Creationism/Evolutionism by the Bible.

[Atonement]

So I realize that there is a currently active evolutionism thread. But this is not about evolution without God. Okay, so I don't want any Darwinism or "God is a lie" posts here.

This is simply pointing out what the Bible says about the creation and possible evolution.

Here's my thought of evolutionism and creationism.

They are one in the same.

Who says they can't coexist? Why can't both be accepted as one single theory?

Here's why I believe so.

Right so, evolutionism, the theory that humans are evolved from apes right? Okay. I believe it. The only thing is, I believe that God started evolution and controlled it. I believe that Adam and Eve are the finished products of what God made.

So, supporting this, are scripture that I will now quote then explain.

(summary) of Genesis 1:1-2:3

First day: God creates light ("Let there be light!") - the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.

Second day: God creates a firmament - the second command - to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "heavens".

Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear. "Earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees.

Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made, and the stars.

Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens; He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.

Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures; He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness". They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."

Seventh day: God, having completed the heavens and the earth, rests from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

--------------------------------------
Right, so there is the normally accepted creation story.
--------------------------------------

This verse is really the defining verse in this theory.

2 Peter 3:8

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

--------------------------------------

This means, evolution could occur over THOUSANDS of years which for God, would be discribed as one day hence, on the sixth day.

------------------------------------

Concluding, this is really the theory of creatio ex materia and not creatio ex nihilo. Kinda of creatio ex deo.

[Aηdy]

I do agree that it's possible for them to co-exsist. Whether it does or not is a different matter.

[Sapphire]

I do think that combining religion and science can help address and explain certain things.

[CaptainObvious]

This is meaningless semantics. If your conception of God is that he merely conforms in action to scientifically validated theories, and that is all, then what's the point of even distinguishing God at all? What additional information does it give to do so? What future predictions does such a proposition make? The fact is, the answer to both questions is none, and so your opinion of God is, in this sense, without any meaning. If it makes you feel better, so be it.

[Atonement]

So can you disprove that God exists? No.

Can I prove that God exists? No.

Thats why its called faith, bud.

[CaptainObvious]

Show me where I said God doesn't exist.

All I've said is that, at best, what you've said is meaningless, and at worst it is outright wrong. I know making such semantic and mental contortions as you have just done may seem necessary in your worldview that takes God as a given and tries to fit every other fact to that assumption, but it isn't intellectually honest, nor is it a robust argument in any way.

[Dolphus Raymond]

If I'm understanding your argument here...

The problem is that this account fails to address issues like carbon-dating, the idea that humans evolved from prior ancestors, etc. Basically, you're changing the interpretations of religious scripture and science to fit together. I guess that doesn't make it wrong. But you're violating the scientific process. You're dismissing equally-valid science because it doesn't conform to your hypothesis. In the meantime, you're assuming that something is scientifically more likely to be valid because it conforms to your belief, which is another violation of the scientific method.

If you're dismissing the scientific method, you're dismissing the scientific method, full stop. You then have no burden to change your interpretations to explain anything: You've decided that the scientific method is, for reasons based on your faith, invalid. You can't honestly accept the scientific method when its results are explainable by your faith, and then dismiss it when they aren't. What's the point? There's no logic to that.

I know it's tempting to try to shoehorn religious beliefs into commonly-held modern scientific views, but you can't pick and choose when you're going to believe science. It's well-intentioned, but unscientific.

[Atonement]

Thats what faith is. Again. I believethe Word, but I believe science. Though, I believe that science is fueled by God. I dont know how else to state that.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Thats what faith is. Again. I believethe Word, but I believe science. Though, I believe that science is fueled by God. I dont know how else to state that.

But you can't reject scientific findings that disagree with your faith and still believe in the scientific method. Maybe you can assume that science is always right, but default to faith when the two conflict. However, that would require the scientific method and its results being fundamentally flawed on issues like carbon-dating, evolution, etc. If it's flawed on that, I don't see why you would believe science otherwise.

Besides, if you believe that humans were created, what part of evolution are you accepting? Microevolution?

[Atonement]

I dont believe that they conflict and I never disagree with science. I disagree in the fact that people say evolution and God can't coexist.

[Dolphus Raymond]

I dont believe that they conflict and I never disagree with science. I disagree in the fact that people say evolution and God can't coexist.

But you are disagreeing with science.

Science says that empirical evidence should be used to judge the veracity of a claim. Faith disagrees.

Science essentially indicates that human beings were not created, but already existed evolved from more primitive beings. Your faith disagrees.

Science indicates that the scientific process should be used consistently. In essence, the best we can do is observe empirically and update our assumptions as we understand more. That is, science is based on the "most likely." In this topic, you're basing things on the "most likely, unless they disagree with my faith." That's not a knock--but it's also unscientific.

Again, it would be helpful to know what kind of evolution you're conceding occurred. There's no Biblical conflict with microevolution, but I doubt anyone has seriously claimed there is on either "side" of this debate. Although I'd argue accepting microevolution is hard to do without accepting macroevolution.

Edit: Fixed really weird mental flub.

[Atonement]

No, we only know that they go back so far. We have no one yet to prove and will not find a way for a hell of a long time Im sure of how the universe started because yes, I agree that it cannot be spontaneously generated. Like the good old fashion fly in a jar of meat. The flies dont just appear, they are always there.

Comes back to my post a bit up.

I cannot prove God exists.

You cannot prove God does not exist.

Its faith.

[Dolphus Raymond]

No, we only know that they go back so far. We have no one yet to prove and will not find a way for a hell of a long time Im sure of how the universe started because yes, I agree that it cannot be spontaneously generated. Like the good old fashion fly in a jar of meat. The flies dont just appear, they are always there.

I corrected my post. I'm not sure why I typed "always there" before. It was a mental slip.

My point was that you believe that humans always existed, back to Adam and Eve. Science disagrees. So, you've basically rejected several universes of scientific thought in favor of your beliefs. You can do that, but do you really believe in science?

If I believed something to be massively wrong on two issues, I certainly wouldn't "believe" it everywhere else. I'd be incredibly skeptical of it.

Comes back to my post a bit up.

I cannot prove God exists.

You cannot prove God does not exist.

Its faith.

OK, we need to distinguish faith-belief from assumption-belief.

I cannot prove that I won't be run over if I go to the store, now. It could happen. But I see, based on the empirical evidence I have, that it will probably not. So, I assume that I will not be run over. In this case, I'm open to changing my opinion based on new evidence. I don't force new evidence to conform to my pre-existing beliefs. Is that faith? I think it's not. I generally think of faith as making an assumption that may be evidence-supported, but would be believed even if it failed to live up to scientific burdens of likelihood.

Now, on the other hand, my neighbor is totally convinced that they he be run over if he goes to the store. This doesn't come from his experiences, but rather their axiomatic beliefs. He believes it, even if he sees scientifically-collected statistics that disagree. This, I would call "faith."

The first is based on empirical evidence, and the second is not. I'd have no problem if someone looked at empirical evidence objectively and assumed God exists. I'm sure many do. But assuming based on evidence, and believing based on faith, are not the same thing in scientific or logical terms. Even if you call both "faith," they're fundamentally different. One is logically sound assumption, and the other is illogical belief.

Doesn't make it wrong, again, but does make it a violation of scientific method.

[Atonement]

Meh. I dont think either of us will either be able to make sense of eachother. But I believe I get your meaning. Ill think about it :P

[Dolphus Raymond]

Meh. I dont think either of us will either be able to make sense of eachother.

I hope I'm not misconstruing your arguments. If I am, please correct me. I won't be offended, it saves me wasted time backtracking. :)

[Atonement]

I hope I'm not misconstruing your arguments. If I am, please correct me. I won't be offended, it saves me wasted time backtracking. :)

My belief is that science is fueled by a higher power. Adam and Eve are the end result of evolution. AKA, like after neadrathal (spelling) time. Evolution exists. Yes. But only by Gods power does anything happen. Faith.

[Underground_Network]

In order for one to even take into account the possibility that creationism and evolution [not evolutionism, its not called that, there is no "-ism"] could coexist/coincide, one must first define creationism. There are so many different forms/interpretations of creationism that its just freaking ridiculous.

One must also define what God is. I mean, yes, God is a 'higher power', but what is "He" besides that. Though then again, religion is too confusing to be connected with science. If we combine religion and science we, as the Puritans would put it, "devolve", we move backwards, rather than making progress and moving forward. I don't think Creationism and Evolution should even be compared, until we know more about Evolution [which is asking a lot, since we already know quite a bit about Evolution], either that, or we need some proof, other than religious scriptures/texts that Creationism is real. Its funny how people use the fact that something can't be proven as proof that exists, i.e. saying that God is real because we can't prove that He exists.

Anyways, don't want to turn this into some huge religious debate, because I admittedly do believe in the possibility that there is a higher power though I'm not quite sure what I perceive it to be. Maybe like a "Reaper" from Mass Effect. That would be one helluva God. I would worship that, hands down.

But yeah, I digress, back on topic... Mixing fact and belief just doesn't work, thus mixing Creationism and Evolution,well, it just doesn't mesh. Creationism needs a little bit more backing. 'Historians' of the past have a habit of over-exaggerating, and if you realize how many times the Bible has been translated, you will realize that many things you perceive to be 'truth' that you have read in the Bible are actually the opinions/perceptions of others who have interpreted/translated the Bible. The Bible is a book of opinions at best, not a book of facts. Yes, some things are truthful, but the key word there is some.

The point is, Evolution and Creationism don't even belong in the same sentence, they just don't mesh, they don't work together. Is there a possibility that combining both could be a plausible theory in its own? Yes [in a sense at least], but still, Creationism still needs more backing. I don't not believe its a possibility, I just don't believe in it, because well, I only believe in things I know exist, or at least, are very likely to exist [based on scientific fact]. Though then again, I could go all philosophical on you and say there is no such thing as fact, but I won't delve into that [and contradict myself].

[Atonement]

So why cant they coincide? What is the terrible thing that keeps them from coexisting?

[Dolphus Raymond]

My belief is that science is fueled by a higher power. Adam and Eve are the end result of evolution. AKA, like after neadrathal (spelling) time. Evolution exists. Yes. But only by Gods power does anything happen. Faith.

I don't understand that argument. The Bible says Adam and Eve were the first created humans. God created animals, if I recall correctly, on day five. Even accepting 2 Peter 3:8, that would mean you're positing that it took 1,000 days for humans to evolve. That's really no more scientifically sound than the claim that God just created them directly. Pre-Neanderthals and Neanderthals evolving to humans in 1,000 years is not macroevolutionarily feasible.

And I understand that you have faith, but faith is not scientific. It's a rejection of the scientific method. It's not only conceding that our use of the scientific method may result in incorrect interpretations. It goes beyond that, to a fundamental rejection of the concepts behind science.

[Atonement]

When i use that 2 Peter verse, the perception of time in those days, they could not IMAGINE 1000 years.

[Dolphus Raymond]

So why cant they coincide? What is the terrible thing that keeps them from coexisting?

Nothing says they can't. Everything says that they can't coexist under the scientific understanding of evolution. If you don't believe the scientific understanding of evolution, why do you bother believing in theological evolution? What's encouraging you to do that? Not science, apparently. That's the central issue I'm having with your argument.

When i use that 2 Peter verse, the perception of time in those days, they could not IMAGINE 1000 years.

I think that people can imagine the concept of 1,000 years pretty readily. I've never experienced ten million years, but I can understand the multiplication involved.

Is your argument that the number of days in the creation story is allegorical? That's fine, I guess, although I doubt you'd believe that if you weren't aware of conflicting data (evolution) that forces it to be allegorical. You can arbitrarily extend the creation period to any length of time you want. In order to fit in with science, it would have to be way more than 1,000 years.

But, again, you're rejecting the scientific method's validity and then attempting to fit your beliefs within its constraints. I don't understand why.

[Underground_Network]

I didn't say there was any 'terrible' thing that keeps them from coexisting. I stated there is a possibility they could coexist, that they could both be connected, I just stated that Evolution has 'scientific backing' while Creationism doesn't have much, if any scientific backing. I just don't see something 'scientific' being combined with something religious. I mean, its like saying the Big Bang was caused by God, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. We just shouldn't think like that, it impairs scientific judgment [in that we have proof that the Big Bang was a possibility, but we have no proof that 'God' caused it]. I like science, and religion can get in the way of science [sometimes]. Sometimes something that is proven by science is against religious belief, and well, when things don't coincide, all hell breaks loose [either within yourself if you're a religious person, or within a community, where most are religious or more are sacreligious/secular]

Science is science, religion is religion. I admit, Creationism and Evolution is not a good example of this, but still. We still need a clear cut definition of Creationism for me to really even think about whether or not its a possibility that these two things can 'coexist' or that they 'coincided' with each other.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Okay.... as the resident evolutionary biologist here (in training, of course :D). I'm going to set some things straight.

Number 1: Humans did not come from Apes. ALL primates (monkeys, humans etc.) all came from a common ancestor and branched away from eachother about 4 million years ago. There was nothing "special" about this; its the exact same as all evolution since the first bacteria. The only difference for us is our intelligence. I don't see where God fits in.

Number 2: Science and "Creation" or "God" can NEVER co-exist. Science doesn't address the supernatural whatsoever, so it can never even be postulated that a supernatural being exists.

Number 3: Vindication, your argument from the beginning (and you have repeated it several times) is FAITH. Faith. And faith again. Faith is defined as believing in something for which there is NO evidence to proove it. How in the world then does God sound like "He" can coexist with science when there is NO evidence (which is required by the very definition of science).

Religion is only something you can use that could make you feel better (and strengthen your.... faith). Postulating "God DID it" doesn't explain ANYTHING. Besides not being able to PROVE God had anything to do with it, you also can't explain HOW he went about doing it.

This argument is a technical "non-starter" your explanation for a VERY complex being (humans) is that they were created by a being (God) that is infinitely MORE complex than we could even fathom. So you enter an infinite regression; you explain complexity with even MORE complexity. Nothing gets proven. Nothing gets answered.

There IS a reason why nearly all scientists with actual credentials are atheist or at the very most deist (except that their "god" is really just nature itself as revealed by its beauty).

If these things actually COULD coexist... they would be doing so right now. But they don't, and they never will.

[Sapphire]

Religion can coexist with science. There isn't anything that states it can't. The two have coexisted in the past, why can't it anymore?

Science doesn't address the supernatural whatsoever, so it can never even be postulated that a supernatural being exists.

Said like a true athiest :)

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Religion can coexist with science. There isn't anything that states it can't. The two have coexisted in the past, why can't it anymore?



Said like a true athiest :)

Yes I will graciously accept the comment :lol:

You seem to continually miss my entire point. Religion (if you know your history) and science have been at odds for CENTURIES. Gallileo said the Earth was round... they sentenced him to house arrest for his entire life just because that idea conflicted with the CHURCH. Same goes for general anesthetic, and painkillers used in childbirth: the church thought babies were born in sin and thus it was SUPPOSED to be extremely painful for the mother. People caught flak (and were even killed) many years EARLIER than this for saying that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe. I don't see much of a positive trend here.

The Middle East used to be the BEST region in the world in terms of science; they were more advanced than any other group of people around 1000 A.D.

BUT then prophet Muhammed's teachings started to interfere with science. Needless to say, they chose his writings OVER science. And... muslim countries like Iraq have LITERALLY not invented a single thing in the last 900 years! Just take a look at these backwards countries, any technology they have is borrowed from other countries that have been able to get AWAY from religious dogma that had been retarding their progress in the past.

Yeah... I sure call that a peaceful coexistence.

[Sapphire]

Actually, Islam encourages scientific investigation and a lot of advancements around the year of 1000 AD came from these investigations. Islamic science dwindled due to the Crusades and other invasions from about the time of the 12th Century. These saw hospitals, universities, labs etc destroyed and general turmoil. Not because the two are essentially incompatible.

I am not saying that they are completely complimentary of each other. I admit that there are areas where the two are very contradictory. But, it is my belief that the two can both be used to answer questions that we all have.

[Underground_Network]

^^ In my eyes, religion only gives you a temporary answer to your questions, if it gives any at all. An religion's answer is usually more ambiguous and less to the point. While science gives you more accurate, concise, and to the point answers, that hold true, [almost] no matter what. I would rather have my questions unanswered than answered by half-truths, or fallacies/completely incorrect, untrue statements.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I just got back from church.... :eek:

That's right, you heard correctly. I talked to some of my friends there about science in general (not even evolution that much) and their whole stance on it was "science is bullshit" and "doesn't help us or prove anything".

Their ignorance killed me. How could people in this country be so willfully ignorant of reality. It was very sad. Religion didn't seem to help them in their understanding of ANYTHING as far as I saw.

And yes, that is correct. I go to church EVERY sunday. Surprised? You should be :lol: . I have to go every sunday and hear more and more ignorance because I can't even SAFELY tell my parents that I am an Atheist. Seriously, it would be safer for me to come out as gay than Atheist because "they could fix that with Jesus". So, who is promoting coexistence? Whenever I just try to sound excited about scientific things my parents wish I could stop "buying into the whole science thing". As if science was a huge con to scam people. I can't wait to get out of here.

But still I go to church everyday. Call it research. It helps me argue against everything they might have to say.

I must ask you Sugar and Spice, do you follow a particular religion? I've noticed that people with religious leanings are pretty much the only group that advocate science going along with creationism.

[Sapphire]

No, I'm not particularly religious. I think that we can all take something from religious teachings (beit Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism etc) if we allow ourselves to see beyond the aspects that we don't agree with.

Science cannot explain everything in this world.

[Whisper]

No its can't that's the joy of science
It try's to but there's still so much to learn
Scientists accept that and when they find evidence that proves a theory wrong instead of burying it and screaming hieratic they adjust the theory


You go to religion
and there answer is
"It's FUCKING MAGIC!!!"

[CaptainObvious]

The crux of what is so contrived about this whole discussion is this: yes, God could explain evolution, absolutely. But why should we be seriously considering that as an explanation? Is there a shred of proof of God's hand in evolution that would point us in that direction?

The bottom line is that God doesn't enter into these discussions because God is a good answer to the questions or a good explanation of the phenomenon. No, God enters the discussion because of desperation to include a deity, on the part of the human participants of the discussion.

I can't disprove that God is behind evolution - and the way you've defined God's perceptible role in evolution (which is to say, almost nothing, since in your conception God still apparently goes by all the naturalistic rules of evolution), I don't know that anyone could - but I don't really have to. Because the alternative as you've presented it is completely meaningless to any study or conception of evolution in a scientific/naturalistic sense, it is redundant and gains us no new understanding - unless you're a religious person pining for some kind of role for religion in a sphere that has so far proved itself to have no need of the dogmatic chains that religion puts around it.