Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Poetry could describe God very well. But scientist won't take it seriously because what's described in the poem, although acceptable, but may not be logical.
When a scientist take a particular poem seriously, then it is an example of "discontinuous thought". I would simply call it: inspiration.
My suspicions about evolution began when I was studying relativity and quantum mechanics. Both relativy and quantum desirbe the physical world with great precision but they are contra intuitive and seemingly implausible. The reason why it is so hard to get our heads around quantum mechanics or relativity is that our thinking process takes place in a different “space” than the actions in the world around us. Crudely put, it is like trying to stuff a three dimensional object into a two dimensional space. Information from the world around us comes into the brain from our senses where “who knows what” happens to convert a four dimensional world into a mind’s image of that world. Because our minds are working with images and not the real thing we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds. And for this reason any real descriptions of the world around will always seem contra intuitive to our reasoning process.
The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world. It is something that exists only as images in our mind. It is a nothing more than a world view. And like some sociopath among Theories it has a sullied history associated with it. Mankind has a history of adopting world views that seem laughable in retrospect and I believe that this is just another episode of that scenario. As knowledge increases the Theory of Evolution will seem less and less relevant.
My suspicions about evolution began when I was studying relativity and quantum mechanics. Both relativy and quantum desirbe the physical world with great precision but they are contra intuitive and seemingly implausible. The reason why it is so hard to get our heads around quantum mechanics or relativity is that our thinking process takes place in a different “space” than the actions in the world around us. Crudely put, it is like trying to stuff a three dimensional object into a two dimensional space. Information from the world around us comes into the brain from our senses where “who knows what” happens to convert a four dimensional world into a mind’s image of that world. Because our minds are working with images and not the real thing we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds. And for this reason any real descriptions of the world around will always seem contra intuitive to our reasoning process.
The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world. It is something that exists only as images in our mind. It is a nothing more than a world view. And like some sociopath among Theories it has a sullied history associated with it. Mankind has a history of adopting world views that seem laughable in retrospect and I believe that this is just another episode of that scenario. As knowledge increases the Theory of Evolution will seem less and less relevant.
I can't help but think your doubt of evolution stems from personal distaste rather than from any actual evidence against it. You certainly haven't presented anything of substance... just an appeal to personal incredulity which (no offense) doesn't count for much.
Doesn't the fact that we can use the evolutionary theory (it's not a worldview) to make predictions, and that it has lived up to those predictions, not attest to its veracity? Of course current evolutionary theory is likely an oversimplification of what goes on in nature (as all theories are). But surely there must be something to it since it has survived testing for so long.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
"I have no pleasure in any man who despises music. It is no invention of ours: it is a gift of God. I place it next to theology. Satan hates music: he knows how it drives the evil spirit out of us." -Martin Luther
The theory of Evolution carries on an important human tradition - the redeemer scenario, Recently someone wrote this to me,
“Christianity plagiarized the gods of countless religions and mythologies that preceded it, from virgin births, to son of god made flesh, to turning water into wine, to dying for us and promising to return. Jesus is version XX.0 of the same, tired stories that were told thousands of years before him.
Yes, the idea of a suffering redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since. Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains. But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone’s joy. The fact saviour myths existed before the time of Christ doesn’t disprove the validity of Christianity. Far from it, if anything they show that in the heart of mankind there has always been the need for a saviour.
The Gospels in the Bible are the best accounts we have of the true Messiah. But long before the Gospels were written there were detailed prophetic accounts of the saviour in the books of the Old Testament. And before this the stories of the Messiah was passed on from one generation to the next by oral traditions. Some people believe that even the Zodiac was once used to tell the story of the one who would save mankind. The twelve signs of various “Zodiacs” are found Indian, Chinese, European and Mayan cultures. From ancient times it appears that the Zodiac was the one thing that most of mankind had in common. It was certainly known to the Jews. As the ancient Jewish historian Josephus wrote that astrology was handed down from Seth the son of Adam. And archaeological excavations in Israel often find Zodiacs in the floors of synagogues.
Today the signs of the Zodiac are used to predict one’s fortunes but this may not have been its original purpose. The star pictures of the constellations may have originally served as way for nomadic people to record picture stories. Instead of paper or tablets the story was recorded using the constellations in the skies at night. As the pictures of the constellations moved across the night skies people gathered around the camp fire and heard the prophecy of a saviour who would be born of a virgin and die and rise from death. This prophecy was played out in the figures of the constellations and the names of the stars within the constellations. Unfortunately there are only fragments of this story left to us now. It is thought to have originally began with Virgo. This virgin held within one hand a star named “branch” and within the other hand a star named “seed”. This matches up with the prophetic account of Jesus being the “seed of woman” and the “branch” of Jesse. The Zodiac ends with the Leo, the lion which is portrayed in the constellations as attacking and destroying Hydra the giant serpent. The appearance of the Magi at Jesus’ birth is evidence of existence a prophetic prediction of the true messiah based on the stars that was outside Judaism.
. The fact that there were many different ancient versions is really beside the point. The important questions are:
1. Why is there the idea of a saviour in the first place? 2. Why were all the different versions so similar? 3. Why is it common for the saviour to be born of a virgin? 4. Why is the saviour rejected and killed and then raised to life? 5. Why is the savour God as a man?
Linear Mode
