Why can't evolution and creationism co-exist?

Question

What is the problem with people accepting science as fact, and faith as exactly that: conjecture.
Similarly what is the problem with believing in a creator that created this universe according to natural laws?
It seems that the argument usually degenerates around these questions. Athiests such as Richard Dawkins would rather put their faith in science and humanity alone, but when asked how we all got here to begin with he says 'well, we're still working on that'. So in a sense he is still acting on conjecture rather than irrevocable proof that there is no creator. Which puts both sides in the same boat.
Creationists, at least in the extreme, seem to consistently neglect objective science when stating their arguments for a creator, and prefer to cite the book of Genesis as their proof.
Why the extreme disparity? I mean isn't it just obvious?

THAT NOBODY KNOWS???

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QS2TFVe9LDc
Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford

st peter>> i'm sorry but I do not agree.
Except in the cast of fundamentalists who think they have all the answers anyway.
Francis Collins is a good example, though i myself am not a Christian, he makes a good argument how he sees life as an oppurtunity for not only outward discovery, but inward as well.. And has been very active in the science world while continuing as an ardent Christian, who prays every night. But as a doctor, could never pray before a surgery, etc, but he seperates his beliefs with his work and sees it all working in harmony> the science within the machinations of this world, and his utter wonderment of him even being able to make these observations at all. I understand this view better than most others..

i don't mean 'nobody knows how we evolved' I think there is much in favor of evolution.
I mean, nobody knows what the catalyst was for this evolution to take place, besides a somewhat abstract 'big bang'...

and perhaps I mean just 'god' and 'evolution' coexisting in general, instead of creationism. I suppose fundamental creationists would never allow the two to coexist, and have closed off the argument... This is more of a call for open mindedness all around.

uncanny danny: no attacks please.
If you would have read my post in full, I wrote 'creationists, at least in the extreme', not all creationists use Genesis as a foundation for their beliefs. I have yet to see a shred of scientific proof however from the creationists camp. Not a shred. The clock without a maker, or the theory of irreduceable complexity don't cut it in the science world. That's not to say that God doesn't exist, I'm just saying that creationism, as well as athiesm , relies on faith, and faith alone, at least at this point in our life time. Who knows, sometime soon we might uncover at the edge of a universe a giant light emitting diode that is responsible for our existence, or God might show himself in human form and be able to perform miracles while flying above rooftops to prove himself supernatural. But scientific and theistic 'proof' so far just cancel each other out.

Linda: I would like to think that there is a small percentage of fundamentalists touting intelligent design, but when I watch the GOP debate, and hands shoot up from Huckabee, Tancredo, Brownback as to whether the think evolution is false, I am truly disturbed. These are people that want to run our country! There should be a prerequisite!!! I couldn't believe the assurance in their faces. Or as you so eloquently put it, their 'blindly modernistic belief in absolute knowledge'. But modernistic? It seems primevil...

Answer 1

Thank God for evolution...

Answer 2

The can and they do. The creationism/evolutionism debate is a false dichotomy perpetuated by a blindly modernistic belief in absolute knowledge. It seems more likely to me that the human mind cannot possibly begin to "prove" either creationism or evolution.

I go to an annoyingly Christian school and all of the professors in the science departments believe in theistic evolution - that the creation story is a symbolic story that really took place over billions of years. Very very few of the professors or students believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis.

The number of evangelical fundamentalists (those who believe in the literal word-for-word interpretation of scripture) is extremely small. However, they are the most vocal. They have a very shallow understanding of the Christian faith. If they really believed, they would not be afraid of something "disproving" God. God's existence is not dependant upon human understanding.

Answer 3

I think that the point where folks are in disagreement is in the area of what specifically constitutes "Faith" and what constitutes "Science."

Since I can't observe a fish turning into a man, and I've yet to see a way that such processes can be demonstrated in a controlled environment, I don't have enough faith to believe in Evolution - despite the fact that just about everywhere you turn, people press you into accepting it as fact.

Despite attacks on the Bible, I've yet to be convinced by skeptic's arguements - they're usually flawed, or come from an incomplete understanding (usually based around an English translation of the Bible rather than the original Hebrew, which typically answers the problems in the arguement itself).

I think both sides are guilty of neglecting science that doesn't fit their worldview, but as evolution is in the mainstream the greater fault lies there - you would be sincerely surprised by the honest science at work at creationist organizations.

That you've stated that creationists neglect science and only posit Bible verses, without further science to back their beliefs up, is an example of this.

Edit: I don't see where I'm attacking your person, just posting information counter to your stated opinion. And that was only in the last phrase?

But regarding science, you may need to look a bit harder to find the evidence that you're looking for. Since we're dealing with something that happened in the past, once, and is no longer occuring, or in the case of evolution, something that happened in the past and continues to happen, but at such a slow rate that it renders honest observation impossible, the science you're looking for isn't going to be as clear cut as you'd like.

That's not to say that there isn't evidence for both, but unlike mechanical, testable sciences, like math or how an air plane can fly, science that deals with origins or processes that occur over millions and billions of years is and will always be limited. In the end, science of this sort fails to speak for itself.

Answer 4

There are different "brands" of Creationism. The Biblical literalists tout a version so buoyed down by doctrine and politics that its inconsistencies with reality are laughable. Other versions are matters of faith, and unlike "Scientific" Creationism, do not attempt to refute the world around us.

Answer 5

As a Christian I believe that Creationism and Evolution can both coexist, actually I believe that they are inseparable. What we need to remember is that God has no limits and what comes to Him easily (making a univers for example) is impossible for anyone to completely understand so He had to dumb it down for our pitifull brains (Einstein being no exception).

Neither side wants to admit the others validity because that would mean they were wrong. Evolutionists don't want to believe that there is something else bigger then them which they cannot understand. Creationists don't want to believe that God just dumbed things down for us so that we could get the big picture of what He was trying to get us to understand.

Answer 6

"but when asked how we all got here to begin with he says 'well, we're still working on that'."

How is that a wrong answer?

He doesn't know how life came about. No one does. Is ignorance the only place a god can exist?

Look up "god of the gaps".

Answer 7

Creationism basically ends scientific discovery. When someone says, "God created this," it ends the search into the origin of life.

Creationism isn't just an issue of biology. Young-Earth Creationism denies geology (the age of the Earth), physics (the speed of light; i.e., light produced from stars millions of light years away gets here in 6,000 years), chemistry (carbon dating), and meteorology (the Flood.)

To be a true creationist, you'd have to throw all of science in the garbage.

Answer 8

Agreeing to disagree is one of mankind's biggest hurtles . Unfortunately there are those in this world that feel in their hearts that even the idea of differences of thought is unacceptable . Arguing with these people is like beating a dead horse . Significant change on this rock in space we call earth will come from those who can see past the differences in all of us .

Answer 9

I think they coexist. I wrote a research paper on it in college. The book of genesis can be used as proof, but you have to consider one of God's days to span millions of years. I don't think God's day is a 24-hour day.

Answer 10

Well, here is the issue:

When you chalk up the unknown to a Creator God, you then lose all desire to actually learn the TRUTH about where we came from...

At least from Dawkins point of view, we are still SEARCHING for the answer, rather than pretending we have it already.

So, no, science and creationsim cannot go together.

Answer 11

Believe what you want. Its up to you, how can you force yourself to believe something your heart isn't in? I dont believe in "God" but if he was really a good "god" then he would respect your beliefs. Im sure he'd understand where you are coming from