Soon after Darwin published the Origin, a minister – whose name escapes me – published a book called Omphalos (which means navel.) The basic idea was that the earth was created 6000 years ago, but God created in place all the fossils and strata to make the earth look like an old earth formed by geological and evolutionary processes.
Philosophers and Scientists quickly dismissed this argument, and so do most “Sceintific” young-earth-creationists.
However, in my experience, this is the way most rank and file christians resolve the perceived conflict between science and a literal reading of the Bible.
Not always considered a slap in the face, but instead a source of humor.
A friend told me of his visit to the Flatirons, a rock formation in West Virginia, a few years ago. While he was looking out at them, standing next to him was a family of four, with two kids in their late teens.
The daughter read the explanatory plaque, and turned in excitement to her family:
“Mom, dad, get this!! ‘The Flatirons were formed by [some geological process] some 15 million years ago.’ Fifteen million years!! Those evolutionists crack me up!”
You seem like the perfect type of fellow to represent the opposing viewpoint in this discussion. So tell me, why do you feel threatened by evolutionary theory? Atheists existed long before Darwin was even a gleam in his father’s eye. Do you likewise feel intimidated by the findings of astronomy, and its conclusions on the age of the universe? Does the fact that we no longer consider the “pretty lights” in the night sky to be held up by Angels make you uneasy?
Science has no bearing on the existence of your God. The argument for the existence of God rests on its on merits, just as the arguments for Santa Claus and the Invisible Pink Unicorn do.
It was Phillip Gosse, 1857. The title comes from the question of whether Adam had a bellybutton – since (so the story goes) he never spent any time gestating. Gosse’s answer was, Yes Adam had a navel – because he and the rest of the world were created with the “appearance of age.” That is, the first trees had multiple growth rings, et cetera.
One good objection to this model is that God could just as easily have created the entire Universe last Tuesday (or, if you will, last Thursday) and implanted each of us with false memories to think that we are older. Any way you slice it, it’s pretty nasty for God to deceive people like that.
Oh, and to answer the O.P. – evolution does have some theological significance. After all, this mighty theory has now made a literal reading of Genesis, for example, entirely untenable. Anyone who insists on that particular theological interpretation must deny external reality.
In fairness to Gosse, his ideas were a little more complicated and sophisticated than the “Divine Weasel” theory.
He argued that objects which were formed fully created would naturally have the appearance of age. When God made trees, for instance, he would have given them rings. Although rings are generally evidence of age (and therefore past history), this is not necessarily deceptive since God’s goal was to create a fully formed universe. If future trees were to have rings, then the first ones should as well. The argument gets a bit sketchier when one starts arguing that God created all organisms as though they had evolved, thus planting evidence of common descent where there is none. Once you get into this line of thinking, you’re pretty much in the same spot as the School of Last Thursdayism.
But evolution is hardly alone in this respect, nor is it the first area of science to do so. The earth was generally considered to be at least millions of years old in 1850. Astronomy and geology contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis. Hell, even simple geography will tell you that Noah’s Ark is a myth. Why is evolution more or less singled out by the creationists?
Actually, creationists tend to lump together evolution, abiogenesis, the age of the Universe, and the Big Bang theory in cosmology together under the heading “evolution”. Also, evolution is probably especially upsetting to fundamentalists because it tends to erode the belief that human beings are “special”–created in the image of God; with immortal souls, which no other living thing is supposed to have–in favor of the idea that human beings are animals. The lack of special creation of humans also conflicts with the idea of Original Sin and the Fall of Man, which is of great importance in evangelical theology. Note that there are several competing schools of creationism besides young-earth/six-day, including “gap theory” and “day-age”, but they all tend to balk at abandoning the special creation of human beings by God, even if they will accept an old universe or some evolution of “lower” forms of life.
The idea that science can be “bad” baffles me. Science just is. The idea that science and God are mutually exclusive is the most baffling thing of all. If you believe in a Creator, everything scientific, every new discovery, is an insight into the mind of God, a step closer to Enlightenment with a capital E.
Boy, is this ever the truth. Throw in a little radiometric dating and you have ImNotMad. Must be some grand, evil, evolution conspiracy that secretly rules over all scientific findings. Let me know about the next meeting, will ya?
For some reason, this reminded me of an article by Daniel Dennett titled In Darwin’s Wake, Where am I? Perhaps they see it as the replacement of Absolute Wisdom by Absolute Ignorance. Maybe they are looking for a “skyhook” instead of a “crane”.
The old “microevolution doesn’t prove macroevolution” psychosis, yet I’m always left wondering, just what is the magical barrier between the two? Could it be a “change in form”?
The idea that science can be “bad” baffles me. Science just is. The idea that science and God are mutually exclusive is the most baffling thing of all. If you believe in a Creator, everything scientific, every new discovery, is an insight into the mind of God, a step closer to Enlightenment with a capital E.**
(recoilling in horror)You, you, you… you’re a Jesuit!!!
KeithB, I think this is something that creationists just have to get used to. They are hardly in a unique situation. Anyone who holds a minority opinion about which they feel strongly has to learn to live with their situation. Consider vegetarians who believe that eating meat is wrong or immoral. They have to hear people talking about eating meat, they have to smell meat cooking, etc.
A basic summary is that with enough increase of entropy of a system’s surroundings (work), the entropy of the system can be decreased, even though the overall entropy of the system and surroundings receives an irreversible increase in entropy (as defined by the law of thermodynamics).
Here are some questions I have regarding this article:
How does the earth, as a system, receive an increase in entropy? The sun? Is the sun enough? The sun does not cause a dead twig to come to life. Material possessions deteriorate and all living organisms return to dust, a state of disorder. All processes of nature have a tendency toward decay and disintegration, observable everywhere here on earth.
How does the mere availability of energy insure the development of orderly structural growth? Probability, or intelligent design?
Do you think open systems are immune to the law of thermodynamics? As stated by this article, decreases in entropy can only be produced at the expense of a still greater increase in the external environment. Such processes are temporary and eventually succumb to the second law.
As for the examples of order from disorder: the crystalline symmetry of snowflakes and salt, are already programmed into the nature of the molecules; just ask a chemist. The growth of plants from seeds, and chicks from eggs, are already programmed in the DNA; just ask a biologist.
“No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world.” (Dr. Harold Blum, evolutionary biochemist, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, p119)
Regarding the other links, I haven’t had a chance to read them yet (I intend to).
Polycarp:
Since you’ve apparently already read them, why don’t you give me some highlights.
Yet the law of thermodynamics suggests the former to be conserved. Your comments about an open system with the sun does not explain how beneficial effects are produced or conserved.
BTW, aren’t you glad that I didn’t just post links to sites or journals or books that I think support my beliefs then expect you to read them?
Yes, the sun provides a whole lot of energy to the Earth.
No, the sun does not cause dead twigs to come back to life, but nobody is saying that it does.
ImNotMad, you seem to have a very, very basic understanding of the 2LoT, one with which no scientist would agree.
Let me ask you a few questions:
How many laws of thermodynamics are there?
Please state the 2LoT in mathematical notation.
What specific process of evolution defies the 2LoT? Mutation? Birth? Growth?
Nope, natural selection takes care of that.
No, no system is immune to the 2LoT. Open systems, however, are immune to the creationist version of the 2LoT, which is that “everything becomes more disordered over time.”
I’m not sure what you mean when you state that the order is “programmed into the molecules.” How does this overcome the 2LoT?
No, it does not. I have no idea where you got this idea. Consider two simple mutations. One causes an increase in leg length, the other a decrease in leg length. Now, in humans, which of these is “beneficial” and which is “deleterious”? If you’re an Eskimo, the latter. Smaller bodies conserve energy better. If you’re a hunter-gatherer type, the latter, since you’ll be able to run faster and catch more food. If you live in America in the 21st century, they are both probably neutral.
Now, this is not to say that all mutations can go either way. One that kills people in utero is certainly deleterious. But why the heck would either of these mutations be selected against by the 2LoT? By this logic, even “microevolution” is impossible, and each species should be getting progressively less fit every subsequent generation.
As an interested reader of this thread, as well as the thousands of other evolution v creation threads, I have to say no. By posting links to sites and journals or books that support your beliefs, you are proving that you actually have support. As of right now, you don’t. For all I know, you are just making things up as you write. At least the people debating against you use cites to prove they aren’t just pulling words out of the dictionary and randomly stringing them together.
This is important to me as a lurker, because you aren’t going to convince the people debating against you. You are debating for the benefit of the possibly thousands of people who read the threads with interest. If you can’t offer support and the other side can, why should I care what you have to say?
You mean a DEcrease in entropy. Entropy is a measure of disorder. It’s the Sun’s entropy that is decreasing, not the Earth’s. Astronomers estimate the Sun will exist in its current state for another 4 billion years, so it’s nothing we have to worry about.
However, even if the Sun were to fizzle out tomorrow, not all life on Earth would go extinct. The organisms that live near deep-sea vents will endure for as long as the interior of the Earth remains red-hot. These organisms have never seen the Sun and do not need it. (Note the pink eels and crabs in the image along with the red-and-white tube worms, which can grow to a length of six feet. This particular vent is located at a depth of 8,500 feet in the Pacific east of Mexico.)
True, but it was the Sun that helped keep it alive, in conjunction with photosynthesis.
It isn’t just the energy. The right chemical compounds have to be present.
Of course. What do you think happens when you eat? The entropy of your food increases as your body digests it, and the entropy of your body decreases as it absorbs the nutrients. Hours later, you are hungry again, because order must give way to disorder. Disorder ALWAYS wins eventually. IOW, living things die.)
BTW, doesn’t the 2LoT make it impossible for eternal souls to exist? And yet I bet you believe in their existence, don’t you?
Nah. The gestalt that is man is a beautiful piece of engineering despite whatever mechanism God has employed to achieve it. Just because it took a long time in our reference frame doesn’t mean anything of consequence.
A. I am a Christian. I believe that the Earth was created by God. I beleive that man was created in His image i. e. having God-like quailities, not physical resemblance. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I need no evidence to believe these things, indeed, my beleif is not in any manner based on evidence. It is based on faith. Because my faith is a personal thing between me and God, I do not ask that anyone agree with my beleifs, nor will I attempt to justify my faith through logic or reason.
B. I beleive that the Universe came into being about 15 billion years ago. I beleive that the Earth and the Solar System formed about 4.5 billion years ago. I believe that all life evolved from the primordial soup of complex proteins and amino acids into single celled organisms, and over millions of years into the complex web of life that now exists on Earth. I believe that humans and apes evolved from a more primitive common ancestor. I believe these things because all of the well-studied and thoroughly tested and retested evidence leads logically to these conclusions.
C. Nothing in A directly contradicts anything in B. Indeed, I beleive that B is the method God used to achive A. More specifically, I beleive that God created man, and that evolution is the method he used to create the physical form of man. He is omnipotent, so why couldn’t He choose evolution as His method? To deny this possibility is to put limits on God’s power which seems to me to be a very un-Christian thing to do.
The act of creating “man in his own image” was that of imparting homo sapiens sapiens with a spirit, which separated man from the animals. Again, this beleif I base on faith; I do not ask anyone to beleive it nor do I offer any evidence to support it. That is the nature of faith.
Which is, I guess, my way of saying, in response to the OP, that I don’t think the evolution debate is neccesarily a theological debate. It only becomes a theological debate if you want to interpret the Bible literally.
For an interesting look at an interpretation of the Bible, specifically Genesis, that is completely in line with current science, you might want to look here. The writer claims to have a literal interpretaion of Genesis that is consistent with ancient earth and evolution science, but is really doing some metaphorical interpretation here. He tries to prove the existence of God through reason, which I think is unnecessary. If you have faith, proof is unnecessary, and if you don’t have faith, the evidence is, I beleive inconclusive. He also concludes with an attack on all world religions that I find very distasteful and disrespectful, but otherwise my beleifs are fairly close to what you’ll find here.