Creation vs. Evolution Essay
1147 Words5 Pages
Today many scientists would have people to believe that evolution is the only reasonable explanation of the universe. Scientists, like Stephen Hawking, claim that they have proved that evolution is the correct answer to the origins of life and the universe, yet evolution is still a theory. This problem occurs because evolution is not the only answer. In fact, the creation theory offers a more feasible answer to the origins of the universe than the evolution theory does. Creation has the backings of the Bible, an extraordinarily credible book; where evolution provides a theory with many holes in it.
Too frequently the Bible is considered a weak argument, but why? When using the Bible as a reference for any argument, the accuracy of the…show more content…
Not only is the Old Testament historically accurate, but also the Old Testament demonstrates knowledge that is undiscovered for centuries after the Old Testament was written. Twice, in Genesis, God told Abraham that his descendants would be innumerable, just like the stars, but up until the time of Galileo, scholars still tried to count the stars. Today scientist know that there are over 100 billion stars in the universe, and counting them would require around the clock counting for 3000 years. For centuries the earth was not always thought of as spherical. Until the time of Magellan, no one was positive that the earth was round. Isaiah and David both mention the spherical shape of the earth. Recently scientists have discovered springs at the bottom of the ocean, but Job talks with God about the springs in the Ocean. The Old Testament is filled with scientific knowledge is has been proven (Pyles). There are countless examples of the Old Testament being correct scientifically, even when the knowledge of the subjects were limited. Why would the creation account be incorrect if the other accounts mentioned in the Old Testament were correct? Although scientist or philosophers did not write the Bible, God revealed this knowledge to the authors so the Bible would be indisputable.
Skeptics tend to not credit the accuracy of the Bible and say that the creation narration is just not enough evidence. Evolutionists have theorized that the earth
Ever since the theory of evolution came out, it has been disputed by religion. Here is an essay that gives a brief but informative revew of the dispute, also looking at whether both evolution and religion can co-exist.
Whether you are religious or not, most people would have to agree that we are different to other spiecies. The question is, how different; some people believe that we just happened to evolve as the most intelligent and advanced speied on the planet, while others think we have been placed here and designed for a reason.
In his latest book Stephen Hawkins said that in scinence there wa no room for religion, contradicting his earlier thoughts that there could have been a ‘craetor’ or ‘God’ involved in the creation of the universe. However, some people do think that evolution and religion do mix, for example there are many christians (and even Catholics who follow the Bible more closely) who think that evolution is scientific fact. Unfortuanatly though there are many ways which the theory of evolution disputes the central ideas of Christianity.
The biggest idea in Christianitys history is that of Jesus dying for our sins, but can this be realistic? If there are things we are doing wrong there has to be rules to be broken, if so; whose rules? Presumably Gods, but if evolution was how human kind developed, how can we have sin, because evolution is a completely natural process. We deserve death and eternal punishment but Jesus payed the price for us. To paraphrase Paul: 'without that Christian faith is in vain.' Without these sins, there would be no nees for Jesus to be punished and killed. How can something natural be fundimentally wrong, why would we evolve with a set of rules, that in some cases, are not sutable for human life now.
If we came to be in the way evolution thinks, then there was no literal Adem and Eve in the Garden of Eden which means there was no origanal sin through disobaying God. Why would sin suddednly 'pop up' in evolution, and if it did; is it natural to sin?
If sin was an evolved feature, at what time did it emerge? Did neanderthals have sin - do apes, if that is where we have come from.
Some might argue that 'sin' should read simply as the 'transgression of moral codes' and 'original sin' is really the 'original self-awareness' of moral codes. This social awareness is not exclusive to humans, monkeys have it too,does this mean that chimps diedfor sin too? None of this can be easily answered. Sin, our alleged didsobedience to God, apears to be nothing more than a religious concept which is actually enforced by other humans rather than God. That, however, would mean that Jesus died for nothing and God (if he/she exists) is looking rather unimportant - unessasery infact. No devout Christian can really accept this.
Another question is, do humans have a soul. This imortal soul iswhat Jesus died for, not our literal bodys, if we don't have a soul, then what did Jesus die for? A moral code? If souls do exist, when in evolution did they start, did Homo Erectus have a soul too? If so, then whydid that speices die off. Would God want a spieces with a soul to die? Evolution suggetss that our speices isn't special, but religion does. If these creatures with souls died,were they saved without Jesus, or is God just coldhearted and capricious?If they didn't have a soul, has the whole of evolution been to create us? The entire Neanderthal Line aparently developed and ended without direct imput upon or eventual development, are we in fact, special? Was allthis done for us? If we say evolution existed, then it still exists today; we are not the finished product.
All of this makes no real sense, if religion is to carry on within human society.
Yet not all religion is doomed, for instance Buddhism supports evolution. The Buddah taught that all things are 'imperminant, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading', which suggests evolution. Buddhist philosiphers have consequenty rejected the Platonic idea of production from 'ideal forms'. The two key concepts of evolution are as follows: thst Genesis is wrong (which Buddhists believe as the are aitheists), and that there is no real distinction between hman and animal. They think that the world is billions of years old, and the fact they are vegetarians proves that both human and animal lives are sacred.
Hinduism can also fit quite neatly into evolution.
"... In the beggining there was only the 'Great self'," says the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. "Reflecting, it found nothing but itslf. Then its first word was 'This I am.'" Finding nothing but itself, the Upanishad continues, and the 'Great Self goes on to divide into two halves - male and female.These two halves divided into various plants and animals, all the things that make up our world.
It should, in general agreement of how life began, it is eerily similar. In the beginning there was a 'Great Cell', which divided in to two, four, eight and so on. Eventually some bundled together to make multi-celled organisms like plants, animals and fungi.
The vreation story found in the Upanishad is remarkable in it startling similarity to the theory of how life began. Especially when the story was writen in the 8th Century BC, while the cell was only dicovered in the 17th Century AD, and cellular theory was established in the 19th. However this is only one of many Hindu creation storys.
Evolution sound pretty water tight compared to creationism, but there were passages in the Bible that saw it coming:
"...Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished..." II Peter 3:3-6.
A comment about 'all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation', may be a reference to a foundational 'belief' for modern geology as it pertains to evolutionism. Even so, if it is not what the passage is refering to, other verses on the perticular page dispute evelution openly. The Bible also warns us of how the people who disagree with God are going to be punished for their disobedience.
"...For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkned. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..." Romans 1:18-22
This is very frank and suggest that people such as I, who think that evoluion and not God was how we were created, are going to 'get whats coming to them'. unfortunatly this does however seem like an open attempt at the Bible trying to scare us into belief. Yet, it is not only the Bible that gives us a flawed theory. There is no adiquate explination for the origin of life from dead chemicals - this is why evolution is still only a theory - not fact. Even the most simple life forms are tremendously complex, and in the fossil record 9 out only documentation of whether evolution occured in the past), lacks any transitonal forms. There a one or two dubious examples, when there should be thousands. The evedence that "pre-man" or ape-men existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils have all turned out to be those of apes, exsinxt apes, men, or historical frauds.
Evolution or creationism? Neither gives us a cirtain answer, for now we'll just have to wait and see.
© Copyright 2018 Dizzylily. All rights reserved.