Well, I've been mistaken for a crationist a couple of times now, also i got a little tired with the whole fundamentalims in evolution preached around R&S. It all got me thinking.
To my own amezement, i found that, at least for me, there is only one Big problem with the "creationist theory". One thing, and one thing only, really prevent me from considering it seriously. Well here it goes:
According to all data we have acess, all that the field of biology has discovered in the last century or so (genetics, physiology, ecology, botany, zoology, celular biology and studies that target evolution directly), there are, i think, 2 possible conclusions that can be archeived about the origin of life's diversity that make sense according to the data, and they are:
1)All life evolved over millons of years, from one common ancestor. Random mutations were selected by the enviroment (natural selection), the ones that were good remained, the ones that were bad did'nt, and that caused diversity.
2)All life was created from one single event of supernatural creation commanded by a transcendent being (God), already with a wide range of diversity and complexity. Still, given the data, life was created with the clear appearance that it has evolved (although it hasn't), this appearence is very very clear, unmistakable and it simply must've been put there on purpose by the creator, again, given the data there is no other possible explanation.
Well, the thing is, option (2) makes God a liar. For me that is unacceptable. Also I personally think option (1) shows in a much better way God's wisdom and power and its more plausible, but the fact that the "theory of creation" implies that God is a liar is the greatest barrier for me to take creationism seriously. All the rest seems secondary to that.
If someone explains to me, that it isn't so, i'll pretty much have to take creationism more seriously and research about it. Anyone up to the challenge?
(awnsers that say: "but there isn't really any clear evidence for evolution" will not be taken into consideration, given what we now know about God's creation it has to be, either option 1 or 2).
there will be a follow up to this question regarding metodological problems with creationism.
Paz de Cristo
2007-07-09
04:42:40
·
10 answers
·
asked by
Emiliano M.
6
in
Religion & Spirituality