Is there any biological evidence of special creation?

[McCulloch]

Is there any biological evidence of special creation?

God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, livestock, creeping things, and animals of the earth after their kind;” and it was so. God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good.
God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;” and it was so.

This seems to indicate, whether you are a literalist or not, that god created humans distinctly and separately from the other animals. However, the fact remains that genetically we are little more than bald chimps - chimpanzees are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas. If taxonomists could get around the political resistance,

there are not one but three species of genus Homo on Earth today: the common chimpanzee, Homo troglodytes; the pygmy chimpanzee, Homo paniscus; and the third chimpanzee or human chimpanzee, Homo sapiens." (p.21)

The biological evidence points to our common evolution (or creation, if you will) with the chimpanzees, separate from the gorillas, gabons and monkeys. Is there any biological evidence of special creation for homo sapiens?

[QED]

I am a little surprised at this post from you QED. I would have thought there were more than enough concrete examples of errancy in the Bible without having to resort to speculative ones.

Well I don't think it does any harm to keep people thinking about such things. My motive for raising this was to show how biological evidence can be examined and can reveal a story about our origins. With proper detective work a remarkable amount of past history can be brought to light.

Sodium (in salt) as well as other electrolytes is needed for conduction and is readily available in the environment. It is also fatal if not excreted so as to keep the body in balance. The eyes require an isotonic solution to keep them moist, salt is easily replaced and is as good a choice as any and better than most. Salt also changes the point at which the water evaporates and so also stops the eyes drying too quickly, it also gives tears and sweat an antiseptic quality. Salty sweat is probably more effective at lowering body temperature due to the evaporation of salty water. I can't imagine how sweating would help you cool down if you lived in the sea. The webbed fingers in humans are due to the incomplete separation of the fingers in the womb.

Yes, but it is from comparative biology that we can extract information about the origins of particular species and the differences between us and other land mammals is very distinct in the areas that I mentioned.

[israeltour]

But what is a soul? Neither Biologists or surgeons have ever encountered or interfered with one to my knowledge. And all this talk of redemption is a language that you speak that makes no sense to me. The sin that you think of as original is simply our evolutionary heritage in my native tongue.

My prayer is that you will understand it one day.

Might I suggest that you examine your reply to me above and reassess how it comes across.

I am genuinely interested in the relationship between the major components of your faith and our knowledge of biology and I would like to discover how you reconcile the two. Seeing as how sin appears to be a natural by-product of evolution then I think it deserves to be discussed.

I know. It sounds condescending. I never mean it to. If it helps, I never mean it like, "Wow, you're lost., and only the amazing Jesus can help you now." I have never meant that. It's more like, "I hope to see you with a deep and rewarding relationship with your creator one day." And I even realize that this implies I think you're missing something that I have no right to impose on you, especially if it doesn't exist... I guess that assessment would even be accurate, but honestly I mean no offense by it. After all, if I am truly a Christian, and truly attempting to live as Christ would have me, shouldn't I pray for you? You should consider me a hipocrite if I don't!

As for sin being a natural by-product of evolution, it depends on how you couch it. Killing others could be seen as a by-product of evolution, but it's never a sin when animals do it. So whether it's a by-product of evolution could depend on whether you're referring to the action, or ones judgement of the action. I am more than happy to explore this further... perhaps in a new thread? Just keep in mind, I cannot justify it for you. I can only represent what I believe is true. I accept ahead of time that we will not come to agreement necessarily, but mutual understanding and respect is definitely a worthy goal.

[QED]

I know. It sounds condescending. I never mean it to. If it helps, I never mean it like, "Wow, you're lost., and only the amazing Jesus can help you now." I have never meant that. It's more like, "I hope to see you with a deep and rewarding relationship with your creator one day." And I even realize that this implies I think you're missing something that I have no right to impose on you, especially if it doesn't exist... I guess that assessment would even be accurate, but honestly I mean no offense by it. After all, if I am truly a Christian, and truly attempting to live as Christ would have me, shouldn't I pray for you? You should consider me a hipocrite if I don't!

I don't mean to nit-pick your attempt at an apology, but notice how you logically worked your way through to having to pray for me even though you knew it was condescending and ill received. This is a problem that Christianity presents by defining itself to be the only permissible world-view.

As for sin being a natural by-product of evolution, it depends on how you couch it. Killing others could be seen as a by-product of evolution, but it's never a sin when animals do it. So whether it's a by-product of evolution could depend on whether you're referring to the action, or ones judgement of the action. I am more than happy to explore this further... perhaps in a new thread

Well, we are looking for biological evidence of special creation in this topic. The myth of exemptionalism (the belief that humans belong to a different order of things from the rest of nature) has serious ramifications for the world as a whole. So for me it is one of the most important issues that can be debated.

I cannot understand how anyone capable of counting on their fingers and toes cannot see how very un-special we humans are. Mapping the claim of special creation onto the best Anthropological data available suggests that, at most, god remodelled some pre-existing hominid species into homo sapiens (pick a species from the chart below -- however much you choose to compress the vertical time axis)


(from the Fossil Hominids FAQ in the Talk Origins archive)

But our basic bodies are still formed from the same sort of limbs and organs that have comprised all forms of animal life throughout the history of the Planet.

A significant consequence of all this is that it is folly to suggest that we are liberated from the instinctive behavior patterns of other animals while all the while acknowledging greed, lust, murder etc. as being human sin. How can it be justified as anything different when it looks, smells and feels just like the counterpart in the wild? Of course it is essential for Christianity to perform this justification because otherwise it reveals the falsehood of much of the foundational scriptures. But such an elaborate rationalization is unnecessary if we appreciate that our instincts and urges are exactly the same as those we observe in the rest of nature.

Of course acceptance of this is doubly problematical in the eyes of those who perceive an infringement of their dignity, but there it is. Biological evidence speaks only of humans as survival units equipped with the same sort of assets found in all living creatures by varying degrees.

[otseng]

Regarding the first point, it is inaccurate to say that animals have ultimately resulted in mankind. Evolution doesn't work that way.

I don't think I've ever stated this.

However your claim that it was "setup" is unsupported.

At this point, yes, it has not been supported yet. But, it is in my queue of threads to be started...

Humans are able to understand the cosmos for the same reason that we are able to understand anything else - our brain size.

There are other animals (elephants, whales) that have a brain size that is larger than humans. Yet, none of them even closely approach our level of intellect. So, brain size alone explains little.

Unless science is a big lie, other non-human hominids also used fire.

Non-human hominids is probably a topic for another thread. But, beyond the debateable transitional hominids, it is clear that no other animals can manipulate fire.

Why would all animals that have originated through natural means ultimately result in mankind that is predisposed to believing in the supernatural?

Because, as I said before, we didn't evolve intelligence. We've evolved stupidity.

If you're going to use evolution as your argument, then are you saying that natural selection selects out those who do not have a predisposition to the supernatural?

Attempting to mate with a female if you are not the alpha male is a crime in animal society.

"Crime in animal society"? I'm not sure what you mean here.

I don't think we have any way of knowing that. And if we encountered a sophisticated alien race it would be proven wrong.

It's a big "if". As a matter of fact, I'd be wlling to lay it all on the line and say that none exist.

And we have so many areas where we could stand fundemental improvement. Our eyes are poor. Our hearing is poor. Our sense of smell is essentially nonexistant. Our skeletons are poor. Our digestive system is (at best) finicky. Immune system? Don't make me laugh.

Why should we have eyes better than other animals when we have eyeglasses and contacts? Why should our hearing be better when we have loudspeakers, radios, telephones, etc? I would not say our sense of smell is nonexistent, considering it can distinguish between 4000 and 10,000 different odors. And why should our digestive system be better than others when we have Pepto-Bismol?

[QED]

There are other animals (elephants, whales) that have a brain size that is larger than humans. Yet, none of them even closely approach our level of intellect. So, brain size alone explains little.

It's not brain size per se, it's the ratio of the size of brain to the animal that counts. The bottlenose dolphin is second only to humans in the ratio of brain size to body size.

[Nyril]

It's not brain size per se, it's the ratio of the size of brain to the animal that counts. The bottlenose dolphin is second only to humans in the ratio of brain size to body size.

Incorrect. It is the ratio of surface area (also known as associative area, although I may be confusing it for a similar word) to volume that really matters. If all you were going by is brain to body ratios, mice win that race right out of the starting gates.

[steen]

Humans are able to understand the cosmos for the same reason that we are able to understand anything else - our brain size.

There are other animals (elephants, whales) that have a brain size that is larger than humans. Yet, none of them even closely approach our level of intellect. So, brain size alone explains little.

Lets correct that to frontal lobe size.

Attempting to mate with a female if you are not the alpha male is a crime in animal society.

"Crime in animal society"? I'm not sure what you mean here.

Retribution from those in power.

And we have so many areas where we could stand fundemental improvement. Our eyes are poor. Our hearing is poor. Our sense of smell is essentially nonexistant. Our skeletons are poor. Our digestive system is (at best) finicky. Immune system? Don't make me laugh.

Why should we have eyes better than other animals when we have eyeglasses and contacts? Why should our hearing be better when we have loudspeakers, radios, telephones, etc?

And the "design" fit oh, so well in the time before such technology was available, right? Flawed design that needs technological correction sure shows an "intelligent" designer, right?

[israeltour]

I don't mean to nit-pick your attempt at an apology, but notice how you logically worked your way through to having to pray for me even though you knew it was condescending and ill received. This is a problem that Christianity presents by defining itself to be the only permissible world-view.

I noticed it even as I wrote it. But, I opted for transparency. It seems also that you appear to have a problem viewing a Christian's loving intentions (in this particular case) as something to embrace. That's okay. I do understand why, since I'm just a measure of faith away from being in your shoes. And you know what? I actually prefer this to the fake sensitivity that so many people wear today as a mask to avoid offending... when the cost is the ability to truly relate and dialog. Out of respect and to maintain focus, I will be senstive to you the best that I can, but not as a mask or out of apology.

I cannot understand how anyone capable of counting on their fingers and toes cannot see how very un-special we humans are. Mapping the claim of special creation onto the best Anthropological data available suggests that, at most, god remodelled some pre-existing hominid species into homo sapiens (pick a species from the chart below -- however much you choose to compress the vertical time axis)

If that's what God did (physically speaking), then I have no problem with it.

But our basic bodies are still formed from the same sort of limbs and organs that have comprised all forms of animal life throughout the history of the Planet.

True enough. Why reinvent the wheel?

A significant consequence of all this is that it is folly to suggest that we are liberated from the instinctive behavior patterns of other animals while all the while acknowledging greed, lust, murder etc. as being human sin. How can it be justified as anything different when it looks, smells and feels just like the counterpart in the wild?

Are you saying that animals are capable of acknowledging greed, lust, and murder in some abstract, value-driven way? Or are we mistaken in our own perception of inner morality?

Of course it is essential for Christianity to perform this justification because otherwise it reveals the falsehood of much of the foundational scriptures. But such an elaborate rationalization is unnecessary if we appreciate that our instincts and urges are exactly the same as those we observe in the rest of nature.

Of course acceptance of this is doubly problematical in the eyes of those who perceive an infringement of their dignity, but there it is. Biological evidence speaks only of humans as survival units equipped with the same sort of assets found in all living creatures by varying degrees.

Suppose the only difference is in degree.

Consider:
1. Primates are known to groom each other. People invented an entire cosmetics industry.
2. Some animals mourn for their dead. People produce written obituaries which get published in printed newspapers.
3. Chimps can learn sign language. People have entire university departments to study sign language.
4. Dolphins can value life. People realize there is a planet earth, and will recycle paper and plastic in an attempt to protect it.
5. Dogs will do whatever they can to please their masters. People can pass down to future generations how to please God in written form, and even figure out through anthropological means what past civilizations did to please whatever god(s) they they worshipped.

I will concede that most (if not every) human behavior has some parallel in the wild. However, comparing the scale on which we do things, the differences seem conspicuous, even among the similar behaviors. Is there a threshold at which you would start considering the difference in degree a result of special creation? At what point would the differences in degree really get your attention?

[QED]

I will concede that most (if not every) human behavior has some parallel in the wild. However, comparing the scale on which we do things, the differences seem conspicuous, even among the similar behaviors. Is there a threshold at which you would start considering the difference in degree a result of special creation?

No. Differences only of degree speak to me of nothing more than differential adaptation. We are connesuiers of our own industry, we are finely tuned to the intricacies of our refinements. However, an advanced Alien civilization might well see little difference between Mozart and Whale-song.

Let me back this up with an example you might be able to identify with: When I listen to my old records I bought back in the 60's I find it hard to imagine that I once viewed each band so differently. To me now they all sound very much alike. That is, from the perspective of the far greater exposure I now have to different musical genres, all the old rock groups seem to have been clones of each other. But back then it was all I had, so I was much more sensitive to the differences.

Purely subjective differences between us and animals won't cut it for me. Evidence of special creation would have to be something utterly unprecedented.

[Curious]

Purely subjective differences between us and animals won't cut it for me. Evidence of special creation would have to be something utterly unprecedented.

While this thread is asking for biological evidence of special creation, I believe the underlying question is "what proof is there that God exists using biology as the only argument". Here lies the difficulty as biology, being a physical science, has a tendency to show physical mechanisms and origins. It would be difficult to form any type of strong argument being restricted to purely physical observation as investigation of the physical teaches about the physical while investigation of the spiritual is required to learn anything of the spiritual. This is the main difficulty when theists, who tend to want to share their "knowledge", meet atheists who require objective evidence before they are willing to accept that there is any knowledge to share. There have been numerous posts in this forum from dedicated theists who have attempted to justify their belief in God, and at the same time denigrate the disbelief of atheists, by the use of various arguments concerning the physical nature of the universe and how this points to the existence of God. I am not such a theist however and although I understand the motivation for attempting to give objective evidence concerning God, I believe the real evidence for the existence of God or special creation is the existence of spirit. I doubt that anyone can really have true knowledge of God just by examining the universe anymore than one can have true knowledge of Thomas Edison by examining a lightbulb(and yes I am aware that he didn't really invent the lightbulb). If anyone really wants to discover whether God exists or not then try to examine the spiritual side of your own nature and draw your comparisons there.