Creationism vs. Evolution?

Question

I consider myself a well-read, open-minded, intelligent individual, but have always had one foot in both the creationism pool and one in the evolution pool. How can one discount the other? The spiritual side of my believes the creationism, the scientific side, the evolutionism. Yet, how can one exist without the other? Does anyone else feel this way?

Answer 1

I dont think there's any reason why they can't both coexist.
Perhaps a creator put the ball into motion, and that ball was preprogrammed to evolve over time.
I'm not at all a religious man, but I was very disappointed about how intelligent design was shot down due to thinking it was a ploy by the religious sector to put religion in the classroom. The religious folks may have had their own angle on the issue, but in truth many aspects of what the true ID backers were saying is very valid. Their examples included a bacteria that is equipped with a rotary electric motor. How do you fit an electric motor into evolution? True enough, once you start talking about any sort of creator, you then eventually get to the question "what came before the creator, who created the creator?" and so on, but we already have similiar unanswerable questions about the beginning of time and the universe, so what's a little added complication to the result, if equipping students with a different viewpoint could potentially lead to a valid answer someday?
Most every important philosopher in history has believed in some sort of creator. Einstein said,"God doesn't play dice with the universe." A creator becomes a necessary attribute if you go far enough in philosophy, for reasons that are beyond the scope of this discussion. I would be happy to go into details with anyone who is interested via email.
Anyway, the short answer is yes, they can coexsist.
And you are smart for thinking of the possibility of this coexsistance.
Keep thinking my friend...

Answer 2

To answer this question well you should first know that evolution is bases on all kinds of scientific proof. Evolution itself is still a theory. But science is not there to prove itself right (except for a few scientists possibly), but when theories prove itself in al kinds of ways and there's nobody able to prove it wrong, then they eventually become a scientific law. This will eventually happen to the evolution theory too if no one else can prove it wrong.
Creationism has come from religious movements (even a judge in the US said that just recently) that are trying to prove that the bible is true and that evolution did not happen or not as regular science claims. This is a complete different approach and not scientific at all.
Creationist see an old bone and will try to prove this bone can not be older that 6000 years or whatever they like ot to be. Therefore they will look for any flaw in the proven scientific methods, and they are constantly challenging all kinds of dating methods, but they never succeed, and finally they come up with some story regular scientist never can agree with. Go check some of their sites, this is one of the most important things they are talking about. On the other hand when scientist see a bone, and they will start testing with several proven methods and they will only come to a conclusion when the results support each other. Only then they know how old something is.
Another example. Scientist found some microbe with some distinct strange features, and creationist jumped right up to tell the world this microbe can only be created by some sort of god or "intelligent designer". What creationist do here is filling in blank spots in de jig-saw puzzle (which evolution is) with god. Scientists on the other hand are in disadvantage, because they can only try to explain this microbe by philosophy, and they came up with some reasonable explanations, but they have not yet found prove (an earlier evolution of this microbe) that this anomaly has a evolutionary development.
Yet another example. Creationist will tell that evolution is like you're standing on a scrapyard and you see a Boeing 747 "fall" together. Just again a way of turning things around for their own benefit. If you see it the other way (as it happened in time) is that if you take a few cells with DNA that have the potential to eventually develop in billions of ways, there will be a certain outcome at any moment, dependent on the interaction between environment and other "laws of evolution". To get back to the plane, we are in this plane that has taken many millions of years to fall together, while, if the circumstances had been different, this development (evolution) could have become a helicopter or a submarine, or maybe only a bike.
A thing i already mentioned is that creationist look for god in any blank spot in the scientific puzzle, while there is nothing that actually points to a god or any form of creator, except for if you want to see it. But then you'll probably see him in every stone on your way. Religion's truth has been on retreat ever since they couldn't suppress science anymore, but if it were for the church we wouldn't be driving cars, women would still be going to hell when they wear trousers and the world would still be flat. But the church will never stop to try to prove the bible has something of a truth in it so creationist will always tell you that DNA is a creation of god. Though science has very distinct ideas about how DNA could have been "made" in space without any intelligent interference, there still are some very big blank pieces in these theories, but some researchers expect to find out within 50 years from now. If science had found out this problem, then creationist will place god before the Big Bang.
I hope this answer helps you to think about what creationists goals and methods are. Science and evolution are not a religion and are not based on any either.
PS. just read another answer that mentions that creationist could possibly see a creator in the bacteria (microbe) i just mentioned also. This is not a electromotor, though its some sort of mechanical drive with a toothed wheel thats swings around a small tail to propell itself. One hypothesis is that this tail was a tube used to feed itself, but also became handy to move itself through the water. Later this tube and its internal connections evolved to this specialised propulsion system without leaving any recognisable traces of it's former function as far as research can find out now.
Also evolution is everywhere around you, For example a child is different than just a simple summ of mam&dad. Also why are we so afraid of the birdflue? Because it has various means to evolve in a species that is directly transmittable between humans.
Ok, thought it was better to add this.

Answer 3

I think I know what you are struggling with. All you have to do is open your eyes each morning and look up at the sunshine and know that there is a God and that He created this magnificent world that we live in. The other part is the changes that occur within the animal kingdom. I think this is adaptation, not evolution. A monkey does not turn into a human. But a fish may be able to breathe underwater and then beging to form lungs so that it adapts to its situation and therefore continues to survive. Note: once a fish, still a fish.

Answer 4

both are right ... i think!
god has created every single thing from pro karyotes to man
you can prove that when you look to yourself & the universe... you will find how complicated we are so just chance can't make us otherwise we will be jerks as we aren't able till now to create any thing "cloning is not creationism "
on the other side, evey thing is cotinously growing up & this is evolution i think but under control of god & this can be proved when you compare us with our ancestors from thousands of years we will find we are completly different in culture , minds & may be some tiny featuers but we & them are humans no doubt .

Answer 5

you can choose to believe whatever you want- even if it isn't strictly one or the other. It's your choice, and both are just theories- although one is supported by fact, the other, faith. No one is saying that either is the only possible option. Personally, i believe in evolution. Creation theory just makes little to no sense when being approached by a scientific mind. But to each their own.

Answer 6

They are mutually exclusive. I guess it's okay to be unsure, but as to your question "how can one exist without the other?", one of them MUST exist without the other, even if as an individual you're not entirely sure which one is correct.

Personally I lean to the evolution side of things. If you're looking for an interesting book that explores the issue, read "The Blind Watchmaker" which argues (very convincingly) that evolution is correct. In her new book "Godless" Ann Coulter argues against evolution.

Answer 7

It discounts the literal word for word interpretation of the Bible. Total idiots that take the bible literally feel threatened by the evolutionary theory so they attack it.

If you want to believe that god created the earth and set things into motion and then evolution took over from that point, that's fine.

Answer 8

i reconcile this as follows:
evolution is just one of the tools in God's toolbox.