Since the term "theistic evolution" seems to be suspect for some reason, perhaps we should call it an "evolutionary creation". This semantic shift makes creation the noun rather than evolution, perhaps for the better.

And that same difference would also distinguish such a divine evolutionistic creation from the Darwinian theory. Evolutionistic creation presupposes a God who first prepares the plan and then omnipotently executes it...

The creationist argument is that advanced organisms are more orderly than primitive organisms, and hence as evolution proceeds living things become more ordered, that is less disordered, that is less entropic. Because the second law of thermodynamics prohibits a decrease in entropy, it therefore prohibits biological evolution…..These misconceptions have been pointed out numerous times, but here we explicitly and quantitatively answer questions such as "What entropy changes accompany evolution?” and "If the entropy here on Earth is decreasing due to evolution, where is the other piece of the universe where the entropy is increasing?”….The Sun emits heat and hence decreases in entropy, while outer space absorbs heat and hence increases in entropy. Meanwhile, the Earth is nearly constant in entropy.

This informative and enjoyable book tells about the Piltdown hoax and the fake drawings of Ernst Haeckel, the famous advocate of Darwinism in Germany. There is another hoax about evolution that has not yet been exposed. It is widely believed by physicists that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, according to which nature tends to go from order to disorder. In fact, the American Journal of Physics published an article ("Entropy and evolution," Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008) and a note ("Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics," Am. J. Phys., Vol. 77, No. 10, October 2009) with fake calculations proving that the second law is not violated. The truth is that the second law does not apply to biological evolution or the evolution of stars.

The idea that a living organism is a thermodynamic system is similar to the absurd idea that natural selection acting upon innovations explains how mammals evolved from bacteria in only 3.5 billion years. It takes a fertilized egg 18 years to produce all of the cells in a human. (I know because my urologist told me the prostate gland stops growing at this age and starts growing again at the age of 30, so much for intelligent design.) Not enough is known about the innovations natural selection acts upon to understand how the same thing happened with a bacterium as the starting point. Evolutionary biologists always speak of "adaptive evolution." Darwin expressed this by saying it was "absurd in the highest degree" to think natural selection gave us the human eye.

Windchy sees in this quote from Charles Darwin some kind of self-delusion. He also misrepresents the way mainstream biologists rebut the idea of "irreducible complexity" put forth by advocates of intelligent design. It is not rebutted it in peer-reviewed journals and biology textbooks, but it is ridiculed only in popular books, magazines, and lectures.

Windchy thinks the theory of intelligent design is reasonable. I think it is irrational because there is no evidence for it. But it is also dishonest not to admit that intelligent design is a better theory than natural selection, in some sense. This raises the question of why one side in this conflict about evolutionary biology is irrational and the other side is dishonest. The general answer is that evolution is related to religion, and religion causes conflict between people. Conflict causes anxiety, and inhibition is a defense mechanism for anxiety. Advocates of intelligent design and their opponents are inhibited from thinking rationally and behaving honestly.

My theory is that both sides don't understand the cosmological argument for God's existence. See: The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics. They both think the argument has to do with the Big Bang and a "first cause." The cosmological argument is based on the observation that human beings have free will. This means humans are finite beings, as well as embodied spirits. Since a finite being needs a cause, an infinite being exists if the universe is intelligible. Hindus and Buddhists have a different terminology, but in the West we call the infinite being God.

God was motivated to create finite beings because He loved Himself as giving. But He just as well could love Himself without giving. We don't explain our existence by thinking God created us and keeps us in existence, and we can't use God's existence to answer scientific questions. The evidence that the universe is intelligible is the success of the scientific method and the fact that things don't pop into or out of existence. Windchy thinks the Big Bang, the origin of life, evolution, and the fine-tuning of the coupling constants in physics is evidence that God exists. In my opinion, these phenomena are evidence God does not exist.

What do others think of it? Are there any problems? I found none myself.  John Burgeson, ASA member

With Scripture as a basis and by factoring in data and evidence readily available from other sources both scientific and historical, we can arrive at certain conclusions that may test time-honored explanations from theological sources, but are "time-honored” explanations sufficient for 21^st Century Christians?

1. Our universe began in an immense explosion, commonly called the "Big Bang,” perhaps from nothing, about 13.7 billion years ago, earth time. There are no known laws of physics that can account for this as a purely "natural” event. For deists, theists and Christians this was an act of a Creator God.

2. Our sun is a second or third generation star that began to accrete roughly 4.6 billion years ago. The earth is dated to the same age by using radiometric decay rate techniques. Moon rocks brought back from the Apollo missions were dated by three labs, using six different measures and the average age calculated was similar to the earth. Meteorites that have been measured with similar radiometric techniques have yielded similar ages to the earth and moon, indicating that our solar system likely resulted from a dying star that exploded roughly 5 billion years ago.

3. Organic, replicating life began on planet earth three billion years ago beginning a long chain of plant and animal species linked by common ancestry culminating in human beings who branched off the higher primate limb about six million years ago beginning with bipedalism as the first identifiable demarcation. The amount of divine action or inaction in the process of change with modification that occurred throughout eons of time resulting in the creation of new species and the extinction of others is a subject of current debate with no convincing data on either side to date.

4. Although at least four different species of humans lived in different locations on the earth 100,000 years ago, all became extinct with the exception of our own species, Homo sapiens, who can be traced back as far as 200,000 years ago. As implied by our genetic code, currently existing humankind shares mutual common ancestry with all other previously existing human species and all precursors to humans. Humans are connected to the phyletic tree of life and are not the result of a special act of divine creation with no chain of ancestry.

4. Early humans left no written records until the Sumerians invented writing using the cuneiform technique beginning about 5,500 years ago. Akkadians living in the same area of southern Mesopotamia learned to write from their Sumerian neighbors and recorded their own version of history in an early Semitic language. Since the Akkadian language precedes other Semitic tongues; Ugarit, Canaanitish-Babylonian, Assyrian, Aramaic and Hebrew we can deduce that the Akkadians were a founding culture including the named patriarchs starting with "Adam” identified first in Genesis 2 and referenced throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

5. The dating and authorship of Genesis 1-2:4 have long been in dispute. It appears to be a standalone, disconnected from the Genesis 2:5-10 narrative. Exegetes throughout history including Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin have weighed in with opinions as to its genre and intended meaning, however, with a few caveats the narrative is in rough agreement with Big Bang cosmology and the fossil record. The sequence of "days” can be interpreted as long periods of indefinite duration in agreement with Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. The fourth "day” can be seen as a day of appointment or commissioning of the heavenly bodies as timekeepers - not their coming into existence through an act of special creation. The Hebrew op has been translated "fowls” or "birds” in Genesis 1:20, 22, 26 whereas "flying creatures” such as insects satisfies the Hebrew and may have been what was intended originally. Other small corrections in the translation consistent with the original Hebrew bring Bible and science into closer alignment. Resorting to allegory, poetry, mythology or tradition as a harmonizing device is totally unnecessary.

6. Although a spiritual component cannot be denied in the Genesis text beginning with Gen. 2:5, most of the persons, places and events can be corroborated with the documented history of the ancient Near East beginning in southern Mesopotamia, present-day Iraq, around 7,000 years ago. Although the period of history from Adam to Abraham has been considered true human history by some and fallacious human history by others, it can be believed as the legitimate history of the Semitic race beginning with the Akkadians.

7. Adam as the named founder of the Semitic race has historical ties corroborating his existence as a living, breathing human being. The names "Atum” and Seth appear in Egyptian inscriptions that predate the Exodus. The Legend of Adapa contains numerous parallels to the biblical Adam. The name "Adamu” appears frequently in Akkadian legends. As the first named individual in human history Adam has further status as the first man to have a covenant relationship with his Creator. Adam was the first man held accountable for his actions, the first to "sin,” and the first to suffer the consequences of divine retribution. Although some living today may have ancestral roots that lead back to Adam, all of us have roots that extend back in time to the first living life forms to appear on planet earth.

8. The biblical flood was restricted to a region along the Euphrates River in southern Mesopotamia. It has been dated to roughly 2900 BC and can be seen as judgment upon the Adamic race that had become polytheistic through the corruptive influence of the nearby Sumerians who lived far enough east of the primary flood zone to survive. In addition to the Bible, parallel flood stories from that region corroborate the event. The Sumerian King List, states, "Then the flood swept thereover.” Atrahasis, Ziusudra, the Eleventh Tablet of Gilgamesh, and Berossus all contain words and phrases found also in the Genesis 6-9 narrative.

9. The dispersion of the sons of Noah is detailed in Genesis 10. Almost every named descendant and tribe has been identified taking up residence with the indigenous cultures in the Middle East, northern Africa, and along the Mediterranean basin. Displacement, cohabitation, assimilation and annihilation occurred in various degrees in various locations. The Tower of Babel incident involved the descendants of Arphaxad living in Babylon who were caught up in a ziggurat building contest with neighboring Mesopotamian cities. These mud brick platforms began to be constructed after the flood to survive future floods, but in time became massive structures containing altars dedicated to pagan city gods. The biblical event has been misconstrued as the place where languages began, however, even the Akkadians and Sumerians living in the same region spoke unrelated languages prior to the event.

10. It is easy to find explanations contrary to these coming from non-Christian and Christian sources alike. Some of these are based upon biblical tradition, some are advanced by liberal theologians, some come from credentialed scientists, some involve space aliens, and some are touted by creationist organizations that may have good intentions or may have an agenda. Check out the facts for yourself. If you are satisfied that these explanations have value in advancing the case for biblical integrity and can help remove at least one impediment to the gospel message going forward, then please pass it on colleagues, family and friends.

Matt 12:38-40 NIV The Sign of Jonah
³⁸ Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” ³⁹ He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. ⁴⁰ For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Luke 11:29-30 HCSB

²⁹ As the crowds were increasing, He began saying: "This generation is an evil generation. It demands a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. ³⁰ For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation.

From Defending Inerrancy, Normal L. Geiser, William C. Roach, p.230-231 "For example, when Jesus affirmed that Jonah was in "the belly of the great fish," this statement is true, not simply because of the redemptive significance the story of Jonah has, but because it is literally and historically true [i.e., it corresponds to reality]." (Italics original.)

By calling attention to the verse in Matthew, the inerrantists indirectly refer to the parallel verse in Luke. According to Luke, Jesus did not mention Jonah being in the belly of a whale. Hence, instead of defending inerrancy, the authors inadvertently weaken their case and end up defending errancy. The two statements by Jesus are very different. The question of course is, which of the two is correct?

The statement may not be true if one accepts the testimony of Luke. Ignoring this significant problem for the moment, in the Matthew context, Jesus could be referring to either a true story, or a parable-prophecy of His forthcoming resurrection. It is not unreasonable to assume Jesus knew it was a parable, since He used many parables to teach about the kingdom of God.

Some level of support comes from [1] "The book of Jonah is considered by some to be a parable to convey a theological point about God's attitude towards Gentiles."

A plausible view is that Jonah was dead during his three days in the whale and, like Lazarus in John 11, his life was restored after he was disembarked onto dry land (2:10). But in ch. 2 he prays while inside the great fish. Acceptance of this as historical fact incurs a severe case of heartburn.

It is certain that Jesus was dead when "in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights," because the truth of the Resurrection demands this. But Jonah wasn't dead while in the whale, but alive and praying. Hence, if the story of Jonah is true, the comparison of Jonah with Jesus is not exact. But as a parable-prophecy of Jesus' impending resurrection, the analogy does not have to be exact.

Did the people of Nineveh know that Jonah had been in the belly of a whale for three days? Not according to the book of Jonah. He preached repentance to Nineveh after he left the whale. (Jonah 3) What "sign" then was Jesus referring to? As mentioned previously, from the context in Matthew, He was referring to the three days and nights in the whale, in spite of the fact that Nineveh was apparently not aware of Jonah's 72-hour voyage. Per Luke 11, the only sign for Nineveh was the appearance of Jonah voicing his warning of destruction in 40 days. (3:4)

The city of Tarshish is somewhere in the western Mediterranean; some think it was on the Atlantic side of ancient Spain. Jonah boarded his ship to Tarshish in Joppa, (present-day Jaffa) which is on the coast of Palestine about 35 miles from Jerusalem. The whale apparently carried him eastward from the ship back to the eastern shore of the Mediterranean in Palestine.

The city of Nineveh was located on the Tigris river, in present-day Iraq. From the closest point of eastern Mediterranean shoreline, Nineveh is about 370 miles from the Mediterranean Sea. Hence Jonah had to walk across the deserts of Israel, Syria, and Iraq to reach Nineveh. Assuming he could walk 25 miles a day (or night), this would be about a 15-day journey. Jonah could barely stand one day in the heat (4:8) much less 15 days. This is another miracle in the book of Jonah that few people take note of. However, as a parable, it is not important how he got there.

As an aside, pastor-author Chuck Swindoll is an ex-Marine, and was stationed with the 3rd Marine Division on Okinawa. In one of his sermons he said: "When the whale belched Jonah up on the beach at Nineveh, this was the first amphibious landing in recorded history."

[1] HCSB Study Bible, Holman Bible Publishers, 2010, p.1514

So M2-1 would start producing in a non-human breeding population and after a number of generations displace most or all non-humans with heterozygous humans, and then, eventually, with entirely homozygous humans. If the above description is correct, we must begin with a single human, gradually increase the number of humans to a very small number, gradually increase that number to a larger number, and then eventually increase their number to displace the non-human population entirely.

The population must eventually become completely homozygous so that no possible non-humans are produced. Possibly only the homozygous are truly human since the heterozygous individuals may have non-human characteristics expressed if the non-human allele is dominant. If this were the case, this could provide a mechanism for removing the heterozygous primates and the non-mutated primates since they could not compete as well.

My question is, How can someone say there has always been at least several thousand humans if we must start with one individual human and gradually increase that number?

Whoever wishes to answer this, once you do so, I will have one or more questions for you, but relatively simple ones I think.

Thanks to whoever might help me with this.

This is a new reflection of the fallen world. All emerging within my adult lifetime.

I remember when I got my first IBM PC computer, back in about 1987, the "dark ages". I joined a large local PC users group (remember them?) One of the meetings discussed computer viruses, and many of us doubted whether such a thing could even exist. Today, 25 years later, I heard General Keith Alexander of NSA proposing a full military command in charge of "cybersecurity". He is earnestly seeking the services of "black hat" hackers in developing these skills -- and their defenses -- for training across the workforce.

I have personally never been interested in hacking, but apparently some people are. Networked computer systems, because of their ability to copy and share code, are inherently vulnerable to self-corruption and self-destruction. It only takes one evil person to create a virus that will then spread exponentially through the network. Hence it takes constant, vigilant human intervention by "white hats" to maintain stable operation on a network.

But of course sometimes a "white hat" has a "black hat" underneath. So evil comes back to its origin -- the human level. We are back into the fallen world of ordinary human life. We cannot easily distinguish good from evil. If we could unambiguously, consistently, distinguish friend from foe then evil would soon be banished from the planet. But in all of human history, in all kinds of the strictest, most well-intentioned organizations, it never has been eliminated.

Hence we are obliged to spend billions on security, surveillance, intelligence, defense, vigilance, patches, updates, upgrades, etc. A network is like a living organism; it needs an immune system. Such a system is necessarily dynamic, basing its defenses on the nature of the attack. As any living system, which must devote a certain amount of metabolic overhead to self-defense, or else it would die in short order.

One wonders, with all the viruses about, why life -- or the network -- lives at all. The answer goes back to a definition of evil attributed to St. Augustine: evil is not an entity in itself; it is the absence of the good, the absence of normal. It cannot exist by itself; it only exists as a parasite on the good. Viruses derive their energy and reproductive power only from the good engine of normal cell replication.

So the good must have existed before evil. This too is true of cyberspace. The Internet standards, like TCP/IP, HTTP etc. were carefully designed protocols created specifically to carry out communication functions. That was their purpose. They have mechanisms to tolerate faults, dropouts, congestion, noise, etc. but not deliberate, malicious abuse of the protocols themselves. That abuse starts from the top layer of the system, from evil humans. There is nothing evil or wrong in the protocols themselves (other than design flaws which are continually being repaired), but the evil comes from outside. It is parasitic on the system and exploits it. Malware actions are often called "exploits". Sometimes systems can be brought to a standstill by denial-of-service attacks, or other systemic failures. The ultimate remedy for malware: wipe the disk, do a clean install and start over.

In the organism, in some cases viral infections can overcome the healthy organism and destroy it. But in the long term, for over a billion years, we are comforted by the fact that life has gone on; good ultimately triumphs over evil.

It has done so, partly, because of apoptosis -- individuals sacrificing their lives for the survival of the whole. Survival emerges from death and failure. Evolution destroys evil by dying to contain it. Atonement leads to salvation. Wipe the disk, do a clean install and start over. Be born again.
　

The petition certainly seems to align with our objectives of being notable stewards of our environment and PEW Charitable Trust generally aligns with our thinking. There can be no doubt that the studies called for are needed before it is too late.  All we have to do is look at the fisheries further south in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to see the consequences of unstudied and unregulated fisheries versus those of studied and regulated fisheries.

I offer it to those of you who might want to consider signing it ---

From: Pew Environment Group - Int'l Arctic Program [mailto:Pew_Environment_Group_Int_l_Arct@mail.vresp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:39 PM

Subject: Sign a Letter for an Int’l Arctic Fisheries Agreement Dear Colleague,

The Arctic Ocean's permanent ice is diminishing due to climate change, potentially opening the international waters of the central Arctic Ocean to commercial fishing. Because these waters are not currently governed by an international fisheries agreement, international action is needed to ensure that commercial fishing does not start ahead of science and management.

The Pew Environment Group's International Arctic Program has worked with several prominent scientists to draft a letter asking Arctic governments to develop an international agreement to address fisheries in the central Arctic Ocean based on sound scientific and precautionary principles. We are looking for others who are able to provide support in this effort.

Go  to http://oceansnorth.org/support-international-arctic-fisheries-agreement to read and sign the letter.

Sincerely,

Henry P. Huntington, Ph.D.
Arctic Science Director, Pew Environment Group


Other Signers Include:David Barber, Ph.D.
Centre for Earth Observation Science, University of Manitoba, CanadaJackie Grebmeier, Ph.D.
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, USAAlan Springer, Ph.D.
School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Fairbanks Alaska, USA
Stanislav Ye. Belikov, Ph.D.
All-Russian Research Institute for Nature Protection, Moscow, RussiaPeter Rask Møller, Ph.D.
Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, DenmarkPaul Wassmann, Ph.D.
Faculty of Biosciences, Fisheries and Economics, University of Tromsø, Norway
M.V. Flint, Ph.D.
Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, RussiaDaniel Pauly, Ph.D.
Fisheries Centre & Zoology Department, University of British Columbia, Canada .

If any of you are directly affected, please share your experiences in this forum.

• A historical overview of the interaction/relationship between the Bible/theology and science, including: how a biblical worldview contributed to scientific development in the West, how several scientists were people of faith who thought theologically, and how there has been a "dialogue" of biblical interpretation influencing science and science influencing biblical interpretation.   
• An introduction to biblical hermeneutics which would include looking at key biblical passages and how the Bible-science dialogue influences their interpretation.   
• An introduction to specific issues raised by contemporary science.

I say that magnets are individual. That is, an individual north pole magnet and an individual south pole magnet. If I am able to prove this self evident fact and as well as you could, then this fact proves that conventional science is incorrect in all disciplines’. Furthermore, Einstein and all the other great scientist before him are incorrect also. If you disagree with this, then you must be able to prove that north and south pole magnets are not individual magnets.

What say you.

On March 3rd, last Sat. night at about 7:30 pm Central time, the local astronomy clubs of San Antonio (SAAA) and Austin (AAS) flashed lights that were observed by astronauts Don Petit and Dan Burbank aboard the ISS. 

This is a first, as far as we know, though others have tried before to signal astronauts (and probably cosmonauts) with light, but failed.

We used two relatively small searchlights and a blue 1000mw laser (445nm).  Both the lights and the laser beam were easily seen by the astronauts.  During the 6 minute (approx.) event, Don Petit had planned to contact us from the ISS using..... a cell phone.  [I guess they have nice reception up there. :)]  But Don was too busy taking pictures to call us.

We learned the next morning that the light was easily seen by them, and they sent pictures to prove it.  [The "flash point" (pun unintended) is up and left of center.]