Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures

[katherine the great]

The Dude?! What's he got that I don't? Well, I mean other than say pazzaz, clout, cleverness, adroit reasoning skills, powerful analytical conceptualization, and inherent meaningful discussions. Other than that, .....

Whatever "it" is, you've still got more of it than I do so I'm just staying out of this part of the thread! I do agree with your arguments on this topic.

[e=mc2]

mfbukowski

I am wondering about this notion of Popper that "natural selection" is a tautology. I suspect I agree but would like some input. It almost seems that science by its very nature begs the question of evolution. Thories which work are "selected" and theories which don't "die".

And that proves that like natural selection, artificial selection also works.....

[J.S. Mill]

I am wondering about this notion of Popper that "natural selection" is a tautology. I suspect I agree but would like some input. It almost seems that science by its very nature begs the question of evolution. Thories which work are "selected" and theories which don't "die".

So natural selection itself mirrors the history of science, and is built in as a paradigm of scientific method.

As I see it, and I think this is Popper's position too, though I am not sure since I am a duffer in this area, the two propositions which consititute evolutionary theory are natural selection, and the idea that there is variation in animals.

So what is needed is a "driver" for variation. Not all possible "drivers" can be explained naturally. (is this so?) Or at least one could always postulate an "unknown driver" for variation which leaves open the idea of God as the "prime mover" for mutations He intended to have happen.

So God causes the "right" mutations when He wants to, and natural selection naturally selects. Natural selection really just says "what survives, survives" and on this view is a tautology.

Whadya think?

A few notes:

1. Popper's thoughts on the scientificness of natural selection are complex, and it's not quite fair to simply say that he thought it was a tautology (even though this is not too far from the truth). It's a fascinating discussion, though, and I'd be glad to develop it further.

Heck, I might as well start now. For one thing, natural selection is a little more sophisticated that "what survives, survives" -- I think you're thinking of the definition of "fitness", which fits this definition a little more closely. Evolution says that if there exist heritability of traits (which should be uncontroversial to anyone who believes in genetics), genetic diversity (which is granted by random mutation), and scarcity of resources (again, there shouldn't be disagreement to this), then there will be non-random changes to the gene pool (i.e., microevolution) due to the fact that some sets of genes (i.e., individuals and species) are more successful at reproducing in their respective environments than others. If you agglomerate hundreds or thousands of instances of microevolution together, you end up with macroevolution. (This process speeds up even more when colonies of the same species are geographically isolated, and their respective progeny thus face extremely different environmental forces.) This is not tautological, because a tautology by definition does not bring any new information to the table, while even a mere "metaphysical research programme" (to use one of Popper's descriptions of the theory of evolution) clearly does. The logic behind the theory of natural selection is nearly unassailable, which is why I suspect the "it's a tautology!" argument has gotten a foothold, but the theory is nonetheless extremely illustrative and helpful for biologists and others who want to understand the origin of the diversity of life, so it can't be a tautology in the pejorative sense.

Also, I think it's helpful to distinguish between the theory of evolution (by which I mean the ratiocinative arguments for the Darwinian mechanism of speciation) and the historical fact of evolution, which is supported by the fossil and geological record. Even if the theory of evolution is not strictly falsifiable (because it's so airtight, I'd say), one cannot say that the fact of evolution is not. Finding something like fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata, as J.B.S. Haldane famously noted, would falsify the historical fact of evolution quite economically.

2. Evolutionary biologists have already come up with an extraordinarily powerful "driver" for variation: scarcity of resources. As long as mutations occur, Malthusian forces will be able to preference an animal or species with one set of genes over another, and evolution by natural selection will happen.

[Bee Eff]

I am wondering about this notion of Popper that "natural selection" is a tautology. I suspect I agree but would like some input. It almost seems that science by its very nature begs the question of evolution. Thories which work are "selected" and theories which don't "die".

So natural selection itself mirrors the history of science, and is built in as a paradigm of scientific method.

As I see it, and I think this is Popper's position too, though I am not sure since I am a duffer in this area, the two propositions which consititute evolutionary theory are natural selection, and the idea that there is variation in animals.

So what is needed is a "driver" for variation. Not all possible "drivers" can be explained naturally. (is this so?) Or at least one could always postulate an "unknown driver" for variation which leaves open the idea of God as the "prime mover" for mutations He intended to have happen.

So God causes the "right" mutations when He wants to, and natural selection naturally selects. Natural selection really just says "what survives, survives" and on this view is a tautology.

Whadya think?

Evolution occurs due to a fecundity among variable organisms. Organisms are not all the exact same. From bacteria to man, one specimen is not the exact same as the next. Reproduction is built in to every organism. The reproduction is similar, but not always exactly, the same as the original organism. Most organisms reproduce repetitively. Thus, an organism that survives long enough to reproduce more often will result in having it's general physiology spread.

Let's say a bird dies because it's beak is to short to eat, those with longer beaks reproduce more. Let us imagine that something occurs that requires a longer beak. The birds that approximate this will then reproduce more frequently, and given variation, some will have shorter beaks than the parents, and some will have longer. We continue this, the environment requiring a progressively larger beak. Eventually the body will be needed to compensate for beak length, so those whose bodies are better equipped reproduce more frequently than those whose bodies cannot support an overly long beak, let's assume a longer, heavier, tail. Longer heavier tails occur without feathers for some reason. Those with longer tails begin surviving, and they reproduce again with variation longer and shorter than the parent. This tail impedes reproduction with some of the other female birds, and those without the tail die off, so only the females that are anomolous reproduce. The next generation is the same, only those that can reproduce with the long beak/tail mails survive. Some aspect of genitalia increases the probability of insemination. This path continues until the animals genitalia are very dissimilar from the original. One of these "new" creatures is brought into contact with an "old" one, they cannot reproduce between the two of them. This is evolution.

Natural selection is a common theme throughout behavior. It is one of the reasons that I believe the evolution holds credence. Behavior Is the same. Actions that result in a more favorable state of affairs are likely to be repeated, while those that do not are not as frequently repeated. If one studies learning and behavior one will almost certainly study evolution as it is a portion of the determinants of possible behavior and is an excellent example of the process by which behaviors are "chosen".

A "driver" as an intelligent agent is unnecessary. Variation occurs through minor differences between one generation and the next. If only those on the upper slope of the normal curve from the parent reproduce for some reason, the curve will shift until that is the new norm. Always in reproduction there is some variation from the original. No matter how small, over generational reproductions small, even minute, differences can become huge differences. Mutations, are not often the impetus of evolution imo. Simple variations which were better suited to survival for some reason are what I believe resulted in evolution.

As to something like the cambrian, who knows, maybe there was some type of widespread radiation fallout that resulted in large scale mutation across all existent species, those that were capable of mating did, and with their altered DNA, we had new norms.

But then I am not an evolutionary scientist, I am a behavior analyst.

[mfbukowski]

2. Evolutionary biologists have already come up with an extraordinarily powerful "driver" for variation: scarcity of resources. As long as mutations occur, Malthusian forces will be able to preference an animal or species with one set of genes over another, and evolution by natural selection will happen.

Again, I am strictly a duffer here, but it seems to me that scarcity of resources would be part of the selection process, not an actual cause of mutation which is what I meant by "driver of variation". Or are you saying that scarcity of resources actually CAUSES mutations to occur?

It seems to me that nevertheless if one wanted to postulate God as the cause of mutation, one easily could put Him on the list with things like perhaps an occasional cosmic ray or "ramdom" chemical change which "caused" the mutation.

It seems like the difference between micro and macro evolution the way you have explained it is one of degree and really a qualitative difference.

[mfbukowski]

Longer heavier tails occur without feathers for some reason.

All that I am saying is that one could not rule out God as being one reason. I know it is not necessary for the theory, nevertheless it cannot be disproven either. As long as there are unknown forces in a particular case, there is room for God. I am certain that all possible causes of mutations are not known. All possible causes of anything are never knowable, I would think.

[sean0scott]

Can you show what all atheists have in common other than a lack of belief or faith in God or the Supernatural?

Superiority complexes?

[Bender]

sean0scott Posted Today, 12:26 AM

Superiority complexes?

I see plenty of that by both believers and unbelievers

[mfbukowski]

I see plenty of that by both believers and unbelievers

If ya got it, flaunt it!

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 12:37 AM

If ya got it, flaunt it!

LOL Your only admitting to having a superiority complex, not to actually being superior.

Also, Science doesn't rule out God in Evolution anymore than Santa Clause. It's just a lack of evidence for God or Santa that science doesn't rule them in either.

[J.S. Mill]

Again, I am strictly a duffer here, but it seems to me that scarcity of resources would be part of the selection process, not an actual cause of mutation which is what I meant by "driver of variation". Or are you saying that scarcity of resources actually CAUSES mutations to occur?

No, I'm not saying that at all -- apologies for the confusion. I was saying that scarcity of resources amplifies existing genetic diversity, by creating conditions in which some organisms will flourish at the expense of others. If there were no scarcity of resources, there would never exist evolutionary pressures.

It seems to me that nevertheless if one wanted to postulate God as the cause of mutation, one easily could put Him on the list with things like perhaps an occasional cosmic ray or "ramdom" chemical change which "caused" the mutation.

But it doesn't really get you anywhere. You could also postulate that millions of invisible angels propel objects towards each other, and that this causes gravity, but there's no real reason to do so.

It seems like the difference between micro and macro evolution the way you have explained it is one of degree and really a qualitative difference.

This is pretty tricky, because it is and isn't a mere qualitative difference -- kinda like the relationship between a pebble and a mountain, I guess. There isn't a clear break between the two, but that doesn't mean that the two words don't have clear and separate meanings.

[Bee Eff]

All that I am saying is that one could not rule out God as being one reason. I know it is not necessary for the theory, nevertheless it cannot be disproven either. As long as there are unknown forces in a particular case, there is room for God. I am certain that all possible causes of mutations are not known. All possible causes of anything are never knowable, I would think.

I doubt any true scientist would claim that evolution rules out the possibility of God.

Evolution does not in any manner deny the possibility of direction. We have evidence of man driven evolution. Look at the breeding of Dogs, bioengineered crops, there are many examples. Evolution does not dictate the impetus for change, only how change occurred.

Evolution is a process, or method. Evolution does not require intelligent intervention, but it does not preclude such. I am a theist. I am LDS. I do believe that evolution was used in the creation of living things. I do not know the history of such creation nor how/when such intervention occurred. Perhaps the creation occurred according to God's word as the following: God set in motion the single celled organism, then stepped back and watched, at the end, god said let there be [insert creation period item] and observed that point of the evolutionary cycle, then the next portion, then the next, until the end of the initial creation. God may not have done anything aside from set the initial set of conditions and then observe his creation at particular points. It appears, given the text of Genesis 1, that not all creatures were created, some were "brought forth".

[Hoops22]

I It appears, given the text of Genesis 1, that not all creatures were created, some were "brought forth".

Genesis 1 in no way implies that.

And to believe in evolution is to deny Gen, which is foundational to Christianity. Of course, anyone is free to do so, but one can not, in any reasonable way, reconcile the plain reading of Gen with evolution. It just can't be done.

[mfbukowski]

Genesis 1 in no way implies that.

And to believe in evolution is to deny Gen, which is foundational to Christianity. Of course, anyone is free to do so, but one can not, in any reasonable way, reconcile the plain reading of Gen with evolution. It just can't be done.

You know, let me ask another question here. Let's do a little science fiction just to make a point. Tomorrow morning, someone discovers incontrovertible evidence of a scientific nature that the earth really did come into existence ex nihilo exactly 6,000 years ago. There has been some vast mistaken in dating systems or something (remember this is science fiction). The subject gets debated for several years, and sure enough, in 10 years, virtually ever scientist on the planet decides incredibly that this is true. The earth appeared from nothing 6000 years ago.

Then a similar thing happens in genetics. It suddenly becomes clear through a new discovery that not only are we all descended from one female as I think mitochondrial DNA has already shown, but we are descended from one male as well. And somehow, it shows that it all ocurred about 6,000 years ago.

Incontrovertible scientific proof that the earth and mankind appeared virtually simultaneously 6,000 years ago.

What would happen to humanity? Vast conversions? What would happen to the need to live by faith?

Let me suggest that if we are here to "live by faith" and be tested, it is essential that Genesis NOT be literally true, and scientifically provable. I think all of this is part of the plan. We are sent here to figure this stuff out.

[J.S. Mill]

To be a little nitpicky: we ARE descended from one man, just as we are descended from one woman. It's just that the man and woman almost certainly did not live at the same time.

[semlogo]

Genesis 1 in no way implies that.

And to believe in evolution is to deny Gen, which is foundational to Christianity. Of course, anyone is free to do so, but one can not, in any reasonable way, reconcile the plain reading of Gen with evolution. It just can't be done.

This kind of attitude destroys faith. It's like the Catholics saying 500 years ago, "to believe in a round earth that rotates around the sun is to deny the Bible, which is foundational to Christianity. Of course, anyone is free to do so, but one can not, in any reasonable way, reconcile the plain reading of the Bible with these heresies. It just can't be done."

Excessive literalism is at odds with reality. Don't try to make people choose between reality and metaphor taken as literal history.

[Bee Eff]

Genesis 1 in no way implies that.

And to believe in evolution is to deny Gen, which is foundational to Christianity. Of course, anyone is free to do so, but one can not, in any reasonable way, reconcile the plain reading of Gen with evolution. It just can't be done.

"Let the earth bring forth grass" Gen. 1:1

"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" Gen. 1:20

"God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind" Gen. 1:21

"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind" Gen. 1:24

"God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind" Gen. 1:25

The text shows God stating that the water and the earth would bring forth the "creation". Then the text states that God created such. It appears, given the text that it was not a sudden springing into existence, it was a process that originated in the earth with some plants, then in the waters with fish, then finally when there was plant life and sea creatures the earth brings forth the rest. Man is the only creature that is made or created without such a statement. Man is stated as:

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" Gen 1:26

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him" Gen 1:27

The only item in the Genesis creation account that can be threatened by evolution is Man.

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 12:01 AM

You know, let me ask another question here. Let's do a little science fiction just to make a point. Tomorrow morning, someone discovers incontrovertible evidence of a scientific nature that the earth really did come into existence ex nihilo exactly 6,000 years ago. There has been some vast mistaken in dating systems or something (remember this is science fiction). The subject gets debated for several years, and sure enough, in 10 years, virtually ever scientist on the planet decides incredibly that this is true. The earth appeared from nothing 6000 years ago.

Then a similar thing happens in genetics. It suddenly becomes clear through a new discovery that not only are we all descended from one female as I think mitochondrial DNA has already shown, but we are descended from one male as well. And somehow, it shows that it all ocurred about 6,000 years ago.

Incontrovertible scientific proof that the earth and mankind appeared virtually simultaneously 6,000 years ago.

Some believe that God did create the earth in 6 days, as well as a world wide flood, and that God has purposely hidden these facts to hide his existence to test our faith. I have stated before that this would make God a deceiver and dishonest.

Now what if God did create the earth over billions of years with all life today(included humans) evolving over these billions of years to what we have today.

Did God tell a story through metaphor? This would still make God dishonest. Did God say it happen over billions of years but along the way but the story was changed? This would seem to give less credibility to the scriptures we have today.

What would happen to humanity? Vast conversions? What would happen to the need to live by faith?

Let me suggest that if we are here to "live by faith" and be tested, it is essential that Genesis NOT be literally true, and scientifically provable. I think all of this is part of the plan. We are sent here to figure this stuff out.

Perhaps many would convert. You would still need faith though. Ive said before that even if God appeared to you in the physical you could still not be 100% certain. Which religion would everyone convert to? There are so many Christian faiths in addition to Jewish and Muslim which believe the creation story. If were here to walk by faith, which one. There are so many. If God doesn't show us, how we will know. Through spiritual confirmation? So many groups claim this. This idea that we cannot know God exists in a better manner then what many religions provide(ex Spiritual confirmation) and that we are to be tested to see if we will believe and follow him I think is a shame. To believe or have faith in any religious claims without proper evidence is to practice blind faith, and you will have to just hope your extremely lucky to pick the right one.

We are here to live by faith or be tested is just an excuse for people beliefs about the creation not matching the evidence we see today. I have heard people use this excuse a number of times on this board. Faith based on real knowledge is another matter. If my father tells me he will hold the rope from on top of a cliff as I climb up, I have faith based on real physical evidence and experience that I can trust he will do all he can to hold it and not let me fall.

[mfbukowski]

Excessive literalism is at odds with reality. Don't try to make people choose between reality and metaphor taken as literal history.

Excessive literalism gave us transubstantiation among other things. "This is my body"

[thesometimesaint]

Bender:

The use of metaphor is not necessarily dishonest. It is merely using something others will understand. We can all get into the gobbledygook of our individual specialties, but that would hardly promote understanding.

[semlogo]

"Let the earth bring forth grass" Gen. 1:1"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" Gen. 1:20"God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind" Gen. 1:21"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind" Gen. 1:24"God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind" Gen. 1:25The text shows God stating that the water and the earth would bring forth the "creation". Then the text states that God created such. It appears, given the text that it was not a sudden springing into existence, it was a process that originated in the earth with some plants, then in the waters with fish, then finally when there was plant life and sea creatures the earth brings forth the rest. Man is the only creature that is made or created without such a statement. Man is stated as:"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" Gen 1:26"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him" Gen 1:27The only item in the Genesis creation account that can be threatened by evolution is Man.

Interesting perspective - I hadn't thought of it like that before.

Excessive literalism gave us transubstantiation among other things. "This is my body"

Exactly.

[Bender]

thesometimesaint Posted Today, 02:14 PM

Bender:

The use of metaphor is not necessarily dishonest. It is merely using something others will understand. We can all get into the gobbledygook of our individual specialties, but that would hardly promote understanding.

I can understand the value of metaphor, but if you use 6 days knowing you are leading them to believe in a literal 6 day creation, then it is dishonest. I know people would call me dishonest If I tried to do it.

[J.S. Mill]

Did anyone even conceive of the idea that the "days" in the Creation account could be metaphorical before modern science made it impossible to square such an interpretation with the overwhelming evidence for an old Earth?

[mfbukowski]

The text shows God stating that the water and the earth would bring forth the "creation". Then the text states that God created such. It appears, given the text that it was not a sudden springing into existence, it was a process that originated in the earth with some plants, then in the waters with fish, then finally when there was plant life and sea creatures the earth brings forth the rest. Man is the only creature that is made or created without such a statement. Man is stated as:

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" Gen 1:26

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him" Gen 1:27

The only item in the Genesis creation account that can be threatened by evolution is Man.

And it appears that he is the only one specifically excepted from the way the others were brought forth. So is the implication evolution for all creatures but some kind of special intervention for us? This is also the case in the endowment ceremony account. There, man is actually the only creature made from the materials of earth. So are these accounts contradictory, or because of the special treatment of man in both cases, in agreeement?

[katherine the great]

Bender:

The use of metaphor is not necessarily dishonest. It is merely using something others will understand. We can all get into the gobbledygook of our individual specialties, but that would hardly promote understanding.

I agree. Simply to say that God created the natural world through evolution is a metaphor of sorts. To lay out the entire process in full detail would take volumes upon volumes and no one would ever read or understand it. I think the creation story serves its purpose very beautifully and succinctly.