Why Is Only "Micro Evolution" Acceptable?

[David Sklansky]

I'm confused about the specific category of theists who say that there is microevolution within a species but never macroevolution from species to species. Because God created the different species. That stance doesn't make sense.

Once DNA was discovered, the distinction between different species, and different varieties within species, is blurred. Because we now know that changing a bit of DNA can cause both types of differences.

So as long as someone agees that mutations in DNA can be passed on, and that they sometimes stick if they have benefits, why make a big deal between inter species changes and intra species changes?

I suppose one reason might be that there hasn't been enough time for all these inter species changes. So if you believe that the universe is 6000 years old you can fall back on that argument.

But aren't there also a lot of theists who accept a 5 billion year old earth and still think that macro evolution hasn't occurred even though they admit micro evolution has?

I believe that these people take this inconsistant stance because they feel that they must oppose all macroevolution so that they can believe that God created man. But it is unnecessary to do this and it makes them look foolish (given they accept microevolution and an old earth).

The thing is that the truth of macroevolution doesn't mean that some species weren't directly created by God. It just means some weren't.

Furthermore, even if the physical human being evolved from monkeys it still doesn't screw up thiests concept of their relationship with God. Because even though we are physically and DNA wise 97% equivalent to a chimp, we are light years away from one when it comes to contemplating death or understanding Bertrand Russel's barber paradox.

If God let evolution take its natural course with the one exception that he infused man with the ability to understand those two things I just mentioned and other stuff like it, everything else scientists say should be irrelevant to theists.

PS I didn't use the barber paradox lightly. World class physicist Roger Penrose, and others, claim that human's unique ability to understand Godel's proof makes them way beyond animals. The barber paradox is a simpler version.

[Taraz]

I think the main problem stems from the fact that many atheists claim (wrongly IMO) that evolution disproves or otherwise diminishes God. Theists believe them and therefore must reject evolution lest they reject God as well. Nobody has argued microevolution disproves God that much, so it is accepted.

[Phil153]

Apart from what Sklansky likes to pretend to coax the theists [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], evolution greatly diminishes the Christian God and the Jesus story by making them look like stupid fables, no different from the silly tales of a hundred other cultures.

Evolution in no way diminishes a God of some sort. But it does greatly, greatly diminish the chance of a God that drowned the world, turned a woman into salt and impregnated a virgin with his holy wang so that we wouldn't go to a place of eternal fire any more.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Apart from what Sklansky likes to pretend to coax the theists [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], evolution greatly diminishes the Christian God and the Jesus story by making them look like stupid fables, no different from the silly tales of a hundred other cultures.

[/ QUOTE ]

This depends on how you interpret holy texts. If you believe that they only have merit if they contain accurate descriptions of the physical world, then science seems to diminish their importance. I would argue that most theists look to the Bible for humanistic concerns and not for the answers to science questions. If I don't believe that all the stories in the Bible must have actually occurred historically, there is no problem.

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution in no way diminishes a God of some sort. But it does greatly, greatly diminish the chance of a God that drowned the world

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]
turned a woman into salt


[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Evolution and science can't really say anything about this other than that this phenomenon has never been observed in a scientific setting.

[ QUOTE ]
and impregnated a virgin with his holy wang so that we wouldn't go to a place of eternal fire any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution also says nothing about this. It explains why it is unnecessary to believe this, but it doesn't force you to believe otherwise.

[tame_deuces]

Well if you add them altogether it gets less plausible. Aka. if a god who drowns the world is implausible, then it follows that a god that drowns the world and turns a women into salt is even less plausible, etc.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that most theists look to the Bible for humanistic concerns

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. They could just watch other social animals, like chimpanzee,s, buddhists, and europeans to pick up the basics and think through the fine tuning. What mind blowing humanistic lesson is available in the bible that isn't available from lots of other sources? What humanistic lesson did it reveal to the world that prior writers hadn't covered?

If you have a book full of nonsense about the natural world, is this the book you want to turn to for good advice about obvious and naturally arrived at humanistic advice? On the grounds it's proven it's credibility?

Wrapping your self-worth in any cult and our evolved social characteristics will produce similar results. It's like a super stockholm syndrome. DS is looking for a rational explanation, when the answer is a psychological explanation.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Roger Penrose, and others, claim that human's unique ability to understand Godel's proof makes them way beyond animals. The barber paradox is a simpler version.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you find time to start another thread explaining how the barber 'paradox' is related to Godel's proof it would be interesting. The barber struck me as a problem of poorly formed premises rather than a paradox that grows out of solid ones. Likely I've been mishandling something.

thanks, luckyme

[Splendour]

I found it interesting skimming wikipedia on evolution the other day that evolution is not just a scientific concept...Wikipedia listed 3 or 4 types of evolution besides biological evolution which is the most discussed type...Guess I have to go back and read it...there are many types of evolution apparently but we are constantly focusing on the 1 type where all the debate is...

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
I found it interesting skimming wikipedia on evolution the other day that evolution is not just a scientific concept...Wikipedia listed 3 or 4 types of evolution besides biological evolution which is the most discussed type...Guess I have to go back and read it...there are many types of evolution apparently but we are constantly focusing on the 1 type where all the debate is...

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point! Creationists frequently make the mistake of confusing biological evolution with a vague overreaching idea of "evolution."

Biological evolution makes no claims about what initially sparked life. So the main creationist qualm (life from non-life) should not even be a part of the discussion!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objecti...ning_evolution
[ QUOTE ]
When biological evolution is mistakenly conflated with other evolutionary processes, it can result in errors such as the claim that modern evolutionary theory says anything about abiogenesis (life spark) or the Big Bang.

[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apart from what Sklansky likes to pretend to coax the theists [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], evolution greatly diminishes the Christian God and the Jesus story by making them look like stupid fables, no different from the silly tales of a hundred other cultures.

[/ QUOTE ]

This depends on how you interpret holy texts. If you believe that they only have merit if they contain accurate descriptions of the physical world, then science seems to diminish their importance. I would argue that most theists look to the Bible for humanistic concerns and not for the answers to science questions. If I don't believe that all the stories in the Bible must have actually occurred historically, there is no problem.

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution in no way diminishes a God of some sort. But it does greatly, greatly diminish the chance of a God that drowned the world

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]
turned a woman into salt


[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Evolution and science can't really say anything about this other than that this phenomenon has never been observed in a scientific setting.

[ QUOTE ]
and impregnated a virgin with his holy wang so that we wouldn't go to a place of eternal fire any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution also says nothing about this. It explains why it is unnecessary to believe this, but it doesn't force you to believe otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, I think you could make a pretty strong argument that many of the stories in the Bible simply DO NOT WORK as fables, and MUST be based on actual, real events. Things like the ressurection, the crucifixion, the virgin birth, the Fall. If these were not real events but merely metaphor and allegory, then they are pointless. We cannot base a religion on Aesop. MOST Biblical stories work just fine as allegories, stuff like Abraham almost killing his son, Cain and Abel, that stuff doesn't have to have ever happened. We get the point. But if Eve never existed, ball game.