Do you believe in evolution or do you believe in creation by a higher being? Why or why not????

Question

I am doing a paper for my ethics class and I need all the opinions that I can get. I would greatly appreciate if you write down your thoughts, and why you think like that. Thank you.

Answer 1

I accept that there is a higher being, there are different reasons, but speaking philisophically I think it is as absurd as it is ridiculous to deny a god.I cannot think that being comes from unbeing or non being or collection of less than being. I see that being comes from being and like from like,intelligence from intelligence, not unintelligence chaotic forces. Like comes from like is the model we see in front of us everday but this simple truth is denied everyday and perniciously by unbelievers, thye discount what is in front of them, available to commone sense and say that the hidden truth which is no where observed is that we all come from opposites. Now why do they say this? is it because they have proof? is it because they have philosophical reasons to? No it is simply because they are biased minds that in advance set out to deny anything associated with a god as outmoded. As though fashion is the dictate of the day, and yet we see that that is so with vain minds.
Yet I cannot see myself as I move, think, plan, feel, look in the mirror and study my limbs as they move to pick up a book to read as I hop into bed and get inspired by thoughts greater than physical instinct, I say I cannot seem myself to be a coincidence or accident. I see myself as a planned orchestrated whole, made up of parts working together in a riveting and beautiful harmony, instead of discord. I see that I live to think and care about meaning and value more than sex, food and survival of the fittest. I speak of this in a superlative sense of course.
Saying that there is such a thing as evidence for evolution is such a lie that it borders on criminal and should serve to warn us of its danger. No one has ever seen anything living transform into something else, but we are asked or told to accept it by faith because science has made such advances in other areas that it should be trusted in this one as well, rather than "old books" written by middle eastern men. But this is not an argument at all.
Physical life doesn't explain anything really, it just operates and we follow it in its behavior and patterns. Meaning is not found in physical descriptions of outward behavior, it is just the subjectively chosen field of scientific inquiry because it yields to physical demonstration which in their mind can be relied upon; And this is true but we all know that these physical descriptions do not encapsualte the whole meaning of life. Meaning in life is not found in a science textbook, when and if we stand before god we will not explain ourselves and behavior out of a science textbook. But still we should not mix science that is true, with the philosophy of evolution or atheism, because "science" does not support either one, in fact it rather supports religious idea od a god, or sup[eriro being as you put it. How? Because science is based on the idea that what we study is rational and yields rational intelligible data, because it is constructed according to reason, that is why we can follow it and understand or predict it at times. That is just one simple reason, that is lost today. People today have not lost faith in religion or god because of anything science has done or proven that is more like an excuse or mask for real reasons which are personal and subjective not objective. An objective world is just another evidence of design and a designer.
God deniers seek to avoid these things and hide them from themselves but they cannot do away with them in my mind, they only try o break it down so small that you lose sight of it. For instance , what are the properties of the first life but a hidden omniscience, omnipotnece, and self existence, all hidden through psychological babbling and sophistry.
Today according to "science" it is not enough to have ears, eyes, nose and a mouth, in other words,to be a human being,
because that just yields opinion that is subjective and worthless!
Is that true? No way. According to that thinkink human beings do nt have acess to truth and scienctists become mediators of it, it is crazy. I am of the opinion that the things that are to be know n by man essentailly are not far away but available to all, without laboratories or microscopes.
We the people pronounce science useful or useless, we are
lords over science not science over us, but we have lost sight of this, we in our own subjectivity have pronounced science to be valid all in order to escape our perceived invalid subjectivity.
These few reaons and many others over a long time of thought have led mephilosophically to feel assured that the philosophy of atheism and evolution or naturalism are errors waiting for thoughtful people to expose them. We do not have enough people yet to crticise them and question them mercilessly, as they do religion. Yet reliion will stand far better in the end than any of these wifull and biased mindsets, in my opinion.
In order to truly understand the bias that goes into this whole system of bias,fear of subjectivity and ridiculous skepticism one has to study the philosophy of science and the hisotry of philosphy in general.Then you will be able to properly see its strengths and its weaknesses. All those who say that they go with the evidence are people who never even think about it and understand the interpretation that goes into it, little pieces of data don't have instructions in them they are guessed at and if the prevailing sup[erstition is evolution simply because the alternative is outlawed because it is considered unaaceptable then of course everything will be reported throught that subjective lense
God reigns

Answer 2

Well, first you sort of got it wrong. Creation and evolution are two different things.

It's Randomism vs Creationism.

We don't really say atoms and molecules "evolve" because there are some stable entities. Inert elements. Elements with totally stable rings not in need of electrons.

Those don't evolve in the typical sense.

The only elements that really evolve are ultra heavy elements. U-236 evolves and if I'm not mistaken evetually becomes something close to lead.

The universe is made up of primarily INORGANICS, which means chemicals. Sulfur, iron, copper, hydrgen, helium, nitrogen. These are lifeless things.

Randomism states that the universe, basically, is a cosmic casino that randomly throws out these elements and if the right grouping of elements occurs at the right time, in the right place, under the right conditions the inorganic muk tossed out by the universe becomes orgnic Amino Acids and Protein strains which can then start to EVOLVE life at it's rudimentary level of a bacterium, virus, parisite, amobea, mold, litchen, etc.

So once in a while the Cosmic Casino throws a lucky 7 and that's why you are here.

Evolution is the DEVEOPMENTAL PROCESS that occurs AFTER creations, which occurs RANDOMLY by CHANCE fusion of INORGANICS that trigger an organic reaction.

This, however, has NEVER BEEN DONE ON A REPEATED BASIS IN ANY SCIENTIFIC LABOATORY.

There is one and only one reported in 1951 and it was never duplicted and goes down in history like the reports of Cold Fusion and UFOs.

Now, the Randomist heros, Dr. Plank and Dr. Heisenberg, give us an explaination for this. Heisenberg says there is a law of the unverse called the "Uncertantity" factor. This is why an A-bomb doesn't expload. It's built just right. It triggered just right, but the uncertainty factor kept the chain reactions from totally happeneing the way it theoretically is supposed.

Cute, hey. Nifty JUSTIFICATION for why you can't make life two times in a row with the same chemicals and situation.

Now, of course, all of science is about CREATIONISM. I mean you don't just put a bunch of electronic parts into a box and shake it to get an XBOX.

Your home, car, TV set, radio, computer were all CREATED by someone with intellegence who knew how to string processes together to make things that worked.

This is CREATIONISM.

Funny, how the RANDOMIST scientists don't wait for NATURE to EVOLVE them a new car, randonly....

Creationism states that someone or something vastly superior made things happen with willfull intent. Like your Microwave oven was made.

Creationism states, as in the Star Trek 2nd movie with the Genesis Device, that some process, creates a matrix of DNA and GENOMES all based on a common denominator and the results of that are the air, water, plants, animals and us.

We were made willfull and intentionally and probalby for a purpose.

Evolution, however, is a natural course of events that occurs when things go unchecked. It's hot where you live, so eventually you might develop less hair.

Evolution is gradual changes through natural selection (willfull choice) and the Catholics and Jews have no problems with the pure Darwinian concepts.

In fact, the father of Modern Genetics is a CAtholic Abbott and the postulator of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic Priest whose views were appluaded by Einstein and confirmed with scientists found background Gamma Radiation as predicted by the Priest/Physist.

Einstein, by the way, was not a randomist nor atheist. When he saw the views of Plank and Heisenberg his criticsm was: "God doesn't play dice."

Stephen Hawking, whom I don't have much credibility in, takes the opposite view that "God does play dice."

All religions are basically OPPOSED to RANDOMISM and the RANDOMIST views.

Answer 3

The choices do not exhaust each other, they aren't opposite concepts. One is based on faith. The other simply records the mechanism of change over time. Very separate issues, which most people tend to oversimplify into one versus the other, based on misconceptions of either or both ideas. Here is a good resource if you want to see a reasonable dialog between the two:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html

"It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same."
- Thomas Paine,
The American Crisis [1777]

Answer 4

Since i have problems conveying ideas that involve science, at times, im quoting this article from the listed source.

"One classic experiment which is used to support the belief that life "built itself" is an experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus which was circulating common gases. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by itself. Furthermore, the dozens of major problems with this experiment as an explanation for the formation of life are seldom reported.

For instance, our early atmosphere was assumed to have no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would also be impossible. Furthermore, oxidized rocks throughout the geologic record indicate that oxygen has always been present.

In addition to this, the same gases which can react to form amino acids undergo known reactions in the presence of sunlight which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases would not have been around long enough for life to have developed! In addition, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed.

The biggest problem is that the amino acids formed in this experiment are always a 50/50 mixture of stereotypes (L and D forms). Stereotypes are like a drawer full of right-hand and left-hand gloves, identical in every way except a mirror image of each other. Life contains only L stereotypes of these randomly produced amino acids. Yet equal proportions of both types are always produced. How could the first cell have selected only L stereotypes from a random, equally reactive mixture? No answer to this has ever been found.

These are just a few of the problems with the fanciful idea that life generated itself. The linking of these randomly produced amino acids into the required proteins is an even more overwhelming impossibility.

No experiment has ever shown that the matter has the ability to come alive. The best explanation for life is still that "life only comes from pre-existing life". As you search for truth, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the source of all life... is GOD."

This is why I believe in intelligent design. Life cannot generate itself spontaneously out of it'self. A dog does not "sprout" a dog. How more unlikely is it that a bird "sprout" a reptile?

Answer 5

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Yes, it is a "theory" but in science that often means an idea where the mechanics are still being worked out. For example, it is still called the "atomic theory" not because scientists disagree that atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons and that the nucleus is held together by the weak nuclear force, but that the makeup of the particles themselves is not fully understood. Evolution is much the same. There's much to learn about it, but that in no way means the basic premise is disputed.

As for God's hand in all this, I think it's an irrelevant question. With or without God, evolution DID occur.

Answer 6

I accept evolution because there is a large amount of evidence supporting it. The same cannot be said, in my opinion, for a higher being.

"Argument from design" doesn't hold up. You have to remember that human beings didn't just spring into existence. It's easy to say that we're too complex to have evolved on our own, but when you look at the timespan of the earth (billions and billions of years), it seems more believable that a long series of gradual changes is eventually going to produce something like a human being.

Also, if everything was designed in its present form by God, then why do we have things like useless body parts in many species, junk DNA, and more importantly, species going extinct? Why any creator would create the Dodo, for example, I have no idea.

Answer 7

Evolution and Creation do not have to contradict one another. The bottom line is that there was a point where there was nothing and a point where there was. That point where there was, is a indescribable force by a higher power.

That is my opinion and since no one can prove it either way, I think we should humble ourselves as mere mortals guessing.

Answer 8

Of course i believe in creation. Without God, nothing is possible. Think about all the details of the world. The human body, people haven't even figured it out completely yet, and there is still the galaxies and eveything left. And the planets? We can go research mostly on Mars. But thats it. There must be a creator doing all of this. Hope this helps. :) and btw, i dun evn know what evolution means, so i cant say anything about that

Answer 9

I believe in God because of His creation. I look at creation and know that there is a creator much in the same way that I look at a watch and know that there is a watchmaker. I don't think that my watch just came to be accidentally. It's so complex, yet so simple compared to creation.
Statistically speaking, what are the chances that all this organized complexity around us came about by accident. If things started out so simple (single celled organisms), then why is that the number of cells in an organism has nothing to do with it's complexity? Now, let's look at humans. You would have to have 2 humans just sort of pop up out of the ground in the same area of the world, fully formed, AND of the opposite sex to propogate the species. Now, how do they know how to go about this? Do they have desire? Where does desire come from? Is love involved? The answer you'll get from someone who believes in evolution will have to do with millions of yrs. Oh yes, time is the god of evolution.
The bible says, "In trying to be wise, they became fools" and that the evidence of God is "plain". He made it so easy that a young child will know. That is why Jesus said that we must have the heart of a child to enter Heaven.
You see? Evolution just brings about more questions for me. Good questions that get mocked by those who believe in evolution. You see? You have to "believe" in evolution due to the assumptions necessary to make the theory. Yet they teach it as a science. I can't prove creation happened. I'll admit that. Can an evolutionist admit that they cannot prove thier 200 yr old theory that was made popular by someone with a degree in theology? An evolutionist will mock someone who thinks that an omnipotent being created the universe out of nothing. Yet, they "believe" that nothing became something, blew up, then turned into everything.

Answer 10

opposite to popular perception the reason that evolution remains a theory and under no circumstances a regulation of technology is that we now have not all started to decipher all the mechanisms through which it takes position (not that we are not particular even if it really is occurring), that it does happen isn't in dispute in any respect we've passable information displaying that evolution takes position on all scales of existence and as yet another answerer reported, your beliefs about they theory are beside the point interior the face of truth. What you want to differentiate is the distinction between an prepared faith and some larger entity (God or regardless of you opt for to call it). faith incorporates a procedures more desirable than only a divine ability (therefore why there are so few "God's" yet one of those vast quantity of religions) and the perception's of religion are in many circumstances incompatible with technology (see creationism, the large Flood, etc). That being reported, perception in a God, or larger being, is, in itself, not incompatible with technology. there is genuinely no thanks to expose, one way or yet another, that there is or isn't some severe ability which defined the regulations of the universe and set issues in action in accordance to those regulations. Scientists have conflicting perspectives on God and faith basically as the different crew of folk interior the international does, regardless of the indisputable fact that they do agree that the international we stay in is ruled through medical concepts (regardless of how they got here to be, technology does not answer this question) that are observable and popular. technology seeks to study and describe the international we stay in and the way it got here to be. Scientists view those who believe what their faith says about the international as blind to truth and their IQ is beside the point. all and sundry, regardless of intelligence, can seem on the organic international and are available to the logical end to settle for the rules of technology and the theories and regulations they convey, and all and sundry, regardless of intelligence, can make the ignorant determination to reject technology regardless of the overpowering information.

Answer 11

both i dont think they have to be seperate. i believe we all evolved from the same source of life from single cell organisms to what we are now. i also believe its possible there was a god or gods that had a hand in the origions of the universe but not specificaly the earth. i wouldnt completely rule out a higher being taking an interest in earth perhaps even helping evolution along. but i certainly consider there to be enough evidence to consider evolution a fact i just dont think it rules out or in some kind of higher force.