Does teaching evolution harm Christianity?

Does teaching evolution harm Christianity?

YES . . .

 

"Entropy -- and more specifically increasing entropy -- is considered a universal law in physics."

I have to agree with Bunyon and ask why the diversion into thermo here. He obviously was mentioning 2LOT as something that he considers a law and was not trying to make a point beyond that. Furthermore, there are no steps required for evolution to have happened that are prevented by entropy.

 

Can you state what the "Law of entropy" is? I've heard that used as an incorrect reference to the second law of thermodynamics. But you seem to be referring to something else.

Entropy decreases in many open systems. Like a flower growing or a snowflake forming. These are not violations of the second law of thermodynamics because energy enters those systems from outside the system, making the overall entropy of the universe still increasing.

 

"How the first RNA were assembled is not relevant to evolution."---------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the point is Crick was saying that he can concieve of no way it could happen in the primordial soup, which is why they had to introduce the idea of exterrestrial Genetic material being introduced into our world. He is in fact correct, but it did not come on a comet But my main point is if Crick sees insrumountable problems, why should anyone advocate evolution as absolute truth.

 

Crick was commenting on naturalistic abiogensis having problems, not evolution.

 

sorry, I guess I'm so used to Creationists misusing the 2nd law of thermodynamics that I was jumping the gun on that one.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is sometimes called the law of entropy.

 

You may need to educate me, but the implication is if the first and most basic step, RNA and DNA assembly is an impossibility and in cricks words, "capabal of natural selection", then it prohibits evolution short of an introduction of alreay assembled RNA/DNA into the system. But it just drags the ultimate question on and on, how was this DNA/RNA assemled? This is why intelligent design should be considered. Specifically, he said he could concieve of no process by which RNA can assemble itself to a degree that if would be capable of natural selection, which is evolution.

 

It would be good to have source for this quote. But even without the context, it is pretty simple to explain what Crick meant.

"It may turn out that ..."

Means abiogenesis and specifically the process of RNA assembly may be supported in the future.

"At present, the gap from the primal 'soup' to the first RNA system capable of natural selection looks forbiddingly wide" (8)."

At the time of this writing this seemed impossible to him given the evidence available at that time.

What was impossible? Going from a primal soup to a complex RNA system. That is a key component of abiogenesis.

Evolution assumes that the complext RNA system capable of natural selection already exists. How that came to be is irrelevant to evolution. Evolution is about life from pre-existing life. Abiogenesis is about life from non-life.

 

"It may turn out" Is a hopeful stand, but I have read nothing since that would give Crick any more hope than that. The theory of evolution proper, as Darwin saw it, did not see the need for RNA assembly, because he did not know about RNA or DNA. But now that we know, it is an essential step for evolution as we understand it now. But I am just saying, If Crick is not convinced about this basic step, than we can surely admit that evolution may not be true, and admit that in the classroom and entertain competeing theories.

 

Well it was a good discussion. I am not sure why we would consider there to be an absolute separation between abiogenesis and evolution. They seem to me to go together, because I cannot concieve of the possibility of one without the other unless you want to say God created the single celled organism and then let it evolve to a man. But if you can beleive that than why would anyone insist that God did not just start with the multicelled Adam and Eve?

 

Actually, Darwin specifically addressed where the original living organism or organisms came from. It's in the last paragraph of Origins: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

So no, evolution does not depend on how life first arose. Darwin stated that it arose directly by the Creator (whether he wrote that to appease religious critics or because he believed it doesn't really matter), and his theory explains what happened to life since then. Evolution does not depend on a natural beginning to life, though materialism does. Of course, one does not need to be a materialist to accept scientific theories including evolution.

If the evidence for both abiogenesis and common descent were equal, that would be correct. However, the evidence is not equal. How life first emerged is an open question in science. Common descent is far more difficult to dispute.

 

Not an argument for evolution. Simply clarifying what Crick was talking about. He was talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. Two different theories. Two different bodies of evidence.

 

I'm not saying abiogenesis is possible or not possible. I'm simply trying help you understand that challenges to abiogenesis are not challenges to evolution. And challenges to evolution are not challenges to abiogenesis. They are very separate.

They are commonly associated because presentations of origins usually include both as well as astronomical origins theories. But scientifically, there is a clear independence of all three types of theories. None are dependent on the others.

Big Bang - astronomical origins
Abiogenesis - life from non-life
Evolution - common ancestry and natural selection

These are commonly lumped together as "Evolution" but that is scientifically inaccurate.

If I were to order the size of the body of evidence supporting these theories and the level of scientific criticism performed on them, I would do it like this.

Evolution > Big Bang >>> Abiogenesis

 

I and those versed in evolution have stated many times that evolution and abiogenesis are separate theories. I am not interested in defending abiogenesis, largely because I have not studied it well and do not consider it to be well supported theory. That isn't to say it cannot be defended.

Just a note that even if abiogenesis were well supported and true, it would simply be another amazing process which God designed and didn't go into detail in Genesis, like general relativity, germ theory and the ideal gas law.

 

Except, Gold Dragon, that God did not MENTION general relativity, and the ideal gas law, although He did infer the germ theory with the laws on cleanliness.

However, regarding creation, He was rather specific: created by kind in 6 literal days. Evolution disputes that on both counts and thus, because it is taught as fact in schools and colleges and universities, and often with total scorn and derision for any other possibility (or probability), threatens the faith of students, tears families apart over the issue, and certainly contributes to the hardening of the hearts of those who teach it.

In addition, as much as evolutionist apologists such as yourself want to divorce it from abiogenesis, the funding that abiogenesis gets from the evolution-oriented science groups is pretty significant! This is because natural causes are claimed to be all that there is, and thus not only the 'progression' of life requires them, but the origin of life as well.

It is not a matter of God doing 'another amazing process' -- He already told us what He did and the data certainly supports it -- it is a matter of putting man's puny mind and knowledge up against His in direct confrontation.

Guess who will win?

 

Financial dependence is different from scientific dependence.

I think it is right to study the world God created as if natural causes is all there is. And when we do that, we can see how God did it. Don't we believe that God created the world? If so, then all scientists who do not believe this will simply be unwittingly discovering the world God created and how he did it.

 

I also believe we should look to natural causes, EXCEPT where God tells us differently. Then it is not a bad thing to figure He knows what He is talking about.

As it is, there is enough evidence that the universe is indeed young to put the argument to rest if science ever found itself humble enough or brave enough to look at the evidence.

 

That is the point. There is never any difference between what God created and what God tells us. Both are from God. If there are any apparent conflicts, it is either because we misunderstand what God created or we misunderstand what God tells us or both. I believe YEC misunderstands both but I could be wrong.