Old Earth Creationsm vs. Theistic Evolution

This is my opening statement. Below I am going to list some beliefs of OEC. Old earth beliefs: God miraculously created the universe from nothing (ex nihilo), created life from non-life, and progressively intervened in history to supernaturally create new species of life. The age of the earth has no bearing on the creation of life. An ancient earth does not equate with Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution (change through unguided naturalistic processes) is unbiblical, biologically untenable, and not supported by the fossil record. Old-earth creationists adamantly reject the Darwinian concept of common descent—the hypothesis that all plant, animal, and human life ultimately evolved from primitive single-celled organisms through unguided mutations and naturalistic processes. God miraculously created Adam and Eve, humanity’s historical parents, who were new distinct creatures from whom humanity’s sin originated. Earth’s geologic features formed over long ages through both gradual and catastrophic processes. Genesis 1 is a literal account of God’s creation. After God created the heavens and the earth, He then created life over six successive “days,” which in the original Hebrew may be literally interpreted as long epochs of time. The Bible: OECs believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God and believe the Genesis creation account to be historical narrative with some poetic areas —not myth, and legend. OECs contend a literal reading of the Biblical creation accounts in Hebrew provides certain exegetical clues pointing to prolonged creation “days. ” Creation Days/Age of the Earth: I would agree that the Bible supports an Old-earth. This is something that Con and I would both agree upon in this debate. Biblical Hebrew has a very limited vocabulary (approximately 3,100 words) compared to the English vocabulary (estimated to be 1,000,000 words). Hebrew words often have several literal meanings. Linguistic scholars acknowledge the Hebrew word yôm (translated “day” in English) has several literal meanings: a period of daylight, 12-hour day, 24-hour day, time, period of time with unspecified duration, and epoch of time.6 While modern English has numerous words to describe a long time-span, no word in biblical Hebrew adequately denotes a finite epoch of time other than yôm. The following types of Evolution are described: 1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang 2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen. 3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets. 4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life. 5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species. 6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species. I agree with (1) and (6). However I don’t agree with (2), (3), (4), and (5). Microevolution: I believe inMicroevolution, involves changes only in size, shape, or color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Macroevolution: major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time. I would say this is where Con and I disagree. (As expressed by this figure above Microevolution vs. Macroevolution). Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only “horizontal” (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity. Also note that all creationists agree that natural selection occurs. While natural selection does not result in macroevolution, it accounts for many variations within a very narrow range. Science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible. So what is observed? We see variations in lizards, four of which are shown at the bottom. We also see birds, represented at the top. In-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species. A careful observer can usually see unbelievable discontinuities in these claimed upward changes, as well as in the drawing above. Homology (nonfunctional similarity, such as the five-digit limbs of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) is often cited as evidence of macroevolution, but genetic research shows a lack of correspondence between genes and limb structure. Biologist Michael Behe has provided empirical experimental verification to such probability calculations by reviewing mankind’s fight against malaria, which is a single-celled microbe with a population “far more vast than any species of animal or plant,” resulting in a far greater reproduction and mutation rate. The relative time for malaria to develop a resistance to atovaquone (a drug requiring one point mutation) vs. chloroquine (requiring two mutations) matches reasonably with the probability calculations. “On the average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would need to wait (1015 years)”21—100,000 times longer than the age of the universe. Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates. Biologist Sean Carroll states, “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for larger-scale changes evident of longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution). ” Discovery of regulatory genes, which can turn genes “on” and “off” to produce vast changes in phenotype, presents a new dilemma. Paleontologist Jack Horner predicts that within 50 years, “we will be able to flip genetic switches … and retro-engineer a dinosaur from a bird. ” But this makes neo-Darwinism even less plausible. The probability of complex life-forms evolving from nonliving matter by chance is insurmountable, yet it seems even more improbable to also randomly evolve a class of regulatory genes and the genetic material to adapt to future environmental conditions not yet experienced. That would require super-intelligence—attributing a mythological godlike character to natural selection. Ironically, creationists have long suggested that observed changes in life-forms after Genesis 1 might be based on surplus genetic material, responding to environmental changes—an idea now made possible by regulatory genes. Stephen Jay Gould confesses: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. ” It just seems like a huge extrapolation between Micro to Macro. I don’t see any evidence that a sponge and a bat for example, share a common ancestor. Theological Interpretation of Adam and Eve: I am not sure if Con agrees with a literal Adam and Eve. I am going to assume he doesn’t. I would have to say that Adam and Eve had to have been real for two reasons. I also believe the concept of original sin through Adam and Eve. 1. Jesus affirms Adam and Eve’s Existence: Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. ” 2. Paul affirms Original Sin through Adam and Eve: 12 “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— 13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. ” (Romans 5:12-21) Sources: . http://www.creationscience.com... . http://www.freechristianteaching.org... . http://www.reasons.org... . http://www.biblegateway.com...