"Biblical" - Creation or Evolution" which requires MORE "FAITH" ?

Answer 1

At some point both require faith. Cause and effect is a basic tenent of science. If the universe his here by random chance, it violates cause and effect, which invalidates pretty much all scientific study.

Answer 2

Evolution hardly needs any faith. It was an accepted thing a long time ago. Even the Biblical story forces us to accept evolution: Adam and Even could not have been simultaneously all races and only one race. It is now clear that on Earth, all humans who must have come from Adam and Eve are different. This proves that evolution has been at work (at least for humans).

The "problem" came when the best theory to explain the observations (Darwin's) claimed that the mutations that led to evolution occured blindly (at random) instead of being guided in a given direction. The randomness removed any godly intervention.

Creation was a bigger problem. A divine creation of the universe implied that the universe had a beginning. Until the early 1900s, there was little (or no) evidence that the universe had a beginning.

Most thought that it had been eternal. Then came Hubble (the astronomer in whose honor the modern space telescope is named), who discovered that the distant galaxies all appeared to be receding from us and, furthermore, the further they were, the faster they seemed to recede.

This could only make sense (in an eternal universe) if we were the centre of the universe (a thought that humans have prefered for a long time in their history).

A Christian priest hypothesised that if we ran the universe backwards, then there must have been a time, in the distant past, when all the galalxies were packed together. He formulated the Primeval Atom hyopthesis: the universe began in a condition of extreme temperature and density, and it has been expanding (and cooling) ever since.

Einstein did not like the idea and even introduced a factor (called lambda) in his equations in order to prevent expansion in his mathematical models. He later admitted that it was his biggest mistake.

Others, who did not like this hypothesis (that called for a creation), came up with the Steady State theory, whereby the universe is eternal AND expanding, with new matter being created in the void of space.

The Church, of course, prefered the Primeval Atom hypothesis. After all, if you need infinite temperature and density, who better than an infinitely powerful being to get it started.

The others, led by Sir Fred Hoyle (a staunch atheist) could not suffer that the universe could have had a beginning (because that might require a creator). They are the ones who gave the name Big Bang to the theory that grew from the Primeval Atom hypothesis. The name was meant to cause confusion (explosions are impossible if there is nothing to explode into).

As astronomy began to use better and more diverse instruments, there were a few discoveries that tested both theories, for example:
- Cosmological Microwave Background theory -- for now it can only be explained if the temperature of the universe was once above 3000 K (under Steady State, the temperature of the universe would remain somewhat constant around the present 3 K).
- uneven distribution of galaxy types; the further away we look, the younger the galaxies appear to be (under Steady State, the distriution by age should be random).

The only problem with the Big Bang theory is that it puts the beginning of the universe much further back than a mere eight thousand years (according to most Christian interpretations -- Ussher's interpretation which puts creation a mere 6000 years ago never really fit with the other Christian interpretations).

So, believing in the Biblical story of creation (instead of one based on the Primeval Atom hypothesis) requires far more faith than believing in Evolution (which, according to the Bible, must have taken place, given that all humans descend for one couple).

Answer 3

Evolution can be 'inferred' by finding seven different bird fossils spanning 30 millin years and observing the small differences between each succeeding animal. Requires a small amount of faith (+/- I don't know... 15%?).

Creation says the world was created in 7 days (6 really) and that two people populated the whole world after a talking snake gave an apple to a woman who was made from a rib taken from the man. Considering, talking snakes and two people populating the world (without massive inbreeding destroying the population in 2 generations), then I'd say the level of faith required approaches 100%.


Even Jesus (who I consider to be the single most important figure in human history) is only mentioned in two written sources. And the ark had two redworms, and two scorpions, and two llamas from Peru , and two polar bears from the tundra, and two.... ?

Answer 4

Evolution can be subjected to the scientific method.

Creation cannot.

Therefore creation requires more faith.

Answer 5

Creation - a completely made up fantasy about the origin of man due to the lack of scientific knowledge and research of primitive man.

Evolution - A non-complete science that has been piecing together EVIDENCE of man's origin as knowledge and research expand.

Thousands of extremely bright minds and over a hundred years of research VS. A couple manipulative "religious leaders" that made up some stories to control the masses and wage wars for thousands of years...hmm


Do you really need someone to tell you which requires more faith??

Answer 6

Sir, there are more than 9 accepted definitions of the word "faith." They do not have the same connotation or implications. The type of faith you references towards creationism and the type of faith you reference towards evolution DEFINITELY do not mean the same thing. Your question is loaded and is a classic example of fallacious equivocation.
------------------------------------
dukefent said, "one postulates that the universe popped into existence out of nothingness, then gradually organized itself"

That is not true. Evolution is silent on the matter of the origins of the universe. The theory you are refering to is actually that of abiogenesis. Evolution only explains the origins of species in an existing universe.

Answer 7

Well faith can be described as the substance of things that are hoped for and the evidence of things that are not seen. Therefore, Creation requires much faith, because a creationist believes that God created the world out of nothing(which He did), and designed everything perfectly
. I must point out, however, that there is NO valid proof for the theory of evolution, only suppositions and vain attempts at succesful persuasions. Therefore, I presume that just as much faith is required for one who supports the evolutionary standpoint.

Answer 8

The idea that everything in the Universe was created out of nothing by an Invisible Sky Monster (Genesis 1:1), requires faith.
The idea that the Universe has always existed and is a purely material place governed by natural laws requires only study.

Answer 9

Religion seems to think it is perfectly acceptable to say that God has always existed but not the universe. Keep in mind many other religions (yes people from the south there are other religions) state creationism in different ways. So which makes more sense that science has learned the basic understanding of formation or that 1 magical person floating int he sky happens to care about 1 group of animals amongst 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets? Religion is lovely fairy tail but quite silly.

Answer 10

There are tons of hard scientific data to support evolution. Unless one is a brain-dead religious fundamentalist it's not at all hard to reconcile science with religion and faith.