God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. – Paul C. Broun, Republican congressman from Georgia from 2007 to 2015, House Science Committee, in a speech given at Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman's Banquet on September 27, 2012
You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution. – Richard Dawkins
Most of us would probably be hesitant to endorse either of the views expressed above. But is there some midpoint where the lamb of biblical creation and the lion of evolution can snuggle comfortably?
The subject of the origin and development of life in all its diversity tends to provoke impassioned responses. For example, running this subject past the other contributors to this website generated 58 emails in just two days; the next runner-up generated only 26 over a period of 22 days. In all those emails, we did not arrive at a consensus view other than that God created all things. Somehow.[1]
Though “God created everything” may seem hopelessly vague, it is certainly the most important point. God can create anything he wants, any way he wants. We can speculate, we can opine, but there are limits to what we can reasonably assert. So we must remain open to possibilities that we haven't considered, or perhaps even some that we've already rejected. We should not allow ourselves to be badgered or pigeon-holed by statements such as the quotes that kick off this article.
But doesn't God's Word at least limit the number of possibilities we should consider? Can a Christian accept the theory of evolution? On the other hand, can an intelligent, informed person reject evolution? Let's see if we can approach this subject without prior prejudice, while sacrificing neither reason nor respect for our Creator and his word.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day. (NET)
We have quite a bit of wiggle room when it comes to time, if we wish to avail ourselves of it. First, there is the possibility that the statement, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is separate from the creative days, which would allow for the possibility of a 13 billion year old universe[2]. Second there is the possibility that the creative days are not 24 hour days, but periods of indeterminate length. Third, there is the possibility that they overlap, or that there are spaces of time – once again, of indeterminate length – in between them[3]. So, it is possible to read Genesis 1 and come to more than one conclusion about the age of the universe, the Earth and life on Earth. With a minimum of interpretation, we could find no conflict between Genesis 1 and the timetable that represents the scientific consensus. But does the account of the creation of terrestrial life also give us wiggle room to believe in evolution?
Before we answer that, we need to define what we mean by evolution, since the term in this context has several meanings. Let's focus on two:
- Change over time in living things. For example, trilobites in the Cambrian but not in the Jurassic; dinosaurs in the Jurassic but not in the present; rabbits in the present, but not in the Jurassic or Cambrian.
- The undirected (by intelligence) process of genetic variation and natural selection by which all living things are thought to have descended from a common ancestor. This process is also called Neo-Darwinian Evolution (NDE). NDE is often broken down into micro-evolution (like finch beak variation or bacterial resistance to drugs) and macro-evolution (like going from a quadruped to a whale)[4].
As you can see, there is little to take issue with in definition #1. Definition #2, on the other hand, is where the hackles of the faithful sometimes rise. Even so, not all Christians have a problem with NDE, and some of those who do will accept common descent. Are you confused yet?
Most of those who wish to reconcile their view of science and their Christian faith fall into one of the following belief categories:
- Theistic Evolution (TE)[5]: God front-loaded the necessary and sufficient conditions for the eventual appearance of life into the universe at its creation. TE advocates accept NDE. As Darrell Falk of biologos.org puts it, "Natural processes are a manifestation of God’s ongoing presence in the universe. The Intelligence in which I as a Christian believe, has been built into the system from the beginning, and it is realized through God’s ongoing activity which is manifest through the natural laws."
- Intelligent Design (ID): The universe and life on Earth give evidence of intelligent causation. While not all ID proponents are Christians, those that are generally believe that the origin of life, along with some major events in the history of life, like the Cambrian Explosion, represent increases in information inexplicable without an intelligent cause. ID proponents reject NDE as inadequate to explain the origin of new biological information. According to the Discovery Institute's official definition, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
There is, of course, considerable variation in individual belief. Some believe that God created the first living organism with sufficient information (a genetic tool kit) to later evolve into all other types of organisms without divine intervention. This, of course, would be a feat of programming rather than NDE. Some ID proponents accept universal common descent, taking issue only with the mechanism of NDE. Space does not allow discussing all possible viewpoints, so I will restrict myself to the general overview above. Readers should feel free to share their own viewpoints in the comments section.
How do those who accept NDE harmonize their view with the Genesis account? How, for example, do they get around the phrase “according to their kinds”?
The book LIFE—HOW DID IT GET HERE? BY EVOLUTION OR BY CREATION?, chap. 8 pp. 107-108 par. 23, states:
Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another.
It would appear from the use of cats, dogs and humans that the authors understand “kinds” to be equivalent, at least roughly, to “species”. The genetic constraints on variation that the authors mention are real, but can we be absolutely sure that the Genesis “kind” is that restricted? Consider the order of taxonomic classification:
Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species.[6]
To which classification, then, does Genesis refer? For that matter, is the phrase “according to their kinds” really meant as a scientific pronouncement delimiting the reproductive possibilities of living organisms? Does it really rule out the possibility that things reproduce according to their kinds while gradually evolving – over millions of years – into new kinds? One forum contributor was emphatic that, if scripture does not give us a clear basis for an unequivocal “no”, we should be extremely hesitant to rule those things out ourselves.
At this point the reader may wonder if we are giving ourselves so generous a dollop of interpretive license that we are rendering the divinely inspired record virtually meaningless. It's a valid concern. However, we likely have already given ourselves some interpretive freedom when it comes to understanding the length of the creative days, the meaning of the earth's “socket pedestals” and the appearance of “luminaries” on the fourth creative day. We need to ask ourselves if we are guilty of a double standard if we insist on a hyper-literal interpretation of the word “kinds”.
Having posited, then, that scripture is not quite as restrictive as we may have thought, let's have a look at some of the beliefs that have thus far been mentioned, but this time in the light of science and logic[7].
Neo-Darwinian Evolution: While this is still the most popular view among scientists (especially those who wish to keep their jobs), it has a problem that is increasingly recognized even by scientists who are not religious: Its variation/selection mechanism is unable to generate new genetic information. In none of the classic examples of NDE in action – variation in beak size or moth coloration, or bacterial resistance to drugs, for a few examples – is anything truly new generated. Scientists who refuse to consider the possibility of intelligent origination find themselves casting around for a new, and thus far elusive, mechanism for evolution while provisionally maintaining belief in undirected evolution on faith that such a mechanism is, indeed, forthcoming[8].
Theistic Evolution: To me, this option represents the worst of both worlds. Since theistic evolutionists believe that God, after creating the universe, took his hands off the wheel, so to speak, they believe that life's appearance on earth and subsequent evolution were both undirected by God. Therefore, they find themselves in exactly the same predicament as atheists in having to explain the origin and subsequent diversification of life on Earth in terms of chance and natural law alone. And since they accept NDE, they inherit all its deficiencies. Meanwhile, God sits idly by the sidelines.
Intelligent Design: To me, this represents the most logical conclusion: That life on this planet, with its complex, information-driven systems, could only be the product of a designing intelligence, and that the subsequent diversification was due to periodic infusions of information into the biosphere, such as at the Cambrian Explosion. True, this view does not – in fact, cannot – identify the designer, but it provides a strong scientific element in a philosophical argument for the existence of God.
As I mentioned at the outset, when the contributors to this forum originally discussed this subject, we were unable to form a consensus view. I was initially a bit shocked at that, but have come to think that's as it should be. The scriptures are simply not specific enough to allow us the luxury of dogmatism. Christian theistic evolutionist Darrel Falk stated with regard to his intellectual adversaries in the faith that "many of them share my faith, a faith firmly grounded not just in polite interchange, but outright love". If we believe that we were created by God and that Christ gave his life as a ransom so that we might have everlasting life as children of God, intellectual differences on how we were created need not divide us. Our faith is, after all, 'grounded in outright love'. And we all know where that came from.
______________________________________________________________________
[1] To give credit where credit is due, much of what follows is a distillation of the thoughts exchanged in that thread.
[2] This article uses the American billion: 1,000,000,000.
[3] For a detailed consideration of the creative days, I recommend Seven Days That Divide the World, by John Lennox.
[4] Some evolution proponents take issue with the micro- and macro- prefixes, contending that macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution “writ large”. To understand why they don't have a point, see here.
[5] TE as I've described it here (the term is sometimes used differently) is well illustrated by Francisco Ayala's position in this debate (transcript here). Incidentally, ID is well described by William Lane Craig in the same debate.
[6] Wikipedia helpfully tells us that this ranking system can be remembered by the mnemonic "Do Kings Play Chess On Fine Glass Sets?”
[7] In the next three paragraphs I speak only for myself.
[8] For an example, see here.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-24 11:13:31
I'm surprised that any of the contributors on this forum would venture into this topic, one so fraught with 'landmines', so to speak. People have strong feelings about this. One reason that should be obvious to most readers of this forum is that, if evolution were true, that would seem to invalidate their religious beliefs. If God didn't create us, then either there is no God, or there might as well be none. Where does that leave our beliefs, and our hopes for the future, not to mention the hopes of all generations that have gone in ages past? I am pretty sure Darwin doesn't perform resurrections, seeing as how he would need one himself.
I find this quotation disturbing: "The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution." Richard Dawkins has always been one of the most strident advocates of this position. So, anyone who disagrees with Richard Dawkins is ignorant and insane? That sounds a lot like a threat from a bully, rather than a rational conclusion from a thoughtful man of science. I don't especially like being bullied ...
Much is made of the notion of "change over time". But, what really changed over time? Was it the life forms that changed, or did the circumstances change? Perhaps God created various life forms periodically over time, then allowed them to die out because their purpose had been served. An ex-JW once conveyed an interesting theory about the dinosaurs. He said that God first created plant life. The plants, thriving on the excess carbon dioxide that was present in earth's past, grew wildly and inundated the earth. They helped release needed oxygen, but then there were simply too many plants overgrown everywhere. So, the dinosaurs were created to eat all the plants, and dinosaur waste helped fertilize the soil. This idea seems to be borne out by the fact that most dinosaurs that have been found are plant eaters. Presumably the few meat eaters were primarily scavengers that preyed on old and sick dinosaurs to prevent the others from getting diseased. Anyway, that was his theory ...
The "change over time" I find more understandable is the change in evolutionary theories. Hardly ever a year goes by without some new discovery that prompts evolutionary scientists to proclaim, 'this is going to change everything we used to think about A, B and C'. One would imagine that if evolution really happened, such frequent and disruptive discoveries showing the prevailing theories to be flawed would happen rarely, not frequently.
Evolutionists like to portray themselves as Guardians of Knowledge - the calm, rational, reasonable thinkers that people ought to look up to. Yet, whenever this subject is brought up, they seem under compulsion to treat their religious critics with ridicule and disrespect; the quote from Dawkins is an example. In their eyes, evidently, only ignorant buffoons believe in God. That is because belief in God does, by its nature, require faith - a notion they publicly distain. Yet, their evolutionary position is utterly dependent on faith. Much of the evolutionary theory is predicated on events and processes that are not yet known or not understood. How, exactly, did it all happen, and when, and why? They don't really know, BUT they have faith that these things will be uncovered in time, because (as they see it) this is the TRUTH and so it's perfectly rational to have faith in it.
Thus, this isn't an argument of science over belief. It's an argument about my faith being better than your faith. Don't imagine that it's anything else but. It is a debate over whose faith is more correct, about which side is right.
I am perfectly content to say that I don't believe in evolution. Why? For all the reasons that others more eloquent than I have made. But my favorite reason is the diversity of earth's ecosystem.
Consider: The main theory of evolution is a fundamentally selfish one. A living thing grows and evolves for one reason, and one reason only: its own self interest, period. If that is true, how do we explain an entire world of living things, which coexist and cooperate together (plants, animals, and the inanimate environment) on a planetary scale? Evolutionists like to point out the actions and behaviors of some predatory species, while overlooking that most species are not predators of each other, but live together in relative calm. How is it possible that uncounted millions of different species ALL evolved INDEPENDENTLY with their survival and self interest as the sole driving force of their climb up the evolutionary ladder, and YET they all arrived at a point where an entire earth filled with these independently-formed creatures live TOGETHER, in a world where they are all dependent on each other? How could the independent evolution of separate life forms, as if magically, somehow "coordinate" their development in such a way that all can coexist on this earth? How is that possible?
In my view, evolution has totally failed to answer that question. It is their biggest failing. No amount of bullying or insulting people of faith can change that.
As for what Bible does and doesn't say, it's true that in our modern world, we could greatly wish the Bible said more than it does. I do. But, some of the things it says makes a belief in evolution problematic to say the least.
God is said to have created Adam from the dust of the ground, not from a lower life form; Eve is said to have been made from Adam's rib (in a description that sounds to our modern ears a lot like an act of cloning). The NT describes Adam as the "first man". If Adam evolved and was born rather than being created, his parents would have been human, and thus Adam was not the first man. To claim he was the first man cannot be reconciled with a long line of human life, and prior lives that were somewhat less than human, going back X millions or billions of years. They can't both be true; one of the accounts has to be in error - either intentionally or not.
I suspect this article will be the source of a very long discussion. It should be interesting.Reply by Father jack on 2015-11-24 15:35:48
Yeah TRA the evolutionary scientists seem to follow the pattern of the watchtower society with new light popping up now and again . Haha . Why are all these people so desperate to convince us of thier latest theories . I once saw a debate with richard dawkins on this subject and to be honest he seemed alot more reasonable than the so called creationists on the other side . They were just abusive ! It was awful . I got the impression that he was more against organised religion than anything else . So no wonder he was abused . No one in my opinion can absolutely prove anything one way or the other to anyone else . So why cant we all be reasonable and humble toward one another .
Reply by 1984 on 2015-11-24 17:25:32
I completely agree. It makes me laugh when scientists discover another piece of the evolutionary jigsaw and then redraw their theories. I understand that the search for truth is a process - a work in progress which requires many missteps - but they like to present their new findings as proof while conveniently dismissing their old equally forceful assertions with a wave of the hand and carefully couched words - "oh we used to BELIEVE this, but now we KNOW that..." etc. etc. Yesterday's facts are today's fish and chips wrapping paper. And of course Watchtower does exactly the same, as you say. Just look at the volumes of archived, inaccurate, outdated books the Watchtower has managed to accumulate, most of which are not worthy of shelf space anymore. The irony is that if you put Evolutionists and the GB in a room together they would tear strips of each other for exactly the same reasoning - and both be guilty of the same things they accuse the other of (perhaps with the exception of being divinely appointed!)
Reply by John Gooch on 2015-11-27 15:54:14
A thought that I have, that I find scary, is of the possibility of a time in the future, when the Angels show themselves, and I have to decide about of who among them is my maker!
I think though that the bad sides offering of fake Jesus s would have the character of non ability to supply care for my needs, including the need to understand and as well as to be healthy.
Whilst the good Jesus would direct His Angels extraordinarily and outstandingly well for my needs.
But if I was not looking for Jesus like a detective and instead only looking for the Org, that might have as negative consequences of being like I was, avoiding the seemingly old fairy tales.
Oddly though I seem to feel that God is saying in Isaiah, He wants us to feed ourselves from our own land and build our own houses, suggesting that organised society should not be needed to much.
In the same way as He said money is good but the love of money is bad.
Possibly the same thing could be said of organised religion.
We could still meet as Christians, but possibly on a quiet regular train service.
With a Choir practice we could draw some attention to ourselves as a group and advertise reading the Bible.
Reply by Vincent Gomez on 2015-11-24 20:39:27
TRA- I must say that your comment was the most encouraging and sensible thing I have heard in a long time regarding this subject. I understand people's concern about this subject. But if we try so hard to make what scientists say fit the Bible, we really have added to His word and have made it invalid.
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-24 22:20:34
Thanks for the kind words. I find it hard to reconcile the idea of being a Christian with believing in evolution. If Adam evolved, and if thus he is not the first man, for whose sin did Christ die? If Adam evolved, could Adam even be guilty of "sin" in the biblical sense? After all, how could he be viewed as a sinner, if his only shortcoming was of not yet being evolved to his ultimate potential? Could he really be blamed or held guilty if the evolutionary process, presumably incomplete, left him less than "perfect'? And if Adam was, strictly speaking, not perfect, wouldn't his sin be forgivable? And if it was, what real need would there be for a ransom sacrifice? God could simply forgive Adam right there and then and be done with it. Why send His son to earth to die, when Adam's failure was, for all intents and purposes, a foregone conclusion? If Adam evolved, how and why would the Bible say that God breathed into Adam the breath of life? Would it not have been more correct to say God did that to some evolutionary ancestor that preceded Adam by millions of years? Yet the Bible says that God did give life to Adam, in a way that is not even said of Eve. How can that be? It makes Adam out to be extraordinarily unique; but if he evolved, he was simply one more human born on earth like many before him, and not unique at all. If Adam evolved, and people needed to be tested, Adam's father must have be human as well. Why not test Adam's father, or a distant ancestor of Adam? Why wait millions of years to issue this test? Why did Satan wait so long before interfering?
If all living things evolved from a common beginning, then wouldn't that make all living things, at least in the animal kingdom, "of one flesh" in the scriptural sense? If so, wouldn't God's allowance of eating animals after the Flood be tantamount to sanctioning cannibalism? How could God allow the killing of animals but not other people, if people and animals were "brothers in arms" in a genetic evolutionary sense? Likewise, why are animals not divinely prevented from preying on each other, if we and they evolved from a common root? Indeed, why are animals not divinely prevented from harming people, for the same reasons? After all, if animals evolved, they will continue to, so someday lions and horses might be sentient.
To me, the idea of "Christian evolutionist" simply makes no sense, because we just can't piece together that idea and reconcile it with what we know of God's justice and moral standards. The relationships we have with the animal world, as permitted by God, are nonsensical and unethical if in fact we all evolved together, because that would make us all too uncomfortably similar to each other. God would never allow us to eat animals, unless we and they were extremely different. (In contrast, while some animals attack people, there is no record that God sanctioned this behavior. It may be that our world at present, being occupied by sinful humans, is "out of balance" in a way that affect animal behavior contrary to God's original purpose for them. We just don't know for sure.) Recall the Jews in Jesus' day being horrified at the very suggestion of cannibalism. Why do we not recoil in similar fashion and abhor the idea of eating animals. True, some people choose to be vegetarians, but not for those reasons. I contend we all understand that we and they are profoundly different.
One of the underlying ideas of evolution is that life forms change (due to some cause, such as mutation), and the change "sticks" because the new, improved "2.0 version" is better than the old one. If that were true, why isn't there only one form of life on earth? After all, if humans are the "best" form of life, the others must be inferior - so why are they still here? If humans evolved from apes because humans are better than apes, why are there still apes? Why aren't they all gone? If apes are "inferior", why is it that they live and thrive just fine today, despite their purported inferiority? Why does bacteria exist, if apes are superior to bacteria? Etc. "Survival of the fittest" simply doesn't explain this.
We can believe in creation, or we can believe in evolution. I don't think we can believe in both. We just can't limp on two different opinions,. At least I don't see how.
Reply by AR on 2015-11-25 17:00:49
True, I had this discussion who was an ex-extreme Muslim, who now is an atheist, because of all the atrocities he witnessed by his own people: therefore no God, is now a professor in biology, his convinced that evolution exist today? How by experiments in his lab. We talked about survival of the fittest. We suggested that, seeing we've progressed so far in human evolution, why are people lame blind, missing limbs etc, we suggested that to move forward in evolution, we should kill all those who are defective including young, he rejected that idea as these ones are value to society. I guess he answered it himself. So we then asked, how did you get a conscience if we evolved, well we(I ) bad habit saying we, anyway, a bible was placed, but haven't seen him since, there's more to the conversation but I have to get a ☕️As I'm about to start work...Anyway that's how it goes..have a great one TRA, enjoying your logical explanation of things
Comment by Menrov on 2015-11-24 12:24:47
Indeed a controversial topic. I believe that some evolution or mutation does not disregard creation. The question: was the origin a creator or an explosion? As I think an explosion never brings good things, I go for a Creator. But in His wisdom, a Creator can give the creation flexibility to adapt. White or dark skin, tall or small, etc but internally all the same. Same with animals. the principle is always the same: you need one to produce seed and one to grow the seed to reproduce. That is the principle. But like cocktails, one can mix and adapt. Does the support that? Well, it does not contradict it either. The bible is to guide people into faith. Not a science book.
I think the WBTS made too big a point out of this topic to show "how they trust the bible". Same with certain other topics like "trinity or should I say duoism" or "hell".
Thanks for good article.Reply by AndereStimme on 2015-11-25 06:13:15
Quite right Menrov. In denying that unguided evolution is responsible for all biological diversity, it is all too easy to swing to the other extreme and argue that every single organism on Earth was designed as is by the Creator. Surely, life adapts to some extent, although I would argue that it's more the result of programmed flexibility than the mutation/selection mechanism of NDE.
Reply by JesusJeffrey on 2015-11-27 15:19:23
Thanx AS.
Something here I can agree with.
“Surely, life adapts to some extent, although I would argue that it’s more the result of programmed flexibility than the mutation/selection mechanism of NDE”
That’s were the wonder is and Gods greatness of mind. The atheistic scientists should studying how the gene switches work. Tiger sanders can change in one generation from harmless mud eaters to cannibals with veracious appetites and huge teeth. The trigger? Drought. But only 50% hatch into cannibal monsters. They survive the drought and the next generation revert back to harmless scum eaters. All hale Gods Greatness. Please stand NOW.
Natural selection plays such a small roll if any it should be scrapped. But our high priests of all truth the scientists will never do that. The world hates God. Satan rules this world!
JJReply by JesusJeffrey on 2015-11-27 15:21:14
That should read Tiger salamanders.
JJ
Comment by Leaving Quietly on 2015-11-24 15:57:01
Here's a twist: Revelation 13:8. This verse talks about the Lamb having been "slain from the founding of the world". The Greek literally reads "founding of the cosmos." Could the energy expended by the Big Bang have been that of the Lamb, literally being slain as the universe was brought into existence? Romans 6:10 and 1 Peter 3:8 both show that Christ died once, but only in relation to sins. Could Christ have died previously, specifically at the founding of the cosmos? After all, 'all things were created by him in the heavens and on the earth.' (Col 1:16) Even if that's not the case, does the Big Bang necessarily remove God from the equation? I keep an open mind on this topic.
Comment by Anonymous on 2015-11-24 16:01:26
I applaud you for trying to tackle such a divisive topic among a group that primarily consists of theistic thinkers. But somewhat related to this topic is something that is near and dear to my heart. One of the things that I saw you struggle with in your article was how the words of the Bible constrain your thoughts and possibilities on the subject of evolution. But what if we go deeper than that. Have we considered the possibility that those very words could've been corrupted? What if the constraints we have to work with in regards to the Bible are artificial constraints made by man and not God? What I'm alluding to is the possibility that maybe we can't trust all that is written in the Bible as if coming from God. I'm not saying that the whole Bible is not inspired, I'm just saying that maybe we should be open to the possibility that not ALL the Bible is inspired of God. This is a possibility that I was forced to consider when studying scholarly sources of the Bible, particularly what scholars who study textual-criticism of the Bible have written. In particular, the possibility that the Documentary Hypothesis could be a legitimate explanation of how the Bible came about. If this theory is true, or at least partially true, then we would have reconsider our view of how much of the Bible actually comes from man as opposed to God, and it could allow us to think beyond our current biblical constraints, especially on topics such as evolution. I would love for one of you to consider writing an article on textual-criticism of the Bible, since I feel that the implications of it go even deeper than any other topic related to the Bible.
In regards to the creation story, there are scholars who suggest that what is written in the Bible is based on even older writings, such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish. Most of us might be quick to discount this as absurd, but being objective about it, when one reads the creation story as depicted in the Enuma Elish, one can see many parallels between that creation story and the creation story written in the Bible. It is highly possible that the biblical writer could've been influenced by this older story and wrote a very similar account that is now found in the Bible. But if this is true, then it does bring up the possibility that maybe this account is not by God, but by man, and a corruption of whatever should be considered the actual "word" of God. It's an interesting possibility, and something that has deeply troubled my own faith, to the point where I am no longer sure if I can really accept the whole of the Bible as coming from God. As much as I would like to see the Bible as inspired of God, there are many questions that have arisen in my personal studies to make me doubt its reliability, without even considering the scientific evidence.Reply by 1hadENUF on 2015-11-25 02:22:31
I agree with you Anonymous, we need to explore further the topic written by Andere and the Documentary Hypothesis. We do not have to be afraid of these topics as truth can stand up to critical examination. Thank you to all involved for allowing this topic to be discussed.
Reply by AndereStimme on 2015-11-25 06:22:47
I understand what you're saying, but I'm personally leery of the slippery slope of picking and choosing what's inspired and what's not. And of course, the question of who got their creation story from whom can go both ways: maybe the Babylonian account is just the biblical account passed down to them through less reliable sources. Still, I agree that the questions raised by the first several chapters of Genesis shouldn't be ignored or dismissed through blind faith.
Reply by Anonymous on 2015-11-25 16:05:20
It's true that it could go both ways. But the thing that I have trouble reconcialing is that the Enuma Elish pre-dates our earliest biblical manuscripts that we have (Dead Sea Scrolls). So looking at the evidence available, we have no physical evidence that the biblical manuscripts were written before the Enuma Elish, or other earlier creation accounts. It's possible that they could've been, but we have no evidence for it, unfortunately. The other problem I have with the creation story in Genesis is that there appear to be two creation stories, as scholars have pointed out. The creation story in Genesis 2 seems to contradict the creation story in Genesis 1 on certain points, and the only way one can resolve the contradictions is if we put our own "interpretation" of what the text might mean. I've always been weary of trying to explain something using "interpretation", as we all know how "interpretation" can lead to many different explanations and possibilities.
Comment by 1984 on 2015-11-24 17:44:33
Fantastic article Andere, a very logical and succinct overview. Evolution is one of the issues I wrestled with as a young man, especially as I had an atheist (alcoholic) father and was raised on a diet of David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins. There are many reasons that I don't believe in evolution and do believe in Intelligent Design, which I could write a book on, but I'm sure have all been covered in debates and far more authoritative works elsewhere. What I keep coming back to though is the origin of genetic diversity. Where did it all come from if life originated from a single cell? Especially when you consider the plight of animals such as the Northern White Rhino and many others like it. We recognise that when a species' numbers drop below a certain threshold they are on death row, because there is not enough diversity in the gene pool to repopulate without all the problems of hybrids and inbreeding. We recognise that today, but do we extrapolate that backwards? Of course, evolutionists would argue the same is true of the creation account (even though they recognise through DNA evidence that humans descended from a common ancestor they cheekily call "Eve,") but that can at least be explained by divine intervention - that the Intelligent designer would have the right to keeping working on his design, just as a house is not built in one moment, and then is constantly refurbished and redesigned by interior "designers" even after it is finished.
And if all life came from a single cell which was self-producing and self-replicating, at what point did two separate sexes evolve, which is not only counter-intuitive and complicates the driving force behind evolution, but contradicts the very premise of it? And where along all the different branches on the tree of life did species evolve similar "solutions" such as having two eyes for instance? They must have broken off at a very early stage (which creates an issue as to how something so complex could evolve so early) or have evolved them independent of each other. Oh, I could go on, don't even get me started on love, DNA, the blood-brain barrier, blood clotting, and all the myriad of awe-inspiring and elegant designs we take for granted, most of which are just scratching the surface anyway. Can't wait to explore the stars!Reply by AndereStimme on 2015-11-25 06:01:21
The phenomenon of features that evolution 'discovered' more than once has been dubbed "convergent evolution" by the faithful. That evolution could ever get us an eye is wildly fantastic enough, but that it could do it several different times - often using nearly identical genes in the process - is truly unbelievable. On the other hand, common design explains it quite well.
Comment by Buster on 2015-11-24 18:07:58
I love this topic, if you bring this up with a Elder or a CO or a guardian of Doctrine person, ....expect to get a solar system to get dropped on your head... ( PS I am pretty sure that makes no sense), but yes I believe in creation like the bible says, but we all know the Bible is silent on a whole lot of matters.
Now i do believe we all evolve overtime, I mean I seen Jurassic park and the whole birds are from the dinosaur lineage, and looks all of us grow and evolve over time, I use to work at this place and a friend of my mind at work use to talk to me, and we had good talks about evolution and things like that, it was pretty awesome, again back to the point try bringing that up at your local meeting,/ church , / or bible night, stuff might get weird and people would start getting angry.
I love that if you think about it C.T. Russell thought that all this growing in technology and things in the world growing was a sign that Jesus was Present as King since 1878....Yup times for the Jws have not evolved that much with there twisting of scriptures and prophecy's....:)
Love to all from BusterReply by Chris on 2015-11-25 21:03:32
1874. ;)
Reply by Buster on 2015-11-27 11:13:21
My friend 1874, is his second presence but 1878 is when he was king why 4 year wait, who knows...but remember my friend Old Light always changes....Right!
;)
Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-24 22:50:01
Much could also be said on the topic of "irreducible complexity". This subject is often responded to with scorn by evolutionists, no doubt because it isn't a frivolous argument and can't be easily dismissed. I feel this argument has considerable merit. Take two examples.
We have an elaborate system for blood clotting. Clotting prevents an injury from resulting in massive blood loss and death. It is thus extremely valuable - indeed, life-saving. It's so valuable, it's hard to imagine living without it. But, imagine it we must, if we evolved, because surely there had to be a point in our evolution when we didn't have the blood clotting system "up and running". This really begs the question: If we could survive beforehand without a blood clotting system, what evolutionary force would prompt us to come up with one? And if we DID need a blood clotting system - but didn't have one - how could we survive long enough to evolve one, without all of the newly-evolved human race bleeding to death first? We must also consider that blood clotting as a physiological mechanism is extraordinarily complex. If the clotting process is too weak, clots won't form and we bleed to death. If the process is too strong, clots form when they are not needed, and in the wrong places, often leading to strokes, heart attacks and death. Our clotting system is extremely well-designed and fine-tuned. There is only a very narrow "window" within which is works well and protects its owner (us) rather than harming it. It has to be, because if it were not, we'd all be dead.
Even more complex than blood clotting is our immune system. This is so complex in its behavior, it makes clotting look simple by comparison. Again, if we needed an immune system and didn't have one, we would die of disease. But, if we could survive without one, why would our bodies evolve such a complex biological system that it could (clearly) live without? What would the driving evolutionary force be to cause this to come into existence if we didn't need it?
The problem with these complex systems is that they are of no use unless they are complete. Evolving a blood clotting system or an immune system would be an astounding accomplishment for intelligent humans if they were to intentionally try to create such things using scientific methods. We don't even understand fully how the processes work, much less know how to make them "from scratch". We can only guess how much longer it would take for these things to spring up supposedly as the result of unaided natural forces alone. That being so, how could we live long enough for evolution to finish the job, with these systems living and developing within us, haft-done and half-undone? We would have to carry around the "biological baggage" of partially-completed physiological systems that did us no good until they are completed - but whose incomplete stages of development would still have to be "supported" by us. They would demand food and water and other biological resources, but would contribute nothing in return until finished. That would not be an evolutionary advantage at all - it would be a liability. How could a biological liability be justified or accounted for by evolution, which only chooses changes to organisms when they make it "more fit" - NOT less fit?
Comment by JimmyG on 2015-11-24 23:05:17
I note you quote from the Creation book. That book contains a number of 'quotes' by scientists that have been tampered with to suit the author's bias- Richard Dawkins himself is misquoted terribly. One 'authority' they quote several times is Francis Hitching. A quick google search reveals him to be a charlatan. In my opinion, the Creation book is totally discredited as a book to quote from.
Unfortunately, WT publications are full of misquotes from scientists and historians- it seems that they will resort to this to 'prove' their point on any given subject. They know most JWs will not research the accuracy of their quotes, as they are discouraged from doing so by the GB.
It pays to bear in mind that Evolution is silent on the subject of how life started, which is called AbiogenesisReply by AndereStimme on 2015-11-25 05:48:02
The origin of and subsequent diversification of life really are two separate issues, though people on both sides of the issue often blur the distinction. My apologies if I didn't make that clear. Abiogenesis, we're told (by that most trustworthy of sources, Wikipedia), "is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds". So it's not so much "how life started" as the idea that life came from non-life without the aid of a creator. Needless to say, it has yet to be demonstrated as even remotely possible.
With regard to the Creation book quote, I used it because it is indicative of a very common opinion about the Genesis "kinds", especially among JWs. You will notice, however, that I did not use it to support any scientific claims.
Comment by Christopher on 2015-11-25 06:58:51
I was discussing this with another brother the other day. I said that if God Created Adam 6000 years ago according to Biblical Chronology and there are remains of humans from 30,000 years ago then that means death existed before Adam sinned and that Adam wasn't the first man to live.
But question. How do we view the remains of skulls that are so different looking than what we have today? Nutrition? Natural selection.Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-25 10:45:33
I have often considered the possibility that the Neanderthals were in fact the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis. What do we know about the Nephilim? They were the hybrid offspring of materialized angels and humans. The name purportedly means, 'those who cause others to fall down'; in other words, bullies. That is borne out by the fact that the pre-Flood world is described as very violent. This makes sense; if an angel were to materialize as a human with the intent of "taking over", they would appear in a physically superior form. Neanderthal skeletons show them to have larger skulls than humans normally have, and their bones are thicker and heavier. That would mean they could out-think and out-fight the average man - circumstances that seem tailor-made for them to be on top as rulers of a violent world. What's more, Neanderthal DNA has been decoded, and it is known that it is mostly, but not entirely, human. Finally, Neanderthal remains are not very old. Estimates are that they died out only some 30,000 years ago (I believe, I would have to confirm that timing). Given that the accuracy of the dating of ancient remains is subject to some uncertainty, it opens up the possibility that many of these Neanderthals lived before the flood, evidently spreading out from the middle east to Europe before dying out.
Am I completely certain about this? No, but it seems like a reasonable possibility.Reply by Chris on 2015-11-25 21:00:31
Sounds legit. I watched a science video recently said that if humans had lived longer there would be protrusions of the eye bones in the brow. Well if humans had hundred of years of life spans then there is the cause of the facial features we see in the Neanderthals.
There is an awesome video about 2 hours called 100 reasons why evolution is stupid. It's hilarious. Just YouTube it.
Reply by Christian on 2015-11-26 02:28:59
Everything you propose may well be the case. However if Neanderthals were the result of the liaison between humans and the demons, but lived 30,000 years ago where does this leave us regarding bible chronology. If they lived before Adam, then how could he have been the first man? And, as Christopher questions if they lived and died before Adam, they must have died before him. Yet the bible lays the guilt of introducing death squarely on Adam's shoulders. What am I missing here?
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-26 07:52:52
I would have to emphasize that this is all speculation, of course, but the key is in Genesis. It says these event happened after Adam but before the flood. How can that be, if the Neanderthals are 30,000 years old? The answer is, they're not that old. How can we reconcile the time difference? First, the various methods for dating are not as accurate as we might imagine. But second, and more importantly, if we accept the Genesis account that there was a water canopy over the earth, that canopy would have provided an excellent radiation shield for the earth, much more so than our atmosphere and magnetic poles do alone. Because living things would be receiving much less radiation than we do today, they would be exposed to far less C 14. That would make the remains that are found look much older than they really are, based on their C 14 levels.
Reply by Susan on 2015-11-26 20:58:15
Regarding the "Canopy" theory. Just FYI. :-)
http://www.reasons.org/articles/let-us-reason-raining-on-a-misconceptionReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-27 06:33:58
Thanks for sharing that, Susan.
Reply by Susan on 2015-11-27 06:56:19
There are a lot of angles to consider, right? :-)
Comment by Vox Ratio on 2015-11-25 08:33:52
Hi Andere,
Thank you for your fine essay.
One of the most difficult molecular obstacles for the reigning paradigm is to show how new protein encoding functions endorse survivability and reproduction without simultaneously requiring new protein decoding receptors. That information responsible for the phylogenetic change of existing organisms, as well as the morphogenesis of new ones, can in any significant way credit a biological system is patently absurd – at least, not without corresponding and equally sophisticated decoding routines. Unfortunately, this bootstrapping conundrum hinders the standard Darwinian synthesis from every quadrant and has rendered it more of an amateur mind-game than the academic end-game that it is often touted to be.
The introduction and assemblage of functional information into the biosphere has always been the elephant in the room. No, not a white elephant, but a raging African bull that no historic or contemporary naturalistic evolutionist has been able to stand up to. Of course, that hasn’t stopped them from selling their safari to the public.Reply by Anonymous on 2015-11-25 10:28:27
I believe you have something important to convey to us. If you could rephrase this in more accessible language, you would reach a larger audience with your insights.
Reply by Anonymous on 2015-11-25 14:28:57
Hahaha yes . Thanks vox ratio . If you can just take it down a notch to CSE grade 3 english i may be able to understand . What your on about hahaha .
Reply by Vox Ratio on 2015-11-25 19:00:57
Hi Anonymous,
Apologies. I’ve been steeped in the literature of this debate for years and its probably wearing off on me now.
The particular issue that I was driving at is that encoded functional information must be decoded prior to any occurrence of phenotypic variation (alterations within an organisms phenotype). However, “new” encoded functional information not only has be decoded, but it also must be interpreted. What this means is that new information requires interpretation before any selective advantage can be granted. But alas, since new information requires a new interpreter, and a new interpreter requires new information – which itself must be interpreted – then the bootstrapping problem at a molecular level must be overcome with every injection of new functional information into the biosphere. Furthermore, since new information necessarily conveys new meaning we have to accept that somehow blind evolution is capable of understanding the semiotic content of encoded information and can decipher it purposefully.
There is a common misconception that naturalistic evolution is simply natures way of writing a book. As new advantages are conferred upon an organism then new letters are added which lead to new paragraphs which lead to new chapters which lead to new books. This is a terrible analogy. A more realistic one, albeit still crude, is that as new letters are added (or, more likely deleted) any new paragraphs reduce an organisms functional content and confuse existing molecular interpreters until such a time that another book is written – one that explicates the previous changes. Of course, there needs to be a book that explicates that as well, and so on and so forth. This is classic reductio ad absurdum.
Instead, it seems to me that the entire natural world is an exquisite example of how mind precedes matter and function precedes form.Reply by Anonymous on 2015-11-25 20:39:42
Vox, here are some words and expressions you used:
phylogenetic
morphogenesis
protein decoding receptors
bootstrapping conundrum
standard Darwinian synthesis
encoded functional information
assemblage of functional information into the biosphere
And then there's this mouthful:
blind evolution is capable of understanding the semiotic content of encoded information and can decipher it purposefully
Huh?
I am sure there is something really useful being discussed, but I can't for the life of me understand what that is. You need to restructure this in a way that does not presuppose your readers are experts in molecular biology, but just interested bystanders in the creation/evolution debate. I fear that I speak for most people here in saying that we can't understand you. Please simplify this, and define the technical terms you use so a reasonably educated layman can grasp it. Thanks in advance.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-25 21:53:00
Of course, we could also take this as an opportunity to enrich our vocabulary by making use of one of the many online resources--dictionaries and what not--that the information age has made so readily available. :)
Reply by JesusJeffrey on 2015-11-27 14:52:16
Really. If you cant’ talk plain English here! I don’t come here to improve my vocabulary that’s demeaning and observed to suggest.
I pass over all of Vox’s comments for that very reason. I not impressed with how educated someone seems to be. I can only conclude we would all be dead meat if Jesus spoke that way. I could go on about how well meaning everyone is in the spirit of love, but, sorry that kind WT condescension gets my hackles up.
With all due respect. JJReply by Vox Ratio on 2015-11-28 04:45:20
Hi JJ,
In our previous exchanges I understood you to be someone who knew what they believed and why they believed it. You made a credible case for your arguments, were engaged, and interacted substantively with what I had to say. Even though we didn’t end up agreeing on everything, it seemed to me that our conversations were cordial and even ultimately edifying.
However, given your recent admission that you "pass over" all of my comments now, perhaps I was alone in my thinking on this. Of course, you are free to read whatever you wish – that’s one of the advantages of no longer being restricted in one’s investigations.
Still, unless I have mistaken the contents of your latest post, it seems that you have felt demeaned or belittled by some of the things that I may have said. Certainly that has never been my intention, and it pains me to think that I might have inadvertently stumbled someone, or otherwise hindered their inquiry rather than helped it. If this is the case, then please allow me to extend an olive branch to you. I may well be the most fallible person I know, but we are all brothers here, and I would much rather stand united with you in Christ than divided against you in crisis.Reply by Father jack on 2015-11-29 02:54:40
At the end of the day we are all different . I say thanks for the insight vox .
Reply by Humiliore on 2015-11-27 19:27:22
I agree wholeheartedly. There is nothing wrong with being conversant in basic scientific vocabulary. It could potentially add credibility to an argument (so long as it's used correctly).
Reply by Vox Ratio on 2015-11-26 20:22:28
Hi Anonymous,
I’ve taken on board your recommendations. Thanks for the feedback.
I was putting together a brief to explain some of the verbiage that gets tossed around within the Darwin camp when it occurred to me that this situation is a real-world example of precisely the issue I’ve been attempting to (unsuccessfully) explain. Namely, that new functional information (that which conveys meaning through function) from one source can never be understood by a receptor without first being decoded and then interpreted purposively. If intelligent agents cannot successfully work with uninterpreted information, what chance does blind evolution have? Really, that "mind-directed" intentions struggle to put the semiotic (symbolic meaning) content of data to good use, how can it be said that "undirected" forces could possibly fare any better?
It seems that what I’ve failed to say might hopefully be better understood when shown.Reply by Anonymous on 2015-11-26 22:07:47
Alright, let me try to interpret this, and you tell me if I have it right. (And, bear with me; my understanding of DNA etc. is very limited.)
If some biological molecule (DNA, RNA, protein or other) were to change (presumably, mutate into a more complex form) such that there was more 'information' encoded within the molecule, it would mean the chemical had new, improved 'design features' that it didn't previously have. If that chemical were simply a "stand-alone" substance that could operate independently of other substances in a living cell, then such changes would be fine. But, the fact is, chemical substances in a cell do not general exist independently of each other. They are all there for a specific reason. In a molecular sense, within a cell, "no man is an island", so to speak. For instance, if a cell's DNA changed, its RNA has to change too, because the two things work together when the DNA and RNA collaborate to synthesize proteins to enable the cell to function.
But, any change to the DNA that created any sort of useful change would, by its very nature, be a complicated reordering of the DNA molecule itself, involving changes at the atomic level. In a sense, the DNA's "blueprint" or "structural database" has been changed. For the RNA to continue to do the job it needs to do, IT would have to be modified at the same time - but, it must not only be modified, but modified in a COMPATIBLE way.
To illustrate: Intel comes out with new computer chips once every year or so. Each version has more features than the one that preceded it. (In a technical sense, it is "as if" the CPU chip as "evolved".) To provide new capabilities, it is often necessary to add new pins or electrical connections to the bottom of the chip. In order to take advantage of those new features - and for the chip to even work at all - new motherboards must be designed with new sockets that accept the additional pins. But you'd need even more than that, because the new pins have to accept or create new digital signals, which have to come from somewhere and go somewhere. Merely making the motherboard physically compatible is not enough; it has to be "logically" compatible, so that the resulting system makes sense and works properly.
Apply that illustration to living things, and multiply the complexity by a million, and I think that is the point that was intended. A living cell has complex structures that interact, and for it to continue working in the face of change, there must be corresponding, "parallel" changes in more than one part of the cell at the same time. Unless that happens, one part of the cell will be incompatible with the other. It will no longer function correctly. In short, it will die.
The problem, for evolution, is what sort of mechanism could possibly cause several parts of a cell to mutate, in a way that was beneficial, AND that replicated corresponding, compatible changes to every affected part of the cell? That is, what could cause the DNA to change, AND the RNA to change at the same time, so that the two INDEPENDENT changes remained compatible with each other? Unless that happened, it won't work.
It is hard to imagine a cell being changed that way at all, and if it DID, the only way I can see it happening is if an intelligent agent was overseeing this and knowingly coordinated such parallel changes to ensure they both got taken care of at the same time. I don't see any way this complex set of coordinated changes could happen by accident.
Another illustration: I might take a bag filled with Scrabble tiles and dump them on the ground. In very rare cases, a word or two might accidently appear. But imagine that I took TWO bags of Scrabble tiles, dumped them on the ground, and they did not accidently spell a few words, but neatly laid out a recipe for a gourmet meal in one pile. Then, inspecting the other pile, we found that the wording for exactly the SAME recipe appeared. Could THAT happen by chance?
That's what evolutionists expect us to believe is possible with living cells.Reply by Vox Ratio on 2015-11-28 04:31:27
Hi Anonymous,
Nice! I couldn't have said it any better (and obviously didn't) myself.
Great illustrations too. I hope you won't mind if I steal them ;)Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-29 12:05:50
If they are of any help, steal away :-))
Reply by stephen on 2015-12-10 08:30:39
I am not a Christian but I stumbled on this site because of the topic.I have a degree in science and majored in biology. I want to say I really enjoyed the conversation between TRA and Vox. What a nice way to break down the information. We that know this information don't realize that most people are not aware of the special language we use to describe biological events. I am going to apply what you all just did and learn to explain scientific information in a way that people without any knowledge of science can understand. I believe that is why many in my field get upset when others don't agree, but it's not that they don't agree, it's that many don't understand the language, it's a communication problem. I really enjoyed this conversation, actually more than the topic.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-25 17:55:35
Nicely put!
Comment by Susan on 2015-11-25 09:01:54
For anyone interested, Reasons to Believe is an excellent science based ministry for harmonizing science and scripture (NOT Young Earth!!!) Since Creation and the Bible are both God's books, they should harmonize if we are reading them correctly. Chris brought up a point I was thinking also about the chronology of Adam that is addressed in this article at Reasons to Believe, the short version being that the genealogies are incomplete so we should not base a chronology on them. http://www.reasons.org/articles/q-a-does-the-gobekli-tepe-site-contradict-the-biblical-account-of-man
Comment by Seeker of Truth on 2015-11-28 00:16:25
In 1971 I decided to get baptized at a district assembly at the age of 9 years old. My faith in the creation story was absolute, and interestingly enough, I also had an abiding interest in science. I was an avid reading of the scientific literature in the Awake magazine, National Geographics and any news articles I could acquire about the Apollo missions. In fifth grade I absorbed scientific facts and theories like a sponge. My curiosity about how the world worked was insatiable. My science teacher enjoyed having me in the classroom because I was always an enthusiastic student. When the teacher introduced the theory of evolution I thought this would be a good opportunity for me to present the Creation story. I told the class that the scientists were sadly mistaken, probably because the devil had deceived them, I told them that the earth and the universe were created appropriately six thousand years ago and that the end was near at hand, and I was more than willing to study with anyone who wanted to know the "truth." At first my teacher tolerated me, and allow me to present my views. But his view of me changed after I repeatedly interrupted his lecture with my "biblical truths." At one point, he told me to shut up because I would not allow him to say a few words without interrupting him.
My classmates looked at me in amazement because I was challenging the teacher's authority. I felt I had the right to challenge the teacher because I was trying to save my classmates from believing in incorrect information that might make them forfeit everlasting life. I felt powerful and important like I did went I when out in the field service, and when the older sisters would ask me to say the prayer before supper if they was no man around.
When I was a teenager I was confronted a learned man in the neighborhood who tried to convince me that the fossil record showed that animals have evolved over time and that humans, being animals, also evolved as well. In a desperate movement to provide a counterpoint, I told him that the bones scientists encountered could not be accurately interpreted because they had been deformed by the large amount of sediment deposited during Noah's Great Flood. I still remember the look on his face when after he heard my words - pity, puzzlement and resignation.
While in college, I decided to learn as much as possible about biology and the origins of the universe to settle the issue in my mind. My studies lead me to vastly different conclusions than the ones I held as a youth. I learned that the physical evidence does not support the notion that the Earth is less that 10,000 years old, and that the sun in our solar system had to exist before the Earth was formed, thus making the notion that the Earth was shapeless and dark implausible, and that the fossil record shows a natural progression from simple to complex as measured in time and the geologic strata, and that evolution is a powerful change agent for both flora and fauna, etc. and etc. But the most shocking thing I learned about religion was in my study of the history of science.
In the early years of empiricism was brutally suppressed by religion. Things that we take for granted today, such as the Earth is planet that revolves around a average size sun in a galaxy that is part of a super cluster, would have had you burned at the stake some 500 years ago. The real improvements in life can be attributed to advances in science and engineering and technology. These advances are the result of the scientific methods and theories, not theological discussions.
As I look back on my time as a Jehovah’s Witness, I feel guilty for all of the distorted things I preached to people in my neighbor. I am responsible for the false things I told others.
While science is far from complete or perfect in it’s understanding of the universe, it has a humility that religion lacks. A scientist will tell you that his or her understand is the best available but tomorrow something might come along that will change everything. This is comforting to me because I have come to except that the truths you can detect with your senses are much more interesting and reasonable that what can be heard from the podium.
Seeker of TruthReply by AndereStimme on 2015-12-02 15:53:30
Thank you, SoT, for sharing your experience with us. I think most of us here feel regret for having believed and preached things that we now feel are false. We are in a constant process of improving our 'power of reason' and 'making our minds over'. There are a few things you mentioned, though, that I have to take issue with:
JWs have never taught that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or that the sun was created after the earth.
Also, the characterization of religion - especially Christianity - as eternal enemy of science may be popular in academia, but it is also wholly false. Christianity's personal and rational creator god has inspired scientists like Isaac Newton and Galileo to expect, seek and ultimately discover intelligible laws that govern the universe. In fact, it has been argued that the enterprise of science has prospered in the Christian world precisely because of - and definitely not in spite of - Christianity. Science-driven improvements in our quality of life, then, can hardly be said to have come about in spite of Christianity.
Comment by Truthseeker on 2015-12-06 00:54:12
Evolution cannot be proven. It has to be accepted on faith, just as the existence of an intelligent creator has to be accepted on faith. Biologists like to say they have a lot of proof, because certain bone fragments seem similar to others from the past, or because much of the animal kingdom today has similar structures and systems. This can just as easily be because a creator liked the idea of creating a great deal of variety utilizing similar forms, like variations on a common theme. No one can prove this isn't the reason, and to prove something is true you have to prove that no other plausible explanation is possible.
No one can doubt that natural selection occurs in nature. This is just the interbreeding of closed populations. This is how it is possible to create so many breeds of dogs, or races of people, or improvements in farm crops. Over time the closed population will exhibit special properties which will make them look different from the general population. But no new species are created this way. All dogs can still interbreed, and if the blood lines are not controlled they will eventually become similar again. The finches and tortoises that Biologists like to talk about (the basis of Darwin's theories, which he developed after visiting the Galapagos Islands) are not really new species. They are still finches and tortoises, and they would lose their distinctions if allowed to interbreed with more standard finches and tortoises. But they want to say that this proves that somehow differing species were created over time which had differing numbers of chromosomes, which is impossible. Natural selection can easily be explained as a system inherent in all life forms to help them to be adaptable and strong over many generations, no matter what kind of changing conditions they may encounter.
Biologists have tried to recreate the conditions that supposedly caused life to spring forth, to no avail. They have the burden of proof in this, so it's the same as saying so far there is no proof of life being spontaneously generated. But being Biologists they don't feel they have to explain where the primordial soup came from before life. The existence of all kinds of matter must be explained in order to have an all-encompassing theory.
It's the same thing with the Physicists. They think that if they can show us there was a big bang they have explained everything. But wait! If all the matter in the universe was contained in an infinitesimally small point in space you still have to explain how the matter got there in the first place. A basic law of Physics is that something cannot come from nothing.
Talking about minutiae is really just a smoke-screen. In a nutshell evolution says that single-celled organisms became alive, they increased in complexity until they were suddenly able to interbreed sexually, they became all sorts of different kinds of animals which cannot interbreed outside their own kind, some of which started to suddenly breathe air when others had no reason to breathe air, crawled out of the mud, and became everything there is, including us. But then, plants are alive,too, but in a whole different way. Flowers which were already being pollinated became colorful to better attract pollinators, which had to already be able to see these colors, and on and on...
Sorry to go on and on.
Comment by Father jack on 2015-12-06 02:59:45
Its the same old story with this question .most of us would have to admit , we are not scientists . We have not seen personally scientific proof for evolution . It would take a trained scientific mind to even understand what a scientist is talking about . I was speaking to my friend about this subject the other night he says he cannot believe in god . It doesnt make sense to him because he has been in the army and seen the atrocities commited by men toward others and thinks that most wars are caused by religion by those who claim to believe in god . That is the evidence he sees . I however feel it makes more sense to believe in god despite these facts . It just does not seem logical to believe that non living matter just became a living organism without the help of an outside force . Even if scientists could reproduce this event in a laboratry it would still only prove that a creator was needed to start it off .
Comment by Truth_seeker on 2020-01-22 05:25:57
Has anyone ever been an eyewitness to evolution? I think not because evolution supposedly occurred millions of years ago. Has anyone seen “natural selection” take place? Yes, every day. Charles Darwin did not need to go to the Galapagos Islands to prove natural selection. The experiments he made in his garden at home were sufficient to prove natural selection’s existence. We as humans even fight natural selection every day because natural selection is a threat to our existence as well. What is my point? Natural selection is fact, evolution is still a theory in my opinion.