Science And The Bible - Introduction

[Kyuuketsuki]

The Genesis account uses the word kind, variations within a kind doesn't conflict with the Bible.

So you admit that "macro" Evolution does contradict the Bible? Note that macro evolution is supported by 99.9% of the scientific community, and therefore constitutes it as science (possibly the most widely supported scientific view). I'd like to see how you can find the Biblical passage that supports macro Evolution.

This isn't meant as an attack on you but I think it's wrong to imply that the scientific community accepts "macro" evolution ... "macro" & "micro" evolution appear to be nothing more than creationist inventions and by accepting these as valid we play into their hands. I wrote this a year or so ago:

We see change/adaptation/"micro" evolution (whatever you want to call it) all around us, cats (to use a simplistic example) give birth to kittens, those kittens are similar to their parents but not exactly so, the kittens become cats and a pair of black cats is more likely to give rise to black kittens than otherwise. Johnny's Dad has the ability to curl his tongue, his mother does not. Johnny's Dad's parents were the same so (on the assumption, now understood to be true, that the tongue curling gene (TC) is dominant and that characteristics are determined by pairs of genes) we can hypothesise that Johnny's Dad carries at least one of the genes and that Johnny's mum carries only the recessive. If Johnny's Dad carries only one TC gene the chances (based on a simple truth table) are that 3 of 4 children will be able to curl their tongues ... and in this hypothetical instance this is true, Johnny has two brothers and a sister and his sister and one of his brothers are also able to curl their tongues. None of these changes are going to result in a new species because it is simple adaptation, or as creationists (and many popular science writers now, errantly IMO, refer to it, "micro" evolution), yes?

The evolutionist however sees it a little differently ... as far as they are concerned adaptation is evolution, a species adapts; and adapts some more; and adapts some more; and adapts some more until one day (over a very long period) it has adapted so far that suddenly (without any of that species actually realising it, assuming they were able to do so) they have evolved (in effect the differences become so noticeable, so fundamental that we, the observers, are able to define a new species! Adaptation has become evolution, "micro" evolution has become "macro" evolution ... and that is because "micro" evolution is exactly the same as "macro" evolution except that it has had a lot longer time to progress. Speciation/"macro" evolution is simply adaptation/"micro" evolution + time (lots and lots of time).

BUT, according to creationists evolution can't happen so the question becomes why ... if change on top of change on top of change on top of change (ad infinitum) does not equal a big change then why? What stops it? Something must do so! There must, if the creationists are right, be a mechanism

Hope fully you see what I am saying, why it is important we don't "buy into" this wingnut "micro"/"macro" evolution idea!

It's also worth noting something I brought up in that and that is that we, the observers, are able to define a new species ... fundies act as if species were something magical, something strange and weird and unique but the truth is they aren't ... we (science) defines what species are and whether or not a given animal's differences are sufficient to consider it a new species and we do that purely and simply to allow us to catalogue and identify them ... it is purely a classification system that enhances our ability to rationally study life systems.

For Daystar, a question:

My contention is that both "micro" & "macro" evolution are creationist inventions (the fact that you buy into this idea is yet another reason to support my contention that you are just another Fundy, admittedly old Earth but just a creationist stooge) whereas evolutionists (whether they accept the nomenclature or not) recognise that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the same thing, adaptation; that if something adapts far enough it changes. Small change plus small change plus small change plus small change plus small change (and so on over vast amounts of time) ultimately results in big change ... it isn't rocket science, given that adaptation happens it's a rational expectation that it will happen.

So the question changes and one has to ask, if creationists (if you) are right, what stops adaptation becoming evolution? What mechanism exists to prevent "micro" evolution becoming "macro"? Assume, if you will, that I am simple minded person; that I need to be told exactly why things happen ... correct me if I'm wrong but, if this simple concept is not true, then there must be something that prevents it so the question you have to answer is what is that mechanism? Can you enlighten me and tell me exactly what the difference is between "micro" & "macro" evolution (without resorting to tiresome clichés like "micro" equals adaption and "macro" equals speciation and what it is that forever stops one becoming the other? It's a simple enough question for ANY decent evolutionist to answer ... what is your answer? You imply there are limits to evolution ... what limits it?

Kyu