Just how agnostic are you? Are you a complete denier that God exists, or just not sure?
I’m not sure what he is saying about evolution, (common descent evolution), but, to say something about what I know about COMMON DESCENT EVOLUTION, is simply saying something about something that is a fairy tale.
Now, atheists deny God, but, there is very good reason to accept God’s existence.
Lifeforms seem to have been designed.
Now, I know evolutionists have admitted to this, and follow this up with, a “but, it is all an illusion”.
But, the simple fact is, if anyone goes exploring and come upon a watch, or even an arrow head, that explorer is going to jump to the conclusion an intelligent being had made them.
And when even atheists admit that life appears to have been designed, with some of them rejecting the speculative speculation known as abiogenesis, in favor of looking for life coming from another planet, then there is an open door to the possibility that God created.
Abiogenesis is biological-life coming from non-biological-life ingredients. That is entirely in harmony with Genesis 1 where:
Genesis 1:11 says:
“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.”
Genesis 1:24 says:
“Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature: cattle, creeping things, and wild beasts of every kind.”
Genesis 2:7 says:
“The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
So the Bible clearly describes the creation of plants, animals, and humans in terms entirely compatible with the definition of abiogenesis.
If you deny abiogenesis, the only alternative is biogenesis, that living things have ALWAYS existed and continually reproduced—and that denies the claims of the Book of Genesis that the world and everything in it had a beginning.
Are you denying that God created geological, chemical, and processes which brought about biological life from the non-living ingredients of the earth’s crust?
SUMMARY: Yes, biogenesis is certainly consistent with the Bible. It is also obvious. And super cool.
For starters, what you’re writing doesn’t make much sense, as common descent doesn’t preclude God’s involvement.
By an iterative process, not by anything intelligent.
I’m what you call an “evolutionist” (a silly term, as I don’t DO evolution), a biologist with a wide range of experience, and a Christian, and I don’t say anything of the sort.
You appear to be invoking a straw-man fallacy.
But, the simple fact is, if anyone goes exploring in biology and looks at protein families with overlapping functions, that explorer is going to reach the conclusion that no intelligent being designed their details.
What’s amusing is that no creationists are showing interest in these details. They just pretend to understand biology better, based entirely on hearsay, than those of us who do it with our own hands. Why is that?
If you’re right and I’m wrong, wouldn’t you be a superior researcher, especially when it comes to saving lives by biomedical research? Shouldn’t you be inspired to do so?
As Allen explained, abiogenesis is explicitly described in the Bible. Do you not understand the simple meaning of the word?
“If you deny abiogenesis, the only alternative is that biological-life ALWAYS existed and that denies the claims of the Book of Genesis that the world and everything in it had a beginning.”
No. This is not true. Denying abiogenesis, keeps me in harmony to how the Bible says God created.
It does not say God created from a protocell. But, it says God created life by speaking it into existence.
It says God call all life into existence. Designing them and forming them by through Himself.
It would be true that life on this earth, would have had to have been in existence, except for the fact that God said He created it all.
But, again. He said He created life not as a protocell, but as whole organisms, which once they appeared they began to reproduce those of their own kind.
You misunderstand. @Dan_Eastwood is an agnostic biostatistician. He contends that the existence of biostatistics is unknowable, even in principle. Don’t let him get away with this.
When most scientists speak of design in nature, they are referring to adaptations to the environment under natural selection, or other natural causes.
What is your position, in terms of the thread topic, which is about YEC in particular?
Of course. We know watches and arrow heads are manufactured, because we do the manufacturing. It would not be very clever to make something and then not know how it was made.
Where does the Genesis text state that God did not use abiogenic processes?
It sounds like you prefer what is sometimes called the “poofing” interpretation of the Genesis creation pericope. This interpretation assumes that God uses a kind of magical action which—poof!—causes everything to appear without any proximate cause(s). But nothing in the text demands that interpretation. And so many Bible-affirming Christians, myself included, look at the universe and notice that things which begin to exist have processes which cause them. So we get the impression that that is how God chose to have his universe operate. And that also makes the scientific method extremely useful in finding explanations for what we observe.
Of course it doesn’t. The ancient Hebrews had no concept of cellular biological structures. And there was certainly no Hebrew word for protocell. Furthermore, I know very few Christians who believe that the Bible was meant to be a science textbook or focus on scientific descriptions. Genesis 1 is about the who of creation, Elohim, and a dogmatic contrast with the creation traditions of neighboring cultures who thought that the various realms of the world (i.e., fish of the sea, the animal kingdom, the plants of the field, etc.) were all attributable to various gods and goddesses. There was no reason to describe exactly HOW Elohim created what we observe in the world. Genesis 1 is about the who and the what and the when (“in the beginning”.
It sounds like you are confusing ultimate causation and proximate causation. They are not mutually exclusive. Have you considered that God (the ultimate cause of life on earth), spoke into existence the matter and energy of the universe in such a way that the processes arising from that mass-energy (the proximate causes) produced life on earth. Nothing about that interpretation conflicts with Genesis 1.
People routinely “speak things into existence” by means of proximate causes. Just this last Wednesday I was describing to a class the origin of the port city of Caesarea Maritima (completed around 10 BC). King Herod the Great ordered the creation of an impressive artificial harbor and elaborate public works which produced a city among the grandest of the Roman Empire. The fact that Herod “spoke into existence” Caesarea Maritima does not preclude innumerable steps and stages and subservient agents in that construction of a great city. Do you not believe that God similarly holds command over all the atoms and processes of physics of the universe such that they do his bidding?
Perhaps you prefer a more traditional (though not necessarily Biblical) view of God as a wizard who “poofs” things into existence with powerful incantations which bypass all intermediate processes. Many people do indeed prefer that view. For them, any talk of abiogenesis seems in total conflict with the church tradition in which many of them were raised.
We definitely know that God used intermediate states of a sort in the course of his creative processes. For example:
Genesis 1:2: “and the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.”
Thus we know that before the earth’s biosphere came into existence, there was a time when the raw materials which would become soil, plants, animals, and everything else were in a raw, formless state. Hmm, do you think it possible that over time the laws of physics produced chemical/biochemical reactions which led to the first lifeforms, just as God had ordained? Do you honestly believe that that is somehow less impressive than “instant proofing”? (Again, in the case of Genesis 1:2 we know that the text mentions an intermediate stage of creation.)
Just for fun I submitted this question to Bard, Google’s AI chat engine:
Does Genesis 1 allow for abiogenesis?
The book of Genesis does not explicitly address the question of abiogenesis, the process by which life arises from non-living matter. However, there are a few passages that some people interpret as being compatible with abiogenesis.
For example, Genesis 1:2 says that “the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.” This suggests that the earth was initially in a state of chaos, which could have been conducive to the formation of life.
Another passage that is sometimes cited in support of abiogenesis is Genesis 1:20, which says that “God said, ‘Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.’” This suggests that God created the conditions necessary for life to arise, but it does not say how life actually arose.
Of course, there are also those who interpret Genesis 1 as a literal account of how God created the world, including life. They believe that God created life directly, without any intervening process such as abiogenesis.
Ultimately, the question of whether or not Genesis 1 allows for abiogenesis is a matter of interpretation. There is no clear consensus among scholars, and different people will come to different conclusions based on their own beliefs and understanding of the text.
Here are some of the arguments that have been made in favor of the view that Genesis 1 allows for abiogenesis:
The phrase “the earth was formless and void” (Genesis 1:2) suggests that the earth was initially in a state of chaos, which could have been conducive to the formation of life.
The phrase “Let the waters teem with living creatures” (Genesis 1:20) suggests that God created the conditions necessary for life to arise, but it does not say how life actually arose.
The fact that the book of Genesis does not explicitly mention abiogenesis does not mean that it does not allow for it. The book of Genesis is not a scientific textbook, and it is not intended to provide a detailed explanation of how life arose.
Here are some of the arguments that have been made in favor of the view that Genesis 1 does not allow for abiogenesis:
The book of Genesis describes God as the creator of all things, including life. This suggests that God created life directly, without any intervening process such as abiogenesis.
The book of Genesis uses the phrase “bara” to describe God’s creative acts. This phrase is often translated as “create,” but it can also be translated as “to bring into being.” This suggests that God created life ex nihilo, or out of nothing.
The book of Genesis does not mention any of the processes that are thought to be involved in abiogenesis, such as the formation of organic molecules or the origin of the genetic code.
Ultimately, the question of whether or not Genesis 1 allows for abiogenesis is a matter of interpretation. There is no clear consensus among scholars, and different people will come to different conclusions based on their own beliefs and understanding of the text.
You are simply ignoring the fact that God said He created. Yes, He had to have created the molecular pieces. Yes, He created the cells and the DNA. But, He didn’t say He did this piece by piece. He said He did it in 6 days.
Anything that contradicts this, is contradicting what God has said.
What’s the matter? Your faith in God will not allow you to believe God could have spoke and it was. That He could have commanded and it stood fast.
Do you or don’t you believe God and in God.
And those who gleefully accept the term Darwinist?
“Now, I know evolutionists have admitted to this, and follow this up with, a “but, it is all an illusion”.”
If you claim common descent where all of the different kinds of lifeforms had a single common ancestor, then yes you are (as a Christian), saying
life appears to be designed but it is an illusion.
Being a Christian, and yet, rejecting what God says as to how He created, means you might as well as toss out the part of the Bible that God says
He created or that He will save.
There are means by which we can observe the earth is not flat. Your response means nothing unless you can demonstrate that design can be seen being caused from chaos by chance, with no intelligence causing it.
Please name even one professor of evolutionary biology who “gleefully accepts the term Darwinist.” (In fact, I can’t think of ANYBODY I’ve ever met or read who identifies as a “Darwinist.”)
There are many evolution-affirming scientists, professors, and even ministers in this Peaceful Science community who would never embrace the term “Darwinist” in any context.
Here are some examples to get you thinking—if you are willing to be challenged in your thinking:
In neither simulation is intelligence guiding the design from chaos. (No, the programmer did not program any of these designs. He/she simply created an environment where random chance generates better and better designs.)
I do not see evidence that would confirm the existence of God, but I do not deny the possibility that God exists. I think of God as a concept, which seem to fill the expected role, and we don’t need evidence to say that a concept exists. I’m not big on labels, but “agnostic” is the closest convenient label to how I feel about it.
Nevertheless, the science works, and gives us useful results. That far better than your average fairy tale.
It would help if those saying life is designed would put forward a testable scientific hypothesis, but they never do (OK - there is one exception). That puts “Lifeforms seem to have been designed.” into the realm of apologetics, not science, which isn’t a very good way to do science.
The implicit assumption here is that human exist, and we know that humans make things like arrowheads and watches. We could find a watch and claim, equally well, that God made the watch, or that unicorns made the watch, or aliens. It’s not a very good argument once you understand that assumption.
Atheists who think life is designed are pretty rare (most of those are Raeliens). Even then they don’t take that as evidence for God. Most people, atheists and theists alike, think that arguments about God creating life are apologetics, not science. Most Christians understand that science and religion have different meaning, and don’t waste their time arguing about it.
That’s not how the (superficial and deceptive) appearance of design in biology is accounted for thru science.
Rather, the appearance is the result of the fact that, of the random variations that occur in every generation of organisms, some of these will be functional in ways that did not exist previously in the population. And these may become more prevalent in the population over time thru natural selection or genetic drift.
As these functional differences accumulate over deep time, very complex systems of proteins will result that, to the naive observer, will appear as if it had been “designed” by an intelligent being.
The giveaway, however, is that we only ever witness complex systems that could have arisen thru this process of variation over time, and never one that could have been assembled de novo from many interacting parts all at once.
In this narrow sense, Behe is actually correct: Any structure or system that could not have arisen thru a series of modifications of structures/systems that existed in earlier generations could not have been produced by evolution. Where he goes wrong is in misperceiving that any such systems actually exist. Just the opposite is the case: None do.
An analogy: When carburetors in internal combustion engines were replaced by electronic fuel injection systems, this was not accomplished by banging a carburetor repeatedly until it morphed into a fuel injections system. Nor do we find atrophied, vestigial remnants of carburetors in modern automobiles. No. Instead, one car has a carburetor, then in the car immediately following the carburetor completely disappears and replaced by a completely new component.
You will find no situation analogous to that in biology. And that’s not because the creationists have not been trying.
You are trying to major in minors because you as do all who accept evolution find you don’t have any evidence to support what you believe.
“Do you deny that modern-day YECism has pushed many people to atheism? If so, why?”
What do you call “YECism”?
Few do, because “-ist” in science refers to actions, not people. You might also note that much of evolution has been known to be non-Darwinian for decades now. You should stop using hearsay, as you are obviously grossly misinformed about the basics.
No claiming at all. Common descent is a hard conclusion from massive amounts of data, from which you shield yourself using hearsay.
I don’t. The Bible doesn’t say that God designed anything. You’re the one embellishing here.
You appear to be rejecting parts of the Bible for political reasons. Why?
