A very one sided debacle.

[XaWN]

This is a discussion question; it makes no explicit sense, but hopefully someone will have a very profound thought on the topic. Add your vote to the poll.

Creationism and Evolution seem to be opposing sides of an argument. Why is it that evolution has both atheistic and theistic proponents while creationism only has theistic proponents?

The answer is obvious, but why is it not profound and convincing?

[Chaplinsky]

Why is it that God could have not allowed animals to evolve? Or even started the universe in accordance with the big bang.

2 Peter 3:8 ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

Notice it is like a thousand days not exactly a thousand years. Consider trying to explain a number in the billions to people of an even more ancient time period than our own. Surely the creator of the world would have plenty of time if he was above eternity and time. I believe he could have started with microscopic life, such as RNA or DNA then helped key decisions in the evolution of animals. Then upon creating the animal that he considered good for the soul, he capitalized, and made humans in his likeness by giving them a soul.

Does anyone agree that there is a possibility that this happened?

Personally I also think that we cannot truly know what happened in the beginning. We know the information God gave us, and we generally accept scientific data as true if tested to far enough ends. I do not see the contradiction yet between the two doctrines. Even though some theist make claims that cannot be supported by all the scriptures.

[micatala]

I'm on the fence big time. If I absolutely HAD to chose, I'd probably go with Intelligent Design, but I'm really not sure (Would that count as theistic creationist?). My folks are theistic evolutionists and I used to be really excited about Young-Earth Creationism, but lately I've sort of lost interest in it. Honestly, as time goes on I find myself being able to accept evolution much more readily. A big reason why I wouldn't accept evolution is because you've got people like Dawkins going around saying that to properly understand evolution means it is impossible to be a theist.

In my view those like Dawkins take the same fallacious position many hard-core creationists take. Both forget that evolution says nothing about whether God exists or not. Evolution simply describes what the evidence tells us about the history of life on earth. This description might be counter to the particular beliefs of many theists, but it is not inconsistent with the notion of the existence of God.

Both the Dawkinses and the Kent Hovinds of the world I think are reluctant to let go of this unfounded assumption because of the axes they want to grind. If people actually accepted that evolution does not negate the idea of God, then the fight they so desperately want to win would be seen to be pointless, which I think is something neither side wants to contemplate.

[Openmind]

Both the Dawkinses and the Kent Hovinds of the world I think are reluctant to let go of this unfounded assumption because of the axes they want to grind. If people actually accepted that evolution does not negate the idea of God, then the fight they so desperately want to win would be seen to be pointless, which I think is something neither side wants to contemplate.

Evolution doesn't negate God, it justs begs the question: Why?

Why would a personal God do things the way he did? Why not just create people? Again - the standard response will be "Who can question the way God acts?"

But when you think about it, the God who uses the Big Bang and Evolution allows the universe to develop in the exact same way as a non-existant God. In a universe in which there was no God, evolution via natural selection would take place in this manner.

Why does God act in a manner that is identical to the non-existant God?

Then upon creating the animal that he considered good for the soul, he capitalized, and made humans in his likeness by giving them a soul.

A chimpanzee is self-aware and has intelligence equivalent to that of a three year old child. Does a three year old child have a soul? Is self-awareness even required for a soul? If not - then why cannot the chimp have it as well? How can you demonstrate that only humans have souls?