A Theory of Creation
by Ted Slater on 02/15/2008 at 12:18 AM
Most of us are fairly familiar with theories of evolution. The basic premise is that the variety of life around us resulted from one common ancestor, that over the course of millions of years, genetic change and natural selection have given us rats and pigs and boys.
Please allow me present a particular theory of creation that I'm drawn to: the "orchard" model.
I first came across this theory in Jonathan Sarfati's Refuting Evolution. He's made this book available online; chapter 2 is where he explains this model most clearly.
This theory concurs with the Scriptural account of God creating various "kinds" of organisms, each which reproduced "according to its kind." Sarfati writes, "Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments."
The theory goes on to posit that over the course of many generations, as a result of The Fall, genetic information deteriorated and the offspring that were "fittest" for a particular environment "survived." That resulted in genetic variation within each "kind" of organism (note that we're not talking "species" here, but the larger category of "kind").
So we have finches and vultures, beagles and bulldogs, rats and mice, chimpanzees and orangutans, Aboriginals and Pygmies.
Let me copy-paste a very helpful excerpt from the chapter, a portion that differentiates the theory of evolution and a "caricature of creationism" with this "orchard" model.
 Figure 1: The evolutionary "tree" which postulates that all today's species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from non-living chemicals). This is what evolution is really all about. |
 Figure 2: The alleged creationist "lawn" this represents the caricature of creationism presented by Teaching about Evolution—the Genesis "kinds" were the same as today's species. |
 Figure 3: The true creationist "orchard" diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis "kinds" (creationists often call them baramin, from Hebrew bara = create, and min = kind). Much of the evidence of variation presented by Teaching about Evolution refutes only the straw-man version of creationism in Figure 2, but fits the true creationist "orchard" model perfectly well. |
If you find this as fascinating as I did, I'd encourage you to check out chapter 2 of Sarfati's book, and perhaps the rest of the book as well.
I remember the first time I came across this theory. It wasn't like anything I'd ever heard before, but it made sense. It seemed consistent with the Scriptural account of creation (which I have to add presents itself as historical, rather than myth or metaphor). It also seemed consistent with evidence unearthed by the scientific community. It was as though all the puzzle pieces just came together.
I've never been satisfied with the simplistic model put out by some creationists that God made everything "this way" and nothing's changed, that there is absolutely no genetic drift. I'm also dissatisfied with the evolutionists' theory that "all this" resulted from cycles of death and an increase of beneficial genetic information over time, a theory that diminishes the Creator/Designer as irrelevant.
This theory, the "orchard" model, just makes sense to me. I appreciate Jonathan Sarfati's bringing it to my attention.
1. Iris said the following at 1:00 AM on Feb 15:
This isn't the first time I've heard this theory. When I attended college at Bryan College in Dayton, TN (1996-2000), one of the professors there, Dr. Kurt Wise, was involved with a group that were working on developing this theory and others. It makes a lot of sense to me, espcially since we can see micro-evolution at work in the world already and it fits in with a literal reading of Genesis 1-9. It also explains how Noah could have fit all the animals on the ark.
2. Jo said the following at 1:20 AM on Feb 15:
That makes a lot of sense to me (someone who is admittedly unscientific and not particularly interested in scientific things). It fits pretty well with what's always been my vague belief - that science proves micro-evolution (adaptation within species - or as you say, kinds) but has no evidence for macro-evolution (monkey becoming man, etc). I may have got micro and macro the wrong way round there, but that has always been my personal theory, and this puts it far more clearly and concisely. I may well check out that book...
3. Chin Wee said the following at 1:38 AM on Feb 15:
This is actually what Answers in Genesis believes and teaches, which I also agree with. Everything fits. :)
4. S said the following at 3:55 AM on Feb 15:
This is the 'theory' that I've always believed, just didn't know there was a name for it.
5. Brian Popp said the following at 5:53 AM on Feb 15:
I'm glad somebody finally posted this clear (albeit brief) explanation of what true bible-based creationism is. I researched this in college after watching an ID vs. Big Bang debate on my campus.
One of the most intriguing aspects of the arguments to me is how different people interpret the similar patterns observed in mammals (spine, arms legs, brain, etc.) Evolutionists look at it as evidence of a common ancestor, while Creationists look at it as evidence of a common designer. I must admit, that is one of evolutionists most appealing arguments. However the creationist explanation is just as (if not more) plausible.
I guess these differences represent different worldviews: Evolution=there must not be a higher power. Creationism: there must be a higher power.
Just curious, what does Mr. Sarfati say about the fossil record?
6. Jordan Reed said the following at 6:47 AM on Feb 15:
Plus the "orchard" diagram looks the coolest - much like a forest.
7. Christina said the following at 6:53 AM on Feb 15:
Hmmm...that some how always managed to be my concept of evolution and creation. I never outruled some forms of evolution (like survival of the fittest/adaptation to environments/gene hybridation). However, those things never negated creationism. The part that did, I outruled completely because it was utter nonsense...that "orchard" model you showed in the first image.
As Ravi Zacharias tried to illustrate in his "Jesus Among Other Gods", nothing comes from nothing. If we are something, then something had to be there to make it something (oversimplified). I'm not a biologist or physicist (no matter how hard I tried in school, I got straight C's in the sciences), but they fascinate me and I have a decent aptitude for applying theories (just not taking tests), but this idea has always been reasonable to me =p
8. John D. said the following at 6:55 AM on Feb 15:
At first glance, there may be something to that theory.
I believe in a literal, six-day Creation, as described in Genesis. I always did wonder, though, at the genetic diversity apparent in human beings, let alone other species. All mankind, we are told, descend from the sons of Noah, Ham, Shem and Japeth. As a Caucasian, I am a descendant of Japeth. So are all people of European extraction who look nothing like me, as well as all Asian (mongoloid) people. That's a lot of variation to come about in under 4,000 years.
I always wondered, too, at how Noah managed to get two of every variation of every species on the Ark. Is it possible that the Ark did not contain a representative of every subspecies, but merely an ancestor whose progeny displayed great variation later?
I am not a biologist, and I admit I have not studied the issue carefully. You can believe the Word of God literally while still wondering about some of the practical details.
9. Matthew said the following at 7:04 AM on Feb 15:
All of this is well and good, and honestly I would have been convinced by the "orchard" model a while ago. But more evidence-- mostly biochemical-- has tended to convince me that the evolutionary "tree" is more likely of a model. The most obvious example of this is the fact that the basic building blocks of life-- DNA, RNA, and their polymerases-- are strikingly similar from bacteria to humans (and the more "evolved" you get, the more similar your genes are.) Other examples abound. The parathyroid glands of vertebrates, for example, express many of the same genes and proteins for calcium homeostasis as fish gills-- see this article: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0406116101v1.pdf for more details. I don't want to get into an argument on here and probably won't have the time this week to respond to any further objections (though I'll do my best to read them), but I wanted to say that biochemical evidence and genomic homologies are what convinced me to accept that God used evolution as part of His creation. Furthermore, that does not mean that I had to think that any part of His infallible Word was untrue.
I've appreciated this series of posts and they've been helpful to me in that they've forced me to read more and keep thinking about the issue. I really want to read "The Language of God" by Frances Collins, a strong believer who has argued with the likes of Richard Dawkins for the existence of God and still thinks that God used evolution as His means of creating us.
10. Paul said the following at 7:24 AM on Feb 15:
Thanks Ted, for once I agree with you, and those are really useful diagrams that I've not seen before.
The one thing I'm not so sure about is the idea that the "orchard diversity" is a direct consequence of the fall. Could it not also be a tool that God uses to continue creating things?
11. Leah said the following at 8:30 AM on Feb 15:
Me and my friends made the same conclusion as the orchard theory, except didn't know it had a name! We understood survival of the fittest and genetic mutations, and knew they were both completely plausible (and in fact observable).
However, we also knew evolutionists liked to hijack those two theories as "evolutionary" (even if they weren't evolution themselves).
But we also knew that they were completely compatible with creation- who's to say that there wasn't originally one type of horse, one type of dog, one type of cat, one type of chimp? And that genetic mutations and natural environments didn't bring about the changes within each species?
They key issue is whether there's been an addition, mutation or loss of genetic information. Evolution requires an addition of genetic information (obviously, to get from swimming little tadpole thing to clever apes to complex, intelligent humans). However, the 'evolution' evolutionists say we can observe only ever involves a loss of genetic information (eg. cave fish losing their ability to see). That's not evolution! It's the exact opposite!
And of course there's also mutations- two headed snakes etc. While people might think that's an addition of genetic information, it's actually bad- the existing genetic information has simply been enacted twice due to mutation of the DNA.
Another thing I thought of recently in regards to evolution... if homosexuality really was genetic, and people were born with it, why are there still gay people? Why haven't they died out due to survival of the fittest (seeing as they can't actually reproduce)?? Surely a behaviour which physically cannot reproduce must be a behaviour that is learnt rather than bred... (anyway that's just a tangent, I hope no actual debate springs up from that unless it's actually on topic in regards to the original post!)
12. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:13 AM on Feb 15:
I dunno, Ted. Personally, I am more interested in restoring science to the empirical standard of proof, and restricting scientists to the practice of science and not the implementation of social policy. This is not merely about macro-evolution versus Creation; it is about what constitutes science.
It does no good to try to win an argument about science by challenging an unscientific proposition (macro-evolution) with an equally unscientific one (Creation).
Each is unscientific because neither is verifiable via experimentation. Intelligent Design (ID), for all its mathematical strengths--and those strengths are very substantial--fails for the same reason: it is not empirical.
Mathematical models are no substitute for experimental results.
This does not suggest that Creation didn't happen, or even that evolution didn't happen. I'm just saying that--to date--verification of either is beyond the scope of the scientific method.
As for evolutionists, I have no qualms with them necessarily, only the ones who seek to ramrod Utopian, totalitarian social agendas--cross-dressed in terms of "progress" and "science"--down our throats. (Dawkins and Harris have completely different agendas along those lines, if one dares to call my bluff.)
And yes, folks, that premise is historical fact, and its implementations--from Fascism, Nazism, Bolshevism, Stalinism, Maoism, the American Progressive movement (including Wilsonian progressivism), and modern socialism--are applications of Darwinism to public policy.
Next to those body counts, the worst days of Vatican terror--and Puritan extremes here--are a Sunday School coffee and donut fellowship.
13. val said the following at 11:29 AM on Feb 15:
Matthew, i have to say i dont particularly agree with you.
i really dont think biochemical 'evidence' supports evolution more than it does intelligent design per se.
I guess it only depends how you view the information that is presented to you. Its all about "scientific skepticism".
For example: you mention DNA, RNA and their polymerases being similar in humans and bacterias. You could conclude that it is because they stem from the same root, or you could conclud that it is because they were created by the same Creator.
As for God using evolution in his "6 days creation plan" it was previously debated, as to the respect of taking God's word litteraly or not. Some believed that the 6 days were not litteral days (24 hours) and that each of those could represent a phase of evolution (milions of years).
Also, how are genomic homologies a proof of evolution? or even a convincing argument? How could we develop from a single cell at times so slowly (read millions of years) and at times so fast (read no fossil records of transitionnal states)?
I understand it is normal to question what we believe, in order to make us dig deeper, to reaffirm the foundation of our beliefs. It is necessary to examine the new data that sciences presents, but we need to be careful when tempted to jump to conclusion, be it to proclaim evolution or intelligent design as the outcome.
Also, it is extremely difficult to state a belief in evolution without going to the bottom of things (read question the formation of beings from START to END, from the creation of the earth, to the developpement of life, to where we are today)
14. Josh said the following at 11:38 AM on Feb 15:
I guess the evolutionist response to this would be that the "Orchard Model" is an incomplete picture; like someone had chopped off the tree near the top and discarded the bottom.
Two, maybe even one year ago I would have been taking shots at the evolutionary tree model. But at this point I think the evidence, particularly the genetic evidence of common ancestry, is too compelling.
15. Charles said the following at 11:44 AM on Feb 15:
I'll be checking into his book. THis is interesting. I do wonder, though, if he addresses the existence of hominid skeletons older than the young-earth creationist model allows for.
16. Tim said the following at 11:51 AM on Feb 15:
Matthew said:
"The most obvious example of this is the fact that the basic building blocks of life-- DNA, RNA, and their polymerases-- are strikingly similar from bacteria to humans (and the more "evolved" you get, the more similar your genes are.)"
I hear what you are saying Matthew, however I think there is a possible explanation that can still fit with the "orchard" model.
You called DNA, RNA, etc. as the building blocks of life. Is it not possible that God used these building blocks to create all the different "kinds" of creatures? Why would God use different building blocks for different creatures?
In the same way, all things are made up of different combinations of elements. All these elements make up everything we see from stars to cats. Perhaps the building blocks of DNA and RNA were used by God in a similar way.
17. JB said the following at 11:54 AM on Feb 15:
I wonder what the theological implications of this view are. If God created the Garden full of plants and animals with a lot of genetic heterozygosity that could supply the power for subsequent "evolution," does this mean that God intended that the perfection of the Garden could shift and change over time and still remain perfect? Or did God initially plan for the eventuality of the Fall? Oh, and one more - is there some principle which retains the integrity of "kinds" over time, or does this theory permit evolution to progress from this time forward? That is, might we see new and different animals in a few million years since the "kinds" are branching out?
Leah,
I think that's a pretty noncontroversial question, so I'll venture a short answer. There are some recessive genetic diseases which remain in the population because the genes that cause them are beneficial to heterozygotes. For example, if you get two sickle cell genes, then you have a disease that decreases your survival chances. But if you get only one gene, you're resistant to malaria and have no ill effects. So the sickle cell gene, on average, is beneficial and sticks around in the population. The gene for cystic fibrosis works the same way - it probably protects against some forms of cholera - and some people think genes that cause Alzheimers protect against malnutrition. Hypothetically, were there a "gay gene," it could have effects which are sufficiently beneficial in the population to outweigh the cost of the occasional non-reproducer.
18. JK said the following at 11:54 AM on Feb 15:
Here's a link to an example of something that looks like the "Orchard" model, but in fact kind of points to evolution (sing-song voice)...
It's about ring species in California
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
19. Anastasia said the following at 12:41 PM on Feb 15:
This is what I always thought, too, though I didn't know it was a formal theory.
I think much confusion lies in putting everything under the vast umbrella of "evolution".
There is, of course, "evolution" as in there were chemicals that somehow were activated and put together and all live evolved from them, which is absurd.
Then there is the observable evolution that occurs when various living things adapt to the environment by surviving and reproducing, most recently obvious in the MRSA form of staphylococcus, certain resistant strains of TB, etc.
I think we all need to remember the wise advice from that very wise pagan, Aristotle: before you start any discussion (argument), you must define your terms.
There is much stupidity going around from both sides of the creation/evolution argument because we either deliberately or not do not define the terms we use.
20. val said the following at 1:08 PM on Feb 15:
Anastasia:
MRSA forms of staphylococcus is not evidence of evolution
Resistance to antibiotics is transfered among bacterias through resistance plasmids. The only thing needed here is a strain on the once-not-resistant-bacteria and another bacteria, used to living in another type of environment (say one that includes some form of antibiotic) to share the resistance info included in the genome of the bacteria living in a different evironment.
The bacteria in itself does not develop resistance, it is given or aquired
21. Bethany D. said the following at 1:22 PM on Feb 15:
The orchard model puts a nice name on what I've always believed. Thanks Ted! I'm curious though, does he talk about the "full grown" principle? Because it's something that makes quite a bit of sense when paired with the orchard model, but I've rarely seen it referenced:
According to the Genesis account, God created everything, from the sun, moon, and stars, to the birds, plants, fish, and humans. It does NOT say "God created seeds which grew into plants, eggs that hatched into birds, and newborn infants that grew into Adam and Eve". The account infers that God created things fully made. Adam was old enough to talk. And the light from distant stars could already be seen at night; either God created man after waiting for the millions of years it would have taken for starlight to reach Earth, or He created the stars with starlight shining all the way to the Earth. Likewise, presumably, the plants would have been old enough to BE a garden worth tending; which means trees would have been created with rings for seasons that had not actually happened. In the same way, it seems reasonable that Earth's geology would be stratified and jumbled, rather than blankly uniform.
22. Kellie said the following at 1:55 PM on Feb 15:
You do know beagles and bulldogs didn't come from any sort of natural process, right? :-)
This stuff is microevolution. Nothing new, nothing to get excited about it (unless you covered your ears in class every time evolution was mentioned).
23. Michael said the following at 2:24 PM on Feb 15:
Hey JB,
It's an important distinction to say that God called everything that he had created "good" and did not use the term "perfect" (unless someone with some Hebrew says otherwise).
I don't think (and I think that language, as well as the orchard model, implies) that God created everything static in the first place.
24. Jethro said the following at 2:49 PM on Feb 15:
Does this theory do anything to explain why the overwhelming consensus among the scientific community is that the earth is many many millions of years old, not supposedly 4000-6000 years old as AiG and others contend?
25. Matthew said the following at 2:49 PM on Feb 15:
Tim and Val,
I would have to say that biochemical evidence that convinces me is a not simplistic "everyone's got the same parts so we must have come from the same place." What convinces me is that genetically we are closest to chimpanzees, then gorillas, and so on and so forth-- and all of the differences are slight enough that they could have evolved. You can show that things like the calcium regulation system are present as parathyroid glands in humans but as gills in fish. Not only that, but they express the same genes in slightly tweaked ways that *could have* resulted from random mutations. There's homologies like that scattered all over the genome as well as genes that we as humans carry around with us that don't serve any function-- yet we find the same genes in other animals and they do have a function (like the gill example.) Being a Christian, I don't see why God couldn't have used those or intervened in the process. We see new "good" genetic information arise all the time (e.g. bacterial resistance); with a timespan of billions of years it is possible that enough mutations could accumulate to make bacteria and humans.
26. Matthew said the following at 2:56 PM on Feb 15:
Also, I would like to add that I'm glad that this discussion so far is so civil... *crosses fingers*
27. Jo said the following at 3:25 PM on Feb 15:
JB said: "The gene for cystic fibrosis works the same way - it probably protects against some forms of cholera"
Yep yep, that's what I've heard too. So I won't be getting cholera! Yipeeee! :)
28. Paul H said the following at 3:40 PM on Feb 15:
For anyone who is interested -- this podcast discusses baraminology (the classification of "kinds") as well as some other creation/evolution-related subjects. ( ~30 min.)
29. val said the following at 4:42 PM on Feb 15:
matthew:
as said before you seem to be misunderstanding mutations. evolutionists make it appear as a gain of genetic information, but it is rather a loss of it. As seen with the épaulette bird (all black with a red and a yellow stripe on the top of the wing)a mutation has caused the birds to only have one of the two colors (either red or yellow stripes). they then reproduce only with the birds showing the same mutations-as the normal process of reproducing after your own kind, with another similar to yourself.
the change in color is not a gain, its a loss. they can no longer have both colors. yet the article depicting this example claims it's proof of evolution...
as for the similarities between rhesus monkeys (our closest 'cousin') and humans : why would our systems not be similar? we live in a similar environment and feed off similar substances, we breathe the same air, digest in similar ways (because of similar nutrition)...
also, calcium regulation has a much more important role than just 'in the gills of fish' its practically everywhere in our system.. from synapsis to mitochondrias to apoptosis regulation.
30. Ben Lansing said the following at 4:44 PM on Feb 15:
Thanks for that interesting explanation. It's important for Creationists to recognize that there are many types of 'evolution' and most of these kinds of evolution can exist in a Biblical worldview. Any geneticist, dog breeder, or agriculturalist can demonstrate evolution within a single species... but they can't demonstrate Darwinian evolution. This kind of cross-species evolution has never been reproduced or proved in any way. Unfortunately, in our day this mythical kind of evolution has become the only kind of evolution in too many people’s mind.
31. Matthew said the following at 7:28 PM on Feb 15:
Val,
Many mutations are a gain of information. While most mutations do appear to be a loss of information, others (like bacterial production of beta-lactamase) are things that are turned on or modified in a good way (well, good for the bacteria but not for us.) Furthermore, you seem well versed enough in biology to know what introns and exons are-- if you think about that system, you could see how an apparent "loss" of information could produce more functional proteins. I don't know much about how evolutionists think we got to the point where we had introns and exons in the first place, but I think that it's a pretty neat system and it's awfully sweeping to say that new genetic information doesn't get created.
Regarding similarities: I just wanted to make my point clearer, and it doesn't look like either of us will be convinced either way on the issue.
Regarding calcium homeostasis: I've been studying this a lot the last month and I do know that maintaining the level of calcium in the body is essential everywhere. What the link I posted was talking about was the specific regulation of overall calcium levels in the blood-- something accomplished by very, very similar systems that have been tweaked slightly and carry many of the same genes, including some that are just turned off.
32. Lukas said the following at 10:21 PM on Feb 15:
One thing the orchard model does not address is the many, many species which have gone extinct. They appear all throughout the fossil record, but never in the same rock formations as modern species as one might expect if they were all buried in the Noachian deluge (sorry if I put words in your mouths, its just I've seen this view iterated time and time again).
Another issue is the definition of "baramin". Proponents have been reluctant to give the exact taxa which fit the description. I've heard everything from genus to kingdom (in the case of eubacteria).
33. val said the following at 6:04 AM on Feb 16:
Matthew:
It seems you consider the multiple proteins produced from a single gene "new genetical information". Fact of the matter is: the information was there all along!
And you seem to insist that the genetic differences between species are 'slight tweaking'. As i see that you know about genomic, how is it that you cannot see that there is no slight change in genetics? only one amino acid of difference can give a completely different protein with a completely different function.
As for the beta-lactamase, you have to agree that the information was there in the first place, nothing was gained here. This enzyme was produced following a change in the environment of the bacteria.
It does seem that not one of us will be convinced...
Seeing how you study a complex biological system, does it not make you wonder how it could have developed? Something so perfectly tuned, so essential that without it we would die? Does it really make sense to you that from the unicellular organism "we once were" we could have devevlopped into this really complex man-machine composed of a multitude of intricate mechanisms upon which life is totally dependant and when malfunctions happen cause great dammage? I know evolutionists give this process millions of years, but still...
34. Michael said the following at 11:19 AM on Feb 16:
It's funny to read this, having been a believer in creationism practically from toddler age. Because ever since this subject of creationism-versus-evolution first came up in my later elementary school years, what is described here as the "orchard" model is the kind of creationism I was taught and what I believed. For that matter, I have never head of the "lawn" model being advocated by any leader in the creationist movement. The only place I have EVER encountered it, is in evolutionist literature, where it is presented as a caricature of what creationists believe.
I think the variety of breeds in domesticated animals, as well as the knowledge of genetics gained from science over the last 100 years or so, is abundant proof that variation and adaptation occur. I even believe in survival of the fittest. Which is why it seems so looney when these are the topics of debate in creationist-evolutionist conflicts. The only real debate is whether everything can be reduced to one or a few simple common ancestors, whether new "kinds" of creatures arise, how old the earth is, whether science is even capable/competent to deal with these kinds of questions, etc.
One thing I would really like to know, and perhaps will only learn in heaven, is just how much variation is possible. For example, I believe all cats (lions, tigers, housecats, etc.) come from a common ancestor. But I'm not sure about whether parrots, finches, penguins, ostriches do. I'm also curious whether there has been a slow-down in the diversification of animals since the Fall. In other words, maybe in the early years after creation, the forms of animals adapted/variated at a much faster rate than now.
35. Mike Theemling said the following at 11:52 AM on Feb 16:
Interesting post and interesting site (I took a look at the site given and a couple of other chapters).
To address Brian Popp's question:
Sarfati states that fossils are often assumed to have formed over millions of years because of differences in layers of sedimetary rocks. Scientists state that these layers take millions of years to occur, so naturally the fossils underneath them must also have been millions of years old.
He rebutts that argument by stating two things: One is that such layers can occur within a short period of time due to catastrophic or drastic events (he gives Mt. St. Helens and example) and he states that some fossils show creatures "flash freezed" in events like eating a meal or giving birth, indicating that the creature didn't die first but was fossilized immediately.
John D.:
It may sound wacky that 3 sons determined all the races we have for humans since we look a lot different, but it doesn't sound so strange considering there are only 3 primary colors and that from these 3 we can get every color in the spectrum. Some may say how Noah's sons could be 3 different races since they were from the same parents (assuming Noah had 1 wife giving birth to all 3) but consider too that the 3 sons had 3 wives, and thus could add to the genetic mix.
Sarfati's arguments on the surface are sound. And to be sure, do not believe in macro evolution (fish -> birds -> dinosaurs -> chimps -> humans). However, I doubt it will change the minds of most evolutionary biologists out there.
What's interesting is that Charles Darwin himself wasn't a big proponent of macro-evoluation as we know it today, at least as indicated in his book Origin of the Species. That book only mentioned the word "evolution" once. He was more a proponent of the idea of Natural Selection. As a note, some Christians argue he recanted this theories near death. Looking at the actual text, it was more likely that he just didn't see a contradiciton to his writings to that of traditional theology. That gives further proof that he probably wasn't a macro evolutionist.
What's also interesting is the number of theories regarding the early earth. For example some Christians believe that Noah's Flood was a regional flood and not world-wide (they state that floods that occur now are not a break of the covenent because the floods now do not destroy ALL life on the earth [just those in the area]). Others believe that "day" was more representative of different stages rather than 24 hours (they argue that the sun was not created until Day 4 which is what we use to calculate how long a "day" is). And still other believe that God might have created the earth already "old" with all the sediments in place. This shows that not all Chistians have a cookie-cutter theology regarding the accounts in Genesis.
36. Matthew said the following at 3:02 PM on Feb 16:
Val,
I think I finally understand what you're saying. You say that since an organism could start with x number of base pairs and end with the same number (perhaps even in exactly the same order with only one bp change), there's no "new" genetic information. I would disagree with that and say that you can make "new" information by rearranging the old building blocks, even if all you're doing is rearranging what was already there.
I feel like observing the incredible mechanisms of the human body work in both ways for me-- I can see how it must have taken a great many years for our systems to adapt in such a way but also how wise He who created our systems must have been to make the world such that they could evolve. I don't honestly think that the two have to be mutually exclusive and I definitely don't feel like subscribing to the theory of evolution has diminished my ability to worship God the creator.
37. Renee said the following at 11:36 PM on Feb 16:
matthew, convergent evolution, have you ever studied it? I'm using french sounding sentences, sorry. Anyway, that convinced me evolution is way off track...
38. BDB said the following at 1:02 AM on Feb 17:
About Amir's point (#12) on empirical science:
Micro-evolution can be demonstrated empirically in bacteria. If you read about cancer cells or bacteria becoming resistant to drugs or antibiotics, the cells are evolving - e.g. those that are not killed produce new generations that are not vulnerable to those antibiotics. Literally survival of the fittest.
What Val wrote in #20 really isn't a contradiction of this. You see this same behavior in cancer cells - chemotherapy works at first, but in many patients, the cells adapt and become resistant to the treatment.
But empiricism is exactly the problem with social "science," too. It's unethical to perform most experiments on humans. The closest we get is experimental policies, but results are always mixed in those, too. Those who practice an "art" need to develop just as much discipline and a systematic approach to their subject. A concert pianist needs to be pretty darn systematic when they practice. But it doesn't make piano-playing a science.
We can create new species of plants by genetic manipulation and combinging genes from different plants. What it does point to is a designer. And for a designer to move genes around, it would be a lot easier if all life used something like DNA that was chemically similar (like, say ATGC...)
And, since it's late at night and my mind is wandering...many species seem to have a lot of excess DNA that doesn't do anything. That suggests that new species could be created pretty easily if those extra genes were turned "on."
If we go back to astrophysics...seems like it would be pretty easy for God to arrange for a certain amount of extra cosmic radiation at different points in the past, resulting in a bunch of mutations all at once, creating a new "era," without it taking a billion years.
The physicists are quite confident that the Earth is billions of years old. Of course, there are a lot more Christian physicists than biologists. One of them - Carlsen - was my physics professor in college. He wrote a book some of you may have read on Science and Christianity.
(It was pretty easy to be a Christian in a Biology department when the head of the Physics department downstairs was getting his Master's degree in Theology - and all the other professors knew it!)
39. Katie P. said the following at 9:07 PM on Feb 17:
I just wanted to comment on how refreshing it is to see a thread get this long and remain intelligent and civil! :)
40. val said the following at 7:26 AM on Feb 18:
BDB
I sustain my point that multi-drug resistance in bacterias and resistance against chemotherapy is not evolution. But then again, you seem to consider that the expression of genes that were previously silenced is evolution. For my part, evolution requires added information or changed information (like a mutation of some kind).
Cancer cells become resistant to chemotherapy treatment, but then again, so do many patients with a variety of ailment. An adaptative change (like a rearrangement of receptors or a different signaling system) does not necessarily point to evolution. As said before, the adaptation is not evolution if the organism uses only information that was previously present in its genome.
As for the 'extra DNA that doesn't do anything': a big part of that really is useful (system regulation, extra copies of important genes, etc.)
In an evolutionary viewpoint, why would this 'extra DNA' be still there? Some of my teachers claim that we will lose this over other millions of years, because it seems to do nothing... So according to them, we've been dragging this around for no reason for milions of years already!
41. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:11 AM on Feb 18:
BDB: Let's not conflate micro-evolution with macro-evolution. One does not equal the other. It is the latter that is not empirical.
42. Jo said the following at 11:46 AM on Feb 18:
A small point, which is really just a suggestion that I heard a long time ago -
From the Genesis account, it seems that God created Adam and Eve as adults, fully formed and mature in body and mind. No doubt a modern scientist would have looked at them and guessed their ages at 20 or 30 years, when actually they were only a few minutes old.
Isn't it possible or even quite likely that God did the same thing with the universe itself? Just as he created a adult Adam, perhaps he created an adult earth, fully formed, mature, looking like it was millions of years old when actually it was barely a week?
I know it's another example of making the evidence fit the conclusion, but I still think it's a valid point.
43. Michael said the following at 12:31 PM on Feb 18:
I have often wondered what would have happened if God has created Adam, Eve, and a Scientist (we'll call him Ed) who was of the naturalistic materialism mindset. It's the sixth day of creation week. Ed checks his newly built scientific apparatus. "What?" he exclaims. "According to my findings, all of these rocks show half-life radiation readings equal to what I'd expect of rocks millions of years old!" And he'd be right. Moral: Don't try to read more out of something than what was written into it.
44. Leah said the following at 10:20 PM on Feb 18:
BDB and Val- I'd agree that multi-drug resistance in bacterias and resistance against chemotherapy is not evolution.
It could just be natural selection; survival of the fittest. There were probably resistant bacteria around hundreds of years ago; and when chemo was invented, it killed off most of the unresistant bacteria, leaving the resistant ones to multiply... and so there are now more of them!
Lukas, nobody is saying that the dinosaurs definitely became extinct in the flood. That's just a possibility. And for what it's worth, "modern" insects have been found fossilised in tree sap from the dinosaur ages! I don't think there's anything for the orchard model to explain.
45. Brendan said the following at 3:29 AM on Feb 19:
In response to post 42:
While Adam and Eve had the appearance of age, did they have the appearance of history? For example, did their teeth appear to be worn down, even though they had never chewed any food? Did they have callouses on their feet, even though they had not yet walked? Did they have memories of childhood, of learning all the things that they knew, even though they had only just been created? Obviously we don't know the answer to these questions, since we can't meet Adam and Eve today, and Genesis says nothing on this matter, but if the answer were "yes," would that not seem rather strange?
What if we assume that God created the universe to appear as if it had history, creating light coming from distant stars 6000 years ago, even though a lot of galaxies we have discovered are billions of light years distant? This would imply that astronomical events, such as novae and supernovae that we can measure to be more that 6000 light years distant, never actually happened. God, in creation, would have created a fictional history of the heavens for us to see. For what purpose? Psalm 19 says "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Is the work of God's hands to create fiction? Is the glory of God a lie?
For another discussion on this concept, I'd suggest looking at http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/appearance.html
Actually, look around that whole website for a very good argument for the old earth creation model.
46. Michael said the following at 5:31 PM on Feb 19:
Brendan: Your comment 45 implies that the whole universe was created at one time. Some Christians indeed believe that. However, others don't. Everyone in my church (and indeed, probably nearly everyone in my denomination) holds to the view that creation of our world was a local event. As for the stars mentioned in the record, those could be (1) either our local galaxy (the most interesting option, to me), (2) a perceptual creation, in the sense that God bridged the distance to bring the light of the stars here.
As for your "fiction" argument, (1) it may be irrelevant, as per my point above; (2) God cannot be considered the author of a lie, when He plainly tells the truth. It's the people who DON'T believe God (what He says in Genesis) that would be misled, not the ones who DO. You're trying to make your own conclusions about nature into a "history" or a "story," when in fact you are just observing what is there and inferring all kinds of things according to your own limited knowledge and wisdom. If you want to know the story, read the account from the One who created it.
47. Stefanie said the following at 2:27 AM on Feb 20:
Jethro, post #24:
There is a scientific theory that explains how the 6 days of creation in the Bible equals the 16 billion or so years that scientists say is how old the universe is.
I'll give the general gist of the theory. It's very interesting. (I heard it as a youth camp counselor this past summer, so I don't actually have the information, and I'm giving this explanation from memory)
Scientists discovered this theory, by the way, not Christians...the idea goes that the Universe is expanding - in size, and time is expanding as well. What used to be one second of time, after several years, has multiplied into several million seconds. Scientists have a formula for the rate of time expanding that they can plug numbers into and surprise! the timeline that scientists claim for the creation of different things in the universe matches the Biblical account for each day.
8 billion years = first 24hour period, creation of light, when the big bang happened there was no solid matter, just fragmented light beams.
4 billion years = second 24hour period, creation of sky and presumably earth matter
2 billion years = third 24hour period, vegetation starts to grow on the earth
1 billion years = fourth 24hour period, heavenly bodies
500 million years = fifth 24hour period, birds and sea creatures
250 million years = sixth 24hour period, land creatures, possibly including dinosaurs, but God decided man couldn't rule over, so he killed them off before he created man.
I tried to find the information online. The best articles I found are not written by scientists:
www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html
www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp
www.buzzle.com/editorials/4-22-2006-94124.asp
This book was written by a scientist:
'Genesis and the Big Bang' by Dr Gerald L. Schroeder. It basically uses quantum theory and modern physics and science to show that there is no discrepency between science's version of the beginning and the religious version.
48. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:51 PM on Oct 6:
Thanx. Glad it was helpful.
#5: Just curious, what does Mr. [sic] Sarfati say about the fossil record?
Answer: see the next chapter, "The links are missing"!
#8: both those questions are answered in my co-authored Creation Answers Book:
Chapter 13: How did the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
Chapter 18: How did all the different ‘races’ arise?
#15: See Chapter 6: Humans: Images of God or Advanced Apes?
#32: "One thing the orchard model does not address is the many, many species which have gone extinct."
Actually, I have addressed this in other books, such as my recent By Design: Evidence for nature’s Intelligent Designer—the God of the Bible:
... allegedly 95–99 percent of species have become extinct. However, the known record of extinct and extant species does not support this. The number of fossil species actually found is estimated to be about 250,000, while there are about three million living ‘species,’ or even more, depending on who’s telling the story. But if this >95% claim were correct, we would expect there to be many more fossil species than living ones.
The only plausible explanation is evolutionary bias. For evolution to be true, there would have been innumerable transitional forms between different types of creatures. Therefore, for every known fossil species, many more must have existed to connect it to its ancestors and descendents. This is yet another example of evolutionary conclusions coming before the evidence. Really, the claim is an implicit admission that large numbers of transitional forms are predicted, which heightens the difficulty for evolutionists, given how few there are that even they could begin to claim were candidates.
As for extinctions in general, while ‘mere design’ would have some problems, the biblical model explains them. This is because it includes the Fall and the Flood, and the likely aftermath of the Flood, the Ice Age.