An astonishing paper was recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that documents the evolutionary process actually occurring under controlled laboratory conditions:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/historical_contingency_in_the.php

Although this by itself doesn’t answer the arguments made above about “microevolution” vs. “macroevolution”, it clearly shows how random mutation and natural selection can produce beneficial traits and new genetic information. It also kills the entire premise of M. Behe’s last book deader than a doornail (Not that there was much life in it to begin with.)

This is what REAL science looks like!

The notion that the ‘days’ in Genesis are not literal, 24-hour period was acccepted by Christians long before Augustine, e.g. by early church fathers such as Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, and Clement among others.

Also, there is no fundamental church doctrine (understood as the basic beliefs or the basic creeds, or the ‘dogma’ that was so important to theologians) that is jeapordized by evolution. There is no apparent contradiction between Christianity and Darwinian evolution. The latter addresses mainly transitions, Christianity, if we may say so, speaks of origins.

In terms of logic, there is no contradiction inherent in the proposition: “The Christian God exists, and evolution is true” or at least its not apparent prima facie that any such contradiction obtains.

Please justify your assertion of motive.

Simply, evolution is the result of a will bend on rejecting God.

Please justify this assertion.

As far as what my argument has to do with the context of this discussion I reintroduce you to MacArthur’s opening statement, “Evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation.

Repeating the opening statement does not demonstrate that the statement is correct. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain a number of biological observations in a meaningful and logical framework and in the context of known occurring events and events derived using known occurring events as a logical basis; among many other observations, the theory attempts to explain the current state of biodiversity, the pattern of the observed fossil record and observations within DNA. The theory of evolution is not, despite your assertion or the assertion of any other, an attempt to create an “atheistic alternative” to any specific religious creation story. The theory of evolution is merely an attempt to explain an aspect of the universe based upon observation. Any contradiction with any specific religious creation story is incidental, not intentional.

According to evolution, man created God rather than vice versa. And as we have seen, the evolutionists’ ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God altogether and thereby do away with moral accountability.

These statements are false. The theory of evolution does not state or imply that “man created God”. The theory of evolution does not address morality; the theory of evolution cannot in any way comment upon whether the concept of “moral accountability” has a basis in reality, thus it cannot be used to conclude that no “moral accountability” exists. Your assertion that “the evolutionists’ ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God” is unsupported; please provide evidence that such a motive is true for all who accept that the theory of evolution is valid.

What is so plainly evident to many is the willingness to embrace something so unsubstantiated as evolution and call it logic. I am reminded –

Please explain the extent of research that you have done regarding the theory of evolution and state and your personal credentials that render you qualified to speak on the theory of evolution as being “unsubstantiated”.

Romans 1:21-25 “21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 ¶ Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”

This does not, in any way, lend credence to your claims regarding the theory of evolution.

Your “reason” is at the heart of the discussion and is why you reject truth.

You have not demonstrated that your claims are “truth”.

“Just for my curiosity, could you explain to me what you believe about the origin of life?”

I guess the simplest answer to that would be, “I don’t know.” However, I think there are many promising leads, such as those on the page I linked, and it would not surprise me if a convincing theory is formulated in my lifetime. One of the most helpful ideas I have come across regarding this issue is from Richard Dawkins’ “The Ancestor’s Tale.” There, he states that when we talk about the origin of life, it is probably more accurate to talk about the origin of heredity. That is to say, “life” may well have begun as relatively simple organic compounds that had the ability to produce copies of themselves, and likely would not have been something that we would consider “living.” But that’s only one view, and there remains disagreement between “gene-first” and “metabolism-first” schools of thought.

Anyway, virtually every natural phenomenon was once attributed to divine causation (lightning, disease, the movements of the sun and stars, etc.) and in every single instance, natural causes have instead been proven to be correct. There has never been a single instance in which religion and science offered conflicting explanations for something, and the religious explanation proved to be correct. There is no reason to believe the question of the origin of life should be any different.

“If a view held by science defies a universal law of logic, then is the logic false or the scientific hypothesis false?”

I can’t actually think of an instance where scientific evidence would violate the rules of logic. Some might say that the idea of God violates the principle of causality, though. (If not, then what caused God?)

“Ape” is a human-defined biological classification based upon specific physical characteristics of organisms. Homo Sapiens possesses all requisite physical characteristics of the superfamily Hominoidea and thus they are classified as members of this superfamily. Note that this system of biological classification predates the theory of evolution; such classifications were held as valid even before it was established that all extant biodiversity was interrelated through common ancestry. The originator of taxonomic classification, Carolus Linnaeus, believed that all individual species were the result of individual divine creation events, yet he was not able to deny patterns of physiological similarities and thus he classified humans as primates based upon them.

That humans are apes is not an “assumption”, it is a definition based upon the biological meaning of “ape”.

Also, on a purly logical level, evolution is impossible because of the law of causality. Simply put, the law of causality is the law that an effect must have a cause. If I am correct, evolution states that the beginning of all things was life that was caused all by itself and multiplied all by itself.

You are not correct. The theory of evolution does not state that “the beginning of all things was life that was caused all by itself and multiplied all by itself”. As your fundamental premise is incorrect, any conclusion that you derive from this premise cannot be considered reliable.

Just for my curiosity, could you explain to me what you believe about the origin of life? Correct me if I am wrong, but in my understanding, your evolutionary belief is not dealing with the origin of life but rather the diversifying thereof. Is that correct? If so, you must also have a belief as to the actual origin of life itself. Could you explain your view on that point?

You said, “When I say it (The law of causality) doesn’t exist, I mean in the sense of as a scientific Law, such as the laws of thermodynamics, etc.”

Ah, but it does exist as a scientific law. As a law of logic, this law extends to the realms of science, religion, and any other area. The laws of logic are universal, meaning they apply to and control every area of life. This being a legitimate law of logic, it does necessarily apply to science as a scientific law as well. The terminology used (ex. scientific law vs. law of logic) is irrelevant because it relates to both. If a view held by science defies a universal law of logic, then is the logic false or the scientific hypothesis false? This would be a good question for you to answer. In other words, do laws of logic trump scientific views, or is it the other way around?

Just to clarify: I know the term “Law of Causality” is often used in philosophy. When I say it doesn’t exist, I mean in the sense of as a scientific Law, such as the laws of thermodynamics, etc.

“You are building your arguments based on your assumption that humans are apes. Please justify that assumption.”

That’s not quite what we’re saying. What we (or I, at least) are trying to do is clarify your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. How can you argue against something you don’t even understand?

You’re assuming that an evolutionary biologist will look as a fossil of Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”), and ask, “Is this a human, or an ape?” But that question would be meaningless according to evolutionary theory. The reason, as Dimensio has explained alreeady, is that species are not discrete, discontinuous entities. Rather, they occur along a continuum, with no clear demarcation between one another as the evolutionary process goes on. In other words, defining a specimen as either “human” or “ape” is merely an arbitrary human convention.

Evolution is not about categorizing species into discrete groups, so much as about determiniing the phylogenetic relationship between species i.e. the order in which they “branched off” from the tree of life. So the questions a biologist WOULD ask abouty “Lucy” are, “How does this specimen relate to other primates we know about? Does its common ancestor with humans come before or after our common ancestor with chimpanzees? Is it ancestral to humans, or is it from a side branch that went extinct, leaving no living descendents?”

“Also, on a purly logical level, evolution is impossible because of the law of causality. Simply put, the law of causality is the law that an effect must have a cause. If I am correct, evolution states that the beginning of all things was life that was caused all by itself and multiplied all by itself. This defies the law of causality.”

The “Law of Causality” doesn’t exist. You just made it up, like your law that information in the universe cannot increase (So all those thousands of books, newpapers, magazines, websites, TV and radio broadcasts that are produced every minute, containing, uh, information. Those just don’t exist, then?)

You’re making the common creationist mistake of confusing abiogenesis (the process by which the first form of “life” came to exist) with evolution (the explanation of how the diversity of life arose from that first life form). There are a number of hypotheses regarding abiogenesis, and these rely on nothing more than applied principles of chemistry, so even if your “law of causality” really existed, these would not violate it. This article covers some of these hypothesis. BTW, I happen to “know” the author of this aricle from another web forum, and he is a devout Christian.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

I didn’t answer your question, Michael, because it didn’t make sense to me. What do you mean by “if the Bible lined up with everything science considered to be true”? Do you mean if the Bible was different, or if science was? I suppose if the Bible contained scientific knowledge that could not possibly have been available to people living at the time it was written, I would have to consider that that knowledge emanated from some superhuman source. However, since that is not the case, the question is moot.

I also take issue with your statements that I am “close minded” and “not open to teaching”. As far as I can tell, every single creationist argument made here has been answered by clear evidence in favour of evolution, often with appropriate references to the scientific literature. Not one of these arguments has been answered, and most fo them habve been ignored. Yet you still claim evolution to be “unsubstantiated” and Mr. Chaney continues to make statements about the 2nd law of thermodynamics that had been shown to be erroneous long ago. So who really is “closed minded”?

I will say it again: Evolution has nothing to do with God. Most people have no problem reconciling an understanding of science with their religious beliefs. It is only those who debase the Bible by treating it like a science textbook who have such problems.

Respectfully,

“it should be clear to anyone, possessing an open mind and basic understanding of science, who reads the arguments put forth by both sides in this dicussion (discussion?) that there is no reasonable argument to be made against evolution and in favour of creationism.”

The reasonableness of an argument; ones ability to reason truth and the rejection of it are at the heart of the discussion. I consider myself to be a very reasonable person as well many of the arguments which you have shown to be “closed minded.” The primary reason for my question, which you avoided (If the Bible lined up with everything science considered to be true, would you believe?), gets to the heart of why you reject any thought which might challenge the god of science. It is because you have dethroned God as the creator and judge of the universe, replacing Him with a twisted view, and then you condemn Him with it.

Simply, evolution is the result of a will bend on rejecting God.

As far as what my argument has to do with the context of this discussion I reintroduce you to MacArthur’s opening statement, “Evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation. According to evolution, man created God rather than vice versa. And as we have seen, the evolutionists’ ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God altogether and thereby do away with moral accountability.

What is so plainly evident to many is the willingness to embrace something so unsubstantiated as evolution and call it logic. I am reminded –

Romans 1:21-25 “21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 ¶ Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”

Your “reason” is at the heart of the discussion and is why you reject truth.