Evolution vs Creationism?

[blackjack50]

I am just curious what people's views are on "creationism." I can look up the definition...I would like to see some views on what YOU think it is.

I personally do not feel that they are mutualy exclusive. I can reconcile evolution within my view of creation in terms of my religion. I just want other people to tell me what they believe.

It irritates me when someone assumes that because I believe in creationism...that I don't belive in Evolution. I do. I believe in both. But anyway. Let me know.

 

[roflpublican]

i dont think evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. god could have created the universe, and then let it fly from there, evolving up to our current point. also, i had to take microbiology in college, and we force-evolved bacteria to make them immune to many different chemicals/antibiotics.

 

[Van Basten]

I personally do not feel that they are mutualy exclusive. I can reconcile evolution within my view of creation in terms of my religion. I just want other people to tell me what they believe.

They're not. You can be a creationist and believe in Evolution in that God created the universe and set in motion all the natural processes we have come to discover. Creationism, if you don't take every part of the creation story literally, can harmonize with evolution and science. There's a middle ground.

 

[lizzie]

I don't see them as mutually exclusive at all, but I don't view creationism as some type of event which happened in a manner which humans identify with as conscious. I'm strictly an evolutionist, but I realize that there had to be some catalyst which I don't currently grasp, so I tend to view it as a concept in which some type of *creative* event occured, then evolution started.

 

[maquiscat]

Agreed. Nothing in the bible contridicts evolution. All it says is that God created it all. No reason He couldn't have created all the processes and then guided the process until it resulted in a Free Will being. Same goes for the Intelligent Design "theory". If roflpublican can intelligently guide bacteria to evolve why can't there be some intelligence that evolved some where/when else that designed and created our universe? It's just a shift in scale. A really humongous shift!

 

[spud_meister]

If you were writing a holy book for a bronze age tribal group, having a seven day narrative would be more popular than nuclear fusion and gravitational singularities.

 

[Dezaad]

If you were writing a holy book for a bronze age tribal group, having a seven day narrative would be more popular than nuclear fusion and gravitational singularities.

Why make up a creation story at all, then? If you can't convey the truth, why deceive? The creation story has no truth in it whatsoever. Why not just say "God created all that we can see. Even all people are created by him. Now there came a man, named Adam and he had a wife Eve, and they were the first people."

What if we eventually find out that the Universe has always existed. There would then be nothing for God to have created. What would people come up with then to cram the Genesis account into the evidence based account? I am sure they'll think of something... there is nothing more abundant in the Universe than the human ability to story-tell, it seems.

 

[roflpublican]

Why make up a creation story at all, then? If you can't convey the truth, why deceive? The creation story has no truth in it whatsoever. Why not just say "God created all that we can see. Even all people are created by him. Now there came a man, named Adam and he had a wife Eve, and they were the first people."

What if we eventually find out that the Universe has always existed. There would then be nothing for God to have created. What would people come up with then to cram the Genesis account into the evidence based account? I am sure they'll think of something... there is nothing more abundant in the Universe than the human ability to story-tell, it seems.

~some of it sounds eerily familiar if you think about it from a purely holistic scientific perspective:

'the earth was a formless void' the earth did indeed form out of the formless void-like space that was our early solar system.

"Let there be light' we know that the sun is the reason the earth formed in the first place (the suns gravitational influence pulled matter towards it, causing that matter to clump and eventually form planets.

'separated the light from the darkness.' we now know matter and energy are divided into normal (light?) and 'dark' (?).

'Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures' we now know life began in the oceans billions of years ago, why is this first, before air/land creatures?

 

[Rainman05]

I personally agree with evolution but don't dismiss God from the equation. I'm quite sure that in order for us to exist, we needed a very special place to exist, and this is it.

 

[wolfman24]

If you were writing a holy book for a bronze age tribal group, having a seven day narrative would be more popular than nuclear fusion and gravitational singularities.

I have said something very similar to this repeatedly.

The problem with creationism v evolution is how it is presented. if creationism is presented as a philosophy then fine, no problem but if you pass it off as science - No Way at all.

I agree with alot of what has been said about God creating the universe and then standing back and letting it go using the processes described in modern astronomy and natural science. This is all well and good, but there are too many people who can't or won't see it that way and thats where the problem is

 

[Manc Skipper]

No contest. It's like Parents vs Santa on the present source question.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

The problem with creationism v evolution is how it is presented. if creationism is presented as a philosophy then fine, no problem but if you pass it off as science - No Way at all.

Yes, if you kept it strictly philosophic, I suppose you could get away with it. However, Creationism dwells in the realm of reality and makes claims about reality. Science deals with our understandings of the world around us. Creationism fails.

I agree with alot of what has been said about God creating the universe and then standing back and letting it go using the processes described in modern astronomy and natural science. This is all well and good, but there are too many people who can't or won't see it that way and thats where the problem is

Because there's no evidence to assert this claim now, is there?

 

[blackjack50]

Yes, if you kept it strictly philosophic, I suppose you could get away with it. However, Creationism dwells in the realm of reality and makes claims about reality. Science deals with our understandings of the world around us. Creationism fails.



Because there's no evidence to assert this claim now, is there?

MAN! We were all hunky dory too.




So what you are saying it is not at all possible that they can coexist? That creationism cannot possibily coexist with evolution? You are saying that Science is the only master to which we must bow down too? We can't have this "evil" creationist talk...even when it is mild mannered "they aren't mutually exclusive?"

My understanding of YOUR understanding of Science is that it must be proveable. More over we must HAVE proof. So we need to toss out pretty much any knowledge that we don't have exact proof of correct?

 

[lizzie]

Why make up a creation story at all, then? If you can't convey the truth, why deceive? The creation story has no truth in it whatsoever. Why not just say "God created all that we can see. Even all people are created by him. Now there came a man, named Adam and he had a wife Eve, and they were the first people."

Who says God deceived? It's much more likely that men perceived.

 

[Paralogic]

I believe in both. But anyway. Let me know.

Creationism is religion. You can believe in it if you like.

Evolution is fact. What you do about it is irrelevant to the universe. If you reject it it's a sign of your lack of education.

 

[Misbelief]

MAN! We were all hunky dory too.

View attachment 67137570


So what you are saying it is not at all possible that they can coexist? That creationism cannot possibily coexist with evolution? You are saying that Science is the only master to which we must bow down too? We can't have this "evil" creationist talk...even when it is mild mannered "they aren't mutually exclusive?"

My understanding of YOUR understanding of Science is that it must be proveable. More over we must HAVE proof. So we need to toss out pretty much any knowledge that we don't have exact proof of correct?

There's no evidence for creationism therefore no reason to posit it is true.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

MAN! We were all hunky dory too.

So what you are saying it is not at all possible that they can coexist? That creationism cannot possibily coexist with evolution? You are saying that Science is the only master to which we must bow down too? We can't have this "evil" creationist talk...even when it is mild mannered "they aren't mutually exclusive?"

Nope. Just sayin' there's no evidence the universe is 6000 years old. That claim has been disproven.

My understanding of YOUR understanding of Science is that it must be proveable. More over we must HAVE proof. So we need to toss out pretty much any knowledge that we don't have exact proof of correct?

Proofs are for mathematics. Evidence is what we look for in science. I'd comment on YOUR understanding on science but you'd need one for me to comment on it.

 

[Paralogic]

It irritates me when someone assumes that because I believe in creationism...that I don't belive in Evolution. I do. I believe in both.

You can't "believe" in both.

You can believe in Creationism, because it's religion, meaning, unsubstantiated claims.

Evolution is natural fact. People don't have to "believe" in it, there's no need. They can either acknowledge the fact or dismiss it for their own personal reasons.

 

[hfd]

Creationism is religion. You can believe in it if you like.

Evolution is fact. What you do about it is irrelevant to the universe. If you reject it it's a sign of your lack of education.

What do you mean when you use the word 'evolution'? Darwinism? Cladism? Punctualism? What do you present as evidence to support your claim?

 

[Misbelief]

What do you mean when you use the word 'evolution'? Darwinism? Cladism? Punctualism? What do you present as evidence to support your claim?

The theory of evolution by natural selection. That's really the only one there is within science. Punctuated equilibrium is a part of it, not a different theory all together.

The nested hierarchy displayed by the fossil record and genetics, The prediction of the finding of a fusion in chromosome 2, The clear patterns in ERV that demonstrate the nested hierarchy, observed speciation. On and on, mountains and mountains. Well established fact.

 

[hfd]

Natural selection creates nothing new. It is conservative . It aids in eliminating the less fit. Punctuated equilibria is the new and improved version of Goldschmidt's 'hopeful monster...evolution fits of spurts, not the classic Dawinian gradualistic view. It is a totally different idea, not Darwinian at all. The fossil record demonstrates stasis, variations between the possible extremes, but, not the transitions required by macro evolutionary proposals. This was well known to Darwin. That is why Gould and Eldredge resurrected the 'hopeful monster' in a new package. Variations do not lead to new species. The formation of new species in nature has not been observed.

 

[Crossroads]

Natural selection creates nothing new. It is conservative . It aids in eliminating the less fit. Punctuated equilibria is the new and improved version of Goldschmidt's 'hopeful monster...evolution fits of spurts, not the classic Dawinian gradualistic view. It is a totally different idea, not Darwinian at all. The fossil record demonstrates stasis, variations between the possible extremes, but, not the transitions required by macro evolutionary proposals. This was well known to Darwin. That is why Gould and Eldredge resurrected the 'hopeful monster' in a new package. Variations do not lead to new species. The formation of new species in nature has not been observed.

Natural Selection creates nothing new? hardly.
---Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.

"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure."---
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

If this can happen, in a short 30 years or so...now add on millions of years, and millions of years worth of natural selection, and mutation. it certainly seems a sound enough theory to me.

 

[hfd]

Natural Selection creates nothing new? hardly.
---Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.

"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure."---
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

If this can happen, in a short 30 years or so...now add on millions of years, and millions of years worth of natural selection, and mutation. it certainly seems a sound enough theory to me.

Are they still lizards? Yes, and they will remain such. Variations is certainly a part of natural selection, variation within the species. No different than Dawin's finches.

"But many biologists, looking at evolution over longer time intervals, have noted that species are rarely modified consistently in one direction long enough for significant evolutionary change to accumulate. Even the Galapagos finches seem to oscillate, not really "going any where" in an evolutionary sense. The reason is that short-term environmental change tends to be cyclical, so natural selection is not likely to keep pushing a species in any one particular direction long enough for new species or major new adaptations to evolve. Furthermore, every species is broken up into local populations, each of which belongs to a different local ecosystem-making it even less likely that natural selection will modify the entire species in any particular way as time rolls on."

Eldredge, Niles Evolution and Environment: The two faces of biodiversity," Natural History, June 1998, pp.54-55

 

[digsbe]

I believe in both. I believe that God created life and designed it but I also believe that life has evolved and changed over millions of years. The process of evolution is part of God's creation.

 

[Misbelief]

Natural selection creates nothing new. It is conservative . It aids in eliminating the less fit. Punctuated equilibria is the new and improved version of Goldschmidt's 'hopeful monster...evolution fits of spurts, not the classic Dawinian gradualistic view. It is a totally different idea, not Darwinian at all. The fossil record demonstrates stasis, variations between the possible extremes, but, not the transitions required by macro evolutionary proposals. This was well known to Darwin. That is why Gould and Eldredge resurrected the 'hopeful monster' in a new package. Variations do not lead to new species. The formation of new species in nature has not been observed.

There are many things darwin didn't know or propose that are a part of the theory of evolution. This is what you need to understand, the theory of evolution by natural selection isn't darwinism. Saying it's not darwinian doesn't negate the statement that it's a part of the theory of evolution at all, it's not even relevant. The fossil record demonstrates a nested hierarchy clearly, with transitional species and all. Darwin predicted that the fossil record in the future would confirm common ancestry and he was right. The idea that how rapidly speciation occurs depends on the selective pressures is in no way a contradiction to the theory of evolution but a part of it.