Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire the "science" of evolution vs creation

Okay, so let's just say that either theory is "right." What does that mean for humans today in our relationship with the planet as a whole. (Note: This is not a post saying we shouldn't hunt/fish/trap/etc. To say so would essentially be to say that other species shouldn't either, and that's ridiculous).

Okay, (in alphabetical order) if Creationists are right, then God made everything, thus it is His, and if we screw it up/kill it off, He'll be really pissed. And, that would be bad.

Now, if Evolutionists are right, then we descended from the same origin as all other species. Thus, we are all related, and all interdependent upon one another for survival. So, if we screw it up/kill it off, we're destroying distant relatives, and cutting our own safety net of survival. And, that would be bad.

So, what is the real disagreement, I must've missed that part...

Ok, BMT I vaguely recognize the reference. Where did it come from? I recall the story as a civilization built a huge computer and had it find THE ANSWER. After many years (generations?) the high priest found it uplugged and had to give an answer. 42 was the answer. The process was repeated to find out the question. The question ended up being "How many roads must a man walk down." I dunno, something like that.

Maybe "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Universe)?" I just can't place it.

Anybody?

S

A coworker had a good way to think of this. When a four yr old asks where babies come form, we tell them, "Well, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much a baby grows inside the mommy and is born......."

That is about all the four yr old can understand. It is 100% true, but it leaves out many details.

Enter the Omnipotent Creator of the Universe. He created the cosmos using certain principles, many of which we are probably not capable of understanding today. However, he needed to express to a very primitive, nomadic people, how he made all this stuff.

Knowing the comprehension capabilities of his audience, God did not start with the cosmological equivalents of the sperm, egg, zygotes, and chromosomes, he gave Moses the equivalent of "Well, when a a mommy and a daddy love each other very much..............."

Birdwatcher,

If you got through my notes I posted earlier, you saw I believe a Christian can hold to evolution as long as he believes God initiated the process. John 1:1-3 requires a Christian to accept God was involved at some level.

Once that issue is settled, then we can focus purely on the science and see which model best fits the evidence we have at hand today. Some will say the Young Earth Creationist Model, some will say Theistic Evolution, and some (like me), will say Intelligent Design. When none of us feels compelled to question another's faith because of their view of creation, we can have much constructive dialog...............Unfortunately, that is not the norm

Blaine

I read Mike Behe's book twice, and being a mechanic I was fascinated by it. Lots of machines in just one cell including a blue print reproduction room. Behe's point is that all those complex machines, placed together into an interacting system and then finely tuned to work.... well the mathmatical probability of that happening by chance is equal to impossible for any candid thinking person.

Einstien came to the conclusion of the mathmatical and scientific evidence and absolute need for God, who stands outside the material world and outside of time itself.

If God came from anywhere or anyone then he ain't God.
God cannot be fathomed by our finite created mind.
I believe God was revealed through credible revelation, ie Jesus and the Hebrew prophets who predicted events 500, 1000 and 2000 years in advance.

Christ is credible because of his inherent goodness manifest in his deeds and teachings.
Christ is credible because he was pre-predicted thousands of years in advance in great detail.
Christ is credible because they never paraded his dead body through the streets of Jerusalem to put down the upstart heretics, (ie the Christians) and prove their belief a fraud, hence- Christ did in fact rise from the dead.

Christ speaks of Adam as an actual historical figure, therefore I believe this credible voice... I was created in the image of God and did not ever come from no monkey.

But like the other fellow points out, if we are from monkeys and baboons and dogs and frogs then anyone who kill critters is a murderer and ought to go to jail.

Entropy- it is all running down...
Order from disorder- HA!

I surmise that there can be only one ultimate Truth. When revealed that Truth will unify the elements found in today's disparate positions. Or, there is no Truth and none of the various positions have impact on the finality of death. Or, there could be parallel and co-existent Truths.

What is of concern is less the taking of sides on these issues rather the living of a good life, a honorable existence. Me? I do believe there is purpose to our current state and life beyond mortal existence. Even acceding such one is still left to live each day. As a matter of our progression we will learn what is and what is not.

Under an Idaho night sky up on the Clearwater in elk camp there are no aetheists at the campfire.

My friend, I believe that says it all!

To paraphrase a quote from my Ecology/Evoloution prof in undergrad when I asked him whether he believed evolution and religion were mutually exclusive.

"Evolution tells how we got here and Religion tells us what to do while we're here."

[quote]Ok, BMT I vaguely recognize the reference. Where did it come from? I recall the story as a civilization built a huge computer and had it find THE ANSWER. After many years (generations?) the high priest found it uplugged and had to give an answer. 42 was the answer. The process was repeated to find out the question. The question ended up being "How many roads must a man walk down." I dunno, something like that.

Maybe "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Universe)?" I just can't place it.[quote]


Sharpshooter:

You got it, "The Hitch-Hikers Giude to the Galaxy." Followed by "The Restaurant at the end of the Universe." Then "Life, the Universe and Everything." Then the fourth book of the trilology (its comedy, deal with it) was "So long and thanx for all the Fish." I cannot recall the the title of the fifth book.

BMT

I've never understood the big controversy between the two schools of thought. For years, I have been of the opinion, which has been stolen recently by notables in the community (but I can't prove it), that evolution is the means God chose to create. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. But don't let me spoil a good argument. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Regards, sse

Pointer, (IMHO) that is as accurate, as precise, and as succinct as is possible.

Guys,

Actually, Naturalistic Evolution (not Theistic Evolution) does not describe how we got here. Pure evolutionists are stymied of life's origins, and they tend to stay away from that issue. Yes, their are a few overarching general statements of how life may have originated (Richard Dawkins comes to mind here), but there is not a detailed accounting of how life developed from non-organic compounds. They thought they had a good answer in the 50s with the pre-biotic soup and lightening, but since then they have not found support for the pre-biotic soup in the fossil record. As such, they focus on how life developed after it originated.

Michael Behe gives a good accounting of why Naturalistic Evolutionists avoid the topic. Basically, because there is so little origin evidence out there, there is not a lot to write about. When you are a PhD candidate or a PhD that needs to be published, you need to have some solid evidence and data so you can build your case and contribute to the "Theory". It is very difficult to do that with origin questions. It is not as hard with evolutionary development after life originated.

Now the Theistic Evolutionist has a definite advantage here. He/she has believes God started the process, and as such is free to explore how He started it and how life developed. While I believe the Intelligent Design model better fits the evidence than Theistic Evolution, I can have an very good discussion with an Theistic Evolutionist because the focus is on what the best model is, not who has the best belief system.

See above - in the end, does it really matter either way? Isn't the point above the most pertinent to the conversation and our present situation, or am I just missing the point?

I mean, let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that Darwinian evolutionists are exactly right and we evolved from the same biological tree of life as every other species on this planet. So what?

Religion (any of them), morality, common sense, and good judgment tell us what to do while we're here, alive and kicking.

Even if there is no afterlife, shouldn't those philosophies and theologies on their own have enough merit to have us look to they for guidance as to how we live our lives, regardless of how, biologically and evolutionarily, those lives came into existence?

In the end, no one gets out alive, no one know (for a fact) what happens then. All we know is how we live our lives, play the game, and that's really all that matters.

"This world may be only illusion -- but it's the only illusion we've got." --Edward Abbey

VAnimrod,

All the theistic evolution I.D. garbage chalenges the authority of God's Word. Either God is able to communicate or He is not God.

As far as religion goes, remember religious fanatics hijacked some planes and killed about 3,000 Americans and others with them. Religions is worthless for helping folks live decent lives. One needs a relationship with God. And that only comes throurgh Jesus Christ. Jesus says,

"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father, except through Me." Kinda egotistical, isn't He?

I may disagree with you on some minor side issues, but the core of your post rings so true.

AFP, excellent post... thanks for taking time to put it down. For me, the lack of transitional/intermediary species in the fossil record alone is all the evidence any serious minded person should need to question evolution. Evolution requires more faith than I have! I'm not one of those that believes the earth is 6,000 years old... the fact that God's Spirit "hovered over the face of the deep" and that the earth was "formless and void" leads many to question (me included) whether there was a pre-adamic creation where, perhaps, Lucifer was a Lord ("I'll exalt my throne above God's")... certainly would eplain a lot in the fossil record and makes one wonder whether Genesis 1 starts after a flood-judgement. Regardless, the scripture is not clear enough to be dogmatic about it.

hey blaine,

i like your balanced view but feel that you lack perspective...

the natural evolutionist has forever sought the proof of his theories... in point of fact such proof has been anounced time and again, only to be explained away by further revelations of empirical science... the acceptance of natural evolution, as a theory, requires some fair sized assumptions.....

still it is evident, in the geological record, that species have changed over time... the saber tooth tiger existed. it walked the earth in it's day much the same as the bengal tiger walks today.... it is widely accepted, (correct me if i am wrong) that the tiger of today is a descendant of the sabertooth...
is the tiger of today bigger?, stronger?, faster?, more well developed in some way???
or how about the wooly mammoth and the elephant???
or the precursor to todays crocodilians that is referred to as super croc.....

the fossil record clearly indicates a trend, but it's not very complimentary to any particular species today... including us..... a lot of postulation has occurred on just what cro magnon man did with all of the braincase that the fossil record indicates he had.....

jokes about the gene pool aside, most researchers believe that man was, in the distant past, a vastly superior specimen compared to today... john w

The way I see it the current Theory of Evolution is bankrupt. There is no convincing evidence for what is taught in schools as fact, and the little evidence evolutionists can round up doens't stand up under close inspection. The fossil record hasn't brought forth the numerous transitional forms that Darwin expected, the rapidly expanding field of molecular biology stands contrary to what evolutionists expected, the orgin of life remains a massive problem to the theory, and the list goes on. I believe the reason many scientists still hold to the theory is because it's the best naturalistic explaination they can come up with, and they are unwilling to accept a theistic viewpoint despite evolution's lack of convincing evidence.

Now when it comes to Theistic Evolution, I just don't understand why any Christian would accept this. Why compromise what the Bible says so it can agree with faulty science? Now someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Theistic Evolution require there to be death before the fall of man. My logic is this; In order for evolution to take place it would need the mechanism of natural selection to root out the less effective organisms while supposedly pushing the more effective ones along the path of evolution. This requires death though, and I don't see any way for evolution to take place after the fall unless you totally disregard what the Bible has to say about the amount of time after the fall.

Personally I lean more towards the ID movement simply because it seems apparant that microevolution does sometimes go beyond the borders of speices. When it comes to the age of the Earth I'm not yet sold on either side of the debate, but I intend to look into it further.

Evolution allows animals to adapt to changing conditions. It does not ensure that larger and stronger animals are more successful. What is most likely is that conditions changed so that smaller more agile cats had significant survival advantages over the huge saber tooth tigers.

While the saber tooth tiger may have been more powerful than the wild cats of today power is not the sole or primary measure of success.

Today's cats generally exercise some restraint in social situations and this is an advantage to their survival as a species. It could be that the saber tooth tiger lacked this restraint and therefore a large number died because of injuries inflicted in conflicts between them.

The saber tooth tiger would be more effective at bring down large animals than today's cats. This would be an advantage when large animals are readily available. When large food was not readily available their large size and large teeth would be a disadvantage. A smaller more agile cat would be able to survive on smaller prey when a saber tooth would starve.

Conrad

The theory of evolution is a logical explaination for the changes in animals and people that we see in fossils. If you think that it is bankrupt then you don't understand the theory or are unwilling to consider it.

We have done experiments that demonstrate the principle of natural selection. We know that a species adapts to it's environment. These are the facts that evolution depends upon.

The arguements against evolution that you state are from people who are unwilling to consider it because it contradicts what the bible says. They think that evolution is an attack upon their religion so they make up false arguments against it. You have to think of creationism as a simple explaination of a complex thing to unscientific people.

The bible was written and read by men who had no concept of or knowledge of science. It was impossible for them to understand the theory of evolution. The bible explained creation in terms that they could understand. Just like grownups simplify the complex so that children can understand.

Another example of this is that using science and we have determined that the current universe is expanding outward away from one point in space. The only rational explaination is that it was created from a huge explosion. How come the bible does not mention this fact ? The people who wrote it had no concept of science. They wrote their explaination for the creation in terms that they could understand.

Conrad