Evolution And My Job

[xSilverPhinx]

The "guidance" of evolution is natural selection and it's actually a very simple process: living things are born with genetic variations within a species (as was pointed out, it's species that evolves, not individual animals) and the environment selects which characterisitcs survive and reproduce. The next generation is born and the process repeats itself. That's the summery of natural selection.

A valid analogy would be artificial selection (breeding). When you breed animals, you select those with characteristics you want and breed those again to produce offspring with a higher chance of inheriting those characteristics. Your analogy fails because machines are not living things, do not struggle to survive and do not reproduce with random variations.

If you look at dogs, for instance. One or more species of wolf (mostly grey wolf) were interbred based on characteristics that people wanted. The process is actually not as simple as going for one characteristic at a time because one effect can unleash a number of unanticipated effects (if you're interested, I suggest you look up a video on YouTube about what happened to some silver foxes who were selected just for tameness in a fur farm). Now we have everything from Great Danes to Chihuahuas. If you continue this process further, maybe in a few thousand years both those breeds would no longer be of the same species.

The term "species" is sometimes difficult to define. Basically it means a group of animals which can breed within eachother and produce fertile offspring, but there are cases in which two animals of different species but that are genetically close enough have produced fertile offspring, though I don't know how many generations they got out of those.

The great thing about natural selection is that you don't need an intelligent guider for the process, though theists who understand and accept evolutionary theory are able to reconcile god in there pretty well.

Edited May 6, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1299724027' post='2219699']
So my company builds complex guidance equipment for aircraft. We keep trying to make it better alll the time. I just wonder if we just let it sit there and didn't apply any brain power to it if it would get better on it's own? Oh I suppose you could say animals are different, they have a brain. So is it the thinking of the animal that makes it go from a single celled ameba to a human? No it would seem the brain of the creature is immaterial to the evolution of life. So I'm back to not in a billion billion years would our guidance systems get better by themselves. They have to have a brain apply energy and incite to improve them. A mind external to them. I just wonder how even if evolution is a valid process it would be different. Just thinking out loud. Ignore if you like. Thoughts?
[/quote]

This is not remotely close to a good explaination to an understanding of the evolutionary process, but I realize that you were writing it without the intent to be specific and provide such an explaination.


[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1299737419' post='2219762']
It must be remembered that individuals don't evolve, species do. One does not really see evolution on an individual scale but rather species wide scale.

That being said, you need a mechanism for evolution. In creatures, the mechanism is reproduction. Your guidance equipment does not reproduce itself and make more guidance systems and thus it has no way of getting better or worse (well it will get worse overtime as observed by the second law of thermodynamics, but that is another point).
[/quote]

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection falls outside of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which deals in heat.

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1300373882' post='2221392']
The issue is not how we were created or developed, but whether or not we acknowledge God as the creator.
"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." -JP2[/quote]

I understand what [His Holiness] Pope John Paul II said, I don't agree with him but I understand what he said. In my mind, if you believe in the creation story of Genesis, you cannot possibly believe in Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, as much as Eugenie Scott and Keneth Miller would like us to believe so. Just take a look at them from a scientific standpoint, they are opposites.

[quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1300385127' post='2221420']
One of the worst interpretations of the theory of evolution I have ever seen.
[/quote]

Agreed but give him some slack, it started a good discussion.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304725300' post='2238133']
The "guidance" of evolution is natural selection and it's actually a very simple process: living things are born with genetic variations within a species (as was pointed out, it's species that evolves, not individual animals) and the environment selects which characterisitcs survive and reproduce. The next generation is born and the process repeats itself. That's the summery of natural selection.[/quote] This is still very primative.

[quote]A valid analogy would be artificial selection (breeding). When you breed animals, you select those with characteristics you want and breed those again to produce offspring with a higher chance of inheriting those characteristics. Your analogy fails because machines are not living things, do not struggle to survive and do not reproduce with random variations.
[/quote]

It's true, Machines cannot reproduce so it doesn't work.

[quote]If you look at dogs, for instance. One or more species of wolf (mostly grey wolf) were interbred based on characteristics that people wanted. The process is actually not as simple as going for one characteristic at a time because one effect can unleash a number of unanticipated effects (if you're interested, I suggest you look up a video on YouTube about what happened to some silver foxes who were selected just for tameness in a fur farm). Now we have everything from Great Danes to Chihuahuas. If you continue this process further, maybe in a few thousand years both those breeds would no longer be of the same species.
[/quote]

That's microevolution, but yes.

[quote]The great thing about natural selection is that you don't need an intelligent guider for the process, though theists who understand and accept evolutionary theory are able to reconcile god in there pretty well.[/quote]

This is a great reason why it's not compatible with the Biblical Text and the doctrines of the Church. Darwin's Theory of natural selection is defined as, "undirected mutations via natural selection", meaning undirected, not being guided by G-d, nor anyone else. I myself reject darwin's theory as inadequate, but that's another story.

[xSilverPhinx]

RezaMikhaeil, could you elaborate on your understanding of the theory? Because I've already spotted some problems with your thinking and am wondering how far it goes.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304728568' post='2238168']
RezaMikhaeil, could you elaborate on your understanding of the theory? Because I've already spotted some problems with your thinking and am wondering how far it goes.
[/quote]

No problem, the standard textbook definition of Darwin's theory is, "the common decent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection". If you believe that, then it's as Richard Dawkins has made clear, incompatible with the belief in the G-d of the Bible. You might say, "G-d put this from of evolution into place to impliment his design", but you have no chance of saying that G-d guided the design because it is undirected by it's very nature. However even saying that G-d implimented his design through Darwin's Theory is a stretch that most Christians, nearly all Agnostics and all Atheists are not willing to take.

I, myself, think that the furthest a Christian that believes the Bible is G-d's Word, can go is to believe in intelligent design, which is defined as, "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence". This is quite different then the typical "creationist" story because it doesn't attempt to fit the Bible [or any other kind of G-d] into science, but rather allows science to tell us about life. Intelligent design is a minimal commitment, scientifically - to the possibility of detecting causation.

Do you see the distinction? Intelligent Design doesn't exclude all forms of evolution, it doesn't. Rather it allows the concept of G-d, where as Darwin's Theory does not. Darwin himself was an atheist and most people that accept his theory are Atheists for a particular reason. It leaves little to no room for the belief in G-d and certainly no room for the biblical account.

[kafka]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304725300' post='2238133']
The "guidance" of evolution is natural selection and it's actually a very simple process: living things are born with genetic variations within a species (as was pointed out, it's species that evolves, not individual animals) and the environment selects which characterisitcs survive and reproduce. The next generation is born and the process repeats itself. That's the summery of natural selection.

A valid analogy would be artificial selection (breeding). When you breed animals, you select those with characteristics you want and breed those again to produce offspring with a higher chance of inheriting those characteristics. Your analogy fails because machines are not living things, do not struggle to survive and do not reproduce with random variations.

If you look at dogs, for instance. One or more species of wolf (mostly grey wolf) were interbred based on characteristics that people wanted. The process is actually not as simple as going for one characteristic at a time because one effect can unleash a number of unanticipated effects (if you're interested, I suggest you look up a video on YouTube about what happened to some silver foxes who were selected just for tameness in a fur farm). Now we have everything from Great Danes to Chihuahuas. If you continue this process further, maybe in a few thousand years both those breeds would no longer be of the same species.

The term "species" is sometimes difficult to define. Basically it means a group of animals which can breed within eachother and produce fertile offspring, but there are cases in which two animals of different species but that are genetically close enough have produced fertile offspring, though I don't know how many generations they got out of those.

The great thing about natural selection is that you don't need an intelligent guider for the process, though theists who understand and accept evolutionary theory are able to reconcile god in there pretty well.
[/quote]
great post. I've read about and seen the video on the silver foxes and actually worked it into my Creation commentary.

I agree to some extent that natural selection doesnt need an intellegent guider for the process. God does let new things spring forth from existing things with a certain spontaneity and independence. However the process does I think need an Intellegent Creator, and God does order, guide and provide for particular transformations and develepments within his plan for creation as a whole or his particular plan for the plant and animal kingdoms which include plans for groups and clades within the kingdoms. For example the first epoch of the animal kingdom. It literally begins in the oceans with the micro-organims and culminates in the appearance of the birds:

Genesis
{1:20} And then God said, “Let the waters produce animals with a living soul, and flying creatures above the earth, under the firmament of the sky.”
{1:21} And God created the great sea creatures, and everything with a living soul and the ability to move that the waters produced, according to their species, and all the flying creatures, according to their kind. And God saw that it was good.
{1:22} And he blessed them, saying: “Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea. And let the birds be multiplied above the land.”

The way God's command is ordered in verse twenty, as well as the way the effect of God's command is ordered in verse twenty one together in a context of an eon across an ever changing planetary environment; it seems to me that God willed the bird group to come into being by means of the increase and multiplication of the animals produced in the waters.

God's Command: “Let the waters produce animals with a living soul, and flying creatures. . . "

The flying creatures are linked to the animals produced by the waters (literally in the waters, figuratively the micro-organisms in the waters and the sea creatures). I will reword God's blessing for the sake of setting in relief what I think is implied:

Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea. And let the birds be multiplied above the land by means of the animals filling the waters.”

or

"Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea, so that the birds may be multiplied above the land. . ."

The birds sprung forth from the dinosaurs which sprung forth from the reptiles which ultimately sprung forth from the micro-organisms. With this simple command God effects one whole prodigious eon in the history of Earth. A whole eon of evolution is implied in the simple command and blessing of God. The birds are said by science to be the only species of dinosaurs to survive the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event which I think could be the distinct end of day five.

So a theological way of looking at the dinosaurs could be that they were created by God for the sake of the birds. God particularily willed to transfer the gift of the birds to His children in day six, but He did not will to transfer the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs would not be of good use to human persons. So God wipes out the all their species expect for the birds in the extinction event. Birds of course are very useful to us, and we get to use the dinosaurs to study the history of Earth.

From a Catholic point of view (my own personal one) some form of evolution exists because God is Eternal and Processional. The Son is eternally proceeding from the Father; the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and from the Son. We call this the Trinity. The natural processes of creation imitate the Eternal Processions of God in some very limited way. God makes things just as He is.

But God is also Infinity, so He is not limited by the processes of evolution which He created. God is able to make things suddenly, miraculously, instantaneously out of nothing and/or out of something. God miraculously creates some things out of nothing and other things out something. Some things God makes out of existing things by means of natural processes designed, drawn and directed by Him; and other things he miraculously and suddenly creates out of existing things in an instant, e.g. the soul of a human person.


xSilverPhinx. You are welcome here. Grace and peace to you. Heck I would even love if you would take a look at my creation commentary. No one else seems to be showing any interest. I seamlessly work science into everything. My interpretation for the creation of the firmament in day two is the formation of the solar system from an interstellar cloud. Scientific discoveries and even some scientific theories fit in perfectly with Sacred Scripture if interpreted correctly in my opinion. So if you want here:

http://sevendaysofcreation.blogspot.com/

Edited May 7, 2011 by kafka

[Amppax]

*Edit: Nevermind, this is why i don't talk about science

Edited May 7, 2011 by Amppax

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304729304' post='2238179']
No problem, the standard textbook definition of Darwin's theory is, "the common decent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection". If you believe that, then it's as Richard Dawkins has made clear, incompatible with the belief in the G-d of the Bible. You might say, "G-d put this from of evolution into place to impliment his design", but you have no chance of saying that G-d guided the design because it is undirected by it's very nature. However even saying that G-d implimented his design through Darwin's Theory is a stretch that most Christians, nearly all Agnostics and all Atheists are not willing to take.

I, myself, think that the furthest a Christian that believes the Bible is G-d's Word, can go is to believe in intelligent design, which is defined as, "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence". This is quite different then the typical "creationist" story because it doesn't attempt to fit the Bible [or any other kind of G-d] into science, but rather allows science to tell us about life. Intelligent design is a minimal commitment, scientifically - to the possibility of detecting causation.

Do you see the distinction? Intelligent Design doesn't exclude all forms of evolution, it doesn't. Rather it allows the concept of G-d, where as Darwin's Theory does not. Darwin himself was an atheist and most people that accept his theory are Atheists for a particular reason. It leaves little to no room for the belief in G-d and certainly no room for the biblical account.
[/quote]

Okay, you explained why you don't accept theistic evolution, but I was wondering more about how you understand evolutionary theory.

3 points:

- You're right that the explanation based solely on natural selection is 'primitive'. Natural selection by itself does not explain all macro evolutionary process, though it is the process that "directs" evolution. There are other areas such as evo-devo which are being researched.

- Evolution is not at odds with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The Earth by itself is not a closed system. You've left out a vital element, the sun and solar energy, in your equations.

- Macroevolution is essentially microevolution which occurs during a long period of time. Using the dog example, suppose the chihuahua and great dane could no longer produce viable offspring. Both would continue to evolve through microevolution, but would be genetically isolated from eachother. Hypothetically, after a period of time in which microevolution occurs, it's quite possible that the chihuahua could resemble a canine rat whereas the great dane a canine bear, even though they both have the same ancestor.
If you're thinking that macroevolution means that a two dogs can give birth to a bird, you're mistaken.

As for ID, besides it not being science but merely an idea, the main problem is that it is at odds with evolution, by essentially saying that at some point a mechanism could not have evolved. Behe's irreducibly complexity has been shot down too.

I really can't speak for theists who accepted and incorporated evolution into their belief system, but I don't see how it can be at odds with the idea that a god directed it through natural selection as if god were a backstage directer. It does falsify the literal interpretation of genesis though, but other independent scientific domains such as geology and cosmology do that too.

Though I should tell you that evolutionary theory is possibly one of the most important theories in biology. It's where everything comes together and makes sense and has so far never been falsified due to it's predictive power even though there are many opportunities for it to be falsified if it was off course.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304730981' post='2238199']
great post. I've read about and seen the video on the silver foxes and actually worked it into my Creation commentary.

I agree to some extent that natural selection doesnt need an intellegent guider for the process. God does let new things spring forth from existing things with a certain spontaneity and independence. However the process does I think need an Intellegent Creator, and God does order, guide and provide for particular transformations and develepments within his plan for creation as a whole or his particular plan for the plant and animal kingdoms which include plans for groups and clades within the kingdoms. For example the first epoch of the animal kingdom. It literally begins in the oceans with the micro-organims and culminates in the appearance of the birds:

Genesis
{1:20} And then God said, “Let the waters produce animals with a living soul, and flying creatures above the earth, under the firmament of the sky.”
{1:21} And God created the great sea creatures, and everything with a living soul and the ability to move that the waters produced, according to their species, and all the flying creatures, according to their kind. And God saw that it was good.
{1:22} And he blessed them, saying: “Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea. And let the birds be multiplied above the land.”

The way God's command is ordered in verse twenty, as well as the way the effect of God's command is ordered in verse twenty one together in a context of an eon across an ever changing planetary environment; it seems to me that God willed the bird group to come into being by means of the increase and multiplication of the animals produced in the waters.

God's Command: “Let the waters produce animals with a living soul, and flying creatures. . . "

The flying creatures are linked to the animals produced by the waters (literally in the waters, figuratively the micro-organisms in the waters and the sea creatures). I will reword God's blessing for the sake of setting in relief what I think is implied:

Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea. And let the birds be multiplied above the land by means of the animals filling the waters.”

or

"Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea, so that the birds may be multiplied above the land. . ."[/quote]

This is an incorrect interpretation of Genesis 1:20, it doesn't say that the waters produced the creatures of the sea, rather it says that let them be filled, or furtile with such animals. It never hints at the idea of evolution, period.

[quote]The birds sprung forth from the dinosaurs which sprung forth from the reptiles which ultimately sprung forth from the micro-organisms. With this simple command God effects one whole prodigious eon in the history of Earth. A whole eon of evolution is implied in the simple command and blessing of God. The birds are said by science to be the only species of dinosaurs to survive the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event which I think could be the distinct end of day five.
[/quote]

This is factually incorrect, many species of fish also survived and reptiles too, if I'm not mistaken.

[quote]So a theological way of looking at the dinosaurs could be that they were created by God for the sake of the birds. God particularily willed to transfer the gift of the birds to His children in day six, but He did not will to transfer the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs would not be of good use to human persons. So God wipes out the all their species expect for the birds in the extinction event. Birds of course are very useful to us, and we get to use the dinosaurs to study the history of Earth.
[/quote]

No offense, but I think that this is a bad biblical interpretation of dinosaurs. Dr. Gerald Schroder provides a much better explaination:

[quote]

What about dinosaurs? Why doesn't the Bible mention dinosaurs? It's a question posed by believers and skeptics alike. The former in an attempt to better understand the God's role in the world; The latter to challenge the Bible's authority. It is also the opening question I raise in The Science Of God. Extensive beds of fossils record the rise and demise of these amazing animals. There were swimming dinosaurs, running dinosaurs, even a form of flying dinosaur. According to scientific data, they first appeared some 250 million years ago. About the same time, mammals make their first appearance in the fossil record. And then till 65 million years ago, dinosaurs and mammals co-existed, but on anything other than equal footing.

Dinosaurs ruled the roost, getting bigger and tougher, reaching sizes that rival today's great blue whale. All the time mammals occupied much more modest ecological niches, never getting larger than a few kilograms. Then 65 million years ago, the rules of the game changed. What appears to have been a meteor some ten kilometers in diameter punched through our atmosphere, slamming into the earth's surface at 30 kilometers a second. The resulting massive explosion appears to have formed a crater 150 kilometers in diameter off of southern Central America. Dust and debris thrown into the atmosphere shrouded the earth in a cloud that blocked incoming sunlight for half a year. Temperatures plummeted; photosynthesis all but stopped and all animals larger than about five kilograms disappeared from the fossil record. Mammals survived the ecological disaster. The large dinosaurs did not.

From a secular view - what luck for us; not so lucky for the dinos. From a theological view, God has stepped into re-direct the development of animal life. Dinosaurs were getting bigger, but they were not getting smarter. A vessel was needed that could eventually embrace the neshama - the soul of humanity - and dinosaurs were not heading in that direction. Perhaps mammals would.

Dinosaurs raise two basic theological questions.

First, 250 million years?? 65 million years?? I thought the Biblical calendar reaches to less than 6000 years. So from whence arise the millions of years? In my book, The Science Of God, I discuss in detail the age of the universe and the universal perception of time adopted by Genesis for the first six days, a view that sees the flow of events from the beginning, looking forward from a time when the universe (and in parallel time) was highly compressed. In essence, the 15 billion years of cosmic history compress into six 24 hour days, even as the hours remain 24 hours as we know them and the billions of years remain years. I bring the scientifically accepted concepts for this transformation of time in The Science of God.

The second question about dinosaurs relates to their rise and fall. This quandary is far more significant than mere arguments over the ages of rocks. It deals fundamentally with our perception of the Rock Of Ages. If God is omnipotent, able to create heaven and earth, surely God could have devised a world without the need to destroy part of that creation, in this case the dinosaurs, to keep it on line with some divine plan. Simply stated, does God control nature?

The answer to this question lies in the Biblical concept of evolution, or better stated, the Biblical concept of the development of life. For simplicity, I'll focus on animal life but first let's look at the Bible's description of the inception of the first forms of life on earth. It holds a few surprises. Life appears first on day three ((Genesis 1:11), immediately after liquid water formed on earth (Gen. 1:10). This immediate conjunction of water and life had, for decades, evolutionary biologists rolling in the aisles with laughter. All life on earth is water based. No water, no life. Conventional wisdom was that billions of years passed in which random reactions changed rocks and water in living organisms. The laughter was swallowed when in the 1970's Prof. E. Barghoorn and Stanley Tyler discovered micro-fossils of bacteria and algae in chert rocks (a form of silicon dioxide once considered an unlikely source of fossils) 3.6 billion years old, just after the time when oceans and dry land formed on earth. Genesis was correct all along. Life appeared very rapidly, not after billions of years.

But note that on day three, the word "creation" does not appear. The first life was not specially created. The universe was equipped for life from its inception. It was organization that was needed, organization that could produce the phenomenally intricate functioning of life's genetic map: DNA, RNA, amino acids, the bio-chemical sources of energy ATP. How that organization occurred in a geological blink of an eye remains an enigma to the scientific community.

Day four passes (Gen. 1:14 - 19) with no further mention of life's flow. The fossil record mirrors this hiatus. Life remains microscopic for three billion years, and then in a burst of animal forms, known as the Cambrian explosion, every basic animal body plan (the 34 animal phyla) extant today appeared in the fossil record. Animals with jointed bodies, limbs, eyes (with lenses), swarmed in the seas. There was not a hint of this impending proliferation in the underlying fossils. See day five (Gen. 1:20) for a similar description, and please refer to The Science Of God for a Biblical match in the timing of this event as well.

Torah devotes a mere seven sentences to the evolution of animal life (Gen. 1:20 - 26) and one of those sentences only states there was evening and there was morning day five. So we have six bits of information describing the entire flow of animal life starting with aquatic creatures and culminating in the symphony of life we call humanity. Somewhere within that chain of events the dinosaurs rise and fall. [/quote]

You can read the full article at: [url="http://www.geraldschroeder.com/EvolutionBibleStyle.aspx"]http://www.geraldschroeder.com/EvolutionBibleStyle.aspx[/url]

[quote]From a Catholic point of view (my own personal one) some form of evolution exists because God is Eternal and Processional. The Son is eternally proceeding from the Father; the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and from the Son. We call this the Trinity. The natural processes of creation imitate the Eternal Processions of God in some very limited way. God makes things just as He is. [/quote]

Please expound upon this concept of "G-d makes things just as he is", in regards to the Trinity, as you understand it.

[quote]But God is also Infinity, so He is not limited by the processes of evolution which He created. God is able to make things suddenly, miraculously, instantaneously out of nothing and/or out of something. God miraculously creates some things out of nothing and other things out something. Some things God makes out of existing things by means of natural processes designed, drawn and directed by Him; and other things he miraculously and suddenly creates out of existing things in an instant, e.g. the soul of a human person.
[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]xSilverPhinx. You are welcome here. Grace and peace to you. Heck I would even love if you would take a look at my creation commentary. No one else seems to be showing any interest. I seamlessly work science into everything. My interpretation for the creation of the firmament in day two is the formation of the solar system from an interstellar cloud. Scientific discoveries and even some scientific theories fit in perfectly with Sacred Scripture if interpreted correctly in my opinion. So if you want here:

[url="http://sevendaysofcreation.blogspot.com/"]http://sevendaysofcr...n.blogspot.com/[/url]
[/quote]

Well Darwin's Theory does not, unless you attempt to reconcile scriptures to science, rather then going on what they say.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304730981' post='2238199']
great post. I've read about and seen the video on the silver foxes and actually worked it into my Creation commentary.

I agree to some extent that natural selection doesnt need an intellegent guider for the process. God does let new things spring forth from existing things with a certain spontaneity and independence. However the process does I think need an Intellegent Creator, and God does order, guide and provide for particular transformations and develepments within his plan for creation as a whole or his particular plan for the plant and animal kingdoms which include plans for groups and clades within the kingdoms. For example the first epoch of the animal kingdom. It literally begins in the oceans with the micro-organims and culminates in the appearance of the birds:

Genesis
{1:20} And then God said, "Let the waters produce animals with a living soul, and flying creatures above the earth, under the firmament of the sky."
{1:21} And God created the great sea creatures, and everything with a living soul and the ability to move that the waters produced, according to their species, and all the flying creatures, according to their kind. And God saw that it was good.
{1:22} And he blessed them, saying: "Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea. And let the birds be multiplied above the land."

The way God's command is ordered in verse twenty, as well as the way the effect of God's command is ordered in verse twenty one together in a context of an eon across an ever changing planetary environment; it seems to me that God willed the bird group to come into being by means of the increase and multiplication of the animals produced in the waters.

God's Command: "Let the waters produce animals with a living soul, and flying creatures. . . "

The flying creatures are linked to the animals produced by the waters (literally in the waters, figuratively the micro-organisms in the waters and the sea creatures). I will reword God's blessing for the sake of setting in relief what I think is implied:

Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea. And let the birds be multiplied above the land by means of the animals filling the waters."

or

"Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea, so that the birds may be multiplied above the land. . ."

The birds sprung forth from the dinosaurs which sprung forth from the reptiles which ultimately sprung forth from the micro-organisms. With this simple command God effects one whole prodigious eon in the history of Earth. A whole eon of evolution is implied in the simple command and blessing of God. The birds are said by science to be the only species of dinosaurs to survive the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event which I think could be the distinct end of day five.

So a theological way of looking at the dinosaurs could be that they were created by God for the sake of the birds. God particularily willed to transfer the gift of the birds to His children in day six, but He did not will to transfer the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs would not be of good use to human persons. So God wipes out the all their species expect for the birds in the extinction event. Birds of course are very useful to us, and we get to use the dinosaurs to study the history of Earth.

From a Catholic point of view (my own personal one) some form of evolution exists because God is Eternal and Processional. The Son is eternally proceeding from the Father; the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and from the Son. We call this the Trinity. The natural processes of creation imitate the Eternal Processions of God in some very limited way. God makes things just as He is.

But God is also Infinity, so He is not limited by the processes of evolution which He created. God is able to make things suddenly, miraculously, instantaneously out of nothing and/or out of something. God miraculously creates some things out of nothing and other things out something. Some things God makes out of existing things by means of natural processes designed, drawn and directed by Him; and other things he miraculously and suddenly creates out of existing things in an instant, e.g. the soul of a human person.


xSilverPhinx. You are welcome here. Grace and peace to you. Heck I would even love if you would take a look at my creation commentary. No one else seems to be showing any interest. I seamlessly work science into everything. My interpretation for the creation of the firmament in day two is the formation of the solar system from an interstellar cloud. Scientific discoveries and even some scientific theories fit in perfectly with Sacred Scripture if interpreted correctly in my opinion. So if you want here:

[url="http://sevendaysofcreation.blogspot.com/"]http://sevendaysofcr...n.blogspot.com/ [/url]
[/quote]

I've read your creation commentary, though it's a subject I don't feel too comfortable giving any input on because, well I don't believe in the validity of the the entire scripture, and I don't have any good knowledge to back up a certain interpretational stance. I do think you have your work cut out for you though, and as strange as this may sound coming from a nonbeliver, I also think that if you interpret some things a certain way, some parts can resemble what science has uncovered.

One thought: there is one interpretation that I came across sometime ago which said that the name 'Adam' has something to do with Hebrew for 'mankind' or something like that, and so did not refer to one individual person but I won't delve any further than that because, I don't know heck about it.

Edited May 7, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304731765' post='2238208']
Okay, you explained why you don't accept theistic evolution, but I was wondering more about how you understand evolutionary theory.[/quote] I never said why I don't accept it, rather I just pointed out it's conflictions with the Biblical account.

[quote]3 points:

- You're right that the explanation based solely on natural selection is 'primitive'. Natural selection by itself does not explain all macro evolutionary process, though it is the process that "directs" evolution. There are other areas such as evo-devo which are being researched.[/quote] That's true but Darwin's Theory is the most widely researched and still, in my opinion and the opinion of many, is inadequate in that it's so primative that it's not even clear or precise.

[quote]- Evolution is not at odds with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The Earth by itself is not a closed system. You've left out a vital element, the sun and solar energy, in your equations.
[/quote]

I never said that Evolution was at odds with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. As a matter of fact, I pointed out that it has less to do with the evolutionary process as Creationists would like to suggest.

[quote]- Macroevolution is essentially microevolution which occurs during a long period of time. Using the dog example, suppose the chihuahua and great dane could no longer produce viable offspring. Both would continue to evolve through microevolution, but would be genetically isolated from eachother. Hypothetically, after a period of time in which microevolution occurs, it's quite possible that the chihuahua could resemble a canine rat whereas the great dane a canine bear, even though they both have the same ancestor.
If you're thinking that macroevolution means that a two dogs can give birth to a bird, you're mistaken.
[/quote]

This is common propaganda of those who support Darwin's Theory and is taught as part of the evolutionary theory, but I reject it. Micro-evolution and macro evolution are not the same but with longer periods of time. If a sting ray were to go from the salt water of the ocean and slowly adapt to fresh water through traveling up a river, very slowly. This is micro-evolution, as he still is a sting ray but his body has gone through small genetic changes. However there is no evidence that if he were to spend extended periods near the beach that he would slowly grow legs. There is no evidence that his body would slowly lose weight and he'd learn to fly. If we were to take a standard land roving animal and ask ourselves, "what changes would this animal need to become a sea going animal like a whale", we are not talking small changes, we are talking major changes, not just having to do with small external changes. We're talking about the brain evolving, the skin getting water resistant, it's means for breathing changing, it's brain patterns changing, etc.

Note: Scientists do not even have a clue as to how great white sharks reproduce. It's never been witnessed in the world whatsoever, so what makes you think they are even at the stage of making an informed decision as to the origins of that species, or any species for that matter?

[quote]As for ID, besides it not being science but merely an idea, the main problem is that it is at odds with evolution, by essentially saying that at some point a mechanism could not have evolved. Behe's irreducibly complexity has been shot down too.
[/quote]

Well it is just as scientific as darwin's theory. Surely it's at odds with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection Evolution, no doubt about it but many scientists agree that Darwin's Theory is severely inadequate. Just because most liberal college universities have done their best to exclude it, doesn't mean that the issue has been settled. A Scientific Decent of Darwin's Theory, made it clear that there are scientists with a different perspective, who reject darwin's theory of natural selection and all the other evolutionary processes that you mentioned.

Hypothetically, if we were to say that scientists studied the patterns of the brain and concluded that it was only possible through some sort of intelligent causation, is that not a scientific process? Surely it is, the problem is that this politically correct atmosphere will never allow for such to be acknowledged because it might open up the possibility to G-d being recognized and an absolute truth. You and I both know that if we could prove the G-d of Roman Catholicism scientifically, that would be rejected regardless of it's validity. Intelligent Design does not reject evolution, rather it rejects this radical interpretation of macro evolution to the point that Darwin's Theory takes it. The problem with darwin's theory is that the mathmatical possibility of such mutations is 1 in a trillion trillion trillion, essentially zero [as Dr. Gerald Schroder puts it]. If you talk to any mathmatician and ask them, without telling them that we're talking about evolution, about the possibility of such happening, they will tell you that it's impossible.

[quote]I really can't speak for theists who accepted and incorporated evolution into their belief system, but I don't see how it can be at odds with the idea that a god directed it through natural selection as if god were a backstage directer. It does falsify the literal interpretation of genesis though, but other independent scientific domains such as geology and cosmology do that too.
[/quote]

Because by it's very nature it's undirected mutation. To say that G-d's hand guided it, is unnecessary at best and unscientific at worst. Thou we don't agree on much, I'm glad that we do agree that it's incompatible with the literal [and I'd say figurative] interpretation of genesis. I mean, even if you believe Genesis to be figurative in the sense that the world was not created in 7, 24hr days, it still wouldn't fit with the evolutionary process as Darwin Understood it.

[quote]Though I should tell you that evolutionary theory is possibly one of the most important theories in biology. It's where everything comes together and makes sense and has so far never been falsified due to it's predictive power even though there are many opportunities for it to be falsified if it was off course.
[/quote]

I disagree, I think that it is widely accepted at most universities, but I won't say that it's possibily one of the most important theories in biology. Infact one brain surgeon [who's name I forget but i'll find it] once said that it was not necessary to read about Darwin's Theory and Evolution in order to understand the interworkings of the brain. He came under attack by supporters of Darwin's Theory but he wasn't religious, nor taking a side in the debate, just giving his opinion. There is so much within this idea of Evolution that is not understood. It is irrelevant to understanding human biology.

Anyways, I'd write much more indepth but my children are yelling, and it's time to put them to bed.

Reza

[kafka]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304734010' post='2238238']
This is an incorrect interpretation of Genesis 1:20, it doesn't say that the waters produced the creatures of the sea, rather it says that let them be filled, or furtile with such animals. It never hints at the idea of evolution, period.
[/quote]
did you mean incorrect translation?

Latin Vulgate
{1:20} Dixit etiam Deus: [b]Producant[/b] aquæ reptile animæ viventis, et volatile super terram sub firmamento cæli.

from the Latin and English Grammar Aid published by Notre Dame University:

produco -ducere -duxi -ductum [to bring forward , bring out, extend; [b]to produce[/b], bring up, advance, promote; to divulge, bring to light]; in pronunciation, [to lengthen out, make long]; in time, [to prolong, continue]; also [to put off, postpone]. Hence partic. productus -a -um, [extended, lengthened, prolonged]; of syllables, [pronounced long]; n. pl. as subst., [preferable things] (in the Stoic philosophy). Adv. producte, [long (of pronunciation)].

Read in light of faith and reason this verse in Genesis does not only hint toward the idea of evolution it reveals it. We do not read Sacred Scripture in a vacuum and we are not fideists. Some form of evolution is a reality and it does not contradict what God reveals.

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304734010' post='2238238']
This is factually incorrect, many species of fish also survived and reptiles too, if I'm not mistaken.
[/quote]
it is not factually incorrect. I was just focusing on that particular line of groups and clades. I basically cut and pasted a few of the sequences in my creation commentary to start a dialogue with xSilverPhinx, not you. I cover the rest on my blog.

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304734010' post='2238238']
No offense, but I think that this is a bad biblical interpretation of dinosaurs. Dr. Gerald Schroder provides a much better explaination:
You can read the full article at: [url="http://www.geraldschroeder.com/EvolutionBibleStyle.aspx"]http://www.geraldschroeder.com/EvolutionBibleStyle.aspx[/url]
[/quote]

you cant offend me. Its just a basic idea of speculative theology. In my view the dinosaurs are implied in that verse of Genesis, because the creation account is not static. It is a living and mystical word of God. The days are generally symbolic for eons of unfolding space and time, events, developments, junctures, etc.

And I'm not going to spend my time reading that article.

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304734010' post='2238238']
Please expound upon this concept of "G-d makes things just as he is", in regards to the Trinity, as you understand it.
[/quote]

It is a concept going back to Augustine and Aquinas. God is One. God is utterly and absolutely simple. In God being is doing and doing is being. God does things just as He is. So some process of evolution makes sense from a theological point of view since the One God is Procession. Procession means a springing forth. The Son is eternally proceeding from the Father; the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son all in One Divine Eternal Act. Everything that God is/does is One. So it makes sense that distinct new things would spring forth from existing things as some limited reflection of what God Is in the colossal unfolding of God's creation.

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304734010' post='2238238']
Well Darwin's Theory does not, unless you attempt to reconcile scriptures to science, rather then going on what they say.
[/quote]
I dont follow any one particular evolutional theory. There is some truth in the ones which are accepted by the scientific community, but none of the theories are perfect. And none of them are absolute. Evolution in some form is a reality in the processes of Creation. And this includes some natural selection, gene-environment interaction, mutations (perhaps some providentially effected by God in DNA switches), genetic recombination, and gene flow.

Sacred Scripture and the valid discoveries of science made possible by human reason have the same source: God.

Edited May 7, 2011 by kafka

[Amppax]

AHHHH!!!! So much science

[kafka]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304734158' post='2238240']
I've read your creation commentary, though it's a subject I don't feel too comfortable giving any input on because, well I don't believe in the validity of the the entire scripture, and I don't have any good knowledge to back up a certain interpretational stance. I do think you have your work cut out for you though, and as strange as this may sound coming from a nonbeliver, I also think that if you interpret some things a certain way, some parts can resemble what science has uncovered.

One thought: there is one interpretation that I came across sometime ago which said that the name 'Adam' has something to do with Hebrew for 'mankind' or something like that, and so did not refer to one individual person but I won't delve any further than that because, I don't know heck about it.
[/quote]
wow thanks. And already. You must be pretty bright. I realize the science might not be perfect, since I am not a scientist but I put a lot of work into learning the science I wanted to add to the commentary. If there are any scientific errors let me know.

I think Adam means the likeness, or red earth. In the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible the word Adam doesnt show up until chapter two, in the second creation account. The two different creation accounts focus on different things.

And I am glad you understood some things. Grace and peace to you. I hope you continue to dialogue.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304735677' post='2238256']
did you mean incorrect translation?[/quote]

And interpretation

[quote]Latin Vulgate
{1:20} Dixit etiam Deus: [b]Producant[/b] aquæ reptile animæ viventis, et volatile super terram sub firmamento cæli.
[/quote]

The Bible was written in Hebrew, you probably couldn't find a single hebrew scholar that agrees with such an interpretation. Dr. Schroder is a Hebrew Scholar and a Scientist and he doesn't agree with this interpretation.

[quote]from the Latin and English Grammar Aid published by Notre Dame University:

produco -ducere -duxi -ductum [to bring forward , bring out, extend; to produce, bring up, advance, promote; to divulge, bring to light]; in pronunciation, [to lengthen out, make long]; in time, [to prolong, continue]; also [to put off, postpone]. Hence partic. productus -a -um, [extended, lengthened, prolonged]; of syllables, [pronounced long]; n. pl. as subst., [preferable things] (in the Stoic philosophy). Adv. producte, [long (of pronunciation)].
[/quote]

Again, it's written in Hebrew and best understood from that language.

[quote]Read in light of faith and reason this verse in Genesis does not only hint toward the idea of evolution it reveals it. We do not read Sacred Scripture in a vacuum and we are not fideists. Some form of evolution is a reality and it does not contradict what God reveals.
[/quote]

It does not reveal it, not remotely. There is not a single verse in there that mentions the process of evolution and to say so is such a far stretch that there is no basis for it, even if you wanted to imply such.

[quote]it is not factually incorrect. I was just focusing on that particular line of groups and clades. I basically cut and pasted a few of the sequences in my creation commentary to start a dialogue with xSilverPhinx, not you. I cover the rest on my blog.
[/quote]

It is factually incorrect because the birds are not the only species to survive. That was the statement made, so yes it is false.

[quote]you cant offend me. Its just a basic idea of speculative theology. In my view the dinosaurs are implied in that verse of Genesis, because the creation account is not static. It is mystical and living. The days are generally symbolic for eons of unfolding space and time, events, developments, junctures, etc.
[/quote]

That's good because i wasn't trying to offend you. As for the comment that dinosaurs were "implied", you can think that and don't allow me to hinder you, but if you get down to the specifics of the passage, that isn't remotely mentioned, so to take it at it's orthodox interpretation is to reject your interpretation.

[quote]And I'm not going to spend my time reading that article.
[/quote]

I don't care if you do or not. I'm just saying that it's much more accurate and specific with the Hebrew interpretation of the Torah.

[quote]It is a concept going back to Augustine and Aquinas. God is One. God is utterly and absolutely simple. In God being is doing and doing is being. God does things just as He is. So some process of evolution makes sense from a theological point of view since the One God is Procession. Procession means a springing forth. The Son is eternally proceeding from the Father; the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son all in One Divine Eternal Act. Everything that God is/does is One. So it makes sense that distinct new things would spring forth from existing things as some limited reflection of what God Is in the colossal unfolding of God's creation.
[/quote]

Agree that G-d is one, I don't deny that but to interject G-d into the evolutionary process is like trying to fit him into a theory for which he is not. The theory itself is an undirected mutation, to say "G-d helped it" is irrelevant and "wishing upon a star" because it didn't need him, if you believe the theory as it is intended.

[quote]I dont follow any one particular evolutional theory. There is some truth in the ones which are excepted by the scientific community, but none of the theories are perfect. And none of them are absolute. Evolution in some form is a reality in the processes of Creation. And this includes some natural selection, gene-environment interaction, mutations (perhaps some providentially effected by God in DNA switches), genetic recombination, and gene flow.
[/quote]

That's not that scientific is it? I guess Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers were right.

[quote]Scripture and the valid discoveries of science made possible by human reason have the same source: God.
[/quote]

There is no evidence for this claim. This is simply you trying to reconcile your religious faith with your understanding of science. It's like saying, "I believe in what the scientists tell me about evolution, but I also don't want to be an atheist, so I'm going to believe in both...like....this..." and then you try and reconcile the two of them.

[kafka]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304736769' post='2238263']
There is no evidence for this claim. This is simply you trying to reconcile your religious faith with your understanding of science. It's like saying, "I believe in what the scientists tell me about evolution, but I also don't want to be an atheist, so I'm going to believe in both...like....this..." and then you try and reconcile the two of them.
[/quote]
I'm done dialoguing with you. You are denying reality and your understanding of the nature of Sacred Scripture is at worst erroneous and at best very poor, simplistic, narrow, stagnant, unreasonable and even pharasaical.

Not to mention you are blowing my interpretations out of proportion, misreading them and showing absolutely no respect for a work I've put countless hours into.

Edited May 7, 2011 by kafka