Macroevolutionists and Myth
Back in the saddle again! (Cue Aerosmith or Gene Autrey, depending on your musical tastes).
Before I was struck down by some rather nasty little microbes of a viral nature, I had begun to address, point-by-point, some areas of contention between creationists and macroevolutionists. Looks like I shall resume the discussion tomorrow. But for today, a couple of things:
What is a macroevolutionist?
I thought I had answered this, but here goes again. I had used the term Darwinist for those who believe in macroevolution but I was asked not to do so by some of those so termed and their reasoning was sensible, so I quit doing it. However, some have now questioned this term as well.
Creationist
A creationist believes that God created the world and all things in it, in fact, the entire universe. Whether he believes this primarily on scientific observation, religious belief, or a mixture of both (and it is usually the third case) he does believe in a world that has been designed by God. Most creationists do not believe in macroevolution yet there are those who do. Some believe that God created and then allowed for the operation of macroevolution to more or less finish the job.
Intelligent Design
Many have said that the Intelligent Design movement was started by creationists as a kind of a "stealth" way to get teachers to begin teaching both possibilities of the origin and disposition of life without involving religion. It appears that there is some truth in that statement. It is also true, however, that many scientists have become skeptical of the idea that life evolved from non-life and that complex life evolved from simpler forms of life. Many scientists have seen design inherent not just in organisms, but in the systems operative throughout the Universe. For many of these scientists, who are not willing to believe in a Creator God, the Intelligent Design hypothesis makes sense. It is a way of simply ignoring the Creator and concentrating on the evidence that things were created and then going forward from there.
Make no mistake about it, I am a creationist and not simply an ID guy.
Microevolution
I cannot call people who believe that "that life evolved from non-life and that complex life evolved from simpler forms of life" evolutionists because all scientists agree that microevolution takes place. We see it in operation. It is the ability of the gene pool to adapt to changing conditions or be manipulated by mankind that allows for animal husbandry, for instance.
Microevolution is the process by which natural selection culls out the traits less viable in an environment within the gene pool. It is very logical, actually, and Natural Selection itself is not a force. It is our description of the way life works. Within every single living organism is the very complex genetic code which determines what trait offspring will display. All organisms have various choices, for instance longer or shorter bills on birds or thicker or thinner fur coats on wolves. In the case of a wolf, those living in the far north are more likely to live if they have thicker fur. Therefore the wolves with thicker fur survive to mate more often and have more offspring. The offspring of those with thicker fur are also more likely to have thicker fur and so it goes.
All scientists agree that this is a standard operation seen in organisms of all kinds.
Macroevolution
Macroevolution takes this process a step farther. For macroevolution to work, the choices available in the gene pool are not enough. Every choice in every gene pool among wolves will produce a kind of wolf. You can have big ones, white ones, ones with thick fur, thinner fur, black ones...but all are wolves. So, in order for an organism to evolve into a different organismthere must be mutations. Not just any mutations, mind you. The mutations must be beneficial to the organism so that natural selection will operate to select that mutation over other traits and allow it to become part of the gene pool. Oh, and the mutation must of course be a change in the DNA that can be passed on or there is no way for it to move forward. Of course, since organisms are highly complex it could take hundreds of successful mutations before a change was outwardly observed in the organism.
One problem inherent in this point of view is that most mutations are not beneficial, they more often than not cause the death of the individual or at least make it less likely to survive, and on top of all that most mutations are not carried down by the DNA or not encoded in the area of DNA where it is going to be passed on to another generation.
I certainly would have difficulty referring to people who believe this process takes place or has taken place as "evolutionists" with accuracy, because pretty much everyone understands that microevolution takes place all the time. In order to be clear, I refer to those who believe in this process as macroevolutionists. Now you know why.
MYTH
Yesterday I posted an excerpt from
Flatland.
Flatland is an interesting read, certainly, but mainly I posted it to help macroevolutionists understand the "opposition" so to speak. I also posted it so they could see my point of view a bit better. Alas, some just don't get it or don't want to get it. I am still told that I am adapting a form of mythology in place of science when I adhere to creationism as an answer to the origin of all things.
Yes, plenty of creationists don't know a mole from a molecule and probably don't care. This is also true of macroevolutionists. It appears that the public at large knows very little about the science or the evidence behind the discussion. While I am certainly not the source of all wisdom, my beliefs in creationism are based on evidence and not blind hopes or fairy tales. Going back to the Flatland analogy, I would say that the Sphere and Spaceland are analogous to God and the spiritual dimension and that He has communicated to us through the Bible, Jesus Christ, and the words of prophets inspired by Him down through the ages. We cannot be in a four-dimensional frame of reference and really "see" or "hear" God (unless He interjects Himself or a representative into our world) since He lives outside of our state of being. Yet if one takes the Bible as evidence rather than a fairy tale and then compares it to what we find in the fossil record, the geological table, the operations of physical laws, the makeup of organisms and the historical record of mankind you see that the Bible makes a great deal of sense and is far too accurate in wide-ranging ways to have been the production of simple shepherds and priests who had generally never ventured more than a few hundred miles from the place of their birth.
I was kind enough to quit referring to people as Darwinists. I would ask all of you to quit referring to the Bible as being mythological. Oh, you won't hurt my feelings but you are simply setting up a strawman to attack and it is just annoying. It also is a way of giving up, since it is an easy way to ignore the facts involved. You denigrate the most read and published book in human history when you denigrate the Bible. Consigning the Bible and a Creator God to the world of myth allows you to ignore the very good arguments one can make for a Creator and a created Universe without having to stoop to factual evidence or good reasoning. But for those of us who know better, it is rather a lame way to go.
Tomorrow - Creationism Point Two
Second, the large amount of historical records and the evidences of carvings and figurines and drawings is evidence that dragons and sea-monsters and firebirds were actual living beings - dinosaurs.
Before I was struck down by some rather nasty little microbes of a viral nature, I had begun to address, point-by-point, some areas of contention between creationists and macroevolutionists. Looks like I shall resume the discussion tomorrow. But for today, a couple of things:
What is a macroevolutionist?
I thought I had answered this, but here goes again. I had used the term Darwinist for those who believe in macroevolution but I was asked not to do so by some of those so termed and their reasoning was sensible, so I quit doing it. However, some have now questioned this term as well.
Creationist
A creationist believes that God created the world and all things in it, in fact, the entire universe. Whether he believes this primarily on scientific observation, religious belief, or a mixture of both (and it is usually the third case) he does believe in a world that has been designed by God. Most creationists do not believe in macroevolution yet there are those who do. Some believe that God created and then allowed for the operation of macroevolution to more or less finish the job.
Intelligent Design
Many have said that the Intelligent Design movement was started by creationists as a kind of a "stealth" way to get teachers to begin teaching both possibilities of the origin and disposition of life without involving religion. It appears that there is some truth in that statement. It is also true, however, that many scientists have become skeptical of the idea that life evolved from non-life and that complex life evolved from simpler forms of life. Many scientists have seen design inherent not just in organisms, but in the systems operative throughout the Universe. For many of these scientists, who are not willing to believe in a Creator God, the Intelligent Design hypothesis makes sense. It is a way of simply ignoring the Creator and concentrating on the evidence that things were created and then going forward from there.
Make no mistake about it, I am a creationist and not simply an ID guy.
Microevolution
I cannot call people who believe that "that life evolved from non-life and that complex life evolved from simpler forms of life" evolutionists because all scientists agree that microevolution takes place. We see it in operation. It is the ability of the gene pool to adapt to changing conditions or be manipulated by mankind that allows for animal husbandry, for instance.
Microevolution is the process by which natural selection culls out the traits less viable in an environment within the gene pool. It is very logical, actually, and Natural Selection itself is not a force. It is our description of the way life works. Within every single living organism is the very complex genetic code which determines what trait offspring will display. All organisms have various choices, for instance longer or shorter bills on birds or thicker or thinner fur coats on wolves. In the case of a wolf, those living in the far north are more likely to live if they have thicker fur. Therefore the wolves with thicker fur survive to mate more often and have more offspring. The offspring of those with thicker fur are also more likely to have thicker fur and so it goes.
All scientists agree that this is a standard operation seen in organisms of all kinds.
Macroevolution
Macroevolution takes this process a step farther. For macroevolution to work, the choices available in the gene pool are not enough. Every choice in every gene pool among wolves will produce a kind of wolf. You can have big ones, white ones, ones with thick fur, thinner fur, black ones...but all are wolves. So, in order for an organism to evolve into a different organismthere must be mutations. Not just any mutations, mind you. The mutations must be beneficial to the organism so that natural selection will operate to select that mutation over other traits and allow it to become part of the gene pool. Oh, and the mutation must of course be a change in the DNA that can be passed on or there is no way for it to move forward. Of course, since organisms are highly complex it could take hundreds of successful mutations before a change was outwardly observed in the organism.
One problem inherent in this point of view is that most mutations are not beneficial, they more often than not cause the death of the individual or at least make it less likely to survive, and on top of all that most mutations are not carried down by the DNA or not encoded in the area of DNA where it is going to be passed on to another generation.
I certainly would have difficulty referring to people who believe this process takes place or has taken place as "evolutionists" with accuracy, because pretty much everyone understands that microevolution takes place all the time. In order to be clear, I refer to those who believe in this process as macroevolutionists. Now you know why.
MYTH
Yesterday I posted an excerpt from
Flatland.
Flatland is an interesting read, certainly, but mainly I posted it to help macroevolutionists understand the "opposition" so to speak. I also posted it so they could see my point of view a bit better. Alas, some just don't get it or don't want to get it. I am still told that I am adapting a form of mythology in place of science when I adhere to creationism as an answer to the origin of all things.
Yes, plenty of creationists don't know a mole from a molecule and probably don't care. This is also true of macroevolutionists. It appears that the public at large knows very little about the science or the evidence behind the discussion. While I am certainly not the source of all wisdom, my beliefs in creationism are based on evidence and not blind hopes or fairy tales. Going back to the Flatland analogy, I would say that the Sphere and Spaceland are analogous to God and the spiritual dimension and that He has communicated to us through the Bible, Jesus Christ, and the words of prophets inspired by Him down through the ages. We cannot be in a four-dimensional frame of reference and really "see" or "hear" God (unless He interjects Himself or a representative into our world) since He lives outside of our state of being. Yet if one takes the Bible as evidence rather than a fairy tale and then compares it to what we find in the fossil record, the geological table, the operations of physical laws, the makeup of organisms and the historical record of mankind you see that the Bible makes a great deal of sense and is far too accurate in wide-ranging ways to have been the production of simple shepherds and priests who had generally never ventured more than a few hundred miles from the place of their birth.
I was kind enough to quit referring to people as Darwinists. I would ask all of you to quit referring to the Bible as being mythological. Oh, you won't hurt my feelings but you are simply setting up a strawman to attack and it is just annoying. It also is a way of giving up, since it is an easy way to ignore the facts involved. You denigrate the most read and published book in human history when you denigrate the Bible. Consigning the Bible and a Creator God to the world of myth allows you to ignore the very good arguments one can make for a Creator and a created Universe without having to stoop to factual evidence or good reasoning. But for those of us who know better, it is rather a lame way to go.
Tomorrow - Creationism Point Two
Second, the large amount of historical records and the evidences of carvings and figurines and drawings is evidence that dragons and sea-monsters and firebirds were actual living beings - dinosaurs.