creation and evolution not opposites

[Frostbite]

Could someone believe in both? What keeps an engineered specie from evolving once it has been implanted in its environment?

[ceo_esq]

Possibly you could theoretically believe in both, but if you believe that human beings were created as human beings, then until we've evolved into other species, what actual phenomena would you be using evolution to explain?

[Frostbite]

No idea, but if we had been created a million years ago, certainly we aren't genetically identical to what we would have been then?

[pgwenthold]

Depends on what you mean by "creation." If you are talking a literal biblical creation, then no, they are not compatible. OTOH, if you are talking about a vague, "God directed all the changes and caused the mutations," then sure, you can create a model that encompasses both.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Depends on what you mean by "creation." If you are talking a literal biblical creation, then no, they are not compatible. OTOH, if you are talking about a vague, "God directed all the changes and caused the mutations," then sure, you can create a model that encompasses both.
I agree, especially if one considers evolution to be the process by which God creates.

[Frostbite]

Hmm I haven't read the bible intensely, browsed through the Old Testament superficially and that's about it, but I was thinking more of something along the lines of God creates us but the evolution process is something that's kinda out of his control apart from the occasional Sodom & Gomorrah-type cataclysm to bring things under control again.

I just don't see the antagonism between creation and evolution since evolution could still be part of all created organisms.

[Keneke]

I believe that lawyer in the Scopes Monkey trial said it like this: The 7 days, they don't have to be literal days, a day in the mind of God could be eons on earth. So, yeah. It can fit, as long as you SLAY ALL OF THE LITERALISTS AND DRINK THEIR BLOOD UTTERING PRAYERS TO SATAN!





Er, excuse me.

[Brown]

Creationism and evolutionism are not opposites, in the sense that if evolution is false then creationism must be true. This is a common fallacy among proponents of creationism: if they perceive a problem with evolution, it must mean that there is more evidence in support of creationism!

Isaac Asimov was especially angered by this tactic. You cannot establish creationism by attacking evolution, he would say. Yet this is all the creationist proponents seemed to do. (It can be argued that so-called "intelligent design" follows the very same tactic.)

There are some folks who say, with straight faces, that evolution occurred after Noah's flood, but before that, the dominant force was creation. This strikes me as an uncomfortable compromise, and one that is maintained by a degree of intellectual dishonesty.

[Frostbite]

I take evolution for granted, because if everything was created only thousands of years ago, there still has been extinctions and I'm sure entire species' genes have been altered due to adaptation and contextual pressures and changes in that relatively short time. It's like making a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy and expecting the end result to be identical to the original. Creationism makes absolutely no sense in that way.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Frostbite
I take evolution for granted, because if ...Since you have some research and reasoning supporting your view, you technically speaking do not "take evolution for granted." I understand that you use the term "take for granted" figuratively, however.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Brown
Since you have some research and reasoning supporting your view, you technically speaking do not "take evolution for granted." I understand that you use the term "take for granted" figuratively, however.

You lost me there.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Frostbite
You lost me there. Sorry, didn't mean to. Literally speaking, to take something for granted is to assume it to be true without reason or proof.

It seems to me that you had reason and proof in support of your position. You therefore did not take evolution for granted, literally speaking.

Science generally does not take things for granted. Everything is subject to examination and testing.

[Frostbite]

Oh ok, well I explained the reason why I take evolution for granted; that it's impossible for any organism's offspring to be genetically 100% identical to its parents. There's always a margin of error. Reproduce this a million times over and I doubt any given organism will be identical to his ancestors. It doesn't make any sense to me. That's no proof in any way I guess, but to me it's rather clear that creation or intelligent design still don't explain how and why organisms could be expected to remain exactly the same for millions of years.

[Dancing David]

Well , since we are a bunch of intellectuals and sceptics, I can safely say that the ideas that the universe was created and then evolution occured are not incompatible.

From the scientific viewpoint it is all speculative to discuss what happened before the Big Moment when the universe began, so if god did it , who cares.

There is little evidence that god created life and then it evolved from there. But it could have happened that way.

The reason there is a division is that there are people who claim god craeted the world about 7,000 years ago. Complete with an ancient fossil history, partly decayed radioactives and all. Hard to prove either way, ala Matrix.

[MRC_Hans]

They may not be mutually exclusive logically, but in reality they are:

If you accept evolution, there is no need for creation, and vice versa.

Hans

[Gregor]

The opposite of evolution is ignorance.

That's not just a barb, it's the truth. To foresake evolution you have to ignore geology, biology, developmental physiology, and chemistry.

Now, your particular brand of ignorance (Biblical literalism, turtles all the way down, rtc.) is up to you.

[Dancing David]

I'll take my ignorance straight up please, although on hot days , some ice is nice.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
They may not be mutually exclusive logically, but in reality they are:

If you accept evolution, there is no need for creation, and vice versa.

Hans
I accept the statement that there is no "need" for one as long as you have the other, but I disagree that they are mutually exclusive in reality. I think that they are perfectly compatible concepts.

If I have a chilled pitcher of lemonade in my refridgerator, I don't need ice in my glass (and vice versa), but that does not make them in any way mutually exclusive.

[Yahweh]

Here's an article on Creationism vs. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc-02-saintro.htm) . It uses an approach much the same as "If I cant ignore your evidence, god makes things happen that dont need a scientific explanation... because he's god". It also attacks and demeans the character and credibility to favor creationism, not a reasonable (or remotely acceptable) way to make a point. It also refers to "Evolutionism"... ???. I took a breif look and read sections here and there, its quite a long read.

From an article on TalkOrgins.com (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html) which mentions 5 common misconceptions about evolution.
Evolution has never been observed.

Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

There are no transitional fossils.

The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.

Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

[KelvinG]

Evolution and creationism can be compatible, but ultimately if you believe in a creator it takes a leap of faith. Evolution is proven through scientific observation and analysis.
Creationism is a belief system that is incompatible with the scientific method.
However, there is nothing stopping someone from recognizing the validity of evolution, while ultimately deferring the creation of life to a supreme being.
Evolution could be the process this supreme being uses to create intelligent life.

Personally, I find such a leap of faith to be incredibly far fetched. But, many leaps of faith are. That is why they require a "leap", I suppose!

[Ratman_tf]

Forgive me if someone already posted these links here somewhere.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/thomas_wedge.html

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Thanz

I accept the statement that there is no "need" for one as long as you have the other, but I disagree that they are mutually exclusive in reality. I think that they are perfectly compatible concepts.



In fact, nothing is incompatible with an omnipotent god. All you have to say is "God makes it look that way" and it is solved.

OTOH, the question of whether something _requires_ an omnipotent god is a separate issue.