Why is it Assumed Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive?

[Valjean]

Granted, I understand why YEC cannot fit within the context of Evolution (part of why I don’t adhere to a literal faith, I think scripture and religion often speaks in Metaphors as a way to display God in a more simplified fashion).

But what is it that leads people to the assumption that faith and science cannot exist in harmony with each other?

Belief following evidence vs belief without evidence. Tested vs untested belief. Research vs blind acceptance.
Very different.

I view science as a means to have a better understanding of who God is. Yet I can’t view it as a method of proving or disproving God, simply a way of better understanding our natural world. How do others view this?

This presupposes an established God.
Science isn't concerned with proving or disproving God. Science works with the facts on hand. As soon as empirical evidence of God comes to light, I'm sure science will jump on it.
Till then....

 

[TravisW]

A few of the incorrect claims of Genesis:

- the Earth (day 1) is created before the Sun, Moon, and stars (day 4)
- land plants (day 3) are created before the Sun, Moon, and stars (day 4)
- trees (day 3) are created before land animals (day 6)
- birds (day 5) are created before land animals (day 6)
- cattle (day 6) are created before people (later on day 6)

I think it’s important to remember the Genesis story is told in the context of how the Ancient Jews saw the world, as in as a firmament (kind of a weird bowl like thing, where the earth is surrounded by waters pressing in, but being held up by the mountains surrounding them). The creation story is told in a context to contrast Yahweh with the gods of the Babylonians.

While the Babylonian story was one that chaotic, an accidental universe, involving multiple deities and an implication of the earth being something bad. The creation story the Jews pass down is one that implies that all of creation was intentional, and something good.

It doesn’t make sense of a literal sense, but it’s structured in a way to read like a legend, just as the Jews were surrounded by legends of other cultures. What’s important to note about this, is a story being told in the form of a legend doesn’t make it untrue, it just means it isn’t necessarily literal

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it’s important to remember the Genesis story is told in the context of how the Ancient Jews saw the world, as in as a firmament (kind of a weird bowl like thing, where the earth is surrounded by waters pressing in, but being held up by the mountains surrounding them). The creation story is told in a context to contrast Yahweh with the gods of the Babylonians.

While the Babylonian story was one that chaotic, an accidental universe, involving multiple deities and an implication of the earth being something bad. The creation story the Jews pass down is one that implies that all of creation was intentional, and something good.

It doesn’t make sense of a literal sense, but it’s structured in a way to read like a legend, just as the Jews were surrounded by legends of other cultures. What’s important to note about this, is a story being told in the form of a legend doesn’t make it untrue, it just means it isn’t necessarily literal

By the same token, the fact that a literal interpretation now sounds absurd by a modern understanding doesn't mean it wasn't originally intended to be taken literally. I can't see anything in it that would be obviously incorrect or fantastic to a Bronze Age audience; can you?

 

[Deeje]

Now this just made me laugh out loud....

A few of the incorrect claims of Genesis:

- the Earth (day 1) is created before the Sun, Moon, and stars (day 4)

Misinterpretation. All the universe was created in one act...like the "big bang" suggests. (Genesis 1:1) That means that all the heavenly bodies were already in existence when God prepared the earth for habitation. The first thing that appeared was "light"...the only light source earth has is its sun, though not clearly visible till day 4, when all the heavenly bodies became visible from an earthly perspective.

- land plants (day 3) are created before the Sun, Moon, and stars (day 4)

Nonsense...for the same reason. There was light, moisture and an atmosphere, so plants and trees had enough light for photosynthesis to take place. The Sun, Moon and Stars were already there.

- trees (day 3) are created before land animals (day 6)

That's a new one. Why wouldn't plants and trees come first? What would land animals eat if there was no grass or trees?
Dunno who came up with that little pearl.

- birds (day 5) are created before land animals (day 6)

Who says they weren't? It doesn't say birds anyway......it says flying creatures which includes everything with wings. How many species are we talking about here? God is not specific about what "flying creatures" he created first among those.

- cattle (day 6) are created before people (later on day 6)

Since the very last creature to be formed was human, (even science recognizes that we were the last on the scene) of course there were cattle before people.

Wherever you got this ridiculous list, it might benefit you to actually research a bit more before posting such nonsense.

 

[Milton Platt]

There are many Christians that do not take Genesis literally. There is no need to do so to be a Christian. Genesis works much better when treated as allegory and morality tales than as history.

So, there was no original sin, and therefore no need for Jesus to be crucified, then? Cool.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, there was no original sin, and therefore no need for Jesus to be crucified, then? Cool.

Of course the idea of someone else taking on the world's "sins" is both immoral and nonsensical, but if one is a Christian one can simply face the fact that people are not perfect and they they will "sin".

 

[Milton Platt]

Of course the idea of someone else taking on the world's "sins" is both immoral and nonsensical, but if one is a Christian one can simply face the fact that people are not perfect and they they will "sin".

Right, but the idea is that Jesus had to be tortured and crucified to get around the original sin thing, which supposedly in Genesis. If that is not a literal story, then he was not a savior.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Those are two thorny issues that would need to somehow be resolved for Christianity and evolution to be a perfect fit for many Christians.

Yup.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right, but the idea is that Jesus had to be tortured and crucified to get around the original sin thing, which supposedly in Genesis. If that is not a literal story, then he was not a savior.

I know, it is nonsensical, but I like to support Christians that do not deny science. They are not the ones that you have to worry about.

 

[Milton Platt]

I think it’s important to remember the Genesis story is told in the context of how the Ancient Jews saw the world, as in as a firmament (kind of a weird bowl like thing, where the earth is surrounded by waters pressing in, but being held up by the mountains surrounding them). The creation story is told in a context to contrast Yahweh with the gods of the Babylonians.

While the Babylonian story was one that chaotic, an accidental universe, involving multiple deities and an implication of the earth being something bad. The creation story the Jews pass down is one that implies that all of creation was intentional, and something good.

It doesn’t make sense of a literal sense, but it’s structured in a way to read like a legend, just as the Jews were surrounded by legends of other cultures. What’s important to note about this, is a story being told in the form of a legend doesn’t make it untrue, it just means it isn’t necessarily literal

Being told in the form of a legend does not mean it is based on truth, either. How the ancient Jews saw the world was not the purpose of the story.
If this is just a story about Jewish mythology, then it loses it's intended purpose, which according to Christians and Jews, was to show how god created the cosmos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now this just made me laugh out loud....



Misinterpretation. All the universe was created in one act...like the "big bang" suggests. (Genesis 1:1) That means that all the heavenly bodies were already in existence when God prepared the earth for habitation. The first thing that appeared was "light"...the only light source earth has is its sun, though not clearly visible till day 4, when all the heavenly bodies became visible from an earthly perspective.

Deeje, with such a poor understanding of reality you should not be laughing at someone that supposedly does not understand your myths. First off not everything was created at once. The universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old. The Earth and Moon are only 4.55 billion years old.


[/quote]
Nonsense...for the same reason. There was light, moisture and an atmosphere, so plants and trees had enough light for photosynthesis to take place. The Sun, Moon and Stars were already there.



That's a new one. Why wouldn't plants and trees come first? What would land animals eat if there was no grass or trees?
Dunno who came up with that little pearl. [/quote]

Both of these can be answered as they are obvious examples that the Bible is wrong. Even you seem to realize that they are wrong if read literally.

Who says they weren't? It doesn't say birds anyway......it says flying creatures which includes everything with wings. How many species are we talking about here? God is not specific about what "flying creatures" he created first among those.

Weak excuse. Excuses are not explanations.

Since the very last creature to be formed was human, (even science recognizes that we were the last on the scene) of course there were cattle before people.

Wherever you got this ridiculous list, it might benefit you to actually research a bit more before posting such nonsense.

No, man is not the last. There are many species that arose after man. We concentrate on man because we are rather self centered. Yes man is a fairly recent species but we are far from being the last.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Misinterpretation. All the universe was created in one act...like the "big bang" suggests. (Genesis 1:1) That means that all the heavenly bodies were already in existence when God prepared the earth for habitation. The first thing that appeared was "light"...the only light source earth has is its sun, though not clearly visible till day 4, when all the heavenly bodies became visible from an earthly perspective.

We've gone through this before. Your interpretation doesn't match the text. It says that God created the stars, not that he just revealed what he had created earlier.

That's a new one. Why wouldn't plants and trees come first? What would land animals eat if there was no grass or trees?

They ate ferns, mostly.

Woody plants - the ancestors of modern trees - didn't arise until ~320 million years ago, more than 300 million years after the first animals (edit: and 200 million years before animals down some time on land, and 100 million years before exclusively land-based animals).

I didn't mention grasses, but since you bring it up: grasses were the last major group of plants to evolve: ~40 million years ago, after the dinosaurs were already extinct.

Who says they weren't? It doesn't say birds anyway......it says flying creatures which includes everything with wings. How many species are we talking about here? God is not specific about what "flying creatures" he created first among those.

The passage says "birds and flying creatures," so it does specify birds.

Birds evolved from land animals, so they came after land animals, not before.

Since the very last creature to be formed was human, (even science recognizes that we were the last on the scene) of course there were cattle before people.

Cattle are a human invention. They were created through breeding, starting with the wild (now-exinct) aurochs.

Edit: to be fair, this is one point where translation might matter. I'd be open to the possibility that whatever Hebrew term they translated as "cattle" might have a broader meaning in the original language.

And science doesn't "recognize that we were last on the scene." Evolution keeps happening and new species keep arising.

So there you go: a handful of ways that your day-age creationist approach just doesn't reflect the science. Your views of how life arose and what the evidence says just aren't compatible.

 

[exchemist]

Being told in the form of a legend does not mean it is based on truth, either. How the ancient Jews saw the world was not the purpose of the story.
If this is just a story about Jewish mythology, then it loses it's intended purpose, which according to Christians and Jews, was to show how god created the cosmos.

Yes that's right. The story, as allegory, still carries the following messages for Christians (or something like them: I make no claim to speak for all) :
- That God created everything
- That creation is good
- That God made Man special (in the image of God) and thus able to have a relationship with God
- God is thus a personal God, not just an impersonal creator figure
- That Man acquired a moral sense and thus moral responsibility
- That through moral weakness, Man has failed to exercise that responsibility
- That Man needed help from God in consequence of this failure.

All these messages survive perfectly well in an allegorical reading of Genesis, which is how it has been read by many Christian scholars ever since since the dawn of Christianity. I don't know what messages Jews draw from Genesis but I suspect they won't see it too differently.

None of these messages conflicts with science, so far as I can see, evolution included.

 

[Tomas Kindahl]

Granted, I understand why YEC cannot fit within the context of Evolution (part of why I don’t adhere to a literal faith, I think scripture and religion often speaks in Metaphors as a way to display God in a more simplified fashion).

But what is it that leads people to the assumption that faith and science cannot exist in harmony with each other?

I view science as a means to have a better understanding of who God is. Yet I can’t view it as a method of proving or disproving God, simply a way of better understanding our natural world. How do others view this?

Agreed with that, but there's a claim in the title: "Why is it Assumed Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive?" that needs a special answer: outside Evangelicalism "creation" in the context of "evolution" means a fundie attack mode trying to impose pseudoscientific reasoning upon education and science by totalitarianism and political manipulation. "Creation" as a movement is opposed to evolution, so "creation" in the context of "evolution" means a certain kind of attack against the fundament of the Western society.

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes that's right. The story, as allegory, still carries the following messages for Christians (or something like them: I make no claim to speak for all) :
- That God created everything
- That creation is good
- That God made Man special (in the image of God) and thus able to have a relationship with God
- God is thus a personal God, not just an impersonal creator figure
- That Man acquired a moral sense and thus moral responsibility
- That through moral weakness, Man has failed to exercise that responsibility
- That Man needed help from God in consequence of this failure.

All these messages survive perfectly well in an allegorical reading of Genesis, which is how it has been read by many Christian scholars ever since since the dawn of Christianity. I don't know what messages Jews draw from Genesis but I suspect they won't see it too differently.

None of these messages conflicts with science, so far as I can see, evolution included.

And all this is supposed to be believed through the telling of a story that is inaccurate in it's details? Sorry, that does not work for me.

 

[exchemist]

And all this is supposed to be believed through the telling of a story that is inaccurate in it's details? Sorry, that does not work for me.

Each to his own. I have often found a narrative that makes use of fable and literary devices such as allegory and simile is more likely to reach the heart than a textbook.

 

[Milton Platt]

Each to his own. I have often found a narrative that makes use of fable and literary devices such as allegory and simile is more likely to reach the heart than a textbook.

That is very true. But this particular narrative is calling in the powers of a supernatural god. Is the god also in your view part of the mythology?

 

[exchemist]

That is very true. But this particular narrative is calling in the powers of a supernatural god. Is the god also in your view part of the mythology?

My explanation, in post 53, is not about my own views, it is about the way the Genesis story in the bible is treated and used by much of mainstream Christianity (at least by those elements of Anglican, Catholic and Methodist tradition I have been exposed to).

People's views about whether there is a God or not are built up from a lot more than reading the bible, obviously. There is a whole world of philosophical enquiry, personal experience and tradition that goes into that. But Genesis sets the scene for the relationship between God and Man that is developed later. That's really the point of it.

Anyone who thinks Genesis is meant to be some sort of alternative science textbook has got the wrong end of the stick - or has been listening to some wacky sect.

 

[Deeje]

We've gone through this before. Your interpretation doesn't match the text. It says that God created the stars, not that he just revealed what he had created earlier.

It also says that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"....that is the entire universe. So I'm sorry, but making things visible by clearing cloud layers is a different scenario altogether. God did not create them at that time because they were already there.

They ate ferns, mostly.

Woody plants - the ancestors of modern trees - didn't arise until ~320 million years ago, more than 300 million years after the first animals (edit: and 200 million years before animals down some time on land, and 100 million years before exclusively land-based animals).

I didn't mention grasses, but since you bring it up: grasses were the last major group of plants to evolve: ~40 million years ago, after the dinosaurs were already extinct.

Can I have some proof for those assumptions please? Who was there to document what science claims? How would science know with any certainty what took place millions of years ago? You have the same faith in science as I have in God.

The passage says "birds and flying creatures," so it does specify birds.

Birds evolved from land animals, so they came after land animals, not before.

Who said birds evolved from land animals? The same people that claim that pakicetus was a walking whale I assume?
Give us the proof.

Cattle are a human invention. They were created through breeding, starting with the wild (now-exinct) aurochs.

Edit: to be fair, this is one point where translation might matter. I'd be open to the possibility that whatever Hebrew term they translated as "cattle" might have a broader meaning in the original language.

And science doesn't "recognize that we were last on the scene." Evolution keeps happening and new species keep arising.

The writer of Genesis made a clear distinction between "domestic" animals and "wild" ones. Please show us these animals that are still evolving....? But please don't refer to adaptation because that produces only variety within a single species....it never demonstrates a new taxonomic family.. Taxonomies are fixed.

So there you go: a handful of ways that your day-age creationist approach just doesn't reflect the science. Your views of how life arose and what the evidence says just aren't compatible.

You have a handful of nothing but unsubstantiated claims. No scientist can "prove" that evolution ever happened and it galls them!
They can suggest it...infer it....assume it....but they can't prove it any more than we can prove the existence of a Creator. There are two belief systems and we make our choice for our own reasons.

I have a logical approach to creation that does not make it necessary to shed either true and provable science, or the Bible. They are compatible.

 

[Deeje]

this particular narrative is calling in the powers of a supernatural god.

Can science prove that a supernatural God CAN'T exist? If not then, isn't it playing with fire to be so absolute about that?

After giving humans so many opportunities to get to know him, when God does reveal himself (which the Bible says he will) what would your thoughts be then? Would you welcome him and his judgment of atheists at that time? I have heard many atheists say that would not want to live in a world ruled by God....so they will get their wish. Its a win-win situation all round really, don't you think?