It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution and Creationism go hand in hand ?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I have been going back and forth on evolution vs. creationism theories for some time and have found great parallels in both that show that creation and evolution go hand and hand. Is the long time theory of Darwin’s Evolution in it’s last and final days ?


Please check out the sites below for further info and let me know what you think ?

www.icr.org...


I also found this site with some interesting material as well supporting the same theory.

The Big Issue- mall.turnpike.net...

Scientific Methods- mall.turnpike.net...

Two models of Origins- mall.turnpike.net...

What do Christian scientists believe- mall.turnpike.net...

How can all these scientists be wrong- mall.turnpike.net...

What is the theory of evolution- mall.turnpike.net...

History- mall.turnpike.net...

Top Evidence against the Theory of Evolution- mall.turnpike.net...

Do you believe - mall.turnpike.net...

The bible is a textbook of science- www.icr.org...

Please give me some feedback with backup, NOT just your opinion or feelings about this matter.

There are many more sites out there just like this, but I think I have already taken up enough space.

Thanks in advance for the feedback !


Very interesting Dr. Von Frankenstein ! What next ??




posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Well, where do you want to start? There is so much stuff there we could argue all day without getting anywhere.

One thing you should remember though, just finding problems with the Theory of Evolution does not in any way support the Christian (or any other religion's) creation story.

I'm not sure you can be a "christian scientist". You can be christian and a scientist. There is nothing scientific about believing God created the all life on the world as it is now, as there is no evidence to support this and plenty of mitigating evidence.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   
I think evolution becomes a problem when you start looking at it as the means the creation of life. Evolution is an excellent explanation of why certain species are the way they actually are, but so many people took the original theory and immediately applied it to the beginnings of life. When the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was put forth, neither Darwin or Wallace stated that they believed this was the method from which life was created.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
It is possible that the two go hand-in-hand. One would have to assume that we use creationism to explain where we came from and evolution to explain how we came to be as we are today. I tend to think that evolution is limited to the genetic code and the diversity of that code it has to work with. By this I mean we may evolve not as a result of mutation but as a result of ressessive genes becoming dominant traits. Genes that already exsist in a given species. With more diverse genetics in a sexual reproductive species it is more likely to have two recessive traits bonding to become dominant. A small example would be two black-haired people having a red-headed kid (I've witnessed this for myself, actually!). The genetic mutations I am familiar with are problematic (like trisomy-21 or even cancer). I'm not so certain about us spontainiously mutating in a positive way without some kind of outside influence or genetic tampering. Anyway, that's my take on it. Please point out any fallacious reasoning or misinformation here as my whole reason for being on ATS is to expand my knowledge!



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I'm speaking as a somewhat reformed partisan on this issue...

I was raised to believe that life evolved from gas and lightning, star dust and all that.

But that research may have been flawed and irreproducible, or at least incomplete in its explanation of how we went from dust to complex cellular systems.

The adaptation is the easy part, and for me, the only fun part. I love trying to understand the process of evolution, specifically physical and behavioral adaptation, but frankly, I've never had much interest in how it came to be. I've had some, my share I suppose..but why wonder where a wonder sprang from, when it can be enjoyed without knowing?

I just mean that there may be a supernatural explanation for the creation of life, there may be a scientific explanation. In either case, it doesn't really matter to me...

I'm a man of faith..not religious exactly..

I think the two systems can coexist, and even be symbiotic, but only to the degree that we can perceive, to the degree that we can make them so...

When does a coincidence become something more?

I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I think the answer is simple; a coincidence becomes something more..whenever you want it to be.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I'm speaking as a somewhat reformed partisan on this issue...

I was raised to believe that life evolved from gas and lightning, star dust and all that.

But that research may have been flawed and irreproducible, or at least incomplete in its explanation of how we went from dust to complex cellular systems.

The adaptation is the easy part, and for me, the only fun part. I love trying to understand the process of evolution, specifically physical and behavioral adaptation, but frankly, I've never had much interest in how it came to be. I've had some, my share I suppose..but why wonder where a wonder sprang from, when it can be enjoyed without knowing?

I just mean that there may be a supernatural explanation for the creation of life, there may be a scientific explanation. In either case, it doesn't really matter to me...

I'm a man of faith..not religious exactly..

I think the two systems can coexist, and even be symbiotic, but only to the degree that we can perceive, to the degree that we can make them so...

When does a coincidence become something more?

I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I think the answer is simple; a coincidence becomes something more..whenever you want it to be.


Great Reply !

I really enjoyed reading your thoughts and perspective on this issue and appreciate the sincerity.

Thanks again for your thoughts !



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Well, where do you want to start? There is so much stuff there we could argue all day without getting anywhere.

One thing you should remember though, just finding problems with the Theory of Evolution does not in any way support the Christian (or any other religion's) creation story.

I'm not sure you can be a "christian scientist". You can be christian and a scientist. There is nothing scientific about believing God created the all life on the world as it is now, as there is no evidence to support this and plenty of mitigating evidence.


To the Father !

I respect your views and opinion thanks for the reply. But there is in fact science involved backing up the belief system of creation.

However I would like to clear something up. In regards to the term "Christian Scientists". It means that many of these individual scientists came to have a personal relationship with God after trying to refute and prove the creation theory wrong. They realized through science that they can in fact explain in complete detail many happenings in the word such as noahs ark for one example. Then they researched the two theories of evolution and creationsim and put them both through the test.
This is while other scientists that where already christian wanted to increase their faith by the evidence brought forth.

I hope that I explained myself better ?

To reply to the doubts of one theory doesn't prove the other. I realize this because both of the theories can co-exist.

To get a better understanding check out CRI-Christian Research Institute on the web. They investigate anything that concerns christianity in a way that involves science and technology.

God Bless Father !



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Look, the reason that people like myself get upset when Evolution and (I'm assuming here, that this is your stance) Biblical Young Earth Creationism are equated is not because we hate God, not because we hate Christians, it's because Evolution and BYE Creationism are two separate disciplines.

The theory of evolution is part of the scientific sphere. It attempts to take the measurable data we have, in this case the way the structure of a creature's DNA changes over time, and explain what that means in a predictive way. The way the theory of evolution is currently approached is scientific. It's scientific because we can measure, test, and, if you'll forgive the pun, reproduce experimental results. That's all science is. Science, real science, will never be able to say one way or another about the Christian God because He doesn't exist in a measurable form. The fun part about science, though, is that even with this you can't scientifically say "God doesn't exist," you can simply state that there is no evidence for His existance. While these two phrases have pretty much the same meaning in colloquial English, in the scientific lexicon they're very far apart.

On the other hand, Creationism, be it Biblical Young Earth, Intelligent Design, or any other form, falls into the sphere of philosophy or theology. You can no more measure the ideas behind Creationism than you can measure the ideas behind Existentialism or Stoicism because that's not the purpose of Creationism. The Biblical account of Creation isn't intended to show us how to make more disease-resistant soybeans, nor is it there to tell us why, in a scientific "the chromasomes don't match" way, why a horse cannot mate with an elephant. It explains why we're here, what we're meant to do, and tells us the spiritual order of the universe.

Evolution and (any form of) Creationism aren't incompatible unless you look at the simplest, least elegant versions of both.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
(sigh)

Evolution does NOT deal with the beginning of life.

It doesn't care how life began. It says "once life is around, how did it change to many different forms?"

Evolution does NOT deal with the beginning of the cosmos.

That's astronomy. Not biology. Not evolution.

Evolution does NOT deal with the beginning of life.
That's something called "abiogenesis" and is a separate field.

Let's talk apples to apples, folks. If you want to talk evolution, then please talk about how a proto-kind of animal turned into several different kinds (like a proto-zebra turning into the three different Zebra species (all with different chromosome counts))

If you want to talk cosmic origins, we need to keep that in a Origins of the Universe topic and keep evolution out of it since they are as different as the Pythagorean theory and the Theory of Gravity.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Hey Byrd,

Very well said and explained in just a couple of paragraphs. You have enlightend me and have given me a more solid view. But mostly you have strengthened my original view without slamming anyone or there beliefs.

Thanks



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Evolution and creationism can certainly "go hand-in-hand", and in fact, i believe that most people understand the underlying issues at hand, but do not flesh out the variations of the idealogies involved (which i find surprising and sad). However, just to facilitate more specific and thereby productive discussion, i thought some clarification was needed.

I apologize for the long post, but the question is really the tip of an iceberg which is formed out of the biggest questions one can ask or answer. Certainly, evolution vs creationism is a subset of science vs theistic providence. and so i discuss the general issue more than the specific. At times, it may seam as though i am dismissing theism entirely, but i certainly do not intend this; indeed, see example A below, i think that many will feel that it is a broad category of beliefs that they can agree with. Anyway, a few thoughts:

The creation vs evolution (+abiogenesis) discussion must necessarily come down to two contentions:

1. An omnipotent god was/is involved. -obviously, if one does believe such a thing as an omnipotent god exists (and usually, just one exists for those who believe such things possible), then this god is an integral part of any aspect of the universe: biology and evolution included. Indeed, this god could have simply thought all this up at absolutely any point. it could make such evidence as it wanted to, and no more or less, and start at the beginning, or just this morning. It could also have started a set of regular processes which lead to what we see today...

2 Life exists/occurs without the meticulous movement of each subatomic particle by a god. -examining evidence, coming up with hypothesese, evaluating them and theorizing from all this is the lot of scientists. preferred ancient writings do not provide evidence for such theories to scientists interested in explaining how things happen, and what happend prior to the present which might explain why.

In between, there are many answers... but they are always combinations involving these two contentions (or the refutation of one or the other)... a god could have chosen to create everything in a systematic way which involves evolution, natural selection and even various forms of abiogenesis... or could have started everything in the middle, and created evidence for earlier periods. or, perhaps even created evidence that looks really convincing, but is not at all true.

the belief in contention #1 allows for all sorts of situations, and may allows for any answer to be completely verified by simply stating "that's what god did". But, that does not require all theists to abstain from the investigation of contention #2. So, let's consider three examples of the above two contentions being applied to science in general (of course, evolution is subject to the arguments, and is not unique as a theory). These three examples involve various combinations of belief / disagreement with the above contentions: Either one, the other or both contentions are true... a bit of a simplification perhaps, but we don't have thousands of years and millions of pages here, so:

A. (#1 True, #2 True)

This omnipotent god could have given life its very first start, and only interacts with the world occassionally. Perhaps looking all the time, but only moving around such protons and electrons, thus effecting cells, thus affecting animals, thus affecting humans, thus affecting cutlures and their history as it sees fit. This is much simpler for this being than taking the time/effort to decide how each and every apple drops from a tree... and thus apples fall from trees in regular patterns which can be studied. thus the study of physics is a worth while pursuit... thus particle physics is as well... then we wonder where god is, since we don't need him to move every nuetrinos around. So then, we're back at the beginning of the question, in a more general form: do we need god to explain science, or did he just start it all off?

B. (#1 True, #2 False)

This omnipotent god is even more creative than creationists think. He started the universe several hours ago, but since he is omnipotent, he put all the subatomic particles in the universe into just such a state that the world exists, you exist, your brain exists, and it is filled with memories of yesterday, the years before... etc... and of course, the world is stocked full of reasons to think that there was a "yesterday". he even wrote several books for different cultures to understand him, if they so choose.

C. (#1 irrelevant/unprovable, #2 true)

The universe is a huge place, but with underlying regularities that can be understood. These regularities can be studied, and often described with math and theories developed. Sometimes, these theories are too specific; only dealing with the large, easy to see aspects of existence (Newton). So, more general theories are developed (Einstein). But perhaps these theories only explain the large scale, not the minute, so more concepts are needed (Quantum Mechanics). Then, they need to be explained even more generally so that every observation is needed... etc... and contention 1 may never come up.

The problems that people have mixing science and theism into thier own concept of the world are due to some core problems with contention 1 and 2 and any combination thereof:

-Neither contention 1 nor contention 2 concern each other, and do not speak to the validity of one or the other. one cannot *prove* contention 1 with reasoning derived by contention 2 or vice versa. try proving a god exists with mathematics. really, go for it. and try proving that all scientiffic reasoning is false with contention 1; for one thing "proof" is an entirely contention 2 concept, but what's more, only an omnicapable being would be responsible for your thoughts, since concept 2 is being refuted... SO... some combination of the two are sought by most people interested in theism. And atheists may have some trouble with an original event from which everything stems... so the debate goes on and on!

let it go on and on here, then, too!






[edit on 5-6-2005 by TheeStateMachine]

[edit on 5-6-2005 by TheeStateMachine]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I agree that both Evolution and Creationism (or better yet, Intelligent Design) cane work well together.
Unfortunately, I have found that even the mere mention of either Creationism or ID, invokes extreme view points. If you have followed any of the recent threads on the controversy going on between Evolution and Creationism (as in Topeka Kansas), even level-headed people go overboard and deny that anyone should discuss the issue. You even have S-mods stating that people who support creationsim or ID as being ignorant and or stupid.
Wait until another poster sees this thread and you will see what I mean.
Just a fair warning!



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I think its fairly simple to figure out.

If there is a god that created everything and if evolution happens then evolution is gods work in action.

I know people argue over how long the universe has been around. I do not think they can prove it either way since time is relative to the speed of the observer or something like that so if everything in the past was traveling much faster or much slower then what we see today as evidence of how long things have been going on could be scewed by our perceptions based on our current speed through the universe..

Basically it does not matter. Both god and evolution can exist.

We were supposedly made in gods image and if that is so, and if you take the bible literally like most christians do, then you must understand that Creation including humanity is still happening. We are becomeing like god by his own choice and word....... Yep his own words in the bible say this right in the beggining.

Christians should stop trying to stop scientist from making humanity perfect, intelligent more wise, and imortal. Its gods will that this happen because if god is imortal and lives forever then mankind must evolve and be the same to be made in the image of god.

Gods will be done. Well its being done, and stop trying to fight it and stop it


Cloneing, stem cell research etc.. must be part of gods plan becuase it is happening it is probably sinful of you to try and force YOUR will in place of gods because however it unfolds it must unfold by gods will.. right?

If Evolution is proven then we have done nothing more than discovered gods method of creation.. which is and was his will all along..

Just say your prayers and let the world spin...by Gods will heh.

X

[edit on 5-6-2005 by Xeven]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
Cloneing, stem cell research etc.. must be part of gods plan becuase it is happening it is probably sinful of you to try and force YOUR will in place of gods because however it unfolds it must unfold by gods will..


You cannot simply assume all things that are happening are doing so because of the will of a god. Genocide happens. is that the will of the christian god? serial killers commit thier heinous acts... but well, i guess that's just the will of a christian god?

Just because you can put some faith in both theism and science does not mean that you are not accountable for your own decisions. Free will is crucial. And when it comes to evolution, you still have to decide how much involvement any gods have... did they just start the ball rolling, or are they responsible for the movement of every atom... planning where each one goes, and what each person thinks?

So, believing in science and god at the same time (my example A above) does not clear much up on its own...



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Wow-

Been out of this loop for a couple of days and I came back with even more to think about ? Not in a negetative way of course ! I knew when I posted this that I would probably get a few that would laughed at the "Creation" theory statment but that's ok. Because for the most part the ones that replied were honest and sincere with their answers and I respected everyone of them. Thanks so much for your time !

I noted that during the first part of this a few theological questions came about with some good answers as well ! Good job thinkers !

I guess to futher this discussion I need to bring up some specifics that I have heard. Might be fun to discuss ?

Will try to get these on later tonight.

Thanks again !
Truth



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Intelligent Design is still a new hypothesis and has no where near the amount of evidence that evolution has.


That is why they don't want to teach it in school.

My big problem with ID is that the fundamentalist movements in America are using it as part of their agenda to refute evolution.

ID would be more palatable to me if it wasn't being used this way.


Also, I fail to see how ID can ever be proven. ID by ET's could perhaps be proven, but there is no way to scientifically prove a supernatural being who is all powerful, without one showing up and telling us so.

BTW care to post some of the evidence for BYE creation? I have yet to see any that is convincing, or even real for that matter.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I'm very glad to see that you have an open view on this subject, LeftBehind. I am so often dismayed at how often such simplistic, grade-school thoughts such as, "god exists, so evolution is wrong" come up... that i just have to try and help... there are so *many* ways that god and evolution can coexist... that simply being a theist does not relagate one to ridiculous positions. Hopefully, you'll find the harmony between the two you're looking for...

but in the meantime, what is this BYE of which you speak?



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Don't get me wrong, in my opinion ID is complete bunk, I just like to keep it civil when I can.


BYE is biblical young earth.

As in the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 02:22 AM
link   
To say or even think that such ideas can go hand-in-hand means to say "I know absolutely nothing about either one".

Furthermore you can't just take someones idea/theory/creed/doctrine and say it goes hand-in-hand with something that somebody else came up with. In addition to that, the many obvious, Creation/Evolution, contradictions make such assertions even more absurd. And to top it off you have both sides, Athiests and Christians (for my part), telling you that they don't want these associations being made.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   
LeftBehind,


Intelligent Design is still a new hypothesis and has no where near the amount of evidence that evolution has.
That is why they don't want to teach it in school.

I have to agree with you that ID Should Notbe taught in school but for a different reason. Since ID is basically an updated version of the christian creationist belief, it should not be promoted in school due to it's religious connection. If it was taught in school, then other idiologies beliefs in creationism would need to be taught in school.
What I do have a problem with though on this is, that the teachers refuse to even address the issue to the point of not even wanting to answer questions. To me this approach only breeds ignorance. A teacher is there to teach. If a subject such as creationism were to come up in the classroom, the teacher should at least respond by either showing how specific questions are incorrect (not scientific), thus teaching the student in how to properly address questions scientificaly. The teacher should then instruct the students why such subjects should not be brought up in class. The teacher should also then refer the students to where they can research the subject more thoughly and whom would be the right person to address their questions to.
Unfortunately, in today's PC world, Teacher believe that having to address such questions as making the classroom athmosphere "confrontational".




My big problem with ID is that the fundamentalist movements in America are using it as part of their agenda to refute evolution.
ID would be more palatable to me if it wasn't being used this way.

We are on the same page with this. ID should not be used as a way to try and (debunk) evolution theory. The way it should be presented is in a manner in which it can be used to support evolution.




Also, I fail to see how ID can ever be proven. ID by ET's could perhaps be proven, but there is no way to scientifically prove a supernatural being who is all powerful, without one showing up and telling us so.


Again, we are in agreement on this, up to a point. As with ID, there is no way to absolutely prove evolution unless somehow we travel back in time to actually observe the process from start to present.




BYE is biblical young earth.
As in the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old.

I also do not believe in this idea. It is mostly based on a bad translation of what is written in Genisis. The reason that most give to this timespan is the belief that the world was created in 7 days. The problem lies with the word used "days". The ancient Hebrew word that was used was "Yom" which has a couple of meanings, only one of which is Days. Yom can also mean ERA, which could mean thousands or even millions of years instead of days.
I believe in the ERA translation myself.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join