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

by SprinklinThoughts

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