Creationism clarification?

Question

This sounds like a mocking question, but I don't mean it that way. I am actually curious about creationist beliefs.

How do you acount for the aspects of evolution that are verifiable and concrete? Such as genetic inheritance of traits, or the change in species that can be observed over time in the form of dog or horse breeds.

Answer 1

That's microevolution and not a problem for any Christian to believe. What bible believing Christians do not believe is in macroevolution (that once species develops into another) and old earth. God bless you. ~Nise~

Answer 2

I don't know if I am a creationist or not, but I think that you misunderstand their position and beliefs.

I think that most creationists do not have a problem acknowledging that species change somewhat over time as regressive genes begin to predominate and genetic information is lost through random degrading of the genetic code (hence genetic diseases and vestigial organs as functionality is lost over time).

Evolution is not simply the idea that all things change; we all change as we get older. Evolution is the idea that a single celled organism, given enough time, will evolve upward into something more complex. Evolution assumes that we started out as something similar to pond scum and evolved upwards to fish, reptiles, and then humans; Creationists would assume that we started out as something closer to the angels, and that we are DE-EVOLVING downward toward something resembling pond scum (2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

--------------------------------------
The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution:
Has Dawkins really solved it?

© 1999 Dr. Royal Truman. All Rights Reserved. [Last Modified: 09 March 2006]

Abstract

In a recent interview, Richard Dawkins, a fanatical atheist and a leading spokesman for Darwinian evolution, was asked if he could produce an example of a mutation or evolutionary process which led to an increase in information. Although this has been known for some time to be a significant issue, during a recorded interview, Dawkins was unable to offer any such example of a documented increase in information resulting from a mutation.

After some months, Professor Dawkins has offered an essay responding to this question in context with the interview, and it will be examined here. It is pointed out that speculation and selective use of data is no substitute for evidence. Since some statements are based on Thomas Bayes’ notion of information, this is evaluated in Part 2 and shown to be unconvincing. Some ideas are based on Claude Shannon’s work, and Part 3 shows this to be irrelevant to the controversy. The true issue, that of what coded information, such as found in DNA, human speech and the bee dance, is and how it could have arisen by chance, is simply ignored. Part 4 discusses the Werner Gitt theory of information.

After several years, we continue to request from the Darwinist theoreticians: propose a workable model and show convincing evidence for how coded information can arise by chance!...

Answer 3

They can't credibly.

There is sufficient proof of evolution, none of creationism. Many of the reasons creationists believers cite for it being true is that there are holes in evolutionary theory. To therefore suggest that God created the world is seven days, or that an omnipotent being designed all life, is laughable as there is no proof whatsoever for that cause (well there is, but it's either false, biased or taken out of any context). It's God of the Gaps, and nothing more.
Yes, there are some holes in Darwins theory, but likelyhood is they will be explained as humans increase their scientific knowledge. In recent years some of the holes have been filled in, I don't doubt the rest will be too.

Evolution has been proven time and time again, it can be easily observed in bacteria, among other things. Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor. The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

Also, look at the fossil record. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions, which is essentially proof of evolution. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transition fossils (fossils of organisms between two lineages) may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.

Answer 4

I personally believe that species do evolve over time, just not that mankind evolved from monkeys. Just because genetic patterns are similar does not necessarily prove one species formed from another.
It's very clear that a baby inherits traits from its parents. But evolution doesn't have to be seperate from God. An all-powerful God knows that the world is dynamic and creatures will face different challenges in different points in time or different environments and can equip the species with the traits it needs to endure.
The concept of evolution depends on the existence of genetic mutations - spontaneous derrivations from the norm. Science assumes it happens randomly and by chance. I believe in God, not chance but don't deny that these changes occur.

Answer 5

there is no conflict here... this is micro evolution.. that is not provable evolution the way that we do not believe it.. I notice that you quote species that are traceable to species of the same kind. Our contention is that (and you have no proof except speculation) there is no such thing as Macro-evolution. Dinosaurs did not become birds or other crazy wishful thinking thoughts. There is also this other thing that when evolutionists begin to talk about they throw around the word "Science" like it is authoritative. But then they refuse to use the very foundation for science. (demonstrable, provable, reproducible) and they have a very heavy agenda to prove their point so they taint their information...

Answer 6

I believe in Biblical creation, I do not believe in the "creationist" point of view.

Of course we were designed to pass our genetic traits on to our offspring.

Different breeds of Dogs, horses, or cats are all still dogs, horses, and cats. All species are fully developed as such.

I have never read or heard of or seen a fossil of a partially developed species. Not even of a trait or aspect.

For example, I see scales and I see feathers, but I have never seen something that is part scale and part feather. If we have fossils from before and after, why not intermediate?

Answer 7

It depends on what kind of evolution youre talking about. Micro-evolution (genetic traits, different breeds of dog or races of people, etc...) is perfectly biblical. The Bible tells us that Adam was created with all races within and I just assume this holds true for the rest of creation. Using this evidence as proof for Macro-evolution (non-living matter to living to fish to reptile to bird to mammal to monkey to human) is where creationists have issues. There is no evidence of macro-evolution.

Answer 8

I don't see where creationist beliefs are compromised by scientific observation. However, lets not lose sight of the word theory when it comes to "missing links" and huge holes in the fossil record. The variations in carbon dating techniques can be millions and millions of years apart... and it is a well know fact that when the dating results do not show what the researcher is looking to prove... he just goes forward with additional dating techniques until it coincides with his premise.

Come on ... if you want reason from creationists... show a little reason yourself.

Answer 9

It wasn't until recently that they the evolutionist renamed variation of a species micro-evolution. I know of no christian whether they be a scientist of not that denies variation of species. What is denied is jump of species from one kind of animal or plant to something different.. Jim

Answer 10

- To answer your question you would need to be more specific in your examples.

- What exactly is "verifiable and concrete".

- Genetic inheritance is not explained by evolution, it's simple biology.

- Changes in species show adaptation not evolution, evolution means change to render obsolete. Therefore, monkeys are still monkeys, snakes are still snakes, & lizards are still lizard, dwarfs are dwarfs, pigmey's are pigmey's, and so forth.

Answer 11

The changes you describe can be seen over time and are not in anyway in conflict with Creation. Start to turn non-living into living, fish into birds, etc. and there is a problem.