Republicans and Conservatives for America
It is hard for this individual to understand how some can deny that life on this planet was created by the Hand of God, and merely came into existence by pure and random chance. All a person needs to do is look at the marvels and wonders of nature, and this should speak volumes to awesome power of our Heavenly Creator. So what's the problem with teaching that life originated through another means or design? After all Darwins Theory of Evolution is just that--It's a THEORY.
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines a "theory" as: "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation." Or "an unproved assumption." So how is it that something that has not been scientifically proven suddenly becomes accepted as a fact? However there is a glaring problem with the concept of Intelligent Design, at least from my never to be humble opinion and that is ID itself is also a theory. The concept is explained, on the Intelligent Design Network's website as follows: "ID holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selction. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of the evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." Now this I must admit is a novel approach to this debate of the origins of life--a theory that disagrees with another theory, but presupposes the existence of a higher power while stopping short of saying that the higher power is God.
Why is it that we will look for almost any "gimmick" to explain how man and other living creatures and things came into existence, but we will resist the obvious as explained in Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning GOD CREATED the heaven and the earth."
From where I sit, this debate is really no debate at all!.
May 21, 2005
Evolution v. Intelligent Design (or should we simply say Creation?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Could God of used science to create heaven and earth? Hence both arguments of God and natural selection would work. Or in this case all three arguments would be valid.
shafter--To suggest that God would need some form of assistance to work his marvelous creations, from a Christians point of view, is blasphemy. So having made that point, I strongly disagree that all three arguments i.e., creation, natural selection or ID would be valid. We either accept fully that God is who He says He is or we do not. Simply put, there is no middle ground.
Isn't that the same as saying God does not need the assiastance of gravity to keep the ear the circling the sun or the moon circling the earth? Yet he uses them. So why would it be blashemy to say God used pieces of science to create other things? Granted I don't believe man came from a monkey. Yet there is always a certain degree of evolution that goes on. How do we not know that this is God's plan?
Newman-
Blasphemy is diffrent things to diffrent people. I've met people who believe the name God is blasphemy and we should only be using the name Yaweh. So I say to each thier own on that account.
Thanks Newman
I'd like to throw another perspective on what's already been said. I do believe that God created all things. He constructed them to his will and does still today, however I do allow for the theory that God guided life into the existence as we know it and our universe to become what it is over time as well. To DB's point God does not need the gravity to do anything for him... the trees and wind and stars are at his command - I just don't think it all came about in 7 days as per Genesis verbatim.
It depends on what God's view of a "day" is. A day to God might not be the same as it is to us. I am not saying that God needs these things either. Just that he may have used them. Then thus all arguements could reflect some truth.
Might I add keep the comments and posts coming. This is quickly becomming one of my favorite blogs to visit.
So many comments--Where do I begin? First of all to newman-sorry you were offended by my use of the word blasphemy. But God's Word is what it is, and I make no other apologies for the words I use. Second to suggest that God needs science or gravity to work his marvels would also suggest that He is NOT God. Third, specifically to PA & Shafter God's day is not the same as ours, so His 7 days were merely blinks of His Mighty Eyes. Finally, specifically echoing shafter--keep the comments coming. I love a good and spirited debate.
David-
I believe you're not understanding my statement. It's not that God needs science or gravity to make things work. It is the idea that God *may* have used these things to make things work. Possably to ease an inquisative mind of humans. As humans we instinctively want to find out how things work. Granted there are things we will never understand. Yet God in his infinite wisdom gave us some of the keys of how he made the universe work.
shafter--I believe I do understand your statement, however I maintain my position. We either believe that God is God or we do not. As I wrote earlier, there is no middle ground. Man will never understand the awesome power of God nor should we. We are only asked to believe and trust in Him. What I find the most troubling about our so-called society is that there are no absolutes anymore, and God's power is absolute. It's just that simple. God gave us the ability to learn about His creations, but we will never truly understand how things work. My major problem with the concept of Intelligent Design, is as I stated in my posting it is a theory just as Darwin's theory. Neither has been proven scientifically, and I seriously doubt they can be, however anthropologists have uncovered evidence that proves what the Bible says is true. I'm sure that there are articles on the internet.
I would never disagree that what the bible tells us is correct. I would also never disagree that God's power is absolute.
Yet I think it closed minded to think that there isn't even a possability that God may have used the "laws" or "theories" of science to create things.
Such things as "gravity" or "currents" may just be useful tools for God to keep things on cruise control. Just like man created an ignition key or switch. We don't really need these things, but they are more useful then a hand crank to start your car.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let us Just say some how the "Big Bang Theory" is proven. Does this disporve there is a God? No it does not. It just merely shows what God did to create everything we see around us. To me science re-affirms God not disproves him.
I have a theory also that man is much more capable of things then we even know. There are two many instances where this point is alluded to such as Gen 11:22. But as I said it is just a theory. Something to chew on.
First, I find some of your comment contradictory, because one cannot claim that the Bible is correct and make an argument that the "Big Bang Theory" does not disprove the existance of God. This, in my opinion is simply not possible. I agree that the ignition key or switch on our cars are conveniences, but they are also necessary to the functioning of the internal combustion engine. However, I submit that modern science "developed" these things. This may seem like I am splitting hairs, but there is a definite distiction between creation of something from nothing, and developing one thing or mechanicsm by using existing raw materials. Also, I am somewhat confused by your citation of Genisis 11:22, which describes the geneology of the Tribe of Shem, and so I am not sure how this verse fits into the debate we are having. Perhaps you can clarify this? At any rate, I am enjoying this exchange. It is quite challenging. BTW: I am also trying to obtain some articles showing strong archeological proff of the truth of the Bible. I will pass them on if I should find them first, and I trust you would do the same.
Sorry. I mean Genesis Chapter 11:6-7. Sorry for the miss quotation.
I don't think saying "hey God made these two atoms through them together and BANG a planet." is contrdictory. In Genesis it does not go into great detail about how god made the earth. it just states that he did. It doesn't state in the bible what amkes it rain. But we know now that there is a process where water evaporates, condesses, forms clouds and then it rains and begins the process all over again. Does this mean since we can say how this process works it is not of God. Stating that would be contradictory.
The bible never states there was "nothing". it states:
"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth,the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters" Gen 1:1-2
So who says he didn't have carbon and everything just lying around an went, "You know what I'm going to through this with this and create that"
So again I do not believe science disproves God. It proves is ultimate knowledge of the universe.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that some will go to apply Scripture to justify an inaccurate conclusion. Genesis 11:6-7 describes How God came down to confound man for their attempt to build a tower to heaven, in their attempt to put mankind on the same level with God, this was described in verse 3 and thus the tower was called Babel, which is defined as a "scene of noise or confusion." At any rate this will probably be my final word on this subject, as I think we shall agree to disagree.
I hope I'm not reading irritation in your last comment. I am not posting to irritate. Just friendly debate.
Gen 11:6-7 was just a side note about your comment on our ability and my view that it is much greater then any of us know. I know what the overview of the verse is about. But I take interest in a certain part of it: "nothing will later stop them from doing whatever they presume to do."
I will also agree to disagree and will continue reading future posts. Maybe adding my 2 cents, maybe not.
Thanks Newman. But remember when talking about creation, God and the bible are inevitable.
shafter--My apologies if I sounded irrataed, I did not mean to come across that way. I felt that that should be my final comment on this subject since I felt we had discussed all aspects of this issue. On other issues, I do become quite annoyed with certain individuals, not referring to you, who misquote Scripture and then proceed to twist it to fit their concept of a given situation. Again, my apologies for this little mix-up. I look forward to more spirited debate on future postings. Please take care.
If I understand correctly what Shaft is trying to say.. it is that he doesn't disagree that God created the universe. God created the atom and in his discussion here suggests the possibility that God initiated the events which he guided into being and what we have so named "the big bang" - He created the heavens and all the weather that we see and experience and is in constant control of their existence. (Do I understand that correctly Shaft?)
I don't believe it blasphemy to speculate on HOW God created the universe and it is my interpretation from the postings I believe the two of you are actually arguing the same point :) - In my opinion, the correct one, but the same nonetheless.
I believe that God just didn't create these things and then sat back (and is enjoying them), he is continually doing so. I allow for the possibility that he continues to create new species in that creation at his will. Why is it that we would have to assume that God was only involved "in the beginning"
Food for thought... Thanks Everyone for the mind exercises :) its a far cry from a month ago
Exactly P.A.
I think were basically argueing the same point also. Just witha little variant. And it was basically that variant we were argueing. But it was a very enjoyable. I hope to have more of the same in the future. Now on to the most recent posts.
Either way, the universe had to be created somehow, and if it was through pure chance, God, or something else is anyone's guess. Let's just stop trying to deduce what happened and focus on something else.
Post a Comment