Comment on Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation by Ron.
I never said that it was, and Darwin never said that it was either. But it is still an example of Darwinian evolution which fact you acknowledge in your reply. . . .
“This is the very same mechanism that the variation in the size/shape of Darwin’s finch beaks was/is based on.”
“As a doctor with at lest some background training in modern genetics, you should understand these concepts a bit better”
I think I understand it pretty well, it is just that most creationists are totally illogical. They make the error of rejecting truth just because it is associated with error.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
Ron Also Commented
How much post creation evoltion is allowed?
I never even implied a proto life or anything other than a six day creation. I am talking about what happens after creation.
Sean thinks that at least some Darwinian evolution takes place now. How does that happen?. Did god create the mechanisms originally, and they now happen atheistically, or does He continue to be active in the process?
Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
Sean, So I think I am hearing from you that a Biblical creation model would allow for basically any kind Is htof evolution there is, or which we might discover as long as it is destructive in nature, or is not too complex. is that right? You don’t believe that it is possible to believe that significant improvements are possible and still be a creationist.
Are you able to define that bounday between significant and minor theologically?
Recent Comments by Ron
Sean Pitman: No one is demanding that they “get out of the church”. . . . . anti-Adventist views on such a fundamental level.
You don’t see how characterizing a dedicated believer’s understanding of truth as “fundamentally anti-Adventist” would drive them out of the church?
I guess that explains why you don’t see that what you are doing here is fundamentally wrong.
Professor Kent: Nothing saddens me more than the droves who leave the Church when they learn that many of their cherished beliefs regarding this evidence don’t hold up so well to scrutiny.
I agree. I am sure that Sean and Bob don’t mean to undermine faith in God, but every time they say that it is impossible to believe in God and in science at the same time, I feel like they are telling me that any rational person must give up their belief in God, because belief in God and rationality can’t exist in the same space. Who would want to belong to that kind of a church?
Sean Pitman: and have little if anything to do with the main point of their prophetic claims
And by analogy, this appears to be a weak point in the creation argument. Who is to decide what the main point is?
It seems entirely possible that in trying to make Gen. 1 too literal, that we are missing the whole point of the story.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Regarding falsifying the existence of God through the miraculous:
While it is true that one can’t falsify the existance of God and the Biblical miracles at a philosophical level, it seems to me that it is possible to falsify it at a practical level. For instance prayer for healing. How many families who pray for a miracle for a loved one in the Intensive Care Unit receive a miracle?
While the answer to that question doesn’t answer the question of the existence of God at a philosophical level, it does answer the question at a practical level. After 36 years of medical practice I can say definitively that at a practical level when it comes to miracles in the ICU, God does not exist. Even if a miracle happens latter today, it wouldn’t be enough to establish an expectation for the future. So at a practicle level it seems it is possible level to falsify the existence od God, or at least prove His nonintervention which seems to me to be pretty much the same thing at a functional level.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Sean, what is your definition of “Neo-darwinism” as opposed to “Darwinism” as opposed to “evolution”?