Evolution Vs. Creation?

Question

For a long time now I have been debating which a believe in more. I was raised Presbyterian and was brought up to believe in Creationism. However now I am not so sure because I have just come to see so much evidence supporting evolution. I do believe in a divine power and the fact that something had to put life on our planet but am not so sure we were put here in our present form. I have never learned much about other religions views on life and would be interested in those. Also any reading material would be appreciated as well (have already read the bible). So any clearification on the subject would be greatly appreciated. Thank You in advance!

Answer 1

OK, let me show you some problems with the three main "evidences" for evolution: Natural Selection, Mutations, and Homology.

What about natural selection? As the Dutch botanist, Hugo de Vries, said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”

Natural selection is a logical process that anyone can observe (and it was actually a creationist named Edward Blyth who first wrote about it in 1835–37, before Darwin). We can look at the great variation in an animal kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the dog kind.

But natural selection can only operate on the information already contained in the genes; it doesn’t produce new information. There are limits. For instance, you can’t breed a dog to the size of an elephant, much less turn it into an elephant.

The different dogs we see today have resulted from a rearrangement or loss of information from the original dog kind; no new information was produced. What are they? Dogs. What were they? Dogs. What will they be? Dogs. There is a big difference between subspeciation (variation within a kind) and transspeciation (change from one kind to another).

To go from that first single celled organism to a human means finding a way to generate enormous amounts of new information. You need the recipes to build eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscles, blood, etc. Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this and so they point to mutations (copying errors in the genetic code) to provide the new information for natural selection to act upon. So, the question is, can random mutations produce new information?

Dr. Lee Spetner (a biophysicist who taught at John Hopkins University) in his book Not By Chance analyzes examples of mutations that evolutionists have claimed to have been increases in information, and shows that they are actually examples of loss of specificity, which means they involved loss of information. He concluded, “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.” He also said, “The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT [Neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume.”

Dr. Warner Gitt (an information scientist who was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology), in answering the question (Can new information originate through mutations?) said, “...this idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information.”

Mutations can cause an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information. Even the somewhat beneficial mutations they point to like antibiotic resistance in bacteria are always a rearrangement or loss of information, never a gain. For instance, a mutation that causes the pumps in its cell wall not to work in a certain way so it doesn’t suck in the antibiotics we try to kill it with. You see, it is resistant because of a loss of an ability. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new genetic information.

This kind of stuff is used as evidence for evolution, but in every mutation (even the beneficial ones), this is always the case. All we see is a downhill change that fits with the fall in Genesis 3. Evolution requires new creative information, not a loss of information. Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into more advanced forms.

OK, what about homology? Don’t we see similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals? Evolutionists like to argue that these similarities prove that all life evolved from a common ancestor (common descent).

First of all, there are plenty of problems—like homologous structures that are not produced by homologous genes or the same embryological development, or homologous structures in animals that are not suppose to have a close common ancestor (no evolutionary relationship), and so forth.

But the thing is, homology can just as easily point to a common designer; it fits quite comfortably with the creation model.

As Dr. Don Batten has said, “Think about the original Porsche and a Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ cars. They both had air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent rear suspension, two doors, trunk in the front, and many other similarities. Why did these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer!”

And as Dr. Jerry Bergman said, “...the requirements of life are similar for similar living things, and some designs are preferred in constructing animals because these designs are superior to competing designs. All automobile, bicycle and pushcart tires are round because this design is superior for the function of most tires. A tire homology does not prove common descent, but common design by engineers throughout history because of the superiority of the round structure for rolling.”

Dr. Carl Weiland said the same: “By its very nature, creation involves the intelligent application of design information, which it would seem logical to conserve. For example, if the pattern of the forelimb bones in a frog works well, following good bioengineering principles, then it would seem reasonable for the same principles to be used in the other creatures, modified to fit their particular needs.”

There's just a sample for you. As T. Wallace has said, “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

Answer 2

I am totally convinced by personal experience that there is something higher than us and it is involved with our life.

When you start dissecting the reality of the universe, it is pretty obvious that the strict teachings of many religions is not a reasonable answer to the nature of the universe. The very scale and age of the universe makes the idea of us being at the center and apex of it all seem rather silly. There are something like 10 trillion billion stars and it is around 13 billion years.

We are physically descended from all other life on this planet. That much is a near certainty as much as anything can be. The fossil evidence is proof that animals have been changing over time so it is proof in evolution. There may be something beyond our physical beings and I do happen to think that is likely. I don't however think it is likely that whatever superior forces is involved with us is the single and same force that created the universe and is involved with us on a daily basis. As hard as it is to imagine a single force guiding the Earth, it is multiplied trillions of times when you talk about the universe.

Too accept that we are the center of the universe, you would have to twist logic beyond reason like the suggestion that there can be no increase in information in evolution. Those are the sorts of total irrational distortions that can only work if you don't understand the subject or have an agenda.

I am happy in my ignorance and unlike many religious based arguments, I don't claim to have all the answers and don't need to grossly distort logic to make a point.

Answer 3

Talk origins is a very good introduction and provides a good dissection of creationist claims and precisely why they are wrong as well as touching on the evidence for evolution. The problem that you do not realize (and a major factor for many people not accepting evolution) is that it does not fit neatly into the classroom science experiment where you can easily demonstrate the concept, i.e. drop two different sized balls and see that they hit the ground at the same time. Further, there is massive amounts of research that has been done, but most of it tends to be specialized beyond high school levels. Dawkin's recent book "The Great Show on Earth" may be a good reference. The links below should supplement others given to you. Remember, you should check the sources cited and double check claims that are made. Be skeptical and objective and don't accept anything at face value or just because it sounds reasonable.

Answer 4

There are many Christians who believe in evolution, you are not the only one. The interpretation of the Bible that you presently have could also hinder what you want to believe and what you believe. Some Christians believe that 7 days doesn't mean 7 24-hour days, rather it is a sort of time-line to show how we and other creatures arrived. You can still believe something helped us along and possibly put us here, but you can also believe that we evolved. Read the Bible, again, but think in a different light. Also read Darwin. Using both, you may find the answers you want.

Answer 5

The answer to this question is just impossible to answer. Before the theory of evolution ever sprouted, there had to be a reason for life. Lets just say 5000 years ago, the Mayans, Incas, ASsyrians, Egyptians, Aztecs, Buddhists etc. finally gained the cognitive capacity to ask the simple yet mind-boggling question 'HOW DID WE GET HERE?' This is the question of all questions. These ancient civilizations aren't just going to think 'hmm, well I think evolution is the reason, we evolved directly from the primate family'. UH no, I doubt it.
Someone from each civilization probably thought,

'well since we are alive, we must be divine. There must be somebody up there to make us so smart to live and be able to build these structures. Something must have made us strong enough to kill other animals to eat. Somebody must have made the big bright sun in the sky to give light and heat'

This is where the idea of GOD[s] derived from. And people, when creating a god usually associate with the animals and organisms around them.

Hindus use cobras and cows
Mayans used jaguars
Egyptians used animal heads such as hawks, jackals, and alligators

And it only takes one mysterious happenning to convince the entire village. For example when Christians today see an image of Jesus or Mary naturally created imprinted on bread or on a glass window, a genuine image in and of itself. Everyone will gather thinking this is a SIGN, and that it must be from god.

And the religious creation doesnt end there, once you have a god who has the power to create this world and life, well, he must have the power to take it away. This is how GOOD AND BAD evolve, compassion and guilt. The native Indians believe it is right to pray and honour the animals and environment around them, even though they kill the animals because they believe if they do not appreciate the animal, the animal in turn will not appreciate them. It's like a symbiotic relationship. Each religious person prays to a god to be kind and merciful and to not punish and in turn people will be good to god.

This is how creationism evolved. Then came the atheists who created evolutionism and its just difficut for religions to deny their dogma and belief to accept science. That is how it is with everyone, religion is a habit, sometimes it's hard to let go from it.

Answer 6

Just today, Scientists found another entirely different and New species never seen before in South Africa. That tells you that it was Micro evolution that did occur and is still happening, before our very eyes. Evolution is a theory and is also a religion! A Religion is defined as a set of beliefs concerning the origins and purpose of the universe. A theory means that it is an analysis of facts, in relation to one another. Being a person of Faith does not mean that you check your brains at the door.

People in general want something they can control, touch, taste, smell and feel.. If they could prove god, they could successfully control him and put him into a beeker to further examine and eplain his exsistence and how it he about.

You can still hold onto your religious faith and values and be scientific. Faith is not dependent on fact. Most early scientists believed in God and a higher intelligence and order. They tested those scientific "theories" out, found in the Bible to attempt to explain them scientifically. Some were persecuted for their scientific findings. Galileo is one of them.

Dr Kent Hovind is accepting theories that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is 100% aaccurate and will pay a $250,000.00 Reward to anyone who successfully does it. ( Go To: www.raycomfort.com, link to Hovind) So far nobody has successfully done it.

True Scientific evaluation is subject to change, otherwise most people would still believe the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth!

Answer 7

you dont have to believe every word of the bible - remember there are three accounts of how judas died for example, and only matthew mentions the three wise men. The creation myth is a charming primitive fable such as is found in every primitive culture and differes little from other creation myths. Take the general message of Jesus (be a nice person) and forget the verbal niceties. Or you can indeed beleive that God created evolution (why not? he wants the world to change gradually towards his final plan anyway). In fact there is tons of evidence for evolution and the earth's age and not one single scrap of evidence for the existence of god or creationism, Humans are libidinous, hairy, smelly and violent - exactly what you;d expect from a savannah ape and not what you;d expect from divine creation. I am proud of my earthly origin. I also think Jesus was a nice guy and the 'best of the guru's' but I dont bible bash anymore and am much happier for it!

Answer 8

The difference between an evolutionist and a creationist is that an evolutionist will change their mind based on new evidence that disproves evolution. But a creationist thinks it's the height of faith and good sense ignore evidence.

Good luck on your quest for knowledge. These are big questions you ask -- the biggest. Do not let any person of supposed 'faith' cow you into blind ignorance.

I can recommend Joseph Campbell for a view on creation myths. And Richard Dawkins for a lively debate on science vs religion.

Answer 9

We so love to make mountains out of mole hills...and the simplicity is so wonderful that most pass it by or deny that something so uncomplicated could be...

Yes, Creation was formed by what we refer to as the Godhead...beings of pure energy. Evolution is the natural growth process of that original spark...See???

Despite what most religions will expel from their single source (the Bible)...we are in truth, not humans having a spiritual experience...we are spirits (of the Godhead) having a human experience.

Why? Because we can (LOL)...no, seriously...we choose to have lifetimes such as we are doing now, not just for our gain, but for those we love, those we are part of. You see, in every moment of every experience that we incur in a lifetime, we are "feeding" the Godhead...it is the true "Manna"...they experience their part of the everything through us.

You are in the process of seeking truth...when it already is part of you...I call it soul sounds, it's your gut instinct, your first thought, your direct-connect to Home. When you put out the effort to seek, your soul chimes will ring whenever you come across something you should hold on to...you simply need to listen for the tune. When you ask for whys, whats, & hows...in moments, your answer will come in the message from a phone call, a line of the next song on the radio, a comment made by the person behind you in line...just listen for that soul sound, the shiver, the goosebumps...and there you go.

If you'd like a good read...I loved the "Conversations with God...an uncommon dialogue" series by Neale Donald Walsch...it was provided to me when I first asked...his children's book "Little Soul & the Sun" is a must for anyone...great story! I also like the Native American perspectives and Mary Summer Rain's books are wonderful plus. Also, I so admire Sylvia Browne's courage & openness...she is a true prophet of today...very loving all of them...have at it, Sweety...and Good Journey to you!!!

Answer 10

Many people who consider themselves Christian also believe in evolution. They believe the story of creation in the bible should not be interpreted literally.

Whether everything in the bible should be interpreted literally is a source of controversy among Christians. The United Presbyterian Church is not very literal, and even came out against the teaching of creationism in public schools. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/voices/RELIGIOU/PRES82.htm. Also, here's a detailed discussion from the Presbyterian Church of America. http://www.origins.org/articles/00site_pcareport.html

Answer 11

Something in your text struck me. "However now I am not so sure because I have just come to see so much evidence supporting evolution".
Does that mean you had evidence of creationism but the evidence for evolution is more believable?