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?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qs2tfve9ldc...
Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxfor

i posted this question in both Biology and Religious forums. so far most open minded answers have come from Biology!

Answer 1

For most people in the world, you're probably right. It's hard to dispute the evidence of science, but it's hard to deny the feelings of faith.

So people come to some kind of accomodation between the two. Scientists, after all, are usually followers of some religion (just like anyone else). And even the Pope makes use of the benefits of science (just like anyone else).

But the two concepts don't mix quite as well as you make it seem, either.

After all, if we accept that a supernatural entity is interfering in affairs, then really we can draw no accurate scientific conclusions about what has happened in the past. It would be like trying to explain how the hundreds of breeds of dogs came to be in a way that doesn't involve humans: it doesn't matter how clever your explanation is because it's just not true. Conversely, it is hard to imagine a diety who knows an interferes in the smallest of our daily events sitting by and twiddling its metaphorical thumbs for billions of years. So either the Divine meddled and scientific inquiry about historical evolutionary events is pointless, or it didn't and was apparently indifferent for pretty much the entire history of the universe.

You also get a problem with religious texts. Some people take them to be literally true, which would seem to contradict scientific conclusions. And conceding that one story is metaphorical sets a bad precedent - what's to stop EVERY story from being so metaphorical that it has nothing to do with anything any more?

Probably the sanest conclusion that any group to come to is to just admit it when you don't really know the answer to something. This will be harder for the religious folk because there are many respected leaders in the past who have ventured opinions on just about anything. They will have to either concede that some people are less Divinely inspired than they thought or choose to live in a world that bears less and less resemblance to the one we know.

And who knows? Maybe evolution IS wrong. We just have to also allow for the possibility that maybe it is right.

Answer 2

Science, at least good science, depends of verifiable data. That is, being able to recreate results using acceptable means. Faith is believing without verifiable data. There is much tangible evidence to support the concept of evolution.

If a creator exists as many insist, and is everywhere and every when as many also insist, then creationism and evolution are the same thing. Evolution as we understand takes a long time. We humans live very short lives in the grand scheme of things and have trouble accepting as fact what we cannot immediately perceive from beginning to end. However, and this is crucial, a creator who is in all places and all times would not be bothered by the concept of time as we know it. What might be a million of our years would be the merest blink to a supreme being.

Answer 3

The terrible truth is money and influence. The fact is evolution and creationism are not exclusionary ideas. In other words one does not invalidate the other. Evolution has never proven the origin of humans and Creationism has never disproven evolution. That being said Evolution belongs in the science class room because it is rooted and founded by using the scientific method where as Creationism belongs in a reliegous studies or philosophy class since it is based on assumptions and faith. Most people are content with this distinction but there are vocal agitators who like to generate conflict and controversy in order to gather support and money to there perspective causes.

Answer 4

They're diametrically opposed.

Both viewpoints are looking at the same set of facts - the same evidence. The difference is in how those facts are interpreted. Evolutionists start with a different set of assumptions (i.e. no God). *All* reasoning is based on presuppositions, but the thing about a presupposition is that it's *assumed* to be true.

In reality, when you enter the creation-evolution debate, you're not debating facts, but instead how those facts are *interpreted* based on assumptions.

No one has been able to prove through science that God exists, but no one has been able to show that the Big Bang occurred either. Both viewpoints require *belief*.

Answer 5

The two can exist together.But for many years people have been being taught only one is right and people hate change. So people will do what ever it takes so no change happens.
Until most of society is ready to except the change it will never happen the co-existence of evolution and creationism.

Answer 6

They can, I mean evolution and the big bang can only take you so far; there HAS to be something beyond that