Do you believe that maybe God created evolution?

Question

If so, did he maybe do it just to sit back and watch us argue about the truth; our fate? I mean, I know most people just believe one or the other, but is indeed a possiblilty, isn't it? I believe he created evolution, but i don't know about the sitting back just to watch us argue about it part...Thanks for your opinion, God bless you, Merry CHRISTmas (not x-mas)

Answer 1

I do not believe so. I looked into how they both interpret the scientific data. This is what I discovered.

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

You mention more than one option, from guided evolution to Deism. There is some difference between the two.

My main problem with the idea of evolution and an active loving deity going together is the sheer messiness, waste and indeed cruelty involved in the process.
Need some more ecological niches? No problem, have a super-volcano or a major asteroid strike.
Have some nice parasitic wasps... Or a really nasty plague or two...

In an random world, fine, but with a caring deity?
Not so easy to see. (Christians invoke The Fall at this point) I think the midddle ground of guided evolution is NOT a comfortable position to hold, if evolution is well understood.

Answer 3

Sorry to answer your question with a question, but your question needs to be more specific. Do you mean microevolution, macroevolution, chemical evolution, or cosmic evolution? Of these, only one has EVER been observed- that would be microevolution, or change within a type of animal, plant, etc. No one has ever seen an animal produce an entirely different type of animal through any "evolutionary" process. Interbreeding different types of dogs produce a variety of offspring, however, they are still dogs. They do not produce bananas, not given any amount of time. No one has ever presented solid evidence to suggest that any of these other types of evolution are "scientific." Some well-intentioned, yet incorrect people today seem to roll all the types of evolution into one package that a person has to "buy into" as a whole. I don't buy chemical evolution, cosmic evolution, or any of the others except micro. I also don't see any need to merge the two religious systems. Evolution (other than microevolution) is a religious belief. It has not ever been observed, and takes faith to believe in it, as it would to believe that God created the world in six literal days. For more in depth info on this, see www.drdino.com and watch the debate series downloads. Hope that helps!

Answer 4

It is not correct to say "most people just believe one or the other". MOST Christians actually believe your suggestion, God created man and evolution was how He did it.

Merry Christmas yourself - so stop banging on about evolution for a couple of minutes and do your Christian duty of eating way too much turkey!

Answer 5

What sort of evolution are you talking about?

Evolution is an idea, a human idea!

If you are Darwinist, sorry I cant accept that Monkeys were our forefathers.
Evolution that I believe is the change in already existing species. Like change height of humans over ages. All the species were existent all the time. They were created not evolved.

Now the argument thing; it may be correct up to some extent. God likes man to discover him. He invites us to see the world and learn.

Answer 6

If evolution is true, God created it. Also, I have sometimes thought that maybe both theories have some truth. An evolutionary process obviously went on and there is indication that man was created early on. Perhaps both have truth?

Answer 7

Or did evolution create God. No one knows where God came from.

Since the universe has always been here forever, (like some Christians say God was), maybe God evolved from a single cell and then decided to make us the same way.

Answer 8

Theistic evolution is based on sentiment not evidence. Evolution occurs without question but there is no evidence that justifies bringing an unseen deity into the equation.

Answer 9

Man made up evolution. Back in the time of Noah man continuously had evil thoughts. He didn't create these, because God is love.

Merry Christmas, too.

Answer 10

It's very possible. A lot of things occur because they were meant to occur. It is better to accept the existence of certain ideas and realities and focus on the more positive messages that have been handed down to us.

Answer 11

Well i belive that god is the reason we r here andi f it weren't 4 him u would be on that computer or sittin in that chair or eatin and drinkin what u do.................so the next time u get a full plate of food on christmas remember that some people aren't gettin anything and when your opening christmas presents remember some people aren't opening anything so just remeber that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!