Creationist evolution
Does believing in evolution automatically mean that you don’t believe in a higher existence, afterlife, or God? To most creationists it seems that way. The creationist/evolutionist debate has found new light thanks to the internet, and I can’t understand why the two theories can’t live closer in harmony.
Can’t one believe that humans evolved from lower life forms like monkeys, as well as the big bang theory…while also believing in a higher power? (but not necessarily a “God”) For me personally, I believe there’s much more to the universe, and I wouldn’t rule out that a “higher power” is somehow responsible for the big bang. So does that make me a creationist or evolutionist? The Evangelical Christians have decided that all creationists must be Christians and all Christians must creationists, and I just don’t see it that way.
Yes. Why isn’t it possible that God created man through evolution?
Creationism and evolution shouldn’t be considered mutually exclusive, IMO. It’s sort of like the flat earth debate during/before Galileo’s time; the religionists don’t want to lose credibility so they hold-out until the science is so overwhelming that they can no longer deny it.
It would sure solve lots of debates if the two-sides would merge. We need to find a living Neanderthal to convince people. Any volunteers?
Comment by Kristian — Sun, Jun 17th, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
I guess it’s the pride factor. One of the presidential candidates (Republican debate) said something like “I sure am not descended from a primate!”. Too much to bear that we (humans) wouldn’t be the kings of the world, appointed by supreme being.
I for one think it’s just great - isn’t it usually so that deeds of the sons go past what their fathers did? So I’d be proud “look, we were monkeys only a few millions of years ago, and now we are already going out out to space!”
Gotta say, that site was damn funny though :). Banana is a proof that god exists. Yeah. Right.
Comment by Zarr — Sun, Jun 17th, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Church, does believe this. Evolution does present a problem for the religious though since it stops humans being in some way “special”. One also has to ask why God would create a vast universe for the sake of one planet just so that after 42 million years humans could evolve on it. He might have done this, but it’s a bit weird since he could have just done it in the snap of a finger.
Comment by Finnsense — Sun, Jun 17th, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
I believe in God and I believe in the Evolution, to me they work in perfect harmony.
Kristian said exactly what I though: “Why isn’t it possible that God created man through evolution?”
Comment by Mikael — Sun, Jun 17th, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
When all you non-religious types say “I believe in God”, what do you mean exactly? Do you mean “God” in the same way I do, as more like “the higher power” or “the ultimate existence” or something?
I never use the word “God” cause it sounds too much like God is a person, probably a king or ruler.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Jun 17th, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
I believe in God and evolution. To me, evolution just tells that God played (/still does) his own Spore.
Comment by Stello — Sun, Jun 17th, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
“When all you non-religious types say “I believe in Godâ€Â, what do you mean exactly?”
I think it’s unlikely non-religious types would say they believe in God. A better question is what do you mean when you say “higher power” or “ultimate existence”. Neither of these mean much to me and neither can answer the fundamental question which is why there is something rather than nothing.
Comment by Finnsense — Sun, Jun 17th, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
I can’t understand why the two theories can’t live closer in harmony.
Calling creationism a theory gives it scientific prestige, which it doesn’t deserve. Here’s some interesting debate on the subuject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8
Comment by Anonymous — Sun, Jun 17th, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
A better question is what do you mean when you say “higher power†or “ultimate existenceâ€Â. Neither of these mean much to me and neither can answer the fundamental question which is why there is something rather than nothing.
Do you think the universe was a big random accident, or is intentional?
Comment by Phil — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 12:29 am
“Here’s some interesting debate on the subuject:”
99999999999999999999999….10101010….
Does anyone remember an asian food tent at Tapiola during Christmas time, where the vendor preached his Supreme Master TV rap? He had a television inside the tent, so his customers could watch the meditation sessions. And he kept telling his customers: Remember to go home and watch http://www.suprememastertv.com .
Gotta make a living somehow, I guess
Comment by Kristian — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 1:14 am
One also has to ask why God would create a vast universe for the sake of one planet just so that after 42 million years humans could evolve on it.
Unfortunately, some creationists tend to believe the Earth was only created a few thousand years ago, contrary to the scientific proof. Sad, really.
I believe in God and I believe in the Evolution, to me they work in perfect harmony.
This is how I would see it if I believed in one supreme being.
God put us on this planet to learn and to become something more, right? God didn’t mean for us to squabble over social/political issues, land, resources and in the end blow ourselves up. But I wouldn’t know because I nor anyone else should presume to speak for god.
This is always a fun subject.
Comment by gopha — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 2:49 am
I am going to admit that I will be in the minority opinion of the posters here. However, I am going to go on the record and state that I believe in YEC (young earth creationism). Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research have plenty of proof to back up this evidence. Those men and women in those organizations are scientists with impeccable credentials. Another YEC scientist who, believe it or not, studied under evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, is Kurt Wise. (When hearing that Richard Dawkins called him “the biggest disappointment to science”, Dr. Wise shrugged it off.)
That being said, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron should stick to evangelism — and not try to refute the errors and lies of evolution. They are not trained scientists.
Comment by Jason — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 5:13 am
I believe in death. And Taxes. Everything else is mere speculative BS. Does that make me a republican or a communist?
Comment by hfb — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 7:23 am
“Do you think the universe was a big random accident, or is intentional?”
I don’t see that it matters because either way it still doesn’t explain why anything exists at all. If “God” created the universe who created God. To say God has existed forever is not to say anythi8ng meaningful. We could just say the universe has existed forever. Humans can only understand thing with beginnings. Beyond that you just get easy answers to difficult questions.
Jason,
I don’t know what impeccable scientific credentials means to you but there is not one single paper in a respected scientific journal that gives any suggestion the Earth is young. No scientist who has not published in a top (or even good) journal can have impeccable credentials. By contrast, there are literally thousands of papers supporting evolution and the hypothesis that the world is of the order of 42 million years old. You are being lied to if you believe otherwise. Fortunately, the journals are all in university libraries and you can see the contents pages on the internet so don’t take my word for it, look it up.
Comment by Finnsense — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 8:41 am
Surely the point for opponents of evolution is not that evolution disproves God, but that it disproves specific religious beliefs. This is obvious in the case of e.g. Christians who believe that the Bible’s creation story is not a metaphor, but it goes wider than that. For example, evolution suggests that God didn’t create man in His image. It says that there’s no one model for humans; we’re just another species that’s forever evolving into something different. That’s threatening to all sorts of religions that claim that there’s some special link between God and humans.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
@14: More like four and a half billion years.
Comment by aet75 — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
No, in its current state, religion will not allow for a person to believe in both. Religion says the world is 3000 years old and creationism says the world is over a billion so the two have fundamental difference. I am saying that to acknowledge that I understand the reason that this is a debate. I think the only way to change the debate is to do something I know no one will want to do and that is to reevaluate religion. Like everything else that we reevaluated with new evidence and education religion should be redefined.
Religion is supposed to be a never ending search for God and to think that we wrote a book hundreds of years ago and have never updated it with what we know to be true now is crazy to me. We have updated it in ways, now their are women’s bibles that are not so hardline on women and their roles in some scriptures. I would think that since we can mathematically figure out how old the earth is, that we would rethink how long ago the Genesis was it only makes sense. With the finding of dinosaur fossils you would think we would have reevaluated when it was a Supreme being made Adam and Eve.
I just think that the idea that we have everything figured out even though new information is always coming is nuts. The bible may not be wrong but maybe we interpreted it wrong or made assumption based off of what we knew at the time. With new information new definitions should be defined.
Comment by Kourtney N. Williams — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
What? Kristian,
Few posts ago you were beating female preasts with the Bible, and are now saying that maybe God didn’t actually create everything in 6 days!
What a weathervane of a man you are.
Comment by issi — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
Finnsense: I don’t know what schools you went to, but the one I attended taught us that the universe is ca. 13.5 billion years old and the earth ca. 4.2 billion years.
The dinosaurs went extinct 60 million years ago. I really don’t know where you got the 42 million figure from. Douglas Adams, maybe?
Comment by Fat Bastard — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Fat Bastard and aet75,
As it happens my school taught that the Earth was made by God in seven days but my 42 million years was a mistake. I don’t know where the number came from.
Comment by Finnsense — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Those creationists have now got their own museum complete with dinosaurs http://www.creationmuseum.org . If there was a god you’d think it could fashion them a better website for them.
Comment by pi — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Finnsense, so where were you taught that seven-days piece work?
Well, it doesnt give very almighty impression, if one has to rest a full day after six days work. I have done some serious double shift periods in my youth, even manged to have some social life along with it.
Shout by the lake Gennesaret: ” Hey, ya suppsed to be God’s son but can’t even swim!”
Comment by issi — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
By the way, there’s well designed stereotype in that way of the master -picture. Wimpy looking, well dressed guy teaching, well, spreading the gospel for that huge, dangerous looking black muscle bundle. You won’t see it the other way, will you?
Comment by issi — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
#23. I actually saw it the other way when I first glanced at the picture. When I went back to look after I read your post I saw it as you say by looking at the subjects’ hands.
I’ve met many black black people who invoke the Lord regularly. I think black people are much more openly spiritual than white people. In my stereotype and average looking white guy is less likely to be deeply religious than a big black guy.
Comment by maaksalaatikko — Mon, Jun 18th, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
@Phil
“why the two theories”
Creationism isn’t a theory, it’s a religious doctrine.
“When all you non-religious types say “I believe in Godâ€Â, what do you mean exactly? Do you mean “God†in the same way I do, as more like “the higher power†or “the ultimate existence†or something?
I never use the word “God†cause it sounds too much like God is a person, probably a king or ruler.”
So you are a deist, eh?
“Do you think the universe was a big random accident, or is intentional?”
No it is not an random accident neither does it need an intention of a “higher power”. -God of the gaps-.
In short; Just because we cannot understand something. It doesn’t mean that we have to invent a supernatural explanation, a simple I(we) don’t know will do. (for example the various polytheistic religions where the different gods usually represented a natural phenonemon that was not understood by the people believing in these myths)
Comment by Kronos — Tue, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Correction: Creationism is NOT a theory, nor even a hypothesis, because it was not arrived at by the scientific method. It does not fit all the facts, it has not been tested and it cannot be tested, and has no predictive capability. Therefore, it is not a scientific theory. It is an unsupported opinion.
Comment by Thomas — Tue, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
“In my stereotype and average looking white guy is less likely to be deeply religious than a big black guy.”
Black people are more simple. Generally. Black guy in picture looks like he could eat the white guy for lunch.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
Intelligent Design: that’s what its called. Evidence seems to show that the earth and life was formed over a long period. Other evidence shows that the possibility of molecules just randomly arranging themselves into amino acids and then amino acids arranging themselves into proteins is an odd that is 1 to some number that has as many zeroes on it as the number of electrons it would take to fill the known universe.
On the other hand if one believes in God, then one must believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, otherwise he is not God, he is just a being. And a god who meets these qualifications is able to create our world or univers with a thought, and even make it look like it was old, otherwise he simpbly is not God. So if you believe in God, you certainly can believe in creation, otherwise it is not God that you believe in.
Comment by Sirkuspelle — Wed, Jun 20th, 2007 @ 11:53 am
#28
IDiotism is nothing more than a thinly veiled creationism.
Comment by Kronos — Wed, Jun 20th, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Other evidence shows that the possibility of molecules just randomly arranging themselves into amino acids and then amino acids arranging themselves into proteins is an odd that is 1 to some number that has as many zeroes on it as the number of electrons it would take to fill the known universe.
It doesn’t matter how improbable life is, if there are infinite alternative universes at least one would have life in it. Remember that we don’t get to see these other universes and that’s why it seems to be impossible for life to have been born on its own.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Jun 20th, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
#29 Utterly fascinating quote, I must say. “IDiotism is nothing more than a thinly veiled creationism.”
I guess what you are really trying to say, is that you don’t believe in creationism, but you also want to insult everyone who does. I think an idiot is actually one that automatically believes anything that is taught to him, without questioning it.
#30 But are there infinite possible universes? Have you seen evidence supporting this? That is just purely a theory.
You can see evidence supporting evolution, intelligent design, and even creationism, but multiple universes?
Comment by Sirkuspelle — Thu, Jun 21st, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
“I guess what you are really trying to say, is that you don’t believe in creationism, but you also want to insult everyone who does. I think an idiot is actually one that automatically believes anything that is taught to him, without questioning it.”
Hahaahaa
I happen to know about these things unlike you. ID isn’t a theory it’s just another form of creationism and frankly if you ask me people who believe in fairy tales deserve to be ridiculed(unless you’re a small child).
Oh, and you might want to update your knowledge about probabilities. Kauppakoulu education doesn’t quite cut it when it comes to these things.
“You can see evidence supporting evolution, intelligent design, and even creationism”
You shot yourself on the foot here but I’ll play along. Please provide me with the evidence supporting ID and creationism (and musta tuntuu isn’t a valid argument)
Go back to school or leave these things to people who actually know something.
Comment by Kronos — Fri, Jun 22nd, 2007 @ 11:51 am
Kronos and Sirkuspelle (and to everyone else who mocks and scorns creationism/Intelligent Design),
I used to believe that evolution was feasible (if not somewhat indefensible). In all of our finite minds, I would try to imagine just how far back so many millions and billions of years ago things “evolved”. In fact, I had to wonder how possible it would be to live a million years old and go through a checkout line at a grocery store all wrinkly and stooped over. (Now that I think about that, it’s utterly absurd! And that’s one of many instances that causes me to think that evolution is absurd.)
Explain this one to me: how on earth could we come from monkeys if they’re still around? If we came from monkeys, then those primates shouldn’t be living anymore. They should have gone the way of the Dodo bird. However, they’re still here, attesting to the proof of God’s creation well over 6000 years ago. I’d say that “random chance,” no matter how many papers have been written to “prove” and “defend” it, still doesn’t make it right. Being a former evolutionist in a weak sense, the belief that God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh makes way more sense to me than being a monkey’s uncle or nephew.
I don’t care how many scientific papers have been written to attempt to prove its validity. You can’t fit a circle inside of a square.
Oh, BTW. My apologies to Sirkuspelle for mentioning him in the beginning. I did not mean to lump you in with all of the anti-creationist bashers. Am I right in assuming that you also believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six days? (Genesis 1)
Comment by Jason — Sat, Jun 23rd, 2007 @ 8:51 am
“I used to believe that evolution was feasible (if not somewhat indefensible). In all of our finite minds, I would try to imagine just how far back so many millions and billions of years ago things “evolvedâ€Â. In fact, I had to wonder how possible it would be to live a million years old and go through a checkout line at a grocery store all wrinkly and stooped over. (Now that I think about that, it’s utterly absurd! And that’s one of many instances that causes me to think that evolution is absurd.)”
The reality doesn’t care what you think. Evolution isn’t absurd, you just lack the mental capability to grasp the “simplest” of ideas.
“Explain this one to me: how on earth could we come from monkeys if they’re still around?”
You can’t be kidding me, did you ever finnish junior high? But me being a good sport, I’ll answer you. Man didn’t evolve from monkeys, Humans and other primates are evolved from a common ancestor. Think of it like this, We are their cousins.
“the belief that God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh makes way more sense to me than being a monkey’s uncle or nephew.”
With those mad reasoning skillz, I wouldn’t expect you to believe otherwise.
“I don’t care how many scientific papers have been written to attempt to prove its validity.”
Great, so you just run around blindfolded because it makes you happier.
You and the other twit who believes in ID have no evidence to support your beliefs.
Believe what ever you want but don’t make the mistake of making your own beliefs into universal truths (without some real world evidence to support your ideas).
Comment by Kronos — Sat, Jun 23rd, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Kronos, the fact that you have to result to namecalling on me and Sirkuspelle diminishes your credibility in defending a theory that has left humanity in a morality morass. One of the core principles of evolution is “survival of the fittest.” That being said, an offspring of evolution is eugenics. Well, that turned out to be the case with Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and every other bloodthirsty tyrant.
In a previous post, I brought up organizations like Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org) and the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org). Dr. Henry Morris put forth an irrefutable defense for The Great Flood where Noah’s Ark had to ride the waves of the water. I have seen it on tape. Draw your own conclusions as you may, but I invite you to make an educated man’s decision after you watch them.
Comment by Jason — Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
One of the core principles of evolution is “survival of the fittest.â€Â
And must I say, the most (purposefully) misunderstood feature of evolution.
That being said, an offspring of evolution is eugenics. Well, that turned out to be the case with Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and every other bloodthirsty tyrant.
Bloodthirsty tyrants are quite keen on killing in the name of gods and other ghosts as well. As for Stalin in particular, he was an adherent of Lysenkoism, which denied the process of natural selection and chose to believe in acquired traits being hereditary. If anything, Stalin is a good warning against ideologies that preach doctrines that are in contradiction with empirical evidence.
Dr. Henry Morris put forth an irrefutable defense for The Great Flood
These creationist defenses tend to be irrefutable because they are consistently void of any content.
The straight dope on this issue can always be found on talkorigins.org.
On the flood mythology in particular
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 12:29 am
“Kronos, the fact that you have to result to namecalling on me and Sirkuspelle diminishes your credibility in defending a theory that has left humanity in a morality morass.”
I only give respect to those who deserve it. Me calling you two idiots doesn’t in anyway diminsh my credibility, I am just calling a spade a spade.
As for the rest of your insensible drivel, please read Freeridin’ Franklins post.
Comment by Kronos — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Calling a spade a spade? How about the pot calling the kettle black?
Comment by Jason — Fri, Jun 29th, 2007 @ 3:11 am
Calling a spade a spade? How about the pot calling the kettle black?
Petty namecalling only furthers the case of those who don’t have a case.
As you were referring to a “morality morass” caused by secularism, what are your thoughts regarding this?
Did you read the flood-related articles on talkorigins.org?
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Jun 29th, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
Ah, yes. Bring up a group of thugs (the Lord’s Resistance Army) who claim to be Christian but are not.
No problem, FF. This is an argument that comes up constantly about a group of people who think they are doing God’s work by setting up theocracies regardless of theological persuasion. On the contrary, there have been much better examples of Christians who have died for their faith by not taking up the sword. I would agree with you that the LRA is making an egregious mistake. It would be better served if they had read Foxe’s Book of Christian Martyrs. They should also do themselves a favor by reading Matthew 26:51-52 “And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.’” (That was part of the account of Jesus’ betrayal and arrest.)
i>Petty namecalling only furthers the case of those who don’t have a case. Well, thanks for validating my point.
In absolute honesty, I will have to get back to you about talkorigins.org. Free time is a luxury that I do not have much of right now since I work a full-time job and I go to seminary at the same time. That being said, I will get back with you about those flood-related articles when I can find some spare time.
With all due respect, I am not trying to ignore nor blow off your request for me to do some fact-checking. As you can see, my time is limited. For that matter, it’s that way with most of us here.
Comment by Jason — Wed, Jul 4th, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
“Bring up a group of thugs (the Lord’s Resistance Army) who claim to be Christian but are not.”
Yes, it’s always the same old “but they aren’t true christians”. Are you actually so arrogant that you claim to know better than they themselves about their own beliefs.
Are you so sure that you are a “true” christian. Do you take everything in the bible literally(remember no cherry picking)? What’s your definition of God?
Comment by Kronos — Thu, Jul 5th, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Ah, yes. Bring up a group of thugs (the Lord’s Resistance Army) who claim to be Christian but are not.
Ah, but that’s an all too easy cop-out. It’s a bit like saying that the SS Totenkopf troops serving at Auschwitz were not real Nazis, or that the Soviet leadership were not true communists. Who is the proper authority to determine who is a Christian and who is not? And who determines who truly represents secularism? Certainly not the Nazis, I’d say, with all the mystical elements of national socialism. And while Marxism-Leninism was formally secular, it had its share of religious elements.
And surely you agree with the Islamic scholars who argue that terrorists can not be true Muslims?
In absolute honesty, I will have to get back to you about talkorigins.org.
By all means, take your time. And whenever you read an essay from one of your creationist sites, be sure to check if the topic is covered on talkorigins.org. There’s such a wealth of information on the young Earth / natural science controversy. I call it that because the controversy isn’t limited to evolution but practically all of natural science. As for intelligent design, there really isn’t a controversy. If you believe in an almighty higher power, intelligent design naturally follows, although it escapes me why it would contradict evolution.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Jul 6th, 2007 @ 1:52 am