Evolution or Creation a Black & White Issue..Or not. Which of the below do you believe and Why?

Question

1; Atheistic evolution (naturalistic evolutionism)

2; Deistic evolution

3;Theistic evolution

4:Old-Earth Creationism, The Day/Age Theory:

5:Old-Earth Creationism, The Gap Theory

6:Young-Earth Creationism (Scientific creationism, Creation Science)

7: can't say but I believe in Creationism based on Genesis 1

8: can't say but I believe in Creationism based on Genesis 2

9: none of the above (please explain)

Intelligent answers only!! please be respectful this is a serious question about a serious problem.

Thanks Rick I was just really trying to get a little feed back on what people think, but as there seems to be a little problem between the Cre's and the Evo's.
I want to know what is causing the conflict in the world today so I ask a few questions, Human science doesn't seem as straight forward as others, but thanks really for the feed back

Jim,
By answering in the way you have indicates that there is a problem! In that you have taken it upon yourself to assume that these definitions were created by me in order to prove a personnel point. I have not interests here other than to demonstrate the variety of thought which exists and in so remove the black and white, A or not A concepts which are the route of many problems in today's world!

Thank you for your detailed response to the question Ernesto.
I found it very interesting, however I'm not sure that the lack of evidence on side can be used to a give to another which also lacks in evidence.

I have not written the above in order to put down your belief, only to question your reasoning.

We must remember that which ever choice made, it is your belief, knowing only comes from direct experience. None of us were there and no one has personally carried out all the research for scientific theory! Sorry but it's a simple fact.
I judge no one on what they believe, but on how the express it!

finally for increase you have found these!
Progressive Creationism is in fact the same as Theistic evolution in it's essence
And Fiat creationism is just another way of looking at Old-Earth Creationism, The Day/Age Theory.

Answer 1

I tend to agree with many of the answerers. It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of accepting the evidence or not. If you accept the evidence, then it doesn't matter what faith you are. If you don't, and you take the literal stance on creation, then don't try to teach my biology classes (or anatomy and physiology classes, either).

I'll pick #1, because I don't have a reason or a need to think any sort of divine being had to cause it all. I just don't prescribe to atheism, either. I think there are as many good hypotheses on the origin of life without a divine intervention as there is with one. I honestly don't worry about it. If science finds a highly credible hypothesis that can be independently corroborated, great. If scientists can't (which I imagine they won't, but good luck to them), so be it, but that's not reason to accept or reject (in my mind) any theistic explanation of origins. My favorite model of origins is Smolin Selection theory (granted, it's a theory on the origins of the universe, but it all had to start somewhere), but there is by no means enough evidence behind it to make it true in any sense. And just because I like it doesn't mean it's right...

Anyway, sorry, off the point there. I accept evolution without any deistic, theistic, or atheistic exaplanation of origins necessary. We are here now, and that is what matters. The rest is just ideological rhetoric.

Final point: I know we are all entitled to our opinions here, but I'm not sure how sensible it is for someone to call a top contributor to the zoology board out for not knowing any biology. He'd be wise to also understand that; a) at the time, there was a great deal of inuition that went into biological Darwinism, almost all of which has panned out (which is what makes Darwin such a great scientific mind); b) the question isn't about Darwinism, it's about evolution; c) the mulitude of research that has gone on in this area supports evolution (again, not necessarily Darwinism); d) intelligent design is, under just about all accounts, a re-gifting of creationism, putting an old present in new wrapping paper.

Answer 2

Number 6. The laws of science are compatible with the Biblical literal record on creation. To believe evolution and mainly Darwinism, you have to believe that contrary to the Law of Bio-genesis life came to be some how from non-life. You have to belive that there are some ape- like predecessors to man and apes even though none can be found in the fossil record. The fossil record shows main kinds of phila existing at the lowest accepted fossil level- the Cambrian explosion, without predecesors. There is no observable proof that million or billions of years has transpired. The geological Column does not exist physically only in text book charts. Rocks cannot be dated only elements inside the rocks are tested for dating assuming that the element in the rock has all been there and that the decay rates are constant while new evidence shows accelerated decay rates happening in thousands of years. The biological information and machinery found in even the simplest cells-bacteria- show complicated engineering and interrelated function which can only be caused by intelligence. The biblical record stands up to historical scrutiny.

Answer 3

I'm going with #1 for the simple reason that every other option is based on theology... not science. The further down that list you go the more absurd the idea. Science is getting closer and closer to proving that some supernatural deity had nothing to do with life.

I see some people took offense to calling it "Atheistic Evolution" because the evidence is based on science and not faith, but I understand why you worded it that way. You meant the theory of evolution without regard to any deity. I know it wasn't your intention single out atheists. But the coincidence is that you more or less have to be an atheist to share that belief. Every theist I know believes their god had something to do with creation even if they believe in evolution.

Creationists refuse to accept the evidence and even have a lot of misunderstandings about evolution. For instance the common creationist belief that evolution means we descended from monkeys. Humans did not descend from monkeys. We descended from a common ancestor which is now extinct.

The irony is creationists refuse to accept evolution yet they claim what I call the "Clown Car Theory" that Noah somehow packed 1 of each gender of every animal on earth including dinosaurs onto a boat that is 300 cubits = 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. There is over 1.5 million different species known to man. Creationist argue that it's possible if the dinosaurs were young and they didn't actually bring 2 of each species on board but rather 2 of each "kind". For instance they didn't bring every breed of dog on board, they just brought on 2 dogs. That contradicts their lack of belief in evolution because if for example the only dogs brought on the ark were poodles and they don't believe in evolution that would mean that the Husky breed wouldn't exist today. The "kinds" of animals brought on the ark would have had to evolve into the thousands of different species we know exist or else Noah had to have squeezed over 1.5 million different species on to a relatively small boat.

The fact is the bible was written at a time when there were probably less than 500 different species of animals known to man. So to whoever thought up the Genesis story thought it would be plausible at the time.

The creationist ideology is about as satisfying as a starving child would be if being given a plate with an index card on it that says "food" on it. It's a nice idea, but where's the beef?

Evolution on the other hand has tons of scientific evidence to back it up. Creationists just don't want to believe it because it contradicts their theological fantasy.

Answer 4

I guess I don't understand why this is a serious question or a serious problem! 1, 2 are about the same with the exception of believing in some sort of one-ness. 9 doesn't really have an answer! And the rest are of some sort of religious belief that can't be proven. So what was the question again?

Answer 5

OK I can accept the possibility of 1,2,3,
I find 5, gap theory a little doubtful but wouldn't rule it out completly.

However as I Can't believe the words of men born in small part of the world a few thousand years ago,
Who most likely believed the world to be flat, a for them certainly only as big as their minds could see!
So 4, 6, 7, 8. are a little the the Hindu Creation story, in that it's a story and just that!

Why is it that when some people enter this argument it becomes, for them a question of Mans word against Gods word.
I were to say to you that FRED had said some thing to me would you believe in my words or in the words of FRED!

Any way sorry that was for some people (no names) who think that the belief in god is the same as the belief in religion

may you need a slighty open to grasp it, but it you have try reading Small Gods by Terry Pratchett

Answer 6

There is NO issue, although it seems you are trying to make one.

Only one scientific theory exist that has been solidly proved time and time again. And again as recently as the Dover School Board trial. The Theory of Evolution as proposed by Darwin and enhanced by many well know and respected biologist. With recent work involving genetics the theory has been even more solidified.

If I read your classification system correctly, you call Evolution "Atheistic evolution". Which indicates two things. Your bias and bigotry and your ignorance. It also upsets all those people, religious and non, that accept evolution and are not atheist.

This serious problem that you refer to is nothing of the sort. It is only a minority of religious zealots that claim there is a problem. If I were you I'd be more concern about Islam and Muslim extremist than something as solid as Evolution.

Answer 7

It is *not* a black-and-white issue. You are correct that there are various combinations.

Unfortunately, many of us find it difficult to choose some sort of perfect combination of the two. Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such it is not subject to "belief" but rather *evidence*. But a choice of theistic belief is a matter of *faith* not evidence. So they are in two completely different realms.

It's a bit like asking the right combination of breathing vs. eating. We need *both*. So we should never choose one to the exclusion of the other.

Also, to me, my scientific philosophy is a matter of public scrutiny, while my religious beliefs are private. The whole point of science is *shareable* experience and thought (evidence and logic, respectively). But religion is a private, non-shareable experience.

But if I had to choose, I'd lean towards 2 or 3. A firm acceptance of evolution as established *strongly* by scientific evidence. But an evolution that may have been started, or even guided, in some way by God. In what way, and at what stage, I cannot answer, or even begin to answer, scientifically. But I'm quite content with that mystery. It is no more disquieting, mysterious, or unsatisfactory than the choice to have faith in God in the first place. It is something I can simply *choose* to believe ... my faith is neither determined by, nor threatened by, empirical evidence.

Answer 8

I believe in evolution by natural selection. No god is necessary to explain this. The theory is supported by many lines of convergent evidence from disparate fields of inquiry (paleontology, biogeography, molecular genetics, etc.). The fact that human brings have deactivated amphibian genes in their genome, for instance, only seems to fit with #1 above.

Answer 9

#1 without atheistic in front of it. And, it's not "belief", it's thinking about the evidence and facts.

I agree with everything Jim says, except he beat me to saying it.

Answer 10

#1 works for me.

I'd respect anyone who claimed that evolution was a way of creating new species, and was too wonderful a mechanism to ever have occured by chance.