Is "Evolution" the opposite of "Creation"?

Question

Evolution is simply random change creating random life forms.

Creation is essentially the idea that some architect made a blueprint and then made some creation based upon it.

If these two definitions are reasonable, then how can one co-exist with the other? Can you have creation by randomness?

"Maybe God set off the random process of evolution with the final result in mind". Problem is, that essentially circular, because you must assume the existance of a creator, of a non-creation process (evolution) to accept the assertion.

Apply Akoms Razor, which is the simpler explaination for the phonemna of life?

Explaination 1: A creator first created a random non-creation process to create creation.

Explaination 2: The random process of evolution had no creator.

Answer 1

yes, evolution is SCIENCE, creationism is MYTH

Answer 2

Creation: You and your girlfriend get together and "create" a baby.

Evolution: The little booger evolves to manipulate you in more creative ways than you did your own parents.

I would say evolution is not the opposite of creation. Using your own explanations, they are totally different things. And therefore, can coexist. God (or whoever, or whatever) may have created ducks, but through evolution they developed webbed feet (this might be a very poor example). Does this make ducks the creator of webbed feet? Maybe, maybe not....

As man continues to create and engineer things, technology has "evolved" over the past 50 years, for example. I'm not familiar with Akoms Razor, but again I think that evolution and creation can coexist.

Answer 3

"Evolution is simply random change creating random life forms."

- WRONG. Evolution is a NON-random process.

"Maybe God set off the random process of evolution with the final result in mind".

- Again. NON-RANDOM process!

"...non-creation process (evolution) to accept the assertion."

- Evolution is not necessarily a non-creation process.

"Explaination 2: The random process of evolution had no creator."

- Third time... Evolution is not a random process.

Answer 4

I look at is as being part of the same whole...evolution as you stated (and very well I may add) is nothing more than change and when you create something are you not changing one form into another?
I come from an anthropological background and many of my friends did not believe the two ideas can coexist nor did my Christian friends...I do not think in such parallel terms...it is all about interpretation no? What could have been more creative than creating the first atom or the first life form and who is to say that each living creature did not evolve into their eventual state? Why be a loggerheads at all is my opinion.

Answer 5

They're not opposites.
One (creation) is a mythical story for which there is no evidence of any kind.
The other (evolution) is a scientific theory that's testable, verifiable, and observable. In the 140+ years since it was put forward, there have been hundreds of thousands of observations and pieces of evidence found to show the theory is correct. There have been NO observations or pieces of evidence found to show the theory is incorrect. Theories with such track records (similar to Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theories of relativity) are called "laws" by science, since the evidence that they are correct is overwhelming.

You don't need Occam's Razor. The evidence is clear. Occam's Razor makes sense when there are two competing explanations for a phenomenon -- "creation," with no evidence of any kind showing it to be correct, is not an explanation.

To those above who say things like, "I believe god made the spark of life and evolution took over" -- you're certainly free to believe that, but there is no more evidence of that than there is for god directly creating adam & eve 6,000 years ago. If you accept the evidence that evolution by natural selection is a fact, why the hesitation fully accepting it and insisting it had to "start" from some act by god, for which there is no evidence of any kind? Same goes for the "partial evolutionists" who accept small evolutionary changes but reject large ones -- I have news for you: the large changes are just small ones with lots of time :) There is no evidence for your position, either.

Answer 6

They are not contradictory but complementary.
The evolutionists are trying explain the mysteries of the world through science, the creationists follow the same purpose through religion, both are still quite far from the ultimate truth.
Now, with the great advancement in all fields of learning and with the maturity of the human mind, we can cooperate in our endeavours to reach greater knowledge for the collective benefits of the whole human race.
It is really of no use to dispute on matters that we don't really comprehend. At the moment, we are all like the blind men who claim to know the elephant while they only touch its separate parts.

Answer 7

Evolution is simply random change creating random life forms???

Its apparent in that dizzying display of ignorance that you don't have the slightest clue of what evolution is though I'll give you a clue and tell you what its not it is NOT a theory of random change!

Go learn what evolution IS then you can try and refute it.

Answer 8

I reconcile the two concepts by believing that yes, we were created by some creator or other ... I think we also evolved, to become a strong species and to be able to withstand changes in our environment over millions of years.

I am a strict agnostic. Do I think there's a God? I don't think it's possible to know ... but I sure as hell hope so. I don't like the idea of just disappearing into nothingness when I die.

Answer 9

There are most likely elements of both evolution and creation in life.

There is no doubt that there are some elements of natural selection in the process of life. For example, moths in certain environments can assume the same color as their surroundings to evade predators. Its of course the moths that "stick out" from their surroundings that get eaten by their predators and do not survive to reproduce. Thus survivors produce and continue the species. Having said this, I think its naive to think that given that species adapt to their environments, that there is not an overall design element to the moth life form to begin with.

Although there are proven natural selection processes that occur within evolution theory, there are a lot of problems with the overall theory. For example, there are no "in-between" species meaning that species went from one to a completely different one without gradually changing. Darwin even had problems with his own theory. Also, it is more probable that a tornado go through a junk yard and create a 747 than for evolution to have created life. In other words, there is an element of "design" in the existence of life. If there is "design," there must be a creator. But there are definitely natural selection processes that also occur within the overall creation and adapting of life.

Answer 10

Wha?

Evolution isn't random! It's survival of the fittest. If it were random, then you'd have the fittest surviving...and the least fit, and the partly-fit. Whichever one just randomly survived. Evolution might have some random changes, but the fittest survive and procreate, thereby supporting only certain changes.

Technically, the two could fit together in some ways.

Answer 11

I would not call evolution random. However I am both a creationist and an evolutionist because I believe that a Supreme Being (God) gave the world the spark of life which set off the evolution of life into it's human form.