There's something that really gets me about scientists when it comes to religion?

Question

I believe in evolution and that God made the single celled organisms that evolved into other animals and that and that every animal has been designed by God but scientists keep saying that evolution could have easily happened by accident and have proved this by showing the evolution of the eye and ok I agree that is possible but if you look at foods such as fruit and that they have scins that can be pealed of by a human hand and obviously has been given a design that enables us to do that, now they can say the eye happened by accident but I don't believe the bannana evolved just so it could be easily eaten by humans by accident.
Do you agree with me on this?

I believe evolution happened but I still believe everything has been designed.

And that God was the designer. And for the idiot who says there's no proof of evolution take a trip to a museum of fossils or better yet there's a bird in the middle of evolution where the aquatic Iguarna(I can't spell the word but hopefully you'll understand it) lives.

I'm on about the skin of the bananna being easy to peal not it's taste.

Right, please tell me something, I did post this in the religion and spirituality section right and not in the I hate God section because there seem to be more people who hate God and don't believe in him then there are who do believe in him.

Answer 1

Ok. I do believe in God and i also believe in evolution and also reincarnation, The Holy spirit etc.

Answer 2

With regards to your last remark... God doesn't need to be liked by humans to exist. If people choose to 'hate' him then that's their problem (or it will be)

Sure, scientists say this & that about how life exists but there is such a lot they can't explain.

You say that - "scientists keep saying that evolution could have easily happened by accident and have proved this by showing the evolution of the eye." but where is this proof that the eye evolved?
I could easily say something couldn't I? ....but proving it is another thing.
On the other hand, you're very observant when you notice design in the human body. When you look at it logically, the human hand (as you mentioned) shows signs of design. Also, the eye too. No camera can be designed that can match up to the eye. If I told someone that their Nikon cam evolved I'd probably be referred to the nearest psychiatrist.

Do some research into irreducible complexity sir

I dont believe that evolution & creation should be mixed.
It's confusing to believe in both as they contradict each other in too many ways

Answer 3

The Kirk Cameron argument? FAIL.



You do know that bananas (and other fruits, I would think) have been specially bred to make them easier for humans to eat, right? So bananas were, in a sense, designed, but they were designed by humans.

So still, there is no need for a god.

For someone like a scientist, whose job it is to think critically about issues, simply saying that such and such is "obvious" never suffices. Scientists can only say that when someone else has done a lot of legwork to *prove* (as close as science comes to proving things, which is to say show something is true within a very small margin of error) the statement.

You use "obvious" to mean "I don't want to think about this issue."

Answer 4

There are a few problems with Theistic Evolution:

1. God rested -- he stopped creating, while Evolution is an ongoing process

2. Theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms—like the phrase flaming snowflakes.

3. In the words of the Nobel prize-winning evolutionist Jacques Monod: “[Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species….The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethic revolts….I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Answer 5

Fruits evolved as a means to spread the seeds of the parent plant. Certain fruits/ nuts applied the easy-to-eat strategy of having animals distribute them, typically by passing thru the animal's digestive track. Other fruits developed for other means to transport them, like coconuts which float and can survive in oceanwater. These properties evolved and perfected. Later, man came along and selected for certain properties. Easy to peel bananas have two advantages, first, they are more readily eaten by animals meaning more of their seeds get propogated elsewhere, second, people like that better so they are more likely to intelligently plant the seeds on banana plantations. Notice that modern bananas don't have seeds, that's not an evolutionary adaption, but a purposeful intervention by man and banana growers.

Answer 6

Yes I do believe in evolution, and yes it does stretch credulity to breaking point that inanimate chemicals could spontaneously assemble themselves into phenomenonally complex organisms like human beings, but when you start talking about bananas having been especially designed so that humans can eat them, I bail out. Bananas evolved so that banana plants could reproduce themselves.

Even for a theist like me, half believable arguments for the existence of God operate at the macroscopic level, rather than at the microscopic level.

Answer 7

Nope, thats a daft argument.
Bananas are easy to peel. Coconuts are hard to peel.
Many fruits evolved to be eaten, to help spread seeds.
i.e. the ones that were nice to eat, were indeed eaten, and the eater then crapped out the seeds somewhere else, so the plant thrived and spread. Distasteful fruits would be eaten less often and have less dispersal. Widespread dispersal is a good thing, it helps prevent extinction from local crises.

The plant has not decided to make the fruit nice tasting (Lamarkism). It benefited because a random mutation just happened to be beneficial.

Many flowering plants rely on insects to pollenate them. Suppose one randomly mutated to produce toxic pollen. The insects would die, the flowers would remain unfertilised, the flower dies out. So that mutation de-selects itself.

Answer 8

Truly intelligent design would mean that you wouldn't have to peel the skin off and the entire fruit would be consumable by humans. That is not the case. In fact, with some fruits, it's down right dangerous (as in the case of apples). Where is the intelligent design there?

Answer 9

No.

But if I did, I would feel obliged to point out that your god must also have made the coconut that is so difficult to eat, and the toadstool that is so easy to eat, and that some of the poisonous ones are difficult to identify from their tasty brethren.

If that was deliberate design, it was downright malicious.

What a fickle being your god must be.

Answer 10

Sorry Kirk but God did not cause the banana to evolve to it's present shape, man did.