Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?

[trinity2359]

Ugh. Another interesting thread that I'm very late for. OK, excuse me while I answer the original post and catch on the thread later . Yes, I for one, believe in both God as creator who used evolution to accomplish goals. Ok, back to ya'lls discussion.

 

[Autodidact]

Ugh. Another interesting thread that I'm very late for. OK, excuse me while I answer the original post and catch on the thread later . Yes, I for one, believe in both God as creator who used evolution to accomplish goals. Ok, back to ya'lls discussion.

Well, you might want to tell the Great Architect, who is under the impression that you don't exist.

 

[trinity2359]

By my disturbing lack of frubals, I fear you are correct, LOL

 

[trinity2359]

Ha! See, there is a God - I just got 2000 frubals! LOL! Thanks all

 

[Storm]

I've probably said this upthread but I'll say it again: Not only do I believe in both God and evolution, evolution is actually crucial to my theology. So yes, it's absolutely possible.

 

[Autodidact]

Ha! See, there is a God - I just got 2000 frubals! LOL! Thanks all

And indeed, Her ways are most mysterious.

 

[logician]

The thread topic is mistated, as evolution is not a belief, it is a science.

 

[ChristineES]

The thread topic is mistated, as evolution is not a belief, it is a science.

And you can't believe science?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Ha! See, there is a God - I just got 2000 frubals! LOL! Thanks all

What is a frubal? I'm new to this too.

 

[Yerda]

The thread topic is mistated, as evolution is not a belief, it is a science.

Can you elaborate there? That seems a little vague.

 

[trinity2359]

The thread topic is mistated, as evolution is not a belief, it is a science.

Arguably, both evolution and creationism are sciences as well as beliefs. As evolution is the currently accepted academic 'theory', it is by no means a 'law' and thus, can be replaced by a more tested theory in the future, if and when observable results warrant a new dynamic -- such is the strength of the scientific method. And until a 'law' is established, a theory is simply the best guess of the time with the limited data and technology available, and can therefore be construed as a 'belief'.

 

[The Riley Family]

Evolution or Revolution? It seems humans prefer to evolve into revolution rather than resolution. Why when most hear the term evolution think of the theory of evolution that was made popular after Darwin's theory was presented. There are many key points about evolution that are truth but get messy and become theory because of a bit of theorization that humanities relative's are primates. Its is too bad so much gets lost behind all of this. We could be learning and enjoying how beautifully complex creation is, which the the ability for things to evolve is a very intricate part of it. Instead we choose to put the bible and science into head to head combat thinking one can disprove the other. Meanwhile we miss out on so much. True science should support true religion and true religion should support true science. If not there is something definately wrong and we would need to take a closer look at things. Real faith is not based on the unknown as many would have us believe. Science, at least the irrevocable laws are known and should follow suit with ones religious beliefs otherwise one's faith would be baseless and confusing. If someone wants to believe their family is primates, who am I to argue, but that doesn't mean mine are and that doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. Things do evolve around us all the time and have since the beginning. Even the earth not only revolves but evolves. Even christianity has evolved even to the point of denying the messiah they claim to believe in. The Creator is the same yesterday, today, and forever and this I am thankful for because at least there is stability in that. It would be nice to sit down and have a nice converstation with someone about how neat it is that God created things to be able to evolve.

 

[Storm]

What is a frubal? I'm new to this too.

Frubals are reputation. We use them as a kind of applause for really good posts.

If you look at the stats in the upper right-hand corner of your posts, at the bottom is a number and some colored dots. That's your frubal count. If you go to your user CP and scroll down, you can see who gave you frubals, and read any messages they left.

To frubal someone's post, look right above the stats in the upper right hand corner of the post, and you'll see an icon that looks like a set of scales. Click that to give frubals.

Hope that helped.

 

[logician]

Evolution or Revolution? It seems humans prefer to evolve into revolution rather than resolution. Why when most hear the term evolution think of the theory of evolution that was made popular after Darwin's theory was presented. There are many key points about evolution that are truth but get messy and become theory because of a bit of theorization that humanities relative's are primates. Its is too bad so much gets lost behind all of this. We could be learning and enjoying how beautifully complex creation is, which the the ability for things to evolve is a very intricate part of it. Instead we choose to put the bible and science into head to head combat thinking one can disprove the other. Meanwhile we miss out on so much. True science should support true religion and true religion should support true science. If not there is something definately wrong and we would need to take a closer look at things. Real faith is not based on the unknown as many would have us believe. Science, at least the irrevocable laws are known and should follow suit with ones religious beliefs otherwise one's faith would be baseless and confusing. If someone wants to believe their family is primates, who am I to argue, but that doesn't mean mine are and that doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. Things do evolve around us all the time and have since the beginning. Even the earth not only revolves but evolves. Even christianity has evolved even to the point of denying the messiah they claim to believe in. The Creator is the same yesterday, today, and forever and this I am thankful for because at least there is stability in that. It would be nice to sit down and have a nice converstation with someone about how neat it is that God created things to be able to evolve.

I fail to see the point of this post.

 

[fantome profane]

Arguably, both evolution and creationism are sciences as well as beliefs. As evolution is the currently accepted academic 'theory', it is by no means a 'law' and thus, can be replaced by a more tested theory in the future, if and when observable results warrant a new dynamic -- such is the strength of the scientific method. And until a 'law' is established, a theory is simply the best guess of the time with the limited data and technology available, and can therefore be construed as a 'belief'.

Anything can be arguable if people choose to argue about it, but that does not make it true, or even reasonable. Creationism is not science.

Scientific theories do not become laws. We still talk about the theory of gravity, molecular theory, and germ theory etc. The difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory has nothing to do with the level of certainty. A scientific law is a simple concise statement that can be expressed as mathematical equation. A scientific theory is a broader explanation that explains a range of related observations. A scientific theory should be falsifiable, and it should make useful predictions. A scientific theory is not simply the “best guess”.

Yes, a scientific theory can be revised, or replaced if and when new observations warrant it. But a scientific law can also be revised or replaced if the observations warrant it.

Creationism does not qualify as a scientific theory. Evolution does.

 

[crystalonyx]

Anything can be arguable if people choose to argue about it, but that does not make it true, or even reasonable. Creationism is not science.

Scientific theories do not become laws. We still talk about the theory of gravity, molecular theory, and germ theory etc. The difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory has nothing to do with the level of certainty. A scientific law is a simple concise statement that can be expressed as mathematical equation. A scientific theory is a broader explanation that explains a range of related observations. A scientific theory should be falsifiable, and it should make useful predictions. A scientific theory is not simply the “best guess”.

Yes, a scientific theory can be revised, or replaced if and when new observations warrant it. But a scientific law can also be revised or replaced if the observations warrant it.

Creationism does not qualify as a scientific theory. Evolution does.

Good post, I was about to post the same thing.

 

[Booko]

Ah, but there is a third option: That the story was a parable or an allegory. Essentially true but not literally true.

Sign me up for this option, especially considering there are two Biblical accounts of creation and they contradict themselves in some details.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

As I have stated before, I feel God did "create" the heavens and the earth through "evolution". There were and are Christian, Jewish and Muslims scientist who felt and feel the same way. Genesis is at odds with a few of the steps of evolution, but most of them are in lockstep with one-another. One must also consider symbology when reading Genesis, Revelation and other parts of the Bible.

 

[logician]

As I have stated before, I feel God did "create" the heavens and the earth through "evolution". There were and are Christian, Jewish and Muslims scientist who felt and feel the same way. Genesis is at odds with a few of the steps of evolution, but most of them are in lockstep with one-another. One must also consider symbology when reading Genesis, Revelation and other parts of the Bible.

It evolution has no purpose or direction, what exactly was this supposed god creating?

 

[Storm]

It evolution has no purpose or direction, what exactly was this supposed god creating?

If one believes that God is using evolution as a tool, then it follows that evolution is not pruposelss. That's a philosophical stance which has nothing to do with the facts.