Creation vs Evolution? or Creation and Evolution?

by azaria 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  azaria

  I believe this has been touched on in an earlier post but thought I’d start my own. I know that I’m going out on a limb here. A number of times I’ve hesitated before submitting a post or response. I really thought about not posting this one. It’s a scary thing to open yourself up to criticism. But I feel strongly about this. I feel that some posters (who, I admit, are much more intelligent and informed than I am) can be extremely intimidating and people back off. Because of this I feel that only one dominant view is shown. I’m sure there will be some that will take the opportunity to pounce and ridicule. Hopefully it won’t come to that. We are all entitled to our own views. I wrote this very late last night and I’ve tried to clean it up as much as I can. It may ramble and repeat at times but I hope that for the most part it’s coherent. Any quotes by others are in italics, the rest are my own words.

  Some say prove God’s existence? Can you prove to me that the essence of your being exists, or are we strictly physical beings, (controlled?) by chance, by nature. The mechanics can be explained to a point but how do you explain spirituality, the mind, to dream, to hope, to love, things that one can’t see? ; things that one can only see the effects of.

  Personally I believe that Creation and Evolution can and do go hand in hand. I believe in God, not because of fear, but because for me there’s overwhelming evidence of God’s existence (Intelligent Designer if you prefer). Some people are so convinced about Evolution and discarding God; they won’t even consider the possibility that maybe an intelligent designer was responsible for creation. One only has to look at his own body, his own mind, his spirituality; to be in awe of their own being. I was fortunate enough to have two human beings grow inside of me. There is so much in this universe to be in awe of and yet some are so blasé about it all, that all this happened by chance. What puzzles me is how some people can be so morally indignant about a wrong and yet not believe. Where does this moral indignation come from? Does chance care? William Provine (prominent evolutionist) says that if Darwinism is true, then there are five inescapable implications; there’s no evidence for God; there’s no life after death; there’s no absolute foundation for right and wrong; there’s no ultimate meaning for life; and people don’t really have free will.

  Putting aside Provines view about right or wrong, I think that most people will agree that there is a right and wrong. Who decides what’s right, what’s wrong? We simply evolved and what works for a time is what is used and if it’s no longer useful it’s discarded? Why does chance care if we care for one another, that we try to do the right thing? Why does chance care about our survival? If each person wants to survive, where did he get that desire to survive?

  We have a desire to live, to love, to create. That’s how God created us. Chance doesn’t care if we create, if we love, if we survive. What about music, art, literature? What inspires these people to create beauty? Beauty in nature (created for no other purpose but for our enjoyment-flowers, birds, a snow flake), a new born baby, the love for our children, family? Why do we have joy, agony, tears, laughter, pain, pleasure? Where does that desire come from? Why all the senses, taste, feel, see, hear? For no other reason than survival? Yet we use all these senses for survival and pleasure. All this is chance, all of life is one big cosmic accident, with no purpose? We are spiritual beings. Why should we be? What’s the point when all this is by chance?

  Maybe some feel that without God they are free to do what they want. I think the reverse is true. We truly are then just puppets with absolutely no control over our destiny. We are here, then we are not here. Whatever feelings we do have is controlled by evolution. You can’t personally claim it as uniquely you. That’s the way I see it anyway.

  Why is that people all around the world have the same needs, the need to be loved, to love, to feel connected? Some will say it was necessary for survival. Why the need to survive? So many questions. One more that never occurred to me before. If we evolved, at what point is this evolving business over and what decides it?

  Something is in control. Could it be that God truly exists?

  P.S. I’m a little concerned about quoting others (even though I did quote two people) to support my views but am concerned about copyright infringement. Does anyone know anything about this?

  Love every leaf, every ray of light

  Love the animals, love the plants, love each separate thing

  Loving all, you will perceive the mystery of God in all.

  Feodor Dostoevsky
• 

  heathen

  IMO -- I don't think you can have it both ways . Evolution would prove that there is no God . The whole story of adam and eve is hinged on the belief that God created them sepperate from the animals . It is a major theme in the bible that adam and eve brought sin into the world thus leaving man in need for a redeemer in the form of jesus christ .
• 

  Max Divergent

  For me, I think science has a clear answer on HOW life got here, but not WHY (not yet, anyhow). There are better answers on that deeper question from those with more spiritual outlooks (although I don't beleive in God myself).

  Max
• 

  Max Divergent

  I don't think evolution disproves the existance of god.

  It certainly disproves literal applications of Genisis and the Jehovah style God as a truthteller via the bible - but both those things are already thoroughly discredited anyhow. If someone belives in that, it's not for want of proof it's not an accurate explantion of the universe.

  All evolution really does is open up the spiritual quest to broarder and deeper thought and investigation with more accurate information about the origin of life and the universe than the Jehovah/Jesus/bible idea allows for.

  Maybe 'god' is out there but of a very, very different nature to what people's religions tell us 'he' is.

  I say that becuase it's hard to see the difference between what enlightend religionists and athiest scientists say sometimes once you get past the 'I [do/don't] believe in some sort of a god' banner statement.

  Max
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  IMO -- I don't think you can have it both ways . Evolution would prove that there is no God . The whole story of adam and eve is hinged on the belief that God created them sepperate from the animals . It is a major theme in the bible that adam and eve brought sin into the world thus leaving man in need for a redeemer in the form of jesus christ .

  Um belief in adam and eve means that you believe God can turn dirt in a man and use a rib as basis to generate a woman. Also the bible does not comment on evolution just like it does not comment on blood fractions.
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello,

  I believe this has been touched on in an earlier post but thought I?d start my own. I know that I?m going out on a limb here. A number of times I?ve hesitated before submitting a post or response. I really thought about not posting this one. It?s a scary thing to open yourself up to criticism. But I feel strongly about this. I feel that some posters (who, I admit, are much more intelligent and informed than I am) can be extremely intimidating and people back off. Because of this I feel that only one dominant view is shown. I?m sure there will be some that will take the opportunity to pounce and ridicule. Hopefully it won?t come to that. We are all entitled to our own views. I wrote this very late last night and I?ve tried to clean it up as much as I can. It may ramble and repeat at times but I hope that for the most part it?s coherent. Any quotes by others are in italics, the rest are my own words.

  This is probably true. Discussion Boards, especially XJW Boards are often combative places where gentle souls die like dogs and it takes a brave soul to throw their heart on the bar-room table as you have and survive intact.

  The problem with this whole question of Evolution versus Creationsim is quite simple but it seems that the bridges cannot be spanned. I have noticed the same arguments with the same basic issues being discussed ad nauseum on these Boards and with frankly the same sort of basic ignorance shown by Creationists and advocates of ID. It is neccessary to look at the functions of science and para-science to understand why never the twain shall meet.

  1) Creationism and ID ( which is actually Creationism under a little bit more of a factually aware guise ) is NOT science. It is para-science.

  Why is it NOT science? Well, this is very easy to establish.

  2) The reason it is not science is because unlike science it starts with a CONCLUSION. That is it attempts to fit known scientific fact into a framework ALREADY established by the Bible. Science does not work this way, it is much crueler and far more demanding, that is why it is more reliable than para-science.

  Science relies on a step by step process in establishing fact. It has no belief or emotion attached to it bar those injected, often it has to be said by over eager scientists. Evidence is built on evidence until a path is formulated. That path is slowly walked upon as more and more evidence unfolds. Sometimes steps are taken in the wrong direction, and exactly because science needs to be built on evidence it is self-regulating and withdraws to a previously KNOW position before it continues along its evidence proved path.

  Para-science, because it is already has its conclusions is in a much more difficult position because as science produces more evidence that might confront these conclusions it then has to bend and re-bend itself to try to take on board this new evidence, often to the point of the comical.

  Now, there is nothing wrong in believing that para-science holds the keys to life?s mysteries if a person is so inclined, as long as they accept that what they believe is NOT scientifically viable and they accept that what they might believe has leapt from that which can be proved to that which cannot.

  For example, many YEC believe that God created everything with age within it. The argument goes like this : How old was Adam twenty minutes after he was created? The answer, around thirty years and twenty minutes. You see, God created Adam as an adult, with age within him. He did this with the rocks, may even have manipulated the fossil records to suit this whole scenario. Now, if a person wants to believe this, or believe in the 'god of the gaps' theory of the ID side of the argument, then that is fine, as long as it is NOT confused with real science.

  Creationism, even in its ID form is NOT science, it is para-science. Once this basic premise is understood there is no further need for argument. Science stands and falls on its foundations of evidence, para-science on its necessity for ?belief?.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  hooberus

  azaria, I think that your post has some excellent points.
• 

  hooberus

  2) The reason it is not science is because unlike science it starts with a CONCLUSION. That is it attempts to fit known scientific fact into a framework ALREADY established by the Bible. Science does not work this way, it is much crueler and far more demanding, that is why it is more reliable than para-science.

  What about those then that start with the CONCLUSION that only naturalistic explanations be considered in origins? That is they attempt to fit known scientific facts into a framework ALREADY established by naturalism. Is their belief then also "para-science"?

  There are really only three basic options for the life as we know it. These are:

  1. creation

  2. evolution

  3. some combination of the above two.

  Now the fact is that those who limit themselves to only "naturalistic" explanations apriori end up doing the following before looking at the data:

  1. creation (excluded apriori)

  2. evolution

  3. some combination of the above two (excluded apriori)

  So they end up with an evolutionary only CONCLUSION and then attempt to fit known scientific fact into a framework ALREADY established by naturalism/evolution.
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello Hobberus,

  Before we discuss your statements above, and bearing in mind we are talikng about the same subject, perhaps you might attend to the questions in a previous thread where I responded to a point that you pasted from a Creationist website.

  I mention this again as it will provide the readers with an object lesson in how science and para-science work :

  People and animals ate plants, not other animals (Genesis 1:29?30). There was no violence or pain in this ?very good? world.

  .....Can you explain to me what insects ate? For example did spiders eat grass, or have they always paralysed their victims and sucked their innards from them while they are still alive.

  Perhaps insects do not count as 'animals'. If God designed them, he also designed them to feed on one another to live. The reality is that the natural life on this planet, from the tiniest bacteria to the largest mammal, feeds on other creatures to survive. It is a vast killing field where deceit, cannibalism and a vast array of weaponry exists that defies even the most evil imagination - this all to perpetuate life on earth.

  It would be lovely to believe the fairy tale that is outlined as the bottom line in the site you linked Hooberus, but wishful thinking cannot evade the facts.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  hooberus

  Hillary on this thread you have charged that creationism is NOT science because:

  1) Creationism and ID ( which is actually Creationism under a little bit more of a factually aware guise ) is NOT science. It is para-science.

  Why is it NOT science? Well, this is very easy to establish.

  2) The reason it is not science is because unlike science it starts with a CONCLUSION. That is it attempts to fit known scientific fact into a framework ALREADY established by the Bible. Science does not work this way, it is much crueler and far more demanding, that is why it is more reliable than para-science.

  Science relies on a step by step process in establishing fact. It has no belief or emotion attached to it bar those injected, often it has to be said by over eager scientists. Evidence is built on evidence until a path is formulated. That path is slowly walked upon as more and more evidence unfolds. Sometimes steps are taken in the wrong direction, and exactly because science needs to be built on evidence it is self-regulating and withdraws to a previously KNOW position before it continues along its evidence proved path.

  Para-science, because it is already has its conclusions is in a much more difficult position because as science produces more evidence that might confront these conclusions it then has to bend and re-bend itself to try to take on board this new evidence, often to the point of the comical.

  I have shown above on this thread that those who apriori limit themselves to only "naturalistic" explanations (as many evolutionists do) have themselves reached a conclusion before looking at the data.