If you were to observe a watch carefully, take it apart, and put it back together, you would conclude that someone made the watch.
Now look at yourself, you think, you feel, you observe the Universe, you would come to a conclusion that someone or some thing created you.
That someone, or something is what I call GOD.
The next question is to define the personality of GOD !
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution´s Erratic Pace
To the genuine horror of family, friends and coworkers, I am an evolution skeptic. Mind you, that is not the same thing as being a Creationist. I do not believe that God created the Universe four thousand years ago and planted fossils in the earth just to test our faith. I do however think that what we know for certain of the evolutionary processes seems to be awfully similar to the way we breed animals and plants, which if it does not necessarily imply one, at least leaves open the possibility of an intelligence guiding the whole deal. More importantly, I am simply unsatisfied with the explanations and "proofs" for great evolutionary steps, for instance the development of the eye or the wing and the link from ape to man. So when a Pulitzer Prize winning book came along, it's very subtitle suggesting that evolution has been observed and documented, I was naturally curious. Sadly, Jonathan Weiner's tale, though interesting, has done nothing to change my mind.
For the purposes of this review, let me separate two concepts: Natural Selection and Evolution. If we understand natural selection to embody the idea that certain features and characteristics which appear among certain members of a species and convey a survival advantage tend to then come to predominate within that species, then this would appear to be inarguable. This idea is easily understood. The taller members of species X have an easier time reaching the leaves upon which they feed. The shorter ones die out. The taller ones breed and tend to have taller rather than shorter offspring. Within a few generations they are mostly pretty darn tall. No problem.
The real core of this idea is that the pressure to survive which nature itself places upon all species--through climate, food supply, etc.--is capable of producing the same type of changes in those species that humans can cause through breeding programs. We need look no farther than the dachshund and the St. Bernard to realize that selective breeding can lead to huge changes in physical appearance, temperament, intelligence, and other characteristics over a period of generations. Assume some kind of ur-dog existed in the distant past and that all of the myriad breeds of dogs with which we are now familiar are descended from this ancient ancestor. We are well aware of how we have bred different varieties of dogs to suit our own purposes; the remaining question is: does nature also act upon dogs and other species in a similar way, selecting out certain characteristics which enhance the chances of survival and then, via intercourse between the survivors, breeding this characteristic into subsequent generations?
If the answer to this question has not always been a clear "yes," it has at least been a strong "probably." For anyone who still harbored doubts, Weiner's book should clear them up. He chronicles the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant, evolutionists who have studied the finches of the Galapagos island of Daphne Major for over twenty years. Over that time they identified some 13 species of Darwin's famous finches, which have adapted to everything from vampirism to vegetarianism. They have also been able to demonstrate that the process of change occurs visibly from one generation to the next, so that they can actually measure and record increases in beak size from one cohort to its' descendants. They seem like very dedicated people and rigorous scientists and their story makes for interesting reading.
But, at the end of the day, these finches, which Weiner tells us have been in the Galapagos for millions of years and which the Grant's research shows are capable of such rapid change, are still just finches. They still just have two wings, a beak, little clawed feet, etc. The amazing truth of the book is not actually how fast the birds can change, but how little they've changed. The story simply does not move us any closer to understanding genuine "Evolution."
By "Evolution" I mean the much broader historical process by which birds, dogs, man and everything else were created out of primordial ooze. Let us assume for the moment that natural selection suffices as a mechanism to steer this sort of evolution. Even over a period of millions of years, this process would require change just as rapid as that which the Grants observed among Darwin's finches. But it would also require a qualitatively different kind of change; it would require the type of change which is not simply a matter of a bird's beak length varying, but instead the kind of change wherein that bird becomes something other than a bird or at least the kind of changes which would precede that kind of species changeover.
It's now commonly thought that birds descended from dinosaurs. Fine. If this is the case, we have to ask ourselves: what is the process by which some vestigial hint of a feather eventually became a wing? What advantage did this original little nubbin on a pterodactyl's shoulder confer, that resulted in it being bred into the species? It's easy to see how, the beak already existing, it might be helpful to the bird for it to be longer or shorter as circumstances dictate. Likewise, it's easy to understand why you'd breed a dog like a St. Bernard to help effect rescues in the snow rather than one like the dachshund. But as always with evolution, the problem is that we are reasoning backwards, from the end result.
What advantage did some one celled organism million of years ago derive from some tiny mutation that lead eventually to the eye? Mustn't the process of developing the eye taken millions, even billions of generations? And if we'd been there to observe it, wouldn't such a fundamental, albeit gradual, change have been apparent to us? Where then are these types of changes occurring today? What is the next eye? Shouldn't we be able to see something that will give us an advantage as great as the eye did developing within ourselves today? We see our species get taller, less hairy (except for me), grow smarter, etc.. We see all the ways in which we are changing in the same way as finches; why then do we not see the changes that will enable us to make the leap to the next species? Why in the century and a half since Darwin proposed his theory and we've been on the lookout for such a change, have we never seen anything resembling this process anywhere in the natural world?
There was a story in The New Yorker, within the past year or two, about a physicist who has a fascinating probability theory. He posits that it is extremely unlikely that anything is extraordinary, it is always much more likely to be typical and average. He was discussed in the context of Millenarian hysterics. People all over the world believe that the turn of the millennium signals the end of the world. They want this moment to be extraordinary. The physicist (I'm sorry I can't remember his name) argues instead that this moment more likely falls somewhere in the middle of the long continuum of existence, than at one of the end points. If Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years or whatever, it is more likely that it has another 4.5 billion to go than it is that we happen to be alive at the moment it ceases.
Similarly, it seems likely that if theories of Evolution are accurate, we are simply in the midst of a long process, not at it's culmination. We, and all the species around us,. should be changing just as rapidly as we would have had to in the past to have gotten to this point from our humble origins in the muck. It is extremely unlikely that we happen to be alive during a unique pause in the process. So where is it? Where is the evidence that we are changing in these fundamental ways?
Jonathan Weiner says that:
Life is always poised for flight. From a distance, it looks still . . . but up close it is flitting this way and that, as if displaying to the world at every moment its perpetual readiness to take off in any of a thousand directions.
In fact, the directions it flies off in are so cribbed and circumspect--add some beak here, make these predominantly white butterflies predominantly black, make the Japanese people five inches taller on average since WWII--that we are left with most of the basic questions about evolution unanswered. Until someone can start to answer these real questions, books like this one simply gild the lilly, confirming scientifically what we all knew intuitively; that you can breed a general characteristic into a species as long as it is just a minor variation from the preexisting mean. Whoopee!
It's not that this is a bad book, more that it's enthusiasts claim entirely too much for it. The subtitle should be "A Story of Natural Selection in Our Time." It shows that natural selection occurs, but Evolution is another story.
GRADE: B-
Does a house rest on a foundation? Does the foundation rest on the earth? What does the Earth rest on?...Is there proof of Gravity? Of its effects or it? What is it, Gravity? Is it a God? Is it the God? Or is it just a word with a meaning and definition and a practical application? What causes it? Is it the same everywhere? No. Is the Earth round? No. Is it flat? Definitely not. Etc.
Tell your friend the proof of "evolution" depends on how far you carry the evolutionist party line. It is a religion at its extreme with Earth as its God. Is there proof that Earth is a God?
It is amazing how quickly people are to draw conclusions about things based on a minimal amount of information. My feeling is, that no matter how smart we think that we are and no matter how much we know about the origins of life and the universe, we remain enormously ignorant.
The complexity of life itself, the laws that govern the universe and the amazing way in which this earth, a living planet, provides everything that life needs to sustain it, points to intelligent design.
Through my own personal struggle with faith, I have learned that there is a dilemma that one comes against when considering faith in God. Once a person accepts that there is a God, one enters into the realm of absolutes and this realm can be frightening because if there is an absolute God who gave mankind absolute laws in which to live by, then this means that one day this God is going to administer absolute judgement on me. At this point, the message of salvation through Christ may be attractive but it is also tempting to back away at this point, and look for some other way to make sense of it all.
Here is a web site that may be helpful to you and your friend. It has some really good articles that use science to support God.
May God Be With You.
What is so important is when our body dies our spirit/soul continues to exist and it must go either of two places - heaven or hell. Hell was made by God for satan and his angels not for us humans. But then sin came into our lives by Adam's fall and, thus, if man lives in sin when his body dies his spirit/soul is relegated to hell with satan and his (demonic) angels.
All the above, however, is based on faith. To believe in God's Word, to believe that we are spirit beings, etc. requires faith. If one is not willing to believe and have faith that all this is true, then we are lost from the beginning. And all we have left to believe in is evolution - in a THEORY.
Because we have free wills, Jesus asks us to invite Him to be a part of our life; he will not force Himself onto us. In doing so the Holy Spirit comes into our (spirit) being and makes us a new creation.
I'm not going to argue semantics or quote chapter and verse here. For me though, the mere fact that your friend is capable of asking such a question is proof to me that God exists. Holding my newborn daughter in my arms was proof that God exists. Seeing the sun rise, and watching as the geese wing their way south, that is proof that God exists.
Someone already pointed out that if there was simple proof, then faith would be easy, and our freewill compromised. I can't argue with that, and I won't. It's not easy to have faith...faith that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all else that God is. That is the challenge of faith, to believe and love God and his son Jesus Christ, no matter what happens. To have faith that He has a plan for you, no matter how bad things seem to appear. That is one of the challenges of faith.
My world seemed so much darker when I believed that there was nothing after this life. That death was the end of it all. What good was living then at that point? What would you accomplish? What good was all the pain and suffering? That life would end and the lights would go out and I would simply cease to exist except as a fading memory for a few people. But my belief and faith in God, and the saving power of Christ has changed that. There is a purpose to my life, and a plan that I cannot see, but that I have faith in.
So many people have offered excellent book titles for your friend to read. I'd suggest Matthew or Mark.
Proof of evolution? There isn't any. For every alleged "proof" that the creation worshipers provide, there is also a proof that the Creator worshipers can provide. Always ends up in a battle on the flesh-level and leads nobody to an understanding or relationship with God.
Look around. Notice how everything is in perfect balance. If the earth were rotating just three miles per hour faster than it is, all the balance on the planet would be unfit for life. If there wasn't the tilt to the earth's axis, the planet would be uninhabitable. If the earth's orbit around the sunwere three miles per hour faster than it is, it would spin off into icy space and if it were three miles per hour slower, it would crash into the sun. If we didn't have the moon, to create our tides, the oceans would choke, as the tides clean the ocean and enhance the O2 production.
Everywhere you look you see intelligent design. 15,000 different chemicle processes occur in a human cell each minute. Each one is essential for life. The statistical probability of life occurring from nonliving matter exceeds the possibility of the event ever happening by chance.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics show that evolution cannot happen. The universe is decaying, not moving toward more order, yet the evo-theory wants you to believe that theses two laws of physics apply to all of the universe except their pet theory of evolution. It is almost like me saying that the law of gravity applies to every object in the universe, except me...that's why I can fly and nobody else can. Ridiculous! You'd rightly think me to be nutty if I said such a thing, because we both know that the law of gravity is universal and I am not exempt from it. So too, are the first and second laws of thermodynamics also universal in their application. The evolutionists have consistantly had to elongate the time period of the evolutionary processes to accomidate their fanciful theory, for as science has observed more and more of the universe, their theory seems to crumble...then they say...."oh...I guess it just took longer than we originally thought". Don't believe me? Look back at the various theories for the age of the earth. You'll find that as the years went by, the evos had to add more and more years to their dating, to accomidate the statistical improbabilities.
Last point. Geochronometers. These are earth signs (time clocks) that help us date the earth. For instance...at the current rate of decay in the size of the sun (entropy...2nd law of thermodynamics), just 500,000 years ago, the sun's size would have been so large that every living thing on this planet would have been incinerated. Look at the moon; by it's orbital decay rate, just 50,000 years ago, the moon's proximatey would have been so close that the tidal fluctuations alone would have flooded great areas of the planet and the gravitational pull would have created eathquakes that would have torn the earth up so badly that earthquakes would be relentless, with daily volcanic eruptions. A place unsuitable for life. Yet the evos want us to believe that the cosmos are (in my best Carl Sagan voice) "billions and billions of years old".
Creationists begin with a Creator who created everything for a purpose. It makes sense and the creation itself testifies to this truth.
The evolutionists on the other hand wish for you to believe that nothing created everything, out of nothing and for no purpose and by some radom chance, everthing worked out perfectly. Talk about a supernatural event!
All the words won't convince anyone. Just look around. When you pick up an arrowhead from the stream, you can see how it has intellegent design as opposed to random rocks that have been beaten around by the river. You can clearly see the hand of its creator by observation. Now look at the universe. Do you see purpose? Do you see intellegent design? Do you see th balance in the universe?
Psalm 19:1 says; "The heavens declare the glory of God and the earth, His handiwork (in original Hebrew, "His fingerwork"). Roman's chapter 1 says that everyone already knows that God exists, because the creation proves it and proves that the creation is not Him, but was created by Him and that there is no excuse for supressing the truth. Those that do supress this truth worship the creation rather than the creator.
This thread is going to invite some nasty and ungodly debate, as these crevo threads always do. The bottom line is that since the origin of life and higher life forms are neither observable, testable, reproducable, or falsifiyable, it cannot be proven by traditional scientific observational techniques, regardless of the nonsense that will be posted here. You either believe in evolution by faith, or you believe in creation by faith. Look around and let your senses, logic and your heart tell you what you learn from observing the universe.
Proof of God? Look into your heart. Do you see a level of morality? In order for you to have a moral standard, you have to have received it form a moral law giver. Wanna take a guess Who that law giver is? He said that He created us in His image. Animals have no such moral law. He has already written in your heart that He exists; all you have to do is look. Now, do you want a clearer picture of Him manifested? Please read the gospel of John. Before you do, pray a simple prayer, something like this..."God, if you really do exist, then I want to know about you and to know you personally. Please help me to understand what I am about to read, so that I can understand". If your desire is sincere, He'll answer your prayer. Promise.
His best wishes to you.
Your friend.
baa
....just curious.....
Dan
Proofs about God were a driver of Western philosophy and metaphysics up through Immanuel Kant in the late 1700s. Since then, the topic has been pretty much given up.
From the University of Toronto
And St. Anselm also wrote on this subject.
As for me, I say just take a walk in nature and look around. Is it all accidental? Pure chaos?
Oh, it is accidental, huh? Then please explain why mathematics, science and astrophysics all work so perfectly. And even chaos theory may be proven mathematically.
Reality exists in the mind of God.