No conflict Evolution and Genesis

I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. ANY school of thought which has ANY supernatural mechanisms as a means is inherently disqualified to be a scientific discipline. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.
The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
…The more famous subject of Darwin’s uniformitarianism, usually termed “evolution,” comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasi﷓scientific manner. 128
Evolution was, in its conception, an applied extension to biology of the school of thought known as uniformitarianism. Evolution itself is a logical explanation of the information that it correlates, and the evidence of the appropriate scientific fields has consistently verified the mechanisms necessary for substantiating the validity of evolution. Evolution, while it is not a proven process in the strictest sense, is completely valid in its viability and is the only logical process (i.e., one amenable to scientific analysis) so tenable.
Modern humanists, increasingly anti﷓Genesis in outlook, were growing in numbers and in positions of importance, especially in academic circles. To Voltaire, for instance, any mention of the Flood was offensive; it implied too much of God, or of judgment, or of the Judeo﷓Christian heritage. Despite evidence left by fossils and sedimentary strata, as well as literary heritages, a Biblical Flood was taboo to him, and to many others.
Voltaire was somewhat typical of the anti﷓spiritual humanists of his day. He was thoroughly anti﷓Christian and anti﷓Judaistic. He felt that the burial of the Bible in general and the Genesis record in particular, would be a great service to mankind.130
The human error in the promotion and promulgation of evolution was, and still is, of two aspects: Firstly, as we shall see later on in this chapter, the school of thought that gave rise to the theory of evolution- Uniformitarianism﷓ is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism was founded on insufficient and incomplete data, and the motives for its adoption were more anti﷓Genesis than they were pro﷓scientific.
The second mistake, resulting from the same anti﷓spiritual motivation as the first, was in the use of evolution as one pillar of a mechanistic explanation capable of circumventing the problem of first cause, i.e., the origination of everything. Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.
The only distinct meaning of the word “natural” is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as such requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.132
The only distinct meaning of the word “natural” is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as such requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.132
The author of the above is referring to the implications of natural as is connotated by the term “natural selection.” The very working mechanism of evolution implies intelligence behind such a process no less so than does that of a supernatural divine creation.
I see no good reason why the views given in this volume (the Origin of Species and the Descent of Mari) should shock the religious feelings of anyone… A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as liable a conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few original forms capable of self development into other and needful forms as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws. 133
(These are Charles Darwin’s own words here)
The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the “pro-Creation” argument.
The orthodox Christians escaped the greater error altogether; but, nevertheless gave clear testimony to the influence of the popular belief in their interpretation of the commencing chapter of Genesis. For they made the first verse signify the creation of a confused mass of elements, out of which the heavens and earth were formed during the six days, understanding the next sentence to be a description of this crude matter before God shaped it. And their opinion has descended to our days. But it does not appear to be substantiated by Scripture, as we shall presently see, and the guile of the serpent may be detected in its results. For how great a contest has it provoked between the Church and the World!
For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.
Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139
Today, to be pro﷓spiritual and to appreciate the Judeo﷓Christian heritage, one must, it seems, be anti﷓scientific. This is a common consensus; it is a mirage.140
To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church’s defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
A Message for the Human Race

Abby Hafer: Animals That Shouldn’t Exist, According to Intelligent Design (AHA Conference 2016) American Humanist Published on Jun 30, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f31AoXFAWls Abby Hafer is an author, scientist and public speaker. Her book debunking Intelligent Design, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer—Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not became a #1 bestseller on Amazon in the category of Theism. Abby Hafer is not averse to irony. Her public speaking has taken her all over the United States and she has given many radio interviews, including appearing on NPR and WBAI. Her scientific career includes a doctorate in zoology from Oxford University, many research projects in physiology, and a stint monitoring fish populations on the Bering Sea. More recently, she published “No Data required: Why Intelligent Design Is Not Science", which was published in The American Biology Teacher. She teaches human anatomy and physiology at Curry College and lives in Massachusetts with her husband, the astronomy writer Alan MacRobert.
Abby has a wonderful sense of humor and gives an Awesome little talk, highly recommended for the curious.
Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.
Hell it doesn't lie within the realm of the human the mind! It certainly doesn't lie within the realm of ancient tribal texts. Incidentally, here's cool little video
Your 500-million year Family Tree - Published on Sep 22, 2017 by Palaeocast - Talk by Dr Joseph Keating Recorded at the British Science Festival 2017, Brighton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usiPFZ352Dg

I used to think that there was no conflict either. I would read Genesis, “And God said Let the Earth bring forth living things…” and think that that was a perfect, concise description of Evolution.
But that only works if you allow yourself to interpret the Bible figuratively or metaphorically. Some things the Bible says are simply not true. The Bible claims that there is a firmament (a solid barrier) in the sky, and above that barrier are “storehouses” holding rain and snow.

Keep reading, it gets worse. It says you shouldn’t eat shrimp. Why? That’s just mean.

I agree, no conflict! There is no way facts and truth can conflict with archaic fantasy tales.

Quantum Darwinism
‘‘Quantum Darwinism is a new theory recently
developed by physicist Wojciech Zurek . . .’’
‘’ The new theory of Quantum Darwinism may provide such
explanatory power at a deeper, pre-biological phase of our
emergent reality. It may provide a key explanation of how the
classical macroscopic world containing all objects with which
we are familiar may have arisen from the weird
quantum world of particle physics underlying it.’’

http://www.universaldarwinism.com/quantum%20darwinism.htm

But shrimps so good. Especially sauteed with a little garlic, finished with some lemon.

So what if they resemble maggots and grubs, tastes better than chicken.

Oh, oh

The resulting theory of Quantum Darwinism is relatively straightforward:
  1.  Human measurements are only one, rather unusual, means of forcing decoherence of a superposed or entangled quantum state into simpler states. The primary mechanism causing decoherence is the many types of interactions that the quantum system has with its environment. Typically quantum systems experience a vast number of such environmental interactions selectively destroying entangled quantum states ...</blockquote>
    

demos, I see what you mean.

According to WIKI: Quantum Darwinism is a theory claiming to explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum world as due to a process of Darwinian natural selection; where the many possible quantum states are selected against in favor of a stable pointer state. It was proposed in 2003 by Wojciech Zurek and a group of collaborators including Ollivier, Poulin, Paz and Blume-Kohout. The development of the theory is due to the integration of a number of Zurek’s research topics pursued over the course of twenty-five years including: pointer states, einselection and decoherence.

A study in 2010 is claimed to provide preliminary supporting evidence of quantum Darwinism with scars of a quantum dot"becoming a family of mother-daughter states" indicating they could “stabilize into multiple pointer states.”[1] However, the claimed evidence is also subject to the circularity criticism by Kastner (see Implications below). Basically, the de facto phenomenon of decoherence that underlies the claims of Quantum Darwinism may not really arise in a unitary-only dynamics. Thus, even if there is decoherence, this does not show that macroscopic pointer states naturally emerge without some form of collapse.


The human mindscape is capable of way more than the physical world will abide.

Speaking of the physical world - I believe here’s one key to appreciating the Pageant of Evolution.

Been searching for the origin of this concept for a while now, so happy I found it, i gotta share.

 

Besides I believe it’s another key concept necessary before one can make sense out of evolution’s drama.
<p style=“text-align: left;”></p>
<p style=“text-align: left;”>https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1978/mitchell/biographical/</p>
<p style=“text-align: left;”>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell</p>
 

@pgardner2358 I don’t have 17 hours to read your whole post, but the bottom line is this: the Creation story in Genesis was understood to be metaphorical by the Jews who wrote it. Biblical literalism (Creationism) is a relatively new interpretation that developed in the 1800s as a reaction against scientific discovery.

Pgardner,

The chicken did not evolve. The wheat and other cereal grains along with garden vegetables and nuts also did not evolve. And neither did the cow. Nor did the sheep or the dog along with the human. What is missing in plain site is the fact that when the bible was put together by the Romans, certain sciences were removed from written history because they conflicted with the new deity.

There are still stories in older religions like the Rig Vega about genesis and how this came about and for what reasons. It simply boils down to man domesticating plants and animals. Basically, ninety percent of the protein consumed by humans today did not evolve naturally by evolution. With the foundation of knowledge came the Age of Domestication.

The Israelites were following the Egyptian religion along with older Canaan religion when the Hyksos arrived and added a change. Moses left the Middle Kingdom of Goshen and formed changes in the religion. The Children of Abraham religions took over and again added changes. Remember religion stories were mostly verbal. The Laws of God were written down as they were the datum point of the civilization. Genesis in the bible was put together and in writing for the first time under orders of the ruling Assyrians in a village where the captive Israelites were living near Babylon. If they wanted to keep their religion, it had to fit in with the Assyrian accepted religious thinking.

Egyptian and the Assyrians were two of the biggest empire and were at war. Assyrians had all the leaders of Israel at Babylon. Therefore, the people of Israel could not join Egypt in the fight against the Assyrians. Many of the Egyptian influences in the religions of the Children of Abraham had to be removed from the religion to be accepted by the Assyrians.

The Assyrians made peace with Egypt, but leadership battles of the Assyrians brought down the Assyrian Empire. The Israelites returned to Israel with Genesis in their religion. It also was now compatible with all the other religions that had been under Assyrian control. The Egyptian influence that was still being practiced by the general population living in Israel did not change the written Babylonian Talmud because the Persians now ruled Egypt. The good thing was the Persians were more religious tolerate and did not change Israel’s religion.

Point being. If Domestication is looked at as a branch of Evolution. And it is understood how and why Genesis was put together the way it was. Then there is no conflict.

Domestication is evolution. You can’t cross-breed if there isn’t DNA and inheritance. It’s as natural as plants evolving to attract bees.

Domestication is evolution.
Yup. Artificial selection is still selection.

The only difference is that it’s humans choosing which genes are selected for, not survival rates out in the wild.

Evolution’s almost too simple to understand. Lots of people think it’s this complicated scientific thing, when it’s only genes getting passed on in differing rates. Every aspect of it is completely obvious once you hear the explanation for it.

Evolution’s almost too simple to understand.

I recently heard someone’s deconversion story on a podcast. They said, when you strip away all the complex chemistry we now know, the idea of evolution is pretty simple. This is basically what you find in Darwin’s work.

Lausten - Domestication is evolution. You can’t cross-breed if there isn’t DNA and inheritance. It’s as natural as plants evolving to attract bees.

Domestication is mankind changing earth for the good for the human race.

We would not have wheat if not for domestication.

We could not have the breeds of dogs today if not for domestication.

The Vietnam tree bird would not be the chicken if not for domestication.

There are examples of natural crossbreeding caused by domestication. Several strains of mice as an example. But nothing of scope or contributing to the protein of mankind. Unless you like the flavor of mice.

Second point, Domestication used several pathways. Cross breeding was a major one. Another one was Selective Breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans use animal breeding and plant breeding to selectively develop particular phenotypic traits (characteristics) by choosing which typically animal or plant males and females will sexually reproduce and have offspring together.

This is not natural evolution. This is controlled evolution by the human race.

Lausten, my view of EVOLUTION is a system of Natural Selection. DOMESTICATION is a system of Un-Natural Selection. The DNA will act the same in both pathways.

One example is the olive. The natural olive tree was very low productivity and only produced every other year. Not a real useful item for mankind. The domesticated hybrid olive had to be grafted and had high productivity and changed the history of mankind. Evolution could not do plant grafting and selective farming. Today we could say - wild animals are from evolution. Tame animals are from domestication.

Mike Yohe said,

This is not natural evolution. This is controlled evolution by the human race.


The evolution is natural, the selection for domestic traits is made by humans. No big deal

Termites have indoor mushroom gardens which feed the entire hive. Domesticated mushrooms selected by termites.

Ants have outdoor aphid herds which provide aphid nectar to the ant’s diet. Domesticated aphid herds selected and protected by ants.

The Human microbiome evolved as 10 % human cells and 90% domesticated bacterial cells. Who domesticated who?

Without the bacteria the humans die!

Oh lordy. It just occurred to me. The bacteria! The bacteria are the “Intelligent Designers”.

Alrightie than. Now you’re ready for David Quammen — The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life