Why Believe In Evolution?

Bob, kudos to you for raising valid, related points, though I'd remind other readers that the 13+ billion year old universe is a theory, not a fact, despite your frequent statement to such effect.

I actually read your articles and found them interesting, but concede that these theories and discussions are mostly beyond my intellect level. It is true though that the best model evolutionists have for explaining the origin of a finite universe is to propose a multi-verse system as your first article details with 5 theories. I would counter by saying 1) that these are speculative theories based on very little and sometimes no scientifc evidence, and 2) that it takes more power, knowledge, and ability to create a multitude of universes than just one. In other words, even if a multitude (or infinite number) of universes are established from theory to fact, such an awesome display of design and function would only bolster the need for an intelligent, supernatural creator. You'll only push the origins question further out, not resolve it, by pursuing a number of universes. Consider, building a delicate, 5 story card house. Any reasonable person would determine that it took a mind and will to do so. Now, does building an entire football field of 100 story card houses make the process more likely to occur through natural means? Hmmm. I don't think so.

Your second article is an interesting one that could challenge some our current laws of physics and the conclusions I hold for them supporting creationism. As an evolutionist, it's fair for you to hold onto this possibility that might allow our Laws of Thermodynamics to be exempt elsewhere. I'd maintain though that it takes more faith to base your evolutionary beliefs upon speculative theories of physics rather than existing, known, scientifically proven laws of physics. So, you may use the article as evidence to support your beliefs, but creationists don't have anything to fear yet from this secular pursuit. To make a similar point as above, I'd ask rhetorically, who or what do you think made the laws of the universe which we've discovered? Obviously, it's something very smart and powerful since such laws entail immeasurable detail and precision. Might I logically suggest that exponentially increasing those laws throughout our universe does not help answer the question of origins; it only exasperates the question and problem.

In summary, evolutionists would do well to reconsider the principle of Occam's Razor when evaluating the scientific plausibility of these issues - that when explaining a thing, no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. When it comes to the origin of the universe and biological life, it's creation by a supernatural being is not only best supported by the current scientifc laws, but it's also the most simple answer. Scientists are working desperately to propose incredibly complex, unfounded theories for alternative answers, but their biasness against any supernatural being or process sadly causes them to reject the obvious evidence we now have for God's creation.

 

Ed, you're in good company with your comments, and it definitely deserves a response since even the majority of Christians believe and accept Darwinian evolution. They try to reconcile the theory by putting God's hand into the process; thus, it's often called theistic or progressive evolution. I too used to accept this, since I firmly believed in God but was taught the popular scientific evidence of evolution detailed in my initial post here. There are problems with this however, especially for any Christian.

Let me start by clarifying that the modern, taught, accepted term use of evolution means Darwinian evolution, which is also considered macro-evolution. By definition and virtually all scientific presumptions, this is a naturalistic process of how the universe began, how life originated, and how it progressed into various advanced forms (not to be confused with micro-evolution, which entails small changes occurring within a species - an undisputed reality). Currently, scientists have no grounded theories on the origin of the universe or life, but the advancement of simple life to complex life is based upon mutations. Now, let me summarize the incompatibility of this with the Bible's account of God's creation.

First, it's not possible for God to create our world and human life with purpose and order as indicated throughout the Bible - through a disorderly, unguided, chance process. One must recognize the contradiction: true evolution requires unguided, naturalistic, chance processes. There is no room for any god or supernatural process to be involved or you don't have evolution - you'd have some distorted version of creationism that has neither Biblical support nor evolutionary scientists' support. In fact, popular evolutionists sometimes laud the Christian scientists for supporting theistic evolution, because they know that it's an inevitable route to evolution without God in the final formula.

Second, it's not possible for current evolutionary theory and the Bible's Genesis account of creation to both be right. Without detailing everything, know that the order and timing of events are clearly inconsistent in various ways, in addition to certain theological inconsistencies. The only way to rationalize the two is to discount the Bible's authority as an accurate record of history. Unfortunately, a majority of Christians today are doing this along with the Atheists. You should know though that the vast majority of Bible scholars performing textual criticism on Genesis agree that it's a literal, specific, historical description. It cannot honestly be attributed to poetic writings or parables as done elsewhere throughout the Bible. Experts can determine the difference pretty accurately these days between various writing styles and intents throughout the Bible, and Genesis' specificity leaves no room for fudging. Either God created the universe and world in 6 days as Moses describes, or evolution is right. There is no reasonable acceptance of both views. Those people (of multiple religions) that try to marry the two world views simply don't understand what evolution is.

Third, it's not necessary for any Christian to accept evolution and discount the Bible's creation account (or Noah's global flood) when the scientific evidence strongly favors the Bible. Again, the vast majority of both secularists and Christians have clung onto the evolutionary evidence presented on this thread's first post. They haven't bothered to learn about the weak foundation of this popularized theory, yet alone studied the abundant evidence existing for creationism. Unfortunately, ignorance rules in this subject matter except for the few authors and scientists who do understand the evidence on both sides, but choose to reject anything supernatural. In short, the Christian has an abundance of scientific reasons to accept creationism over evolution. The Bible's authority merely adds to that evidence in another way.

Fourth, it's illogical and inconsistent for Christians to discount the reliability of Genesis but accept the virgin birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. Why? Because the creation account of Genesis, including a 6000 year old earth and universe, is supported with scientific evidence we have. But a virgin birth or resurrection of the dead? There's no scientific evidence for that possibility. Masses of people (believers) are accepting the scientific impossible miracles of Jesus, but rejecting the scientifically consistent miracles of Genesis. They're confused, weak in their faith, and not thinking the matter through rationally.

Finally, I'll explain why the whole creation vs evolution issue is so important. First and foremost, evolution undermines the authority of the Bible, particularly Genesis. And if Genesis is wrong, why should anyone believe other parts of the Bible which are also supposedly inspired by God. No, the entire Bible stands on the accurate historicity of Genesis. Atheists and skeptics recognize this while most Christians do not. The results are evident though. I've heard and read that over two thirds of college kids leaving home as Christians today dismiss their faith and belief in the Bible by the time they graduate. Their primary reason? The teaching and acceptance of evolution.

There are huge cultural changes occuring in our society today as a result of our traditional Christian world view and value system being replaced by a secular world view. Evolution is a major foundation for this new world view. Many people like that trend, including misguided or unknowing Christians. But, don't think that the two belief systems are compatible. They are no more compatible than those who say that all religions are alike. It's simply not true.

 

I favour evolution on the grounds that the theory of creation is unsubstantiated, just his-story which is unreliable at best and has been used for personal gain.I often ask the question, 'If medical science allowed us everlasting life, would God be necessary?'

 

Everyone is different, but He will always be necessary for me.
Eternal or everlasting life is only a side benefit.

 

Good question, Jim. I agree.

 

Why not believe in Evolution?

 

Actually, that is a contradiction in terms. A fact is just that... a fact, and in no way "likely."

 

The snippet that you posted is a great example of taking something out of context. Attributing "likely fact" to me is wrong. To save time I'll copy my reply to Joseph Carl's post where he used likely fact.

From post #41
I'm going to isolate this part of the overall post by Joseph Carl.

[As far as we know, based upon the best available scientific evidence, a supernatural cause beyond time, space, and matter is still required for our natural universe. To reject this likely fact, as many scientists and others do, because of an unyielding biased against the supernatural is irrational. It requires blind faith in something that opposes all of our current evidence.]

"As far as we know" leaves open possibilities. Science continues to uncover the previously unknown. Who in 1950 could have imagined that exploring Mars would be possible?

"likely fact" way different than stating "absolute fact"

To be open to the possibility that life not necessarily carbon based exists & not necessarily in our known galaxy IMO is as valid as thinking that a supernatural being 13 1/2 billion years old along with other supernatural beings exist somewhere.

 

Going back to the original question, I don't think evolution is a thing to be "believed in." It's not a religion, or a belief system; it's a scientific theory. That's a very different thing.

Scientific theories do not claim any divine origin, or make any requirements that people "believe" them. They are suggested as an explanation of the facts of our existence, and are always subject to analysis, proof, disproof, argument, etc. No one can "believe" in evolution. Next week (theoretically), a scientist could come up with some unarguable proof that invalidates Darwin's theory. All we can say is that objective evidence, the common sense reality that we can see with our own eyes, seems to overwhelmingly confirm this theory. It is always subject to change.

So where does it fit in, as opposed to creationism? Well, it does hold up pretty well in the court of scientific analysis, and common sense. Creationism does not. It would make much more sense to ask why anyone believes in creationism, which is a belief system, adhered to because of fear, a lack of scientific awareness, a desire to fit in with one's family or group of friends, etc. No proof is necessary, and no proof is possible.

Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.

 

I think that is the best explanation I've ever read.

 

Ken, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist." It's just a mean-sounding word for those who don't buy into your religious dogma. Evolution is a scientific theory. It's not a religious belief. You can be religious and still think that evolution is an accurate description of how life develops and changes. That's all it is. In case you missed it, let me repeat: IT IS NOT A RELIGION.

And what on earth does it mean when you say that "evolutionists" (who don't exist) think their beliefs (what beliefs?) are better than anyone else's? This is name calling and schoolyard taunting. You are setting up a straw horse, creating an imaginary enemy, so you can knock it down. I would expect anyone old enough to be on a seniors board to have "evolved" beyond that nonsense.

 

"Given that you felt the need to shout and to insult those who believe differently than you do, that indicates to me that you are of the religious sort. Christians and Muslims sometimes get angry when people insult their faith too. As a true believer, you consider your religion to be fact while everyone else's is crazy. How is that any different than a Christian who believes that his God is the one true God, and anyone who believes differently is a nutjob, and going to hell, to boot? You might believe that your faith is the one true faith, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is an idiot. They might think that you're an idiot for going to hell when you don't have to, but hopefully, they'll be too polite to say it."

Ken, I'm backing out of this discussion, as you clearly have anger issues. But your suggestion that I am some sort of "true believer" in the above paragraph gave me a chuckle. If you will reread what I have written on this subject, you will see that I am the complete opposite of a "believer" of any kind. You couldn't be further from the truth.