In a recent thread, a discussion arose concerning whether the biblical account of creation was compatible with evolution. There was some interest in creating a separate thread so I have volunteered to do that here.

My perspective is that evolution is like any worldview in that it attempts to answer the question of the origin of man, amongst other things. To me, the heart of the argument in favor of evolution hinges upon the plausibility of macroevolution. Is macroevolution an observed and documented phenomenon in nature? Macroevolution is basically saying that mankind has evolved from an ape-like species. There are only theories concerning this and not actual observed cases where an ape has evolved into a human. Much of the support for macroevolution stems from microevolution, which observes variations within species and how species can adapt to changing environments. But to make the case for macroevolution by using microevolution as supporting evidence is flawed because all microevolution proves is that there are built-in biological variances within a species.

It is an implausible to leap to observe a change within a species and assume that one kind of species can mutate to another kind of species... just because you can breed different kinds of dogs and see variations in the offspring doesn't mean that you can make a cat from a dog. This kind of evolution is a complete mythology in my opinion. Thus, the theory of evolution in my mind has failed to adequately answer the question of man's origin. I reject the theory of evolution in favor of the biblical account of creation which sets forth a straight-forward answer to the question of man's origin: "...then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."

There was, in the dark recesses of time, an ape-like creature who had a genetic anomaly. He was also a rapist and screwed anything that he could hold still long enough. He was finally caught and killed, cremated, so his genes never can be found, the one person who started mankind.

Therefore, we are an anomylous, rape creation. If you don't believe it, just be female and walk at night in most cities and you will see the defect along with the progress. It might rape you though.

That was a tongue-in-cheek-knee-jerk, not an argument to the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakester

In a recent thread, a discussion arose concerning whether the biblical account of creation was compatible with evolution. There was some interest in creating a separate thread so I have volunteered to do that here.

My perspective is that evolution is like any worldview in that it attempts to answer the question of the origin of man, amongst other things. To me, the heart of the argument in favor of evolution hinges upon the plausibility of macroevolution. Is macroevolution an observed and documented phenomenon in nature? Macroevolution is basically saying that mankind has evolved from an ape-like species. There are only theories concerning this and not actual observed cases where an ape has evolved into a human. Much of the support for macroevolution stems from microevolution, which observes variations within species and how species can adapt to changing environments. But to make the case for macroevolution by using microevolution as supporting evidence is flawed because all microevolution proves is that there are built-in biological variances within a species.

It is an implausible to leap to observe a change within a species and assume that one kind of species can mutate to another kind of species...just because you can breed different kinds of dogs and see variations in the offspring doesn't mean that you can make a cat from a dog. This kind of evolution is a complete mythology in my opinion. Thus, the theory of evolution in my mind has failed to adequately answer the question of man's origin. I reject the theory of evolution in favor of the biblical account of creation which sets forth a straight-forward answer to the question of man's origin: "...then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."

---

Evolution means to change from one thing to another. You believe that God could change some dirt into a man. Do you believe that God could do the same in increments according to the evolutionary model?

Lets go beyond man, all living things trees, fish, bushes, birds and all animals would have had to develop from that first cell. Now there is a large leap.

jakester:

I'm a creationist. I believe God made all creation, whether it was in 7-days, or 7-millennia doesn't seem important to me. I also believe that there was an “original” Adam and Eve; and that their story is told in Genesis. Whether the Genesis is allegorical doesn't bother me either.

In my opinion evolutionist are working with a broken theory, and if not, it still doesn't explain first cause – that which is the root cause of all things but is not created.

For me any theory that maintains the dignity of man, separates humanity from lower forms and views God as the first Cause, I can entertain. Currently, Darwinism doesn't do this. In fact Darwinism does the opposite; it dehumanizes mankind, places man in the same category as animals ruled by instinct, and denies God's as first cause.

JoeT

I must agree with Jor and De Maria asked an interesting question,"You believe that God could change some dirt into a man. Do you believe that God could do the same in increments according to the evolutionary model?"
AND...
Fr Chuck's post dives home an important point.
I personally do believe in some form of evolution, but not Darwin's.
I believe that God created all things visible and invisable and the I question hiw it did that.
I think he did it over a period of billions of years.
I interpret the first 2 days of creation mentioned in the bible to be gays in God's time which is eternal, so those "days' could be billions of our years.
Thus the creation account in the bible is compatible for me.
So I do believe.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

Finally a consensus except for Fred who still holds onto the evolution stuff. Sorry Fred, but there is no where using the bible that you can explain evolution.
I think that the evolutionists are flinging all sorts of feces against the wall and watching to see what sticks. People will believe anything they are told unless they have been given the truth using the word of God. Society, starting with Darwin and continuing to today find it far easier to believe in some big bang theory or that a couple of apes had sex and man, a genetic impossibility, can from them than to believe the inspired word of God. But that can be translated into many of the topics that have been discussed lately here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Evolution means to change from one thing to another. You believe that God could change some dirt into a man. Do you believe that God could do the same in increments according to the evolutionary model?

---

Hello De Maria -

Yes, I understand what evolutions means. Yes, God can do anything he wants and the fact that he made man from dirt is proof that he is able to bring about one thing from another thing. But De Maria, I don't believe that is the issue being addressed in the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is not trying to answer the question of whether God is able to make man from dirt; it is attempting to answer the question of where man came from. You have to see this distinction or else you'll never see at least in principle how different the evolutionary theory really is from the biblical creation account.

Evolution is saying that man did not come from the dirt as the bible claims he did (by an act of God) but by means of an evolutionary process where man did not originate as man but as an ape-like creature. In the biblical account, you see man created and then having the intellectual capacity to interact with God and name creatures that God had made and ultimately reason well enough to disobey God. Evolution would say that man didn't come to be the way man is today (a fully intelligent, resourceful, rational, and capable being) until billions of years later, after having gone through several evolutionary stages, developing from an ape-like creature to modern man. Well, again, you see no evidence of that in the creation account. The account didn't say that God made an ape-like creature that he began to work on and shape into another creature, over a span of time. It's a complete myth because you cannot make the case for this from the biblical text—you can only make a case for this based upon human imagination.

I cannot see why there is any conflict between evolution and the creation account in Genesis. I honestly don't see any conflict here, unless one is committed to Biblical literalism across the board. Why suppose that the Bible is, or ought to be, the standard against which we measure the claims of science? The Bible says that the earth does not move, and yet I have no problem believing that the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun. I have no problem with astronomy. Do you? Because it isn't compatible with a literal interpretation of, e.g. Ps.104.5. (See also, Ps.93.1, 96.10, I Chronicles 16.30.) Galileo got in some trouble over this once upon a time. If a literal understanding of the Bible isn't the standard of scientific truth regarding the heliocentric model of the solar system, why should a literal understanding of the Bible be taken to be the standard regarding evolutionary biology? This strikes me as cherry-picking: If evolution is out, then so is astronomy. If if that's the case, then we're going to have to go back to Ptolemy--which is a real problem since then we are going to have a very difficult time explaining all those satellites in orbit.

My aim, then, isn't to defend evolution but to register real doubts about the use to which people often put the Bible in their rejection of evolution.

I think the original proposition presented here shows a conflict of thought between faith and evolution (or science). It presupposes that science should and can preempt faith. Many of us give sway to the mantra, “science shows evolution and therefore faith in God is wrong.” Science is little more than an analytical tool; if you please, a discipline of the intellect.

As I've written before, to be “scientific” or to approach a field of study “scientifically” has an indistinct meaning. Today, however we assign an explicit meaning few of the users can define; many of the tenets of which are arguable. The word science has Latin roots with the simple meaning of “methodical”. Today we assign the meaning of “scientific” to orderly, regular, systematic processes to obtain knowledge of intuitively empirical phenomenon, on which a hypothesis can be formed, an aphoristic postulate can made with derived perditions that receive objective rigor in systematically testing, and finally objectively analyzed for axiomatic attestation. The hypothesis is said to be proven only when an objective truth can be known and experimental results constantly and repeatedly match the predictions.

In the formulation of the meaning of “scientific,” the word “objective”, in a very general sense, is understood to mean a tangible knowledge. More specifically, when used in the definition of “science” or “scientific”, the meaning of “objective” becomes the intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book; or intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book or of; or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

The true “scientific” method is an intellectual process supposedly dealing with objective reasoning. This presupposes that subjective human reasoning can be eliminated from the process, which of course it cannot do.

On the other hand, Catholics hold 'faith' in God to be those truths revealed by God in Scripture and in the Tradition of the Church (objective faith based on known attested revelations of God). Faith can also be those things we hold true that are beyond our understanding, but within our natural light of reason (subjective faith). This latter type of faith requires a supernatural strengthening of natural light. "Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?" (What is faith but belief without seeing?). In either event, “to believe” is intellectual reasoning containing some element of faith. In the understanding of our faith “objective” is understood to mean an “absolute truth” as well as a tangible knowledge.

Science cannot prove faith to be wrong, it's impossible. The failure in the scientific approach is the failure to fully quantify the unknowable. Clearly, to presuppose that those things of faith can be scientifically studied is not only silly but could be dangerously foolish to the disposition of one's soul. How can we scientifically measure and test, and come to know an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God? How will the created measure the creator to ascertain Truth; especially when the creator is all of absolute Truth? At the same time, do not misconstrue my statements to mean that a scientific fact (truth) not borne out by faith is untrue. In fact, any truth, scientific or otherwise, is a revelation of God.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

In fact, any truth, scientific or otherwise, is a revelation of God.

JoeT

---

Excellent! This is exactly what St. Augustine says in book three of his De Trinitate. You're in very good company, JoeT.

I agree with both Akoue and Joe T.
My belief is in God and SOME SORT of evolution planned and created by God.
Yes, that means I'm a believer in Intelligent Design.
I believe that God is the creator of all things seen and unseen and much of how He did it is a mystery.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakester

Is macroevolution an observed and documented phenomenon in nature? Macroevolution is basically saying that mankind has evolved from an ape-like species.

---

Macroevolution has never been observed in nature. The theory is based upon a multitude of assumptions and has never been proven in accordance with the requirements of the scientific method. Micro-evolution (change within a species) has been proven, but not macroevolution.

I used to be an evolutionist, and when I found that the evidence could not support evolution, in an effort to avoid turning away from evolution entirely, I became a theistic evolutionist - a belief that God used evolution as his means of creation. I found that to be the hardest position of all to defend, and very quickly followed where both the Biblical and scientific evidence clearly pointed - the Biblical account of creation. As either a man of science or a Christian, I can find no other position which is so easily defensible in the light of the facts.

Tj3,
So you believe as Cred would say.
I believe in both creation by God and some form of evolution via Intelligent Design.
I respect your belief for you.
Do you respect my belief for me?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Tj3,
So you believe as Cred would say.

---

No I don't believe as Cred says. I believe what the Bible says.

Quote:

---

I believe in both creation by God and some form of evolution via Intelligent Design.
I respect your belief for you.
Do you respect my belief for me?

---

I don't know what the term "respect my belief for me" means. That does not seem to make grammatical sense. Please explain what you mean by this phrase.

I definitely believe in micro-evolution, and I don't believe in macroevolution although sometimes it is hard to deny the similarties between apes and humans back in the day. What do you think that Adam and Eve looked like? Do you think they looked like cave men? And TJ3 all Fred is asking is if you can respect his beliefs as he respects yours? Which hopefully you can

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NewYork123

And TJ3 all Fred is asking is if you can respect his beliefs as he respects yours? Which hopefully you can

---

Very Good, NY. And all this wisdom out of the mouth of a babe!

JoeT

Tj3,
NewYork123 understood what I said and answered your question for me quite well.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NewYork123

I definitely believe in micro-evolution, and I don't believe in macroevolution although sometimes it is hard to deny the similarties between apes and humans back in the day. What do you think that Adam and Eve looked like?

---

I have stated many times on here that micr-evolution is clearly proven. It is not hard to tell the difference. Tall, short, black, white, fat thin, I have never yet mistaken a person for an animal.

Quote:

---

Do you think they looked like cave men? And TJ3 all Fred is asking is if you can respect his beliefs as he respects yours? Which hopefully you can

---

I do not have to respect the beliefs of others. I do respect his right to hold those beliefs, but that does not mean that I must respect beliefs that I disagree with.

It is case that respect for the person is not dependent upon whether we agree or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Tj3,
NewYork123 understood what I said and answered your question for me quite well.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

And I just answered.

I sense some hostility TJ3 lol.. But what do you think about macro-evolution? How do you explain how similar humans and apes look?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NewYork123

I sense some hostility TJ3 lol.

---

Your senses are wrong.

Quote:

---

But what do you think about macro-evolution? How do you explain how similar humans and apes look?

---

How do you explain how similar all Chrysler products look? The same designer.

Tj3.
But such a comparison doe not work for the Chrysler products you mentioned are all transportation vehicles.
But there is a vast difference between a wild jungle dwelling ape and a human person who has self awareness and is much more civilized with a different life style and environment.
Though I am glad that you mentioned that they have the same designer.
O believe the God in His efforts of creation all that is seen and unseen did indeed design all of it to be what it came to be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Does this mean that apes and humans have the same designer (they look a lot alike), but that squid and fungi have a different designer (they don't look anything like apes and humans)? How many designers are there? Must be a bunch of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Tj3.
But such a comparison doe not work for the Chrysler products you mentioned are all transportation vehicles.
But there is a vast difference between a wild jungle dwelling ape and a human person who has self awareness and is much more civilized with a different life style and environment.

---

Then that argues against the claim that one is similar enough to have evolved from one to the other.

The similarities are in the construction - DNA, etc. but the differences are such that we never mistake one for the other, and we have not seen any case where one species transitions to another.

Akoue,
Good question and I THINK Tom answered it well.
But I still believe the in some form of evolution (not Darwin's) that God used in his designing of the universe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Akoue,
Good question and I THINK Tom answered it well.

---

No, not really, because the claim made by evolutionary biologists isn't that humans descend from apes but that humans and modern apes descend from a common ancestor.

Of course, gross anatomical similarities aren't enough to settle things either way. We have to look at DNA. But notice how much DNA modern humans share with apes. This is at least prima facie evidence for a shared genetic ancestry. The more DNA shared by morphologically distinct species, there more reason to suspect common ancestry as we look farther back.

I would be happy to discuss this question is in the biology section.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

No, not really, because the claim made by evolutionary biologists isn't that humans descend from apes but that humans and modern apes descend from a common ancestor.

---

Doesn't matter. There is no proof of that either.

Quote:

---

The more DNA shared by morphologically distinct species, there more reason to suspect common ancestry as we look farther back.

---

Then if I saw two car models made by Dodge, the closer they were, the more likely that they evolved from each other. In fact the "DNA" (internal design) of every automobile on earth is extremely similar but not one single one evolved into another car.

Not one single case have yet been shown where two animals of similar DNA transitioned from one species to another. Until that is proven, at best, evolution is a theory based upon a large number of unproven assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Then if I saw two car models made by Dodge, the closer they were, the more likely that they evolved from each other. In fact the "DNA" (internal design) of every automobile on earth is extremely similar but not one single one evolved into another car.

---

You're using an artefact model to talk about biology. The artefact model has no application to the matters under consideration. (Unless you want to beg the question against the evolutionists and assume an artificer.)

Quote:

---

Not one single case have yet been shown where two animals of similar DNA transitioned from one species to another. Until that is proven, at best, evolution is a theory based upon a large number of unproven assumptions.

---

Do you mean to say that it's an empirically unconfirmed hypothesis? That's what it sounds like you mean.

Akoue,
Right you are.
I should not have considered the age thing but rather the common ancestor.
I believe that Adam and Eve were the first human species with a soul.
I do find it amazing that all life on this planet has some similar DNA.
I wonder IF life on other planets will have some DNA similar to life here.
Of the hundreds of planets so far discovered only a few are not Jupiter size and larger, but none earth size have yet to be discovered.
Within a few years new detection instruments will be operational which probably will be able to find near earth sized planets and some MAY have water and an atmosphere.
That may upset some folks who believe this planet is the only place where God created life, but since God is the author of life and created a very vast universe full of stars and planets I'm sure that there is more life out there somewhere.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I would be happy to discuss this question is in the biology section.

---

That would be great! Unfortunately, I don't know that many of the people who frequent this forum are willing to venture over there. Would you be willing to lend your expertise to this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Akoue,
Right you are.
I should not have considered the age thing but rather the common ancestor.
I believe that Adam and Eve were the first human species with a soul.
I do find it amazing that all life on this planet has some similar DNA.
I wonder IF life on other planets will have some DNA similar to life here.
Of the hundreds of planets so far discovered only a few are not Jupiter size and larger, but none earth size have yet to be discovered.
Within a few years new detection instruments will be operational which probably will be able to find near earth sized planets and some MAY have water and an atmosphere.
That may upset some folks who believe this planet is the only place where God created life, but since God is the author of life and created a very vast universe full of stars and planets I'm sure that there is more life out there somewhere.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

It's an exciting prospect, isn't it Fred?

Akoue,
Yes it is,
AND I do hope that Asking will join us on this thread on this subject.
It would be very interesting to have a biology expert participate here for all here to see and work with.
I hope he/she sees your invitation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thanks for the invitation. My understanding is that secular people who talk about evolution in the Christian section are considered a species of troll. I am not interested in trolling... Plus, I think that a discussion of evolution belongs in the science section.

All the same, I would want to see a definition of macroevolution and of species that everyone more or less agrees to. Otherwise, I don't think it's possible to have a fruitful discussion of whether macroevolution has occurred, let alone whether that is compatible with special creation.

To a biologist, macroevolution is evolutionary change at or above the level of species. So it means a new species.

The problem with this rough definition is that species themselves do not fit neatly into compartments. This is not a problem for evolution as a biological principle; but it does make it hard to have the particular discussion you are having.

In discussing this topic it's important to understand the deeper roots of difference between modern biology's view of individuals and species and the one embraced historically over the past 2000 years or so. Most ordinary people tend to view a species as having a perfect "type" or ideal. This can be described as "Platonic" after the philosopher Plato. The Christian idea of special creation refers to perfect types as well. When we speak of "the fox" we are referring to an abstract fox ideal. In this view, all real foxes are somehow imperfect versions of that ideal fox--the one originally created by God, conceived in His mind.

Modern biology does not recognize perfect types, certainly not as species. Instead, a species is a group, or population, of individuals, each one unique. Every individual, no matter how "imperfect," is a legitimate member of a species. By definition, none is more representative than any other, though some may be closer to average in a limited number of ways--blood groups, tooth length, or ear size. "Average" leg length is not ideal though. It's just a statistical average. And the average mostly has no effect on what happens to individuals in real life--who gets eaten and who survives to have offspring.

Typically, a biologist is talking about a species in a given moment in time, so it's a kind of cross section through time. In contrast, evolutionary biologists tend to think of species as occurring over long spans of time. So a species is a population that lives in a certain area and interbreeds with others in that population, but it's also all the ancestors of that population that look and behave approximately like the current population. Many species, or at least things that appear to be species, are many millions of years old while most seem to last only a few hundred thousand years, or even less, either going to extinct or changing into something clearly "different."

In biology, there is no universally accepted definition of species. This is because the edges of species are usually a bit blurry. There are often sub populations within species that seem on the verge of forming a separate group. Or there are several "sister" species that mostly live separately, but sometimes interbreed, or "hybridize." This is all totally contrary to the idea of separately created, well defined species, as most people understand the term. And thus the facts of how species really behave is at odds with special creation.

And yet the word "species" is useful.

We know a lion when we see one and we know it's different from a tiger. In a study of stone age jungle dwellers who were asked to name the different species of birds in the jungle, they named all the same birds as a biologist would except for one (the biologists saw two similar species where they saw one). So we all have a sense of what it means to be a species. And yet, when biologists look closer, it gets mushy. Lions and tigers can interbreed. Does that mean they are not separate species? More obscure plants and animals do this in the wild all the time, so that species are exchanging genes with one another. Even widely different species of bacteria exchange genes with one another on a massive scale through gene carrying "plasmids." What does it mean to be a species of bacterium?

Enough background for now.

So to talk about this problem in a reasonably sophisticated way, we need to agree on terms--specifically what would constitute "macroevolution" and what would not. Also, I would ask that people accept the biological understanding of what a species is, rather than the traditional Platonic ideal. Because if we are not talking in the same language, there's only limited communication.

asking,

Thank you so much for that. I hope no one will accuse you of trolling: I certainly found your post extremely helpful. We do, as you describe, seem to run up against a sort of sorites problem: classes have vague boundaries, and an awful lot turns on the taxonomic shemes we deploy in sorting them out. And I'd like to second your call for greater terminological rigor, since without it it's particularly difficult to see how we can get anywhere in the present discussion.

And I, too, would rather have this discussion in the biology section. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

You're using an artefact model to talk about biology. The artefact model has no application to the matters under consideration. (Unless you want to beg the question against the evolutionists and assume an artificer.)

---

I am using an analogy to demonstrate that the assumption that you have made is not valid, and indeed has never been substantiated by evidence. You may feel that it is right according to your own reasoning, but that in and of itself does not validate the assumption.

The point is that just because there are similarities, we cannot assume that one evolved from the other. We need to have evidence which bridges that gap. If you have such evidence, please, bring it forward and let's have a look.

Keep in mind the example that I provided previously - HIV. The DNA of this virus changes at an incredible rate, and yet despite the astronomical number of changes that take place in a week, not to mention the nearly 30 years that the virus has been known, we have yet to see the HIV become something other than an HIV. With that in mind, we need to be careful about exapolating beyond known data to suggest species change for which no evidence exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

I still believe the in some form of evolution (not Darwin's) that God used in his designing of the universe.

---

Fred,
What do you mean when you say God's form of evolution? Are you saying a form of evolution that is not driven by natural selection or genetic drift? I hope it's obvious that modern evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond what Darwin postulated, so biologists don't particularly limit themselves to "Darwin's" evolution either.

In particular, in anything I say here, I am not talking about Darwin's understanding, but a more modern view that incorporates genetics, cladistics, and a more thorough understanding of how populations of organisms work.

Anyway, I'm curious to know how you envision evolution happening by God's will (rather than through selection or drift).

asking,
I'm glad to see you here.
I believe that what modern science has discovered is was and is an evolution of God's design.
I can not prove that scientifically but I believe that at present science can not prove that God does not exist.
I also believe that in the future more and more scientists will believe that indeed there is a supreme being as many already do.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Fred,
What do you mean when you say God's form of evolution? Are you saying a form of evolution that is not driven by natural selection or genetic drift? I hope it's obvious that modern evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond what Darwin postulated, so biologists don't particularly limit themselves to "Darwin's" evolution either.

In particular, in anything I say here, I am not talking about Darwin's understanding, but a more modern view that incorporates genetics, cladistics, and a more thorough understanding of how populations of organisms work.

Anyway, I'm curious to know how you envision evolution happening by God's will (rather than through selection or drift).

---

So, basically you are asking has man changed in his appearance over the last 3 or 4 thousand years?