Evolution v Creationism (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, September 12, 2014, 12:45 (3507 days ago)

PART ONE-TONY under "An Inventive mechanism"): The evolutionary version of Punctuated equilibrium you refer to, as an idea, only has value if evolution is true in the commonly accept form. (i.e. we all crawled out of the slime) -This is an emotive simplification. Punctuated equilibrium fits in with any hypothesis except that of God creating every species separately at the same time. It simply means there are periods of stasis between creative bursts. As for your parenthesis, apart from the tone I don't see much difference between that and “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground”. The materials for all hypotheses are the same, and the argument is over how they came together.
 
You have assembled an interesting list of arguments for Creationism, and ideally we would have an expert evolutionist and an atheist commenting on it. I am neither. I can only tell you why, as an agnostic, I'm unconvinced by your arguments. I would say the same to an atheist. -TONY: If separate creation were true:
We would observe no definitive transition between species in the fossil record. (Observed)-“Definitive” is open to definition. We need an expert to list the possible transitions that help give credence to the theory, though Darwin himself saw this as a weak link in the theory. A problem that I have as a layman in this respect is that if innovations don't work, they won't survive, and the chances of a failed innovation being preserved as a fossil and being recognized as a failed experiment must be infinitesimal. But I don't accept Darwin's gradualism. I do believe that functioning organs may become more complex over time (the brain, for example), but new organs must work straight away in one form or another. A non-functioning kidney won't help anyone.-We would observe that extreme environmental changes wiped out the majority of existing life because it lacked enough freedom and flexibility in its code to adapt. (Observed)-You did not answer my question about your God deliberately changing the environment as he went along, preplanning the changes, or creating each species to fit in with unplanned changes. The lack of freedom and flexibility doesn't say a great deal for God's foresight, unless he deliberately created the majority of species with a view to them being wiped out. On the other hand, evolution can only function according to existing conditions. Therefore it is very much a point in favour of evolution that when conditions change, many life forms will be wiped out, whereas surviving forms may profit from the changes.-We would observe no new species spontaneously cropping up. (Observed)-By definition, if God created species, they would not crop up “spontaneously”. It might be argued that if separate creation were true, we WOULD observe new species cropping up. The currently observed non-popping-up of new species may simply suggest that evolution (whether guided by God or not) is going through a period of stasis. -We would observe species remaining remarkably unchanged over time. (Observed)-It might be argued that death and extinction mark a significant change. Once an organism functions well enough to survive, however, it does not need to evolve any further. If new species do evolve from existing organisms, it may be that your God is experimenting with them, or that some existing organs experiment on their own initiative, or even that David's 3.7-billion-year divine evolutionary computer programme is in operation. See above for the possible significance of extinctions.
 
When new species DID crop up, we would observe them coming into existence fully formed and fully functional.(Observed)-Who has observed this? The fossil record is not likely to have preserved unformed and non-functional organisms. Nobody has ever observed a fully formed and fully functional new species crop up. Humans have only observed the remains. For transitional forms, see above.
 
We would observe some mechanism that prevented creatures from deviating too far, a self-correcting function to ensure their stability.(Observed)-You can make exactly the same observation about God-programmed evolution, or about evolution guided by cells which take their own decisions thanks to a form of “intelligence” which God may or may not have implanted in them. Why does God have to keep creating the mechanism separately for each new species?
 
We would be able to discern designed patterns and commonalities for all creatures of a given environment.[Observed]-There are vast numbers of different species in given environments, and what they have in common is their ability to cope with that environment. How does this prove that God created them all separately? If all organisms are derived from earlier organisms (= evolution), it's only logical that they should have “commonalities”, although atheistic evolutionists (unlike theistic evolutionists) might fight shy of the word “designed”.
 
We would likely see highly efficient patterns repeatedly used for the same purpose.[Observed]-If all organisms are derived from earlier organisms (= evolution), the same applies in spades. Why would God have to keep repeating himself if he was starting from scratch every time?-Contd. in Part Two