Can Evolution Co Exist With The Holy Scriptures?
In one word? Yes. Now surely the literalists will point out the whole six days of creation and say, nonsense!! Evolution had to have taken millions and even billions of years. Then some of the young earthers will jump in and say, in so many words, evolution happened at a very fast rate. Why, Noah had to have taken only one of each kind of animal to fit into the Ark. After they landed, all of those types made super evolution into what we have today. So in other words, One type of cat evolved into lions, tigers, leopards, bobcats, as well as our house cat. And so on. All types of rodents? One kind evolved into them in only a few thousand years. Dolphins, Whales? Oh wait, they live in the ocean so they could survive the colossal conditions that were surely apparent during a world wide flood covering Mount Everest (See http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Great-Flood-of-Noahs-Day-and-The-Great--Tan-neen-of-an-Earlier-Day for answers regarding that silliness). And perhaps one type of monkey evolved into everybody that isn't a Christian. Right?
Uhhhhhhhhh. . . . . . . . .No. That's not what I mean. Anybody that accepts super evolution over a few thousand years is more blind than those who just refuse to accept scientific evidence for an old earth. No. What I mean is that the days of creation are clearly not 24 hour periods of time. In fact, they couldn't be 24 hour periods of time because a day in scripture never means 24 hours. A day is described as a time period of light. In other words, they are generally accepted to be 12 hours (give or take, depending on location and time of year). That's right. Twelve hours. Because remember, if they were 24 hour periods of time, the creation would have taken 6 days and 6 nights. Didn't the rains fall on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights? I guess the scriptures are pretty specific about that. God's people were to work 6 days and rest one. Are we to believe that these people went 6 twentyfour hour periods without sleep? Of course not. They worked during the day and slept at night. The creation days were 6 twelve hour days of light. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oh wait, there was no sun yet. Well, at first god worked at night because. . . . .oh crap that doesn't work either. Let's just ignore that. Isn't that what most Christians do when they run into a problem? It's not important. god worked on creation during the daytime only and . . . . .uumm. . . .slept at night. . .or something.
Really, it's not that difficult to see that the creation days were long periods of time. The word yom could be used to signify either the time of light or a long age in the ancient Hebrew. Just a few examples in the scriptures where yom is a long period of time: The day of the Lord, The day of creation, the day of judgment (isn't hell forever? Ha ha). And the Genesis creation is full of evidence that these days are not 24 hour periods. Again, read http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Great-Flood-of-Noahs-Day-and-The-Great--Tan-neen-of-an-Earlier-DayI want to get into to the evolution thing now. I know many protest that when the Genesis passage says the evening and the morning that this means a 24 hour day. Well, actually this means it's not a 24 hour day but rather, signifies a period of chaos ending with order. Another criticism regards the creation of man. Now, I do not believe that the bible teaches that Adam and Eve were the first humans. If they existed 6000 years ago then they couldn't be. I do believe man was created on day 6. I believe Adam was created to tend the garden. That's what the bible says and I'm sticking to it.
So how can evolution be reconciled with the bible? Well, in Genesis God says "Let the Earth bring forth . . . . .and so on. That's basically what evolutionists say. The earth did it. And the bible just credits God with making life. It never says that when the different kinds were made that they were made at once in their present forms. It could have been gradual. Now, I'll be the first to say that life is impossible without God. I know it's god of the gaps thinking but come on. That first cell? Would have been more complex than all of the technology ever invented by man put together. This is fact. Now, I know the imaginings of science and some of their clever inventions of how everything perfectly lined up naturally without a higher power. I also know that every step imagined for Abiogenesis would have to have been perfect to exponential degrees. So, perhaps my imagination does not run quite as deep. I will say this though: For all of their crazy imaginings of that first cell and how it decided to be super self regenerating and how every form of life came about through gradual changes over time, they have overwhelming evidence for evolution.
What?? For gradual evolution? Are we talking about evolution within species or are we saying that mankind gradually evolved from the same cell that fungus evolved from? Well, surely evolution happens. Why, Darwin's finches grew bigger beaks during times of drought to break the larger seeds. . .only to devolve back years later when the droughts ceased. There are several types of penguins and thousands of types of beetles. Most of this had to be from evolution (well, perhaps not the bombardier beetle. That one just kicks too much arse to have evolved). But we're not talking about these small changes. There is overwhelming evidence that even man, shares ancestry with other creatures, especially the great apes. Predictions have been made and have come true. You have retroviruses showing ancestry between species and chromosome counts being confirmed from a likely fusion of two pairs in humans, showing why we have one fewer pair than the great apes. We, and other life forms have genes that have been turned off and show probable links to other life forms. Chickens have a gene for teeth. And yes, there have been other birds with teeth in the past. Let's not jump onto the dinosaur link right now. I don't read much into the talk of our vestigial organs because often, they don't line up with those of the great apes, so I hear. Once in a great while a human baby is born with a tail like structure. In fact, I understand that there is a gene for human tails that is inactive. I will say, there have also been several anomalies in certain humans that don't seem to be on the so called, human evolutionairy chain. But I digest. Location of fossils and living creatures is a key to show similarities in the fossil record for life existing in the same area and their modifications over greater distances. Although these similarities could be due to what is required of life forms in different areas, and similar features do not always mean similar ancestry. I think evolutionists often make false assumptions in areas concerning similar features. In fact, those evolutionary trees can all but be thrown out for the most part. It has been shown that several types of animals that appear to be closely related have very little in common as far as DNA. Plus, there are several examples of repeat evolution of vital organs throughout the animal kingdom. But imaginations will continue to run wild in the minds of evolutionists. And it doesn't take a real scientist to see this.
Now, I have conceded that there is overwhelming evidence for macro evolution (I know, "real" evolutionists don't distinguish between micro and macro evolution.). But do I believe that all life gradually evolved over millions of years into the colorful varieties of life that exists today? Absolutely not. There is absolutely no scientific mechanism for this to happen. To say that there has been change, is without question. To say that there is an abundance of common ancestry appears to be evident. But gradual change? The fossil record doesn't show it. Life today doesn't show it. And common sense doesn't show it. The gradual changes required for macro evolution would require very fine gradations in the DNA of individual specimens. Let's assume that mutations are a primary mechanism for evolution. Well, one mutation wouldn't do squat to form an organ that is beneficial to the specimen. And for that one mutation to carry over to the next generation, it would have to be beneficial or at the very least, it would have to have a reason to exist in the offspring. And this mutation would require thousands of additional mutations leading to the same thing: A beneficial organ!! Now let's say a baby is born with an extra flap of skin, that over the next million years becomes functional for gliding from a tree, and another million has feathers for better gliding (forget lift, because that would require lighter bones and less muscle weight. . . . .while increasing 10 fold in strength). Would that flap of skin result in better breading potential? Well, today they'd remove it but in the animal kingdom the other animals would probably attack and kill the weaker and uglier mutant. Now that's survival of the fittest my friends. That extra flap of skin would look horendous and would only get in the way.
I hear a lot about transitional species. So what!! If land animals share ancestry with the fishes, this does not mean that land life was a slow and gradual progression. What's that one animal? The tick. . . .tak. .ticktak . . .tilac, or something? First, we don't know what da hell that animal was and even so, it wouldn't prove anything. Most of those so called transitional species are found with duplicates 100s of miles apart. If gradual transition is true, why do we find the same thing without slightly greater or less transition? They may be transitional, but I'll bet the farm they ain't gradually transitioning into anything. Besides, has any one a yas ever wondered why the lung fish are not considered transitional? I think it's because they exist today and science has ruled out transition because of their DNA and other traits. Again, I'm not ruling out common ancestry and transition. I'm just saying, take a break guys. You know next to nothing of these fossils' original anatomies.
Again, if God wanted it to happen that way, it could happen. God or "a god" could separate life forms from the masses so that each necessary change in organ structure would move successively through thousands of generations. No, I'm not talking about punctuated equilibrium here. I'm saying that one of each life form evolving would have to be protected from the other creatures that would pray on it at the first sign of weakness. And there would be weakness. If you think that the changes required for flight from land dwelling wouldn't put a transitional species at insurmountable risk, then you haven't thought about this very deeply. Punctuated equilibrium is a cop out. Since when is incest a good mechanism for evolution? Death of the species would happen well before any functional changes would take place.
Now, I do not believe that all life forms are related. I do think that there are connections within certain large groups in the animal kingdom. I can't deny it because it has been pretty well established by science. So how did life forms make those large jumps that nature seems to indicate? I think God made the changes. He used life already in existence to create new life. He took a few creatures at birth and changed them in a way that they could benefit. At some point, he created modern man from something lower on the intelligence scale. It's funny how we were probably made weaker than our ancestors, and even funnier that we were able to survive against nature's fury. But it happened and it was no mistake. Just look at how the banana fits perfectly into our hand. Right Mr. Ray Comfort? god did it. Right Comfort? Hey Kirk, did you also not research how the banana was bred by man into what it is today? Boy, I wish I could just laugh at them but, man, they teach such crap!! And I ain't talking about their banana hypothesis. Anyway, back to what I was saying. God made these changes we see. There is no evidence for gradual evolution on a large scale and there is no mechanism for godless naturalism. So, this may be god of the gaps reasoning but it makes more sense than evolution of the gaps. That's right evolutionists. God did it. How ya like that? That's how you criticize theists. "God did it". Well, you guys are guilty of the same thing. The only difference is, we can see the problems with your beliefs with our God given eyes.