Who believes that both the theories of creationism and evolution are flawed?

Question

Does anyone think that there could possibly be another explanation how the human race and planet Earth came to be? I just don't trust either at all.

Flawed not conspiracy. Just incorrect. I mean before the idea of evolution was even dreamt up most people believed the earth was 6000 years old.

Answer 1

Those theories -like any theories- are "flawed" in the sense that they are and will forever be, incomplete. But, for that matter, so is the theory of gravity. It is all a matter of degree, which is why gravity, because it repeatedly has been demonstrated as a credible force, lies at the "fact" end of the scale and creationism, which takes its cues from a text which ITSELF can't be independently validated -as opposed to indpendent data sets- lies at the "belief" end of the scale. That residency, by the way, is logically NOT, in and of itself, an indication of whether the theory is correct. Take Jules Verne, for example.

I use the word, "theory," here, in its scientific sense. That is, "theory" is not just a fancy word for "idea," but rather a body of systematically related facts that explain a phenomenon and predict with increasing reliability the nature and source of new data yet to be discovered. Thus, the theory of gravity is a very mature one and regarded as reliable, the theory of creationism has no independent validation and relies instead on logical interpretation of a scientifically non-validated source, and the theory of evolution is very much a work in progress that occupies an intellectual niche that may be labeled, "so far, so good."

Still with me?

Now, one of the intrinsic limitations of any theory is that the theory's relevance extends only so far as the subject matter of the theory itself. And thus, we don't look to evolution to explain the dynamics of airplane flight. Another limitation is the SCOPE (source and extent) of the data.

And this gets us to your discomfort with evolution and creationism as sufficient explanations of the phenomenon of life on earth. Other than these, what else could explain it FOR WHICH A SCIENTIFIC THEORY could be articulated?

How about something transplanted from outer space, maybe from Mars? There is nothing about this idea in and of itself that defies scientific possibility -rather, the problem is a lack of subject matter. Don't laugh -the absence of evidence is not "evidence of absence," which is why "exobiology" is a legitimate academic discipline with actual scientists working in it -but that has, literally, no subject matter!

Well -not quite. There is sufficient credible evidence of stuff HERE that came from OUT THERE which includes fossil remnants of -at least- some necessary chemical precursors to life as we know it. And so, as workers look back at the origin of life here, and speculate that ultraviolet rays, lightning or something similar acted as a trigger mechanism, is it really so far-fetched to think that the trigger may have been something that came from elsewhere? And if that is NOT such a wild notion, then it would make as much sense to speculate on life forms elsewhere, as well. In fact, study of such possibilities -while painfully lacking in satisfying data- does produce new and creative ways to look at the stuff here we already DO know about. A "flash" of insight kind of thing.

Pretend that science proved to everyone's satisfaction that, in point of fact, the necessary final ingredient for life DID come from out there. Suppose they found it? Would that poke a hole on the theory of evolution?

No. It would simply provide the missing data that answers the "how did it start" question. It would not even rule out the possibility that something also, independently, caused life to emerge right here all on its own.

And this points to an interesting and currently active debate about human origins. One theory says it all started in Africa, where a human type evolved, migrated outward and replaced similar species developing elsewhere. Another says it all started in Africa and several other places that produced creatures so closely related genetically that they interbred with the ultimate result of modern humans in the diversity we see them today. The problem? Not enough data for a working theory that is acceptable to everyone. It may turn out that humans, in fact, arose from alien visitors long ago. Nothing rules it out, really. Its just that nothing at all scientific suggests it, either.

So the flaws you ask about are absolutely there, but they differ when you compare evolution and creationism. The difference is this:

The flaws in evolutionary theory are denied by NO one working in that field. In fact, the flaws -meaning things that don't add up, predictions that didn't come true, findings that seem utterly contrary to what is expected- are well documented and on the table for discussion. The missing data -and there is a lot of them- are also clearly noted and folks are "in the hunt" to find them. That's all part of the science. None of this means the theory itself is invalid in general terms -it is just terribly unrefined. New findings tend to uphold rather than discredit the theory, and some demand changes in the fundamental understanding. But the theory is in tact as a scientific concept.

The flaw in Creationism is different: since it does not have a foundation in scientific fact, or even in anything that can be scientifically studied, it is not limited to actual scientific data. The methods and formats of inquiry and exposition of the theory may follow a scientific organizational structure, but that's about as close as it gets. Subsets of Creationist theory may even match the evolutionary model, for example, both agree that "evolution" (meaning morpholoical change in a life form) occur WITHIN a species. But Creationist theory says that this is IMPOSSIBLE when it comes to entirely new species that emerge from predecessor forms. Why? Because God created it all at once. That's where the wheels come off for the evolutionary scientists -the premise that God did so is unproven -and unprovable. It is a matter of faith.

The core data-set for Creationists is the Bible, which brings us to the other flaw -application of the data to a theory which is inappropriate or irrelevant to the data itself. The principal subject matter of scripture is the relationship between man and God since the earliest times as expressed through various covenants, our salvation through grace, and the founding of Christ's church on earth. And thus, to deploy the detail of Biblical events to support a systematic organization of objective information in a practical sense misses the whole point of the text. It would hardly matter if all the detail were exactly, factually correct and scientifically validated as such. It is simply not the point. It would be similar, I think, to reading the story of Christ's first miracle and attempting tease out whether what he made was wine as we know it -or "unfermented" wine -grape juice. THAT IS AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT among various branches of the faith -was the wine alcoholic or not?

In summary, the potential problem with evolution is real data that is not understood; whereas with Creationism the problem is the wrong set of data from the get-go.

Your criticism and distrust of these and other theories, I think, should be first based, therefore, on whether the factual material used by any theory is, in fact, relevant to the theory itself. If you can establish that it is (or seems to be) then you can move on to questioning whether the data actually supports the theory. Bear in mind that theories are all about flaws -they are a necessary and indeed inevitable part of the process of discovery, refinement, and improved understanding.

Good question -thanks!

Answer 2

I believe in both, to some extent. Sure, there's all kinds of evidence that animals evolved over time, but it seems that the changes began with one generation after some time, then spread across the population because that characteristic made them survive better. Who's to say that characteristic wasn't introduced by a higher power? And we pretty much accept that there was a big bang which created the universe, but we don't know what started the big bang. Doesn't it sound a little like the Genesis account of how the universe was formed? It may not have happened in 6 days, but who's to say one of God's days equals one Earth day?

Answer 3

You know what the difference is between scientists and religionists?

If you put forward a better scientific theory than evolution, which comprehensibly explains the rise of life in the universe, and is backed by observable evidence:

Scientists will abandon evolution in favor of this exciting new theory, and will begin to incorporate this new theory into current ways of thinking.

Religionists will hold it as just another attack on God, and go about looking for flaws in order to disprove it, because under no circumstances would they abandon their faith in God.

See the difference?

Answer 4

Old Earth Creationism reminds me of the old cartoon showing two men in white lab coats, one holding a piece of chalk, in front of a blackboard covered on the left and right sides with scientific equations with the words "a miracle happens here" in between. The caption reads "I think that middle bit needs a little work still." OEC simply plays at accepting the overwhelming evidence against the YEC view, and then inserting "God of the Gaps" and special pleading where-ever they find the going gets messy.

Answer 5

Both Creationism and Evolution are theories, not facts. They are working hypotheses, two different schools of thoughts as to how it all happened. They are both incomplete, they are both theories. So, sure, they are flawed, they will be refined and tested millions of times and they will be amended to accomodate new evidence when it is discovered.

But, there is no need to worry, it will all be worked out in time. There is no need to rush to judgement. No one, including God, is pressing us to decide which is correct. There is no deadline to meet. Enjoy the ride, celebrate the process......

Answer 6

Science has so far been unable to disprove the facts of creation. Darwin's book with the tile "The origins of species" does not explain workable theories about the origins of species or the origin of life. What he wrote was his observations and theories about the adaptation of species into sub-species (micro-evolution). There has been now evolutionist, not Darwin and not a modern day evolutionist, who was able to prove that life on earth has evolved in such a way that all the living species we see today have evolved from "simpler" or "lower" forms of life into the more "complex" and "higher" forms of life. (macro-evolution).

I'm educated enough not to believe in the theory of evolution that contradicts the biological and fossil facts.

Answer 7

i think we may be experiments of the extra-terrestrials.They putted a little cell of life and wanted to see how it will evolve.All the UFO's are just extra-terrestrial scientists which are looking how is doing their experiment

it's hard to believe the creationism because we don't have any proof at all

evolutionism..possible but there had to be a cell or something to evolve....we can't evolve from nothing

Answer 8

choose wisdom in whatever form makes the most common sense. It's o.k. not to know it all. Nobody would luv u and you might hafta eat some woooorrms. that's a silly memory from childhood. Therein lies the happily.

Answer 9

I don't think it matters. We are here now. I think what it comes down to is do you believe that there is something higher than us or not.

THat is the only question that matters.

Answer 10

Just wait. There'll be another theory at some point. It's a matter of time.