# A response to Theistic Evolution



## AV1611 (Jun 26, 2007)

In response to my question _Why do you hold to Theistic Evolution?_ Someone replied:



> 1) Evolution happens:
> -Things mutate (observation).
> -Things with good mutations survive better in environments of limited resources (common sense).
> -Resources are limited (observation).
> ...



How would you respond? 

See here.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 26, 2007)

> Evolution happens:
> -Things mutate (observation).
> -Things with good mutations survive better in environments of limited resources (common sense).
> -Resources are limited (observation).
> ...



From a data perspective, the proponent has a long way to go to demonstrate how often "good mutations" have in fact occurred. Most evolutionists rely upon speculation based upon assumptions to "prove" this. 

In other words, their observations are not sufficient to support the premise. The use the conclusion (evolution must exist) to establish the premise of good mutations.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 26, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> From a data perspective, the proponent has a long way to go to demonstrate how often "good mutations" have in fact occurred. Most evolutionists rely upon speculation based upon assumptions to "prove" this.
> 
> In other words, their observations are not sufficient to support the premise. The use the conclusion (evolution must exist) to establish the premise of good mutations.



Could you point out a reference for this that I could use?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 26, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Could you point out a reference for this that I could use?



Not off hand. I haven't read it, but I hear that Darwin's Black Box addresses this point.

Also, Phillip Johnson (the retired law professor, not the Spurgeon-loving blogger) has done a lot of work on this.

You could also look up the Answers in Genesis website. You'll probably have to separate some wheat from the chaff there.


----------



## providenceboard (Jun 26, 2007)

Try Here:

www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/NeoDarwinism.pdf


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 26, 2007)

providenceboard said:


> Try Here:
> 
> www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/NeoDarwinism.pdf



That's excellent. Right on point.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 26, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> From a data perspective, the proponent has a long way to go to demonstrate how often "good mutations" have in fact occurred. Most evolutionists rely upon speculation based upon assumptions to "prove" this.
> 
> In other words, their observations are not sufficient to support the premise. The use the conclusion (evolution must exist) to establish the premise of good mutations.



Why does he have to demonstrate how often beneficial mutations occur? Is it not enough that they do occur with some predictability?


----------



## August (Jun 26, 2007)

Richard, point by point...this is how I would respond...

1. Evolution happens...yes, but there is no proof as to whether it can actually accomplish what is ascribed to it in macro-evolution.
- Things mutate...sure, but the vast majority of those mutations are deleterious, i.e. destroy information and disappear from the gene pool.
- Things with good mutations survive better in environments with limited resources...this is circular reasoning, not common sense. Which mutations are good? Those that survive better. Ok, which ones survive better? Those with good mutations, of course.
- Resources are limited...If resources are limited, why are populations mostly expanding? The disappearance of species are mostly down to catastrophic extinctions. Sure, some species do go extinct due to lack of resources, but that just shows that theory doesn't work, why did they not adapt to survive?
- Mutations are passed on - right, but there are limits to what mutations can achieve in terms of progressing life. If there was no limits, why can evolution not happen in reverse?

2. Evolution is incompatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis...true that, because it does not allow for any intelligent involvement in creation. But the evidence shows correlation with Genesis, like the sudden appearance of the main body types during the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestors.

3. Scripture can be interpreted literally or allegorically... right, please provide your exegetical analysis for the first part of Genesis using any one of the two accepted methods, the synchronic or diachronic approach. For the synchronic approach, be sure to show your literary criticism with genre and form analysis, narrative criticism, rhetorical criticism, lexical, grammatical and syntactical analysis, semantic or discourse analysis and social-scientific criticism. Should you choose the diachronic approach, please show your analysis of the origin, development and the history of the text, with your textual criticism, historical linguistics, form criticism, traditional criticism, source criticism and redaction and historical criticism. In that way, we can be sure that we should indeed read Genesis' creation as allegorical and not historical.

4. If evolution is true and allegory is a possible interpretation, it makes sense that this interpretation is true...please show how evolution is true given the limitations of the inductive method of science. Also, this establishes that evolution should be the standard by which the Bible should be interpreted, which is an assertion without argument. By which standard can it be determined that evolutionary theory is the interpretive framework for theological understanding? Please show from either evolutionary theory or Scripture that this is necessarily so.

5. Allegory demeans in no way the Genesis narrative or the authority of Scripture and Christian doctrine...I fail to see the truth in that statement. Assigning the creation deed to omnipotent chance does not demean God? The gospel message is summarized as creation, fall and redemption. If we make the first one allegory, what about the other two? Is man's sinfulness just allegory for evolutionary psychology, and is redemption just allegory for societal Darwinism?

6. We already interpret scripture by science. Do you believe the sun goes round the earth? Or the world is flat? If you don't then on what grounds? None other than observation, surely! And isn't science just an extension of our observations?...No, the scientific method starts by assuming methodological naturalism. (BTW, please show why that is a valid assumption). All observations are then by default required to conform to that when hypothesis are formed. Also, I fail to see the relevance of observations we can currently make when applied to evolutionary theory. Should you wish to apply the same arguments to evolutionary theory, then please pick any ancestor/descendant sample from the fossil evidence for evolutionary theory, and show the exact biochemical pathways by which the ancestor brought forth the descendant. We have mapped the genomes of many species, we know mutations happen (you said so, didn't you?), we know what effect a mutation will have on a specific gene, and what traits or characteristics those genes activate. Please then demonstrate the molecular evolutionary pathways from ancestor to descendant. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Kenneth_Murphy (Jun 26, 2007)

My undergraduate degree is in Biochemistry and I was never convinced of evolution though it was practically forced upon me.

I tend to answer the type of argument you describe loosely as follows. 

It would take a very large number of small mutations to produce a beneficial new system to a creature. So while it is waiting on the completion of this new system it's waisting resources on it's partially developed system, generation after generation. You should see all these partial non-working systems in existing species. It would be like gathering a small piece of metal each generation and eventually it being the right set of pieces to make a working watch. In the meantime you just have a big pile of non working parts to keep passing along. If one generation actually got the watch working one would think you would still have left over parts. If you look at current species how many "wasted" partial system elements are there? In all my studies they can explain just about everything in the body as being there for a purpose. There just isn't any accumulation of partial systems waiting to evolve to completion within existing species. Things like the appendix that were said to be of no use are now known to be part of a working system, not the remnant of something.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 26, 2007)

I would answer differently. Evolution is not the concern. How the Bible is regarded is what is at issue. Even given all that this argument says, even if all that is true, it's still an imposition upon the Word. We do not interpret the Bible by our scientific theories. The same facts that science must deal with do have a regulative effect on how we interpret the Bible, but that's altogether different than interpreting the Bible via science. 

It's really simple. There are different views that are put up against the six-day creation view. They all come from men's theories. The six-day view comes from God, even more clearly in the Ten Commandments. That puts this "theory" in a completely different category than men's theories. No amount of dispute over the word "day" is going to change that difference. It's still man-made theories up against a Word-generated theory, at worst. 

They've got to do a lot more than come up with scientific theories. They've got to do a lot more than exegetical acrobatics with the Word, so that their theories fit the words of the Bible, whether literal or figurative. 

The bottom line: if one's interpretation of the Bible is so easily shaken by winds of doctrine, then the problem is one of relationship to God through the Spirit and the Word, not evolution.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 26, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Why does he have to demonstrate how often beneficial mutations occur? Is it not enough that they do occur with some predictability?



I think I meant the same thing. If they occur predictably, that implies a "how often".

The problem I was trying to address was strictly addressing their reliance upon observation. There is no reliable data to support the supposed observation.

But I was addresing the empirical argument on their terms. Usually I would follow John's reasoning.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 27, 2007)

Thanks guys. This gives me something to work with.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 27, 2007)

August said:


> Richard, point by point...this is how I would respond...
> 
> 1. Evolution happens...yes, but there is no proof as to whether it can actually accomplish what is ascribed to it in macro-evolution.
> - Things mutate...sure, but the vast majority of those mutations are deleterious, i.e. destroy information and disappear from the gene pool.
> ...



I err borrowed this. How on earth do you know all this mate (esp the point re allegorical interpretations)? I obviously have never been taught to think critically on this


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 27, 2007)

JohnV said:


> I would answer differently. Evolution is not the concern. How the Bible is regarded is what is at issue. Even given all that this argument says, even if all that is true, it's still an imposition upon the Word. We do not interpret the Bible by our scientific theories. The same facts that science must deal with do have a regulative effect on how we interpret the Bible, but that's altogether different than interpreting the Bible via science.
> 
> It's really simple. There are different views that are put up against the six-day creation view. They all come from men's theories. The six-day view comes from God, even more clearly in the Ten Commandments. That puts this "theory" in a completely different category than men's theories. No amount of dispute over the word "day" is going to change that difference. It's still man-made theories up against a Word-generated theory, at worst.
> 
> ...



Indeed, I pointed out at the very beginning that the rule of interpretation is that Scripture interprets Scripture _not_ Science interprets Scripture.


----------



## August (Jun 27, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> I err borrowed this. How on earth do you know all this mate (esp the point re allegorical interpretations)? I obviously have never been taught to think critically on this



Richard, no problem. I have a bit of experience in debates like this, that is all. I have been debating evolutionists for years, so I understand their reasoning quite well. In my opinion, all of their evidence can be refuted on scientific grounds, or at least cast into serious doubt. I make a point of researching it, so that they cannot baffle me with nonsense.

Also, when you have seen a few of the masters at work, like Bahnsen, Manata et al, you learn from them how to look for the gaps in the opposition arguments, which if they are not based on the only sovereign God and His revelation, are bound to be plentiful.

All of this is to the glory of God, not for myself, or to refute some atheist.


----------

