Quote:
Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk
And the vast majority of extinct species that have ever lived on this planet argues against the higher power. What is it, more than 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct?
It also needs to be pointed out that the human heart may be a beautiful and complex creation, but that precursors over time were simpler and less 'beautiful'. The eye is a good example of something that seems impossibly complex, but which is well understood through the process of natural selection. Here is a quick video explaining the evolution of the eye. No creator necessary.
In short, we (and our individual components) are so complex as a result of our extinct ancestors being less complex.
|
1. I don't necessarily agree. In my mind, it is an argument for the "fall of man". Not only did Adam's original sin corrupt humanity's experience of life on Earth forever, I believe it also affected many other parts of the universe, possibly including the physical laws that govern it as well. I believe it most certainly affected animals in their relationship with humans and each other.
2. Simplicity and beauty aren't mutually exclusive.
3. This is not something I will outright argue against. It is an area I find intriguing and perplexing at the same time. I have no problem with the notion that the true power of God's design is in the concept of evolution itself (or adaptation, or natural selection), at least as a theory. [That process, along with every other universal law which governs our existence, is an intense reality that should not be taken for granted. Nor should it's requisite genesis.]
I can't say I'm totally comfortable with the idea that humans evolved from apes, who evolved from lesser mammals, who evolved from amphibians, etc, etc... within the context of my faith, but I am always willing to consider theories and I do try to have an open mind (as open as it can be when you're genuinely convicted of something, I suppose). As nice as a literal understanding of the Bible would be, Vulcan is right: many things in the Bible are obviously written figuratively. If the creation account is one of those things (as most scientific evidence suggests), then that flexibity as well as further disagreements, I'm sure.
It might seem as though my earlier understanding of the events of the Garden of Eden are too literal to coincide with my openness to Genesis' writing being done figuratively. The fact is, I do not
know that the events played out exactly as described in the Bible. The crux of the message remains for me.
1. God created the cosmos (including humanity). 2. Man sinned, causing disruption to the harmony of the cosmos and a rift between humanity and God. 3. In addition to the rift and as a result of the disharmony there was significant collateral damage to other areas of the universe. 4. Since then, humanity has strived to reconnect with God and rediscover the harmony of the cosmos in millions (?) of ways, since that's the existence we were designed to live out.