RE: [asa] Microevolution

From: <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
Date: Sat Sep 20 2008 - 12:41:56 EDT

Jon -

Yes, I realized that we were in general agreement. I wanted to make the point that a strong case against an anti-evolution position based on the claims you outlined can be made on exegetical & theological grounds before any ideas about the science of microevolution are introduced.

Shalom,
George

---- Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:
> George,
>
>
>
> The four points to which you replied are those to which I was also
> responding, and (I think) you're making similar argument on a few of them to
> what I was trying to get at.
>
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
>
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of George Murphy
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 6:55 AM
> To: Jon Tandy; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Microevolution
>
>
>
> Jon -
>
>
>
> The initial assumptions you cite are manifestly flawed even before we get to
> any considerations about the implications just what constitutes
> microevolution or its implications. Just for starters -
>
>
>
> a. If this is understood to rule out evolution then it also rules out any
> change at all.
>
>
>
> b. "Kind" is not identical with the modern concept of "species."
>
>
>
> c. This is false. For one thing it depends on the environment. The sickle
> cell mutation has beneficial features for populations in areas with high
> incidences of malaria.
>
>
>
> d. This would make sense only if we had no traits in common with apes (from
> whom, of course, we didn't descend).
>
>
>
> Connecting with our earlier discussion of the Reiss affair, it would be much
> better to challenge the basic theological and exegetical assumptions of YECs
> than to try to make inroads via scientific arguments.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Jon <mailto:tandyland@earthlink.net> Tandy
>
> To: asa@calvin.edu
>
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:38 PM
>
> Subject: [asa] Microevolution
>
>
>
> It seems that most of those today who are anti-evolution based on a literal
> reading of Genesis are willing to accept "microevolution" (which they define
> as variation within species or possibly change between species, but not at
> higher levels). This morning I thought about several claims, which I think
> are generally held. The first, second and fourth claims are religious, the
> third is scientific (not saying that any of the claims are necessarily
> correct).
>
>
>
> a. If God declared his creation "good" and "finished" in the first two
> chapters of Genesis, then evolution's claims that species can adapt and
> change over time contradicts a literal reading.
>
>
>
> b. God created the various "kinds" and told them to reproduce "after their
> kind", which is taken to mean that there can't be change between species.
> They continue to reproduce according to how God created them originally.
>
>
>
> c. All mutations are detrimental.
>
>
>
> d. Evolution of humans from apes and other animals with common traits as
> humans puts humans on the level of animal, and nullifies the special of
> humans who were made "in the image of God".
>
>
>
>
>
> However, given that microevolution is accepted by creationists, what does
> microevolution entail?
>
>
>
> 1. Species can mutate from their originally created "good" condition. This
> means that the creation was not "finished" in Genesis 2, but continues to
> adapt and develop over time.
>
> 2. Natural selection along with mutation can be observed to cause species to
> develop in beneficial ways for their perpetuation, which means that natural
> selection must be accepted by anti-evolutionists as a viable mechanism for
> positive change within or between species.
>
> 3. This means that not all mutations are necessarily detrimental or "bad".
>
> 4. If a given species can change over time so that it produces entirely
> different "kinds" of entities, to me this undercuts the whole idea of
> animals always necessarily reproducing "after their kind" (meaning within
> the same originally created "kind").
>
> 5. Just as humans share common, apparently inherited characteristics with
> other animals, humans are also made of the same atoms and chemicals as all
> the rest of creation. If chemistry and particle physics don't contradict
> the special "image of God" nature of humanity, then why should common
> biological elements be considered any differently?
>
>
>
> Thus, acceptance of microevolution (which is tacitly acknowledged by most
> creationists) requires acceptance of the possibility of beneficial mutations
> and natural selection and fundamental change from God's originally created
> "kinds". Acceptance of the common chemistry within the human species is
> equivalent to the common elements of biology. Thus, all the above arguments
> against macroevolution seem to be contradicted by logical comparison with
> microevolution.
>
>
>
> Does this line of reasoning make sense?
>
>
>
> I realize this still doesn't answer the belief that "kinds" include not only
> species but genus and maybe even family, and some allow for microevolution
> within groups larger than the species. In response it is asserted that the
> creationists' definition of "kind" is ad hoc and inconsistent, meaning
> simply "all the areas in which I don't want to admit the possibility of
> macroevolution."
>
>
>
> And of course another line of evidence is the biological data showing not
> only change between species, but between families, orders, and even phyla.
>
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 20 12:42:25 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 20 2008 - 12:42:25 EDT