The universe astronomers and biologists describe for us is an unfolding entity of enormous magnitude and complexity, the result of a journey through time of almost 14 billion years. Deep space and deep time; black holes and anti-matter; natural law and stochastic processes, these and other features of the way things are have all played a part in bringing into existence a teeming mass of biological life on a remote planet in a far corner of an almost infinite whole.
One species above all stands out on the remote planet, at least to itself: homo sapiens, by all accounts a god-prone species committed to inhabiting narratives in which reality is imagined to have phenomenal and noumenal dimensions; to pondering Steven Pinker’s list of imponderables: subjective experience, the self, free will, conceptual meaning, knowledge, the difference between right and wrong.
That same species, biologists inform us, adapts to its environment with mixed results through the opposing social strategies of selfishness and altruism. Its cognitive faculties are remarkable in that they excogitate things of no apparent survival value: art and music, poetry and prayer.
If this is a fair description of the spectacle the universe offers, to the question, why is there this something, rather than nothing or something else, alternative answers are conceivable. One answer, pronounced by Darwinian scientist Richard Dawkins, goes like this:
The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
-- Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," Scientific American 275 (5) (November 1995) 80-85; 85
Another answer, offered by Darwinian scientists Francis Collins, T. G. Dobzhansky, and Francisco Ayala as paraphrased by Kenneth Miller, himself a biologist who finds God in evolution, goes like this:
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, the wisdom of a provident and purposeful God, intent upon a fruitful and dynamic world, and committed to a promise of freedom that makes genuine love possible. -- from Kenneth Miller’s Georgetown Lectures, 1/29/09
Why all the fuss about evolution? Because too many people believe that accepting the view that we live in the universe physicists and biologists describe for us involves thinking that life is an enormous rat race, a hopeless endeavor in which there is no evil, no good, at best, nothing but indifference.
But that’s just Dawkins, and even if Dawkins talks that talk, he does not walk that walk. Like people in general, he makes his words and actions purposeful; designs projects; preaches about the good of this and the evil of that; and tries to make the world a better place. He is, in his own words, a “cultural Christian.”
It is possible to maintain that every phrase in Genesis 1-3 is true in the sense of being a precise expression of physical and metaphysical truths in language appropriate to the time and place in which they were written. The more one knows about the Ancient Near Eastern context in which Gen 1-3 was written and to which it responds, the easier it is to see that.
At the same time, it is possible to plow ahead as a scientist and believer at the intersection of physics and biology. A fine example of a young scholar doing just that is Ard Louis. He is enamored, both as a scientist and a person of faith, with the fact that biological individuals continuously self-assemble in real time. If there is a God, what does that say about the God who created us, who made us in his image? Is God the continuous self-assembler par excellence?
Try Ard Louis on Genesis 1; Ard Louis on Evolution and Intelligent Design; and Ard Louis on Faith and Science
I let go of "creation science" and the like after one day pondering this verse:
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." ~ Hebrews 11:3
Posted by: Nathan Smith | February 16, 2011 at 07:54 PM
"Creation science" is a luxury people in the sciences of biology, geology, physics, and so on cannot afford. If you are a researcher in any of these fields, it is not credible to go around suggesting that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, or that the Cambrian explosion disproves the theory of evolution.
Science is all about picking a working hypothesis that has a lot going for it and testing it against all the data available. So far as I can see, "creation science" does not rise to the level of a falsifiable working hypothesis.
Posted by: JohnFH | February 16, 2011 at 09:24 PM
I have always believed in a combination of creationism and evolution. Who says that the way species evolve isn’t Gods work? It is possible that “natural selection” is Gods way of making improvements on his creations.
Each creation of his lasted a certain amount of time until a change was needed to improve them. Now there are humans and our advantage is that we can think for ourselves. Humans will never be “perfect” because of the temptations of sin but, we as humans, do have the potential to be perfect.
We don’t know if there will be a big evolution of humans now but I think that we will not change much intellectually. We all have the potential to be what God wants us to be. If he changed us anymore so that we were designed to always follow what he says then there would be no point of Gods Kingdom.
As humans we need to live life by what we interpret is the “good” God wants us to be and earn the right to become one of the members of His Kingdom when the time comes.
Posted by: Chariots of Fire 5 | February 17, 2011 at 11:45 AM
I've always struggled with the topic of evolution, seeing as how I am a Biology major and a person relatively new to the faith. In my views I believe that God created the natural world with the intent of all species (man included) to be on a level playing field. But as time wore on I believe he began to favor some of the species (humans in particular) and somehow through ways I cannot fathom gave them adaptations, to make them better suited to their environments so they could flourish. I not by any means saying that God played favorites over species, I just believe that he had a plan for everyone and they went through their course, and if one happened to go extinct I believe God had a reason behind it.
Posted by: The Truman Show 5 | February 20, 2011 at 08:22 PM
I think too many people take Genesis 1-3 too literally. Who’s to say that seven days for God is equivalent to seven days for us on earth. As far as I know, God was not living on earth when he created it so seven days for God could be equivalent to a billion years for us. For all we know, Genesis 1-3 could just be a quick summary of all the time and effort that God put into creating this amazingly complex world. I agree with much of what science says about how the world was created and how animals and humans evolved, but I see it as that’s how God wanted it to happen.
Posted by: Shawshank Redemption 3 | February 20, 2011 at 09:22 PM
I have always believed in creation and not evolution. To me there are to many things that don’t make sense about evolution. One of the things that I always find myself asking about evolution is if we evolved from apes then why are there still a lot of apes on this planet. Also I would like to think that I am some special creature and not just some accident that just happened to occur. Now in my studies at a Lutheran High School I have come to learn more about the theory of evolution.
I do believe that certain times of animals have evolved from others. Let me carify what I mean with an example. There are so many different types of dogs that exist in the world at current time. I do not believe all of these types of dogs existed at the beginning of creation. I believe that there were a few types and they breeded together and formed other types of dogs. The same is true for other types of animals. But I believe that it had to be with in that type of species so dogs changing into other dogs and birds into other birds.
Posted by: True Grit 4 | February 20, 2011 at 09:27 PM
Chariots of fire 5, I completely agree with you on your idea of a combined creation and evolution. I have always thought of Gen 1.3 as a metaphor of the big bang instead of god going to a light switch and going “click”. In our exploration and explanation of the world from a scientific view a new language was created. This language of evolution and natural selection are just a few in its vast vocabulary. Now look at English and Spanish, neither look alike, but they both can be used to describe the exact same thing. This simple language barrier is what I think is happening between the contemporary religious world, and the scientific world. I do not believe that they are truly different but they are just a language barrier.
Posted by: The Mission 4 | February 20, 2011 at 11:23 PM
I would say I have also struggled with the topic of evolution, seeing I came from a family that went to church practically every Sunday. I would say I am a firm believer in God, but I also have my own reasonable doubts at times of how the earth was created.
I think most people struggle with accepting that so much creating was going on in Genesis 1-3 and seven days to do it all is impossible. I know for me, I’m one of those people that I have to see it to believe it kind of people or have some sort of hard concrete proof. But in the end I still find myself trembling back to Genesis 1-3 of God creating the heavens and the earth.
I believed that God had a plan for everyone and everything. We may not have concrete proof if God actually created the heavens and the earth, but we do have the Bible and I think that is good enough proof.
Posted by: Nell 4 | February 21, 2011 at 02:35 PM
I agree with Nell 4, I’ve been brought up in a very religious family but at times often wonder about the theory of evolution. Of course everyone will have their doubts; it is the cause of sin that we do not place all our trust in God and His Word. It is hard for the human mind to grasp that God only needed 7 days to create the world we live in today. Science may come up with some reasonable explanations but the Bible is sufficient proof of the existence of the world. Another aspect of evolution that I always was so astonished by was the fact the scientists can place a number on how long the Earth has been around. How is that even possible? Science is a field made of hypothesis’ and nothing in science can ever be proven, only supported. Therefore how do scientists really know that the world started with the theory of evolution? They only have support to their hypothesis, but no proof. One may wonder how humans were created in God’s image if in fact, our world has been corrupted with sin, lies, hatred, and jealousy. I am a firm believer that God created the heavens and the earth, and that humans were originally made in the form of God. However, as humans were tested, sin entered the world, therefore destroying the image of God in humans.
Posted by: Nell 1 | February 21, 2011 at 02:47 PM
The book of Genesis has provided the events that occurred in order for our Earth to being. Some believe in every aspect the Bible displays, but the other point of view agrees with science and how it proves how everything was created.
In my speculation I am in agreement with the words, “science only goes so far, then comes God” (Nicholas Sparks).
With that, sure, science can prove many of the things that may have occurred to start the world through experiments and theories. However, miracles like the story of adam and eve did occur. How can science explain a human being created out of nothing?
I firmly believe in the miracles performed by the Lord and Jesus. Many things are unexplainable, and those prove in my eyes that God is in existence. The outlook on my faith has always included me as a believer. It is essentially our own decisions to decide wether or not we believe the Lord made our world and was the creator of evolution. I believe God was the creator.
Posted by: Nell 2 | February 21, 2011 at 03:08 PM
I really agree with Chariots of Fire 5 om saying "Who says that the way species evolve isn’t Gods work?" I often find myself frustrated at the individuals that find a way to claim that evolution somehow proves that there is no God in existence. At the same time I find it somewhat comical that so many are ready to call certain parts of "creation science" absolute fact.
If there is anything that science has taught me, it is that there are parts of our world that we will never completely understand. With science continuously changing, I find it necessary to have the attitude that the entire path to our world today is one that will never be completely uncovered and understood.
Posted by: The Mission 3 | February 21, 2011 at 04:02 PM
It is a helpful point that science is not about absolute proof - there is no such thing, as everyone knows who has studied Godel's theorem. It is about providing coherent explanations of things and making accurate interpolations and extrapolations based on the data you have, not the data you wished you had.
So we are left with a number of options.
One is to wave off the mass of evidence from many different directions that the universe is not only incredibly large in terms of expanse but is also a product of deep time. That option is available to those who want to take it but it cannot be easily taken by someone who is an astronomer, a geologist, a biologist, or a geneticist.
That's because no one has shown how the mass of data is better explained in terms of a 6 day 24 hour spurt of activity. Science is about showing. It is not a courtroom in which the one who says there are grounds for reasonable doubt wins the argument.
Another option is to think of evolution - i.e., a combination of natural law and random variation - as the way God moves things from being unformed and void to ever greater complexity and beauty.
A third option is to think of evolution as supporting the view that the designedness of things is an illusion. This option is not impossible but would seem to be counter-intuitive. As far as I know, it is the only option available to someone who does not believe in God. Many scientists who reject organized religion nonetheless reject the third option. That is, they look at the universe and see evidence of a Mathematician. For someone like Einstein, God started things going and then fell asleep or took a vacation or something. Actually, that's not quite fair to Einstein's position since he also seemed to believe that God remains in the details of his handiwork.
Posted by: JohnFH | February 21, 2011 at 04:06 PM
The reason why "creation science" (the theory that the universe came into existence over 6 24-hour days; that life did not evolve from simpler to more complex forms, but rather, that once upon a time, trilobites, puppies, humans, dinosaurs, and woolly mammoths coexisted; that Noah's flood corresponds somehow to the end of one of the Ice Ages) is not taught in universities is that the evidence on multiple levels points in another direction.
Astronomy, physics, geology, chemistry, genetics, and biology all make sense of the data they study on assumptions that contradict "creation science."
Science as taught in universities contradicts "creation science," but does science contradict the creation and flood accounts in the Bible?
Not if those accounts are to be read as polemical responses and re-writes of accounts of creation and the flood the people of Israel were familiar with. If one reads Gen 1-11 in its ancient context, "creation science" is revealed to be a form of creative anachronism. It assumes that Gen 1-11, written thousands of years ago, was nonetheless meant to set modern scientists straight. It seems more likely that Gen 1-11 was meant to set ancient people straight, to teach them about a single Purpose that created everything, whose mercy is always stronger than his judgement.
I would also point out that "creation science," even if it is not good science, makes excellent sense on other levels. Creation science did not exist until very recently: in ancient times, church theologians and leaders like Augustine and Luther warned people not to read Genesis as if it were a manual of astronomy or physics. "Creation science" contradicts the approach of Augustine and Luther, but that is because it is a response to challenges Augustine and Luther did not face.
"Creation science" came into existence in order to counter the notion that life is a drama of the survival of the fittest in which altruism (cooperating with others) is a means to an end (one's own interests), not an end in itself.
Neither Jews nor Christians, not to mention Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, accept this view of life. For all of the world's great religions, life is a battle between good and evil in which we must take sides. As soon as science is harnessed in order to justify amoral and immoral behavior, it is almost inevitable that science itself will be attacked, not just the myths that have been devised and justified on the basis of an interpretation of science.
For example, "the survival of the fittest" is not only a myth (ideology in narrative form), it is a false and pernicious myth. On that basis, the Nazis "euthanized" individuals with special needs because they were not fit, and exploited before killing inferior races (fit only to be slaves; in the case of the Jews, too dangerous to be allowed to live).
If you wish, Leviticus 19:14 (look it up) is also based on a myth, that those with special needs are not children of a lesser god, but children of the same God as those with no special needs.
If one defines myth as does an anthropologist like Lincoln, ideology in narrative form, fine. Jews and Christians and many others will simply point out that some myths are true and others false; the myth behind Lev 19:14 is true.
Since there have been a number of high profile scientists who have claimed that science describes for us a world of "brutal indifference" with "no evil, no good, no purpose" (Dawkins), the easiest thing to do is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The view that the Bible and science are both right is a harder path to take, a path less traveled by, but it may very well be the more interesting path, and the one that contains more truth.
Posted by: JohnFH | February 21, 2011 at 04:10 PM
I don't agree with evolution at all, but I respect those people that do. I was raised in a Lutherna family and atteneded church every sunday, so it's very hard for me to believe in the theory of evolution. In my biology class in high school we were taught about the subject of evolution, which bothered me because we could learn aobut that but not about God or religion. Even though I have some questions about the faith that I was raised in, I still believe in it more than evolution.
Posted by: True Grit 3 | February 21, 2011 at 07:48 PM
It seems that most people in this class, based on this blog, believe that God created the heavens and the earth. I also contribute to this group. There are always going to be questions with the Bible. I think that is kind of the point, to leave us questioning. Creation, I believe, isn’t meant to be proven. If it was and could be proven, then it would be called science; simple as that. It is hard to imagine that something so complex and enormous could be created in just six days. That’s why I think people are looking for an answer as to how the earth was created so shortly. It’s not wrong to look for an answer, but I think that eventually there is no proving it and you just have to learn to believe that it did happen. That’s just simply a part of faith.
Posted by: Nell 5 | February 21, 2011 at 09:36 PM
That's the question, isn't it?
Can someone have faith, and still look for the kind of answers scientists look for?
Many who have faith believe that faith and science are ultimately compatible, even if each poses challenges to the other.
On this understanding, believers are free to follow the evidence that the universe is as immense as science thinks it is, and the product of deep time as science thinks it is.
Posted by: JohnFH | February 21, 2011 at 10:05 PM
This topic will be one that will continue to be debated for generations. I grew up only knowing about Creationism and holding that view close to my heart. It wasn’t until middle school and high school when I was introduced to Evolution and I was faced with a definite internal struggle. After years of studying both the Bible and Scientific textbooks, I still haven’t a completely clear belief in one of the other, but more so the idea of Intelligent Design.
Posted by: Lior A | February 21, 2011 at 11:05 PM
That says a lot of good about you, Lior A, that you have you struggled long and hard with these questions.
A look at the Bible shows that faith leads to doubt which leads to faith. That is the itinerary presupposed or traced in many of the psalms.
Strange as it may seem, that itinerary has a parallel in the scientific method. It is easy to see faith and science as opposite ways of approaching facts. It may be more insightful to note that they approach them in similar if not identical ways.
Posted by: JohnFH | February 22, 2011 at 12:00 AM
Personally, I have never been a fan of thinking that religion and science are polar opposites. It does not behoove either side to completely ignore the other. Using science is a great way to help interpret what is said in the bible and the bible is a good way to assist in Science.
Posted by: Corey Schmitz | February 22, 2011 at 12:05 PM
The argument of evolution is a hard one for me to put a finger on. Growing up in a Catholic family, it has always been my understanding that God created this earth and named all of the plants and animals, created light and dark or night and day, and made man and women. As I grew older and advanced in school, my biology classes got harder and preached evolution based on a scientific approach (obviously). Has some of the material my teachers taught me not made sense in my head due to my religious background? Certainly, but I never questioned it because that is what I was to be tested on in the future. Looking back now, I wish I would have argued a bit more with my teachers just to see what they would have said or even how they would have reacted. I’m sure I am not alone on this opinion.
I have also asked questions out of confusion on this topic to my youth pastor and his interns. We were actually out on a backpacking trip in the beautiful Colorado mountains experiencing God in nature, which brought up the question of how creation took place. It turned out that one of the intern’s father was a scientist, but also raised his children to have good Christian faith. The intern told me that her dad says there is a way to believe in both evolution and God’s creation. As a pre-nursing student, science is a big role of my future profession, but nothing that faith can’t stand in the way of.
Posted by: True Grit 1 | February 22, 2011 at 08:44 PM
It's a struggle for me to grasp the concept of evolution. I completely agree with something Nell 5 said "Creation, I believe, isn’t meant to be proven. If it was and could be proven, then it would be called science". That really stood out to me. There are so many questions I have regarding evolution. Being brought up in a very Christian family, Creation is the only thing that stands true to me.
Posted by: The Truman Show 4 | February 27, 2011 at 01:54 PM
Many scientists who feel this way. They believe in God, have reasons of the mind and heart for believing in God. Creation stands true for them.
In their work as scientists, they seek to understand the mechanisms which govern phenomena. Someone like Frances Collins, who headed up the Genome project, is an example. He is a renowned scientist who sees God at work in the natural laws that made the human genome an amazingly complex and well-equipped entity supportive of sentient life.
I have never heard a sound objection to Collins's line of reasoning, in which he upholds creation and evolution as one of the means by which God brought the world into being and furthers creation.
Posted by: JohnFH | February 27, 2011 at 02:23 PM
Why shouldn't Genesis be taken literally? For each day, it says "And there was evening and there was morning, the first (2nd, etc) day." If you can brush off certain parts of the Bible as not being literal, then what is to stop you from doing that all throughout it? Which Christian has the right to announce any part of the Bible as being non-literal? If God is all-powerful, it shouldn't be difficult to imagine him creating everything in 6 days, right?
As for "One of the things that I always find myself asking about evolution is if we evolved from apes then why are there still a lot of apes on this planet," this is a common question that has a very simple answer. We didn't come from apes. Humans evolved from lesser primates (and so did apes). Saying we came from apes was a way to simplify the explanation of our evolution that, unfortunately, caused the aforementioned confusion.
The term “survival of the fittest” is also often used and is an over-simplification, as well. A Biology professor I had on campus made a very big point about not using the term because of its incorrectness. Survival of the fittest insinuates that nature favors those that survive the longest. This is very much not true. In order for the process of natural selection to occur, an organism must survive to reproductive maturity and pass on its genome. Those who are better suited have their genome passed on and so on, which creates an eventual change. The details of evolution are impossible to explain in a blog post, but are very much available in any college Biology course.
Posted by: The Mission 2 | March 09, 2011 at 11:42 PM
In response to: “It is easy to see faith and science as opposite ways of approaching facts. It may be more insightful to note that they approach them in similar if not identical ways.”
I respectfully disagree. Very often (but, of course, not always), the religious look at the final facts, then fit them into the Bible. One could make the argument that several on this thread of comments did that very thing. Of course, scientists can be guilty of the same thing (but fitting it into the results they prefer). That is why the scientific community is often ruthless reviewing new discoveries. Subjective science is quickly nullified.
Posted by: The Mission 2 | March 10, 2011 at 12:06 AM
Einstein is often inaccurately quoted as a man of faith because of what he said to Max Born about quantum mechanics, so it is understandable that you did as well. He said " God does not play dice with the universe," but did not mean it in regards to a religious god.
Later, though, Einstein became weary of being misquoted, so he said "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
Posted by: The Mission 2 | March 10, 2011 at 12:20 AM
Reading through all the blogs my classmates have posted, there was one really good statement that really stood out to me, it was posted Nell 5, "Creation, I believe, isn’t meant to be proven. If it was and could be proven, then it would be called science". I agree with this hundred percent, I feel that not everything should be proven, and that science can only go so far. I feel that there is so much beyond science that is unanswered, and it is unanswered for reasons only God knows.
Posted by: Pulp Fiction 4 | March 14, 2011 at 07:46 PM
Ever since I was in middle school I remember arguments on evolution and everyone trying to plead their case as to why they are right. As I get older the arguments more sophisticated and serious. Scientists have their own theories and beliefs and people of faith follow what the scripture says. Nonetheless, I have yet to hear on arguments from a scientist like Ard Louis’. When I read Genesis 1, I knew there was an order to the construction of the world but I never knew why it was written in that specific order. Mr. Louis believes that the writers had the sun and the moon being created on the 4th day to demote them from being there on the 1st day. Not being there on the first day means that they are to be viewed as material objects and nothing more. His proposal is very fascinating in that the writers used the order as a literary device to show how God created and sustained the world. I really enjoyed his videos.
Posted by: Truman Show 2 | March 22, 2011 at 03:22 PM
I agree with Shawshank Redemption 3 in stating that Genesis 1-3 is taken far too literally the majority of the time. What if God is the basis of evolution? Is it possible that He did create man and animals in a certain sense, and over time, evolution happened? It does not make sense to me that both creationists and evolutionists fail to see a middle ground in their debate. People such as Ard Louis are in a growing group of scientific Christians that attempt to understand the essence of humanity in combined creation and evolution. It’s amazing that people such as Ard Louis are coming to terms with the idea that this could be the truth. Life isn’t about solely creationism or solely evolutionism, in the end it’s about what God intended for the world and was merciful enough to grant us.
Posted by: Praying With Lior 10 | March 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM
The concept of the expansive universe is beautiful, whether God created it or not. I agree that in the universe humans do stand out, being bipedal and intelligent, but I also think there could be intelligent life elsewhere in space. Thinking about your statement, “no apparent value to survival” is sort of painful to think about but also intriguing. It hurts to think there could be no point to our existence, but through the years, humans have made reasons to exist, like to take care of others, accomplish their goals, and most of all, to simply be happy. We’ve evolved physically, psychologically, and socially.
I don’t know which theory to believe, evolution or Adam and Eve. I absolutely love science, it’s my passion. I also believe in God and know he created the earth, but what about dinosaurs? You really can’t dispute their existence, there are fossils and other evidence to prove it. I know this isn’t what the Bible says but I always like to think that after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God decided his world wasn’t ready for such intelligent beings yet. Instead, he would create much different creatures and see how they live and eventually he decided he would try again with humans. It might sound silly and very unrealistic, but I like that idea rather than disputing religion and science.
Posted by: shawshank redemption 5 | April 08, 2011 at 10:58 AM
The evolution debate is one that will go on forever. Everyone will always have their own individual beliefs about what happened with the creation of Earth. That being said I don't believe that you can believe in the Bible and not believe that God created our world today. In Genesis it spells out how Earth and all its creatures came to be. If one is to believe in the Bible how can they just ignore certain sections and believe only some of the Bible. However, once created, humans are their own being. They grow and evolve based on individual experiences and each person is different, so in that sense I think Humans are both created and evolving.
Posted by: Nell 3 | April 12, 2011 at 12:31 PM
People lose faith when they try to find facts in the bible. When I look at the bible I see it as God trying to convey that people need each other. By the way he made the woman from the man’s womb; it is like they are connected. It shows God created you and wanted everyone to work together. Social Darwinism I think goes along with the bible in how people evolve and grow. The thing that I don’t agree with is survival of the fittest. If you are weaker you are left behind. The Church stands up for those people needing help and works with them. Everyone deserves a chance.
I think it’s a far stretch saying Charles Darwin is a “Cultural Christian” because he tries to have an optimistic view by saying there is a good for every evil. He does not belief in God. He didn’t really follow his teachings, and he doesn’t see the world connected with the sacred. His ethics don’t respond to those views of Jesus, so he is not really a Cultural Christian.
Posted by: Dead Man Walking 3 | April 26, 2011 at 12:56 AM
Personally, I think that an individual can believe in evolution as well as creationism. If you believe that life on earth derived from a "small warm pond" like Darwin said, then, in my opinion, you can also believe that God created that pond. I believe that scientists are right about evolution, but I think that God caused it to happen. Scientists cannot prove that God doesn't exist, they can only prove that evolution might have happened.
I think that this debate can be argued for many years and people will never reach an agreement. People of faith strongly believe in their religion and will not stray from it and evolutionists believe in science and will not stray from that. I believe that we should just accept each others' views because if you truly believe in something and live it, you are not going to change your mind.
Posted by: Dead Man Walking 5 | May 05, 2011 at 10:44 PM
Evolution is an interesting topic that is actually really hard for me to understand. I have always believed that God created humans and everything else on this planet. I do believe that God created homo sapiens and we could have just evolved from them but there is also this thought in my head that God created two different species all together and we are not the same as the creatures that used to roam this earth. The questions you ask at the end are questions that are very hard to answer I have never really thought hard about them but reading this actually does make me wonder what the God that created us is like and what God he created us from.
Posted by: Nell 6 | May 11, 2011 at 09:12 PM
I think this post is intriguing and I am glad the idea that creationism and evolutionism can co-exist. There are so many people that will not acknowledge the idea that these two hypothesizes for the beginning of the world can both be accepted together. For some reason people feel that the story of creation in Genesis must be taken literally and exactly as it is written. To that, there are two rebuts, one: if this is true, then the entire Bible should be taken as it is written, without interpretation. And my second question which caveats off the first: If it is to be taken literally, how do you explain the two separate and differing accounts of creation between Genesis 1:1-2:4 and 2:4-25?
Posted by: Pulp Fiction 2 | May 11, 2011 at 09:56 PM
I am very relieved to see that other students are also having trouble with their own feelings toward this subject also. I am so confused on what to believe here. Throughout schools all of my science teachers have hinted to us that the evolution theory is correct. Evolutionist is trying to provide an alternate way that humans were created. The Bible tells us, “The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God. “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.” Obviously if the evolution theory ever proves to be true, there will always be another question that arises where did they come from. No matter how far scientist trace our existence back and what we’ve evolved from, if they trace our whole existence of planets, animal, everything back to a single speck of dust, where did that speck of dust come from?
Posted by: shawshank1 | May 11, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Going off the previous comment, all throughout school, teachers have students believe it was evolution that brought humans to earth. Because if you think about it, how was God created? There had to have been someone just as powerful before him to create him, or for him to be the eternal ruler, per say. Along with creating everything else that was there when God was. I find this part extremely hard for one to figure out what they believed happen. There is always the debate, evolution vs God, and i feel as though there always will be.
Posted by: breaker morant 2 | May 12, 2011 at 05:44 PM
I agree with shawshank 1. God vs. Evolution will probably always be a debate because people want/need answers. I think a little curiosity helps you believe in God that much more because you are willing to stand up for it anyhow because you just know. There is way too much subsidence for the Bible to be made up. Even with imagination creating such a sacred book like that would be impossible. Easy Stress Management states that people need several things to be balanced in order to live with complete health and wellness: intellectual well-being, emotional well-being, social wellness, physical well-being, and spiritual well-being. My main focus on spiritual well being. As the article sates “Having a sense of spirituality and connection with healthy morals and values for better living. Having an understanding of personal values and purpose.” Now I’m not saying you have to believe in God to have good spiritual well being but many people receive their morals from the Bible. Even if you had not read the Bible yourself, someone in your family (could be an ancestor) at some point has read the Bible and helped to shape your family and who you are today. http://www.stressaffect.com/definition-of-wellness.html
I am a nursing major and do believe in science but I also believe in God. Why does there have to be that line making you pick one side or the other? I think people started research because God gave us the free will to choose our path. Who is to say that people did not first start their research to help bring them closer to their God? Maybe an anthropologist started to help find another sacred place like Mt. Horeb, so that all could worship. I believe in both, but of course not science above God. I did not choose a side and I think other people should try this perspective.
Posted by: True Grit 2 | September 21, 2011 at 09:07 PM
Shawshank 1 provides a very profound point in saying that even if scientists go back to the beginning of existence and create some theory determining the subsistence of the entire world comes from a speck of dust that “evolved” (a very loose interpretation of what they would actually accomplish, obviously) at least some members society will need to question where that spec came from. It’s just a characteristic of society these days to demand explanations, or proof that they can physically grasp and understand. People are not as easily convinced to believe something they cannot see or touch for themselves. In my opinion that is the basis of the debate between God versus evolution and as society continues to advance in science, technology etc. this divide will grow and scientific thinking will increase.
Posted by: Shawshank 4 | September 22, 2011 at 08:21 PM
Evolution is a central battle ground for the fight between science and religion. I am a strong believe in evolution. All the scientific evidence that has been presented is indisputable. Some people argue that humans couldn’t have evolved from apes because humans are extremely complex living organisms. It’s a valid point. But over billions and billions of years, single celled organisms have mutated millions of times to get to the point that we are at today. Animals do the same thing. They mutated to fit their environment. Humans had mutated to fit there environment. Another argument is that there are still apes on planet Earth so there is no way humans evolved from apes. Another excellent point, but one that can be challenged. Not every single organism mutated. Some stayed the way they were.
Posted by: Praying with Lior 2 | September 22, 2011 at 10:06 PM
I think it is an interesting idea that there could be a combination of creationism and evolution. In addition to what Shawshank 4 said, many people are reluctant to believe that God created everything because there is no proof. Believing in a higher power with no proof/reason to is something that stops people from having faith. Being able to physically see something or documented evidence is what they are looking for. Some people do not want to think about these two being linked because some of them don’t believe in God. The people that don’t necessarily believe in God would probably lean more to the evolution theory idea. Also in many public schools, they would probably be more apt to teaching about the idea of evolution and probably not even bring up the idea of creationism. Religious beliefs can be a very touchy subject in public schools. This topic is pretty tricky because each have valid points for example the dust theory leading to evolution and the Bible talking about all of Gods creations. In the end though who is to believe? Is it God, who is thought to be the Creator of heaven and Earth or the scientists and the evolution theory?
Posted by: Chariots of Fire 2 | September 22, 2011 at 10:24 PM
One concept doesn't negate the other. I believe there is room for both. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I believe that God made everything good and evil. But I also believe that science has to try to explain things. Science is a form of faith to some. Where some look to God for answers others look to science. Medicine is a perfect example. When your child or spouse is sick, believers pray. When they don't get better, they look to Doctors. Both are socially acceptable.(to a point)
Posted by: Praying with Loir 5 | September 22, 2011 at 10:53 PM
After reading all of these comments, I am most interested in the one above mine. I completely agree that there can be both evolution as well as religion. If God can create a world so complex as ours with animals that have the capability to fly and have details down to cells and individual molecules, then who is to say God can't create the process by which species evolve? There is no reason to believe that all species have had to come from a common ancestor millions and millions of years ago. The result of today could have easily come over the process of thousands of years, making the evolution process smaller, yet noticeable. In the Bible it also said God created many beings before woman, the perfect companion for man was made. I believe that it is from this that we see our connection to monkeys. The creation of a monkey could have been the last animal created before God made Eve.
Posted by: TheMission4 | September 22, 2011 at 11:31 PM
I believe that creationism and evolution can be combined, because I believe that God himself is making the evolutionary adaptations to help his creations live on this earth. I believe that God created us special, we have larger brains that we can think with, and we have survived when we have any other special adaptation from any other animal that helps us survive. I really like how Ard Louis is connecting science and religion. One major thing Ard Louis points out in Genesis that God hadn’t created the sun or the moon until the fourth day so you wouldn’t know how many earth days it was until the sun and moon were created.
Posted by: Truman Show 2 | September 22, 2011 at 11:43 PM
I tend to believe in the theory of evolution, in as far as, I do believe that the strong prevail and we do adapt to our environment. But I remember back in eighth grade when my Biology teacher starting talking to us about the theory of evolution and how man evolved from the ape/Neanderthal. As I took in the information, it made sense to me. I started to take the ‘facts’ and add my own connections to them because I saw science as having the answers. Then one day in my small group at church, we were talking about evolution and I started spewing out ‘facts’ and realized that science did not match up to what my Christian upbringing was, and a light went on. Science tells us many different reasons without really giving us any true answers or understanding. As humans, we want facts and hold them to be truths because we want meaning to the way things are. It is easy to see how we can get swayed to believe science because it is tangible and the Bible sometimes is not.
Posted by: Praying with Lior 3 | September 23, 2011 at 03:31 PM
While I find it unnecessary to comment on which I believe, creation or evolution, I will say that I find this article very well written. The section in which it quotes Richard Dawkins and then Kenneth Miller's Georgetown lectures shows clearly, to me at least, that this debate is one rooted very deeply in personal opinion. As many of you commented before my post, this is an ongoing discussion, one which will continue possibly indefinitely. There is something to be said about the strong desire of each side to be acknowledged as correct by the opposing side. It seems to me that this desire may come out of the realization that we, as humans, really have no way of proving how this world came to be.
Posted by: True Grit 12 | October 10, 2011 at 11:28 AM
I am a firm believer in the idea of both evolution as well as creationism. In the beginning God could have defiantly crated all living things. Using the same idea from the above text “biological individuals continuously self-assemble”. There is data that shows how species of animals will evolve based on were they are located geographically. Weather you believe this or you believe God created many different variations of a single species just for fun, it still poses a huge debate between scientist and creationists.
Posted by: The Truman Show 5 | December 11, 2011 at 11:44 PM