Mutations can't save the cheetah because all they do is kill; most of them kill DNA itself over time

Here's another post from that EvC thread where the cheetah example came up that I discuss a couple posts below:

This is from creationist Slevesque, who started the thread:

What I was saying was: The % of functioning genome has been ever increasing in the past few years, as I'm sure you know. Right now, anyone can safely say that at least 30% of the genome is functional.

What I said concerning ENCODE was simply that it ''opened up the possibility'' that the entire genome had a function. I'm not saying it proved anything, and I certainly know the difference between functional and transcribed.

Therefore, all I'm saying is that when seeing how genetics has been unravelling the secrets of previously thought ''junk DNA'', and how more evidence comes to open the possibility that maybe the whole genome is functional, I think it is the idea that any part of the genome is junk that should be regarder with great skepticism, not the other way around.

I haven't followed the whole thread so I don't really know where this fits in, but just to answer what is written here, it seems to me this supposed discovery that some junk DNA is "functional" simply reflects the fact that some of it hasn't TOTALLY lost its function, it's just been crippled, not killed.

An accumulation of mutational disruptions of the code along the length of a gene over generations eventually has to render it less and less functional although it may retain SOME function, and this is most likely all that has been discovered.

Of course the whole genome was once completely and perfectly functional, but the processes of disease and death have been rendering it less and less functional down the generations.

I think slevesque is making a very common mistake that creationists, especially Intelligent Design creationists, often make, that is, not to recognize that dead DNA reflects the Biblical Fall. The whole genome is not NOW functional and it shouldn't be if the Fall is true. The Fall is still operating, at all levels of life, still accumulating death and disease from generation to generation.

It's testimony to the immense vitality of the original Creation that there's still a lot of life left in God's created world, but no matter how much life they discover remaining in the junk DNA it isn't going to be the original life that it was created to have, but something like haphazard spasms of its original life.

===
ALSO, the idea that deleterious mutations will be wiped out of the population by natural selection is no doubt true -- another notion that always comes up in these discussions, and on this thread as well -- as long as there are viable genes in the population at large that survive and get passed on. However, what is not being taken into account in this cheery scenario is that ALL death in a population contributes to the gradual reduction of genetic diversity over time, just as all the selection processes do, just as anything that isolates a portion of a population does.

ALSO, there is no reason for "neutral" mutations to be selected out so they continue in the population even though they represent a segment of dead DNA that means SOME function or other has been destroyed or crippled. As genes accumulate more mutational assaults down the generations, eventually they contribute to the DNA cemetery or junk DNA although the organisms go on apparently functioning, and there is simply no way to know what was lost. A whole population eventually comes to carry these cemeteries in their DNA although they apparently continue to function without them, though no doubt in an increasingly disease-prone condition.

Since we don't know what the original Creation was like we can't appreciate what has been lost, but it would certainly help if science weren't addicted to this idea of evolution and could get focused on the reality of gradual degeneration over time or the reality is going to rise up and bite them in the end (in both senses of the word). Reality is always a nice thing for science to keep in mind.

Do Creationists Really LIE? Not that I've seen yet, and some of the accusation comes from evolutionism's conjuring "science" out of fantasy

I asked an evolution defender to give examples of what he calls "lies" by creationists, a common accusation from evolutionists at EvC too, although I've never seen anything I'd call a lie.

Here's what he said:

You know that old joke about lawyers? "How do you know when a lawyer is lying?" Answer: "When his lips are moving." It's basically like that with creationists, but with respect to misrepresentation/distortion of evolution (although, I'm sure for many that it's not so much intentional as just blindly and thoughtlessly repeating the words/ideas of others in their cultural circles). Frankly, it's pretty much anything and everything said by creationists on the topic of evolution that is wrong. In my experience, there is virtually no understanding of it whatsoever, and its presentation is grossly distorted every time it is discussed.

The comments in this very thread present numerous examples of this type of thing---such as B I's post above, right here on this page. He fails to understand how science works, why evolution is accepted by the scientific community, and what that means (i.e. what the realistic expectations are), and a number of other things. For example, some of the 'problems' he presents are plausibly explained in general terms by well-known evolutionary ideas, even if the specific details are not filled-in in minute detail (yet). Take all of #14: none of it would be presented as any sort of fundamental, fatal problem if the concept of co-evolution were understood. And this kind of thing is made even more ridiculous by others in fundamental Christianity through such asinine questions as, "Which came first: males or females?" The question itself positively screams lack of evolutionary understanding, and I've heard it a number of times from various Christian sources. As I have said before, some of the anti-evolutionary ideas I've heard in Christian circles are so incredibly over-the-top absurd that even a few fundamentalist Christian institutions have denounced them and said not to use them. Yet, I routinely continue to hear them.

Oh, here's a real gem I saw on TV a while back on population calculations, causing me to cringe in embarrassment for the "advanced intelligence" of the human species. It was a fundamentalist Christian show (channel, actually) that brought on an "expert" to talk about population growth and extrapolation. The distilled idea was this: if you take the simple population growth equation (such as p=c*e^(kt)), plug in the numbers for humans and extrapolate, then you can get a reasonable answer for starting with a single man and woman pair about six thousand years ago and arriving at today's population; whereas, if you plug in "the scientists'" ideas of billions of years, etc, then you get a ridiculous number of a population enormously outnumbering all the atoms in the universe. Voila! Young-Earth creation supported; old Earth science disproved! (Can you see how this type of thing makes scientists want to tear their hair out in frustration, especially since people just idiotically and uncritically accept this kind of thing as powerful 'disproof'?)

I could, quite literally, write an entire book on all the horrific distortions I have seen and heard with respect to evolution and the various related sciences that contradict Young-Earth Creationism.

(Another 'great' one: If humans came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? /cringe)

And here's what I answered:

Thanks for your answer. I'm going to keep asking evolutionists that question because I really don't see any LIES in anything you pointed to or in anything I've seen anywhere for that matter but I want to be sure I know what is being referred to.

A misunderstanding of how evolution works, such as in the famous monkey mistake, isn't a LIE and it's not fair to call it that. A lie is an intentional untruth, of course. Do you really mean to class all these examples as lies? I'm glad you do say you think most of it is probably unintentional, but I haven't yet seen ONE creationist idea I'd call an actual lie. I'm not saying it's not possible, just haven't seen it yet.

"Horrific distortions" could probably be documented as I know there are some pretty silly creationist arguments, but I also suspect that many of those "horrific distortions" are seen through evolutionist bias, failing to get the point the creationist is trying to make. In any case "distortion" is not synonymous with "lie."

I'm sorry, I really don't see your objection to the population argument. Surely whatever rate of population growth is established by evolutionists WOULD produce drastically different totals over millions of years versus a few thousand. Did he misapply the math in your judgment or what?

As for your answer to B I:

For example, some of the 'problems' he presents are plausibly explained in general terms by well-known evolutionary ideas, even if the specific details are not filled-in in minute detail (yet). Take all of #14: none of it would be presented as any sort of fundamental, fatal problem if the concept of co-evolution were understood.

[This fits with my argument in the previous post that evolutionism can just morph in any direction to answer a challenge as it's all just fantasy] This is a typical conflict between the two sides of this argument. The key is in your own phrase, "plausibly explained." Co-evolution is merely a handy theory, a plausible explanation, given to account for something that on the face of it does look lethal for the theory of evolution. It seems that there is no dearth of possible theories available to "explain" the problems. Will you agree that it IS just a theory, please? A plausible construction and nothing more. The creationist observes something that looks like a big problem and the evolutionist answers with -- a plausible possible explanation. Not facts, not with anything that could be established by scientific method, experiment etc.

Most of this whole argument is between such plausible constructions. The DNA of apes and humans is quite similar so evolutionists leap to the explanation that this proves genetic relatedness. It doesn't. It just as well proves design similarity and nothing more. Can't you see this? Most of this is a war between alternative plausibilities and the only thing that makes the evolutionist plausibility more "scientific" is that it is accepted by scientists.

And that's because by now evolution has accumulated such an overwhelming collection of these mere plausibilities that it looks like it's really onto something. But they are just plausibilities, imaginative constructs, or theory of you prefer. It's now an immense structure made up of one mere plausible explanation giving "scientific" support to another.

So, I see mistakes and distortions but also simply different explanations for the data on both sides, neither of which has any actual scientific standing, though the evolutionist explanation is given the imprimatur of the establishment.

Maybe you could still come up with an example of an actual lie?

How the cheetah, living proof that evolution is not possible, becomes just another figment of the evolutionist imagination

Hey, I'm honored, mentioned by Iblis in a post at EvC, of course the usual nonsense argument and I'm not there to defend myself but that's OK. There is no defending yourself at EvC if you're a creationist. The thing about evolutionism is that it can morph in any direction it likes in order to answer you because it's all a fantasy. If you say something that seems to challenge the theory, amoeba-like it just extends a pseudopod to gobble up the challenge -- glurrrp -- and everybody's happy.

And this is a case in point.

Faith used to back her affected agrument by incredulity with specious appeals to "genetic meltdown". Her favorite example was the amazing cheetah.

Lessee, of course you must use all the most derogatory terms you can think of to poison the well against the argument for starters, such as "affected" and "specious," to be sure nobody could possibly think the argument had any merit. Oh and be sure to call it an "argument by incredulity" even though it is no such thing -- that's SUCH a no-no.

I also don't recall ever using the term "genetic meltdown" so it shouldn't be in quotes in reference to my argument.

Now he goes on in a way that is rather hard to follow, kind of a word salad approach that serves mostly to obscure and in any case doesn't get anywhere near the argument I was always trying to make by referring to the cheetah:

He's had it rough as the poster-child for reduction of genetic diversity. Due to depopulation, isolation and inbreeding his genetic variability is so low that skin grafts between unrelated animals do not result in immunological rejection! And so on, there are a lot of lovely fables in this area.

IS that a fable? I don't think I ever used that particular example but everything I've read about the cheetah does say that the genetic variability IS so low that individuals are almost like clones of one another. Is he trying to dispute that even after declaring it?

But contrary to popular belief, this is nothing new for the cheetah.

Contrary to popular belief? Whose belief? I never said it was "new?" What does its being new or old have to do with anything? The point is that the cheetah is a prime example of extremely reduced genetic variability. He seems to affirm this yet also try to deny it. This is a very confused piece of writing.

Well, now here comes the Evo Fairy Tale. Get some popcorn, pull up a chair:

It began thousands of years ago, toward the end of last ice age,

Yes, long long ago ...

in a fairly ordinary genetic bottleneck.

... in a land far far away ...

Did anyone ever suggest the bottleneck was not "ordinary?" The point about a bottleneck is that it eliminates a bunch of genes all at once, leaving a very few individuals to form a new population with the reduced genetic variability they share, whether it's an "ordinary" or extraordinary bottleneck, whatever that might be.

And as result of this process, the cheetah has become the least "feline" of all the big cats.

Well, it has a smallish head as felines go but otherwise it's plenty feline it seems to me. But apparently saying it's less "feline" is supposed to imply that it's an example of evolution. Sigh. Are we getting anywhere with this little dissertation? Doesn't it seem to be wandering around trying to obscure the issue?

So now we go from this completely subjective notion that it's less feline looking to this HUGE jump:

In another million years or so, he may look something like this [here we get a picture of -- a hyena? A doglike animal with some cheetah-like coloring and markings]

Oh brother. Because the cheetah just sort of looks less feline to this guy it's evolving and is going to look even less feline in a million years. Sigh.

The point about such drastically reduced genetic variability is that EVOLUTION HAS COME TO A STOP. That is the point of using the cheetah as an example. The cheetah is NOT EVOLVING. It's reached a genetic dead end. When you have no new genetic possibilities there is simply no direction in which the animal COULD evolve. It goes on producing individuals that hardly vary at all from each other, to the point that they are truly like clones. You CANNOT GET EVOLUTION FROM THAT POINT.

A bottleneck is what happens when for some reason you have just a few individuals inbreeding among themselves to form a new variation of a species. A bottleneck is simply the most drastic way animals get "selected" -- randomly in this case -- and isolated, these being the "mechanisms" or conditions that bring about new gene frequencies, which is supposedly the basis for evolution. And it IS, it is the basis for MICROevolution, or the variation that commonly occurs from generation to generation in any species. If part of a population gets isolated from the rest it develops characteristics to some extent different from the former population with its own reduced gene pool. But it WILL have a reduced gene pool, it WILL have reduced genetic variability compared to the previous population. A bottleneck will simply bring about a DRASTICALLY reduced genetic variability compared to the usual reduction because it involves so few individuals. This is what makes such examples the best for making the point about how evolution comes to an end by simply following out the normal processes that create new varieties, or microevolution. ALL reduced populations tend in the same direction of reduced genetic variability but the extremely reduced populations are where you see the tendency itself in action, where it's hardest to ignore it, the tendency, that is, toward the complete inability to evolve further somewhere down the road.

Of course fantasy can surmount any obstacle thrown up by reality, and here we have Iblis totally ignoring this point and assuming that the cheetah is going to go on evolving although it doesn't have the genetic means to go on evolving:

The misadventures of these fellows actually provides the key to your whole puzzle. You see, when the gene pool is large and conditions remain stable, the overwhelming majority of even the effective, non-neutral mutations are quickly lost in the shuffle. They are outnumbered and as they provide no selection advantage, there is no reason for them to be preserved.

If mutations are going on at the rate they assume, then there is no such thing as their not having an effect. A mutation is a change in a gene, it is a substitution of a new coding sequence for another. If it has no effect all that means is that it has no detectable effect, no effect that they know of. But the very fact that a coding part of the DNA has been changed means that SOMETHING HAS CHANGED in whatever that segment formerly coded for. It can't be a good thing that a formerly coding sequence no longer codes for whatever it used to code for. At the very least something has been killed, some part of the organism no longer functions, a very tiny hardly discernible part no doubt, something beneath the detection capacity of the instruments available, but how can the death of a coding portion of DNA ever be just "neutral?" And most mutations supposedly have this non-effect. But that means that most mutations are killing off genes coding bit by coding bit. This is no doubt how "junk DNA" gets formed and there's an awful awful lot of junk DNA in the genome of most creatures, certainly the human genome. But that's a whole nother subject.

When the gene pool is greatly reduced however, either due to large-scale changes in the environment in terms of selection factors or to the spreading out of outliers of a population into a new area or niche, this changes. The cow's primary source of genetic diversity is, other cows with somewhat different genes.

Exactly, this is how genetic diversity is maintained in most large populations of any animal. Individuals vary from each other, they have different genetic possibilities that can combine with those of other individuals to create the variation that shows up in the next generation.

The cheetah's, though, is mutation.

Uh huh. Mutation is the only thing left to the cheetah, and this is true. But consider the RATE situation now. How many of the expectable mutations provide any kind of change that could be useful to the animal? Actually, it's pretty much zip. You get all those "neutral" mutations and you get deleterious mutations. Those are known. The useful ones are purely imaginary.

Each new trait produced by mutation is valuable to a reduced species and likely to be preserved

Pure fantasy. There ARE no new "traits" known to be produced by mutation. All that is KNOWN to be produced are degenerative changes and "neutral" changes, that, as I point out above, aren't really neutral because they DESTROY genes.

resulting in large-scale morphological changes over a relatively short period of time. Still in the high thousands and millions though.

Man these guys love their theory. They NEVER have to come down to reality and actually PROVE anything, they're quite content to affirm the fairy tale of beneficial mutations that drive evolution even in the face of EVIDENCE that, as in the case of the cheetah, evolution is simply no longer possible.

And this is the main factor underlying Gould's "punctuated equilibrium". For ten million years, everything is fine. Then things change; and when they do, things change. Eerie. But not mysterious, simple statistics.

Eventually you'd think a brain would simply implode from the strain of having to invent all those fictions to support all the imaginary notions that support the imaginary theory.

But thanks for the mention, Iblis, gave me the opportunity to restate my favorite argument.

God of Wonders

I just love this face, that's why I put it here.

But also it gives me the opportunity to mention that a creationist's view of the world can make you ponder the mind of the Creator, and sometimes just wonder what He can be like, a Creator who would come up with such a creature as this for instance. This creature is delightful in my opinion -- just want to kiss that silly inquisitive face (he'd probably peck me or kick me to death of course) -- but there are some that make my hair stand on end just thinking about an intelligent Being's actually creating them. While kittens and puppies make Him a God who loves what humans easily love, some creatures -- rhinoceros, tarantula, crocodile, wolverine, Tasmanian devil -- impress me with the Otherness of God, even the fearsomeness of God. Even this ostrich face makes me wonder, How did you come up with THIS?

Some creationist arguments I do disagree with

Architect-426, who occasionally posts at EvC, believes that volcanoes played a much bigger role in the history of the earth than is normally recognized, specifically related to the worldwide Flood, and that the theory of plate tectonics is simply wrong. In a brief exchange I had with him I did find out that there has been a great deal more volcanic activity on this planet than I had any idea, so he could be right about volcanism as an unsung major player, but plate tectonics is just too reasonable an idea to dismiss and I don't know how he got so convinced it's wrong. He's been arguing along on this point on this thread at EvC for some time now:

Architect-426 says: Since the (nil) velocity of "plates" truly cannot even be defined as velocity per se, much less translated into energy to "build" anything, then indeed plate tectonics is false in terms of creating geological features.

Thus my entire argument regarding vertical tectonics and volcanism vs. "plate" tectonics, or the idea that land masses move with enough horizontal speed and "crash" into another landmass. This alleged plate tectonic notion is sheer nonsense as shperical mechanics and displacement completely negate this "lateral" type of motion, and is only supported by colorful diagrams to "explain" how this supposedly happens.

Yet the fact remains; no velocity = no energy = no "plate" tectonic construction.

Floodists believe that the separating of the continents by plate movement started out rapid and then slowed down. The movement wasn't always so slow.

But also it seems that even very slow movement of such huge bodies would have quite a bit of crunching force when they impact another body, slow but devastating.

However, a rapid splitting of the continents would generate enough friction or resistance to push up the strata into high mountains at some distance from the exerted force -- Rocky Mountains, Alps -- but more gently buckle the land at the edge of the split -- Appalachians. Architect wants to attribute all mountain-building to volcanism, but I don't see it myself -- the way some mountains are formed, the way the strata were pushed up or buckled, is consistent with the kind of lateral force tectonic movement would exert.

Coyote isn't helping matters in this discussion:

You seem to be trying to force reality to fit within your religious beliefs. Problem is, it doesn't fit. Your religious beliefs are flatly contradicted by reality.

The earth is old, giving the small annual movement of the plates plenty of time to do all sorts of things. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

I don't think it's Architect's religious position that has him rejecting plate tectonics, it's just the way it looks to him for whatever reason -- based on his experience of the engineering tasks necessary to architecture. That is, it's a scientific position he's taken although one with little credibility it seems to me.

But an old earth isn't necessary. Plate movement fits just fine into the Flood scenario and the Young Earth scenario, does not require an old earth at all. The separating of the continents had to be faster at first and slow down over time of course and some argue that's impossible, but that's all speculation on their part. There's enough evidence for the Flood anyway and tectonic movement explains what happened to the strata AFTER they were all laid down in the Flood. We see them buckled and upended and twisted and split into canyons all over the world. The Flood laid down the strata, then disturbances of the earth such as earthquakes -- caused by tectonic movement anyway -- account for the distortion of the strata. So many Floodists believe that the continents split after the Flood because of forces released in the Flood, and have been moving apart ever since.

New Poster at EvC gives creditable evidence for the worldwide Flood only to be met with the usual flat-out denial

So I guess I have to recognize that I'm still occasionally tempted to join in the scientific part of the evolution discussion despite my generally pulling back from it.

Brand new poster at EvC, Danielcp makes a very intelligent observation that supports the Flood:

I am brand new to this sight and as such may post something that has been discussed already, but I have something that amazes me about the flood.

I have traveled into the western U.S. on several occasions. When I was at the Grand Canyon (AZ, national park), I took note of the very clear explanations of its watery past, as presented in the visitor center. Also, when I was once driving through the desert of western TX, I stopped at a national park, and they also mentioned that particular parks watery past (Guadalupe park). Now these are only two of many places like this, places that had watery pasts, with a fossil record proving it.

After those visits, a thought came to mind. "If I took a world map, and put a simple pin in every place that has a fossil record denoting a watery past, would I be able to cover the earth with pins on my map?" ...need to put that on the "to do" list.

Anyway, we debate the validity of a biblical flood. We, or you, or somebody, argues that it didn't happen. But, there is so much evidence that clearly shows that the world was flooded...how can one argue that there was not a world wide flood? Clearly sea life fossils in desert places around the world point to a flood. Those fossils certainly didn't visit the desert in a car at some point in the past.

Yes, the watery past that figures in ALL the strata and ALL the fossil beds IS evidence for the Flood and I hope he'll continue to collect this sort of data. But then along comes jar, of course, who pronounces as from on high that the Flood simply never happened. How he gets away with his flat-out assertions that are against the forum rules is a mystery, but anyway, he's to be ignored.

Then bluescat48 says:

There are at least 2 reasons for the fossils found in deserts & on mountains, climate change & plate tectonics.

At several times in the ancient past, the world climate was much warmer, with no ice cap. The sea level was several hundred meters higher than it is now, Much of the eastern & central North American was under water. When the climate cooled forming the ice caps the water receded leaving the bottom silt, containing dead organisms, in place. Plate tectonics, the plates colliding built up mountains carrying the remains of life with it. The point is this occurred millions of years ago and not all at once.

Note how he says it, as if it is absolute fact, as if there could be no question about it, although all he's done is offer an alternative interpretation that has no more explanatory power than the Flood as Danielcp has shown.

The actual facts he mentions fit quite nicely with Danielcp's observations and with the Flood in general, yet he apparently fails to notice. That is, before the Flood, and during, according to Floodists, quite in agreement with his statement, "the world climate was much warmer, with no ice cap." Certainly sea level was much "higher than it is now" although "several hundred meters" is probably more than the Flood description requires, and if it WERE that high how could you possibly NOT be talking about a worldwide drowning of the land anyway? Not completely covered if we're talking about present altitudes, but worldwide nevertheless, pretty much what we might expect of the last stages of the Flood before it had completely receded. Yes, such statements are evidence in favor of the Flood, observations or speculations completely consistent with the Flood interpretation, and just because mainstream science has a different way of interpreting their observations doesn't make them any the less consistent with the Flood.

Certainly "eastern and central North America" were under water because the entire world was under water. Then, as a result of the Flood "the climate cooled forming the ice caps" and "the water receded" leaving not just the "bottom silt" but all the layers of the geologic column, "containing dead organisms," and after the Flood "the [tectonic] plates colliding built up mountains carrying the remains of life with it."

All of this is in keeping with the Flood scenario and yet he goes on and on as if it contradicts it!

The only difference is in the timing: "The point is this occurred millions of years ago and not all at once." Well, the evidence for the millions of years is just not there, while the evidence is overwhelming that it DID occur "all at once:" The evidence for this is in the fact that strata all over the planet were obviously laid down one on top of another BEFORE all the tectonic activity distorted them, because they are distorted -- twisted, upended, broken, upraised or sunk, cut or carved -- AS A UNIT, several layers at a time (the entire depth of them in the Grand Canyon), keeping their original parallel relation to one another. Grand Canyon, Grand Staircase, entire Southwest and elsewhere around the world it's incontestable, and it is NOT hard to see that the "unconformities" that are often taken to be evidence for long time gaps between layers are merely layers that were displaced from beneath after the strata were all in place. You just have to open your eyes.

Does creationism turn people away from the gospel?

dwise1 at EvC puts up this thought-provoking post :

Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science, John Knox Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1984, page 26:

It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science. Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it."

Gregg Wilkerson, co-founder of Students for Origins Research and former young-earth creationist, at the 1990 International Conference on Creationism:

"Creationism by and large attracts few to the gospel, but it turns many away."

It certainly seems to be true at first glance, to the point that it could make a person feel guilty for arguing for creationism at all.

Certainly it's true that there are some very bad creationist arguments, but that doesn't seem to be the problem. There are also some good creationist arguments that nevertheless also turn people away. I've seen this happen over and over at EvC for instance. Science is very sure of itself, but science as it defends evolution is nevertheless a gigantic delusion -- and the distinction between science and scientism in this case is meaningless. Research and reason are not the road to reality they are touted to be.

Then it seems to be worth considering that Christians should only present the gospel, keep the focus on the unbeliever's need for salvation, and leave creationism aside as a sort of secondary issue that only takes the focus away from what matters most.

I can't claim to have given this a lot of thought so I might change my mind eventually, but I think this is a false concern. I think that Biblical creation is intrinsic to the gospel, absolutely essential, and if a person rejects it they would also reject the gospel anyway. I think this is demonstrated on the "deconversion" thread at EvC where I think it could be shown that all those who supposedly deconverted on the basis of the claims of science really never were converted -- born again -- in the first place, never really grasped the gospel, never knew Christ. It was all merely an intellectual assent to a list of propositions or a cultural habit, deeply ingrained habit but not spiritual reality. Another clue to this is that in genuine revivals there are always some proportion of lifelong Christians who realize as a result of the powerful presence of God in the revival that they never were born again, so then they get born again and that's when their Christian life actually begins. They could have been dedicated churchgoers and even preachers for fifty or more years to that point, even knowing the Bible better than most.

There may be both good and bad scientific arguments employed in the service of creationism, but Genesis 1 is always the underlying foundation if we're talking about BIBLICAL creationism. It is mainstream evolutionary science that discredits Genesis 1, FALSE science, that turns people away, but it also discredits the gospel at the same time. That is, the assumptions that contradict Genesis 1 are the same that contradict the supernatural claims of the gospels. If a person is convinced by those assumptions -- the materialist assumptions of modern science -- the gospel won't make any more sense to him than Genesis 1.

Again, "reason and reality" in the service of evolution are a snare and a delusion, seductive to the fallen mind and SO hard, maybe impossible, to break. People must have their spiritual eyes opened, either to recognize the gospel or to recognize the creation.

Also, the implication that nothing but the gospel should be presented pretty much eliminates the role the Christian is to play as salt and light in the world, which is usually understood to mean being an influence against the moral deterioration of the culture. Certainly if the gospel is making converts the culture will deteriorate less anyway, even spontaneously improve as in the case of revivals, but this fact doesn't preclude the separate work of being salt and light. This is what William Wilberforce did in Britain as he worked year after year to eliminate the slave trade. He didn't preach the gospel, he lived the gospel in that work of changing the culture.

Likewise, attempting to defeat the claims of evolution is a worthy endeavor for the good of society, especially in the proper valuing of all life but especially human life as made in the image of God. So is attempting to prevent the murder of the unborn. So is attempting to prevent the corruption of marriage which is the linchpin of a stable society and a protection of human dignity, which should include a lot more than just working to defeat efforts to establish homosexual marriage but does include that for sure. ALL of it is about valuing human life when it comes down to it. That's the work the church -- born-again Christians -- has always done from the very beginning.

Pagan societies promoted human sacrifice, promoted the devaluation of women (one of the "curses" of the Fall), discarded unwanted infants and the sick and elderly. All this was reversed by the influence of Jesus Christ. There are former cannibals who thank Jesus Christ that He changed their culture (one stood up in the audience at a debate with atheist Christopher Hitchens -- it's on You Tube somewhere). Christianity inspired the salvaging of infants exposed to die, promoted the care of the sick and elderly. Christians took in abandoned children, built orphanages, built hospitals, and also promoted science because of its coherent view of a law-giving Creator God, which is far from the pagan gods. Pagan science could only go so far before it would break down in chaotic speculations, it took the Biblical God to inspire productive empirical science.

And on and on and on. Society in the West was gradually changed over the centuries by Christians. Not everybody believed the gospel, but society was changed for the better anyway. We are now reverting to paganism again with our devaluation of life as expressed in the theory of evolution in general (yes it DOES devalue life and reverse all the moral gains of the last twenty centuries), as expressed in abortion which is a callous devaluation of human life in the name of materialist science (it's just a bunch of meaningless tissue), with our devaluation of marriage (at least partly a result of the now-embedded notion that we are "just animals"), which leads to chaos, poverty and insecurity. The increase in the influence of pagan religions in the West over the last half century is all part of this degeneration from our Christian cultural foundations.

It is the church's job to oppose these things.

I think if we are not succeeding at these efforts any more this is simply a sign of the deterioration of the church itself, the growing apostasy in various branches of the church, even compromises that have crept into the best of the churches and even into the minds of Christians who are attempting to be the salt and light (if you feel you have to compromise with science to the extent of inserting a few million years between a couple of verses in Genesis, accepting the idea of suffering and death before the Bible says Adam and Eve's disobedience brought it into the world, you've already lost the moral high ground).

It's not the fault of the attempt to change the culture in itself in other words, it's the fault of the churches that we have lost the supernatural power to do that work OR effectively preach the gospel, either one.

Which is why revival is so desperately needed, as I've argued on my other blogs.