Why can't Evolution be a mechanism for Creationism?

People get caught up in the fight about how Creationism and Evolution are supposedly "mutually exclusive". But why? I don't follow the logic. Why must they be mutually exclusive? Even the Intelligent Design theories postulated are just a re-branding of standard creationism. Basically the ones promoting Intelligent Design are giving religion a bad name.

I was an atheist until recently, and had taken evolution courses at university that did nothing but reinforce the idea that evolution is an inarguable fact of history. I still agree. Obviously evolution has taken place. Not only "small evolution" as Creationist proponents claim (like one species mutating slightly, but not into another species), but obviously "big evolution", or trans-species evolution has taken place. Countless empirical evidences (vestigial bones, organs, fossil records, etc) point to this.

But my question is this: If God is all powerful, all seeings, all knowing, and eternal, give me one reason why God wouldn't choose to use evolution as His tool for creation.

If God is eternal, than what's a few hundred million years to Him? Nothing.

If He's all seeing, then wouldn't he see the future?

If He's all knowing, than wouldn't he transcend the standard skills of biology and actually be able to predict evolution? He would be able to predict the whole future in his mind and know exactly which species would find niches, etc.

Also, God could have his own reasons for using evolution, such as terra-forming the earth, etc.

Sure, all God has to do is say "be", and it is. But maybe that's too simple for Him. Remember, we're not talking about someone who thinks like a human (the simpler the better). We're talking about GOD. Maybe he likes it complicated. Remember, time is nothing to him.

Another aspect is that in my religion, God is referred to as "most Gracious" more than any other attribute, followed by "most Merciful". In Arabic, attributes are actually names, so those are 2 of his main names. The meaning of "gracious" isn't quite the same as in Christian theology. It's more of the literal one:

grace (grs)
n.
1. Seemingly effortless beauty or charm of movement, form, or proportion.

Now, wouldn't the use of Evolution as a mechanism for Creationism fit that definition perfectly? Seemingly effortless beauty and charm of movement.

I just don't understand what all the confusion is. There's no logical reason why we can't have Evolution and Creationism at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by seattletruth]

I'm an agnostic hedonist.

you pretty much have stated the reasons I'm not an athiest.
I feel we as a species COULDN'T understand god if we tried,if he exists.

Any answer other than "I don't know" is either arrogance or stupidity,sometimes both.

my problems with the god theory are-
1.why only 1 god?I've seen NO examples of a singular life form with no peers.

2.Why would he want us to praise him all the time?he was bored and made us to entertain himself,fine.but could we have more love scenes and less action/thriller scenes?

3.why so many different messages surely he could get it right the first time.


If there is a god he is a teenager who wasn't allowed to create us and we are all hidden beneath his bed so he won't get grounded!

Most people, including most creationists define creationism as the belief that all organisms in existence today were created as they are by some intelligent force. That's just incompatible with evolution.

If you're saying that god predicted what evolution would produce in nearly 4bn years and so just created that, why did he have to predict the outcome of a process that wasn't going to happen? Why not just create?

Creation and Evolution are easily compatible. The "raging Debate" is just another distraction in the house of mirrors.

Evolution is the same as creationism. People just refuse to recognize that the Earth was not craeated for mankinds personal pleasure, but for our brouder perspective of being one life form among many others. I reject creationism because it puts man at the center of the cosmos. Were just not that important...

Originally posted by the_grand_pooh-bah
I'm an agnostic hedonist.

you pretty much have stated the reasons I'm not an athiest.
I feel we as a species COULDN'T understand god if we tried,if he exists.

Any answer other than "I don't know" is either arrogance or stupidity,sometimes both.

I don't mean to derail the thread, but I have to interject. I used to completely agree with you. But actually, I did find proof of God, a numerical code entrenched into the Quran, that proves it was not written by humans, and proves that it has been unaltered. That's the only reason why I converted from atheism. Google "code 19 Quran" if you are so inclined.

I will answer your points 1 by 1.

my problems with the god theory are-
1.why only 1 god?I've seen NO examples of a singular life form with no peers.

Well, more than 1 God would be impossible because they would always be at war. Since we don't see a war, there must be only one. God may have appointed other beings with powers of creation, and other powers, but they are all subservient to Him, or else they would be fighting against him. Look at the list of the worlds superpowers for example. They all want to "rule the world".

2.Why would he want us to praise him all the time?he was bored and made us to entertain himself,fine.but could we have more love scenes and less action/thriller scenes?

As I have learned, the whole purpose of human life is to show the angels that a being who cannot see God, will still spend their life in service and worship of him. This teaches the angels (who also have free will) a lesson in humility. Also, this life is only a test. This life is a test to weed out the souls which don't deserve to be close to God in the next life, those which don't have faith in him. Those who spend their lives being pious, righteous, and worshiping God will have a higher position in heaven appointed to them in the afterlife. They will be closer to God in the next life.

3.why so many different messages surely he could get it right the first time.

Sure, there were many messengers, but they were all carrying the same message

Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (along with others) all testified to the ONEness of God. The Mercy of God. That no idols should be worshipped. That God is only one, and deserves all praise.

Some of the messages might have been altered by humans over time, but that does not mean that the messages weren't the same originally.

God brought us many messengers for a few reasons:

1. To spread the message to each nation in their own language.
2. To set humanity back on track when the message had been altered by humans.

Like I said.. Not to side track the thread, but I had to answer your reasons against a monotheistic God.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by seattletruth]

well we are on topic,if there is no god then there could be no act of creation.

so I googled the code 19 quran thing and read the first two references it gave.
not sold on it.
not meaning to offend but it's just a variant of the bible code.

second point.always at war?couldn't they just all get along?

third point,there were/are many religions.some thought the world was carried by a turtle.
is this true as well?

sorry,i mean i'm happy you've found truth for yourself.
I'm still an agnostic.
thanks for trying to save my soul and stuff though.
I'm a retired bartender and most of my buddies will be in hell anyways.

I think a major problem exist, because a lot of people don't know there is a difference between evolution en creation.
Creation is not a part or ever will be a part of evolution.
For creationism there is another theorie ( i don't really know which one ).
I know it's not a proven one.
Evolution is only what accures after creation has taken place.

And only one God ? Two would mean war ?

Then please enlighten me ?
What do you call the war between good and evil, light and dark.
I know in boudisme there is yin and yang. A balance between them is needed.

But evil and good in cristianity aren't one side of a coin. They mean conflict.

Originally posted by seattletruth
But my question is this: If God is all powerful, all seeings, all knowing, and eternal, give me one reason why God wouldn't choose to use evolution as His tool for creation.

EXACTLY

evolution is a process
but the creator is an intelligence

all processes must be envisioned, established, overseen, and powered by a sentient power

at least that's the way i see it, because to me it is completely logical. i see no reason it wouldn't be simple and elegant as a solution.

evolution, when properly understood, is a mind-boggling, masterminded work of perfect efficiency.
it has fail-safes built in and is engineered toward improvement.
even the so-called mass extinctions are part of its working; serving to make an clean sweep of that which has run its full course toward improvement while at the same time keeping that which is optimum and that which can built upon for the next course of improvement. this way, what's left is concentrated, like frozen orange juice...and so each time there is a re-start of this type, the foundation upon which it will grow is superior the last.

when i marvel at the wonders of nature, from the big and simple to the miniature and complex, i see a degree of perfection that is sometimes hard to even fathom - if these things are beyond our human ability to understand, then it is highly illogical to theorize that it all came to exist and function just by random circumstances and mindless intention.

it just doesn't make sense!


and the only thing i refuse to believe is that non-sense is at the root of creation!

in fact, my favored definition of GOD is:

G ood
O rderly
D irection

reply to post by seattletruth

Micro-evolution is a mechanism for diversity in creation...
...it can be verified and observed...
...and creationists don't dispute that.

The problem is origins...
...and on that score Creationists and Evolutionists have the same problem...
...neither group can observe and verify how it all began...
...and there is no way of testing it.

A belief in evolution is perfectly compatible with many forms of religion and spirituality. These are the more open-ended, heuristic and mystical forms of any religion. The readings of sacred texts that focus more on wisdom than literal truth, and search for the divine within rather than in a book.

However, evolution is not compatible with Biblical, Koranic, or Torah/Talmudic literalism, i.e., the idea that every single word in these books is literally true. Since this is the stance that the most hardcore fundamentalists take, they cannot reconcile their fundamentalism with evolution.

What I'd like to know from the fundamentalits is:

1) If somebody thinks every single word in the Bible is "literally true," how do they explain the parables of Christ or those in other parts of the Bible, which are clearly intended to be metaphoric? Christ spoke in metaphors...do fundamentalists think He was literally telling a story about how some seed fell on the ground in Matthew 13? If not, then why accept metaphor there and refuse to accept metaphors elsewhere?

2) Why the constant clinging to texts to find the truth about the divine? What's so scary about looking within yourself, as Christ instructed, rather than clinging to some certain texts that were selected by fallible humans at the Nicaea Council of 325 AD and other similar councils?

Not to pick on the Christian fundamentalists in particular...the same type of criticism could be extended to other religious fundamentalism as well.

reply to post by silent thunder


I can't speak for Christians, but I tell you that belief in evolution does not go against "Koranic" teaching.

The Quran says Humans were created "in stages". I take that to mean evolution took place.

I don't think evolution goes against the literal things said in the Quran.

Originally posted by seattletruth
reply to post by silent thunder

 

I can't speak for Christians, but I tell you that belief in evolution does not go against "Koranic" teaching.

The Quran says Humans were created "in stages". I take that to mean evolution took place.

I don't think evolution goes against the literal things said in the Quran.

OK, fair enough kind sir, I stand corrected. Although I certainly recall reading Islamic objections to the theory of evolution. Not that all Islamic interpretations are the same, of course.