Question:
Why did God create evolution and genetics?
violet
2006-04-25 19:03:55 UTC
I believe that there is a God. But, I don't understand why He created evolution? (Because if God created everything, He created evolution, too) Is it just to test our faithfulness, keep us occupied, or what???
Seventeen answers:
yars232c
2006-04-25 19:16:21 UTC
You actually asked the question right - Charles Darwin admitted in his 'Origin of the Species' that what he discovered was God's work - not random acts which created life.



Religion and Scientce can and does actually co-exist peacefully. If it didn't, the Constitution would have been a failure.



Religion and Science have the same purpose - to predict the future.



Now, in direct reponse to the question - God created both the wonders in the world and beyond it - and it's his mechanics of how he did the job according to the universal laws he put forth.



Now, change any of those laws, and everything changes. We might not be in his image then.



I have listened to Creation, and the Autotroph Hypothesis (you know that - Scientific Theorem of the origin of life, right?) and I gotta tell you, each one is a stretch. It's beyond my imagination that so many things would have to happen for life to happen anywhere in the universe without Existentialism - purpose.



Even the small supposed number of places in the universe that have life is so much less than the places that don't - make life that much more special and that it happened a miracle.



One last thought - We certainly are today upsetting the balance of Survival of the Fittest - we attempt to take care of the sick, old, young, animals and environment - is that part of natural selection, or a design that life much ultimately achieve, or part of God's plan?
Bill Mac
2006-04-25 19:07:06 UTC
Man created evolution and genetics to explain the things God has done.
kalikapsychosis
2006-04-25 19:13:28 UTC
Did you ever consider that God just set it all in motion? That God was RESPONSABLE for the BEGINNING of evolution? That adam and eve, all that story, is just symbolisim for what physically took place? People take the bible too literally, I was raised Catholic, believed everything like a fool, until I took Ancient History and learned about sources. The bible is a primary source and should be viewed as such, taken with a pinch of salt, try to put yourself in the shoes of the guy who actually wrote each part, acknowledge that the person you THINK wrote it and who ACTUALLY wrote it might be utterly different, that they HOPED we'd be reading it this far into the future, and they wanted us to draw certain conclusions IN THEIR FAVOUR. It has been done with every single historical source in the world. I believe creationists AND evolutionists are 100% correct
ill_be_phd
2006-04-25 19:33:47 UTC
Just a thought -

In Genesis, the first place life shows up is in the sea, then the land, & finally the creation of humans -- the theory of evolution suggests that life began in the water, then transitioned to land, & (as of today) culminates in Homo sapiens. Hmmm....



And belief in evolution does not mean that you don't believe in God or the Bible, just that you can reconcile science and faith. It's not an either-or situation. Evolution provides clues as to where we came from, Faith provides clues as to why we are here & what we should attempt to accomplish in our short time on Earth.
shepherd
2006-04-25 19:08:29 UTC
God did not create evolution. Check this website out http://www.answersingenesis.org
?
2016-10-16 14:17:25 UTC
surely, the geologic checklist would not help the theory of evolution. It does help ameliorations interior a species, even though it would not help the replace of one species into yet another. The genetic relationship between all living issues would not show (or maybe scientifically propose) a ordinary ancestor. It only identifies that each and each physique kinds of existence in the international are composed of the comparable development blocks. As with maximum so-referred to as data, Mendel's artwork could be completely distorted with a view to slot that sq. peg into the around hollow. Mendel (besides as Darwin) does no longer comprehend the conclusions from their artwork (or the define of their artwork for that count number). there is not any (repeat no, in case you like) verifiable medical data for the changing of one species into yet another. there is substantial data for the theory of micro-evolution. in case you extremely study the technology, you may locate that the data you cite would not help the placement you espouse. God did no longer create this interlocking internet. guy did. Which jogs my memory of the previous poem which says partly "what a tangled internet we weave as quickly as we first prepare to lie to". The data isn't there, and repeating the matra would not make it seem.
?
2006-04-25 19:06:39 UTC
God did not creaste evolution. Evolution is a concoction of Charles Darwin.
suesieq2003
2006-04-25 19:09:50 UTC
no God did NOT create evolution....God does every right..not half-way...evolution is not true!....y whould God have us evolve from some dumb lower life form...i mean does that really make sense?!?! and just...he didnt make evolution....we have always been the same! every has! nothing in this world has been evolved!! evolution was thought up so ppl wouldn't have to believe in God!
Zero
2006-04-25 19:06:01 UTC
God doesn't exist. I used to believe in god until i realized, if hes so powerful and almighty, why does he let **** happen like murder, rape, and all that. Good pepole die while bad people run free. People like to say "god is testing us" but what bullshit is that? if hes testing us with death then he is sick. Whether you believe in him or not is your own opinion, but evolution completely conflicts with God because Adam and Eve says God made us humans doesn't it? so how could evolution work with that? It just doesn't. Science and Religion conflict constantly.
anonymous
2006-04-25 19:07:22 UTC
you either believe in the creation of God and how he created the universe or you believe in evolution. Two separate matters.

If you believe in God and the Bible, you cannot also believe in evolution.
dawn71077
2006-04-25 19:10:13 UTC
God makes things to see how they evolve,it is just the way things are.God plants a seed and a tree grows,we have babies and they grow,any living thing takes a course and no one knows what the outcome until the very end.
pritch402
2006-04-25 19:05:49 UTC
god didnt create evolution, thats just another lame excuse for creation, it says in the bible how god created everything not how the things just happened over time.
anonymous
2006-04-25 19:06:42 UTC
I belive in god too and that man created the whole idea to scare there kids.
insider_mole
2006-04-25 19:08:28 UTC
The better question to ask is "why did we evolve to need a god/deity figure?".



in terms of an answer for YOUR question, "yours is not to question why. yours is but to do or die." you cannot use the word "god" and "why" in the same sentence. those two words are not meaningful in any way under any religion when used in the same sentence. think about it.
anonymous
2006-04-25 19:05:41 UTC
He didn't. God doesn't exist. Science and religion cannot coexist.
B.S.B
2006-04-25 19:05:18 UTC
Almighty.........
Martin S
2006-04-25 19:13:53 UTC
You have to differentiate between the blessing God gave to his creatures when he made provision for micro-evolution, that is for a species to change over time to be able to survive in a changed environment and the fiction of macro-evolution, that a man came from an ape like creature that came from a rodent like creature that came from an amphibian that came from a fish that came from a one celled creature that came about because lightning bolts were sizzling around in a chemical stew and they suddenly formed complex systems and were imbued with "life".



Here are some facts to help you out with this:





Evolution Of Man - What is it?

The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago. The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary pathway. Perhaps the most famous proponent of evolutionary theory is Charles Darwin (1809-82) who authored The Origin of Species (1859) to describe his theory of evolution. It was based largely on observations which he made during his 5-year voyage around the world aboard the HMS Beagle (1831-36). Since then, mankind's origin has generally been explained from an evolutionary perspective. Moreover, the theory of man's evolution has been and continues to be modified as new findings are discovered, revisions to the theory are adopted, and earlier concepts proven incorrect are discarded.



Evolution Of Man - Concepts in Evolutionary Theory

The currently-accepted theory of the evolution of man rests on three major principles. These principles hinge on the innate ability which all creatures have to pass on their genetic information to their offspring through the reproductive process.



The first tenet is microevolution, the occurrence and build-up of mutations in the genetic sequence of an organism. Mutations are predominantly random and can occur naturally through errors in the reproductive process or through environmental impacts such as chemicals or radiation.



The second tenet of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a natural mechanism by which the fittest members of a species survive to pass on their genetic information, while the weakest are eliminated (die off) because they are unable to compete in the wild. Natural selection is often termed "survival of the fittest" or "elimination of the weakest."



The third tenet is speciation, which occurs when members of a species mutate to the point where they are no longer able to breed with other members of the same species. The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from the previous group.



Evolution Of Man - Scientific Evidence

The theory of evolution of man is supported by a set of independent observations within the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and molecular biology. Collectively, they depict life branching out from a common ancestor through gradual genetic changes over millions of years, commonly known as the "tree of life." Although accepted in mainstream science as altogether factual and experimentally proven, a closer examination of the evidences reveal some inaccuracies and reasonable alternative explanations. This causes a growing number of scientists to dissent from the Darwinian theory of evolution for its inability to satisfactorily explain the origin of man.



One of the major evidences for the evolution of man is homology, that is, the similarity of either anatomical or genetic features between species. For instance, the resemblance in the skeleton structure of apes and humans has been correlated to the homologous genetic sequences within each species as strong evidence for common ancestry. This argument contains the major assumption that similarity equals relatedness. In other words, the more alike two species appear, the more closely they are related to one another. This is known to be a poor assumption. Two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry.



Additionally, the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.



Evolution Of Man - The Scrutiny

The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate "life-or-death" determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation. Overall, the evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. This is not because it has been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications which go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof.



Human Evolution: The Legacy of the Fossil Evidence

Human evolution has many issues, including the realities of genetics, biochemistry, design theory, irreducible complexity, DNA structure, and information systems. However, the reality of the human fossil record alone is enough to reject the theory of human evolution all together. Here are just a few of the major problems with the alleged fossil record of the past century:



Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.

Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw.

Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.

Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.

Neandertal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.



Human Evolution: The Current Tree

Human evolution has its currently fashionable specimens that lead from small ape-like creatures to Homo sapiens. These are examples of the most recent alleged links:



Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.

Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.

Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.



Human Evolution: The Most Recent Find

In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the earliest member of the human family found so far." By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim -- declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.



Human Evolution: The Theory Has No Support in the Fossil Record

Human evolution is a theory in denial. With all of this fossil evidence (or lack thereof) it becomes increasingly clear to an earnest seeker that human evolution did not happen at all.





DNA Double Helix: A Recent Discovery of Enormous Complexity

The DNA Double Helix is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. First described by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, DNA is the famous molecule of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until mid-2001, that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now understand that each human DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill all the books in any of the world's largest libraries.



DNA Double Helix: The "Basics"

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a double-stranded molecule that is twisted into a helix like a spiral staircase. Each strand is comprised of a sugar-phosphate backbone and numerous base chemicals attached in pairs. The four bases that make up the stairs in the spiraling staircase are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). These stairs act as the "letters" in the genetic alphabet, combining into complex sequences to form the words, sentences and paragraphs that act as instructions to guide the formation and functioning of the host cell. Maybe even more appropriately, the A, T, C and G in the genetic code of the DNA molecule can be compared to the "0" and "1" in the binary code of computer software. Like software to a computer, the DNA code is a genetic language that communicates information to the organic cell.



The DNA code, like a floppy disk of binary code, is quite simple in its basic paired structure. However, it's the sequencing and functioning of that code that's enormously complex. Through recent technologies like x-ray crystallography, we now know that the cell is not a "blob of protoplasm", but rather a microscopic marvel that is more complex than the space shuttle. The cell is very complicated, using vast numbers of phenomenally precise DNA instructions to control its every function.



Although DNA code is remarkably complex, it's the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles science. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. This is modern information theory at its core. A simple binary example of information theory is the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." In that famous story, Mr. Revere asks a friend to put one light in the window of the North Church if the British came by land, and two lights if they came by sea. Without a shared language convention between Paul Revere and his friend, that simple communication effort would mean nothing. Well, take that simple example and multiply by a factor containing many zeros.



We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.



DNA Double Helix: Its Existence Alone Defeats any Theory of Evolution

The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...