Evolution vs. Creation (on Earth)

by StinkyPantz 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • MYOHNSEPH
    MYOHNSEPH

    I don't pretend to even be close to sorting all this out, but a few things seem pretty obvious to me. First of all, mankind has only begun to scratch the surface in understanding and comprehending the complexity of the universe. I can't get around the fact that, where ever you look, that complexity appears to be by design and purpose, which to my mind says, inteligence. To say that everything we see or know about has come about purely by some blind accident, belies every thread of logic I can muster. I can't think of anything else we might encounter in life, to which one would apply that same sort of reasoning.

    So, does that mean I believe "God" created it all? For any answer to that question to mean anything, one would first have to define who or what "God" is. I can't bring myself to believe that the entity described in the Bible is anything more than the perception of some supreme diety, held in the minds of certain ancient peoples. I'm not convinced a "God", as defined in any traditional religeous context, actually exists. However, the evidence of inteligence and purpose in what we commonly term "creation", certainly can't be ignored. Even the doctrine of "natural selection" implies a rational purpose to the evolutionary process. So, the idea that we, and the universe, have arrived at our present state through an evolutionary process, designed and initiated by an entity of inteligence and power, seems quite possible and rational to me. As far as whether or not, or to what extent, that entity would take an active interest in the everyday affairs mankind, individually or as a whole, I really don't have the foggiest idea.

    But, that's just me!

  • D wiltshire
    D wiltshire

    I beleive the Bible in the Genesis account is in harmony with the currant theories of evolution. I read some very interesting explanations of the first 2 chapters of Genesis that make sense. I think Fundy Christians do a lot of harm to discredit the Bible by sticking to a litteral 7-24 hour days of creation.

    Matter in the Universe is evolving, and this is according to the natural laws that govern matter, if God made these laws that make matter evolve from sub-atomic particles to hydrogen to cooking up more complicted atoms of heavier element by fussion in the cores of stars, and this taking billions of years. Why would he not use a similiar process on Earth to make Life.

    Genesis 2:4 said that this is the History of the Generations. Genesis is a word that is related to generation, and isn't that what evolution is a generation from lifeless matter to more and more complex life.

    If God invented the process of evolution then he could also be said to have created life, and man.

  • D wiltshire
    D wiltshire

    Here an essay that deals with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF12-99Held.html

    While you may not agree with everything in this essay I'm sure you will find it interesting.

  • Mackin
    Mackin

    Well, there was this alien called Rael, and...

  • Carmel
    Carmel

    When I walked away from the Borg many years ago, I was determined to settle once and for all the problem of whether or not evolution was true or false. After seven years of university and two degrees it has become my reality that evolution clearly has sufficient evidence to support the process of speciation, however, it never has claimed to provide the answer for the origin of life itself. Those who confuse the origin of life with the process of change which leads to the varieties of life are not paying attention in class. For those of you who are aware of the many complexities of biological life that cannot be explained by natural selection (evolution) you are justified in believing that some external input (creator) may well be at work programming.

    what did I just say? lads and lassies, there's room for both creation and evolution in this wonderful world we live in.

    caveman

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    As natural selection is inevitable given certain conditions which are demonstrably true, I believe that once the first self-replicating molecule formed, the rest was just details. I don't know how, when or where it formed but it was probably a random chemical reaction somewhere on earth about 4 billion years ago.

  • D wiltshire
    D wiltshire

    Carmel,

    For those of you who are aware of the many complexities of biological life that cannot be explained by natural selection (evolution) you are justified in believing that some external input (creator) may well be at work programming.

    I agree I think natural selection may play a part in evolution,.. but it is not the only means which causes evolution to proceed.

    When I study the subject of Chaos, it becomes evident to me that self organization is deeply inbeded in the laws that govern the Universe. I think it reasonable to conclude that a superior intelligence may have made these laws, that make life and consciousness possible. Maybe these laws were some how froozen in to the Universe at 10 to the -43 second of creation when phyicsist tell us this law(s) may have been formed???

    To me evolution if a fact of life,.. it is all around us and still observable. DNA is now giving so much evidence that I think die hard creationist will not be able to refute it any more than the Catholic church could refute the earth was not the center of the universe after Galileio, and Newton came on the scene.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    gumby...read the book "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins it will answer the question of appearance of design very well and tactfully. Then the more technical book "What Evolutin Is" by Ernst Mayr. I was myself writing a book on the proof of creation, until I learned what evolution is.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    I think it reasonable to conclude that a superior intelligence may have made these laws

    Why? The laws are simple, and it is therefore more reasonable to conclude that they happened randomly, rather than that they were put into place by a super-powerful invisible creature unlike any other whose existence has never been verified.

    The other problem with the "superior intelligence" hypothesis is that we then have something even more complicated to explain. Where did the "superior intelligence" come from? Was it created? Did it evolve? Was its evolution inevitable due to its universe having emergent properties embedded in it by another superior intelligence?

  • D wiltshire
    D wiltshire

    Funky,

    Why? The laws are simple, and it is therefore more reasonable to conclude that they happened randomly, rather than that they were put into place by a super-powerful invisible creature unlike any other whose existence has never been verified.

    The laws at present are not simple, but many Physicsist intuitively feel that when the find the underlying reason behind the 4 forces, for a GUT(grand unification theory), that this will be beautifully simple, for now though it is proving anything but simple. In fact with all the sub-atomic particle that they are discovering the picture seems to be very complicated.

    The other problem with the "superior intelligence" hypothesis is that we then have something even more complicated to explain. Where did the "superior intelligence" come from? Was it created? Did it evolve? Was its evolution inevitable due to its universe having emergent properties embedded in it by another superior intelligence?

    Both for believers in a superior Intelligents and those who don't dilemmas exist.

    Why is the universe even comprehensible? Why do we have physical laws that are so perfectly balanced to allow life to even exist. Why is it that mathematics can be used explain these physical laws?These things pose questions that science can not explain and leave both sides uncertain. Quamtum Mechanics is telling us uncertainty is part of the equation.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit