At several points your post keeps going back to the idea that evolution is in conflict with God. That evolution somehow equals atheism.
Let me be more clear about my opinion on this matter. First I will address the question of whether evolution is in conflict with God?
Well, that depends on your definition of God. Is evolution in conflict with the idea of a god (or a higher power)? Not at all. But is evolution in conflict with the God of the Bible? I believe that it is. An honest straightforward reading of scripture will testify to this. One contradiction between evolution and the Bible is that the Bible gives a time line of about 6000 years from Adam to the present day. Many theistic evolutionists write this off to gaps in the genealogies (which I do not believe is a reasonable inference). Another contradiction is that the order of creation events differs from the order as evolution describes it. Most convincingly, however, is the law of sin and death. The Bible teaches that death had not entered the world until Adam sinned. Therefore, millions of years of evolution would have occurred with no death.
Now, although I consider the Bible at odds with evolution, I would not say that evolution somehow equals atheism. Many creationists would disagree with me, but I believe that to say that someone who believes in evolution cannot possibly be a Christian is highly unbiblical. I believe that a Christian can be an evolutionist, and vice versa. However, I do believe, at least at the moment (perhaps someday I will come to new understanding), that someone who is both an evolutionist and a Christian most likely does not have a firm understanding in one of their beliefs (either evolution or Christianity).
Approximately 50% of American scientists are actively faithful Christians... About 99.7% or so of actively faithful Christian scientists are convinced evolution is true
I would be extremely interested to hear where you found these statistics, since they disagree with statistics that I have read in the past, and my own observations.
Which is a more complete, more perfect, more awe inspiring universe? An imperfect incomplete one where God needs to manually insert rain? Or one that was created with perfect natural laws and natural mechanisms that could itself produce rain He wanted for us, through evaporation and condensation?
Which is a more complete, more perfect, more awe inspiring universe? An imperfect incomplete one where God needs to manually insert rainbows? Or one that was created with perfect natural laws and natural mechanisms that could itself produce rainbows He wanted to create, through the laws of optics?
I am completely with you on these two statements. I do believe that God has set natural laws in place, by which He governs the universe.
Evolution does not explain life
I agree and understand that evolution does not attempt explain life. But wouldn't you agree that it is relevant to the discussion? Spontaneous generation has been scientifically discredited, so according to the best of our current scientific knowledge, it would be impossible for life to come from nonliving matter. Therefore, the best conclusion that can be drawn (at this time) from this apparent scientific impossibility is that it did not happen. I, personally, like to know answers, and find myself asking "then HOW?". The best answer that I feel science can come up with at this time is that there must have been some external intelligent input. And if I am going to concede that there is intelligent input to life, then why not the God of the Bible, for whom there seems to be a compelling reservoir of historical evidence?
So while there certainly could be a God deliberately planting misleading evidence for us, such a case would make all reasoning entirely worthless. It would make any and
Thank you both for you comments (I suppose I am replying to both Copid and Alsee, rather than writing two replies). You have both brought forth some very reasonable explanations that I had not considered before. However, I do still feel that there is debate on evolution. I understand that there is an enormous majority of evolutionists to creationists (in scientific fields), but there are still some scientists who seem to bring forward intelligent criticisms against evolution. I wonder if you would comment on this article on Archaeopteryx for me.
It's OK to come across an an anti-evolution argument that you find persuasive and to ask questions, but keep in mind that the experts in the field are certainly already aware of that issue and that the experts almost certainly have a good reason not to consider it a problem.
My fear is that the "good reason not to consider it a problem" may not be because evolution is such a plausible or likely explanation for life, but because it is the ONLY plausible explanation for life. That is, I fear that the reason evolution is so established is because it is an alternative to believing in a higher power. A way of escaping absolute morality. The comment Copid made implies this line of thinking:
Your comments on the origins of life, the universe, and everything are reasonable, but they don't really get you anywhere as a scientific model. Finding a large gap in our understanding and filling it with magic is certainly one way of going philosophically, but because the model of an omnipotent intervening force fits with any possible observation, it's not really useful as a scientific model. It doesn't give us a chance to expand our understanding about anything.
But does the fact that God (or "magic") is not useful as a scientific model make it any less possible? To ignore the possibility because it is not useful as a scientific model is to rule out an indisputably viable explanation from the get go, regardless of evidence or a lack thereof. I agree that evolution theory has endured much development, and many theories of the evolutions of different species have been developed, but not necessarily with supporting evidence. It seems that many "evidences" of evolution are simply explanations. No matter how developed they can become, and how many angles they can cover, they are still explanations. Is it any more scientifically valid to look at a bombardier beetle and say "look at this complex thing, here is how it must have evolved" using no evidence other that its own existence, than it is to say "look at this complex thing, here is how it must have been created" (again, using no evidence other than its own existence)? It seems that there are too many unknowns to evolution (such as the origin of the universe, and the origin of life) for it to be swallowed without debate.
Thank you both for enduring me for so long, and thank you for you replies!
Thank you, Alsee, for spending so much time on that answer. I do appreciate it, and although you are right that I 'grabbed some random misinformation from the internet' (as I mentioned in my original comment), I am interested in the answers you have presented. However, I am still not sold on evolution. I suppose you could call me a skeptic (ironically)! The more arguments that I read for and against evolution, the more compelling I feel the arguments against are. I do believe that there is in fact a scientific debate still going about evolution, because so much about evolution seems to be pure speculation.
I know that evolution theory does not attempt to explain how life came from nonlife, but it must have. Of the little that I know about biology, I do know how amazingly complex life is. And how, like a fractal, the closer you look at life, the more complex it is. You seem to know quite a bit about biology, and so I'm sure that you know that even a single cell is more complicated (and complex) than the space shuttle. If it seems ridiculous to say that the space shuttle could come together by random chance, then isn't it even more extraordinary to say that a cell could come together out of random chance? I guarantee, that no matter how many billions of years you sit and wait, no spaceship will ever appear.
I also do not understand where matter and energy came from. If the Big Bang occurred, where did the singularity come from? I have heard some theories that say that our universe spun off from some other universe that has always been. But is that really any easier to believe in than God? Both are equally religious (by faith).
As far as your response goes (again, thank you for giving it the attention you did), you have presented some information that I will accept, not necessarily as evidence or proof, but as viable explanations. I still, however, have some unanswered questions.
First of all, you mentioned dinosaurs with feathers. Assuming that natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs, what advantage do dinosaurs with feathers have? Certainly they couldn't fly, and certainly natural selection is not some intelligent force that had birds in mind for the future. Also, could you give me an example of a dinosaur with feathers?
Or how would you explain the evolution of the bombardier beetle? This taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2 -selection.asp
The situation is even more dangerous for the famous "bombardier beetle." The bombardier is an ordinary-looking beetle, but it has an ingenious chemical defense mechanism. Imagine: here comes a mean ol' beetle-eater, a toad, creeping up behind the seemingly unsuspecting beetle. Just as he gets ready to flash out that long, sticky tongue, the beetle swings its cannon around, and "boom!" It blasts the toad in the face with hot noxious gases at the boiling point of water, and coats the toad's tongue with a foul-tasting residue. Now that doesn't actually kill the toad, but it surely kills its taste for beetles! Pictures show the toad dragging its tongue across the sand trying to get rid of the foul taste.
Successful firing of the bombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones), enzymes, pressure tanks, and a whole series of nerve and muscle attachments for aim and control. Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time, chance, and natural selection. One crucial mistake, of course, and "boom!" the would-be bombardier beetle blows itself up, and there's surely no evolutionary future in that! Trial and error can lead to improvement only if you survive the error!
Creationists and evolutionists agree that adaptations such as the woodpecker's skull, cleaning symbiosis, and the bombardier beetle's cannon all have survival value. The question is, how did they get that way: by time, chance, and the struggle for survival, or by pl
"Speciation has been observed in the laboratory with fruit flies"
I don't think anyone is disputing that variations can occur within a species. This is called microevolution, and it is testable. You can get different kinds of fruit flies, but can you get a bee? No. But that's not fair, is it? Macroevolution would take a long long time. And during this long long time, many many transitional forms would come and go. So tell me something. Where are all of these transitional forms?
"If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution has never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing."
I want to know where the transitional forms went. And I want to know the mechanism for macroevolution. How did the eye evolve? How did the elements evolve (keeping in mind, of course, that fusion can only account for those up to iron)?
I want to know a lot of things. While you're answering those for me, maybe you could answer some of these other questions I pulled of the web.
# Why and how did life learn to reproduce itself? # With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? # How did:
* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
* Fish change to amphibians?
* Amphibians change to reptiles?
* Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
* How did the intermediate forms live?
# How and from what did:
* Whales evolve?
* Sea horses evolve?
* Bats evolve?
* Eyes evolve?
* Ears evolve?
* Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
# Which evolved first (how, and how long did it work without the others)?
* The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
* The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
* The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
* The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
* The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
* The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
* The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
* The immune system or the need for it?
# There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Explain these for me. # Why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me be more clear about my opinion on this matter. First I will address the question of whether evolution is in conflict with God?
Well, that depends on your definition of God. Is evolution in conflict with the idea of a god (or a higher power)? Not at all. But is evolution in conflict with the God of the Bible? I believe that it is. An honest straightforward reading of scripture will testify to this. One contradiction between evolution and the Bible is that the Bible gives a time line of about 6000 years from Adam to the present day. Many theistic evolutionists write this off to gaps in the genealogies (which I do not believe is a reasonable inference). Another contradiction is that the order of creation events differs from the order as evolution describes it. Most convincingly, however, is the law of sin and death. The Bible teaches that death had not entered the world until Adam sinned. Therefore, millions of years of evolution would have occurred with no death.
Now, although I consider the Bible at odds with evolution, I would not say that evolution somehow equals atheism. Many creationists would disagree with me, but I believe that to say that someone who believes in evolution cannot possibly be a Christian is highly unbiblical. I believe that a Christian can be an evolutionist, and vice versa. However, I do believe, at least at the moment (perhaps someday I will come to new understanding), that someone who is both an evolutionist and a Christian most likely does not have a firm understanding in one of their beliefs (either evolution or Christianity).
I would be extremely interested to hear where you found these statistics, since they disagree with statistics that I have read in the past, and my own observations.
I am completely with you on these two statements. I do believe that God has set natural laws in place, by which He governs the universe.
Evolution does not explain life
I agree and understand that evolution does not attempt explain life. But wouldn't you agree that it is relevant to the discussion? Spontaneous generation has been scientifically discredited, so according to the best of our current scientific knowledge, it would be impossible for life to come from nonliving matter. Therefore, the best conclusion that can be drawn (at this time) from this apparent scientific impossibility is that it did not happen. I, personally, like to know answers, and find myself asking "then HOW?". The best answer that I feel science can come up with at this time is that there must have been some external intelligent input. And if I am going to concede that there is intelligent input to life, then why not the God of the Bible, for whom there seems to be a compelling reservoir of historical evidence?
My fear is that the "good reason not to consider it a problem" may not be because evolution is such a plausible or likely explanation for life, but because it is the ONLY plausible explanation for life. That is, I fear that the reason evolution is so established is because it is an alternative to believing in a higher power. A way of escaping absolute morality. The comment Copid made implies this line of thinking:
But does the fact that God (or "magic") is not useful as a scientific model make it any less possible? To ignore the possibility because it is not useful as a scientific model is to rule out an indisputably viable explanation from the get go, regardless of evidence or a lack thereof. I agree that evolution theory has endured much development, and many theories of the evolutions of different species have been developed, but not necessarily with supporting evidence. It seems that many "evidences" of evolution are simply explanations. No matter how developed they can become, and how many angles they can cover, they are still explanations. Is it any more scientifically valid to look at a bombardier beetle and say "look at this complex thing, here is how it must have evolved" using no evidence other that its own existence, than it is to say "look at this complex thing, here is how it must have been created" (again, using no evidence other than its own existence)? It seems that there are too many unknowns to evolution (such as the origin of the universe, and the origin of life) for it to be swallowed without debate.
Thank you both for enduring me for so long, and thank you for you replies!
I know that evolution theory does not attempt to explain how life came from nonlife, but it must have. Of the little that I know about biology, I do know how amazingly complex life is. And how, like a fractal, the closer you look at life, the more complex it is. You seem to know quite a bit about biology, and so I'm sure that you know that even a single cell is more complicated (and complex) than the space shuttle. If it seems ridiculous to say that the space shuttle could come together by random chance, then isn't it even more extraordinary to say that a cell could come together out of random chance? I guarantee, that no matter how many billions of years you sit and wait, no spaceship will ever appear.
I also do not understand where matter and energy came from. If the Big Bang occurred, where did the singularity come from? I have heard some theories that say that our universe spun off from some other universe that has always been. But is that really any easier to believe in than God? Both are equally religious (by faith).
As far as your response goes (again, thank you for giving it the attention you did), you have presented some information that I will accept, not necessarily as evidence or proof, but as viable explanations. I still, however, have some unanswered questions.
First of all, you mentioned dinosaurs with feathers. Assuming that natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs, what advantage do dinosaurs with feathers have? Certainly they couldn't fly, and certainly natural selection is not some intelligent force that had birds in mind for the future. Also, could you give me an example of a dinosaur with feathers?
Or how would you explain the evolution of the bombardier beetle? This taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2 -selection.asp
Here are some more questions to answer: http://drdino.com/articles.php?spec=105/ I appreciate it.
"Speciation has been observed in the laboratory with fruit flies"
I don't think anyone is disputing that variations can occur within a species. This is called microevolution, and it is testable. You can get different kinds of fruit flies, but can you get a bee? No. But that's not fair, is it? Macroevolution would take a long long time. And during this long long time, many many transitional forms would come and go. So tell me something. Where are all of these transitional forms?
"If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution has never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing."
I want to know where the transitional forms went. And I want to know the mechanism for macroevolution. How did the eye evolve? How did the elements evolve (keeping in mind, of course, that fusion can only account for those up to iron)?
I want to know a lot of things. While you're answering those for me, maybe you could answer some of these other questions I pulled of the web.
# Why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
# With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
# How did:
* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
* Fish change to amphibians?
* Amphibians change to reptiles?
* Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
* How did the intermediate forms live?
# How and from what did:
* Whales evolve?
* Sea horses evolve?
* Bats evolve?
* Eyes evolve?
* Ears evolve?
* Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
# Which evolved first (how, and how long did it work without the others)?
* The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
* The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
* The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
* The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
* The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
* The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
* The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
* The immune system or the need for it?
# There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Explain these for me.
# Why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.