A Biblical Theory of Evolution

[bobporter]

I would like to suggest a simple way of combining the Bible and evolution.

Referring to present day common creatures at least, the 'kinds' of animals that God created in Genesis Ch.1 were biological families, not species. For example, God did not create lions, tigers, pussy cats, etc, He just created two cats from which lions, tigers and pussy cats have evolved. Similarly he created two ducks, from which have evolved the duck family - swans, geese, mallards, etc. Creatures within these groups can still sometimes interbreed although the offspring are usually sterile.

This theory appears to match both the Biblical 'kinds' in Genesis and the scientific evidence. There do not seem to be any fossils to show that cats or ducks evolved from anything else, and there is no known mechanism at a micro-biological level by which they could have evolved from anything else.

As reference for the lack of fossil evidence, I mention charts in various books by the orthodox biologist Dr Michael Benton, which show the 'missing links' in grey in his evolutionary tree charts. E.g., The Rise of the Mammals, London 1991, p.65 showing carnivores and various other orders without proven links to each other. On p.68 he uses a different type of diagram to show the evolution within the cat family. Admittedly intermediate forms are not shown here either but this time I am assuming that the evolution was possible because of the close similarity of the various cat types and the partial interbreeding known to be possible between some of them.

As reference for the microbiological problems of large scale evolution, I would cite Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, New York 1996, which shows the 'irreducible complexity' of various microbiological features. In Behe's later book, Edge of Evolution: the search for Darwinism's limits, New York 2007, he put the limit somewhere in the range genera-families-orders. I am suggesting that family is the most appropriate level from a biblical and scientific viewpoint.

Bob Porter

[Roger Stanyard]

I would like to suggest a simple way of combining the Bible and evolution.

Referring to present day common creatures at least, the 'kinds' of animals that God created in Genesis Ch.1 were biological families, not species. For example, God did not create lions, tigers, pussy cats, etc, He just created two cats from which lions, tigers and pussy cats have evolved. Similarly he created two ducks, from which have evolved the duck family - swans, geese, mallards, etc. Creatures within these groups can still sometimes interbreed although the offspring are usually sterile.

This theory appears to match both the Biblical 'kinds' in Genesis and the scientific evidence. There do not seem to be any fossils to show that cats or ducks evolved from anything else, and there is no known mechanism at a micro-biological level by which they could have evolved from anything else.

As reference for the lack of fossil evidence, I mention charts in various books by the orthodox biologist Dr Michael Benton, which show the 'missing links' in grey in his evolutionary tree charts. E.g., The Rise of the Mammals, London 1991, p.65 showing carnivores and various other orders without proven links to each other. On p.68 he uses a different type of diagram to show the evolution within the cat family. Admittedly intermediate forms are not shown here either but this time I am assuming that the evolution was possible because of the close similarity of the various cat types and the partial interbreeding known to be possible between some of them.

As reference for the microbiological problems of large scale evolution, I would cite Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, New York 1996, which shows the 'irreducible complexity' of various microbiological features. In Behe's later book, Edge of Evolution: the search for Darwinism's limits, New York 2007, he put the limit somewhere in the range genera-families-orders. I am suggesting that family is the most appropriate level from a biblical and scientific viewpoint.

Bob Porter

This is just long discredited creationist claptrap lifted from creationist web sites and pamphlets,

[Dagsannr]

I would like to suggest a simple way of combining the Bible and evolution.

Why do we need to? The bible isn't a scientific text and shouldn't and couldn't be used to explain the natural world.

Referring to present day common creatures at least, the 'kinds' of animals that God created in Genesis Ch.1 were biological families, not species.

A species -is- a biological family.

For example, God did not create lions, tigers, pussy cats, etc, He just created two cats from which lions, tigers and pussy cats have evolved. Similarly he created two ducks, from which have evolved the duck family - swans, geese, mallards, etc. Creatures within these groups can still sometimes interbreed although the offspring are usually sterile.

'Sometimes' interbreed? Then how do you define where a 'kind' ends and another family begins? I'd suspect that you're trying to suggest that if they can interbreed, then they're the same 'kind' but you've also admitted that sometimes they can't interbreed. What kind are hyenas in? Physiologically they look like dogs, genetically they're closer to bears. Same with hippos. Their closest biological relative is the whale. Explain that.

This theory appears to match both the Biblical 'kinds' in Genesis and the scientific evidence. There do not seem to be any fossils to show that cats or ducks evolved from anything else, and there is no known mechanism at a micro-biological level by which they could have evolved from anything else.

Both wrong. There are good fossils showing evolution of both ducks and cats and there are well known, and documented, biochemical mechanisms for the evolution of micor-organisms. In fact, just recently, scientists have managed to get single celled yeast organisms to evolve into a multi-cellular form.

As reference for the lack of fossil evidence, I mention charts in various books by the orthodox biologist Dr Michael Benton, which show the 'missing links' in grey in his evolutionary tree charts. E.g., The Rise of the Mammals, London 1991, p.65 showing carnivores and various other orders without proven links to each other. On p.68 he uses a different type of diagram to show the evolution within the cat family. Admittedly intermediate forms are not shown here either but this time I am assuming that the evolution was possible because of the close similarity of the various cat types and the partial interbreeding known to be possible between some of them.

Well done, yes, cats evolved from a common ancestor. We know this. Your point? If you're attempting to suggest that they all evolved from a common ancestor only a few thousand years ago, then you're speaking about evolution on a pace unheard of in biology. However, to evolve from an ancestor in millions of years is entire possible.

As reference for the microbiological problems of large scale evolution,

There are none

I would cite Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, New York 1996, which shows the 'irreducible complexity' of various microbiological features. In Behe's later book, Edge of Evolution: the search for Darwinism's limits, New York 2007, he put the limit somewhere in the range genera-families-orders. I am suggesting that family is the most appropriate level from a biblical and scientific viewpoint.

Behe is a proponent of a universal common ancestor and an Earth of the accepted scientific age, both of which don't need reference to 'kinds' or other nonsense.

As Roger said, this is drivel that's been refuted a thousand times already and is complicating things further than the bible suggests or science needs.

Thanks for your input though. Got any more?

[cathy]

Sorry Bob but the stuff you suggest is already well known to anyone who knows anything about creationism, and has already been torn completely to shreds by real scientists.

For starters there is no evidence of all 'kinds' existing simultaneously. For example generic ancestral cat kind is never found with dino kind, nor is duck kind - never. The fossil record is very ordered, if creationism were true we would have found millions of anachronistic fossils but we haven't. Whatever nonsensical model of the flood is used to attempt to explain the existing fossil record that fact remains a problem. There are no whale or dolphin kinds in the cambrian.


Secondly we have clear transitions at a level above what creationists call kinds or family/genera for non creationists, for examples transition from reptile to mammal. Creationists do go on ad nauseum about gaps in that record but it shows transitions, things that are neither one thing or another like thrinaxadon. It is like filling in the pieces of a jigsaw, you can order things even with gaps. It also shows that the earliest life we can be sure of was simple photosynthesisng bacteria with no cat kinds or duck kinds around anywhere.

Thirdly there is simply nothing to prevent micro evolution becoming macro evolution. Nothing at all is known to say where something has to stop changing, and mutations happen. There is further evidence of relationships between distinct classes and above from genetics as well as evidence supporting evolution. As for known mechanisms, go read some proper biology books. Consider the sheer amount of time available and the power of natural selection and you have a problem for created kinds. And there are no creationist dating methods that successfully give an age for the Earth remotely close to 6000 years. All dating methods show it to be very ancient indeed.

Michael Behes book has been torn to shreds by real microbiologists and biochemists. There are clear evolutionary explanations for many of his so called irreducibly complex organisms and biochemical pathways such as the bacterial flagellum or blood clotting pathways. You are better off trying things like the journal of molecular evolution than you are trying to find out anything from any creationist. Unfortunately honesty is not their strong point. No real scientist has ever found anything he has written credible or honest. And two of his biggest opponents have been devout believers concerned as much about the damage he does to religion as to science.

I suggest you try something like talkorigins.

Lastly there is no conflict between science and the bible unless somebody tells you there has to be. And the only people doing that are creationists. There are thousands of Christians who happily accept all known science if that is what is worrying you. So if I were you I'd ditch the creationists and go find out more about non creationist christians. They have far more to offer and at least can be honest to themselves.

[Michael]

The bible tells me about the rock of ages not the ages of rocks

I bet no one can guess where that came from. Clue he was beaten by the GOP three times

[Luke Tyler]

Referring to present day common creatures at least, the 'kinds' of animals that God created in Genesis Ch.1 were biological families, not species. For example, God did not create lions, tigers, pussy cats, etc, He just created two cats from which lions, tigers and pussy cats have evolved. Similarly he created two ducks, from which have evolved the duck family - swans, geese, mallards, etc. Creatures within these groups can still sometimes interbreed although the offspring are usually sterile.

I personally do not think there's anyone with any kind of scientific understanding who believes in fixity of species. I've never met a creationist who does, and this is essentially what the alternative you are describing here is. The only people who do really have no understanding of biology whatsoever and refuse to accept that mutation and variation can occur.

Similarly he created two ducks, from which have evolved the duck family - swans, geese, mallards, etc.

Again, the anatidae will, as with any other family of birds, like the corvidae (rooks and ravens), or indeed any other family in the biological world will evidently have adapted and evolved ultimately from the same parent organism, common descent, or as you would like it, "basic type".

Basically, what you are saying is essentially a summary of what all educated creationists believe, but yet only a mild and begrudging acceptance of common descent.

Sorry if this makes no sense, I'm too tired to write anything coherent but thought this needed some kind of address.

[Michael]

Luke

In the early 70s and before most creationists beleived in the fixity of species and it was rond about 1990 that they began to change their mind.

That is why many still state creationists believe in fixity. They were right 20 years but not today.

The next stage is for creationists to believe in millions of years........................

[Luke Tyler]

In which case, this thread's still 20 years too late
You should start one asking for the next stage....

[magnocrat]

Those who treasure the Bible in their lives and claim to try to live up to its contents as they interpret them have moved with the times. The Pope now accepts the big bang and we have big bang Christianity. Its hard to give up your faith and unnecessary when all that is needed is sensible adjustment. The problem arises for the all or nothing types : those who say we must accept all the Bible or none. The interesting thing is they argue amonst themselves as to what is meant by believing all. I would say to them relax, don't feel guilty remember its how we behave that matters.