What Does Special Creation Mean?

[Jukia]

You asked how I would define "special creation".

Under the circumstances I would avoid using the term, because biologists like Johnny have included the bogus addon of "fixity of species", and this means that valid communications will be garbled if "special creation" is used.

As far as "fundies" are concerned it is probably a mixed bag, and I have no idea how many include the bogus "fixity of species" and how many don't.

Your definition appears to omit the bogus "fixity of species".

Correct?

Telling me why you disagree with Johnny's definition does not answer my question.
My understanding of special creation never gets to fixity of species. It stops at God pointing His finger at some point in time and creating the universe out of nothing. Whether species are fixed or not really makes no difference if you accept my definition you are therefore ignoring all science, so who cares.

But your definition is...

 

[noguru]

You asked how I would define "special creation".

Under the circumstances I would avoid using the term, because biologists like Johnny have included the bogus addon of "fixity of species", and this means that valid communications will be garbled if "special creation" is used.

As far as "fundies" are concerned it is probably a mixed bag, and I have no idea how many include the bogus "fixity of species" and how many don't.

Your definition appears to omit the bogus "fixity of species".

Correct?

Bob, if you avoid using the term, why did you create a thread asking people to define it? Is this the point of this thread; "That we should all join you in avoiding use of this terminology"?

 

[noguru]

Telling me why you disagree with Johnny's definition does not answer my question.
My understanding of special creation never gets to fixity of species. It stops at God pointing His finger at some point in time and creating the universe out of nothing. Whether species are fixed or not really makes no difference if you accept my definition you are therefore ignoring all science, so who cares.

But your definition is...

Actually Bob, anyone who rejects the naturalistic single common ancestor model of origins and accepts the supernatural creation of multiple kinds model of origins employs the idea of "fixity of kinds" to a degree. I trust I do not have to explain to you how this is so. Is the point of this thread to replace fixity of species with fixity of kinds when we define special creation?

 

[bob b]

Actually Bob, anyone who rejects the naturalistic single common ancestor model of origins and accepts the supernatural creation of multiple kinds model of origins employs the idea of "fixity of kinds" to a degree. I trust I do not have to explain to you how this is so. Is the point of this thread to replace fixity of species with fixity of kinds when we define special creation?

Since nobody is ever going to be able to define the original Biblical "kinds" in our lifetime, if ever, the question is moot.

But certainly "fixity of species" is bogus considering that determining what is a "species" is largely subjective. However, it is a useful term when one biologist talks to another because it gives both of them a better idea of what specific characteristics (what specific creature) they are talking about.

How those specific characteristics came about is the subject of the dispute.

I can think of three possible mechanisms:

1) sexual teproduction and its analog in asexual creatures,

2) random mutations, which play a minor role in my opinion and mostly a deteterious one at that, and

3) non- random mutations, which implies some sort of built-in mechanism, and which will be difficult to determine considering the sophistication and complexity of even the simplist of cells.

I would guess that the majority of variation we see in nature is due to sexual reproduction, which operates very reliably and very rapidly. Thus, 4400 years would be plenty of time to generate the variation we see in nature today and 1600 (or 2600) years prior to the Flood would be adequate to generate the variation we see in the fossil record.

 

[noguru]

Since nobody is ever going to be able to define the original Biblical "kinds" in our lifetime, if ever, the question is moot.

But certainly "fixity of species" is bogus considering that determining what is a "species" is largely subjective. However, it is a useful term when one biologist talks to another because it gives both of them a better idea of what specific characteristics (what specific creature) they are talking about.

How those specific characteristics came about is the subject of the dispute.

I can think of three possible mechanisms:

1) sexual teproduction and its analog in asexual creatures,

2) random mutations, which play a minor role in my opinion and mostly a deteterious one at that, and

3) non- random mutations, which implies some sort of built-in mechanism, and which will be difficult to determine considering the sophistication and complexity of even the simplist of cells.

I would guess that the majority of variation we see in nature is due to sexual reproduction, which operates very reliably and very rapidly. Thus, 4400 years would be plenty of time to generate the variation we see in nature today and 1600 (or 2600) years prior to the Flood would be adequate to generate the variation we see in the fossil record.

But if you can't specify the biological meaning of the Biblical use of "kind", or determine the exact number and characteristics of the kinds that were on the arc (you made this statement in another thread), then how can you determine that 4400 years is enough time to produce the biodiversity we see today from the kinds that were on the arc?

 

[Jukia]

I am interested in getting opinions on the meaning of "special creation" and what support there is for the various viewpoints.

The reason for my question is that Ernst Mayr in his book "What Evolution Is" gave a definition and Julian Huxley before him did likewise and in both cases they seemed to assume that it means that the first lifeforms were created at the beginning and have never changed since then.

Does anyone here believe that is a good definition of the term?

I repeat the opening post. I have asked bob b in this thread for his definition of "special creation" but have not seen it yet. Instead I get:

Since nobody is ever going to be able to define the original Biblical "kinds" in our lifetime, if ever, the question is moot.
But certainly "fixity of species" is bogus considering that determining what is a "species" is largely subjective. However, it is a useful term when one biologist talks to another because it gives both of them a better idea of what specific characteristics (what specific creature) they are talking about.

How those specific characteristics came about is the subject of the dispute.

I can think of three possible mechanisms:

1) sexual teproduction and its analog in asexual creatures,

2) random mutations, which play a minor role in my opinion and mostly a deteterious one at that, and

3) non- random mutations, which implies some sort of built-in mechanism, and which will be difficult to determine considering the sophistication and complexity of even the simplist of cells.

I would guess that the majority of variation we see in nature is due to sexual reproduction, which operates very reliably and very rapidly. Thus, 4400 years would be plenty of time to generate the variation we see in nature today and 1600 (or 2600) years prior to the Flood would be adequate to generate the variation we see in the fossil record.

in which we do NOT get bob b's definition. Instead we get his opinion that the vast amount of biological evidence about evolution is pretty worthless and that he, the "systems engineer" seems to know more than all those thousands of working biologists.
Really interesting how just a few thousand years can allow sexual reproduction to provide variation but millions of years are not sufficient to provide for mutations and natural selection to provide the same.

And claiming that

Since nobody is ever going to be able to define the original Biblical "kinds" in our lifetime, if ever, the question is moot.

strikes me as a real cop out. Why is this issue not a hot topic for YEC scientist research? Oh, wait, I know. They don't do any research, my bad, silly me.

 

[Jukia]

But if you can't specify the biological meaning of the Biblical use of "kind", or determine the exact number and characteristics of the kinds that were on the arc (you made this statement in another thread), then how can you determine that 4400 years is enough time to produce the biodiversity we see today from the kinds that were on the arc?

Because there is no other solution to the problem. The Fludd happened, it was about 4400 years ago. Either all the extant air breathing animals were on the ark or he is stuck with the kinds. As a guess there was a dog kind and a cat kind for example. But was there a really big cat kind and a small cat kind? How do we go from lion and tiger size to my 6 lb cat in 4400 years???

 

[bob b]

I repeat the opening post. I have asked bob b in this thread for his definition of "special creation" but have not seen it yet. Instead I get:
in which we do NOT get bob b's definition.

If biologists would drop the bogus "fixity of species" then all parties could use the same deinition of "special creation", which is what you defined: God created multiple kinds of creatures in the first 6 days of creation. But if they don't then I prefer to avoid a term which means different things to different groups of people.

Instead we get his opinion that the vast amount of biological evidence about evolution is pretty worthless and that he, the "systems engineer" seems to know more than all those thousands of working biologists.

As I showed in another thread most biologists have rejected "special creation" (including Darwin and Ernst Mayr), because they erroneously thought that it included "fixity of species". We can excuse their error because many theologians and denominations have taught (erroneously) "fixity of species".

Really interesting how just a few thousand years can allow sexual reproduction to provide variation but millions of years are not sufficient to provide for mutations and natural selection to provide the same.

Random mutations among genomes having millions or billions of bases would obviously require millions of years. Sexual reproduction is millions of times faster.

I have taken a lot of time to answer your questions because some people are slow learners and/or have weak reasoning powers.

 

[Jukia]

As I showed in another thread most of them rejected "special creation" (ibncluding Darwin and Ernst Mayr), because they erroneously thought that it included "fixity of species". Their excuse is that many theologians and denominations have taught (erroneously) "fixity of species".

QUOTE]

I do not know why Darwin and/or Mayr rejected special creation but my guess is it has less to do with fixity of species than with the concept that the earth is only about 6000 years old and therefore seems to require supernatural creation is just totally absurd.

I would take more time to reply to your comments but some people are just to incapable of understanding the evidence.

 

[noguru]

Because there is no other solution to the problem. The Fludd happened, it was about 4400 years ago. Either all the extant air breathing animals were on the ark or he is stuck with the kinds. As a guess there was a dog kind and a cat kind for example. But was there a really big cat kind and a small cat kind? How do we go from lion and tiger size to my 6 lb cat in 4400 years???

Of course there is another solution. But Bob has ruled that one out because of his interpretation of Genesis. I am just trying to get Bob to be a little more specific about his interpretation of Genesis.

Also going from a large cat to a small cat in 4400 years is not that much of a problem. Through selective breeding humans have produced very small dogs from large wolves in a few thousand years. I am sure Bob see this as evidence that supports his model, despite the fact that the level of biodiversity produced by nature alone is much is much slower than that produced by human interaction.

Another interesting point is that smaller cats kill their prey in a different way than lager cats. Large cats go for the jugular and corotic artery whereas smaller cats disembowl their prey. An interesting path for research that might help strengthen Bob's postion would be to decide what the common ancestor of all cats was (on the arc) and how such behavioral differences might have occured and when. Of course I highly doubt that Bob has any interest in answering these questions. He already knows the truth.

 

[Jukia]

Another interesting point is that smaller cats kill their prey in a different way than lager cats. Large cats go for the jugular and corotic artery whereas smaller cats disembowl their prey. An interesting path for research that might help strengthen Bob's postion would be to decide what the common ancestor of all cats was (on the arc) and how such behavioral differences might have occured and when. Of course I highly doubt that Bob has any interest in answering these questions. He already knows the truth.

Interesting comment on how cats kill. Our cat is a mucho runty Bengal, they are supposed to be large with really neato spots. Well, she is about 6.5 pounds with no spots. However she is a great mouser. I came into the living room one morning, barefooted, and stepped on what I thought was a cat toy. Nope, just the front end of a deal Emma kill. Gross to step on, but then I had to go looking for the back end.

 

[bob b]

Also going from a large cat to a small cat in 4400 years is not that much of a problem. Through selective breeding humans have produced very small dogs from large wolves in a few thousand years. I am sure Bob see this as evidence that supports his model, despite the fact that the level of biodiversity produced by nature alone is much is much slower than that produced by human interaction.

I am sure you are aware that even evolutionists recognize that diversity happens very rapidly after a reduction (e.g. after a catastrophe) until the ecosystem becomes stabilized. Thus, when starting from a small number of kinds during creation week and continuing for years prior to the Flood, nature would generate a great amount of variety. The same effect would occur after the Flood when the variety ahd been greatly reduced, almost like starting over with creation week.

 

[Jukia]

I am sure you are aware that even evolutionists recognize that diversity happens very rapidly after a reduction (e.g. after a catastrophe) until the ecosystem becomes stabilized. Thus, when starting from a small number of kinds during creation week and continuing for years prior to the Flood, nature would generate a great amount of variety. The same effect would occur after the Flood when the variety ahd been greatly reduced, almost like starting over with creation week.

My guess is that it was the evolutionary biologists who recognized this early on, not a YEC'er.

And I think your statement "diversity happens" is confusing. What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that the provision of slightly different niches allows for selection of certain mutations or are you suggesting something else???

 

[bob b]

My guess is that it was the evolutionary biologists who recognized this early on, not a YEC'er.

And I think your statement "diversity happens" is confusing. What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that the provision of slightly different niches allows for selection of certain mutations or are you suggesting something else???

You seem to be "hung up" on the idea of random mutations being an important mechanism in creating rapid diversity after a disturbance of the ecosystem. This is really a dumb idea.

 

[noguru]

You seem to be "hung up" on the idea of random mutations being an important mechanism in creating rapid diversity after a disturbance of the ecosystem. This is really a dumb idea.

How is it "dumb", Bob? What criteria do you use to decide if something is "dumb"?

I would also like to point that any idea that is clever, is not necessarily true.

 

[Jukia]

You seem to be "hung up" on the idea of random mutations being an important mechanism in creating rapid diversity after a disturbance of the ecosystem. This is really a dumb idea.

But the concept that malaria or VD is the result of deleterious mutations in previously "good" organisms as you seem to have posted on another thread, is not. Wow.
But it does not really matter because your concept of a global flood, an ark, etc about 4400 years ago is just so incredibly short of evidence of any sort that---oh well.
Learn some science bob b.

 

[noguru]

I am sure you are aware that even evolutionists recognize that diversity happens very rapidly after a reduction (e.g. after a catastrophe) until the ecosystem becomes stabilized. Thus, when starting from a small number of kinds during creation week and continuing for years prior to the Flood, nature would generate a great amount of variety. The same effect would occur after the Flood when the variety ahd been greatly reduced, almost like starting over with creation week.

So the variety was there before the flood, and then reproduced after the flood again? So then according to your model, variety is not the result of "a loss of information"? All the information must have been there on the kinds on the arc? Do you think it is possible that any kinds from the arc became extinct, because when they got off the arc they either did not have enough food or became prey to other animals from the arc?

Also it is important to note that you are using your conclusion to support the logic of your conclusion. If you are going to claim that there was a global flood that wiped out many species but left enough "information" of kinds in extant DNA, you must have some corroborating evidence. Does the fossil record support the idea that before the flood there were many species of of say cats, then after the flood there was only a few, and then later there were many again?

 

[noguru]

My guess is that it was the evolutionary biologists who recognized this early on, not a YEC'er.

And I think your statement "diversity happens" is confusing. What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that the provision of slightly different niches allows for selection of certain mutations or are you suggesting something else???

I think Bob is claiming that all the genetic information necessary was there on the arc? How it got there is still a mystery, and I am waiting for some evidence that supports this conclusion.

 

[noguru]

So now we are off on a tangent. I think it is because Bob found it necessary to give his unsupported claim the status of "truthful proclamation". Let's backup a little. Bob, can you give your scientific definition of "special creation" so that we can analyze it and determine whether it is accurate?

Or was the purpose of your thread to shoot down other people's definitions that you already find to be inaccurate?

Bob has made the claim that the clause fixity of species is an unwarranted part of the definition for special creation. He has also agreed in part that it is more appropriate to replace fixity of species with fixity of kinds. Although he seems to have some reservation about defining the term kind in a scientific way so that it can be analysed by that discipline. I believe the reservation is due to the fact that the idea special creation remains an unscientific idea. There are two possible reasons for this. Either it is inherently unscientific or those who use it as an explanation for origins are not using it to do science. I will postpone my judgement on this issue until I have more information.

 

[bob b]

So now we are off on a tangent. I think it is because Bob found it necessary to give his unsupported claim the status of "truthful proclamation". Let's backup a little. Bob, can you give your scientific definition of "special creation" so that we can analyze it and determine whether it is accurate?

What ever gave you the idea that "special creation" is a scientific term?

Or was the purpose of your thread to shoot down other people's definitions that you already find to be inaccurate?

The purpose was to try to clear away the fog surrounding this term.

Bob has made the claim that the clause fixity of species is an unwarranted part of the definition for special creation. He has also agreed in part that it is more appropriate to replace fixity of species with fixity of kinds. Although he seems to have some reservation about defining the term kind in a scientific way so that it can be analysed by that discipline. I believe the reservation is due to the fact that the idea special creation remains an unscientific idea.

It is oviously a religious term.

There are two possible reasons for this. Either it is inherently unscientific or those who use it as an explanation for origins are not using it to do science. I will postpone my judgement on this issue until I have more information.

What more can be said?