Mount Rushmore & Evolution?

Question

I fail to understand how someone can look at Mount Rushmore, and know instantly that somebody designed and created it, and instantly rule out millions of years of erosion. Yet, when they look at the complexity of the human body, they come up with the conclusion that no creator exists.

If you wanted to know where Mount Rushmore came from, you'd consult a history book, you certainly wouldn't go and study the present facts and try to base your conclusion solely on that. You'd be wrong!

Likewise, if you wanted to know where humans came from, what point is there in studying only what you see today? If God exists, he was there, He should know! Did he write about it? YES, That's why we study the Bible, and not "man-made" ideas that change every couple of years.

That's all, comments welcome!

Answer 1

Well put. I'll try to answer you as honestly as I can.

I don't think anyone started out by looking at the complexity of human beings and concluding that no creator existed. Quite the opposite--I think that most people throughout human history felt that the complexity of humans implied a creator(s). Almost every society developed its own creation story, both for the world and for mankind.

The theory of evolution came later and much more slowly.

It's kind of like how most people originally thought that the sun revolved around the earth. Makes sense, doesn't it? Look up, and the sun certainly appears to be travelling across the sky. Of course, as the power of human observation and knowledge increased, man was able to see that, in fact, the earth was one of several bodies revolving around the sun. At first, this realization caused quite the stir, as it went against "common sense" and traditional knowledge. Groups that based their power on that sort of knowledge/wisdom, including the church, were very hostile to the new heliocentric model.

With evolution, Darwin's theory (though of course Darwin wasn't the first to preach evolution; his baby was evolution through natural selection) again caused quite the stir. Lots of negative reactions. The complexity-implies-creator argument is compelling. It's something we can see, in front of us all the time. Evolution isn't something readily observable. In fact, without quite a bit of study and paying attention, it's invisible to man. This is why it took a build up of hundreds of years of science and data-collecting, etc., for the theory to be developed at all. Eventually, though, just as people with telescopes had to admit that Copernicus was on to something, biologists and other scientists in the position to know had to agree that Darwin's ideas had a lot of merit to them. (Merit here meaning logic and supporting evidence.)

While few scientists disagree with evolution as such, some don't think Darwin had it *exactly* right--many modern biologists modify his theories based on their own research. This is how the scientific community progresses. It isn't that they all blindly agree with whatever the latest en vogue theory happens to be. Instead, they challenge and question and modify and try to prove others within the community wrong. It's their contrarian natures which prompted them to overthrow the geocentric theory of the universe in the first place. Yeah--sometimes science is counter-intuitive. Sometimes, it takes a little bit of digging, and isn't the obvious answer. But that isn't the fault of the scientists--they're just going where they believe the evidence is leading them.

If you were to make a serious inquiry into the science behind evolution, yourself, you might come to understand why these people are convinced that evolution is a fact. (What's a "serious inquiry"? Good question--for myself, I studied both science as a general topic and then read several books on both sides of the evolution debate.)

Mount Rushmore is rather easier to trace the origins of, than man, per se. Yeah, history books claim that Mt. Rushmore was created by man... and all of our other evidence leads to that conclusion as well. With mankind, claims that man and the other creatures were simply created as they are now seem to fly in the face of the available evidence. That man is too complex for a process like evolution appeals to "common sense," but "common sense" isn't always right. Sometimes, we need to look a little deeper.

Hope that helps.

Answer 2

I look at the bible and I see the same thing. It is obviously made by man. The evolutionary theory is based on science. Your mount Rushmore analogy is kind of odd. If you had no history book to tell you about the mountain, would you simply believe that some God must have made it, or would you collect data, run experiments, and try and support a scientific hypothesis to where it came from. I would do the latter.

Answer 3

Mount Rushmore is an obvious sculpture, the human body is obviously the result of an ad hoc process given its numerous design flaws.

Poorly designed knee joints and lower spine become painfully dysfunctional long before natural lifespan is reached. Blind spot in eyes caused by photoreceptor cells being behind nerve cells in retina. The Vagus nerve runs from brain to near the heart then back up to the larynx, wasteful design given how metabolically expensive nerves are.

The bible says the earth is flat, fixed and unmoving, that the sun and moon revolve around the earth and that the moon gives off its own light. If an omnipotent being wrote the bible it ought to be observed that since he knew what was and wasn't true than he lied about those things. If he lied about those things, why trust any of the other things?

Answer 4

If you did go and study mount Rushmore you would find chisel marks, nuts, bolts and PLENTY of other proof that it is indeed man made just by checking it AS IS today! So there goes part one of your argument.
As to part two, not one word of the bible was WRITTEN by god himself at all. But by John, Matthew, Luke, Peter and a whole pile more story telling men writing down stories that were passed on to them.
Now!..... are you going to judge these answers based upon who simply agrees and supports the fact that you are obviously trying to defend the fact that you are a believer (which you have every right to be, that's your choice not ours), or the fact that they actually address the points you make?
Did you ask this question to be given a rebuttal or a confidence boost?

Answer 5

The bible is man-made. If nothing else, the ideas were filtered through human minds, and in so doing, picked up human prejudices and biases. Personally, as soon as I find a human stamp on anything claiming to be purely divine, I reject it.

My theory on creation is that if there is some grand Creator, that being or group of beings is so far outside our realm of understanding that we might as well stop stressing about it and get on with our lives.

Answer 6

tylerism took the time to give you an excellent answer. So i'll just say how do you know that God wrote every word of the Bible? ohhh... cos the bible tells you so. And that must be true cos God wrote every word of the Bible right... Ok then.... Pfew! huh, something to cling to and not care if you drag humanity down with you... Lets scrap all science cos you don't like it.

Answer 7

We study the history books to find out where ancient man came from too. God didn't write the bible. The bible was written by man 1500 years after the events supposedly happened.

Answer 8

The Bible has been "man-made" for centuries. If you could read a copy of it as it was originally written down, you wouldn't recognize it.
Many "men" have made long careers of arguing about what belongs in it and what doesn't, and about how particular passages should be translated from Greek into English or other languages. And it's "man" who makes the claim that the Bible is "God's word". It may not change every "couple of years", but it has changed vastly over time.

Answer 9

Do not take a biology course. It will wreck your world. You are comparing two different things.

Just to comment on Kathryn B (and agree btw), If the bible were historically true, there would be more books to collaborate with it's stories. If there are historical records of things that happened in the bible (cities, wars) why do we not find stories about a man that fed thousands of people and healed the sick and dieing?

Answer 10

I believe your are making lot of concussion with the bible??? Men/Women wrote the bible not God!!! God is many differ things to all People!!! All people study their Book!!! Do you understand!!! You study that book we (Native Americans) study Wakan Tanka!!!

Hokahe