I am on the fence between believing in religion and believing in evolution?

Question

Can some people from both sides give me their opinions on the matter along with evidence? I have been to many websites from both sides, and it seems to be a pretty intense debate. I have taken Biology. I know what the theory of evolution is, and I'm not one of the people who think that it's "just a theory" I'm not sure if the similarity of life forms is due to a common design or common ancestor though. Some things that were believed to have evolved seem way too complex for that to be the case from random chance:

-Just look at the human brain, for example. How do bundles of neurons firing at each other create consciousness?
-There is a type of parasitic(sorry for bad spelling) worm that needs to hatch from eggs inside of a cow, then be eaten by a human in order to complete its lifecycle. Then, the feces from the human containing the worm eggs need to be eaten by another cow for more worms to be born. How in the world would natural selection explain something so ridiculously convoluted?
-There is also a type of flower that needs to be pollinated by wasps in order to reproduce, and it attracts wasps by appearing to be a female wasp in heat, so that the male wasps carrying the pollen land on it. The flower excretes a chemical attractor to appear to be a female wasp and everything. Are flowers able to think and come up tricks like that? Because, what are the chances of something like that happening through random chance?
-Go on Youtube and look up "mimic octopus".

I'm only 15, please don't hate on me.

Answer 1

Where do people get this idea that Theists can't Accept Evolution as Verified Scientific Theory?



They are not mutually exclusive because Evolution has nothing to do with the ORIGINS of Life.



- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -

► U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html



► Darwin on the Right

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=darwin-on-the-right

Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution



► Yes, Evolution is a Theory. It's Religion and Politics that are the Problems

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/reason_theoretical_050218.html



► The Christian Man's Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-christian-mans-evolution

A geneticist ordained as a Dominican priest, Francisco J. Ayala sees no conflict between Darwinism and faith. Convincing most of the American public of that remains the challenge



► How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results

Why subjective anecdotes often trump objective data



► NOVA: Evolution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/

(All you EVER wanted or needed to know about evolution)



► Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html



► Behind the Controversy: How Evolution Works

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/051109_evolution_science.html



► NOVA: Origins - How Life Began

Official NOVA Page: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/

Streaming: (Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBrv3FmdrG4&feature=related

- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -

Answer 2

Many people have no problem doing both. They simply treat Genesis 1 and 2 as allegory and assume that God set up the universe to work the way cosmologists and evolutionary biologists describe. There are some surprises in nature, but nothing that can't be broken down into natural, developmental steps.



The Theory of Evolution can explain how a species adapts and evolves to a changing environment. While individuals are an important component of the adaptation, they don't really figure into the general equation. As we have observed in nature, when an environment is stressed by new factors (climate changes, loss of old habitat, new predators or competitors), the life forms in it often express more unusual genetic mutations in their offspring. Some of those mutations may be maladaptive, but some may be better adapted to the new environment than the normative genome. If conditions prevent most strains of a species from producing fertile offspring, those strains will die out and only the adaptive strains will persist. Within a few generations, only the adaptive version will exist in the new environment. There is nothing that individuals learn or achieve that factors into it, only natural genetic mutations. And even if there are no significant environmental changes, the mutations that are not maladaptive will persist in the population as a minor variation.



The human brain is an inexplicable marvel, but that does not require us to invoke an even more inexplicable "deity". Obviously, as evolving organisms increased in size, the division of labor between specialized organs needed more coordination, so those species that developed a neural pathway or two could send signals up and down the line to let every organ know what the heart was doing and respond effectively. Generation by generation, the system would become more and more sophisticated, until at some point, the network became aware of itself, conferring a survival advantage on the species. Other neural factors were also developing, memory for example, which made it possible to perceive familiar patterns and plan for likely outcomes. And at some point, human ancestors made the leap to abstract thought, the ability to manipulate ideas independent of one's immediate environment. All these intellectual abilities increased survival odds for the species. And although it is not quite fair to compare brains and computers, no one has found a "seat" of consciousness, no gland or molecule that initiates the thinking, anymore than one can point to a particular shift register in a CPU and say that it is where the computing begins.



I'm not sure about your cow-human example, but there are others, such as the malaria virus that has mosquito-based and human-based parts of its life cycle. The ancestors of such a species were able to survive in simpler environments, mutating randomly with each generation. But as migratory life forms started ingesting the plants in which they lived, only the members that could survive digestion created offspring. If the digestion became commonplace, the new strains might lose some of their former traits and come to depend on the digestion to procreate. And if in returning to ingest more food, the invaders excreted, a circular system might develop, but only is there was a species survival advantage in it. Similarly, the plants that spontaneously mimicked female wasps got pollenated more often than others, and any subsequent mutations in either the wasps or the flowers that improved the benefit to both species tended to persist. There's no thinking involved, only a matter of winning the genetic dice throw. The losers disappear.



The mimic octopus has a bag of tricks, each of which may have evolved separately or have been a combination of early learning and genetic flexibility. The point is, the species has survived while others have not, but its talents are not out of genetic reach.

Answer 3

Please take your time as this is a difficult subject to understand. As many have said that these are not mutually exclusive.



I think they are different subjects too. Evolution deals with life after it was created. Science has proved that our universe was created and that theory is called The Big Bang. There was a specific event called creation. Who did it??? etc are still being investigated but the answers are not easy to find.



There are still gaps in our understanding and if the random process of evolution is to be supported then our universe must be an event among many random events. So the concept of multi-verse is put forth which does not answer the question of Who made the multi-verse. If you go by scientific logic, the gaps in our knowledge are increasing as far as creation of our universe is concerned. The dark matter and dark energy are concepts to explain the expanding universe but there is no concrete proof of its existence. It is only a theory. So much for the evidence based logic.



There is no argument whether our universe was created. The only point of discussion is whether it created itself or was it created by a creator. The idea of a creator is centuries old when so much knowledge was not there.



The complexity of the DNA, and many other phenomena are challenging the random process theory of natural selection.

Answer 4

You're doing some good thinking on your own. Good :-) And, yes, it IS an intense debate. It's so intense Because evolution wants life to begin and continue Without God. So the question IS -- is a person going to put God as the ultimate creator of All things or make it All happen by Chance. Now it's also true that once God put the animals Here -- the genetic code / DNA keeps dogs as dogs and cats as cats - but we have various Kinds of dogs and cats. Lots of different sizes and shapes, etc. But once a cat Always a cat -- nothing will turn it into a horse or elephant. And Nothing has ever turned an ape or chimp into a person. People come in many sizes and shapes, but we are still People. Your comment about a 'common design' would be God's design amongst the various animals.

Keep on using your common sense

Answer 5

You are making a number of errors. Just because *you* don't understand how something happened doesn't mean that a god made it happened. This is the God of the Gaps fallacy:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps



"The term God-of-the-gaps argument can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance. Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:



There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.

Therefore the cause must be supernatural.



Since there will aways be gaps in our understanding of the natural world, the God of the Gaps will always be used by creationists. However, as our understanding increases, the gaps decreases, and the God of the Gaps becomes smaller and smaller. Another example of this kind of thinking comes from Bill O'Reilly, who said God is real because the tide goes in and out. Bill doesn't know how the tides work, so he sees it as proof of his god.



You are also mis-characterizing what evolution actually is. You say that certain organisms "...seem way too complex for that to be the case from random chance", however, evolution does not depend 100% on random chance. This is one of the deliberate lies told by creationists. Random mutations do occur by chance, but which mutations survive are determined by natural selection.

Answer 6

They are NOT mutually exclusive at all. Many theists do accept evolution as the best explanation for how we got to be the way we are. Remember that Genesis is purely allegorical, it was never intended to be a literal scientific textbook. Even the ancient Jews knew this. All cultures have some form of "creation" myth. Genesis happens to be the Jewish one.

You are 15 and you are asking good questions. Keep it up. As Jesus tells us, in Mary 3:9, "Anyone with a mind should use it to think".

Blessings on your Journey!

Answer 7

false dilemna - most christians for example are A) religious AND B) accept evolution.



the talkorigins website might help.





"what are the chances of something like that happening through random chance?"



it's called natural SELECTION.



the process of chance happenings being SELECTED for by nature, is, overall, NOT a chance process.



EDIT



even after seeing it on a regular basis, I still marvel at how much intellectual dishonesty the evolution deniers are forced to employ to seem to be able to refute such a blatantly undeniable fact like evolution.



one poster has already listed some of the most compelling evidence for evolution.



more importantly though, if evolution were false, it would be EASY to falsify, yet for some reason, the evolution deniers have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to refute it, just fallacious arguments that rely on you not understanding what evolution is in the first place.



do some research for yourself, you will come to realize how foolish and absurd the evolution deniers look, to those who appreciate why evolution is a completely undeniable fact.



I find it handy to put evolution into the form of a logical argument with 2 premises.



premise 1) nothing that copies itself, does so perfectly every time, errors WILL ocur.



premise 2" any errors that make one lineage more likely to reproduce itself in it's given environment than the others, will likely become the norm in that environment.



conclusion - even from the simplest possible self replicating matter, given enough time, a complex and diverse ecosystem of self reproducing things will come into being, all shaped locally by their environment eg climate, resources, threats, etc.



this is undeniably applicable to life on earth, and precisely what all the evidence supports.



whilst I personally don't care what you or others believe, I do care that you might be interested in what is true, and be led astray by people who feel you shouldn't believe it.



so here's my offer.



you find absolutely ANY refusal, rebuttal, denial or falsification being pedaled by the evolution deniers, and I will demonstrate the lies and ignorance within them.



this username at yahoo dot com.



remember, the "truth" is not a propaganda war, even though people here will treat your "beliefs" like one.

Answer 8

Then you've missed the point of science entirely.



Evolution (that biological organisms change over time) is an observed fact. Facts don't require "belief."



The theory that shows how the observed fact of evolution works (mostly by natural selection) is itself shown correct by observed facts, and by literally hundreds of millions of pieces of evidence. Again, "belief" isn't involved in any way.



Arguments from ignorance and incredulity (what you gave) are only evidence of your personal ignorance and/or incredulity -- not of any "magical gods." That you're ignorant isn't an "insult" -- you're only 15, and have a lot to learn (ignorant just means "lacking knowledge").



So go learn about all the evidence concerning the fact of evolution, and stop worrying about "belief." Belief is worthless, nothing but imagination without facts or knowledge.



Peace.

Answer 9

OK, I'll take on the aspects under first: The fact is, we do not know the way networks of neurons create attention. We realize what special areas of the mind do, and we know the way they system expertise. How that each one comes in combination into attention continues to be unanswered, despite the fact that. Unanswered does not translate to unanswerable, despite the fact that, and most likely does not depend as proof for layout. Three hundred years in the past, we did not realize what lightning used to be, so we attributed it to the wrath of God. Two hundred years in the past, we did not realize what precipitated disorder, so we blamed it on sin, spirits, and imbalances of the humors. That's the item - as a scientist, you must turn out to be at ease with the word "I do not know" very rapidly. That's considering the fact that now not understanding some thing can not ever be used to say that you recognize some thing else. I'm now not certain how that variety of parasite developed. It most likely did not begin infecting people and farm animals in this sort of complicated style. It used to be most often equipped to contaminate each people and farm animals (or different species), after which settled into this complicated existence cycle while people began elevating herds of farm animals. Perhaps the human segment of this complicated existence form additionally coincided with culling of the herds, enabling extra parasites to outlive. That's only a wager, despite the fact that. The flower and wasp courting is an illustration of mimicry, and we see it always. Flowers that occurred to seem just a little bit like wasps attracted the men and accelerated pollination, so that they reproduced extra. Each iteration used to be underneath the identical selective strain, and flora that occurred to seem just a little bit extra like a feminine wasps have been those that have been pollinated extra. Each time it grew to become just a little extra delicate. You're correct that the probabilities of a flower watching precisely like a feminine wasp are enormously low - however the flower did not must seem precisely like one, it simply wanted a moderate resemblance. Each iteration, the resemblance used to be delicate a tiny bit extra. I'm now not certain what you imply by way of the mimic octopus. I'm conscious of them... plenty of octopus species have an identical talents, the mimic simply has them to a higher quantity. It's simply an illustration of specialization. I have one last factor, despite the fact that. A lot of folks procedure this from a "faith vs technology" perspective. Evolution and faith are thoroughly suitable, despite the fact that. Evolution is not because of entire random threat - it is tremendously based at the typical legislation of the universe. If you consider in a God that is the architect of the ones legislation, then there is particularly no clash. Where the clash is available in is while you attempt to examine an utterly literal studying of Genesis to the proof. Only a idiot might declare that the one method to have faith is to consider in a strictly literal, phrase-for-phrase interpretation of the King James Bible (alas, there are plenty of fools available in the market that declare simply that). A little little bit of a caution, too. You recounted that you've got learn internet sites from all sides of the argument. Just be conscious that the Creationist and Intelligent Design aspect is *complete* of misinterpretations, part-truths, historical and old-fashioned technology, and outright lies. They're looking to fight technology with appeals to emotion and by way of going straight to the general public, instead than combating it with proof. I'd advise the 2 hyperlinks under. The first one is a best creation to evolution, even though you know a little bit approximately it. The moment one is a record of claims that creationists use - they have all been lengthy for the reason that debunked, but the creationists hold utilising them. You're not going to listen to a controversy in opposition to evolution that is now not at the record, and they are all wholly pointed out, so you'll be able to monitor down the supply and browse for your self. Above all, hold learning the technology itself (and avert appeals to emotion and exposure). The extra you be trained approximately biology, the extra strong all of it will get - and the extra all of it starts to suit in combination. The extra you get into the nitty-gritty main points (and clear of the analogies which can be used to train prime tuition or even undergraduate technology), the extra believable it's that we are all descended from natural ancestors, and the simpler it's to look how a particular trait developed. Believe me while I say that you've got best slightly scratched the outside of an excellent global. We're whilst far more complicated and some distance less difficult than you would feel.

Answer 10

Well let me just say you are a smart person. You are much more opened minded then most people today. Scientists have found that there is indeed discontinuity between the different ‘kinds,’ and, except for the question of origin, this has been the chief obstacle to the theory of evolution. I have some information here that you might find very interesting. First, is a paragraph talking about the study of reptiles evolving into birds:

A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat. The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and fins eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless. The fossils of birds called by scientists Archaeopteryx (or, ancient wing) and Archaeornis (or, ancient bird), though showing teeth and a long vertebrated tail, also show that they were completely feathered, had feet equipped for perching, and had fully developed wings. No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory. As expressed by the apostle Paul, birds are of a distinct “flesh” from others of earth’s creatures.—1Co 15:39.



This next piece of an article talks about such things as RNA, and amino acids.



In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”

What does the evidence reveal? The answer to the question, Where do babies come from? is well-documented and uncontroversial. Life always comes from preexisting life. However, if we go back far enough in time, is it really possible that this fundamental law was broken? Could life really spontaneously spring from nonliving chemicals? What are the chances that such an event could happen?

What about protein molecules? They can be made from as few as 50 or as many as several thousand amino acids bound together in a highly specific order. The average functional protein in a “simple” cell contains 200 amino acids. Even in those cells, there are thousands of different types of proteins. The probability that just one protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form on earth has been calculated to be about one chance in a million billion.

Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’” RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.



I hope this helps with your search for the truth. The Bible contains scientifically accurate information clearly ahead of its time, though it never gets bogged down in scientific explanations that would have been meaningless or confusing to ancient people. The Bible contains nothing that contradicts known scientific facts. On the other hand, the Bible contains much that disagrees with unproved theories, such as the theory of evolution. I am a bible student, and I volunteer my time to answer people's questions about the bible. Contact me if you have any questions. [e-mail]



P.S I thought you would like to know that I myself am only 17.

Answer 11

You don't have to chose between the two....in Christianity the creation story is clearly written as an allegory. It's not meant to be taken literally. But God wanted it in the scriptures because it communicates a complex spiritual truth. Evolution lacks tons of evidence and is called a theory for a reason. It sounds smart, but when you really look into it you'll realize they have no fossils that prove evolution occurred in the past and we don't see it happening now and humans have been around for what? 200,000 years. Evolutionists cannot even recreate it in the lab. Look at the evidence... It's right in front of you. There is no evidence of evolution.

Also I encourage you to read this article http://www.icr.org/article/455/

Also look up some debates between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox.

Answer 12

Evolution answers little only to those who choose to ignore the obvious.

You are right and smart for 15. Man's constant struggle is with himself and his ego.

Ego makes you play God. But we are not God, and in order to become God, we discredit religion.

Natural selection is the most absurd monstrosity I have ever heard. And evolution can't explain to us the beginning, or why anything happens. In fact, the theory of evolution claims things we needed were aquired stemming from single cell organisms. The human brain consists of approximately 12 billion cells, forming 120 trillion interconnections. The light sensitive retina of the eye (which is really part of the brain) contains over 10 million photoreceptor cells. These cells capture the light pattern formed by the lens and convert it into complex electrical signals, which are then sent to a special area of the brain where they are transformed into the sensation we call vision. The eye couldn't have EVOLVED!



"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. " Charles Darwin (the father of evolution)



Believe what you WANT. Don't confine yourself to a religion either. Intelligence is beautiful when you truly understand the workings of the world.

Answer 13

It's great that you are thinking about it. Don't let smart people bully you and belittle you into thinking their way. Lots of smart people have been wrong about lots of things in the scientific world. Look at some history of science and how strongly believed theories get modified and proven wrong over the years. Look up the experiment that disproved the spontaneous generation of maggots from rotting meat.

As far as religion goes, why don't you get on your knees in private tonight and look up there and ask God to reveal Himself to you if He's there. You will probably feel silly while you do it, but if no one is watching then what can it hurt? If He's not there, then no harm done. If He is there (and He is) then He is able to reveal Himself in a way that you can understand. But be patient and give it time; don't expect an audible voice or vision, and try to have an open mind.

Answer 14

Why do you need to choose between the two? They are not mutually exclusive. You can believe that an omnipotent being created the Universe in it's most raw form and then left it to evolve as it would. Sort of like a giant science experiment.

Answer 15

It's really great that your only 15 and you're genuinely interested in this stuff! Looks like you've already done some good research. Below are some articles that you can read that use the Bible and scientific facts to help you out.

Answer 16

They do not contradict each other.



You are perfectly free to believe Jesus Christ is your personal savior without believing that he's micro-managing the sex lives of a bunch of wasps and worms.



Try this- God created the universe, and then he gave his living creations the wonderful ability to adapt to changing conditions.

Answer 17

You can believe in both. Also, you can just accept tgat, although we have made amazing strides in science, we still do not know all the answers. Its ok not to know it all. There are also other religions besides christianity. Why don't you research them. Study. It isn't "christianity or nothing".

Good luck and good for you for being brave enough to at least question

Answer 18

Evidence for Evolution:



DNA sequencing,

Endogenous retroviruses,

similarities between all lineages of DNA, RNA, amino acids, and the lipid bilayer,

Pseudogenes

genome and gene duplication

horizontal gene transfer

Cat endogenous retroviruses

Chromosome 2 in humans

Cytochrome c

Human endogenous retroviruses

Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup

Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup

Atavisms

Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development

Atavisms

Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development

Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution

Nested hierarchies and classification

Fossil Record

Continental distribution

Island biogeography

Antibiotic and pesticide resistance

E. coli long-term evolution experiment

Lactose intolerance in humans

Nylon-eating bacteria

PCB tolerance

Peppered moth

Radiotrophic fungus

Urban wildlife



Vestigial structures in embryonic development:

Hind structures in whales

Insect mouthparts

Other arthropod appendages

Pelvic structure of dinosaurs

Pentadactyl limb

Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes

Route of the vas deferens



Observed speciation:

Blackcap

Drosophila melanogaster

Hawthorn fly

London Underground mosquito

Madeira House Mouse

Mollies



Evidence for Creationism:



... oh wait there isn't any.

Answer 19

Evolution is a religion. It has no scientific basis or evidence.



Watch the movie "Expelled" by Ben Stein.

Answer 20

They are not mutually exclusive.



MOST religions, including MOST Christians, and MOST creationists, totally accept science.



Quit stressing over it and find out from your inner self what you actually believe.



.

Answer 21

Many theists believe in evolution.

Answer 22

Bee... the eye *did* evolve, and here is how...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTg3TrDyZ20

Answer 23

They're not mutually exclusive, you know.

Answer 24

You are God's masterpiece, not the product of an accident.



Blessings.

Answer 25

Screw beliefs, knowledge is far superior.

Answer 26

god created us



creation its self testifies of god

men witnessed god and wrote about it