Biological change

[JoeErwin]

Not long ago, my long time friend, Gregory, posted about his recognition that biological change occurs across time, even to the point of the emergence of new species. He asserted that recognizing biological change across time does not make him an "evolutionist." I take his point, and I think it is valuable in several ways. First of all, it provides for rational, evidence based, common ground. I also recognize that there is overwhelming observable evidence for biological change across time--not even considering the abundant tangible evidence that life forms existed that no longer do. This all got me thinking about whether or not I am an "evolutionist." There is a sense in which I am, I suppose, but there is also a sense in which I am not. Maybe that is worth further explanation.

[JoeErwin]

What does it mean to "evolve?" Fundamentally, to evolve means to change over time. In this sense, "evolution" is almost synonymous with "development." But we often use the term to refer to biological change over time, across generations, with changes in biochemistry, molecular genetics, and/or anatomy. Selective breeding of domestic animals has been practiced for hundreds of years, and few people doubt that it works and can be used to produce plants and animals that have specific characteristics. Changes can be made deliberately in a few generations. Most people agree that the more generations that pass, the more different the resulting forma become if selection criteria continue to be applied. Even before anyone understood much about genetics, and long before DNA was chemically described, artificial selective breeding was widely practiced. This part is not really controversial, is it?   

[Gregory Matthews]

People some time ask how one can believe in a creation by God and also that new species come to exist and die out, as i believe.  The question is valid, but based upon a misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says, I will suggest.

Genesis, chapter one clearly states, in multiple places that God created every "kind" of life that exists.  But, the meaning of the word "kind" is never defined.   

Science gives a two-word title to every form of life that exists.  The first word establishes a Genus for that form of life.  The second word establishes a Species.  As an example, human life has been given the scientific name Homo sapiens.

A question is:  If the Bible says that God created every "kind" of life, is it saying that God directly created every species that exists?  My answer is no.  I do not believe that such is being said.  I have no idea as to what the Bible means when it uses the word "kind."  I have no problem with believing that new species come into existence and die out.

[Gustave]

Didn't "The Race Betterment Foundation" leverage this knowledge? I'm not saying it was good but it seems that you are 100% correct when you say people, for a long time, knew the results of directed development.

[JoeErwin]

Yes, interesting that you mention an SDA connection with the eugenics movement. That was a while after Darwin, but it was not a surprising consequence of a convergence of advances in genetics and the emergence of intelligence testing. 

The next set of comments I intended to make (and now will) was about Darwin, Wallace, and the concept of "the origin of species through natural selection."

You might ask me if I am a "Darwinist," meaning, do I believe that biological change occurs across time. Or you might mean to ask me if I am an "evolutionist." The terms "Darwinism" and "evolutionism" are often used interchangeably. My problem with such terms is in the "ist" or "ism." These endings imply some sort of discipleship or membership in a group that has some core credo or set of beliefs. It seems to me that there is almost a suggestion that one subscribes to some knowledge that has been "revealed," whether to Darwin or someone else. I worry that this would be an invitation to overgeneralization, stereotyping, and prejudice.

But we can benefit from examining the circumstances under which Charles Darwin came up with his ideas about biological change over time. Darwin, born in 1809. Linnaeus was born about a hundred years earlier. Linnaeus developed a system for naming and classifying plants and animals--all of which he considered part of God's creation. He was not the only person who attempted such a classification, but his caught on and became widely adopted. By the 1700s, collectors were accumulating specimens from all over the world at a rate more rapid than ever before. Communication about these collections was enabled by printed books libraries. The diversity of life forms and the patterns of similarity begged for explanation. Darwin's grandfather noted that it was if some forms were more closely related to each other than to other forms--perhaps they were related and some forms were the ancestors of others. But could that be? 

Charles Darwin traveled widely on The Beagle. His job was to make observations and collect specimens, and to entertain the captain with stories about his observations and discussion of what these observations. Fortunately, he wrote a book that is available to us, called The Voyage of the Beagle. I makes for good reading and can help anyone truly interested in his ideas to understand how his ideas emerged. 

To be continued....

 

   

[Gregory Matthews]

Note:  I have just posted a response near the beginning of this thread, that may be relevant to the discussion at this point. 

[Joe Knapp]

I was watching an OLD interview with Roger Morneau, the former demon expert.  He said he was told by one of the (demonic) spirit priests, that Satan himself had worked with Darwin. That Evolution (according to the priest) was a deception that would disqualify people from entering heaven. 

 

I found that fascinating. 

[Gustave]

He was a demon expert? 

[Joe Knapp]

Yes. God called him out of demon worship.