Another question on Evolution...?

Question

I understand that science proves how similar primates are to humans, not just in looks, but in make up. I can't even deny that, because it's there. But just because we are so similar doesn't mean we are evolved from them. Doesn't it make sense that if we were, both primates and humans, created by the same maker that the maker might make us very similarly? Like a painter. You can look at two completely different paintings of the same painter, but if you look at the techniques and the specific way of that painter and how they draw, you can see that the pictures were made by the same painter because of the same design. And like writers. If you read two completely different books, but they are by the same author, usually the author has the same style, voice, and form of writing so that's it's easy to see that the two were both written by the same author.... If you look at two completely different animals and see the similarities, it's easy to see they were created by the same Creator.

Answer 1

Similarity doesn't mean common ancestry...it means a common Designer.

Answer 2

Why are you asking a biology question on the R&S section?

If you really wanted to know what science has to say on the matter, the resources are out there. Go do the research. That means sitting down with one or more science books and reading what scientists have to say about science, not what theologians have to say about science.

The evidence of common ancestry between humans and other primates goes a lot deeper than "because they look similar". The evidence lies in genetics, geology, and other independent scientific studies that point to this conclusion. There is, however, absolutely no signs that both species were created at the same same by a magical invisible man (which is what creationists propose).

Read this for starters:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Answer 3

Yes, contrary to popular opinion, it does make sense that our similarities would suggest a similar creator. However, as a scientist would note, that doesn't necessarily suggest a divine creator since it's obvious we were all shaped by the same world, and one of the first tenets of evolution is that organisms adapt to their environment.

So, you would expect to see a variety of similar creatures that increasingly differentiate to fill different environmental niches as the environments the creatures spread out into change in disparate ways... which is exactly what we do see with life on Earth.

The natural rebuttal here is that we are similar because our Creator, the Earth, has shaped us similarly. God need not be involved in the process.

My question is "why is it so at odds with God's plan that evolution brought life on Earth to its current state?"

Whether or not the Earth is 4.6 billion years old or 6,000, if there is a God, He obviously went to great pains to put everything in place to make the world look 4.6 billion years old, to put an entire, contiguous history in place, and leave a clear record of the physical forces responsible for shaping the world and life on it.

Why doesn't it occur to Christians so set against evolution that perhaps God put all that in place to provide a clear example of how things work now, and will continue to work into our future, by providing us clear examples of how things would have worked to shape the world naturally from the beginning of time up until now?

After all, even if God did create the world a mere 6,000 years ago, he obviously left it to run naturally and designed things so they would function a certain way. They're going to continue running according to these principles from this point forward. Science does seem to be very descriptive of just what those principles are, and aids us quite a bit in understanding how things are going to continue to work in the future.

Why, exactly, would God choose to leave such a detailed working manual of the Universe, which only He could have put there, in the Universe only He could have created, and then expect you to completely blow it off in favor of a book that could easily have been written by men?

Let's face it, if there's one thing the Bible demonstrates unswervingly, it's that even with God standing right over people's shoulders and telling them step by step what to do at the time, they'll end up screwing it up. What makes you think the writing of the book would have been any more flawless than all the tasks bungled therein?

Some of us may believe in a Creator and just happen to be getting our instructions out of a different manual.

Answer 4

You can imagine that if you like. But it sounds like you know that you're ignoring all the science to believe that. You can see the evolution of all of those primates in the bones, in the genetics, etc. So you have to believe that 'the designer' either a) created all that extra data/life along the way (the designer doesn't paint inside the lines?) or b) the designer put all of that there to lead us astray (the designer is a liar?). The simplest answer, the answer that creates the fewest logical flaws and circular arguments is that things happened the way they appear to have happened.

Answer 5

This is an especially inept analogy.

One can just as easily look at a painter's output and show how one style evolved from another. A more mature painting can show the seeds of style and thematic ideas in an earlier painting. Same thing with an author, or a composer. It can be said that early works grow - evolve - into later works.

Why is it so important for you to try to disprove the theory of Evolution?

Answer 6

We didn't evolve from chimps. Humans and chimps, as well as gorillas, and all other primates evolved from a common ancestor, which probably looked nothing like any of us.

We are so similar to chimps because we come from the same branch, and it's thought that shortly after the ancestors of chimps and the ancestors of humans split, they interbred and then split again.

Answer 7

If your reasoning works to justify the science behind evolution with your personal beliefs then that's great. Just realize that all research, science, and facts regarding evolution are different from a belief system. The theory of evolution is the best way to put all those facts together into a cohesive unit, and all the reasoning in the world won't make that go away.

Answer 8

<<>>



Only if the maker is lazy, and he also evolved from a common ancestor.

Answer 9

Yes this would make perfect sense, but you obviously have not looked at all the evidence. Google evolution and you will see how well-backed this theory is. I'm sorry but it's not going to be disproven because some people think it interferes with the Bible.

Answer 10

Using your logic, couldn't it also be said that, since trees and humans aren't particularly similar, the couldn't have possibly been made by the same designer?

Look, there's a grain of sand and an elephant. There is no way that they could have been conjured up by the same metaphysical artist.

If nothing else, this is one of the better arguments for evolution that I've seen here, of late. Thanks. :)

Answer 11

Scientifically and genetically, human beings are 90% identical to crawfish. All of the works by Picasso were similar in style. Same with Matisse, Chagal and Van Gogh. Same with our Creator.