Genesis v Evolution

[Jake_Ellison]

Just like any scientific fact that used to be explained by religion, evolution is just one area that science has claimed from religion. I believe in evolution and I don’t believe in God. 4 years ago I’d have said ‘I believe in evolution and I believe in God.’ Never would I say I don’t believe in God because I believe in evolution.

Evolution is a perfect way of explaining the varity of life and how it came to be here. But it does not directly oppose the idea of a God. I think there are better reasons why God doesn’t exist.

It’s interesting, because in Britain evolution is almost universally accepted. It’s taken as fact by the vast majority, Christian and no Christian alike. I have had plenty of arguments with my Christian friends over God, and only one of them seems to take issue with evolution. The vast majortiy of the time evolution is ignored and we discuss other things. To my Christian friends, they would see no difference between saying ‘evolution is wrong because of God’ and saying ‘the world is the center of the universe because of God.’ It’s just not an issue. I normally only ever end up discussing evolution with Americans. (Emphasis on normally).

 

[abu_kamoon]

Regardless of your belief or disbelief in God, evolution is not science. It has never been observed, cannot be demonstrated, violates known scientific principles, and insult the intelligence.

The idea of random mutations contributing to the surviveability of an organism is a stretch. Believing that multiple random mutations over millions of years could produce a new species is ludicrous. Since the vast majority of mutations are harmful, what would keep these organisms from dying out before their beneficial mutations accomplished anything?

In the history of the human race, people have been exposed to various diseases. We still contract them. Why haven’t we evolved immunity to them?

The fact that any of us are here is testimony to the survival of the fittest. Humans who had no resistance to some of these diseases perished. Thoses who were the fittest, survived. But we haven’t evolved immunity, have we? Why not?

Evolution is a silly theory. Like much of junk science today (Global Warming, for instance), its believers show the evidence that tends to prove it, while ignoring the evidence that shows it couldn’t have happened.

Evolution is important to a lot of people, because it is the best explanation that they have been able to come up with for our origin, without reverting to a Creator. This makes evolution more of a political foundation based on an alternate religious belief, than a science. If it were really science, we would all believe it.

Evolution is based on faith, like other religions. But it is vital to various political beliefs, including Nazism and Communism. Evolution teaches that we are just animals.

Evolution has no place in Christianity.

 

[edwest2]

Evolution is not provable and it does have a relationship with Communism as a worldview.

marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/11.htm

The Communist State was disseminating propaganda to eliminate religion and all superstitious beliefs from among the people. The State would fill the vacuum and become what people would live and die for. Those who think religion controls people should see that once a vacuum is created, a new group enters to assert control, in this case, Communists. The schools were one of the key ways of getting this propaganda to the young.

In the 1960s, the leaders of the United States regularly told the people we were in a struggle with Godless Communism, now Christians are in a struggle with Godless Americanism, both in the schools and through the Media.

God bless,
Ed

 

[cpayne]

I’m pretty sure this discussion will not progress any further. See you all on another thread, I hope. Bye!

 

[freesoulhope]

Another animal to consider is the bat. It navigates and hunts by echolocation. It bounces sound waves off objects to build up a ‘picture’ in much the same way we use light. Perhaps in a lightless world we would use echolocation to build a mental picture of our 3D world. Perhaps there would be little difference between this mental image and the one we get from assimilating the information provided by our eyes.

Now if you agree with the random development of an eye, given chance, surely you see how much more efficient it is if the chance changes to the eye or to any light sensing organ are put under the pressure of natural selection?

You gave a good argument, and I can see how I might be wrong.
I have no problem with natural selection; in fact, on purely natural terms, it would be very difficult for evolution to occur, as it has done, without natural selection, but I think that the fact organisms mutate is just as important. Also, I think it is a mistake (if your an atheist) for scientists to speak of natural selection like its something that “purposely” and “knowingly” selects good mutations (It creates confusion ands adds sense of “purpose” to the mechanism; “Design”) . Natural selection isn’t a real objective reality by itself; it’s a mixture of blind mutations, procreation, plus environments. Whether a mutation helps an organism to survive or not, is dependent upon that organism ability to conform within its determining environment, its already existing biological make up and the mutations impact upon any given biological form. This way, even though a good mutation occurring again and again seems highly improbable given the many surviving complex variations we see, I can see how it is possible.

A very intelligent bat indeed!

I’m not sure, but you seemed to use the bats ability to see, using Echo-location, to explain that its environment has determined its ability. Why should a bat comprehend a 3 dimensional world?

Even if it has received the Echo ability through evolution, it does not follow with garrantee, that such an organism would be able to use such a beneficial ability to its own benefit; since the bat would have to comprehend that it exists within a dark cave, and would need to use echo-location to get around; even if its evolved to an extent that it could picture an image in its mind (which is what you suggested) the bat would still need to comprehend the fact that the image in its mind represents the fact that there are obstacles. Secondly, another beneficial mutation would need to occur. To “not” fly in to a wall, a creature would have to understand that it is not within its best interests of survival to crash in to a wall; such a level of comprehension means that it is a making a personal choice based on a desire to survive and past “memory” (which it would also have to comprehend in order to apply it to the present). Obviously I don’t believe that bats have anything near the level of comprehension that we as humans have; and the fact that we comprehend, seems to justify and makes sense of our responsive and behavioral abilities that we see in animals; which is the point of what I am saying. These things have to be either an unlikely coincidence that gives the appearance of design, or quite possibly a purposeful design expressed through natural selection and mutation.

The Bats Actualized ability to see in the dark through echo location, is not determined by its environment, it is the blind mutations conformity to the environment in which the organism lives which defines whether its beneficial and should continue to exists and pass on its genes. Natural selection has no authority over what mutations “produce” in respect of the organisms form or ability; it only determines which mutations should survive. So “coincidence” is the only argument there is to explain why these organisms of a very complex working structure will produce a mutation that is beneficial. Thats why evolution, from an atheistic veiw point, seems highly improbable, regardless of the billions of years that may have elapsed.

Like I said before, It strongly seems that the eye necessarily exists to “see” in some form or another; it does not exist to walk or talk, it does not seem to have any other function other then to perceive a real 3 dimensional world (I nether said it does not exist): I am yet to see a facet of evolution that explains this order that is inherent in living organisms. You are correct that sight is dependent on environment; what I am supposing is that the fine tuning of nature and the universe, suggests a predetermined design upon which actualized realities inevitably take shape given any mutation that conforms to the ordered direction of our environment.
I am not saying that this is proof of Gods existents, but this seems to strongly point towards a designer, rather then an atheistic world view.

 

[chewchoo]

i just read an article in the US News & world report, Sept 29, 2003 called Divining nature’s plan.

“a generation after his pioneering work in the burgess shale, simon conway morris is convinced that far from being a random, directionless process, evolution shows deep patterns, and perhaps even a purpose. in his new book, *life’s solution: inevitable humans in a lonely universe *(cambridge university press, 2003), he argues that not only does evolutionary history “make sense” but that its results - including humanity - are the exact opposite of the evolutionary accidents that most biologists believe them to be.”

something you debaters might want to review

 

[abu_kamoon]

I have a question for all of you evolution believers:

If, as the current evolutionary doctrine states, humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestors, however many million years ago, why is it that chimpanzees are still simians?

Why didn’t they evolve into something roughly comparable to humans? Why are chimpanzees, apes, gorillas and monkeys pretty much on the same level?

Do you see how ridiculous it is to picture humans as just another evolved animal? No animal has a true language. No animal is capable of abstract thought. No animal has appreciation for art, music or any of the “humanities”.

No animal worships his Creator. There is such a wide gulf between humans and animals, as to make the case for common ancestory laughable.

Why aren’t chimpanzees exploring space? Why aren’t they studying us? What has retarded their evolutionary progress?

 

[cpayne]

The wide gulf between humans and other animals is called a rational soul, made in God’s image. Other than that, we are about 98% like most everything else, genetically. In fact, we’re about 67% like bananas.

 

[Mirdath]

i just read an article in the US News & world report, Sept 29, 2003 called Divining nature’s plan.

“a generation after his pioneering work in the burgess shale, simon conway morris is convinced that far from being a random, directionless process, evolution shows deep patterns, and perhaps even a purpose. in his new book, *life’s solution: inevitable humans in a lonely universe *(cambridge university press, 2003), he argues that not only does evolutionary history “make sense” but that its results - including humanity - are the exact opposite of the evolutionary accidents that most biologists believe them to be.”

something you debaters might want to review

Sure, it has a purpose: produce creatures best suited for survival in their environments. It’s not accidental, though accidents can certainly be involved in natural selection (see also: Darwin Awards)
abu kamoon:

If, as the current evolutionary doctrine states, humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestors, however many million years ago, why is it that chimpanzees are still simians?

Their branch didn’t end up needing much in the way of technology to survive. Humans are weaker, slower, have worse teeth, et cetera – so we had to come up with an edge, and that edge turned out to be tying pointy rocks to sticks.

Chimps didn’t stop evolving – nothing has. They just didn’t require technological advancement to survive. We did.

 

[edwest2]

That is all speculation, stated as fact when the evidence is all in question. The evolution worldview requires such phrasing. Humans and apes need to eat, immediately. Not wait for evolution to happen first. The evidence tells me that all creatures that ever lived were fit for survival and that natural disaster, disease and the environment wiped them out. Human DNA is remarkably stable and the junk DNA that evolutionists thought would contain evidence of past evolution turned out to not be junk (non-coding) DNA.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

The evidence tells me that all creatures that ever lived were fit for survival and that natural disaster, disease and the environment wiped them out.

Exactly! You now admit that you accept natural selection. That is good. Now, you need to work on the rest of your misunderstandings.

Peace

Tim

 

[SoCalRC]

Sure, it has a purpose: produce creatures best suited for survival in their environments. It’s not accidental, though accidents can certainly be involved in natural selection (see also: Darwin Awards)

Their branch didn’t end up needing much in the way of technology to survive. Humans are weaker, slower, have worse teeth, et cetera – so we had to come up with an edge, and that edge turned out to be tying pointy rocks to sticks.

Chimps didn’t stop evolving – nothing has. They just didn’t require technological advancement to survive. We did.

I know what you were saying here, but I think it is worth pointing out a subtle distinction. Evolution is not a plan.

That is the big point that most creationists struggle with. They can only think in terms of substituting God’s plan for a genetic/secular plan.

Mutations are not planned. They just occur. Creatures do not will themselves to be more efficient and natural selection does not lead to perfection, primarily because of environmental changes and natural disasters. That is, what is and what is not a competitive advantage changes.

So, we have a very successful species, us, who has cronic spinal problems and a poor resistance to cold…

Why this is so threatening to some people, I do not know. To me, it just makes our own existance all the more remarkable and God’s plan all the more vast and grand. But considering how much we know about the world that they need to reject to maintain a literalcreationist view, there is no doubting their passion or intensity.

 

[abu_kamoon]

“Their branch didn’t end up needing much in the way of technology to survive. Humans are weaker, slower, have worse teeth, et cetera – so we had to come up with an edge, and that edge turned out to be tying pointy rocks to sticks.”

the above quote refers to the chimpanzee’s apparent lack of evolutionary progress compared to humans.

I wonder how evolution, a process supposedly based on random mutations, can assess what is needed for survival. If we are to accept that idea, why haven’t we evolved immunities to various degenerative diseases like cancer, heart disease, stroke and diabetes? Wouldn’t that contribute to our surviveability?

Evolution is always contorted to fit whatever we can observe, but no one ever explains the contridictions and omissions. If we and chimpanzees are still evolving, what progress have they made? They are still furry, ape-like animals. They seem to be indistinguishable from whatever common ancestor they are supposed to have shared with us.

If they are still evolving, what were they? How have they improved? What is different?

 

[Caldera]

I would like to stay on the creationist side of the fence and re-create my argument for the sake of discussion. Whether i actually believe in creation or not is irrelevant.​

Consider within the utterly massive size of the universe,our home galaxy, the Milky Way, that spans 100,000 light years wide. The size of our Earth is just a grain of sand within it.

Consider the fact that there is an estimated 100-200 billion more galaxies other than the Milky Way, and we are talking mind-boggling contemplation, and a phenomenal display of God’s beauty and power!

Consider behind the physical curtain of our life, is a powerful
spiritual presence that exists with us on this tiny earth, whether we are aware of it or not.

Consider the God who created it all one way or another who we
as Christians dare to call “Our Father”. Consider the belief we have that God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to be born of a virgin (our Christian mother), and to suffer and die for our sins. Consider the mission of Christ, as “God”, who performed many unnatural “miracles” - including rising from the dead.

Consider the events at Fatima in 1917 when “Our Lady” caused
the sun to “dance” around the sky, turn pale, spin like a pinwheel
throwing out an array of colors, then plummet to earth only to dry the clothes of many thousands of witnesses who were soaking wet from the rain, without any harm.

Now, consider this:

• Earth is the only “water planet” we know of. Any other discovery
  of an “exoplanet” will be many, many trillions of miles away.
• The moon is a critical part of our existence as it has stablized
  earth from spinning like a “top”.
• Consider the distance from the sun that our planet orbits, the moon’s importance, working together, allowing the earth to
  BLOOM WITH LIFE OF ALL KINDS!

Is this some kind of just “freak luck”? No chance! It’s a “perfect set-up” for God’s creation to unfold like a plan. It’s not a “perfect earth”, as we see much suffering, but why is there suffering in this creation to begin with?

Is it beyond the ability of the creator, to form 2 grains of sand in his massive universe, and drop them perfectly in orbit around our sun with the intent to bring about human life in his image? Is it beyond the creator to create the initial stars in our galaxy before setting it all in motion? Think about it.

Remove creation from Genesis, and you are left with half a story
which will be just as hard to believe!

Whats left? Is there a garden of eden somewhere that our supposed first parents were created, or is that just part of the now seemingly ancient “bedtime story” combined with creation?

Did we evolve to a “fall of man” somehow!? That’s not in Genesis!
Why would i believe that? I might as well just throw it all out!

 

[Mirdath]

I wonder how evolution, a process supposedly based on random mutations, can assess what is needed for survival. If we are to accept that idea, why haven’t we evolved immunities to various degenerative diseases like cancer, heart disease, stroke and diabetes? Wouldn’t that contribute to our surviveability?

Sure would (although ‘immunity’ is a misleading word, since it refers to infectious diseases – and those are evolving too)! It ain’t all that easy, though – we’re just now seeing people growing up without wisdom teeth (why oh why couldn’t I have been in that group…).

Degenerative diseases are just another mechanism of natural selection: those who aren’t susceptible go on to survive and reproduce more.

Evolution is always contorted to fit whatever we can observe, but no one ever explains the contridictions and omissions. If we and chimpanzees are still evolving, what progress have they made? They are still furry, ape-like animals. They seem to be indistinguishable from whatever common ancestor they are supposed to have shared with us.

If they are still evolving, what were they? How have they improved? What is different?

They don’t need to be much different. Frankly, we aren’t all that different from protohominids either – bigger brains, slightly altered configuration, and so on; what really distinguishes us is technological development.

 

[edwest2]

Exactly! You now admit that you accept natural selection. That is good. Now, you need to work on the rest of your misunderstandings.

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim,

To be precise, I am saying that all creatures were fit to survive the moment they were created. I have no misunderstandings.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Philthy]

Hi Ed -

Im not sure if you are simply: :
A) trying to argue for a literal interpretation of Genesis
B) expressing discontent at the current state of harrassment you feel from the scientific community
C) trying to rally all Christians to the literal interpretation of Genesis to prevent them from losing their faith in God, or
D) All of the above

With respect to A, I, for one, have a looser interpretation of the creation of the earth in 6 days. Why? Because the term day is used before the sun is created, and therefore before the earth began revolving around it. I therefore have no idea what the term “day” means in Genesis, but it clearly does not mean a 24 hour span of time. Add to that the fact that a thousand years is “like a moment” to God and I see some play in the whole thing.
With respect to B, do not run from suffering in Christ’s name - run to it. Just be sure it is Christ you are suffering for. If you are having difficulty, “Consider how he endured such opposition from sinners in order that you may not grow weary and lose heart” Heb 12-3.
With respect to C, although your approach seems wise, believers must constantly deal with the “evidence” of reality provided by science. Some of that is simply too strong to ignore. Do we simply ignore the evidence that children generally look like their parents and then somehow explain how we have many races of people, geographically assimilated, all from 2 parents if there is no such thing as evolution?
Or, apart from the evolution debate, how, exactly did Noah know when he had 2 of every bacteria on earth so that he could close up the arc? And if there werent any bacteria then, where did they come from? Should we deny that they exist? Which brings me to the final point…
With respect to D, I think you simply need to pick your battles wisely and insisting on a literal interpretation of Genesis is not wise IMHO. There are some critically important things from the creation narrative: God created everything, the soul of Man and Woman were created by God, etc but the exact specifics of how that worked out simply arent known.

 

[edwest2]

Hi,

Thank you for your detailed response. Being Catholic relies less on opinion and more on the teachings of the Church. In C above, you use the phrase “believers must.” There is no imperitive for believers to make any decisions about evolution one way or the other. It has been turned into an apparent imperitive by those who promote evolution here and elsewhere. In a local Catholic publication, I read about one criticism of the Catholic Church in that it was felt that it does not respond fast enough to developments in science. The response was that the Church carefully considers all aspects of the issue and after careful consideration, makes a statement. Prudence is good.

You close by noting, in regards to Genesis, “how that worked out simply aren’t known.” If that was true, there would be no statements from others that they do, in fact, know.

In B above, you mention my dealings with the “scientific community.” I can’t say with any certainty that I have ever heard here or elsewhere from the “scientific community.” With made up screen names and servers located in Uzbekistan, anyone can claim to be anybody.

A belief in the “fact” of evolution is intimately tied to an actual worldview that colors people’s perceptions and allows for an unGodly view of themselves and others. It generally rejects any god. All Atheists reject God and evolution is their religion. Do you think any Atheist believes God did it?

Here, things generally go like this and are repeated, ad nauseum.

"What? You still don’t believe in evolution? Fer cryin’ out loud! I don’t got all day. Here, read these books. So once you understand, you’ll believe.

"You still don’t believe? What am I goona do wit you, huh!? You wanna be called anti-“reason” or anti-“science”? You wanna embarrass this country? Huh!?

“Git outta here, and don’t come back until you admit the facts!”

So the imperitive is what, exactly? Why “must” I deal with this now? Or at all? Pope Bendict, in an article published in USA Today, said that evolution is not provable. I agree.

God bless,
Ed

 

[abu_kamoon]

“They don’t need to be much different. Frankly, we aren’t all that different from protohominids either – bigger brains, slightly altered configuration, and so on; what really distinguishes us is technological development.”

I disagree. We are getting dumber. In our knowledge, that is built on the discovery and experiences of previous generations (unlike animals), many of us think that we can figure out Creation. We have become arrogant in our ignorance.

The idea that we would be able to figure out creation, to explain how it was done is a classic example of this arrogance. There is nothing natural about creation. When “science” can demonstrate it, then I will believe. Until then, evolution, and the “Big Bang” are the products of scientists whose IQs exceed their intellects.

If science can explain creation, surely the Resurrection shouldn’t be to difficult.

---

 

[zian]

I wonder how evolution, a process supposedly based on random mutations, can assess what is needed for survival. If we are to accept that idea, why haven’t we evolved immunities to various degenerative diseases like cancer, heart disease, stroke and diabetes? Wouldn’t that contribute to our surviveability?

See discussion below. We don’t get to pick when a given genetic change is to occur.
abu kamoon:

Evolution is always contorted to fit whatever we can observe, but no one ever explains the contridictions and omissions. If we and chimpanzees are still evolving, what progress have they made? They are still furry, ape-like animals. They seem to be indistinguishable from whatever common ancestor they are supposed to have shared with us.

You seem to be laboring under the misconcetion that “evolution” and “progress” are synonymous. They are not.

Talk Origins may help you with your misunderstandings a bit, if you will spend some time there. For example, from this article we have
Chris Colby:

Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Paquin and Adams demonstrated this experimentally. They founded a yeast culture and maintained it for many generations. Occasionally, a mutation would arise that allowed its bearer to reproduce better than its contemporaries. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a variety of times. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism’s success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones.

(emphasis mine)

See also here

And the discussion at the top of this page