Evolution vs. Creation – the answer lies in a simple question

As with everything else I do, I’d like to look at the evolution/creation question as simply and on as most basic a level as I can – thus perhaps, in doing so, finally put it to rest so we can move on.

So you believe in evolution (no creation) right?

OK… Then let’s start out by answering this one basic question: when ‘life’ began, how did it survive?

Well?

You know… one commonly accepted theory of evolution is that the earth (or some place way out there in the universe) was this sort of pea soup or bog and then something (like a lightning strike) caused life to form and from there on it’s all just plain ol’ evolving. Fine. But let’s skip all that and focus on just the actual point of life coming about. Just for now, let’s keep it simple…

Something not alive just became alive. How did this ‘newly alive’, living thing survive?

Whatever this first ‘life’ thing was – he/she/it, cell, amoeba, self-reproducing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis) RNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA) molecules, chemoautotrophs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotroph)… whatever it was, as all living things must do, it had to feed, or take in and process some form of nourishment, in order to survive and grow and procreate. How did it feed? By what mechanism? How did it know how to feed when needed? How did it know what to feed on? Why was it not poisoned? Side thought: How did it procreate (another essential element of evolution)?

My point here is that all living things have some kind of nourishment cycle – take in nutrients, digest, excrete. This cycle, even in its simplest form, is actually very complex, especially when you’re talking about the very first living organism. So complex, in fact, that I maintain it is not possible to have it happen spontaneously and all at once. There are simply too many factors in the equation.

Think about it. 

For the sake of clarity, I’ll use a simplified, but more complex example – the basics of which do apply here. We humans must take in food (mouth), digest it (stomach), distribute the nutrients (blood), and get rid of any waste. If any one of these is not there from the beginning, or malfunctions, we die. If we take in the wrong nutrients, we die. You can’t eat aluminum so you have to find something you can eat. In order to do that, You have to have some idea of what you can eat.

Now let’s go back to the first life form and the original question: how did this suddenly alive, life form suddenly have all the necessary ‘living systems’ to keep it alive?

Put this way, the only (somewhat studied) answer I can come up with is to say it is not possible for this to just happen by accident/chance – using any laws of probability you’d like or extending ‘evolution’ to any level you’d like. It is simply & utterly impossible except (and only with this one exception) that that life form was designed and then brought forth with all the necessary systems (however basic) intact. In other words, it was designed and therefore ‘created’ as a complete & viable life form.

In reality, the actual act of creation may have been what some people think, i.e. it could have been a lightning strike into a pea soup which ‘mobilized’ or ‘gave life to’ the this pre-defined & prepared form. This I do not pretend to know. But, if that is true, then what this means is that ‘creation’ can/does utilize evolution for its ends – but creation must precede evolution, else there really is nothing to evolve. Without design & creation, we can have all the lightning strikes we want, but we won’t be able to ‘bring to life’ some inanimate object and have it be able to survive (think nourishment & procreation).

Put another way: it is not possible to give an inanimate object life and hope for it to survive unless that object first has all the (complex) systems necessary for its survival and both the object and those systems come alive and begin to work (properly) at the same time.

Put still another way: it is not possible to give an inanimate object life and have it survive – unless that object is ‘designed’ and ‘built’ with all the necessary internal & external systems to keep it alive. Only after this ‘creative’ step is it possible for evolution to come into play. Creation and evolution are part of a single process – life – yes?

If you still disagree (which you are certainly entitled to do), then answer me this even more basic question… Just before the big bang happened, or as it happened, how did the first basic particle (let’s say an atom) come about? How is it that out of nothing, came a neutron, proton, and electron – each in perfect harmony with the others? Where did neutrons, protons, and electrons come from? How is it that the electron spins around the nucleus – a combination of neutron & proton? Where did the energy within the first atom, that made it work, come from? Again, given the complexity of even such a small thing as the atom, it is not possible for it to have come into existence by happenstance. There had to be some kind of planning and design – or even construction out of more basic materials.

But…

If you have gotten this far and maybe even agree, it would be unfair to stop here, for once we get the creation/evolution question answered and out of the way (which, IMO, should be a self-evident scenario), we are still left with, I think, a rather large ‘hole’ in the process.

Creation can lead to and utilize evolution, but how does creation work? Is creation some parallel, spontaneous kind of evolution? If so, then we’re still stuck with our original problem – how did creation (a kind of living process) come into being and survive?

I think the preceding is really a dead end question/thought because creation (and design) in itself implies an act, or more to the point, an intelligence of some kind.

As usually happens, we attempt to put a label or name on things so we can better communicate/understand – and thus many would call this intelligence Creator, God, Spirit Father, etc.

And so… it is my conclusion that evolution points to creation and creation leads us to God – and both act as proof of the existence of God, the intelligence, that designed and created (at least) the first living thing.

For the record, I do not necessarily believe in creation because I believe in God. You might say I believe in God because I see and cannot dispute creation.

M

Advertisements

About SprinklinThoughts

Give good to the world & make sense of it... the world, not the good... well... OK, the good too. :-)
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Evolution vs. Creation – the answer lies in a simple question

  1. eideard says:

    Read more pointed science. Nature handles complexity just fine most of the time. What doesn’t work — fails.

    Like

    • True, but you just said “most of the time” — what about the times that fall outside of that?
      Could it be that nature is just the ‘tool’ or ‘means’ by which the design is being maintained – with the intelligence as guide/designer?
      M

      Like

  2. elroyjones says:

    Good analogy with color comprehension.
    Unfortunately western religion has given the word a restrictive, judgmental, connotation so god in that context is something I don’t subscribe to. It appears you are referring to more of an essence than a religious figurehead.
    I can’t explain the biological fundamentals of how life came to be; although, I’m inclined to look toward physics for the answer, but not in my life time. It is reasonable to me that life may have occurred spontaneously.
    You may enjoy the blog sofarfromheaven. Old Jules cogitates on similar topics from time to time.

    Like

    • “Unfortunately western religion has given the word a restrictive, judgmental, connotation” — Exactly! But that is the purpose – to add so much junk to a topic that most people will just give up and ignore/disbelieve it. I wouldn’t (and don’t) believe that garbage either… and think that until we sort out all those negative/untrue ‘connotations’ (which have been applied to most all of what I think are important ideas and issues), we’ll never be able to dig out from under this mess and improve things. That’s one aim of this blog, to begin sorting things out & removing the dross so we can see as clearly as we are able.
      M

      Like

      • elroyjones says:

        It would be cool to “know”. I think we are all connected through energy, and once the body dies that energy becomes part of something larger that likely has no manifestation we can understand. I don’t remember where I was before I was born so where I’m going after I die can’t be all that bad, better people than me have departed first!

        Like

  3. Matthew Chiglinsky says:

    There was a single Creator. He was bored. So, he split himself, along with all his thoughts and ideas, into a billion pieces a billion years ago as a means of challenging himself. We are his children.

    Omnipotence is boring. That’s the meaning of life.

    Like

  4. elroyjones says:

    I can’t believe in an omnipotent deity for the reasons you do believe in one. How was a god created, if something doesn’t come from nothing? It’s like imagining purely opaque; it is not possible to imagine colorless because color is a reference for us.

    Like

    • I don’t recall saying anything about “omnipotent deity”. All I said is that (for want of a better word) people choose labels such as “God..” etc. 🙂

      But thank you, as you’re helping to make my point about complicating things – we hear/read one word/thought such as ‘God’ and automatically we add words/thoughts like ‘omnipotent’ or ‘deity’ (or whatever) – each of which adds all sorts of layers and complications to the original, basically simple (but still complicated), single word/thought God. We do this all the time with all kinds of theories, concepts, issues, problems & solutions, etc.

      To your point… First, if you don’t believe in a creator, then how do/would you answer the question – how did the first life form get nourishment (survive)? Really, how?

      To my point & in repsonse to your’s…

      When I was quite young I asked a simliar question as you (something coming from nothing) and the answer I recieved was, “…think back as far as you can, or are able to, or want to – and when you reach the the end of your thoughts or abilities then you will just begin to approach the beginning of (and/or the meaning of) God.” That made sense to me.

      We’ll never be able to (or, really, even begin to) understand an “entity” or “Spririt Father” that is so intelligent as to create this universe (or even one atom) that we perceive. It’s too far beyond our meager abilities and rightfully so. But just because we can’t understand it all does not mean the/a creator does not exist. Just because we can’t see/comprehend this ‘being’ does not mean that we should not (as I like to say) “acknowledge the giver of the gift”. We can perceive the creator’s creation & handiwork – and I think that’s what life’s all about: perceive, appreciate, acknowledge, enjoy.

      Here’s an example that may help (using color, since you mentioned it, thank you). If a man who was born blind, has never seen color, and we cannot explain it to his understanding, does that mean color does not exist? Yet, how is the blind man to know (or even attempt to believe us) that there is such a thing as “color” whose very concept he cannot grasp?

      Truly, I hope this helps,
      M

      Like

Please feel free to comment... and thank you... :-)

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.