Why is it Assumed Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive?

[metis]

I left the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in five decades ago and it was largely based on its anti-evolution and anti-science agenda. To me, any religion or denomination that can't accept at least the basic ToE is simply one that's bogus because the Truth cannot be relative.

The importance of the Creation accounts is not found within literalism but is with the basic teaching that God created all, plus various other teachings found within these accounts, and some people miss the mark by insisting that these accounts must be taken literally versus allegorically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It also says that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"....that is the entire universe. So I'm sorry, but making things visible by clearing cloud layers is a different scenario altogether. God did not create them at that time because they were already there.



Can I have some proof for those assumptions please? Who was there to document what science claims? How would science know with any certainty what took place millions of years ago? You have the same faith in science as I have in God.



Who said birds evolved from land animals? The same people that claim that pakicetus was a walking whale I assume?
Give us the proof.



The writer of Genesis made a clear distinction between "domestic" animals and "wild" ones. Please show us these animals that are still evolving....? But please don't refer to adaptation because that produces only variety within a single species....it never demonstrates a new taxonomic family.. Taxonomies are fixed.



You have a handful of nothing but unsubstantiated claims. No scientist can "prove" that evolution ever happened and it galls them!
They can suggest it...infer it....assume it....but they can't prove it any more than we can prove the existence of a Creator. There are two belief systems and we make our choice for our own reasons.

I have a logical approach to creation that does not make it necessary to shed either true and provable science, or the Bible. They are compatible.

And there it is: you don’t actually accept evolution; you dismiss it.

Why did you say that evolution could be reconciled with the Bible if you don't actually reconcile them?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Granted, I understand why YEC cannot fit within the context of Evolution (part of why I don’t adhere to a literal faith, I think scripture and religion often speaks in Metaphors as a way to display God in a more simplified fashion).

But what is it that leads people to the assumption that faith and science cannot exist in harmony with each other?

I view science as a means to have a better understanding of who God is. Yet I can’t view it as a method of proving or disproving God, simply a way of better understanding our natural world. How do others view this?

There is nothing at all wrong with faith and science existing in harmony.

But evolution is not science.

Look at the world around you. You see dogs varying in form, but remaining exactly the same species. So too in the fossil record where every creature found remains the same across the supposedly millions of years, never changing at all. Just as Husky mates with Husky and remains Husky. Just as Mastiff mates with Mastiff and remains Mastiff. Yet when Husky mates with Mastiff variation enters the record suddenly and we get the Chinook. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook.....

These

are no different than these

except that the certopsia have been incorrectly classified as separate species. Just like they would do with dogs had they never seen any of them alive and had only bones.

As for time, well, that's because they refuse to follow their own science. According to them, the universe began expanding faster than c and has only continued to increase. Relativity demands that objects increasing in velocity have their decay rates (not just clocks) slow as velocity increases. This means the opposite is also true. That the further back one goes in time, the slower was the velocity, the faster decay rates (clock ticks) occurred. Since they say the expansion was faster than c, this would mean an exponential change in the decay rates so that radioactive decay rates occurred exponentially faster in the past.

It is well proven science, but yet they refuse to adjust their clocks exponentially when calculating back into the past. It is not that science is incompatible with creation, it is simply they ignore science altogether..... So yes, 4+ billion years of radioactive decay has occurred, but it occurred in just several thousand years. But being they do not adjust their clocks for time dilation which their own theory demands, they arrive at the incorrect answers..... Likewise Christians also refuse to adjust for time dilation, which their belief demands being "God stretched out the Heavens" during creation.... so they too arrive at the wrong answers and can't reconcile the two.....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I left the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in five decades ago and it was largely based on its anti-evolution and anti-science agenda. To me, any religion or denomination that can't accept at least the basic ToE is simply one that's bogus because the Truth cannot be relative.

"37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]"
- Humani Generis (emphasis mine)

The importance of the Creation accounts is not found within literalism but is with the basic teaching that God created all, plus various other teachings found within these accounts, and some people miss the mark by insisting that these accounts must be taken literally versus allegorically.

"38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents."
- Humani Generis (emphasis mine)

Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]"
- Humani Generis (emphasis mine)



"38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents."
- Humani Generis (emphasis mine)

Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII

Although mostly agree, I do however not agree with the "mentality of a people but little cultured".

This implies lesser intelligence, yet Adam named all the animals. Mankind built a tower unlike any we are capable of building, such that the one language had to be made into many. We haven't done anything of that sort despite all our vaunted culture.... Sure, we have advanced technologically, but can we really say we have advanced culturally given our modern society with every man out for himself????

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Although mostly agree, I do however not agree with the "mentality of a people but little cultured".

This implies lesser intelligence, yet Adam named all the animals. Mankind built a tower unlike any we are capable of building, such that the one language had to be made into many. We haven't done anything of that sort despite all our vaunted culture....

I hope you realize that I don't think that any of this happened.

Sure, we have advanced technologically, but can we really say we have advanced culturally given our modern society with every man out for himself????

This doesn't describe the society I belong to.

 

[tayla]

I don’t adhere to a literal faith, I think scripture and religion often speaks in Metaphors as a way to display God in a more simplified fashion

The problem with the view you propose is that the meanings of the metaphors are totally arbitrary. You can take the stories and teachings of the religion and allegorize them to mean whatever you want. This is why religions insist on doctrines you must believe, to prevent such a thing. (But then, I suppose, you could interpret these doctrines as mere metaphors...)

 

[tayla]

But what is it that leads people to the assumption that faith and science cannot exist in harmony with each other?

When a religion makes claims in the domain of science that are provably false, and when it insists they are true and must be believed, then I would say this is a good reason.

If a religion does this, then all its teachings, tenets, and doctrines are untrustworthy, including the scriptures that contains the writings of such things. This is why, in my view, all revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are not trustworthy sources of truth and knowledge.

 

[tayla]

I view science as a means to have a better understanding of who God is. Yet I can’t view it as a method of proving or disproving God, simply a way of better understanding our natural world.

In my view science can only discuss phenomena within the physical realm, the universe. It does this via the scientific method.

Science can not learn anything anything about the goings on in the spiritual realm; in fact, it denies such a thing even exists. But things such as the subjective experience of consciousness and its contents, and the existence of reality; these are not composed of matter and energy, space and time, and the physical laws.

Materialistic science, by assumption, asserts that everything can be studied by the scientific method. But spiritual things can only be experienced. God and his nature can only be felt, not proven scientifically. Also, I think there are good philosophical arguments for accepting God (I don't mean the usual Aristotelian arguments.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I hope you realize that I don't think that any of this happened.

No, it wouldn’t surprise me that people would cite references of Biblical inerrancy then ignore the Bible....

This doesn't describe the society I belong to.

I bet you lock your doors at night and when you leave....

 

[Jose Fly]

But evolution is not science.

Why do you creationists say stuff like this? Do you honestly believe that's true? If you really, truly believe evolution isn't science, I have some follow-up questions for you.

Look at the world around you. You see dogs varying in form, but remaining exactly the same species.

Except we also see populations evolving new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and even species. Why would you have us deny what see with our own eyes?

So too in the fossil record where every creature found remains the same across the supposedly millions of years, never changing at all.

So if you were shown even one example where a taxa's fossil record showed change over time, your claim above would be wrong, yes?

So yes, 4+ billion years of radioactive decay has occurred, but it occurred in just several thousand years.

Where did the heat go?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it wouldn’t surprise me that people would cite references of Biblical inerrancy then ignore the Bible....
I don't accept that quote myself. I was pointing out that @metis 's church rejects the principles he says he follows.

I bet you lock your doors at night and when you leave....

Because of a small minority of people. I certainly don't think that everyone is out for themselves.

 

[viole]

Granted, I understand why YEC cannot fit within the context of Evolution (part of why I don’t adhere to a literal faith, I think scripture and religion often speaks in Metaphors as a way to display God in a more simplified fashion).

But what is it that leads people to the assumption that faith and science cannot exist in harmony with each other?

I view science as a means to have a better understanding of who God is. Yet I can’t view it as a method of proving or disproving God, simply a way of better understanding our natural world. How do others view this?

If you believe fhat a powerful and benevolent God who knows what He wants and achieve His means by

- billions of years of bloody competition of species via amoral and cruel mechanisms prizing the strong and killing the weak
- selection of traits by natural mechanisms
- 99% of extinctions
- evolution of dinosaurs for many many million years
- fine tuning of the trajectory of asteroids with the purpose of destroying all those dinosaurs so that a rat looking like creature can freely leave its stinking hole in order to evolve into an ape, in which He will eventually incarnate 60 millions years later

Well, if you believe that, then I guess there is no contradiction between the Christian God and basically anything else.

Ciao

- viole


-

 

[TravisW]

I get why original sin is being brought up, but I think it’s important to distinct not all Christians (and certainly not all religious) believe in original sin. And scriptures around Christ’s crucifixion are based on the fact that he died to to save, not to forgive sin people didn’t commit.

Be careful not to put that argument into others mouths, because while original sin is a popular concept amoung Christianity as whole (as is YEC), it does not account for all branches of Christianity.

 

[TravisW]

If you believe fhat a powerful and benevolent God who knows what He wants and achieve His means by

- billions of years of bloody competition of species via amoral and cruel mechanisms prizing the strong and killing the weak
- selection of traits by natural mechanisms
- 99% of extinctions
- evolution of dinosaurs for many many million years
- fine tuning of the trajectory of asteroids with the purpose of destroying all those dinosaurs so that a rat looking like creature can freely leave its stinking hole in order to evolve into an ape, in which He will eventually incarnate 60 millions years later

Well, if you believe that, then I guess there is no contradiction between the Christian God and basically anything else.

Ciao

- viole


-

That assumes God is a micromanaging guy in the sky and intentionally causes everything instead of simply creating the system. Beyond that, physical death does not necessarily equate to a spiritual death, given a God that transcends the world.

All of these are great questions, with no necessarily concrete answer. But the purpose of faith isn’t necessarily to have a concrete answer for everything, that’s not faith, that’s delusion.

 

[Deeje]

And there it is: you don’t actually accept evolution; you dismiss it.

You see....this is what happens when you ask for the proof that evolution ever happened.....you've got nothing. I am not dismissing evolution....I am questioning its validity when no proof for science's assumptions are ever provided.

Evolutionists want proof for a Creator....why can't we have proof for evolution doing what scientists claim it did? If "believing" doesn't make something a fact...then science is in the same boat as we are. They just can't admit it. If science had actual proof, then this debate would not even be possible.

Why did you say that evolution could be reconciled with the Bible if you don't actually reconcile them?

I am seeing a comprehension problem here....I did not say evolution could be reconciled with the Bible....I said that true science agrees with the Bible if you remove the idea that all of creation had to be completed in six 24 hour "days". If the Bible gives us all the time necessary to complete the job, and creation itself gives evidence of incredible design, then the only problem I can see is a refusal to acknowledge the possibility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You see....this is what happens when you ask for the proof that evolution ever happened.....you've got nothing. I am not dismissing evolution....I am questioning its validity when no proof for science's assumptions are ever provided.

Evolutionists want proof for a Creator....why can't we have proof for evolution doing what scientists claim it did? If "believing" doesn't make something a fact...then science is in the same boat as we are. They just can't admit it. If science had actual proof, then this debate would not even be possible.



I am seeing a comprehension problem here....I did not say evolution could be reconciled with the Bible....I said that true science agrees with the Bible if you remove the idea that all of creation had to be completed in six 24 hour "days". If the Bible gives us all the time necessary to complete the job, and creation itself gives evidence of incredible design, then the only problem I can see is a refusal to acknowledge the possibility.

Deeje, a huge part of the problem is that you will not let yourself understand the concept of evidence. But then you can't afford to. There is no scientific evidence for creationism and there are mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution. That is why the acceptance of the theory of evolution is extraordinarily strong among scientists. "Herding cats" is a phrase that can be applied to scientists. They tend to go their own way unless there is extremely strong evidence to keep them in line. Over 99% of biologists and geologists accept the theory of evolution. You would be hard pressed to find a theory with a greater degree of acceptance. The reason that they do so is because of the evidence for the theory.

Oh, and science does not "prove" anything. That is a mathematical concept. But if you accept gravity then by the same standards you would have to accept the theory of evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

You see....this is what happens when you ask for the proof that evolution ever happened.....you've got nothing. I am not dismissing evolution....I am questioning its validity when no proof for science's assumptions are ever provided.

And in your setup, who gets to decide what is "proof", what is "assumption", and what is or isn't valid? You, a person who's as biased as can be?

Evolutionists want proof for a Creator

You still think evolution = atheism? All these years, all these discussions, all these people of various faiths telling you that they believe in God and recognize evolution as real, and not one bit of it sunk in?

Why is that?

 

[MonkeyFire]

They may not be compatible, I don't believe in either of them. New things get old and end, I believe in eternal angels before and after.

 

[Deeje]

I get why original sin is being brought up, but I think it’s important to distinct not all Christians (and certainly not all religious) believe in original sin.

Doesn't that depend on what we consider "original sin" to be?

The Catholic Church made sex out to be original sin for centuries (I'm not sure if it still retains that belief) but there was an original sin that was committed by the first humans and it forms the basis for a redeemer to come into the world. If we understand the role of a redeemer, then without original sin, there was no reason for Jesus to offer his life. You remove a need for his mission. Original sin is a fact (Romans 5:12) so what do you think it is, so that it can so easily be dismissed by those who call themselves "Christians"? It obviously wasn't sex because God told them to have children.....

And scriptures around Christ’s crucifixion are based on the fact that he died to to save, not to forgive sin people didn’t commit.

The scriptures indicate that he did both. How do you accept one without the other?
If we inherit sin as a result of being human, then there is two kinds of sin.....the one that operates in our human body that results in aging, sickness and death.....and the one we choose to commit by choice. Christ died to remove the first kind, and to forgive the second as long as there is repentance. So there is no such thing as a sin people didn't commit. We are born sinful by our very nature thanks to the actions of our first parents. Whether we 'practice' sin or not is up to us.

Be careful not to put that argument into others mouths, because while original sin is a popular concept amoung Christianity as whole (as is YEC), it does not account for all branches of Christianity.

Which leads us to the question as to why there are "branches" of Christianity in the first place. Jesus taught one truth...it was men who twisted what he said and led people in different directions....he foretold that this would happen with his parable of the "wheat and the weeds", so what do you think Jesus is doing right now in the midst of all these different versions of what he taught, that he said were planted by the devil? There are many "weeds" but only one kind of "wheat"......so how do we find them?