Creation or Evolution?

Danno

Where did we come from?

What are your brief, but specific views? :rolleyes:

SkepticOne

I think the general scientific consensus is that like, chimpansees and gorillas, we are descended from a common ape ancestor which is now extinct. This ancestor in turn is descended from other species all the way back to simple single-celled animals billions of years ago.

Manach

My own beliefs cannot intrude into the scientific realm of fact, heaven forbid.
However I can try and look at the morals and lessons to be learnt within the creation myths of Christainity.

As a helpful aside, the principle theory of this evolution was postulated by Darwin in the 19th century, with significant additions by the inclusion of Mendel's Genetic work + Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium work. As a further side note, recent work has shown that Lamarkian evolution might be a factor in some simplier forms of life.

Excelsior

I would agree with everything Manach wrote. The Christian is not troubled in any way in their faith by evolution.

bounty

biblical version of the creation of the world is stupid, the world and the rest of the universe, were created in 7 days, and the order of events makes no sense e.g. god created light before he created the sun and stars

religion is for the lazy minded :cool:

Excelsior

I'm convinced.

mr_angry

The Bible, IMO, is a book written by men (not divine beings) which aims to guide an uneducated society (as the world was back in those days) through their lives in a morally positive manner. However, as things transpired, a lot of power / wealth became associated with the passing-on of this message, and it became advantageous to greedy people to attain power within these organisations. They'd then fight to hang onto that power, hence holy wars, corruption etc. To these people, convincing people that the Bible was absolute word-for-word truth was a method of keeping their power through indoctrination.

Some of the Bible was clearly written for people who could not possibly comprehend the creation of the universe, and many other simple things which are now accepted facts. Some of it was literal, but clearly not all of it. People who believe it contains absolute truth in every situation are burying their heads in the sand.

Stark

There's no reason why the idea of a creator God and evolution cannot be compatible. The current trend for people creating "artificial lifeforms/intelligences" is to use "evolutionary algorithms" and other technologies based largely on the human brain like neural nets. I can see how it would make sense for God to use the same if he was creating life.

Yoda

bounty wrote:

biblical version of the creation of the world is stupid, the world and the rest of the universe, were created in 7 days, and the order of events makes no sense e.g. god created light before he created the sun and stars

Well, I like Tolkien's Ainulindalë myself. But....

The Genesis text isn't intended to be a geology text, of course. Actually, if you look at what it says over and over, "And it was good", it is clear that what the text is interested in is in affirming that this world we live in is a good one, and that it is good to be in it.

Pity about that sin stuff that came later.

neuro-praxis

Stark: I'm with you.

Yoda: Tolkien was a raging believing Catholic. Best friends with the raging evangelical C.S. Lewis in fact!

Yoda

Tolkien didn't "rage" about much. That he was a devout Roman Catholic is well-known. I still think his creation myth is better than many others the world over.

Science is more inspiring even so.

Danno

How does Creation and Evolution be compatible Stark?

Creation = 6 days
Evolution = 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 days

Creation = God made us in 1 day
Evolution = We descended from Apes in a massive timeframe

Creation = One God required to acomplish
Evolution = Huge variables, coincidents, pot luck, chance...

Not much compatibility there?

monkeyfudge

It's been a while since I read Genesis. Does it actually go into any detail as to why God created a talking serpent?

Miles

I think we crawled out of a pool of goo millions of years ago. And have pretty much gone downhill since then.

elivsvonchiaing

Danno wrote:

How does Creation and Evolution be compatible Stark?

Creation = 6 days
Evolution = 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 days

Creation = God made us in 1 day
Evolution = We descended from Apes in a massive timeframe

Creation = One God required to acomplish
Evolution = Huge variables, coincidents, pot luck, chance...

Not much compatibility there?

I really think you have to be a creationist to take this seriously though. My final and complete conversion came - when I saw a bunch of insects on a litter bin in Asia - they were ants - they had prependages identical to the buds that fell from the tree above :rolleyes: As in plant buds - the only purpose of growing a fake bad-tasting plant bud - on yer back - is to survive - this I can only think of as evolution. Evolutionists beware - this is incompatible with Darwinianism also. Time is not infinite - it is finite - while I have yet to work out the ultimate truth of this thread - can't believe evolution acts within 100,000,000 years just so concisely - but then again -they could be that old + the plant (evolutionary age) just have no idea = feel quite ignorant right now!

Talliesin

bounty wrote:

biblical version of the creation of the world is stupid, the world and the rest of the universe, were created in 7 days, and the order of events makes no sense e.g. god created light before he created the sun and stars

religion is for the lazy minded :cool:

But if you're really lazy minded you can always try assuming that every believer in a particular religion takes the scriptures of that religion literally.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Tolkien was a raging believing Catholic. Best friends with the raging evangelical C.S. Lewis in fact!

Tolkien converted C.S. Lewis to Catholicism (though he himself initially only converted to Catholicism because his fiancée insisted on marrying a Catholic).

Danno wrote:

Creation = 6 days
Evolution = 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 days

Creation = God made us in 1 day
Evolution = We descended from Apes in a massive timeframe

Creation = One God required to acomplish
Evolution = Huge variables, coincidents, pot luck, chance...

No, one particular theory about a creator (or creatrix, but not in that case) asserts that creation took 6 days (or that he partied for 6 days, pulled an all-nighter and then stuck down 6 days on the time-sheet ), creation of humans took one day (plus the bug-fixing with the whole Lilith/Second Wife/Eve business) and was done by one God.
Another would assert that a Creator created a bunch of physical rules (which entailed a bunch of chemical rules, which entailed a bunch of biochemical rules) and then waited for a few billion years.
There are of course others.

JustHalf

Talliesin wrote:

Tolkien converted C.S. Lewis to Catholicism (though he himself initially only converted to Catholicism because his fiancée insisted on marrying a Catholic).

Lewis would disagree with you on this!

maherw2

I suggest that anyone doubting the veracity of the theory of evolution should read Richard Dawkin's book "The Selfish Gene".Its a well written, accessible guide to the theory and its implications.

Talliesin

JustHalf wrote:

Lewis would disagree with you on this!

Yes, I was quite muddled there; he converted Lewis to Christianity but Lewis associated Catholicism with Irish Nationalism and other anti-British political ideas and so it was another denomination that he joined.

I was also muddled about Tolkien's fiancée, it was she who converted to Catholicism to marry him, not the other way around. Tolkien's conversion happened as a child when his mother converted.

Talliesin

Yoda wrote:

Actually, if you look at what it says over and over, "And it was good", it is clear that what the text is interested in is in affirming that this world we live in is a good one, and that it is good to be in it.

Hmm. Is it saying that, or that it was good.

Evilution

Manach wrote:

As a helpful aside, the principle theory of this evolution was postulated by Darwin in the 19th century, with significant additions by the inclusion of Mendel's Genetic work + Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium work. As a further side note, recent work has shown that Lamarkian evolution might be a factor in some simplier forms of life.

That probe landing on Saturns moon, Titan, is also a key. Scientists believe that with further exploration of it then might be able to theorise about the origins of the earth from it.

Danno

Talliesin wrote:

Hmm. Is it saying that, or that it was good.

And then The Forbidden Fruit was eaten!

Turley

Why not both? Evolution can be part of creation. It is not necessarily one "or" the other.

The Creator could create life forms that evolve. One does not negate the other. Choosing between the two is popular and errors are often popular. I would be cautious about choosing.

bmoferrall

To counterbalance some of the arguments expressed in this and similar threads I thought I'd post the following link which I recently came across:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE1/index.asp

People detect intelligent design all the time. For example, if we find arrowheads on a desert island, we can assume they were made by someone, even if we cannot see the designer.

There is an obvious difference between writing by an intelligent person, e.g. Shakespeare’s plays, and a random letter sequence like WDLMNLTDTJBKWIRZREZLMQCOP. There is also an obvious difference between Shakespeare and a repetitive sequence like ABCDABCDABCD. The latter is an example of order, which must be distinguished from Shakespeare, which is an example of specified complexity.

We can also tell the difference between messages written in sand and the results of wave and wind action. The carved heads of the U.S. presidents on Mt Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features. Again, this is specified complexity. Erosion produces either irregular shapes or highly ordered shapes like sand dunes, but not presidents’ heads or writing.

Another example is the SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). This would be pointless if there was no way of determining whether a certain type of signal from outer space would be proof of an intelligent sender. The criterion is, again, a signal with a high level of specified complexity—this would prove that there was an intelligent sender, even if we had no other idea of the sender’s nature. But neither a random nor a repetitive sequence would be proof. Natural processes produce radio noise from outer space, while pulsars produce regular signals. Actually, pulsars were first mistaken for signals by people eager to believe in extraterrestrials, but this is because they mistook order for complexity. So evolutionists (as are nearly all SETI proponents) are prepared to use high specified complexity as proof of intelligence, when it suits their ideology. This shows once more how one’s biases and assumptions affect one’s interpretations of any data.
.
.
.
The design criterion may also be described in terms of information. Specified complexity means high information content. In formal terms, the information content of any arrangement is the size, in bits, of the shortest algorithm (program) required to generate that arrangement. A random sequence could be formed by a short program:

1. Print any letter at random.
2. Return to step 1.

A repetitive sequence could be made by the program:

1. Print ABCD.
2. Return to step 1.

But to print the plays of Shakespeare, a program would need to be large enough to print every letter in the right place.

The information content of living things is far greater than that of Shakespeare’s writings. The atheist Dawkins says:

[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.8

If it’s unreasonable to believe that an encyclopedia could have originated without intelligence, then it’s just as unreasonable to believe that life could have originated without intelligence.

Even more amazingly, living things have by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. This stands to reason if a microscopic cell stores as much information as several sets of Encyclopaedia Britannica. To illustrate further, the amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is staggering. It is the equivalent information content of a pile of paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content

I'm not a scientist so I can't vouch for the integrity of the views expressed but, as a skeptic of (inter-genus/particle-to-people) evolutionary theory, I found it interesting.

More articles along these lines can be found here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/online_resources.asp


Edit:
The credentials of the author of the above article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_sarfati.asp

Info on some of the other scientists who support his view:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

bmoferrall

Hmmm, seems Mr Ham has been discussed before (haven't read the thread yet):
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=224944
Must check more thoroughly before posting in future. My apologies.

Dades

Whether or not we were created by intelligent design is irrelevant in a question about the validity of the Old Testament (or any other religious) creation theory.

Even if it could ever be proven that we are the creation of an intelligent designer it is unlikely to highlight any religious creation theory as the "correct" version. (i.e. I don't believe a GOD would leave their signature). So arguing that because humans are the work of design, proves nothing.

Regarding the notion of the creation timescale put forward in the bible, what I alway wonder is when it became alright to "interpret" it as something other than what is written?

I assume in ancient times it was taken literally, however in the intervening centuries as it because apparant that it simply didn't happen - it became acceptable to describe it as "symbolic" only.

Excelsior

I can only cite what I know The Atheist, but Augustine certainly interpreted it as allegory in the 300s and Rabbis in Jesus' day understood it in that way too.

bmoferrall

The Atheist wrote:

Even if it could ever be proven that we are the creation of an intelligent designer it is unlikely to highlight any religious creation theory as the "correct" version. (i.e. I don't believe a GOD would leave their signature). So arguing that because humans are the work of design, proves nothing.

I suspect it will never be proven scientifically one way or another (to the satisfaction of all) but, hypothetically, if it were I think the author of Genesis at least deserves some respect for his prescience and wisdom.

Regarding the notion of the creation timescale put forward in the bible, what I alway wonder is when it became alright to "interpret" it as something other than what is written?
I assume in ancient times it was taken literally, however in the intervening centuries as it because apparant that it simply didn't happen - it became acceptable to describe it as "symbolic" only.

Fair point. I think it's reasonably clear when passages in the bible are intended to be metaphorical (e.g. NT parables) or symbolic (e.g. Relevation). It's not obvious to me that Genesis 1+2 falls into either of these categories. I would be inclined to the view that the author intended it to be taken literally. The Gospels record that Jesus made several references to OT scripture, including Genesis - none of these references would lead us to question its literal intent. If science can prove conclusively that it is false all christians would surely have to question the claim by Paul that 'all scripture is God-breathed'.

bmoferrall

bmoferrall wrote:

Hmmm, seems Mr Ham has been discussed before (haven't read the thread yet):
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=224944
Must check more thoroughly before posting in future. My apologies.

In my defence, I did search for 'Ken Ham' and 'AnswersInGenesis' before posting, with blank results.
Anyway, fascinating (and exhaustive/exhausting) discussion in the above thread and the related thread on this forum:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=235811&page=1&pp=20

theLegend

bmoferrall wrote:

'all scripture is God-breathed'.

I think you will find that several inaccuracies have been found in the new testament and this is discussed in part of the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". Also what about the catholic modernist movement of the mid 19th century which taught young priests modern methods of historical investigation with the intention of using this priests to defend the Bible from independent scholars. In the end many of the priests abandoned the church or were excommunicated because of their new interpretations of the Bible.

bmoferrall

theLegend wrote:

I think you will find that several inaccuracies have been found in the new testament and this is discussed in part of the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". Also what about the catholic modernist movement of the mid 19th century which taught young priests modern methods of historical investigation with the intention of using this priests to defend the Bible from independent scholars. In the end many of the priests abandoned the church or were excommunicated because of their new interpretations of the Bible.

I have to admit that arguments for and against the authenticity of the Bible can get wearisome and even counter-productive.
I remember watching Robert Beckford's documentary on C4 examining the bible's authenticity and being impressed by the arguments presented. I then checked for counter-arguments on some internet forums and found them equally convincing. I've experienced similar see-sawing reactions to conflicting interpretations of various bible prophecies. I'm no bible scholar and only have a very vague grasp of the concurrent history, but I definitely think the best approach is to familiarise oneself with the text itself rather than relying on second-hand, often biased, accounts which can pull you every which way.

Rather than attempting to intellectualise whether or not to accept the bible as truth I think the more productive approach is to try and apply the teachings of Christ in the gospels to one's own life. To me this requires an act of great faith and humility, and probably a suspension of prejudices and preconceptions. I would also suspect that, in most cases, the impulse to do this has to come from a sincere longing or need within, if it is to be fruitful. If the promises made therein fail to materialise in your life then why bother pursuing it any further. On the other hand, if, as promised, you become a new person 'born again in the spirit' your life, by definition, will never be the same again.

Excelsior

theLegend wrote:

I think you will find that several inaccuracies have been found in the new testament and this is discussed in part of the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail".

Holy Blood Holy Grail is a work of fiction. The authors are suing that other great financial benefactor of the myth of a fabricated New Testament, Dan Brown for intellectual property theft.

You can only call fiction intellectual property. It is not a book that can be seriously entertained in any discussion that wants to lead us towards the truth as oppossed to just supporting our prejudices on the issue.

As far as the modernist movement is concerned, Karl Barth's Dogmatics would widely be regarded as the end of that fashion within biblical criticism.

Excelsior

bmoferrall wrote:

Rather than attempting to intellectualise whether or not to accept the bible as truth I think the more productive approach is to try and apply the teachings of Christ in the gospels to one's own life.

I don't know how one can apply the "teachings of Christ" without knowing just who Christ was. "Christ" is not a surname, it is a title. The title harks back to the early history books of the Hebrew scriptures and then to the last third of Isaiah and to the end of Daniel. To some extent, using that title involves conferring deity on to Jesus.

Now if you are going to ask was Jesus who he said he was, you do need to "intellectualise" faith. You'd need to investigate at least these 2 things:

1) Are the accounts we have actually valid accounts of Jesus? Are the Gospels true?

2) Are the things Jesus said consistent with someone who claims to be the promised Messiah of Yahweh?

To me, if you try to be a Christian without considering if Jesus was telling the truth when he said he was the Christ, you are as St. Paul says, to be most pitied amongst all men.

If the promises made therein fail to materialise in your life then why bother pursuing it any further. On the other hand, if, as promised, you become a new person 'born again in the spirit' your life, by definition, will never be the same again.

If you do become a new person, then simple human curiousity would in most cases drive people to work out what just happened.

BM, I don't think you can be argued into faith through an intellectual process. I fully believe that doctrine is a foundation for the much more important structure that is a living relationship with the person Jesus. But I do think that Christians should have confidence investigating everything deeply and honestly knowing that if God is the Creator of everything, then it will all fit together.

Which is one of the reasons creation science debates are so difficult for me....

bmoferrall

Excelsior wrote:

I don't know how one can apply the "teachings of Christ" without knowing just who Christ was.
...
Now if you are going to ask was Jesus who he said he was, you do need to "intellectualise" faith. You'd need to investigate at least these 2 things:

1) Are the accounts we have actually valid accounts of Jesus? Are the Gospels true?

2) Are the things Jesus said consistent with someone who claims to be the promised Messiah of Yahweh?

To me, if you try to be a Christian without considering if Jesus was telling the truth when he said he was the Christ, you are as St. Paul says, to be most pitied amongst all men.
...
But I do think that Christians should have confidence investigating everything deeply and honestly knowing that if God is the Creator of everything, then it will all fit together.

I agree. I think it would be foolish, and probably fruitless in the long term (though I'm sure there have been exceptions), to try and convert someone to Christianity without first offering them a foundational knowledge of Christ. I was just expressing the view that, if you were to wait until you were 100% satisfied on an intellectual level that the Bible is entirely self-consistent and divine-inspired, then, sadly, you would probably never take the decision to become a Christian.

U$ername

Solution= God created the first single celled organisms :P

Yay, religion wins.

Or else you can throw in the whole "missing link" is still missing as being Gods hand!

markomano

As someone who works in the field of science I find not believing in evolution parallel to not believing smoking causes cancer. Everyone is entitled to their views and opinions but to be honest the ideas of intelligent design and creationism are groundless.

Benny_Cake

This thread hasn't been active for just over eight years. If you want to discuss evolution, intelligent design or creationism, you should do so on the megathread.