If Not Evolution, Then What Alternative For God Creating Life?


Please read through before you decide to flame me in the comments, dig?

This post is intended to be read, pondered and answered by Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents, and Christian and Jewish believers. It is an expansion of my very old post, Creation: How?.

First up, some assumptions I will make for the purposes of this post:

1) God as portrayed in the Bible is real and can do anything He wishes
2) God created all the universe, the Earth and all life on Earth
3) Evolution is not true.

Now, let’s review the following observations about God:

1) When a needy family needs money desperately, God doesn’t answer their prayers by snapping His fingers and making cash materialize out of thin air – even though He can. He instead prompts the heart of a believer to give a love gift to that family.

2) When God wanted to save mankind by forgiving their sins, He didn’t just snap His fingers and wipe the slates clean – even though He could. Instead, He sent Jesus to willingly die as atonement for our sins, in accordance with the Law God gave Moses.

3) When God created the universe, He didn’t just snap His fingers and make all the stars, planets and comets appear already in place across space and time – even though He could. Okay, maybe He did snap His fingers, butthe point is that He instead caused the Big Bang which, just as the Church has long believed, created everything from nothing, and over time formed all the Red Shifter, exapanding universe.

Therefore, we can see that while God is able to make anything happen by His omnipotence, He chooses to do it through orderly means that do not break the laws of space, time and holiness He put into place.

Which leads to the question: If we aren’t convinced or don’t believe that evolution is true, then by what means did God create all life on Earth?

Yes, God could snapped His fingers and instantly the seas would be filled with fish, the land with trees and animals, and the skies with birds already in flight. At a glance, that would seem to be how it’s portrayed in Genesis – instant creation.

But the way God created the non-living universe was by the billions-of-years process started by the Big Bang – and the account of the creation of the universe is also in Genesis. So it doesn’t all have to be instantaneous.

So if, IMHO, God created all life using an orderly process that follows the scientific laws He Himself invented… And evolution is not that method…

What other method is there that is proposed?

Citing Intelligent Design does not avoid the problem. It merely states that a Designer with great intelligence designed all life, but it doesn’t explain or propose WHAT process the Designer used. We still need a build-from-bottom-up process that results in life, just as how God built the universe from the bottom up with the atoms and quarks of the Big Bang.

And note that this does not make His miracles any lessened – creating everything from nothing in a gazillionth of a second and causing unaffiliated molecules to combine into life is still way out of the realm of common probability!

I’ve pondered it long, and haven’t any answers as yet. It would therefore seem that, despite its many flaws and holes, evolution is currently the only build-from-bottom-up theory there is.

So, anyone have any ideas?

PS. But don’t worry, even if evolution turns out to be true in some aspects, that does not abrogate the truth of Creationism (God created all life) or Intelligent Design (life was designed by intelligence).

For an explanation why, see my post The Sin Theory of Evolution – Reconciling Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design .


Tags: , , , ,

19 Responses to “If Not Evolution, Then What Alternative For God Creating Life?”

  1. hutchrun Says:

    In Intelligent Design you can see the leaps of evolution and the bizarre anomalies in the fossil record and you can say “something must have caused this”, but there is no proof of what or who is the cause. You can choose God or aliens or mutation or random unidentified forces as your explanation equally convincingly because no evidence exists to definitively identify the unknown forces driving the evolutionary process. If you believe in a conscious force behind evolution you can only reach that conclusion through faith.

    In the same way, Global Warming is a clearly identifiable phenomenon which can be documented through the geological record and contemporary temperature measurements, but it is impossible to point to a specific cause and say “aha, here’s THE thing which is causing global warming.” Human causation is the popular choice as a cause, but human output of the gasses which cause global warming is substantially less than the cumulative yearly output from natural sources like volcanoes and forest fires and falls well within the normal variations of those gasses from year to year. Natural forces like solar activity and the earth’s climate cycle also contribute to global warming and it is impossible to definitively identify one cause as specifically responsible. If your choice is to believe in human causation as the one thing that causes Global Warming, that position can only be reached by the equivalent of a leap of faith.

    http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/07/22/233219.php

  2. hutchrun Says:

    Overall, though, the film presents a powerful argument not for intelligent design as much as for the freedom of scientific inquiry. If scientists get punished for challenging orthodoxy, we will not expand our learning but ossify it in concrete. Expelled: The Movie is entertaining, maddening, funny, and provocative, and well worth your time.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/18/movie-review-expelled/

  3. wits0 Says:

    “If scientists get punished for challenging orthodoxy, we will not expand our learning but ossify it in concrete. ”

    True. There is Intelligent Design at work but not certainly conveniently packaged as Darwin’s inane Evolutionary Theory or, as Creationist would have it, from the Garden of Eden by an (unsatisfactory)Anthropomorphic Creator, one that invariably stands aside from it’s own “Creation”.

    Science, under its own premises of inquiry cannot produce the tool(s) necessary to prove or measure the Reality of Being or different Dimensions other tha our own. The Particle Accelerator can only reveal some hints by inference.

    Our present state of being within this phenomenal world/universe is so cleverly crafted that we’re all easily deceived about its own actual Nature.
    The wise would waste not time in trying to understand an inconstant theory about G-d from different traditions(some much worse than others). They would seek to understand the Reality of being, the Truth about reality. It’s not necessary to be a monotheist to understand what’s righteousness and what’s not. Ask Einstein, e.g.

  4. Jamie Says:

    Einstein was a monotheist.

    Lol.

  5. wits0 Says:

    “Einstein was a monotheist.”

    Inasmuch as he was a Jew by birth but admitted that he was not a religious man. He also said that if he were to choose a religion, he would have chosen Buddhism, it was reported, meaning that the monotheistic concept actually did not appeal to him. You might say that this is Buddhist propaganda since it was found from their book source. But we can always search from a neutral source.

    The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. {IOW Christianity/Judaism have evolved.}
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

    But Skinner is willfully blind to this when he insists on dragging in Islam as a moral equivalent.

  6. Jamie Says:

    If Einstein was not a religious man, I think the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Theory would not have bothered him enough to spend countless hours devising thought experiments to disprove that random chance governs quantum mechanics. He’d probably have said “I don’t believe in God, so who cares if He plays dice or not?”, rather than his classic “God does not play dice”.

  7. wits0 Says:

    Einstein, methinks had a very high conception of G_d unlike the conventional people’s take on the matter.

  8. Jamie Says:

    That would have to remain as mere conjecture until someone can dig up an interview or book which explored his conception of God🙂

  9. wits0 Says:

    Somethings are meant to be realized…no hard physical proof is readily available.

    An purely anthropomorphic G_d concept is hardly sustainable. Something simply higher is indicated.

  10. Jamie Says:

    Exactly. Which is why God is not just a more powerful human or anthropomorphic being. God is the originator of anthropomorphic characteristics, and is perfect in every way such that He never commits any of the errors anthropomorphs commit.

  11. wits0 Says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Roberts

    q/
    “* There is a God, whom Seth referred to as “All That Is” and described as a “primary energy gestalt”.[9] God is composed of self-replicating and inexhaustible mental energy, and contains all of Creation within it. God is therefore a gestalt of all existence, as in Pantheism and Panentheism (a gestalt is a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts). The mental energy of God is the formative substance of all things, including all beings, all universes, and all events and phenomena. God’s consciousness is carried on this mental energy, and therefore is omnipresent. Thus, God experiences each life that is lived; “all faces belong to God”, as Seth said.[citation needed] For these reasons, all things in existence, including physical matter, have life and consciousness. God wishes to experience existence in all its forms and ramifications, and through its creations is able to do this. God is therefore dynamic and ever-changing and shares in the failures, triumphs, perfections and imperfections of its creations. The individuals that exist within God, though part of God, have free will and self-determination. God does not know of any others like itself, but assumes that something — possibly another “primary energy gestalt” — came before it. If God sprang from another like itself, then the possibility exists that there are many Gods, each presumably aware only of its own existence.

    * God had a beginning, and there was a Creation, though it differs markedly from the Christian version. …u/q

    Really, if things are that simple to understand, any person would have understood ….via merely conventional thinking, learning and teachings, hahaha!

  12. wits0 Says:

    John1:1

    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

    The Buddha was quoted to have said that the “Beginning” of Time” could not be found.

    Simple, Time is itself Phenomenal (illusion) within this sphere of existence, and it is not absolute. There is no beginning to a Beginningless-ness.

  13. Jamie Says:

    That’s not really proper monotheistic writings is it? Are you sure it’s a valid conception of God then?

    I suppose that if you want to take the Buddha’s word as the highest authority and that it should remain unchallenged, then, well, there’s nothing to talk about anymore really.

    And I thought science had already established that the universe had a beginning, and here we are maintaining that the universe has neither beginning nor end…

  14. Scott Thong Says:

    Both can be true according to cyclic models of the universe.

    Basically, Big Bangs and Big Crunches happen endlessly, so while this universe we are in had a beginning and will have an end, existence/reality itself is infinite.

  15. wits0 Says:

    The orthodox tale about the Garden of Eden would hardly pass as being literally precise to many, even to some believers. It’s a symbolism of which only the adept may have some deeper understanding/conception of.

    In any case, where was this Garden? On Earth, in another dimension/universe or on another planet? Where’s the evidence that the Human Race actually began on Earth itself? And that Earth is the only inhabited planet in the whole Universe for humanoids?

    I think it’s very uneconomical for G_d to use just a grain of sand within His entire Creation for the purpose of furthering His Will.

  16. Simon Thong Says:

    Peanut Butter, The Atheist’s Nightmare!

  17. simonthongwh Says:

    FROM APE TO MAN | simonthongwh
    simonthongwh.wordpress.com
    When the phrase “human evolution” is used, these are probably the first images to pop into people’s minds. Despite the iconic status and widespread use of these images, they are not based on factual evidence, but on imagination. This series of drawings are exactly that, imagination of artists at wor

  18. FROM APE TO MAN | simonthongwh Says:

    […] If Not Evolution, Then What Alternative For God Creating Life? Scott Thong wrote 3 years ago: Please read through before you decide to flame me in the comments, dig? This post is intended to be […]

  19. solar system Says:

    Have you ever thought about adding a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is valuable and all. Nevertheless just imagine if you added some great visuals or videos to give your posts more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with pics and videos, this site could definitely be one of the most beneficial in its niche. Good blog!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: