Do you believe that we were created by God or according to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution?

Answer 1

thats a really stupid idea that we evolved from them,we have holy spirit of god inside us,god created animals & nature to serve us,we r their master,& god is ours.

Answer 2

Richard Dawkins- a devout "atheist" (if one can be called such) has long argued that the entire idea of God, and especially organized religion, is a myth created by man because he is naive and misinformed, and unlearned. The other side of the coin- the devout Scripturalists- view Creationism as a basic fact laid out in the Old Testament.

The two opposing camps will obviously never agree. There is such a wide gulf that separates the two that each side will muster some argument that pokes a hole, or tries to poke a hole, in the other's. In the end, the whole argument devolves into one big shouting match, where the evolutionists believe that Creationists are just uneducated country bumpkin Bible thumpers and Creationists attack all evolutionists as Godless atheists.

I prefer the late Stephen J. Gould's take on the matter. The renowned Harvard biologist and sage felt that the two "theories" lay in completely separate levels of analysis. Just as we can analyze any explanation from both proximal and distal vantage points, with both having validity or usefulness, so, too, can we accept the validity, or at least the usefulness, of separate, yet noncompeting theories and ideas.

To give a simple example, let's say we want to explain the outbreak of World War I. We can argue, in a proximal sense, that the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian patriot was the fire that lit the flame of war. This would be a proximal causal explanation. But this explanation, while technically valid, is shallow. Many historians view the breakdown of offensive alliance patterns and the "intrigues" of the Bismarckian system as the true "casus belli".

These two theories which purport to explain one phenomenon might seem, to some, as competing explanations. Yet they are equally valid: it is certainly the case that the assasination lit a dangerous fire in 1914, but that fire would have been extinguished in almost any other contextual setting. The two explanations can exist as valid, yet noncompeting theories, because they explain different aspects, albeit being related by virtue of the one greater phenomenon- World War I.

Creationism is not one single, testable theory, so in many ways it is different than a theory as understood in scientific terms. Yet if we argue that it attempts to explain the origins of Mankind from a Scriptural perspective, and, if we allow a symbolic interpretation to include the "birth" of civilization (and not just the biological appearance of the homo sapien species), then it is a valid theory. The scientific explanation of the biological origins of Mankind- and all species for that matter- need not directly compete with Creationism, for both explain a phenomenon from a completely different level of analysis.

Anyways, that is my take on things, and I find that it reduces the pangs created by salient cognitive dissonance and religious guilt.

Answer 3

Oh costly lord which you in easy terms say you think in please flick the activate your concepts from "Off" to "On" First, Darwin DID teach his concept to the intense high quality of medical skill for his time, which whilst in comparison with the means that Thompson had interior the 1900s was once stone age gadgets, and that he became as quickly as open to the concept he could very nicely be incorrect so did not write his e-e book in absolutes 2d, technology has because of the fact Darwin come far in filling interior the gaps left by utilizing Darwin 0.33, you quote someone who died in 1972 and so are ignoring the 37 years of medical progression including the discover of many transitional fossils Fourth, that is not substantial what some ineffective guy or Darwin himself had to declare....What concerns are the concepts and the substantial factors validate Evolution so whether all of it began out as a Monty Python skit it does not in any admire which you could imagine in this area-time fact influence Evolution's validity

Answer 4

I believe we and all other things on this planet are the result of evolution. I think you have to ignore a lot of facts or be seriously misinformed to get around this. The two concepts however, are not mutually exclusive as many theists believe in both a deity and evolution.

Answer 5

Charles Darwin only came up with one facet of the evolutionary theory. He contributed the 'Natural Selection' theory. Evolutionary theory existed before he did, and has been improved since he has died.


Humans are great apes.

Answer 6

Neither I came from a Neo-Darwinism Evolution

Answer 7

With so much emphasis in the educational institutions on trying to prove that humankind evolved from apes, people’s knowledge and awareness of the Almighty Originator, and His great and gracious act in creating Adam and Hawa,has steadily dwindled.
The Holy Qur'an confirms that Hawa was indeed created out of Adam . It states: "O mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord Who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, his zaowja (wife/mate), and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women" (S. 4-:1).

Answer 8

first Darwin did not create the evolutionary theory, that was done by thousands of scientists over the last hundred years.

Second I believe that we were created by God though evolution.

Science and theology only clash when you want to impose one over the other. When given their respective spaces their is no contradiction.

Answer 9

Human beings (as have all living beings) have evolved from predecessor living beings due to the natural selection process in response to environmental pressures.

Answer 10

Evolutionary theory has NOTHING to do with how life was created, only how it developed from then on.

Answer 11

Both