Resurrection, evolution and the Gospel

[Justice]

It's not a new definition. In fact, it's the main definition.

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion

Pronunciation: \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere

Date: 1622

1 : one of a set of prescribed movements

2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved

3 : the process of working out or developing

4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

5 : the extraction of a mathematical root

6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Both are there. Evolution as in the theory of is fairly new. Evolution means movement or change.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Justice.

It's not a new definition. In fact, it's the main definition.

...

Both are there. Evolution as in the theory of is fairly new. Evolution means movement or change.

And, as I said in my last post: communication trumps semantics.

What, exactly, does this bring to the discussion?

What difference does it make how many different things the term “evolution” can refer to?

In the end, are all the different things that “evolution” refers to the same thing?

No, they are not. These words are homonyms, not synonyms. It’s the same concept as knowing two people named “Bert”: they are not the same person simply because their name is the same.

Threepercent directed his initial comment to those who believe that God created man via evolution. Those who believe God created man via evolution believe that God created man via biological evolution. He equated this with the resurrection of the body to its glorified state.

Thus, from the beginning, the intended meaning of the word “evolution” was established. The correct rebuttal is to show him that the resurrection is not the same as biological evolution, not to explain to him that the word “evolution” is a semantically appropriate description of the resurrection.

[Traveler]

Hi, Justice.

And, as I said in my last post: communication trumps semantics.

What, exactly, does this bring to the discussion?

What difference does it make how many different things the term “evolution” can refer to?

In the end, are all the different things that “evolution” refers to the same thing?

No, they are not. These words are homonyms, not synonyms. It’s the same concept as knowing two people named “Bert”: they are not the same person simply because their name is the same.

Threepercent directed his initial comment to those who believe that God created man via evolution. Those who believe God created man via evolution believe that God created man via biological evolution. He equated this with the resurrection of the body to its glorified state.

Thus, from the beginning, the intended meaning of the word “evolution” was established. The correct rebuttal is to show him that the resurrection is not the same as biological evolution, not to explain to him that the word “evolution” is a semantically appropriate description of the resurrection.

One of the great misunderstandings in communication is the difference between “intent” and “extent” of a specific term. By selecting a specific meaning of a term from the variety of definitions included in the extent and using (or misusing) that meaning in the context of what a person is saying or what another person is understanding to be said is the essence of what I reference in a previous post as a “nut case”.

Let me give another example outside the current evolution debate. Let us look at someone that is very religious saying, “there is nothing good in the world”. The problem here is the intended meaning of the word “good”. If a person that understand the methods of rhetorical logic attempts to deal with the statement they will observe that the word good in preceded with the term “nothing”. The application of rhetorical logic allows for the full extent of the meaning good be applied to understanding. Perhaps some have heard the saying, “Never say never”. This is because it imposes a very difficult “intent” to be understood.

Back to evolution. When a person claims that there is no proof of evolution they are making a serious communication error. They may mean there is no proof that any two species have a common ancestor but even then the word proof in this use in ambiguous. Are they saying there is no evidence of any such thing? Usually what it means is that the person is very closed or narrow minded. By this I am intending that the person has not really educated themselves and is aware of facts that led a preponderance of other (that have labored with facts) to conclude otherwise.

I have stated that biological evolution is an observable fact. Every person is evolving as we speak in the process of growing or aging. This gives very specific definition to the meaning of biological evolution that we can all explorer. But if the response is that there is no proof of biological evolution – what can I possibly do to determine what on earth prompted that response? If we cannot come to terms that there is micro evolution at the cell level that can be observed in a growing organism as well as macro evolution in a growing organism – it is only because someone is very closed minded.

In all my experience it has been overwhelmingly the religious individuals and not the scientific individuals that are closed minded and unwilling to examine the evidence or consider the possibility.

The Traveler

[Bluejay]

Hi, Traveler.

By selecting a specific meaning of a term from the variety of definitions included in the extent and using (or misusing) that meaning in the context of what a person is saying or what another person is understanding to be said is the essence of what I reference in a previous post as a “nut case”...

...Back to evolution. When a person claims that there is no proof of evolution they are making a serious communication error. They may mean there is no proof that any two species have a common ancestor but even then the word proof in this use in ambiguous. Are they saying there is no evidence of any such thing? Usually what it means is that the person is very closed or narrow minded. By this I am intending that the person has not really educated themselves and is aware of facts that led a preponderance of other (that have labored with facts) to conclude otherwise.

We seem to be in full agreement here. I have no problems with your semantic approach to differentiating generic "evolution" and "Theory of Evolution."

-----

I have stated that biological evolution is an observable fact. Every person is evolving as we speak in the process of growing or aging.

This is what I object to. You provided a beautiful exposition on the differences between various meanings of a word, but do not differentiate them in your own writing.

Aging and growing are not "biological evolution.” They are “biological,” and they fit the colloquial usage of “evolution,” but they are not “biological evolution,” and it’s completely inappropriate to address them as such. Aging and growing are part of “ontogeny,” which is studied by an entirely separate field of study from evolutionary biology (i.e., developmental biology).

(However, there is such a thing as evolutionary developmental biology--- you’ve heard of “evo-devo,” I’m sure?---that addresses the evolution of developmental processes).

The term "biological evolution" refers specifically to "phylogeny," or the evolution of populations of organisms (including the emergence of new species by accumulating divergence between populations). This is the sense of the term used by theistic evolutionists when we say we believe man evolved from apes. This is a fundamentally different phenomenon from ontogeny, which is clearly the proper description for the glorification of our resurrected bodies.

The direct implication of the OP is that people who believe that humans evolved from primates also believe that the same process of evolution is responsible for the creation of resurrected humans. This is false, because we do not believe that individuals evolve. Proposing “evolutionary resurrectionism” simply introduces equivocation on our own terminology, particularly when the term “resurrection” already suits the process just fine.

-----

In all my experience it has been overwhelmingly the religious individuals and not the scientific individuals that are closed minded and unwilling to examine the evidence or consider the possibility.

Well, I don't disagree with this in principle. But, I do know a lot of scientists...

Edited August 21, 2009 by Bluejay
Code problems and one spelling error

[Justice]

Thus, from the beginning, the intended meaning of the word “evolution” was established. The correct rebuttal is to show him that the resurrection is not the same as biological evolution, not to explain to him that the word “evolution” is a semantically appropriate description of the resurrection.

But, resurrection is evolution from the standpoint that it is a change, even betterment. It is not part of the Theory of Evolution.

That was the point I was trying to make. So, your definition of evolution matters. Many people say "evolution" and assume everyone understands it as the Theory of Evolution, which may be the case. I believe in evolution, but not the Theory of Evolution.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Justice.

But, resurrection is evolution from the standpoint that it is a change, even betterment. It is not part of the Theory of Evolution.

I never said that resurrection doesn't fit a definition of the word "evolution." But, this thread is not about the word evolution: it is about a specific process that is referred to as "evolution," and why Threepercent thinks it works the same way as the resurrection.

If I say, "Bert is a funny man," I am not talking about everybody who is referred to as "Bert," am I? Rather, I'm talking about a specific person named Bert.

Referring to a dictionary to point out all the various definitions of "evolution" is like referring to a phone book to point out all the other people in there named "Bert": how, exactly, does it help? In fact, it's precisely the reason for Threepercent's confusion in the first place.

There are two concepts here that need to be distinguished. Allowing them all to float around using the same name is only going to facilitate misunderstandings like Threepercent's.

[threepercent]

lol.

right.

[Justice]

Allowing them all to float around using the same name is only going to facilitate misunderstandings like Threepercent's.

I'm not certain how defining terms fits this statement. I would think it is the opposite.

Anyhow, I didn't define it because I felt anyone misunderstood it. I defined it because I feel it's best to discuss topics from common ground, using the same definitions of words. I really didn't have any hidden agendas.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Justice.

Allowing them all to float around using the same name is only going to facilitate misunderstandings like Threepercent's.

I'm not certain how defining terms fits this statement. I would think it is the opposite.

But, not when you settle on the most ambiguous definition of the term available!

There are two things that need to be distinguished in this thread, but y'all insist on using language that makes it impossible to do so, despite it being one of Traveler's pet peeves!

My original complaint was that Traveler went through a lot of effort to differentiate the two meanings of "evolution," then blurred them together again in by using the term in the vague sense that encompasses both meanings. I argued for a more specific usage for the term, and you supported the generic definition again. That's why I got onto you: it was nothing personal.

-----

I really didn't have any hidden agendas.

Rereading, I can see how it sounds like I said this. I don't think you do have a hidden agenda: you seem a decent, upstanding, and intelligent person, and I hope I haven't offended you.

My only complaint is directly against the definition you put forward.

-----

Anyhow, I didn't define it because I felt anyone misunderstood it. I defined it because I feel it's best to discuss topics from common ground, using the same definitions of words.

Agreed. But, the definition you offered was the definition that led to Threepercent's misunderstanding in the first place. When you define "evolution" to mean something simple like "change," that's what causes people like Threepercent to say that resurrection and biological evolution are the same process.

I'm strongly against the definition you and Traveler used, because it creates more confusion than it resolves. I'm trying to make the case that Threepercent is mistaken about something I accept as a correct principle: but, I can't defend a principle when everybody wants to point out that his point was semantically correct, even though the semantics is not what I'm questioning.

-----

Maybe it's time for me to end this discussion about definitions: can we at least agree that the Theory of Evolution and resurrection are not the same process?

Edited August 24, 2009 by Bluejay
I switched the last word from "thing" to "process"

[Bluejay]

Hi, Threepercent.

lol.

right.

What does this contribute to the discussion?

[Justice]

Bluejay, I have seen hundreds of these discussions on line about evolution. Where most of them go wrong is the black and white belief that you can't believe in evolution if you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution. So many people have lost sight of the basic premise behind the Theory of Evolution and think you will see the definition for the Theory of Evolution of you look up evolution.

This is why I did not try to define it myself, I posted it right from Merriam Webster.

That is really the heart of why I'm trying to distinguish it's definitions.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Justice.

I'm beginning to wonder if you and I are even having the same conversation.

Bluejay, I have seen hundreds of these discussions on line about evolution.

This is the best place for that.

----

Where most of them go wrong is the black and white belief that you can't believe in evolution if you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution. So many people have lost sight of the basic premise behind the Theory of Evolution and think you will see the definition for the Theory of Evolution of you look up evolution.

This is why I did not try to define it myself, I posted it right from Merriam Webster.

That is really the heart of why I'm trying to distinguish it's definitions.

This is going to make me cry: we've been through this already!

The definitions you brought up are not relevant to this discussion.

Here is the first line from Threepercent's OP:

so, this question is for all those people who have evolution and the history of the earth figured out.

From the very beginning, Threepercent established what type of evolution he was talking about: the type that has to do with the history of the earth. If you start using "evolution" to mean something other than this in the middle of the conversation, you are guilty of equivocation.

The only reason for a person to equivocate is to save face while they go back on something they said earlier.

[Misshalfway]

so, this question is for all those people who have evolution and the history of the earth figured out.

This quote makes me laugh.

[Justice]

Bluejay, if you read the thread you will see that people were using one term implying the other.

I was just trying to clarify definitions. If no one was using one for the other, and there really was no confusion, then I apologize for re-stating the definitions. I really thought I read some confusion on the meaning.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Misshalfway.

so, this question is for all those people who have evolution and the history of the earth figured out.

This quote makes me laugh.

Pretty small target audience, isn't it?

[Traveler]

Bluejay: I believe that part of the problem is that you use certain terms that describe study disciplines. Within any discipline there are methods. Evolution is a method that describes living matter that changes and produces a changed living matter. Anytime you start with something – change it so you end up with something else that process is evolutionary.

Aging is diffidently an accurate description of evolution. In scientific terms a person will recycle all the living cells in their body every 7 years. That recycle process is evolution. One can observe evolution in the study of biology or they can observe evolution in the study of Zoology. The process of evolution does not change if one is a biologist, zoologist or disciplined by ontogeny. Anytime a cell divides the observer will witness evolution.

The Traveler

[Bluejay]

Hi, Traveler.

Aging is diffidently an accurate description of evolution.

Did you mean that in the opposite way: "evolution is an accurate description of aging"?

-----

In scientific terms a person will recycle all the living cells in their body every 7 years. That recycle process is evolution... Anytime a cell divides the observer will witness evolution.

In order for a process to be considered the same as the Theory of Evolution, it must include both mutation and natural selection. In the process you are referring to, there is no natural selection, so it is a different process.

If this process were the same process as the Theory of Evolution, it would proceed in this manner:

• Cell divides.
• During division, a beneficial mutation occurs in one daughter cell.
• The daughter cell outcompetes other cells, and proliferates better, passing on the mutation.
• The daughter cell line displaces other cells.
• The other cell lines adapt to different niches to avoid competition.

It's an intriguing idea, but I have never heard any evidence that this occurs.

[Traveler]

Hi, Traveler.

Did you mean that in the opposite way: "evolution is an accurate description of aging"?

-----

In order for a process to be considered the same as the Theory of Evolution, it must include both mutation and natural selection. In the process you are referring to, there is no natural selection, so it is a different process.

If this process were the same process as the Theory of Evolution, it would proceed in this manner:

• Cell divides.
• During division, a beneficial mutation occurs in one daughter cell.
• The daughter cell outcompetes other cells, and proliferates better, passing on the mutation.
• The daughter cell line displaces other cells.
• The other cell lines adapt to different niches to avoid competition.

It's an intriguing idea, but I have never heard any evidence that this occurs.

I am trying to communicate with you. I am not addressing what you call the Theory of Evolution - I am talking about how evolution can be observed. I am not talking about beneficial mutation - I am talking about evolution. Or if you will, change. How change is seen from one generation to the next on the cell level whenever cell divide.

I am also talking about evolution on a grand scale in a person as they age. This is all a form of evolution, it is a type of evolution. It is the most simple example of evolution that I can present. I am trying to start with something simple.

My only point is that evolution is taking place and we can see evolution. If you do not want to realize that evolution takes place whenever a cell divides - then I have nothing more I can add. And if you want you can pronounce yourself the winner. I thought I could help open up understanding of the most basic principles and example of evolution. But it does look very much like I have failed. My apologies to all reading this thread.

The Traveler

[Bluejay]

Hi, Traveler.

I am not having trouble understanding what you are saying: I am having trouble understanding why you are saying it.

Threepercent began this thread thinking that the evolution of humans from primates was the same process as the resurrection and celestialization of the human body after death.

How does talking about some other type of evolution help with this particular issue?

[Traveler]

Hi, Traveler.

I am not having trouble understanding what you are saying: I am having trouble understanding why you are saying it.

Threepercent began this thread thinking that the evolution of humans from primates was the same process as the resurrection and celestialization of the human body after death.

How does talking about some other type of evolution help with this particular issue?

Once we understand our development (evolution) from a zygote to birth of a human perhaps we can think of the resurrection as a similar kind of birth.

Now there is something that we have not discussed - mostly because we could not get past some very simple concepts. But among the ancients the concept of eternal was quite different from our concept. We think of eternal as something that never ends - that goes on in time for ever. The ancients did not think of eternal in that way. To them eternal meant something that does not change.

It is possible that we evolve through the resurrection to a final change to something that does not change ever again. But since we never got to first base and the rest does not really matter - I just thought I would pass on to you an idea of what happenes after we get past first base.

So in essence that which is mortal is subject to change (evolution) which is the state in which we live and therefore that which we can experience and observe. But that which is eternal does not change and therefore cannot evolve - which means whatever we become in the resurrection is eternal and does not change.

But I have given up and so plan to move on without going into any more detail.

The Traveler