creation/evolution?

Question

tell me your opinion of why you believe that evolution or creation (intelligent design) explains the world. Also, what do you see as the fundamental difference between religious and scientific thought? Please provide evidence for your responses.

Answer 1

I believe in creation, because it is what is depicted in the bible, many will not take this as enought, yet I have faith in my religion, giving me faith to believe in what is written in the holy book. The bible through a book called Case for Christ has been proven over and over, even go on utube there are things that will show you how it was proven to be accuate. As for evolution, I first off dont like that we supposedly stem from monkeys, as well as their are many gapping holes, which I do not have faith it. I believe that their is adaptaion, yet not evolution. Religion and science will never be joined, even though I am a Christian Biology major, I do not see this in the near future, or any future, science tries to disprove religion, proving to only hurt the relationship of chruch and science.
I will admit that Religious thought is close minded, but on the other side of the spectrum scientific though is too open minded, they both have flaws, but it is faith which leads most, well me anyway to know that what I am believing in is true.

Answer 2

What I reject about evolution is also rejected by many other evolutionists or scientists. My position has nothing to do with religion. It is related to what should be good science. Here are the two main claims that I reject.

Claim 1- There are only a few missing transitional links and micro evolution is the same thing as macro evolution.

These are myths. Paleontologists got frustrated because they could not find the gradual change in fossils that was predicted by gradualism in evolution. The generally accepted theory in evolution is now punctuated equilibrium. The mechanisms of evolution act differently within species than for creating new species. The "gradual change" between species occur so fast (at a geological scale) that we have little record of it. So, in that sense, we have a lot of missing transitional links. See http://www.powells.com/authors/gould.html

Claim 2- The theory of evolution can in principle be reduced to the known laws of elementary particle physics (in the standard model) and any form of intelligent design view on evolution is only acceptable in the religious domain.

This is not really a claim that we hear often, but it is implicit behind the thinking of some evolutionists. When you ask some of them, they support it. It is wrong.

It is important to understand that a reduction is a mathematical statement. For example, the reduction of temperature to kinetic energy per particle (and the associated derivation of macroscopic laws) is a mathematical statement. As for any other mathematical statement, a reduction cannot be accepted without a proof. A reduction without a proof, a greedy reduction, arbitrarily restricts the possible interpretations and future developments of the reduced theory.

The common mistake is to confuse the observed fact that a complex system is built from known basic constituents with a reduction. This vague relationship between a system and its constituents, including its use to explain some aspects of the laws for the system, is important, but it is not as strict and significant as a reduction, which would explain the totality of the laws. It is important to make this clear distinction.

The more the theory is close to practical life or rapidly unfolding, the more this becomes relevant. It is somehow relevant in the case of evolution. If the reduction was proved, it would establish that there is no more intelligence behind the known mechanisms of evolution than what we can find in the standard model of physics. An intelligent design interpretation is the opposite of this reduction. It is acceptable within the range of science because this reduction is not proved. Even if it was proved (for the known mechanisms of evolution), it would not say anything about mechanisms that have not yet been observed, but that's obvious and is not so significant. The point here is that it has not been proved for the known mechanisms.

There are still plenty of room for an intelligent design interpretation in science. The complexity of the evolution process is an evidence for such an interpretation. Of course, it is not a proof. This is the kind of things that we cannot prove in science. However, this interpretation might eventually be further corroborated by the discovery of new mechanisms at some fundamental level that would provide some new light on the known mechanisms. None of this would be true or possible if the reduction was proved, but it is not proved.

I especially reject this kind of greedy reduction in the fields of sociology, psychology, health, economics, etc, not particularly in the case of evolution. This may answer your question with regard to my motivation. If we accept bad science somewhere, it will spread everywhere. The consequence is bad: an arbitrary and unsupported restriction on the possible interpretations of science which may have negative effects on our direction of research. It may also create an unnecessary conflict between religion and science as paths toward truth, but that is not my main concern.

Answer 3

Many people don't understand the fundamental nature of science. Science uses observation and measurement as a starting point.

Saying that simple life forms evolved into more complex ones is a religious statement, which violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Irreversibility, often referred to as entropy).

Evolution cannot tell us how life evolved from non-life, so violates the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution cannot explain something so complex as DNA arising spontaneously. The massive complexity of a cell is incomprehensible, yet somehow it is believed by faith, to have arisen by chance.

Mutations offer genetic deterioration, in the opposite direction required by evolution.

Neither chance, nor natural selection, nor mutations offer an adequate mechanism for evolution.

Religious statements are often based on evidence, like fulfilled prophecy, or raising people from the dead. Naturally, this involves an apparent suspensions of known scientific laws, but observation IS scientific.

Answer 4

Forget other peoples terms for the moment, just use the common sense meaning of the words in this response:

The universe is intelligently designed and the laws of evolution, both material and spiritual, are part of that design.

Science strives to understand material phenomena using the practical mind. Religion strives to understand and experience spiritual truth with heart and head. Currently, there is somewhat of a division between them but that's the result of the current limitation of the human consciousness. In essence, there is no division. Knowledge is one.

Answer 5

Creation (the Bible) tells me that God made work or energy from nothing. It also says God is light. Einstein says:
E = M * C^2.
This says that mass is the energy God created multiplied by the speed of light (God) squared. Colossians 1:17 (NAS) says that in Him all things hold together. These answer 2 questions science can not answer. Where did matter come from? What is a single force? Don't confuse equations about their strength and what the force is. Also when God stopped creation nothing else was made. Isn't that the conservation of energy?

Basically, I find true science matches the Bible. They only get separated when science makes unverified assumptions and others accept them without asking could there be another explanation. I think really intelligent people will question.

Answer 6

The evidence for evolution is and has been interpreted from a Philosophical and ideological Bias, The answers given by adherents to Evolution here in R&S is proof of the bias and agenda, Atheism has to have an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence.
Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist.
What is sad is that Christians are falling into this Trap and trying to fit evolution into the Bible (Theistic Evolution) thinking they can make it fit.
Lee Stroble in his video listed below “ The Case for the Creator” stated (5 min. 28 sec into the video) The Case for a Creator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI


That “There is no way you can Harmonize Neo Darwinism with Christianity, I could never understand Christians who would say “ Well I believe in God yet I believe in Evolution as well” You see Darwin’s idea about the development of life led to his theory that modern science now generally defines as an undirected process completely devoid of any purpose or plan,”. Now how could God direct an undirected process? How could God have purpose in a plan behind a system that has no plan and no purpose? It just does not make sense.
It didn’t make sense to me in 1966 and it doesn’t make sense to me now.
The Apostle Paul wrote to His Son Timothy stating that “ in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, [because] they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn [their] ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

Those Christians who believe in evolution have no idea how that effects their theology.
What is theistic evolution?
http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html


Eternity is a Long Time to be wrong about this

What Hath Darwin Wrought?
http://www.whathathdarwinwrought.com/

Darwin's Deadly Legacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qHb3uq1O0Q
Darwin & Eugenics....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuTPHvedOOU&feature=related

Creation In The 21st Century - Planet Earth Is Special 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUjhgsEJFw

Creation in the 21st Century - The Evidence Disputes Darwin 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbCbfzmhAN8

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of Creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

More than 600 Scientist with PHD’s who have Signed A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

Answer 7

To me it's evolution. A combination of natural selection and motivation by God. There is way too much evidence to the contrary to say that God just put people on the earth and they weren't ascended from anyone. Look at comparative biology, genetics, fossil evidences, even diseases evolve.

Answer 8

Hi Cynthia,

This is a pretty broad question, but I'll try to hit the things you're asking for.

I think that the theory of evolution provides the best explanation of how life on our planet came to be. I base this on scientific data that has been collected over many centuries, including, but not limited to, the superposition of rocks in a stratigraphic column that is found worldwide, the observation that rocks at the bottom of this column contain fossil remains of simple and primitive life forms, the observation that rocks at the top of this column contain fossil remains of modern life forms, the observation that as one moves up this sequence of rocks, one observes a steady increase in complexity of fossil remains and a series of life forms that transition into each other, the observation that dates have been obtained for these rocks by multiple radiometric techniques, isotopic techniques, and optical techniques that show amazingly consistent ages (even across different techniques) of about 3.8 billion years for rocks at the very bottom of the column to present day ages for rocks at the very top, and observations which show systematically younger ages as one moves up the column.

I think that this evidence provides overwhelming support to the idea that different rock layers have been forming throughout earth's long history, and that life forms which have been continuously evolving for much of that history have been trapped in these rocks and their remains show a record of past life on earth. I do not think that any of this evidence is contrary to the idea of the existence of God, or contrary to the idea of an intelligent being setting this process in motion, but I DO think that this evidence is directly contrary to the idea that God created the earth 6000 years ago.

I think the fundamental difference between religious and scientific thought is the way in which knowledge is gained. In religious thought, knowledge is gained through inner wisdom and instinct. There is a faith that comes from within you telling you what is true. In scientific thought, knowledge comes from things that you can directly observe, and things that you can logically deduce and piece together from what you have observed. I have no problem with either of these modes of thought, but I think they should be used for different things. There are observations that we can make about the earth that can help us scientifically piece together the history of our planet. There is no need to have faith in something that can be explained by things we can actually observe, and I think creationists make the mistake of placing their faith at a higher priority than direct observations that contradict this faith. At the same time, things like whether God exists, and what the purpose of our lives are, are things which CANNOT be directly observed, and we can only shed light on these questions by looking to our own inner wisdom and switching to a more religious mode of thought. They are two completely different ways of gaining knowledge that are each valid for different things, and trying to use one mode of thought to gain information that is the domain of the OTHER mode of thought leads to confusion.

Answer 9

Evolution doesn't explain 'the world' but it explains how complex life developed from simpler life through natural selection.
The fundamental difference between scientific and religious thought is that science is a search for truth and consequently adapts to new information, whereas religious thought is essentially a snapshot of ancient science with no mechanism for change.
Science rewards those who disprove its theories, since only false theories can be disproved and disproving a false theory is obviously a step closer to formulating a correct one. Religion condemns those who even attempt to disprove it as blasphemers and heretics.

Answer 10

Religion requires nothing more than agreeing with a statement.

Science requires understanding, testing, verifying and re-verifying of a statement.

There is nothing intelligent about the design of man, we share like structures, life cycles, basic organs of all life forms. We are extremely vulnerable and live relatively short lives where we struggle to survive against nature and other life forms. What is intelligent about that design?