Is it unusual for a Creationist to also believe in Evolution?

Question

I am a Mormon and believe the story of the creation of Man in Genesis to be literal. So I do not believe that man evolved from any kind of ape, neanderthal or other lesser human.

But I do believe in the evolution of animals, that they change with their environments and due to breeding constraints.

Is this unusual? It seems from many posts here that most believe you can not combine the two beliefs, is that a commonly held belief? I think it just makes sense and am surprised by those that think it must be one way or the other, that there can be no common ground on this issue.

NOTE: This question is not for those that wish to attack Evolutionists or Creationists for their deeply held beliefs. I will report anyone that does so. This is a discussion about how common is it for people to believe in both, not which belief is right/wrong.

Answer 1

There is considerable evidence that shows that humans (at least our physical form, if not our spiritual) are animals, descended from apes in Africa.

But there is absolutely nothing that says you cannot believe in both evolution and God. There are hundreds of scholars, scientists and biologists who would agree with you.

I do wonder how you reconsile a literal belief in Genesis with the scientific evidence that is incompatible with it. Not just in the field of evolution, but genetics, anatomy, geology, physics, astronomy and other fields.

Answer 2

Creation and the Theory of Evolution are opposites, so a creationist can not believe in evolution. When I say theory of evolution I mean from the big bang to the development of humans. Natural selection which it seems is what your talking about is evolution that is fact, things do change and adapt to their environment. Anybody that denies Natural Selection can be deemed an idiot or is just ignorant of the facts. Speciation also has been observed but only to the extent that an organism has changed so much that it can no longer mate with the original organism, however it is still recognized as the same kind of organism. It's important to point out that in these cases of speciation the newest organism has lost features or abilities that the original organism had and never has the newer organism gained a feature or ability that the previous organism didn't have.

Answer 3

Evolution does not say that humans evolved from apes. But the thing is that humans are animals too. Higher animals, but animals nonetheless.
I don't think it's necessarily unusual for a creationist to believe in evolution, but it is a bit contradictory if you are a literal creationist-saying that God created the earth in six 24 hour days and rested on the seventh, because evolution actually takes billions of years.
You might want to consider that many Christians in Europe and other parts of the world have no problem reconciling Evolution and Christianity.

Answer 4

It depends on what you mean by a "creationist". All Christians recognize that God is the Creator of the universe, and that nothing that exists came to be except through Him. So, in that sense, all Christians are "creationists". Yet a great many Christians have no problem accepting the strong evidence provided by science that biological evolution has occurred. I am among that group. Science makes it extremely clear that evolution is a fact, and I have absolute confidence in the biblical teachings of my Church. I know that there cannot be any conflict between God's revealed truth and scientifically revealed truth, for truth cannot conflict with truth. The account in Genesis (actually two different accounts) don't say anything about the development of new species in the post-creation world. If God desired to produce new species this way, and we know from science that He did, far be it from me to tell Him He can't. As for the Genssis accounts being absolutely literal, that is not possible since the two accounts conflict with each other on some details. Also, we know for a fact that the universe was not created in seven revolutions of this one little planet. For God there is no such thing as "days". In fact, in the universe there is no such thing as "days" either, except on the surface of a planet, and the length of a "day" on one planet is vastly different from a "day" on another planet. So, we know that the "days" of creation simply refers to periods of time, and we know from science that these were extremely long periods of time. No conflict there.

Answer 5

If you state that you believe in the 6 Day Creation, then it is safe to assume that you believe in the Great Flood that covered the Entire Earth, The Tower of Babel (and the marvel of non-engineering that dominated Jaredite shipbuilding) and Confounding of Languages, and of course, Adam and Eve, who apparently named the dinosaurs.

Look for the evidence. It is simply does not exist - except for large scale flooding which occured at the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Even that was localized, and not even in the Noahcian time period.

Look at the translations of ancient tablets which yield the same stories as found in and predate the old testament. Look at the languages and cultures of civilizations that began earlier than Adam and Eve.

Apologists like to point out the evolution is just a "theory". So is gravitation, but you can offer substancial evidence for both. Brigham Young taught the planet was made from left-over material from 'other worlds', and in a sense, he's correct. The universe is made from 'debris', but it's not a recent occurance.

Myth is fine for the ignorant to explain things. The world contains many secrets, and you won't find any of them with your hopes buried in wishful or magical thinking. Go explore and use the mind god supposedly gave you.

Answer 6

It's not a position that anyone with a sense of science or religion can hold. It's like claiming to be a Christian atheist.

If you believe the Bible to be true literally, you must conclude that there is no evolution. Man has most of the same DNA of the other animals. God either used Evolution or he didn't. He either exists, or he didn't.

If one builds things, he or she does so with a particular set of tools. If some god were to use evolution for 99.99999999999999% of creation, and decided to do something completely different for humans, wouldn't humans necessarily look different than the rest?

The idea of using one set of tools for most, then another for the rest inores the way things would be done.

Perhaps you like to feel yourself special, but it's just not so. If there was a god, he would at least do things that would make sense.

Answer 7

No its not unusual, I am a creationist but I believe in evolution to an extent.

Like you, I'm LDS and I take the scriptures literally, but there is proof out there that we have evolved into, for example, taller people than we were 150 years ago, all you have to do is look at the ceiling and door frame height of those really old houses...

Answer 8

You can combine any two belief systems as long as you have a congruent and fixed nexus. If the said nexus is the creating force, then that force can create and evolve at the same time. The creation is the principle of life, namely the fact that things will come about, and the evolution is the process of how those things come about.

Answer 9

It's impossible to take the creation story of Genesis literally. Yes, I said it - "impossible." Well, unless you think God created it using magical powers that do not conform to the laws of physics.

The earth was literally formless and void, but there were also literal "waters"? And this was before the sun came into existence, literally? Genesis 1:1-2.

God then literally created light and then literally separated the light from the darkness? After there was already a watery earth? Genesis 1:3. Then he called the light day and the dark night - but that was literally before there was a sun? Genesis 1:4.

God then created the land by separating it from the waters - again earth with oceans and land before there was a sun - literalyl? Genesis 1:6-9. And there was literally a "sky" in existence (Genesis 1:8) before there was a sun? You think there could literally be a sky (atmosphere?) before there was a sun to keep the Oxygen and Nitrogen warm? Even with a sun, Nitrogen is frozen when it's out past Mars, and on Mars carbon dioxide is frozen. And you think there "literally" was a sky before the sun was created?

And, then somehow, you are saying that there LITERALLY was vegetation on the ground before there was a sun? Genesis 1:11-14.

I don't think you believe that to be literally true. Remember, "literal" means that there really, actually were plants growing in the ground when there was no sun, and no heat from the sun........

Answer 10

I'm LDS and I believe in evolution. I don't see any conflict. I have reverence for the scriptures but as they were written by man they can only be inspired. Whether the genesis spoken of in the Bible is to be literally interpreted, I don't know, however I doubt so.

PS: We can actually measure evolution in humans throughout the centuries, any wonder why we are collectively taller than we were 500 years ago? Mutations in DNA gives rise to diversity and the competative nature of life on earth allows for natural selection. It's fact, face it.