I believe in god, but also recognise the value of mutation & variety. Are the two mutually exclusive?

Question

I think that god created the universe, and set it in motion according to the natural laws science has begun to understand. I agree that RNA was probably the first replicative molecule due to its enzymatic and hereditary characteristics, but cannot subscribe to Millars so called proof - he showed that these molecules could occur in nature, but he did not show DNA, or functional cells or organelles. I agree that evolution is visible on a microscale, eg Darwins finches developed different characteristics, but did not lose their identity as finches, but am not convinced that one species fully mutated into a completely different species.
Anyone have similar views or possible solutions and would care to expand on them?

Answer 1

Yeah, you're wrong. Jesus made the world 6,000 years ago, and the dinosaur bones were put in the earth to fool intelligent people into not believing, you heathen.

Answer 2

I believe in a non-anthropomorphic, though intelligent source of all - called by some people "God", "Brahma", whatever. I keep abreast of scientific development, as I see the wonder of creation in it all. I DO NOT believe the world was made in 7 days, or the Adams' rib thing - these are analogies which served their purpose for an audience nearly 200 years ago. Many of the scientists who discovered great things recently have had faith to back them up. As the Theosophists said, the material scientists will reach a fuller understanding of "The All" before religious people. The "Big Bang" theory - under which light cannot escape from a singularity, until the outward expansion, seems to be confirmed by the first part of Genesis - first the word (the vibration, outwardly expanding), then light. Matter as we know it would only appear shortly after the outward expansion. I believe there is some kind of intelligence inherent in all creation, even inanimate objects. What frightens me, though, is the way Creationism (the 7 days, Adams' rib school) is infiltrating the UK from the USA. Evolutionary Creationism, which is where I think we both stand, is a sensible viewpoint which opens our eyes to reason, rather than resorting to anthropomorphisms, and accepting allegory for literal truth.

Answer 3

God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Those who believe differently are flat-earthers on one side, and alchemists on the other.
I understands and sympathise with your argument that genus may by definate and unchanging, unlike species.
ie. A cat has always been a cat, despite us breeding Siamese.
I respectfully disagree.
The argument for evolution began before DNA evidence virtually confirmed the theory.
The relative closeness between two species DNA will be confirmed in a much more basic manner at the bone and embryonic level.
Furthermore, that species that are far removed from each other by distance and DNA, can be virtually identical in outward appearance and functions, strongly suggest that species are evolving to fill niches. As proved in the 20yrs following the 1980's EL Nino on Galapagas (Vampire Finches).
Such species include Turkey Vultures in the Americas (not vultures), Tasmanian Wolf/Tiger, Giant Pandas (not Bears) , Hyena's (not Dog's) etc, etc.
This evidence almost certainly suggests that all species and genus regularly evolve to fill vacant niches in their habitats, taking on forms best suited. The species cannot be confirmed by any other means than DNA.
Therefore what an animal looks like has no bearing on it's DNA, why is this so if a cat must always have been a cat.
I do after much study and research agree with the argument that an outside entity may have started this machine of perpetual motion we call Earth (the Universe, and Everything), because as yet we know of no process that can begin life.
It would make more sense that God made the processes rather than individual animals, because otherwise he would need to be constantly tinkering (according to his own rules of natural selection).
I would think he would be a factory supervisor rather than perpetually down on the production line.
I know I would if it was me, and evolution seems to bear this out.
The only argument against this is fundamentalist Christianity, seeing as they came to terms with not only a round Earth but also that we revolve around the Sun, then breeding a Siamese cat and developing better anti-biotics shouldn't be such a huge stretch.

Answer 4

I recommend that you check out Answers in Genesis website.
Evolution is completely incompatible with any meaningful belief in the Bible.

What Darwin observed with the finches was not (goo-to-you) evolution, it is simply Natural Selection. NS acts on the pre-existing genetic information to give different characteristics. It does not explain where the information (in the DNA) came from in the first place. Evolutionists claim that mutations + NS equals goo-to-you evolution. They also confuse the matter by calling NS evolution.

In fact mutations have not been observed to add genetic information - all observed mutations result in a *loss* of information. Most are neutral or harmful, and are weeded out by the action of NS.

(Loss of information can be beneficial - for example sickle cell anaemia is often touted as 'evolutionary in action' - a mutation means that the victim cannot get malaria, but having sickle cell anaemia has its own problems - hardly an evolutionary advance - and not a *gain* of genetic information)

Evolution is easily refuted.

Unfortunately many Christians are a bit frightened of the origins issue - I used to be.
We shouldn't be because true science agrees with the Bible - God created everything about 6000 years ago.
Check it out for yourself - the evidence is overwhelming (but just isn't presented by the BBC :) )

Answer 5

It is people who decided that God and evolution are exclusive. God exists in everything. If you believe that, then, there is no problem. It doesn't matter what science comes up with, either a person believes in God or he/she doesn't. If God is in everything why not on the molecular or sub-atomic level? If man is going towards perfection then is God not also present in that? People say that the men who wrote the bible were inspired by God. So why is it not possible that the men and women who formulated the theories of evolution and mutation were also not inspired by God?

Does science in the end not validate that God is in everything? The one question that no one can answer is why? Why is it that every time two people have sex that a baby doesn't form? No one can answer those questions. That's what I think anyway.

Answer 6

I am a Creationist. The distinction has to be made between evolution and breeding. We have many varieties of dog, but they all bred from the same original species, the wolf. Desired characteristics have been selected and bred in. However, these various breeds look vastly different from their ancestors and the variety is enormous.

This, however, is not evolution. At a basic level, they are one species.

MRSA, (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ) is the result of selection, not evolution. It is not that this has become resistant to anti-biotics, it is that the population of th non-resistent version has been considerably reduced. If you have a tube of smarties and you at all but the reds, you cannot conclude that the smarties have evolved into reds.

Orchids. These are staggering in their design, and clear evidence of intelligence over evolution. There are species of orchid that can only be pollenated by specific humming birds. How could these species have arrived at this by chance? Other orchids take on the appearance, colour and even smell of insects they need for pollenation. How does that happen by random chance? After all, how can a sightless plant be aware of what an insect looks or smells like?

Chromosomes - This is an odd one/ Check into the number of chromosomes different species have. Look at the wide variation. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.

Answer 7

For me definitely not and there is no competition between the two. I probably don't have anything like the understanding of bio-chemistry that you seem to have but I don't understand why you are unable to accept mutation from one species to another. Are you saying that you believe chimps who share the vast majority of their genes with us aren't a different species, or conversely that we aren't related at all? I believe in God - probably not exactly the same one as you - and see no reason why that belief should exclude me from recognising a theory that on the balance of the evidence seems to have a high degree of verisimilitude. To me these are entirely separate types of knowledge.

Answer 8

No. The idea of evolution came from naturalists (belief that nature is all there is and ever was) as a way to explain where we came from while keeping God out. The problem is that if you buy evo, you have to trade in your Bible. In Genesis it says that man was created before animals, it doesnt say god started with the least and made the greatest. If you dont believe what Moses wrote, then how can you believe anything in the Bible?

Evolution came about for one reason, so atheists would have something to believe in. Dont buy it, the cost is too high.

Answer 9

I'm one of those who believe that God created everything, including dinosaurs and the evolutionary system that ultimately lead to Humans. There is no reason that science & religion can't get along and agree on how we came about except for the fundamentalist religious or scientific people who believe their particular holy book or random evolution is the only explanation for the existance of Humanity, and that there is no common ground between the two.

The Bible is a tool of Christianity, and like the Talmud, the Koran and other holy books was created from various texts collected by the Churches in order to cement control over their subjects. Each religion's holy book contains a lot of good philosophy and principles to live one's life by, but each also contains a lot of fiction designed to make those books work for the religions they represent.

Science has an excellent grasp of the facts regarding the evolution of life & the universe, and is largely agreed upon by intelligent minds around the world ... except for the various religions. Religions, on the other hand, are mutually exclusive and often complete opposed 180º to one another, each clinging to its own set of beliefs and refusing to even consider the beliefs of other groups as worthy of attention.

In a nutshell ... I believe in God but not religion, and I'll put my trust in Him as I stick to the more logical scientific viewpoint over any religious view regarding creation & evolution.

Does that make sense? It does to me...

Answer 10

God created the earth and all who dwell in it. I believe that Dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time as people and were probably hunted to extinction. In the bible they are referred to as behemoths and dragons. There have been cave drawings of dinosaurs or dragons being killed by humans in almost every civilization in history. I agree that animals and people are extremely adaptable, but I can't belive that people came from rocks in any period of time. Have you noticed that the same dinosaurs keep getting older and older? Many, many people have set out to disprove the bible and the existence of God, many of those people became Christians. I don't belive that the ideas of animal mutation & variety and Creation are mutually exclusive.

Answer 11

I think you are right. It fits in with the free-will theory. God did indeed get the ball rolling, but like a baby being born, he allowed us to evolve and develop and leave fossil records so we can wonder and think. God does not want sheep in his kingdom. Those who believe only because Mommy, Daddy, and Friends do, will not cut the mustard with God.

If we were not meant to think and wonder, God would never have given us the ability to so so. As I said before, God does not want sheep, or for that matter, human parrots passing between the Pearly Gates.

I would write more, but I am so tired I can't think.

Good question.