You will have gathered that I am prepared to accept that the earth is old, and that much of the geology is reasonable, though I do not think it is possible to prove beyond all doubt that the earth is old, and if it turns out the earth is only 10 000 years old I am not going to worry about it. Similarly, I do not automatically reject evolution as possibly being part of the process that God used. However, I do find evolution far less convincing, and am extremely concerned about the way evolution is used as a supposed argument against God.
One of the key bones of contention is the evolution or creation of the eye. It has long been argued that the eye is so complex that it cannot have evolved. Now we do have to be wary of the "it is so complex it could not have happened" argument because it really means that "we cannot imagine or understand how it happened". This might mean it cannot have happened, or it might mean are understanding or imagination is limited. However, I have looked at some of the evolutionists arguments for the evolution of the eye and found them very unconvincing. There is a short video on YouTube by David Attenborough. He shows that there are all sorts of variations of the eye in nature, from primitive to sophisticated, therefore (so he says) the eye evolved. I do not know enough about the science to know if what he says is true, but even accepting it in no way proves evolution. If we look at computers or mobile phones we will find all sorts of levels of sophistication. We could even find a timeline showing how computers have evolved from the basic machines they once were to the sophisticated one they are now. Yet while they did "evolve" we know full well that each one was designed. So Attenborough's argument proves nothing.
The above argument applies more generally to evolution. One of the arguments is that the diversity of species and the commonality between species is an argument for evolution. This is nonsense. It is consistent with evolution, but is equally consistent with someone creating each lifeform separately from the same basic materials.
One of the key bones of contention is the evolution or creation of the eye. It has long been argued that the eye is so complex that it cannot have evolved. Now we do have to be wary of the "it is so complex it could not have happened" argument because it really means that "we cannot imagine or understand how it happened". This might mean it cannot have happened, or it might mean are understanding or imagination is limited. However, I have looked at some of the evolutionists arguments for the evolution of the eye and found them very unconvincing. There is a short video on YouTube by David Attenborough. He shows that there are all sorts of variations of the eye in nature, from primitive to sophisticated, therefore (so he says) the eye evolved. I do not know enough about the science to know if what he says is true, but even accepting it in no way proves evolution. If we look at computers or mobile phones we will find all sorts of levels of sophistication. We could even find a timeline showing how computers have evolved from the basic machines they once were to the sophisticated one they are now. Yet while they did "evolve" we know full well that each one was designed. So Attenborough's argument proves nothing.
The above argument applies more generally to evolution. One of the arguments is that the diversity of species and the commonality between species is an argument for evolution. This is nonsense. It is consistent with evolution, but is equally consistent with someone creating each lifeform separately from the same basic materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment