seen the argument made by Creationists here and elsewhere.

 

[Vance]

Agreed, there are many problems with the creationist idea that death = evil, and God can not possibly use evil as a method of action. But, there you go. We have both seen the argument made by Creationists here and elsewhere.

 

[billwald]

Sentient beings do not evolve. If anything, we "choose" the less fit. For example, a recent story about "peanut free" sections in baseball stadia.

 

[Vance]

This is much in that point, Billwald. We DO evolve, but not our ability to control our environment and our socialization-overrides of reproductive fitness definitely throw true efficiency all out of whack (and very likely for the better, in most cases). Once God established a relationship with Mankind, the "rules of the game" for humanity have changed, I think. But still, there are signs of evolutionary changes, such as with absent teeth becoming more common as our jaws have gotten smaller (according to one study I found since my son was an example).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Agreed, there are many problems with the creationist idea that death = evil, and God can not possibly use evil as a method of action. But, there you go. We have both seen the argument made by Creationists here and elsewhere.

Indeed. But I'm not sure whether you advocate God's inability to use evil, or whether it's just the Creationists.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sentient beings do not evolve.

On the contrary, we do. The human species, for instance, evolves every time a human child is born. Our skin has evolved from a dark pigmentation to its modern variety: depending on the latitude, a given human can have anything from pale white skin to very dark skin.

If anything, we "choose" the less fit.

Huh?

For example, a recent story about "peanut free" sections in baseball stadia.

Again, huh?

 

[atomweaver]

This is much in that point, Billwald. We DO evolve, but not our ability to control our environment and our socialization-overrides of reproductive fitness definitely throw true efficiency all out of whack (and very likely for the better, in most cases). Once God established a relationship with Mankind, the "rules of the game" for humanity have changed, I think. But still, there are signs of evolutionary changes, such as with absent teeth becoming more common as our jaws have gotten smaller (according to one study I found since my son was an example).

Speak for yourself, I enjoyed the beneficial mutation of having three complete sets of teeth (sans extra wisdom teeth). My third set came in at ages 11-12. But then, I think that actually proves your point further (hem...genetic drift...aHEM!!), doesn't it?

 

[Vance]

Yes, Atomweaver, I think you must be on a very different evolutionary path! :0) Maybe toward shark-like tooth regeneration!

 

[atomweaver]

Yes, Atomweaver, I think you must be on a very different evolutionary path! :0) Maybe toward shark-like tooth regeneration!

Don't I wish... I lost four fillings with the second set, and I've got two more right now that I wouldn't mind ditching. I could tell the dentist what he can do with his patient deductible, and pocket the twenty bucks a month in dental "coverage" I'm buying which, despite its name, does oddly little to "cover" dental expenses.