Evolution

Evolution God Bible Darwin



Tweet
Christina Cooper's image for:
"Evolution God Bible Darwin"
Caption: 
Location: 
Image by: 
©  

Evolution or Intelligent Design:

Two Opposing Theories

Abstract




Evolution is a widely debated topic for over the past 100 years. The concept of evolution is the number one divider between religious groups and scientists. Both groups tend to look at the other group as ignorant or irrational. We are going to take a look at the viewpoints of evolutionists and intelligent design.






Evolution or Intelligent Design: Two Opposing Theories

Evolution is a widely debated topic between people of religious nature and scientists. The two theories are completely opposite, yet both claim to be the reason for life on Earth. Evolutionists believe that a huge explosion happened, and matter mixed with light or heat and energy and caused life (Evolution gets debunked by peanut butter, 2008, media). Religious people believe that an all mighty God, or being, hand created the Earth in a matter of six days. They believe that God made man in His image, and also created each individual plant and animal to be different. The two bump heads because scientists wonder why one would ever consider a majestic being, literally making the Earth. One of the impossibilities to them of this statement is the fact that it was made in a matter of six days. Some say that the Bible is metaphorically stating six days, and others say it is literal due to the day and nights equaling one day. Either way, scientists believe that the theory is impossible. Religious people believe that their views on God are definitely real, and they do not need evidence of His power. If the Bible states that the Earth was made, with all of its creatures in six days, then they believe just that. They have faith that supports their opinions. There is a definite difference between science and religion, and this will show both viewpoints.




Charles Darwin was a scientist who was born in 1809. He was a man that did not mind being a little out of the ordinary. He tended to believe in his thoughts and feelings, and it did not matter to him whether or not he fit in with the cultural norm. Darwin had a fascination with the world, and the science of how animals and plants survived in different patterns. The theory of evolution already existed at this point. The ideology that the world did not come from an all mighty being, but rather a big bang existed. Charles Darwin researched many places in the world, and interestingly adapted his own thoughts on this evolutionary theory (Cunningham & Cunningham, 2008, p.49).

Charles Darwin came up with the theory that all living things adapt to their environment. He believed that this adaptation occurred due to the fight for survival. The battle of the fittest is a way to describe this. For instance, say lions attacked a herd of buffalo. The best-fit buffalo would be able to escape, while the weakest link would be attacked, and eaten. The stronger more fit buffalo would give these fit genes to their offspring. As this continues, there soon would be a population of extremely fit buffalo. This is a very basic way to explain the complex theory, but it works.

Another very famous example of Darwin's theory of evolution is the peppered moth with the black backed moth. The peppered back moth blended in well with the trees because the trees were light in color, with some dark shadowing. Therefore there were many more of the peppered moths versus the black backed moth. According to Darwin, this is because the peppered back moth was more genetically fit. They genetically birthed more peppered back moths in order to maintain the species. Coal became popular and tarnished all of the trees black. It suddenly came to be known that there were far less peppered back moths because they blended less with the trees, and the more fit became black backed moths. Now the black backed moths were genetically making more, black backed moth babies. This is because the black backed moths were more fit. According to Charles Darwin, this is due to the process of evolution.

Many theologists believe that the moth explanation is due to being visibly noticeable. They think that the moths that blended with the trees regardless of which color they were, were able to maintain life due to the fact that they blended in. They do not feel that they were reproducing more moths of the blending color, but that the opposing color was being eaten faster, because they were more noticeable.

Another famous theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin was how humans adapted from monkeys. Darwin believed that over a process of time people became more human and less monkey. He backed his theory by the shape and size of the monkey skulls, verses the size and shape of the human skulls. Another main point was the jaw size and shape, and also monkey's ability to walk on two legs, similar to the human. Monkeys have the ability to understand humans and communicate with them. Two main questions about this viewpoint is if humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Another question is if humans evolved from monkeys, why did the evolution process between monkey and human stop? One would think that there is at least one partial monkey/human walking on Earth somewhere, if the theory is true. Another thing is that it is a little ironic that humans are more related to the pig than the monkey.

The theory of religion is a little easier to understand, but it takes one thing that many people do not have to understand it, and that one thing is faith. One can visualize that God is sitting in a chair in the clouds pointing at things saying, "Let there be light" and suddenly light appears. The thing that makes it debatable is the fact that not one person can see God. People are able to grasp the theory of evolution because they can visualize the similarities between monkeys and humans. People are not able to see God, so many do not believe that there is a God. However in defense of religion, people say that they do not have to see Him, they can feel Him. It is noted to be true that people who are religious in nature tend to have a happier and healthier life than people who are not. Going under the PET scans; more parts of the brain are highlighted in religious people than in non-religious people. This reason is unexplained (Where angels no longer fear to tread; The science of religion, 2008, p.1).

Another main point of religion that is fought is the time line. Religious people have estimated the Earth to be approximately 6000 years old. This is hard for many scientists to grasp due to the fact that they have aged dinosaur bones to be approximately 13 million years. Religious people say that scientists are not taking into consideration the fact that the Earth was surrounded by water until the heavens opened up for Noah's flood. Also, due to pollution and such the sun has a more aging affect on artifacts. This also explains religiously why people were able to live about 800 years old before the flood, and only to around one hundred years old after (personal interview, 2008). Many scientists also believe that it is completely impossible for the Earth to be made in a matter of six days. One of the biggest fights on that is that plants were around before sunlight was. For this alone, scientists fight religion. Six days is important for scientists, because vegetation has to grow, and sunlight makes it possible. The bible states that vegetation came before the sunlight, so they decided it was impossible, and that the bible is completely flawed or misinterpreted.

Not every scientist is against religion. There are many scientists that fight for religion. For example, in the video Evolution gets Debunked by Peanut Butter, they explain that peanut butter is a matter, and that it is exposed to light and heat, however new life does not occur. Never once is there any new life in the jar, even though all of the specifications are there. In fact, none of our food grows new life, unless life is exposed to it.

Another scientist explains how the theory of evolution tends to leave out facts that they cannot explain. For instance, Hornworts and green algae are under completely different kingdoms, and yet they both contain pyrenoids. Evolutionists cannot explain why. In fact, the liverwort is more closely related to green algae than the hornworts, yet they still do not contain the same pyrenoids. Evolution cannot support this argument. They state that:
The evolutionary idea that lichens and all life have descended gradually from a common ancestry over vast aeons is often espoused like some sort of religious/philosophical presupposition rather than being handled like a real scientic theory. Even after leading to false conclusions about scientic data, evolutionism is so very plastic that its devotees can quickly modify it to fit the conicting new information. This demonstrates that evolution is an origins model, not a scientic theory. An illustration of this point exists in the history of lichenology. Evolutionism was part of a minor error that was corrected. We bring up one of these evolution-based errors, not to criticize the lichenologists involved, but to show the evolutionary basis of their error and to demonstrate that they reversed earlier ideas in order to preserve evolutionism. (The Ultrastructure of Lichen Cells Supports Creation Not Macroevolution, 2006, p. 1).

In closing, one may never agree with the theory of evolution, and one may never experience the power of religion. Religion goes back many years, and has had a lot of influence on America. Religion tends to be coming to a low, and science theories are beginning to be the major influence. One may want to be careful about what they believe; religion tends to have a powerful affect even for the atheist. Charles Darwin himself has stated that "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy (The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, p.229, retrieved from anointed one.net)". Another quote would explain ironically,

Evolutionary biologists tend to be atheists, and most would be surprised if the scientific investigation of religion did not end up supporting their point of view. But if a propensity to religious behaviour really is an evolved trait, then they have talked themselves into a position where they cannot benefit from it, much as a sceptic cannot benefit from the placebo effect of homeopathy. Maybe, therefore, it is God who will have the last laugh after all-whether He actually exists or not (Where angels no longer fear to tread; The science of religion, 2008, p.1)

One may prefer to live their life as if there was a God, and find out that there wasn't instead of living like there isn't and finding out that there is.




References

Annointed One (2008) Interesting Quotes on Evolution (Retrieved on November 2, 2008) From

www.Anointedone.net

Cunningham, W. P., & Cunningham, M. A. (2008) Environmental Science Boston : McGrawHill




Christian Roots of Modern Science




http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?subjectParam=Locale%252528en%25252C%25252C%252529%25253AFQE%25253D%252528su%25252CNone%25252C20%252529religion%252Band%252Bscience%252524%257E%2529_1&contentSet=IAC-Documents&sort=DateDescend&tabID=T003&sgCurrentPosition=0&subjectAction=VIEW_TOPIC_TREE&prodId=GRGM&searchId=R3&currentPosition=7&userGroupName=lom_falconbaker&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&sgHitCountType=None&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28SU%2CNone%2C22%29%22religion+and+science%22%24&inPS=true&searchType=BasicSearchForm&displaySubject=&docId=A178793266&docType=IAC

CRS Quarterly (2006) The Ultrastructure of Lichen Cells Supports Creation, not Macroevolution
(Retrieved on November 2, 2008) From,
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/44/44_1/Lichens.htm

The Economosts. (2008) Where angels no longer fear to tread; The science of religion

(Retrieved on November 2, 2008) From




http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?subjectParam=Locale%252528en%25252C%25252C%252529%25253AFQE%25253D%252528su%25252CNone%25252C20%252529religion%252Band%252Bscience%252524%257E%2529_1&contentSet=IAC-Documents&sort=DateDescend&tabID=T003&sgCurrentPosition=0&subjectAction=VIEW_TOPIC_TREE&prodId=GRGM&searchId=R3&currentPosition=9&userGroupName=lom_falconbaker&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&sgHitCountType=None&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28SU%2CNone%2C22%29%22religion+and+science%22%24&inPS=true&searchType=BasicSearchForm&displaySubject=&docId=A176918061&docType=IAC




Evolution gets debunked by peanut butter, (2008) (Retrieved on November 2, 2008) From




http://gprime.net/video.php/proofofcreationism

Tweet
More about this author: Christina Cooper

From Around the Web




ARTICLE SOURCES AND CITATIONS