Evolution vs. Creation, which is logical?

[angellous_evangellous]

I seem to be quite healthy, and do not beat against the air any more than the next person. While you may not understand my position, please do not portray those that do as utter idiots who deny the faith.

No, I do understand your position. It is important to note that one can both understand and reject a particular point of view. Furthermore, my statement was not universal of all Christians, but some Christians who have false presuppositions or assumptions that make their theology scientifically verifiable or negatable, which I think is unhealthy. I do not think that anyone who believes in literal creationism is an idiot, but they are wrong IMHO in making theological assumptions scientific.

Here's my example: Science tells us what constitues an orange. We say, no, theologically it is an apple. That's what creationists are doing. They are theologically saying that an orange is an apple. If you base your entire theology upon the false assumption that the scientific orange does not exist, you are not using faith but rather are imposing theology upon science (eg, using theological reasoning to answer scientific questions), and if we allow theology to answer scientific questions, then science is allowed to answer theological questions. If science can prove the scientific question of the existence of the orange, it negates the theological assumption that it is an apple. In this case, the theologians are insisting that the orange is scientifically an apple, that it really is an apple, not that it is somehow an apple naturally and an orange theologically (which is possible - science determines the natural substance of things, theology determines the divinity of things). If the theology is based upon the nature of the apple (which truly is an orange), then those who are convinced that the apple is really an orange have denied the faith.

Unfortunately, science can answer scientific questions. Theology can answer theological questions. If we make a theological question scientific, then science can answer the theological question and thus establish religious doctine. This is not faith.

EDIT: Netdoc, I want to be perfectly clear here. Faith comes from God, not science. For some creationists, their entire theology would fall apart if they weree convinced that evolution is true. That is, sin entered the world through a literal Adam, there was no death before him, so evolution is not true. Also, some think that their theology of Scripture depends upon literal creation: if evolution is true, then the Bible is not the Word of God, and my entire experience with God is a lie.

In these cases, the Christians who believe this must ignore all scientific proof that evolution is true. The proof is null, and the Christian must insist that literal creationism is true or deny the faith.

Such an attitude is an unhealthy beating against the air.

 

[Scuba Pete]

That's still a very broad brush.

I believe that God is the impetus for Creation and that evolution is the tool that he used. Romans teaches us that ALL that we see proclaim the Glory of God, and that would include nature as we have come to know it.

The death Adam introduced was spiritual and not physical. We have nothing to fear from physical death, but everything to fear from spiritual death.

 

[michel]

Shi,
I really don't think that they are mutually exclusive. We can say that God uses evolution as a method of creation. I don't think that God would create a fossil record with evidence that dinosaurs lived and died millions of years before humans and a Bible that forces us to tell scientists that they are wrong. It just doesn't make sense that with our rational ability we would be mislead.

Here's the deal: as a Christian, I give God the glory for His creative and sustaining work in Creation. He did a good job. He gave the world the abilty to grow and change, and I see His purpose everywhere.

I have a HUGE problem with Christians who have a personal or even scholarly theology that can be negated by science. If some Christians were convinced that evolution was right, they would have to deny the faith. They think that if evolution is true, then creation cannot and the Bible is a lie. Such a view is unhealthy and is not really faith, but an insane beating against the air. Faith should be unaffected by science because it has nothing to do with science. It is higher, freer, and answers ultimate questions. Science is bound within creation, as it is a study of creation. Religion is a reflection of the divine, and for Jews and Christians, the Creator is seperate from creation and untestable.

I have a huge problem with anyone who has no respect for someone else's beliefs. There are polite and impolite ways to say things; could you not 'couch' your words so as to make them less hurtful?:sarcastic

 

[Melody]

Australopithecines

I haven't kept up with this but when I was in college, Australopithecine was considered ape and had more in common with an orangutan than man. Many scholars were in the process of disproving that this was early man.

 

[Fatmop]

"That is, unless you belive that the processes of evolution were the processes that a higher power used to create/shape life, then it seems to be perfectly logical. Except for these days, what people see as "logical" is often times whatever they are comfortable with, which is the case with most new-earth creationists and it is mighty hard to tell them otherwise."
"What i'm trying to say, is that your key word was "was". It is perfectly acceptable that, in the near future, science will explain the gaps in evolution and it we be perfectly credible. until then, we can fill those gaps with theology, christianity, if you will, and it will be perfectly logical. you are correct, neither can provide complete logic, but that is when they stand alone."

You're telling us that, because science can not explain everything we see, then it is logical to believe in a god. If premise X does not adequately explain everything, the premise Y must be acceptable. As TVOR has pointed out, there could be an unlimited number of options besides your theology; simply saying that a belief is 'logical' because it 'fills in the gaps' is not at all rational. You have predetermined your belief system, and trying to stuff it into scientific analysis which sometimes clashes sharply.
As for which is logical? The Bible has never been accepted on the basis of logic. People accept the Bible based on faith, on what their parents believed, on what they see on TV, on being a drug addict and having an evangelist Christian worker help them out of it. Once they believe, they reduce everything else in the universe to something to fit into God's plan, and try to intellectualize and rationalize their own belief.
It has often been said, with some controversy from theists, that belief is the enemy of reason. Science has provided no end of evidence to attempt to prove its theories, or in many cases to change them when new, conflicting evidence appears, or even sometimes to disregard theories completely. Why do they have to disregard theories, like the phlogiston theory? Because their empirical evidence compels them - once oxygen was discovered, logically there was no way science could claim phlogiston existed. Evolution is a theory that has been assaulted by the church ever since its introduction, but it has survived to the modern day because scientists are finding a growing body of evidence to support it. That's why I would call evolution more logical.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's still a very broad brush.

I believe that God is the impetus for Creation and that evolution is the tool that he used. Romans teaches us that ALL that we see proclaim the Glory of God, and that would include nature as we have come to know it.

The death Adam introduced was spiritual and not physical. We have nothing to fear from physical death, but everything to fear from spiritual death.

That is precisely what I said in my first post on this thread.

From post #20: We can say that God uses evolution as a method of creation.

Your reply made me think that I offended you, which made me conclude that you held to a literal interpretation of Genesis that would require rejection of evolution along theological lines. I must apologize for the offense. We obviously hold to the same view concerning evolution. I simply think that holding to a doctrine that can be negated by science is not faith but answering scientific questions theologically.

I have already said that theologians are able to say that a natural orange is theologically an apple. Science cannot prove that an orange is not theologically something else, as such a question places it in a place in which science has no jurisdiction. Science cannot say that there is no theological death, only that there is physical death. We can observe the body dying and in decay, but nothing about the afterlife. However, when theology teaches that the orange is truly an apple naturally then the theologians are fools because science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the orange is naturally an orange. Thus, when creationists blindly ignore the facts for evolution based on theological reasons only, they make themselves look like fools, and their theology would be shattered if they were convinced with the rest of us that evolution is true.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have a huge problem with anyone who has no respect for someone else's beliefs. There are polite and impolite ways to say things; could you not 'couch' your words so as to make them less hurtful?:sarcastic

Perhaps my lack of "politeness" stems from the fact that I am a Christian and lumped together with folks who blindly insist that evolution is false from the Christian point of view. I will respect a point of view that commands respect.

I am not trying to establish that Christianity is the only answer. I am trying to establish, and I think that I have done so, that theology answers theological questions and science answers scientific questions. Yes, science cannot prove whether or not the Christian God exists because He is not testable. We cannot test God with any scientific test. Does God exist? is a theological question, not scientific. In the Christian view, He is the Creator, and science is the study of the creation or the natural world. Science is the study of nature, we confess that God exists above nature and that God has to reveal Himself to humanity.

If you want to entertain other religious or theolical insights, fine. When the theological model can be verified or negated scientifically, then it was not theological in the first place and science can dictate doctrine (the teachings of the religion). Christians confess that our teachings are from God. Only if our claims touch science can science test it.

For Fatmop:
As for which is logical, it has long been said that "philosophy is the handmaiden of theology." Christianity has some of the greatest minds in history and today. We have great contributions to scholarship and critical thinking. It is because of the limitations of theology that we are mostly criticized for because both sides of the debate try to answer questions that are not in the appropriate realm. Theologicans have tried (to their great scorn) to answer scientific questions, and scientists have tried to answer theological questions. As far as philosophy goes, it has shown itself unable to answer its basic questions: what do we know, how do we know it, and how shall we act. However, even philosophy (which leads several in our day to scientific naturalism- and it looks like you may not recognize the limits of science) has many people here stuck in scientific natualism (have you ever seen God, where's the proof?!) Christian theology has answers to these questions, and its answers are convincing. If you want to consider answers elsewhere, fine.

 

[cvipertooth]

You're telling us that, because science can not explain everything we see, then it is logical to believe in a god. If premise X does not adequately explain everything, the premise Y must be acceptable. As TVOR has pointed out, there could be an unlimited number of options besides your theology; simply saying that a belief is 'logical' because it 'fills in the gaps' is not at all rational. You have predetermined your belief system, and trying to stuff it into scientific analysis which sometimes clashes sharply.

I believe we are trying to say the same thing, only i must have not worded it correctly. Throughout history, people have "filled the gaps" that appear to be irrational with something that is rational to them, often times this is theology. These beliefs (the world is flat, the universe revolves around the world, etc) are accepted until a better idea comes along. Trust me, if science could disprove theology i would accept it whole-heartedly, but until then I, as well as many other theists, are forced to fill in the gaps with something we are comfortable with, or else going insane with the 'what ifs' and the 'hows' of life. Logical? to some, it is. But often times logic is defined by what a person can discover for themselves and what is right in front of them. I thought evolution was crazy and all scientists were wackos for the longest time, and that was perfectly logical for me. Not until the theory of evolution was presented to me, was I able to overcome what i saw as logical then, and it be irrational in my mind now.

As for which is logical? The Bible has never been accepted on the basis of logic. People accept the Bible based on faith, on what their parents believed, on what they see on TV, on being a drug addict and having an evangelist Christian worker help them out of it. Once they believe, they reduce everything else in the universe to something to fit into God's plan, and try to intellectualize and rationalize their own belief.

Do you mean that the Bible has never been accepted on the basis of logic to you? I know of many people who accept the Bible on the basis of logic, and, of course, they are often times seen as the unintelligent and uneducated. These people also see the other side of the camp as completely illogical and cannot be accepted at all. i've seen theists and non-theists alike walk into the smithsonian museum of natural history and, for both sides, it proves their beliefs correct. If both sides of the evolution/creation camp can have confidence in their beliefs through science, then both sides must have some credibility, even if neither side's thoughts are complete.

It has often been said, with some controversy from theists, that belief is the enemy of reason. Science has provided no end of evidence to attempt to prove its theories, or in many cases to change them when new, conflicting evidence appears, or even sometimes to disregard theories completely. Why do they have to disregard theories, like the phlogiston theory? Because their empirical evidence compels them - once oxygen was discovered, logically there was no way science could claim phlogiston existed. Evolution is a theory that has been assaulted by the church ever since its introduction, but it has survived to the modern day because scientists are finding a growing body of evidence to support it. That's why I would call evolution more logical.

I would have to agree with you, that belief is the enemy of reason, but I would only change it to blind belief. If you believe something without searching it out yourself, then of course, you throw away reason. True, evolution has survived many a blasting from the church, but the church is still alive, also. Only when we can acheive a higher level of reasoning, will the church realize that their beliefs are not conflicted by science, and science will be able to better support their beliefs, and this arguement will become less relevant.

 

[Mossburg32908]

I think both evolution and creation are very logical.

 

[Doc]

I agree with Mossburg, both make sense to me .(even though he is a doofus...cough...colin...LOL...welcome

I mean Evolution makes sense to me and yet I can still believe that the Force was responsible for creating the universe. I think they can co-exist.

 

[Mossburg32908]

yes thanks moron... I mean brad...I mean doc.

But I dont think that thers only one

 

[Doc]

One what? Superior Guitar player which is me!

Anyway, we should move this fight to a different arena or else we may be excommunicated from this part of the boards.


Sorry about that, these newbies! Anyway like I said, I have no problem believin in both.

 

[Mossburg32908]

I am sorry to the other people, but how long have you've been playing a year. and i've been playing, oh yeah thats right FOUR YEARS. you cant even play a song as simple as stairway to heaven.

Again I am sorry to everyone but Doc. no more out of you now Doc

 

[patronkerr]

I have often wondered if Creationists can accept medical research which advances the cure of some (unfortunatly, not ALL - yet) diseases. Medical research goes down many dead ends and blind alleys until a cure is found. It's the way of science.
Why not the same thing with evolution. Research into evolution is a long slow process and there are many deviations and convoluted by-ways. I am always surprised that so many bones, fossils etc are found considering most of the worls is covered by seas, oceans and concrete.
It is so simple to just accept the Bible's version. It saves thinking! But isn't that the definition of faith? Accept and believe. Unfortunatly, man is a seeking being. That's why mountains are climbed, the universe explored and research goes on. Man always wants to know more!
Think of it, if it were not so, would you be reading this on a 'computer'? We'd be still in the Garden of Eden - naked, if Eve hadn't eaten that apple!

 

[Doc]

I would not be in Eden. German and French wars would not have made my great grandparents move from Alcase Lorraine to America and I would cease to exist.

 

[painted wolf]

depends on your particular view of Creation... there is more than just the Bible out there.

wa:do

 

[Fatmop]

CViper, though I understand the point you're making - that filling in the gaps is acceptable - I still don't see how it is logical. Depending on where and how you've been brought up, you could fill in the gaps of evolution with any theology - Buddhism, Islam, and others, and they would be equally as convincing to you as Christianity. How, logically, have you determined that Christianity is the most acceptable?

P.S. I know how hypocritical it is of me to berate you for believing in something, when evolution hasn't been entirely proved to me either.