Creation - Evolution Debates - Dawkins Vs Lennox at Cambridge

ID works for any religion.

As does TE.

No, the trouble with TE is it breaks the coherency of revelational doctrine without even addressing truth through text, people simply want to insert things to make it fit what they think is true.  The suggestion that death and life together are the natural order of things is a lowering of the bar for reality, it doesn't line up with life is the real purpose in creation according to scripture. Death, dying, disease are all part of the fallen order of this universe, not the true nature or order of the universe before the fall. TE doesn't work with Christianity it simply is just a notion that this fallen state we find ourselves in has nothing wrong with it. 

By static I mean that if you have dogs, through all the mutations dogs go through, you'll start with dogs and you'll end with dogs. The sudden find of life and disappearance of lifeforms in the fossil record in my opinion reflects that as well. You don't see a string of life evolving in the fossil record and neither do we see them in reality in the here and now, where we should expect to see them too. A fully formed human and all of the forms not quite human should remain alive today, with only those that died off being gone. Anything small change in DNA wouldn't automatically cause a life that didn't get it to change to die off without cause if it could compete successfully it would. Without going to fossils these not quite forms for all species should be alive today in large abundances and they are not.

I see two main issues that you've raised: speciation and gradualism. 

(1) First, when it comes to speciation (the origin of new species or new "kinds") there is absolutely no question about this anymore.  Speciation can happen, it has happened, and it does happen.  It is indisputable.  The belief of some creationists that the origin of new species can't happen and/or that such is only theoretical and has never been observed is simply false. 

 (2) As far as gradualism, yes, for a long time this has been a conundrum w/conflicting data, where gradualism continuous changes and gradations of form are more commonly seen today in nature in population studies (neontology) vs. the opposite in the fossil record (paleontology) where gradualism is the rare exception rather than the rule (though, examples still exist).  For a long time this has been an unresolved disparity between paleontologists and neontologists.  The fossil record indicates that evolution occurs periodically (not gradually), rapidly, and predominantly by saltational "leaps."  The neontologists have said for yrs. that such large-scale changes are impossible because the large scale mutations involves would surely be deleterious and lethal (perhaps you heard of the "hopeful monsters" theory).

*The skinny: Advances in genomics and microbiology (a lot of the ones I've already talked about) are increasingly resolving more of these apparent disparities.  It turns out that the fossil record is an accurate record in that evolution does more often than not proceed rapidly in periodic bursts and "saltational leaps"---large, major changes in form---and that these changes coincide with MINOR genetic changes (such as small changes to regulatory genes) but very frequently also correlate with MAJOR genetic changes involving whole genes, whole chromosomes and even entire genomes.  Such changes were thought impossible and unthinkable for a long time for the exact same reasons you have said--random scrambling of informational "programs" causes destruction, not improvement.  But the discoveries over the past few decades have revealed an astonishing, unexpected truth: that these large-scale major changes in the genome actually can and do occur but they aren't random in the sense of uncontrolled accidents, but are related to the "natural genetic engineering" I spoke of---biological mechanisms (including mechanisms that are activated by different environmental stimuli/conditions).  For example, many *adaptive radiations* documented in the fossil record such as the rapid origin and diversification of various teleost (fish) lineages and the rapid origin and diversification of angiosperms (flowering plants)--which Darwin found to be inexplicable by his theory--correlate w/numerous whole genome duplication events (WGD) that we find evidenced in genomes.  

*Many of the issues you raise are valid criticisms of the traditional view of evolution as given to us by Neo-Darwinism/the Modern Synthesis, which envisioned the genome (and genes) as static and relegated to a passive role, where any changes were a gradual series of incremental random accidental mutations that natural selection would then favor or eliminate.  You cannot "build" or evolve novelties and improvements in any practical, realistic way under the standard mutation-selection theory of evolution.  I wholeheartedly agree with you!  But as explained above, we now know this view of evolution is for all intents and purposes almost entirely wrong.  So your arguments against this traditional view of evolution (which most people think evolution theory still is based on and try to defend) is--unknowingly to most people on both sides of the debate--now passe.  Most people are unaware of how much modern biology has moved past all that.

*BUT EVEN SO (& ONCE AGAIN), if there's intelligent agency, as you argue, then none of the issues you raise would be problematic.

For clarities sake, please explain evolution as you see it

I don't understand what you're looking for.  What is unclear or what specific aspect of evolution would you like me to clarify?

So I think I see what you are saying.

You are saying you believe all the death and disease in the world only exist, because some chick six thousand years ago but into an apple?

An apple with a big neon sign that said "DON'T EAT ME!" (Like somebody in all that time wouldn't get bored, and do it anyway?)

I believe in absolutes, good and evil, and evil entered into the human race when we broke away from the ultimate good desiring to have things our way. So at the center of all human suffering is caused by our sinful nature, yes, started at that beginning. There are a lot of things people do and don't do, due to who they are. An honest man/woman will return a lost wallet with money intact, while someone else will not. One thing this life does is allow us to show us the type of people we are by our actions, thoughts, and words.

Blurring things together without cause isn't looking at things properly. As I pointed out, you cannot just say TE works with anything, while many beliefs don't line up with it doctrinally.

I've been saying we don't get functional complicated, specified instructions in code directing processes and form and structure without a coder. Start-stop mechanisms that react only under specific conditions and body forms that come about by instructions are not the result of a mindless process. There are things in nature that occur and stop under particular conditions like chemical reactions, water freezing, and so on, but we don't see codes directing these things. We can see ink on paper that doesn't mean someone put it there, but when the ink forms words, a mind was behind that. Please explain your views on the code and evolutionary processes.

@TruthMuse

Are you kidding me?  What do you think I've been doing all this time?  Go back and read my last ten posts.  How long do you want to keep doing this dance?

You: I don't think you can get all this by a mindless process.

Me: Fine, let's assume we didn't and that there's an intelligent designer.  The evidence still indicates that evolution occurred and life is related via common ancestry.  So worst case scenario, we're left with evolution directed by an intelligent mind.

You: Yeah, but you can't get all this through some mindless process.

Me: OK, then let's assume for sake of argument that there's an intelligent mind behind it all.  The evidence still indicates that evolution happened.

You: But how could evolution occur by some mindless process.

Me: Let's say it didn't and that everything's due to an intelligent mind.  The evidence still indicates that evolution happened.

You: Yeah, but I still don't see how evolution could happen through a mindless process.

Me: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!! 

TruthMuse.

I have already provided a list of 1,500 ordained Christain ministers who have very officially stated Theistic Evolution does not conflict with their beliefs at all.

If they can say that, why can't you or I?

I'd settle for lack of redundancy at this point

Did you know if you look that word up in the dictionary, it tells you "See redundancy"?

No, I didn't know that. No, I didn't know that. 

I do believe in evolution, small changes in life, what I don't believe in is all life comes from a single life form and evolves over time into all the life we see today. What they believe specifically I have no idea, why they believe what they do, I also have no idea. It is easy to say things without giving specifics on why you believe them with just vague terms. 

“I don’t understand what you’re looking for.  What is unclear, or what specific aspect of evolution would you like me to clarify? “

You asked, I told you what I wanted clarity on, which doesn’t mean you have not previously addressed the point at all, just not enough in answering my questions. Your mockery isn’t adding to the discussion at all. If this is the level of communication you are all about, we can end this. I’m trying to be respectful to you speaking without insults as we disagree, I believe you are speaking about truth and reality as you see it, I’m just not seeing it despite your telling me your right, and I’m entirely wrong.

The fossil record is evidence, yes, but it doesn’t point to anything outside of there are fossils with certainty! We see microorganisms in the fossils, we have them here today, so they didn’t go away, even if at some time, as it is believed, they evolved into other life. The gradual dying off of older lifeforms didn’t occur, so there should be a string of life of older forms to the modern-day versions through all time, in the fossil record, and more importantly, in my opinion in modern life.

The issue I have with small changes in evolving life is that there are gaps seen today in life. If they didn’t go away like microorganisms didn’t, then the sudden appearance of lifeforms that are fully formed show up then die off and are not seen again doesn’t lend itself to small changes evolving simpler life a single cell into a more complicated life multicelled one. Since these changes, if they did occur to that degree, HAD to be brought about by the instructions that give life all of its form and function, explain this with some clarity, please.

What I believe we all see in life is variety in kind; what we don’t see is all life evolving from one different species into another entirely new one with all the not quite versions of the in-betweens today, not just in the fossils. Where are all the lifeforms that are humans and the host of those that are not quite human running around today, since the changes are sposed to be very small and take place extremely slowly? We have modern life and versions of them in the fossil record according to our dating methods showing up a long time ago. A tree of life from the first common ancestor until now isn’t reflected in modern life or the fossils as far as I’m concern; it appears like a forest, not just a single tree. Altering code without directing the changes to keep a lifeform alive so it can thrive through time doesn’t happen through copying errors, building new structures, and creating new functions typically are only done with intent.

I have already answered most of these questions already and I am tired of repeating myself.  I have addressed the fossil record and your misunderstandings of it.  I have addressed your speculation and conjectures about what we "should find," and how you are incorrect.  I have explained to you that we DO IN FACT HAVE EXAMPLES OF GRADUAL EVOLUTIONARY TRANSITIONS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD AND HAVE NAMED SPECIFIC EXAMPLES.  I have explained how this still isn't the norm and how we see abrupt changes instead and not only that but how we now know that these correlate with with both MINOR and MAJOR genetic changes that we have documented.  You don't believe in the origin of new genes, and yet this is well documented and indisputable so you are not believing in the truth and reality of things.  You don't believe in changes that give you new kinds of species, and yet this too is indisputable so you are not believing in truth and reality like you accuse others of not doing.  You keep conflating the "how" of evolution with the fact that it has occurred and have yet to give us any FACT-BASED reasons to reject common ancestry.  All you give is your BELIEFS.  You don't believe humans share a common ancestor with primates AND YET YOU STILL HAVEN'T EXPRESSLY STATED THAT BUT HAVE DANCED AROUND IT AND PLAYED GAMES FOR PAGES, saying things like, "I already answered your question, I THINK HUMANS ARE UNIQUE."  Why can't you simply say, YES, I reject common ancestry of humans and primates?  Why do you play word games instead for pages giving arguments about watermelon and clouds that suggests you reject common ancestry of humans and primates but then say you were agreeing with me!  But then slightly alter your response again?  

I have asked you several times whether you reject the common ancestry of humans and primates.  I have asked this multiple times.  And you have STILL never directly answered the question but only claim, "I HAVE answered your question.  I said I believe humans are unique."  You call THAT a direct answer to a straightforward question???  I believe humans are unique too but the evidence also shows that humans and primates share a common ancestor.  Perhaps you don't want to expressly reject this because I have already given you statistical evidence for this (evidence which you did not rebut and which you said you didn't see any problem with) and also gave you evidence of human-primate common ancestry from endogenous retroviral evidence (which you have not rebutted).  And what was your main "answer" to all this?  "Well, I accept there are ancestors just not a common ancestor for all of life."  How many times did I repeatedly say, "but right now, we're talking about human-primate ancestry"?  But you kept hemming and hawing and dancing around the issue (and STILL HAVEN'T ADDRESSED SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THAT I PROVIDED)

*Now normally I wouldn't care because people ignore others all the time in forums, but here is the difference and here is why I'm frustrated---I'm not mocking you--I'm frustrated with you because you talk a good game but don't put your money where your mouth is.  You go on and on questioning people's acceptance of evolution saying that people and scientists accept it NOT on the basis of evidence, and NOT on the basis of "truth and reality" but on the basis of their worldview and political correctness.  You talk a good game, saying how we should follow the evidence where it leads even if it goes against our worldviews, but as it turns out YOU are the one who has IGNORED the evidence.  For example, as stated above, I have given you specific evidence of human-primate common ancestry that you have quite simply ignored while retreating back to your beliefs.  You keep saying you don't see evidence of this or that and yet I HAVE given you evidence that you just ignore.  That strikes me as metaphysical blindness due to preconceived commitment to a worldview.  Of course a person can't see any evidence if they shut their eyes and refuse to see it!  An intellectually honest person would at least be honest enough to admit where the evidence is and isn't in agreement with their worldwview.  Most people don't.  From all your claims, you've seemed different.  You seemed intellectually honest.  You seemed like a person one could have a reasonable, rational conversation with.  Instead, you have been evasive.  I give you answers and evidence and you "rebut" by switching to a different issue or by repeatedly saying over and over and over again, "I don't think a mindless process can do it," WHILE STILL FAILING TO REBUT THE EVIDENCE I HAVE GIVEN YOU. 

If you simply don't believe, then fine.  No problem.  You have my total and complete respect for your worldview.  But don't come into these forums and drop a challenge to people and claim that people's acceptance of evolution is not based on truth and reality but blind belief and blind acceptance without question and continually preach to people about they aren't following the evidence where it leads if you're not prepared to back it up and if you're not prepared to follow the evidence where it leads yourself.

*So if you're prepared to put your money where your mouth is, then please do so by addressing the evidence.  Sure, we can look at all the genomic evidence for universal common ancestry but it is immense and highly involved study, so let's start with something more managable: the evolutionary claim that humans and other primates share a common ancestry like I tried to engage you in discussion before.  Now you have said you reject this (or at least implied that you reject it; i.e., "I think humans are unique").  Now if you simply reject this based on worldview belief, then no problem, I will respect that.  But if you claim the evidence doesn't support it and that scientists and other people accept human-primate common ancestry because of blind belief in some evolutionary worldview, then you need to back up such a claim by rebutting THE EVIDENCE I have ALREADY given you that you have NOT directly disputed but have ignored. 

*SO, CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT REBUT THE EVIDENCE FOR HUMAN-PRIMATE COMMON ANCESTRY THAT I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED???

Oh please, I am letting my worldview dictate my beliefs, and you think you are above such things? We all have worldviews that dictate our beliefs, that is what a worldview does, and because I don't agree with your assessment of things I'm the wrong one?  I'm wrong because I look at the same evidence you do and don't make the same assumptions while following the evidence. Please note I have been giving you reasons for my assumptions, you just announce I'm wrong, and that is that.