Creationish Vs Evolutionism? BE POLITE!

What do you believe? (private)

  • Biblical Creationism (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Christian Evolution (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Non Christian Creation (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Non Christian Evolution (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Non Christian Science (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Christian Science (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • inexplicable (creation cannot be explained through current science or religion))

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other. Please explain in your post! :)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
4,837
Mods, I'm not sure where to put this, if it gets out of hand I will close the thread and probably open one up in W&C or the cove. Please PM me with any suggestions or requests.




So, I've been having this debate about creationism vs evolutionism with my brother. I will give you all some back ground. I am a Christian ( I know that a lot of folks will add baggage to this that has nothing to do with me, but I want to be honest) and so is my brother, we both found Christ at different times through different means and we have completely different views on faith. Neither one of us was raised as a Christian, but we both have very devout (though completely different) Christian wives. I believe in empirical data and he believes that all men are fallible and thus their data/interpretation of data is fallible. (except the Bible?) He has been a believer for maybe a decade and I've only believed for a little over a year. Anyway, I've been having discussions with him for the past year about which of these beliefs might be more correct.

I've been doing research on this subject off and on for a year or so and I have not found any reason to believe that "creationism" is correct. Currently I've been taking a hard look at Genesis 1 and 2 and I am starting to think that they are two different stories. I find it very very difficult to find any scientific data at all that is unbiased. It all seems to be either laughing at "the other side". Whether it is creationists saying that modern artifacts found in coal veins prove the flood, or evolutionists saying that creationists are just completely unscientific. I REALLY would like to read some unbiased articles if anyone has links to some.

I have been studying the Bible (looking into the original Hebrew and Greek Languages when i need to) for about a year now and I cannot see how evolution would in some way hurt a persons faith. I have also been reading about evolutionism and geological science, as well as physics. I do understand that many people would like to take the entire Bible Literally, but in the scope of Christianity this is a very very new idea, and that many of these literal Christians will not take kindly to this discussion.

I'm planning on adding a poll to this thread to see what folk here believe. My wife tells me that I am in the minority since I believe in God and the Bible AND evolution. I truly truly hope that she is wrong.


My big questions are: What do you believe? Do you have any scientific proof to back up your beliefs? Do you trust science/scientists? Is one side or the other a big conspiracy?



My only request for you (yes YOU!) in this thread is that you either back up your beliefs with some sort of fact, or your personal interpretation of the Bible (with verses) I hope that I won't have to ask any one to keep the conversation civil.

I very sincerely want to have a rational adult conversation about this topic and I honestly hope that I am not asking too much of our community.
Thanks and God bless!
-Chris
 
My wife tells me that I am in the minority since I believe in God and the Bible AND evolution.


First off, I can say that if this is indeed the case, then we are both the minority here as I believe the same.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Genesis 1:20

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. Genesis 1:24

To me these two verses can actually support belief in both from the way that I interpret them. Case in point, 'Let the earth bring forth'. I take this as the scientific processes of evolution and so forth being created, but that's just me (and perhaps you as well).
 
I don't think calling creationism unscientific is a banal jab at religion. Science isn't out to prove truths. Science is simply a process of empirical thinking that relies on evidence to support ideas. Religion isn't necessarily concerned with having to provide physical evidence for support. The premise of religion is faith -- religious individuals are compelled more by trust and ethos than careful analysis of hard data. They can both co-exist because they are concerned with two separate motivations.

However, when it comes to creationism vs. evolution, I have an extremely hard time trying to reconcile the two concepts. One has an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the idea that a slow, gradual process of natural selection is the mechanism that causes speciation, biodiversity, and ultimately the origin of man. The other has very shaky evidence to obliquely support its ideas (this evidence only alludes to the idea that phenomenon similar to those describes in biblical events have once taken place on Earth).
 
I hold to the literal biblical account of creation, but I don't completely discount evolution either. There's some pretty hard science in that area, even if they are way off in their guesses of how much evolution has taken place. For example, somewhere along the line people's skin realized that the sun in Africa and Central America is hot, and being resistant to sun damage would be useful.


The main reason I can't fully agree with evolution is just how complex some of life is. Eyeballs, for example, could not have evolved. It's simply impossible. The number of parts that all have to work together flawlessly would never have evolved together in the right unison for natural selection to decide "Yeah, lets keep this." It's more likely that your keys will morph into a Sebenza in your pocket.
 
As a raised Christian and now card carring atheist I have strong thoughts about religion. The more I read the bible, and I do, the less I believe. Understanding Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman history only solidifies my beliefs. That's all ill say. I'm for evolution.
 
For this discussion to continue, let's all take a quick refresher on natural selection:

Biologists do not believe that evolution via natural selection is a conscious endeavor. Organisms don't will their own change because they face hardship. Populations of species experience genetic mutations, which can be neutral, hurtful or beneficial. Significant beneficial mutations provide traits that result in those mutated individuals of the population being better adapted to survive and reproduce at a higher percent than non-mutated individuals. If these genetic mutant offspring are surviving and reproducing at a higher rate, it stands to reason statistically that over time, the entire gene pool of a population will change. It's not a matter of organisms sensing a need to change. It's a matter of random genetic mutations occurring that fortuitously allows the population as a whole to better survive in its environment.
 
The documentary Religulous pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. While Bill Maher can be a bit much in his presentation/dramatics there are some points brought up in that movie that are very hard to ignore.
 
I also believe in both creationism and evolution. The label of 'theory' is misleading, as there is plenty of evidence, yet it cannot be labelled as fact because we cannot witness it. Plate tectonics is also 'just a theory', yet no one disputes that one.

I also believe in God. The way I take it is that evolution is how God created what He did. I think that God operates within the laws of physics. After all, why create physics that way if that's not how you do things?

I know that Genesis does not mention evolution, but this is how I look at it: The Bible was written by men inspired by the word of God. It was not actually written by God. The gap of understanding between an omnipotent being and a human is immense, but for an example let's equate it to the gap of understanding between a grown man and a three-year-old. Now for this example, let's say the grown man explains to the child how an internal combustion engine operates, and afterwards tells the child to write down how the engine works. Big surprise, the child will write down only a crude description somewhat resembling what he was actually told because he has nowhere near the intellect or knowledge to understand what he was told. That is Genesis. It was written long before man had the scientific understanding to grasp the process of natural selection and evolution, thus it is very crude and simple, yet conveys the basic fact (I believe) that God created life.

At least that's how I see it.
 
I don't think calling creationism unscientific is a banal jab at religion. Science isn't out to prove truths. Science is simply a process of empirical thinking that relies on evidence to support ideas. Religion isn't necessarily concerned with having to provide physical evidence for support. The premise of religion is faith -- religious individuals are compelled more by trust and ethos than careful analysis of hard data. They can both co-exist because they are concerned with two separate motivations.

However, when it comes to creationism vs. evolution, I have an extremely hard time trying to reconcile the two concepts. One has an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the idea that a slow, gradual process of natural selection is the mechanism that causes speciation, biodiversity, and ultimately the origin of man. The other has very shaky evidence to obliquely support its ideas (this evidence only alludes to the idea that phenomenon similar to those describes in biblical events have once taken place on Earth).

The biggest problem that I am having is that empirical evidence discounts the literal bible story. And the more i read about Genesis 1 and 2 the more I believe that they are in fact two different stories explaining different possible events. My pastor, my (Bible college educated) Bible study partner and my brother all believe that Gen 2 is a recounting of the creation of humans, but if you actually read it (and take it literally) Gen 1 and Gen 2 completely oppose each other. Even the order of creation is opposite. In Gen 1 man is created last as a sort of crowning achievement of God, and in Gen 2 man is created first to name and rule over all animals.


For this discussion to continue, let's all take a quick refresher on natural selection:

Biologists do not believe that evolution via natural selection is a conscious endeavor. Organisms don't will their own change because they face hardship. Populations of species experience genetic mutations, which can be neutral, hurtful or beneficial. Significant beneficial mutations provide traits that result in those mutated individuals of the population being better adapted to survive and reproduce at a higher percent than non-mutated individuals. If these genetic mutant offspring are surviving and reproducing at a higher rate, it stands to reason statistically that over time, the entire gene pool of a population will change. It's not a matter of organisms sensing a need to change. It's a matter of random genetic mutations occurring that fortuitously allows the population as a whole to better survive in its environment.

Thank you for the definition of natural selection. I think that we can all agree on the meaning of the word.



On another note, I was just reading this http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm

Disease Germs

For numerous communicable diseases, the only known “reservoir” is man. That is, the germs or viruses which cause these diseases can survive only in living human bodies or well-equipped laboratories. Well-known examples include measles, pneumococcal pneumonia, leprosy, typhus, typhoid fever, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis and gonorrhea. Was it Adam or Eve who was created with gonorrhea? How about syphilis? The scientific creationists insist on a completed creation, where the creator worked but six days and has been resting ever since. Thus, between them, Adam and Eve had to have been created with every one of these diseases. Later, somebody must have carried them onto Noah's Ark.

Note that the argument covers every disease germ or virus which can survive only in a specific host. But even if the Ark was a floating pesthouse, few of these diseases could have survived. In most cases, only two animals of each “kind” are supposed to have been on the Ark. Suppose the male of such a pair came down with such a disease shortly after the Ark embarked. He recovered, but passed the disease to his mate. She recovered, too, but had no other animal to pass the disease to, for the male was now immune. Every disease for which this cycle lasts less than a year should therefore have become extinct!

Creationists can't pin the blame for germs on Satan. If they do, the immediate question is: How do we know Satan didn't create the rest of the universe? That has frequently been proposed, and if Satan can create one thing, he can create another. If a creationist tries to claim germs are mutations of otherwise benign organisms (degenerate forms, of course), he will actually be arguing for evolution. Such hypothetical mutations could only be considered favorable, since only the mutated forms survived.

While the author is clearly biased in the direction of evolution/science, I cannot think of a Biblical rational for this argument.
 
I also believe in both creationism and evolution. The label of 'theory' is misleading, as there is plenty of evidence, yet it cannot be labelled as fact because we cannot witness it. Plate tectonics is also 'just a theory', yet no one disputes that one.

I also believe in God. The way I take it is that evolution is how God created what He did. I think that God operates within the laws of physics. After all, why create physics that way if that's not how you do things?

I know that Genesis does not mention evolution, but this is how I look at it: The Bible was written by men inspired by the word of God. It was not actually written by God. The gap of understanding between an omnipotent being and a human is immense, but for an example let's equate it to the gap of understanding between a grown man and a three-year-old. Now for this example, let's say the grown man explains to the child how an internal combustion engine operates, and afterwards tells the child to write down how the engine works. Big surprise, the child will write down only a crude description somewhat resembling what he was actually told because he has nowhere near the intellect or knowledge to understand what he was told. That is Genesis. It was written long before man had the scientific understanding to grasp the process of natural selection and evolution, thus it is very crude and simple, yet conveys the basic fact (I believe) that God created life.

At least that's how I see it.


That is a great analogy. I keep explaining to my 4 year old (over and over again) how my truck works and he still thinks that there is some sort of fire in it that makes the wheels turn, which is not completely incorrect.
 
First off, I can say that if this is indeed the case, then we are both the minority here as I believe the same.



To me these two verses can actually support belief in both from the way that I interpret them. Case in point, 'Let the earth bring forth'. I take this as the scientific processes of evolution and so forth being created, but that's just me (and perhaps you as well).

I do have to say, that yes when i read that it made me smile. God asked ( allowed?) the earth to bring forth plants, and it did. The Earth has power, and that's Biblical.
 
I'm an atheist. I see nothing wrong with spirituality, however organized religion of whatever denomination rubs me the wrong way. A religion is run by men, not God. God does not need your money, and if God can create a universe he does not need your worship.

The only reason there is a debate is because the literal crowd is trying to censor inconvenient data so kids cannot choose for themselves. Evolution theory and the scientific method is not about proving creationists wrong. It is about getting as complete an understanding of how things fit together as possible. Looking at the data evolution theory is pretty solid.
 
Last edited:
I grew up in secular Sweden, in a secular household with scientifically literate parents. The only reason I can see why there even is a debate is because of bias towards one belief or another or simply because the science has not been properly explained. The eyeball-example comes up often, and it is simply a misunderstanding of how evolution works. Also, evolution does not claim to explain the origins of life - only the origins of the diversity of life after the fact. All though there are hypotheses regarding the move from chemistry to biology and the creation of life, nothing has been confirmed as of yet.

The claim that evolution cannot be confirmed and it will always remain a "theory" is simply wrong. Just look at bacteria. They are evolving as we speak and in a short time frame, not over millions of years. Also, let's look at the definition of the term "scientific theory":

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

The layman use of the word "theory" differs very much from the scientific use of it.

A good explanation by Richard Dawkins of the evolution of the eye:

[youtube]mb9_x1wgm7E[/youtube]

Also, you have to remember that evolution does not take place because there is a need for it, or because an organism "wants to" evolve. Evolution occurs simply because there are random genetic mutations taking place, and sometimes these mutations either equal a practical benefit or a hindrance. It stands to reason that those that are lucky enough to get the beneficial genetic mutations will be the ones that get the most food, reproduce the most or manage to evade pretators the best and there for have the most offspring and sending their "better" genes onto the next generation, thereby evolving the species - VERY GRADUALLY.

I've tried to keep my tone as civil as possible and I apologize if I have offended anyone. I am merely trying to correct some misunderstandings that seem to cause some people to look at science and scientists as sort of Bond villains that are just trying to further their agenda. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not coming to terms with the scientific explanations if one does not understand them, that's actaully a good thing. It's exactly what scientists do, they remain skeptical to something until it has a sufficient body of evidence behind it. But there is no excuse for not educating ones self, especially in the internet age. We are all born scientists, i.e. curious about the inner workings of the world and there is no better time to ever have lived in when it comes to curbing that curiosity.
 
Evolution. I don't think that believing in evolution proves and/or disproves the existence of God. My beliefs regarding organized religion would likely insult some people and I respect their right to believe as they choose.
 
Well, I come down very solidly on the science/evolution side of this one, entirely due to the available evidence. Biblical literalism is a very new, and to some degree uniquely American, view of the Christian religion. I know a number of very devout Christians who reject it wholeheartedly as it doesn't have a solid historical basis nor very much evidence to support it. I don't believe science and religion are entirely antithetical, but modern science is beginning to answer a lot of questions that make many religious people, heck many people in general, very uncomfortable. Free will has been a religious question for millennia, but now neurology is starting to get some answers about that. Despite my discomfort with some findings, following the available evidence to whatever conclusion that brings is the only path that really makes any sense to me, personally. And all available evidence points towards evolution.
 
honestly you ask for a rational discussion about creationism... Sorry to say but that is a contradictio in terminis
i dont wish to insult people but the evolution is no longer a theory, it is grammatically incorrect to call it the "evolution theory", because it would imply it is not a certitude. Evolution is a fact, very much like the fact the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa or that the earth is round and not flat. In the time the previous two examples were disregarded by christians, muslims, jew etc..., but at a certain point, there really is no point in denying. It just is like that, whether you like it or not.

I am a convinced atheist, nevertheless I have respect for religious people. However, it is really time for religion to evolve. I am not saying god does not exist, i am saying that god does not exist in the way most people see it; i.e. a guy sitting on a cloud deciding about how everything happens. If there would be a god it should be seen as a force, a thing that drives our universe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top