Why can't Creationism and evolutionism perhaps be the same thing?

[iam]

That may be the official response but there are plenty of people in the church that have a clue.

What church is this, unitarian universalist? You expect me to believe that the christian orthodox church has members who believe that adam and eve evolved from apes??? I've never met one. Ever.

 

[Ophiolite]

You motheaten grumpy old scoundrel, you.

Thank you (Q). If only others could see my true soul with such perception.

Now I'm just off to send a few e-mails to Christians I know to tell them their belief in evolution is flawed. I really don't know how they will take it. Ah, well.

 

[usp8riot]

So, by the very nature of science, which does not show any evidence of gods, we can eliminate the need for gods and their associated labels.

The evidence of God/Gods is all around us. A God is a creator. Maybe my eyes decieve me but I do see things created.

Anything else would be a lie, don't ya think?

The truth is still the truth even if left untold. If the truth is not ready to be heard yet or leads to needless complication, it is morally right to not tell it unless it is asks. In that case, if the reciever is not ready for the truth, you would simply tell them that. To tell a child how a gun works would endanger their life at such a mischievious age. It only provokes curiosity in it and is needless. Information that is given to children that give them more power than they should is unneeded and foolish for an adult to give them. Information which is unneeded that they don't ask for shouldn't be told because they are learning enough at that age and it only clouds their mind with needless info. In the beginning, man was in his infancy and knew very little. And I agree it is best left to be discovered by man instead of being told or we would be all clueless. Soon the time will come when we will be told these things.

Yes, I've noticed the contempt theists have for knowledge. Good reason though, as knowledge ultimately destroys everything they believe. Why wouldn't they have disdain for it?

Because they know not. They also dissatisfy me too. To speak of what they do not know. Morality, to me, is always based off reason. What is best for everyone. I can't see religion and logic/reason being two different unrelated subjects and never could. I'm not pleased by anyone who speaks of religion in ignorance of the science it's based around. It only makes people with a clue of reality turn away when you base a religion off of magic or "just because".

And, what process would that be?

We create through evolution also, of course. One step at a time.


I don't go to church but have chatted online with some christians and it's not odd to find some that do believe in evolution. But I am with the Jews and Muslims also. I believe we all believe in the same God. As a father can have many children with many different languages and cultures as they age. And to spread the message, he would send someone who spoke each of the childrens' tongues and customs so as to make certain the message is heard.

 

[(Q)]

The evidence of God/Gods is all around us. A God is a creator. Maybe my eyes decieve me but I do see things created.

If that is the way you perceive the world, then there is much more than just your eyes that deceive you. There is nothing in nature revealing gods, in fact, nature reveals itself to be self-sustaining.

The truth is still the truth even if left untold. If the truth is not ready to be heard yet or leads to needless complication, it is morally right to not tell it unless it is asks. In that case, if the reciever is not ready for the truth, you would simply tell them that.

Then, that truth is utterly useless if its not ready and pointless if it leads to complications.

To tell a child how a gun works would endanger their life at such a mischievious age.

You equate your truth to that of a gun. Is it so dangerous that it has the potential to kill?

It only provokes curiosity in it and is needless. Information that is given to children that give them more power than they should is unneeded and foolish for an adult to give them. Information which is unneeded that they don't ask for shouldn't be told because they are learning enough at that age and it only clouds their mind with needless info.

You use the terms 'needless, foolish and clouded minds' in describing your gods truth. You think this information can give power to children who might abuse it. Is this even beginning to sound silly to you yet?

In the beginning, man was in his infancy and knew very little.

Hence, he invented religion to explain everything.

I can't see religion and logic/reason being two different unrelated subjects and never could. I'm not pleased by anyone who speaks of religion in ignorance of the science it's based around. It only makes people with a clue of reality turn away when you base a religion off of magic or "just because".

That's not surprising, most theists believe their fantasies of religion to be their realities.

But I am with the Jews and Muslims also. I believe we all believe in the same God. As a father can have many children with many different languages and cultures as they age. And to spread the message, he would send someone who spoke each of the childrens' tongues and customs so as to make certain the message is heard.

Yet, the message is convoluted and unsupportive across the varying religions, so much so they kill each other over the discrepancies. The message got garbled and the messenger has failed miserably in his delivery.

 

[Lerxst]

Now I'm just off to send a few e-mails to Christians I know to tell them their belief in evolution is flawed. I really don't know how they will take it. Ah, well.

Be sure to let Kenneth Miller know as well. Maybe Brown University should fire him for being a Christian. It obviously must invalidate his ability to do evolutionary science.

 

[usp8riot]

If God stepped out and proved He was here and watching and you better do what is right, moral, and just, then what reward would you reap for not doing because you believe. You would be no better off than if you had kids and stuck a gun to their head and said do this or else. Would you not rather have them do what you say because they love and respect you, not because they know you're watching?
Power that grows, grows corruption. And if used in immature hands, knowledge can be a very dangerous tool as we all know. And so can ignorance. The most dangerous is one that thinks he knows all yet is truly ignorant of how little he knows. Do you tell a kid, "hey, you want me to show you how to start a fire". Is it not foolish to put that information into a child's hands even though it is not needed and can inspire mischief. If your child's duty is only to do unto others as he wishes to himself, wouldn't it be foolish to dwell into irrelevent details on another subject when something so simple is asked of him? A true man of religion acknowledges reason and does not dwell on details. Details are for the minute in mind and bloated in time when the time you spend can go to helping others.
Just as in the problem of solving pi, one is farther ahead by asking from a higher power whose been before you of the problem than going and going getting into more details and not realizing you are working on an infinite problem. By your own pride to not ask the teacher, you are only farther ahead in being behind. Life is not about details. Details are infinite in whatever you do and you gotta know when to stop or when you gain no more by going on.

 

[Ophiolite]

Quite so, but who are we to argue with iam, who has never met an evolutionist Christian in his life, and is not interested in our opinion, or, I dare say, that of Kenneth Miller.

 

[Provita]

Hello all, im Provita (new to SciForums.) I just wanted to tell you iam, I'm Roman Catholic, and i believe in evolution entirely. The RCC (Roman Catholic Church) accepts the ideas of evolution entirely. Ofcoarse many other sects of Christianity dont, but that does not mean all do. The RCC has stated that we (that being Roman Catholics) do not have to take the Bible literally. many Protestants take the Bible literally, and many do not, but Catholics dont have to. Since we dont have to, believing Adam and Eve even existed isnt necessary. If someone does not believe Adam and Eve existed and were created exactly as the Bible states, they arent 'required' to believe in Creationism (that being that the world was created in 6 distinct 24-hour days by God in that specific order.) I am a contextualist (Meaning i do not look at the Bible literally but contextually. I look at the text, look at when it was written down, where it was written in the world, who probably wrote it [kind of people], and what was happening at that time. I also look @ idioms, the way people thought then, and ect.) so I personally, as a Christian and a Roman Catholic, believe the Adam and Eve story, which contradicts the 6-Day Creation story, is merely what it is called: a story. Nothing more. I believe its in the Bible because of its main message: God created the universe, and everything in it.

As to the ORIGINAL question of this entire thread, yes, to an extent, Creationism and Evolutionism may go hand in hand. The Creationism stating the world was created in 6 distinct 24-hour days cannot complement Evolutionism, but the Creationism (accepted by many 'flexible' literalists) stating that the world was created in 6 separate eras may complement evolutionism. But, both Creationism and Evolutionism agree on one thing: the world wasnt just 'created' in a poof of smoke and fire and explosions... it was created in a step-by-step PROCESS. Both say there was a PROCESS in the creation of the world, whether it be by God, or by pure nature. I acknowledge the Theory of Evolution entirely possible and probable. You do not, but I do. That is my belief. I believe God created the universe, but evolution had a part in it. I believe evolution is a part of his creation. Evolutionists may reject this idea, and they are free to do so. Evolutionism does not state God did or did not create everything, all it states is that it was a VERY LONG process. Rigid Literalist Creationism states it was created in a VERY SHORT process. That is the main difference: the amount of time. yes, one states God created and the other does not specify, but that cannot be proved nor disproved, so that cannot be a useful argument. Sure, we can argue as much as we like: Did God create all of this? But that is not the real debate... the real debate is: How did life come to be like it is today?

P.S. Please do not take my comment as attacking you Iam, i understand you've never met a Christian who believed in evolution, but now you have (if you call this 'meeting'.)

 

[Ophiolite]

Provita, welcome to sciforums and thank you for a measured, thoughtfull post.

 

[iam]

Quite so, but who are we to argue with iam, who has never met an evolutionist Christian in his life, and is not interested in our opinion, or, I dare say, that of Kenneth Miller.

I know about the intelligent design theory. I have no problem with it. But I've never met a christian who believed we humans evolved from single-cell organisms and they definitely, empatically deny we evolved from lower primates. I've never known an orthodox church who supports this either. I just recalled talking with 1 christian who believed in intelligent design BUT also believed they were separate from the animal kingdom, special, chosen, NOT ANIMAL. For all known purposes, it wouldn't have made a difference if they believed in evolution or intelligent design because they twist to support their core creationist beliefs, that humans are special and somehow separate from the animal kingdom. That is not, in my opinion, a believer in evolution. Kenneth Miller may be a rare example but I don't know what his complete views are. I've also met a christian homosexual who was outcast from his church when this was revealed. Of course, the bible was used as grounds. I am not talking of exceptions but christian ideology.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Wrong CC. As in Darwin's theory, when two species which both have mutated genes get together, there is a lot better chance of them producing offspring with the same mutated genes.

This assertion doesn't seem to contradict anything I said... so no reponse on this I suppose except maybe that the mutation is not likely going to be propogated as a dominant feature unless it promotes survival above and beyond those w/o the mutation.

Probably the same way we came to be Homo Sapiens. You know "sex", right? An initial species is always started with two. The chances of maybe 20 same-species animals with the same mutated gene meeting in the same local, breeding and producting offspring at the same time is pretty dang low.

I don't think what was stated would be correct. The chances of a distinct pair (a unique specie) producing a mass population that isn't inbred simply wouldn't be the case. Allopatric and Sympatric speciation are likely the primary processes that resulted in humans and there has to be a reasonable population for both (meaning a reasonbly sized population side by side with the perverbial 'Adam' and 'Eve' whom could reproduce with them would have to exist... thus contradicting the bible).

"The process of evolution would have led to many humans" - That's right, we are many humans

The intended interpretation was side by side with 'Adam' and 'Eve'.

"'Adam' and 'Eve' would be two of millions" - So what before A&E and before the milllions? No two to create all after it? When evolution got to Homo Sapiens, I believe that's when He said it was "good". Those two with the mutated genes may have gotten together and produced offspring and if that gene was dominate, there could be many to carry it without in-breeding.

Two of millions side by side that is. Before them... IMO our oldest common ancestor is likely viruses and there is evidence such as the existence of the mimivirus that supports this.

If Adam and Eve were the proud owners of a dominant mutation then they would have to be able to reproduce with those without the same mutation. If they could then they are the same specie (hence, millions side by side with them). If they could not then inbreeding would fail.

Either way, it's incompatible with the bible. Here's whats going to happen moving forward. Those wielding science are going to discover more and more about reality and there will be a point where truth is going to outright contradict all the 'God' claims out there to the point where reiniterpretation / belief won't be able to adapt the religion.

 

[iam]

Hello all, im Provita (new to SciForums.) I just wanted to tell you iam, I'm Roman Catholic, and i believe in evolution entirely. The RCC (Roman Catholic Church) accepts the ideas of evolution entirely. Ofcoarse many other sects of Christianity dont, but that does not mean all do. The RCC has stated that we (that being Roman Catholics) do not have to take the Bible literally. many Protestants take the Bible literally, and many do not, but Catholics dont have to. Since we dont have to, believing Adam and Eve even existed isnt necessary. If someone does not believe Adam and Eve existed and were created exactly as the Bible states, they arent 'required' to believe in Creationism (that being that the world was created in 6 distinct 24-hour days by God in that specific order.) I am a contextualist (Meaning i do not look at the Bible literally but contextually. I look at the text, look at when it was written down, where it was written in the world, who probably wrote it [kind of people], and what was happening at that time. I also look @ idioms, the way people thought then, and ect.) so I personally, as a Christian and a Roman Catholic, believe the Adam and Eve story, which contradicts the 6-Day Creation story, is merely what it is called: a story. Nothing more. I believe its in the Bible because of its main message: God created the universe, and everything in it.

As to the ORIGINAL question of this entire thread, yes, to an extent, Creationism and Evolutionism may go hand in hand. The Creationism stating the world was created in 6 distinct 24-hour days cannot complement Evolutionism, but the Creationism (accepted by many 'flexible' literalists) stating that the world was created in 6 separate eras may complement evolutionism. But, both Creationism and Evolutionism agree on one thing: the world wasnt just 'created' in a poof of smoke and fire and explosions... it was created in a step-by-step PROCESS. Both say there was a PROCESS in the creation of the world, whether it be by God, or by pure nature. I acknowledge the Theory of Evolution entirely possible and probable. You do not, but I do. That is my belief. I believe God created the universe, but evolution had a part in it. I believe evolution is a part of his creation. Evolutionists may reject this idea, and they are free to do so. Evolutionism does not state God did or did not create everything, all it states is that it was a VERY LONG process. Rigid Literalist Creationism states it was created in a VERY SHORT process. That is the main difference: the amount of time. yes, one states God created and the other does not specify, but that cannot be proved nor disproved, so that cannot be a useful argument. Sure, we can argue as much as we like: Did God create all of this? But that is not the real debate... the real debate is: How did life come to be like it is today?

P.S. Please do not take my comment as attacking you Iam, i understand you've never met a Christian who believed in evolution, but now you have (if you call this 'meeting'.)

Well, thats new to me. I didn't know the roman catholic church now accepts evolution in its entirety.

However, the Roman Catholic church has by no means accepted the concept of Naturalistic Evolution in its entirety:

Naturalistic evolution includes the belief that all aspects of humanity evolved from earlier species. This conflicts with the church teaching that each individual's "spiritual soul is directly created by God." Naturalistic evolution concludes that what the church calls human spirit emerged "from forces of living matter or as a simple epiphenomenon of this matter." The pope regards this as "incompatible with the truth about man...[and] incapable of laying the foundation for the dignity of the person."
”

 

[Lerxst]

Kenneth Miller may be a rare example but I don't know what his complete views are.

I highly recommend his book Finding Darwin's God. Even if you dislike his religious ideas, the book will still be of great value - and the reason why is because the first half of it is hands down the finest defense of evolution I have ever read. Better than Dawkins, better than Gould. Sure, he will be telling you many things that you probably already know, but he does it very well, and it's just a great read. I love good science writers, and he is a very good one.

The second half of the book takes a more religious tone. I don't agree with much of it, since I don't believ in God. But it is an interesting take, and it is well written.

What I like about this book is that you can give it to a creationist and there is a much better chance he'll actually read it than he will read someone like Dawkins. Because Dawkins attacks religion upfront, it puts many people off, I think.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

I haven't read the thread but I made some ctrl+F stuff and I don't think anyone has made the following points:
one: the bible clearly says god created adam from dust. It also clearly says that god created eve form adam's rib. Obviously that goes against every fiber of evolution. Humans didn't come from dust, and women didn't come from men's ribs. Heck, they'd be clones.
two: the sequence of events is completely off. The bible says grass came first, then marine organisms. Heck, it even says there was light before the sun or the stars, that the earth had water before it had land, and that plants came before the sun (among many others).
That doesn't just go against evolution, but against science and common sense.

 

[Ophiolite]

But I've never met a christian who believed we humans evolved from single-cell organisms and they definitely, empatically deny we evolved from lower primates.

Time to take the gloves off iam.

I don't give a rat's arse, or a flying ****, what your egocentric, warped little mind thinks, based as it is upon your pathetically limited world experience, and agenda driven, neurotically blinkered, near catatonic espousal of blatant nonsense.

Tell me, do you have a ruler in your near vicinity? A graduated measuring stick of some kind? If so, could you report back to us soon as possible, informing us of how far up your arse your head is buried.

 

[usp8riot]

I believe myself that we evolved from single celled organisms. And the bible also, come to think of it, supports evolution. It says God created the ocean dwellers, the birds, and then, the land animals. Just as reasonable scientists believe life as we know it evolved. The bible isn't the word of God, it is the supposed word of God as interpreted by man. You can always find contradiction in anything man writes or says especially if you dwell in the details.
I can't tell you no more than you probably already know about Darwinism, CrunchyCat so I'll just stop there. You may be more intelligent than I and more experience in the topic. I can only argue what I know or believe to be true. I don't take doubt in belief and questioning as provocation. Only an interest in knowing the truth and I'm sure God would see it the same way. So to anyone who doubts, don't think God won't accept you if you do doubt. Knowing the truth and voiding one's mind of what is true and not true is healthy but I don't think it should take up much of one's time.

 

[KennyJC]

I haven't read the thread but I made some ctrl+F stuff and I don't think anyone has made the following points:
one: the bible clearly says god created adam from dust. It also clearly says that god created eve form adam's rib. Obviously that goes against every fiber of evolution. Humans didn't come from dust, and women didn't come from men's ribs. Heck, they'd be clones.
two: the sequence of events is completely off. The bible says grass came first, then marine organisms. Heck, it even says there was light before the sun or the stars, that the earth had water before it had land, and that plants came before the sun (among many others).
That doesn't just go against evolution, but against science and common sense.

I'd like to see the forums resident rednecks reply to this post

 

[Crunchy Cat]

USP,

I am certainly interested in truth as well which is why I employ evidence-based thinking as much as I can. Take a look at all your posts thoughout the forum and see how many times the word 'believe' / 'belief' has been used.

IMO, that's a process of understanding reality with emotion (i.e. I 'feel' its true) and rarely uncovers actual truth.

 

[usp8riot]

Ok, I won't use the word believe. I'll use the word know. I will be as cocky and self secure as a lot of others on the forum. But those that are always sure of themselves are themselves sure to always be liars. To say "i know" is pretty strong words to an educator, and I am not. The more you know the more you know you don't know. I notice the most intelligent people are the most wise in knowing they've been through enough in their life to know no one is always right and you will be fooled in the least likely times when you think you're right. So as you must always secure your trust to not be fooled, you should secure your words so as to not be a liar. I am not innocent of it myself so I say it to also remind myself.

 

[(Q)]

I believe myself that we evolved from single celled organisms. And the bible also, come to think of it, supports evolution. It says God created the ocean dwellers, the birds, and then, the land animals.

I too have heard of flying fish, so fish must have evolved into birds.

Knowing the truth and voiding one's mind of what is true and not true is healthy but I don't think it should take up much of one's time.

Hardly a moments notice. Only Planck himself could offer more.