Why must creationism and evolution be seperete?

[rusra02]

I am sure actually about 99.9% sure this topic has already been brought up but here it is again. Why must God and evolution be separate? To my Atheist friends I know this argument will fall on deaf ears becuase with God being a part of it it is already dubbed false, so this argument is posed to my creationist friends. So why couldn't evolution be a creation of God used as tool a God machine to create life, and as a way to continue the life without God having to directly effect every creature's exact actions? A Christian friend of mine brought up a really really good point. In most religions people believe God gives all creatures free will. Yet if God directly created and force creatures to make only the reactions their body was created for, then free will would not exist. The idea of God giving all life free will ties perfectly into evolution. Besides we all believe in at least some type of science, i doubt anyone here believes God resides in us and works our every bodily function. We have organs and we know how they work so we are all for the most part completely willing to except that God does not directly effect every aspect of our life. I see evolution as one of the greatest creations of God it allows the work of creation and life preservation to exist and work very well without God needing to directly control every tiny aspect of life. Again as I said before free will is probably the greatest evidence of evolution to the creationist.

God doesn't give all creatures free will. Of earth's creatures, only man is made in God's image. Either God created life or life developed somehow 'naturally'. If evolution is true, then the Bible is not true when it says God created the first man. On the other hand if the Bible is true it explains what evolution cannot: How life began, why we suffer, and what hope we have for the future. Despite the endless drumbeat of propaganda for the ToE, the complexity, variety, and intelligence in nature could not possibly have arisen by undirected chance. And to the embarrassment and chagrin of ToE supporters, many people,including scientists, who examine the evidence become convinced that the ToE is nothing but a pseudo-scientific fraud.

 

[Photonic]

In regards to evolution, it is a concept.

Apart from theories and mind-made stuff, I would agree that it is long lasting. Though might depend on what is deemed nature / natural. In my understanding Divinity is natural. While existence of a material world is not (fundamentally) natural. But this argument only serves to prop up a mental construct on either side. So best to let bygones be bygones, as no one wins this debate except the one who remains silent.

Evolution may have been a concept long ago, those of the...let's say Theistic viewpoint, often confuse what "Theory" means in a scientific context.

Often they confuse Hypothesis with Theory. You appear to be doing exactly that right now.

The Theory of Evolution is far past what would be consider an established fact. It is its own field of science in the biology field. It has helped make medicine, predict genetic mutation of pathogens, harmful mutations in the Human genetic makeup, etc.

How can you say there is no clear winner. Is the medicine made from this theory false? Is it fake medicine? What do you really need to have something proven to you, does it have to fit into your belief system to be true?

No, I do not think it would be fair to dismiss such an overwhelming amount of proof. It's a Theory because it is still being developed, new things are still being discovered. This is the human study of a natural progression, not a study of how humans perceive the natural progression, it comes not from the mind but from observation of reality.

 

[Skwim]

God doesn't give all creatures free will. Of earth's creatures, only man is made in God's image. Either God created life or life developed somehow 'naturally'. If evolution is true, then the Bible is not true when it says God created the first man. On the other hand if the Bible is true it explains what evolution cannot: How life began, why we suffer, and what hope we have for the future. Despite the endless drumbeat of propaganda for the ToE, the complexity, variety, and intelligence in nature could not possibly have arisen by undirected chance. And to the embarrassment and chagrin of ToE supporters, many people,including scientists, who examine the evidence become convinced that the ToE is nothing but a pseudo-scientific fraud.

Then there must be a number of biological scientists (the only scientists qualified to examine the evidence, and therefore really count) who have become embarrassed and chagrined by evolution and now consider it to be a "pseudo-scientific fraud." So, how about sharing their names?

 

[Photonic]

There must be a number of biological scientists (the only scientists qualified to examine the evidence, and therefore really count) who have become embarrassed and chagrined by evolution and now consider it to be a "pseudo-scientific fraud." So, how about sharing their names?

Actually, that was brought up before, the number was in the 700's.

Out of 400,000 something scientists. Chalk me up as another who has researched the Theory of Evolution and it's empirical data and is convinced the theory is justifiably true, though we must now fill in the gaps as best as we can. Not because some Theist will claim God is in the Gaps, but because that is how science works.

So...400,001.

 

[Revoltingest]

God doesn't give all creatures free will. Of earth's creatures, only man is made in God's image. Either God created life or life developed somehow 'naturally'. If evolution is true, then the Bible is not true when it says God created the first man. On the other hand if the Bible is true it explains what evolution cannot: How life began, why we suffer, and what hope we have for the future. Despite the endless drumbeat of propaganda for the ToE, the complexity, variety, and intelligence in nature could not possibly have arisen by undirected chance. And to the embarrassment and chagrin of ToE supporters, many people,including scientists, who examine the evidence become convinced that the ToE is nothing but a pseudo-scientific fraud.

You reminded me of a question. God, living by himself, ie, no other gods to keep him company or procreate with, would be above all this biology based survival which occupies us. If we're created in God's image, then he'd have our physical traits. Why would he have:
- Genitalia....or even gender?
- 2 legs, 2 feet, 10 toes...when he wouldn't need to walk?
- 2 arms, 2 hands, 10 fingers...when he has no physical tasks to do?
- A nose....when he has nothing to smell & nothing to pick?
- A mouth, throat, stomach, digestive tract & it's terminus....when he doesn't need to eat?
- A pair of lungs....you get where this is going.

 

[Photonic]

You reminded me of a question. God, living by himself, ie, no other gods to keep him company or procreate with, would be above all this biology based survival which occupies us. If we're created in God's image, then he'd have our physical traits. Why would he have:
- Genitalia....or even gender?
- 2 legs, 2 feet, 10 toes...when he wouldn't need to walk?
- 2 arms, 2 hands, 10 fingers...when he has no physical tasks to do?
- A nose....when he has nothing to smell & nothing to pick?
- A mouth, throat, stomach, digestive tract & it's terminus....when he doesn't need to eat?
- A pair of lungs....you get where this is going.

"God" is obviously a divine blob.

 

[Skwim]

Actually, that was brought up before, the number was in the 700's.

Out of 400,000 something scientists. Chalk me up as another who has researched the Theory of Evolution and it's empirical data and is convinced the theory is justifiably true, though we must now fill in the gaps as best as we can. Not because some Theist will claim God is in the Gaps, but because that is how science works.

So...400,001.

700+ biological scientists who have become embarrassed and chagrined by evolution and now consider it to be a "pseudo-scientific fraud"? I find that hard to believe. How about naming some of them, or at least provide your source of information.

 

[Photonic]

700+ biological scientists who have become embarrassed and chagrined by evolution and now consider it to be a "pseudo-scientific fraud"? I find that hard to believe. How about naming some of them, or at least provide your source of information.

I apologize for my outdated sources, the numbers are probably much lower now.

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%

Turns out I cannot include myself in that statistic as I am not an "Earth and Life" scientist. I'm a Physicist.

I shall endeavor to try and find such a list however. I am curious to know what kind of scientist would refute logic and empirical data.

 

[camanintx]

God doesn't give all creatures free will. Of earth's creatures, only man is made in God's image. Either God created life or life developed somehow 'naturally'. If evolution is true, then the Bible is not true when it says God created the first man. On the other hand if the Bible is true it explains what evolution cannot: How life began, why we suffer, and what hope we have for the future.

In other words, evolution conflicts with your concept of God. Wouldn't the simple fact that there are millions of people who find it possible to believe in God and evolution suggest that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Despite the endless drumbeat of propaganda for the ToE, the complexity, variety, and intelligence in nature could not possibly have arisen by undirected chance. And to the embarrassment and chagrin of ToE supporters, many people,including scientists, who examine the evidence become convinced that the ToE is nothing but a pseudo-scientific fraud.

If this is true, then why are those who actually study evolution more likely to be convinced that it is true?

Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

 

[Skwim]

I apologize for my outdated sources, the numbers are probably much lower now.

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%

Turns out I cannot include myself in that statistic as I am not an "Earth and Life" scientist. I'm a Physicist.

I shall endeavor to try and find such a list however. I am curious to know what kind of scientist would refute logic and empirical data.

Thanks.

In as much as earth scientists aren't anymore schooled in biology than climate scientists or computer scientists I would dispute their inclusion in the count, and suspect they made up the bulk of the 700+.

 

[Photonic]

Ok, so I decided to go on a fact finding spree.

Turns out the numbers of Earth and Life scientists that believe in evolution have remained relatively unchanged. In 1999, a gallop poll indicated the numbers were still around 700 out of 450,000 Earth and Life scientists, or approx. 0.14%.

Sorry but scientists usually do science, not unsupportable religious propaganda.

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Creation versus Emergence is an entirely separate issue from evolution.

Evolution has a body of evidence which is wholly separate from whether or not earth itself was created. Since none of us have a spare earth lying around with the necessary controls already in place to know whether or not it was created or emergent we cannot actually know one way or the other whether our earth was created or not. If earth was created, the only evidence we have is what we have already. How would we know what a non-created earth looked like if we have always been observing a created one? The same holds in reverse.


As to whether or not evolution and the Bible can be co-existent... Well, I'm not sure how to do that without taking away much of the impact of the Bible. Its fine to suggest that you only take the Bible figuratively, but when you do so the whole force behind divine revelation vanishes up in smoke.

MTF

 

[Acim]

Evolution may have been a concept long ago, those of the...let's say Theistic viewpoint, often confuse what "Theory" means in a scientific context.

I understand what it allegedly means.

Often they confuse Hypothesis with Theory. You appear to be doing exactly that right now.

I am not.

The Theory of Evolution is far past what would be consider an established fact. It is its own field of science in the biology field. It has helped make medicine, predict genetic mutation of pathogens, harmful mutations in the Human genetic makeup, etc.

It is still conceptual and what you are saying doesn't change the mental construct at work. The philosophy that underlies science (of the materialistic variety) not only raises scientific fact to question, but is something I challenge as both objective and real. I understand that contextually speaking, evolution is scientific fact.

Is the medicine made from this theory false? Is it fake medicine? What do you really need to have something proven to you, does it have to fit into your belief system to be true?

In my opinion, understanding and experience the medicine derived from physical evolution is fake. It is not natural. It is based on treatment, and not (so much) on healing. I cannot say it is not without any merit, as I have fairly good understanding what it is for. It has usefulness for those who have essentially turned away from natural healing and are with another program, which given the players involved can't help but get it 'right' at least once in awhile.

No, I do not think it would be fair to dismiss such an overwhelming amount of proof. It's a Theory because it is still being developed, new things are still being discovered. This is the human study of a natural progression, not a study of how humans perceive the natural progression, it comes not from the mind but from observation of reality.

Both what you are referencing as observation and reality come from the mind. Perhaps when you are able to provide objective proof (beyond bias of human mind / feelings) for the physical world, I will consider your claim for reality as holding some legitimacy. Until then, the mental construct that there is a progression at work is not something we disagree on. That you attribute the physical changes to what is natural is something I do not go along with, as it is fake, shallow, and lacking self awareness.

 

[Photonic]

I understand what it allegedly means.



I am not.



It is still conceptual and what you are saying doesn't change the mental construct at work. The philosophy that underlies science (of the materialistic variety) not only raises scientific fact to question, but is something I challenge as both objective and real. I understand that contextually speaking, evolution is scientific fact.



In my opinion, understanding and experience the medicine derived from physical evolution is fake. It is not natural. It is based on treatment, and not (so much) on healing. I cannot say it is not without any merit, as I have fairly good understanding what it is for. It has usefulness for those who have essentially turned away from natural healing and are with another program, which given the players involved can't help but get it 'right' at least once in awhile.



Both what you are referencing as observation and reality come from the mind. Perhaps when you are able to provide objective proof (beyond bias of human mind / feelings) for the physical world, I will consider your claim for reality as holding some legitimacy. Until then, the mental construct that there is a progression at work is not something we disagree on. That you attribute the physical changes to what is natural is something I do not go along with, as it is fake, shallow, and lacking self awareness.

So in short, you reject the claims of evolution because your faith doesn't agree with it.

Nice debating with you, I guess. Your mind is so clearly set in this that nothing anyone could say here would convince you otherwise. I'm not going to waste my time.

 

[Acim]

So in short, you reject the claims of evolution because your faith doesn't agree with it.

No, because Reason as I understand it, finds it consistently lacking fundamental adherence to honesty and rationale.

Nice debating with you, I guess. Your mind is so clearly set in this that nothing anyone could say here would convince you otherwise. I'm not going to waste my time.

It's alright. I'm used to such hyperbole followed with a lame concession. I'm sure will tangle some more / again.

 

[rusra02]

Then there must be a number of biological scientists (the only scientists qualified to examine the evidence, and therefore really count) who have become embarrassed and chagrined by evolution and now consider it to be a "pseudo-scientific fraud." So, how about sharing their names?

As to scientists who reject evolution, lists of these are publicly available.
Anyone with a thinking mind "really counts". Each should examine the evidence for himself, rather than rely on the priesthood of evolution theory to tell him what the evidence proves. Your statement that only certain scientists are "qualified to examine the evidence" speaks volumes.

 

[rusra02]

Actually, that was brought up before, the number was in the 700's.

Out of 400,000 something scientists. Chalk me up as another who has researched the Theory of Evolution and it's empirical data and is convinced the theory is justifiably true, though we must now fill in the gaps as best as we can. Not because some Theist will claim God is in the Gaps, but because that is how science works.

So...400,001.

I suspect your numbers are open to question. That aside, if numbers of adherents proved what is true, then the earth is flat and if you travel far enough you will fall off the edge. The stars control our destinies and the earth is the center of the universe. The blind following of Hitler by millions of people shows that the majority are often tragically wrong. Add to that the decades-long PR campaign for the ToE, the bullying of any who dare question it, and the pervasive propaganda foisted from elementary school through university, the endless drumbeat of ToE thinking in the media with dissent stifled, and it is not surprising so many have succumbed to this thinking. Nevertheless, the universe continues to proclaim the glory of God. (Romans 1:18-20, Psalm 19:1-6) The evidence for design, purpose, engineering skill, intelligence, craftsmanship, and unfathomable complexity is all around us. Millions have examined the evidence and disagree with you, among them many scientists.

 

[rusra02]

You reminded me of a question. God, living by himself, ie, no other gods to keep him company or procreate with, would be above all this biology based survival which occupies us. If we're created in God's image, then he'd have our physical traits. Why would he have:
- Genitalia....or even gender?
- 2 legs, 2 feet, 10 toes...when he wouldn't need to walk?
- 2 arms, 2 hands, 10 fingers...when he has no physical tasks to do?
- A nose....when he has nothing to smell & nothing to pick?
- A mouth, throat, stomach, digestive tract & it's terminus....when he doesn't need to eat?
- A pair of lungs....you get where this is going.

I will assume for a moment you are being serious. Our being made in God's image has nothing to do with physical traits. (Genesis 1:26) Rather, we are endowed with the ability to reflect God's moral qualities such as love, justice, wisdom, mercy. Unlike animals controlled by instincts, God has given us the ability to make moral choices and exercise free will. He also purposed that we live forever, unlike animals. (John 17:3)
God created us to live on earth forever, and equipped us physically with a body perfectly designed for such an existence. (Revelation 21:3,4)

 

[McBell]

As to scientists who reject evolution, lists of these are publicly available.

And yet, you have thus far been completely unable to present even one of these lists...

Anyone with a thinking mind "really counts". Each should examine the evidence for himself, rather than rely on the priesthood of evolution theory to tell him what the evidence proves. Your statement that only certain scientists are "qualified to examine the evidence" speaks volumes.

**yawn**
Still waiting for one of those lists...

 

[Photonic]

I suspect your numbers are open to question. That aside, if numbers of adherents proved what is true, then the earth is flat and if you travel far enough you will fall off the edge. The stars control our destinies and the earth is the center of the universe. The blind following of Hitler by millions of people shows that the majority are often tragically wrong. Add to that the decades-long PR campaign for the ToE, the bullying of any who dare question it, and the pervasive propaganda foisted from elementary school through university, the endless drumbeat of ToE thinking in the media with dissent stifled, and it is not surprising so many have succumbed to this thinking. Nevertheless, the universe continues to proclaim the glory of God. (Romans 1:18-20, Psalm 19:1-6) The evidence for design, purpose, engineering skill, intelligence, craftsmanship, and unfathomable complexity is all around us. Millions have examined the evidence and disagree with you, among them many scientists.

That's because those scientists practice actual science, and leave religion completely out of what they do. They know that it is not science.

You are certainly correct in that adherence to numbers is adherence to truth is not always correct. But that is when Faith is concerned. If you do the research, you understand the field that you are talking about, and you come to the conclusion that it is indeed correct, than numbers can certainly be used.

Last I checked, more people were against Hitler than with him.