Evolution and Creationism: Is there a middle ground?

Question

Trying to be unbiased but I think the evidences is stacked against creationism

Answer 1

It's more a question of how to approach the subject. If you want to take observations, form hypotheses, test them, and revise them based on those tests, then you can consider those as alternative hypotheses. Apply the method, see where it takes you.

On the other hand, if you simply want to declare a story about the universe to be true because you have asserted it (or it was asserted for you), you can choose either one, and you're done.

But it's best not to confuse the two approaches, or try to hybridize them. No parts of a hypothesis should be off-limits because it is a dearly loved story.

And if you hold onto only the facts that support your story, admit that you are pursuing the second approach, not the first.

Answer 2

It depends entirely on what you mean by "Creationism".

[1] If you mean that the Bible is literally true, and that the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old (Young Earth Creationism), then No.
[2] If you mean that God created all living things in their current forms, but he *may* have done so billions of years ago (Old Earth Creationism), then No.

Both of these options insist on evolution not occurring.

[3] If you mean that God created some primitive organism billions of years ago, which has since evolved into all current (and historical) species of organism, then Yes.
(this is Intelligent Design, btw)
[4] If you mean that God "kick-started" the universe (possibly by a Big Bang), with the intention of achieving intelligent life on earth, then Yes.
(this is Theistic Evolution)

Obviously, both of these *do* allow for both evolution and creation. However, the "creation" part (either divine biogenesis, or guided evolution) is emphatically *not* a scientific hypothesis.

Answer 3

There is no "middle ground" as such, but they are not mutually exclusive. They are describing different things. One the physical, the other spiritual. It is a mistake to try to mould them together, it just does not work, as can be seen in the intellectual vacuum of "Intelligent Design". Below is a passage (sorry it's long) pointing out the Vatican's views on the Big Bang and Evolution. It is clear that they accept that they both exist. The first link will take you to the complete document on the Vatican Website. The second link is a summary and opinion from a professor somewhere.

Evolution and creation are two roads, they do not intersect, they do not cross, but, depending on how you view life, they can both exist.



63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

.

Answer 4

I do not believe there is a middle ground. Science is different than religious belief. You do not have to give up a religion to be a scientist. You probably should give up being a scientist if your mind can not accept the scientific evidence that proves the earth is more than 6000 years old.

Answer 5

Yes there's a middle ground.

The middle ground is the idea that the Creator used evolution to achieve Creation. This is a middle ground that allows faith to co-exist with science ... because it allows the scientific evidence to lead where it does without any possible conflict with the idea of a Creator capable of working in unfathomably complex ways.

In other words, the concept of a Creator is only incompatible with evolution IF your belief in a Creator is limited to a strictly *literal* reading of the Judeo-Christian scripture. In other words, if you insist that God must live in the little box called Genesis. Such a literal reading is not just incompatible with evolution, but it is incompatible with pretty much all of science (to geology, to radiometry, the physics of radioactivity, to astrophysics, astronomy, archaeology, paleontology, microbiology, genetics, ... *ALL OF IT*).

But a literal reading of Judeo-Christian scripture is not just incompatible with science ... but also incompatible with other religions ... including those that cling to a literal reading of *different* scriptures ... and those who allow for *non*-literal readings of scripture (e.g. the Catholic church).

In other words, literalism itself is a path to far more problems than just evolution ... so there are far more reasons to abandon literalism.

Answer 6

The middle ground is called "Intelligent Design." It's a speculation, not a scientific theory. There is no direct evidence for "Intelligent Design."

Answer 7

My bio teacher apparently found a middle ground. I think he believes that god started the world, and evolution exists because of the way god made the world. Or something crazy like that.

Just go with atheism...

Answer 8

That's the crux of it, isn't it?

Creationism has no evidence to back it, but evolution has oodles.