Evolution and Creation

[BLACK WOLF]

I'm thinking about sending this in to our local paper, which is currently debating this issue and focusing on Noah's Ark.

I wanted to get some of your opinions before I sent it in on what I may need to change or edit.

Thanks,

Ray



The Letter:

How big of a boat would an evolutionist have to create to carry all the creatures needed to produce what lives and thrives today and exactly how many creatures would need to be on that boat?

Based on an evolutionist’s belief, the size of the boat would need to be big enough to carry just one single celled organism.

So why is it so hard to believe that Noah’s Ark, which was quite a bit bigger and carried more than just one organism be unfathomable or impossible to have been true?

I’ll tell you. It’s based on your root belief system and the time you believe it takes to produce different variations within living organisms. Evolutionists believe it took millions or billions of years while Creationists believe it took thousands of years.

Just because we can’t completely understand it doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have happened, which applies to us all.

Most evolutionists believe we have evolved from an apelike creature different from what we are now, yet we can’t recreate it or see it. They can only come up with theories based on evidence that can be made to fit just about any theory, yet they believe it.

Creationists believe that all living things were created by God into separate kinds and were given the ability to produce different variations within those kinds. Well, guess what…we can recreate most of it and see it. So based on that fact…which is harder to believe...Creation or Evolution?

If you believe that every living thing evolved from one single celled organism than it isn’t much of a stretch at all to believe that the living organisms which were on the Ark produced everything we know lives today.

Evolution can be considered a theory. Creation can be considered a theory.

Theories are generally nothing more than educated guesses by people based on facts, but this one thing is true…only one of them is not a theory and only one of them is the truth.

The chances that Thomas, I or someone else will convince anyone of these things are most likely slim to none but for someone to say that Christians are uneducated or unscientific would be nothing more than an incorrect theory. A person can be more educated, but not necessarily correct. Being correct isn’t necessarily or entirely based on your education. It’s based on the truth.

It’s up to each and everyone one of us to find the truth. I personally don’t think any less of someone, who disagrees with me, because it wasn’t to long ago when I disagreed in what I now believe to be true.

Ray Cook

[SteveMcD]

Ray, that is an excellent letter. My only "shortcoming" would be that I don't believe Creation is a theory. It is a fact, because The Holy Bible tells us so. I will bend and agree that time is really not all that relevent considering eternity, than time has no meaning, and in the beginning a day could have been thousands of years or more.

[edmott]

I teach science in a christian school. I HAVE accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior IXOYE. That said . . . I was talking to my chem students about electron configurations and how different principal energy sub orbitals overlap. One of the students asked, "Why do they overlap?" I told him we leave the "Why" of things to The Lord and the "how" of things is where science exists. Any questions?

[BLACK WOLF]

Steve,

I thought that is how it might come across. I also believe Creation to be a fact but some people believe it to be a theory and that is why I used the words "can be".

Do you have any suggestions how to reword it.

Thanks,

Ray

[Dogsoldier]

well my question is...ok if we evolved from apes then where did the apes come from?and so on and so on

[Ray Cover]

Dog gone it Ray I was planning on going to bed on time tonight ;)

The problem is that both concepts, Creation and Evolution are impossible to prove with observable experimentation. The best we can do is look at all the information avialable to us and choose the model that makes the most logical sense based on that information.

Creationist are accused of basing their decision on faith and Evolutionist are handed the "scientific fact" card as a given. The truth is it takes just as much faith in "blind chance" for evolution to be true as it takes faith in a creative God for Creationism to be true. Because of the lack of observable test or experimentation there is an amount of faith required to beleive in either of the two options.

I believe in a six day creation event for the following reasons based on that information I mentioned above.

1. If something exist (ie matter, or matter organized into living organisms) it had to have had a beginning. Since self creation is impossible (something can't exist to make itself before it existed), there had to be a creative eternal being in in existance that had the ability to create matter out of nothing.

2. It is accepted as scientific fact that matter is neither created or destroyed, just changed. That concept supports a one time creation event.

3. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the natural state of things is to move from organization to chaos unless maintained or acted upon by an outside force. In other words If matter is left to itself It will break down from complex forms into more simple base forms. This directly contradicts evolutionary thought in which organisms develop from simple to more complex. However, it lends support to a creation model in which God created things in a perfect state and the effects of sin have caused it to be degrading ever since.

4. Modern micro biology has shown us that even the simplest of organisms are way to complex in their structure to have happend by random chance. There is way to much complex design for it to not have been designed. If it was designed there by default must be a designer. The mathmatical probablity of just one of these organism's biological systems existing by chance is a mathmatical impossibility. For all of this single cell orgainism's systems to come into existance in the same place at the same time and then to just happen to organize in such a way to make the living organism is just not a statistical possibility if left to random chance.

5. None of the transitional fossil forms Darwin expected to be found were found. There is fossil evidence of change within kinds of animals but transitional fossil forms that show the evolving from one kind of animal to another has not been found. Some claim that the Archeoptrix fossils are a transitional form between reptile and bird becasue there are (i think) five different variations of the creature in fossil form. There are no fossils showing the transition between reptile to Archeoptrix or from Archeoptrix to bird. This supports the idea that evalotuion within the archeptrix happend but does not support the idea that reptiles evolved into birds. If one kind of animal evolved into another then there should be many many of the transitional fossils found. Not just variations within kinds.

6. If I take the above and consider that for what we see around us to exist there had to be an eternally pre-exisitng designer who created matter out of nothing, then why do we need to give Him thousands of years to do it. If this creator is powerful enough to create something out of nothing and set into place all the physical laws for what He created, He has the power to create it all in a single day if He chose to (or a single second for that matter).
I have no problems with a six day creation. It was not too hard for such a creator to do.

7. Other models of the begining do not make any more sense than a creation. The Big Bang has a problem, a big one. Even if matter existed as a hypercompacted imploded mass just waiting to blow up into the world, there is the problem of inertia. One of the things law of inertia tells us that objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. That being the case, this imploded mass would have remained an imploded mass untill something came along to trigger its explosion into matter. If nothing pre-existed it to trigger it, it would not have "banged". We also hav ethe problem of what created the imploded mass to begin with. Unless we are willing to say that matter istelf is eternal with no beginning or end ( this in itself is as problimatic) the initial imploded mass had to be created.

So yes, Christians do have scientific and logical grounds to stand on for believing in a creation model over an evolutionary model. We have not checked our education or brains at the door.

As for the ark of Noah. D. James Kennedy did a program a while back on this issue. He made a very good case for the ark being big enough to hold all the animals stated in the Bible with room to spare. If I remember correctly Noahs family would have had an entire living level on the ark to themselves based on his model. One of the things he stated was that they would not have had to take one of every variation or type of dog, just one pair of wolves. Same with felines, bovines, etc. It is probably a given that he had more than one type of each kind but he certainly would not have had to have them all to meet God's requirements. He also could have taken many of them in egg or infant form. It wasn't a problem for him to take one pair of every unclean kind and seven of every clean kind and have them fit on the ark..

to bed I go.....................

Ray

PS. I'm going to stop using the "Ray C" because I just realized its not going to help :p

[Esquire]

Ray "with the C that don't help"

I have to disagree with one of your statements. You said "The truth is it takes just as much faith in "blind chance" for evolution to be true as it takes faith in a creative God for Creationism to be true."

My thought, after much consideration, is that it takes huge gargantuan leaps of blind faith to believe in the sort of evolution that has everything developing across species from simple organisms. It takes a comparatively tiny portion of reasoned faith to believe that an intelligent First Principal created "life, the universe and everything."

Mike

[Ray Cover]

You are right Mike. I misspoke, it is much easier to beleive that something with evidence of design was made by a designer than it is to beleive it happened randomly by accident.

Thanks for pointing that out. I really should not have put it the way I did. :amen:

Ray

[SteveMcD]

Black Wolf... my apologies. I did not mean my response to be so direct or stated bluntly at you. I realize your position as well. From a letter content perspective. It's an excellent letter just the way it is. :amen:

[Snag]

Good letter, Ray. People have been told a lie through our school system and they need to hear the other side of this. Our founding Fathers made it clear that the word of God was to be taught in our schools. They did this because in Europe the illiterate were unable to know His truth. They only knew what corrupt leaders in the church/politicians told them. Sounds like today doesn't it? I am amazed that your local paper would even consider this. Where do you live? I am in Eugene, Or. Why too liberal for this. I have found that if you bring up the idea that an evolutionist has to have MUCH MORE blind faith than a creationist that gets their attention. Good point. Come to them in a logical scientific manner and they listen a little more. Please let us know if it goes to print. D. James Kennedy does have some excellent speakers on the radio on this. You might look up his website and do a search for evolution and see what you find. The guy I heard was really good.

[edmott]

adam and eve -- garden -- kicked out -- able and caine -- caine kicked out -- goes east of eden to nod -- marries grown women who is not related -- have child called enoch.

adam and eve of hebrew chosen people but others outside garden. Could adam and eve have been created [chosen] and other outside of garden evolved?

When I die I'll ask.

[Esquire]

Here is a cut and paste from a thread where we discussed this issue, Edmott. Below is the link to the thread...

__________________________________________________ ________________________________________-

Hi Phil. Good questions and fair ones, my friend. I will take a crack at them.

Based upon scriptural testimony, I believe that Cain's wife must have been a descendant of Adam & Eve, that she was probably Cain's sister, and that Cain was most likely married before he departed from the presence of God and went to live in the land of Nod. Here's my basis.

If Adam is the first Man and Eve the "Mother of all Living" (Gen 3:20) then it is not unreasonable to suppose that Cain's wife must have been a descendant of theirs.

Adam lived 130 years before he fathered Seth, and 800 years after. Somewhere in there he "fathered sons and daughters." (Gen 5:3-4). the bible does not say when during those 930 years he fathered these children. It also does not say how many he fathered. So all we can conclude is that Adam and Eve had an indeterminate number of children. The bible tells some of their names, but it does not claim to give an exhaustive list. We would have to impose an assumption to conclude that the named children are the only children. At best, we simply don't know how many there were.

Also, the Bible does not say that Cain found his wife in the land of Nod. It says, rather, that he "knew her" or that he "lay with her", meaning sexual relations. In other words, he went to the land of Nod, slept with his wife, and they had a kid named Enoch! (Gen 4:16-17)

From that, we don't know that he found her there. We also admittedly don't know that he took her with him, but I think the latter is more likely. The point is, the evidence does not point to "another race of man" or some such thing.

As to the incest thing, the law of Moses was still a few thousand years out. There was no genetic reason for close relatives not to marry, because Adam and Eve had no genetic imperfections. If the bible is right, and death and decay are the result of sin and the curse, then it is not unreasonable to believe that genetic imperfections were divinely introduced at that point. Genetic scientists (I am not one:) ) think that after a few thousand years (fast forward to the time of Moses), genetic imperfections would have copied and multiplied to the extent that a prohibition against close relatives marrying became necessary. After such a passage of time the possibility of deformed offspring would have become a reality. In Cain's time, so shortly after the "fall" there would have been no such possibility.

All of this is to say that I do not view this issue of Cain's wife as a biblical inconsistency. It is an intriguing point for discussion, but I see nothing inherently contradictory in the biblical account.

I believe the Bible to be God's inspired word. It was written by men, but authored, inspired, protected and preserved by God himself. I don't believe that it contains any signifigant inconsistencies or errors.

I don't think that there is more to the bible than what we find in the bible. as far as that goes, it is complete. However, it is not a complete history of mankind. There are many wonders and tales and mysteries in this wide world of ours not covered in the bible. The bible is a record of some of God's interaction with man throughout history, and it certainly contains all of the information necessary for us to find our way back home to Him. Much about God and ourselves can only be discovered through relationship with Him, though. This I believe to be true.

In closing, I figure it must be the coffee giving you the energy to make us think this hard so early in the morning!! :)

Mike

http://www.tradtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1611

[Ray Cover]

Edmott

I really doubt it. By the time of Noah all of the human race had degraded morally Noah was the only one left who God saw as Righteous (beleiving in God). So even if God had made a seperate "chosen" race they went to hell in a hand basket during the flood right along with the pre-adamic folks your referencing.

There is really no evidence of a pre-adamic race. Adam and Eve lived long enough to see their great great great great great great etc. grandchildren grow to adulthood. It is more feasable that the first created couple could have poulated and multiplied to the point there were a thousand+ of their progeny on earth by the time they died. Cain would have had a lot of sisters, neices, and grand neices to choose from.

Even in my own family my grandmother had 7 out of 9 kids living, 31 living grandchildren and almost 50 great grandchildren and great great grand children living when she died. Your looking at almost 90 progeny from a woman who died at 83.

Considering that generations multiply rather than add, it is very probable that in his 930 years Adam saw well over a thousand humans who traced back to his loins. Many of those would have been alive when Cain needed a wife.

We tend to forget that just because a person is named in a book that they were not the only ones in existance. Cain, Abel and Seth are the only of Adams children named by name in the Bible but they were certainly not the only kids Adam and Eve had. They were just the only ones with a noteworthy history.

We also have a lot of language about God in scripture that would make an elite group and a "sub chosen" heathen group unlikely. Even though God chose the Hebrew nation (Which only existed after Abram) scripture tells us that He chose them with the purpose that they make God known to the world around them. They were to take the word of God to the other nations so those nations could serve God as well.

I don't believe the idea a created chosen race and a seperate evolved race really carries very far in light of scripture. :2cents:

JMHO
Ray

[Ray Cover]

Dog gone it Mike ya beat me to it again. :)

Ray

[Esquire]

Sorry Ray :)

[greenghost]

Before you can get anywhere on the creationism vs. evolution debate, you need to answer the following question: Do I think creationism is a scientific theory or do I think it is a religious doctrine NOT susceptible to scientific investigation?

What say you?

[Ray Cover]

I believe that Evolution and Creation are both religious doctrines (or beleif systems) that ARE suseptable to scientific investigation.

The debate cannot be define within the parameters you gave because the only two options you gave are far too narrow.

Both evolution and creation are belief systems. Evolution has the advantage in public view of being accepted as proven fact when that is far from reality. Creation has the misfortune of being considered a belief of the ingnorant who refuse ot beleive science. That is also if far from the truth.

Do I beleive there is scentific and logical evidence for a creation event? Yes I do.

Do I beleive that this creation event was done by God because of my faith and relationship with Him? Yes I do.

Is this beleif based on blind faith alone? No it is not. No more than my belief in gravity is based on faith alone...... And I do have great faith in gravity. It works every time. :)

You can't preclude evidence from the situation just because the faith element is present.

Ray

[greenghost]

Ray, Don't read too much into what I was asking. What I want to know is whether or not you guys think that creationism is an empirical theory in the sense that if the empircal evidence comes out one way, then we would have a reason to believe it and if it comes out another way, then we would have a reason to reject it.

What I am really asking after is not anything about the theory/view itself, but about what the grounds are for believing it? Some comments above very, very strongly suggest that some of you do not believe that creationism is an empirical theory in the above sense. Is that correct, or not?

[BLACK WOLF]

greenghost,

You asked - "Do I think creationism is a scientific theory or do I think it is a religious doctrine NOT susceptible to scientific investigation?"

I believe Creationism is a religious doctrine that can be tested scientifically.

Everything we believe is based on something and yes, if evidence proves it to contradict what the Bible teaches, then I would have a reason to question it. I have yet to see any evidence that contidicts what the Bible teaches beyond any shadow of doubt. I have only seen theories that contadict the Bible.

Ray ;)

[Ray Cover]

I can't speak for the other guys. But for myself. I would have to say both.

I do beleive in creation based on my faith in God.

I also beleive that there is enough evidence that supports creation over evolution that I would beleive it even if I could set my faith aside (and I openly admit I would have a very hard time doing that).

That being said, I have looked at many different models such as divine evolution or the idea that God used evolution to create. I have also seen theories that claimed God made the matter and then left it to its own to turn into something. I have even seen one put forth by scientist that life was put here by alien intelegence and natural selection took over from there. Then Darwinism/evolution and special creation are also in there of course.

After looking at what evidence that is available to me (and a lot of it is now days) I have come to the conclusion that a special creation event makes the most sense.

I would also propose that most evolutionist, if honest, have as much bias from their faith in naturalism as most creationist have from thier faith in a creator God. Both faction's bias can sway thier objective reading of the evidence.

Ray

[greenghost]

Ray, I agree with you on two counts. First, there are a large number of possible theories concerning evolution. Notably, there are theistic evolutionary doctrines and there are doctrines which involve the special creation of Man. One moral to draw: evaluating the theory of natural selection (or even evolution) does not require you to put your faith aside; it only requires you to put to one side a particular theological belief and this belief is itself not particularly well established even within religious circles.

[Incidentally, as I try to remind people whenever I can, Darwin did not come up with the "theory of evolution". Evolution was widely accepted both inside and outside the church prior to Darwin; in fact, virtually every educated person in the early to mid 1800s thought that evolution had occurred. Indeed, most of these people took evolution as so well confirmed that they thought that evolution provided solid evidence for God--proof that there existed a Great Chain of Being. What Darwin and Wallace "discovered" was not evolution, but the theory of natural selection.]

Second, I agree that "naturalism" and "materialism" do have a certain unwarranted bias in the sciences and in philosophy. However, I disagree that the bias here rises to the level of bias in reading the evidence that I see in creationist circles. This is not something that I can really establish here, just my experience dealing with fairly large numbers of people from both camps and fairly personal terms. Moreover, since the theory of natural selection is consistent with a denial of naturalism (and I know plenty of evolutionary biologists who fit this mold), the competitors and naturalism and theism not theism and natural selection.

However, I disagree with you on which way the evidence goes, I think it goes very heavily in favor of the theory of natural selection. Or, more carefully, I think the evidence goes heavily against creationism (construed as a number of acts of act special creation and no macroevolution) and fits natural selection pretty well. [For instance, contrary to popular belief, macroevolution has been observed in complex organisms, specifically, haplo-diploid plants (at least if you grant a definition of species in terms of gene flow or the failure of gene flow).] So my sense is that as far as the empirical evidence goes, creationism has been refuted about as thoroughly as a scientific theory can be refuted. Consequently, even putting aside the purely naturalistic/materialistic alternatives, I feel pretty confident that, for instance, theistic evolution is much better supported by the evidence than creationism. (I would be happy to explain my reasons in more detail if you or anyone else is interested.)

To see the point I am trying to get at in a different light. Imagine that there were no naturalistic evolutionists around, only theistic evolution. In that case, would you still have a problem with the teaching of evolution?

Black Wolf, do you mean that creationism can be supported by empirical evidence but not refuted, or do you accept that it can be refuted by empirical evidence as well?

[BLACK WOLF]

greenghost,

You asked - "Black Wolf, do you mean that creationism can be supported by empirical evidence but not refuted, or do you accept that it can be refuted by empirical evidence as well?"

Anything can be refuted, but just because someone believes they can refute it doesn't make it false.

Truth can't be changed. It is what it is. Our perception or what we belive in can change, so in faith I don't believe Creationism to be completely empirical. I don't believe it can be disproved, but I do believe it can and has been proven through science based on my own personal studies.

I wasn't born a Christian. I use to believe in what my science classes taught me in school, but had some doubts. It wasn't until I studied Evolution and Creation side by side about 7 yrs. ago did I come to the personal conclusion that the evidence we all have points more towards Creation than it does Evolution and it was that study that helped lead me to Jesus. I went into that study with hardly any bias only wanting to find the truth. The only bias I had was that I did believe in an Almighty Creator, I just didn't know who he was or how and why we are here.

Ray ;)

[Ray Cover]

GG,

I need a clarification on terms.

Micro evolution = change within species.
macro evolution = change from one species into another.

I understand these are very simplistic definitions I just want to make sure I an following you by making sure we have a common meaning to the vocabulary. I agree totally that micro evolution as defined above exist. But I would disagree that macro exolution exist based on the definition above.

I do agree with you and understand that there are variations on Darwins theroies and evolutionary thoughts. There will always individual interpretations on theories and each school of thought will have its own twist on things. I heard recently that some physicist (sp?) have even claimed to disproven Einstiens theory of relativity. We are totally on the same page on this part of the issue.

To answer your last question. I have looked at theistic evolution. Granted, I am an artist and not rocket scientist but I have several problems with a long term evolving of complex organisms out of simple organisms and simple organisms out of nothing with or without God's involvment.

Ray

[captaincaveman]

Chech out this site and download the seminars they're very interesting
http://www.drdino.com/

[greenghost]

Ray (BW), I absolutely agree that we should carefully seperate the truth of a theory from the evidence which supports it or fails to support it. However, I try my hardest to accept the theory which is best supported at the time (or to be agnostic if that is warranted). Failure to do so strikes me as irrational.

You write: "I don't believe it [creationism] can be disproved." You might mean that you speculate that no evidence will surface (or has surfaced) which disproves creationism; or you might mean that whatever evidence surfaces is irrelevant because creationism must be accepted come what may. Which of these you intend is crucial. If you mean the latter, then I would suggest that you do not believe that creationism is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are, at a minimum, things which could in principle be disproven if the evidence turns out a certain way.

On the other hand, suppose you do think it is a scientific theory. In this case, you believe that we should take a critical attitude toward creationism. That is, we should be actively seeking ways not only to support the theory, but was to disprove it as well. And what you should remember is that creationism had its day in the scientific world. At one point, not so long ago, it was THE standard theory--just read William Paley's Natural Theology. But construed as a scientific theory, the scientific community eventually opted for the Darwinian alternative. [Eventually, because Darwinism was initially rejected because it was thought to be genetically implausible. It wasn't until around the 1930s that the "New Synthesis" combined modern genetics with the theory of natural selection that we ended up with the current view of evolutionary biology.] And it wasn't rejected because of some vague secularist/naturalist bias. It was rejected because the people most expert in assessing the evidence thought that the evidence supported Darwinism over creationism. And while there may be a certain number of militant secularists in the world, most evolutionary biologists today accept Darwinism over creationism for the same reason (and quite independently of their religious beliefs). So if you think that creationism is a scientific theory and given the historical fact that it was once a widely accepted theory amongst biologists, how can you complain when the scientists reject it in favor of another theory? (Imagine a group of Lamarckian's complaining that Lamarck's theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics was no longer being taught!) The only way this gets off the ground is if you accuse the biologists of some sort of unscientific bias. But this is highly implausible since biologists can defend Darwinism without committing themselves one way or the other on God's existence. In short, if you think creationism is a scientific theory, then you can't cry foul when science passes it by--as science typically does with all of its theories.

Ray C, yes, we share the same understanding of macroevolution. If species are reproductively isolated populations of organisms, then macroevolution has been observed in plants.

I am not sure what you mean by "I have several problems ..." It is admittedly difficult to get one's mind around how this happens, but it is also difficult to get your mind around how big of a number 3.5 billions years is--the best current estimate of the appearance of life on earth. It is also worth noting that current evolutionary theory doesn't much conform to Darwin's old view of slow, incremental change. Today, evolutionary biologists believe that many, maybe even most, speciation events occur in relatively quick timeframes when major new environments open up for exploitation. The basic idea is that such environments reduce selective pressures and so many more "mutations" survive. As the environments begin to "fill up", the selction pressures begin to increase again and we begin to see fairly rapid speciation events.

[BLACK WOLF]

greenghost,

You said - "If you mean the latter, then I would suggest that you do not believe that creationism is a scientific theory."

Yes, you are correct, but if you would have done a better job at investigating you would have seen I already addressed that ;)

Here's the evidence ;) - "I believe Creationism is a religious doctrine that can be tested scientifically."

All evidence is open to interpretation and that interpretation will be to some degree or another controlled by your root belief system. If you don't believe in an Almighty Creator, there is no way it is going to be part of your interpretation unless something dramatic happens. There can be no way you could believe that our earth was formed in a mature state and appear to be older than what it is.

I've been down this road with many people like yourself. I was one of them at one time and I have learned that the chances of me or anyone else convincing you that we Christians do use science and do use logic to understand this world is slim to none.

You can hold onto your theory. We can't change the truth. We can only discover it or have it revealed to us.

Ray ;)

[greenghost]

Ray, Sorry for missing your comments. No excuse for sloppy reading.

You presuppose that I am not a Christian (which may or may not be true, depending on how broadly or narrowly you define "Christian"). And that I don't believe that Christians can use science or logic (which is false). And yet nothing I have said implies either of these things.

As far as my religious beliefs go, I do not presume to know God's mind. That said, my basic orientation is this: God has given me the mental faculties to investigate a learn about His creation--from the basic elements of life and matter, to the principles of logic and morals, to the very existence of God Himself. Blind faith seems a poor repayment for such mental riches.

[BLACK WOLF]

greenghost,

I hope you can sense I was just playing with you concerning your reading. I hope you took it light heartedly ;)

I'm not presupposeing weither or not your are a Christian. I haven't taken anything for granted or as a given. That is why I start most of those statements with "If".

I also know you like playing the devil's advocate.

As far as blind faith concerns me personally, the majority of my faith isn't blind. As I think about it, I don't believe any of my faith could truly be described as being blind. I believe God has opened my eyes and has revealed himself to me as a father would to his child. If I had no clue into who I thought He was than I might consider my faith as being blind, but I don't.

I won't pretend I have all the answers, but for the ones I am unsure of I have decided to put my faith into a being I believe loves me more than I can possibly begin to imagine.

Faith is a form of trust and an expression of love.

When a husband puts his faith and trust into his wife, it isn't foolish or blind when he understands how much she truly loves him. It isn't much different with God.

Your statement, "Failure to do so strikes me as irrational." led me to presuppose that you believed that Christians can't or often don't use logic.

I'm sorry if I took that wrong.

Ray ;)

[Ray Cover]

GG, not to get off topic but you made a little comment that set me on my backside. :)

Why would you say that logic is false? Without logical rational thought, nothing we know or can know holds up. Not even scientific investigation.

Also do you have any info on those transforming plants? I would like to read up on that.

Thanks,

Ray

[BLACK WOLF]

Ray,

I believe what greenghost was trying to say was that it would be false to presuppose that he believed Christians don't use science or logic.

Is that correct greenghost?

Ray ;)

[greenghost]

Ray C., Ray is right, I didn't mean that logic is false, only that it is false that I think Christians can't use logic.

I have to run, but will try to get back to you on the macroevolution stuff shortly.

Ray, I didn't take offense (and didn't mean to give any). It is the nature of the beast as far as e-communication goes. For my part, I try (though I don't always succeed) to assume that everyone is working to understand one another and give them a sympathetic hearing even where we disagree.

[greenghost]

Ray, I just wanted to make clear that I am not playing devil's advocate in this debate. Specifically, I do accept a Darwinian theory of the evolution of life on this planet. I do not regard such a view as incompatible with a religious perspective. BUT, my religious views are idiosyncratic and have nothing whatever to do with typical evangelical/fundamentalist Christian beliefs. To the extent that my religious beliefs tie into core Christian theology, it is to a very much older, less faith-based tradition (as in, e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas). I also accept a view of a personal God (I think this was made popular by Calvin as a response to the hiearchy of the Catholic church, but I am not a religious scholar), but again my views here are of a fairly radical stripe. For instance, I do not see the Bible as a particularly authorative document (unambiguous divine revelation), but rather as an historical document.

Let me give you an extended example. The philosopher Immanuel Kant distinguished between acting FROM duty and merely acting IN ACCORDANCE with duty. What he had in mind, roughly, was this: an act that is done on the basis of a correct moral principle is a right action; however, if it merely conforms to what the principle says but is not performed on the basis of that principle, then it is not really a morally correct action (it just appears to be from the outside--and God, of course, wouldn't be fooled!). My moral views are similar to Kant's on this matter. But I want to say that it isn't enough to simply be given some list of moral principles (even if they are the right ones, and even if they are given by God) and to act from them. Rather, fully correct action requires not merely acting from correct principles but having some idea as WHY those are the correct principles. And because I think that the answer "Because God says so" is an inadquate moral ground, I think it is imporant (very important) to pursue a study of moral principles independently of any simple appeal to God. [I leave open the possibility that after a lot of work that hasn't yet been done, some appeal to God may be required.]

At any rate, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I just didn't want to come across as being something I am not.

Ray C., There are two sorts of cases in which macroevolution has been observed in the lab. The first concerns certain chromosomal rearrangements (translocations) in fruit flies (Drosophila) done by Kozhevnikov. The resulting population, named D. artificialis, is completely isolated reproductively from the parent species.

The second sorts of cases come from polyploid plant species in which the chromosomes are duplicated one or more times in the gametes giving rise to offspring that have more chromosomes than the parents. In 1924, Karpechenko crossed the radish with the cabbage. Each of these species contains 9 chromosomes, but the cross contained 18 (9R + 9C). A few of these hybrids turned out to be fertile, they bred true and were reproductively isolated from both parent species (i.e., you couldn't breed them back to cabbages or radishes and produce fertile offspring). Clausen and Goodspeed performed a similar sort of synthesis with tabacco plants (Nicotiana). These examples would be far easier to perform today with the advances in genetic engineering.

You can probably Google (or Google Scholar) a discussion of this by searching for "allopolyploidy" or "autopolyploidy" or maybe "species synthesis".

What these experiments show fairly unequivocally, is that the transmutation of species is an empirical possibility. They also help provide a case for this having actually occurred naturally. For instance, the wheat family falls into three natural groups based on chromosome number: one group has 7 chromosomes, one 14 chromosomes, and one 21 chromosomes. This series of groups is usually referred to as a polyploid series.

[BLACK WOLF]

greenghost,

If your motivation isn't to convince me or anyone else of anything, than what is your motivation to respond to threads like these?

Ray ;)

[greenghost]

Ray, Well...what I meant was I didn't intend to convince you that my particular religious views are ones that you should adopt. (Actually, I wouldn't mind convincing you of this, since I think you should adopt them. I just wasn't trying to do it with the sketch I was offering.) I do, however, want to convince you that the battle against big-bad evolutionary theory is a misguided one.

[BLACK WOLF]

greenghost,

And....the battle against big-bad Creation is a misguided one ;)

Ray ;)

[greenghost]

But Ray, how could the defense of the truth be misguided? ;)

[BLACK WOLF]

My point precisely ;)