From: "Chris Ho-Stuart" Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: faith (was creationism)





== Gladys Swager <> >> Gladys Swager <> wrote:

> >>

=Chris Ho Stuart wrote, "Evolution proposes that genomes"

> >> >> >(the complete genetic material of any cell) "changes over time."

> >

==It is obvious that that can occur in a type, kind  (ie. cat family).

> >

= "Cat" kind? I presume this includes tigers, lions, leopards, jaguars,

> >> cougars, pumas, cheetahs, ocelots, bobcats, lynxs, pampas cat,

> >> Andean mountain cat, domestic cat, etc?

> >

== Whether, originally, there was just one cat 'kind' or whether

> > there were a number of cat 'kinds' I am not able to say. But

> > speaking from a Creationist point of view the original kind(s)

> > of cat(s) had the genes for diversification within different

> > environmental conditions as they spread to various parts of

> > the earth in subsequent generations.

>

= What do you mean by "genes for diversification"?

>

> I think you mean that there is the possibility of an original

> pair of cats containing sufficient genetic diversity to account

> for all the different species of cats that exist today.

>

> If so, then you are simply wrong.

>

> There are about 36 different species of wild cats. They

> form what is called a "family" in taxonomy. There are three

> sub-families within that, further divided into 13, 4 and 1

> genera respectively, and about 36 species distributed amongst

> those 18 genera.

>

> There is far too much genetic diversity to be contained within

> a single pair of individuals, or even within a single species.

>

== 'Evolution', I believe, is the wrong term for that

> > diversification.  The term 'Evolution' should be a

> > very specific one meaning micro-to-macro evolution from

> > unicellular organisms to the more complex. (I am aware of the

> > complexities of the English language in which one word can

> > have a number of meanings and while we can often know the

> > meaning by the word's use in the context of the sentence,

> > there can be misunderstandings.)

>

=Diversification is exactly the right word; and it is important

> if we are going to criticise evolution that we do criticise

> the model used by scientists, and not some invention which

> bears no relation to modern biology.

>

> The word "diversification" means that what you have originally

> changes over time to encompasses wider and wider ranges of forms.

>

> What you want is to place a bound of some kind on the

> diversification that can arise by evolution; though you would

> be hard pressed to give a concrete definition.

>

> Over time, given an original small interbreeding population,

> considerable diversity can arise simply by accumulation of

> small variations by imperfect replications (mutations).

>

> Creationists often state that mutations cannot "add" information

> in some way; this is simply false. Mutations can, and do, add new

> information, code for new proteins, give increased specificity,

> and so on. All of this is observed.

>

> And as far as we can see, there is no limit or constraint on

> how much diversification can arise. They may be limits on how

> rapidly it can accumulate, but that is something else entirely.

>

> A mutation will not give a new species in a single generation.

> Do not think of a lion giving birth to a puma. That is not a

> part of the evolutionary model. (Aside: actually, some gross

> chromosomal changes that occur in plants can give rise to new

> species, but this can be ignored if we are thinking of large

> animals like cats.)

>

> It takes time to accumulate diversity. For all existing

> human genetic diversity to arise within six thousand years

> would actually be very rapid evolution indeed. And humans are

> genetically quite homogeneous as far as species go.

>

> But over six million years... the observed rates of accumulated

> change are plenty to account for the relatively small genetic

> difference between humans and chimpanzees.

>

> My guess is that if we took the so-called "great apes", being

> chimpanzees and gorillas, and included humans also, we would

> have a group that (biologically) is LESS diverse than the cats.

>

> >>You accept evolution within this family; does this mean you accept

> >> that they could share common ancestors?

> >

==From above, I would not accept 'evolution' with the meaning

> > given in the 1962 NSW Education Department's Science

> > Syllabus. I believe that there are limits to change in the

> > various original kinds and in the kinds existing today.

> > That change is adaptive. So some form of the verb to adapt

> > would be more appropriate for those changes - the noun

> > 'adaptation' may be suitable - but others may have greater

> > linguistic ability in English than I have to provide a

> > better one.

>

=We need to be very careful here. You are expressing above a

> statement which reads like a empirical statement about science.

>

> You may believe that there is a limit to change; the question

> is if that belief has any place in a science class.

>

==I still  maintain that, at some point in the thinking process

> > on this issue, there has to be an acknowledgement of the

> > intervention, the activity, the creative power (I've given

> > a number of ideas) of a supernatural being whom, SCIENCE

> > can't accept because that being cannot be investigated under

> > a microscope. However, Scientific Creationists say there

> > is ample proof of His working in the Universe He brought

> > into being.

>

=Are you saying that God cannot be seen in the processes that

> we study under a microscope, and that therefore God's

> involvement is somewhere else?

>

> WHY don't you think God is seen in processes like evolution,

> which we see under a microscope?

>

> Many conventional orthodox Christians see the hand of God in

> all the wonderful processes of the universe. What scientific

> creationists do is something else; they say that the hand of

> God CANNOT be seen in the workings of certain processes, like

> evolution.

>

> It is not scientists in general who reject the hand of God in

> natural processes.

>

> It is rather two specific groups who make this rejection.

>

> On the one hand... materialistic atheists (like myself) simply

> do not consider a God exists at all. On the other hand,

> creationists who cannot see the action of God in natural

> processes, like evolution; and who try to invoke some OTHER

> processes in the past (that are not now seen) which are to

> be contrasted with the natural processes of the present.

>

> I mention again, the formation of you, or I, as individuals.

> We formed in our mothers' womb over a period of about nine

> months, from a single fertilized cell. All of that process

> can be studied by science; and we know a great deal about it,

> and we have far more still to discover. But at no point are

> we inclined to say... here is the gap where natural laws

> fail and God must step in.

>

> A Christian, typically, sees the hand of God in this process,

> and DOES NOT describe the sciences of embryology as requiring

> them to reject a God, or deny his working. A Christian,

> typically, considers that they may call God their own personal

> creator.

>

> To be consistent, if you are going to describe evolution as

> rejection of God you need to explain why embryology is not

> also a rejection of God.

>

> Best wishes -- Chris