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?

[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.

[QED]

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.

Of course there is a much bigger underlying question, however that's clearly beyond the scope of this particular debate. The specific area of interest is the exclusive claim of the theist that man is special, having been set up in gods image (whatever that means). While we are doomed to struggle with concepts of spirit (which are by definition beyond the scope of critical appraisal) we can look critically at ourselves using biology and anthropology and ask if there is anything in our physiology that is unprecedented in other species.

I think it's reasonable to say that the conclusion is that we are very much just another branch of Earthbound life. A branch that is very young, but contains a common heritage that can be traced all the way to the first known examples of living organisms. This conclusion clearly contradicts the story in Genesis which requires yet another awkward rationalization if it is to be made compatible.

[Curious]

This conclusion clearly contradicts the story in Genesis which requires yet another awkward rationalization if it is to be made compatible.

It is a real shame that so many people equate Genesis=false with God is not real. The Bible seems to have unprecedented power in turning thinking people away from theism.

[QED]

It is a real shame that so many people equate Genesis=false with God is not real. The Bible seems to have unprecedented power in turning thinking people away from theism.

I can understand your frustration. An obvious appraisal of the bible is that it represent late Iron-age mans attempts to capture the apparent mysteries of the world in poetic metaphor. But you seem to feel that the essence of that which they were responding is still a valid mystery. If only it were possible to decouple this form the clumsy web woven around it by religious dogma.

Even when we strip away the muddle of the biblical creation story and the attendant myth of Flood and so on, we are still faced with a philosophy that puts man on an ill-deserved pedestal. It just seems like such an obvious mistake for us to make -- to think that everything has been set-up just for us. What can we point to that shows we can afford to be so arrogant? My modesty is brought on by engaging in an honest appraisal of history both by considering the ancient images that can be viewed in the nighttime sky and the impressions left in the rocks around me.

Once we put ourselves on an equal footing with our surroundings then I suggest that the question of the existence of god is simply a moot point.

[Curious]

Even when we strip away the muddle of the biblical creation story and the attendant myth of Flood and so on, we are still faced with a philosophy that puts man on an ill-deserved pedestal. It just seems like such an obvious mistake for us to make -- to think that everything has been set-up just for us. What can we point to that shows we can afford to be so arrogant? My modesty is brought on by engaging in an honest appraisal of history both by considering the ancient images that can be viewed in the nighttime sky and the impressions left in the rocks around me.

Once we put ourselves on an equal footing with our surroundings then I suggest that the question of the existence of god is simply a moot point.

Not all theists believe that humanity is any different from other forms of life. There is an obvious difference in degree but that is all. I don't see how being set apart from the rest of animal-kind is in any way necessary for belief in, or existence of, God. Then again, this is not the view of many Christians.

[israeltour]

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.

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

Can it be an accomplishment? Like space travel?

[israeltour]

I think it's reasonable to say that the conclusion is that we are very much just another branch of Earthbound life. A branch that is very young, but contains a common heritage that can be traced all the way to the first known examples of living organisms. This conclusion clearly contradicts the story in Genesis which requires yet another awkward rationalization if it is to be made compatible.

Why is the contradiction so clear? It contradicts the YEC interpretation of Genesis, but that perspective is not necessarily correct. The YEC interpretation isn't really literal if take a real look at the scripture. A more literal interpretation, combined with some modern scientific perspective, will take you in a completely different direction. Is it complex? No doubt. But calling something awkward often indeicates that you haven't looked at it seriously. After all, Calculus is awkward, too, but it got us to the moon. I'm shooting a little bit further. The fact that something is awkward is not proof it's wrong.

[israeltour]

Even when we strip away the muddle of the biblical creation story and the attendant myth of Flood and so on, we are still faced with a philosophy that puts man on an ill-deserved pedestal.

Either you do not understand the gospel, or the Christians you've met have been pretty arrogant. The entire point of the Gospel is that only God is worthy of being put on a pedestal.

It just seems like such an obvious mistake for us to make -- to think that everything has been set-up just for us.

The differences I see make it obvious to me.

What can we point to that shows we can afford to be so arrogant?

What you see as arrogance, I see as God's love.

My modesty is brought on by engaging in an honest appraisal of history both by considering the ancient images that can be viewed in the nighttime sky and the impressions left in the rocks around me.

Me too... difference is I think I'm seeing God's thumb print (figuratively speaking)... it makes me feel tiny, but loved.

Once we put ourselves on an equal footing with our surroundings then I suggest that the question of the existence of god is simply a moot point.

I'd make almost the same statement...

Perhaps you perceive God after all... you just don't recognize Him as such because of how misrepresented He is by mankind. The crusades, slavery, Jerry Fallwell, Jim Bakker, bombing abortion clinics, etc., are not of God.