It’s funny you mention the eye, because a lot of creation scientists use the eye as an example of something that couldn’t have logically evolved, lol. The reasoning is that evolution is small changes over time, with new information being added. But the argument is that natural selection would never have had the patience for the eye forming because up until it’s pretty much now form, it would have been completely useless and not helpful for the creatures growing these weird extra organs. The eye is dramatically complex, and each animal’s eyes are well suited to their situation- but evolution would suggest that not only did all of these occur naturally, but many of them evolved independently of each other- again, going through thousands of generations of being worthless growths on said animal while everything else caught up.
The Christian answer to this of course is always the same, “We weren’t designed to be sick. Illness is a symptom of the curse upon creation after the fall of man.” Furthermore though, our propensity for illness may also be a function of our slow loss of genetic information either through unfortunate breeding or mutation. Before the flood, the Bible records that people were living exceptionally long lives, from like 500-900 years. After the flood though, there was only one family left and a changed world. Having all of our genetic information coming from that one family could have affected the gene pool dramatically (mutation included if you know what I mean). That aside, I’d hardly call the human design flawed- do any of you have a better design handy? Lol.
Here’s the big issue, evolution goes in the opposite direction of natural selection. The natural selection we’ve observed has taken place due to the loss of genetic information, not the addition of it. And mutation- upon which many evolutionary theories rest, is not only the non-addition of new information; but it’s a corruption of often good genetic information. Very few species have profited at all from mutation (except maybe those cave fish that are blind- but do we consider blindness good in any other setting?). Natural selection works the same way artificial selection (selective breeding) works.
Say you’ve got a bunch of dogs, they have the genetic information for long hair and short hair- then you dump some in the arctic and some in the Sahara. After a few generations you’ll start to notice that the arctic dogs are becoming more furry and the Sahara dogs having shorter fur. This is because natural selection favors what works best for the environment. BUT, it’s not that the population is just favoring the environment, they’re breeding out undesirable traits. So the arctic dogs are inadvertently breeding out their short hair genes and the Sahara dogs are breeding out their long hair genes. We see the same thing happening (pretty horribly) with actual dog breeding. It’s gotten to the point now where most purebreds are genetic nightmares- both in part to in-breeding (mutation) and selectively breeding the aspects of the dog we want. This is a problem because the only way to re-introduce new genetic material into the situation is cross-breeding with something outside of the particular breed (i.e. making mutts). That’s how selection works, and it’s one that we can easily observe. Note that these purebred dogs aren’t gaining any new genetic information (evolution); they’re losing it to their detriment. Our arctic and Sahara dogs are only profiting because they now live in the arctic and Sahara. Darwin’s finches turned out to be this sort of natural selection too- though most evolutionists won’t talk about them anymore, lol.
I’d argue that your statement is a major reason why people do believe in creation. But are you doing anything different than them? You’re throwing up your hands and saying “nature did it” while ignoring all the statistics that say it should essentially be impossible- at that some note, much of the long-age theories are based around a few different shaky ideas that are still quickly being tried to prove in order to justify a godless existence. First and foremost of which is the big bang theory, which is straight-up fantastical. People would rather believe the impossible than the supernatural; and it’s not because of “facts” or “science” because it often agrees with our creation. People try to justify a world without God because they don’t like the idea of God. Belief in long-ages (especially evolution) is a faith-based belief as well because there are a lot of issues there (as there is in belief in creation).
I don’t think this is what you meant, but it comes out as a cop-out. “I don’t believe in God, therefore I don’t have to prove anything.” But that’s not true, a non-religious person should absolutely have a foundation for their beliefs. I can’t see, hear or touch evolution; and yet many people rally behind it. We CAN see natural selection, and it is degenerative, which would be a point of proof for an initially created universe that has gone into decline; either natural or (as Christians believe) through the effects of sin and death.
ISH! STEELE! YOU HEARD IT HERE! KUROI FORFITS! Lol
Please don’t, then I’d have to make a preacher to come face off against you; and I’m pretty sure Kuroi would job me hard, lol
If it’s unobservable, it’s not science- it’s faith (masquerading as science). The fact of the matter is, none of us were around 6000 years ago, so we’re set to keep this argument going till the end of time, lol.
We’ve found ducks in “dinosaur” layers, lol. Call it evolution or creation, but that’s funny on its own. T-rexes and ducks. The wonder of nature, lol.
As noted above, dogs are not a good example for evolution, lol.
Your argument moves in two different directions and you confuse natural selection as the process by which evolution takes places (something the scientific community is starting to back away from). Natural selection weeds out problematic genes (that is to say, inconvenient traits that are unsuited for the environment) and mutations. But evolution claims those very mutations
could later prove to be effective if they were allowed to stay in the gene pool (like the formation of the eye). If you want to use the horrifying creations we’ve made out of dogs as an example of evolution- then stay the course a few thousand more years and see if we get something useful out of it- that’s how evolution is supposed to work. Natural selection, on the other hand, favors what’s useful NOW, and as you said, many of those poor dogs would not survive on their own when thrown into nature.
Thanks DT, lol. I don’t want people to get the idea that I’m throwing around theory disrespectfully. It’s just how we say it, lol.
There’s a burden of proof on both sides; honestly. And until we can either A) live long enough to actually record evolution in action (or meet aliens) or B) build a time machine both side are hard pressed to present irrefutable information.
But without any solid proof (considering that natural selection works against our current idea of evolution), Evolution is also a supernatural phenomena
For the record, I LOVE multiverse things. There’s so much cool research going on with universal theories. It’s all very fascinating, and I don’t think it all necessarily gets in the way of religious belief. Not all people who believe in God do so blindly and shun science, lol. A few Christians give the rest of us a bad name just like one particularly loud and aggressive evolutionist gives atheists a bad name. It’s important (and fun) to look into the creation (life, the universe, and everything) and see all of its wonder. I grew up on PBS, as I imagine most of our generation did (BBC science(?) for those of you across the pond).