Theistic evolution over Darwinian evolution

The day-age interpretation is being used to describe the Genesis account where the “days” are actually referring to long periods of unspecified time and is only describing the numerical order in which each creation event was carried out. The first four days explain how God prepared the formation of the earth to be habitable and determined the initial conditions that would bring forth life, which is confirmed by science [13]: The Genesis one Account According to the day-age interpretation, the origins of species would look more like multiple trees of life where there are separate origins of life events having a community of primordial organisms for the 6 major species including humans of which they emerged from in different places and times [14][15]. God apparently intervened periodically over the course of history to create the animal kingdom and humanity by causing “systemic macro mutations” of hopeful monsters, which produced novel changes in body design and speciation within each creation event [16][17]. Then, based on empirical observations, God seems to continuously act upon random mutations to help each species adapt in response to changing conditions or environments. When species go extinct, he replaces them with new species within each of the 5 major animal species (fish, birds, rodents, carnivores, herbivores) [18][19]. Lastly, following the subsequent (Local) flood that wiped out Noah’s descendents all men are descended from Noah while women come from up to 4 different blood lines dating back from 50,000-40,000 within the African region [20]. Common Design A. Although, the formal test seemed to conclusively favor the existence of a universal common ancestor; it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times. Indeed, Darwin himself allowed the possibility for the community of primordial organisms hypothesis to be true in his origins of species, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one." (p 490), Origin of species. B. This Theistic model of the diversity of life would explain the long term study done on isolated groups of prairie chickens showing how they do not go on and evolve into new species. Only after human intervention was enacted did these animals end up recovering as a species, which demonstrates how intelligence is required for even microevolution to occur in order to limit the expression of harmful mutated genes within organisms. The studies reflect what we see in the fossil record where species remain unchanged until their extinct. C. Moreover, the Genesis account would explain why humans share the appearance of universal common ancestry, which I refer to as “universal common design”, between the animal kingdom with biochemical and morphological similarities with other primates. However, at the same time, the model considers the uniqueness of human beings’ capabilities that enable us to rule over the animal kingdom compared to even the most advanced primates (free-will, self-awareness, intention states, spiritual connection to God etc.). This also reflects the current makeup of the fossil record, archaeological, and genetics evidence on human evolution quite nicely. Thus, the theistic model accepts that speciation (or macroevolution) has occurred and can potentially still occur as long as it’s within each of the 6 major species where speciation would not overlap between them and an intelligent designer would be required. In addition, it means that all currently living organisms all have a common design/blueprint from a universal common (or cosmic) designer rather than a universal common descent from a universal common ancestor. OBJECTIONS TO DESIGN INFERENCES IN BIOLOGY The studies seem to suggest that life needs to be guided by an intelligence in order to achieve success. However, there are many scientists that have pointed out alleged flaws within this design inference. For example, they claim that the placement of the optic nerve in the human eye is flawed because it would result in a small blind spot in our visual field. If these were truly flaws in design then this would certainly challenge the theory that an all-powerful omniscient designer or divine intelligence was and still is at work in biology as well. ID theorists provide two explanations for this: the appearance of morphological and biochemical suboptimal design and the design decay argument. 1. The appearance of suboptimal design (morphological)As Michael Denton explains, "the difference in the placement of the optic nerve in the human eye in comparison with cephalopod eyes is because of the need for the greater supply of oxygen for high-acuity vision in warm-blooded animals.....Rather than being a case of maladaptation, the inverted retina is probably an essential element in the overall design of the vertebrate visual system"[21]. In addition, Contrary to what evolutionists have previously expressed about the "bad design" of the giant panda’s thumb, a new study analyzed it and showed that the radial sesamoid bone (its "thumb") is actually "one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems" among mammals [22]. 2. The appearance of suboptimal design (biochemical) We already know that useful mutations are responsible for survival/reproduction and adaptations within a species resulting in variations of different species we see today. However, vast majority of the neutral mutations, also called non-coding regions of the cell, were claimed by scientists to be “Junk” DNA left over from the evolutionary model for years. Now, we know from the human genome project that large amounts of this so-called “Junk” DNA revealed that most, if not all, of the non-coding regions of the DNA are required and play a vital role for the proper functioning of the DNA [23]. 3. Design decay argument Harmful mutations that cause an animal to be ill or weak actually still provide a vital role in producing easy prey for predators, which can prevent overpopulation and stabilize each given population. Nevertheless, part of the design research is to find out whether diseases like cancer arose as the result of the degradation of well-functioning original designs rather than actions that can be directly attributed to the designer. Indeed, most ID theorists view harmful mutations as inevitable consequences of design decay from the second law of thermodynamics. In summary, ID theorists have pointed out several other examples in nature that what appeared at first to be left over design flaws have, with greater understanding, turned out not to be flaws at all [24]. Thus, these supposed flaws were apparently only flaws in our understanding, and we should try to look at the organism as a whole even if it may exhibit some features that may be perplexing. In the next round, I will respond to CON's objection and explain very clearly again what the debate is actually supposed to be about. [13] http://www.godandscience.org... [14] http://www.arn.org... [15] http://www.nature.com... [16] http://www.nature.com... [17] http://www.evolocus.com... [18] http://www.sciencemag.org... [19] http://www.nature.com... [20] http://www.godandscience.org... [21] Wirth A, Cavallacci G,Genovesi-Ebert F. 1984. The advantages of an inverted retina. A physiologicalapproach to a teleological question. Dev. Ophthalmol. 9: 20-28. [22] Endo, H., Yamagiwa, D.,Hayashi, Y. H., Koie, H., Yamaya, Y., and Kimura, J. 1999. Nature 397:309-310. [23] http://www.sciencemag.org... [24] http://www.godandscience.org...