Comment on Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism by Geanna Dane.
David Read,
Like so many creationists you continue to employ terms in your own parochial way. The meaning of “Darwinism” has shifted over time but the most frequent use applies to the origin of new species by natural selection. The meaning of “evolution” is also quite broad. However, you and others frequently synonomize these terms with “abiogenesis” and/or common ancestry for all life forms. I’m sorry but you are wrong to do so.
Because of this error you are inclined to argue against someone who actually might be in agreement with you. Professor Kent and I are simply saying that anyone who believes in exceptionally rapid evolution is as much or more so a Darwinist as those who study it, publish on it, and enthusiastically call themselves “evolutionists.”
You stated that “In the Darwinist model, everything is always slowly getting better and more complex. In the creationist model, every created plant and animal was better on the day of its creation than any of its descendants would ever be again.” I don’t understand your reasoning because the one or two species of frog, for example, that hopped out of the ark was unlikely to possess the most adapted coloration and behavior to avoid predators on all of the islands in the Caribbean. And yet today we see more than 100 species, each exquisitely adapted to its particular environment. How can you say the initial species was “better”?
The original species was “better” in the sense of having a greater potential for phenotypic diversity and flexibility when exposed to new environments. In other words, the original parents had more front-loaded genetic options in their gene pool. The original wild-type species is more flexible to new environments compared to the pure-bred types which are derived from the wild type. This is one of the main reasons for often observed phenomenon of “hybrid vitality”. Hybrids are often more healthy, larger, and stronger than the purebreds from which they are derived.
Now, it is true that novel mutations do occur and that these mutations can produce novel functional differences within the gene pool of options. However, the vast majority of these mutational changes are based on a loss of pre-existing functionality (Hence the basis for hybrid vitality). Those very rare mutations that produce a functional change that is qualitatively new never do so beyond very low levels of functional complexity (i.e., a qualitatively novel system that requires a minimum of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues is never produced within the gene pool of options).
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Geanna Dane Also Commented
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
Thank you everyone for sharing your views. Good bye.
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
So tell me Sean, how would you go about showing that the Bullocks and Baltimore orioles are the same species? You reject what everyone else uses. Just saying that you would show “qualitatively functional differences” won’t cut it. Give us a data-based paradigm. What data would you collect and how would you analyze it? You’re the expert systematist after all.
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
Sean,Let’s set aside the issues related to speciation and deal more directly with your “qualitative functional differencesâ€.Pleasse educate me. A rattlesnake has the following traits. Which would you say could be “qualitative functional differencesâ€? Perhaps you could comment for each how difficutl they would be to evolve and whether any would exceed the 1000 fsaar threshold (your holy grail of insurmountable evolution).FangVenom glandVenomFacial pit (an eye for seeing infrared wavelengths)RattleRattling (a behavior)And assuming you believe that rattlesnakes evolved- that is GOd did not create them- perhaps you could tell me which of these traits was most likely to evolve first. The venom? The rattle? The facial pit? (Quote)
Um…Sean…I have asked about “qualitative functional differences”. Are we going to get to these? I’d like to understand how you view these for obvious traits we can all wrap our minds around.
Recent Comments by Geanna Dane
Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?
Professor Kent, thank you for defending me, but its not really necessary. You have been very kind to me and I have greatly appreciated the way you and your wife so generously share your faith. You have given me added confidence in the Bible and I have a better understanding of how to trust God’s word ahead of science. Thanks to your encouragement I now enjoy attending church more than ever. I have also learned that my personal experience with God is much stronger when I avoid contentious and negative websites like this one. After reading a few posts here I can’t bear the thought of reading more. Makes my stomach turn.
Your friend,
Geanna
Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?
Wow, a friend gave me a phone call and sure enough, my name has come up here again.
Ken, please understand that you are seeing some of the worst of Adventism at this website. I don’t understand the mean-spirited and snarkey posts that are so common here even from clergy like Pastor Constantinescu. I can forgive their treatment of me and others as I attribute their comments to the impersonal nature of the internet. I strongly suspect that if I were casually chatting with them in the foyer after church they would be very kind and gracious, much like most other church members that I sit down with in the pews each week. I prefer to assume these men are sincere upstanding Christians and so I don’t wish to respond in kind to their remarks.
I actually have family in Michigan and fully intend to sit in on a service by Pastor Constantinescu one day. I will make a point to visit with him personally after the service and he will not know who I am (unless I decide to publicy post my impression afterwards- which I think would be uncharitable of me). He will answer to God how he has treated me and others here, and how he treats people in person. I don’t care to defend myself further. Believe whatever you wish to believe, Ken, but know that Jesus loved his enemies and we should be willing to do the same.
Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
I don’t think there is anything any of you truly wish to hear from me. It doesn’t matter how nice or agreeable I am, everything gets interpreted from an extreme point of view that I am seldom able to anticipate. If I have misplaced anything, it has been my time spent here. I agree on many issues about the message, but I don’t share the personal vendetta and punitive approach that others articulate here.
I wrote a very nice, very sincere reply to Sean, thanking him for the many positive things he does for the church. There was no anger or sarcasm in the message. I don’t know why it has not been approved for posting yet, but he is welcome to treat and interpret the message as he wishes. I’ve made my peace and I am finished for good.
Good-bye
Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
Sean,
Thank you for your concerns about the education of Adventist young people and for trying to find solutions to save them from losing their faith. We need them and they need us.
Thank you for attempting to share with Adventists your understanding of the overwhelming evidence that supports our belief in God, the Bible, Genesis, 6 days, 6,000 years, the spirit of prophecy, the nonexistance of the flying spaghetti monster, and the like. It’s refreshing to know that faith is not enough.
Thank you for bringing the importance of “transparency” and “on the church’s dime” to our attention. Your concepts are like manna to the faithful.
Thank you for pointing out individuals and institutions by name, and making clear to us how they continue to undermine the fundamental values and beliefs of our church and how our administrators have utterly failed to correct them. They must surely be a part of the much-anticipated omega apostasy.
Thank you for taking so much time to correct those of us who disagree with you. Perhaps there is hope for us after all.
Thank you for adhering so vigorously to what you believe to be God’s will for your life. We admire your fidelity to your stated positions and family and spiritual values.
Thank you for defending the faith of those who do not understand or agree with your views but still believe in many of the same spiritual truths that you do. We can only hope that they too can find their way to the kingdom of God.
Thank you for being so patient and respectful toward those who hold to different views than you do. Your example will perhaps inspire these individuals in ways that only God can understand.
May God bless you abundantly.
Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
So, no big deal right? Since most are not affected nothing needs to be done for those that are?
I didn’t say either, Sean. I respectfully pointed out that it was unnecessarily cruel, in my humble opinion, to shut down a university (as some have argued), ship it to Europe (as one individual suggested), or tell parents to send their children elsewhere when so many students have no exposure to the lies and theft that you have diligently brought to our attention and receive blessings from an Adventist college that are very difficult to get from a secular college.
Why is it that I can’t say even one acceptable thing here? No one should object to anything I’ve written in the past few posts above this one. Can’t you simply say, “Thank you Geanna for sharing your experiences and views. You raise some valid points.”
