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?

[juliod]

Humans are the only thing that is able to use fire. (This is absolutely necessary if humans are to become an advanced civilization)

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

Humans are the only thing that practices religion.

A point in favor of other animals being more intelligent than us...

But there are known examples of possibly religious activity among neanderthals, and I think other hominids.

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. We can demonstrate the widespread belief in provably-false doctrines (astrology, dowsing, etc).

Humans are the only thing that have the concept of right and wrong. (Can animals do something "wrong"?)

No (and Yes), as Lotan said. Attempting to mate with a female if you are not the alpha male is a crime in animal society. Also, animal societies are much less violent than ours. Our religious "morality" leads us to butcher ourselves much much more than "dumb" animals.

Humans are the only thing capable of understanding the cosmos.

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

"Hmm, perhaps we are special".

Nope. We live in a niche, just like every other species. We are better than other species in that niche. That's all.

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.

The mere existance of impacted wisdom teeth is a sure sign that there was no "design" in our bodies.

DanZ

[steen]

Would any of them make you stand up and say, "Wow, god created us specially." ?

I can't really think of "wows", but there certainly are a lot of "hmms".

Here are some:
- Humans are the only thing that is able to use fire. (This is absolutely necessary if humans are to become an advanced civilization)

And such a learned skill is a Hmm for being specially created? PSecial skills abound in the animal worlds. Cheetas run very fast. Hmm, maybe they were specially created because they are so much faster than other animals?

- Humans are the only thing that practices religion.

Well, as far as we know, anyway.

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

As our competitive advantage, the ability to alter out environment, gave us the ability to observe the mechanism of our environment and ponder how it worked, we initially did not know how it worked. As we are curious and seek answers, e had to come up with some temporary view. And it didn't "ultimately result in" humans. Lots of evolution is on-going, whereas you are talking as if evolution is now done. We are just one other step in a muriad of evolutionary changes in all species.

- Humans are the only thing that pass on knowledge that has been learned. (We talk about teaching chimps sign language, but have they ever learned something and taught us?)

We have learned a lot from animals over millenia. And yes, animals do learn from each others, be it chimps, or bluetits learing to open the lid of milk bottles to get the cream.

- Humans are the only thing that have the concept of right and wrong. (Can animals do something "wrong"?)

Each animal society has rules that the individuals follow or else get punished.

- Humans are the only thing capable of understanding the cosmos.

And aaardwarks are the only animals that understand termites. So? And dolpins understand ocean currents better than we do. So?

(And even more, it was setup so that we can understand the cosmos)

Huh?

Though there are many more differences that I could list, I think the fundamental point is that humans is (in QED's terminology) a "massive step-function" away from all other animals.

Through the natuire of evolution, the specialization into available niches means that all species step away from other species into their own niche. So?

Coincidence? Simply a natural result of evolution? I would argue that either would be hard to prove.

Not really. The very nature ot the SToE predicts this.

Rather, the cumulative effect of all these (as well as those not listed) would be a loud "Hmm, perhaps we are special".

We are specially adapted into our niche, exactly as all other species are "special" in their adaptation in their niche.

[steen]

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.

The mere existance of impacted wisdom teeth is a sure sign that there was no "design" in our bodies.

DanZ

And we are lousy at swimming or running. Our ability to fly or glide is sub-optimal. And we can't even breathe under wanter.

[QED]

- Humans are the only thing that practices religion. (Why would all animals that have originated through natural means ultimately result in mankind that is predisposed to believing in the supernatural?)

It has been suggested that a major development in hominid brains was the capacity for imagination. Our ability to imagine a felled tree spanning a river is what causes us to cut down the tree and use it as a bridge for example. This enhanced (although not unique as tests on other animals have shown) ability is thought to have permitted our survival despite the inadequacies of many of our other physical properties.

I think that religion, mysticism and spirituality are an inevitable consequence of this heightened power of imagination. The evidence from early cave paintings and aboriginal art testifies to this. If you were living under stone-age conditions I think you too would find your imagination a welcome refuge.

[israeltour]

israeltour> I'd be interested to know what you make of other species of Hominids like Neanderthals for example. You say that only man has 'spirit' yet these creatures are known to have had burial rituals, created music and cared for the infirm amongst them. Given that we are only just scratching the surface with the data collected thus far, it seems reasonable to conclude that these ape-like animals might well have been able to contemplate their existence as well.

Neanderthals? God did what He did, and the scriptures are silent on what that was here. My personal opinion is they didn't have souls or spirits, because God's focus seems to have been on the redemption of the human soul, as opposed to Neanderthals. That leads me to conclude that Neanderthals had no souls to redeem. Should it turn out they had souls however, then Jesus died for their sins as well ours.

[israeltour]

Well, this is getting beyond the scope the thread, but the answer is Satan.

Ah, so Satan's "creative powers" are as great as God's? That's how you justify this?

Oh please. I'm not justifying disease.

No, you are justifying that Satan created diseases.

Wow. You think I've justified it? That's scary. I wasn't even trying.

So I am wondering if this mean that Satan has all this power to create that the Bible never mentions.

I wonder, too. Let me know what you find out.

[QED]

Neanderthals? God did what He did, and the scriptures are silent on what that was here. My personal opinion is they didn't have souls or spirits, because God's focus seems to have been on the redemption of the human soul, as opposed to Neanderthals. That leads me to conclude that Neanderthals had no souls to redeem. Should it turn out they had souls however, then Jesus died for their sins as well ours.

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.

[israeltour]

And, those differences reflect our being made in God's image.

Or evolved.

Or evolved.

So the difference by itself is not evidence of anything at all. THAT is my point. There is no meaningful conclusion to draw from the data, thus it is not evidence of anything.

Then why are we fighting? Look. I'll admit that everything I see is colored by my faith that God is there. I actually "know" He's there. I don't know how, and it's not something I can just show you how to see. I guess that means I wasn't considering the "evidence" by itself. Since you agree that by itself it's not "evidence" of evolution (given your definition, which is in dictionary as well as mine), then I agree it's not evidence of special creation.

Now, do me a favor. In the future, please refrain from the offensive characterizations you have been practicing when responding to me. What happens is you paint me into corner where I have to defend something I didn't say. But, I cannot simply dismiss it, because there is some truth mixed in. For example, I don't ever want you to simply accept something merely because I say so. I may be confident that something is a fact, yet I cannot prove I'm right. I already know that I cannot prove it. However, I give you my answer so you know what I think.

Do you find it pointless to share opinions when I am not trying to convince you it's true? Should I only say things I am trying to get you to agree with? I believe only the Holy Spirit can get a man to agree to spiritual truths. I can only share the truth, but I cannot convince other people of it, and I know that. Tell me that you're not interested in what I think the truth is, that you're only interested in what I could prove to you, and I'll stop.

Finally, if you are really trying to dialog with me, and I state something seems outrageous, please try asking if such-and-such is what I mean. Don't characterize me, because you've been wrong on every count so far... yet you persist.

If you're looking for an honest exchange, I will exchange honestly with you, saying where I have evidence for and what I don't, and I agree to use the definition of "tending to prove". However, if you're looking for a fight, then I won't respond to your postings anymore.

[Curious]

Neanderthals? God did what He did, and the scriptures are silent on what that was here. My personal opinion is they didn't have souls or spirits, because God's focus seems to have been on the redemption of the human soul, as opposed to Neanderthals. That leads me to conclude that Neanderthals had no souls to redeem. Should it turn out they had souls however, then Jesus died for their sins as well ours.

Biblical scripture states that every living creature is in possession of a soul. Read Genesis.

[israeltour]

this is getting beyond the scope the thread, but the answer is Satan.

It's not beyond the scope. Do you have evidence that ebola (also Marburg, HIV, etc) were created by Satan? Even by christian thinking, can Satan create living things ex nihilo?

Did Satan create other bad things? Cockroaches? Rats? The French?

DanZ

I don't know whether Satan literally creates or not. A person can create a chair... but he does so by starting with a tree. So, at the very least Satan can take one thing and transform it. However, I don't know within what limits he has to operate.

I know that Satan asked permission to inflict Job with disease and God granted it. I don't know if Satan created the disease, or he suppressed Job's immune system. So did he create something there? I don't know. But, I do know from scripture Satan was responsible for making for making Job sick.

I also know that Satan is prince of the earth in some respect. He tempted Jesus by offering Him the world. Well, the world was Satan's to offer, and Jesus didn't say otherwise. So, there is some kind of power Satan has, but I don't know what it is.

Finally, sin didn't enter the world until Satan tempted Eve and she gave in. So, the strongest statement I can make is that Satan is responsible for disease, but the nature of that responsibility is not entirely clear.