Can Evolution and Creation Co-Exist?

[The Princess Bride]

So.....can it?

Why couldn't it be possible for God to create everything, and then allow things to run there own course after that?

 

[paug]

Well I suppose it's possible in a sense. You'd have to find concensus on the timeframe and other such matters. But I don't see why someone would want to try to mix the two. Creation+Evolution seems like a watered-down, simpleton's answer; trying to reconcile personal, arbitrary beliefs with established scientific truths.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why couldn't it be possible for God to create everything, and then allow things to run there own course after that?

For one thing --- evolution would require death --- and death is God's enemy.

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

 

[AV1611VET]

... trying to reconcile personal, arbitrary beliefs with established scientific truths.

Established scientific what???

 

[TheGnome]

Why couldn't it be possible that there may not be a god?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why couldn't it be possible that there may not be a god?

Then you would have to assume the universe is self-existing.

QV please.

 

[paug]

Established scientific what???

Established SCIENTIFIC TRUTHS. Note the contrast to "absolute proofs", or "irrefutable truths".

 

[AV1611VET]

Established SCIENTIFIC TRUTHS. Note the contrast to "absolute proofs", or "irrefutable truths".

Can an irrefutable truth override a scientific truth?

 

[TheGnome]

Then you would have to assume the universe is self-existing.

QV please.

We know the universe exists. There is no evidence for a god, just wild speculation.

Why waste time making things up when you can learn about things that are actually true?

 

[paug]

Can an irrefutable truth override a scientific truth?

Uh, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but let's just leave it at "note the contrast to ABSOLUTE TRUTHS". Okay?


DISCLAIMER: Reminder to AV... Scientists use the word "truth" in the wrong sense, if they use it at all. Everything is provisional, temporary, and hoped to be improved upon. There may be an absolute truth, there may not be one; science is concerned with getting as close as possible to depict the mechanisms of our universe as accurately as humanly possible. No true scientist would say, in their right mind, that an obtained result is the Truth (tm).

 

[AV1611VET]

Why waste time making things up when you can learn about things that are actually true?

I was addressing your speculation about there being no god. You would have to start your learning experience from the perspective that the universe is self-existing.

 

[AV1611VET]

DISCLAIMER: Reminder to AV... Scientists use the word "truth" in the wrong sense, if they use it at all. Everything is provisional, temporary, and hoped to be improved upon. There may be an absolute truth, there may not be one; science is concerned with getting as close as possible to depict the mechanisms of our universe as accurately as humanly possible. No true scientist would say, in their right mind, that an obtained result is the Truth (tm).

Thank you --- that was refreshingly honest.

 

[paug]

I was addressing your speculation about there being no god. You would have to start your learning experience from the perspective that the universe is self-existing.

And the alternative? Starting (and ending) your learning experience with Goddidit.

 

[AV1611VET]

And the alternative? Starting (and ending) your learning experience with Goddidit.

There is no science behind the Creation --- therefore "Goddidit" is a viable starting point. As my challenge shows, even scientists have no problem with doing their work not knowing how mass/energy came about.

 

[TheGnome]

I was addressing your speculation about there being no god. You would have to start your learning experience from the perspective that the universe is self-existing.

I'm also speculating that I'm not a god trapped in a human body until I reach the age of 30, for which I will have to save the world from Satan.

I just have to go with what I have. Everyone claims they have answers, but they can never substantiate those answers with evidence. Why should I even bother? The universe exists. I'm not sure how it got here, whether this is the only universe ever or it was birthed from another. It's just silly to assume a god created it because that's what everyone else was conditioned to believe in.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's just silly to assume a god created it because that's what everyone else was conditioned to believe in.

That's up to you --- but you came on here with a good question, and I gave you a good answer.

Why couldn't it be possible that there may not be a god?

Then you would have to assume the universe is self-existing.

QV please.

 

[TheGnome]

That's up to you --- but you came on here with a good question, and I gave you a good answer.

Your answer sucked, because it's just another philosophical hypothetical.

Here's another philosophical hypothetical:

What if I'm just a brain in a vat? I was kidnapped by aliens in my sleep, they took out my brain, put it in a vat, and hooked it up to a life simulating computer. None of this is real.

Prove to me that this philosophical hypothetical is wrong, and that you are actually real. You can't, it's a philosophical hypothetical. It's not even false, because it cannot be scientifically examined.

So why bother with these philosophical hypotheticals if they cannot, ever, be examined? I know this universe exists, and I guess that means it's self-existing. Self-existing means that it exists on its own. Is this an assumption? Yes, but it's supported by the evidence. There's no indication that the universe is supported by an external force, so why make an extra assumption about the existence of a deity? It's not logical.

A reasonable argument is an argument made with evidence, not a philosophical hypothetical.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your answer sucked, because it's just another philosophical hypothetical.

Here's another philosophical hypothetical:

What if I'm just a brain in a vat?

Okay --- we're done --- I stopped right here.

Have a nice day.

 

[keith99]

So.....can it?

Why couldn't it be possible for God to create everything, and then allow things to run there own course after that?

Darwin had no problem with what you propose. Evolution is just how things work once there is life, it says nothing about how life started.

Now if what one means by God creating everything is that God created Earth with many species of land animals like what we have today, then no they can not co-exist. They could in theory, but the fossil record shows something quite different.

 

[Blackrend]

Why couldn't it be possible for God to create everything, and then allow things to run there own course after that?

That depends on what you mean by 'Creation'. A literal creation cannot coexist with evolution because the mountains of hard evidence which back up evolution (transitional species, DNA, the fossil record, dating techniques, etc) don't come close to agreeing with the idea of a 7-day creation and a 6000 year old earth.

As an example, I'll use my favorite creationist argument - one that attempts to explain why we never find fossils out of order:

During the Flood, animals that were 'less evolved' sank towards the bottom, and animals that were 'more evolved' were able to swim higher towards the surface of the water.

There are so many logical and factual errors in this statement that I could spend all afternoon just pointing them out. It is a rather common Creationist argument, but I'll give them a little credit: At least it isn't blaming fossils on Satan, or God playing tricks with us, or scientists making up every single transitional form in order to further their 'agenda'.

Now, Creation in the Deist sense, which is what you described, IS possible and entirely compatible with Evolution, Ambiogenesis, and the Big Bang... Though I feel Deism is a little contradictory, I see nothing wrong with filling in the blanks with God, so long as people are open-minded about the REAL evidence that surrounds us.