bhsmte
Newbie
Are we talking microevolution (the small changes that take place in a species, leading to variations, but do not lead to new species) or macroevolution (the theory that microevolution, given enough time, can cause a species to slowly turn into another species altogether)?
In terms of macroevolution, there's one simple reason that I don't believe it - it assumes there is no God.
Now, before all you eager atheists and agnostics jump on this and say that "science doesn't speak to God," I will elucidate this statement.
Even though scientists claim that science - in which they include the "science" of origins - does not speak to the existence of God, this is nothing more than a falsification of fact. The reason is simple: If God exists, then, by His very nature, there are things in this world that cannot be satisfactorily explained without the presence of God.
When scientists say that everything in this world can be satisfactorily explained without the presence of God, it is the same as saying that there is no God. Because if there is a God, then His actions will have caused effects that cannot be satisfactorily explained without Him.
What intrigues me is that - in this regard - evolutionists apply a premise that is not thought reasonable if applied anywhere else. The premise is that if we can understand the parts and workings of something, that is evidence that it didn't have a Designer.
There is another premise applied by evolutionists that is not thought reasonable anywhere else. That is that if things are similar, that is evidence that one came from another, or all from some lower thing of the same variety.
But if we tried to apply these premises to any other orderly thing in the universe, these same scientists would ridicule us.
For example, we understand very well how a cell phone works. But if we tried to use our understanding of a cell phone as evidence that it came to being by completely natural processes with no intelligent interference, we would be ridiculed for this notion (and rightly so).
If we were to say that the faces on Mt. Rushmore were carved out over thousands of years by natural processes and just happen to look like real faces, we would be ridiculed (and rightly so).
If we were to claim that because all vehicles have features common to them, it's evidence that they evolved without outside interference from a single vehicle, which itself came about through purely natural processes, we would be laughed at (and rightly so).
And yet, scientists say that because we can understand a large portion of the incredibly complex systems that make up physical life - because we can analyze the components that all living creatures physically have to process food, water, etc. - that this is enough evidence to say that there is no need for an intelligent Creator of life.
Furthermore, they say that because all life has certain similarities, it all evolved from an original life form, that itself came about by purely natural causes. They further say that closer similarities indicate evolutionary ancestry.
So why do I choose to not believe in macroevolution? Because I believe that there is a God, and therefore there are things that exist because He made them to exist. And the most unsatisfactory explanations of evolution do not negate the intricacy, complexity, and glory of His works.
How does macro evolution (the TOE) assume their is no God?
Do you disregard all scientific theories, because none mention a God?
Upvote
0