And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. — Genesis 2:7
The unbelieving man (and not open to other explanations) says:
Humans were born to run and evolved from ape-like creatures into the way they look today probably because of the need to cover long distances and compete for food, scientists said on Wednesday….They suspect modern humans evolved from their ape-like ancestors about 2 million years ago so they could hunt and scavenge for food over large distances. (Source)
The God-fearing man says:
Did man crawl his way into existence over millions of years? Or did he leap to two feet by supernatural design? Did humans emerge from amoebas or did a Creator intend for life to possess purpose, value, and meaning? Answers to such questions mightily impact how human societies respond to their most pressing problems. A divinely-designed, sentient, spiritual creature deserves greater care and consideration than does a random fluke of nature….In sharp contrast to evolutionary thinking, the Bible reveals human beings as the pinnacle of God’s creative activity, made in His image and distinct from all other creatures. Biblical accounts of man’s beginnings leave no room for God’s using an ape-to-human evolutionary transformation process to create man. Scripture describes God’s direct involvement in creating the first humans, physical and spiritual creatures of immense worth from the time of their inception.
With its focus on testability, a powerful new approach helps discriminate between the biblical and evolutionary explanations for the origin of humanity (see sidebars). Predictions made by these origin models can be subjected to the rigors of scientific testing. The one with the greatest support from the scientific record and with predictions that best accommodate new discoveries exemplifies the most accurate scenario….
The sudden and early appearance of bipedalism in the fossil records allows insufficient time for bipedalism to emerge through natural process biological evolution. The fossil record also fails to reveal a pattern of gradual transformation from rudimentary bipedalism to a more sophisticated, efficient form. The absence of any significant evolutionary pressure to force these changes makes them even more remarkable.
A sudden and early appearance with two periods of stasis interspersed by rapid change defines bipedalism’s natural history. These characteristics perfectly match the pattern special creation would predict.
A biblical creation model, in which God creates large bipedal primates, predicts long periods of stasis; a perfect Creator could be expected to bring about a form of bipedalism ideally suited for His creatures’ environmental, predatory, and competitive challenges. The recent scientific discoveries provide explicit evidence that one of the most important defining features of humanity — bipedalism — came about through God’s direct creative activity. Though not human, bipedal primates were designed for a specific purpose and function. They were the handiwork of a Creator. (Source)
Non-creationists, before you comment, please read the whole article. Demonstrate for us your willingness to understand why we believe what we believe instead of arguing minor or trivial points. Do me the courtesy of opening yourselves to different ideas, which some of you accuse me of not doing.
Update: A commenter invokes an age-old contention: Genesis 1 & 2 present contradictory accounts of creation. Here’s what’s really going on.
Another great resources:Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Center for Scientific Creation. Attention: I expect you naysayers to check out these sources before you continue your same line of arguments!
{ 91 comments }
La Shawn,
I suspect that this topic will put your new comment standards to the tests as people inevitably will endeavor to argue irrelevant points and go off on unrelated tangents. This is a topic rife with possibilities for demagogic reactions.
I believe it’s absurd to contend that human beings evolved from apes. To paraphrase George Carlin, if we evolved from apes then why are apes still around? It never ceases to amaze me how the extent to which secularists will go to remove any possibility that anything could have occurred for a reason other than evolution.
Of course, I am not advocating the elimination of the evolution curriculum from school because it is a theory that deserves some consideration based on the secular nature of our culture. Nor do I believe as some strict fundamental Christians do that only creationism should be taught. That strkes me as a bit extreme and not entirely appropriate for a country in which there are a large number of individuals who do not subscribe to an important article of the Christian faith.
However, I believe there must be some middle ground in which the intelligent design aspect, which scientists are increasingly embracing, be incorporated. Perhaps dicusssions such as this might inspire an interest in Christianity where otherwise it would not have.
Sorry if I I’ve gone on a bit of a tangent, but this particular subject, which your article reminded me of, has been on my mind for some time time.
Evolution is junk science it’s a fraud and a lie even Darwin showed some doubt about the so-called fossils i mean the whole idea of us coming from apes is ridiculous and then at … georgia FAKE are showing fraudulent models and fake evidence and when it comes down to it the leakys are a bunch of blabbering fools
Tom,
Here, IMHO, is the difference between the conservative Jew or Christian and the unbeliever. The Christian is not – even the strict fundamentalists – advocating the teaching of only Creation model. What they oppose is the teaching of only the evolutionary model as though it were fact and still using as “proof” experiments which have long been discredited even by evolutionists (the Ulrey-Miller one comes to mind). We believe that in an open forum, that the truth will be evident. The so-called liberal thought-police want to suppress any voice that doesn’t agree with them.
There are many viable reasons to believe in Creationism as opposed to evolution. One example: If the evolutionary theory is true, we would expect all the age-determining methods to yield the same result. On the other hand, if Creationism is true, we would expect differences in the apparent ages of the earth depending on which method is used. “Fully grown” means different ages even among species. Guess which model fits the facts? Also the existence of parentless plutonium halos in crystalline rock suggest an instantaneous formation. How about a frozen mammoth with food still in its belly? Sounds like some sort of cataclysmic event rather than uniformity which is required by the evolutionary theory.
Ls Shawn-I meant to add to my post on the other thread that many of the Scrapplers (regular posters -I count myself as one) are also Christians.
Rick,
I agree. I believe evolution is a fantasy that scientists and other secularlists cling to because it explains humankind through a process other than God’s divine hand. I wish the creation angle could be worked into the school curriculum somehow as another possible explantion. It could even be presented as a “theory”, which might cut down on some of the screaming from the secular crowd.
I am among the ‘I admit it, I just don’t know’ group.
Would it be worth seeking out what can be agreed on?
For example, can most everyone agree that all life on earth did not all exist at the same time. IOW, humans and dinosaurs did not exist on earth at the same time?
firebird,
I don’t know that comments like that are any more appropriate than some of what La Shawn was trying to avoid in her final sentences. You and I may agree that evolution is a faulty theory, but that doesn’t make its proponents “blabbering fools.”
No, Jim, I can’t agree with that. I haven’t studied it enough to agree or disagree. I don’t know why they couldn’t have been on Earth together, though.
If “non-creationist” means not taking Genesis literally, I’ll put my hand up to that.
The reason scientists take evolution seriously as a theory is that it has done a good job of describing the way the world is. It is not “junk science”, but based on a huge mass of evidence. Of course, it isn’t complete — but that doesn’t make it junk.
I believe that evolution is the description of the way that God has been at work in the creative process. What Genesis does is point towards “why”, not “how”. My reason for saying this is Genesis itself. Not to put too fine a point on it, Gen 1 & 2 cannot both be literally true. They are diferent accounts of creation. Their purpose is not science or history but theology — “who are human beings in relation to God?” I know that the fundamentalists reading this will scream foul, but only the most forced and convoluted reading of the texts can make them agree. They don’t need to.
I wish I had time to write more.
With all due respect, theoretical “this” and theoretical “that” all you want. As for me and my house, no child of mine is going to be taught on “middle ground.” The solid ground foundation of “Jesus Christ as Lord and Creator” will be drilled into their consciousness because, their very lives (and eternal souls) depend on it.
Richard Hall, liberal Christian, why am I not surprised that you don’t believe in the biblical account of creation?
By the way, I posted an update to the entry just for you.
I am not going to go into all the reasons I think that evolutionary theory is right on physical mechanisms (for the most part… it’s science, after all. We have to keep adjusting the details according to new evidence.)
However, I do want to indicate that I always found it presumptuous to proscribe the methods by which God created the universe. The Bible tells us that God created everything in the universe, and that he created humanity in His image. It doesn’t really get into the details of how he did that. The Bible doesn’t get into the details about water being a molecule consisting of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, either. I look at science as a tool to learn the way God formed the universe – He gave us the intellect to investigate these things.
I don’t think God (or Satan) planted fake fossils in the earth to throw us off. I don’t think God created the universe with “light already on the way” (so that we can see stars millions of light years away, when the universe is supposedly only thousands of years old).
Quantum theory, which posits a probabilistic nature to the universe, has held up everytime it has been tested in theory. Do we hate the dice-throwing God so much? Why must we believe God can’t work through (essentially) random processes? I think it’s pretty cool. My work – academic and otherwise – has mainly been with probabilistic models, and it’s interesting the kinds of order that can spontaneously arise from a random mass with only a few, simple rules applied. I think it’s awesome that God imposes order so minimally… and remember that this randomness allows free will for us.
Aside: There’s nothing particularly special about bipedalism. There were bipedal dinosaurs (and there are the descendants of those earlier bipedal forms… they’re called birds. Watch an ostrich sometime). So… what plan of God required bipedal dinosaurs? Consciousness is much more interesting to note in development. Language, too. I’m tired of the “it changed too fast” arguments in creation “science”. How do we know it’s too fast? Flu viruses mutates every year, and can create global death in the matter of months. Heck, genetic mutations among people happen all the time…most of these mutations are not beneficial (though I do know a few people who can see into the ultraviolet range due to mutated cone cells in their retinas)… how long would certain genetic traits to pass from one or two individuals to a larger community? Investigations into genetic problems of closed communities (like the Amish or Orthodox Jews) have shown that a few hundred years is enough for a genetic mutation to become widespread in a community.
“Apes” or whatever primates have walked around on two feet for some time — what level of genetic adjustment would be needed for a more upright posture to occur? I’m saying that the argument here is weak.
We know through faith that God created everything. Science tells us the “how”. I think people need to see that difference.
Quite simply put, you cannot claim that a certain fossil is that of a prehistorical man when the only thing you have is a jawbone. That’s just bad science.
The sad thing about many evolutionists is that they are closed minded to anything different than their own theories. They so badly want evolution to be true that they will believe or say anything as long as it seems to make their version true.
As for the story told by Genesis, I take it as a figurative tale. I don’t think that God had to create the universe in a way that would be easy to explain to Aaron or Moses. Just as Jesus used the figurative tales called parables to explain God to Man, the early chapters of Genesis are there to explain that God created =everything=, and created humanity in His image. And then humanity, of its own free (and mistaken) will, chose Original Sin and separated themselves from God.
I can just imagine God telling Moses (and Moses dictating to Aaron) “20 billion years ago, God created the universe, which was compressed into a tiny ball… and he created the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity… Due to a quantum fluctuation…”
I believe Isaac Asimov wrote a very short story about how that talk ended up.
Also, having been involved in research that makes it into the news (albeit on a less controversial topic), I can tell you that the amount of work that goes into a research paper and what’s included in the journal article is never accurately portrayed in mass media.
Paleontologists have indeed gotten more complete skeletons than simple jawbones of hominids. The same goes for dinosaurs and the like. However, when one gets incomplete data, one doesn’t say “It’s not enough, let’s throw it out.” The researcher makes careful measurements of dimensions, looks for marks of insertion points of muscles and tendons, etc. Then they compare against other jawbones they’ve got.
It’s just like forensic science, when people try to look at the clues they =do= have, compare to what they’ve gotten before, and then make a match, if possible. Murder cases have been made on “incomplete” data like this… such as dental records to identify a body, of which all that’s left is a jawbone…
Richard-
Actually Genesis 1 gives an overview of the process and Genesis 2 gives the viewpoint from Adam. From Adam’s perspective, he was the first. Only God could have known the actual process. One of the great things about the Bible is that it is drawn from several individuals over thousands of years and yet the central theme is redemption through Christ.
meep-
You miss the point about times. If the universe were fully formed at the instance of creation, there would be the appearance of age – not because God were trying to trick us, but because of the vast differences. I agree that true science is open and interested in discovering how things work. The point about evolutionary theory is that it is considered inviolate in the basic premise (much like Creationism) while different “ways” are postulated. In that regard, both evolution and creation are religious concepts.
Jim,
There is ample evidence that dinosaurs and man did coexist.
There is even Biblical evidence in the book of Job. (Leviathan and Behemoth could be a description of T-Rex and Brontosaurus).
‘The FACE That Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution’
by Hank Hanegraaff
The Case for a Creator
by Lee Strobel
both will be found at http://www.equip.org
Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org)
website w/ Ken Hamm
and many more agree with you La Shawn.
Thank you for such a great post!!!
Evolution is a religion and should not be pushed in schools…
It takes more faith to believe in what Darwin espoused than to believe in the evidence supporting Intelligent Design.
I believe that the reason evolution is so widely accepted is that if you don’t believe in it you must believe that we were created by God. If you believe that God is the creator then you are compelled to make a choice to follow His teachings or Satan’s. The path is clear that there are those that don’t want to be stifled by having to conform to the rules God has set before us. Therefore many people fool themselves into believing the bad science of evolution.
Given the King James Bible was converted to English from human interpreters of early Hebrew writings, is it a possibility that our ‘day’ of 24 hours was not the ‘day’ the
Hebrew writings were meaning to convey? This could explain the huge time differences paleontologists are finding between early life form fossils and the first occurrence of human fossils existence.
For example, remember when the Catholic Church’s 1600s interpretation of the Bible led them to silence Galileo’s discovery that the earth was not the center of the universe and rotated around the sun? Would any of us want to cling to that 1600s explanation today?
Don’t both pure evolution and pure literal Genesis interpretations have some explaining to do?
Ah-hah!!! Now I know what I’ve always been such a great tree climber – you shoulda seen me as a kid……….it’s inherently hereditary!! (That’s redundant, isn’t it?) I have clearly retained much of my ability to fly up coconut trees. Quickly.
And now wonder I’m so huge – HUGE!! – on the Planet of the Apes movies, not to mention, my other actor cousin (Austin Stoker) was the black guy with the ‘fro on the latter movies when they were back on old earth. (Wonder how he got THAT part?)
But, no matter how you slice it, I’ll stick with Genesis………..tree climber extraordinaire’ or not. That flash-bang, wham-bam, whatever, ice age evolutionary mumbo-jumbo sounds little to John Francois Kerryish to me – kinda make some of it up as you go along to fit your conclusion.
What can I say – every now & then a man needs to defer to the Good Lord, huh? Ironically, all these scientists got their brains from Him…….go figure? Mind’s a terrible thing to waste. (Look who’s talkin’.)
Anyway, anyone down for some dates or coconuts? Just got done climbin’, Bloggies, so get ‘em while they’re hot!!! I don’t be climbin’ every day, now – you feel me? I can walk upright now.
I’ll add one more book to Joshua’s list.
The Science of God
by Gerald Schroeder
See, it takes Beau to put all this in the proper perspective.
Again, I think you get sidetracked when you see the Bible as a scientific document. God doesn’t need to tell us the earth revolves about the Sun, or that traveling near the speed of light makes observations of time and space different — we live in this universe, we’re intelligent, eventually we could work it out. And, most to the point, it doesn’t matter in the large scheme of things. The point is that God created the universe, and that he has a special relationship to humanity. Science can’t tell us that, just as “the earth is flat” being written in the Bible doesn’t make that eminently refutable statement true.
It is true that the way evolutionary theory is presented in mass media is very deceptive, and full of “just so” stories that are no more scientific than Genesis 1 & 2. Evolution does not require a Godless universe. Evolution/natural selection may just be the mechanism God chose for creating an abundance of life.
And previous pagan religions should be enough to remind us that having no scientific cosmology doesn’t mean a universal Creator is a necessary invention. There are plenty of creation myths out there that involve no gods, and creation myths where one god creates one thing, and another god creates another… In Greek mythology, Zeus wasn’t a creator God – his father, Cronos, was (and he didn’t create everything, either… the gods themselves were created out of a primordial chaos).
>>“By the way, I posted an update to the entry just for you”
Thanks, LB, but I was expecting someone to come up with that “explanation” (just as you, no doubt, were expecting the Gen 1-2 contradiction to be thrown in from somewhere)
The trouble with the explanation is that it is forcing the text to say what you want it to say. Gen 1- 2:3 gives an orderly account of the creation culminating in human beings. Gen 2:4 ff begins with the creation of a single man and everyhing else follows. That’s the natural simplest reading of the text. I dare say you will find this hard to believe, but what convinces me of this is not my background in science. What convinces me is the Bible itself. Not only is there a different creation account beginning at 2:4, the language and style of the text shift abruptly at that point too. For me, it was the study of these passages that led me to reject fundamentalism long before I’d even heard of textual criticism and all that stuff.
As for the age of the universe, Rick said “If the universe were fully formed at the instance of creation, there would be the appearance of age” but there is no reason why that should be so. All the evidence that God has given us on which to exercise the creative reason which is the essence of his image in us is that we live in a universe of staggering age and size. There is ample evidence in what he has created to point us toward him (e to the i pi, anyone?) without the need to try to force the scriptures to say something which they plainly do not.
Meep, your premise is seems logical, however, IIRC viruses are an inept example in that they are not recognized as a life form. However, for bacteria, their life span is significantly shorter and generations can be measured in days. So in that sense, there can be devolution in response to environmental stimuli.
More importantly, we are told that God is light. When He said let there be light, notice he made day & night on the 1st day before he made the Sun, Moon and Stars to shine on the earth on the 4th day.
Think about it.
Either the Bible is hokey for getting the sequence wrong or… If we believe that the Scriptures is inspired, then this apparent disconnect means Moses’ words were “inadequate” to describe what was really going on that day & night could appear before the cosmic lights appeared. Shades of quantum physics? Perhaps.
As for me and my family, I think we prefer to lean not on our limited understanding, but remain open to scientific explanations, so long as they reaffirm God’s handiwork. That means if science appears to contradict God, it only means that science needs to go back and research their data to purge faulty assumptions.
Jim R & LawWife: Jim said, “can most everyone agree that all life on earth did not all exist at the same time. IOW, humans and dinosaurs did not exist on earth at the same time?”
May I suggest you take a few minutes and read all of Job 40 & 41, then reevaluate Jim’s question vis a vis Gen 1 & 2, where Adam named all the life forms. To get the proper context and get into the groove of God’s conversation with Job, start with Job 38. It won’t take long, 5 minutes or so.
La Shawn:
I just don’t buy the “man was created from scratch” -
As a biological scientist, I believe in a creator who then let nature “fend for itself” – this is compatable with evolution and creationism.
As for bipeds having an advantage? I don’t buy this – chimps can run like hell, and they can out do us at climbing trees as well.
As for brains, humans are a quantum leap ahead of chimps – makes me scratch my head about evolution. This is a hell of a greater quantum leap than simply walking upright. Maybe God did create man from scratch.
I am very impressed with your knowledge of science Meep.
I can accept the creation of life on earth over a much longer period of time than 6 days. I can even accept evolutionary improvement within a species over generations due to natural selection(the fittest survive to mate and pass along their fitist genes). However, how does the theory of evolution handle ‘creation’ of entirely new species, defined as those that can only reproduce by mating within their own specie?
La Shawn really knows how to stir a pot. I really think she does it on purpose just to be popular.
Beau, as usual, hilarious!
When discussing evolution vs. creationism, both sides are looking at the same evidence and forming theories, hypothesis and conclusions based on their own presuppositions. Creationist or Christians already believe in God and the bible as literal and authoritative and therefore any evidence found must be reconciled with the biblical text. If it cannot, the bible isn’t reinterpreted, but the theory is. The same is true for evolutionists, they already have an inclination towards millions of years, thanks mainly to the indoctrination from our schools, and therefore any evidence found will be reconciled with that premise.
I believe, and this is purely based on common sense, that Darwinian evolution fails based on the truth that information of any kind is derived from more information, usually more complex information, i.e., a computer cannot run without it first being programmed by a programmer. To say that this world came about through “random” processes is dangerous and has lead to many an atrocity in history, including the notion of racism itself.
Ultimately, there are too many philosophical, moral, and ethical dangers that arise from an evolutionary theory, that are not considered when persuing so called scientific truths. Evolution then becomes another easy way to explain away the notions of deviance without accountability that permeates our society.
I would add icr.org to your list of creationist research sites to visit. I must credit aig.org for this thought train.
If you read the article by Fazale R. Rana partly posted here you found that there were several major structural changes necessary for bipedalism; including significant changes in skeletal an muscular structure.
As we all know these days these things are controled by genetic information contained in every cell.
Mutations corrupt existing information, they do not add new information. New information is needed to get us from knuckle draging to walking and a lot of new information is necessary to get us from one celled animals to the commenters on this thread. Not to mention what it took to get that on celled animal in the first place.
Thanks, commenters. Great discussion. By the way, PLEASE check for updated links in the post. Most of these sites address some of your objections. I’m not doing this for my health, you know!
Creationists:
Why do you hate civilization so?
The science that x-rays broken legs, that diagnoses cancer, that creates vaccines, that finds oil for your car, grows your food, solves crimes; these are the same tools and methods used to assemble the theory of evolution.
But you don’t want to know about it.
A basic google will show that far, far more than “just a jawbone” has been found of our genetic ancestors and of dinosaurs. Just last night on broadcast TV, there was a show explaining in easy terms how analysis of the blood of living people traces mankind back almost 50,000 years to East Africa. There are webistes, magazines, books and entire cable channels devoted to evolution.
But you don’t want to know.
You’re afraid that evolution means God doesn’t exist. Your’re afraid that if you can’t interpret the Bible as a literal historical document, that means you are alone in the world.
God created our minds and our souls, and our civilization. I know God loves me. If I came from dust, He loves me. If I came from an ape, He still loves me.
Why don’t any of *you* believe that?
Thanks for commenting, Tim, but I urge you to check out some of those creationist sites before you comment further. The false dichotomy between faith and science is dealt with in detail on those sites. One of the reasons I’ve enable comment moderation is to prevent the such discussions from getting too far off-course.
Tim, how do you KNOW that God loves you? Because He said so? Then why don’t you believe Him when he says you came from dust?
Think about this, we are essentially biologicals composed of carbon, steel is carbon-infused iron. Carbon by itself is essentially dust, yet it appears to be an enhancer of raw materials when mixed. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust… Hmmmn.
As much as I have enjoyed this discussion (and it’s been a good one), I prefer to remind myself that I can never adequately comprehend the awesome power of our Creator. Perhaps one day God will allow me to fully understand. But that will never happen on this earth.
What is a “day” or “night” in God’s terms? Why would I challenge my own faith in seeking human answers to such questions?
I’m not suggesting that the lot of you are challenging your own faith or that this is not a worthy discussion. But when arguing with a Evolutionist, I try to remember that even we Christians must remember that the power of God remains beyond human comprehension.
I think species are ill-defined. For crying out loud – look at dogs. They’re supposedly the same species. But physically, the reproduction doesn’t work for some matches, unless you use artificial means.
My background is physics and math, not biology. I have gotten my knowledge from general education and lots of reading. So my examples are likely to lack quite a bit. However, I believe humans have =purposefully= created new species in agriculture. Are oranges and tangerines from different species? If so, why do we have tangelos? I suppose it’s the concept of a mule – you’ve got to reproduce beyond one generation – but I bet if humans worked at it, we could have breeding-true new dog species (or whatever we wish) within a few generations. But it also gives one the idea of why the concept of species (and yeah, that term is both plural and singular) is ill-defined.
Going back to bacteria and viruses, there’s some really cool research out there now showing that these microbes can directly change germ-line DNA in other species… looking at the “junk” DNA in the human genome, it’s posited that quite a bit in there had been deposited by viruses.
So, that means that genetic alterations aren’t necessarily introduced simply as mutations, but possibly “caught” via microbes. Bacteria have been shown to change their DNA by messing with each other (I believe that’s the technical term.)
As I said before, I think evolutionary theory is not correctly presented in public – it’s much more complicated than people think. Just as too many are around believing in the planetary model of atoms (nucleus with electrons orbiting) – we get these easy-to-explain ideas, and think that encompasses the whole.
Which reminds me – I was just trying to explain the Trinity to a co-worker. Talk about your difficult-to-explain concepts.
While I don’t buy evolution to the exclusion of creation, I also think the theory has a valid place in schools (and so does creationism).
I think children should be exposed to opposing points of view in their education, and should be able to discuss the merits and flaws of these views and theories.
Thanks Lashawn, I perfer to believe in my ‘Great’ God instead of ‘facts’ which change on a yearly even weekly basis. The question I have for the evolutionists is why does your ’science’ have to resort to teaching ‘facts’ that have been proven wrong? Creationism may not describe everything but without someone there to tell us what happened their is no way we can know for sure what happened yesterday, much less millions or thousands of years ago. I’ll believe the eye witness. js
Tim-
It is not that we have a problem with science. We have a problem with “science falsely so called”. As meep and I have pointed out evolution and special creation are religious concepts since neither one is observable (variations within a kind are not evolution) and neither one is repeatable. Even the imposition of “a few simple rules” invalidates the “random processes created everything” idea. The crux of my argument (pun intended) is that life comes from life and information comes from nformation. No experiment has yet been conducted that shows non-life giving “birth” to life.
BBTW, if you do a little research, you will note that progress in the hard sciences was helped considerably by God-believers (although not necessarily Christians).
cooper-
At one meeting, someone of the evolutionary mindset admitted that “Evolution is believed not because of any evidence for it, but because the other alternative is clearly incredible”. That is, if you don’t want to accept special creation (or theologically guided evolution), you must accept the general theory of evolution. Inanimate matter (rocks, specifically) somehow gave birth to living things. It isn’t so much “Goo to You by way of the Zoo” as it is “From Rocks to Me by Somehow”.
Richard-
The reason there would be the appearance of age is that we expect mountains to have taken eons to “grow”. The fact that they are there (without the word of God to the contrary) would mean to us that years had to have gone by. Similarly, when you see a full grown man, you assume that he had to be in existence for 20 or more years, even if he were created yesterday (which you would only know if someone told you.)
Got to go again. It’s been fun.
Evolution was proven, thanks to our friend Charles Darwin. I dont think there is anything to open my mind to. Kind of like i cant ‘open my mind’ to the Earth not being a sphere, or the sky not really being blue.
For anti-creationists trying to comment for the first time today without reading previous comments AND the links I’ve provided, your posts will not get through. I’m in a dictatorial mood.
>>The reason there would be the appearance of age is that we expect mountains to have taken eons to “grow”.
I see what you’re getting at. But there is no reason in principle why you’d be able to see objects across the vast distances of space.
Tramps like us baby we were born to run! Sorry Bruce. I was expecting to see some apes cross the finish line at the NYC marathon this year, guess i’ll have to wait for next year.
Well, I am a scientist… an astrophysicist to be exact, who studies the formation of the solar system and planets.
I get very frustrated by discussions like this because
it’s clear so few people even understand what science is.
Science is NOT a mere collection of “facts.” It is a process:
(1) collect data through experiment, observation, simulation
(2) construct a model that logically explains data
(3) Repeat and refine models.
It never ends.
There are NO theories which are 100% proven…
We still don’t even fully understand gravity yet.
We have models that explain the data reasonably well,
yet our models are not “Truth” with a capital T.
That’s true whether we are talking about gravity, biology, evolution, etc.
The theory of evolution itselve evolves over time as we get more data,
and refine the models. It irks the heck out of me when people say “It’s just a theory.” Well, of course it’s a theory… a theory with tons and tons of supporting evidence… but scientific theories are NEVER finished products.
They are constantly being refined and improved…
Scientists do NOT have an agenda to prove or disprove God.
To a scientist, that doesn’t even make sense.
My final point: the Bible is NOT a scientific textbook… the Creation story in Genesis explains the WHY and WHO, but not the HOW.
So why are you reading it that way? If God really tried to lay out the how, it would take a quadrillion zillion pages to scratch the surface… and that is NOT the point of the Genesis story…
There is NO contradiction between belief in God and the theory of evolution.
Rick:
I was looking at a dictionary, and I read that what you call a “religious concept” is actually called a “theory”. Used in this sentence: “If ’string theory’ is a ‘religious concept’, then it should follow that quantum physicists should be allowed to teach from the pulpit in church.”
LB:
Thank you for reminding me of those websites. Perhaps it’s my frame of mind, but I did not find them helpful. I did meet a few Creationists:
1) Creationists who agree totally with secular scientists, except for the God part: See “Popular Science ‘Endorses’ Creation Cosmology” by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics in http://icr.org/headlines/mathematician.html
2) Creationists who write in God’s margins: “2) In His foreknowledge, God designed the DNA at creation such that these few would contain all the information for genetic variation needed to repopulate the world and adapt to the wide range of novel, often harsh environmental conditions of the post-Flood world.” From http://icr.org/headlines/weedevolution.html
3) Creationists who just say “Nahh!”: “A third approach assumes Earth had no continents, had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and rotated once every 14 hours, so most clouds were concentrated at the equator. With liquid water covering the entire Earth, more of the Sun’s radiation would be absorbed, raising Earth’s temperature slightly. All three assumptions are questionable.” See the entire website http://www.creationscience.com/ Also see “New Testament Doctrines and the Creation Basis” by Rev. D. Swincer, from answersingenesis.org
4) Scary Creationists: “WARNING: Any person, family, church, school, college or nation that rejects Genesis, will eventually end up in total unbelief in regard to the Christian Gospel.” From “The Darwinian Earthquake” by Ken Ham in answersingenesis.com
Disagreeing with somebody else’s theory…is not a theory.
In summary, put Creationism in textbooks: “Some people do not believe in evolution. They believe God created the universe. Because this is an article of faith, and all faiths are different, you should consult your church.”
And Andy, I do believe we came from dust…by way of paramecium, fish, amphibians, and mammals. But it’s okay. we smell better than they do, and God still loves us anyway.
LaShawn:
Thank you for posting my message. I had thought i was being too much a smart-a$$, which my mom says happens fairly frequently, and I did not want to offend.
Hope your day is good,
Tim
Interesting comment jab. I take it you agree with Einstein’s assertion that “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”?
Jay – See the link below. The post is just a hodge post of my thoughts. I’ve yet to post a formal why-I-became-a-conservative entry.
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/10/05/pseudo/
I think we also need to make a distinction between macro and micro evolution. That’s important.
Also, I think it would be better to call those who oppose creation science Darwinists. It just clarifies the foundation for debate.
Two of the big problems the Darwinists have is (1) they refuse to let God in the door, knowing that it will destroy their theory. To them evolution is a “mindless, purposeless process” (Crick and others). (2)When really challenged they resort to tricks. For instance, when mention is made of the enourmous amounts of time required for some of their theory, more time than science can currently ascertation they assert (Gould) that there is a principle called “punctuated equilibrium.” That is, since they know evolution is true, something must have happened to short circuit the time. We don’t have the answer now, but we will someday. That to me doesn’t sound at all like science.
Humans were born to run and evolved from ape-like creatures into the way they look today probably because of the need to cover long distances and compete for food, scientists said on Wednesday�.”
We can look at the human race today and prove this wrong … born to run… HA!
Tim, sorry you believe that way. Do fish & chimps sin?
Seems to me that your fish to chimps theory doesn’t account for the Garden of Eden and the fact that God walked with a perfect state Adam & Eve. Not to mention in the Garden of Eden, animals were also in their perfect state and “communed” with A&E.
I don’t see God equating — loving — us on the same level as fish & chimps. Or are you positing that they were also created in His image as well?
So God loves us because we’re the sole “intelligent” survivors in the great evolutionary race. And he loved us so much that he sent his only begotten son to become incarnate as a fish/chimp, I mean man, to put in His divine plan into motion to redeem the fish & chimps, I mean man, from sin.
What makes me wonder is that so many people know exactly what God meant, indended and did. You know more that I do. Perhaps God meant, indended and put into place evolution. Evolution does not just by it’s nature demean the human race nor God’s accomplishment.
Even among the Creationist sources listed, there is quite a difference in belief from progressive creationism (God used evolution to accomplish His goals in creation) and biblical creationism. The problem progressive creationism (or any theory that includes millions of years of death and destruction before man) is that the scriptures teach that the wages of sin is death. Sin causes death. That is a pretty basic biblical concept and one that can be observed in the world around us.
In order to believe in any theory that includes millions of years of death leading up to the evolution of man (as Hugh Ross advocates), we have to believe that God’s design required death, destruction and chaos when the scriptures clearly teach that those things are the result of sin, and not part of God’s grand design. We would have to believe that God was either incapable of creating beings who could live forever or that He intentionally designed beings who would suffer and die. We would have to believe that death is just part of the circle of life, not the enemy. I have a hard time seeing how that can be harmonized with scripture.
D. James Kennedy has been speaking on faith and science.
http://www.coralridge.org/BroadcastArchives.asp?cat=TTT&daterange=11/1/2004-11/30/2004
Wed - 11/17/2004 The Christian View of Science (Part 1)
Thu - 11/18/2004 The Christian View of Science (Part 2)
Tom B., I would like to have an off-forum discussion about this issue with you, and see what your beliefs are. For further references to Creationism, see the following links:
http://answersingenesis.org/
http://www.explorationfilms.com/folders.asp?action=display&record=1
These are some excellent sites that deal with proving Creationism. Furthermore, I have no problem with Creationism being taught in public school, especially since it is the truth. Also, it’s only been in about the last 40-50 years that Evolution has been taught in schools. Prior to that, Creationism was the accepted scientific curriculum.
Isaiah 45:18, “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”
The earth was created by G-d Himself, but it was originally formed not in the chaos of Genesis 1:2, it was a perfect creation. There could be a huge time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This is borne out in the fossil record and the Hebrew of 1:2 which reads, “And the earth BECAME without form and [was] empty.”
Adam and the animals and plants that currently inhabit the earth are “young earth” creations: after the destruction.
Ezekiel’s narrative in chapter 26-27 shows the Prince of Tyrus “has been in Eden.” This is Heylel (Isaiah 14:12), the morning star (now the Accuser, Satan). There is also a brief mention of the Sons of G-d, who would have been the original inhabitants.
Science has found evidence that there was a previous Great Flood about 13,000 B.C. Could it just be that this was the beginning of the chaos of the deep and the earth remained formless and void for thousands of years?
As evolution is easily descredited, as far as the “old earth vs. young earth” theorists continually bumping heads goes, couldn’t they BOTH be partially right?
Birds didn’t come from dinosuars and we didn’t come from a ape evolution is a lie it’s a fraud and the junk science spewing national geograFAKE is pushing the stupid evolution idea i suggest such books as TORNADO IN A JUNKYARD and ICONS OF EVOLUTION these books are full of facts and truth that those evolution dweebs will never mention
God created evolution. Problem solved?
Andy:
Actually, there is no “seems”. What I describe does *not* include the Garden of Eden, or Adam and Eve.
If believing in the literal Genesis helps to make you a decent, caring man, then more power to you and go with God. As for me, I feel God’s presence, and that guidance helps to make me a better person.
However, to go back to original subject of improving textbooks, see my previous answer.
Tim, then according to the Bible, I fail to see how one can believe in God and reject what he has to say about the origin of sin. Even Jesus points to the Garden of Eden as the fall of man. If one rejects the frame of reference for sin, then how can one be saved?
‘Feeling’ God’s presence is rather vague (touchy-feely) since it is the Holy Ghost’s job to prick the conscience of man. On what facts do you base this feeling?
I posit that it is impossible to be saved if one does not believe that Jesus incarnate is the son of man (Adam). For the simple reason that if one deconstructs the basis of sin, then one has negated the need for salvation and God’s divine will for man. Ironic to believe that God can save us in the hereafter, yet incapable of creating the universe exactly as he described.
Ella, right on. On the 7th day God saw that all was perfect and he rested — end of creation and time to let the events & freewill take their course. If God created a perfect world, he didn’t need evolution, any less than he needed to ‘grow’ a full grown man. As perfect beings, God’s creation ran the gamut from fishes in the sea to birds to creeping, walking animals. This means their genetics was perfect.
Sin came and with it death and the destruction of genetic sequences. Evolution posits that something can of its own volition become better — contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Hence all creation has been devolving since the fall of man.
Because of sin, God gave thorns and irritants to plants to make man suffer. To most animals God made them wild in order to survive kill or be killed or otherwise torment man. And for the clean animals, he gave them over to man for utility & sustenance. That is the real world consequence of man’s sin. The spiritual consequence is the separation between God & Man, so God had to formulate procedures to mitigate the death sentence.
Hi Lashawn..
Wow..what an amazing group of interesting posts!! I believe it was Bertrand Russell who said “The probability of life occurring by accident..is equivalent to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.”
I must confess that my belief in God cannot be explained in an academic intellectual forum. Quite honestly I believe simply because I “choose” to believe. I have faith that is not rooted in some insightful understanding of the Bible or science. Actually I’m quite stupid in both. They are both confusing and well beyond my ability to comprehend. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate reading “all” the posts on this subject. I have faith that the mind of God does not expect the mind of man to explain and understand all things in His universe.
I’m perfectly content as a new Christian to have faith in things I do not understand. Thanks to all of you who so eloquently voiced your thoughts. I truely enjoyed reading them. Ray..
‘“The probability of life occurring by accident..is equivalent to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” ‘
And yet, if it hadn’t occurred, we wouldn’t be here to notice the improbability.
“The probability of life occurring by accident..is equivalent to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.”
But evolution is no accident. It is an extremely slow, logical process that has happened to all living things in order for them to survive in their current environment.
Im curious as to where dinosaurs stand from the non-evolutionist perspective. Anyone got anything to say on them?
Mariachi, go read Job 38 – 41 with regards to dinosaurs.
I LOVE Answers In Genesis, thanks for plugging them!
Was introduced by a pastor whose son worked for them. Now they are one of my favorite charities to support!
I just wish I was closer so I could go see this museum they are building!
Andy:
On what “facts” do I base this feeling of God?
Why are you *now* interested in provable, verifiable “facts”?
Is there a “fact” of the existance of the Garden of Eden? Some set of ruins that are universally recognized as Eden’s remains, as undeniable as Pompeii? Or are you “waiting for the evindence to be uncovered” (an answer creationists wouldn’t tolerate from evolutionists).
And how does a person prove their faith, Andy? What standard can I present to you that could not be rebutted?
Let me try: I was an alcoholic, but now I have not had a drink in months. I was suicidal, but now I am not. I am kind, and I do my best to follow Christ’s teachings. There is much, much more I could do prove my faith, but then, couldn’t we all do more? I do what God has called me to do.
To get back to the original subject — remember the original subject? — the teaching of “fact” is the job of the schools. Anything beyond that is “faith”, and should be taught in church.
‘To get back to the original subject – remember the original subject? – the teaching of “fact” is the job of the schools. Anything beyond that is “faith”, and should be taught in church.’
I think most kids leaving school today would be well served by learning the major faiths of this world.
But Tim,
They key to these arguments presented above is the difference between FACT and THEORY. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory.
Demanding that only evolution can be discussed in schools is inane, and just as wrong (IMO) as when people fought to keep it out of schools.
Mariachi,
Again, the throey of evolution is that it is slow, and gradual.
And that quote is reffering to life existing, at all, and in such predictable yet varied forms, not about how long it took (or didn’t) to get to its current state.
Yes, in social studies. So that they can make informed decisions, based upon their knowledge of those religions.
But — again, getting back to the subject — not as a replacement for what has been proven by science.
Or, Actus, are you saying the creation beliefs of the Hindi (the universe blinks from the eye of a god every ten thousand years) or the Navajo (the Milky Way is spilled cornmeal) should be taught along with creationism?
My, how the discussion would take off then!
Tim,
Evolution has not been proved. There is more evidence for Einstein’s Relativity, and there is still debate about that.
Evolution is a theory. A good theory, in that it covers a good many bases. But nobody has duplicated it. Nobody has proven a direct A became B relationship between any species.
Ancient Greeks saw elephant (or was it mastadon?) bones in the ground and thought they were the cyclops. To them, all the pieces fit: long large legs, big hole in the forehead, long spine etc. Someone from India would have looked at them, and said elephant.
As for pointing out the different creation stories from various people, I don’t think it is such a bad thing.
We don’t even understand gravity.
‘Or, Actus, are you saying the creation beliefs of the Hindi (the universe blinks from the eye of a god every ten thousand years) or the Navajo (the Milky Way is spilled cornmeal) should be taught along with creationism?’
That would be part of teaching religions.
I personally have no problem with children learning as much as possible about differnet faiths and cultures. It allows the children to make informed decisions about the world. But that is not what we are discussing.
My question about the creation stories of other religions is this: If the creationist arguement is that physical evidence can be interpreted any which way, then would creationists allow the creation story of the Hindu equal time in their local schools, in science and biology classes, with equal emphasis on plausability as Christian creation? If not, why not?
And yes, “theories” are not “laws”, which means they are not proven. But, as noted in earlier postings, based on the sites LB provided, Creationism seems to consist of “evolution doesn’t have all the answers, therefore we are right”. Or “if you don’t believe in Genesis you will go to Hell, which means you are wrong.”
And, lastly, who’s creationist theory would we teach? The Creationism that says relativity and evolution are correct, and God made all; the creationism that says the Universe started at the time of the Bible, but God used known science methods not mentioned in the Bible; or a straight reading of Genesis, KJV?
I gave my suggestion a few postings ago.
Let’s clarify the difference between fact and theory as scientists use the terms. Facts are pieces of data. Theories are explanations that link the facts together. WRT evolution the facts are that the earth is several billion years old, that life first appeared about 1 billion years ago and that the various forms of life have changed significantly over time. These facts are not in any serious dispute.
Evolution, more specifically, natural selection is the theory that explains the above facts.
Compre to gravity. The fact is that objects with mass are attracted to each other. The the theory includes the equations first proposed by Newton, refined by Einstein, etc.
To say that evolution is ‘just’ a theory is to misuse the term. A theory is NOT equivalent to a wild guess. It’s also not something that scientists hope wil one day ‘grow up’ into a fact.
Trevor
Tim, I said, “On what facts do you base this feeling?”.
I stand corrected, instead of “facts” I should have said “verses”.
In other words, I was asking if you can show me sound Scriptural basis for your beliefs. When you do that, then we can either agree or agree to disagree. At least we will have established common ground. Simply saying ‘I am a christian’, or ‘I believe in God’ is not enough to meet the criteria for common ground.
However, if you can’t defend your faith, then that just knocks the legs out from the rest of your beliefs regarding the God of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David and Father of Jesus’ view on man. You can’t have it both ways, like sKerry on abortion.
Andy:
You are absolutely right. We do not have much common ground.
I do not share your view of the Bible as a historical document. I do not exactly share your precise faith. But then, if you look at the sites LB suggested, many creationists do not share precisely share your faith either.
Now I ask you, now that I answered your question, will you answer one I asked in earlier posts?
PS: It is a *fact* that the fossil record seperates dinosaurs and men by millions of years. Again, this was determined by the same science used to solve crimes and dig for oil.
Comment by TheMariachi
Im curious as to where dinosaurs stand from the non-evolutionist perspective. Anyone got anything to say on them?
Yes..They are very big and scary looking. Ray..
I don’t see why God’s hand is somehow considered independent of evolution. Why can’t that simply be His hand at work?
I don’t see science as mankind trying to prove that God does not exist. Now and then science forces us to stop clinging to our preconceptions, but that does not mean that we have to stop having faith, or allow us to pretend that we understand God any worse or any better.
Perhaps the evolution that makes so much sense to so many people now will be replaced by yet another theory that makes even more sense decades from now. As long as faith is the foundation of your lives, what is truly lost? Your faith should not be based on science, anyway.
Some of these details are just another aspect of the Golden Calf to me, focusing on the word and not the meaning behind the word… focusing on form and ritual over substance.
Some people say that Jesus was probably black, based on what we know of the region at the time. Some say that we sprung up from His breath, others that we evolved slowly over time. Some kill in His name because they don’t follow the same set of rules for worship. Some call Jesus the son of God, some a simple prophet. Some call the Holy Bible a literal document, some an allegory.
Is any of this more important than what was actually said? The message of love and hope and compassion?
Arguments like these (and the rampant hypocrisy of man) are why I do not prescribe to the organized ritual of religion.
When I was in Desert Storm, I took the time to make a pilgrimage to the Wailing Wall. I prayed to God there, and confessed how much mankind has shaken my faith. “If you are truly my Father, and I your son, then I know that if I honestly do the best I can, you will be proud of me”.
Such is my own faith.
Too bad that kind of faith won’t save you. I’ll pray for you.
And it doesn’t matter what people claim. The question is what is true. It’s a crying shame that coherent argument and commitment to truth-seeking have been eroded. If we can’t even start with basic truths and work our way up-down-back-forward, the whole discussion is POINTLESS!
Its kind of like the stupid opening to 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY those ridiclous looking apemen they show with the swinging bones just proves what a bunch of blathering jerks these evolutionists are i mean they can show some dumb fossels or fake models but they should remember that many were sure that PILTDOWN MAN was the missing link and it turned out to be a fake and the so called NEBRASKA MAN was later found out that the person who made it had created it from what later turned out to be a PIG’S TOOTH these evolutionists are a bunch of liars and frauds
I am under the impression that faith transcends our limited human understanding of the world around us, that we may strive to understand but will never truly know if we do or not. Faith carries us where reason cannot.
A very respectful and honest question: how important is this issue to you, to anyone here, with respect to your personal relationship with God?
Finally, thank you for allowing me to participate in this discussion even though we all may not see eye to eye. I do ask my questions with an open mind, not merely to tout my own opinions. My own perspective is a grows as I do. I simply trust that my faith and effort will take me to where I need to be.
Firebird:
Interesting comment. I too believe that the grandstanding scientists who keep outdoing each other by claiming they’ve found the missing link have cultivated an extremely tired act.
I swear, every week I hear something in the news about a new set of bones found in the Himalayas or the Andes Mountains that are The Missing Link! to us homosapiens. It’s almost gotten to the point of parody.
But, you are quick to call us “evolutionists” a “bunch of liars and frauds.” I know I may offend many of you, but consider this. I don’t believe everything evolutionists day. Evolutionists tend to work on premises called THEORIES and HYPOTHOSES. So, of course, there are bound to be mistakes.
However, those who strictly adhere to creationism are also fooling themselves. If it’s a matter of faith, then I totally respect your views. But, don’t bash evolution–which has shown several glimmers of rationale–and then endorse what is basically a diatribe that starts with the snapping fingers of an otherworldly power. Genesis makes for great reading, however, it’s rather hard to take it seriously, much like the loon scientists who are off looking for their own “Lucy.”
Evolution and creationism both have their faults. I don’t believe either party of thought is right or wrong. I just enjoy the dialogue.
There’s any number of reasons that I can think of why the earth may not be as old as evolutionists suppose. Let’s start with God’s Word.
Oh we of little faith — if we had the faith of a mustard seed, we could move mountains. I must admit I don’t have enough faith to move a mountain, perhaps I am even afraid to find out by actually trying to do so.
Nevertheless, my faith is rather simplistic, like that of a child. When I look at God’s handiwork all around me, my faith is re-enforced everyday at His majesty. I also know I’ve been privileged to experience His power and that fills me with awe, I don’t know if I could literally stand a mountain actually moving. Like Ray said, it is enough for me to believe that when God said it, He meant it.
On the other hand, I am naturally inquisitive and so when I look at what science & technology has in hand, my approach is to see if S&T reaffirms God or not. If it doesn’t then obviously, there is a flaw in the science. It’s really simple.
Believers already know this much:
–Satan/Lucifer is a fallen angel along with 1/3 of the heavenly hosts.
–In the beginning…
–When God said let there be light, there was
–1 day=1 eon? Possible for the formation phase, but that negates the fact that when God finished creating, He said it was good and rested.
–For evolution of animals to have occured, death must have been present. If all of creation was good, then that means the genetic code was perfect. Houston we have a problem.
–If Adam came into being fully formed and a ‘grown’ man, why couldn’t the mountains, Afterall, the Bible knows the difference beteen baby, child & man, If a baby, wouldn’t God have said, it is not good for a babe to be alone, so let us create a mother?
–Adam and Eve lived in harmony with the creatures and could eat the fruit of any tree.
–when Adam & Eve sinned, evil took over. And for the first time, death occured when GOD killed a sheep to make clothes for Adam & Eve. Now we have wild animals that kill or be killed, plants that prick or poison us etc.
–God told Noah to build an ark then sent the animals, males with their mate(s) to repopulate after the flood
–People built the Tower of Babel, thinking if they could build it high enough, they could be equals to God. God smacked them down. Enquiring minds want to know; how high did they get? Did God feel threatened (of course not) or did He smack them for the sheer folly of it all, after allowing them to expend enough effort for Him to tire of their rebellion.
Now to make sense of the scientific record.
–carbon dating, until someone has been there at the other end, it is only a supposition that what holds true over 10 years could be extrapolated to millions. How do we know for sure that after a certain point that the numbers don’t fall off OR compound?
–speed of light. Is it constant? Perhaps, altho Hawkins now says E=MC2 needs a slight but significant adjustment. Was it always constant? Maybe not. Warp Speed or Hyper Drive anyone? Afterall, God is light, yet he can be, and is everywhere at once. Nothing about light lag.
–Geological record, sci-fi buffs seem to have no issue with Space 20xx series or Star trek genesis project, rationalizing as who knows what technology we may yet discover that can accelerate planet building.
–Big bang started with nothing and Genesis says God started with a void. Void=nothing.
So science is only getting a glimpse of how, but God told us why. Satan would use any lie, evidence and what have you to distort God’s truth. Satan also has dominion over this earth. God has no need to “trick” us by planting fossils, etc. Why wouldn’t Satan be beyond that if it suited him and had the power to do so?
As for your issue, sure teach it all in schools. Tell the kids that this is an exercise in critical thinking. “We report the theories, you decide”.
Dear La Shawn,
May I add my two cents’ worth?
You don’t have to be a “creationist” to believe in creation and to have trouble accepting Darwinism. Let me explain.
Creationism assumes a certain “take” on Gen 1-2: these chapters of the Bible, creationists say, offer a straightforward play-by-play account of origins.
Now, I believe that Gen 1-2 truly describe real events that actually took place. I am not a creationist, however, because the events Gen 1-2 describe aren’t quite like ordinary historical events—not because they didn’t happen, but because they FOUND history in the first place. In short, the problem I have with creationism isn’t that it takes the Bible seriously as a historical account, but that it doesn’t have antennae for the special kind of history (the pre-history) that’s being recounted. Creationism isn’t so to say imaginatively up to the Biblical account of origins. (I have a similar problem with dispensationalism, which tries to imagine the unimaginable—the end of the world [which is gonna happen and which the Bible tells us true things about]—with an unspiritual imagination that reduces everything to cartoonish and trivial details).
I don’t see, then, why some sense of evolution couldn’t be compatible with the Biblical account.
If you look at the natural world, you see a certain hierarchy, where the lower level prepares the ground for, but without fully explaining, the higher. All the great theologians of the Christian tradition have a version of this picture, and it’s not too much of a stretch to “historicize it.”
Note, though, that this kind of evolution doesn’t reduce the higher to the lower, but preserves the essential irreducibility of the higher to the lower. By doing that, it does not foreclose the idea of a purpose working itself out through nature historically. And so it is open to the idea of an all-guiding providence.
The problem with evolution, from this point of view, isn’t evolution, but Darwinism, and the problem with Darwinism is that it DOES reduce the higher to the lower, thus eliminating purpose and providence from nature.
But this isn’t reasonable. The question Darwinians need to face, and which they don’t usually do, is this: setting creationism aside for a moment, and just looking at nature itself, how do you justify your reductionism? Aren’t you all saying, in effect, that chance is prior to order? But isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
Now, let me be clear. If there’s a problem with Darwinism, in other words, it isn’t that it tries to account for the operation of natural causes in natural terms, but that it does so through the filter of a reductionist philosophy that precisely can’t account for nature even on its own terms. Even a pagan like Aristotle would have had big problems with Darwinism, and his reasons still hold up to scrutiny, in my opinion.
One final point: as Thomas Aquinas says, the operation of “secondary causes” is a participation in the operation of the “first cause.” All the reality the secondary causes have as causes flows to them minute by minute from the first cause. God, then, is intimately involved in the workings of nature—but without having to “replace” those workings. God isn’t forced to choose one side of the either-or between “interfering” or being a passive spectator. He’s beyond the either-or altogether—and that’s one of the things it means to call him Creator.
Thanks.
Adrian
As someone who has been just been reading The Case for a Creator (which has already been mentioned above), I find it pretty amazing what some of the claims of the evolutionists here are really purporting. (BTW, I’ve been reading about this stuff for years already.)
First of all, the idea that dinosaurs were wiped out millions of years before the first modern humans lived on the planet is ridiculous. Human footprints have been found next to dinosaur fossils in the same strata…same time period. Stories of dinosaurs (dragons and “sea monsters”) are in human legends all over the world. There’s only ONE reason to believe dinosaurs and humans never co-existed: the false idea of an old earth and a Darwinian timescale.
Second of all, it’s pretty outrageous to make the claim that, because we’re here, evolution must have happened. That’s a non-argument, because there isn’t just one set of overwhelming odds that evolution overcame, there are a zillion sets of overwhelming odds. First, you have to prove that inert matter somehow “arranged itself” into highly-complex proteins (made out of only left-handed amino acids). Then you have to prove that incredibly complicated DNA information somehow arose on its own. Then you have to show how all those different components came together to form primitive cells that could properly reproduce. Then you have to prove that zillions of beneficial mutations occurred in cells over millions of years to grow amazing structures which are *irreducibly* complex — i. e., they don’t function AT ALL without all of the parts in place and working at once.
Then there’s the problem of the transitional fossils — oh wait, there aren’t any. Funny thing, that. Then there’s the problem of timeframes: “primitive” organisms that evolved “millions” of years ago are still here, alive and well. Interesting that they somehow didn’t “evolve”. Plus there are fossils of “recent” species being discovered next to “ancient” ones. Weird.
Let’s face it: when you actually look at empirical *evidence*, evolution starts looking pretty sketchy, if not downright absurd. Evolution isn’t fact, it’s barely a theory, it’s not even that good of an hypothesis anymore. I find it quite amusing that the final nail in the coffin for evolution won’t be religion or faith, it will be science.
Regards,
Jared
LaShawn,
“Too bad that kind of faith won’t save you.”
I really don’t believe you have the qualifications to make that statement:
Romans 12:19, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”
Jeremiah 51:11, “Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.”
Psalm 37:10-11, “For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the humble shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.”
Best to leave that judgement to G-d.
Steve – This is directed to you and Michael, the commenter who my comment was intended for.
Michael said: …then I know that if I honestly do the best I can, you will be proud of me.
And I said: Too bad that kind of faith won’t save you.
By making that statement, I’m not judging anyone. Only God can do that. I’m basing my assertion on Scripture. Believers are commanded to declare the word of God; in that sense, I am qualified.
Man’s oldest and biggest problem is he thinks he can bring about his own salvation. Before I read the Bible, I used to believe I’d go to heaven if the good I did outweighed the bad in the end. But I knew how much sin I’d committed and how much more I wanted to commit. If one sin is enough to send me to hell, then nothing I do that’s “good” will ever be enough. It’s too late!
This is what God says about us, our own”righteousness” and what we need:
“For since the beginning of the world men have not heard nor perceived by the ear, nor has the eye seen any God besides You, who acts for the one who waits for Him. You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness, who remembers You in Your ways. You are indeed angry, for we have sinned– In these ways we continue; And we need to be saved.
But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags…” (Isaiah 64:4-6)
And:
“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.” (Romans 8:7-9)
Many people in this world think they’re going to heaven because they are “good people,” but God says:
“Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21)
And what’s the will of the Father? To repent of our sins and call on the name of Jesus Christ!
Despite the warnings of pending judgment against the world, God tells us how we can be pardoned for our sins and redeemed. It has nothing to do with “honestly doing the best you can.” He says that if we believe on him, his righteousness will be added to us. The heart of man is desperately wicked, Scripture tells and shows us. Anyone familiar with the Bible could never make a statement like …then I know that if I honestly do the best I can, you will be proud of me.
The Bible is clear about our condition and clear about how we can avoid God’s wrath, which we all deserve. How? I recommend this link:
http://www.carm.org/index/whatisthegospel.htm
I can’t judge a man’s heart, but that doesn’t disqualify me from telling you or anyone else what Scripture says about YOU. If you are unrepentant and seek or desire no forgiveness in the name of Christ, I can say, with the authority of Scripture behind me, that you are still in your sins. I can say with authority that if you remain unrepentent, you will die in your sins. If you go through life thinking God will be “proud” of your pitiful “good works”, think again.
What the verses you cited have to do with Michael’s comment or my reply is a mystery to me.
Comments on this entry are closed.