Jim had a great comment which deserves a full post for a reply. He wrote:
Hey.
Just a disclaimer - I am a Christian, and am not slamming typical Christian views.
First of all, re: your distinction between macro and micro evolution, could you define the word “species”? There are plenty of animals that cannot interbreed that would countermand your argument.
Second, why do you insist on interpreting the Book of Genesis literally? The Bible doesn’t tell you how to field strip a garand - it tells you how to live your life. I don’t think anybody thinks that the Bible is an authoritative view on how you should clean and service your 1911.
How does evolution affect your life, and how does it change the way you minister to the poor and homeless?
Jim, good post. Thanks. You wrote: “There are plenty of animals that cannot interbreed that would countermand your argument.” I assume you meant “can.” I don’t know of plenty. A few may be more correct. And of those few, I don’t know of any that can continue breading as this new species. Maybe if we give it a few million years 
Most common is the mule (the product of a horse and donkey). Mules are sterile; as are male tions and ligers. And all hybrids are man induced. I know of no natural hybrids.
Interspecies hybrids are rare and in most cases impossible (primarily) because of the chromosome numbers have to match (ex: chimps have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46). Let’s follow that thinking for a min… evolution teaches that this mutation occurred naturally. But keep thinking. One day, Bob (make him whatever species you want) is born from his normal chromosome matching parents. While very good looking and healthier than his friends at school, alas, Bob can’t mate because he has an extra chromosome. Eventually his successful modeling career ends and he dies. One magical day, this happens again. Again randomly to a set of normal chromosome matching whatsits. This one is named Sue. She is “lucky enough” to be born down the street from Bob (oh but he’s dead). Not so lucky. She dies.
My point is this. The likelihood of genetic mutation happening and successfully creating a healthier more advanced species is much harder to believe than a guy (albeit, with the oversight of an all all powerful all knowing God) survived a worldwide flood.
Where the Bible is written allegorical, I take it as such. Where it is clear it’s literal, I take it as such. What is your basis for deeming it allegory? Are you suggesting we should take Darwin’s tale as allegorical? Sorry. Of course you are not. I just get a little sarcastic before my second cup of coffee.
Evolution does not affect how I minister to the poor and homeless. If I believed in evolution it might. Because evolutionary thought typically leads to a “survival of the fittest” mentality. In other words, “I deserve to have a better life, they don’t. Why help them?”
To the contrary, as one who believes the Bible is the word of God, I am commanded to help those who are sick, naked and imprisoned (Matt 25:31-46). I also want to help, having been personally shown much grace and mercy from God. As a believer, I am sure you understand that.
Furthermore, it’s why I blog in the first place. Nearly all discussions eventually lead to the Gospel. It is my constant prayer that the Holy Spirit will use some of my feeble words to cause someone to consider their own “goodness” and ask themselves “yeah, why would God let me in Heaven?”
Again, thanks for stopping by and posting.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:45 pm
If you wish to disbelieve in evolution, that’s your privilege, and if you want to assert your tender feelings towards all humanity, again your privilege, but your view that belief or disbelief somehow distinguishes good people from the morally challenged is offensive. Your side of the ledger includes Torquemada and Cotton Mather. I’ve known some pretty decent atheists.
However, the point with respect to Ron Paul should be that if you can’t understand why evolution is science, then you shouldn’t be head of state in a moden, industrialized country. It’s an unavoidable defect of democracy that everyone is allowed to vote, but I still plan to be vigilant about who gets elected, to the small degree I have influence.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:44 pm
If evolution leads to a survival of the fittest mentality, then why do more liberals than conservatives believe in it? Modern liberalism is explicitly against the dog eat dog mentality.
Furthermore, evolutionary theory and social Darwinism are two COMPLETELY different things. Please understand this dichotomy before you preach any more bigoted nescience.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:14 am
Rob, come on. You can do better than using the “Your side of the ledger includes Torquemada and Cotton Mather. I’ve known some pretty decent atheists.” argument. 19 people were wrongly executed in the Salem witch trials. The Spanish Inquisition was as much about retaining power (albeit with the approval of he Catholic church) as it was anything else. No one looks at that as “good times.” or an example of what Christianity should be. Your argument only leads to me bringing up “your side of the ledger:” Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pott, and so on. A side I am sure you would reject as well. It’s not the followers of a religion that dictate it’s truth, just as it’s not the quality of the President that determines the goodness of the Constitution.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:27 am
Nauticus, I thought “modern liberalism” was about individual rights, government entitlements, and getting money from the rich.
Incidentally, it’s Christians (by far) who are building hospitals and sending missionaries to hurting countries and peoples.
And Yes, Evolutionary theory and social Darwinism are two COMPLETELY different things. But my experience has been that they lead to each other and typically someone who believes in one, believes in the other. Thanks for letting me clarify.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:21 am
A fairly common example of speciation in progress is the stickleback. In certain lakes there are two varieties of stickleback which are visually and structurally dissimilar. They inhabit different regions of the lake and show preference for breeding with their own kind, but can interbreed… however, the fertile hybrid offspring are less successful in either environment. As the fish don’t intermingle with each other, prefer their own kind, and are adapted best to their own environment, they will become reproductively isolated and probably less fertile
Differently chromosomed organisms CAN mate with each other sucessfully and produce fertile offspring… wild and domesticated horses, which differ by a homologous pair, are a good example.
It’s very likely that our ancestor in the past had 24 chromosome pairs; there’s very strong evidence for the fusion of chromosome 2, even if you choose not to accept common descent; and the more genetically enlightened Creationists do admit it. In the scientific mainstream, the similarity of chromosome 2 to a joining of two ape chromosomes, right down to the genes coded for, is yet another piece of strong evidence for our cousinhood.
I want to point out that it is not the fault of the system of thought, as to how it is abused. Christianity was used as a basis for the crusades, the inquisition, was often called upon to justify slavery… etc. Most people are not going to fault the bible for this, but rather the fact that some people will use whatever they can to justify gaining power over others. Hitler abused the Christian god and social Darwinism (which was not developed by Darwin, mind) in equal parts to gain control… but even if Darwin hadn’t made his mark, it’s very likely Adolf would gone ahead with his victimization anyway. Xenophobia, nationalism, and genocide existed long before Chuck published. As for the damages various communist regimes have done, while they did in general reject religion, Stalin threw in with Lysenkoist evolution as opposed to Darwinism and persecuted biologists heartily, both doing extreme damage to the Soviet agricultural industry.
No part of evolutionary theory argues for its application to human society, just that it is constantly occurring process in nature and that it has been since the development of life. In fact, to someone such as myself who chooses not to depend on a derivative from babylonian legend to establish my difference from the animals, I think it’s our rejection of these laws of nature and the establishment of our own law which separates us most significantly from our ancestors.
From what I’ve read seem more amiable and open, or at least more coherent, than many of the creationists I’ve talked with over the years, so I hope you’ll take a look at
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
It has a list of common and uncommon claims against Evolution and the arguments against these claims. I doubt it’ll change your mind, but hopefully it will at least allow you to separate evolutionary theory from other negative concepts ideologues like to associate with it, and if nothing else refine your arguments against it.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:23 am
*here’s very strong evidence for the fusion of chromosome 2, even if you choose not to accept common descent; and the more genetically enlightened Creationists do admit it.
Bad phrasing on my part. They admit the fusion of chromosome 2, not common descent. If I ever found a Creationist who admitted common descent, I would be very, very confused.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Pyran: thanks for coming by. My time is really short, so I am going to rapid-fire my reply. If I fail to address something please let me know.
re: stickleback. Again we see no new information. Merely the “switching off” of a gene.
re: Differently chromosomed organisms. You are right. I’ve learned of many more since I first started this post. But none of they add to the genetic information already present. Wild horses and domestic horses are still (you guessed it) horses.
re: chromosome 2. Here are a couple good detailed problems with the theories put forth.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4785/
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4653/
Your points about Hitler and Stalin are valid. And back up scripture that states none of us are good enough. (Romans 3:11-13)
Re: “No part of evolutionary theory argues for its application to human society..” True, but that doesn’t stop it from happening.
I’ll check out the site. I’m glad I come across kind enough. I do try. More correctly, I fight hard against being a jerk. And believe me it’s a real temptation many days.
Again, thanks for stopping by. You are welcome anytime. My sole purpose in having this discussion has little to do with who you vote for, but rather, where you will spend eternity. And while you may see my entire faith as derived from “Babylonian legend” it’s worth checking out this link. After all, what IF it is true?