Two Simple Questions

1. What is evolution?

2. Does it contradict the Bible?

Please answer in as simple terms as possible. For example, I'll turn the tables.

1. What is the Biblical creation account?

Answer: Every living thing, plant and animal was created to reproduce according to it's kind. Grass makes grass, turtles make turtles. Birds don't make lizards or lizards don't make birds.

2. Does it contradict evolution?

Answer: Some of it, apparently does.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

Evolution is an observable process it's not like people are guessing. It's not incompatible with religious belief unless you're a biblical literalist which is contrary to basic theology.

You can have your faith without denying reality.

Kstrong · 56-60, F

@CountScrofula evolution within the species... not from dust...

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

@Kstrong There's no such thing as evolution within species. Species are made up by people and our definitions change the more we learn.

Kstrong · 56-60, F

@CountScrofula adaptation to its environment....

AkioTsukino · M

@Kstrong Adaptation to environment doesn't contradict the Biblical creation account.

AkioTsukino · M

@CountScrofula

Evolution is an observable process it's not like people are guessing.

What we are looking for here is evolution that contradicts the creation account, the Biblical kinds. If that is observable where have you observed it? Show.

It's not incompatible with religious belief unless you're a biblical literalist which is contrary to basic theology.

It most certainly isn't contrary to basic theology. Do you even know what that means? You are biased. That isn't scientific. That's dogmatic.

You can have your faith without denying reality.

Faith is trust. Reality is temporal. You can't have an idealistic perspective as you demonstrate above and realistically juxtapose that with reality without demonstrating the futile fragility of that reality.

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

@AkioTsukino What are you arguing exactly?

AkioTsukino · M

@CountScrofula What am I arguing specifically with you?

1. That evolution that contradicts the creation account is observable. It isn't.
2. That evolution doesn't contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible unless it transcends the explanation of Biblical kinds.
3. That faith contradicts reality. Reality is subjective, and faith is only trust.

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

@AkioTsukino No I mean what's the creator account? What is your position absent my argument?

AkioTsukino · M

@CountScrofula Observable evolution, simply change in line with the Biblical creation account of kinds. Speculative evolution is eugenics and other forms of sociopolitical control. Though first introduced by ancient Greek philosophers, Aristotle, Empedocles, Anaximander and Anaxagoras, it was redesigned during the first and second industrial revolutions to remove theocratic control, which was also sociopolitical.

The Biblical kinds constitutes divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. The boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

@AkioTsukino That seems like a ton of rationalization. The "kinds" are not clear cut lines. Birds are reptiles if you look at them from a strictly zoological viewpoint and how we understand the interrelationships of species.

I'm not disputing your faith or if god exists, but this understanding seems like a god of the gaps fallacy. You could just as easily say evolution is God's beautiful tool to ensure his creations survive as the world changes.

AkioTsukino · M

@CountScrofula I want truth. I don't care about God, my beliefs, your science, any fallacy over truth. You're complicating things.

Here's the truth.

Science says things evolve. I agree. Observed.

The Bible says according to their kinds. I agree. Observed.

Darwinian Evolution (or whatever it's current manifestation is labeled) says things eventually change into other things. I disagree. Not observed.

Where am I wrong?