Creation vs. Evolution?

Question

Im always amazed at the number who feel that all life came about by mere chance, as evolution claims. When I think about how amazingly diverse and unique each creation is, I figure you can only logically conclude in a creator. But many I have talked to are unwilling to believe in a god, instead willing to believe that everything came about by mere concidence. One thing that amazes me is how we are the perfect distance from the sun, any further and we'd drift into space, any closer and we'd burn up... and yet people are still willing to stake their lives on evolution. Any thoughts?

EDIT: Many of the responses have been something to the fact that evolution is a proven fact. Are you guys kidding me? I could give you hundreds of quotes from respected scientists that are beginning to highly doubt in evolution... why? Because they have no proof!

Answer 1

I am proud to say that I am a member of those "Dr. Dino" "crack pots". I am a creationist. I'm one of those born again Bible thumpers that was weaned on the Gospel.

I sound biased and misinformed, don't I?

Well, I am biased and so are you (referring to the reader.)

"No I’m not!" you say.

Well, I say you are but you think you aren’t. I say being unbiased may not be as easy as you think. Let me explain.

Christians and atheists, (agnostics and others are a little different) everyone has become so biased that they aren't even willing to look at both sides of the argument. It's silly. But the answer is obvious from my point of view; neither side can really be blamed.

Christians feel, like a sixth sense, that there is a God. (Sixth sense really isn't the best word, but for the sake of time, I'm using it. Real Christians, you know what I mean.) They have faith. They read some books and see that indeed there is some evidence for Creationism. They read some books arguing for evolution with a closed mind because they already know I repeat KNOW that there is evidence for creationism without reading about it by their sixth sense. Their argument is essentially the same as evolutionists'. "I know, I KNOW X is right. Thus, Y just plain can't be right." So they are creationists.

Evolutionists have a reality check. Not a sixth sense. They automatically reject creationism because it has the supernatural workings of a divine creator. They say “Naturally, anything that is supernatural is not scientific.” They see that evolution is everywhere. They read some books supporting creationism with a closed mind because they know it is a religious and political movement.
Again, this is the same reasoning as creationists: "I know, I KNOW X is right. Thus, Y just plain can't be right."

If no one told me about Christ I would have chosen evolution too! I can see their reasoning and it's perfectly logical.

Ultimately, it is almost always (not always, but almost always) their relationship with God that makes them choose to be what they are.

I could say "Oh look at this evidence for Creationism." But the scientific field is large with gazillions of subjects. Finding evidence for Evolution or Creationism that can't be refuted, evidence that the "opponents" feel they really can't refute is difficult to impossible.

Both creationists and evolutionists are stubborn for their own reasons. The way I see it, the best way for a creationist to convince an evolutionist is to change their heart first.

I've seen it happen many times to people who believe in evolution. Once they accept Jesus into their heart, they read up on creation vs. evolution and say "Dang, this is a lot of evidence for creationism isn't there."

Am I trying to prove something? Do I think I'm giving evidence for creationism or Christianity? No! I'm simply saying, evolutionists will be stubborn evolutionists, and creationists will be stubborn creationists.

It's easier to imagine yourself without your sixth sense than it is for you to imagine yourself with it. In fact, let me rephrase that, it is IMPOSSIBLE to imagine yourself with that sixth sense if you don't have it.

Try for a moment. Imagine having a sixth sense. Let's say a sense that is a mixture between smelling and hearing but isn't either. Now try imagining yourself not being able to smell or hear. It's easier to imagine the second isn't it?

Back to my point... I do have that sixth sense. I can imagine myself on both sides of the coin. I can just see myself. It makes me laugh. I can just see it! I would be one of those guys that thinks creationists are stupid pathetic crackpots. I would consider creationism and Christianity hocus pocus. I would be one of those guys that is constantly putting on those stupid little questions for dumb creationists.

But I was saved. I have accepted Jesus as my personal savior. I have that sixth sense. Thus, I find myself biased the other way around.

Note: There are may people who felt they were sincere Christians and then became evolutionists. This really doesn't mean anything in the big picture. There are many, many more unbelievers that have become believers. Does that mean anything? As far as evidence for a view is concerned, no. Surely if one means something the other does too.

Then there's the subject of how stupid Christians seem on many forums. There are all kinds of answers for that other than "Christians on forums say things I think are stupid. Thus, Christians are stupid." The fact is, if evolutionists were the minority and they were going around spouting out evidence for evolution, Creationists would think the same thing. "Silly argument. Idiot." They do already actually. But it would be blaringly obvious if we were the majority.

I wish everyone could see this.

Ok, now we come to “There are simply a few nutcases out there like Dr. Dino or whatever who are still fighting to keep their cause alive.”

I personally know, in my area, two dozen people with Ph.Ds in various fields of study; including physics and biology and are creationists. I know a couple people who have two Ph.Ds and are creationists. I personally know over 200 people that had a public high school and secular college education that are creationists.

How many are there in the whole US? Lots!!!

“But ID and Creationism are in fact, laughable, and are not even acknowledged by the scientific community. I'm amazed that so many people don't understand this.”

They laughed at Robert Fulton. Lol. I know that isn’t a good answer but this is: “If you have a theory/hypothesis competing against a wildly different one that scientists don’t want to accept, and the people that currently support one to the people that support the other is a ratio of… What? 100 to 1? 500 to 1? 1000 to one? In any case, the opposing theory will naturally be rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community. And indeed it is.

As far as laughable is concerned, neither side can be undeniably and completely defeated. What-ever evidence there is will be picked at, argued over and/or looked over by those with biased opinions; a thing which most evolutionists have. Evolution is laughable to us, which is why Chad asked that question.

“I'm amazed that someone with a high school education, (I assume you have one), in this day and age, still subscribes to creationism, which has been proven false.”

Proven false? Proven? Boy, I’d love to see this proof! It sounds absolutely revolutionary. I’m biased, but I won’t reject proof.

"To illustrate the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow pre-ordained for us, because we are so well-suited to live in it, he [Adams] mimed a wonderfully funny imitation of a puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the same shape as the puddle."

That is an interesting metaphor and argument. Here’s my response:

IF life could have come into existence in any number of ways and IF life could adapt to any circumstances, why is earth the only planet we know of with any sign of life? I would imagine that if that were the case, life would be popping up all over the place.

“There are other planets with life too.”
Such as?

David Morrison, NAI Senior Scientist in response to some thirteen-year-old’s question said this: “You are asking an excellent question, one that is central to astrobiology. This same question is often submitted to "ask an astrobiologist, and If you use the search engine on our website you can locate several recent answers. The bottom line is that so far life has been found only on Earth -- not yet on Mars, unfortunately, but then we have only begun to explore that planet.”

David Morrison
NAI Senior Scientist
18 July 2006

“No, the first living things were much simpler, and life became more complex over time.”

Simpler that the human body. Something can be much, much more simple than the human body and still be incredibly complex. A cell? Simple? Excuse me?

“Science at its nature doesn't turn to a God to explain away things we currently don't understand. Imagine how slowly science would've progressed--if it would've progressed at all--if everything were justified with a "God did it". We wouldn't have tried to understand lightning and thus electricity. We would've said "God's anger makes lightning and we can not assume to harness God's power." Thus science turns to natural explanations in order to understand how our world works.”

Please, PLEASE… Stop! There are many, many Christian (and offshoots of Christianity) scientists both living and dead that have made/are making advances in science. Isaac Newton, Dr. Jay L. Wile, Anton van Leeuwenhoek, Blaise Pascal, Roger Bacon and the Wright brothers, to name a few. Look it up on the internet. There are lots! Christians are just as interested in science as evolutionists. God wants us to learn and explore his creation. That is why he put us here!

Putting all the Christians from all time into one blob, making a warped Christian stereotype out of it, and then applying it to all Christians of all time or just to the present ones is simply ridiculous.

“First of all, evolution does not claim that all life came about by mere chance. In fact, evolution has nothing at all to say regarding how we came about.”

Let me take it one more step. There is microevolution and there is macroevolution correct? Well, I don’t have any problem with microevolution. I’m cool with that. That is a theory with plenty of good solid evidence to back it up. What I have a problem with is macroevolution. That’s where things get kinda shaky.

Now, in response to your statement, most sensible people that believe in evolution have an explanation of some kind concerning how life first started, right? They must. After all, before you can evolve you have to have life. Well, unless it includes God, or is a wildly new and revolutionary explanation that hasn’t gotten ‘round yet, I question that as well.

A note about “Supernatural does not equal scientific.” Does it have to?

You are RIGHT! Supernatural does not equal scientific. Something supernatural is above the laws of science. However, supernatural does not mean impossible.

We can’t prove God exists, which means you can logically believe something else.
But you also can’t prove that he doesn’t exist, so you don’t have the right to rule out creation as a possibility.

“evolution is not based on chance but natural selection.”

What about life forming in the first place? Leaning heavily towards a bigger chance; the chances of one of the simplest proteins that the simplest cell would need to survive suddenly coming into being are less than one out of 10 to the power of 152. That’s a pretty decent size number if you ask me. I call that chance.

Please note: I don’t want to make the same mistake as so many others and lump everyone into a stereotypical ball. There may well be a few evolutionists who truly, TRULY (and I mean TRULY) considered creationism as a possible alternative before opting for evolutionism. And there may well be a few evolutionists who truly, TRULY (and I mean TRULY) considered evolutionism as a possible alternative before opting for creationism. I respect both types. But, sadly, (especially sadly in the evolutionist case) most people don’t.

For anyone who is not a Christian, and has a truly, TRULY open mind that is perfectly willing to accept either side. For anyone who feels they are teetering on the edge between the two. I would recommend

"Reasonable Faith: The Scientific Case for Christianity" by Dr. Jay L Wile
“The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel
C.S. Lewis’ good old “Mere Christianity” is also a good one. The arguments in that are philosophical arguments. And they make you think.
“I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist” by Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek and David Limbaugh
“Letters From a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father's Questions about Christianity” Gregory A. Boyd


Reasonable Faith: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0965629...
The Case for a Creator: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310241448/103-9333702-3255031?v=glance&n=283155
Mere Christianity: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060652926/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/103-6986996-3459067?n=283155
Letters From a Skeptic: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060652926/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/103-6986996-3459067?n=283155
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581345615/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/103-9954926-5628644?n=283155



Ask an evolutionist to recommend a few good books that argue for evolution, and start reading.

Well, there are my thoughts on the matter. Cheers Chad! As you can guess, I also think there is plenty of evidence against evolution and plenty of evidence for the truth of the bible which ultimately would lead to the truth of the creationist beliefs as well as more evidence for the ID theory.

That’s it.

Answer 2

You are very ill-informed, and I can only conclude that that is why you don't understand why people can believe in evolution. I'm agnostic, myself. God may have created it all, but it is just as possible that there was no creator, or design. Life develops in response to its environment. This is abundantly clear, just looking at any living thing. Living things did not develop by chance, they developed as dictated by their environment. The argument, "Life can't happen just by chance" is over-simplified. You speak as though a bunch of random molecules came together and immediately formed a human being. No, the first living things were much simpler, and life became more complex over time. Maybe there is a God who directed it all, maybe there wasn't. But evolution is real. There is a ton of evidence supporting it. (And no credible evidence yet, supporting religion.)

Furthermore, what you said about the sun...is ridiculous. We would not fly off into space if we were any further out. How do you think the other planets orbit the sun? And there is a huge margin, in terms of distance, within which we would still be able to survive. Yeah, go figure the planet that is at about the correct distance for supporting life is the one that life occurs on. *sigh* Why do people point to things that make sense, logically, and claim them as evidence of some kind of magical, all-powerful being? No offense, but that was pretty much just ignorant babbling. Though in your defense, there are plenty of others who do the same thing, constantly.

Answer 3

What about them coexisting? I personally think you're a fool, not believing the evidence right before your eyes that leads to proof of evolution... but whatever. Can't they both be true?

As for the sun thing, look it up. It's easily explained by the theory of gravity and the fabric of spacetime. The diversity? That promotes evolution even more- once again, look it up. With the current theories, everything about it is explained. How can you still think it's all just BS? You're crazy. If there is a God, he sure didn't want people to be ignorant and closed to new ideas just because of a book written thousands of years ago. Does that sound like the kind of God you'd like?

Answer 4

I think they are both true. It is really hard for me to explain, but I will try.
God gave the breath of life to the tiniest organism, and when that worked, created something bigger. In one instance, he got too big with his creation and it didn't work, so it died-- Dinosaurs.
As far as being the perfect distance from the sun, I believe that was God's doing. I believe, once again, he experimented and saw what would work.

Sounds like I am crazy doesn't it? But there is proof to show evolution, and ignoring it is, well, ignorant.

Answer 5

First of all, evolution does not claim that all life came about by mere chance. In fact, evolution has nothing at all to say regarding how we came about. Evolution is strictly a biological science. It provides an explanatory framework for an observed body of facts... those facts being the changes that occur in the genetic makeup of populations of organisms, over time. Along with 'genetic drift' (statistical variations in allele frequencies within a population), mutations (random) operated on by natural selection(NOT random) accounts for those changes. In other words, "the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." (Richard Dawkins)

I note that you are amazed by the fact that the earth's orbit is the perfect distance from the sun to support life. Presumeably, you are equally amazed by all the other things that are 'just right'. In other words... pay attention, now... you are amazed that we... carbon/water-based life forms... find ourselves existing on a world which can support the existance of carbon/water-based life forms.

Huh? And you think that is proof of a creator? Well, I'll tell you what, Bubba... if we found ourself existing on a world that could NOT support the existence of carbon/water-based life forms, without divine intervention... now THAT would be evidence for the existence of a diety.

Answer 6

The evidence for evolution is and has been interpreted from a Philosophical and ideological Bias, The answers given by adherents to Evolution here in R&S is proof of the bias and agenda, Atheism has to have an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence.
Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist.
What is sad is that Christians are falling into this Trap and trying to fit evolution into the Bible (Theistic Evolution) thinking they can make it fit.
Lee Stroble in his video listed below “ The Case for the Creator” stated (5 min. 28 sec into the video) The Case for a Creator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI


That “There is no way you can Harmonize Neo Darwinism with Christianity, I could never understand Christians who would say “ Well I believe in God yet I believe in Evolution as well” You see Darwin’s idea about the development of life led to his theory that modern science now generally defines as an undirected process completely devoid of any purpose or plan,”. Now how could God direct an undirected process? How could God have purpose in a plan behind a system that has no plan and no purpose? It just does not make sense.
It didn’t make sense to me in 1966 and it doesn’t make sense to me now.
The Apostle Paul wrote to His Son Timothy stating that “ in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, [because] they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn [their] ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

Those Christians who believe in evolution have no idea how that effects their theology.
What is theistic evolution?
http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html

Darwin's Deadly Legacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qHb3uq1O0Q

Answer 7

Believe as you want to believe. Personally I have never been opposed to that. If that belief comforts you then so be it. It's when creationists want to take it into the science classrooms that bug me.

Science at its nature doesn't turn to a God to explain away things we currently don't understand. Imagine how slowly science would've progressed--if it would've progressed at all--if everything were justified with a "God did it". We wouldn't have tried to understand lightning and thus electricity. We would've said "God's anger makes lightning and we can not assume to harness God's power." Thus science turns to natural explanations in order to understand how our world works.

Everyone says that the proof of God's existence is the world around us. I understand that in a spiritual sense. But not in an empirically scientific sense. This is where there is no separation with creationists. Just because you want it to be true doesn't mean it's true in a falsifiable, testable way.

Edit: Are these "Scientists" in related or unrelated fields? Not all scientists are created equal. I wouldn't let a physicist into a molecular biology lab, and yet they are both "scientists". On the same note I wouldn't expect a chemical engineer to understand a biological theory.

Answer 8

The idea that God is an over sized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

I think it's ironic that the only people who claim that humans are too advanced to have evolved naturally are the ones who demonstrate the least advanced mode of thinking.

Answer 9

I'm amazed that someone with a high school education, (I assume you have one), in this day and age, still subscribes to creationism, which has been proven false. There is no debate to be had about this. There are simply a few nutcases out there like Dr. Dino or whatever who are still fighting to keep their cause alive.

But ID and Creationism are in fact, laughable, and are not even acknowledged by the scientific community. I'm amazed that so many people don't understand this.

Answer 10

First of all, evolution is not based on chance but natural selection.
You sound like yet another creationist who dismisses evolution without having even a basic understanding of it first.

Second, the stuff about being the "perfect distance" from the sun for our form of life is actually ridiculous in the context of an actual understanding of evolution

Douglas Adams (notice my avatar? =] ) once quipped that this kind of thinking is the same as a puddle of water being amazed that the rock underneath it was perfectly shaped to hold it.

(to spell it out for you... the puddle conformed to the rock; the rock wasn't made for the puddle)

The planet didn't conform to life on it, Life conformed to the environment of the planet.


run along now. I'm not in the mood to have to educate creationists about such simplistic concepts.

Answer 11

Why assume that creationism has to be distinct from evolution. There are tons of parables and metaphors in the bible, why cling so tightly to a literal 7 days.

Isn't the greatest glory you could give to God, to be acknowledging that evolution is God.?