# Serious Creationism question- Can there be Natural Selection? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2001, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-creationism-question-can-there-be-natural-selection/57894 "2001-03-14T03:47:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PosterChild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@PosterChild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PosterChild)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2001, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-creationism-question-can-there-be-natural-selection/57894/21 "2001-03-14T15:24:32Z")
We are getting off topic (I’m dying to hear from a ‘literal interpretation’ Creationist- **Wildest Bill**?). \*Even without the geneology of Jesus, the Jewish calendar, which has been counting for quite awhile now, is on year 5,761 since the creation of the world. Literal interpretation of the Christian bible is difficult (even without bringning in the different English versions) because the ‘oldest’ one (The Septaguint(sp?)) shows evidence of having been altered since it was written, which means there are no direct quotes from the Apostles left, only approximations.\* But just going on the Jewish bible, we have Creation, and a short timeline. I can see the reconciliations that have been made by saying G:Dd was using analogies. It’s the non-metaphoric interpretation I’m trying to understand. PC ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2001, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-creationism-question-can-there-be-natural-selection/57894/22 "2001-03-14T15:38:56Z")
**CMKellar** said: > [@](#): > > We creationists (or at least the Orthodox Jewish ones) believe that the natural laws are part of G-d’s creation as well. So there is no contradiction between saying something happened “naturally” and saying that G-d did it. Only if you insist that it happened randomly would creationists argue with you. Chaim, I’d like your permission to enshrine this, particularly the middle sentence, somewhere and quote it on a regular basis when these sorts of arguments break out. And to associate myself publicly, as a Christian who believes in a Creator God and accepts the theory of evolution as the explanation of **how** He handled the creation of species, with that statement in every detail (except for being an Orthodox Jew! ;j ) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2001, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-creationism-question-can-there-be-natural-selection/57894/23 "2001-03-14T15:56:18Z")
Cmkeller: Are you asserting that God individually and directly designed the genetic code of of each individual species, that the fluctuation of parameters is then regulated by this unchanging code? ---
**Author:** ![scampering\_gremlin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@scampering\_gremlin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scampering_gremlin)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2001, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-creationism-question-can-there-be-natural-selection/57894/24 "2001-03-14T17:07:02Z")
Mysphyt, it seems our definitions of Deism pretty much coincide. The idea does have a certain esthetic appeal. Given the choice between a deity who plans things out from the start and a deity who micromanages the number of leg hairs on a fruit fly, I’d prefer the former. It sounds like a smarter way to operate. Although most Deists have held that the Almighty made no direct interventions in the universe after its creation, others might argue that dating the creation at the Big Bang shouldn’t preclude an occasional miracle. Polycarp, theoretical physicists would argue with you. It’s widely accepted now that Einstein’s greatest mistake was not believing quantum theory. “God does not play dice with the universe,” were his words. Well, unless some radically new explanation for natural laws makes an appearance, it seems that’s exactly what He does. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes an overall beauty and design appears within a random formula. Fractals are an excellent example. There’s also a hypothesis that randomness leads to alternate universes. The simplest example would be flipping a coin. If the act is truly random, then you (along with everything else) would split into two alternate realities where in one the coin comes up heads and in the other it comes up tails. You wouldn’t be aware of the other Polycarps but, if you believe in an Almighty, He would. So what you or I think of when we say randomness would have a very different meaning to a higher power–something still compatible with the idea of omniscience. I’ll remain silent on the matter of my personal beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2001, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-creationism-question-can-there-be-natural-selection/57894/25 "2001-03-14T18:45:59Z")
_originally posted by cmkeller_ > [@](#): > > There have, for example, been fly experiments in which scientists tried to breed flies with as many and as few leg bristles as possible. After a certain number, there was no further increase (or decrease). The parameters for potential change were in the genes, and could not be exceeded. Ah yes, cmkeller, this may be true, but it seems you might be missing things as well. From what I’ve studied, the fruitflies that were artifically selected for whatever (leg bristles, resistance to cold or heat, even increased tolerance of alcohol in one case!), were then unable to produce fertile offspring when mated with normal, unaltered fruitflies. Bingo bango–a new species (at least in the biological definition of the word)! Strictly speaking, these flies were not the same species as the normal flies. Such speciation can be seen rather quickly in the lab (60 generations, give or take–s’alright, they don’t live that long) but can also be seen over a longer period with the fruitflies in S. America. Seems a species was introduced and began spreading. After some time (several centuries perhaps, I forget exactly), it was seen that while flies from adjacent regions could breed and produce fertile offspring, those from extreme extents could not. They were viewed as being separate species. I don’t have cites–all the above info is from my Evolution and Extinction class I took in college a year ago–but I’ll dig some up if necessary. Mysphyt–I’m much the same as yourself. Believe in God, believe also in the big bang and evolution. In my mind, these three things are not mutually exclusive. Scylla–you’re a hoot. Now I have visions of a sort of groundhog inquisition with the Grand Inquisitor groundhog in volumnous robes with the poor accused groundhog, in shackles, quivering before the pyre that’s soon to be his/hers/its. All because of its genetic revolution. Hee hee! Snickers ---
**Author:** ![PosterChild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@PosterChild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PosterChild)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2001, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-creationism-question-can-there-be-natural-selection/57894/26 "2001-03-14T18:59:30Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **cmkeller** _ > He does have a such a “checklist.” He built it into the genetic code. > > There have, for example, been fly experiments in which scientists tried to breed flies with as many and as few leg bristles as possible. After a certain number, there was no further increase (or decrease). The parameters for potential change were in the genes, and could not be exceeded. But flies weren’t created initially, right? The Plan for the fly in the yeary 5761 was that through evolution it would have the features it does, but in the past it didn’t have them, so the checklist for the previous species included the transformation into the fly, right? And evolution occurs through random mutations, G;jd just knew/planned ahead what would happen. (The way he knew/planned the orbits of the electrons in the molecules of my hand as it types this.) Does this mean that animals are in their final form? That flies can not evolve anymore? **cmkeller** , do you believe the world began less than a million years ago? ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2001, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-creationism-question-can-there-be-natural-selection/57894/27 "2001-03-14T19:26:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PosterChild \* > \*\*we’re less than 6000 years from creation \*\* That’s not exactly accurate **Poster Child**. While we are less than 6000 away from Adam, we are not necessarily less than 6000 years from Creation. There is (and has long [and I mean very long – you’ll see what I mean] been) discussions in Judaism about the six days of creation. Some take the term literally. Creation took place in six twenty-four hour periods. Others take it not as literally. For example, R. Yitzchock of Akko (a disciple of Nachmanides, who lived about 750 years ago) said that the world was created billions of years ago. The Midrash says that God created the world many times (creating and destroying each in turn). The Talmud in Chaggigah states that there were 974 generations before Adam. (Not the people, but the time for said generations existed). There is no “official” Jewish line on the matter. Could the dinosaurs have been around millions of years ago and gone extinct? Sure. The same can be said for any number of species that go extinct. Probably the only thing that you will get most Orthodox Jews to agree upon (in the Creationism sense) are these principles: [ul] [li]God created the universe. Maybe with a Big Bang, maybe with a wave of His magic wand, but He created the universe.[/li][li]God created man. Man did not evolve from a lower species.[/li][li]We are all descendants of Adam and Eve.[/li][li]Everything in creation has a purpose and nothing is random. Even if God allowed animals to evolve and change, it is not random. It’s all by His design.[/li][li]The counting of years that we now have (and are now holding at 5761) is from the creation of Adam.[/li][/ul] The rest of it is up to the individual believer. Did God put dinosaur bones which, when carbon dated come out to 80 million years old, there to test us? Maybe. Were the dinosaurs actually there? Maybe. Did God create distant stars millions of light years away with their light already “on the way” to earth so that we can see them today? Maybe. Have the stars actually been there millions of years? Maybe. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Mysphyt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dbc845/32.png) [@Mysphyt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mysphyt)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2001, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-creationism-question-can-there-be-natural-selection/57894/28 "2001-03-15T04:53:51Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Homebrew_ > Second, both geneologies trace Jesus to David through Joseph. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the Gospels claim that God, not Joseph, was Jesus’ father Well, in Luke 3:23, it says, “He was the son, **so it was thought** , of Joseph . . .” (emphasis mine). People thought he was Joseph’s son, while he was the son of God. Also, he was the son of Mary who, as you will see, is apparently also of the house of David. Which is linked to your first point. > [@](#): > > _Same_ > The differences in the geneology given in the two Gospels cannot be dismissed so easily. The writers contradict each other and both claim to be complete. So the assertion that they “skip a few generations in the interest of time and space” is flawed. Well, like I said, I don’t have all the answers. Here’s something that may be moderately helpful, though. And, in case this is in violation of myriad copyright laws, which it may be, I apologize to all concerned; this is taken from the notes on Luke 3:23-38 > [@](#): > > _Barker, gen. ed., 1541_ > Some scholars suggest [the differences in the lineage are] because Matthew traces the legal descent of the house of David using only heirs to the throne, while Luke traces the complete line of Joseph to David. A more likely explanation, however, is that Matthew follows the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), while Luke emphasizes that of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative). Although tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side was unusual, so was the virgin birth. ## Further explanation. Hope it helps. Barker, Kenneth, gen. ed. _The NIV Study Bible_. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985. ---
**Author:** ![Dagger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/41988e/32.png) [@Dagger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dagger)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2001, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-creationism-question-can-there-be-natural-selection/57894/29 "2001-03-15T13:25:37Z")
_another newbie alert_ My two cents on this issue. I really wasn´t aware of this great “war” between religion and science in America untill I stumbled on to this site and started reading the debates raging between the two camps, it made me sad. Sadder still when I read Jack Chick’s tracts on evolution and religion, helpfully supplied by other Dopers, (is this guy a raving nut or what). The creationists in my opinion, are making a travesty of both science and religion by clobbering the two together and presenting that bastard offspring as science. I wonder what drives creationists to reject biology,geology,physics,chemistry and just about any empirical science discipline you’d care to mention to support their literalist version of the Bible? Creationists aren´t the only ones who “wonder about it all”, i.e. “What’s the meaning of Life”, “Why am I here” etc. People who accept evolution, be they Christians, Atheists,Agnostics or Whateverists also think about these questions. But to use the Bible as a handy-dandy science textbook instead of a moral compass is as absurd as if a scientist wanted to disprove the existance of God with a dinosaur fossil (MWUHAHAHAHA WHERE’S YOUR GOD NOW, CHRISTBOY!) ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2001, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-creationism-question-can-there-be-natural-selection/57894/30 "2001-03-15T15:52:04Z")
Scylla: > [@](#): > > Are you asserting that God individually and directly designed the genetic code of of each individual species, that the fluctuation of parameters is then regulated by this unchanging code? Pretty much, but don’t hold me to that exact language. If I’m technically wrong on a point of semantics, you still know, in esence, what I mean. Scampering Gremlin: > [@](#): > > Given the choice between a deity who plans things out from the start and a deity who micromanages the number of leg hairs on a fruit fly, I’d prefer the former. Really? Given the choice between a diety who creates something and then capriciously decides it doesn’t want to play with its new toy anymore, and between a diety who takes creation of life seriously and sticks around to manage his creation, I’d choose the latter. But both of those choices, of course, presuppose a creator who is bound by time as we are. In the Orthodox Jewish view, G-d is a timeless being, and so his “constant micromanagement” is actually merely an aspect of his “original creation.” Snickers: > [@](#): > > Ah yes, cmkeller, this may be true, but it seems you might be missing things as well. From what I’ve studied, the fruitflies that were artifically selected for whatever (leg bristles, resistance to cold or heat, even increased tolerance of alcohol in one case!), were then unable to produce fertile offspring when mated with normal, unaltered fruitflies. Bingo bango–a new species (at least in the biological definition of the word)! That’s not what I recall reading…but I’ll try to find the original article to be certain. PosterChild: > [@](#): > > But flies weren’t created initially, right? The Plan for the fly in the yeary 5761 was that through evolution it would have the features it does, but in the past it didn’t have them, so the checklist for the previous species included the transformation into the fly, right? No, I didn’t say that. What I was saying was that the genetic code contains wiggle room so that species can survive unusual circumstances…but that that wiggle room is limited. > [@](#): > > And evolution occurs through random mutations, Gd just knew/planned ahead what would happen. (The way he knew/planned the orbits of the electrons in the molecules of my hand as it types this.) If G-d planned it, then it’s not random. And that’s the main point I was trying to make to begin with. > [@](#): > > Does this mean that animals are in their final form? That flies can not evolve anymore? I wouldn’t go so far as to assume that. However, I would say that examples of microevolution does not prove that macroevolution is true. > [@](#): > > cmkeller, do you believe the world began less than a million years ago? I refer you to Zev’s excellent response rather than post one of my own, which would pretty much be a repeat, albeit a less eloquent one. Chaim Mattis Keller ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2001, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-creationism-question-can-there-be-natural-selection/57894/31 "2001-03-17T00:24:44Z")
[hijack] The genealogies of Jesus: The claim that the genealogy found in [Luke 3:23-38](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+3:23-38&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on) _really_ refers to Mary when it says Joseph is the most common inerrantist way of reconciling that passage with [Matthew 1:1-17](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+1:1-17&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on). Note that there’s nothing in the actual words of the Bible to indicate that Mary is being spoken of; it just “has to be that way” because otherwise the Bible must be in error. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![PosterChild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@PosterChild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PosterChild)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2001, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-creationism-question-can-there-be-natural-selection/57894/32 "2001-03-17T14:13:18Z")
> [@](#): > > **cmkeller:** > > > [@](#): > > > > **PosterChild:** > > But flies weren’t created initially, right? The Plan for the fly in the yeary 5761 was that through evolution it would have the features it does, but in the past it didn’t have them, so the checklist for the previous species included the transformation into the fly, right? > > No, I didn’t say that. What I was saying was that the genetic code contains _wiggle_ room so that species can survive unusual circumstances…but that that wiggle room is limited. Does that mean that the species we see were the ones created at the begining? Could all the evolution that occured before humans (maybe including the early ‘proto’ humans) be all part of his putting all the plants and animals here? That when Adam was formed he fit into the plan, and it was the ‘spark’ of soul that made Adam Adam that God gave at that point? Dan I understand how He can set things up so that “random” events occur as He expects. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-creationism-question-can-there-be-natural-selection/57894.md?page=1)