I know this isn't true, but I am having a hard time knowing how to lovingly respond to the following message a friend of mine sent me about evolution, without writing 100 pages. :)

"I don't think you can say evolution can't explain "right vs. wrong" or morality. Kindness, sharing, compassion and even love are all just a variation of cooperation which separates humans from the vast majority of the animal kingdom and enabled the advancement of humans. That being said, the first part of Genesis follows the evolutionary theory pretty closely... as long as you replace days with billions of years."

Views: 157

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So, there's a lot that could be said here, but I'll only go into a few:

A) Morality in an evolutionary worldview: Ultimately the problem with evolution is there is no absolute right or wrong, it is entirely subjective.  What's right for one (compassion, sharing, kindness, love) may not be right for another, especially if it limits their survival value.  (for example, rape, which has a greater potential to propogate one's genes than monogomy, cannot be said to be wrong, and in fact, would be a 'better' way of accomplishing the ultimate aim of 'survival of your genes')

B)  Genesis does not follow evolutionary theory by any stretch, just a few differences:

1. Earth before sun

2. Earth begins with water (not a molten ball)

3. Birds before land creatures

4. Whales before land creatures

5. plants before sea creatures

6. Kinds versus the blurred lines of evolution

Right, Wrong and Morality

It’s not that evolution can’t explain “right vs wrong” or morality, it is that evolution can’t explain “‘absolute’ right vs wrong” or ‘absolute’ morality. Evolution’s premise is that right and wrong and morality all evolved hence by definition they are all relative. Relativism abandons the laws of logic, principally the Laws of Contradiction. This is because two opponents can say opposite things and claim that they are right at the same time. Without ‘absolute’ right, wrong and morality you can state anything and claim that you are right or moral, such as “rape is right”, “sacrificing babies is moral”, “ethnic cleansing is right”, and “loving your neighbor is wrong”.


All logical reasoning presupposes that there are absolutes and that truth is objective. Evolution is directly opposite to absolutes, because an absolute cannot evolve.


Ask your friend this:


How can you say that my position is wrong if truth is relative to the individual?

Genesis Sequence


With regards to the sequence of creation events, take the opportunity to read through Genesis, because by his answer he clearly hasn't read Genesis properly or he doesn't know the big bang theory.

He has just said that humanity is distinctly excempt from his view on evolution but is influenced by sociobiology where any higher notion "is just" some basic animal instinct. The sum of all human differences is an argument for anything BUT evolution.

Even the arguing that love "is only...", morality "is only" is distinctly human, fallen behaviour. It could not be done by a trained seal, whatever ones view of Richard Dawkins is. 

Carl not sure I understand your need to defend your friends ideas, but let me say the two responses above were very articulate.  Your friend needs to read that and take it to heart?  

Carl first of all the "mechanism" responsible for the animal kingdom is also responsible for humankind, but your friend readily understands that mankind is different from an animal, but in evolution mankind is considered another species, and there are no moral imperatives with respect to the evolutionary development of mankind over time, if you implore that belief.  So I say your friend is sort of "copping out" by leaving mankind out of his view---and no known non-guided mechanism can account for any body plan, or the information responsible for its make-up.  

The "bulldog" Dawkins has been chewed up and spit out by many creationists, so much so he will not debate some of the very well known Christian intellectuals, because he'd get his fanny whipped and knows it. A man who implies mankind is part of an alien planting on earth is someone we should all listen too?  Do aliens control the position of the earth with respect to the universe?  Your friend needs to dig deeper before he has any exchange that is viable using evolution as a basis for any implied mechanism that could result in the sophistication of humankind... 

Plainly put, there is a Creator/Gcd who is responsible for everything he sees, and that my friend is evidence, observable evidence.  No man has any excuse before his Creator..... 

Hello, Lou. JesusisLords friend was the one pointing out that humanity is different due to this uniqe set of qualities and those are better for survival.

My suggestion is to lift the word *unique* beause the friend seems to be mired in sociobiology.

From your research you have not found any contradiction between creation and survival traits, i gather? From what I read these traits, a lot of times, are not achievable by evolution, either due to the amount of positive mutations required in a limited time or through Behes mechanism of specificity. They mutations would be useless until they all came together- which would be contrary to neodarwinism.

So from an apologetic standpoint I would say "mankind is unique" which is something the friend agrees with. Then point out that mankind came unique and unlike its supposed ancestors. Then possibly that this mankind seems to have put in a higher gear about 5000 years ago, growing, building, forming societies. The experience of others is that once God is proven (Ray Comfort and RC Sproul, fm youtube) then he will have little problem sorting out creation.

 

On the tangent subject:

It is strange that whiny Dawkins is such an idol of today. When he failed to debate William Craig it seems there was an uproar and some denouncing of him and when he uttered that he was more an agnostic than an atheist there was more uproar in those circles. They expect more of him than he is capable of.

And has been pointed out: if he reasons this badly, how does he do science? Even if he is not a paleobiologist the brand of biology he does comparing animals (behaviour) to humans and explaining human behaviour with animal need and instincts begs for the next step: herding of humans. As is more and more evident in post-christian times.

We should not really be satisfied with him avoiding debates, someone should look him up and take him on on his home-turf.


Carl yours in bold mine in regular:

The mutations would be useless until they all came together- which would be contrary to neo-Darwinism.

What mutation are demonstrated to be positive application for a body plan?  

 Perfect design application to eco niche is undeniable.  Within the confines of variation certain changes in switching take place like color etc.  But you seem like you imply evolutionary trends as well in your own language..am I wrong?

So from an apologetic standpoint I would say "mankind is unique" which is something the friend agrees with.

Mankind is beyond unique...his application and reason for seeing man different than animal is astute on his part but his inference still implores a Darwinian view... 

Then point out that mankind came unique and unlike its supposed ancestors.

The word came is a word play on "became'?  Because mankind did not become unique, he was created and therefore had no self determination in his won outcome period!!!!  Nor was there a non-guided mechanism we can infer such design?

unlike its supposed ancestors   (??)

The only ancestors man has is a heterozygous Adam and Eve which makes them unique in that all man kinds variations came through cross procreation over time but these differences are variations and not new body plans. Just research the Bask population in Europe and others in South America that have "different" DNA make-up but are fully human??? Please put Neanderthal in your browser in google go to the images page and look over the 50 or more pictures of Neanderthal that go back to early Darwinian claims to more modern, it is no a forgone conclusion even by secular experts that a Neanderthal walking down the streets of New York would look no different than the rest of the population, so what of h*** erectus, the most found skeleton in any paleontological digs, they too are fully human.  It is Darwinian thinking that applies species to humans as if there are many,many, many evolved species that came through the ape line.  But this insertion of ancestorship to animals is ridiculous especially given recent DNA information and research by secular scientists who have found no evidences of mankind and apes having any connection at all??? 

Then possibly that this mankind seems to have put in a higher gear about 5000 years ago,

Since I don't exactly believe YE 6,000 year chronology putting some time signature that implies YE I totally agree with, but I am open to a slightly longer time frame....that has nothing to do with time needed for animal or mankind's development....Mankind was ready to go after his creation????

he will have little problem sorting out creation.

If you cannot start with biblical creation, a creator GOd, and no self determinism in species through DNA, then you shall for ever be lost in a maze of inferences and possibilities.  GOd says that man is without excuse, if you accept a designer as I do, then you must see that all things around you are evidences and it is imperative that we get this in our heads.

Lastly with respect to mankind.  Man is a "living soul" that right,soul (referencing a spiritual application), he is separate form the animal kingdom and certain genetic things apply to man that do not apply to the animal kingdom.  The creator had a specific reason for mankind's creation, nothing of our selves can we pin on any un-guided mechanism or inference period.  It is no accident we are unique, but that uniqueness you speak about above, is something we did not become (as if we have some self-determinism), it is something we were created for in the beginning, and it is no accident, we are purposed, eternal, and answer to the creator of our DNA, the same God who set the earth in a privileged place, the uniqueness is that a little movement from that frame would kill all humanity and destroy the earth.  So there are no accidents, no self determination, no non-guided mechanisms, there is only the Word of God which in John says that the whole universe is held together by Christ Jesus who was there in the beginning, and responsible for it all. 

My inclination is that these inferences are from the soul of rejecting Gods work, Gods word, and Gods purposes as set forth in the beginning, and no amount of argument can change that....until one can accept the God of all creation, what can you say that infers anything but a creator????

Carl, it is too bad that someone here is making you into an advocate for evolution.

Carl Carlsson said:

Hello, Lou. JesusisLords friend was the one pointing out that humanity is different due to this uniqe set of qualities and those are better for survival.

My suggestion is to lift the word *unique* beause the friend seems to be mired in sociobiology.

And now we are expected to believe that "unique" is not an adequate distinctive terminology for mankind - but that man is merely "separate from the animal kingdom." Actually unique is perfectly adequate. Man is more than "separate from the animal kingdom!" Some people are quite bent on their agenda and will endlessly raise the same tired old objections to creationist fundamentals.

And at the same time they will invent problems that are not problems, and they will continue to assert things as "fact" and "givens," which are not stated in Scripture.

You have clearly used language that shows that you do not accept the idea of ancestors to humans ("supposed ancestors"). Yet you are now being identified as someone who believes that primates gradually "became" human.

oh well, its more of the same.

Since this is a misunderstanding I think it will be alright in the end.

If you have read the "Lord of the Rings" it tells about Saruman that his fall came about from his studies into evil. On one hand I think one needs to be able to understand the mindset and discussion on the other side, on the other hand there is a primary risk that ones allies will suspect treason if one is able to carry the other sides argumentation too well and there is always the secondary risk that one might come to the conclusion the other side of the discussion is right.

Given that it is good to know that Lou is keeping an eye on me.

 


 
Jim Brenneman said:

Carl, it is too bad that someone here is making you into an advocate for evolution.

Carl Carlsson said:

Hello, Lou. JesusisLords friend was the one pointing out that humanity is different due to this uniqe set of qualities and those are better for survival.

My suggestion is to lift the word *unique* beause the friend seems to be mired in sociobiology.

And now we are expected to believe that "unique" is not an adequate distinctive terminology for mankind - but that man is merely "separate from the animal kingdom." Actually unique is perfectly adequate. Man is more than "separate from the animal kingdom!" Some people are quite bent on their agenda and will endlessly raise the same tired old objections to creationist fundamentals.

And at the same time they will invent problems that are not problems, and they will continue to assert things as "fact" and "givens," which are not stated in Scripture.

You have clearly used language that shows that you do not accept the idea of ancestors to humans ("supposed ancestors"). Yet you are now being identified as someone who believes that primates gradually "became" human.

oh well, its more of the same.

JiL

I would possibly agree with your friend, that morality, kindness, sharing, compassion and love are the results of tribal cooperation, or at lease could be the result.  For tribes to continue to exist a great deal of cooperation was needed and therefore close relationships, which would often convert into love.  These traits, could appear under the general theory of evolution, or they more readily would be instilled in the created being.  The difference is  'knowing' the difference between right and wrong, is that nature or nurture, is it a learned piece of knowledge or is it instinctive? This sets us apart from every other species on the face of the planet, and animals act instinctively.

However, what also sets us apart, and did from ancient times, is 'culture', by that I mean the appreciation of art, music and the need to share ideas,  the need to record the individual's life in drawings.  What animal has developed that ability, what animal has produced music purely for the pleasure of the ear, or wanted to record a hunting scene on the wall of it's den?  None, man is set apart by this more than morality, kindness, sharing, compassion and love.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2018   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service