Creation vs Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter wilhelmus7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I couldn’t vote for any of the options because I am more of the mindset that God not only kicked it off, but was involved in the process every set of the way. I am not a Darwinian Evolutionist, nor am I a literal Creation Scientist. I believe the truth is more of an amalgamation of the two, leaning more heavily with creationism, because I believe in an almighty God who is intimately involved in His creation.
 
40.png
Apologia100:
I couldn’t vote for any of the options because I am more of the mindset that God not only kicked it off, but was involved in the process every set of the way. I believe in an almighty God who is intimately involved in His creation.
This represents my view as well.
 
My reply will not fit with the 3 options given in the poll, either.

I cannot believe in a strict Darwinian evolution because it does not answer some very basic questions about the nature of man. Some of these are:

Why is man so much more intelligent than any other creatures on this planet?

Why would nature produce a creature capable of creating major imbalances in nature?

Why does mankind have a sense of morality based on belief in a higher Being to whom we are accountable?

Why are we unhappy with our flaws and foibles?

Why are do we regret doing things that hurt others?

And I could go on. G. K. Chesterton wrote that man is either a creation of God or a monster of nature. I prefer to believe in the former.
 
I agree that none of the three choices represent my view. I did some research on the different interpretations of the creation scipture and came to the conclusion that it seems to make the most sense that each day described in Genesis was actually more than what we would call a day, more like an age or epoch. Many of the sources I referenced traced Genesis back to the Hebrew and stated that the word used for day was “yom” and it could be used to refer to either a 24 hour period or an age.

Also, I feel that a strict 7day creation period fails to mesh with scientific findings such as dinosaur fossils and such. To believe this means to believe that God created these fossils to deceive us. I don’t believe that the Bible must bend to Science but I do believe as does the Church that they are not contradictory. So since my research led me see that the 7 days could be interpreted as days or ages, currently scientific findings would lead me to believe it was more likely ages.
 
I should also note that I don’t believe in Darwinism. The man wasn’t even a scientist. God created the earth, the animals and humans. Macro-evolution (evolution between species) has not been proven, but I do believe there has been enough evidence to support micro-evolution (evolution within a species such as humans becoming taller throughout many years).
 
I want to add to my comments in my last post to say that while I do not believe in strict Darwinian evolution, I don’t believe in a literal 7 day creation, either. I believe the creation story is poetry meant to assure us that God made everything and topped off his creation with man.

I also believe that God created the “laws of nature” by which his creation ordinarily operates, but since he is the Creator of nature, he can set aside the natural means of creation to do whatever he wants whenever he wants, and that he has done so many times down through the epochs of time.
 
It seems like it would have to be Six days to create and rested on the 7th like the Bible says. God is not handicapped or limited by time or space, is he?. All powerful seems to imply all powerful. He would not need to kick start anything or need billions of years to create everything. All powerful is all powerful or it is not. It seems like God could end it in an instsnt and start it again all in six days or less. It doesn’t seem like science can create the rules for creation only the creator can. Right?
 
I’ve answered the 6 days in a previous post I thought:

One hint is the final day in the Genesis week, the seventh day which is still continuing (see Genesis 2:2-3 with Hebrews 4:3-5). Even if you are young-earth, God has been resting on the “seventh day” for thousands of years.

See this thread A Day in Genesis

If you mean “science all the way and God had nothing to do with it” obviously that is not a Catholic option. God is Creator, somehow, someway, however He did it. He either started the Big Bang and evolution off, and at least intervened at the creation of the soul of man, or had more interventions along the way. But the God-interventions themselves I don’t think are science, nor can they be detected by science which must remain methodologically natural. Three books I recommend:

Ernst Mayr What Evolution Is
Dalrymple The Age of the Earth
Ken Miller Finding Darwin’s God

Phil P
 
Apologia100: ‘I am not a Darwinian Evolutionist, nor am I a literal Creation Scientist. I believe the truth is more of an amalgamation of the two’

Stobie: ‘This represents my view as well’

Della: ‘I cannot believe in a strict Darwinian evolution because it does not answer some very basic questions about the nature of man’

larryo: ‘Dittos, here’

Timbo: ‘I should also note that I don’t believe in Darwinism. The man wasn’t even a scientist. God created the earth, the animals and humans. Macro-evolution (evolution between species) has not been proven, but I do believe there has been enough evidence to support micro-evolution (evolution within a species such as humans becoming taller throughout many years).’

Della: ‘I do not believe in strict Darwinian evolution’

I don’t mean to be rude, but I wonder if any one of you can define in a way that a modern biologist would agree is accurate, what ‘Darwininism’ or, better, what the modern Theory of Evolution is; and how it works? Can any of the people in this thread who have expressed firm opinions on the matter do that?

Why is it that in the matter of evolution, all sorts of people, lacking the burden of actual knowledge, feel free to express their prejudices and biases in public? These people wouldn’t dream of posting their opinions in a thread debating, say, the implications of the mass of the Higgs boson for fundamental physics, or a thread debating the relative merits of the strict Copenhagen interpretation versus Bohmian mechanics. Or a thread on string theory versus loop quantum gravity. But molecular and evolutionary biology is fair game for people who don’t have the faintest idea about what evolutionary theory actually says.

Why is that? I wonder whether any of you who posted your firm ‘well-informed’ opinions can help me here.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Alec, maybe you can explain why evolution is taught in our schools as if it were indisputable fact, instead of a scientific theory? And why are we ordinary people supposed to just swallow whole whatever any scientist says no matter the fact that s/he has no expertise in religion or philosophy any more than any other ordinary person? And tell us there is no bias in the scientific community against organized religion. 🙂

I explained why I cannot accept evolution alone as a viable explanation for who and what humans are. Perhaps you can answer them with your favorite theory of evolution? 😉
 
<< Alec, maybe you can explain why evolution is taught in our schools as if it were indisputable fact, instead of a scientific theory? >>

Alec can do a good job answering this, but I will answer also. Evolution (defined as “descent with modification” or simply “common descent”) is considered a fact, as much a fact in science as the “theory of gravity,” or that the earth rotates and goes around the sun, or that the earth is greater than 4 billion years old, or that the universe is greater than 10 billion years old, or that fish came before amphibians before reptiles before mammals before us homo sapiens, and one form slowly evolved into another over millions of years (around 600 million years since the Cambrian). Those are considered facts in science and should be because of the overwhelming evidence from various branches of science. Alec can and will provide details. 😃

Now evolution is also considered a “theory” in science because we do not know precisely how all of this happened. Nor do we know precisely how “gravity works.” Therefore, gravity is a fact, and also a theory. Natural selection is probably the major mechanism for evolution, but the mechanism is debated in science. “Darwinism” as I understand, can be defined as “evolution by natural selection” or “descent with modification by natural selection.” Darwin’s major contribution was the mechanism for evolution, as geologists (even creationist ones) knew the earth was very old well before his time (early 19th century).

So Evolution is considered both a fact and a theory

Here is why macroevolution is considered a fact

And here is my Cliffs Notes version of this

I accept the scientific evidence (collected over 150 years since Darwin), now the job of the Catholic apologist is to try to reconcile with Catholic teaching, not distort, deny, or ignore the science. 😦 And please don’t bring up Mike Behe again, he is a theistic evolutionist (Darwin’s Black Box, page 5). 😛

Phil P
 
I believe that our Spiritual God is Omni-Present to the whole of physical time. Time is only the measure of change between matter, energy and empty space, all of which God created. Our Spiritual God is totally unbound by physical time.

I believe that God, with His Omni-Present to all time view, knows what all men for all time will choose even though we are totally free from the control of God when we make a choice to obey or disobey Him at any point in physical time.

I believe that God creates from the focus point of free willed Adam, because only a free willed being can choose to love Him. I believe that mankind’s capacity to love God is mankind’s purpose in life. I believe that mankind’s capacity to love God is God’s reason for creation.

I believe that billions of years of past (if not infinite past) and billions of years of future (if not infinite future) Cosmos flowed out from our, Omni-Present to all physical time, God’s focal point of Adam as a home for Adam. I believe that if homosaipiens flow out into the past from the creation of Adam, they are still not man. The first free willed being God created on the sixth day, God named “man”.

I believe that if Sodom and Gohmora would have repented, there would never have been asteroids headed to destroy their city for tens of thousands of years. I believe if Nineveh would have not repented there would have been asteroids headed to destroy their city for tens of thousands of years. I believe that before Noah landed the arc, there had never been rainbows. I believe that after Noah landed the arc, there had always been rainbows.

I believe that physical time has absolutely no control over our Omni-Powerful, Omni-Present to all physical time, God.

I believe that, in the scope of things, it really does not matter what you believe about creation. I believe that what matters is that you believe in Jesus Christ and His command to Love the Lord your God with all you heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength. Once in eternal life with God the saints who have loved Him can take a look at just how God did bring creation into existance.

Creation

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
 
Evolution is no more a provable reality than the existence of the human mood. Oh sure I could point to many cases and give what seem sound reason for interpreting the fact that the mood of a person swings up and down. But, could it be misinterpreted. It all sounds so logical, but then the earth is really flat. Isn’t it?:confused:
 
As I’ve tried to make the point before, but have to keep reposting because this topic rears its ugly head (maybe I should just generate my arguement in MS Word so I can just cut and paste). We have a fossil record which indicates evolution, and **seems to verify ** transitional species. However, the fossil record must be understood in context to know empirically what it proves. Since the animals in question died 65 million years ago, we can NEVER know the proper context that generated the fossil record. Even Darwin himself had serious doubts about what the fossil record actually proved.

Here is what I mean by context. In our time, we have donkeys (equis asinus), mules, and horses (equis caballus). We know empirically that donkeys and horses are different species of the genus Equidae. Mules are the offspring of the pairing of a donkey and a horse. If one were to look at the skeleton of a donkey, mule, and horse without the modern context of being 3 independent species, one could reasonably assume that the donkey evolved into a mule, which in turn evolved into a horse. One would then make the determination that a mule is a transitional species between a donkey and a horse. But in context we know that is not true.

Therefore, regardless of the academic accumen of the scientific community making the observations and drawing the conclussions, the fact remains that they are in fact making assumtions based on an undefined premise, the premise being the context of the fossil record. So it is all subjective, there is nothing empirical about the conclussions that are drawn. Hence the wide discrepancies within the school of evolutionary thought. Does it disprove macro-evolution outright? Again, no it doesn’t. It just means that unless someone builds a time machine to be able to observe the formation of the fossil record in context, we will never objectively know the truth. So what does that leave us?

I know that answer, I wonder who else posting to this thread knows?
 
40.png
Apologia100:
So what does that leave us?

I know that answer, I wonder who else posting to this thread knows?
The deposit of faith, revelation, given to the Church. Though I would guess the scientists here will say there is much more than just the fossil record involved in evolutionary science. 🙂

Marcia
 
Apologia100 << Therefore, regardless of the academic accumen of the scientific community making the observations and drawing the conclussions, the fact remains that they are in fact making assumtions based on an undefined premise, the premise being the context of the fossil record. So it is all subjective, there is nothing empirical about the conclussions that are drawn. Hence the wide discrepancies within the school of evolutionary thought. >>

Sorry there are no wide descrepancies in terms of “descent with modification” or “common descent” being a fact among scientists. What is debated by some is the mechanism, not the fact of macroevolution itself.

Case in point: Whale with legs, Ambulocetus Natans (c. 50 million years ago)

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ambulo.gif

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ambulocetus.jpg

How do we know this is an early “whale” ? Couple reasons:​

Ambulocetus’ teeth and skull structure shows that it is a whale. Many other fossils have been found showing early whales with varying sizes of leg and tail (e.g. Pakicetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, and the already well known Basilosaurus). The teeth of all of them, including those which were fully aquatic, are very similar, as are their ear structures. This thin ear-bone connection has a characteristic “S” shape that is totally unique to the whales, and has proved to be so remarkable to paleontologists over the last two decades. Ambulocetus already had the S-shaped ear-bone and had jaws that would have been packed with sound-conducting fat, despite the fact that they seemed to live mostly on land. See leading experts on whale evolution, Gingerich or Thewissen

Either God created a whale with legs from scratch (creationist position), or this is an transitional fossil between land mammals and modern whales (evolutionist position). The latter is more plausible, the former has God “mimic evolution” as Kenneth Miller (Finding Darwin’s God) has said. There are thousands such examples that could be given: fish to amphibs, amphibs to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, reptiles to birds, etc. Either God specially created these transitional forms (in which case God is leaving us with all the evidence for evolution), or they are indeed transitional forms and therefore evolved.

Behe from arn.org/docs/behe/mb_philosophicalobjectionsresponse.htm

Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes? (Professor Coyne’s remarks about a Precambrian fossil hominid are irrelevant since I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent. I would no more expect to find a fossil hominid out of sequence than he would.)​

Behe from arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idisnotcreationism.htm

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."

Way to go Behe. See also Darwin’s Black Box, page 5. One of the leaders in the “intelligent design” movement accepts the 4.5 billion year old earth, accepts descent with modification or the “common descent” (macroevolution) of plants, animals, and homo sapiens (us), and is therefore a theistic evolutionist, like me, like Pope John Paul II. 😃

Phil P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top