My stance on the whole creation/evolution thing has evolved from years of thought on the matter. I used to be a “theistic evolutionist,” meaning I thought G-d used evolution as a creation mechanism. But now I’m a “creation mechanism agnostic,” (I made up the term myself - can you tell?) which means I don’t think we’ll ever really know (or be capable of understanding) exactly how G-d did it.
Could He have used evolution? Of course! Could He have done it exactly like it says in Genesis? Sure! (I know - physical evidence is against it, but remember, we are talking about G-d here. . .)
Is there any possible (not just conceivable by men) creation mechanism that would be beyond His capability? Nope!
It’s odd to think that that G-d created the universe in a way that could be understood by a simple nomadic culture 3500 (or so) years ago.
I imagine if G-d were to re-deliver the creation account today, it might include things like natural selection and meteors.
Along the same lines, though, if G-d were to re-deliver the creation account 100 years from now, it might include things like tachyons and quarks (or just substitute any of the techie fill-in words they use on Star Trek).
So, I’m in a class that’s neither creation or evolution, or maybe both?
BTW - Am I way out there on this one? It’s OK, you can tell me.
I don’t think it’s rare to believe in Jesus AND evolution (as I do), but that reminds me of a question I saw on the 'net not too long ago: If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?
I think evolution doesn’t say man evolved from apes, but that man and apes evolved from common ancestors. The idea, as I understand it, is that members of this species would have spread out, and evolved based on adapting to the environments they encountered.
So, one group of this species lived where survival depended on being strong and eating alot of leaves (apes), and another group lived where they had to learn to use tools and wear clothes to survive (man).
I work for the State of Tennessee/dept. of transportation/state photo lab. Although you might think that the place was overrun with creationists–not so. Despite being in the bible belt, many Tennesseans are very embarrassed about the creationist thing. a handhul of goobers make the rest of us look bad. Creationists are loud, and tend to organise, but seem to be rather scarse on the ground. Since creationism is associated with the South, I suspect that it is even rarer elsewhere.
The oldest macroscopic fossils are stromatolites, formed from sediments left behind by colonies of bacteria. Using various dating techniques (geologic layers in which they were discovered, radioargon decay, etc.), the oldest ones register as having formed somewhere between 2 and 3 billion (with a “b”) years ago.
I believe microscopic fossils have been found that date back as far as 4.65 billion years.
Man did not evolve “from” monkeys and apes; monkeys and apes and man evolved from a common ancestor which was neither very monkey-like, ape-like, or man-like. As this “proto-homonid” set up shop in different areas of the world, different traits began to be favored by different environments; those traits became more pronounced over time until the two sub-populations of proto-hominid no longer resembled eachother in a way that they used to. They were now two different species. It is entirely possible that one environment favored the “old form” and thus the poulation there changed very little, while another environment was not very kind to the “old form” and thus favored forms that were drastically different. If neither environment favored the old form terribly much, then both populations may have evolved into forms different than the original. The original form is said to have “died out” in the latter case, but survived in the former. The case of man and apes is much closer to the second example. This is a highly simplified version of evolution, and ignores the issue of the mechanism of the change (be it natural selection, puntuated equilibrium, or whatever) but being uncertain on the mechanism (what CAUSED the change, and HOW the change occurs) in no way refutes that, based on 100% of the evidence ever accumulated to date, this is indeed what happened.
Jason R Remy
“No amount of legislation can solve America’s problems.”
– Jimmy Carter (1980)
“Man did not evolve “from” monkeys and apes; monkeys and apes and man evolved from a common ancestor which was neither very monkey-like, ape-like, or man-like.”
Nope. Nice try. Taxonomically, humans are apes. The living group with which we share a most recent common ancestor is the two chimpanzee species (we are related to their ancestor, so we are no more closely related to one or the other chimp species). That ancestor was an ape. The many species of man-like apes that descended from that ancestor all died off except one: Homo sapiens. I suggest you get hold of some recent literature if you want to get ideas of the relationships of all those extinct lineages that separate us from the chimps’ distant ancestor.
Taxonomically, it’s all rather random and arbitrary. Humans and the Great Apes taxonomically belong to the same catagory at some level. It may be correct to say that Hmans and Apes are hominids, but apes are defined as non-human hominids. There is no accepted reference for assigning species to any taxonomic catagory based on any real factors, especially beyond the “genus” level. Your silly little semantic arguement in no way changes the crux of the issue. The common ancestor of Humans, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, and Orangutans was not a Human, Chimpanzee, Bonobo, Gorilla or Orangutan. And it was not necessarily closer related to any of these 5 major classes of “homonid” than any other. Humans did not evolve from the modern apes. Both evolved from a common ancestor that has since dies out.
Jason R Remy
“No amount of legislation can solve America’s problems.”
– Jimmy Carter (1980)
Wow. I’m famous. Of course, I’m not just famous, I’m INfamous.
Tom says:
Now hold on there Tom. What do you mean by “complete disbelief in evolution.” I believe in adaptation of species. I’d be a fool not to. What I will not buy into, is anything that takes God out of the picture. If those species adapt, it’s because God designed them to. I will not subscribe to theories of random particles, and primordial oozes, and Chaos…etc. All of those things leave our exsistence to chance. And I think you’d be hard pressed to find a Christian who thinks this universe, and we humans came into existence by chance.
Even the most thorough acceptance of evolution does not have to take god out of the picture. Who are you to say that god did this, but not that? Maybe he designed the ooze to do X. You REALLY need to work on your arrogance when it comes to interpreting Divine action, thoguht, meaning and intention. Isn’t humility supposed to be a virtue that you strive for? You are far away.
Anyway, just wanted to mention that an acquaintence of mine recently, at the age of 43, decided to bail on the Catholic Church because she only now learned that it accepts evolution as the mechanism by which God created the world.
She started to argue the point with me, but as usual with every creationist I’ve ever met, the only way she could do so was by mis-stating the facts of evolution so thoroughly that they bore hardly any relation to the truth. When I tried to gently point out that what she did not believe was in fact something that was never asserted to begin with, she changed the subject.
AMazing what people will put their otherwise perfectly good minds through in order to hold on to what they believe. Willful ignorance is the most irritating thing in the world…
Thanks for the poll link, Darkfox. I found it quite interesting – especially the news that only 25% of college educated people polled believed in “young-earth creation.” I’d like to see a further break-down of that 25% by major. My guess is that only a teeny tiny percentage of the 25%ers will have taken more than two or three college science courses.
[[Now hold on there Tom. What do you mean by “complete disbelief in evolution.” I believe in adaptation of species. I’d be a fool not to. What I will not buy into, is anything that takes God out of the picture.]] Arg
Sounds nice, but what you really mean is that you won’t accept anything, true/logical or not, that conflicts with YOUR SPECIFIC IDEAS about “God.” Nothing about evolution in any way “takes God out of the picture.”
[[ If those species adapt, it’s because God designed them to.]]
More likely, though, “God” (if such a being exists) simply sent out a spark that has continued on it’s own initiative.
Thanks for the link, Darkfox! If it is authentic (and if there was perhaps an update of the poll to account for the slight difference in numbers), my F.A.Z. article may have been correct after all!
Let me just mention that the F.A.Z. was recently elected the third best paper in the world by a panel of (self-proclaimed?) experts. Financial Times came in first, New York Times was runner-up.
