Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[inquiring mind]

This doesn’t need to be a scientific or religious dissertation, simply what you feel about the subject.

For me, I love the Bible and science, but this wondrous universe coming about spontaneously from singularity (the meaning of which I barely understand) in a big bang, without the mighty hand of God; a “single cell something” rising up from a mud hole (primordial soup of some kind) “on its own” in baron, inhospitable conditions and becoming “the common ancestor” in a linear progression to the varieties of everything on a beautifully complex earth, including man... well, just step back from all the jargon and defense for a moment and look at that picture. I know there are a lot of Christians who enjoy investigating God’s creation, I do myself (my handle is inquiring mind), but how people are completely sold on that “one in a gazillion” possibility, and at the same time regard the biblical creation by an Almighty God (however and by whatever means He desired to accomplish it) to be a fairy tale, really puzzles me.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I don't pretend to understand everything. But to me, a certain amount of evolution is undeniable.

 

[Abaxvahl]

This doesn’t need to be a scientific or religious dissertation, simply what you feel about the subject.

For me, I love the Bible and science, but this wondrous universe coming about spontaneously from singularity (the meaning of which I barely understand) in a big bang, without the mighty hand of God; a “single cell something” rising up from a mud hole (primordial soup of some kind) “on its own” in baron, inhospitable conditions and becoming “the common ancestor” in a linear progression to the varieties of everything on a beautifully complex earth, including man... well, just step back from all the jargon and defense for a moment and look at that picture. I know there are a lot of Christians who enjoy investigating God’s creation, I do myself (my handle is inquiring mind), but how people are completely sold on that “one in a gazillion” possibility, and at the same time regard the biblical creation by an Almighty God (however and by whatever means He desired to accomplish it) to be a fairy tale, really puzzles me.

I personally fully subscribe to the theory of Evolution, and mostly anything else that has some sort of consensus among scientist (in the specific fields that deal with this), as it is their field (and I am not as well versed in it as them). I've never seen some battle between Christianity (which I consider a philosophy and then a religion of faith) and science, other than some people decided to make a huge conflict about it over nothing.

It's really awesome as well, and further shows God in my opinion.

 

[pitabread]

Belief in creation/creationism is a religious belief.

Evolution (the theory of) is a science.

That's about it really.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

This doesn’t need to be a scientific or religious dissertation, simply what you feel about the subject.

For me, I love the Bible and science, but this wondrous universe coming about spontaneously from singularity (the meaning of which I barely understand) in a big bang, without the mighty hand of God; a “single cell something” rising up from a mud hole (primordial soup of some kind) “on its own” in baron, inhospitable conditions and becoming “the common ancestor” in a linear progression to the varieties of everything on a beautifully complex earth, including man... well, just step back from all the jargon and defense for a moment and look at that picture. I know there are a lot of Christians who enjoy investigating God’s creation, I do myself (my handle is inquiring mind), but how people are completely sold on that “one in a gazillion” possibility, and at the same time regard the biblical creation by an Almighty God (however and by whatever means He desired to accomplish it) to be a fairy tale, really puzzles me.

I agree completely... as you said, just the clif notes premise sounds absurd but when you start digging into the complexity of even a single cell and the wondrous workings contained in it with the DNA code and the complex chemical reactions, you realize that this cannot be the simple beginning of something more complex but is in it very nature, more complex than science can explain or even fathom. Never mind the abundance of Creation science and evidence that agrees completely with the observable world.

I've always found that a professed Christian who believes the evolution theory over the Word of God to be highly confused in their faith. Is God not powerful enough to be able to speak into existence all that we see around us in the time frame of six literal days? I believe He could have done it in a second but stretched it out for us to establish the weekly cycle which has no basis in anything natural.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Creationism is a religious belief.

Evolution is a science.

That's about it really.

Not true, there is plenty of science behind Creationism. Actual science that doesn't rely on theories but is based on scientific principles of observable hypothesis'

 

[Anto9us]

It's never been a problem to me to believe in evolution as well as "God did it".

In 7th grade science class, we started discussing evolution and Carolyn asked the teacher "Mr Massey, you don't think we came from a monkey, do you?"

"Certainly not, that's ridiculous; but I believe in evolution"

Then he pulled his Bible from his desk and started reading from Genesis, in regular public school.

I guess I might be a Theistic Evolutionist - never dwell on it though

 

[pitabread]

Not true, there is plenty of science behind Creationism. Actual science that doesn't rely on theories but is based on scientific principles of observable hypothesis'

There isn't. What I've found creationist organizations do is they make arguments that sound "science-y" aimed at convincing the lay public and bolstering religious belief. And invariably these organizations are religious institutions often with specific faith statements they require their members to adhere to.

The glaring lack of secular organizations or individuals promoting creationism from a purely scientific POV is telling.

The Botanical Society of America summed it up best:

"While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. "​

 

[Silmarien]

I've always found that a professed Christian who believes the evolution theory over the Word of God to be highly confused in their faith. Is God not powerful enough to be able to speak into existence all that we see around us in the time frame of six literal days? I believe He could have done it in a second but stretched it out for us to establish the weekly cycle which has no basis in anything natural.

The question isn't whether or not God is capable of creating a universe in six literal days, but whether we have any genuine reason to believe that he did in fact do so. All of the empirical evidence would indicate otherwise.

 

[mark kennedy]

The fact of creation as a doctrine of the faith depends on ones ability to believe the one who makes the promise if faithful. If the promise of eternal life is to mean anything then one would naturally believe that God created life in the first place. I've always believed natural science is neutral and attempts to equivocate science with naturalistic assumptions is an equivocation fallacy. Evolution starts after life originates, it's a living theory, be the origin God or some mystical elemental force of nature driven by presently incomprehensible means.

 

[USincognito]

Not true, there is plenty of science behind Creationism.

Sorry, but that's simply not factual. The vast majority of the "science" (sorry for the scare quotes) that supposedly supports Creationism is based on dishonesty or the ignorance of the audience.

Actual science that doesn't rely on theories but is based on scientific principles of observable hypothesis'

The part I have bolded suggests to me that you don't know as much about science as you think you do. In science a theory is the most powerful explanatory tool in the workshop.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I believe the scriptures above all earthly wisdom.

“As the Scriptures say, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.” So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭1:19-21‬

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, “He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness.” And again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise; he knows they are worthless.””
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:19-20‬

Adam and Eve weren’t monkeys.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sorry, but that's simply not factual. The vast majority of the "science" (sorry for the scare quotes) that supposedly supports Creationism is based on dishonesty or the ignorance of the audience.

Which is how you would characterize profession of faith with regards to essential doctrine?

The part I have bolded suggests to me that you don't know as much about science as you think you do. In science a theory is the most powerful explanatory tool in the workshop.

A theory is rightfully described as a unified theory of the facts. Generally a small subset of the facts, used to draw conclusions regarding the facts overall. That's how the inductive approach to investigating natural phenomenon works. A theory is second to the laws of science since they have a broader scope and a more universal relevance. The Father of modern genetics had this to say about evolution:

‘that species are fixed within limits beyond which they cannot change’ (Gregor Mendel)
​

That netted three laws of science while Darwinian natural selection has produced none.

The failure to accept the elemental laws of heredity for decades was due to the almost unlimited predominance of Darwin's theories on heredity and evolution. Darwin and his followers believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics and blending inheritance as well as continuous evolution. Mendel rejected all three hypotheses. (Mendel's Paper on the Laws of Heredity 1866)
​

Darwinism is not science, it's supposition. It's not a law of science or even a theory, it's a myth passed off as science while contributing less then nothing to natural science. In fact it's effects are deleterious.

 

[sfs]

Sorry, but that's simply not factual. The vast majority of the "science" (sorry for the scare quotes) that supposedly supports Creationism is based on dishonesty or the ignorance of the audience.

Yeah. Every time I've looked at a professional creationist article about genetics, it has been riddled with error or misrepresentation.

 

[sfs]

A theory is second to the laws of science since they have a broader scope and a more universal relevance.

No, that's incorrect. "Law" is pretty much not used at all in science these days, except to refer to things named in previous centuries. And those "laws" are generally simple empirical relationships that don't provide an explanation for the observations.

Darwinism is not science, it's supposition.

I don't know what Darwinism is, but common descent by means of mutation and natural selection is very much science.

 

[sfs]

I've always found that a professed Christian who believes the evolution theory over the Word of God to be highly confused in their faith.

So people like N.T. Wright, John Walton and the Pope are highly confused in their faith?

 

[mark kennedy]

Yeah. Every time I've looked at a professional creationist article about genetics, it has been riddled with error or misrepresentation.

Yea well, I'm not impressed with their expositions of the Scriptures either. With Creationist articles like AIG writes so prolifically I'm always wondering were is the rest of it. It should not distract from the fact that creation is essential doctrine, or cloud one's judgement regarding honestly assessing the evidence.

Always go back to the source material, it's the only way to be sure.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, that's incorrect. "Law" is pretty much not used at all in science these days, except to refer to things named in previous centuries. And those "laws" are generally simple empirical relationships that don't provide an explanation for the observations.

So I'm must making up the laws of inheritance attributed to the rediscovery of Mendel's paper? No law of thermodynamics?

I don't know what Darwinism is, but common descent by means of mutation and natural selection is very much science.

Darwinian isn't a term Creationists made up, the Modern Synthesis is often called neodarwinism, because it's inextricably linked to the philosophy of Charles Darwin originating in his book On the Origin of Species. He said and I quote:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)​

Now, if you believe that, 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition', then you are Darwinian in your worldview. These two worldviews would appear to be mutually exclusive. To date I have nothing but problems with every aspect of universal common descent and at the heart of this philosophy I see the core problem being naturalistic assumptions.

 

[mark kennedy]

So people like N.T. Wright, John Walton and the Pope are highly confused in their faith?

Do you mean Benedict or Francis?

 

[pitabread]

I don't know what Darwinism is, but common descent by means of mutation and natural selection is very much science.

Please don't get mark started on "Darwinism"... last thing we need is yet another rant from him about metaphysical naturalism.