evolution vs. creationism?

Question

Do you think that creationism and evolution can be both true?
Something like god made evolution happen?

Answer 1

No, what you are talking about is Theistic Evolution



A variation on the theme of evolution is theistic evolution. It states that God initiated life on earth and allowed evolutionary principles to bring man to where he is--maybe with a little help from God here and there. At least this theory includes God. But this theory was developed in part by Bible believing people who thought that evolution had some merit. In addition, it is an attempt to answer the many problems existing not only in the fossil record but also with how life could somehow randomly form out of nothing. Because of problems like this, some believe they can be explained by simply adding God to the picture: God directed evolution.

For those who hold to the Bible as the word of God, theistic evolution should not be a viable option. The Bible says, "Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us..." (Psalm 100:3). The Scriptures state that God created. God said, "Let there be..." and there was. The Scriptures speak of the creative word of God. When God speaks; it occurs. He said "Let there be" and it was so. It does not say, "Let there be a slow development through an evolutionary process."

God said in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." The Hebrew word for "make" in this verse and in verse 25 where God makes the beasts, is "asah." It means to do, work, make, produce. This is not simply the limited Hebrew understanding of evolutionary principles.

The land animals were made differently than man. The animals were made from the ground but man was made directly by God: "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" (Gen. 2:7). Evolution states that man evolved from life forms that developed in the ocean. Here, God made man from the dust of the ground--not the water of the ocean.

If evolution is true and the Bible is true then how is the formation of Eve explained? She was created out of one of Adam's ribs (Gen. 2:22). There is no way to explain this if theistic evolution is true; that is, unless you want to say that Eve wasn't made from Adam's side. Then, if you do that, you are doubting the very word of God.

Also, Jesus said in Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.'" The beginning was not evolutionary slime; in the beginning of creation there was Adam and Eve.

Though this information is brief and far from complete, it should be obvious that theistic evolution and the Scriptures cannot be harmonized.

Answer 2

The problem is that directed evolution is still creation.



E.g. scientists, geneticists, now have the ability to transfer any gene from one life-form to another. There is no species barrier any longer.



This intelligent change of a life-form, cannot be called evolution since this supposedly happens unguided automatically. It is intelligent modification, and in the case where this leads to a distinctly new life-form (not just color, size, etc) it becomes creation.



God could very well have used one life-form to be the breeding ground for the next; such as changing the DNA of an egg that is e.g. in a chicken. The new life-form could be totally incapable of breeding with the "parent's" species, but it still would be creation, wouldn't it!



The Bible doesn't specify how the animals were created or even directly how much time it took to create them; these pieces of data are very much open to interpretation, guesswork.



The only interpretation that is not on the board is the 24 hour creative day since each creative day must be at least 7,000 years long. That leaves us with c.day[=>7000 & < (earth's age / 6.xxx)] -- which is quite an open ended equation.

Answer 3

Isn't that the official position of the catholic church and the church of England (ie over 50% of christianity)? That if the evidence supports evolution then that is the way god chose to create us? The assault on evolution from those who insist on a literal interpretation of genesis is a 20th century American idea.



The story of genesis is very similar to the babylonian creation myth (enuma elish) and may well be a hebrew adaptation of the same story. Most primitive creation stories have similarities and these are well analysed (by a christian) if you follow the link.



Evolution doesn't disprove god (there, an atheist said that) but nor would disproving evolution provide any evidence of god.

Answer 4

Creationism as it is usually defined directly contradicts Evolution as it is defined. Simply put, life could not have both evolved over countless millennia and have been created over the course of a few days.



However, if you take the intent behind Creationism (that the Judeo-Christian God created the universe) and believe that Genesis was not meant as a literal historical account, then the two can both be true quite easily, as one would no longer be making a claim that trespassed into the other's territory. This is often called Theistic Evolution, and it does have its adherents in the respected scientific community (Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project, for example).

Answer 5

Of course they are both true! As rational people we know that the universe, since it exists, must have come into existence at some point. As rational people, we know that it must therefore have had a pre-existing cause. As Christians we know that God is that eternal cause of all else that exists. Creation! Which has absolutely nothing to do with the clearly demonstrated fact that living things, once created, undergo gradual transformation that results in new species replacing earlier species - a process that didn't even begin until billions of years after the initial Creation! Where is the conflict??

Answer 6

Of course that much is possible. The question hinges on whether or not a literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis is compatible with evolution. While several people have found ways to make them fit, most people tend to believe that it's impossible.



But the notion of a creator (not assuming omniscience, omnipotence, perfectly good, etc.) using evolution is not in contradiction with any evidence we see. However, whether or not there's anything to support belief in the the existence of such a being is lacking.

Answer 7

i have a feeling there will be a shift in the creationists' world view to eventually accept evolution. however to claim that one idea can support the other is impossible. biblical creationism says everything in the universe was created in 6 literal days. that includes man and dinosaurs. as we know, man lived many millions of years after dinosaurs went extinct. therefore, creationism and evolution cannot both be true.

Answer 8

It can not be true. If God used evolution then he is not perfect and he is wasteful and not very smart. And that is not God.



Evolution says only the strong survive and the weak will die out since they cant adapt.



God says He will fight for the weak and help them be strong.



I have disproved evolution many times and the fact that they say the earth is billions of years old using science. Everything from evolution is wrong.



But to your question No God would not and did not use evolution.

Answer 9

Hey I accept evolution as a fact. Nothing else make sense by brother feels the same and he is a christian. Anyone who doesn't think that god is powerful enough or wise enough to create the world with purely natural behaviors should be an Atheist like me because truly they lack faith.



I am curious as to why I have never seen a white monkey though.

Answer 10

Besides the obvious lack of evidence for creationism and the biological proof for evolution, there is one other flaw with that logic - which story of creation? Each religion has their own - are they all right or just the one that the school board/teacher/parent/student believe in?

Answer 11

Creationism contradicts evolution - so they both cannot be true. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution and absolutely none for creationism....

Answer 12

Yes, and this idea is not new. It’s generally called Theistic Evolution. See my source for more information.



EDIT: You cannot call it "creationism" though. It's misleading to do so.

EDIT2: I will assume that 2 of my thumbs down happened while I was putting in the above edit. To anyone who gives me a thumbs down now that they see this first edit, please feel free to email me about this and discuss my post.



"Theistic evolution is the general opinion that classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations." - from the start of the article in my source

Answer 13

I found this site interesting about Creation and Science.

It talks about how God used Scientific knowledge to create the world.



http://www.geocities.com/stonerdon/ScienceSpeaks/science_speaks.html

Answer 14

Creationism generally refers to the idea that the universe was created in 6 days, around 6000 years ago, exactly the way it is today with all the plants and animals in place.



So...... no.

Answer 15

They are both true although it would clearify things if they took the word "theory" or "faith" out of the argument. Bigger than a man-made idea. Much smaller than most important theological concepts.

Answer 16

They are polar-opposite. In order to make them compatible you have to compromise. I have never seen an evolutionist compromise one step to accommodate the Bible, but I have seen many Christians compromise the Bible to accommodate the philosophy of evolution.

You run into many problems when you try to make the Bible fit with "science." The Catholic Church had some headaches because many of them tried to work Aristotle's teachings into Scripture. That was all fine and good until it came to physics and astronomy. Aristotle taught that light objects fall slower than heavy ones. He also taught that the earth was at the center and everything went around it. It bit them back when Galileo started bickering with the professors.



That goes to show that you cannot compromise Scripture with secular philosophy. Either accept the Bible (which is wise) or accept evolution (which is not wise). Don't try to join the two. Evolution is not science, so don't consider this a science vs. religion topic. It is really a philosophy vs. religion topic.



btw: It should be either evolutionism vs. creationism or evolution vs. creation. Big difference.

Answer 17

This isn't a valid argument...it gives false credence to 'creationism' as it is in no way scientific. If you apply rigorous scientific methodology to creationism it collapses like a house of cards...it's like saying belief in Santa Claus is scientific.

Answer 18

Evolution is a science. Creationism is muddled theology. The could both be true within their own fields, but don't confuse one with the other.

Answer 19

It is possible, or somewhere in between or similar to this idea. I only know that Evolutionary theory does not adequately answer all the questions.



Evolution works well within species, but it is woefully inadequate to satisfy my mind for an origin of different species, especially when you go back to where did it all start, what was the prime mover, what made species start evolving into new ones.



Our observations tell us, for instance, that mutations usually are weaker than the original species, so I cannot see why mutations would thrive more than the original species.

Answer 20

Evolution true.

Creationism fantasy.

Answer 21

They can both be true as long as you believe that the bible is not meant to be taken literally.

Answer 22

To solely believe that something made something shows that the boundaries of your thinking impair the endless possibilities and mysteries out there.

Answer 23

Possible`

Answer 24

Battle's over, creationism lies in the dust, defeated.

Answer 25

Creationism is actually Cretinism in disguise....



"The term cretin refers to a person so affected, but, like many similar words, such as spastic, idiot, lunatic, retard, etc., it has also been hijacked and become a word of abuse."



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

Answer 26

I am pretty sure that the truth is far simpler than that, but at least it isnt in total denial of Biology.

Answer 27

One has actual evidence backing it up, the other doesn't have any proof at all.

Answer 28

evolution kind of disproves a need for a god so thus no they can't

Answer 29

I - personally - go with creationism, my friend..................



God Bless..................