Evolution And Creationism: A Personal Side To The Debate

 

The question of origins, how human beings came to have their current form, is a hotly debated one. This is no surprise: how a person sees human beginnings has everything to do with how they understand the world and humanity’s place in it. Are we uniquely created by God in much our present form? Did we evolve from the primordial soup? Are homo sapiens recent additions to this planet, or were we present from the creation, and uniquely charged with the care of this world and all other creatures in it? Did we evolve slowly, but watched over by God until we developed enough to have a conscience, and could then be said to be in His image? How you answer these questions deeply affects your identity.

Rather than come at this from a scientific angle, I’m going to get personal here. I think this question is more philosophical than scientific. I see people falling on one side or the other not based on the academic arguments, but for deeper reasons. Though I also think they don’t realize this, and most say their position is the most “logical.”

So here is my story, about both evolution, which is one of my intellectual interests, and Genesis, which is a fascination of my heart, and a narrative that guides me through life.

Vaster Than Empires, and More Slow

 

Evolution fascinates me. It’s about origins, where we came from, who we are. The story is murky and shifting, with voices adamant they have the truth, while new pieces to the puzzle are quietly, steadily unearthed.

Recently research on the Neanderthal genome revealed that homo sapiens and Neanderthals interbred after all, a point of much speculation, and some laying down of the law. Interestingly, only Caucasians and Asians carry the Neanderthal genes, not Africans. Perhaps Neanderthals lived in areas accessible only to those homo sapiens who then populated Europe and Asia. Neanderthal remains, after all, have been found only in Europe and parts of Asia.

Maybe Neanderthals weren’t as primitive as most assumed. Looking at the ratio of brain size to body size, Neanderthals had slightly larger brains on average than homo sapiens. Their brains also have a distinctly different shape, though no one knows what that means in terms of brain function. Were Neanderthals capable of speech? My college anatomy professor said no, but the view of the Neanderthal is changing. A few years ago in a library I came across a magazine article about a Neanderthal skeleton which included a hyoid bone. The hyoid bone perches in the human throat, and without it speech would be impossible. The Neanderthal hyoid opened the door of speculation to the language capability of these extinct hominids. It also, at least to me, opened all sorts of questions about Neanderthal culture.  Today we see even animals capable of societies of a type, even if we don’t exactly call them cultures. With the spoken word, the possibilities explode. Add family ties to Homo sapiens, who are the Neanderthals now?

Source

 

The history of the theory of evolution is its own tale, from its racist, classist, sexist beginnings, to its politically correct present. Early evolutionists thought whites were more evolved than blacks, men more evolved than women. Evolution is about identity, more than most realize. It is about what makes us human, and that determines how we see the rest of the world. I find people amazingly self revealing when they talk or write about evolution. They think they talk about science, but they dig down into core beliefs about humanity. I think this is why evolution produces such emotion, such conflict. We don’t just disagree about where we came from; we disagree about who we are.

I find the adaptability of the human body to environment amazing. But on a gut level, evolution just seems to me too, well…slow. I’m on the side of poet Andrew Marvell, who said, “Were there but world enough and time.” No less a person than Dr Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, is on my side. Though it isn’t much talked about, Dr. Crick has opined that DNA is too complex to have evolved, and perhaps came to Earth from somewhere else. I’m a better poet than I am a scientist, and since scientists fall on both sides of the argument anyway, I stick with my gut response.

Source

In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth

 

Creationism, developed by fundamentalist Christian PhDs to do battle with evolutionary thought, is fascinating in its own right. Creationist theory attempts to explain such things as who did Adam and Eve’s children marry, and how could early generations in human history get away with marrying siblings without dangerous genetic problems.  It gives science based answers to such questions as why did the early people of Genesis live such oddly long lives, eight or nine hundred years some of them? And Creationists love dinosaurs. If a picture of Adam and Eve illustrates a Creationist book, a dinosaur stands among the animals of Eden: in Creationist renderings of Noah’s Ark a long dinosaur neck invariably stretches out a window.

But am I a Creationist? I don’t know about that. Whether the earth is 6,000 or 1 billion years old matters little to me, and in general Creationists are passionate about such things.

Source


I don’t know enough about science to argue with the PhDs who disagree with each other. But the bible’s origin stories operate in me on a deeper level than evolution ever will. When I’m somewhere beautiful, I am homesick for Eden. Last summer I went to a river in the woods with my friends and their kids, and my son and one of the girls spent the afternoon climbing around on the banks, appearing in glimpses through the leaves, wading and swimming together. They looked like a young unfallen Adam and Eve. And I thought of what we all lost. I thought some too of what we stood to regain when Jesus finally sets all things right.

When I fell in love with my husband I felt like Eve. Perhaps because my own mother gave me no guidance for experiencing love with a man, some distant memory from my earliest mother awoke inside me. I didn’t plan or will the experience: it graced me of its own accord. The first time he held me close I leaned into his ribs, and the overwhelming feeling that I had once been a part of him and was now reconnecting washed over me. I was my own person, I had a whole history, my own mind, will and emotions, but I knew in that moment we could merge our lives. Perhaps it was Eve, or perhaps it was the eternally existing Jesus, present at the creation of this world, who reassured me that although I had seen little but cruelty and self service in marriages that something better could happen, that male and female reconciled was the order of things.

Jesus said, “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.” But I also seem to carry a race memory of our lost paradise. C.S. Lewis called this “The inconsolable wound that every man is born with.” Author John Eldridge named the mourning for a lost perfect state “The miseries of a dethroned monarch.”

How do I reconcile my fascination with evolutionary theories with my internal sense of humanity’s history? I don’t know that I do. I don’t think the scientists on either side have reconciled all the evidence. I also think the very definitions science uses are limited at best. We call ourselves Homo sapiens, but if Homo sapiens and Neanderthals produced fertile offspring, they are not separate species, but just different populations. Again, the worldview of the person determines how they interpret the evidence. Think about where scientific knowledge was a hundred years ago. That process is only accelerating. That’s why I have little confidence in one piece or another of scientific data. But I do have confidence in God, and confidence in what He has put in my heart.


An evocative novel of Eden narrated by Eve

More by this Author


Comments 36 comments

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada

Interesting view as usual. Lacking belief in gods I tend to think we probably evolved because all things change and evolution is exactly that. Evolution is a proven fact in that regard but human origin by changing from single celled animals to the current species of ape that we are is not. It is the most probable answer, however, and there is mounting evidence for it.

Being a person who does not put any faith in any speculative answer I have to say that I do not know; as knowing implies fact.

However, even were evolution proven false tomorrow, it would not prove creation by default. It is not an either or proposition.I can think of several other ways we could have come to be, though they all come with problems as great as and more so than our current two popular choices.

But as much as you are guided by the story of creation, which I won't ruin for you by telling you it's history here, I am just as interested and fascinated by evolution.

To me it is a wonderful process which will still be filled with mystery even if all the mechanics are found, known and proven.

I mean, even if humanity is due entirely to the nature of existence rather than an outside god, the process itself is godlike.

In fact, to me it is even more amazing than the idea of an outside conscious god, as well as being infinitely more personal.


graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 5 years ago Author

Slarty - I find this very interesting, that humanity being formed by the nature of existence itself seems more personal to you than being created by a God who is himself a sort of person. Christianity (especially the protestant veersion) makes a great deal of the personal nature of God, the impersonal nature of not beleiving in a God.

I recently skimmed through a book (I have to go back & read the whole thing) called How God changes Your Brain. Written by a neurobiologist, the book talks about how contemplating God strengthens connections in the brain, works against age related degeneration, lowers anxiety, ect.

This would mean some regular exercise contemplating God (the research doesn't make distinctions in how you define God, and included people of different religions) improves brain functioning. This must feel personal I think. To people experiencing it, it would feel like a relationship, though perhaps not all define it that way.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi Grace :)

I enjoyed this article very much. You write very clearly and poetically, I think.

You have kindly linked to my hub (thank you for that ~ I shall also add a link to yours), so you will know that my conclusions are somewhat different from your own, but I realise that learning is an ongoing process and that new evidence will be changing minds for years to come.

As for the 'feelings' that you get about 'Adam's rib' and the 'Garden of Eden', I, too, get such feelings, but without the Biblical element. :)

I get very strong feelings about things that are meant to be; our connection to the past; connections to certain people ~ my husband, of course, being one of them.

I did find myself agreeing, very much, with the comments from Slarty O'Brian. :)


graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 5 years ago Author

Trish - I wanted to include different viewpoints in the links, and thought your hub on the subject was outstanding.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada

"I find this very interesting, that humanity being formed by the nature of existence itself seems more personal to you than being created by a God who is himself a sort of person."

True. It isn't a conscious being, but you are part of it where as you are not part of a separate god. The relationship between the human and the process is infinitely more personal because we are part of the process. We live the process.

I know this is not the cold relationship Christians think a materialist view must come to. But they are not really qualified to make such judgments being the opposition, and as it turns out they are wrong. ;)


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

If,E T'S exist and they have superior medical capabilities then we could have been evolved up to a point and created up to a point.I think created first then experimented on or evolved second.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(Think about where scientific knowledge was a hundred years ago.... That’s why I have little confidence in one piece or another of scientific data. But I do have confidence in God...)

What an odd juxtaposition of thinking. Science, which over the past 100 years has learned to cure illnesses that devastated global populations is not to be trusted, but god, who has not had the decency in all that time to regrow a single amputated limb - although such action is well within his scope of power and surely at least one amputee would have been worthy of such mercy - is to be trusted.

It is like saying I don't accept the ideas of educated, honest men who use a styalized process of discovery that has led to meaningful life-altering accomplishments, as I prefer to believe in the non-evidenced oral legends of invisible superbeings that were passed on around campfires by ancient illiterate nomadic sheepherders who died of curable diseases and had life expectancies in the forties or early fifties.

It just seems an odd choice of trust. But that is just me.


graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 5 years ago Author

someonewhoknows - Are you familiar with Graham Hancock? His recent book 'Supernatural' compares modern UFO experiences with Celtic faerie legends, ancient cave paintings, and experiences of South American shamans. He thinks the experiences modern people call UFOs are nothing new, they've been happening to humanity for millenia. Very interesting book.

AKA Winston - The bit you quoted reads "That’s why I have little confidence in one piece or another of scientific data." I did not mean that I have no confidence in science at all, or overall progress of science. I meant that I have seen enough new discoveries and new research to not jump quickly on any new bandwagon. For instance, my Anatomy professor said Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal did not produce offspring, she dismissed that idea out of hand as impossible. Now DNA evidence shows that they did. So what I am saying (perhaps I did not say it well in the hub), is that one just has to realize that things that are considered absolute scientific facts can turn out to be wrong. It doesn't make any less appreciative of modern medicine.

But on the modern medicine subject - I suffer from serious health problems that no specialists have been able to explain let alone cure. God hasn't cured me either. Would it sound strange if i said I'm at peace with both those things? Why a good God tolerates suffering in the world is a question I don't think anyone has solved. The best in my opinion in Jesus' parable of the wheat and the tares, though I suspect that parable doesn't satisfy many people either.

Looking at it another way, why was I so fortunate as to receive $100K in academic scholarships, have two perfect children and a 20 year and counting happy marriage? In spite of near constant physical pain I feel lucky in life, which may explain why I trust God.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

I agree with the Idea that UFO's are not new to the earth otherwise I would not believe that the ET's had a hand in the evolution of man.Which I do of course.

The way I understand it,ET's from many different star systems in or near the milkyway galaxy traveled to earth on the way to other planets and solar systems.A stop over you,might say.They probably are responsable for many if,not most of the diversity of life on earth.Plants animals,insects and so on.There may even be life that exists within the earths interior.There is evidence to this effect.The hollow earth theory.

I'm sorry to hear about your life of physical pain.

You may want to look at the link I'm providing you below it may be of help to you.

http://1-thyroid.com


graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 5 years ago Author

someonewhoknows - That's for the link. I'll be looking into it.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Grace,

I meant to give you kudos on describing one side as creationism rather than ID or some other such euphenism.

However, the debate is only one-sided: there is no debate among scientists.

From an intellectual perspective, the simplest explanation (following Occam's razor) that resolves the paradoxes you pointed out is simple to explain:

(Why [would] a good God tolerate suffering.. )

Answer: because there is no god to intervene.

This hypothesis also fits facts that suffering happens in the same proportions to good and bad, young and old, innocent or evil.

All other explanations take pages upon pages of theological machinations to make it appear that free will trumps the question of evil, and even that idea has been shown to be inconclusive, at best.

But if you take a few of the basic questions that perplex, they become non-questions when applying one simple hypothesis.

Why don't amputees get miraculous new limbs?

Because there is no being who can accomplish that miracle.

Why do bad things happen to good people?

Because there is no one to prevent it, therefore, things happen to all in equal proportions.

The same holds true for creationism/evolution. We are aware that evolution is factual - it has been observed. Creationism, though, must start with a premise that it is possible somehow to have something appear magically out of nothing by will of an equally mysterious superbeing.

Seriously, doesn't this "will of a superbing" explanation sound more like the methods the ancients used to resolve natural mysteries like the sun moving across the sky, thunder and lightning, and eclipses than the rational conclusions of modern man?


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Grace,

I meant to give you kudos on describing one side as creationism rather than ID or some other such euphenism.

However, the debate is only one-sided: there is no debate among scientists.

From an intellectual perspective, the simplest explanation (following Occam's razor) that resolves the paradoxes you pointed out is simple to explain:

(Why [would] a good God tolerate suffering.. )

Answer: because there is no god to intervene.

This hypothesis also fits facts that suffering happens in the same proportions to good and bad, young and old, innocent or evil.

All other explanations take pages upon pages of theological machinations to make it appear that free will trumps the question of evil, and even that idea has been shown to be inconclusive, at best.

But if you take a few of the basic questions that perplex, they become non-questions when applying one simple hypothesis.

Why don't amputees get miraculous new limbs?

Because there is no being who can accomplish that miracle.

Why do bad things happen to good people?

Because there is no one to prevent it, therefore, things happen to all in equal proportions.

The same holds true for creationism/evolution. We are aware that evolution is factual - it has been observed. Creationism, though, must start with a premise that it is possible somehow to have something appear magically out of nothing by will of an equally mysterious superbeing.

Seriously, doesn't this "will of a superbing" explanation sound more like the methods the ancients used to resolve natural mysteries like the sun moving across the sky, thunder and lightning, and eclipses than the rational conclusions of modern man?


graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 5 years ago Author

someonewhoknows - I meant to say "Thanks" for the link. I guess my copyeditor was on break :)


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

Thatonlygoestoprovethatthemindisabletodeciperwriitenlanguagesuchasthisdespitethetimeitakestounderstandit.


graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 5 years ago Author

AKA Winston - I am thinking you know more about science and the scientific community than myself, so I want to ask you something. (My college degrees are Literature & Teaching, and my only college level science was a handful of Biology courses. I have what might be called a layman's interest in science, as I like to read books that are based on research, but directed at the popular audience. Like "The 10,000 Year Explosion," which is about how civilization has impacted evolution of the human body.)

So the question is this - What about the PhDs who are Creation Scientists? You said that there is no debate among scientists, but these are people who were awarded the highest scientific degrees by accedited universities. I was wondering recently if Creation Scientists were in fact dinosaurs, and they were all old fellows in a club who couldn't get anyone young to join. So I looked up the membership on one of the creation organizations (can't remember which), and they had a steady stream of young PhDs from all sorts of science specialties joining. I know by far the vast majority of science PhDs are not creationists, but this does seem an indication that there is dissent out there.

Creationists wouldn't consider me a creationist I think, because I'm not into a literal interpretation of the bible, and I especially don't see the point of holding to a literal reading of numbers of years and that sort of thing.

A meeting of science and religion isn't confined to Christianity. I had lunch once with a coworker, a Hindu chemist, and I asked her about a particular Hindu holiday. She ended up explaining the 9 incarnations of God. They followed the evolutionary path, a fact she commented on. Here was a person who was a scientist and a practising Hindu, who did not see a conflict between evolution and her religous experience. If anything, she seemed tickled by the overlap.

I have a friend whose father published a children's book about evolution, which explained the epochs in reference to the 7 days of creation from Genesis. My friend's father was a nuclear physist.

My point is that science and religion are not either/or propositions for everyone.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada

Creation scientists are not scientists. It's very simple. They may have a PHD but that doesn't make them scientists.


graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 5 years ago Author

Can you explain why they are not scientists?


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi Grace :)

Thank you for your very kind words. I have now linked this very interesting item to a few of my relevant hubs.

I understand that at least some Creationists with PhDs have achieved their educational status, purely in order to be able to say that they have science PhDs, yet are Creationists.

In other words, they went into Science deliberately biased against evolution and deliberately remained that way, regardless of anything that they may have discovered in their studies ~ or possibly, because they attended 'Bible Colleges' where everyone believed as they did.

This is what I have been told, anyway :)


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Hi Grace,

I didn't see your response earlier. Slarty is basically right as there are only a handfull of scientists who give any credence to creationism and of those their interest is based on religious beliefs rather than any scientific interest.

If you are interested, Barbara Forrest was an expert witness in the Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board case and she is an expert on the history of creationsim/ID.

There wasn't an organized creationist movement until some wealthy right-wing Christians formed The Discovery Institute which then funded further expansion of the ideas that ultimtely led to ID and the Kitzmiller trial.

As an example of the ID "experts", Jonathan Wells is a member of the Unification Church (moonies) who was funded by that church to obtain a Ph.D. for the stated reason to attack and refute Darwinian evolutionary thought. He is not a scientist - he is a paid education assassine, basically.

The reality is there is zero debate within the real working scientific community about evolution. Evolution is one of the best tested theories in all of science. The only "controversy" is from the false controversy that is spread via the propoganda war used by The Discovery Institute to promote their aims of introducing Christian thinking into schools and society at large.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

grace,

You are right that there is no conflict between evolution and the idea of an initial creator, as the Catholic Church has held the position for some time now that there is no conflict.

But that is really abiogenesis, not evolution.

Creationism has been usurped in the U.S. by a small group of evangelical Christians who promote the creationism concept of Intelligent Design.

There are different views within this group, from young earthers to old earthers - the idea of The Discovery Institute was to consolidate all these factions into one cohesive political organization that could alter society and government.

So when I talk about creationism, I am speaking strictly about these evangelicals and more specifically of The Discovery Institute and their members/followers.


graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 5 years ago Author

Thanks, AKA and Trish, for the information.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

How do Evolution scientists reconcile the idea of Evolution without something existing in the first place?

I know! Spontanious Evolution through random organic chemical reactions.

Please! The Primordial Soup! There wouldn't by chance be a "Chef" who made that soup?- Intelligence personified!


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(Please! The Primordial Soup! There wouldn't by chance be a "Chef" who made that soup?- Intelligence personified!)

someonewhoknows,

Your thinking about such things is being limited by your thoughts bumping into the walls of your biases. :-))

After you conclude a creator, you then have to follow with, well, if everything must be created then who made the creator? And again, and again, and again: ad infinitum.

The only way to stop this infinite regression is to posit a magical concept: god did it - ascribing the cause of the unknown to a magical concept is exactly how the ancients explained their unknowns, like the movement of the sun across the sky (towed by the horses of gods) and the sound of thunder (Thor's hammer).

The really humorous part of this "god dun it" belief system is that the only difference between it and the ancients' silly ideas is due to the work of the very science that is castigated for not being able to propose a solution to abiogenesis that fits the belief system.

Quite amusing, actually, saying "if you can't prove what I believe then you must be of no use".

The reality is that it has been science that has been responsible for learning why the sun appears to move across the sky and for determining the actual cause of thunder - had it been left up to the religious to investigate these claims, we would be left wondering how Jehovah got his hands on Thor's hammer and whether or not god's horses could win the triple crown.


graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 5 years ago Author

someonewhoknows - My guess would be that scientists would consider the question of who or what existed before the primordial soup to be philosophical, not scientific.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

I wrote a hubpage called "Science - the new religion". It,seems science is becoming mixed with philosphy by many scientists.They should know if,something works and we cannot yet explain,doesn't negate the fact that it does work.

Money,and politics also play a role in science funding which is itself ,not scientific.

I came across this video on "visiting God" which is not scientific proof of God,yet I find compelling on a personal level.

An interview with Rev. Oden Hetrick who visited Heaven many times. It unveils amazing details of Heaven: The Holy City, The Tree of Life, The River of Life, Mansions, Chambers, The Throne of God, The Sea of Glass, Companionship & Intimacy and much more…

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5865956312...


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

AKA Winston - I'm aware that we can't explain "The begining or existance of a God or creator.That doesn't mean that there isn't one.I think it's a matter of scale of knowledge and logic.The ontention that there is no creator is just as hard to prove.That doesn't keep people from saying or thinking such things.Science aswe know it can only prove what we can measure with our instruments.A comment by scientist,QUOTE: "Trying to prove the existance of the either is like trying to measure the weight of a beaker of sea water at the bottom of the ocean."

What can you use as a way to measure this beaker of water when it sits in an environment of the very same substance.You would have to remove it from the environment it sits in.If,you even knew it exists.


graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 5 years ago Author

someonewhoknows - The link you posted goes to a video of a conference about Islam.

I looked up the Rev. Ogden, and I think I saw a tape of his about 20 years ago. I'm going to looka round the site at some point. If anyone else is interested, the link is here:

http://www.odenhetrick.com/index.html


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

I found the link to multiple Google videos by Oden Hetrick

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ODEN+HETRICK%

22&tbo=p&tbm=vid&source=vgc


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(An interview with Rev. Oden Hetrick who visited Heaven many times. It unveils amazing details of Heaven)

someonewhoknows,

What is so compelling about Rev. Hetrick's visit to heaven compared to Muhammad's visit to heaven?

(The ontention that there is no creator is just as hard to prove)

One does not have to prove the negation. The only default position we can know is that existence is real. How existence came to be is a claim.

It is always up to the claimant to prove his argument. A creative being is a claim for the initiation of existence. Therefore, it is up to the theist to prove that claim.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(I'm aware that we can't explain "The begining or existance of a God or creator.That doesn't mean that there isn't one)

someonewhoknows,

I meant to address this in the previous comment, but forgot to do so. Sorry, Grace.

I am afraid you are mistaking my point, someonewhoknows. When you make a positive claim that the primordial soup needs a chef you are stating a need for a designer - if complexity needs to be designed, then that means the designer must have been designed, as he would be more complex than anything he could design.

Are you following? Man cannot design super-man.

So, if design is needed, then the designer must also need a designer who is more complex than he, and so on, and and so on forever.

To stop this infinite regression and claim "god is" is to contradict your own claim of necessity design. What you are saying is design is necessary when I want it to be but it is not when I don't want it to be.

That is inconsistent and an ontological contradiction. It is like claiming the reality of square circles or intersecting parallel lines.

So which is it? Are you claiming a need for design or are you claiming a single god designer, as you cannot have it both ways without contradicting yourself.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

I'm not claiming a single designer.I'm claiming that at least one designer exists.Perhaps there are more and perhaps they have something in common.Just as life probably exists in many more forms and environments than we currently know about.

There can be an infinite number of parallel lines.

There are no square circles but there can be an infinite number of circles within squares.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(I'm not claiming a single designer.I'm claiming that at least one designer exists.)

someonewhoknows,

It sounds as if you unaware of the logical ramifications of your beliefs.

If one designer exists, an infinite regression of designers must also exist, and each must be more complex than the current one, or you are asserting nothing more than your belief in magic.

Faith is belief in magic. One who believes in magic is not a bad person and not necessarily a stupid person, but mainly is a naive person or a pschologically needy person, IMO.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

Your logic concerning designers ---------

(If one designer exists, an infinite regression of designers must also exist, and "each must be more complex than the current one",)

Why must one assume that the current designer is not more advanced than the previous one?

That's like saying the designer of the first automobile was more advanced that the current designer's are.

The former may have had the knowledge first,but that doesn't preclude that the current designer hasn;t been made aware of the formers knowledge and used it to advantage to create something even better.

You are right when it comes to magic as it's a way to explain something you don't really understand.

Why do people go along with things they really don't understand and don't care to understand is a mystery in itself.However,it'e the need to understand that is Important.The need to know that I'm interested in.

Today,science has come to the point of almost being a religion in many circles.It's blasphemy to go against the prevailing dogma that exists in many scientific minds.


Mandrake_1975 profile image

Mandrake_1975 5 years ago from Pennsylvania

Good article. I would be more of a Creationist that believes in Intelligent Design, myself. Isn't that essentially what the definition of a Creator would be (an Intelligent Designer)?

I see no conflict between a belief in Creation and some portions of Evolutionary Theory. Just because the theory of evolution may be correct does not mean that our hypothesized history (according to evolutionists) is correct.

For me, the philosophical debate is in whether or not it makes more sense that it all just happened or it was intelligently guided. To that I say, "when was the last time you saw something less complex turn into something more complex all on its own?" I bet you've seen it happen the other way around many times though!

I could never believe in no God for the simple reason that something always had to exist in order for anything to currently exist. I believe that such an existence being intelligent and making other things is the more rational conclusion as opposed to the fairy tale idea that things just happened by the process of accidental order (beginning with the laws of physics taking on that accidental order). I further believe that the intelligent design of creatures by humans via genetic modification is scientific evidence that supports ID Theory (intelligent designers have been proven to be able to guide and manipulate life), and that evidence is stronger than the current model for evolutionary theory which is mostly based on speculation that is backed up by facts and not direct demonstrations.


graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 5 years ago Author

Mandrake - Thanks for visiting and adding to the discussion!


graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 5 years ago Author

Pierre Savoie - I do not mind dissenting opinions. Many are published above. But I will not publish comments denigrating the female anatomy. I am offended that you emailed me in a harrassing way to tell me this sort of denigrating comment is "good" for me.

I don't harrass or denigrate men about their bodily processes. You should be ashamed to treat a woman this way.

I reported one of your 6 comments to Hubpages, and allowed 3 others because they were not outright denigrating. Since receiving your email, I have removed all your comments, and reported your email to Hubpages. I will not allow any more comments from you on any of my hubs. All hubs are set so that I have to approve all comments before they appear.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working