Do you think it is possible to believe in both evolution and God/creationism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?
- Thread starter ChristineES
- Start date
Blentyn chan Celi
New guy
I may be a good idea to carefully define what you mean by creation and evolution.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I do.
Smoke
Done here.
When you say creationism, I think of the people who deny evolution.
However, it's obviously possible to believe in God and accept the fact of evolution; I'd imagine that there are more Christians who do than otherwise. (Although it might be a close call in the United States.)
Evolution is how we got here. Somebody who believes in God is likely to believe that God guided the process. (Although it's also possible to believe in God without believing that he guided the process, and I've met a number of Christians who didn't believe that God guided evolution -- but I suspect they're relatively rare.)
Evolution is the fact. Theistic evolution is a theistic meditation on that fact. Creationism is just bunk.
However, it's obviously possible to believe in God and accept the fact of evolution; I'd imagine that there are more Christians who do than otherwise. (Although it might be a close call in the United States.)
Evolution is how we got here. Somebody who believes in God is likely to believe that God guided the process. (Although it's also possible to believe in God without believing that he guided the process, and I've met a number of Christians who didn't believe that God guided evolution -- but I suspect they're relatively rare.)
Evolution is the fact. Theistic evolution is a theistic meditation on that fact. Creationism is just bunk.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
You mean Young Earth Creationism? Or have you managed to somehow prove that God didn't create everything?
Smoke
Done here.
No, I mean any form of Creationism that denies evolution, and that includes more than just young earthers. I don't mean any theist who believes that God is behind it all.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Gotcha...it's just that Creationism creates different meanings depending on which theist you happen to be talking to. Unless you specifically say pro-evolution OEC's (Old earth Creationism).
Maybe I should simplify a bit. There are some elements of evolution that seem correct even if I don't believe in the whole process of one species becoming another. Animals and people are very adaptable to their environment. Being a Christian, I, of course, believe that God made us that way.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Well, evolution doesn't claim a cat turns into a dog for example. Most species that went through a change stayed within the same family.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I have no problem in believing in both Creator and evolution. 
wa:do
wa:do
Yes, if God is taken non-literally.
I've spent a long time studying evolution (in all its forms) as well as studying the Bible (in all its forms, but mostly in Hebrew and Koine Greek).
I've come to the conclusion that evolution does not follow the scientific method in that one can only assume or infer an event that cannot have been observed.
The idea that, somehow, we evolved from amino acids in a soup billions of years ago is so laughably improbable I wonder why anyone takes it seriously. (In fact, I kick myself for previously believing such.)
But that brings us to the Genesis creation account.
Bear in mind that Moses is the author of Genesis, and Jesus himself attested to the veracity of the old testament, Genesis included. Moses got his information from God directly on the top of Mt. Sinai, so if what he wrote was doubtful or incorrect, 40 days and 40 nights was plenty of time to raise his hand to ask for clarification.
So, the logical conclusion would be that either the Genesis account of creation is true, or God is frankly a bold faced liar.
(A caveat: I am, just as I do with "Origin of Species" et al., taking the validity of the authorship of Genesis at face value, for purposes of this discussion.)
So, if evolution is true, God must be a liar.
If you are an atheist, you shouldn't have a problem at all with this.
If you are a Christian, however, it might be prudent to examine the alleged science behind evolution, to come to a more fully formed decision.
Love the back and forth...
JC Masters
I've come to the conclusion that evolution does not follow the scientific method in that one can only assume or infer an event that cannot have been observed.
The idea that, somehow, we evolved from amino acids in a soup billions of years ago is so laughably improbable I wonder why anyone takes it seriously. (In fact, I kick myself for previously believing such.)
But that brings us to the Genesis creation account.
Bear in mind that Moses is the author of Genesis, and Jesus himself attested to the veracity of the old testament, Genesis included. Moses got his information from God directly on the top of Mt. Sinai, so if what he wrote was doubtful or incorrect, 40 days and 40 nights was plenty of time to raise his hand to ask for clarification.
So, the logical conclusion would be that either the Genesis account of creation is true, or God is frankly a bold faced liar.
(A caveat: I am, just as I do with "Origin of Species" et al., taking the validity of the authorship of Genesis at face value, for purposes of this discussion.)
So, if evolution is true, God must be a liar.
If you are an atheist, you shouldn't have a problem at all with this.
If you are a Christian, however, it might be prudent to examine the alleged science behind evolution, to come to a more fully formed decision.
Love the back and forth...
JC Masters
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I'm not sure I understand this. How would taking God literally impede on one's ability to accept evolution and alike?
Ah, but there is a third option: That the story was a parable or an allegory. Essentially true but not literally true.
Thank you, that was an fascinating link.
Super Universe
Defender of God
Of course it is. Evolution is smart, it's built within for us to evolve so that God does not have to continually monitor, update, and make corrections. Once again, it's SMART. Why wouldn't God do it this way?
Priests have led you to believe there is a battle between God and science because they realized they were losing their power over the people. Once scientists began to explain storms, meteors, comets, eclipses, and earthquakes, the people no longer ran scared to the local holyman for his interpretation of the "signs".
God created the universe, nothing science discovers could possibly go against God. The scientists are revealing the clues to God's great creation. God is the original scientist.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
If the possibility that life evolved from amino acids in a soup billions of years ago can only be assumed then wouldn't any claims about its improbability also be an assumption?
Well, if I were going to believe in a god, I'm sure I would also accept evolution as true -- so, yes.