Creationists who come to accept evolution, or evolutionists who come to accept creation.?

Question

Which of these paths is most easily trodden?
I believe in the basics of evolution, and also am interested in finding out about religion, theology, and the bible.
I wonder if there are creationists who spend as much time finding out about the theory of evolution?

Answer 1

It can be done both ways but it is much more difficult for the Fundamentalists.
Either way you go there are serious disconnects that need to be created and maintained. It is almost like trying to run different operating systems on a computer.
I think the fundamentalists like the creationists would have a harder time simply because they tend to have a mindset that see the world as black and white only. For them it is all one or all the other. For them to accept evolution means they have to create stronger partitions and they have more conflicts to resolve.

OK, I read a bit of the "Fish Don't Walk" web site.
The guy has no clue about what evolution is, he has no understanding of the theory of evolution and he misquotes the bible and further misinterprets his quotes to make his points. I stopped after reading three of his articles. It was to painful to see such a level of crankdom. I usually don't mind cranks and find them interesting at times, but even cranks can go over the top, and then all you have is lunacy.

Answer 2

I find that often the knowledge that creationists have of evolution is indeed extremely superficial. But I have to say I don't know very much about creationism either. As far as I know it's simply an argument about the impossibility of evolution, not the possibility of creation. As far as I can tell nobody tries to explain how creation works. It's just a 'miracle' I guess. Which is why it's not science. But I'll check out that fishdontwalk site now.

if anyone is actually interested in evolution by the way, check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

some very interesting points about what is wrong with intelligent design, and how the theory of evolution interacts with current research.

edit: this is bizarre. fishdontwalk.com is a tiny site. It links among others to creationscience.com/onlinebook. This book does not explain how creation works, it only provides arguments why evolution would be impossible. this means there is no such thing as a scientific theory of creation.

Answer 3

the most mind-bending thing that i found out lately is that the bible really doesn't reject the theory of evolution. genesis 1:1-2 (new king james version) goes as follows:

''in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. the earth was without form, and void....''

however, if you study the kamash, you'll find that in the original hebrew text, it says something more like God ''rendered'' or ''shaped'' the heavens and the earth, and that the earth ''became'' without form and void. skip ahead to the book of isaiah, and it says that God doesn't create something from nothing (this is paraphrased, of course). this means that something happened between what is stated in genesis 1:1 and 1:2. many theologians believe that there was a climactic change on the planet (possibly the ice age), that was caused by lucifer's being cast out of heaven. so the events that took place before the earth became void, and without form occured during what some call the ''pre-adamite period.''

read 2nd corinthians, and you'll find a few verses where paul talks about the ''third heaven,'' a place in time. in the book of revelation, john writes about the creation of a new heaven and a new earth- the third creation of each. so, judging from what i've recently learned, we are a part of the second creation. there will be at least one more after us.

i'd also like to say that i don't believe that God created the current earth in six literal days, but figurative days. somewhere in scripture (and i can't remember where right now), it is stated that one day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years as if one day.

there was another creation before the one we live in, and there will be another after we're gone. the bible, the 4000 year-old, most contraversial book in human history, confirms it. this, to me, is more than sufficient proof that the bible is the inspired Word of the one true living God.

Answer 4

The first. Creationists now accept 'microevolution', and some of them are starting to believe that speciation can occur, even if they do wrap it up in a load of nonsense about floods and arks and animals floating around on logs, and still believe that there is some barrier preventing evolution into different 'kinds'. They may not realise it, but they're very slowly coming towards a more scientific viewpoint.

I can't imagine any 'evolutionist' with any understanding of how science works could ever become a young-earth Creationist.

Answer 5

I can only go based on the people I have known, and on people I have heard speak about their beliefs regarding one or the other. It has been my experience that there are proportionately more evolution biased people reading and studying more about why others believe in creationism, than the other way around. I can only venture a guess as to why, but I believe it is far harder for creationist to consider evolution because it goes directly against what is often their chosen religion.

Answer 6

Some say believe only in the Bible some say The Bible says nothing against evolution only reference that goes against evolution is Psalm 90:4 and In one of Peters letters he says a day equals a thousand years. It is clear that Peter took this idea from the Psalm yet he left out a part In ancient times day and night were separate the Psalm actually says yesterday is like a thousand years or a watch in the night meaning our idea of a day would be 2000 years. Personally I think God's days are more like 500 million years but only God knows. The thousand years like a day is why Christians are against evolution but I don't think God is. I believe however that God does not need evolution so he just creates and wipes out creates and wipes out. We can see this in the extinction of the Dinosaurs as well as Noah's flood which there are various stories of all over the Planet.

Answer 7

Given the overwhelming proof for evolution, only someone with a very casual understating of it would find it easy to accept creation at face value. Those that accept evolution as "god's tool" for creation then have a serious problem with having an account or allegory for "creation" in that this shows that either god lied or didn't anticipate that man would uncover the truth, or that he wanted the evidence to cloud the issue. In any case those are not "faith building" qualities in any god....

Answer 8

I too believe in evolution and study other ones variously, watch documentaries, etc... it seems quite a few have studied evolution, some even taught it and decided to believe in creationism after a few years. boggles me why. They all say that they heard the voice of god and became religious, simple as that, its crazy, i wish i could hear the voice of god because the truth is scary :(. And I don't see how evolution would be easier to take, who wants to believe there's no god? No one, its terrifying knowing you'll die like a tree. But then again how do you believe tales over facts?

Answer 9

I do not think that creationists will bother to learn about evolution. According to them the bible is the only source of all information.
They can not open their mind to even read about evolution in its entirety; they will only read a few sentences and close the book and make false claims about evolution.

Answer 10

Neither of the pigeon holes has the complete answer. Religion cannot explain things so that others can understand - and science does not provide allthe answers.

Science - involved in the search for truth - cannot discover anything that contradicts God, because God is.

Whatever leads us to a deeper understand of this world in which we live is good. The uses to which we put some of the knowledge we discover - now THAT is another conversation.

People get upset (in our age of political correctness) when people talk about early explorers "discovering" a new country. They point out the country was always there.

In the same way, the "discoveries" of science have always been there - humans are only just now figuring them out.