Complexity and evolution of the cell

[Michelle]

I've been trying to follow this discussion as an onlooker. Perhaps there are atheists who are also reading along, as well, and maybe jriccitelli is trying to make an appeal to them. If so, I hope they are untangling this discussion with more ease than I am!

A page or so back, there was a bit of a discussion about defining the term evolution. It was agreed (at least it SEEMED to be agreed) that there is a bit of a range in definitions of this term. In the broadest sense, it means change over time. In the narrowest sense, it seems to refer to naturalism and abiogenesis.

SteveF seems to be using the broad sense of the word and is presenting a view of Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creationism.*

...God created nature in such a fashion that things would evolve the way they have.

Jriccitelli, on the other hand, seems to be using the narrow definition of 'evolution'.

The typical popular notion of 'Evolution' means there was no direction or input by a higher power (intellect), if there was a point in that stage where God intervened then that part was design by God, not evolution.

Using JR's definition, "Theistic Evolution" and "Evolutionary Creationism" are oxymorons, and thus, dismissible. I can see, then, why he keeps working to prove there is a creator. It also explains why he might brush aside people like Glenn Morton as being mistaken. However, following this discussion is watching people talk past each other.

So...for the love of your lurkers, please decide which definition of the term evolution you are using. Perhaps things would be easier if you just stick with jriccitelli's use, and then spell out whole phrase 'change over time' when that's what you mean?







*Steve, is there a difference between these two terms? I confess I am very uninformed about these views.

[SteveF]

Thanks for reposting it Michelle!

I'll try to define my terms.

The way I understand it is a Theistic Evolutionist would believe what a Naturalist believes scientifically but they are not Naturalists. Naturalists believe everything happened through natural explanations only. A Theistic Evolutionist believes God is responsible for creation.

I'm going to use an analogy and risk being misunderstood. 

Everyone would agree on the science of how a baby is made via conception ....I'll skip all the details! A Naturalist would say it all happens through natural explanation only and by chance. A Theistic Evolutionist would say that nobody reading this post is an accident. Even though they would agree with the Naturalist scientifically they believe God has a purpose for you because He is behind your existence.

[Michelle]

Thank you, Steve!

I appreciated this explanation also from a previous post:

Btw, I actually prefer the term Evolutionary Creation. I agree with a scientist who doesn't think God should simply be a qualifying adjective to the term evolution.

What do you think about the term "Progressive Creation" which avoids the word "evolution" altogether?

[SteveF]

The way I understand Progressive Creationism is God at various times throughout hundreds of millions of years created new species. This would differ from a Theistic Evolutionist who believes species evolved.

I think Hugh Ross is the best known supporter of this view.

[Michelle]

Okay, I gotcha; we're (or you guys are) going to HAVE to wrestle with the term "evolution".

Does evolution require change to happen by chance? I think this is the understanding that brings up the characterization of God as a dice roller by Homer and jriccitelli's implication that God was pleasantly surprised by chicken and corn. (If He likes them, that is.) Is it possible that God has it all planned out, even if He did not intervene periodically to create now species?

[SteveF]

I definitely think God is behind it all. To what degree He intervenes is the million dollar question for me.

A sperm connecting with an egg certainly seems random but we read how God opened and closed wombs etc...

[jriccitelli]

(Note; when we debate, we are debating the premise (evolution, creation) not the person. So don't take this personally)
Sorry about the Genesis rebuttal, I didn't notice the quote was from Homer square above the links.

Evolution is deceiving if it uses a word, to mean the opposite thing (design / chance). What if your doctor said "you surely wont die of this" but what he means is that you will die of this. Design in our language means you design something, if it has no designer then it has no design. Slow or fast 'change' does not 'mean' design, you can change clothes or shoes without designing them. Natural selection is not design, you can select your clothes and shoes without being a designer. Things do not go from good to better, only worse, this is science and it is observable - all day long, just let go of a steering wheel or leave a pan on the stove.

[SteveF]

I believe that God could definitely have designed the entire evolutionary process. If He did then His mind is obviously well above ours.

Setting aside evolution, do you believe God designed apparent chance in creation? Do you believe God designed things so that some plant seeds that fall off a tree would take root and others wouldn't? Some sperm would reach the egg and others wouldn't? When one looks at it, it seems like random chance (Much like Evolution). A Naturalist would see the seed blow off a tree and say God has nothing to do with where it landed. A Christian would say God designed the whole wonderful process and may or may not directly intervene at times (Sometimes I wonder if God attaches seeds to my dog's hair all the time so He can transport them where He wants them to go ) .

Two people looking at Creation can see it completely different ways. One could see it only as random chance; the other could see God’s hand in it all. Two people looking at Evolution can see it in completely different ways as well.

What about micro-evolution (significant change within species). Did God design that process? If so, why could he not have designed a macro process?

[mattrose]

I don't think I know any YEC's who believe God is incapable of orchestrating microbe to man evolution. I think the bigger issue is whether or not we think God would use such a process (millions and millions of years of death... even before The Fall) instead of special creation (which God is also certainly capable of).

If I were to be persuaded toward theistic evolution... it might give me a deeper appreciation for the patience of God, but it would cause me to have greater concerns about God's wisdom and level of involvement in creation. What was the point of the millions of years before the first 'Adam'? Was there no other way to get an Adam? Was there something worthwhile about getting Adam that way? I'm genuinely curious.

[jriccitelli]

I don’t know who might be a YEC, but it’s not me (I thought this thread was about the complexity of the cell)
I spent some effort trying to show the term evolution needed defining, in fact the argument needs to be restated – some people say the complexity in creation came about by design, others say it happened by chance – there is no logical combining of the ideas (otherwise there would be no logical argument, but there is). But Steve, your questions point out 'why' you see it combined.

I am glad you brought up the seeds. Many people like me are amazed at the plethora of ‘ideas’ and ways the seeds get around, a tree on our street produces seeds that have a helicopter like wing design that allows the seeds to fly. Another catches on your dogs fur, another is lighter than air and blows off in the wind and floats for miles, some explode like a little bomb, some get eaten by animals and pooped further away, etc. I see design and 'intention', it works. In fact the hundreds of various seed distribution systems show they are indeed 'great', and must therefore be great designs because if they were not we ‘wouldn’t have all the seeds’ in the first place. But ‘where’ a seed lands is not a relative part of either viewpoint, I don’t see a lack of design with how the seeds falling or blowing has anything to do with this issue, maybe providence, fatalism or determinism? (a shotgun shoots shot everywhere, it is designed to)

I believe that God could definitely have designed the entire evolutionary process. If He did then His mind is obviously well above ours.

Still this does not make any sense to this argument, if God did not 'design' it – it happened by 'chance'. If you add design to evolution, it is no longer chance it is design. Chance (evolution in this context) is not something a designer builds into, or would want in a design. The 'chances' are already too great that something will go wrong (entropy). You actually design with the ‘purpose’ to ‘prevent’ the design from leaving it’s 'intended purpose'. A design can be programmed or engineered to change within it’s parameters, such as a convertible car, a Swiss army knife, modeling clay, but you don’t engineer into them blind chance so a convertible can become a wing or a funnel. You don’t want the knife to become a doorknob or a hubcap, nor do you want modeling clay to ‘become’ watery, or hard, you want it to ‘remain’ 'flexible' modeling clay.

Again; did God intend on cells forming proteins, or was He surprised?