Creation

NoelB

Why do so many people believe in Evolution as the basis for the existince of "Man"?. We see intelligent design all around us, yet we are encouraged to believe that we are the result of chance random process'. Could it be that the reason evolution is so popular is because it does away with the notion of there being a need for a Creator who we are all answerable to? It certainly is nothing to do with science, because science is about testing, repeating, observing and as Creation was a once off event it is not provable or disprovable by science.

comments welcome

DadaKopf

How do you know the Creation was a once-off event? Maybe it wasn't. Where's your evidence?

Darwinian evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God, necessarily. Although it supports your limited involvement of God in the creation process.

Even if the origin of the universe were to be explained conclusively through scientific method, people would ask the question, " but where did that come from?"

Since you admit yourself that it's unprovable either way, why bother thinking about it?

sanvean

What Dadakopf said. Evolution merely takes a swipe at the idea of an interventionist God, it certainly doesn't take away the need for a God in itself.

NoelB

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word "creation" - it is not possible to have more than one creation.........the second event would be called a re-creation, which is a totally different concept than there having been more than one creation.

While Darwinian evolution doesn't necessarily preclude the existence of God on a theological level it certainly does so on a practical level....if God wasn't necessary in the first place why is he necessary now!...can't man on his own determine truth with out reference to an absolute Authority? If we accept this premis(which I think western society has, albeit, arguably unconsciously), then we are faced with such questions as who decides what is Right and what is Wrong...indeed is there even such a concept as right and Wrong!

Surely the question we are faced with is which makes more sense
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Creation) OR " In the beginning there was nothing and then there was something"(Evolution)

I submit the answer is self evident.

As for your question as to whether it is worth thinking about just because it is scientifically unprovable implies that you have thought about! Our whole world view is dependant on our belief about our origins. There is no netural view. We are either have meaning and purpose or we don't...there is no middle ground. Our answer has eternal consequences

sanvean

Originally posted by NoelB
You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word "creation" - it is not possible to have more than one creation.........the second event would be called a re-creation, which is a totally different concept than there having been more than one creation.

I think you're being too limited in your understanding of 'creation'. Isn't it possible for creation to be a continual process, and not one started at the beginning of time by God?

Evolution doesn't necessarily concern itself with the beginning of the universe, so it doesn't effect the understanding of God on a practical level.

watty

"creation" and "evolution" can have a broad range of meaning:

At one extreme God is like a ClockMaker and the Universe is "wound up" at day 1 and gradually runs done.


At the other extreme of "creationist" thinking, God "influences" which of the chaotic and quantum "might have beens" for the particular thread of "chance" we live in.

Actual "Darwinian Evolution" is not "beleived" by any scientist. The theories of Evolution have changed since then as more has been learnt. There are many unanswered questions.

There is definate evidence of "limited" evolution (a moth in polluted industrial setting eventually has different colouring, as natural selection favors the moths that are better disguised).

But as you move to larger scale, evolution is harder to prove. Did Horses really evolve from slime or did more complex organisms gradually get added somehow? Neither "camp" can produce confincing detailed explaination.

The bible is not a scientific handbook. Till Abram arrives on the pages it is in a very stylized poetic mode. There is a sharp change as we meet the obviously historic figure of Abram leaving a real place at a real time and travelling to a real destination. (About 2500 BC). There is no verifiyable time scale nor detailed description of any earlier event ion the Bible.

The Biblical story of Creation has a sequence that matches the historic archlogical record, that does not conflict with "evolutionary theory" (Simple to more complex).

The "days" in Hebrew (in the "six days" of creation) are word also for "period". Not "Yom" which is normal Hebrew for "day".

Despite attemps going back to Bishop Usher and earlier there is no reliable chronology in the Bible other than who was King or which civilisation/nation ruled where. Geneologies only list the import people and often are stylized number of generations per section. This is not a critisim of Bible accuracy, just it is important to understand the context and what the bible is trying to comunicate. It is not claiming to be an exact Historical Chronology nor scientific treatise. It is about Jewish people's unfolding relationship and revelation of God and God's unfolding relationship and revelation to Jews and Gentiles.

Trying to get accurate "facts" from Genesis about Creation or Evolution is as useful as as trying to get accurate advice on Marriage counselling from a Treatise on DNA structure.


Genesis appears to say that there was a Beginning, God was directly responsible and then give a reasonably accurate list of the order that life appeared on Earth. Nowhere other than a strange account of creation of Eve is there any detail as to how this creating was actually done.

If we ever find two "mumified" bodies with no "belly buttons" then we may conclude that the Genesis accounts before Abram are more literal and less poetic in language than suspected.

Realistically then, "Creation" may involve "evolution" in a Limited sense or be a very much ongoing event. The "Watchmaker" scenario, amy be true but seems unlikely from a Caring God.

No proof has yet (nor may ever) been found to 100% sustain a pure Creationist or pure Evolutionary viewpoint.

AFAIK "Darwin theory" dropped over 50 years ago. Current Evolutionary theory is more complex.

sanvean

Originally posted by watty
The bible is not a scientific handbook. Till Abram arrives on the pages it is in a very stylized poetic mode. There is a sharp change as we meet the obviously historic figure of Abram leaving a real place at a real time and travelling to a real destination. (About 2500 BC). There is no verifiyable time scale nor detailed description of any earlier event ion the Bible.

Slightly off topic, but I'd seriously question the 'obviously historical' figure of Abraham. Any non-Biblical evidence which would support this theory?

The "days" in Hebrew (in the "six days" of creation) are word also for "period". Not "Yom" which is normal Hebrew for "day".

This is argued constantly amongst creationists and old-earth creationists (for the rest of us, it's really just pedantics). I'm unsure myself (as I only briefly studied Hebrew). By 'normal' Hebrew, do you mean the Hebrew of the time, or later Hebrew?

NoelB

AS POSTED BY SCANVEAN

I think you're being too limited in your understanding of 'creation'. Isn't it possible for creation to be a continual process, and not one started at the beginning of time by God?

Evolution doesn't necessarily concern itself with the beginning of the universe, so it doesn't effect the understanding of God on a practical level.




My understanding of creation is found in the Bible, it is not based on my opinions for I am only a fallible Man. At the end of each day God looked at his work and said it was good. On the sixth day when he had finished creation he looked and said it was VERY GOOD. There couldn't be a clearer statement that creation is not a continual process but a once - off never to be repeated event.

As for your contention that "evolution doesn't neccessarily concern itself with the begginning of the universe"..it seems to me that you have a faulty understanding of the meaning of the word. The whole purpose of the Theory of Evolution is to try to explain how the world came into being with having to acknowledge the necessity of a Creator God. This is not an academic debate...it has as I have already stated eternal consequences.


As for Watty's long and welcome contribution......let me just make this small comment as precurser to a detailed reply......his comment about the Moths "There is definate evidence of "limited" evolution (a moth in polluted industrial setting eventually has different colouring, as natural selection favors the moths that are better disguised). .......

Evolution and natural slection are two totally different things......Evolution in the context which we are talking implies the notion of "Microbes to Man". I have no problem with the fact of evolution within a kind. e.g One KIND of dog to another KIND of dog. What he describes is Natural selection...a moth adapting to its environment. It stared out as a Moth and ended as a Moth.... no new information was added...which is what is needed for Darwinian Evoolution to happen.
It would be helpful if we all understood the meaning of the concepts we are discussing.
My definitions are as follows.
Creation:
The idea that The Creator God spoke into existince in six literal 24 hour days the universe as described in Genesis 1 and following on from that Adam and Eve were real people who lived in a real garden and who ate real fruit from a real tree in disobedience to Gods word....all else flows from these facts.

Evolution
The notion that the Universe came into existence as a result of a Big Bang millions of years ago.

Did I say that this was only going to be a short comment!!!

watty

Originally posted by NoelB
My definitions are as follows.
Creation:
The idea that The Creator God spoke into existince in six literal 24 hour days the universe as described in Genesis 1 and following on from that Adam and Eve were real people who lived in a real garden and who ate real fruit from a real tree in disobedience to Gods word....all else flows from these facts.

Evolution
The notion that the Universe came into existence as a result of a Big Bang millions of years ago.

Did I say that this was only going to be a short comment!!!

Yes those are the two ends of the spectrum. I would not subscribe to "evolution" in Classical sense at all. (I have already indicated I have no problem with a very "limited natural selection"). But I equally have "difficulties" with "creationist" viewpoints based on poor scholarship of Bible. Extrapolation too far never seems to work, that is what Darwin did from his evidence.

(Or indeed any Theology that doesn't match up to what the overall message of the Bible is. WE have seen with Tabloid JPapers and Spin Doctors how you can say anything by taking a phrase or even a paragraph out of context. Like "Eye for an Eye". In context the passage is about a State/social system of justice were after trial the punishment would not be too little or too much compared with the crime. Not a justification for personal vengances or revenge. "Vengance is Mine" The Lord said.)


However several years of Jewish studies to understand context of scripture and over a year living/working among Orthodox Jews and Messianic Christians has caused be to be cautious about any overly literal interpretation of an English Translation of pre-Abrahamic Genesis and certian prophetic writings. The overly literal interpretations do not stand up to examination in Hebrew.

However this is NOT the same thing as saying that Creation isn't a "short event" in terms of the age of Universe.

Nor of course does end of Sixth "period" completion "bind" God from further intervention. A Sabbath, while normally the 7th day, can be a seventh period or age too in scripture. It is a period of "rest" or "completion".

I don't claim to be able to read the OT in Hebrew, but I have friends that do, even in some cases knowing EVERY verse by heart. Of course some bits are not in Hebrew (parts of Daniel are in Aramaic). Some hebrew words now have new meaning or multiple meaning...

But the aaronic blessing found on a silver bracelet over 3,500 years old can be read correctly by any Native Israeli (even many of the Arab Israeli) no problem.

Hebrew has changed VERY VERY little. You may not be able to read 500 year old Chaucer's english AT ALL without a translation.

By time of Jesus Hebrew was a "preserved" language only spoken in Synagogue, study and Temple. It was only "revived" as everyday language in the 19th Centuary. Some Ultra Orthodox Jews (In Israel and elsewhere) still only use Hebrew for Religious Study and Services.

Examples of changes:
Taf = Last letter of Aleph-Beth (Alpabet), mark or Keyboard key. In Ezekial translated as "Cross" in Jerusalem Bible. As Mark on forehead in NIV. In English translation by Jewish scholars it is left as "taf", with footnote. Ancient handwritten form of alphabet and early greek it does look like a cross or X. Mmay be origin of X for your "mark".

Adam = Man or Earth. In Ezekial "Ben Adam" may be translated as Son of Man or "Son of Earth". Again a English translation by Jewish scholars leaves this as transliterated "Ben Adam" and footnote (a big one) all about Son of Earth and Son of Man.

Amulet worn by women: Modern Hebrew means a small cushion. Obvious from context that "Amulet" is correct meaning.

Even Secular Jewish school kids often learn OT by heart in School. My kids after 6 months could quote very large chunks (problem was they didn't actually know what most of it meant!). Totally Secular State School, more secular than most schools here.

No Jewish Christian (Messianic Jew) nor even Ultra Orthodox I met subscribes to Genisis meaning six literal 24 hr days. But they do beleive in Special Creation.

(Of course there are Jewish people who beleive in Evolution, but I'm talking about how people that take bible seriously interpret it)


"Evolution" or "Natural selection" is synonymous in the common man with progress. This is a major fallacy. Progress is largely by design and rare if ever by random chance or Natural Selection. Stephenson's Rocket did not "evolve" into the Space Shuttle. Designers created "better" (more complex anyhow) deisgns based on experience of older ones and fresh ideas.

The Sabre Tooth Tiger type of beast through "Natural Selection" eventually makes itself likely to be extinct!

GuanYin

I'll get involved in this thread when I have more time, but to watty:

The Sabre tooth tiger did evolve (the newer version has ancestry with the older version, the older version died out). Earth was changing at the time the sabre tooth tiger died out, its main food source was a type of elk with very large antlers, the new found abundance of heavy vegitation meant that these elk were less mobile and easier to catch by predators that normally wouldn't have stood a chance.

At the same time, large mammals were becoming sleeker and faster. The shortage of slower animals meant that the more cumbersome sabre tooth had less prey and eventually was out competed by more sleek predators (non-sabre tooth large cats).

Its quite amusing because the sabre teeth evolved in response to thicker hides and larger antlers in the sabre tooths prey, and the minute the prey lost these the sabre tooth became redundant.

Its sort of like an evolutionary arms race.

mr_angry

I personally feel that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Why could God not have designed us to evolve into more and more complex beings? In fact, any insistence that we are not evolving even now is a complete denial of the facts.

No religion should be based on ignorance.

Personally (and I stress "personally"), I believe it is naive to think that Earth is God's only creation. Why would a being with such a profound desire to create life create only a single instance of it, in a universe so vast it is beyond our comprehension? To me, that wouldn't make sense, and I choose to believe that god is a sensible being.

The bible is not the be-all and end-all of my religious beliefs. Most, or all of it, is a second-hand account of the works of God, and the life of Jesus. I stress that this is my own personal belief, and that I may be entirely wrong. However, I cannot accept NoelB's assumption that the only creation should be ours, just because ours is the only one we know about. I believe that kind of thinking is very close-minded.

watty

Originally posted by sykeirl
I'll get involved in this thread when I have more time, but to watty:

The Sabre tooth tiger did evolve (the newer version has ancestry with the older version, the older version died out). Earth was changing at the time the sabre tooth tiger died out, its main food source was a type of elk with very large antlers, the new found abundance of heavy vegitation meant that these elk were less mobile and easier to catch by predators that normally wouldn't have stood a chance.

At the same time, large mammals were becoming sleeker and faster. The shortage of slower animals meant that the more cumbersome sabre tooth had less prey and eventually was out competed by more sleek predators (non-sabre tooth large cats).

Its quite amusing because the sabre teeth evolved in response to thicker hides and larger antlers in the sabre tooths prey, and the minute the prey lost these the sabre tooth became redundant.

Its sort of like an evolutionary arms race.

Yes .. but there is no scientific evidence that the Sabre tooth is actually evolved from something not a cat, nor is there evidence it was "created" fully fledged.

I quoted it as an example of how "Natural Selection" in a species can lead to a rapid dead end.

If you carefully bred Sabre tooth Tigers you could bred for one with smaller teeth and smaller and faster. It would still however be recognisably a Sabre tooth. It's possible that it could have been reliably interbred with other cats.

It is an interesting question at which point two animals have changed so much from "selection" / "Breeding" that the two branchs no longer can interbreed.

Donkeys and horses can be bred but result is sterile (Mule).

Cats and Dogs are quite similar and some can be interbred (Interestingly few are inclined). I don't know if result is sterile or not.

Starting in 1959 the Russians bred a Silver Fox that did not bite. As a side effect the adults looked more dog like puppies and more dog like.


Proving anything about "evolution" or "creation" is MUCH harder that most people suspect. Proving "evolution" (or in case of Sabre Tooth "Degeneration") or "Natural" selection within a Species is much harder.

Analysis of DNA even can have results based on pre-concieved ideas. The Cavies (Guinea Pigs) are normally regarded as in the order "Rodentia" (along with Hamsters, Rats, Mice, Squirels). Some years ago a paper was published "The Guinea Pig is NOT a Rat". Subsequent DNA analysis supports or contridicts this, amazingly on if you have a starting hypothesis that Rats and Cavies have a common ancestor or not.

(Those that claim that a Cavy is a Rat, do admit the species needed to diverge a VERY long time ago. The problem is that the previously accepted divergance date does not give enough time. The pro-Rat lobby argue that almost 3000 years of human breeding of the guinea pigs in Peru and Brasil may account for discrepancy).

The "cavy is NOT a rat" side arn't arguing that the Cavy was specially "created" 75 million years ago. Interstingly they argue that there may be flaws in our whole understanding of DNA analysis (for comparing how species are related) and a major lack of understanding of "Evolution". The arguments on both "sides" are very technical.

If the Cavy is NOT a "Rodentia" then the South African Cane Rat probabily is not a rat either.


Currently over 80% of mammals are believed to be "Rodentia". The Cavy (Guinea Pig) if not in "Rodentia" would be a very small group including South American "Mara" and South American Patagonian "Hares" (Which are not hares).

BTW Rabbits and Hares (Also regarded as "Rodentia") are the only other group along with Cavies that eject a half digested pellet which they immediately eat. This is so quick and furtive (so that other members don't eat it) that for many years no-one knew.

Naturally the "membership" of Rodentia for Rabbits and Hares is under review!

A lot of classifications are "convientient" for "Evolutionary Theory" but don't stand up under close examination.

A Cavy has a slightly rat-like skull with the famous rat-like incisors that grow all the time. Differences are:
* Only two teats.
* Two stage digestion (only also in Rabbits/Hares)
* No tail !!
* Only three back toes !!
* "pups" born sighted, furry and adult teeth, running around (Rats are blind, hairless and baby teeth).
* "pups" can survive without mum from next day.
* Ability to sing!!! (exercised VERY rarely).


I don't believe you can "prove" special Creation or "Accidential Evolution of everything from just Chemicals"

The subject is very complex. The bible is not a Scientific treatise.

mr_angry

Surely you have to accept that we have fossil records dating back hundreds of millions of years. From archiological records (which include man's evolution from apes), we know that humans, in our current form, have only been around for a fraction of this time. On the other hand, organised Creationists believe that the world is 10,000 years old. Personally, I believe the evidence available on our planet.

watty

Only an extreme minority of Christian Creationists beleive the 10,000 years which is based on faulty understanding of Genaologies in the OT.

Yes there are lots of Fossil records undoubtably maybe Millions of years old. The dating of some periods may be in error and "circularly referenced" but the 10,000 years is NOT in the Bible and not sustainable. This does not preclude "Creation" nor an ongoing Creation process.

In fact the Fossil record "jumps" and earlier species are replaced by later ones. Why Sharks and Crocodiles should remain unchanged (essentially) for tens or hundreds of millions of years while similar species come and go is interesting.

Human History is undoubtably not much more than 7,000 to 10,000 (Artifacts, ruins etc). Earlier you have fires, bones, carvings and cave paintings really hard to date, but probabily more than 10,000.

Some say that some early "human" or "humanoid" fossils are not our ancestors at all but parallel (in some cases) species that died out (Perhaps as late as several hundred thousand years ago).

Very, very few "Transition" fossils have been ever found. Esp. compared to the number of species dissappearing and appearing in the fossil record.


So the fossil record probabily only proves that the 10,000 year date is false. But any "proper" Biblical scholar looking at Jewish context of Old Testement writings would find no evidence for ANY creation date in the Bible, other than it happened and was long, long ago.

It is intriguing that "recorded" history (in sense of Artifacts etc, rather than just paintings & carvings ) is not much more than adding up the Genaologies in the OT. Also many pre Abraham accounts or "stories" in the Bible are echoed in very similar terms (often even same names) in quite separate cultural traditions, suggesting drawing on a common history (probabily Oral).

The Bible says we are all descended from the same "Stock", Fossils and DNA analysis suggest that current "Racial" differences are slight outside Africa. The differences in Africa are all greater. Currently it is beleived by most scientists that all humans outside Africa are descended from people who originated in Africa. This does not conflict with any biblical account.