Evolutionnist v.s. Religionist Which one is more logical?

Question

Im a evolutionist dont say i cant explain how the big bang happened but u cant explain how god created you and there is no proof. If god created us someone or something must of created god. To me evolution sounds more logic because cells do mutate. Just like at adolescent our cells begins to mutate.

Answer 1

Let's see, studying things slowly, carefully, using experiments and evidence...or saying "God did it!"

Granted, the evolution point of view leaves a lot of gaps in our knowledge. Creationists expoit them and try to use incomplete knowlege to refute ALL of evolution, despire veritable mountains of evidence. They once again say "If we can't explain every detail no matter how mintue at this very point in time, it is logical and neccessary therefore to conclude: God did it!"

And they call that logic????

Answer 2

Mutate in the sense that DNA can deform. Adolescent genome doesnt really mutate as much as certain parts of the DNA are told to activate.

But, yes, it seems that at least evolution follows the path of achieving scientific knowledge via scientific method. THere is nothing wrong with debating its validity...just do it from a scientific prospective and show proof. What doesnt shake down evolution only strengthen its correctness.

Religion, to me at least, is used to explain the illogical, or at least what was illogical back when it was written. I dont deny as a piece of literature, it has some historical references to it but the way the authors interpret the events are different.

I would also like to comment that science cannot explain everything; there is so much research left to be done while some questions cannot be answered due to human/physical constraints. Religion, or at least some degree of belief, is needed. Science cant explain religion and religion doesnt care for science, to the extreme. However, a person can utlize both.


A response to some posts:

mans ideas are changing everyday but Gods words are the same through out time.....being concrete doesnt mean it is right. Men's ideas are changing toward the better understanding of our world. God's words while concrete does not equate to right.

Also, whoever said evolution has no evidence; please supply your contra-evidence as I am tired of hearing people only claim so. Let me guess, you're gonna quote "Darwin's Black Box."

Answer 3

Even the former Pope has endorsed that Evolution Theory and Bible are both true and in harmony:

In an October 22, 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Church's openness to the theory of evolution:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." (John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution)

So I really wonder why people think that evolution theory and bible go against each other. Most Religionists fail to accept that everything in Bible is not literal but has more profound inner meaning as it was written in verse form and in poetic language and flavor. I have heard a lot of open minded pastors to say that when it says that God created the universe in 6 days it could actually mean that each of those days were in fact few hundred million years.

I personally think Evolution theory has been more logical as it has more scientific evidences to back it up. Bible was a book written by imperfect men inspired by God. Who is the say that God did not follow the evolution process to create life on earth.

Answer 4

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution has been prevalent for a century and a half. Some educated people may have expected that by now, belief in God would be banished to the realm of the ignorant, the gullible, and the naive. Nothing of the kind has happened. Many scientists openly profess belief in a Creator. Granted, they may not believe in a personal God or in the Bible. Yet, they are convinced that the design evident in nature requires an intelligent Designer.

Can such scientists be dismissed as naive? Reporting on scientists who believe that intelligent design is responsible for our cosmos and life in it, a book review in The New York Times comments: “They have Ph.D.’s and occupy positions at some of the better universities. The case they make against Darwinism does not rest on the authority of Scripture; rather, it proceeds from premises that are scientific.”

The same article also notes that proponents of intelligent design “do not stake any obviously foolish claims. . . . What they deny is that the standard Darwinian theory, or any other ‘naturalistic’ theory that confines itself to mindless, mechanical causes operating gradually over time, suffices to explain the whole of life. The biological world, they contend, is rife with evidence of intelligent design—evidence that points with near certainty to the intervention of an Intelligent Designer.”

Such conclusions are surprisingly common among scientists. For example, a study released in 1997 revealed that 4 in 10 U.S. scientists believed in a personal God. That ratio had remained virtually unchanged since 1914, when a similar survey was made

Answer 5

Both involve elements of faith and rationality.That fact that there was a big bang infers there was a beginning. If there was a beginning there had to be a cause. The physical dimension may be limited by physical constraints but this does not mean the spiritual dimension is. I would like to recommend a good book by a former atheist who was the legal editor for the Chicago tribune and an investigative journalist who went about talking with a number of credible scientists who were critical of the evolution theory as it is being presented.

Answer 6

It depends what you mean by logical - you could argue that its more logical for some people to believe in the supernatural considering out limited knowledge.

Also the theory of evolution is not a theory of the big bang as far as i can understand it. Evolution is about the development of life not the universe.

However, overall the scientific method involved in understanding the theory and facts of evolution is logical (for the creationists - theory and fact are not mutually exclusive terms).

Religion is about logic not faith.

Answer 7

Evolution makes no sense to me at all.
I can't fathom which evolved first the egg or the chicken.
the eyelid or the tear duct or the optic nerve.
the white cell or the red cell.
bones or nerves.
every part is needed to make an organism funtion. I seriously can't understand that you believe something that happened over the course of millions of years but can't believe something that happened 6,000 years ago.
I just think that most "evolutionists" do not have a strong science background.

Answer 8

There's no room for logic in religion. These are the same people who used to argue the Sun revolved around the Earth. They're always 200 years behind the times.

Answer 9

Evolution is an every changing theory made by man. I'm not stupid to ignore the fact that evolution does play a part. but i also know that man's ideas, concepts and theory's are ever changing. gods word is the same today, yesterday and forever. it doesn't change.

Answer 10

Evolutionist v.s.Creationist,which is more logical?the answer is Creation.there is next to no evidence for evolution,it is destroyed,it is walking dead,and science is against all evolutionists,I am sorry for you.