Evolution without God?

Question

Isn't the theory of evolution without God the theory of Evolving/Degenerating? Things randomly change for the better or worse because there is no purpose to the universe?

Answer 1

One main reason evolutionists and creationists differ in opinion is because they have a different premise. Evolution scientists believe everything originates from a series of changes and can be explained by time, chance, and continuing natural processes that are inherent in the organization of matter and energy. (Creation X) Evolution is commonly applied to the historical development of life and has been expanded into virtually any subject matter all the way to the development of the universe itself. Like most ideas, the Theory of Evolution has evolved into something it was not originally believed to be.

Creationists believe in evolution, but not to the extreme that every living thing evolved from a single cell into the complex organisms of today. In essence evolution means change. Micro-evolution (small changes) within species is a scientific fact that Creationists readily acknowledge (120). However, macro-evolution (tremendous changes) is a belief that is simply not evident in nature.

There are two kinds of Creationism; scientific and Biblical. Scientific creationism bases its beliefs upon the scientific data. In fact, creation scientists believe that scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be taught independently of each other. Some of the most brilliant scientists in the history of the world were creationists: Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Kepler, and so on.

While it is often asserted that Creationism is based on religious beliefs, evolution has its beliefs based in atheism and secular humanism. The Supreme Court has classified atheism and secular humanism as religions. The evolution model is atheistic in nature while the creation model is theistic. One evolutionist wrote an article titled, "Creation 'Science' Is Dishonest." On the contrary, scientists who assert evolution as a "fact" only need to look at the history of their false findings and hoaxes of man's "missing links" to see their hypocrisy (156 and 159). It is one thing to personally believe in evolution and relate it and all evidence associated with it as circumstantial, but to assert it as a "fact" is unethical and prejudicial.

Another reason why creation scientists view things so differently from evolutionists is simply a matter of differing interpretation of the data. Even evolutionists do not agree with one another because of differing interpretations of the data, especially when it comes to biological classifications. So, why are creation scientists shunned?

Evidence for evolution can be interpreted in different ways. Comparing anatomical similarities between different organisms can provide evidence for evolution. The forelimb in vertebrate animals can be compared bone for bone. The upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand, and fingers are distinguishable (53 and Britannica 7:9). While evolutionists contend that this is evidence of, "descent from a common ancestor (evolution)" creationists believe that this is no more than proof of, "a common design (creation)."

A second piece of evidence for evolution is shown in the development of organisms. The embryonic stage of development is so similar that a frog, chicken, salamander, or human embryo are virtually indistinguishable. Evolutionists believe these amazing similarities show how organs and structures have changed their form and function with evolution. Creationists show what evolutionists call "useless evolutionary leftovers" are in reality necessary functional structures (62 and 66).

A third source of evidence that evolutionists use comes from chemical evolution or "hot soup" as Dr. Stanley Miller calls it. In 1953 he conducted an experiment using a "primordial solution" along with an electrical discharge to simulate lightning. He became successful in producing amino acids commonly found in nature. Creationists hold that it is no more than science fiction that would make a scientist conclude that life could result from a hypothetical chemical evolutionary process. There is no evidence to support this kind of speculation.

A forth source of evidence is related to genetics. This evidence relies on the process of mutation in order to validate the theory of evolution. In the documentary Genetics: Patterns of Diversity it concludes, "But still, the controversy remains. The challenge to Darwin's theory is to explain these molecular changes in terms of natural selection." There are many other challenges to Darwin's theory. Creationist Dr. Parker states:

Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a "genetic load" of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers.

...The creationist mechanism works and it's consistent with what we observe. The evolutionist assumption doesn't work, and it's not consistent with what we presently know of genetics and reproduction. As a scientist, I tend to prefer ideas that do work and do help to explain what we can observe. (Creation 115)

It is an established fact that mutations can not be the mechanism that explains the process of evolution because it leads to the destruction of the organism.
Now, the creation model for variety that Parker refers to is the genetic square (114). This is the mechanism which is believed to have caused differences among people at the Biblical "Tower of Babel" incident. "Variation within created types" is a scientific fact (107). This is the (creationist) mechanism by which we observe such diversity among organisms. Evolutionists try to exaggerate this scientific fact to further their claims. The fact is, as Dr. Gary Parker wrote, "Creationists don't believe that frogs turn into princes... but rather that frogs and people were separately created from the same kinds of molecular 'building blocks'". The creationist mechanism works!

The fifth and most popular source of evidence used by evolutionist stems from the fossil record. Evolutionist Jay Savage states, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution..." (V). Encyclopaedia Britannica (14:376) under a section called "The speculative nature of phylogeny [via fossil record]" states, "...judgements of relationships among organisms are almost always based upon incomplete evidence..." This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence. Britannica also states, "The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." This statement shows that the evidence does not exist for Savage to "demonstrate the fact of evolution." He sidesteps the scientific process and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory.

Answer 2

*sigh*

No. It is the theory of the process by which species change. The only "purpose" to change is adaptation to environment. When an environment changes, the organisms in it must change or die. There is not "ultimate form" that creatures are evolving towards. If a species is well settled into its niche, then it will change very little. If it is not, it will either change or die out.

The process is not "random". Natural selection is determined by the needs of survival in a particular environment. We've just developed the ability to adapt ourselves to a wide variety of environments and even change it to suit us instead of the other way around. And yet we will continue to evolve. Check back with humanity in a thousand generations and see what we turn into.

Answer 3

Evolution doesn't necessarily say anything about God. It's a biological process that has no bearing on theological questions-it's a pity some religionists didn't grasp that fact.

Answer 4

Yes, evolution without god. Things adapt or fall by the wayside.

Answer 5

Who says living things get "better" :-)
Without putting God into it, they merely adapt and pass favorable genetic qualities on to the next generations... "Survival of the Fittest" - literally. No one said that things were getting better or worse.

If you decide to put any meaning into it, or put in a faith/belief in a higher power (usually known as "god")... then I guess most people think it's divine and put some sort of value judgment on it.

Answer 6

Evolution IS real. Life adapts to its surroundings to survive. I do think that the catalyst for life WAS God

Answer 7

Man, I hate following a copy and paster who can't think for themselves....

Why do you need a purpose for your life that involves the sky ghost...

Natural selection is not random, but I won't even try to explain it to you since nothing I say will change your mind...

Answer 8

Evolution is just another vain attempt by unregenerated minds to try to eliminate God from their life. Remember the scripture:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who withhold the truth in unrighteousness.... because when they knew God they glorified Him not as God,.... Professing themselves to wise, they became fools, .....

Answer 9

Evolution is the on going work of G-d.

Answer 10

produces monkees from humans