In your opinion, are the Bible and the theory of evolution mutually exclusive?

Answer 1

They are mutually exclusive concepts.

The theory of evolution was proposed by those who were secular humanists, and who wanted to get rid of a belief in God. The two ideas, creation and evolution, are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist. If you believe in the biblical account of creation, then you cannot believe that the Earth has been around for millions of years. The account in Genesis clearly states that God breathed life into the man who became a living soul. (Not primordial ooze, or a fish with legs, but man.)

There are those who postulate that you can mix the two, and have attempted to do so by employing "theistic evolution," where God put the parts in place and let them spin together over millions/billions of years. Others propose a "gap" theory, where in Genesis 1:1, the earth was created, but in Genesis 1:2, God judged that earth, and recreated it in Genesis 1:3, hoping that the time frame matches the scientific theory. Others will ask, "How long was a day during creation?" hoping that the answer is millions of years long each.

The problem boils down to this: Either God's Word is truthful in the details, or it isn't. And if it isn't why bother at all? Who gets to decide what is or is not true in it? Man? Then man becomes God, instead of the other way around.

Because there are no witnesses to what occurred during creation, anything that man comes up with is a theory, and unable to be proven through a scientific process, which requires the scientific method.

The scientific method requires:

# 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

# 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

# 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

# 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

# 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

# 6. Falsify the data to further your agenda. (Just kidding, but in some cases, too true to be funny.)

But this is supposed to be based on observable facts. Evolution cannot achieve this using the traditional scientific method. What does that leave?

Faith. Just like those he criticizes for following myths, the evolutionist is practicing his faith. The evolutionist believes in the theory. They have their own scriptures, and apologea. And woe unto those who knowingly or unknowing tread on "holy" ground. They'll eat you alive. You'd think for all their vitriol, that you were in a church full of hypocrites.

Answer 2

It doesnt have to be. It depends on whos interpreting it.

The creation story comes from the Judaic scriptues, or Torah. Rabbinic literature has profound interpretations on creation. To understand, you have to know a little about Hebrew. Some mistranslations and misunderstandings make the creation story seem more distant from the scientific veiw than it really is.

For instance, "great lizards" in Genesis could refer to dinosaurs. Also, Catholic dogmaticism once insisted God created earth as a central body in the heavens, when the Bible never actually said that. The Bible never lays out a timeline, religions and religious fanatics did.

Key point 1:
Its unique; it has mathematical analogies. Letters have numerical equivalents and words have numerical connections. For instance-

The Hebrew word for father is ab (1+2=3)
mother is im (1+40=41)
child is yeled (10+30+4=44)
So father(3) plus mother(41) equals child (44).

Cool, huh? this happens pervasively throughout Hebrew. Rabbis drew meaning from mathematical wordplay. The tree of life is analogous to the name of God.

Key Point 2:
Hebrew is a root language. Basically, 3 letters represent a particular idea. From there you can add specific vowels and other consenants to produce a slightly different word.

Be rashit bara Elohim et ha shamaim va et ha aretz.

This is the original Hebrew for what has been translated as "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth".

This sentence is interesting. It doesnt make any grammatical sence in the original Hebrew, especially if it is taken to mean "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth". If forced to produce a meaning that is grammatically correct, it would translate as

"In the beginning he/it created God and he/it created the heavens and the earth".

Woah. Quite a blow to those bible fanatics, huh?

Further meanings can be illicited from the word roots. For instance, rashit can be translated as beginning or as head, since the root, rosh, means head.

"In the head (mind) he/it created God and he/it created the heavens and the earth"

So what do the Rabbis take this to mean?

The creative force is not necessarily God, but something called the Sefirot. It can be described as attributes of God. The Sefirot is God without the added qualities that are perceived by man.

Years of this kind of analysis led to Kabbalic revelation. Some Kabbalah narratives are rather intimate with scientific knowledge.

For instance, Tzimtzum is rather like the big bang. In this story, Ein Sof (a name for God) was all that was. Ein Sof was pure light, pure energy. To make a finite place for creation, he contracted the energy, making an empty space, a vacuum, or vessel within himself. To make the material for creation, he used his own self, pure energy. He poured his energy into the vacuum, but the vessel could not contain it, the vessel expanded and the energy shattered into a less pure form. This degraded energy is our physical world.

Answer 3

No. However, the way man looks at it yes. I mean so far with evolution the facts are there , but there is still more to learn. The fault is in christains who discuss creationism as a philosophy rather than a science. Evolution has proven alot of things but that doesn't mean there's no room to discover facts on intelligent design. It's just impossible to comb through this earth to find fossils or organisms that can help prove that. Evolutionsit are still finding early fossils, its just where are the ones from the "beginning"

My friend has a thing where he thinks the answers are all in the water. It could be true being that alot of the oldest fauna are fish.

Answer 4

No. They are mutually supportive but generally misunderstood. The Creation part of Genesis is clearly an edited and vague version of much earlier Akkadian and Sumerian records such as the Enuma Elish which was reconstructed to be the 7 Tablets of Creation. This early account is more scientific, implying that life evolved in our planet after a cosmological event that restructured the Solar System and dumped the seed of extraterrestrial life here. Man was fashioned by the Anunnaki or ilu (the elohim) by binding upon an advnced primate their "image" or genetic imprint.

Answer 5

No, if the Bible is accepted as mythos, at least in part and the best "scientific" explanation at the time carried down in oral tradition and the Rules of Evolution are accepted as the best ongoing and shifting explanation of today's science then there should be no conflict. If a person insists that all the contradictory tales in the Bible are inerrant and perfect descriptions of what happened, then all of science is in conflict not just evolution - which works every day on every farm in the world.

Answer 6

The Bible says that God created "all things", on numerous occassions. That leaves nothing left to evolve.

Almost all of the pioneers of science, such as Newton, Galileo, and Pasteur, knew this.

Mutually exclusive. I looked in the whole Bible for evolution, and can say there is absolutely nothing on it.

Evolution also would work in the opposite direction of Genetics.

Answer 7

Yes. Totally. Evolution: 1 Bible: 0

Answer 8

I suppose a few christians are pleased to be given evolution, if simplest as much as a factor. The idea does no longer conclusively disprove the lifestyles of god, however it does forged a high-quality shadow of doubt over it. What creationists and fans of clever layout do not like approximately the idea is that it naturally flies within the face in their particularly incorrect view.

Answer 9

A literal interpretation of the Bible and the theory of evolution certainly are. But many Christians (including the pope) are fine with evolution.

Answer 10

It's an insult for scientists such as Charles Darwin to spend so much time on evolution, then say it's mentioned in the bible. The bible deserves to be approached critically for its mistakes and the time frame between dinosaurs, man, and the founding of evolution are incorrect or not even mentioned in the bible.