doesnt the theory of evolution and creationism kind of overlap in ideas?

Question

according to the theory of evolution life first origonated in the ocean and then came onto land. then according to creationism god first created the creatures of the water first. then later on the creatures of the land.

Answer 1

Good observation. Here are the major differences between two models:

One main reason evolutionists and creationists differ in opinion is because they have a different premise. Evolution scientists believe everything originates from a series of changes and can be explained by time, chance, and continuing natural processes that are inherent in the organization of matter and energy. (Creation X) Evolution is commonly applied to the historical development of life and has been expanded into virtually any subject matter all the way to the development of the universe itself. Like most ideas, the Theory of Evolution has evolved into something it was not originally believed to be.

Creationists believe in evolution, but not to the extreme that every living thing evolved from a single cell into the complex organisms of today. In essence evolution means change. Micro-evolution (small changes) within species is a scientific fact that Creationists readily acknowledge (120). However, macro-evolution (tremendous changes) is a belief that is simply not evident in nature.

There are two kinds of Creationism; scientific and Biblical. Scientific creationism bases its beliefs upon the scientific data. In fact, creation scientists believe that scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be taught independently of each other. Some of the most brilliant scientists in the history of the world were creationists: Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Kepler, and so on.

While it is often asserted that Creationism is based on religious beliefs, evolution has its beliefs based in atheism and secular humanism. The Supreme Court has classified atheism and secular humanism as religions. The evolution model is atheistic in nature while the creation model is theistic. One evolutionist wrote an article titled, "Creation 'Science' Is Dishonest." On the contrary, scientists who assert evolution as a "fact" only need to look at the history of their false findings and hoaxes of man's "missing links" to see their hypocrisy (156 and 159). It is one thing to personally believe in evolution and relate it and all evidence associated with it as circumstantial, but to assert it as a "fact" is unethical and prejudicial.

Another reason why creation scientists view things so differently from evolutionists is simply a matter of differing interpretation of the data. Even evolutionists do not agree with one another because of differing interpretations of the data, especially when it comes to biological classifications. So, why are creation scientists shunned?

Evidence for evolution can be interpreted in different ways. Comparing anatomical similarities between different organisms can provide evidence for evolution. The forelimb in vertebrate animals can be compared bone for bone. The upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand, and fingers are distinguishable (53 and Britannica 7:9). While evolutionists contend that this is evidence of, "descent from a common ancestor (evolution)" creationists believe that this is no more than proof of, "a common design (creation)." THERE IS NO ASSUMPTION IN SAYING COMMON DESIGN BUT THERE IS IN SAYING COMMON ANCESTOR.

A second piece of evidence for evolution is shown in the development of organisms. The embryonic stage of development is so similar that a frog, chicken, salamander, or human embryo are virtually indistinguishable. Evolutionists believe these amazing similarities show how organs and structures have changed their form and function with evolution. Creationists show what evolutionists call "useless evolutionary leftovers" are in reality necessary functional structures (62 and 66).

A third source of evidence that evolutionists use comes from chemical evolution or "hot soup" as Dr. Stanley Miller calls it. In 1953 he conducted an experiment using a "primordial solution" along with an electrical discharge to simulate lightning. He became successful in producing amino acids commonly found in nature. Creationists hold that it is no more than science fiction that would make a scientist conclude that life could result from a hypothetical chemical evolutionary process. There is no evidence to support this kind of speculation.

A forth source of evidence is related to genetics. This evidence relies on the process of mutation in order to validate the theory of evolution. In the documentary Genetics: Patterns of Diversity it concludes, "But still, the controversy remains. The challenge to Darwin's theory is to explain these molecular changes in terms of natural selection." There are many other challenges to Darwin's theory. Creationist Dr. Parker states:

Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a "genetic load" of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers.

...The creationist mechanism works and it's consistent with what we observe. The evolutionist assumption doesn't work, and it's not consistent with what we presently know of genetics and reproduction. As a scientist, I tend to prefer ideas that do work and do help to explain what we can observe. (Creation 115)

It is an established fact that mutations can not be the mechanism that explains the process of evolution because it leads to the destruction of the organism.
Now, the creation model for variety that Parker refers to is the genetic square (114). This is the mechanism which is believed to have caused differences among people at the Biblical "Tower of Babel" incident. "Variation within created types" is a scientific fact (107). This is the (creationist) mechanism by which we observe such diversity among organisms. Evolutionists try to exaggerate this scientific fact to further their claims. The fact is, as Dr. Gary Parker wrote, "Creationists don't believe that frogs turn into princes... but rather that frogs and people were separately created from the same kinds of molecular 'building blocks'". The creationist mechanism works!

The fifth and most popular source of evidence used by evolutionist stems from the fossil record. Evolutionist Jay Savage states, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution..." (V). Encyclopaedia Britannica (14:376) under a section called "The speculative nature of phylogeny [via fossil record]" states, "...judgements of relationships among organisms are almost always based upon incomplete evidence..." This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence. Britannica also states, "The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." This statement shows that the evidence does not exist for Savage to "demonstrate the fact of evolution." He sidesteps the scientific process and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory.

Answer 2

there is a bigger problem.
It involves the whole thing about Adam, Eve, the Snake, the Tree of Knowledge and the Original Sin.
If there is no Adam, No tree , On Apple, no Original Sin.
Then there is no need for Universal Salvation and thus no need for Jesus to be Crucified.
If Evolution is right, and it seems like it is, then Religion collapses again.
And that is why you see religion fighting Evolution so hard. Even to the ridiculous measure of trying to become science.

creationists like to make a false distinction between micro and macro evolution but macro evolution is micro evolution. they are the same identical process.

Answer 3

You can also see the Big Bang in the first and second day if you read the Bible as parable, not literally. If you read it literally, you have to spend a lot of energy getting around the internal inconsistencies.

Answer 4

Evolution says nothing about god.

Answer 5

i dont know why this is such an issue. God's time isn't our time so one day for Him could be 6million years, or however old the oldest fish or fossil is. what i am certain of, is that everything on this earth has an order and a design clearly created with purpose and not just happenstance.

Answer 6

Can't we all just compromise and say that God was the product of the Big Bang Theory

Answer 7

Well, I just think of this, where did the one celled creatures in the oceans come from? You cannot get a living organism from non living rocks and water.

Answer 8

Both theories are more complex than that, and in that complexity the overlapping is over.

Answer 9

A very tenuous connection... you could say they they share the same ideas because god created animals and animals evolve!

Answer 10

i thought god made adam and eve first

Answer 11

yes but God did it in one day which doesn't fit evolution.