Creationist AND an Evolutionist?

[AuhRinYaang]

I'm curious if could anyone be a creationist and an evolutionist?

What if someone believed that God made everything, but gave his creatures the ability to change and adapt, because God can do anything he pleases, becasue he's God. Would that person be a creationist or evolutionist or both?

What do you think?

 

[hithesh]

I'm curious if could anyone be a creationist and an evolutionist?

What if someone believed that God made everything, but gave his creatures the ability to change and adapt, because God can do anything he pleases, because he's God. Would that person be a creationist or evolutionist or both?

What do you think?

Well, theistic evolutionist, are also "creationist", but the term has been hijacked for sometime by our beloved young-earthers, god-of-gappers, and their kin. The term has been generally used to categories the hijackers, into one lump, when in fact these groups should be defined as subcategories of creationist, and should be referred to by their proper names: "Young Earth Creationist", "Old Earth Creationist", Young Flat Earth Creationist...God of Gaps Creationist..etc..

But to answer your question: that person "would be both". You will even see some believers in this forum refer to themselves as "evolutionary creationist" which is just another name for Theistic evolutionist.

Though we go by different names, we are all children of one Father, and sometimes our family is dysfunctional, as the result of sibling rivalry.

Blame it on the YECs.

 

[gluadys]

I'm curious if could anyone be a creationist and an evolutionist?

What if someone believed that God made everything, but gave his creatures the ability to change and adapt, because God can do anything he pleases, becasue he's God. Would that person be a creationist or evolutionist or both?

What do you think?

Absolutely. As hithesh says, many Christians who accept evolution like to refer to themselves as "evolutionary creationists" for we all agree that God created.

The restriction in meaning of "creationist" to those who reject evolution follows a long pattern of changing the meaning of terms from a universal to a limited meaning.

For example "catholic" as in "the catholic church" once simply meant the whole church throughout the world, but due to historical religious disputes is now generally restricted to mean "Roman Catholic".

Words like "apostolic" and "evangelical" once described the whole church, but now designate only portions of the church.

Christian theology teaches that all believers are "born again", but in common usage today, one speaks of only those who follow one tradition as "born-again believers" as if there could be some other kind of Christian believer.

Same with "creationist". It should refer to all Christians who profess the faith summarized in the Nicene Creed (I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and all things seen and unseen). Because we all believe that, no matter what we believe about how God created.

But, sadly, the word has become identified with a particular set of beliefs on how God created, and so does not have its proper scope any more.

 

[AuhRinYaang]

oh!~ I see

 

[theFijian]

Young Earth Creationists accept evolution up to the point of the ever undefinable 'macroevolution' and the common ancestral model. They have to otherwise their flood geology model wont work.

 

[AuhRinYaang]

flood geology model

What's that?

 

[theFijian]

Basically, the world was flat and had no mountains until Noah's flood. This flood (which must have been global ie. over the whole earth) is responsible for all the major geographical features ont he face of the earth today.

This leads to issues with the number of 'kinds' of animals Noah could take on his ark, there were a limited number of 'kinds' which could fit and so all the millions upon millions of different species we see today all came from the Ark (via hyper fast evolution). This idea was falsified by Christian geologists about 200 years ago.

 

[shernren]

There are two ways to look at the word "creationist": the theoretical one or the conventional.

In the theoretical sense, a creationist is simply someone who believes that God created the heavens and the earth. All evolutionists here believe that. So we are both evolutionists and creationists.

In the practical sense a creationist believes certain things about how God created, not just that God created. In terms of the biological, the defining creationist belief is that there are biological and genetic barriers which evolution cannot cross and which we see today. You could believe in "created kinds" (without evidence, I'll add) and still believe that evolution allows life to evolve within those kinds. So yes you could believe partly in evolution as well.

But to accept the evidence is to accept evolution in full.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'm curious if could anyone be a creationist and an evolutionist?

What if someone believed that God made everything, but gave his creatures the ability to change and adapt, because God can do anything he pleases, becasue he's God. Would that person be a creationist or evolutionist or both?

What do you think?

Yes absolutely. I think that is the theistic evolutionary understanding.

I believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.... begotten of His Father before all worlds, by Whom all things were made.

 

[PaladinValer]

I am both a Creationist and an evolutionist.

 

[Tinker Grey]

As the OP is worded, I think a YEC could be an evolutionist. That is, God created -- then biological beings begin to change perhaps, due to the fall.

Of course, such a one has some work to do to justify ignoring common descent.

 

[AngieBaby77]

I definitely think one can believe in creation and evolution, I do. I believe exactly what you said, that God gave His creatures the ability to adapt and change within their species...microevolution.

I do not believe in macroevolution, which I believe says that all life evolved from non living matter and that one species can evolve into another.

I think the problem is that many people whether they are Christians or atheists do not understand the differences between evolution types and lump it all together as evolution being against Christianity.

The very thing that brought me to Christ was the reading I did of books by men like Hugh Ross, Norman Geisler and Michael Behe who all explained this concept so perfectly.

 

[random_guy]

I definitely think one can believe in creation and evolution, I do. I believe exactly what you said, that God gave His creatures the ability to adapt and change within their species...microevolution.

I do not believe in macroevolution, which I believe says that all life evolved from non living matter and that one species can evolve into another.

I think the problem is that many people whether they are Christians or atheists do not understand the differences between evolution types and lump it all together as evolution being against Christianity.

The very thing that brought me to Christ was the reading I did of books by men like Hugh Ross, Norman Geisler and Michael Behe who all explained this concept so perfectly.

I think you also fall into the category you mentioned. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (life from non-life). We have also observed speciation (species into another species).

Evolution only applies after life exists. Also, evolution, as well as every other scientific theory are not against Christianity. People only think they're against Christianity due to their interpretations of the Bible and the lack of understanding about the theories and science.

 

[gluadys]

I think the problem is that many people whether they are Christians or atheists do not understand the differences between evolution types and lump it all together as evolution being against Christianity.

Very true. The ironic thing is that this:

I do not believe in macroevolution, which I believe says that all life evolved from non living matter and that one species can evolve into another.

is one of the misunderstandings you are speaking of.


Most people do not understand the scientific concept of species. When you show most people examples of macro-evolution (new species evolving from established species) most will say "That's not what I meant. The fruit fly (or salamander or mouse --whatever the example is) is still a fruit fly (or salamander, etc.)

This shows they thought "fruit fly" or "salamander" or "mouse" named a species and they were looking for something like a salamander changing into a frog. But none of those are names of species. They are names for very large groups of hundreds, sometimes thousands of similar species.

So actually, what most people call micro-evolution or adaptation is really macro-evolution. Species really do change into new species.

Also as noted, evolution is not about the origin of life. What you may actually be having problems with is common descent i.e. the idea that all of today's species are descended from one or a few species of the simple life forms that existed when life began on earth.

If this is what you are really getting at, we can show you that there are very good reasons why scientists believe this to be true. In fact, one of the scientists who fully accepts common descent is Michael Behe.

 

[AuhRinYaang]

I have a few questions on this subject,

Does the bible say anything about evolution?

Does is evolution, evolution if God is included into the theory.

Is the "evidence" that bacteria become "immune" to pesticides through mutation, a valid arguement for evolution?

I know in the Bible it says that God made the earth and all the creatures on it... so couldn't he just make new species of animals if he wanted to? Instead of making them go through evolution? Because nothing can happen outside of God's will. So, is there a definite answer?

And what's the point/reason/necessity of knowing where and how species of organisms came to be?

 

[random_guy]

I have a few questions on this subject,

Does the bible say anything about evolution?

Not really, but the Bible also doesn't say much about atomic theory and germ theory so I wouldn't take the Bible's silence on the subject as evidence against the subject. Scientific theories must be evaluated against evidence, not if they line up with the Bible or not.

Does is evolution, evolution if God is included into the theory.

It wouldn't be scientific if God is including into the theory, but the same applies for every scientific theory. Evolution describes how life changes, and makes no mention about God's involvement much like gravity makes no mention about God's involvement. Science can not rule whether God was involved or not, it makes no statement.

I think this is a big stumbling block for Creationists, because they view science's silence about God as being anti-God, when in reality, it's due to the limitations of science. Science cannot prove or disprove God's existence/involvement.

Is the "evidence" that bacteria become "immune" to pesticides through mutation, a valid arguement for evolution?

That's one line of evidence. Evolution is defined as a change of allele frequencies in a gene pool over generations, and antibotic resistance would result in a change of allele frequencies.

I know in the Bible it says that God made the earth and all the creatures on it... so couldn't he just make new species of animals if he wanted to? Instead of making them go through evolution? Because nothing can happen outside of God's will. So, is there a definite answer?

He could do that, but according the evidence that God left in Creation, it didn't seem likely. According to the evidence, the origins of diversity of life came through evolution.

And what's the point/reason/necessity of knowing where and how species of organisms came to be?

Because it's the foundation of modern biology and is used in finding new treatments of all sorts. Plus, knowledge is good, isn't it?

 

[gluadys]

I have a few questions on this subject,

Does the bible say anything about evolution?

No. The bible says little about any field of science and usually in ways that would be consistent with a variety of scientific viewpoints, so you can't tie it down to one scientific way of thinking.

Does is evolution, evolution if God is included into the theory.

God can't actually be included in the theory as this would make scientists judges of God. It would mean that scientists could exclude as well as include God. And that is not possible or theologically sound.

But I think you may really be asking if it is possible to accept evolution and also believe in God and that God was, in some way unknowable to science, involved in evolution.

And the answer to that is a resounding "YES!" Of course you can. There is nothing atheistic or anti-God about evolution.

Is the "evidence" that bacteria become "immune" to pesticides through mutation, a valid arguement for evolution?

Yes. They develop resistance through an evolutionary process. As much evolution occurs within species as occurs at or beyond species level. Any change in the gene frequencies in a species is evolution, even if no new species results.

Some anti-evolution information sources try to distinguish between evolution in a species and evolution leading to new species, but this is not scientific as it is the same process in both cases. Just as it is the same process that will bake a cake and will (in some circumstances) burn it.

I know in the Bible it says that God made the earth and all the creatures on it... so couldn't he just make new species of animals if he wanted to? Instead of making them go through evolution? Because nothing can happen outside of God's will. So, is there a definite answer?

Oh, definitely he could.

So the pertinent question is not "Could he...?" It is "Did he...?"

Because God could also make creatures through evolution too, right?

So both evolutionists and anti-evolutionists agree on what God could do. They disagree about what God did do.

And what's the point/reason/necessity of knowing where and how species of organisms came to be?

That's up to you. If it is important to your relation to God to know, then it's pretty important. If your relation to God is unchanged no matter how species came to be, then it may not be very important to you. Unless you have a burning curiosity to know.

 

[pastorkevin73]

This leads to issues with the number of 'kinds' of animals Noah could take on his ark, there were a limited number of 'kinds' which could fit and so all the millions upon millions of different species we see today all came from the Ark (via hyper fast evolution). This idea was falsified by Christian geologists about 200 years ago.

Could you please give references and/or evidence for these Christian geologists?

 

[random_guy]

Could you please give references and/or evidence for these Christian geologists?

From Wiki:

The idea that all geological strata were produced by a single flood was rejected in 1837 by the Reverend William Buckland, the first professor of geology at Oxford University, who wrote:
Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opinion which is irreconcilable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular successions which they contain of the remains of animals and vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as the strata in which we find them are placed at greater depths. The fact that a large proportion of these remains belong to extinct genera, and almost all of them to extinct species, that lived and multiplied and died on or near the spots where they are now found, shows that the strata in which they occur were deposited slowly and gradually, during long periods of time, and at widely distant intervals.[4]

The quote by the Reverand is especially important. Basically, he realized that the Flood couldn't have produced all the strata due to how fossils were layered. He believed that the Flood must have accounted for only a portion of the layers.

Later, though:

Although Buckland continued for a while to insist that some geological layers related to the Great Flood, he was forced to abandon this idea as the evidence increasingly indicated multiple inundations which occurred well before humans existed. He was convinced by the Swiss geologist Louis Agassiz that much of the evidence on which he relied was in fact the product of ancient ice ages, and became one of the foremost champions of Agassiz's theory of glaciations. Mainstream science gave up on the idea of flood geology, which required major deviations from known physical processes.

Just an example of a very important Christian geologist.

 

[theFijian]

Could you please give references and/or evidence for these Christian geologists?

Hugh Miller - The Testimony of the Rocks