How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

[Anthony Puccetti]

I would like to read discussions of how other Christians have thought about this debate. Serious and theological discussions only, please.

I began to think intensively about the theory of evolution and the doctrine of creation in 2008 while participating in debates about evolution on the Catholic Answers forums. I argued against it because it was a naturalistic theory that made claims about biological history that could not be verified by experiment. In the course of debating the evolutionists and reading their evidence,it occurred to me that the coming into existence of things,order and life are caused by supernatural power and are supernatural as well as natural phenomena,and so naturalistic explanations for these phenomena could not be adequate or true. It also occurred to me that the theory attributes creative abilities to natural causes that they cannot logically have;that natural selection is only a process of elimination and does not actually produce variety;that genetic mutations only affect such things as pigmentation,resistance to disease and bodily growth or cause deformation,and so cannot possibly accumulate so as to lead to macro-evolution,and that speciation leads to groups with diminished genetic variability,which is a process that is opposite of macro-evolution.

I have also recently come to realize that theistic evolution is untenable because it does not take account of the fact that God creates things individually,and that he creates living creatures immediately at conception and reproduction,but instead views God's creative activity as a comprehensive,gradual process,without any particular,immediate creative acts. This view of God and nature goes against reason and observation. If we do not recognize the specific instances of God's creative activity,then we have no actual points of contact between God and nature. It is disingenuous to say that God is moving the processes of nature but to not acknowledge any specific points of contact. If we cannot say that God does anything in particular,we cannot say that he is moving the processes of nature.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I am not anti-science. I asked you a question: Do you believe God is a natural being?

Yes, I also don't believe your definition of natural is the same as mine. I don't think there's much point talking to you and you do strike me as anti science.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I began to think intensively about the theory of evolution and the doctrine of creation in 2008 while participating in debates about evolution on the Catholic Answers forums. I argued against it because it was a naturalistic theory that made claims about biological history that could not be ve.rified by experiment In the course of debating the evolutionists and reading their evidence,it occurred to me that the coming into existence of things,order and life are caused by supernatural power and are supernatural as well as natural phenomena,and so naturalistic explanations for these phenomena could not be adequate or true. It also occurred to me that the theory attributes creative abilities to natural causes that they cannot logically have;that natural selection is only a process of elimination and does not actually produce variety;that genetic mutations only affect such things as pigmentation,resistance to disease and bodily growth or cause deformation,and so cannot possibly accumulate so as to lead to macro-evolution,and that speciation leads to groups with diminished genetic variability,which is a process that is opposite of macro-evolution.

I have also recently come to realize that theistic evolution is untenable because it does not take account of the fact that God creates things individually,and that he creates living creatures immediately at conception and reproduction,but instead views God's creative activity as a comprehensive,gradual process,without any particular,immediate creative acts. This view of God and nature goes against reason and observation. If we do not recognize the specific instances of God's creative activity,then we have no actual points of contact between God and nature. It is disingenuous to say that God is moving the processes of nature but to not acknowledge any specific points of contact. If we cannot say that God does anything in particular,we cannot say that he is moving the processes of nature.

1. It's redundant to say it's a naturalistic theory because science is based on methodological naturalism. Also, it can be verified by experiment so you're wrong on that.

2. Order is a product of uniformity and regularity and does not imply the supernatural in and of itself. Also evolutionary theory=/=abiogenesis.

3. You're using natural selection in such a bizarre manner there it's impossible to be parsed that way. You might as well have typed Something that is the color blue(and only blue) isn't blue.

4. That has nothing to do with theistic evolution.

 

[Jig]

Yes, I also don't believe your definition of natural is the same as mine. I don't think there's much point talking to you and you do strike me as anti science.

I'm offering you a fair and civil chance to represent your views. What is your definition of "natural"? Why do you assume I am anti-science?

 

[Jig]

1. It's redundant to say it's a naturalistic theory because science is based on methodological naturalism. Also, it can be verified by experiment so you're wrong on that.

Did you know that "methodological naturalism" is a philosophical assumption?

2. Order is a product of uniformity and regularity and does not imply the supernatural in and of itself. Also evolutionary theory=/=abiogenesis.

Did you know that "abiogenesis" is a philosophical assumption?

 

[Papias]

Anthony wrote:

(theistic evolution) views God's creative activity as a comprehensive,gradual process,without any particular,immediate creative acts.

If you rejected Theistic Evolution partly for that reason, you may want to re-examine it, because Theistic Evolution can incorporate immediately creative acts of God - indeed, Theistic Evolution can be largly based on them.

Specifically, our Holy Father Pope Benedict has suggested that God is the one immediately causing the many beneficial mutations that have been and are happening. IN that way, God directly and immediately made every part of our useful DNA, while supporting the natural selection process that brought all those parts together and removed any harmful mutations.

Papias

 

[chuck77]

I would like to read discussions of how other Christians have thought about this debate. Serious and theological discussions only, please.

Hi. I don't have much time but wanted to comment real quick. I've been at the "debate" now for a few years. The more I get involved, the more it seems I don't know. There is an overload of information out there and can get overwhelming.

To me, evolutionists and atheists are so arrogant and condescending (i've discovered) that it is hard to have respectful debate with them after a while. They think Creationisits are stupid and uneducated while telling lies all day long, even tho they have no clue who the supposed common ancestors are or where we came from or what proof they have that Natural Selection is the driving force behind evolution, yet, we are the ones lying.

I could go on but why bother, that's enough for now. Oh, and if you try to ask about origins they refer you to abiogenesis. Isn't that convienient! They only deal with EXISTING life

Talk about fairly tales and myths...

 

[Freedom63]

Hi. I don't have much time but wanted to comment real quick. I've been at the "debate" now for a few years. The more I get involved, the more it seems I don't know. There is an overload of information out there and can get overwhelming.

To me, evolutionists and atheists are so arrogant and condescending (i've discovered) that it is hard to have respectful debate with them after a while. They think Creationisits are stupid and uneducated while telling lies all day long, even tho they have no clue who the supposed common ancestors are or where we came from or what proof they have that Natural Selection is the driving force behind evolution, yet, we are the ones lying.

I could go on but why bother, that's enough for now. Oh, and if you try to ask about origins they refer you to abiogenesis. Isn't that convienient! They only deal with EXISTING life

Talk about fairly tales and myths...

"Evolutionists and atheists"? When are young earthers going to wake up and realize that the majority of Christians today recognize that God used evolution to create us? Theistic evolutionists are most certainly NOT atheists.

Oh and I love the irony in the way your comment about how "arrogant and condescending" we are is simply dripping in arrogance and condescension.

 

[artybloke]

I am not anti-science. I asked you a question: Do you believe God is a natural being?

What on earth is a 'natural being'?

 

[gluadys]

Hi. I don't have much time but wanted to comment real quick. I've been at the "debate" now for a few years. The more I get involved, the more it seems I don't know. There is an overload of information out there and can get overwhelming.

To me, evolutionists and atheists are so arrogant and condescending (i've discovered) that it is hard to have respectful debate with them after a while. They think Creationisits are stupid and uneducated while telling lies all day long, even tho they have no clue who the supposed common ancestors are or where we came from or what proof they have that Natural Selection is the driving force behind evolution, yet, we are the ones lying.

I tend to agree with you that some atheists can be very arrogant in their putdowns. I am sorry if you have found Christians who accept evolution sharing that characteristic.

But it is also just as true of many Christian anti-evolutionists I have conversed with.

Unfortunately, it IS true that many Christian anti-evolutionists do come to this "debate" without much education about evolution, so they are uneducated. That is just a fact, not an insult. Nobody is well-educated in everything and if a person has spent their life studying music or accounting or plumbing, why should we expect them to be educated in evolution as well? Even many scientists are not well-versed in evolutionary theory because it is outside their specialty.

The problem arises when such people don't want to accept correction from people who do understand evolutionary theory. That is arrogance. A plumber would feel the same way about a dentist who was spouting nonsense about plumbing and refused to be corrected by an expert plumber.

OTOH, there are people like you who are better educated and can at least articulate evolutionary theory correctly. We should be able to discuss our differences civilly. I generally find such people don't really have a problem understanding and accepting the science; their resistance to evolution is actually rooted in theology. So then we can discuss theology.

Then there are people who are well educated, know the science, choose to lie about it, and make a profitable living from convincing people the science is both wrong and anti-Christian.

That group is a huge problem when they gain the ear and the trust of people who don't have enough knowledge of evolutionary science to see through them.

I don't know where you would place yourself among these groups. In the second, I hope.

In any case, it would be helpful to know what your principal concerns with the theory of evolution are.

 

[Greg1234]

They think Creationisits are stupid and uneducated while telling lies all day long, even tho they have no clue who the supposed common ancestors are or where we came from or what proof they have that Natural Selection is the driving force behind evolution, yet, we are the ones lying.

They tend to stay away from the mechanism and we have to debate "volumes and volumes" of irrelevance.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Hi. I don't have much time but wanted to comment real quick. I've been at the "debate" now for a few years. The more I get involved, the more it seems I don't know. There is an overload of information out there and can get overwhelming.

To me, evolutionists and atheists are so arrogant and condescending (i've discovered) that it is hard to have respectful debate with them after a while. They think Creationisits are stupid and uneducated while telling lies all day long, even tho they have no clue who the supposed common ancestors are or where we came from or what proof they have that Natural Selection is the driving force behind evolution, yet, we are the ones lying.

I could go on but why bother, that's enough for now. Oh, and if you try to ask about origins they refer you to abiogenesis. Isn't that convienient! They only deal with EXISTING life

Talk about fairly tales and myths...

1. No such thing as "evolutionists." As far as the scientific community is, the word you are looking for is simply....scientist. Be they biologist or whatnot.

2. SOME people ARE stupid.(and I mean the population of the planet at large) Probabilities mean that more than likely some of those people will be creationists. I'm sure some of those people are also say....waiters. Shall we complain about the awful lot of waiting then? As it stands, Creationists are often either highly uneducated on the basics of the fields of science they want to whine about OR they are educated and simply deny it all. Ideology trumping fact is the crux of their creedo.

3. That's funny because a number of creationists like to complain about scientists debating over what category to put some of those ancestors into. As new fossils are discovered(and we are lucky to have ANY) much of the picture becomes clearer. That is because scientists have to actually WORK. Creationists are lazy by comparison. VERY lazy.

and finally.

4. Because that's what the word means. See words have meanings, definitions,etc. If I ask someone to hand me a shirt, I don't expect to get a pair of pants because I know the person I ask understand what the word "shirt" constitutes. If you don't like word definitions that is your fault.

 

[philadiddle]

To me, evolutionists and atheists are so arrogant and condescending (i've discovered) that it is hard to have respectful debate with them after a while. They think Creationisits are stupid and uneducated while telling lies all day long, even tho they have no clue who the supposed common ancestors are or where we came from or what proof they have that Natural Selection is the driving force behind evolution, yet, we are the ones lying.

I can identify with you because I used to think the same thing. For me the biggest problem wasn't actually that the evolutionists were lying about evidence, it's that my pride got in the way and I wouldn't accept what they were saying, so I had to assume it was a lie. After I swallowed my pride and started to look objectively at the evidence I realized that evolution really was the best explanation for life on earth. In theology, I started to understand the bible in its context instead of the shallow understanding that I had as a creationist. The grass is always greener on the side of truth.

I could go on but why bother, that's enough for now. Oh, and if you try to ask about origins they refer you to abiogenesis. Isn't that convienient! They only deal with EXISTING life

So? Abiotic chemistry is a different field from biological evolution. Why should a discussion about evolution include abiogenesis?

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

1. It's redundant to say it's a naturalistic theory because science is based on methodological naturalism.

I call the theory naturalistic for the very reason that it takes the naturalistic view of nature. It isn't redundant,it's true.

Also, it can be verified by experiment so you're wrong on that.

No,it cannot be verified. The theory is a narrative of the history of life on earth,which is not something that can be repeated by experiment.

2. Order is a product of uniformity and regularity and does not imply the supernatural in and of itself.
Also evolutionary theory=/=abiogenesis.

Order is that which is arranged by intelligence. Functioning order is purposeful,as with organisms. It is not just patterns and sequences that passively occur.

3. You're using natural selection in such a bizarre manner there it's impossible to be parsed that way. You might as well have typed Something that is the color blue(and only blue) isn't blue.

Natural selection is just the dying off of creatures with certain traits that are thought to be unfavorable to survival and reproductive success,leaving creatures with traits that are thought to be favorable. It is a process of elimination. Darwin thought that it produced the existing variety of species,but it does not produce anything. Creatures that are better suited to their environment can continue to reproduce without the less suited dying off.

4. That has nothing to do with theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution is usually just an acceptance of the theory of evolution as it is commonly taught with the claim that God moves the processes of evolution. But the theory itself does not allow for God to be doing anything because it is naturalistic. And it ignores the fact that species exist as individual creatures (individual creations) that come into being immediately through the means of conception or reproduction,and instead views species as developing gradually into existence from and into other species,without any specific beginnings. So theistic evolutionists adapt as their own this murky,gradualistic view of how species come into existence,which does not acknowledge individual,particular acts of creation,and yet they believe that is how God creates species.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I call the theory naturalistic for the very reason that it takes the naturalistic view of nature. It isn't redundant,it's true.

You don't seem to understand. It's redundant because ALL science is naturalistic. It's like saying..the blue ball is blue and feeling that you just NEED to note it is blue twice. If it's not based on methodological naturalism it's not science.

No,it cannot be verified. The theory is a narrative of the history of life on earth,which is not something that can be repeated by experiment.

No, it's an organized explanation of facts. That is what a theory is. Also there are scientists who are doing experiments RIGHT NOW and have been for some time involving evolution. Greatest Show on Earth mentions at least two. Get educated on the matter.

Order is that which is arranged by intelligence. Functioning order is purposeful,as with organisms. It is not just patterns and sequences that passively occur.

False. There's a reason humans are described as pattern seeking creatures. Order is a description. It is not in and of itself an indicator of intelligent intent.

Natural selection is just the dying off of creatures with certain traits that are thought to be unfavorable to survival and reproductive success,leaving creatures with traits that are thought to be favorable. It is a process of elimination. Darwin thought that it produced the existing variety of species,but it does not produce anything. Creatures that are better suited to their environment can continue to reproduce without the less suited dying off.

See my original statement. You reply is nothing more than another flawed rehash of your earlier statement. You don't actually seem to understand what natural selection is or how it does result in new organisms.

Theistic evolution is usually just an acceptance of the theory of evolution as it is commonly taught with the claim that God moves the processes of evolution. But the theory itself does not allow for God to be doing anything because it is naturalistic. And it ignores the fact that species exist as individual creatures (individual creations) that come into being immediately through the means of conception or reproduction,and instead views species as developing gradually into existence from and into other species,without any specific beginnings. So theistic evolutionists adapt as their own this murky,gradualistic view of how species come into existence,which does not acknowledge individual,particular acts of creation,and yet they believe that is how God creates species.

It helps when your replies actually address the issue. Theistic evolution and evolution in general has absolutely nothing to do with God simply making things. Nor does one invalidate the other. You are creating a false dichotomy.

 

[artybloke]

So you don't believe God is a supernatural being?

God is not 'a being' at all.

God is the ground and creator of all being: supernatural or natural.

You make God into an object, not unlike a table. One doesn't worship tables.

 

[tackattack]

To address the topic "How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate"

I didn't know there was one. I guess I'm one for theistic evolution and don't see a dichotomy between the two.

 

[chuck77]

"Evolutionists and atheists"? When are young earthers going to wake up and realize that the majority of Christians today recognize that God used evolution to create us? Theistic evolutionists are most certainly NOT atheists.

Yikes. Reading comprehension anyone?

Of course, freedom, I gave you no reason whatsoever to assume that I called all evolutionist' atheists by the simple fact that...watch for it...I said " Evolutions AND atheists. Simple enough right?

 

[chuck77]

In any case, it would be helpful to know what your principal concerns with the theory of evolution are.

Gee, Well, first i'll start with Scripture teaches Creationism not evolution. Maybe we can start there instead. Do you believe any of the Bible is true or just some of it? Did God think his creation was very good due to the process of evolution and natural selection? Also, why would there be a need for natural selection before the fall of Adam and even in the garden?

It just a very flawed argument to make that there is any support whatsoever for evolution from a Biblical view. The Bible doesn;t support it and Science doesn't either.

Changes in finch beaks is variation within a species, not the TOE.

 

[chuck77]

As new fossils are discovered(and we are lucky to have ANY) much of the picture becomes clearer. That is because scientists have to actually WORK. Creationists are lazy by comparison. VERY lazy.

Lucky to have any? So, if we are so lucky to have any fossils (which you are right) then tell me how in the world out of all of the millions upon million of fossils that should be scattered all over the entire globe that the very very very few we do have, just happen to line up perfectly for a few transitional sequences as the Scientists say they have? The whale being one.

Talk about luck!! Finding a needle blah blah...just because someone SAYS it's intermediate doesn't make it so. They have no idea at all just like in 1000 years when someone finds a Penguin fossil they will say it's a seal to bird or bird to seal intermediate. All quesses. That's what the TOE is, one big quess.