@Ron: But it is still an example of Darwinian evolution

Comment on Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation by Sean Pitman.

But it is still an example of Darwinian evolution which fact you acknowledge in your reply. . . .

Mendelian variation is not the same thing as Darwinian evolution since nothing new is evolved within the gene pool via random mutations. Mendelian variation is simply a variable expression of what already exists in the gene pool.

Darwin didn’t know of Mendelian variation even though he lived at the same time as Gregor Mendel. That is why he didn’t understand the basis of the morphologic changes he saw in the finches he was researching… that they really weren’t evolving due to novel information entering the gene pool via RM/NS. Darwin really thought that they were evolving new information. He was mistaken. Mendel was right.

There are several logical fallacies on both sides of the issue.

On the creationist side,
1. The fixedness of species. Just because God created something a certain way, it doesn’t mean that he can’t make it with the ability to change, or that he even intended it to stay the same. Maybe he intended it to be adaptable.

There is no argument here. Of course God created species with the pre-programmed ability for variation or change over time. It is just that this pre-programmed variability allows for a limit to the degree of changes realized.

2. Species: That isn’t even a Biblical concept. It came out of ancient Greece when Aristotle was watching the breeding habits of fish. As we know today, it is a pretty fuzzy concept, as there are no distinct genetic boundaries between species. There are many ways that genetic material is passed between even different species of advanced mammals. (Donkey>Mule>horse>Mule>donkey for example).

Creationists, like myself, do not draw the boundary between “species” since this term is arbitrary and not well defined. Rather, I draw the boundary between gene pools that contain uniquely different functional elements beyond very low levels of functional complexity (i.e., beyond the 1000aa threshold level).

As far as donkeys, horses, and mules are concerned, they are all part of the same gene pool. No Darwinian evolution is necessary to produce the morphologic differences between these animals since none of them contain unique genetic information.

For more information on the genetics of donkeys, horses and mules see:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/donkeyshorsesmules.html

3. Kinds: As far as I know, there is no clear understanding of what the Bible means by kinds. As far as I can tell according to the text, it is something like the difference between plants, fish, creeping things, mammals with mammalian sub types wild and domesticated. That leaves a LOT of room for genetic mixing.

There is indeed a lot of pre-programmed ability for dramatic phenotypic changes within the gene pools of most living things. However, there are also very clear limitations to the quality of change that can occur… as already explained for you.

4. All or non-thinking. Just because we all agree that the Bible doesn’t support the rise of man from inorganic matter, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t ANY evolution. Even a casual reading of the Bible with an open mind shows that there is extensive evidence of evolution within the Bible. Both before, and after the flood.

You are, yet again, mischaracterizing the creationist position. We all believe in various forms of “change over time” or “evolution” – even in low level forms of Darwinian evolution via RM/NS. Why then do you keep saying that we don’t recognize any form of evolution? That’s simply not true.

The problem I have with the neo-Darwinian position is that it recognizes no limits to the type of changes that can happen or that slowly reproducing creatures are actually devolving, not evolving, over time (which is the type of evolution noted in the Bible). Thinks are getting worse over time, not better.

5. Whether evolution is constructive, or destructive, is a value judgement that says nothing about the existence or non-existence of the underlying mechanisms. Saying that evolution only results in degradation still requires the mechanisms of evolution to be in place, if only to facilitate the degradation.

That’s right. Devolution is in fact the result of random mutations building up over time. However, the decay that results is not just a value judgement. Do you think the difference between a 20 year old man and 90 year old man is just a value judgement? Aging and decay is very real and is the result of a build up of tens of thousands of mutations over time in your own body. They same thing happens to slowly reproducing gene pools…

6. Even Mrs. White, in talking about “amalgamation” and the tremendous variability of species both before and after the flood, inadvertently acknowledges the principles of Darwinism. She just puts a different value judgement on it.

Again, no one is questioning “change over time”. Various forms of evolution do indeed happen. However, evolution beyond very low levels of functional complexity does not happen. This is the key point of contention here.

Please try to remember this distinction for next time…

On the part of Evolutionists:
1. Just because we see changes occurring for the most part without the direct supernatural intervention of God, it doesn’t mean that God isn’t involved in the process anywhere or at any time.

And just because we’ve never seen garden fairies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Santa Claus, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist… right?

If you can’t demonstrate the need for the involvement of a God or God-like intelligence, or an intelligence of any kind for that matter, what good is this kind of argument?

2. Just because we see that a huge amount of evolution is possible, that doesn’t necessarily mean that EVERYTHING is possible, that there are NO limits. (That is basically the argument you are making with your . . . what was it 10,000sss?)

Exactly! And, this is the entire reason for the discussion in play – that there are actual limits to what can and cannot be evolved over a given amount of time. Neo-Darwinists see no limits while creationists and IDists, see very clear limits.

3. Even if it were possible for the universe to make energy into inorganic material, and eventually man, it doesn’t necessarily mean that that is what happened. It is still possible that God created the process, guides the process, or intervenes in the process to facilitate it, or even short circuit it altogether.

Again, back to Santa Claus and Flying Spaghetti Monsters…

My point is that the notion that Creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive, is just a terrible error in logic that has caused 150 years of useless and destructive debate. It is time for both sides to stop the non-sense and start talking to each other in a civil discourse.

Your error is that your arguments for the involvement of God are not based on any features that would clearly require the input of any kind of creative intelligence. However, once you start to realize the areas of limitation for the Darwinian mechanism (RM/NS), then anything that exists well beyond this limitation of any known mindless naturalistic mechanism, is a strong argument for an intelligent origin of that feature.

This is the basic argument for Design being evident in the universe and in living things. The argument isn’t over the fact that evolutionary changes happen. They do. The argument is over the limits to what can happen via mindless mechanisms.

Please remember this distinction…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
@Ron:

So, now all of a sudden, you DO believe in Darwinian evolution. Have you talked to Bob about that? Is he going to allow you to stay in the church?

There is no “all of a sudden” about it. We’ve believed in very limited forms of evolution via random mutations all along. Mendelian variation has also always been accepted as a fact of nature by creationists. I’m still not quite sure how you could have concluded otherwise?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
@Ron:

Why then are you arguing against us? If you are perfectly content with a literal six day creation week, then where is your argument with us? We are all fine with the existence of very limited forms of Darwinian-style evolution occurring at low levels of functional complexity since the Fall. Our only problem is with those teaching in our schools telling our students that the neo-Darwinian story of origins, to include the existence and evolution of all forms of life on this planet, from a very simple common ancestor over hundreds of millions of years, is the true story of origins – that the literal six-day creation week is nonsense. That’s what we’re having a problem with.

If you agree with us in this regard, what then is your concern?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
@Ron:

The founding fathers did indeed argue against creeds, organization, and church government of any kind. However, they soon discovered the impracticality of this position and changed their minds. They all, including Mrs. White, ended up supporting standards of church order and government, to include the adoption of rules of enforcement particularly in regard to who could officially represent the church in a paid capacity.

Of course, those who were not considered to accurately represent the views of the early SDA Church did not receive “cards of commendation”. In other words, they were let go from church employment. And what was the attitude of such persons? – according to Loughborough?:

Of course those who claimed “liberty to do as they pleased,” to “preach what they pleased,” and to “go when and where they pleased,” without “consultation with any one,” failed to get cards of commendation. They, with their sympathizers, drew off and commenced a warfare against those whom they claimed were “depriving them of their liberty.” Knowing that it was the Testimonies that had prompted us as a people to act, to establish “order,” these opponents soon turned their warfare against instruction from that source, claiming that “when they got that gift out of the way, the message would go unrestrained to its `loud cry.’ ”

One of the principal claims made by those who warred against organization was that it “abridged their liberty and independence, and that if one stood clear before the Lord that was all the organization needed,” etc… All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.”

Loughborough, JN. Testimonies for the Church. p. 650. Vol. 1.

It seems to me like you have the same attitude as those who where excluded from being paid representatives of the early SDA Church by our founding fathers…

Also, the fact that Mrs. White clearly claimed to have been shown, directly by God, the literal nature of the Genesis account of the creation week, completely undermines any leeway you could possibly claim in her writings for the neo-Darwinist position. The neo-Darwinist position is fundamentally opposed to the SDA position on origins and always has been. It is also opposed to the rationality and credibility of Christianity in general.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com