Adventist Online

So I decided to create this thread to debate something which really does not need debating, in the scientific community, however, religious fundamentalism and interpreting the scriptures litterally has halted the evagelically denominations from accepting evolution, as they have accepted most other scientific theories.


Biological evolution, is something beautiful, God did not have to create; He allowed the universe to create itself, of course His hand was guiding the whole process. Think of it as dominoes, God lays down every single domino, and then gently touches one (the cosmological beggining, whatever that was) and then universe begins to exist, it now has physical laws to obey. Galaxies, stars and planets are formed and then Earth. We do not know how life came onto this planet, perhaps through abiogensis (elements and matter becoming life) or through an intelligent being, God or aliens, scientists cannot really explain how life came onto our planet, as of yet.

However it happened, it evolved.


Unfortunately, God did not give me the gift of writing well, so, I will simply copy and past a fabulous article defining evolution, before we get into any detail.


M ost non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986


It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974


One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.

Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."


This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Standard dictionaries are even worse.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers

"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's


These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!

Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!

Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.


Evolution is a simple process, which happens all the time. Getting sick from the flu, is simply the virus mutating and thus causing you to be sick again, which is an example of evolution.

Views: 2015

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Not to mention that, those things are not apposed to God, and are proven solid things that exist in the world as apposed to conjecture, that was origonally started by a raciest, atheist...

Yes indeed. Thank you. And I very much agree -- God is not an 'attention seeker' (in the way that we can be attention seekers), He calls for acknowledgment and for glory, because this is essential for us.

"EVERY good gift... is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights" (Jas 1:17).

Whether it comes through an avowed atheist or through a humble Christian, God is the source, and He shows Himself to be a servant of all.

"We can trace the line of the world's great teachers as far back as human records extend; but the Light was before them. As the moon and the stars [planets] of the solar system shine by the reflected light of the sun, so, as far as their teaching is true, do the world's great thinkers reflect the rays of the Sun of Righteousness. Every gem of thought, every flash of the intellect, is from the Light of the world." (Desire of Ages p.464-465)

 Yes there is a world of difference between the true science of God and man's  fallen foolishness  masquerading as science.

Every good invention has come from God. Man has invented nothing  good on his own. He has copied the principles that already  exist in nature or was given the idea by God. Radar, electricity, flight, all exist in nature. 

It is interesting that man cannot create life. Neither can he even ultimately destroy any substance. He can burn a house down but the house merely changes form. Some of it goes up in smoke. Most of it turns to ashes. Even when man kills an animal. some of the animal evaporates. some is eaten by worms (or man) and is excreted,  and some turns to dust. Every bit of substance God created still exists in one form or another. .

No they are not.. because they believe what God / the Living Word says, over mans conjecture. 

I don't know how one can say His Word is truth, and then read part of it and say it is only theory.. It is either true or it's not..

John 17:17

"Sanctify them through your truth: your word is truth."

James 1:16-18

"Do not err, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures."


  [trooth]  Show IPA
noun, plural truths  [troothztrooths]  Show IPA .
the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:mathematical truths.
the state or character of being true.
actuality or actual existence.
So do you believe what the Bible says, or what man says? The question is that simple.. but both can not be true..

1.) The Bible says God created the earth in six days, and even if you wanted to extend that it could only be extended to 6,000 not 500 Billion..

"with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

2.) The Bible says we were created from the dust, not slime..

3.) Evolution says that animals developed half of what they have as either a defense mechanism, or for attack.. the Bible says there was no death in the beginning.

4.) There is lot's of evidence, so much that it has turned atheists who were once experts in the field of evolution in to Christians, because they found so many discrepancy that intelligent design was the only answer left..

Like the one I gave you the link to which I am guessing you haven't even watched any of..

1.) "- The Bible also states that the earth was without form and void. A blob floating about in space. For how long? No one knows... could have been 500 billion years."

They are claiming that those 5 billion years had animals, and fish.. Void means no life.

2.) "But we as a human species have changed and adapted over the thousands of years we have been alive. we cannot refute that as there is physical evidence of this."

Yes we can, because the change has not been evolution, but devolution.. 

Or bodies / those of animals are smaller, and more defenseless than they have ever been since the beginning of time.. You can actually fit a modern day shark inside the mouth of another shark..

That's not proof of any kind of evolution, it's proof of the decay brought by a sin.. 

3.) "Animals started developing/adapting after the fall of sin. They haven't evolved into a whole new species but have adapted. Also need to consider human interference in a majority of the animals as we started selectively breeding to create new breeds. "

The only thing they have adapted to is a flesh diet in some cases, and more brutal climates.. Not a single feature of the creatures them selves has any proven change what so ever, accept that they are smaller..

4.) Here is the link.


I love science and have no dispute with it.. as long as it is scientific fact, and not conjecture.. The link I gave her is to a series of lectures that are nothing but several hours of pure scientific fact that debunks everything she is saying here..

"They have also adapted physically. Some animals adapted slightly different tails or talons... it cannot be called evolution but adaptations or "survival of the fittest".

They aren't adaptions they were just different animals.. The bible says..

"20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

He did not progress creatures in to existence, he simply spoke them in to existence and they were.. And I have all certainty that God knew what He was doing the first time, and would have no need to change His plans..


"Kristina, there has been adaptation, as best I can tell. For instance, in many cases, northern peoples have lighter skin, while more tropical folks have darker skin"

Evidence? There is none.. Because anything old enough to be conclusive evidence has long since decayed in a grave, and other than that all that can be proven is that God likes verity, and made people of many different skin types, just the same way He made 39 species of sparrow..

All those different types of sparrow are in the parts of the world that's climate they can best tolerate too.. So what is the difference. Many tribes used to be nomadic, because they migrated just like the birds.. The only difference now is that we have heat and air conditioning, and like some birds, there are many people who chose to stay put instead of migrate, because they could handle it..

The only legitimate changes are natural physical responses that are reversible... 

For example a group of scientists noted the the intestinal track if carnivores / omnivores are far longer than that of an herbivore.. 

So they decided to see what would happen if they gave a lion a vegan diet for an extended period of time.. Low and behold the intestinal track shrank, because the body was not over stressed.. 

The true irony is that the research was done so a scientist who was also a christian, could prove to his students that God never intended for there to be death / carnivores, and that many such things we see now are simply side effects of generational illness.. Kind of like how a kid can come out with a completely flat face, because their mother had way too much caffeine.. 

The original Hebrew as I understand it, from Genesis means actual, literal days. Evolution does not work, because in order for it to work, death would have had to exist prior to sin.  So, that leaves you in the quandary.  Do you accept evolution or creation. The two are incompatible.  Now, as to adaptation, we can see that from the curses that hit humanity, and animals due to sin.  If God had not rearranged things to adapt to compensate for what happened after the fall, humanity and animals would have simply gone extinct. 

Adaptation, is actually a gift from God to survive in the harsh environment that sin wrought. 

Further, if there were no adaptation, we would not find such a diversity of animals that can survive in their respective environments.  Also, we would not find such a diversity of racial characteristics in humans.  I suspect none of the races on this planet at the moment reflect whatever Adam and Eve were.  I suspect no race can claim to be superior.

So, adaptation is obvious.  Evolution and Creation; however, cannot logically coexist.  In the same way you cannot have a square circle or "squircle" .

The Big Bang and evolution ARE real but they were carried out by God, says the Pope as he embraces modern science 

  • God created life and allowed it to develop according to His laws, claims Pope
  • Bronze of Benedict XVI was unveiled at Vatican science academy
  • Comes as bishops are bitterly divided over the church's direction

The Big Bang, which scientists believe led to the formation of the universe some 13.8billion years ago, was all part of God's plan, Pope Francis has declared.

The Pope said the scientific account of the beginning of the universe and the development of life through evolution are compatible with the Catholic Church's vision of creation.

He told a meeting of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Sciences: ‘The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.’

But he said Christians should reject the idea that world came into being by chance. Likewise, evolution was all part of God’s plan, he explained.

The development of each creature’s characteristics over millennia ‘does not contrast with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve,’ he said.

Reading Genesis we imagine that God is ‘a wizard with a magic wand’ capable of doing all things, he said.

‘But it is not so. He created life and let each creature develop according to the natural laws which he had given each one.’

Francis praised his predecessor, Benedict, who initiated attempts to shed the Catholic Church’s image of being anti-science, a label that stuck when it condemned the astronomer Galileo to death for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun.

The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism - the belief that God created the world in six days - and says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the way God created the world.

Big Bang needs God': Pope Francis has declared the prehistoric event that most scientists believe was the beginning of the universe was part of God's Plan



Site Sponsors


Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free

USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:


© 2020   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service