Thinking About Evolution

[Believer1993]

Recently I've been looking at the scientific evidence for evolution, and I must say it is rather convincing. However, I don't think I can reconcile evolution with the account in Genesis. It is easy to say well then it's settled evolution is wrong, but that seems dishonest. If God created the world why would he create the world the way it would appear if evolution is correct? On top of that, many of the Christian sources I've come across seem to lack the critical thinking they utilize when dealing with theology when it comes to evolution. I simply don't know what to do, or where to go from here. Some help would be appreciated.

 

[Tim]

Read Jonathan Sarfati. You will not find any lack of critical thinking there. The man is a true genius.

Dr Jonathan D Sarfati

By the way, I attended your Canton church for the Martin/Beeke conference a few months ago. Were you there? I live in Washtenaw county, just down the road from Canton.

 

[Doulos 2]

I found "Creation and Change" by Douglas Kelly very helpful.

Creation and Change: Dr. Douglas Kelly - Book - Christian Living, Controversies in the Church, Creationism | Ligonier Ministries Store

 

[Andres]

Recently I've been looking at the scientific evidence for evolution, and I must say it is rather convincing.

Really? I'd be interested to know what you're studying because I've always understood the evolution argument to be extremely weak.

 

[Miss Marple]

I also found evolution bizarre, and illogical, even as a child in a non-Christian home. A few of my childish queries below - may not be helpful, and perhaps advanced scientists with big degrees have better objections. But here goes:

1. Where did the stuff come from that supposedly started life?

2. Why can't we similarly start life in controlled lab experiments?

3. Is matter eternal? Does that make sense?

4. How can, say, a horse type animal's cells and DNA start spontaneously figuring out that if it elongates the neck, better food will be available? Why would anything stay as a horse-like animal if it were advantageous to eat treetops? In short why do we still have amoebas? If it was supposedly to their advantage to become two celled, then 50 celled, then lung breathing, etc.

5. Would not wings also be advantageous to the horse type animal? How about the ability for fly for humans? Why is there no evidence that any such thing is occurring? Doesn't hair help us all keep warm? Why aren't all creatures covered with hair/feathers by now? Humans have little hair on their bodies to keep them warm. Why did we lose our hair?

6. Where are the missing links?

7. Why do I see no evidence in the natural world of systems organizing themselves?

 

[baron]

I was always told if you get the first 3 chapters of Genesis wrong than you will get the rest of the Bible wrong.

Maybe you should read J. MacArthur book The Battle For The Beginning.

Also one of my favorites was the Ben Stein No Intelligence Allowed. Espically where he is told by a leading evolutionist that life began with rocks.

 

[VaughanRSmith]

I found "Creation and Change" by Douglas Kelly very helpful.

Creation and Change: Dr. Douglas Kelly - Book - Christian Living, Controversies in the Church, Creationism | Ligonier Ministries Store

I'll second this; Kelly's book is great.

 

[Peairtach]

Darwin made the unwarranted leap in the dark from there being a degree of flexibility and variation within species (which everyone would agree with, and which had been observed long before Darwin), to the notion, for which he didn't have the evidence, that all species are related and descend from a common ancestor.

He jumped - via unwarranted speculation - from a truth to an untruth.

 

[J. Dean]

I'd Check out John MacArthur's book Amazon.com: The Battle For The Beginning (9780849916250): John MacArthur: Books

 

[jwithnell]

Since most reformed folks tend to be intellectually serious and honest, the pressure to deal with the "science" of evolution has been particularly brutal. So much that was passed off as "creation science" was so much junk -- often just ad hominem arguments against evolutionists. Then the whole BioLogos crowd kicked in (run, don't walk away from that one).

The best science and reasoning appears in the intelligent design camp by folks like Stephen C. Meyer. Michael Behe, who wrote Darwin's Black Box, didn't identify himself as Christian (I'm going way back in my memory here, so I could be wrong.) My point is, even those in the science community who don't identify themselves as people of faith, are having a hard time with the militant evolutionists and are putting forward better scientific work.

 

[ChristianTrader]

The post at the beginning of this thread may be helpful - http://www.puritanboard.com/f50/fou...ise-solution-called-theistic-evolution-71373/

 

[Believer1993]

Really? I'd be interested to know what you're studying because I've always understood the evolution argument to be extremely weak.

Well the fossil record, the genetic evidence, the age of the earth, vestigial organ. All of these have been pretty convincing.

 

[Eoghan]

It might be helpful to know which area you are interested in. If it is geology, genetics or the big-bang theory. I spent a lot of time rethinking this at University and was shocked to discover many of my lecturers knew there were inadequacies in evolution. What shocked me was that when I asked why they did not look for the truth they said "What is truth" almost as Pilate did to Jesus.

To quote a proverb "The first to present his case seems right, until another steps forward to question him."

 

[Believer1993]

1. Where did the stuff come from that supposedly started life?

2. Why can't we similarly start life in controlled lab experiments?

3. Is matter eternal? Does that make sense?

4. How can, say, a horse type animal's cells and DNA start spontaneously figuring out that if it elongates the neck, better food will be available? Why would anything stay as a horse-like animal if it were advantageous to eat treetops? In short why do we still have amoebas? If it was supposedly to their advantage to become two celled, then 50 celled, then lung breathing, etc.

5. Would not wings also be advantageous to the horse type animal? How about the ability for fly for humans? Why is there no evidence that any such thing is occurring? Doesn't hair help us all keep warm? Why aren't all creatures covered with hair/feathers by now? Humans have little hair on their bodies to keep them warm. Why did we lose our hair?

6. Where are the missing links?

7. Why do I see no evidence in the natural world of systems organizing themselves?

1. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
2. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
3. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
4. It didn't just spontaneously happen. Some horses would have longer necks naturally, much like some people have larger hands, smaller feet, etc. Since they could eat leaves higher in the trees they would pass on their genes. This would happen until long neck 'horses' which could eat tree tops aka giraffes finally evolved. There was no figuring out, it just happened. The reason we still have simpler life forms would be because it must be advantageous. Here's an example. If you go to the store and there is only one check out line the line becomes very long. If a second one opens and everyone goes to the second one it is no longer advantageous. There was a point when it was advantageous to stay in the first line. Evolution would work the same way. If it was advantageous for one species to begin going multi-celled there would be a point when it was no longer advantageous.
5. Feathers supposedly evolved in dinosaurs, which then evolved into birds. Since mammals are not in this evolutionary line feathers would have to evolve separately in mammals.
6. From what I can tell there have been quite a few. I found stuff on the evolution of manatees and there were quite a few 'missing links'.
7. Again doesn't deal with evolution.

These are responses I've read/heard to your questions. Hopefully you can use the responses to sharpen your critiques.

---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

which area you are interested in

I'm interested in the fossil record and genetics the most.

 

[jwithnell]

the genetic evidence

Here's a 600-word book that addresses that one: Signature in the Cell. I was at a conference last year and found it interesting that the "junk" DNA geneticists had been presenting for years as vestigial castoffs from the evolutionary process is actually proving to have purposes that have only recently been understood.

Here's another book for you: Redeeming Science by Vern Poythress

 

[ChristianTrader]

1. Where did the stuff come from that supposedly started life?

2. Why can't we similarly start life in controlled lab experiments?

3. Is matter eternal? Does that make sense?

4. How can, say, a horse type animal's cells and DNA start spontaneously figuring out that if it elongates the neck, better food will be available? Why would anything stay as a horse-like animal if it were advantageous to eat treetops? In short why do we still have amoebas? If it was supposedly to their advantage to become two celled, then 50 celled, then lung breathing, etc.

5. Would not wings also be advantageous to the horse type animal? How about the ability for fly for humans? Why is there no evidence that any such thing is occurring? Doesn't hair help us all keep warm? Why aren't all creatures covered with hair/feathers by now? Humans have little hair on their bodies to keep them warm. Why did we lose our hair?

6. Where are the missing links?

7. Why do I see no evidence in the natural world of systems organizing themselves?

1. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
2. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
3. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
4. It didn't just spontaneously happen. Some horses would have longer necks naturally, much like some people have larger hands, smaller feet, etc. Since they could eat leaves higher in the trees they would pass on their genes. This would happen until long neck 'horses' which could eat tree tops aka giraffes finally evolved. There was no figuring out, it just happened. The reason we still have simpler life forms would be because it must be advantageous. Here's an example. If you go to the store and there is only one check out line the line becomes very long. If a second one opens and everyone goes to the second one it is no longer advantageous. There was a point when it was advantageous to stay in the first line. Evolution would work the same way. If it was advantageous for one species to begin going multi-celled there would be a point when it was no longer advantageous.
5. Feathers supposedly evolved in dinosaurs, which then evolved into birds. Since mammals are not in this evolutionary line feathers would have to evolve separately in mammals.
6. From what I can tell there have been quite a few. I found stuff on the evolution of manatees and there were quite a few 'missing links'.
7. Again doesn't deal with evolution.

3)Does relate to your question because it means that Naturalism is not true. At that point, you have to reconcile evolution with a form of Theism, and that is an impossible task.

CT

 

[ProtestantBankie]

Are you determined to not accept any help?

Do you believe that you have, by God's grace, trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as your own personal saviour?

 

[Mathetes]

2. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

Evolutionists certainly seem to think it does, given how often they point to the Miller-Urey experiments. Jonathan Wells deals with this in Icons of Evolution.

Also, Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism is quite compelling.

 

[Miss Marple]

Really? I'd be interested to know what you're studying because I've always understood the evolution argument to be extremely weak.

Well the fossil record, the genetic evidence, the age of the earth, vestigial organ. All of these have been pretty convincing.

The fossil record has absurd numbers of missing links. Genetic evidence can be used to prove a common ancestor (Eve). The age of the earth would correspond to God creating things that are already mature (grown trees, flowering plants, adult deer, frogs not just pollywogs. . .) and is presented in Scripture as a miracle. I don't know enough about vestigial organs to comment.

How do you feel about other miracles? Does Science disprove the making of water into wine, the feeding of the 4,000, the resurrection of the dead?

 

[SolaSaint]

I listened to The Dividing Line yesterday and James White had a sound bite of a lecture from William L. Craig where he stated most all Christians are now ok with darwinism. He even ackowledged Theistic Evolution as a viable theory and even plugged the Catholic position of man evolving to the point where he was capable of recieving a soul. This floored me for I really admire Craig. White has been exposing Craig a lot lately and I feel some of it is unwaranted but this point was right on. I can see where it is really difficult to see many strong Christians fall for incorporating evolution into the biblical narrative. God help us.

Seems like some very intelligent Christians come up against an argument from evolution that they cannot reconcile within creation so they cave into Theistic Evolution instead of full blown Neo-Darwinism. in my opinion

 

[Believer1993]

Are you determined to not accept any help?

What do you mean? I would like help, that was the reason for the post.

Do you believe that you have, by God's grace, trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as your own personal saviour?

Yes I do.

---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------

I was just saying that evolution is defined as "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation," has nothing to do with the origins of matter/life/etc.

I will have to look at Plantinga's argument, I've never read it before.

---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 PM ----------

How do you feel about other miracles? Does Science disprove the making of water into wine, the feeding of the 4,000, the resurrection of the dead?

I definitely believe in miracles and see no reason why God couldn't perform them.

---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 PM ----------

The post at the beginning of this thread may be helpful

Definitely gave me something to think about, thanks for sharing.

 

[Miss Marple]

Robert, the six days of creation were miraculous. Of course science won't in general support the Genesis account; any more than science would support the withered man's hand healing, or Jesus walking on water. That is the point of a miracle. It is not the usual process.

 

[Dearly Bought]

I was just saying that evolution is defined as "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation," has nothing to do with the origins of matter/life/etc.

Perhaps you are getting tripped up by the fuzzy definitions of evolutionists. Christian creationists do not reject the idea of changes in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations, whether caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. Observational science teaches us that these changes do occur. However, the descent of men and creatures from a common ancestor is not the same thing. Please check out these resources from Answers in Genesis. Careful definition of terms is in order.

Brother, I was raised on Ranger Rick and National Geographic magazines. It was only a few years that I embraced the Biblical creation account (praise God for a faithful pastor and the witness of the RCUS!). Every day, I recognize how my education and the surrounding world have conditioned me to think in unbiblical categories. To undo this indoctrination, you need to start by resolving to believe what God's Word teaches no matter how hard it is. Scripture's authority is not founded upon your ability to logically reconcile everything in it with your perception of the world. Next, you need to focus on identifying the unbiblical presuppositions upon which the secular worldview is grounded. These ideas have been pounded into us by hours of teaching, television, and the general influence of popular culture. There's a massive paradigm shift which needs to happen: The earth is thousands of years old, not billions. There was a global worldwide flood which massively reshaped the world's geography and geology. Death was not part of the original creation. Submit to the Word of God first and trust that His Word is true, despite what the secular academy says (and also says about the Resurrection). Reversing the effect's of our culture's brainwashing will be a loooong process which will require hard work and dedication.

 

[ac7k]

A good resource is Reasons to Believe. Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge

 

[RobertPGH1981]

Here is a good resource for everything science.

Center for Science and Culture - Challenging Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Promoting Intelligent Design

 

[Tim]

A good resource is Reasons to Believe. Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge

Sorry, brother. This is definitely NOT a good resource. Danger. This is the organization of Hugh Ross, who does not advocate a Biblical theology of creation. He is a progressive creationist. Jonathan Sarfati (who I cited above) wrote a book specifically to refute the position of Hugh Ross.

This from the Creation.com website:

In 2004, he wrote Refuting Compromise, defending a straightforward biblical creation timeline and a global flood, and answering biblical and scientific objections, concentrating on the errant teachings of day-age/local flood advocate Hugh Ross. It has been acclaimed as ‘the most powerful biblical and scientific defense of a straightforward view of Genesis creation ever written!’ See the introductory chapter and some reviews.

Refuting Compromise

 

[J. Dean]

I think we need to define "missing link," because never have I seen a missing link fossil (besides speculative conjecture on what people MIGHT think is a missing link, which has more often than not turned out to be fraudulent).

Missing link would consist of a fossil of an "in-between" species, like something between a lizard and a fish, or something between a bat and a mouse.

And if you accept evolution, by default you alter Genesis, whether you mean to or not.

I should submit my "God vs. Darwin" lectures sometime to you guys. I covered the problems with theistic evolution in the class (because it ALWAYS comes down in favor of man over God, and because it creates a host of other problems, such as the origin of death, sin, etc.).

 

[Somerset]

1. Where did the stuff come from that supposedly started life?

2. Why can't we similarly start life in controlled lab experiments?

3. Is matter eternal? Does that make sense?

4. How can, say, a horse type animal's cells and DNA start spontaneously figuring out that if it elongates the neck, better food will be available? Why would anything stay as a horse-like animal if it were advantageous to eat treetops? In short why do we still have amoebas? If it was supposedly to their advantage to become two celled, then 50 celled, then lung breathing, etc.

5. Would not wings also be advantageous to the horse type animal? How about the ability for fly for humans? Why is there no evidence that any such thing is occurring? Doesn't hair help us all keep warm? Why aren't all creatures covered with hair/feathers by now? Humans have little hair on their bodies to keep them warm. Why did we lose our hair?

6. Where are the missing links?

7. Why do I see no evidence in the natural world of systems organizing themselves?

1. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
2. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
3. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
4. It didn't just spontaneously happen. Some horses would have longer necks naturally, much like some people have larger hands, smaller feet, etc. Since they could eat leaves higher in the trees they would pass on their genes. This would happen until long neck 'horses' which could eat tree tops aka giraffes finally evolved. There was no figuring out, it just happened. The reason we still have simpler life forms would be because it must be advantageous. Here's an example. If you go to the store and there is only one check out line the line becomes very long. If a second one opens and everyone goes to the second one it is no longer advantageous. There was a point when it was advantageous to stay in the first line. Evolution would work the same way. If it was advantageous for one species to begin going multi-celled there would be a point when it was no longer advantageous.
5. Feathers supposedly evolved in dinosaurs, which then evolved into birds. Since mammals are not in this evolutionary line feathers would have to evolve separately in mammals.
6. From what I can tell there have been quite a few. I found stuff on the evolution of manatees and there were quite a few 'missing links'.
7. Again doesn't deal with evolution.

These are responses I've read/heard to your questions. Hopefully you can use the responses to sharpen your critiques.

---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

which area you are interested in

I'm interested in the fossil record and genetics the most.

I gather there is more it than just ever longer necks. Once a neck gets to a certain length the blood supply to the brain fails when you bend over. So all the young giraffes would pass out at the watering hole and be easy prey for lions. A giraffe needs pumps and pressure gauges, which it either has or it doesn't.

 

[jwright82]

The "proof" of evolution is airtight if you interpret the evidence from their perspective. That is just because we see mutations from generation to generation in a given species why should we assume that that means that the species can change into another species? That is just because dogs evolve into different kinds of dogs doesn't mean that they can evolve into cats. They simply interpret the evidence that way.

Since we know only like 1% of the fossil record we can never really know the whole story. But they interpret one peice of bone burried depper than another to mean that one evolved from another for no good reason. We and chimps have like 98% of our DNA in common and they interpret that to mean that we our related for no good reason.

The crunch is the reason that they make these interpretations is because as Plantinga points out they are commited to naturalism but why? Naturalism is the idea that only natural or physical causes can explain the way things are. But why should we assume that? If this point fails than their whole edifice falls.

 

[J. Dean]

Wanna have some fun? Ask them how "Nebraska man" panned out.