Donate -or- Patronize our Creation Science Store


From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 79: Line 79:
:::::Hm... It's been more than a day. Maybe we should drop Ashcraft a quick email?--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]]<sup>[[User_talk:Thinker|Talk]]</sup><sub>[http://asheepinsheepsclothing.blogspot.com/ see my blog]</sub>  07:06, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
:::::Hm... It's been more than a day. Maybe we should drop Ashcraft a quick email?--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]]<sup>[[User_talk:Thinker|Talk]]</sup><sub>[http://asheepinsheepsclothing.blogspot.com/ see my blog]</sub>  07:06, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
::::::I am pretty sure Ashcraft will get back to us. He is a busy man I would think.--[[User:Tsommer|Tony]] 11:19, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
::::::I am pretty sure Ashcraft will get back to us. He is a busy man I would think.--[[User:Tsommer|Tony]] 11:19, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
:::::::Perhaps we could implement this argument now? It is perfectly in line with the overall Creationist Point of View and could be used to reshape our POV regarding evolution. If Proff. Ashcraft disagrees, I am sure he would have corrected this by now. Would it be considered disrespectful to go ahead without him?--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]]<sup>[[User_talk:Thinker|Talk]]</sup><sub>[http://asheepinsheepsclothing.blogspot.com/ see my blog]</sub>  18:49, 23 September 2010 (PDT)

Revision as of 01:49, 24 September 2010

Discussion.png Post comment,
or browse more talk.
Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.


"Biological Evolution" vs. the "Theory of Evolution"

Is the distinction between biological evolution and the theory of evolution a widely-accepted distinction, or perhaps a distinction that CreationWiki is creating?

If the former, then I guess that it merits some mention. But if the latter, definitely not. I believe the following to be the case:

  • Most of the time, evolutionists do not distinguish between the two in concept (let alone by terminology). That is, as far as evolutionists are concerned, the Theory of Evolution and Biological Evolution are one and the same thing.
  • The same would be true for the general public
  • Most of the time, simply the word "evolution" is used, without any qualifier. Thus although the word "evolution" has some legitimate uses ("change over time"), it has so much naturalistic baggage that it is far better to simply avoid using the word altogether (except, of course, in refutation).
  • Creationists need to educate the public as to the difference between the naturalistic hypothesis of evolution and the creation model of variation within a kind. It is far better to do this by drawing a sharp difference between the two, and the favourable use by creationists of the word evolution (even if qualified as "biological evolution") is only going to cause confusion. As it is, anticreationists accuse of of accepting a limited form of evolution. This will only encourage that misunderstanding.
  • I know of no major creationist organisation that uses "biological evolution" as defined in this article. Certainly Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis do not use the term, and specifically recommend against using the terms macroevolution and microevolution on these grounds, so I expect they would say the same about biological evolution.

Philip J. Rayment 02:57, 26 April 2006 (GMT)

Does nobody really dispute "biological evolution"?

The following comments come after I thought more about the comments in Talk:Felidae that were made a short time ago.

I had a disagreement with Philip Rayment before he left CreationWiki over another article, but I must say I support his comments above. This "Evolution" article says "creationism acknowledges that biological evolution is a true and scientific reality". It also says "creationism acknowledges that biological evolution is a true and scientific reality".

I think Philip is right in saying that no other creationist organization uses "biological evolution" as defined in this article. At least I can't find any.

I've searched the websites of AiG, ICR, CMI, CRS, and True Origins, and all I found was criticism of the term "biological evolution". I put some of AiG's and ICR's comments at Talk:Felidae. Here are others from the Creation Research Society and True Origins (in their refutations of Talk Origins):

Jerry Bergman: "One of the most fascinating historical accounts about the fallout of biological evolution theory on human relations is the story of Ota Benga" -- Creation Research Society [1]
"Once Naturalism is demonstrated formally invalid, empirical research can take its proper role of building science and exploring natural history within the default, superior Christian worldview. Some Intelligent Design advocates have initiated this argument with great effect against biological evolution, but they fall short because they fail to recognize uniformitarianism as foundational to modern Naturalism." Creation Research Society [2]
True Origins response to Talk Origins:
"On the other hand, simple 'order' such as that found in a snowflake or a crystal, for example, is exceedingly trivial, when compared to the increase in information, organization or complexity that would be required for either spontaneous generation (the beginning of biological evolution), or any form of progressive macro-evolution itself." [3]
"While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s 'open-system' biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man." True Origins [4]

If none of the major creationist organizations accept the term biological evolution as CreationWiki defines it, including prominent creationists like Henry Morris, John Morris, Ken Ham, Jerry Bergman, etc., aren't we just muddying the waters? Certainly this CreationWiki article is not true in implying that all, or even most, creationists accept the term in any positive creationist sense. I would be genuinely interested to know which organizations say they support young-earth creation and also biological evolution.

Tim Talbot --Klang 01:51, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

Point of Logic on Natural Theory of Evolution

The hypothesis of Solar System evolution (i.e., formation by random events) is in dispute with Reality.[5] Random events do not dominate the Universe. Point of Logic: In order for an event to be truly random, the event needs to be Sub-Natural (i.e., an event of Chaos). Once the Sub-Natural event has entered the Natural Template, [6] the event becomes confined and directed; it loses the true randomness of Chaos. Therefore, there can be no Natural Theory of Evolution - only a Sub-Natural Theory of Evolution. Thus, the best lie is the subtlest lie.

The Natural Template is not a random event.[7]

PLEASE NOTE: The Pluto/Neptune anomaly of the Titius-Bode [8] progression is predicted in the Initial Mass Displacements. The anomaly is not a random event.--FinalNotice 05:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

About recent edit

In regards to convergent evolution edit:"Theorists suggest that homologous DNA sequences have arisen independently in unrelated organisms by random mutations. In contrasts, creationists and intelligent design theoriest attribute such homology to the creator's repeated use of the same design features in different organisms."

In contrast? There is no contrast for ID theorists who can adopt both. Meanwhile the evolutionist has problems with either within convergent evolution, namely mutation loci the same in independent humans and apes without assuming common descent, and that convergent evolution seems to indicate original design. The same design or the creators creation, is the natural mechanisms, mutations, etc, designed to produce homologous DNA sequences independently. All this is substantial for discussion outside the assumption of common descent, dealing blows to the evolutionist position of homologous DNA sequences being a result of ONLY common descent, rather then natural mechanisms designed to do so in unique lineages. There should be a highlight of a creationist position of this sort, because it is logical and substantial and based within nature.--Tony 15:57, 18 September 2010 (PDT)
Actually, Creationists do not generally believe in random, pointless mutations. Einstein said: "God does not play dice with the universe". On the other hand, random mutations do make sense if the Theory of Evolution is assumed. So unless I read you incorrectly, you are breaking from the Creationist mainstream in both regards.--ThinkerTalksee my blog 12:22, 19 September 2010 (PDT)
I am not advocating random, pointless mutations. I am saying the mutations are NOT random, they arise due to DESIGN! I in no way implied creationists agree with random mutations. I don't know where you are reading that into what I said. You are doing what Ashcraft did as well, and thinking because I say mutations it means RANDOM mutations, it does not, because I am speaking on ID. The assumption is ID, not spontaneous mutation, you gotta read the context.
My original edit:"Sometimes called convergent recruitment, this is the current trend that is going against the assumption of common descent. Convergent evolution, rather then assuming, is based upon observation and experimentation showing homologous DNA sequences arising in similar locations and expressing similar phenotype traits. A natural paradigm forms that allows similar genetic mutations to produce similar phenotype expressions within anatomically similar yet ancestrally unrelated species facing similar environmental pressures. It is essentially "independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages"."
I qualify assuming with common descent, clearly the implication of convergent evolution is challenging common descent, which is not stated in the current edit. Also, to change mine so people would not read into it and think I advocate random mutations, I would just have to change, "A natural paradigm" to "A designed paradigm" or "A paradigm, first designed, forms in nature"? The complete change and deletion of my content was not necessary. How do we know that the randomness seen was not actually part of the design anyway? I don't posit that, but it certainly is feasible.--Tony 21:15, 19 September 2010 (PDT)

I'm sorry. When you said "ID theorists adopt both", I thought by both you meant both random mutations and the Creator's repeated use of the same design features, which you had referenced in the paragraph above. Sorry for the miscommunication.--ThinkerTalksee my blog 15:31, 20 September 2010 (PDT)

Toward a comprehensive CPOV

I want to form a CPOV of convergent evolution and models of why mutations occur, so that we all can reference for a source of a powerful argument. It is welcoming to the traditional evolutionary models of random mutations, but within an ID context. Allow me to present an outline by number to show a comprehensive Creation Wiki CPOV. Please feel free to copy and paste into your responses what I wrote/what you don't agree with and then type out a replacement sentence or whatever you would like to be added/subtracted. Ashcraft, I hope that this will be to your satisfaction and I hope you will post what is produced here into the Biological evolution, convergent evolution portion of the article.

  1. Convergent evolution is the independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages. That alone is critical to opposing common descent as traditional Darwinian evolutionists would always assume common descent produced this independent similarity. If we point to a type of biological evolution that does not rely on common descent for independent similarity, it is very powerful.
  2. There are two models of why mutations arise or even happen in the first place in convergent evolution. One supposes that mutations arise due to ID and the other simply states that mutations are random. Guided and unguided.
  3. Either model (random/non-random) can be fully accepted within a particular design template for mutations within convergent evolution. Meaning the random mutations model can be called a design template, and the NON-random mutations model can be called a design template. Or perhaps even a hybrid of design templates where there is randomness and non-random attraction for mutations in similar loci.
  4. These design templates incorporate whatever natural processes scientists use to describe either random or non-random mutations. Generally processes are highlighted on the non-random mutation design template, because where there is a process there is purpose, where there is purpose there is design. However this does not mean randomness cannot be designed or implemented through an alteration of the original design template.
  5. What has been pointed out is the validation of the traditional evolutionists random mutation model through design, but also validation of the ID theorist NON-random mutation model through design. Either design template or model that is actually happening is still ONLY possible through a designed implementation.
  6. The logical construction of this ID theory is original design that produces design templates that are governed by natural processes. Ashcraft refers to the "creator's repeated use of the same design features in different organisms". The design features are mutations in same places right? Repeatedly used means that its not common descent but common designer.
  7. Convergent evolution (common traits in independent lineages) produces "identical patterns independently" because the diversification is under a common design template.
  8. A creationist could use this to great lengths, and its consistency with the Biblical record of the fall is substantial. For example, the non-random mutation design template can easily be attributed to the time BEFORE sin, when there was original optimal design and random mutations were not possible. After the fall, an altering of the original design template happened and random mutations began to happen, along with non-random mutations. Or maybe it is just one or the other after the fall. This is not endorsing any particular design template or model but is to show how consistency with the Biblical record is derived.
  9. Therefore, either random mutations or non-random mutations are fully accepted within ID theory and can be expounded on with specifics by creationism.

Is everybody in agreement with how I have formulated both random and non-random mutations into a line of argument assuming DESIGN first and foremost? If not please quote a portion and re-write it how you feel it should be, or clarify it a bit more please. Creation Wiki is a collaborative project so lets collaborate on an awesome opportunity to affirm the Word of God!--Tony 00:17, 20 September 2010 (PDT)


I personally think this seven-part argument is very compelling. What does Ashcraft say?--ThinkerTalksee my blog 15:36, 20 September 2010 (PDT)

I am glad you like it and I was able to clarify to you somewhat where I stand :)... I dropped Ashcraft a message on his talk page. We will see. Also I dropped u a comment on the recent news item on your blog.--Tony 16:24, 20 September 2010 (PDT)
I too am glad we got that cleared up, and hopefully Ashcraft can clear your proposal so that it can be added to our article. I saw your comment at my blog--I agree! (By the way, If you are interested, I just published a post there on this very project, CreationWiki)--ThinkerTalksee my blog 19:17, 20 September 2010 (PDT)
Great article dude, well-written! Like I said in the comment, CW is def best resource ever within my dealings with anti-Christian crowd. Most still think we do not accept any level/limit/type of biological evolution.--Tony 19:29, 20 September 2010 (PDT)
Quick note to Ashcraft... I can produce a more connective paragraph form of this CPOV if need be for it to be posted.--Tony 22:04, 20 September 2010 (PDT)
Hm... It's been more than a day. Maybe we should drop Ashcraft a quick email?--ThinkerTalksee my blog 07:06, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
I am pretty sure Ashcraft will get back to us. He is a busy man I would think.--Tony 11:19, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
Perhaps we could implement this argument now? It is perfectly in line with the overall Creationist Point of View and could be used to reshape our POV regarding evolution. If Proff. Ashcraft disagrees, I am sure he would have corrected this by now. Would it be considered disrespectful to go ahead without him?--ThinkerTalksee my blog 18:49, 23 September 2010 (PDT)
Personal tools