Can creation and evolution co-exist or are they mutually exclusive?

Question

To be clear, I am not talking about the people how champion the thoeries on both sides but the theories themselves. Also I am not even going to try and get into the "How Did It Start" debate so don't mention it.

I am asking, Can Creation (the theory that all was crated by a single deity)
and Evolution (the theory that animals through differing processes evolve into different species to suit thier enviroment or die out)
co-exsit or are they in total oposition to each other and can never be united?

Serious answers only!!!

Thanks.

Answer 1

Ok. Wow. There are some very differant viewpoints from my own answering this question...so I'll add my two cents.
I see no reason why the two can't. Why couldn't a divine being create the world through evolution?

Now if you're asking the question if the theory of Creation can co-exist with particular ideas/images/conceptions of the divine being and universe, then certainly they can be in conflict.

But with that said, I'm giving two little mini tirades in response to some of the other answers that don't really have anything to do with your exact question, but I hope you'll find them interesting anyway. (If not, just ignore me. And just so you know my bias ahead of time, I'm agnostic, I'm a great fan of science and a fan of evolution.)

Evolution is not "TRUE". That doesn't mean evolution is "wrong". The entire question of if evolution is "true" or not, is almost entirely irrelevant for scientific matters and is only important when we wander into philosophy. The question is, is evolution USEFUL? Turns out that evolution has been one of the most useful theories that biology has ever come up with as far as helping scientists predict and explain the universe.
This is a controversial statement, for sure, but when you apply the same concept to a less contreversial stance the point is easier to see. What about atoms? (like mentioned in an earlier question) Do atoms exist? Is the atomic theory true? The answer I'm offering of course says, it doesn't matter, that conception is incredibly useful.
Can we prove that atoms exist, that the theory of the atom is "TRUE"? Not exactly, no one has ever a seen an atom (in fact it is quite likely impossible to see an atom, but that's something else, and yes of course there is other evidence, that's why we have the theory) and in terms of knowing what is "TRUE", our understanding of what "atom" means changes all the time. Is Dalton's atom that much like Thompson's plum pudding model of the atom and is that really all that much like today's quantum mechanics model of the atom? If any of these were "TRUE" we wouldn't have to so drastically change it.
But the fact of the matter is that the atomic theory has been unbelievably useful, it allows us to make some incredible and accurate predictions and conceive of the world in a way that our brain can not only understand, but it can utilize. Science is the process of taking the evidence (just because we can't see it, doesn't mean we can't get evidence) and patterns of nature and explaining it the best way we can.

End Tirade one, I do apologize if I'm incoherant. It's late, and I'm up because I'm sick... and apparently this means I have nothing better to do than babble. :)

And second babbling: from a Biblical standpoint there are clues in the Bible that the creation of the world was never supposed to be read literally. Read the Genesis account and you will discover that the story of creation is actually told twice with differant details in each---my interpretation is that the literal rendering was never the point, it's the theological underpinings of the story that matter. (I didn't believe there were two accounts either until I read it myself, but it's right there. In Genesis 1:1-2.4a it starts off wet and the waters are seperated, humans are created last, and male and femlare are created simulatenously, and all of this in a very distant but omnipotent image of God. Then in Genesis 2:4b-24 it starts off in a dry place and water is added, humans are created first, Eve is made from Adam's rib, and God is a much more personal hands on kind of God.)


Ok, done. Going over here now. Nice question, thank you for the distraction.

Answer 2

I think they can't co-exist, but that's just my opinion.
It probably depends on the deity of the creation hypothesis. For example, the Christian God gives free will so I suppose as a deity, he could have created the universe but allowed organisms the "free will" to evolve. In that way, the idea of creation and evolution could co-exist.
A different deity may want complete control. Since the creation hypothesis is based on faith and not scientific experiment that can be re-tested by others with the same result, there is no way to know.
The evolution theory is full of holes and missing data, however what they do have has been tested and re-tested - enough to convince the scientific community that it is a worthwhile theory until something can disprove it.
So, I think it comes down to a question of faith. If you don't believe in a deity, creationism and evolution can't co-exist since creationism would be considered a myth.
If you do believe in a deity, it depends on the deity that you believe in.

Answer 3

Some have attempted to combine the beliefs in this form:

"A deity created the universe and then set the process of evolution into motion."

Will this ever be accepted universally? I certainely hope not. Making up a new theory doesn't change anything or help anyone. Fundamentalists will cling to what they believe, on both sides.

The problem is that evolution breaks so many scientific laws that it simply can't be true in our universe. Play the odds, evolution has been calculated to have odds of trillions - 1, where-as creation is a 50/50 shot.

Answer 4

Although holding an old earth and evolution both underpinned by God is the majority view of of European Christians and the official view of the Roman Catholic church, I don't find the two ideas compatible.

The more you understand of evolution, the more contingent, wasteful and downright cruel it can be seen to be. This is not a problem in an indifferent universe, but it does not fit well with a benevolent deity. (Sorry dinosaurs, I need some new ecological niches... heads up, here comes a meteor.)

Edit. For Faith Walker: not even "Answers in Genesis" supports the idea that Darwin recanted.

Answer 5

Co-exist...perhaps...I have dealt with this in the past as a Natural Science graduate...

I debate that the big bang can co-exist...rather than being an arguement but the way. In the end of the bible, John the Baptist said "And I saw a new Heaven and Earth."

As far as evolution of the origination of mankind, I would say no. Because co-exist would be removing the creation of man from the bible. Sure, theres a lot to speculate on, but, it is really theory vs. creation specific on exactly what you are referring to.

Answer 6

As far as I am aware, all the Bible says is that God created the heavens and the earth. It leaves open the question of how He did it. So where's the conflict?

Magi_2000: I still see no conflict. What difference is there between God saying "Fiat Lux" and scientists saying the universe began with a Big Bang? To my way of thinking, you seem to be saying that God dictated the Bible to us word-for-word AND that there have been no errors in transmission, translation or interpretation at all over the last 3000 years AND God chose to dictate the facts and only the facts.

Let's set aside how you (and you alone!) are privy to God's innermost thoughts for now.

It seems perfectly reasonable to think that men of 3000 years ago interpreted what God told them in ways they understand and wrote it down as best they could. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that the universe is 10-15 billion years old, and that life has been evolving here for 4 billion years, and I have the benefit of a pretty good education, not to mention 2000 years of western civilization.

In the ancient languages I've studied (Latin and Greek), you won't even find a word that means "billion". The sheer size of that number is something completely outside of the ancient world's experience. So the writers of the Bible wrote things down as best they could, imperfect human beings that they were.

You also ignore the possibility that some of what they were writing was metaphor or hyperbole--literary devices you find all over the place in ancient literature.

Answer 7

a million No they did no longer get life from non-life. somebody is mendacity to you, or you heard incorrect. #2 Evolution desires dying with a view to artwork, the Bible says dying is quickly the effects of Adam and Eve sinning. God does no longer use dying to create and then call it "good". #3 unquestionably in case you study the order of creatures, it does not make sense evolutionarily speaking. you're over simplifying what the Bible says with a view to make it greater healthful what you like. #4 Exodus 20 is the place God gave Moses the ten commandments. He spoke this along with his very own voice. His words verbatim have been "For in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth..." except you want to call God a liar. Plus, in Genesis it says the night and the morning have been the 1st day. it rather is extremely asserting, The earth became around as quickly as. DAY ONE. there is not any wiggle room to insert thousands and thousands of years. the two the Bible is incorrect, or literal six day introduction did take place. #5 in case you think that Adam become no longer a real individual, then you definately additionally are disagreeing with Jesus, Paul, and every person who ever wrote a family contributors tree. Plus, if the autumn of guy become some style of allegory, there would be no reason for Jesus to return to die for guy because of the fact that guy under no circumstances fell in the 1st place. The jury is in. you won't be able to connect naturalistic evolution to the introduction account. they're certainly mutually unique, and greater effective than that. Evolution is devil's antithesis to introduction. they're diametrically destructive.

Answer 8

First off, Creationism isn't a theory, it is a hypothesis. And creationism is at opposition to each other. Creationism states that life was created, all in its current form, around 6000 years ago. Evolution states that life evolved over millions of years.

Answer 9

Creation and Evolution can never co-exist. Why? Beacuse of the following....

Creation is stating that God created everything in the enitre universe right down to me and you within the time frame stated in the Bible .

Evolution (A theory - AKA idea, made up from the mind of Charles Darwin) states that there is no God and human kind evolved from lower life forms (AKA - slime) over a period of millions of years.

You either believe one or the other. I am not or ever have been slime. Besides, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to get on God's bad side, just in case He happens to be real. *wink*. ;-)

Ponder on these thoughts from many famous scientist.....

“I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand.”- Albert Einstein

"The vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence..Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more ape-like they make it." - "Anthro Art", Science Digest (April 1981)

"No-one can be sure just what any extinct hominoid looked like." - Donald C Johnson and Maitland A Edey, Lucy: The beginnings of Humankind (1981)

"The main problem in reconstructing the origins of man is lack of fossil evidence: all there is could be displayed on a dinner table." - New Scientist 20 (May 1982)

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." - T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal", (1975).

"... evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it ..." - H.S. Lipson. A Physicist Looks at Evolution. Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, (1980)

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone ... exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." - Louis Trenchard More, quoted in "Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur".

"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." - H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31.

“This evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity…a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech….Now no one pretends that they rest on facts actually observed, for no one has ever observed the production of even one species….Let the reader take up either of Darwin's great books, or Spencer's ‘Biology,’ and merely ask himself as he reads each paragraph, ‘What is assumed here and what is proved?’ and he will find the whole fabric melt away like a vision….We thus see that evolution as an hypothesis has no basis in experience or in scientific fact, and that its imagined series of transmutations has breaks which cannot be filled.” - Sir William Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man. New York: Harper and Brothers, (1887)

Answer 10

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php

Let us suppose that millions of years ago a cell was formed which had acquired everything necessary for life, and that it duly "came to life". The theory of evolution again collapses at this point. For even if this cell had existed for a while, it would eventually have died and after its death, nothing would have remained, and everything would have reverted to where it had started. This is because this first living cell, lacking any genetic information, would not have been able to reproduce and start a new generation. Life would have ended with its death.