Why is it Assumed Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive?

[Deeje]

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).

It seems as if the main problem is the either/or support for one or the other, which many see as completely contradictory scenarios. You can't believe both...it has to be either science or religion....hence the name of this forum.

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

The only way for some to meld the two is to assume that either God created the evolutionary process, or that everything in Genesis is metaphorical. It occurs to me that there is a balanced view somewhere in the middle, using the Bible and established science to solve the conflict. It does not force us to accept one and reject the 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?

A misreading of Genesis is at the base of this whole argument IMV. Genesis 1:1 simply states that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". There is no actual timeframe between this fist verse and what follows. So, logically to me, the act of creation may well have occurred millions or even billions of years ago.

The following verses see God preparing the earth for habitation and ultimately all the living things that share this planet with us. It is obvious that life at a bacterial level was not addressed because humans had no ability to see them, and with all creation in balance, everything worked as it was supposed to. No bacteria would cause harm to any living thing anyway.

The final, crowning achievement was man....the only creature given God's attributes and moral qualities. Along with that was free will....a precious gift that would benefit mankind in a variety of ways every day as they filled the earth and beautified it.

The other way that Genesis is misread IMO is with regard to the meaning of the word "day". In Hebrew it is "yohm" and it can mean a literal day or an extended period of undetermined length. By assuming that the "days" were 24 hour periods, science comes along and laughs at the suggestion because its a blind Freddy thing that the earth and all that is on it was not created 6,000 years ago. Now we have a butting of heads and the slanging matches that infer lack of intelligence and blind faith. Science clearly sees its superiority in this argument which is why so many are now siding with science. The Christians who adhere to creationism then start to try and justify their position and appear to many to be religious ignoramuses.

So what is the middle ground that forms a bridge between religion and science?

1) The opening verse of Genesis is a completely separate act to what follows. The planet could have been in its unprepared state for millions of years after the creation of the universe. But God, at some stage began his preparation of a completely formless and waste ball of matter that was just the right distance from its sun and just the right size and shape to support life. We have no way of knowing when that happened.

2) The preparation of earth for habitation could be fully supported by science. The very first thing to appear is "light" and the next is earth's atmosphere. Nothing can exist without these first being in place.

Water was the next ingredient and from the start it is apparent that water already covered the surface of the whole planet. Part of God's preparation was to make land masses come up out of one vast ocean. The dry land was then clothed with vegetation...and also the first living organisms would have accompanied it, since vegetation is broken down into soil by bacteria in the natural recycling that takes place in nature. Since photosynthesis was essential for the life of plants and trees, the luminaries that were already there shedding their light, were somehow made visible from the earth's surface, perhaps by removing some cloud layers. (These were mentioned in Job 38:4-11) Genesis is presented from the perspective of an earth dweller. Plants can grow with light that is bright enough, but now there was full sunlight. A nightlight was also now visible as were the stars.

3) The living things that God made first were the marine creatures, followed by the flying creatures, of which there is infinite variety....insects, beetles, bats, birds...even pterodactyls. If the creative "days" were not 24 hours long, it allows for a very long and protracted creative process. The thought of the big wizard in the sky 'poofing' things into existence was never the case. God is a creator, not a magician.

4) Then the land creatures appear with a clear distinction between the wild animals and the domestic ones. Each has a habitat and food prepared for them in advance of their creation. It was all beautifully planned. Even the dinosaurs may have served a purpose, eating down the vegetation that had grown for perhaps thousands of years with nothing to keep it in check. Once they had served their purpose, then perhaps their contract was not renewed? If you extend the creative "days" into epochs of undetermined length, then all things become possible....and why there were no dinosaurs on the ark.

5) Finally, as God's last creative achievement, man is brought into existence, different to all the other creatures in that he alone was appointed to be this planet's custodians and caretakers. Endowing humans with His qualities, God was ensuring that they would represent him adequately in that role....and would have, if all had gone to plan.

So if you remove the 24 hour "days" you can have a creation that agrees with true science (as opposed to the theoretical kind) and the Creator becomes a master craftsman taking his time to craft his creation to his satisfaction as each period closed with his declaration that it was "good".

This is what makes sense to me.

 

[blü 2]

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

I think it varies from individual to individual, so there may not be any one-liner to explain it.

God's great attribute has been to answer the question, where did everything come from, and why? And since, say, the 16th or 17th centuries, thoughtful people (in the West) were much influenced by the argument from design ─ that the things, especially the living things, composing nature are so beautifully good at what they try to do, so remarkably equipped for their environments (whether as plants, fish, animals, insects &c) that someone smarter than they are must have set it up ─ there was simply no other explanation that could work.

But science, step by step, has taken those two props away. We now think, on credible grounds, that the universe began with the Big Bang or something like it, and since say 1800 the idea that critters evolved was in play ─ what Darwin did in 1859 was to make this explanation explicit, universal, well-formed and unignorable.

So it's necessary to cast around for other reasons to need a god, and to get used to losing the good old arguments when you argue with the scientifically informed. In other words, God's problem may be irrelevance.

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?

I wish you luck with that. I've never been able to come up with a coherent concept of what a god who was more than imaginary could possibly be.

 

[Salvador]

" Well, I’m curious to know if Adam and Eve never existed where did original sin come from? But I also would like to clarify the point about whether there was ever a first human. That’s a rather difficult and puzzling question because we know that the previous species from which we’re descended is probably homo erectus and before that some sort of australopithecine but there never was a last homo erectus who gave birth to the first homo sapiens. Every creature ever born belonged to the same species as its parents. The process of evolution is so gradual that you can never say, aha, now suddenly we have the first human. It was always a case of just a slightly different from the previous generation. That’s a scientific point which I think is quite interesting. I’m not sure if it has a theological significance except that I think successive popes have tried to suggest that the soul did indeed get added, rather like gin to tonic, at some particular point during evolution; at some point in evolution there was no soul and then later there was one so it is quite an interesting question to ask. Now we have rather a good fossil record from Africa of the descent of humans from australopithecines to various species of homo, perhaps homo habilis, perhaps homo erectus, then archaic homo sapiens and then modern homo sapiens. At what point did the soul get injected and what does the idea of original sin mean if Adam and Eve never existed?" - Richard Dawkins

Reference: Religion and Atheism | Q&A | ABC TV

 

[Subduction Zone]

" Well, I’m curious to know if Adam and Eve never existed where did original sin come from? But I also would like to clarify the point about whether there was ever a first human. That’s a rather difficult and puzzling question because we know that the previous species from which we’re descended is probably homo erectus and before that some sort of australopithecine but there never was a last homo erectus who gave birth to the first homo sapiens. Every creature ever born belonged to the same species as its parents. The process of evolution is so gradual that you can never say, aha, now suddenly we have the first human. It was always a case of just a slightly different from the previous generation. That’s a scientific point which I think is quite interesting. I’m not sure if it has a theological significance except that I think successive popes have tried to suggest that the soul did indeed get added, rather like gin to tonic, at some particular point during evolution; at some point in evolution there was no soul and then later there was one so it is quite an interesting question to ask. Now we have rather a good fossil record from Africa of the descent of humans from australopithecines to various species of homo, perhaps homo habilis, perhaps homo erectus, then archaic homo sapiens and then modern homo sapiens. At what point did the soul get injected and what does the idea of original sin mean if Adam and Eve never existed?" - Richard Dawkins

Reference: Religion and Atheism | Q&A | ABC TV

I have to disagree on Dawkins with this one. "Original sin" was always a wicked concept in my opinion. As usual one can find verses on both sides of this issue. Original sin is not needed to explain how man tends to fail at some point in his life.

 

[Ellen Brown]

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?

That is not so for many of us. As far as I am concerned they are inextricably intertwined and I'm not very open to being convinced otherwise. Those who wish to argue about it can just go suck a hob.

 

[atanu]

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?

Creation is not a pure physical act involving so-called physical objects. Scientists know that the definition of 'matter' is not easy anymore. Some scientists at least agree that since all our acts, including science, can never be conducted separately from our cognition, it is impossible to study our own cognition in an objective mode.

Once we recognise the above, we can also recognise that time-space that we perceive is not an independent objective thing. It is forever entangled with consciousness that cognises.

Scriptures of eastern religions (and I believe scriptures of Abrahamic religion also) make it amply clear that space-time is not invariant and depends on frame of references of beings. Vedas and subsidiary scriptures, recognise existence of beings at different space-time frames. And eventually, the Vedanta reveals that the so-called beings, in whatever plane, are all dream beings happening in consciousness, which is the non dual truth. One can negate every perceived object as devoid of self. But the aware self cannot be negated.

From this framework, it is not difficult for many of us to seamlessly meld the religion and science. When we take the phenomena as solid and true, we stick by whatever narrative suits us. However, adherence to those narratives inevitably change with time. Finally, a time comes, when all narratives are seen as passing show.

...

 

[sealchan]

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?

Science is seen to be a threat to the legitimacy of some religions which stake their claim to the historical accuracy of certain miraculous and non-miraculous events. A lot of money is on the line and a lot of people have bought into the deal.

 

[Sunstone]

A lot of money is on the line and a lot of people have bought into the deal.

That point is often overlooked, but it shouldn't be. Folks like Ken Ham and many an Evangelical preacher have a montetary interest in denying evolution.

 

[ChristineM]

It's rhetoric. It's over top arguments to justify their position.

You got literal religion spot on there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

As philosophies for understanding the world, they’re inherently in conflict: a scientific viewpoint means a commitment to form your conclusions based on evidence wherever it leads, while faith means a commitment to hold certain beliefs no matter what.

 

[Windwalker]

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

Because of the modes of thinking they operate from. The frameworks of reality they translate the world through divides things cannot allow for thinking outside of those boxes, and anything outside them is interpreted as false or an error. I should point out in this that as much as the YEC creationist sees science as a lie, the neo-atheist is doing exactly the same in seeing God as a lie.

What you ask above applies to both the theist and the atheist who sees religion as incompatible with science. Both sees reality through the same narrowly defined lens of an externalized world which is wholly other to themselves. Both have an investment in their modes of thinking to defend, because they attach their sense of self identify and security to their thinking and beliefs. "Better beliefs" is the goal for both. "Whoever has the better beliefs, is right!" And being right, wins the big prize, whatever that may be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems as if the main problem is the either/or support for one or the other, which many see as completely contradictory scenarios. You can't believe both...it has to be either science or religion....hence the name of this forum.

The only way for some to meld the two is to assume that either God created the evolutionary process, or that everything in Genesis is metaphorical. It occurs to me that there is a balanced view somewhere in the middle, using the Bible and established science to solve the conflict. It does not force us to accept one and reject the other.



A misreading of Genesis is at the base of this whole argument IMV. Genesis 1:1 simply states that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". There is no actual timeframe between this fist verse and what follows. So, logically to me, the act of creation may well have occurred millions or even billions of years ago.

The following verses see God preparing the earth for habitation and ultimately all the living things that share this planet with us. It is obvious that life at a bacterial level was not addressed because humans had no ability to see them, and with all creation in balance, everything worked as it was supposed to. No bacteria would cause harm to any living thing anyway.

The final, crowning achievement was man....the only creature given God's attributes and moral qualities. Along with that was free will....a precious gift that would benefit mankind in a variety of ways every day as they filled the earth and beautified it.

The other way that Genesis is misread IMO is with regard to the meaning of the word "day". In Hebrew it is "yohm" and it can mean a literal day or an extended period of undetermined length. By assuming that the "days" were 24 hour periods, science comes along and laughs at the suggestion because its a blind Freddy thing that the earth and all that is on it was not created 6,000 years ago. Now we have a butting of heads and the slanging matches that infer lack of intelligence and blind faith. Science clearly sees its superiority in this argument which is why so many are now siding with science. The Christians who adhere to creationism then start to try and justify their position and appear to many to be religious ignoramuses.

So what is the middle ground that forms a bridge between religion and science?

1) The opening verse of Genesis is a completely separate act to what follows. The planet could have been in its unprepared state for millions of years after the creation of the universe. But God, at some stage began his preparation of a completely formless and waste ball of matter that was just the right distance from its sun and just the right size and shape to support life. We have no way of knowing when that happened.

2) The preparation of earth for habitation could be fully supported by science. The very first thing to appear is "light" and the next is earth's atmosphere. Nothing can exist without these first being in place.

Water was the next ingredient and from the start it is apparent that water already covered the surface of the whole planet. Part of God's preparation was to make land masses come up out of one vast ocean. The dry land was then clothed with vegetation...and also the first living organisms would have accompanied it, since vegetation is broken down into soil by bacteria in the natural recycling that takes place in nature. Since photosynthesis was essential for the life of plants and trees, the luminaries that were already there shedding their light, were somehow made visible from the earth's surface, perhaps by removing some cloud layers. (These were mentioned in Job 38:4-11) Genesis is presented from the perspective of an earth dweller. Plants can grow with light that is bright enough, but now there was full sunlight. A nightlight was also now visible as were the stars.

3) The living things that God made first were the marine creatures, followed by the flying creatures, of which there is infinite variety....insects, beetles, bats, birds...even pterodactyls. If the creative "days" were not 24 hours long, it allows for a very long and protracted creative process. The thought of the big wizard in the sky 'poofing' things into existence was never the case. God is a creator, not a magician.

4) Then the land creatures appear with a clear distinction between the wild animals and the domestic ones. Each has a habitat and food prepared for them in advance of their creation. It was all beautifully planned. Even the dinosaurs may have served a purpose, eating down the vegetation that had grown for perhaps thousands of years with nothing to keep it in check. Once they had served their purpose, then perhaps their contract was not renewed? If you extend the creative "days" into epochs of undetermined length, then all things become possible....and why there were no dinosaurs on the ark.

5) Finally, as God's last creative achievement, man is brought into existence, different to all the other creatures in that he alone was appointed to be this planet's custodian and caretaker. Endowing humans with His qualities, God was ensuring that they would represent him adequately in that role....and would have, if all had gone to plan.

So if you remove the 24 hour "days" you can have a creation that agrees with true science (as opposed to the theoretical kind) and the Creator becomes a master craftsman taking his time to craft his creation to his satisfaction as each period closed with his declaration that it was "good".

This is what makes sense to me.

Day-age creationism fails because the order of events in Genesis is still wrong even if you lengthen the days.

 

[exchemist]

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?

I very much agree with you. Science and religion can of course happily co-exist, and in the more sensible denominations of Christianity they do so.

The reason "people" (i.e. some people) think there is a fundamental conflict is because they have been either brought up on, or taught, via TV debates etc, a caricature version of one or the other or both. Such caricature versions are purveyed by the sorts of extremists that TV producers like, in order to get a televised bloodbath. Thus you have, on the one hand, these US sects that insist on biblical literalism - an idea they themselves invented in the c.19th, by the way - and on the other, the evangelical atheists like Dawkins, who point out the flaws in biblical literalism but then naively imply this refutes the whole of Christianity.

(What particularly intrigues me is the reason why Old Earth Creationists exist. It's easy to see that the biblical literalist has to chuck out all of evolutionary biology, plus large chunks of geology, geophysics and physics itself. But the OEC is to me a strange beast. They don't take all of the bible literally and yet they feel the need for evolution, specifically, to be wrong. I have never understood why this is, and I have never got an OEC to explain to me what the doctrinal issue is. Because there must be one, clearly.)

 

[sealchan]

That point is often overlooked, but it shouldn't be. Folks like Ken Ham and many an Evangelical preacher have a montetary interest in denying evolution.

Yes, but I would also emphasize that money symbolizes psychic energy or willpower. Just as money gives a person power to move and make decisions in the economy, willpower gives us power to live our life intentionally and make decisions, take risks in our life.

It's so deeply personal that rationality is lost when it shouldn't be and the power becomes more important than being able to justify it. This is why for many Christians there is a sacrifice of the sense of their own minds for the sake of their social binding to a group of people bigger than themselves.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, but I would also emphasize that money symbolizes psychic energy or willpower. Just as money gives a person power to move and make decisions in the economy, willpower gives us power to live our life intentionally and make decisions, take risks in our life.

It's so deeply personal that rationality is lost when it shouldn't be and the power becomes more important than being able to justify it. This is why for many Christians there is a sacrifice of the sense of their own minds for the sake of their social binding to a group of people bigger than themselves.

Auto-lobotomy for the sake of group belonging? Yes, I have seen this, from time to time. Tragic.

 

[Deeje]

Day-age creationism fails because the order of events in Genesis is still wrong even if you lengthen the days.

Who says? Science tells us that life began in the oceans...so does Genesis. Wherever there is water, there is bacteria. We could not survive without them.

Science sees single cellular life as our ancient ancestors......these of course in time, morphed themselves into dinosaurs....and yet science laughs at the idea of an intelligent Creator? You guys crack me up.

 

[Deeje]

What particularly intrigues me is the reason why Old Earth Creationists exist.

Because it simply makes sense, and is in keeping with the Hebrew word "day" used in Genesis. We ourselves use similar allusion to time periods when we say "the dawn of a new era" or the "end of an age".

Each creative "day" began and ended. There is nothing in the narrative that forces the word to mean a 24 hour period.

It's easy to see that the biblical literalist has to chuck out all of evolutionary biology, plus large chunks of geology, geophysics and physics itself.

Biblical literalists don't have to chuck out any real science. Allowing adequate time for all creation to have been a process in the hands of a master craftsman makes absolute sense. It is only confronting because settled beliefs are challenged. The idea of the big wizard in the sky "proofing" things into existence is dismantled. God then becomes a purposeful Creator, taking all the time necessary to achieved his goals within an allotted timeframe. You see, he never was a magician. He created the laws that govern everything in creation, and can circumvent them if he chooses. What human is going to tell him he can't?

But the OEC is to me a strange beast.

Really? You mean stranger than evolution? You do realise that there is not a single shred of substantive evidence that proves that evolution, on the level claimed by science, ever took place?
It is assumed, suggested, and presumed...but not provable. If it can't be proven, then it can't be a fact....it has to be a belief. How does that put science in any better position from those who clearly see the work of an intelligent Creator? I just see two belief systems....we choose which one appeals to us, (for our own reasons) but it pays to inform ourselves fully before making that choice IMO.

They don't take all of the bible literally and yet they feel the need for evolution, specifically, to be wrong. I have never understood why this is, and I have never got an OEC to explain

It has something to do with refusing to accept that God is a liar....ya know?

Either God created everything as he said he did....or there is no Creator and it's all the product of billions of fortunate accidents. I know what appears to be the logical choice for me. I don't have a need for men with large egos to be right so I can feel intelligent.....nor do I need to make God subservient to science, when he was the one who created what scientists study.

Auto-lobotomy for the sake of group belonging? Yes, I have seen this, from time to time. Tragic.

Yep....works both ways.

 

[TravisW]

The link really isn't saying anything other than a plug-in for a book from science Mike.

I can't seem to find any credentials and most of the videos he plugs in his book even more.

He seems more like somebody in the same genre as Ray comfort.

I was referencing his site because of his podcast, there’s also a video of his overview and of course his book is great too.

The guy’s not like Ray Comfort at all though, lol.

 

[dianaiad]

How do you use science to understand God?

Easy.

Religion: Goddidit.

Science...wow. So THAT'S how God did it!


Or.....

I think that God gave us two sorts of books to help us understand Him and the universe He created.

One: Scripture...so we can understand how we, people, are to deal with each other and the idea of Him.
Two: the book more directly written in the universe itself.

There's only a problem when one attempts to conflate the two and have scripture explain the 'how,' or have science deal with the 'why.'

(shrug)

I honestly don't see a problem here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who says? Science tells us that life began in the oceans...so does Genesis. Wherever there is water, there is bacteria. We could not survive without them.

Science sees single cellular life as our ancient ancestors......these of course in time, morphed themselves into dinosaurs....and yet science laughs at the idea of an intelligent Creator? You guys crack me up.

A few of the incorrect claims of Genesis:

- the Earth (day 1) is created before the Sun, Moon, and stars (day 4)
- land plants (day 3) are created before the Sun, Moon, and stars (day 4)
- trees (day 3) are created before land animals (day 6)
- birds (day 5) are created before land animals (day 6)
- cattle (day 6) are created before people (later on day 6)