Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

Well, off to camping and the beach. Play nice until I get back! 🙂

This weekend’s beach reading is Denis Lamoureux’s new book “I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution.” Maybe John will be reading Lenski’s papers.

Until then, a comic relevant to the thread: enjoy!

John, just out of interest what do you consider to be Intelligent Design’s “very trenchant criticisms of current theories of evolution?”
The only idea that I am even really aware of is ‘irreducible complexity’ which has not been well received by the scientific community, who think that in contrast to Behe’s claims these proposed systems do have plausible evolutionary origins. Moreover, as I see it (and gabriel could correct me here) irreducible complexity is not really an argument against evolution. It’s not uncommon to see websites saying “irreducible complexity refutes macroevolution” or “irreducible complexity destroys Darwinsim” but in reality irreducible complexity, even if we grant it as true, is an argument against the creative power of natural selection (or other mechanisms), but it doesn’t really provide much of an argument against common descent, which is what most anti-evolutionists have the problem with. I guess this is evidenced by the fact that Michael Behe completely accepts the evidence for common descent, and has no argument with it. It always amazes me that so few people who support Behe’s ideas seem to be aware of this.
The problem is though that since the evidence for common descent is so strong, at what stage did the designer intervene to design the flagellum? This leads to Behe’s idea of the first cell having been planted on earth, somehow fronted loaded with information. So we have this bizarre idea of quiescent genes, waiting for future organisms to appear so that they can make use of them. This doesn’t seem to fit with anything we know about genetics or the distribution of traits throughout the phylogenetic tree.

Geoff, yes I’ve read it whatever made you ask that question?

If you think the segment you copied addressed what I asked, you’re mistaken.

Again does anyone know the answer to these questions?

Questions:

As only a rough draft (of the chimp genome) is referenced (in Wood’s paper), how much of the total chimp genome has actually been sequenced?

I’ve read that the chimp genome is 10-12% larger than human. Do you have other info?

re 1149 by Gabriel

Um, Gabe, your argument is the very definition of the logical fallacy. The number of papers on evolution is irrelevant to their truth value. What is relevant is the reasoning and facts contained in the papers. A large number of papers all leaning in one direction is warrant for an inference that they may probably be true, but a probabilistic inference is not a logical deduction.

In dealing with Richard, I did not rely on the number of papers supporting old earth as logical proof of his error on age, but made the probabilistic inference and then went to specific pieces of evidence to actually make my points. In fact, I specifically noted that merely relying on papers would result in a he said / she said sort of argumentation that would not go anywhere.

Actual arguments are preferred rather than ad hominem (another fallacy) arguments about pulling my head out of the sand. Should I respond with comments about how you skipped logic class in university? Hardly, please stick to actual arguments.

Romans 1:20 does not refer only to the cosmos, but inclusively refers to the world and all that is made. That would include living things. Under your theory of evolution, one cannot look at any living thing and know whether it was a product solely of materialist forces or gives an indication of the involvement of God. Therefore it is a problem for your view from a theistic perspective. And the verse is not referring to God’s sustaining of the universe; that proposition is found in other verses.

Your comment on coral is none responsive to my point. You asserted that part of my argument against Richard’s YEC argument was a reliance on God’s designing coral. I disagreed and indicated that I relied on what we observe about coral. Now you indicate that the coral design comment relates to your belief in God sustaining the universe. That diversion from your original point is a red herring fallacy. I take it, then, that you back off from your previous assertion that I relied on some sort of design argument with respect to the evidence from coral for an old age of the earth.

As to your argument regarding my allleged belief in a global conspiracy–again another ad hominem fallacy. First, there is no evidence from my assertions that I believe in a global conspiracy (and I don’t), so you are merely putting words in my mouth to denigrate my argument by mockery (the logical fallacies just keep coming). Second, even if I did believe in a global conspiracy, that belief is irrelevant to the truth of my arguments (another fallacy, for which I provided the definition in my earlier posts).

Should I mock your poor logic as well as pointing out the errors? Though you set the example, it does not advance anything to do so. However, your continued use of fallacies and mockery does greatly disincline me to bother arguing with you. Though I also believe Richard to be wrong, at least he argued reasonably.

Since neither Geoff nor Gabriel appear to get the point I make about common DNA, I will try again.

Gabe in particular continues to confuse apologetic arguments for the existence of a creator with arguments for how a creator should have done his creating.

Common DNA requires no explanation for those of us who assume a creator, because no one has any grounds for any belief about how a creator should have done his creating. Gabe continues to speculate about how a Creator should have done His designing; I argue that there are no grounds and no warrant for his speculations.

Common DNA does, however, provide grounds for a belief in common descent and evolution by genetic modification, an entirely different argument. Common DNA does not, however, logically prove common descent. The strength of the argument for common descent and evolution by modification of DNA depends on the number and strength of the various arguments made in favour of it, balanced against the strength of arguments made against it.

Completely naturalistic and materialist evolution does provide an apologetic argument against the existence of God, which must be balanced with other arguments for and against His existence. In so far as common DNA contributes to an argument supporting materialist evolution, it also supports an argument against God.

Because Gabe appears to have missed one of my points, I’ll repeat it. The chronological appearance of various kinds of life, as indicated by dated fossils (whether dated relatively by their ordering, or absolutely by radiometrics) does indicate that something is going on other than the creation of all kinds of life simultaneously and instantaneously. What I assert, however, that what is going on is not Darwinian evolution by way of random, undirected, incremental, gradualist changes in DNA and the removal of DNA by way of death.

It seems to me (and Richard, do you get the same impression?) that Gave and Geoff believe in a version of evolution that is completely materialist. That is, everything from the first cell to all life today and in the fossil record can be explained materially without any supernatural intervention. Am I correct, G and G? IN addition, do you also believe that life came from non-life in a solely materialist manner?

I read the comic and I’m glad to see that Gave can engage in some self deprecating humour about how he does science. Or wait, was he being mocking and disrespectful again?

Regards,
#John

Richard, I share your frustration with how Gabe is arguing and how he has not been responsive to your questions. If I have done the same to you during this thread, I apologize.

Regards,
#John

Richard, at least you’re being consistent. You reject the majority of modern science because you feel it conflicts with your interpretation of Genesis.

This is a completely false statement. I categorically do not reject “the majority of modern science”. Please show me where I’ve said anything at all that leads to your conclusion.

This is the equivalent of me saying “Gabe, you reject the majority of scripture because you feel it conflicts with your interpretation of modern science.” — which I have not said.

Genomic considerations

From Todd Wood’s paper:

The human genome project recognized that repetitive regions that consist of arrays of tandemly duplicated sequence are difficult to sequence (Collins et al. 1998). They therefore recommended that any gaps that could not be sequenced should be noted and the gap size recorded. As a result of these standards, the finished human genome sequence lacks many different repetitive regions (known collectively as heterochromatin), but it is still proper to refer to it as a finished sequence. As a rough draft sequence, the chimpanzee is not finished and contains many gaps of unknown size.

and from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Chimpanzee (emphasis added)

A comparison of a rough draft of the chimpanzee genome—involving 361,782 contiguous fragments with a medium length of 15,700 nucleotides, covering about 94 percent of the chimpanzee genome—with the human genome, for those sequences that could be aligned, averaged 1.23 percent nucleotide mismatches (The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005).

What is the size of the unsequenced gaps in the human genome?

Since in 2006, the chimp genome had “many gaps of unknown size”, are there any updates to better quantify this.

I continue to ask these types of questions because I like to think critically, and I do not ignore the history of scientific discovery in which the data overlooked as being unimportant (per then current theory) turns out to be *very* important, sometimes leading to a completely new theory.

I have no reason to believe that the unsequenced heterochromatin regions are junk DNA. There is probably no area of science in which are understanding is growing faster than molecular biology. We are beginning to get a glimpse of the role of the epigenetic mechanisms. It was recently believed (falsely) that the vast majority of our DNA was left over junk from our evolutionary history. Thus this “junk DNA” was most often ignored in detailed analysis.

I’ve spent more than 30 years in software/systems engineering, with the past 11 years working on a computer program that consists of over 800,000 lines of source code, yielding over 700,000 bytes of code and 1,700,000 bytes of data.

(continued)

(Genomic considerations – continued)

I can change a single compile switch and re-target the program to a completely different operating environment. The operational behavior is dynamically adapted by a configuration file of typically under 20,000 bytes, which typically differs from one instance to another by under 4000 bytes. The total number of operating states is at least in the millions. Thus, an information processing system, can be *dramatically* controlled by a very small percentage change in data. In this case, a 4kb change out of 2.4mb or just 0.17% is all that’s required. BTW, this ignores the fact that my program runs on an operating system at least 10 times its size, which executes on a processor which itself can have billions of transistors, and its own complex microcode. You begin to get the idea….

Anyone who thinks a computer program and its operating environment isn’t child’s play compared to our genome is delusional.

Recently, Shapiro has been using computer systems analysis vocabulary to discuss this topic:

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/contextgenome.html

I argue for a computational view of genome function as the long-term information storage organelle of each cell. Structural formatting consists of organizing various signals and coding sequences into computationally-ready systems facilitating genome expression and genome transmission. The basic features of genome organization can be understood by examining the E. coli lac operon as a paradigmatic genomic system. Multiple systems are connected through distributed signals and repetitive DNA to form higher-order Genome System Architectures. Molecular discoveries about mechanisms of DNA restructuring show that cells possess the Natural Genetic Engineering functions necessary for evolutionary change by rearranging genomic components and reorganizing system architectures. The concepts of cellular computation and decision-making, genome system architecture, and natural genetic engineering combine to provide a new way of framing evolutionary theories and understanding genome sequence information.

Analysis of the mechanisms that allow my program to dynamically adapt itself to a changing operational environment has nothing to do with how these designed mechanisms came to exist in the first place.

Evolution must explain how novel, previously non-existent mechanisms come into existence. Let’s try to have a discussion of precisely this aspect of “evolution”. The typical explanation seems to involve gene duplication with subsequent undirected mutation, along with lateral gene transfer, etc. These mechanisms assume the prior existence of genes and the entire epigenetic capability for replication. Hence my question for TEs: where do you start with only “natural laws” being involved?

Is anyone else having problems posting? I’ve tried several times and lost my posts.

Regarding just how different genetic comparison can be from anatomical comparison, and just how quickly presumed evolutionary relationships can change, consider the article below from 2006. Also, think about what it means for the current theory when data shows up that “no one expected”. Similarly, “we need to look at fossils from a new point of view” implies that the current point of view is wrong.

What this shows is that various methods of analysis result in differing phylogenetic relationships….and yet we’re continually told that it’s all “fact”.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9402-bats-and-horses-get-strangely-chummy.html

‘YOU could call it a batty idea, but bats seem to be more closely related to horses than cows are.

Once thought to belong to the same group as primates, bats actually belong to the super-order Pegasoferae, which contains horses, cats and dogs, cows, whales and hedgehogs. Within this group, bats were thought to be only distant cousins to horses, but DNA analysis suggests that only cats and dogs are more closely related to horses than bats are (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0603797103).

“I think this will be a surprise for many scientists,” says Norihiro Okada at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan. “No one expected this.”

Okada and his colleagues looked at genetic mutations caused by retroposons, lengths of DNA that can copy themselves into RNA and then reverse-copy themselves back into DNA at a different location on a chromosome. Closely related species share more of these mutations than more distant relatives. The analysis by Okada’s team forces a rethink of the relationships of many mammalian orders, which are currently classified by morphological and nuclear DNA sequence data.

“We need to look at fossils from a new point of view, because there must have been a common ancestor of bats, horses and dogs,” Okada says.’

Thanks everyone from both sides for their interaction. I’ve been following it the best i can (almost 1200 posts!) and heres what I got out of it so far.

I did have a question though and perhaps I’ve just missed it in the sea of comments:

The YEC interpretative method is equatable to those who arrive at a Heliocentric universe. I think that was shown pretty clearly and reptitively. My question for Theistic Evolutionists (which is where this conversation appears to be going) is this:

What does one do about Pauls comments regarding Adam where it seems pretty clear that He is refering to a literal Adam (again I’m assuming most TEs go with the idea that the human species had multiple “pairings” of humans for the species to survive and thrive). This is my biggest hangup with TE, the literal Adam seems so essential to the literal Christ.

Thanks for the insightful comments from all.

John @ 1155:

What is relevant is the reasoning and facts contained in the papers.

Indeed. Of course I am not arguing based on the bulk of publications providing evidence for evolution, impressive though it is. I’d be happy if we could discuss the reasoning and facts of two papers I’ve brought forward.

Common DNA requires no explanation for those of us who assume a creator, because no one has any grounds for any belief about how a creator should have done his creating.

If you really believe that why are you arguing so strongly that He didn’t do it through evolution?

I still don’t see how these arguments address points of similarity that do not serve a present purpose in the genome: shared pseudogenes (especially those for which it is easy to see how they once served a purpose, such as the vitellogenin locus which served our egg-laying ancestors well in its time). Or, the issue of humans having a fused chromosome that matches what we see as separate chromosomes in chimpanzees.

John, you don’t really have a good answer for these lines of evidence, do you?

BTW, did you read any of Lenski’s papers yet?

So … d’ya think they’ll ask his views on creation/evolution during his confirmation hearing? (assuming he has to go through a hearing) 😀

Obama taps geneticist for NIH post
By Jeffrey Young
Posted: 07/08/09 04:24 PM [ET]

President Obama will nominate famed geneticist Francis Collins to head the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the White House announced Wednesday.

Collins oversaw the completion of the groundbreaking Human Genome Project, which compiled a complete map of the makeup of human genes, while the director of the NIH’s National Human Genome Research Institute during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

Collins was widely considered for months to be the lead contender for the post helming the prestigious biomedical research agency, which has an annual budget of more than $30 billion.

The NIH’s budget doubled during the two previous administrations and Obama has vowed to increase it even more.

The agency got a $10 billion boost in this year’s economic stimulus bill. Obama’s budget request calls for a $443 million boost in the NIH’s budget for next fiscal year.

Notably, the White House announced Obama’s intent to nominate Collins two days after the NIH unveiled its final guidelines on funding embryonic stem cell research.

This type of stem cell research is highly controversial because embryos are destroyed in the process of deriving the cells. Stem cells from embryos are prized by scientists, however, because of their potential to be converted into virtually any type of human tissue, which means they could prove key to developing treatments for countless ailments.

President Obama issued an executive order in March that freed up federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Bush twice vetoed bipartisan legislation that would have expanded federal funding in this area. Obama has said he would sign such a bill.

Nice to see Collins get the nod from Obama. Collins, though a better scientist than theologian, has been such an influence for good on this issue, showing how one can be a top-level scientist and a person of strong Christian faith.

I notice too that Scot McKnight of “Jesus Creed” fame is setting up an online discussion group that will read and discuss Walton’s new book that has been a subject of some debate in this thread. If you’d like to join the conversation wander on over and have a look.

Scot’s blog (linked above) is always an enjoyable read. He even has a scientist friend who posts from time to time on issues similar to what we’ve been hashing over here.

I am a member of the American Scientific Affiliation (an organization of Christians in the sciences). The ASA has an email list-serve discussion group, and lately there has been some discussion of human : chimp issues. You can see the current online archive (sorted by subject) for this month here.

Scroll down to the “chromasome [sic] fusion #2” thread and you can see the discussion there. Note that this is an open listserv, so there are scientists and laypersons commenting (typically more laypersons than scientists). If you do decide to participate in the thread be aware that the forum is moderated and good behavior is expected (for the most part this thread has been a refreshing change from the usual vitriol one finds online on this issue, so I don’t think anyone who has been commenting here need be concerned).

cheers,

gabe

So, I’m back! But only briefly. Everyone is asleep for the moment so I have time to do a quick stealth post!

A bit of satirical humor for those following this board!

Concordists of all flavors won’t like it, but for someone like me I found it hilariously funny and true!

4:58-5:15 brings up contextualization issues!

Gabe,

Could you explain about mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam? It’s rather confusing as to what scientists actually mean by these terms.

To Josh post 1163

RE: What does one do about Pauls comments regarding Adam where it seems pretty clear that He is refering to a literal Adam.

Paul is referring to Adam in Genesis. It really does not matter if Adam is literal or literary. The important things are the theological truths that the story of Adam conveys.

Actually I find it much more insightful to no longer have to believe Adam was a literal person. That way I focus on what God was and still is trying to communicate to us through the Genesis stories. In this case, that we are all descended from a common stock. So all persons are equal before God not only in human dignity, but also in their moral crisis before God. The only way out, as Paul affirms, is to be born into a new humanity, the founder of which is Jesus Christ.

Tthat’s how I see it as a ECer

What do you think of this?

http://www.christilling.de/blog/2009/07/created-out-of-water.html

Created out of water

I’m rather enjoying my break this summer, but I did want to share one thought on a NT understanding of creation.

A while ago I noted that (I think) most OT scholars think Genesis 1 – together with the other known myths in Akkadian literature – reflects a belief that creation was not there understood as creation ex nihilo, but rather as the command of order on chaos. This view reflects a more popular reading of Genesis 1:1 as ‘In the beginning when God created’ or ‘in the beginning of God’s creation, the earth being …’. ‘The narrative’, as OT scholar John Goldingay argues, ‘indeed presupposes the existence of matter, of raw material for God to use’ (Old Testament Theology. Volume 1: Israel’s Gospel [Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2003], 80).

Rather interestingly, though many jump to passages in Paul to defend creation ex nihilo in the NT (which I suspect only suggest the seeds for a later ex nihilo doctrine), such as Romans 4:17, have you ever meditated on 2 Peter 3:5?

‘They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water’

Richard Bauckham comments in his Word commentary:

‘According to the creation account in Gen 1, and in accordance with general Near Eastern myth, the world—sky and earth—merged out of a primeval ocean (Gen 1:2, 6–7, 9; cf. Ps 33:7; 136:6; Prov 8:27–29; Sir 39:17; Herm. Vis. 1:3:4). The world exists because the waters of chaos, which are now above the firmament, beneath the earth and surrounding the earth, are held back and can no longer engulf the world. The phrase ἐξ ὕδατος (“out of water”) expresses this mythological concept of the world’s emergence out of the watery chaos, rather than the more “scientific” notion, taught by Thales of Miletus, that water is the basic element out of which everything else is made (cf. Clem. Hom. 11:24:1)’ (Bauckham, R. J., Jude, 2 Peter, p.297).

I find it particularly interesting that the context of 2 Peter 3 links this to God’s faithfulness to his promises, which once again links God’s faithfulness to his covenant to the whole of creation. But in terms of creation, what are we to make of the (later) doctrine of ex nihilo in light of such biblical themes. One can either: (cont’d)

(cont’d)

One can either:

1.Reject ex nihilo as a doctrine in light of scripture, which would, for example, perhaps help deal with the knotty problem of theodicy. ‘God did not created chaos’, it could be argued, his creation power was its limiting.

2.Argue that ex nihilo is an entirely new doctrinal development, yet can be embraced as a correct doctrine on the basis of the Spirit’s guidance of the church

3.Maintain that ex nihilo, while a later development, is consistent with seeds of truth already to be found in the NT and Apocrypha. This the doctrine reflects a legitimate and further nuanced development of the understanding of creation (ex nihilo only being clearly formulated, so maintain I think the majority, in the 2nd century AD). Perhaps the church’s developing formulations of Trinitarian faith is an inadequate potential comparison.

Gabe,

Could you explain about mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam? It’s rather confusing as to what scientists actually mean by these terms.

The farther back in generations one goes, the more ancestors are shared (ancestors in common). Eventually you reach a point of convergence, past which all ancestors are the same.

Y-chromosome Adam is this common ancestor for all modern males (the Y chromsome). Mitochondrial Eve is this ancestor for everyone (since everyone has mitochondria, but this genome is passed only through females since mitochondria are not passed through sperm.

Now, these two were not a couple! They lived many thousands of years apart. The most recent common ancestor of our genomic DNA (the non-Y chromosomes) lived about 200,000 years ago, earlier still than these two.

I know it’s confusing. Imagine it this way:

For myself and my brother, our dad is sort of our “Y chromosome Adam”. Our mom is our “mitochondrial eve.” My genome, however, is the mix-matched bits of many people (passed through my grandparents and their ancestors). My nieces and nephews share part of that, but have a different source as well through my sister-in-law. My nephews still have my dad as their Y Adam, but they have a different Mito Eve. So you see that as you track back in time the most recent “Adam” and Eve for everyone alive will not be the source of their genomic (chromosomal) DNA.

clear as mud? 🙂

on another topic, it seems that John finally gave up in face of strong evidence for human / chimp common ancestry. One only wonders if he is pondering the evidence or has closed his mind to it…

What I would like to know is how Todd Wood manages to do research in genomics are not accept common descent. How can somebody who is trained as he is look at the evidence and still deny what is obviously true? He must understand the evidence, and he obviously has no alternative explanation, so why is he holding out? Reading his article is just desperately sad, a man doing all he can to fight evident reality.

Gabriel, I am not a Christian and I stumbled across this forum through Gordon J Glover’s youtube series and web blog (which I must say are very good even from my point of view). I don’t wish to upset this discussion dealing with theological issues among Christians, but after I came across it and realised that there was an actual biologist here who was a theistic evolutionist a thought occurred to me. There is an incredibly annoying Youtube user named Nephilimfree who goes around youtube spamming the same copied and pasted arguments all over the place, and telling everyone how he has engaged in online debates with ‘evolutionist scientists’ and he has destroyed them. Since there is no evidence for these debates, I challenged him to come here and talk to you, where people could actually see it. I put this challenge to him a week ago, and he obviously didn’t come here. Today I see another video comments section filled with him spreading his misinformation again, and so I challenged him again and he responded concerning you saying;
“He told me in a message he was not a working biologist, but a masters degree student. I declined. I debate working professional scientists only.”

I have replied that this is in direct contrast to your comments here where you state clearly that you are a PhD biologist who teaches at a university. I trust that he has made up his claim about you, and that he has made no effort to contact you, but I just wanted to check with you that this is accurate.

I also apologize that I could have potentially disrupted this discussion and you no doubt have better things to do than engage in long dialogue with unqualified individuals who think that all of science is an atheistic hoax but this guy is really, really annoying.

Hi Sean,

I am indeed a PhD Biologist (cell biology & genetics). I have a tenured faculty position at an accredited university. I teach genetics and cell/molecular biology type courses and do laboratory research in these same areas.

I’ve never had any contact with this individual. I suppose the most charitable explanation is that he mistook me for someone else. I’ve seen some of his videos and they are beyond belief!

To be honest, I don’t think a discussion would be profitable. He’s too far gone. Still, feel free to try send him over here again if for no other reason to show up his boasts for the empty claims they are. Maybe the YECs on this thread can experience the feeling of being called heretical for one’s scientific views! The mind boggles.

Best,

gabe

Gabriel, have you read Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer, and if so what do you as a biologist make of it? I listened to an interview here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFM5op8WU5o&feature=PlayList&p=9DFD1AD13F3115C9&index=0&playnext=1 – where Meyer just uses the same arguments about “code” and “information” which have so far proved to be deeply unconvincing to the community of working scientists. Meyer however thinks that this is the relaunch of ID after Dover.

Hi Arty,

I have only seen a few small quotes from Meyer’s new book, just today in a presentation, in fact. Ironically, just yesterday I was asked to to a book review of it as well. So I don’t have an opinion now, but I will in a few weeks. The quotes I saw were not at all convincing, and I have reason to believe that they may be representative of the book, since the presentation was by a fellow of the Discovery Institute (though not Meyer himself).

I’ll reserve judgment until I’ve read more of it, though.

best,

gabe

Does the jumping of a virus from a primate species to humans say anything one way or the other about common descent?

French virologists on Sunday said they had found a new subtype of the AIDS virus that appears to have jumped the species barrier to humans from gorillas.

Until now, all have been linked to the chimpanzee….

Full article:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.1a5d29fbe860a50d2565dda36f627ee5.1b1&show_article=1

E.g., how common are virus jumps to humans from non-primates?

Hi EricW,

I’m not sure about the relevance of virus transmission to common descent, but it is an undeniable fact of taxonomy that humans are primates. This would be true even if evolution were completely wrong, and it is Linneus, a creationist, who worked it out, not Darwin.

I am in my fifties and have believed in God since 1996, not very long considering my age. The only reason I believe in God now is because I was loaned books by some Christian freinds. These books showed me the evidence for what I know now is called “Young Earth Creationism”. The evidence is pretty convincing, especially coming from a position of not believing in God at all. If anybody is curious what books I read, and what I have read since, I have my testimony on my website: http://X-Evolutionist.com

X

I am in my fifties and have believed in God since 1996. I believe in God because I books with scientifuc evidence for what I know now is called “Young Earth Creationism”. The evidence is pretty convincing, especially coming from a position of not believing in God at all. I have my testimony on my website: http://X-Evolutionist.com. X

X-Evolutionist,

I have looked at your website. One thing that I was a little surprised by was your list of books. It’s something that has always occurred to me as rather odd, namely creationists’ extremely selective reading. If I wanted to find out about a certain topic I would make sure that I consult the most respected and qualified experts in that field. So my question is really quite simple; why, in order to educate yourself about evolution, did you read a series of books by various people, almost none of whom are scientists? Would you be happy to accept your local baker’s opinion concerning a medical condition you had? I would hope not, and therefore why act differently when attempting to educate yourself about science? The only person who is on your book list but who could really be considered a scientist is Michael Behe, are you aware that that he accepts the common ancestry of all life, including humans? In his most recent book ‘The Edge of Evolution?’ he describes several pieces of genomic evidence for the common ancestry of chimps and humans and says “it’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.”
Why is this book not on your list? Did you read it? Have you read anything by any trained Christian biologists; Darrel Falk, Francis Collins, Denis Lamoureux, Richard Colling, Denis Alexander etc? If not, why not?

Hi Geoff,

You asked about the books I read. I was a die-hard evolutionist with no belief in God until my forties. I was dared to read a couple of books. The books I read were cited with many direct quotes from peer reviewed science journals. I could see that there was no proof for the particles to man evolution to man that I was taught. After a few months of being between beliefs, I finally had a born again experience. A literal reading of Genesis, combined with the physical evidence, fits perfectly. I feel no need to search for other explanations.

Thanks for asking.

X

The books I read were cited with many direct quotes from peer reviewed science journals.

My experience/reading of creationists’ quotes from peer-reviewed science journals is that they quote selectively and out of context, which is why those who are thus quoted often reject the creationists’ use of quotes of their material and the conclusions the creationists draw from them.

A literal reading of Genesis

I assume you are reading the original Hebrew text and have a proficient knowledge of the grammar and the related literature.

EricW, In answer to your question about selective quotes, check out this book: Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow. The appendix has a very detailed discussion of the dating of the fossil skull KNM-ER 1470. The science journal “Nature” is where the researchers published their research regarding this skull and their papers in “Nature” are quoted extensively. According to the many quotes from “Nature” it took a period of ten years to date this one fossil skull. This skull caused a big controversy in the scientific community and that’s why it took ten years for them to agree. This ten year process is detailed step by step using the words of the researchers, themselves. There were many dates given by the various radiometric dating techniques. The scientists could not agree on the “right” date of the many that were given by the various techniques. The author shows that a lot of the science related to the fossils and evolution is subjective. X

[…] Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate […]

One of the most helpful books I’ve read on the age of the universe is Matthew Hedman’s The Age of Everything. K-Ar tests on meteorites consistently and reliably show us a universe that is about 15 billion years old.

Of the six views, I am also of the camp that says anything but YEC. I used to think more of the gap theory, but now I think more of the framework interpretation. Gerald Schroeder’s picture of how 6 days from God’s perspective at the center of the universe can also be 15.75 billion years when viewed from earth is very convincing. This also allows for theistic evolution. I am still unsure how Adam and Eve fit in, but more about that in a moment. It is fascinating that Isaac ben Samuel of Acre, in the 14th century, calculated a 15 billion year age for the universe based on a divine year being 365 days, with each day being a thousand years.

On Adam and Eve, in Christ we are all made alive, yet Christ is not the physical ancestor of us all. In fact, Christ left no biological children that we know of. So when we read that in Adam all die, isn’t it just as Scriptural to conclude that Adam’s being a spiritual representative of all mankind does not mean that he had to be the biological ancestor of all mankind? Yes, it is.

Also, when Christ made us all alive and righteous, we still have a lot of earth history to live out before we shed this body of sin nature and the presence of sin in the world and the temptations from the devil. We were made righteous the day Christ rose from the dead, yet we won’t see the complete effects of it until the last day. So why do we want to go by the strict interpretation that there was no death or presence of sin before Adam? Adam’s sin bringing sin into the world does not have to be prior to the beginning of sin’s presence in the world. It can be the cause without occurring first in time. We also believe that people in the Old Testament were made righteous by faith in Christ, even though the act that made men righteous was not carried out in time until the Common Era (AD). I still believe that God breathed a spirit into mankind when He created Adam, even though there probably were many other humans around at the time of Adam, as Moses himself seems to also confirm when he writes about Cain going to the land east of Eden, wearing a mark so the other people wouldn’t kill him, and finding a wife there. What confuses me still, is how the Americans could be spiritual people even if they lived six thousand years before Adam, but this could be a miracle from God instead of a biological inheritance.

A common myth is that literal YEC’s don’t believe in evolution. Actually, YEC’s have to believe in evolution occurring even faster than what scientists say it does in order to account for the myriad of species on the earth today all descending from the small number of species which were present on the ark in Noah’s day. Kenneth Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God addresses…

The discussion on whether rabbits chew the cud rather bores me. The Mosaic Law never commands anyone to eat every animal which is clean; it only prohibits the eating of unclean animals. So if an animal was listed there which really should have been a clean animal, and they didn’t eat of it, then there was no harm done and they still kept the law.

I agree #6 and see no conflict. Jesus Lord and Savior. T-Rex and Neanderthals and amoebas have nothing to do with it. The word/mind/ primal thought/God became flesh in process and steps.

[…] After much wrestling with this post, I decided to abandon any attempt to create the Mother of All Summaries, and concentrate on a few ideas that interest me right now. There’s a useful comparison table here which unfortunately still neglects some views. Here’s another useful summary […]

[…] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/six-views-on-the-creationevolution-debate/ […]

Good blog. I find the critique of both sides simple and to the point. My personal belief lies somewhere between #5 and 6, with a framework interpretation of genesis 1, and I’m keenly aware of the shortcomings of my own interpretation. Unfortunately, nothing I’ve read so far has sounded credible enough to me to change my position… We’ll leave it to God to answer that when we meet Him in person I suppose.

If I may, I would suggest the curious minds on the issue of old earth vs young earth and the other perspectives Michael brought up in his blog that they check out the Answers in Genesis web site. Ken Ham and his staff do an excellent job in presenting facts, scientific facts, which would lead one to believe that the young earth position is the most convincing. I am personally of the persuation that the earth is young and that God created the world/universe in six literal days. Rather than go into more details here in this comment, I would encourage people to connect with Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis. You just might find his thoughts and conclusions attractive……

God is love. Let it go guys and gals. I don’t recall Jesus debating these topics. He had more important things to worry about – like encouraging humans to recognize the divinity within every other human. The bible was written as mythological truth – revealing realities much more more important than factual truth. Truth about how creation mechanically happened are much less important than the truth of God’s presence and reality in our lives.

[…] Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate […]

I believe in a talking snake and don’t apologize. On the flip side, there’s nothing that precludes naturalistic evolutionists from believing that a snake could evolve to talk. If we evolved to talk then who’s to say it hasn’t happened to other species in the past or could eventually? Or are naturalists “speciesists” (= racist for your species) and only want to maintain that our species can evolve to talk? Hmmm. *sings* Dum dum dum dum dum.

[…] blogs has recently [it was recent in 2009] analyzed the various views one might have relating to creation and evolution. [but their is this recent post on that topic] has As I reflect on these options as well as what […]

> That would be deception on God’s part.

> So how does the appearance of age deal with the fact that the universe appears to be billions of years old?

To quote Jesus: “Have you not read?!?!?”

Each of the following deserves fuller explanation, but…

1. God Himself wrote [only] the Ten Commandments: “In 6 days God created the heavens and earth and rested on the 7th.. therefore you will work 6 days and rest on the 7th”. I recommend we sum up creation the same way God does. (Exod 31:17-18)

2. Jesus a) said Adam and Eve were created “in the beginning”; and b) used a literal understanding of Gen 1. (Matt 19:4-8). I don’t see room for Gap Theory here, or a non-literal view of Gen 1-3.

3. Do you believe God is powerful enough to instantly create a parallel universe looking *exactly* like ours? If ‘yes’, then it is hypocrisy to insist that He cannot create such a universe in 6 instants across 6 literal, consecutive 24-hour days.

4. Every miracle, bar none, involves an appearance of age. Think about it. (ever seen an atrophied lame man walk w/o months of rehab/therapy?)

5. IT IS GOD’S INTENTION TO DELIBERATELY DECEIVE PEOPLE SO THEY WILL BELIEVE A LIE AND THEREFORE BE DESTROYED!

Divine Deception:
– Principle: Eze 14:6-11
– Practice: 1 Kings 22:23
– Promise: 2 Thess 2:9-12

So.. if you worship science over Scripture, *expect* God to send you a strong delusion. He’s done it before and promises to do it again.

By the way – how does…

By the way – how does one use science to test for a “strong delusion”?

And I’m curious as to why no one ever bothers to understand the dichotomy of science and Bible by noting that the Bible promises to deceive people who chose to follow those who disagree with the Bible. I can only conclude that either people don’t know that the Bible (repeatedly) says these things, or they refuse to take the Bible seriously (ergo the debate on YEC/OE)