Who can reconcile the concept of evolution with the concept of creationism as it is described the bible.?

Question

I will refrain from giving my opinion, so as not to "lead the witnesses".

Answer 1

the concept of evolution does not explain why all of a sudden out of nowhere life came into existence... if u see creationism as more of a symbolic story of how everything was created, dont take it literally, u could say that god could've created the circumstances that allowed for evolution to begin and is responsible for every instance where life begins without any logical explanation, as well as god would be responsible for every mutation etc which allowed evolution to continue as it did til today

Answer 2

Someone said that science and religion are not reconcilable.

It is the duty of man to do so and always has been. The best philosopher,or rather scholar,to have a go at doing this was
Sir karl Popper. He knew that Darwinism was just a "phase"
in science;and that a lot if not most religions and religious
people are deeply troubled by their incomplete faiths(just for
example, how and even why should they protect themselves;
And should they be richer than their neighbors).
We know that science is incomplete(darwin and others);we
know that mathematics is incomplete(kurt Godel and others).
We know that philosophy is incomplete(the pole jan Lukiasiuwz and others). So its about time that the dogmatic
religions realized that they are incomplete too;that man can
never do without education,an education that serves and guides, just as lays down guidelines and codes. That thing
called "love" must never be "alone"- it must go hand-in-hand
with peace(an imperfect Peace),law(an always imperfect Law),and order; an imperfect but adaptable order which includes all living things;and our books,history,science and
technology.
others)

Answer 3

I don't know as anyone can reconcile two so radiacally different concepts.
Evolution is all about science, creationism all about belief. the two cannot be reconciled. Though many have tried, citing things like invention of time, etc, it all falls flat.
Now, adaptation and natural selection fit well into, through and around creation.
Genesis was written in a time when science was non-existant. It gave a story of the creation of all things that man could understand. It was not meant to be a scientific truth, it was not meant to answer questions, it was meant only to incite devotion, inspire awe, and try to let man place himself in the world and figure out his role.

Answer 4

Part of this is opinion, part of it fact. To fully understand what I'm saying here, you might want to rent the program "The Real Eve" from the Discovery channel.
It has been proven through mitochondrial DNA that every person on earth can be traced back to one woman living about 150,000 years ago. This is not religious dogma, its solid fact.
At that point in time, the human race was down to less than 5,000 individuals worldwide; we were on the verge of extinction. I believe Eve was the first person to become self aware; different from all other animals. Sharing her thoughts with Adam, he too, achieved awareness. They evolved into the "first" true human beings; having all the emotions and feelings we have today. Physically, we have continued to evolve to this day.
This theory explains where Cain's wife came from (other females were around) and how we "came into being" so to speak. Once self awareness was out of the bag, there was no putting it back.
I believe this to be what the Bible is refering to, not the litteral translation most religious sorts insist upon. It answers a lot of questions. But again, its just my opinion.

Answer 5

The concept of evolution is as much a miracle as creationism is. The bible was written in a simple time for simple people. Hence the parables. Little stories to teach life lessons.
Anything the nuns in catholic school couldn't explain, was " one of the mysteries".
So I suppose, this is too.

Answer 6

Christianity has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution was baked up by Atheist who need a reason why they are here.

We Christians know that God created the earth and every thing on it. That is why it's so perfect. Evolution takes the glory of God away. In nothing is Gods wrath kindled then in man who deny his hand in every thing.

If Evolution were inspired by God then there could be no Adam and Eve because Adam was created in the image of God. God is not a monkey.

We also know that Adam was intelligent and talked with God.
Hardly something a monkey is capable of.
Unless God understands OOOH OOOH AAAAH AAAH!

It is clear that God was talking to a human not a monkey when he commanded Adam not to partake of the tree of knowledge.

Also with out Adam and Eve we have no Genealogy in the bible. No genealogy means NOAH did not exist and there was no flood. No Noah means that there was no Abraham and with out Abraham there is no genealogy of David who was the father of Jesus.

You see now how Evolution makes a lie out of the bible. It's Satan’s BEST tool.

Choose you this day who you will serve. As for me and my family I will serve the lord.

Answer 7

Nobody can satisfactorily reconcile the two.

In fact - the two concepts are not necessarily mutually exclusive and the existence of both does not contradict either.

Science is a way to discover answers to the scientific realm of living. Religion is a way to discover answers to the religious and spiritual aspects of life.

Both aspects of life exist - therefore both sets of answers are sought after.

I don't think that the Bible requires itself to be taken absolutely literally in every respect because the Bible itself asks humans to use its symbols for life completeness.

Answer 8

Creationism isn't in the bible. The Bible never mentions change or regularity. In all honesty, nobody has seen God and nobody knows wether we are still in his form or if we have changed from it. So then, creationism was created to be false response to evolution and give people like you something to whine about. People just don't want to accept that even though you can't see, things are happening to the beings around us.

Answer 9

I love this question. Since you write "the concept of creationism as it is described [in] the Bible" you give me the chance to respond to the Bible itself, rather than the various creationists who, I believe, misread the Bible. :)

Genesis 1, describes how God created with words, all that would come to pass from the perspective of the Earth. It is clear that it is talking about a plan, since it takes the time to say things about seeds and reproduction following after each kind. The reason God can honestly say that each creation is "Good" is because what God is creating in Genesis 1, is the blueprint, the plan, not the actual product. And God's plan is perfect. Humans, who are given freedom of choice, have the freedom to mess things up. But the plan is good.

Some people will argue with this, so I'll give one example for proof: in Gen. 1, the Hebrew says that God created "Adam, male and female" God created "them." Adam in Gen. 1 is not some guy named Adam. Adam is from the word that means "blood" and is used here to be roughly equivalent to the English word "humanity." That is why the word Adam is singular, but can be created in male and female, and referred to as "them." It does NOT say, "man and woman" which would be the actuality, but "male and female" which is a conceptual thing.

So of course God created the blueprint for all of creation in 6 days. Why not? It is God.

But the Bible says not one word about how much time passed between the "Plan" (Gen. 1) and the existence of the nearly human people (Gen. 2). So almost all the evolution part was happening in the middle there.

Again, look at the Hebrew: Adam, means "humanity." Eve (Chava) means "life." Those two people start in the Garden of Eden, and do not know how to tell the difference between good and evil. They do not farm, they just eat what is available.

Well, that is exactly how proto-humans were.

Then, in Gen. 3, when they became "smart" they no longer could just live "in the Garden of Eden" because they now would work the land, instead of just eating what was around.

We *could* just scavenge around, and eat what we found, but we simply wouldn't be happy. We are more satisfied working hard, to make the kind of life we want. We "could" go back to the Garden of Eden, and live naked and stupid, but we can't stand the idea. In Genesis 3, we evolved, and the Bible says so.

How does the Bible say we evolved? Because when we finally got smart enough to be willing to work hard to have the kind of life we wanted, instead of living at the whims of nature (God), birth became painful.

Birth is painful for humans, and not for animals for exactly one reason: the increased size of our brains. We got smarter, and our brains got bigger. Humans changed, evolved. It says so right in Gen. 3.

So the Bible clearly explains that with evolution, we got smarter, our brains got bigger, and so birth became painful, and we were willing to work hard to make the land bring forth the food we chose.

Historically, 6000 years ago brings us just about exactly back to the time when cities first began. Clearly, a definite moment in evolutionary time. So the Bible is exactly true: God created evolution.

Thank you for asking.

Answer 10

Do not use philosophical inquiry to put people on trial, it diminishes your own and other people's dignity.

From where does the dichotomy of these two accounts of origins arise? One is a theological narrative meant to illumine the understanding of a particular God as creator and lord of the cosmos. This is accomplished in a mythic genre which makes use of metaphor and symbol and the transposition of natural and supernatural realities. The theory of evolution attempts an explanation of the origin of life in terms of a wholly natural and empirical evidence.

The pre-occupation with one being "right" and the other being "wrong" is based on a modern reduction of the truth to that which can be measured in relation to empirical evidence. Thus creationists are insistent that their "faith" can be proved by empirical criteria and evolutionists are insistent that truth is reduced to empirical evidence as well-- both are simply mirroring their own modernism. Yet why is this emphasis on empiricism the privileged understanding of truth? Reconciliation of the two accounts happens when the modern reduction of truth is finally consigned to ash heap of intellectual dead ends.