Seriously - what is the difference between an Evolutionist and a Creationist?

Question

Is it Genetic makeup? In other words, the same persons in America who type God made Adam and Eve its in the Bible, would they if Born in India right now be saying it was Vishnu or Krishna who made the human? If born in Ancient Greece would they be saying, no it was Zeus?

See, I think no matter when and where I was born, I'd at some point say wait a minute, theres a natural explanation for the Origin of the Species.

I think that Evolutionists would naturally tend to look for a natural explanation, and the Creationist is always going to go with his cultural indoctrinated (insert creator here) made the human.

Your thoughts please

Answer 1

I also have thought long and hard about this question and have not found a conclusive answer.
However, growing up as part of an instinct-religion family, I have had the idea of a "religion gene" for a while now.
It seems to me that some people are just predisposed to believe in God and/or religion more than other people, regardless of their upbringing or environment.
It may be the same for evolutionists/atheists.
I don't believe that we are all born thinking about our origin the same way, as either by creation or evolution, and then some of us are "culturally indoctrinated" to think of our origins in the opposite way.
Answering the questions of both evolutionists and creationists on this site, I have discovered that there are more similarities than differences between the groups, i.e., more similarities than people on either side of the debate would like to admit.
For instance, evolutionists as of right now "believe" the theory of evolution to be true, even though it has not yet even come close to being proven so.
Also, creationists are constantly pointing to "evidence" for their belief in divine creation of humanity, whether it be in the Bible or the common (now too common?) observation that there are still monkeys around, so we couldn't have evolved from them.
Finally, both evolutionists and creationists are looking for answers to the same question, albeit in different ways, and people in both groups need to believe in AND prove their theories.
Ultimately, then I think the only important difference between these groups is that one wants humanity to be of its own purpose, while the other wants God to be the purpose of humanity.

Answer 2

It's been a long undeclared war between the two, with the "creationist" generally getting the political upper hand.

The long line of Greek philosophers probably make up the first interesting faction opposing mythical explanations - thus their designation as "natural philosophers."

I believe societies produce an important, but failry small group of truly independent thinkers in various disciplines. Their scarcity makes a weird sort of sense. In general, since most of the time things are "sort of OK," we don't need a bunch of revolutionaries trying to change things.

These weirdos are only needed when prevailing institutions start to fail, and real alternatives are necessary. Then, and apparently only then, will we listen to the nut with the heretofore "crazy" idea. They have probably been the organizing force that got us out of the caves, into farming, city-states, etc. In short, they are a general pain in the as*, but they have been necessary for progress.

Between periods of potential revolt, when there's not much else to hitch their independence to, these "rebels" will find themselves naturally at odds with a great deal of accepted lore, and especially the aspects of it associated with myth.
Their "natural" tendency is a ruthless criticism of existing forms.

I think there may well be an evolutionary basis for having this pool of critics and there's certainly an advantage. And they may well be genetic makeup issues - a bit like the distribution of left-handedness (no pun intended).

Answer 3

If I were raised an atheist, I think that I would still see the illogic in life coming from lifelessness, the universe creating itself from nothing, and two non-humans producing a human.

If I were raised Muslim, I think that I would see the inconsistencies in the Koran, and the division in the Muslim world that comes from not having any idea which passages have been abrogated and which are still in effect.

If I were raised Hindu, I think that I would see the contradiction in the very idea that God gave one set of instructions to this village and a completely contradictory set of instructions to another village. That same observation would prevent me from having most of today's beliefs; I couldn't be a part of any denomination.

I can only speculate about what would have happened, if I had been born in other circumstances, but I can say that I don't believe as I do just because of my background; I have overcome that, and have looked at the evidence objectively. That's why I'm a Christian.

Answer 4

I think a lot of it comes down to the political climate. I've been following the creationists for a long time, and for most of that time, they were a fringe group. In the last few years they made progress with their new "intelligent design" costume, and suddenly a lot of people noticed.

And then a lot of people on my side of the political aisle jumped on the creationist bandwagon just because someone told them it was the "conservative" thing to do. Someone told them that evolution is some kind of "liberal" conspiracy, and they never bothered to find out if that was true or not. It's very similar to the way a lot of Democrats jumped on the gun control bandwagon. There are a lot of instructive parallels between the two movements.

JMB

Answer 5

Evolutionist think that we evolved from nothing while creationist think that we were created by an intelligent designer. Not all creationist are Christian or belong to any religious group. They are a group of scientist that don't necessary know who created us. They only know that someone did so.

Religion isn't always culturally base. Many people from other religions are starting to convert to Chrsitianity. The largest Christian church in located in Asia.

The scientific method can't apply to evolution because there is no physical evidence. One one was around to see the big bang.

Answer 6

If you drop the purely genetic component, I would agree with you. I believe it is an early interaction between genetic predispositions and early environment. I do believe that you are at least partly correct on this matter, that there is a certain type of person who is predisposed to accept whatever they hear. That group includes evolutionists who accept evolution acritically.

Lack of critical thinking does seem to be a developmental psychology issue. I believe the difference in preponderance of evolution vs fundamentalist views has to do with social constraints upon the hearer. There is a wonderful observation called "misconception theory." It began when Harvard's Astrophysics department went to graduation and asked basic questions to the graduates and alumnus, such as why is it colder in New York in the Winter and warmer in the Summer. It turns out very few can answer the question correctly and this is America's best and brightest. (to those reading this, it has to do with the angle of the sun and direct vs indirect light, the sun is actually closer to New York in the Winter and farther in the Summer)

What was determined is that people who hold beliefs regardless of their truth, when given correct information will force the correct information into a false model in order to keep the model intact. Hence, there are people, and not small number either, who believe the world is flat in accordance with scripture. Further, grades do not seem to be reflective of the issue. People who are straight A students hold patently false beliefs, but answer the way they need to in order to get the appropriate grade. People who get lower grades at least have the opportunity to have an error corrected.

I believe there are quite a number of evolutionists who hold the view, which if critically examined, would be found to have significant beliefs that are out of line with the data. However, since evolution is a belief from training and creationism is a belief from childhood, I think evolutionists are more likely to hold a valid belief set.

There are ways to state religious belief in a God or Gods which is not in logical conflict with evolution. There is no way to state Intelligent Design in a way it is not in conflict with evolution.

I have this problem with my children. I am Christian and have no problem with evolution. It is irrational to reject the overwhelming data set in favor a 7000 year old book scribed by shepherds.

Nonetheless, I cannot get my children to expand their view of the world to accept the problems of scripture. And, I cannot get my eldest to accept that the first amendment regards separation of the state from the church and does not explicitly grant religious freedom but that is only an implicit reading of it. He holds there is nothing to separate church and state and that instead it grants religious freedom.

Fascinating what our children pick up from the culture on their own. What is more fascinating is that their psychological preferences are more important in their reading of reality than conflicting data.

Answer 7

It is possible to prove that natural creation is impossible, thus, one is left to conclude that a creator must exist.

You need to have a strong science, math and philosophy background to follow it. If you are interested, I'll walk you thru it.

By the way, a creationist can be an evolutionist and/or a religionist. However, someone who believes in natural creation cannot be a creationist.

Answer 8

Evolutionist, everything happened by chance. No god, we all came from a bacteria 3 billion years ago, and we don't mean a thing. No purpose too life, but repudce and pass on are genes. Creationism, in the beginning god created the heaven and earth. We actually have a purpose in life. I believe the creationism side. Big difference!

Answer 9

The psychological makeup of todays typical Christian is the sameas those who believed the received religion in Rome, etc. They follow what is the social norm as much as what they think they believe. Some people who believe in evolution do so because it is simply not creationism. Others are more scientific in thinking. But those are also more acceptible in todays society than in previous cultures. It's just a matter of reason that distinguisghes them.

Answer 10

Many if not most of the main line churches have almost always taught that the process of evolution is a work of God....how things came to be is still the question......looking at it you can always ask how and why and it keep going...sooner of later the how answers are more difficult to come up with if not impossible....the question of the ages....and it will go on forever...why do we waste so much time and energy on it...is it really that important to everyone...or is it just a power game to try to force your ideology on someone else