Many would go so far as to say that the Theory of Evolution is a "threat" to the Christian worldview. Many would also say that Evolution poses no contradiction to it. What is your stance?
I agree that it is difficult to ascertain which living creatures were immortal before the Fall. This is also why I would submit that it remains a possibility that humans were the only living creatures that were! Some argue that God alone has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16), and that while he originally made this gift available to humans, perhaps through the Tree of Life, he never gave immortality to animals. I've written out what I see as the best case for these ideas, though without fully endorsing it, here: https://creationexplore.wordpress.com/resources/deep-time/learning-about-deep-time/deep-time-and-animal-death-before-the-fall/
Also, thanks for the mustard seed link! I fully agree that Jesus was making a point and "was not speaking in a scientifically accurate sense." I would see this as one example of a passage where some might interpret it as "plainly" making a scientific claim, but a better interpretation would be that it is not making a scientific claim at all. Of course, this seems rather obvious and simple to most of us; there are other passages that different people regard with different levels of difficulty!
Hi, joshedlund! As for the thing you have written on that, feel free to post a link to it here (assuming it is published online...!)
Scripture tells us that not even a sparrow falls to the ground without God's notice, but I do not know if that applies here. After all, God knows everything! The problem with wondering and asking "before the fall" questions is that the pre-fall world is impossible to observe. So interesting little questions such as:
"did bacteria die before the fall?"
"what organisms could die in a "very good" (by God's standards) world?"
"was the speed of light faster before the fall?"
"how did the nitrogen cycle work before the fall?"
are very difficult, if not impossible, to answer as the pre-fall world is gone without a trace.
I have also found an interesting article on the Jesus and the smallest seed (the smallest seeds are from tropical orchids, which weigh something like one billionth of an ounce [!]) that you all, and particularly Swamidass, who brought this up earlier, might be interested in:
> Do you think that the evolutionary ancestors of humans suffered death during the evolutionary process?
ekrause1406,
that's a fantastic question! The old-earth creationists get around that by holding to a special creation of Adam and Eve after a long period of creation in the fullness of time. I think evolutionary creationists tend to say the passage is talking about spiritual death only, since squirrels after all do not die for their sins and are capable of physical death only; only humans would be capable of spiritual death. But either way, they tend to believe there was a point at which God granted his image and a living soul to some evolving primates and made them the first true humans, perhaps either as they reached consciousness, or giving them consciousness himself, so they might say, yes, the ancestors suffered death, but without God's image, but the first true humans would not have had they not sinned and maintained access to the Tree of Life. (However, I would also look forward to seeing others' responses)
> Now, we will likely get into a lively and fascinating discussion about what counts as life and what counts as death (for instance, did bacteria die before the fall? Did stars "die" before the fall?).
Indeed! Essentially, there are two camps, as I understand it, interpreting the death that entered the world, not being in it already, affecting:
- Humans only (either physically, or spiritually)
- Humans and some other set of living things
I would actually be very interested to know what you would include in that set! I've read AIG's take, and they allow for insects and even possibly fish to "die" before the Fall, which puts them much closer to the "humans only" position than many people may realize. (I've written something exploring those positions but I don't know if it's bad form to share here.)
I would like to know what all of you think about this question. Do you think that the evolutionary ancestors of humans suffered death during the evolutionary process? If evolution is true, when does ape end and human begin? God says that we as humans are made in His image (Genesis 1:26). It would seem that animal death would contradict this verse in the context of evolution, as the apes would have had to be progressively becoming made in God's image. Isn't it bad when something that is even a small part made in God's image dies? I am looking forward to seeing your responses.
I agree with you when you say that evidence etc. should be posted on the other thread that is open...So feel free to check that out as well if you are interested!
To continue our hyper-analysis of the words "good" "perfect" etc., I would submit that only God is perfect, per se, so the best his creation could be is "very good." We now live in a broken world. I don't think anyone here will deny that (but may think wrong, especially when assuming what others will say!) So from God, "very good" is an amazing compliment! I am glad that Josh (Hedlund) brought up: "there are none who are righteous, no, not one."
We are only righteous in Jesus, certainly not by anything we have done. So, our righteousness is an act of God, for, as we are not righteous ourselves (quite the opposite, in fact), Jesus gave us his righteousness, paying the price for our sin on the cross. There is a little Latin saying that goes with this: simul justus et piccatur. Saint and sinner (simultaneously). It is the same way in the scriptures when someone is referred to as "righteous."
So, while "very good" may not necessarily mean "perfect," the world pre-fall would have been devoid of sin, and since death entered the world through sin, it would not have had death as well. Now, we will likely get into a lively and fascinating discussion about what counts as life and what counts as death (for instance, did bacteria die before the fall? Did stars "die" before the fall?). Thank you all for commenting!
Thanks, Jacob. A couple of thoughts in response...
> Do you think that the sight of an animal bleeding, dying and being eaten by another would have seemed "very good" to a pre-fall Adam and Eve?
First, I would say that it's possible Adam and Eve wouldn't have seen predator-prey relationships if they were confined outside the protective garden. Second, even if they did, I think it's hard to say what that would have seemed like. Some people are very squeamish and faint at even the sight of a little blood; other people, especially those more hardened to an outdoor lifestyle (unlike many of us modern urban softies, myself included), are not at all troubled by it, especially if it's connected to something more important. So I think we should not rely on highly subjective human reactions to the moral value of animal predation, but rather the objective declaration of God. One example of that is Psalm 104, which says the lions receive their food from God and are filled with "good things." I would be happy to consider other passages if you have any.
> Furthermore, very good, when spoken by God means "perfect."
I agree that this is sometimes the case, but I think we would want to examine more passages before asserting that it is always the case. For instance, even in the Genesis story, God said, "It is not good for man to be alone." Does that mean there was something imperfect about the world, though it was sinless? Deuteromony 8:7 says "the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land" - does this mean it was a perfect land? Perhaps there is a moral distinction in the Bible between calling humans "good" / "not good", and calling the rest of creation "good". Even with humans, it is complicated; we know "there are none who are righteous, no, not one," and yet the Bible also refers to many men as righteous, though they were certainly not "perfect." At the very least, I think we should hesitate to enforce a dogmatic connection between the words "good" and "perfect" when the Hebrew uses them differently in different situations. You are claiming that "very good" in Genesis must be perfect; I am not claiming that it must not mean "perfect," rather I am claiming that it may or may not, in which case either interpretation would be a valid possibility, neither of them a threat to Christianity.
Welcome to the Forum!! It's good to have you. I agree about the evidence discussion belongs on the other forum, however, regarding the points you made.
Do you think that the sight of an animal bleeding, dying and being eaten by another would have seemed "very good" to a pre-fall Adam and Eve? Furthermore, very good, when spoken by God means "perfect." if you begin to separate the two phrases, you run into many more problems than that. Jesus says "“Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." if we separate "good" from "perfect" I think we can agree that some people are "good." Obviously,to God, there is no distinction, "good" is "perfect.". Therefore, "very good" would have described a perfect creation free from sin. That would include animals tainted by sin i.e. predators.
(In my opinion, discussions about evidence for /against evolution should be a separate tangent from whether or not evolution is a threat to Christianity.)
I just wanted to add a couple points to the earlier conversation about death before the fall.
- I believe Romans 5 may only be talking about the introduction of human death, as other living creations are not mentioned in the passage and it is not clear, if they are included, where we would draw the line at including mammals / insects / plants / bacteria / cells in the idea of "death".
- If predatory behavior can be considered part of a "good" creation (Ps 104), though perhaps not a "perfect" one, I believe this allows us to fully see the glory in God's magnificent design of defense and offenses in the animal kingdom. There are so many impressive intricate characteristics, from bodies designed to hunt, to camouflage and mimicry and spikes and the bombadier beetle's explosion-factory to defend, from predator eyes in the front of the head to focus on prey, to prey eyes on the side of the head to watch out for predators, that all seem better explained as an intentional design for a world where no creature was "perfect" enough to wipe out the others, but enough for a "very good" equilibrium, rather than to explain it all (as many YEC do) as either existing pre-Fall but not being used, or as springing to life like a new creation at the curse.
Note that this view of animal death before the Fall does not require evolution. In fact, it was discussed in detail by old-earth creationists who opposed evolutionary ideas in the 1800's. However, if the idea of animal death before the Fall is not a threat to Christianity outside of evolution, then it would not be part of any threat to Christianity within evolution, either (although there are arguably other challenges), and the question of how those animals acquired their wonderful offenses/defenses would be a separate issue independent of theology.
One can reuse designs and still not produce a nested hierarchy. If you wanted to reuse parts in biology you could take flow through lungs and feathers from birds and take mammary glands and three middle ear bones from mammals to create a new species. However, this species would violate the nested hierarchy of life predicted by the theory of evolution. There is no reason why reusing designs would produce a nested hierarchy, just as cars don't form a nested hierarchy even though humans reuse designs in cars all of the time. There are millions and millions of ways of combining reused bits of design but only a tiny, tiny fractions of those combinations will produce a nested hierarchy.
So the question is why would God mix and match reused designs in separately created species so that they form a nested hierarchy when there are millions and millions of other possible combinations of reused designs that would not produce a nested hierarchy? Was God trying to fool us into believing that life evolved? If you can't come up with a reason why God would be forced to fit species into a nested hierarchy, then the nested hierarchy can't be evidence for creationism.
On the subject of predictions, Linnaeus and others did not know about DNA. It was not known in Darwin's time that DNA sequences also produced a nested hierarchy independently of physical characteristics. The theory of evolution predicted that they two phylogenies based on DNA and morphology should match, and that was borne out by the sequencing of genomes after the prediction was made. We are also continually finding new fossil species and new living species, and they continue to fit into the predicted nested hierarchy. The theory predicts which combinations of features we should see in fossil species and which we should not, and the new transitional fossils we find fit those predictions. We find fossils with a mixture of human and ape features as the theory predicts. We don't find fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features, also as the theory predicts. Creationism makes no such predictions.
As J.E.S. pointed out, the classification of things according to nested hierarchy was first performed, in recent pre-Darwinian times, by Linnaeus, a creationist, so it can hardly be considered a "prediction" of evolutionary theory. Also, to the extent that a nested hierarchy of living things exists, evolutionists presume to know what a Creator would do in asserting that God would not create life according to a nested hierarchy. Why not? Why would God NOT want to use the same design ideas over again? Don't we humans often do something similar in our designs? Evolutionists suggest that God would not do it in such a pattern that would lead one to want to infer the existence of hierarchical divisions of lineages. Again, why not?
In fact, as more and more morphological detail is considered, it becomes harder and harder for evolutionists to decide which feature is the result of presumed shared ancestry (homology), and which is ostensibly independently derived (analogy or homoplasy). There are numerous morphological traits which do not fit the pattern of a nested set of bifurcating lineages of evolutionary descent. The same trait often appears in living things which are not believed to be closely related by evolution, and this occurs often enough to vitiate evolution's premise about nested hierarchies. For example, disagreements about the probable homologous or homoplastic nature of shared derived similarities between taxa lie at the core of most conflicting phylogenetic hypotheses.
Whereas a nested hierarchy may well characterize living things when viewed in terms of general similarities and differences, it does not exist when large numbers of detailed morphological similarities and differences are simultaneously considered. Furthermore, earlier-believed nested hierarchies are often overturned as more evidence is accumulated. For instance, mesonychians and cetaceans were long believed to be sister groups based on a closely-knit series of shared similarities, but this pattern is no longer believed to indicate close evolutionary kinship. The total evidence results suggest that skeletal similarities between mesonychians and cetaceans are homoplasies. Also, new marine biological evidence has further confirmed this point, as even many evolutionists now believe that whales are closer to artiodactyls.
If the evidence is consistent with common ancestry then it rules out common design. Evolution explains the evidence while common design does not.
The only way I can see common design producing the evidence we see is if the designer put forth a ton of effort specifically to fool people into thinking that life evolved. At that point, you might as well claim that fingerprints at crime scenes were planted by God, so we can't use forensic evidence in court cases because the evidence is also consistent with God separately creating fingerprints.
If you are going to claim that common design explains something you should at least put forth that explanation or why the evidence doesn't disprove common design. Otherwise, it just looks like a knee jerk reaction to make it look like you have an explanation.
Also, in some important ways we are getting of track here. As should be obvious, evolution is not a threat to Christianity, only to some types of Christianity, such as Christianity founded on rejecting evolution instead of on the Resurrection of Jesus. Hardly any surprises here.
I notice the YECs here care a lot about evidence. One of the best blogs that gets into this is the excellent work done by my friend Joel Duff: https://thenaturalhistorian.com
Regarding nested clades, evolution, and creation. This leads to direct way of testing evolution. I have written about this before. I would say: this is strong evidence for the "similarity caused by shared history" hypothesis over the "similarity caused by common function" hypothesis, whether or not evolution is ultimately true.
Also in his research, Linnaeus fount that different species, and maybe even different genera, could be created through hybridization. However, the concept of completely open-ended evolution that is so prevalent today may well have shocked him. Just found that interesting, even though it does not disprove the point you are trying to make with your Linnaeus comment. Nested hierarchies are quite interesting, but I would classify them as:
Evidence for evolution, but not evidence against Creationism.
What do you think, T_aquaticus? (Perhaps we should continue this discussion here ("here" is a link, by the way ; )
Science is based on observable facts, and repeatable experiments. Since we cannot observe or repeat a physical resurrection from death, it is, from a purely scientific standpoint, impossible. By the same argument, evolution, since it is neither observable or repeatable, must be taken on just as much faith as the resurrection. So, while creationists put their faith in a God who rose from the dead and gave his infallible word to prove it, evolutionists place their faith in what "experts" claim is evidence for evolution. I'll take door number one thank you...
1. It was a creationist named Linnaeus who first organized his observations and reported that animals and plants fell into a nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is not a product of believing that evolution occurred. The nested hierarchy predates the theory of evolution by about 100 years. It has nothing to do with worldview.
2. The mechanisms of evolution can only produce a nested hierarchy. Animals and plant species pass down genes from ancestor to descendant, not from one living species to another living species. This is called horizontal genetic transfer. We also observe that each organism is born with mutations. The only outcome that can come out of this process is a nested hierarchy. If you think this is a product of some worldview, then please show why evolution wouldn't produce a nested hierarchy among species that predominately participate in horizontal genetic transfer.
This isn't a matter of worldview. These are the facts. Life falls into a nested hierarchy, and evolution will necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. Creationism, on the other hand, can produce billions of different combinations of characteristics other than those in a nested hierarchy. Creationism can't explain the nested hierarchy. Evolution can explain the nested hierarchy with startling accuracy.
Comments Closed.
Thanks, J.E.S.
I agree that it is difficult to ascertain which living creatures were immortal before the Fall. This is also why I would submit that it remains a possibility that humans were the only living creatures that were! Some argue that God alone has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16), and that while he originally made this gift available to humans, perhaps through the Tree of Life, he never gave immortality to animals. I've written out what I see as the best case for these ideas, though without fully endorsing it, here: https://creationexplore.wordpress.com/resources/deep-time/learning-about-deep-time/deep-time-and-animal-death-before-the-fall/
Also, thanks for the mustard seed link! I fully agree that Jesus was making a point and "was not speaking in a scientifically accurate sense." I would see this as one example of a passage where some might interpret it as "plainly" making a scientific claim, but a better interpretation would be that it is not making a scientific claim at all. Of course, this seems rather obvious and simple to most of us; there are other passages that different people regard with different levels of difficulty!
Hi, joshedlund! As for the thing you have written on that, feel free to post a link to it here (assuming it is published online...!)
Scripture tells us that not even a sparrow falls to the ground without God's notice, but I do not know if that applies here. After all, God knows everything! The problem with wondering and asking "before the fall" questions is that the pre-fall world is impossible to observe. So interesting little questions such as:
"did bacteria die before the fall?"
"what organisms could die in a "very good" (by God's standards) world?"
"was the speed of light faster before the fall?"
"how did the nitrogen cycle work before the fall?"
are very difficult, if not impossible, to answer as the pre-fall world is gone without a trace.
I have also found an interesting article on the Jesus and the smallest seed (the smallest seeds are from tropical orchids, which weigh something like one billionth of an ounce [!]) that you all, and particularly Swamidass, who brought this up earlier, might be interested in:
https://carm.org/is-mustard-seed-smallest-of-all-seeds
> Do you think that the evolutionary ancestors of humans suffered death during the evolutionary process?
ekrause1406,
that's a fantastic question! The old-earth creationists get around that by holding to a special creation of Adam and Eve after a long period of creation in the fullness of time. I think evolutionary creationists tend to say the passage is talking about spiritual death only, since squirrels after all do not die for their sins and are capable of physical death only; only humans would be capable of spiritual death. But either way, they tend to believe there was a point at which God granted his image and a living soul to some evolving primates and made them the first true humans, perhaps either as they reached consciousness, or giving them consciousness himself, so they might say, yes, the ancestors suffered death, but without God's image, but the first true humans would not have had they not sinned and maintained access to the Tree of Life. (However, I would also look forward to seeing others' responses)
Thanks, J.E.S.
> Now, we will likely get into a lively and fascinating discussion about what counts as life and what counts as death (for instance, did bacteria die before the fall? Did stars "die" before the fall?).
Indeed! Essentially, there are two camps, as I understand it, interpreting the death that entered the world, not being in it already, affecting:
- Humans only (either physically, or spiritually)
- Humans and some other set of living things
I would actually be very interested to know what you would include in that set! I've read AIG's take, and they allow for insects and even possibly fish to "die" before the Fall, which puts them much closer to the "humans only" position than many people may realize. (I've written something exploring those positions but I don't know if it's bad form to share here.)
I would like to know what all of you think about this question. Do you think that the evolutionary ancestors of humans suffered death during the evolutionary process? If evolution is true, when does ape end and human begin? God says that we as humans are made in His image (Genesis 1:26). It would seem that animal death would contradict this verse in the context of evolution, as the apes would have had to be progressively becoming made in God's image. Isn't it bad when something that is even a small part made in God's image dies? I am looking forward to seeing your responses.
Welcome, Josh Hedlund!
I agree with you when you say that evidence etc. should be posted on the other thread that is open...So feel free to check that out as well if you are interested!
To continue our hyper-analysis of the words "good" "perfect" etc., I would submit that only God is perfect, per se, so the best his creation could be is "very good." We now live in a broken world. I don't think anyone here will deny that (but may think wrong, especially when assuming what others will say!) So from God, "very good" is an amazing compliment! I am glad that Josh (Hedlund) brought up: "there are none who are righteous, no, not one."
We are only righteous in Jesus, certainly not by anything we have done. So, our righteousness is an act of God, for, as we are not righteous ourselves (quite the opposite, in fact), Jesus gave us his righteousness, paying the price for our sin on the cross. There is a little Latin saying that goes with this: simul justus et piccatur. Saint and sinner (simultaneously). It is the same way in the scriptures when someone is referred to as "righteous."
So, while "very good" may not necessarily mean "perfect," the world pre-fall would have been devoid of sin, and since death entered the world through sin, it would not have had death as well. Now, we will likely get into a lively and fascinating discussion about what counts as life and what counts as death (for instance, did bacteria die before the fall? Did stars "die" before the fall?). Thank you all for commenting!
Very relevant to this discussion is this article on suffering and Jesus and evolution.
http://peacefulscience.org/harris-evolutionary-evil/
Thanks, Jacob. A couple of thoughts in response...
> Do you think that the sight of an animal bleeding, dying and being eaten by another would have seemed "very good" to a pre-fall Adam and Eve?
First, I would say that it's possible Adam and Eve wouldn't have seen predator-prey relationships if they were confined outside the protective garden. Second, even if they did, I think it's hard to say what that would have seemed like. Some people are very squeamish and faint at even the sight of a little blood; other people, especially those more hardened to an outdoor lifestyle (unlike many of us modern urban softies, myself included), are not at all troubled by it, especially if it's connected to something more important. So I think we should not rely on highly subjective human reactions to the moral value of animal predation, but rather the objective declaration of God. One example of that is Psalm 104, which says the lions receive their food from God and are filled with "good things." I would be happy to consider other passages if you have any.
> Furthermore, very good, when spoken by God means "perfect."
I agree that this is sometimes the case, but I think we would want to examine more passages before asserting that it is always the case. For instance, even in the Genesis story, God said, "It is not good for man to be alone." Does that mean there was something imperfect about the world, though it was sinless? Deuteromony 8:7 says "the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land" - does this mean it was a perfect land? Perhaps there is a moral distinction in the Bible between calling humans "good" / "not good", and calling the rest of creation "good". Even with humans, it is complicated; we know "there are none who are righteous, no, not one," and yet the Bible also refers to many men as righteous, though they were certainly not "perfect." At the very least, I think we should hesitate to enforce a dogmatic connection between the words "good" and "perfect" when the Hebrew uses them differently in different situations. You are claiming that "very good" in Genesis must be perfect; I am not claiming that it must not mean "perfect," rather I am claiming that it may or may not, in which case either interpretation would be a valid possibility, neither of them a threat to Christianity.
Two quick responses, Jacob.
1. I don't think we really have the right to assign moral value to animal predation.
2. The men writing the Bible certainly could have used the word "perfect", if they were inspired to do so.
Welcome to the Forum!! It's good to have you. I agree about the evidence discussion belongs on the other forum, however, regarding the points you made.
Do you think that the sight of an animal bleeding, dying and being eaten by another would have seemed "very good" to a pre-fall Adam and Eve? Furthermore, very good, when spoken by God means "perfect." if you begin to separate the two phrases, you run into many more problems than that. Jesus says "“Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." if we separate "good" from "perfect" I think we can agree that some people are "good." Obviously,to God, there is no distinction, "good" is "perfect.". Therefore, "very good" would have described a perfect creation free from sin. That would include animals tainted by sin i.e. predators.
(In my opinion, discussions about evidence for /against evolution should be a separate tangent from whether or not evolution is a threat to Christianity.)
I just wanted to add a couple points to the earlier conversation about death before the fall.
- I believe Romans 5 may only be talking about the introduction of human death, as other living creations are not mentioned in the passage and it is not clear, if they are included, where we would draw the line at including mammals / insects / plants / bacteria / cells in the idea of "death".
- If predatory behavior can be considered part of a "good" creation (Ps 104), though perhaps not a "perfect" one, I believe this allows us to fully see the glory in God's magnificent design of defense and offenses in the animal kingdom. There are so many impressive intricate characteristics, from bodies designed to hunt, to camouflage and mimicry and spikes and the bombadier beetle's explosion-factory to defend, from predator eyes in the front of the head to focus on prey, to prey eyes on the side of the head to watch out for predators, that all seem better explained as an intentional design for a world where no creature was "perfect" enough to wipe out the others, but enough for a "very good" equilibrium, rather than to explain it all (as many YEC do) as either existing pre-Fall but not being used, or as springing to life like a new creation at the curse.
Note that this view of animal death before the Fall does not require evolution. In fact, it was discussed in detail by old-earth creationists who opposed evolutionary ideas in the 1800's. However, if the idea of animal death before the Fall is not a threat to Christianity outside of evolution, then it would not be part of any threat to Christianity within evolution, either (although there are arguably other challenges), and the question of how those animals acquired their wonderful offenses/defenses would be a separate issue independent of theology.
S.M.S.,
One can reuse designs and still not produce a nested hierarchy. If you wanted to reuse parts in biology you could take flow through lungs and feathers from birds and take mammary glands and three middle ear bones from mammals to create a new species. However, this species would violate the nested hierarchy of life predicted by the theory of evolution. There is no reason why reusing designs would produce a nested hierarchy, just as cars don't form a nested hierarchy even though humans reuse designs in cars all of the time. There are millions and millions of ways of combining reused bits of design but only a tiny, tiny fractions of those combinations will produce a nested hierarchy.
So the question is why would God mix and match reused designs in separately created species so that they form a nested hierarchy when there are millions and millions of other possible combinations of reused designs that would not produce a nested hierarchy? Was God trying to fool us into believing that life evolved? If you can't come up with a reason why God would be forced to fit species into a nested hierarchy, then the nested hierarchy can't be evidence for creationism.
On the subject of predictions, Linnaeus and others did not know about DNA. It was not known in Darwin's time that DNA sequences also produced a nested hierarchy independently of physical characteristics. The theory of evolution predicted that they two phylogenies based on DNA and morphology should match, and that was borne out by the sequencing of genomes after the prediction was made. We are also continually finding new fossil species and new living species, and they continue to fit into the predicted nested hierarchy. The theory predicts which combinations of features we should see in fossil species and which we should not, and the new transitional fossils we find fit those predictions. We find fossils with a mixture of human and ape features as the theory predicts. We don't find fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features, also as the theory predicts. Creationism makes no such predictions.
As J.E.S. pointed out, the classification of things according to nested hierarchy was first performed, in recent pre-Darwinian times, by Linnaeus, a creationist, so it can hardly be considered a "prediction" of evolutionary theory. Also, to the extent that a nested hierarchy of living things exists, evolutionists presume to know what a Creator would do in asserting that God would not create life according to a nested hierarchy. Why not? Why would God NOT want to use the same design ideas over again? Don't we humans often do something similar in our designs? Evolutionists suggest that God would not do it in such a pattern that would lead one to want to infer the existence of hierarchical divisions of lineages. Again, why not?
In fact, as more and more morphological detail is considered, it becomes harder and harder for evolutionists to decide which feature is the result of presumed shared ancestry (homology), and which is ostensibly independently derived (analogy or homoplasy). There are numerous morphological traits which do not fit the pattern of a nested set of bifurcating lineages of evolutionary descent. The same trait often appears in living things which are not believed to be closely related by evolution, and this occurs often enough to vitiate evolution's premise about nested hierarchies. For example, disagreements about the probable homologous or homoplastic nature of shared derived similarities between taxa lie at the core of most conflicting phylogenetic hypotheses.
Whereas a nested hierarchy may well characterize living things when viewed in terms of general similarities and differences, it does not exist when large numbers of detailed morphological similarities and differences are simultaneously considered. Furthermore, earlier-believed nested hierarchies are often overturned as more evidence is accumulated. For instance, mesonychians and cetaceans were long believed to be sister groups based on a closely-knit series of shared similarities, but this pattern is no longer believed to indicate close evolutionary kinship. The total evidence results suggest that skeletal similarities between mesonychians and cetaceans are homoplasies. Also, new marine biological evidence has further confirmed this point, as even many evolutionists now believe that whales are closer to artiodactyls.
J.E.S.,
If the evidence is consistent with common ancestry then it rules out common design. Evolution explains the evidence while common design does not.
The only way I can see common design producing the evidence we see is if the designer put forth a ton of effort specifically to fool people into thinking that life evolved. At that point, you might as well claim that fingerprints at crime scenes were planted by God, so we can't use forensic evidence in court cases because the evidence is also consistent with God separately creating fingerprints.
If you are going to claim that common design explains something you should at least put forth that explanation or why the evidence doesn't disprove common design. Otherwise, it just looks like a knee jerk reaction to make it look like you have an explanation.
Also, in some important ways we are getting of track here. As should be obvious, evolution is not a threat to Christianity, only to some types of Christianity, such as Christianity founded on rejecting evolution instead of on the Resurrection of Jesus. Hardly any surprises here.
I notice the YECs here care a lot about evidence. One of the best blogs that gets into this is the excellent work done by my friend Joel Duff: https://thenaturalhistorian.com
Regarding nested clades, evolution, and creation. This leads to direct way of testing evolution. I have written about this before. I would say: this is strong evidence for the "similarity caused by shared history" hypothesis over the "similarity caused by common function" hypothesis, whether or not evolution is ultimately true.
https://discourse.biologos.org/t/phylogeny-vs-similarity-and-function/26471
However, it is important to point out (as Walter ReMine, YEC notes) that evolution does not produce perfectly nested hierarchies.
Also in his research, Linnaeus fount that different species, and maybe even different genera, could be created through hybridization. However, the concept of completely open-ended evolution that is so prevalent today may well have shocked him. Just found that interesting, even though it does not disprove the point you are trying to make with your Linnaeus comment. Nested hierarchies are quite interesting, but I would classify them as:
What do you think, T_aquaticus? (Perhaps we should continue this discussion here ("here" is a link, by the way ; )
Science is based on observable facts, and repeatable experiments. Since we cannot observe or repeat a physical resurrection from death, it is, from a purely scientific standpoint, impossible. By the same argument, evolution, since it is neither observable or repeatable, must be taken on just as much faith as the resurrection. So, while creationists put their faith in a God who rose from the dead and gave his infallible word to prove it, evolutionists place their faith in what "experts" claim is evidence for evolution. I'll take door number one thank you...
1. It was a creationist named Linnaeus who first organized his observations and reported that animals and plants fell into a nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is not a product of believing that evolution occurred. The nested hierarchy predates the theory of evolution by about 100 years. It has nothing to do with worldview.
2. The mechanisms of evolution can only produce a nested hierarchy. Animals and plant species pass down genes from ancestor to descendant, not from one living species to another living species. This is called horizontal genetic transfer. We also observe that each organism is born with mutations. The only outcome that can come out of this process is a nested hierarchy. If you think this is a product of some worldview, then please show why evolution wouldn't produce a nested hierarchy among species that predominately participate in horizontal genetic transfer.
This isn't a matter of worldview. These are the facts. Life falls into a nested hierarchy, and evolution will necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. Creationism, on the other hand, can produce billions of different combinations of characteristics other than those in a nested hierarchy. Creationism can't explain the nested hierarchy. Evolution can explain the nested hierarchy with startling accuracy.