Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?

[Willamena]

I'm not sure I understand this. How would taking God literally impede on one's ability to accept evolution and alike?

It wouldn't impede, but that was not the question asked. The question was if it was possible to believe in a Creator God and in the process of evolution. The Creator God as the literalized image of God, or the expression of God presented in the Bible, presents contradictions, especially if that image is addressed within the framework of a "timeline" (as "in the beginning" is usually interpeted).

 

[[email protected]]

you can, but it doesnt make much sence, creationism is the deinal of evolution, you seem a bit confused about the fine line between creationism and evolution.

 

[rojse]

Do you think it is possible to believe in both evolution and God/creationism.

Yes; evolution only defines how all of the different species of animal came from one ancestor. It does not explain how this original animal came about. Some people try and interpret it in that way, so that God created the original animal.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

you can, but it doesnt make much sence, creationism is the deinal of evolution, you seem a bit confused about the fine line between creationism and evolution.

Creationists deny evolution. Creationism is their theory and creed.
Creation is not the preserve of creationists.

Creation is the preserve of God...
God in some way Created all existence and the starting point, we understand as the universe. He was either responsible for the creation of first life or at the least the conditions under which it could come to exist.

Evolution attempts to explain how first life developed into the myriad species we know to day. It is the theory about a process, and is not involved in creation in any way.

So far there is a great deal of evidence supporting evolution.
However there is very little evidence about the process of Creation, except the overriding evidence that the universe exists.

The two, are in no way mutually exclusive.

 

[painted wolf]

Creationist deny more than just evolution... just about every branch of science is an anathma to them.

wa:do

 

[dawny0826]

Do you think it is possible to believe in both evolution and God/creationism.

I believe that evolution is very real. Living things do evolve.

I also believe whole-heartedly that God created human beings.

So, I believe in both.

 

[Somkid]

What your actually asking is: Can I believe in factual science, logic and reason and still follow illogic, the un-rational and things that are not factual? Now, maybe you can answer your question.

 

[Captain Civic]

What your actually asking is: Can I believe in factual science, logic and reason and still follow illogic, the un-rational and things that are not factual? Now, maybe you can answer your question.

Or, see the opinion of biased logic.

 

[Somkid]

Logic is not biased it is fact which is based in universal truth. You can believe whatever you want to believe but wishing it to be true does not make it so. Human kind is doomed by its own superstition perhaps evolution isn't real because we seem to be moving backwards.

 

[rojse]

Or, see the opinion of biased logic.

Logic, by it's very nature, cannot be biased, because bias itself is illogical. For example, it does not matter who makes an argument, what matters is the substance of that argument. Therefore, any argument is to be treated the same, regardless of the person that makes it, which is the antithesis of bias.

 

[Captain Civic]

Logic, by it's very nature, cannot be biased, because bias itself is illogical. For example, it does not matter who makes an argument, what matters is the substance of that argument. Therefore, any argument is to be treated the same, regardless of the person that makes it, which is the antithesis of bias.

Good grief. This isn't a semantics test.

What I meant by "biased logic" perhaps would satiate your political correctness by saying "biased ideas."

My point was, that this quote:

What your actually asking is: Can I believe in factual science, logic and reason and still follow illogic, the un-rational and things that are not factual? Now, maybe you can answer your question.

is an opinion with obvious anti-Christian undertones.

 

[kai]

well you can just adjust or redifne your god/gods to fit in with evolution cant you,

 

[yossarian22]

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.

Pity it has been. Drawing an arbitrary line between micro and macro is idiotic. (at least in this context)

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.)

Showing naught but a poor grasp of probability.
What gave you this idea?
Have you done something which has defied scientists everywhere are quantified it?
Or are you just relying on something as weak as intuition?
We have a poor grasp of probability. Why do you think Las Vegas exists at all?

 

[jcmasters]

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

Why would that be? Logically speaking, the entire Pentateuch is written from a historian and instructive point of view. Why would the first few chapters of Genesis somehow be allegorical or a parable?

The simple answer is that it isn't.

Yours,

JC Masters

 

[jcmasters]

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?

Sure it can. But science relies on empirical observation and experimentation, not assumption. The Bible is not a science textbook.
Science attempts to explain the origins of the universe and the evolution of life on earth. It can't because initial conditions can't be observed, processes can't be duplicated in the laboratory (obviously the creation of the universe can't be duplicated), therefore conclusions are conjectural only.

JC Masters

 

[jcmasters]

Pity it has been. Drawing an arbitrary line between micro and macro is idiotic. (at least in this context)

Showing naught but a poor grasp of probability.
What gave you this idea?
Have you done something which has defied scientists everywhere are quantified it?
Or are you just relying on something as weak as intuition?
We have a poor grasp of probability. Why do you think Las Vegas exists at all?

I don't think any arbitrary lines have been drawn between micro and macro.
Let me use a mathematical example, which should prove to you, at least, that I have at least a rudimentary understanding of probability.
Let's say we define a micro-evolution as a function f(t) with respect to time. For any given t, f(t) should give us a transitory species, right? So a velociraptor at t=0, arbitrarily, morphs into a chicken at t=60,000,000. Where's the species at t=30,000 or t=50,000,000? The simple answer is that there isn't any.

Probabilistically speaking, it is more probable that the universe was created, by fiat, with enough diversity of species genetic information to show small f(t) changes to adapt to specific circumstances than for fish to evolve into land animals.

Yours,

JC Masters - who is also a scientist

 

[rojse]

I don't think any arbitrary lines have been drawn between micro and macro.
Let me use a mathematical example, which should prove to you, at least, that I have at least a rudimentary understanding of probability.
Let's say we define a micro-evolution as a function f(t) with respect to time. For any given t, f(t) should give us a transitory species, right? So a velociraptor at t=0, arbitrarily, morphs into a chicken at t=60,000,000. Where's the species at t=30,000 or t=50,000,000? The simple answer is that there isn't any.

Probabilistically speaking, it is more probable that the universe was created, by fiat, with enough diversity of species genetic information to show small f(t) changes to adapt to specific circumstances than for fish to evolve into land animals.

Yours,

JC Masters - who is also a scientist

There is no difference, in evolutionary terms, of macro and micro evolution. Evolution is evolution, no matter how seemingly significant or insignificant that change seems to us. Macro and micro evolution are terms cooked up to try and muddle any evolutionary debate, and are of little use to us. As long as it enables the offspring that has benefited from this change to have some advantage, that is evolution.

Secondly, there is no arbitralily about evolution. In fact, evolution is quite the opposite of random and undirected. Animals that have characteristics that better enable it to survive, and therefore breed, pass on their genes, and the offspring have better chances of surviving and breeding.

The assertation about no transitional species is, at best, an extremely misguided view in the face of numerous pieces of evidence. What about the Archaeopterxy? Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Surely that would qualify as a transitionary species between dinosaurs and birds. There are many different dinosaurs that had feathers, too. Feathered dinosaurs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hope this assists you.

 

[yossarian22]

I don't think any arbitrary lines have been drawn between micro and macro.

In this context, it is entirely arbitrary. Macro is nothing more than a large number of micros stuck together.

Let me use a mathematical example, which should prove to you, at least, that I have at least a rudimentary understanding of probability.

Fine.

Let's say we define a micro-evolution as a function f(t) with respect to time.

Poor analogy from the start. Species are, by nature, categorical. This prevents a function from defining a relationship.
This also is not probability theory.

For any given t, f(t) should give us a transitory species, right? So a velociraptor at t=0, arbitrarily, morphs into a chicken at t=60,000,000. Where's the species at t=30,000 or t=50,000,000? The simple answer is that there isn't any.

So your issue is that there are not enough transitory species? Having a data point for every possible value of T is ridiculous.

Probabilistically speaking, it is more probable that the universe was created, by fiat, with enough diversity of species genetic information to show small f(t) changes to adapt to specific circumstances than for fish to evolve into land animals.

Probability can only be determined empirically. Any talk of probability is meaningless until you quantify the probability.

 

[camanintx]

Sure it can. But science relies on empirical observation and experimentation, not assumption. The Bible is not a science textbook.
Science attempts to explain the origins of the universe and the evolution of life on earth. It can't because initial conditions can't be observed, processes can't be duplicated in the laboratory (obviously the creation of the universe can't be duplicated), therefore conclusions are conjectural only.

JC Masters

So how can you say that abiogenesis is laughably improbable? Scientists don't have to prove that evolution followed a specific path between two species, just that the path exists.

 

[soma]

But science relies on empirical observation and experimentation, not assumption. The Bible is not a science textbook.
Science attempts to explain the origins of the universe and the evolution of life on earth. It can't because initial conditions can't be observed, processes can't be duplicated in the laboratory (obviously the creation of the universe can't be duplicated), therefore conclusions are conjectural only.

hypothesis Webster's online dictionary
1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement