Is it possible for a creationist to actually embrace evolution?

Question

Any of you creationists study evolution at University or from literature? As an evolutionist, studying books such as 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Extended Phenotype' by Dawkins have left me in no doubt as to their significance and realness. Can any hardline creationist provide a logical rather than theological argument for discrediting these often misinterperated books?

Just to note evolution is considered the unifying theory of all biology and to date the only unifying theory of science. The first theory of mankind that can explain an entire subject in one line. Pretty factual to my mind.

When I say creationist I merely mean anyone who believes a god created the universe and not neccessarily Genesis 1 in literal terms.

Answer 1

some do, i know this because they claim "god made evolution"

but then they just threw the first few chapters of their own book under the bus....so i dunno

Answer 2

I believe it is very possible for somebody to believe both. What was the driving force behind evolution, or the big bang, etc? That force could be called God and this could have been the start of creation. The real problem here is that people define and limit God to what is written in their bible and this limits God and the idea of evolution. If you believe everything in the bible is literal; Man made from dust, Woman from a Rib, a talking snake with a cleft pallet that is able to still pronounce words, and the infamous 6000 year old earth....well, if you want to attach a belief to this, it pretty much contradicts the theory of evolution. This is the problem with literalizing an alligorical text.

Answer 3

If you hang around it will become apparent that many only understand 'the selfish gene' from the title. I've spoken to people who think its about a genetic basis for selfishness, and is advocating it... Engaging a creationist in a sensible debate about evolution is simply impossible. They don't have a theory, or a hypothesis, they reduce 1000 page textbooks to 'god did it' - you call that science? No sensible person views it as a competition between rival theories anyway. That's why Dawkins never debates with them. Don't look for intelligent creationists here - they're asking 'if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?' every 5 minutes!

You can't just say you've read so-and-so's book because for the scientifically inclined, argument from authority is not sufficient. They have their own textbooks to back up their 'intelligent design' - the research and honesty might not be up to the same standards (huge understatement here) but they're still books! Of course they have the ultimate argument from authority and it starts like this 'the bible says -'

A creationist who embraces evolution? That's like a dead guy walking around, isn't it? Like the sun shining at night?

Answer 4

Yes, the head scientist at the Vatican does. He finds it hard to believe scientific things that contradict his faith, but claims as a scientist he must. Anyway, concerning evolution and creationism: they aren't mutually exclusive. Any creation could have easily created the path for evolution too. Creation is just how it started. Evolution is how it continues. These two theories don't even define the same aspect of the universe.

The reason why people feel you have to pick one or the other is twofold, and it boils down to a petty atheist vs. theist argument. Theists tend to believe that evolving from apes somehow diminishes us as humans, that our bias in ourselves is paramount, we are unto ourselves because God alone created and shaped us. To those I say nothing precludes God from creating apes to evolve into monkeys as part of his grand design. Remember: he works in mysterious ways. The anti-creationists simply do not want to embrace anything that might sanction religion. Intelligent Design wouldn't necessarily vindicate religion. I think aspects of that theory are quite sound. They never say who the 'designer' is, just that they suggest one exists based on empirical evidence. They used the same processes that Darwin did in this effort.

Answer 5

I have news for you, friend. Evolutionists may THINK that their THEORY can "explain an entire subject in one line" but because evolutionists THINK so doesn't make it so. I can explain stupidity in one line, too....that doesn't mean anything.

Or how's about this for explaining an entire subject in one line: "No philosophical theory which I have yet come across is a radical improvement on the words of Genesis, that 'In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth'. " See? I can explain it all in one line too, but you won't see MY theory as "factual".

In addition, do you define "evolution" correctly? Here you are using it to mean that we 'evolved' from lower forms of life, correct? And you SAY you study it....so please explain the following:

"Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution OUTSIDE OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

'evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years.'

This is INEXCUSABLE for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition. "

Answer 6

Yep, I'm a Christian and I've studied evolution at the university level -- Indiana University, Bloomington. I have not bothered to read any texts by Dawkins, because I have seen all of his documentaries, and I do not trust him. In Dawkins' documentaries, he spends more times scoffing at and demeaning anyone who would DARE question the theories which have defined his career, and very little substantial effort in showing how the easily perceived glitches in evolutionary theory can be explained. According to the law of Natural Selection, those species which have acquired more advantageous characteristics will survive over the inferior species-stages from which they evolve. Assuming that evolution is a continual process, one has to wonder why the primates of today managed to survive and flourish in some regions, whereas it is the more evolved transitional cro-mag-types that have died out. Also, if evolution is a continuity, then the genes expressed at each stage would also evolve in a continuity -- yet human genes have no primate RNA, which they should have if we all evolved from primates. Evolution is a hypothesis based on inductive logic, and it has yet to move from the realm of theory to real -- i.e., experimentally verifiable -- scientific fact. Scholars like Dawkins utilize agenda-driven and selective observations to buttress their own careers as well as their own sense of comfort and power. Dawkins is downright tyrannical in addressing anyone with an alternate perspective. If you question him, you are, de facto, an "enemy of reason".

Answer 7

No, actually the theory is quite divisive. It's like the peanut-under-the-shell game. The Biologists think that the Archaeologists have the evidence. The Archaeologists think that the Astronomers have the evidence. The Astronomers think that the Physicists have the evidence. But the truth is that the peanut isn't under any of the shells. No one has the evidence.
I once read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins, where he DESIGNED a computer program that would randomly produce design. All he proved is that it takes a designer to produce design.

Answer 8

Sure-
It's not the theory of evolution that I, as a creationist, have a problem with. It's the idea that the cycle of life began on its own, with nothing but pure chance to begin it. To me, that's ludicrious. Life can't begin from nothing. Where there is nothing there is nothing to begin life. God created life and began the process of evolution and then continued to guide evolution to the ends He so desired. Eventually, he shaped humans in His own image to be his special creation, gave them the unique set of talents, abilities, and intellegence that we have now, and gave us control of the world.
Evolution and creation- not so different.

What you must understand is that the book of Genesis was written by an uneducated man whose goal was to tell the story of his God. Now, I don't know what God said to Moses or what he told him to write, but I do know that at the time the book was written, evolution wasn't even close to thought about. The technology was so primitive and education so limited that if Moses were to write- "In the beginning, God created life by making a single cell which then grew and adapted to it's enviornment, evolving into a bacteria, an organism, and eventually all plants and animals", who would understand that? Even what I just wrote is an incredibly simplified version of evolution. No doubt that if Moses wrote that, the language would have been so complicated that many people would have been unable to understand his overall message- the supremacy of a God who created everything. And if Moses DID write it like that, we wouldn't know because more than likely those who copied his story would have tried to simplify and adapt it even more so that the average person could understand.

Genesis 1 is what sparks this debate between theists and atheists. "In seven days God created the world and everything in it." (that's not a literal biblical quote) Seven days, literally, does not match up with the millions of years that science proves the earth has been here. However, the ancient Greek language contains significantly less words than our present English language. The original word that is translated as "day" means, in Greek, "a period of time." The meaning of a word was distinguished based on context, much like the Biblical word "perfect" may mean mature, complete, lacking nothing, or without defect.

Answer 9

It is possible, but highly unlikely, at least if they are strong in their beliefs. There is plenty of debates between creationists and evolutionists, and people usually come out of the debates believing the same thing that they believed before they went in. There are a couple of links below to Creationist sites that might help you find some of the rebuttal material that you are looking for.

Answer 10

yes ive read those evolution books, and evolution is about one species evolving into another , but it doesn`t explain the origins of life on earth,........i mean from nothing to everything? nah thats not possible.
by the way im a medicine student , and i believe in God(though i was raised as an atheist), and i still have many doubts about evolution.

Answer 11

Of course we study it. We've been forced to. I've been brain washed with evolutionism since 6 years old until the age of 16. They keep telling us those bunch of crap theories and if you would had the guts to stand up against them, you would probably find yourself thrown out of school or end up in jail.
But that was a long time ago.
Vive la revolution!