Evolution conflict and division

[TGGIL]

Evolution conflict and division.
Post by TGGIL

The Great Divide: Evolution vs. Creation
Let’s imagine the world split evenly in two. Half of humanity believes that the universe, Earth, the sun, and all life evolved naturally—through processes like the Big Bang and biological evolution. This group sees no need for a supreme, omnipresent creator. The other half believes in a spiritual, all-knowing God who created everything: space, time, matter, and life itself. These two worldviews stand in stark contrast, each with passionate followers and deep convictions.
The Question to Evolutionists
In a global debate arena, we pose a question to the evolution-believing half: Why would evolutionists ever invent the concept of God? If early humans evolved to reason and reflect, what sparked the idea of a supreme being—an invisible, omnipresent spirit called God? Was it fear, wonder, politics, or something else entirely?
⚔️ A Political Split in the Evolution Camp
Could the idea of God have emerged from a political or philosophical divide among early evolutionists themselves? Imagine two thinkers—brothers, perhaps—who shared a belief in evolution but disagreed on how society should be governed. Over time, their disagreements grew. Each brother attracted followers. Tensions escalated. Neither was evil, but both were convinced they were right.
The Birth of a New Belief
To end the conflict and create a clear separation, one brother conceived a radical idea: invent a spiritual creator. This wasn’t a scientific theory—it was a symbolic revolution. By introducing God, he rejected the shared evolutionary narrative and forged a new path. His followers embraced this divine origin story, not as fiction, but as truth. Books were written. Rituals formed. A new worldview took root.
The Power of Belief
This wasn’t just a clever tactic—it was transformative. The belief in God offered comfort, purpose, and unity. It created a distinct identity, separate from the scientific narrative. Over generations, this belief became deeply embedded in culture, law, and morality. Half the population now sees God not as an invention, but as the ultimate reality.
Who Created Whom?
So we return to the central question: Did evolution create God, or did God create evolution? Was the divine a product of human imagination, born from conflict and division? Or is God the eternal source of all things, including the very minds that question Him?

 

[Niels]

The eternal creator of all things is what I call God. If evolution is fact, then God must be its creator. Although I can't say whether other creatures evolved to contemplate the nature of God, human beings can and do. If there there is a meaningful difference between whether we evolved to do so or we were created to do so, I don't see it. There is a process involved whenever something is created. Understanding how nature works doesn't negate the need for a creator.

People invent false gods to this day. It's called idolatry. We didn't invent the creator of all things. If we did, we wouldn't be here to do so. A logical impossibility. Rather, we are sufficiently capable of using a word to describe the concept.

 

[sfs]

Let’s imagine the world split evenly in two. Half of humanity believes that the universe, Earth, the sun, and all life evolved naturally—through processes like the Big Bang and biological evolution. This group sees no need for a supreme, omnipresent creator.

I'd rather deal with this world, in which whether one believes in a supreme, omnipresent creator has nothing to do with whether one accepts evolution or not.

 

[TGGIL]

I'd rather deal with this world, in which whether one believes in a supreme, omnipresent creator has nothing to do with whether one accepts evolution or not.

Yes, this is all the same world, and you are where you belong. You accept your belief, and I agree with you. And the same world keeps spinning regardless of anyone's belief. Life will continue to evolve with and without us in it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Let’s imagine the world split evenly in two. Half of humanity believes that the universe, Earth, the sun, and all life evolved naturally—through processes like the Big Bang and biological evolution. This group sees no need for a supreme, omnipresent creator. The other half believes in a spiritual, all-knowing God who created everything: space, time, matter, and life itself. These two worldviews stand in stark contrast, each with passionate followers and deep convictions.

Bad assumption, weird conclusion. You've excluded the plurality which accepts that God created all things, and used nature to do it.

 

[stevevw]

Evolution is only part of the story. The other big part is us humans. Not just as an evolved species but as a spiritual being. Being made in Gods image.

This essense of being human unlike all other creatures and organisms is what in the past called the 'life force' or soul. Today it may be referred to as consciousness. But whatever it is its not the produce of evolution. That is the physical causes and processes like brain neurons or the electrical signals between them.

This spiritual aspect is inherent and we are born with it. Yet it has no genetic basis. Its more than fear, or cooperation. Though even cooperation requires something spiritual and beyond survival. Its part of being human as much as our need to eat.

This is the aspect of humans that purely material processes that evolution and I think all the sciences need to account for.

As the OP said we could say 50% of people believe. But then there was a time when just about all believed. We came from a time even in prehistory which as a world of God and gods, and spirits. All the great stories come from very early across the entire globe. This was a world where the gods ruled.

But this was not all myth. Myths and legends are based on true evens or states of being. This was the reality and different to how we think of reality today based on the scientific material worldview.

So belief and gods are are big part of who we are and its not all make believe as some make out. In fact this is really a matter of belief. On the one side humans are doing what they have always done which is believe in God or gods. On the other is a belief that what we see is all there is.

 

[stevevw]

Like you cannot seperate the observer from what is being observed and measured. You cannot seperate evolution and God.

I think its unreal to say that somehow belief in God or not won't influence how you see things. I think as theists and conscious beings we cannot help but view Gods creation teleologically.

In fact you don't have to believe in God. It seems a natural human belief. Most people believe they have agency and reality seems to work that way and its not a delusion. This is one aspect of evolution that has not been incorporated. How life itself as agents and not natural selection directs evolution.

So I would expect to see a lot of little hints of Gods handy work which would make sense if God had designed for a purpose. If it is true that we see Gods creation in what has been made. Then we should expect to see this right down to the micro level.

But more than that. As Dawkins says, Evolution (natural selection) has the appearence of design. So theres the evidence. Its just that atheists will explain this as an appearence and not real.

But as believers in a creator God or anyone who believes in some creator. That appearence is 'not appearence' but reality and the evidence of Gods fingerprints on what He has made. Regardless of how it came about.

 

[OnceLostButNowFound]

Are we talking about microevolution or macroevolution? I think people tend to get the two confused.

I agree with microevolution (Basically natural selection within a group) but don't agree with macroevolution (apes turning into humans or wolves turning into whales.) Or the idea that we came from nothing. That there is no creator.

 

[The Barbarian]

Are we talking about microevolution or macroevolution? I think people tend to get the two confused.

Few people know what it is. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is speciation. New taxa. We see both happening around us.

I agree with microevolution (Basically natural selection within a group) but don't agree with macroevolution (apes turning into humans

We are apes. Humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than either is related to other apes.

or wolves turning into whales.)

Now you're drifting off into Poke'mon.

Or the idea that we came from nothing. That there is no creator.

And that's not part of evolutionary theory at all. Darwin himself supposed that God created the first living things. "People are down on things they aren't up on." - Everette Dirkson

 

[o_mlly]

Macroevolution is speciation. New taxa. We see both happening around us.

So, you claim to personally have witnessed a macro-evolution event? Do fill us in on particulars.

"Macroevolution is speciation" is a meaningless tautological claim, trifling and non-instructive.

 

[Job 33:6]

So, you claim to personally have witnessed a macro-evolution event? Do fill us in on particulars.

"Macroevolution is speciation" is a meaningless tautological claim, trifling and non-instructive.

One of the clearest examples of observed speciation is found in the goat’s beard plant (Tragopogon). In the early 1900s, European settlers introduced three species of Tragopogon into North America. When they grew together, hybrids formed, but normally these would be sterile. Instead, a chromosome-doubling event (polyploidy) restored fertility, creating two brand-new species: Tragopogon miscellus and Tragopogon mirus. These species did not exist in Europe, they originated in America within the last century, have been studied and documented by botanists since their appearance, and are reproductively isolated from their parent species. This is speciation that scientists have directly observed, genetically confirmed, and can still see in nature today.

 

[sfs]

Humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than either is related to other apes.

*Bzzt* *Bzzt* Pedant alert! Chimpanzees are more closely related to bonobos than they are to us.

 

[The Barbarian]

*Bzzt* *Bzzt* Pedant alert! Chimpanzees are more closely related to bonobos than they are to us.

Yep. Back in the day, we called both groups chimpanzees, but they are a separate species.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, you claim to personally have witnessed a macro-evolution event?

Scientists have. Even many YE creationists admit the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families. They just moved the goal posts farther out to change the definition of macroevolution.

Drosophyla miranda is an example. The evolution of the apple maggot fly from the hawthorn maggot fly is an incipient speciation observed in progress.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Macroevolution is speciation" is a meaningless tautological claim, trifling and non-instructive.

Words mean things. If you don't use them as others do, you're never going to communicate effectively.
BTW, all definitions are tautologies, a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words.

And of course, it's instructive. I just showed you what the word means.

 

[OnceLostButNowFound]

Now you're drifting off into Poke'mon.

To clarify, I was referring to an actual theory from the 60's regarding how whales came to be.

 

[The Barbarian]

To clarify, I was referring to an actual theory from the 60's regarding how whales came to be.

No. There was a theory that whales evolved from mesonychids, a particular group of carnivorous hoofed mammals, not canids. Whales are ungulates, but not from that particular group of ungulates.

 

[Job 33:6]

Are we talking about microevolution or macroevolution? I think people tend to get the two confused.

I agree with microevolution (Basically natural selection within a group) but don't agree with macroevolution (apes turning into humans or wolves turning into whales.) Or the idea that we came from nothing. That there is no creator.

The actual theory of evolution doesn't say that whales evolved from wolves, unfortunately. If you really care about distinguishing truth from falsehood, strawman arguments only make the YEC position look weaker.

However, I will say, that's a cool profile picture. I remember when the first odd world came out. The hayday of PlayStation.

 

[o_mlly]

This is speciation that scientists have directly observed, genetically confirmed, and can still see in nature today.

The claim begs for a precise definition of "species".

Hybrids are microevolution events. My heritage has never produced a descendant with brown eyes. I married a brown eyed person and some our children have brown eyes but we don't think of them as new "species".

Scientists have. Even many YE creationists admit the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families. They just moved the goal posts farther out to change the definition of macroevolution.

So you have not observed a speciation event but now claim others have.

Words mean things. If you don't use them as others do, you're never going to communicate effectively.
BTW, all definitions are tautologies, a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words.

And of course, it's instructive. I just showed you what the word means.

Certainly words mean things. But words that tell us nothing new are meaningless tautologies. For example, "All triangles have three sides." A triangle being defined as a three-sided figure, we learn nothing from that statement. Contrast it with the statement, "No triangle has any diagonals," which not a tautology.

 

[Job 33:6]

The claim begs for a precise definition of "species".

Hybrids are microevolution events. My heritage has never produced a descendant with brown eyes. I married a brown eyed person and some our children have brown eyes but we don't think of them as new "species".

So you have not observed a speciation event but now claim others have.

Certainly words mean things. But words that tell us nothing new are meaningless tautologies. For example, "All triangles have three sides." A triangle being defined as a three-sided figure, we learn nothing from that statement. Contrast it with the statement, "No triangle has any diagonals," which not a tautology.

They are reproductively isolated and they have undergone a chromosome duplication, making them significantly genetically unique and distinct from their ancestors.