|Juice Eggs McKenna |
So God created the Earth and all life and then evolution kicked in and things started changing. It's a step in the right direction I guess.
ID/YEC proponents have long had to admit that microevolution occurs. What ID/YEC proponents dispute is the claim that macroevolution can occur.
According to Dr. Hamm et al, the huge variety of species on earth, and the apparent infeasibility of the "two of every kind" Ark narrative, can be explained through microevolution and a more sophisticated reading of the Biblical word "kind". Kinds, they say, are not species, but rather groups of genetically-related species that (to a certain extent) can all interbreed. God created a number of kinds - a proto-horse and a proto-dog, for example - and it was two of each of these, not two of each modern species, that were taken by Noah onto the Ark. After the flood, the surviving proto-animals microevolved into all the species we see today - the proto-horse family turned into horses, zebras, donkeys, the proto-dog family, into dogs, wolves, coyotes, and so on.
That's just Hamm, of course. There are other Creationist theories, too - the theory you mention, Mr McKenna, is (if I remember correctly, I could be be wrong) the one which the Catholic Church currently accepts. In fact, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, anti-Darwinian Christians often ascribed to macro-evolutionary theories! For them, the most controversial point about Darwin's theory was not that evolution occurred, but rather, that the mechanism Darwin proposed was blind, anti-progressive, and (ironically!) not "evolutionary" enough!
...So some of these creationists "kind" of believe in evolution, but aren't willing to carry that thinking a step further (i.e. ungulate "kind"; mammal "kind", etc.)
Yeah, more or less.
Young Earth Creationists of the Hamm variety agree that sexual reproduction can lead to adaptions in animals; given enough time, a wolf could be bred to become a pug, for example, or bacteria could develop a resistance to drugs.
The big problem Hammists have regarding Darwinian evolution (besides the need to uphold Biblical literalism), is the Hammist's claim that random genetic mutations cannot introduce "new information", and thus cannot result in increased complexity (a claim which most scientists dispute). So a simple piece of bacteria might become a different sort of bacteria due to genetic mutations, but its descendants could never adapt themselves into a more "complex" life-form, like frogs, and would certainly never evolve into a human being.
Yep, one of the big problems for Biblical literalism! This isn't so much an issue for Biblical non-literalists (like Catholics, who rarely give a damn what the Bible says), but Young Earth Creationists understand that they need a young earth to keep the Biblical narrative intact - if it takes longer than a few thousand years to happen, either God did it, or it couldn't have happened.
Were you ever into ID, Cena?
Very breifly. I grew up Catholic, but was surrounded by Baptist friends and influences.
What about all of those sinful fish who weren't affected by the flood?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|