creation vs evolution? any mixed views?

Answer 1

Creation by GOD himself. Too bad for all the others who think otherwise.
PS: I can get nothing but "thumbs down" til the cows come home & it won't bother me a bit. :)

Answer 2

Concerning the debate going on about intelligent design and evolution: is it possible that the final answer about which of these two seemingly opposite ideas is correct could simply be yes?

With one position firmly held by the believers and the other just as fearlessly defended by the non-believers, if you happen to be in a position somewhere near the middle, it does not look all that complex. From this position, you wonder why either-or has to be the answer.

If you believe that some higher being created the universe by intelligent design, what more elegant and intelligent design could there have been than a self-regulating system that continually checks its own errors and makes its own corrections in mid-stream as an integral part of the process.

This all seems quite logical to me although it probably won’t satisfy the believers because they are afraid to see any truth other than the one they have been told to believe in. Inversely it certainly won’t satisfy the non-believers because it leaves them stuck with a god that they are so obviously terrified of.

To sum up this view from the center, it might be most easily be explained by saying perhaps the designer was intelligent. Problem is, the designer was likely so intelligent that those seeking to prove that it is intelligently designed may be incapable of ever understand it well enough to see it for the elegant self regulating design that it has always been.

The nonbelievers will be similarly handicapped due to the internal terror the have about the idea that there may be a God. Neither side being able to leave their entrenched position for fear they may have to admit they were wrong. While the rest of us stand by trying to figure out what all the fuss is about. Personally I don’t think anyone is wrong, I just feel both sides are about half right.

Love and blessings
don

Answer 3

Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. Charles Darwin was a creationist of sorts. Darwin believed that all species evolved from a common ancestor but he couldn't explain what that original ancestor evolved from so he figured it was created by a creator. No evolutionist that ever lived could explain how self replicating DNA can form except when it comes from other DNA. There is no experiment in any lab that can demonstrate even a single living cell being formed from non-living material. This doesn't mean evolution of species doesn't occur, it just means evolution can't explain how the first living things got started.

It is quite plausible that evolution is part of the creation process.

Answer 4

Not all who might propose the existence of a Creator as the ultimate source for the universe would also subscribe to the idea that the account of creation in the Book of Genesis is a literal account of events that happened, as described, in actual time and space, and as such would accept the description of life on earth as evolving from primitive to more complex forms. Not all those who ascribe to an evolutionary understanding of the origins of life are materialists who deny the possible existence of a supernatural dimension or origin to the universe.

Extremists on either side of this debate share in common the basic assumptions of modern ideology with its preoccupation with certitude, totalizing theory, and a sense that there must be a necessary antagonism between the claims of science and religion and reason and revelation. The manner in which the extremists on both sides of the "creationism" and "evolution" debate articulate and advance their arguments have much more to say about the ideological preoccupations of modernity than providing insight into either creation or evolution. The debate between the extremists will pass with the end of modernity. The questions about the existence of God, the origins of the universe, and the mystery of life, will endure far longer-- and remain to us more as mysteries that we encounter, rather than problems that we solve.

Answer 5

I firmly believe in evolution, most likely because I'm agnostic and an anthropology major so it wouldn't really make sense for me to believe in creationism. I wish people would stop thinking of evolution with such a narrow mind set (not that there is anything wrong with creationism, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs). People just don't know enough about evolution, their immediate idea is that humans evolved from apes and they don't like it. However, it seems alot more likely once you consider all the possible mechanisms for evolution, like genetic drift, gene flow, mutations, etc. Evolution occurs because a population's genes change over time due to environmental barriers, populations breeding with each other, and mutations. If there is a god, I hope he/she has better things to do than sit around and control the division and mutation of each of the cells of the 6 billion people (and every other organism) that are on this planet. Also, I don't think he/she would create environmental barriers and interbreeding just for the heck of it. Essentially, that is what a god would have to do if there was no scientific evidence for evolution.

Answer 6

Well,creation doesn't have to mean no evolution.Anyways,evolution has pretty much been proven. People can still believe in God,and know that evolution is true.
Does anyone ever read?

Maybe the arguement you're looking for is Big Bang Theory VS. Creationism.Though,even some theologians believe the Big Bang was an act of God.

Answer 7

My view is: Creation first, than evolution.

God created the big bang, causing gas to form into solids, thus creating stars and planets. Than god left the universe to it's own devices and evolution began on earth. From the first lifeform amoeba - humans and other animal species emerged through millions of years of evolution.

Answer 8

It might have been useful to have defined what you mean by "evolution".

According to evolutionists, for example, all that evolution means is "change". So ANYTHING that has ever changed, in any way, has by this definition "evolved".

If we apply this specifically to evolution of life forms we find that there are effectively THREE kinds of evolution: "change", "micro evolution" and "macro evolution".

Basic evolution is simply "change", much the same as the definition above but applied to life forms in particular. So ANY change in ANY life form - as long as it can be passed on by inheritance - counts as evolution. In technical terms, any change in the frequency of alleles in the gene pool of a given species is "evolution". It doesn't matter whether the change is beneficial, harmful or neutral.

Micro evolution (which used to be called "adaptation") involves small changes at the species level and below.
This is the form of evolution which can easily be demonstrated in real life - by any kind of animal or plant breeders, for example.
Two problems: There is NO definitive definition of what a "species" is. In fact scientists have long since acknowledged that "species" and other taxonomic labels exist in our minds, NOT in nature where there are only collections of individuals.

There really isn't any sound reason for disputing the existence of evolution thus far. And as far as I can see, intelligent people can, if they so choose, believe in both creation and evolution, up to this point.

The real difference of opinion comes at the next stage - "macro evolution".

Evolutionists claim that full blown "evolution" - that is, "evolution" as most people understand the term - comes about by a process not yet understood, where numerous micro evolutionary events accumulate and result in macro evolutionary changes, such as Australopithecines evolving into Heidelberg Man and Heidelberg Man evolving into Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens (this is and abbreviated version).

By this logic it is seen as feasible that the original life forms on our world could, in some as yet undiscovered manner, arise from inanimate elements, and continue in an evolutionary fashion until we have all the various creatures and plant forms we have today - plus all the life forms that fell by the wayside..

It is this element of the story of evolution that no self-respecting creationist can agree with.

The views of so-called "theistic evolutions", who believe - broadly speaking - that God created the basic materials after which the evolutionary process and "nature" did everything else, tend to be disregarded by both evolutionists AND creationists.

Nice to know they agree about something.

Answer 9

The good church going crowd can drive to church on Sunday using a few gallons of gas, aka, fossil fuel, to get them there and back home, thanks to a process that took billions of years to complete. Plankton and other micro-organisms that died in the sea fell to the bottom of the seabed over hundreds of millions of years. They were covered by a limestone-like material spanning a few more million years, and then compressed and cooked by the Earth's internal geothermal oven. The end result was crude oil, hence fossil fuel. So, this process rules out any conviction that the Earth is 4000 or 6000 years old. Without evolution and the continuation of these sea species, and genetic diversity, natural selection and mutation, we would not have the quantity of oil that we are killing people around the world to extract from the ground.

Answer 10

Creation is a subjective myth. Evolution is objective truth. Even the Pope two years ago announced that Christians must "embrace evolution and science". Feeblemindedness leads to disease . . . physical, social and spiritual. There is no GOOD in denying the lucidity of Nature. Only neolithic tribes around the world and the fundamental dregs of many religions any longer cling to the myth of creationism. If your church or pastor is still preaching against evolution, shop around for a better spiritual guide. You're being sold snake oil.

Answer 11

communicate origins is an extremely stable creation and provides a competent dissection of creationist claims and precisely why they're incorrect as properly as pertaining to the information for evolution. the issue which you don't comprehend (and a substantial ingredient for many human beings no longer accepting evolution) is that it would not in nice condition smartly into the lecture room technology test the place you could actually demonstrate the belief, i.e. drop 2 diverse sized balls and notice that they hit the floor on a similar time. added, there is large quantities of examine that has been executed, yet maximum of it has a tendency to be terrific previous intense college stages. Dawkin's present day e book "the large instruct in the international" could be a competent reference. The links below ought to supplement others given to you. undergo in recommendations, you need to examine the ingredients referred to and double examine claims that are made. Be skeptical and purpose and don't settle for something at face fee or in simple terms via fact it sounds existence like.