Is there proof of Evolution out there? help needed

by trumangirl 68 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  trumangirl

  I've faded, but I still would like to have faith in a Creator/God. But I am really not sure if my belief in God is the result of being brought up a JW and being stuck with a particular world-view. The best thing I can do is challenge myself by reading some material that explains proof of the Evolution, but I have not seen anything that does this yet, i've only seen explanations of the theory, not the proof. For instance, what is evolutionists answer to the mathematical improbability of life arriving by chance? And what does the fossil record really say?

  I am seriously open-minded about this. If it seems evolution is true, then God may still exist anyway and had a hand in it, which would make me agnostic. But if I don't buy evolution even after considering the evidence, that means I can have faith in God and be able to argue against evolution.

  Either way, the main thing is knowing a little bit more of what's truth and what's not.

  So I'm looking for serious suggestions of reading material. Please no highly biased stuff or 6-day creationism books.
• 

  Abaddon

  First thing is, what's your level of science education? Depending how deep you want to study, you may actually want to just get a few books about biology out of the library first, before studying evolution specifically, as it will make your study of evolution eaiser. It's also best to see how evolutionary theory neatly fits into the rest of the biological sciences.

  Often people without a good knowledge of biology are simply unaware of how the generally accepted model of evolutionary development explains the way so many things are. They get sidetracked by cleverly construcetd arguments that would seem silly if they had a wider knowledge of biology in general.

  The sites I give below are those that present arguements against creationism or for evoltuon, not specific academic sources for the study of evolution, but they present the data in a polarised context that allow you to see what one side says and how the other responds.

  Here's a very good site;

  http://www.talkorigins.org/

  And here's some others;

  http://www.swcp.com/~diamond/cre_answ.shtml

  (analysis of a Creationist's article on a Creation Science homepage)

  http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

  (Creation "Science" Debunked)

  http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html

  (Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?)

  http://web.mit.edu/lking/www/writing/origins.html

  (Origins: Some Questions and Answers about Evolution and Creationism)

  http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

  (15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American)

  http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/

  (National Academy of Sciences)

  And feel free to ask in a thread or via PM. I'm pretty informed about the subject, but there are other posters who know loads more about the subject than me.
• 

  Sirona

  Hi

  Just on the subject of belief and evolution - it is entirely possible to believe in God and believe that Evolution is the most likely theory for the origins of the universe / earth.

  Some belief systems merge the idea of evolution with the other beliefs.

  Sirona
• 

  Abaddon

  Very good point Sirona. A lot of the creationists equate evolution with atheism. This is a false linkage.

  Most Creationists require specific beliefs in the Genesis account.

  However, you can believe in god, even Bible God, if you don't require the Genesis account to be taken literally.
• 

  Nathan Natas

  1. Familiarize yourself with the logical tool called "Occam's Razor," then contemplate how theists unneccessarily complicate things.

  2. Borrow the video series "COSMOS" from your local library (or purchase your own copy). Watch it.
• 

  Max Divergent

  Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker is fantastic, I only got through the first third of the book (the science was over my head after that) but it resolved a lot of stuff in my mind.

  The way the WT describes evolution makes it sound a fanciful and silly 'theory', but (whether we evolved or not) what they portray as evolution is not what science describes it as.

  For example, they say in the blue creation book if you put a dismantled watch in a box and shake it all about for a zillion years, you'll never get chance events resulting in the rebuilding of the watch - so how could amino acids evolve into life by chance?

  But the watch analogy is false becuase there's only one pre-determined way the parts of a watch can go together to work. Also, if two bits that shoud go together in a proper assembly of the watch did so by a chance, the same chance forces can take them apart again just as easily.

  But life is much more complex than a watch - it can go together many, many ways and when the right biological things start to happen they tend to stay intact and propogate. That means a random set of events can start to actually get things happening towards building life, given A LOT OF TIME - all the errors are discarded, most of the good results are retained and propogated.

  All up, I reckoned that if the WTS resorted to false arguments to critisise evolution, then they were probably on weak ground discussing the physical realities of it all. There's also a line by line critique of the blue creation book online somewhere - it destroys the WTS's credibility on creation.

  Enjoy.

  Max
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Hello TrumanGirl,

  First, let me say I love your name and avatar!

  On the subject of evolution, I found the book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, to be very helpful. Although you might assume from the title that it is an anti-evolution book, and from the cherry-picked quotes the Society makes, you might be led to believe so, it actually takes a very balanced look. Denton's goal is not to prove or disprove evolution, but to show where it succeeds, and where it needs more work.

  This book really help improve my understanding of the tenets and mechanisms of evolution. It showed that evolution in some form does definitely occur - species are not immutable - while at the same time showing what areas seemed less certain. His goal in writing the book was not to try to discredit evolution, but to take a look at where we are in our understanding of it and where we might go in the future.

  You'll almost definitely need a dictionary as you read it, but the writing is clear and enjoyable, and you'll learn a lot.

  Hope that helps!
  SNG
• 

  zen nudist

  after many years of contemplating GOD [Generator Of Diversity] here is what I have come up with:

  first it makes no sense to me that something can ever arise from nothing...so I assume and believe in some original something...

  believing that I cannot believe in a creator as there is only the original stuff which can change relationship and form, but never increase nor decrease in actual amounts....

  it further seems impossible for me to get around the fact that somehow this stuff is either always conscious or can become conscious under the right conditions...thus our minds..... so in a way I see the totality of this conscious/conscious generating stuff as GOD.

  as to evolution, I find that GOD must have some means of inventing or becoming new forms, and cannot possess the mythical ability [never ever demonstrated to my satisfaction] called omniscience... I find the self contradictions inherent in the concept of an all knowing god to be sufficient to dismiss that myth without much of a second thought.

  I also find that this GOD is not responsible for its own origins [as it has no such thing] and thus had no ability to determine its own needs, desires, qualities, and strengths...thus cannot be said to be our creator in any meaningful sense as we are all part of the one whole which had no actual choice but to manifest us at some point.

  in HIM we live and move and have our being --acts 17:28

  Paul was quoting a pagan mystery school pantheist and agreeing with him [probably to sell his BS [belief System] but I find this concept to be a near constant in just about every mystical religious source and underlying most of the major religions in some fashion.

  I conceive of reality dreaming about itself... in this dream, the dreamer cannot know his true nature...it is forever hidden because the only things a dreamer knows are dream elements...inventions of his own mind...thus as the buddhists say, all that is known is actually an illusion of a sort.... or as I was told in a dream, its as real as real ever gets...but still a mental invention.

  when you subtract everything you know, what is left is the real you....

  the buddhists call this the void...not because it does not exist, but because it is void of explanation, void of qualities that we can share, because everything we share is dream, not substance.... the false self is the symbol you have made of yourself and think of as your real body.
• 

  ThiChi

  Evolution, by its very definition, does not explain creation at all. It is also fair to note that many so called educated people believe in a God, or a higher power. Dogmatism is alive and well too with the Evo crowd.
  

  Keep the Faith!!

  For a balanced view of the issue, here are some links that give the other side of the debate:

  http://www.trueorigin.org/behe08.asp

  http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc_02_usnews.htm

  http://www_acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/index.shtml

  ""1. Familiarize yourself with the logical tool called "Occam's Razor," then contemplate how theists unneccessarily complicate things.""

  Using this logic you can easily apply it to the Evo-atheists too. I make this claim on the vary fact of the many differing "views" or "facts" and dissension found in their own ranks....

  "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" right, NN?

  Some claim Occam's razor can be used to support creationism over evolution. After all, having God create everything is much simpler than evolution, which is a very complex mechanism...
• 

  jwbot

  Evolution does not mean God does not exist. You can believe in evolution AND God, that he/she used it as a tool for creation. But evolution gets a bad rep and it is equated with the disbelief in god.