Table Talk: Evolution and Christianity – Is there a conflict?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 5, 2023

Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Can you believe in creation and take evolutionary science seriously? How do they work together and are there conflicts? What about Adam and Eve? We talk to evolutionary biologist Richard Buggs. He is excellent at explaining complex biology in ways we can understand and gives brilliant insights into the diversity we need amongst scientists today.
Richard is currently Senior Research Leader (Plant Health & Adaptation) at Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, and Professor of Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary, University of London. – (36:22 min, February 6, 2023)

Here’s Richard Buggs on another topic:

Comments

CD thanks for the correction, talk to text is a wonderful thing…. But hey you had a little victory there you should be proudAaronS1978_{March 8, 2023
March
03
Mar
8
08
2023
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

AaronS1978/37 It's cognitive dissonance, not cognitive dissidence. But, hey, what do I know???chuckdarwin_{March 8, 2023
March
03
Mar
8
08
2023
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

Just for reference, I standby everything I said on this thread. Everything Aside: There is no bigger defender of ID on this site. But I believe we have to be honest in what we know and don’t know and how we make conclusions about ID.jerry_{March 8, 2023
March
03
Mar
8
08
2023
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

As a creationist, I would definitely say there is a BIG conflict between evolution as currently understood today and what the Bible teaches about our origins. Some try to find a way to twist the meaning of the Bible in an attempt to make it seem somehow compatible, but to do that, you have to have that goal before you start reading. We call that eisegesis. God created the earth first and in the beginning it was a watery planet. God created Adam & Eve in His own image directly from the dust of the earth. He created the plants a day before He created the sun, moon, and stars. So the order of creation in the Bible does not fit with the order of evolution. Humans are not fish; neither are we the evolved descendants of some pre-ape type of animal. God created living creatures after their kinds. He did not start creation with a single cell in deep time.tjguy_{March 8, 2023
March
03
Mar
8
08
2023
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

please reference CD for excellent examples of cognitive dissidence Obviously, CD, you didn’t understand what I meant Here, let me explain it slowly for you Any other form of evolution, no matter what type of modern synthesis you use, has no bearing on God’s existence. It should have no bearing or conflict with Christianity or honestly any other religion. Atheists saturate evolution with their biased perspective, (only their interpretation is right even when it’s wrong) and then wield it like a weapon to kill God with. The difference is excessive bias in perspective Does that help, or do I have to quote all of Richard Dawkins for you? Now go back to pretending that nature gives off the appearance of being designed.AaronS1978_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Guys - I've been away for a while and was glad to come back and read many friendly and intelligent voices here, as I always enjoy. Thanks for keeping things going. At the same time, I think I have to step away again - I have to focus on other things. But thanks for the conversations.Silver Asiatic_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Jerry I said:
In post 25 you stated: There is zero evidence that design ever happened.
You replied:
No, you purposely misquoted what I said.
So here, you are flatly denying what you said in post #25 of this thread, where it states: "There is zero evidence that design ever happened. " ? You have just denied that you said that. This is a challenge. You can't even admit to what you said and what everyone on this thread can see quite clearly. In one sense, this is really sad. I can't even convince you of the obvious, evident and blatant truth that there is a sentence in your post that says: "There is zero evidence that design ever happened. " Look again at post #25. First you said:
I haven’t a clue what you are trying to say
Ok, you don't understand. But instead of asking what I meant, you just went ahead anyway. Then three paragraphs later - just count down three paragraphs - you'll see this:
However, both would be undetectable in the distant past. Darwinian processes are happening every day so it’s easy to latch onto. There is zero evidence that design ever happened. ID concludes it must have happened though there is no way to say how it happened.
Notice the bold. That's your statement. See? You claimed that you didn't say that. But there it is. This is quite a difficult task. Trying to show you a sentence that you wrote 8 posts ago. You just flatly denied it, I'll guess without even reading what you wrote. I think most people would read their own writing and say "Oh yes, I did say that". But so far, you haven't been able to do it. But give it a try. "Oh yes, I did say that. Sorry." In normal situations, we could go on and discuss how the statement:
"ID concludes it must have happened though there is no way to say how it happened."
So, just after you said "there is zero evidence that design happened", you say that "ID concludes it must have happened". Can you see how that works? "There is zero evidence that ID happened, but ID concludes it must have happened" therefore? This is how logical inference works. You start with a statement, then build on it. Ok, therefore ... since ID concludes it happened BUT "there is zero evidence that it happened" THEN ... This is what we call "drawing a conclusion from premises" ... THEN, that means "ID makes a conclusion for design lacking any (as you said "zero") evidence that it happened". But let's not get carried away. Let's just go back. I'm just looking for you to admit that in post #25 here, you actually stated "There is zero evidence that design ever happened. " That would be a huge breakthrough if you could. You'd have to accept and publicly admit that a sentence that the entire world can see sitting in the middle of your post, is a sentence you actually wrote and that it actually exists.
And from what I understand, the pews are empty in most places in Europe and the United States especially with young people.
Why did I think you'd make a negative comment about my religion? Oh yes, because you have a hatred for Catholicism that you don't mind displaying. My mistake was to try to give an answer to you about what God did in the creation of the universe. Some of us have been talking here about how pleasant it is to argue with ChatGPT. It gives coherent answers, corrects its mistakes when pointed out, and it remains courteous throughout. But I'm grateful in many ways because something like actually wasting this time trying to convince you that you actually stated something that the entire world can see you stated, but which you deny -- is a good thing. It reminds me that I shouldn't spend time here. It's not healthy. The world is a much bigger and better place. And finally, if I need to chat about ID once in a while - I can bounce ideas off of ChatGPT and get much higher quality and informative posts back.Silver Asiatic_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Jerry at 32, You're misinformed. Global population of Catholics. "April 30, 2022 "That means that 17.7% of the world's population is Catholic. Of this total, 48% are in the Americas, with 28% living in South America." You seem to think scientific information is confined to labs. You're wrong. People look at ID and connect it to God.relatd_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

PM1/15 Although there are no differences between “theistic” and “non-theistic” evolution, there are apparently significant differences between “atheistic” evolution and “standard” evolution. See AaronS1978 @ 6……chuckdarwin_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

In post 25 you stated:
There is zero evidence that design ever happened.

No, you purposely misquoted what I said.
However, both would be undetectable in the distant past. Darwinian processes are happening every day so it’s easy to latch onto. There is zero evidence that design ever happened. ID concludes it must have happened though there is no way to say how it happened.
Why distort what I said? There is zero evidence of any actual design event or process ever happening. It’s a question asked all the time here by the skeptics.
After that is my belief in the nature of God and the relationship of Persons in the Trinity and the relationship of the created world with God. From that, I accept Divine Revelation as given through the Catholic Church
All your beliefs are based on religion, specifically Catholicism. That’s fine but it’s not ID. And from what I understand, the pews are empty in most places in Europe and the United States especially with young people. So I would look to something beyond Christian dogma as the answer.jerry_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

ID is essentially about two things, the fine tuning of the universe and the progression of life. ID concludes that the universe, our solar system and Earth could only have happened by the actions of an intelligence of massive intelligence and power. This is the only logical thing that explains the fine tuning. Then there is life with no known natural mechanism that could explain this extremely complicated structure with numerous functions. Could an intelligence explain both the origin and the complex coordinated system that marks the progression of life over billions of years. Yes! Could there be a natural explanation? Maybe, but not likely unless certain conditions were designed into the universe originally created. If the initial/boundary conditions were designed in a specific way life may have appeared and progressed naturally. What are these initial/boundary conditions? No one knows, especially if they disappeared millions/billions of years ago. An intelligence that created our universe could surely have designed such conditions. To think that is not possible is to underestimate the creator. Did the creator have a specific purpose with this universe? Obviously yes, since the design of it has so many implications. What are these purposes? Most are probably way beyond beyond what ID can logically deduce.jerry_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

What do you think happened?
I'm not a believer in evolution, so I eliminate all that part of the discussion. After that is my belief in the nature of God and the relationship of Persons in the Trinity and the relationship of the created world with God. From that, I accept Divine Revelation as given through the Catholic Church. We read Jesus saying that "God can create children of Abraham from these very stones". So, that makes it clear that God's power of creation is unlimited (for anyone like me who believes in the Divinity of Christ), and that human beings were not created from nothing, but they have their physical origin in matter (the Bible says dust of the earth, or for women from men). After that is the question of how the thought in the mind of God is transmitted into the creation of a universe of time and space. That is similar to the creative acts that humans can undertake. But for purposes of this blog, I reject the idea that all life forms came from the first living cell or before that from the first bacteria. So I don't accept the evolutionary story. I am a creationist in that sense. In post 25 you stated:
There is zero evidence that design ever happened.
If there was evidence of design in nature, then that would be evidence that design happened.Silver Asiatic_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

"Talking of “Natural Selection”, if I had to commence de novo, I would have used "natural preservation";" - Charles Darwin - 1860 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-2931.xml Natural Selection: The Evolution of a Mirage Neil Thomas - March 7, 2023 Excerpt: For Darwin the powers of natural selection transcended human intelligence to such a degree that he came exceedingly close to imputing to it the capacity for intelligent design. It was only belatedly that he succumbed to colleagues’ numerous objections, conceding in a letter to Charles Lyell, "Talking of “Natural Selection,” if I had to commence de novo, I would have used natural preservation."14 This was an emendation with enormous consequences. One can understand why Darwin was minded to hold out as long as possible and why he eventually capitulated only under protest. For the letter to Lyell involved a truly fatal concession which, had it been analyzed dispassionately at the time, could (and arguably should) have halted the onward march of Darwinism there and then in the Fall of 1860. As a host of recent studies make clear, the term to which Darwin eventually acquiesced, natural preservation, can by definition only be passive rather than actively productive in the formation of new body parts (let alone whole new species). The Darwinian theory of an advance from organic simplicity to complexity — from microbes to man — must inevitably fall after such a major semantic retreat. Wanted: A Theory of the Generative As Steve Laufmann and Howard Glicksman and others have recently pointed out, neo-Darwinism simply has no theory of the generative and therefore no innovative capacity: nothing in Darwin’s theory can account for nontrivial innovations15and Darwin’s rowing back on that point was fatal to any macromutational claims. As Professor Nick Lane has recently explained, "It is generally assumed that once simple life has emerged, it gradually evolves into more complex forms, given the right conditions. But that’s not what happens on Earth (…) If simple cells had evolved slowly into more complex ones over billions of years, all kinds of intermediate forms would have existed and some still should. But there are none (…) This means that there is no inevitable trajectory from simple to complex life. Never-ending natural selection, operating on infinite populations of bacteria over millions of years, may never give rise to complexity. Bacteria simply do not have the right architecture."16 So how did speciation occur then? Competent scientists are thrown back on the placeholder terms “fate” or “chance,” such being all too plainly a cover for complete ignorance.17 Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini are more refreshingly candid: “So if Darwin got it wrong, what do you guys think is the mechanism of evolution?” Short answer: we don’t know what the mechanism of evolution is. Nor did Darwin and nor (as far as we can tell) does anybody else.18 The bottom line today appears to be that "Speciation still remains one of the biggest mysteries in evolutionary biology and the unexamined view of natural selection leading to large-scale innovations is not true."19 https://evolutionnews.org/2023/03/natural-selection-the-evolution-of-a-mirage/
bornagain77_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

You believe that there is zero evidence of intelligent design in nature. And this is what you think ID is saying. ID concludes that design must have happened, but there is no evidence according to you.
You keep on changing what I said. I did not say there is zero evidence of ID in nature. I said there is zero evidence on how design ever happened in Evolution. There is a huge differences in those two statements. I also said thousands of times that Darwinian processes are incapable of producing these changes. If 200 million years ago some intelligence changed a genome somehow in order to bring about some desired change, there would be zero evidence of this change or how it was done. But something must have happened, no one knows what. What do you think happened? Take a crack at it. I maintain something happened, but it is a mystery as to what and how. Please don’t say I have said something when I haven’t.jerry_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

The codes and instructions in living things are there. They regulate cell function. For example, molecular switches in cells control the flow of needed chemicals into the cell, like water and nutrients. What we eat and drink goes through our organs and individual cells. If we cut ourselves, an automatic repair process begins. How did it get there? Unguided evolution: A series of chaotic accidents becoming a highly sophisticated, fully functioning organism. With no guidance. ID: You and all living things show planning and design. Your organs did not appear after a series of accidents. The instructions contained in each specialized cell were put there to do what they need to do. Romans 9:20 'But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 'relatd_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

There is zero evidence that design ever happened. ID concludes it must have happened though there is no way to say how it happened.
You believe that there is zero evidence of intelligent design in nature. And this is what you think ID is saying. ID concludes that design must have happened, but there is no evidence according to you.Silver Asiatic_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

This is saying that the mutations are not random but have been deliberately guided to be exactly what they are. This would make the science impossible since evolution is based on measures of randomness. ID accepts that there are random, unguided effects. So, ID looks at the power of random effects and then determines what they can and cannot do. But if all the mutations are guided then there is no way to study or predict what will happen.
I haven’t a clue what you are trying to say First of all get rid of the word random. It has no meaning for the the theistic evolution I indicated. Second, get rid of the word mutation for two reasons, one, the word variation is better even for Darwinian processes and two, the changes are somehow guided. You seem to be confusing two completely different processes, Darwinian changes which are unguided and thus unpredictable with a design process which is neither unguided thus obvious in where it is going. However, both would be undetectable in the distant past. Darwinian processes are happening every day so it’s easy to latch onto. There is zero evidence that design ever happened. ID concludes it must have happened though there is no way to say how it happened. Aside: Darwinian processes definitely do happen but they don’t lead to Evolution. They help explain most genetic outcomes. But genetic outcomes can never lead to Evolution. Aside2: I am not endorsing any form of theistic evolution. To me it’s a mystery. The theistic evolutionists does not like the tinkering God, so they posit an all powerful God who got it right from the start. But since this site no longer attracts any theistic evolutionists, it’s hard to get a reading on just what they believe. We used to have a couple of reasonable ones here commenting. Aside3: the theistic evolutionists don’t like ID even though they implicitly endorse it. Most believe it’s anti science when it’s just the opposite.jerry_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

But an extremely powerful intelligence could guide the changes to be exactly what is wanted. That is most definitely different than Darwinian processes.
This is saying that the mutations are not random but have been deliberately guided to be exactly what they are. This would make the science impossible since evolution is based on measures of randomness. ID accepts that there are random, unguided effects. So, ID looks at the power of random effects and then determines what they can and cannot do. But if all the mutations are guided then there is no way to study or predict what will happen.Silver Asiatic_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

This is not consistent with ID.
Why wouldn’t it be consistent with ID? The creator of the universe is massively intelligent and extremely powerful. If this creator or another high intelligent entity chose to do it this way, its certainly within this creator’s or entity’s power.
Thus, the entire Darwinian apparatus would be affirmed simply by saying that “mutations happened” from the first life form, and God made them look like they are random.
This is no way affirms the Darwinian mechanism. This is a very confused understanding of Evolution. What sort of logic leads to that conclusion? ID recognizes that there is no evidence to support a Darwinian approach which is unguided and there is good logic that such a mechanism is self refuting. So it is no way affirming Darwinian Evolution. Just the opposite. But an extremely powerful intelligence could guide the changes to be exactly what is wanted. That is most definitely different than Darwinian processes which by definition are unguarded. Aside: I have no idea how the changes were made but it could certainly have been done by small guided changes. This is how many theistic evolutionists believe it happened. I tend to say it is a mystery. And maybe it is meant to be a mystery by design. As said above Darwinian processes are self refuting so it did not happen that way.jerry_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

First, each change (a DNA modification) is guided by God which essentially is compatible with ID.
This view would make it impossible to detect any intelligent design in biology since there would be no difference between what appears random and what is actually guided by God. Thus, the entire Darwinian apparatus would be affirmed simply by saying that "mutations happened" from the first life form, and God made them look like they are random. This is not consistent with ID.Silver Asiatic_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

It does neither
it does both. ID is the best interpretation of science in the world. It definitely points to a creator of massive intelligence and power. It definitely gets into the details to explain what it the most likely interpretation of the evidence using logic. ID is science + jerry_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

PM1 at 19, In reverse order. ID shows unguided evolution for the false and unsupported narrative it is. So, I trust you will be contacting Biology teachers everywhere to tell them what to teach? But really, most people walk around with what they learned in school and could care less. 'My teacher told me so it must be true.' Ken Miller is a confused man. Your degree and what you've read are outside the experience of most people.relatd_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

@16
Who made you the expert?
I have an undergraduate degree in biology with a concentration in vertebrate morphology and evolution. I've read quite a few books on the history of evolutionary thought and the philosophy of evolution, including -- within the past few years -- Organisms, Agency, and Evolution (Walsh), Agents and Goals in Evolution (Okasha), Debating Darwin. I've also learned a lot from read Ernst Mayr and Eliot Sober. With regard to theistic evolution, I've read Miller's Finding Darwin's God, Collins's The Language of God, and Plantinga's Where the Conflict Really Lies.
Biology textbook evolution is what most people get taught.
Biology textbooks, like textbooks generally, are sheer pablum and cannot be relied upon for genuine comprehension.
ID explains the details and points to God.
It does neither.PyrrhoManiac1_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Jerry at 17, Do you read what you write? Darwinian Evolution says zero about God. Zero. "... each change is guided by God which essentially is compatible with ID." I am really tired of seeing people trying to shoehorn religion into Darwinian evolution which does not mention God. Ken Miller, who is often mentioned in this context, seems to hold this position, which does not make sense from a theistic point of view.relatd_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

There have been extensive discussions on theistic evolution in the past. I will post some latter. They were part of UD almost from the beginning. Just two weeks ago, I posted some defenders of natural Evolution who used the Bible to defend part of their beliefs. So there are millions of Christians or other theists who believe in Darwinian Evolution. They are definitely not atheists. It can take two forms (maybe others) First, each change (a DNA modification) is guided by God which essentially is compatible with ID. Or Second, the changes were built into initial conditions long since gone but which guided the necessary changes to produce life and complex life. Also created by God. Also compatible with ID. Aside: Natural OOL and natural Evolution are not incompatible with ID. It’s just no scientific theory is remotely close to explaining either. I would point to the availability cascade and that most of our beliefs are emotional based as the cause of non theistic beliefs for everything.jerry_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

PM1 at 15, Who made you the expert? Biology textbook evolution is what most people get taught. After hearing about it, they forget about it. If the word theistic refers to God then it means the Biology textbook got it wrong. ID explains the details and points to God.relatd_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

@3
I have previously asked whether there are any scientific differences between “theistic evolution” and the “neo-Darwinian evolutionary synthesis”, or whatever name evolutionary theory goes by these days. I have not heard of any differences. Perhaps there are none?
That is correct: there are no scientific differences between theistic evolution and non-theistic evolution (regardless of whether the theory of evolution is gene-centered Modern Evolutionary Synthesis or organism-centered Expanded Evolutionary Synthesis).PyrrhoManiac1_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Well, at least we can agree on thatAaronS1978_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

You got me—I don’t even take myself seriously…..chuckdarwin_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

CD I’m really curious why you think anybody takes you seriously And let’s try to discuss some of the more famous atheistic quotes too, like evolution, gives off the appearance of design, or the willful attempt to try to remove teleology completely from evolution while claiming things just happen but aren’t random, all of which comes from your corner of the universe there CDAaronS1978_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply