When will Creationists figure out that Evolution doesn't attack God?

Answer 1

Well, science essentially is oblivious to god... and rightfully so. Science is looking for natural explanations for natural things. The presumption of science is that everything that can exist and anything that can occur in the universe is, by definition, natural... even if we cannot presently understand it or explain it. Again, this is as it should be.

Religion does not see it that way, though.

At the bleeding edge of science, at the point where it REALLY starts to get interesting, science says: "We don't know... OK, boys... let's roll up our sleeves, dig in and find out."

At the bleeding edge of science, at the point where it REALLY starts to get interesting, RELIGION (imagine South Park - Officer Barbrady) says: "That's too complicated. God did it. Move along. Nothing to see here. Everybody go home now."

Religion exists in a strange dichotomy between two logical fallacies... the 'Argument From Incredulity' ("I can't understand how that might have come to be; therefore, god did it.") and the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy, also known as the 'Divine Fallacy'. The God of the Gaps lives at the bleeding edge of science... and religionists view the advances of science as an encroachment into their territory. They are at war, fighting a rear-guard action against the advance of scientists... and the preoccupied scientists, for the most part, don't even KNOW that they're in a fight.

Anyway... your question contains a false premise... that being that "evolution doesn't attack god." That is correct from the perspective of science... as I said, science is oblivious to god... he/she/it is simply out of scope. From the standpoint of the religiose, though, science is the mortal enemy. First they took away the earth being the center of the universe, and the focus and purpose of all creation... the god of the gaps gets his fanny kicked. Next thing you know, lightening is just an electrical discharge... not a manifestation of the wrath of god. The god of the gaps got his butt kicked again. Disease caused by germs, not demons. Ouch. Planets aren't wandering stars... they are bodies that orbit the sun. Whap. Stars aren't little lights placed on the firmament (the solid barrier between heaven and earth... i.e., the sky)... they are actually suns, like our own, unimaginably far away. God of the gaps gets kicked right in the balls. And on, and on, and on. The god of the gaps has NEVER won a fight... NOT ONCE. Every time there is a skirmish between science and the god of the gaps, another gap gets filled up with knowledge, and the god of the gaps slinks away, with his tail between his legs. Earth isn't 6,000 years old... it's 4.5 BILLION years old. G of G kicked in the nuts again. And on and on.

Well, they're tired of getting kicked in the nuts... so, they've changed tactics. Rather than fighting the battle on the basis of knowledge, they will fight it on the basis of lies and misdirection. Science won't engage them... heck... it won't even acknowledge them. So, rather than engaging science, they just appeal to their constituency (which is scientifically ignorant for the most part) and feed them a bunch of plausible sounding pseudo-scientific lies. Take 'Intelligent Design'. The strategy is not to argue this on a scientific basis... it is to "Teach the controversy"... except in the scientific community, THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY. But their dumbass constituency doesn't go to the scientific community for their scientific information... no... they go to the people they TRUST... their SPIRITUAL LEADERS... and they get fed pseudoscience and lies.

Willful ignorance, lies and delusions are winning. Science is losing. The god of the gaps, FINALLY, is holding the line against knowledge, reason and critical thought.

So, while it is true, as you say, that evolution doesn't attack god, that really doesn't matter... because as long as they PERCEIVE science (in general) and evolution (in particular) to be an attack on god, we're going to be in an ongoing fight. At some point, in the near future, we need to wake up and realize that, or we're going to end up back in the Dark Ages... with nukes.

Answer 2

i'm a theistic evolutionist myself, because there's a lot evidence in the direction of evolution, even with the undeniable fact that it really is sparkling(for me) that Allah exists. YECs are too narrow minded to ensure the truth, as they have one view of the international, yet do not take into consideration any others. Even the Bible helps evolution:Genesis a million:24:And God stated, enable the earth carry about the living creature after his variety( even even with the undeniable fact that i trust Genesis to be taken non actually)

Answer 3

How does it not? I mean at least deny him? If you believe in evolution, ( which by the way did you know that in 1992 scientists have found out by way of data from a satellite called COBE that the universe WAS CREATED from a single blast of pure energy?) you are saying that you do not believe That our God created all of us, that we evolved. You are saying He did not CREATE. You cannot believe in evolution and say, But, I believe in God, because creation means "God created us." So how can you say it does not? To evolve means we evolved, Creation means, created. Created means God. Please EXPLAIN! MUST EXPLAIN! You just really are making me crazy, I just don't get how YOU don't get it. Can't be both, Either one or the other. If you believe evolution you deny God, you accept God you believe in CREATION.


PLEASE 'SPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN, I COULD GO INSAINE TRYIN' TO UNDERSTAND!!!

either CREATION or evolution, NOT BOTH, cant have both , are attacking, denying God's existance.


All I have to do is read Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created
the Heaven and the Earth

to know evolution isn't true and that believing in it, goes against God, and it's an attack on God to say it's true.

and please excuse the babble from last night, stress!.

Answer 4

Totally agree...God and evolution coexist quite well.

However, to find common ground with the Creationists is the challenge. They are unbending in their beliefs, thinking that when they defend their "truth" that they are defending God.....They are deaf and blind and I don't believe that you will ever be able to reason with them......But, I really commend you for trying, little monkey.

Answer 5

Probably never, as long as Christians and some others, go for the idea, we were made in God's image, you can forget science and religion becoming friends. Remember a person wrote that and I doubt God told him to do so. No wonder we can't get along, we are a very arrogant race of beings. This of course is my opinion and others are entitled to their own.

Answer 6

Never, some religious zealots are just too plain and stupid to see evolution as anything else other than as an insult.
Learning and growing intellectually are horrible acts of a sinful nature.
Thank you God for giving me enough viable neurons that allow me to choose my own path in life.

Answer 7

There are not mutually exclusive concepts. However, for the most part, it has been the other way around - many non-Creationists believe that Evolution disproves the existence of GOD, or at least they hope it does.

Answer 8

I already know it....because I figured out that God put Adam/Eve right down in the middle of the evolutionary process as a brand new species.

Answer 9

Theories come and theories go. Numerous scientists now agree that the "big bang" did not, and could not, occur. Scientists have illustrated why the theory is unworkable in many professional books and journals; yet, because of media hype, news coverage, and "nature programs" often aired on TV, the public is largely unaware that scientists disagree sharply upon their diverse speculations. For every theory advanced by man, someone else has advanced facts to prove that theory wrong. Let us look briefly at what some of the scientists themselves say about the big bang theory.
"The French Mathematician, Lecompte de Nouy, examined the laws of probability that a single molecule of high dissymmetry could be formed by the action of chance. De Nouy found that, on an average, the time needed to form one such molecule of our terrestrial globe would be about 10 to the 253 power billions of years. "But," continued de Nouy, ironically, "let us admit that no matter how small the chance it could happen, one molecule could be created by such astronomical odds of chance. However, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. Thus we either admit the miracle or doubt the absolute truth of science" (Quoted in "Is Science Moving Toward Belief in God?" by Paul A. Fisher, The Wanderer, Nov. 7, 1985; cited in Kingdoms In Conflict, C. Colson, p. 66).
"Probably the strongest argument against a 'big bang' is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [stars, planets, etc.], the theory is able to explain so little" (G. Burbidge, Was There Really A Big Bang in Nature?, 233:3640).
"This persistent weakness has haunted the big bang theory ever since the 1930's. It can probably be understood most easily by thinking of what happens when a bomb explodes. After detonation, fragments are thrown into the air, moving with essentially uniform motion. As is well known in physics, uniform motion is inert, capable in itself of doing nothing. It is only when the fragments of a bomb strike a target-a building for example-that anything happens... But in a big bang there are not targets at all, because the whole universe takes part in the explosion. There is nothing for the expanded material to hit against, and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead" (Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, 92, 1981, pp. 521, 523).
"The Big Bang is pure presumption. There are no physical principles from which it can be deduced that all of the matter in the universe would ever gather together in one location or an explosion would occur if the theoretical aggregation did take place.Theorists have great difficulty in constructing any self-consistent account of the conditions existing at the time of the hypothetical Big Bang. Attempts at mathematical treatment usually lead to concentration of the entire mass of the universe at a point. The central thesis of Big Bang cosmology,' says Joseph Silk, 'is that about 20 billion years ago, any two points in the observable universe were arbitrarily close together. The density of matter at this moment was infinite.'This concept of infinite density is not scientific. It is an idea from the realm of the supernatural, as most scientists realize when they meet infinities in other physical contexts. 'If we get infinity [when we calculate], how can we ever say that this agrees with nature?' This point alone is enough to invalidate the Big Bang theory in all its various forms" (Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion, 1984, p. 415).
"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed" (W.H. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297).

Answer 10

I'm not sure that will ever happen. But I see this problem on both sides. Atheists have claimed that because Evolution is true, that must mean there isn't a God. *Shrug* It's one of those merry-go-round arguments.