Hello windar12q! There are definitely some things we don't fully understand about God. Our limited human minds cannot fathom God's infinite power, His unchanging perfection, or His existence as three (God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit) in one perfectly unified God (if you want to read a book about these attributes, try A. W. Tozer's Knowledge of the Holy). We don't understand how exactly God's plan works even when life is hard, or why a good God would allow something bad to happen. However, wondering about these questions brings me closer to God, not further from Him. God is big enough to handle your biggest questions. Even if He doesn't reveal an answer He will always remind you that He loves you so much He sent Jesus for you, and that He is in control. One saying I enjoy is this: Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship. It's more than just a source of answers.
@ekrause1406 ekrause, I don't know how old you are, but please think about your answer, it is the answer that has resulted in many deaths and many bloody wars. You ask how do we know what is right, well if we don't, then that would be the end of civilization. I know your answer is wrong and would lead to that demise. Remember I wrote that if the world was ruled by one religion, it also would cause our demise. Your answer proves that I am right.
Thank you for engaging in what has been an eye opening experience and good luck for the future with your plants. If you do take up this work you will also come into the knowledge of quantum mechanics and its transitions that help plant life to survive.
Hello windar12q! As you may have guessed, I believe that God created the world to have the variety that we see today. The Bible is the first reason (see Genesis 1-2) but there is some scientific evidence as well.
1. All mutations that we observe result in a loss of genetic information. Even though some mutations benefit the organism, new genetic material is not created. Old DNA gets combined in a different way or some parts lose functionality, but entirely new sequences are not created by nature. Evolution (or any description of life based solely on natural processes) requires creation of new genetic material to be a frequent event.
2. Changes in organisms happen within Biblical kinds. A "kind" is a term used by creation scientists to describe organisms that are similar enough to mate with each other, and is similar to a genus. We do not observe new species forming that are wildly different from their predecessors, but we do see variations on a theme within each kind. It is believed that God created each kind with the genes needed to produce all the varieties we see.
3. DNA is information. All meaningful codes have a sender who created them and an intended recipient who can read them. If humans did not exist, would there be writing? It's a similar situation with DNA, God is the sender who created the "writing" and the organisms' bodies are the "readers".
When I look at the variety in nature, I marvel at God's creativity. It's like God is an artist and the universe is His canvass. His glory is on full display as He creates His masterpiece. Out of all the things He created, all the variety, He chooses to have a special relationship with us. His most beautiful work is His redemption through Jesus.
3 He heals the brokenhearted
and binds up their wounds.
4 He determines the number of the stars
and calls them each by name.
5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power;
his understanding has no limit. - Psalm 147:3-4
You seem to put a lot of faith in the words of Donald Hoffmann and Charles Darwin. One of the most common misconceptions is so-called “scientific proof.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will always be a proven theorem.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the "best" explanation for it among all available alternatives. However, I might add, other alternatives must T be considered and not summarily dismissed. In my experience, many supporters of evolutionary theory will not even consider the alternative explanations provided by creation scientists. Any "accepted status" of a theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. To imply that it is would be disingenuous and misleading.
Are we not seeing accurately when assessing the universe and our place in it?
Is there anyone out there, who knows where to begin?
Dr Donald Hoffman is a cognitive scientist at The University of California; he discovered while researching the decline of Australia's jewel beetle that life cannot see accurately - this includes all life and leads to big questions about both religion and science.
The jewel beetle had been evolving for nearly two million years and only the male of the species can fly. This enables him to spot a female on the ground; the female is brown, shiny and dimpled. The Australians after drinking their beer, would throw their empties into the Outback. The empty bottles were brown, shiny and dimpled, the poor male beetle couldn't tell the difference between a female and a bottle; hence their decline. The Australians had to get rid of their bottles to save their beetles.
Taking this further; if all life cannot see accurately and this is beneficial to life, then what seems like an handicap, is anything but.
When an intelligent species 'us' comes across something that we can't explain, then in a desperate attempt at clarification we reach for the supernatural, but instead of clarifying we are doing the opposite; we are doing the same as the beetle.
Darwin can't be wrong can he? Let's take a look.
It was in the 1930s when biologist David Black went to the Galapagos Islands to confirm Darwin's theory of natural selection. When he arrived at Galapagos he found finches of all shapes and sizes and all proven to be from one ancestor. He noticed the finches with the bigger and much stronger beaks were eating the same food as the birds with a much weaker structure. He assumed that the birds had evolved in this way because there was no evidence to prove otherwise. He began to think that Darwin had been wrong.
Black was called home early because the dark clouds of war were on the horizon and he left without completing his work. It was sometime later, he discovered by chance that there had been a drought prior to his arriving on Galapagos and many of the foods had not grown, especially the food that was eaten by the the much stronger beaked. He again assumed, rightly or wrongly that he now had what he set out to do, which was to confirm Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Of course it is only a theory; what if the food the smaller birds with the much weaker beaks depended on, had not grown; how could the birds with the weaker beaks have survived? If all the birds had been capable of eating more than one type of grain or berry, then all the the birds would have had a better chance of surviving, but this would have meant evolution supplying all the birds with the same beaks and the same structure to go along with the capabilities they had acquired.
I do admit that at first glance things do appear as Darwin had predicted; the finches had evolved due to what was eaten by each individual species, but are we seeing accurately? Was Black right with his first assumption and was Darwin wrong?,
These mutations seem to occur just to give variety, which in turn gives intelligent life purpose and purpose is the occurrence that gives life its need to evolve. Imagine the benefits this ability to mutate in an organized way, would bestow on the field of medicine if it could be harnessed. Perhaps the age of miracles is yet to come, but it will only come from science.