[__ Science __ ] Chance or Design? (Evolution or Creation)

[reddogs]

The Bible tells us that it was design:
John 1:3-4 King James Version (KJV)
"3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

However, to most scientists in the world today, the theory of evolution is no longer just a theory but is regarded as a fact, with no God or Creator. What do we say to show that is not the case?

 

[stovebolts]

I'm sure there are better answers, but for me I see order, not chaos. This infers intelligent design. The earth and cosmos has been set in order and is not only measurable, but is also predictable.

 

[WIP]

The Bible tells us that it was design:
John 1:3-4 King James Version (KJV)
"3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

However, to most scientists in the world today, the theory of evolution is no longer just a theory but is regarded as a fact, with no God or Creator. What do we say to show that is not the case?

Science is only man's explanation of the world as man sees it. We have limited understanding while God has infinite understanding. I'll give a couple examples.

I worked in electrical design for most of my career. One common disagreement that has endured is the explanation of how electric current flows in a dc circuit. One school of thought is conventional flow while the other is electron flow.

With conventional flow, it is believed that electrical current flows from the positive terminal, through the circuit, and to the negative terminal. With electron flow, the belief is just the opposite, that electrons having a negative charge travel or flow from the negatively charged terminal to the positively charged terminal. Which is correct, depends on your understanding.


A physicist once explained to me how difficult or impossible it is to try and explain four dimensions because we are three dimensional beings. Here's the example he used. Imagine you are a two dimensional being. You understand length and width but depth is beyond your comprehension.

Now suppose you're happily living in your two dimensional plane world when a three dimensional being or object, like an apple, passes through your world. What you would see is this object that suddenly appears very small, grows in width and length as it passes and then gets smaller in width and length until it disappears again.

What did you see? Would you be able to describe what it really was or would you only be able to describe what you perceived?

 

[Michael74]

What do we say to show that is not the case?

And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 NKJV

 

[HeIsRisen2018]

Here's what I would say: "Science says that gravity is what makes an apple fall of a tree right? Well where did gravity come from?"

 

[WIP]

Science is not necessarily in opposition to creation. Science only seeks to explain what we see in terms we can understand based on our observations and nothing more. Everything we see, touch, smell, taste, or hear has a beginning, yet, science unable to explain where matter came from and believe will never explain it. Some will point to the "big bang theory" but that only explains a change condition, not the origin of matter.

 

[HeIsRisen2018]

Science is not necessarily in opposition to creation. Science only seeks to explain what we see in terms we can understand based on our observations and nothing more. Everything we see, touch, smell, taste, or hear has a beginning, yet, science unable to explain where matter came from and believe will never explain it. Some will point to the "big bang theory" but that only explains a change condition, not the origin of matter.

Oh I totally agree. Sure the big bang might have and probably did cause all of creation, but my question is what caused the big bang?

 

[reddogs]

Science is not necessarily in opposition to creation. Science only seeks to explain what we see in terms we can understand based on our observations and nothing more. Everything we see, touch, smell, taste, or hear has a beginning, yet, science unable to explain where matter came from and believe will never explain it. Some will point to the "big bang theory" but that only explains a change condition, not the origin of matter.

Yes, but if they do not believe even in the Flood much less Creation, then they are like the proverbial blind men trying to describe a Elephant.

 

[KevinK]

Well, I'm a scientist with a degree in biology, and I believe in Father God, but not in a literal scriptural interpretation of creation. I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. I do believe in the theory of evolution and the process of natural selection.

 

[HeIsRisen2018]

Well, I'm a scientist with a degree in biology, and I believe in Father God, but not in a literal scriptural interpretation of creation. I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. I do believe in the theory of evolution and the process of natural selection.

Two questions:


1. What is natural selection again? (I forgot)

2. Can you please explain exactly what you believe? (I forgot that as well. *face palm*)

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

The Bible tells us that it was design:
John 1:3-4 King James Version (KJV)
"3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

However, to most scientists in the world today, the theory of evolution is no longer just a theory but is regarded as a fact, with no God or Creator. What do we say to show that is not the case?

Evolution takes a hard stand on life that life will find a way. How can it not? We live in a bubble of such abundance and diversity of life that we can make assumptions that life finds a way to survive.

Now that isn't the stance of evolution, but it is an underlying primis of it. However, look outside of our bubble of life, outside of the planet earth and we see a stark reality. Beutiful but it's a dessert on life. In fact, we so far haven't found life like ours anywhere in space.

It's a sobering thought to think of life outside of earth to be so rare that we can't find it. However, in the case of evolution or design, the reality that Earth has so much life and has had it for so long, suggests more then just that it was designed instead of happened by chance. In my opinion it also means that life on earth had been protected, and sustained. Changes in species that create diversity and allow for survival are part of God's handy work. I don't think some of the survival genes that help one animal or plant survive a disaster, are a work of random factors. It has to be that they are placed there.

 

[KevinK]

1. What is natural selection again? (I forgot)

Natural selection is the "elimination process" by which Darwinian evolution retains useful mutations, and discards useless or harmful ones.

If a modification is useful, it simply allows the possessing individual to reproduce and pass on it genetic makeup to its progeny. By the same token, a "bad" modification dies with its possessor, and thus is selected out.

2. Can you please explain exactly what you believe?

I believe in a Supreme Being, and a begotten Son who died for our salvation. I believe the Bible contains the essential truths of Christianity, but do not necessarily follow a literal interpretation. And I believe there's a lot of stuff that goes on that's not mentioned in Scripture at all.

Perhaps most controverially, I believe in reincarnation because I had a vision about it. I saw some of my own past lives. However, I also had a vision of Hell from which no-one can return. The only way to resolve this seeming contradiction is to believe that we are allowed to repeat lives up to the point where God believes we are beyond redemption, and so renders a final judgement. In effect it doesn't really matter if you believe in reincarnation or not, since you never know if your current life might be your last one anyway.

 

[WIP]

Yes, but if they do not believe even in the Flood much less Creation, then they are like the proverbial blind men trying to describe a Elephant.

What makes you think that all scientists are unbelievers? I suspect that an equal or possibly higher percentage of non-scientists do not believe in the flood too.

 

[HeIsRisen2018]

Natural selection is the "elimination process" by which Darwinian evolution retains useful mutations, and discards useless or harmful ones.

If a modification is useful, it simply allows the possessing individual to reproduce and pass on it genetic makeup to its progeny. By the same token, a "bad" modification dies with its possessor, and thus is selected out.


I believe in a Supreme Being, and a begotten Son who died for our salvation. I believe the Bible contains the essential truths of Christianity, but do not necessarily follow a literal interpretation. And I believe there's a lot of stuff that goes on that's not mentioned in Scripture at all.

Perhaps most controverially, I believe in reincarnation because I had a vision about it. I saw some of my own past lives. However, I also had a vision of Hell from which no-one can return. The only way to resolve this seeming contradiction is to believe that we are allowed to repeat lives up to the point where God believes we are beyond redemption, and so renders a final judgement. In effect it doesn't really matter if you believe in reincarnation or not, since you never know if your current life might be your last one anyway.

I guess that I sort of understand that.....

 

[WIP]

I guess that I sort of understand that.....

Here's how it works. Baby whitetail deer are born with spotted fur. Suppose at one time deer were born without spots. Having a solid color fur will make the baby deer a little more noticeable to predators and survival rate may be impacted a little.

Now suppose one day a baby deer is born with a slight mutation and it has white spots in its fur. This breaks up the color of the baby deer giving it just a little more camouflage than the solid colored baby deer. As a result the survival rate of the spotted baby is higher, giving it a better chance to mature and product offspring later in life. It will now pass the spot mutation to its babies who also have a higher survival rate, passing the trait to their offspring, and so on. Eventually, over time due to their increased survival rate, the descendants of that mutated baby deer become more numerous than solid colored babies until it becomes the norm.

Natural selection.

 

[HeIsRisen2018]

Here's how it works. Baby whitetail deer are born with spotted fur. Suppose at one time deer were born without spots. Having a solid color fur will make the baby deer a little more noticeable to predators and survival rate may be impacted a little.

Now suppose one day a baby deer is born with a slight mutation and it has white spots in its fur. This breaks up the color of the baby deer giving it just a little more camouflage than the solid colored baby deer. As a result the survival rate of the spotted baby is higher, giving it a better chance to mature and product offspring later in life. It will now pass the spot mutation to its babies who also have a higher survival rate, passing the trait to their offspring, and so on. Eventually, over time due to their increased survival rate, the descendants of that mutated baby deer become more numerous than solid colored babies until it becomes the norm.

Natural selection.

Oh okay, now that makes more sense.