Creation AND Evolution?

[Greane]

So often I hear people debating whether existence began with God creating ALL or the Big Bang leading to evolution. Many people seem to overlook the possibility of a common-ground.

For as long as I can remember, I have believed in both. I believe in the eternal existence of God/dess (whichever gender or number you place upon the Divine Entity(ies)) and that He/She created all and basically let Evolution take it's course. I guess I never understood how some people find it so hard to believe that all of the matter could have been created by the Divine and, yet, that the "Big Bang" could have still taken place. I'm curious as to what stance many of you take on this ongoing "battle".

[shunyadragon]

So often I hear people debating whether existence began with God creating ALL or the Big Bang leading to evolution. Many people seem to overlook the possibility of a common-ground.

For as long as I can remember, I have believed in both. I believe in the eternal existence of God/dess (whichever gender or number you place upon the Divine Entity(ies)) and that He/She created all and basically let Evolution take it's course. I guess I never understood how some people find it so hard to believe that all of the matter could have been created by the Divine and, yet, that the "Big Bang" could have still taken place. I'm curious as to what stance many of you take on this ongoing "battle".

Those that believe in theistic evolution (TE) simply accept the events of the history of existence including evolution as is, set in motion by God in Creation. We may be the only universe or one of many in existence.

Christians who support Intelligent Design (ID) generally accept most the scientific version, but tend to require some kind of periodic Divine intervention to make it work.

The controversy comes from how literal different people take the Bible. Some form of 'Big-Bang' is popular among many Christians and people of many different faiths as the way God began creating our universe. One of the first popular advocates of the theory is a Roman Catholic Priest.

[Ethos]

Christians who support Intelligent Design (ID) generally accept most the scientifi version, but tend to require some kind of periodic Divine intervention to make it work.

Yes, but the theory of intelligent design does not allow for the random mutation inherent in evolutional theory,

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but the theory of intelligent design does not allow for the random mutation inherent in evolutional theory,

This is the periodic Divine intervention to make it work.

I do not think those that believe in ID can allow or not allow anything. Most believe, even AIG, in some mutations causing some modification of the species, but not evolution without more direct Divine intervention.

The role of randomness in evolution is another question that is not well understood by most laypeople.

[Greane]

What about considering the events of other creation stories and how they may, also, include some form of evolution? Even in the discussion that has been going on here, already, it's basically been cut into "Christian ID" and "Scientific Evolution". Now, to say "the Christian idea of creation" is cutting out the fact that the Jewish idea of creation is the same. Both creation stories come from Genesis, whether you choose to read the Torah or the Christian Bible. There may be some slight differences, as I have also heard two different (only slightly) versions of the Creation story told by Christians, alone. We, also, have such Creation stories as that of the Mayans, who believed that the gods attempted to create beings out of several different items. They wanted creatures who could worship them and kept "failing". Their creation story seems to indicate a somewhat thought of evolution, as monkeys were created using the same ideas as the humans, only a different material. The Mayan creation story (in short) is as follows: The gods created the earth and all that is in it (land, plants, etc) and the animals. They assigned each animal a place of it's own, in the world. They ordered the animals to speak, as to worship them, but the animals could not speak. The creators decided to make creatures who could, called people. First, they were made of mud. They had no minds and simply dissolved in water. Next, people were made out of wood. Those people multiplied and spread across the world however they lacked blood and minds and could not remember their creators. The creators wanted them destroyed and jaguars ate their wood bodies and birds plucked out their eyes. Some escaped and survived and are what we now call "monkeys". Some other animals informed the creators of white and yellow corn that grew from the earth. The creators used this to make flesh and make the first people.
As you can see, even this ancient myth includes the idea that monkeys were right before humans, which is an idea that is used in evolution. Granted, they are slightly different concepts, but the idea is still there.
The Yanomamo tribe of the jungles of the Orinoco River have a creation story that does NOT involve a Divine being creating all. Instead, the divine beings were created WITH the cosmos and the many layers of existence that they believe in. To make a longer story short, they believe in four layers, each of which something different exists (except the vacant top layer) and each of which interact with each other. This story doesn't necessarily involve evolution, as we know it, on one plain but an evolution of all planes/layers together. It, also, does not include a story of (a) divine being(s) creating everything. Rather, the divine beings were created WITH everything.

I know this was a long reply, but I just wanted to bring up that, in my opinion (though I realize I did not initially state it nor indicate it), the debate/discussion of Creation AND Evolution should look at more than the scientific theories of evolution versus Christian Creation. However, most people limit themselves to that. (I believe they do so more out of habit of discussing the two than concious decisions to avoid other myths/stories.)

[Lion]

The latest issue of the National Geographic magazine has big headline on thecover. Was Darwin Wrong? The title page of the article emphatically says NO.

The article goes on to cite the plethora of millions of different kinds of creatures some similar and many dfferent as evidence of evolution.

The question revolves around what is meant by evolution, Is it big changes or small ones If small changes are meant such as different varieties of dogs, the answer has to be yes, evolution does occur. If evolution means big changes such a dog giving birth to some different animal, such as a rat, the answer has to be no.

I'm exaggerating, of course. Darwin never proposed such a thing. What he did propose was small changes that could be inherited. Over millions of years vast changes could have taken place. Unfortunately such intermedate steps have never been found. If evoluton were true, there ought to be lots of such fossils around. But none have been found.

Now there are common design elements such as digesive system simlarities between animals but that simply implies a common designer. It was the most efficent way to do the job.

[marcmc]

The definition of the term "evolution" has changed over time. In the broad sense, evolution means development, but more specifically it has come to mean the theory of common ancestry (Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Geisler). Darwin's theory suggested that natural selection could be the mechanism that made evolution possible. It is important to remember that evolution as a theory is speculative, not empirical. Darwin concentrated his efforts on micro-evolution, suggesting that micro-evolutionary changes (such as his finch) could lead to more substantive macro-evolutionary changes (from one species to another). As stated in the previous post, no fossil evidence is present to show changes from one species to another. Even Darwin admitted that there existed a "crowd of difficulties" with his theory. For example, "Can we believe that natural selection can produce . . . an organism so wonderful as an eye?"

An intelligent design requires an intelligent designer. Most also agree that the Big Bang would require a "big banger" - an intelligent cause.

[chickenman]

It is important to remember that evolution as a theory is speculative, not empirical.

no, its definitely empirical

As stated in the previous post, no fossil evidence is present to show changes from one species to another.

aside from how wrong this statement is, such evidence wouldn't even be needed - speciation has been observed to happen in the present

For example, "Can we believe that natural selection can produce . . . an organism so wonderful as an eye?"

disingenous quotemine

i suspect a copy-paste job, either that or you just couldn't be bothered typing out the answer that follows that rhetorical question

[bigsplit]

So often I hear people debating whether existence began with God creating ALL or the Big Bang leading to evolution. Many people seem to overlook the possibility of a common-ground.

For as long as I can remember, I have believed in both. I believe in the eternal existence of God/dess (whichever gender or number you place upon the Divine Entity(ies)) and that He/She created all and basically let Evolution take it's course. I guess I never understood how some people find it so hard to believe that all of the matter could have been created by the Divine and, yet, that the "Big Bang" could have still taken place. I'm curious as to what stance many of you take on this ongoing "battle".

1. God created it.

2. Evolution is right.

3. God is in a constant state of creation we call evolution.

As for the Big Bang, right concept, but it is incomplete.

[Lion]

I might as well set the record straight where I stand. I believe God was the master designer and he did it in six literal 24 hour days. I don't care to have any discussion that so many evolutionists want to palm off on me. If you can discuss valid reasons for your point of view, that's OK. But so many evolutioniists take the tack that the creationist hasn't any evidence on his side.

For instance the human eye. I have heard the claim that the eye is a poorly designed thing, because why should the blood vessels be on the inside of the eye, instead of behind the retina? Well some experimenters got to wondering why the eye has a dither, a shake.

They published their report in the Scientific American some years ago. They devised a contact lens with a mirror and a servo mechanism so a projected image on a screen shook in time wth the dither. After a short time the image faded out. Apparently the dither focuses the image on the blood vessels long enough to allow the retina to refresh itself and forcing the retina to see the same image all the time causes the image to fade out. Somehow the designer knew what he was doing.

[kofh2u]

Yes, but the theory of intelligent design does not allow for the random mutation inherent in evolutional theory,

But, after reading a very long and nit- picky debate between sylas the atheist and a numbe of informed ID adversaries it was clear that neither the Atheists nor the ID's have a definition for Intelligence. Nor, can they explicitly enunciate a meaningful definition for Design.

Consequently, the whole agrument is merely opportunity to flex and display verbally a grasp of genetics.

Without definitions for intelligent and design, there is no meaningful discussion.

[kofh2u]

The latest issue of the National Geographic magazine has big headline on thecover. Was Darwin Wrong? The title page of the article emphatically says NO.

The article goes on to cite the plethora of millions of different kinds of creatures some similar and many dfferent as evidence of evolution.

The question revolves around what is meant by evolution, Is it big changes or small ones If small changes are meant such as different varieties of dogs, the answer has to be yes, evolution does occur. If evolution means big changes such a dog giving birth to some different animal, such as a rat, the answer has to be no.

I'm exaggerating, of course. Darwin never proposed such a thing. What he did propose was small changes that could be inherited. Over millions of years vast changes could have taken place. Unfortunately such intermedate steps have never been found. If evoluton were true, there ought to be lots of such fossils around. But none have been found.

Now there are common design elements such as digesive system simlarities between animals but that simply implies a common designer. It was the most efficent way to do the job.

How about hybrids? Many many hybrids until Modern Homos seem every unique:

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God (the Methusaelian Homo erectus) saw the daughters of men (Lamechian Homo antecessors) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

[kofh2u]

I might as well set the record straight where I stand. I believe God was the master designer and he did it in six literal 24 hour days. I don't care to have any discussion that so many evolutionists want to palm off on me. If you can discuss valid reasons for your point of view, that's OK. But so many evolutioniists take the tack that the creationist hasn't any evidence on his side.

How about an evolutionist who has the bible story as proof of evolution before Darwin was even heard of?

Gen. 1:3 And God, (The Universal Force), said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen. 1:4 And God, (The Universal Force) saw the light, that it was
good: and God, (The Universal Force), divided the light from the
darkness.
Gen. 1:5 And God, (The Universal Force) called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first "day," (the Azoic Era).


Gen. 1:6 And God, (The Universal Force) said, Let there be a firmament, (seven layers of atmosphere), in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the (evaporated) waters from the (condensed) waters.
Gen. 1:7 And God, (The Universal Force) made the firmament (of atmosphere), and divided the (condensed) waters which were under the firmament from the (evaporated) waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen. 1:8 And God, (The Universal Force), called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second "day," (the Archeozoic Era).

So on... seven "yoms" (Hebrew for undefined "duration of time") = The Seven Geological Eras of Time.

[marcmc]

To Chickenman:

Thanks for your comments on my post. Please allow me to respond to some of your points.

First, to your comment that evolution as a theory is empirical, not speculative science. Speculative science deals with past singularities for which there are no recurring patterns of events which can be tested. Theories of evolution and creation are also called theories of origin science, rather than operation science. Operation science is empirical science; it deals with the way things operate now. It studies regular and repeated phenomena. Its answers can be tested by repeating the observation or experiment. Its basic principles are observability and repeatability. (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 225). This seems to imply that the theory of evolution is indeed speculative science.

Next, you have disagreed with my assertion that the current fossil record does not support the notion of intermediate species, which is a key component to Darwin's theory. Allow me to borrow from Darwin himself on the subject of the lack of fossil evidence: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated orgnic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (On the Origin of Species, p. 152). A few other experts have weighed in on this subject. Even though there have been many thousands of fossil finds in the century and a half since Darwin unveiled his theory, "the evolutionary record leaks like a sieve." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British astronomer). Finally, from Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard paleontologist), "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

You also doubted my quote from Darwin about the complexity of the human eye. Please see "On the Origin of Species," page 80.

I hope I've adequately addressed your concerns and comments.

[shunyadragon]

First, to your comment that evolution as a theory is empirical, not speculative science. Speculative science deals with past singularities for which there are no recurring patterns of events which can be tested. Theories of evolution and creation are also called theories of origin science, rather than operation science. Operation science is empirical science; it deals with the way things operate now. It studies regular and repeated phenomena. Its answers can be tested by repeating the observation or experiment. Its basic principles are observability and repeatability. (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 225). This seems to imply that the theory of evolution is indeed speculative science.

This is basically not true, Theories of evolution do have recuring patterns that can be tested. We can get also data from the genes of many extinct animals from the past further strengthen the predictive models. Genetic mutation is a regular, predictable and repeated pattern. These predictable regular patterns are very much appart of today's scientific research. The old worn out argument the evolution is based only on random or chance mutations is false. Randomness plays a role only the statistical frequency of the occurance of mutations and not in the process of evolution itself.

Next, you have disagreed with my assertion that the current fossil record does not support the notion of intermediate species, which is a key component to Darwin's theory. Allow me to borrow from Darwin himself on the subject of the lack of fossil evidence: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated orgnic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (On the Origin of Species, p. 152). A few other experts have weighed in on this subject. Even though there have been many thousands of fossil finds in the century and a half since Darwin unveiled his theory, "the evolutionary record leaks like a sieve." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British astronomer). Finally, from Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard paleontologist), "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

Charles Darwin's testimony reflects the fossil record at the time he lived which was scant at best. There have been at least thousands of new species and millions of fossils found since his time. Sir Fred Hoyle was a British Astronomer and not a specialist in the field, therefore I consider his testimony not reliable. There have been a great deal more fossils of intermediates discovered since he made his quote.

Your left with one expert, Stephen Jay Gould. I feel his quote does not reflect the current knowledge of the fossil record. There are of course gaps in the fossil record, but many branches of animals now have a significant number of intermediates in the fossil record like horses, whales and birds. Many of these have been discovered in the last ten years. The numerous bird fossils of China (There is an interesting thread on this one. The site where these are found is near where I live in China.) and the whale fossils of India and south Asia have filled many gaps. I will return to you on this one.

You also doubted my quote from Darwin about the complexity of the human eye. Please see "On the Origin of Species," page 80.

Darwin's quote on the human eye is also seriously out of date based on the current knowledge of the evolution of complex organs. It is terribly weak to quote Darwin concerning the current level of scientific knowledge concerning evolution.