Can evolution and creation work together?

[Valjean]

Can it be that it is up to us human beings to gain the answers by cultivating some of the spiritual teachings, and by that realize the true meaning behind our own existence? I just ask but open to your answer

We've been cultivating spiritual teachings for thousands of years, and looking for meaning and purpose. You'd think that after ten or twenty thousand years we'd have some of this figured out, that there would be some universally agreed on principles -- but there aren't. Our spiritual quest has got us nowhere, as a species. In fact, religious differences have contributed to a great deal of strife and misery.

A dispassionate, scientific approach, on the other hand, has magnified human understanding of nature and our place in it beyond the wildest imagination of our forbears, in just a couple hundred years.

It may not be intuitive, easy to understand, or comforting, it may not augment social bonds, but reason and logic yield objective truths. What we do with them is up to us.

 

[halbhh]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

PS: I am not going to jump on anyone who wish to discuss this OP.
So both believers and non believers alike are welcome to discuss

Yes, that's one common viewpoint of many believers.

Creation Unfolding perfectly like a Flower from a Seed.

God Creating through Nature:
Genesis 1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind." And it was so.


Another common view is that plus extra interventions at key moments.

For instance, I believe God chose or filtered the asteroids that would hit Earth, so that the asteroid that hit 66 million years ago and made most dinosaur species into compost, and clear the way for our ancestors -- the rise of mammals -- was an intervention.

Notice that if you have a divine plan and extra interventions....well, at this point there is almost no difference between 'evolution' and the typical literal creationist, except, well, a tendency to want to argue pet theories.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Maybe, but why would we assume this?

What part of the history of life needs the hypothesis of God?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

Depends on the religion. Many religions have no issue with evolution or abiogenesis, so assuming theistic evolutionis unnecessary for them. Some would still object to the sort of theistic evolution you're talking about.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Maybe, but why would we assume this?

What part of the history of life needs the hypothesis of God?


.

I don't say anyone should assume anything it is only a question

 

[PearlSeeker]

God is beyond time and space. In eternal present all that was, is and will be is viewed at once... From our perspective in every moment he gives existence to everything that is...

 

[King Phenomenon]

An argument from incredulity? I don't understand how magic poofing by a god apparently created from nothing is more believable than physics. Yes, theoretical physics is abstruse and complicated. We may not understand it. But it's a more reasonable approach to knowledge than simply attributing something complex and poorly understood to magic.
Why does magic seem reasonable?

God destroys/creates al at once

 

[Valjean]

Personally I do not see it as magic to me it is more plausible that a God of some sort created it, but I also do not believe the current universe is the first one.
But again it's only my understanding so I can not prove it either ways

It may be your opinion, but "understanding" implies some sort of factual analysis.
Plausible? Definition of PLAUSIBLE For me, something is plausible when there's actual, objective evidence supporting it.

What mechanism did God use to create? That's the question.
Magic is action without mechanism. Who without how implies magic. It may be comforting; it may conform to a familiar, cultural mythos, but it's not reasonable.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

PS: I am not going to jump on anyone who wish to discuss this OP.
So both believers and non believers alike are welcome to discuss

I suppose that, in the way you framed the question, they could. But I must then immediately point out that the creative part of that cooperative effort would immediately lose control.

This is one of the big fears about Artificial Intelligence (AI) for example: It may be (and now surely is) possible to teach a machine how to learn on its own. Having done so, however, the programmer who managed the feat will have little control over what happens next.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It may be your opinion, but "understanding" implies some sort of factual analysis.
Plausible? Definition of PLAUSIBLE For me, something is plausible when there's actual, objective evidence supporting it.

What mechanism did God use to create? That's the question.
Magic is action without mechanism. Who without how implies magic. It may be comforting; it may conform to a familiar, cultural mythos, but it's not reasonable.

I am not a God or a Buddha, so sorry I do not know how a God create their things I haven't realized that info yet

 

[Valjean]

God is beyond time and space. In eternal present all that was, is and will be is viewed at once... From our perspective in every moment he gives existence to everything that is...

OK.... How did you arrive at this insight?

 

[King Phenomenon]

Technically, they could run parallel in theory. Modern Deism is unfalsfiable and faith-based.

Deism before the discovery of evolution was quite different. It was taken as a serious scientific hypothesis that explained the apparent design in biodiversity, and a solution for the hard problem of consciousness. Since then, science has marched on and disproven these explanations, which is why Deism is restricted to faith now.

I don't believe in evolution. I know God created everything.

 

[Valjean]

I don't believe in evolution. I know God created everything.

• 

 

[King Phenomenon]

• 

To each their own

 

[osgart]

I think that the universe could be derivative of an ultimate reality. A transcendent reality might be very cold, and impersonal based on what I see cosmologists revealing about the universe.

The reason I think these things are plausible is because the existence of intelligence. Intelligence is a progressive thing. Intelligence is not accidental, nor is it brutely incidental. Intelligence could be a property of existence that has very little chance for expression in nature.

I like to think there are properties of existence that are latent potentials that have little opportunity to express themselves.

Intelligence is on purpose. The existence of intelligence implies purposes.

As for a God existing I see no omniscience. Life is a beggar in existence not a master. But life might be a progressive thing of existence.

I have some religiosity about all this. I think there is raw non living intelligence that is life giving. I call it Logia. As far as eternal living entities that might exist, who knows? Maybe. Why not? I mean they wouldn't live as beings with bodies. They would have to exist otherwise.

So, anyway Logia would contain and exist for the purposes of making the code of life. Like spirit and like programming.

 

[Onoma]

Claiming that the modern literal interpretation of the Genesis accounts are either true or not true is a false dichotomy, so the whole " creation VS evolution " debate is nonsensical, imho

 

[GameChanger]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

Yes and no.

There has to be some force that has sent the universe in motion but the idea that this "force" is anthropomorphic or cares at all what humans do on earth in the same manner that an ordinary people does is an idea riddled with problems and logical fallacies.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

PS: I am not going to jump on anyone who wish to discuss this OP.
So both believers and non believers alike are welcome to discuss

I believe that both do work together - just not in the way that any of us realize or understand.

 

[viole]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

PS: I am not going to jump on anyone who wish to discuss this OP.
So both believers and non believers alike are welcome to discuss

Evolutionary theists are ultimately creationists. So, I guess it works, somehow.

Ciao

- viole

 

[EsonauticSage]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

PS: I am not going to jump on anyone who wish to discuss this OP.
So both believers and non believers alike are welcome to discuss

Yes because they're both only metaphor

 

[Bear Wild]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

PS: I am not going to jump on anyone who wish to discuss this OP.
So both believers and non believers alike are welcome to discuss

If you want to believe that but you still have the issue of how was a god or goddess (do not forget that a goddess could have started everything) were created. The theory of evolution does not need a god or goddess to start it but if you want to believe that is the way it started since none of us were there it is an option.

However if you want to apply a creation story whether it is from from what ever religion you will find no connection unless evolution is your creation story written not in books or words but written in the world itself.