2007-01-27 04:53:06 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The creationists believe in 'microevolution'.
so they concede that SOME evolution is true.
They just have a problem with scale because they are trying to fit their 'evidence' into their narrow world view based on a book.
2007-01-27 04:57:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
There is no comparison between the two. You can talk about atheistic evolution and theistic evolution, but to label evolution "Darwinian" simply identifies the first pioneer in the study, like Mendelian genetics. Evolution is evolution, the facts are the facts, and evolution is always Darwinian in origin, though modern evolutionary biology is obviously far more developed and complex than Darwin imagined, just as modern genetics is far more complex than Mendel ever dreamed.
"Atheistic evolution" and "theistic evolution" are likewise essentially meaningless terms. Evolution is evolution just as genetics is genetics. An atheist views them both (and everything else) atheistically and a theist views them both (and everything else) theistically, but that doesn't change the scientific facts in the slightest. A theistic biologist and an atheistic biologist both view and interpret the scientific facts exactly the same way. That's science. What their religious views about the facts are is entirely irrelevant to the science.
.
2007-01-27 05:16:26 · answer #2 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Theistic Evolution is more concerned with microevolution, that is evolution within a species. Darwinian Evolution deals with both micro and macroevolution, the origin of species and so forth.
2007-01-27 04:57:54 · answer #3 · answered by a sock 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
theistic evolution goes something like this god created the world and earth and people evolved from the life that was given to them darwininian evolution is based on a process known as natural selection i think i got this one right maybe i'm missing something ahh i'll know by the thumbs down if i'm hitting it on the head or not
2007-01-27 05:04:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Cleo e basically got it right.
I would say that micro-evolution is a scientific fact. And it is called Micro-evolution. This means that that every kind of animal or plant can diversify and make other strains of the original kind.
Diversification would be a better term for it, as this would separate a science fact from a science theory.
2007-01-27 05:06:58 · answer #5 · answered by tim 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like how science uses evidence in geology, etc., to examine how evolution progresses over time. However, I find it quite amusing that "theistic evolutionists" are at the grand canyon and trying to find ways to twist facts to fit a 6000 year old (young earth) idea. The difference between facts and fiction is always quite striking.
2007-01-27 05:01:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
there is one large difference between evolutionists and creationists, and that is worldview. The evolutionist worldview is cosmic, planetary, and organic and organic evolution. they believe the the universe, the earth, and life itself began as uncomplicated, immature gadgets, which over a lengthy time period ultimately advanced into the mature, sensible gadgets we see immediately. The creationist worldview is that the universe, the planet, and life were created mature. there became under no circumstances an "immature" degree of any of this stuff, they were created mature and sensible from the very beginning. So it is logical for creationists and evolutionists to have diverse conjectures from the same data. An evolutionist will see a rock, search for advice from jointly with his worldview saying that you go with tens of millions of years of replace for one component to modify to a distinct, and finish that the rock is any such number of tens of millions of years previous. Likewise, a creationist will seem on the same rock, search for advice from jointly with his own worldview, and finish some thing considerably diverse. it is no longer that both area ignores or falsifies data; in truth, they both seem on the same data. the adaptation is they have diverse foundations on how they interpret that data.
2016-10-16 04:30:29 · answer #7 · answered by windy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who cares.
Until there is evidence for God there is no mechanism for theistic evolution.
2007-01-27 04:59:28 · answer #8 · answered by mullah robertson 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
One believes we got here all on our own, the other says any evolution occurs because of the forces God set in motion.
2007-01-27 04:58:49 · answer #9 · answered by Atlas 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
theistic one doesn't believe that man evolved from apes, but has no problem with other creatures evolving.
2007-01-27 04:59:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋