Why can't Creationists and Darwinists both be right?

Question

What is wrong with the former describing who and why and the latter describing how. Couldn't God have set it all up from the Big Bang? Scientists tend to leave the why of this alone anyway.

Answer 1

What you're referring to is actually called Theistic Evolution, a viewpoint supported by all the major churches (Catholics, CofE, etc) plus most other religions. Theistic evolutionists accept all of mainstream science but claim that God either set things up from the start (deists) or manages the process.

You're right in saying that the "why" is a purely philosophical question which on the whole isn't addressed by scientists - the biologist Stephen Jay Gould described this concept as "non-overlapping magisteria".

However, this isn't the same as saying Creationists are in any sense "right". Creationists assert all sort of things that are simply false - like for example that the earth is only 6000 years old, or that humans aren't descended from other apes. To not mince words: it is a fact that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and it is a fact that humans are descended from other apes.

It's also important to note that this is not, as some other posters have claimed, the same as Intelligent Design. ID explicitly denies some parts of evolution - it claims for example that certain features are too complex to have evolved, and that therefore God stepped in at various points. Basically ID is creationism dressed up to appear scientific, so as to avoid the USA's strict prohibition of teaching religion in schools - this was recognised in last year's court case, Kitzmiller v Dover.

Answer 2

Creationists also want to explain how life was created. In fact, in the Bible, there is no specific reason for God creating the world.

Darwinists, believing in the theory of evolution, offer a different perspective of the creation of life as we know it.

Both of these groups can't be right, because the majority of points they raise contradict each other. The belief that God created man from his own image differs from the belief that man evolved from primates.

Creationists don't necessarily believe in the Big Bang, and neither do Darwinists. These groups are only involved with theories regarding the creation/evolution of life as we know it, not the beginnings of the universe.

Answer 3

We're not Darwinists, we're Rationalists. Darwin's theories have been revised and iterated many times since they were first published, each time getting more and more accurate.

Religion's moral and historical statements just get updated over time to be more palatable for contemporary culture. Compare old days when, to the religious, homosexuality was evil and dinosaurs were a devil's ruse. Now that neither of those viewpoints would fly, religion budges and says 'okay, but god created them for a purpose.' It's made up. Pointlessly, arbitrarily made up. Believing that the vast, uncomprehending universe was created just for this tiny little rock? Pull the other one.

I thought you were supposed to have faith. If you're constantly trying to vindicate it, then it stops being faith and becomes a desperate, cloying obsession with proving the impossible.

Answer 4

First, evolution and the big bang have nothing to do with each other. To even talk about it shows your lack of knowledge about the topic.

Second, science is concerned with the provable and proven, not the specious and speculated. "Red shift" exists, proving that stars and galaxies are moving away from each other at differing rates; nothing about that fact "proves" there is a "god" nor suggests one.

Science is an attempt to explain the evidence you have. Religion is an attempt to explain when you have no evidence. Until you prove that any "god" or "gods" exist, your attempts to confuse the two only shows your own confusion.


.

Answer 5

Because that's not what Creationism is about. You are thinking of Theistic Evolution. Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

The downside of both creationism and theistic evolution is that there is no science to it. One argues that science is wrong, without any evidence to support this position. The other argues that science is right, but adds that the Christian God is behind it all, despite any scientific evidence to support it (although at least this position does not have the full weight of science going against it).

Answer 6

Try Theistic Evolution as per the Catholic and Anglican churches.
Protestant Evangelical creationists cannot be reasoned with any more than Osama bin Laden.
Scientifically Biblical Litteralism was disproven decades before Darwin sailed on the Beagle as demonstrated by Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology.

Answer 7

Creationists generally do not subscribe to the theory of evolution and they tend to believe the Bible in a literal sense. What you are describing sounds more like intelligent design. But I agree with the premise that the two theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Answer 8

i've got no longer seen it, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that it sounds like explanation at its maximum appropriate. there are various people who attempt to mixture the two together in a feeble attempt to maintain their delusions. certainty gets slightly too actual for them and that they rush to discover a vogue that their specific deity may be properly suited with it, a minimum of of their strategies. If it works properly, then others use it. it is not something new. that's envisioned. non secular human beings try this with each and every breath, each and daily of their lives, no longer in simple terms in each and every interplay with others to justify their ridiculous claims, yet additionally of their own minds with the intention to maintain their delusional concept gadget. there is no longer something properly suited between actual technology and creationism. the worldwide replaced into no longer made in 7 days, a pair of thousand years in the past. technology states that it replaced right into some billion. The evidence help this. the two techniques are incompatible. they can't the two be real. The bible says guy replaced into created on your god's photograph. at the start, which version of guy? the present one? Cro-magnon guy? Neanderthal guy? the easy organisms which ultimately became all of those? If it means the present version, then you definately can wipe your *** with the pages of the bible, as a results of fact the present version replaced into something else fullyyt no longer too earlier. i ought to bypass on for chapters, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that that's pointless. The non secular version of creation and the scientific info are thoroughly and completely incompatible. Any attempt to reconcile the two is in simple terms pathetic explanation with the help of DEFINITION...

Answer 9

They do to a major degree. The problem is the randomists and the faction that says you were once a monkey (ape).

You can't have creationism with humans were once animals who grew a brain. The two don't coincide!

This is something you have to decided. Were you always human or once an ape. Go to the zoo, look at the Ape exhibit and then decide if that's your grandaddy.

Answer 10

"Darwinist"? That makes it sound as though biologists worship Darwin, which is of course false.

You mean "scientists".

I suppose that there could have been a god who initially caused all of this to happen, though that doesn't answer any "why" questions, as you suggest that it does.