Can Religious Teaching Prove Evolution to be True?

www.bbc.co.uk...

Usually I tend to steer clear of debates such as this. Being unsure even of where I stand in my beliefs, I tend to keep myself out of the firing line, but this article I read today has prompted me to share with you all.

The article itself questions whether everything came from one created species, which then deviated and evolved over time.

So cats, for example, are a single baramin or type of animal, that was created once by God, and have since diversified into those we see today (including lions, tigers, house cats etc). Baraminologists trawl the fossil record for evidence that this is true. They identify “morphological gaps” in the record (for example, whether fossils of cats exist, but not cat-like animals) and use those to argue that such animal types (cats) are unique and created separately, from say dogs.

Naturally, this isn't a be and and end all to the questions of our origins, but it's certainly a thought provoking theory, to me at least.

I've always wondered why it hasn't been common sense for people to think "Hey, maybe they're BOTH correct!" There's no reason evolution and creation can't go hand-in-hand. Who is to say that evolution is not part of God's creation? How does anyone know God didn't plan for evolution, and that by "creating" humans, he allowed them to evolve to a certain state? I believe we as humans evolved from "simpler" beings, and at some point in history, we reached a particular state of being in which we were then considered human.

It certainly makes sense to me. If you think of it in Biblical ways, when Noah filled his Ark with two of every animal, yeah he made a huge ark to put them in, but he probably didn't put nearly as many animals in as there are today

everybody is partially right. we were created by an advanced race of beings with dna from mamalls to create to the human container which houses the being, and then were allowed to naturally evolve through our enviorment and own free will.

Get Dolores Cannon's The Convoluted Universe

reply to post by Lulzaroonie

The cited article is highly flawed. And you can never "prove" something is true if it isn't. All you can do is search out the data that works the best, predicts outcomes the best, and explains all known observations.

Biblical creationism is not the only "alternative" to Darwinian evolution!

And neither is any older form of creationism.

Evolution only became plausible as a theory when Darwin noticed how much time was actually involved in the development of life on earth. But that does not rule out the possibility of a "divine" hand also moving to influence events or design pretty flowers. The theory that best explains ALL observations is that life developed on earth through a combination of evolutionary and creative forces. Now, that conclusion requires both sides to set aside their dogma and look at all the facts.

Using creationism to "disprove itself" is just another ignorant propaganda ploy. What if they're both right? Is this society bright enough to consider that possibility?

reply to post by l_e_cox


We have the problem of the Bible's equivication on the subject which I think would negate any possible accomadation between the two. Adam was formed from the dust ie: non-genetic material and Eve is formed from genetic material ie: Adams rib. Such a contradiction, as it is after all the unnerring word of God would make it impossible for the Bible to have a stance on either creationism or evolution!
In the sense of paradox it would seem that in this case God has indeed created a rock so large that he can't move it so perhaps you've helped us solve that age old paradox

reply to post by l_e_cox

The cited article is highly flawed.

I don’t see any flaws. Could you point them out to me?

Thanks in advance!

reply to post by Astyanax


People will always find 'flaws' or something they won't/don't agree with, especially on a topic such as evolution vs creationism. Part of the reason I don't take part in these discussions is because I don't have an opinion either way. There is one side I tend to lean more towards, purely because I see more evidence of it (evolution) but I just thought this topic could be a nice little decoration on the debate cake.

There are some things I do have a hard time with though, if everything once came from the sea, the sheer number of evolving creatures must have been overwhelming, and the diversity...
I'm not saying I believe the article, but it is a theory which could be plausible with more evidence. How are we ever going to get more evidence, either by finding EVERY fossil for every animal that ever walked the planet (impossible, since fossilisation conditions have to be very precise, and are not always present after an animal dies.
The organism must be buried quickly. For this to happen, the organism normally must die in abnormal conditions such as in a flood, volcano eruption or an earthquake. Otherwise it is near impossible for an animal to be preserved;
The organism must be kept from normal decay. If the animal is exposed to oxygen or bacteria, they will quickly start to decay;
The organism must be buried in matter that is leached with mineral-rich waters where carbonates are precipitating. These minerals will replace the original tissue, so that a stone remains in the shape of the original tissue.
From all these examples, a general trend emerges. The best fossilization occurs when there is rapid burial and anoxic conditions to prevent scavenging, no reworking by currents, and diagentic alteration which preserves a fossil rather than destroy it) or God/Jesus returns to tell us himself

reply to post by goldentorch


You pretty much summed up what needs to be said on the matter...

I posted this on a similar article:

Many religious groups are now accepting science and incorporating it into their practices to appeal to a wider audience.

Richard Dawkins has some interesting views on this subject and this interview should put some questions you have into perspective! It is split into 7 parts on Youtube.

reply to post by Theoretician

The point of the article linked in the OP, and the two published papers by Senter that the BBC article is reviewing, is that when you try to apply the methodologies of the "creation scientists" in an objective way, you get results that invalidate their own assertions and wind up supporting evolution. So, by all means, let the creationists keep trying to use science to support their claims!

I think so, if jesus were still alive he would probably be bloating about how his father created evolution. I mean God did create everything

The point of the study mentioned was to provide evidence for evolutionary theory using methods that creationists developed for other purposes.

The results of this study indicate that transitional fossils linking at least four major dinosaurian groups to the rest of Dinosauria are yet to be found. Possibly, some creationist authors will hail this finding as evidence of special creation for those four groups. However, such enthusiasm should be tempered by the finding here that the rest of Dinosauria--including basal members of all major lineages--are joined in a continuous morphological spectrum. This confirms the genetic relatedness of a very broad taxonomic collection of animals, as evolutionary theory predicts, ironically by means of a measure endorsed and used by creation science.

Basically, the method worked so well that it showed what evolutionary theory had already accomplished and predicted.

reply to post by trollz


It's about damn time I found someone who agreed. Tired of everyone saying that evolution and creationism are two incompatible things.

many "creationists" have no issue with some genetic changes in creature types, how else would one explain how "man" comes in so many varieties.after all we are all descended from adam and eve. what is at the core of the issue is that the religion of Darwinism says that everything came from the same protoplasmic goo that spontaneously forms and evolves into all creatures. where as creationists believe that god or some higher power designed everything, aka intelligent design.

so what we basically have is yet another religious war. the religion of "creationism" against the religion of "darwinism". there are others involved as well but these two tend to be the main combatants. and just with every religion both are considered to be absolutely correct by their adherents. which of course armors each against each others beliefs. the good old "i'm right you are wrong. which tends to mean that neither are willing to even consider the other points of view.

the fact of the mater is that neither "religion" can really be proven, it is all a mater of faith on all sides. the creationists have their faith in their deity or higher power, where darwinists have their faith in their "evolution science". the only way i really see of proving one, the other or even both right, would be for god to appear before us and showing us what he did , or adversely creating said pile of goo somewhere, letting it sit untouched for the millions of years it supposedly took for everything to evolve, and see what came of it. neither is a realistic proposition.

it would help though if everything that was ever excavated would be made available to all to use. instead of what tends to happen within science no mater which point of view they hold, ends up ditching any findings that don't fit what they want to prove.

The idea of evolution co-existing with religion and God is a smart idea.
The idea of evolution co-existing with creationism is the complete opposite.

Why would an all powerful God spontaneously create a few types of animals that are then going to change to fit in their environment? The problem with creationism is that an all knowing God would create creatures right the first time. They wouldn't have to adapt to anything because they would be made already perfectly suited for where ever they were "placed". If God truly just created everything, there wouldn't be extinct species (besides species killed in unnatural ways i.e. meteor -> dinosaurs; humans killing off a species).

It would be logical, however, for God to be the guiding hand in evolution and help everything along

Originally posted by Denali
It would be logical, however, for God to be the guiding hand in evolution and help everything along

Equally logical is, that pink three-headed unicorns are guiding evolution from the 7th dimension.

reply to post by generik
evolution has been altered and refined every second of every day for the last 152 years, the evidence guides the theory, and there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity

for religion there is no evidence, the philosophy never changes, and there has been or never will be any intent to ever change what is preached

reply to post by trollz


Why don't more people just conclude that God uses evolution to get results? Well, the answer is pretty simple.

if you're prepared to accept Evolution to any degree, that means you're accepting of science. And unfortunately for the multitudes of religions on the earth, none of their claims actually have any scientific merit. We have no evidence of a God or Kami or spirits or ancestors's ghosts making things happen.

"God uses evolution" is thus scientifically the same as saying "god made everything appear with a snap of his fingers, like a wizard." Sans evidence of such a wizard, it's a null hypothesis.

And over on the religious side of the problem... well, if you're serious about your religion - whichever one you've decided is the right one that isn't heretical - then odds are you're serious about what it teaches you; that the world was poofed into existence by wizardry.

"God used evolution" isn't really a position, it's more like a hand-wringing attempt to find a nonexistent middle ground.

Originally posted by trollz
I've always wondered why it hasn't been common sense for people to think "Hey, maybe they're BOTH correct!" There's no reason evolution and creation can't go hand-in-hand. Who is to say that evolution is not part of God's creation? How does anyone know God didn't plan for evolution, and that by "creating" humans, he allowed them to evolve to a certain state? I believe we as humans evolved from "simpler" beings, and at some point in history, we reached a particular state of being in which we were then considered human.

Because one is supported by a large body of objective evidence whilst the other is a mish-mash of unsubstantiated bedtime stories that ignorant goat herders used to tell their children.

Interesting article, I don't believe evolution or the idea of creation need to be mutually exclusive myself. After all what kind of creator would the being be if they did not create something that could adapt and evolve overtime to survive. Even when I used to go to church regularly as a kid I thought the same thing. There is physical evidence of evolution that to me is impossible to deny but it also makes sense with the idea of a creator.

Creationism is also no crazier than many scientific theories out there which have some circumstantial evidence supporting them. There is absolutely no way to prove of disprove the existance of a creator and it is pure arrogance and ingorance to try and state otherwise.

The smartest people are the ones who admit that they don't know it all and are always looking for answers. Religion is based on faith but so are many scientific ideas that cannot be proven. One scientist puts their faith in one idea or theory over another without any final proof of anything.