Creation vs Evolution? or Creation and Evolution?

by azaria 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

peacefulpete

The universe's has been measured by multiple lines of evidence to be about 12-15 billion years old.
Darwin is rightly famous for being a foremost 19th century thinker in the field of biology. He was a humble and religious man who faced the realities of life with a resolve to be honest to the evidence. He most certainly was not the first to recognize the inescapable relatedness of species. He was arguably the first to recognize the basic mechanism of 'decent with modification'. This has never been questioned. Living when he did he of course never understood the machinery of genetics but he didn't have to to see the obvious. He saw the trememndous variation in size shape and behavior in the pigeons kept by his countrymen, he knew they were the result of tiny variations isolated thru selective breeding. The claim often made that Darwinian evolution has been abandoned is grossly misrepresenting the actual case. There have been and continue to be advocates of what is called punctuated equilibrium (Steven J Gould outstandingly) which suggests that evolution while Darwinian also goes in spurts as a result of some as yet undiscovered mechanism. To these advocates Darwin was incomplete. Recent more detailed computer models however have revealed that there is no need to postulate an undiscovered mechanism, speciation does plod along at a somewhat predictable rate, accellerated only when environmental disasters have created new niches and isolated populations. The sporadic nature of fossilization sampling have created the illusion of strange rapid speciation. Richard Dawkins is today the leading author of scholarly books on evolution written for a popular audience. IMO the book, "Climbing Mount Improbable" is even better than his earlier, Blind Watchmaker. He is also famous for disputing Gould over the issue of puctuated equilibrium. Gould while a brilliant and charming advocate of the sciences was mistaken on this point and sadly has died recently.
Max Divergent

Hi Azaria - Bill Bryson's recent book 'A short history of nearly everything' (ISBN 0385 408188) goes into the background of how people figured out the age of the earth and how several people came to similar conclsions before Darwin - including a Monk.

Bryson usually writes funny travel books full of really sharp observations about people, but he says he suddenly realised how ignoragnt he was about science. He decided to go and talk to all the best scientists and then write a book for ordinary people to get an idea of science and how life got here.

By what you said above, I really think this would be a great book for you to read.

Regards, Max
AlanF

azaria, peacefulpete gave a fine answer, to which I would like to add my two cents, and something of a more speculative nature.

: How long has this universe been in existence?

That depends on what you mean by "this universe". Do you mean our particular spacetime continuum that modern day physicists say came about via The Big Bang? Or do you mean something far larger? Since peacefulpete already answered the in former context, I'll give you some speculation about the latter context. Modern physics speculates that The Big Bang resulted from a large "quantum fluctuation" in the so-called background quantum energy field. This "energy field" is a rather nebulous and ill-defined concept, but the basic idea is that it forms the fabric of a sort of super-universe infinite in spacial extent and that has always existed. A sort of physics counterpart to the notion that "God has always existed", I would say. In this energy field, it being infinite in extent and infinite in time, an infinity of "quantum fluctuations" much like the one that resulted in our universe would take place, giving rise to an infinite variation of particular physical universes, some of which would result in life of some sort. Of course, there is in principle no possible way for these universes to communicate with each other, so the existence of such, given our apparent limitations, will likely remain speculative. But no more speculative than the notion that a super-intelligent Creator-God, arising from nothing pre-existing, has always existed.

While I haven't answered your question, I hope that my comments have given you something to think about. You can find all sorts of stuff on the Net, and even in books, about this speculation, but I'll let you do your own homework.

: I?m not really into information from the internet. I would prefer it from an actual book.

Check out the book The Age of the Earth (Brent Dalrymple, Stanford University Press, 1991), for an in-depth look at how radioactive dating methods show that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

: Also do you think that Darwin?s theory still holds up or do you think it?s obsolete and other theories have replaced it?

Darwin's basic notion of descent with modification via the mechanism of natural selection acting on chance variations is still very much in place. However, plenty of modifications, clarifications and additions have come along since 1859. This is somewhat like Isaac Newton's coming up with his theories of gravity and motion, which were modified and clarified by Einstein from 1905 through 1915. The earlier basics were retained, but modified by newer discoveries.

This subject is far too large to properly cover in a thread here. If you're really interested in understanding present-day notions of evolution, you'll need to do a lot of reading. No help for it.

AlanF
peacefulpete

A sort of physics counterpart to the notion that "God has always existed",
I respectfully have to disagree with that statement Alan. Yes our understanding of quantum physics is in it's infancy, but this incomplete understanding is recognized and readily admitted. Hypothetical models that apply what we so far have observed will of course need be adjusted with our knowledge. This knowledge will have incredible value to humans in transportation and communication and electronics will be forever changed. The next generation super particle accelerators being built will enable us to actually observe mini black holes appear and disappear and mimic the hypothetical conditions of the bigbang. This aggressive effort to test and refine these models hardly equates with thought-stopping platitude, "God always existed".
However,as I think you said before, this thread was about evolution not first causes.
azaria

this thread was about evolution not first causes.

Maybe I’m more curious about that. I still believe in ID. For me it’s ludicrous to believe otherwise. Because we can’t comprehend that God didn’t have a beginning, we dismiss it? I understand that the universe is approx 10 to 20 billion years old; that a big bang happened, that the earth is approx 4 billion years old. I can accept that with the knowledge we have at the present moment. The thing that puzzles me is how someone can believe that this all happened by chance. There was a big explosion. What was the reason for this explosion? And all the planets aligned properly? Well obviously it did or we wouldn’t be here. I don’t believe in chance. I do have a large book on biology which I bought last year but never really opened it up. There is just too much to read in this world so one has to limit himself or he would go crazy for sure, and there is a life to live besides reading. The interesting thing I noticed is that those who believe in evolution alone, do seem only interested in the mechanics of it. I feel I asked a number of relevant questions but none of them, I believe, were answered.
Below I did quote a number of people. If you want these people names I will pm you.
As for Darwin's theory of"macro-evolution"-that we came from apes-Initially troubling to me was the the paucity of fossil evidence for the transitions between various species of animals. Even Darwin conceded that the lack of these fossils "is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection" to his theory, although he confidently predictedthat future discoveries would vindicate him.
We are now about one hundred and twenty years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much...We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition that we had in Darwin’s time What the fossil record does show is that in rocks dated back some five hundred and seventy million years, there is the sudden appearance of nearly all the animal phyla, and they appear fully formed, "without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require. It’s a phenomenon that points more readily toward a Creator than Darwinism. In his book Origin of Species, Darwin
side-tracked-Beethovens 9 th Symphony just came on-and you say there is no God-who, what inspired him, what inspired Dvorak to write New World Symphony, Schubert-Ava Maria-if God doesn’t exist, thank goodness they believed otherwise, or we wouldn’t be enjoying their music.
Continue: Darwin admitted: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then my theory would absolutely break down". Taking up that challenge, ----showed how recent biochemical discoveries have found numerous examples of this very kind of "irreducible complexity."
Biological evolution can only take place after there was some sort of living matter that could replicate itself and then grow in complexity through mutation and survival of the fittest.
Where did life begin in the first place? The origin of life has intrigued theologians and scientists for centuries. The most amazing thing to me is existence itself, How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself?
Darwin’s theory presupposes that nonliving chemicals, if given the right amount of time and circumstances, could develop by themselves into living matter. Is there scientific data to back up that belief?
This is not a case of religion versus science, rather, this is an issue of science vs science. More biologists, biochemists, and other researchers-not just Christians-have raised serious objections to evolutionary theory in recent years, claiming that its broad inferences are sometimes based on flimsy, incomplete, or flawed data. What looks at first blush like an airtight scientific case for evolution begins to unravel upon closer examination. New discoveries during the past thirty years have prompted an increasing number of scientists to contradict Darwin by concluding that there was an Intelligent Designer behind the creation and development of life. The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell-to investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design".
The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself-not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs...The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design...has no justifiable foundation...Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature.
Obviously I don't have most of the answers. I am on a journey like all of us. But the bottom line, the more I look into it, the more I believe and am in awe of God. (Hopefully while typing this I didn't make any mistakes) I'm off to enjoy the day, might be back tonight.
AlanF

Azaria, it seems to me that you do indeed think you have all the answers you need. You're not willing to do your homework by reading appropriate material that various posters have suggested. You've read some material by ID advocates -- that's obvious -- and you've accepted their views. Fine, but don't pretend that you're still looking for answers. Your real goal in this thread is obviously to criticize the evolutionary view. That's fine, too. But don't pretend that your mind is still open on this subject.
AlanF
peacefulpete

ditto
azaria

AlanF: You seem to imply that I was dishonest. Right from the start I stated that I believed in God; that hasn't swayed. I started this post because of Trumangirl. I thought it was very one-sided. It seems to me that because of my "ignorance" that I really have no right to speak. If a poster is tired of these threads the best would be not to respond to them. In the big scheme of things I really don't know anything. I feel there's a huge arrogance when we do think we have the answers and I never claimed I did. I'm just trying to make sense of a few things and as I said before I am curious. God created (I believe) and our tiny and some not so tiny brains are trying to understand the how's and why's. You say that my mind is made up and I won't consider the alternative. Likewise I feel that others here have also made up their minds and not consider the possibility of a God that created everything. I have yet to see anyone answer the questions from my first post. As for the couple of books recommended, how do you know that I won't consider reading them? Would you consider reading the ones I recommend? Just to clarify, I'm not being confrontational. I realize that it's usually difficult to tell when we post here. If anything I feel that others can be very confrontational, but then again, it may not have been their intention. I do think that I have a right to state my views, just like you do.
Satanus

azaria
Most of your questions are fairly easily answered by science. Your post seemed dishonest because it has that converting style. It starts out as if considering two ideas, yet ends w only one. You claimed that we are like we are because god created us like that.
One thing you overlook, is how the designer idea binds you w an even bigger problem: who designed the designer?
S
hillary_step

azaria,
I started this post because of Trumangirl. I thought it was very one-sided. It seems to me that because of my "ignorance" that I really have no right to speak.
Everybody has a right to speak.
On these Boards, there are many people who have gained more than a cursory knowledge of their subject. You must understand than it making statements of belief, you will be challenged for evidence. It is the way these discussions work. There are many believers on this Board, some YEC, some ID proponents, some who do not care about evolution / creation, but still believe through what seems to be an emotional inution that may, or may not lead to a truth.
Science has no emotion, it cannot survive on 'intuition' whether it be well-founded or not. It has, in the final event, to be built on irrefutable evidence. This is why it is neccessary, and certainly advisable, to know your subject before drawing a line in the sand and planting a personal flag.
You see, these comments display and agenda :
I feel there's a huge arrogance when we do think we have the answers and I never claimed I did.
The problem is that you *did* in actual fact claim to know the answers, and those answers, in the final event end up in God. In the final event they may well do that, but no evidence can be produced to prove that, and science can only build on evidence. In short, science does not *care* whether God exists or not, though scientists may. So if we present a notion that is dependant, not on fact but on a 'feeling' or a personal belief, it then becomes para-science. It may well in the final event be correct, but it is presently unscientific. Now, if we are prepared to state. "I believe...( fill in blanks )....but I have no evidence for it", it is at least an honest opinion and it I am quite sure that even the athiests who lurk on this Board will respect that. I hold many such unprovable beliefs myself. In fact I am quite sure that Britney Spears actually has a brain, though of course I have no evidence to support this notion.
Best regards - HS

Creation vs Evolution? or Creation and Evolution?

Share this