Creation OR Evolution

[Quemtal]

Hi everyone. I stumbled across this site quite by accidence, though I’m terribly glad I did. It’s a lively and open site in which one may expound one’s views, and may hear myriad other opinions.
Reading many of the discussions however, something shocked me: the number of members who seem to believe in evolution/long-age earth and yet call themselves Christians. I’m new to the site, so maybe this issue has been explicitly dealt with elsewhere (if so, please inform me); but if not, it’s one I would like to raise. I’m a Christian, and only a young one at that (eighteen-years-old). The world constantly bombards us with long-age earth points of view, and I must choose whether to believe these or not. I choose to base my thinking upon the infallible Word of God—that God said what He meant to say. If God meant to say He used evolution and millions of years, He would have written Genesis very differently.
Below I’ve given just a few reasons (there are many more) why I believe that to be a Christian on MUST believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian.
I would just like to hear what others think about this topic. What are your views, beliefs, &c?

Some people say that the Genesis account of Creation is only an allegory or a metaphor. If this is so, a new translation of the Bible is necessary:

‘Then the Lord God formed the metaphor from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the metaphor became a living creature’ Genesis 2.7

‘Through one Metaphor sin entered the world…’ Romans 5.12

‘Enoch, seventh from a Metaphor’ Jude 14

‘The son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli… Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Metaphor, which was the son of God.’ Luke 3.23-28

‘Thus it is written, “The first Metaphor became a living being; the last Metaphor became a life-giving spirit.”’ 1 Corinthians 15.45

Would you consider such a translation to be accurate? I hope your answer is no. So if the Bible doesn’t say this, why do some Christians?
Without a literal belief in Adam, there is no literal belief in Jesus, which is absolutely necessary to be saved. The truths of the Gospel are reliant upon the HISTORY of Genesis 1-11. Without a first Adam, there can be no last Adam! An allegorical or metaphorical reading of Genesis is incompatible with the Gospel. And anyway, how metaphorical could we be? If you don't take 'the first man Adam' literally, how is it you can take 'GOD CREATED the first man Adam' literally?

Millions of years and evolution place death before the Fall. But death cannot have occurred before the fall, otherwise (yet again) the Sacrifice od Christ is negated.

As Christians, we must follow the example of Christ. But Christ was not an evolutionist (I know, it didn't exist then as it does now). Also, he wasn't a long-earther (they did exist then). When Jesus was asked about marriage (Matt. 19.3-6), he quoted Genesis 1.27 and 2.24. Jesus knew that without the history of Genesis, then there was no foundation for His teaching--and without the teachings of Christ, there is no Christianity.

Many read the Bible by reading into it. They put thoughts between the lines, thoughts that are not in God’s Word. And as a result there are evolutionists who call themselves Christians.
So please let’s read the Word for what it says, not what we want or expect it to say. Let’s allow the Bible to shape our view of the world, and not let the world shape our view of the Bible. Let’s keep in mind the words that first deceived Man, the words of Satan in the Garden, ‘Did God really say…?’ If we try to add to God’s Word as did Eve, then we too will fall. Remember Paul’s plea in 2 Corinthians 11.3, ‘But I’m afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.’
Here’s an exercise to try: First, read Proverbs 1.5-6, ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not in your understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him…’ Then, read the Creation account in Genesis, but lay aside all outside thoughts, all your own ideas and notions. Read it, not INTO it.
Thank you for bearing with me so long (if you made it this far). I know it’s a long post, but I thought it necessary, and still there’s so much I’ve left out. I want to hear your thought and opinions on this matter. Thank you.

[seventil]

You may be right. Still, thinking makes your head hurt, and just saying "yep" doesn't.

Awww, Jose! I expected more from you! -- While I agree thinking can make your head hurt at times - I think saying "yep!" makes your head hurt even more often. Why? Because I have to listen to the rhetoric of people around me trying to tell me I'm stupid because I believe in the Bible. I have people that I work with that try and educate me on evolution and why the Bible is wrong (contradictions, etc) - and day after day, I have to patiently explain to them why I believe what I do. Most often, they are not truly educated on the science behind what they believe. A couple weeks ago I tried to explain radioisotope dating to someone with a few simple maths; they were bewildered. And this same person is trying to tell me I'm delusional because I believe that science and God can go hand in hand together? Eh... ouch, talk about a migrane.

So, unless something fundamentally weird happens, and makes it absolutely impossible to continue to hold the misconception that animals mutate by turning into new things, it is unlikely (for some people) that they will ever be induced to replace the misconception with the correct understanding.

I've never understood this Creationist argument; I think variation and evolution of organisms shows the strength in God's Creation - adapting and mutating to survive; wonderful. Perhaps when we venture into the "we came from the same thing apes did" argument we may run into problems. But I've never understood the biological arguments that Creationists have problems with. 50 billion types of butterflies? Fine by me; God is a talented designer.

In this instance, there's the deeply-seated necessity that evolution be Wrong. Look up Craig Nelson's rusty hand grenade metaphor for a discussion of the relative dangers of not believing evolution, vs not believing in God. That's a powerful motive not to let the "impossible version" of evolution desert you. Besides, then, when you say "evolution is wrong," you'll be referring to your own private notion of what evolution is, so you'll be right!

Of course, the possibility exists that intellectual dishonesty is involved. It's well-documented for some of the more vocal creationists--you know, agreeing in one "debate" that XXX really has been discredited, and then using the very same argument again in the next "debate" before a new audience that doesn't know they've agreed that it's wrong. So, that's a possibility. The problem with it is that it breaks the 10 commandments, and is thus terribly non-Christian--unless the Moral Relativity of The Faith says its OK to bear false witness when speaking to heretics (aka people who don't share your views).

A cry against misconception, then. Beliving in evolution is not wrong; believing in it to disprove God, I believe, is. I respect anyone's personal views much as I would expect them to respect mine.

Jose, I think we've come to an agreement that it's not evolution or Creation that is in need of being disproved, but the way people use those beliefs. Do you think that the education system teaches evolution non-biasedly; or, to rephrase; do you believe the education system teaches evolution in a way that would make students not believe in God? I'm interested to hear!

[seventil]

I think the discussions that have been going on are great. It's an important issue, but I was looking to hear from Christians about:

a) Do you believe in a literal Genesis?
b) If not, why? How do you justify (strong word, but bear with me) not believing it as literal truth?

Hey Quemtal; welcome to the site.

I do believe in a literal Genesis. Why? Because I have not, in my own view, seen suitable evidence to disprove a young earth. And this is coming from someone who majored in astrophysics. I was an atheist at the time, and after I became Christian it was a big problem for me; speed of light, huge distances, the creation of the universe, etc - because I had been taught everything with a certain presumption. Since restudying everything I've learned, I've found no problems with being a young-earther, at least not yet. I'm actually in the works of trying to make a Creation-Big Bang model using standard relativistic physics.

With that being said; while I do believe in a young earth, I haven't ruled out another possibility. If I come face to face with God and he says - hey, I created everything 15 billion years ago - the dudes that wrote Genesis just decided to make a metaphoric story about it; I won't have a problem with it. I personally don't see the reason for such a thing, I cannot fathom the reasons He might do it. I try not to think about it too much; however, it does make good tea talk.

[seventil]

I can't speak for what's been said in this forum, but this accusation has been repeatedly supported elsewhere. Simply put, creationism is not science because it isn't falsifiable. There is no such thing as evidence that might potentially falsify creation.

I disagree. Creation science is nothing more than science with a different set of presuppositions. We desire truth and understanding just as an atheistic scientist does. While our beliefs may be different, our goal is one.

Also, it sounds like you've been reading talkorigins too much, or watching too much Hovind on TV. All Creationists are not like the few that you publicly know. I agree with Jose in the matter that they are wrong if they are misleading their viewers. Again, though - please don't stereotype all Creationists as close-minded, unreasonable individuals. I agree that some personas may fit this, but the majority of Creationists, I believe, are down to earth, reasonable, intelligent and willing to discuss just about anything.

No matter what evidence you turn up, a creationist can explain it as "God did it."

The #1 Creationist misconception. Do any non-God believers believe in the supernatural? Is there anything in the world that they can't explain? The answer is yes. If you don't believe in anything supernatural, you have the dillusion of self-omnipotence and all-knowing-intelligence.

If you believe in the supernatural as an atheist, you're an atheist. If you believe in the supernatural as a Christian, your still a Christian. The difference is an atheist waits for a natural explanation of the supernatural; the Christian also seeks the natural explanation but believes in the Divine Touch (aka God did it!) until proven otherwise.

Who is more disilllusioned? The man who waits for the explanation of the unknown for him; or the man who waits for the explanation of the unknown also, but believes in divine intervention? Both seek the same thing, yet one has faith in a higher power.

Science rests on the philosophy of scientific materialism, that all things (within the domain of science) can be explained through natural, physical laws. An appeal to an all-powerful, inexplicable entity simply short-circuits any further inquiry.

So does Creation science. We seek to explain things through the natural and physical laws as well. While we may have a different spin on some data, once again, our pursuit is the same. It is Creationist belief that the world, created by God, can be explained through scientific means.

[Dilettante]

seventil wrote:

Is there anything in the world that they can't explain? The answer is yes. If you don't believe in anything supernatural, you have the dillusion of self-omnipotence and all-knowing-intelligence.

seventil, I don't understand what you mean here. The choice is not necessarily "believe" versus "reject". There's also "suspend judgement".
There are many things I can't explain, but that doesn't mean they cannot be explained. I can't claim the supernatural is impossible. My position is that supernatural phenomena have not been proven, so there is no reason for me to believe them. But I remain open to the possibility of the supernatural even if I regard it as unlikely. Besides, before accepting the supernatural explanation, I usually try to rule out the natural explanation first. I think that's what most people do.

[Jose]

So, unless something fundamentally weird happens, and makes it absolutely impossible to continue to hold the misconception that animals mutate by turning into new things, it is unlikely (for some people) that they will ever be induced to replace the misconception with the correct understanding.

I've never understood this Creationist argument...

Sorry--I have been unclear. Speaking as a teacher, I can say that in general, misconceptions of any type are extremely resistant to change. According to the educational literature, people drop a misconception only when they see that it utterly fails to explain something...and then, they can develop a new conception (whether correct or incorrect) that seems to explain the observation more fully.

Applied to the creation/evolution issue, we can use this either way. Many people have misconceptions about aspects of evolutionary theory, which lead them to believe that it is absolutely impossible. Other people have misconceptions about religious teachings, which lead them to believe that they are all hogwash. I don't think we will get very far until we can explore what these misconceptions are, and discover how to deal with them.

Beliving in evolution is not wrong; believing in it to disprove God, I believe, is.

I fully agree. I think most scientists would. The fact is, no scientific method can disprove God. Having said that, there are scientists who conclude that the data indicate that there is no need for God to run the world; natural mechanisms work just fine. To extrapolate from this inference to the conclusion that God does not exist is unwarranted. The data do not support that extrapolation.

However, the data do argue, very strongly, against the literal interpretation of Genesis in which we pretend that "day" means 24 hours. We don't even use "day" consistently to mean 24 hours now, so why must we require that they did so "back in the day" when they committed the bible to paper?

Jose, I think we've come to an agreement that it's not evolution or Creation that is in need of being disproved, but the way people use those beliefs. Do you think that the education system teaches evolution non-biasedly; or, to rephrase; do you believe the education system teaches evolution in a way that would make students not believe in God? I'm interested to hear!

This is the issue I wanted to get at with the threads, How Should Evolution Be Taught Differently? and How Can We Teach Creationism Scientifically?. Obviously, many people don't buy evolution. As you say, many people who do buy it can't explain it very well. This says to me that we aren't teaching it well. Are we teaching it non-biasedly? I think we are--in the sense that we are teaching the currently-accepted understanding that comes directly from the data. To me, this is unbiased. To a creationist who wants to have biblical creation taught instead, it must seem terribly biased. But it is Science class, after all, so we should be using the methods of science, and teaching the findings of science.

What the education system does not do, probably for historical reasons, is present the data and then encourage students to develop their own understanding. We are trying to change the teaching of science so that this type of instruction becomes more common, but there are serious impediments to it. One is the obvious fact that there isn't enough time for students to re-discover for themselves everything that has been learned in the last few thousand years. Another, unfortunately, is the Leave Our Children Behind law, which mandates multiple-choice testing of "facts" and is therefore driving thinking out of the curriculum. If we are lucky, Congress won't extend it to high schools, and we can get on with instructional reform.

When I say "it's easier just to say 'yep' than it is to think," I apply the sentiment to the teaching of evolution just as much as I apply it to the acceptance of creation. If you just stand there and let The Authority (whether bible or teacher) pour information into your head, so you can spit it back, you aren't thinking. You're taking their views and accepting them uncritically.

What we need to do is present data, and have students interpret it. We can't do this with all of science because there is too much, but we need to do it every year, in every class, with enough of it that students come away knowing how science works.

Will this make students not believe in God? I don't see why it should. For most students, it has no impact on their religious beliefs. The only ones it will impact will be fundamentalists, whose parents and religious elders teach them not to accept certain scientific findings. For these students, there will be mental turmoil. They will have to decide for themselves what they believe. If they were to ask me for advice, I would suggest that they re-examine Genesis, and consider it metaphorically rather than as an historical, scientific treatise. Then the problem goes away.

[seventil]

seventil wrote:

Is there anything in the world that they can't explain? The answer is yes. If you don't believe in anything supernatural, you have the dillusion of self-omnipotence and all-knowing-intelligence.

seventil, I don't understand what you mean here. The choice is not necessarily "believe" versus "reject". There's also "suspend judgement".
There are many things I can't explain, but that doesn't mean they cannot be explained. I can't claim the supernatural is impossible. My position is that supernatural phenomena have not been proven, so there is no reason for me to believe them. But I remain open to the possibility of the supernatural even if I regard it as unlikely. Besides, before accepting the supernatural explanation, I usually try to rule out the natural explanation first. I think that's what most people do.

Hey Dilettante! Good to hear from you again.

After I wrote that I knew it would be controversial. I explained it poorly. My intent was to point out that the "God did it!" thing that us Creationists are pointed at using so often is not a catch-all end-all, get out of jail free card.

I was basically saying that supernatural things happen. There are just some thing in the universe that we can't explain through natural or physical laws; stuff that seems to defy reason. Creationists want to know how these things happen just like atheistic scientistis. We believe that a lot of things can and will be explained through natural sciences.

An example: The Big Bang theory. To my knowledge, no human on the planet or ever was on the planet can explain through natural or physical laws, what happened from time zero to shortly after the big bang. Relativistic physics break down; we can only speculate. An atheist yearns for knowledge to find out how it happened. So does a Creationist! The difference is that we have an option of believing that God can change natural and physical laws. That doesn't mean we don't want to find out how to explain something just as much as an atheist. It simply means we believe in Divine Intervention.

[Titan]

I used to be a young earth creationist. I just couldn't logically defend the belief. I didn't debate with anyone who convinced me, in facts the evolutionists actually made me believe in creationism more. I searched for facts. There were to many things unanswered that I wanted to have answers for. I then looked at the other side. Evolution has many holes that are very big. I settled for something in between, I know that sounds wimpy.

Hugh Ross has a pretty good description of what I believe, I don't know if I'm allowed to post a link, I'll just stay safe.

[Dilettante]

Hi seventil! Good to write to you again.
As I see it, the problem with creationism versus evolution is that we can't put them in the same box and evaluate them fairly without some common criteria. If your brand of creationism is falsifiable, and if it can predict facts other than those it was enunciated to explain, then I don't see a problem anymore.

[ENIGMA]

After I wrote that I knew it would be controversial. I explained it poorly. My intent was to point out that the "God did it!" thing that us Creationists are pointed at using so often is not a catch-all end-all, get out of jail free card.

When push comes to shove, then I would contend, yes it is.

Don't believe me? Fine then, please specify what potential data would, if found, kill the notion instantly. I can easily come up with 5 for evolutionary theory.

I daresay that you will come up empty handed since one can always invoke a supernatural event to cover any given event.

I was basically saying that supernatural things happen.

Unsupported assertion.

There are just some thing in the universe that we can't explain through natural or physical laws; stuff that seems to defy reason.

We still have a few things to work out, however history would suggest that invoking the supernatural is simply a stop-gap for what we do not currently understand.

Creationists want to know how these things happen just like atheistic scientistis. We believe that a lot of things can and will be explained through natural sciences.

Just nothing that happens to conflict with your preconcieved beliefs.

An example: The Big Bang theory. To my knowledge, no human on the planet or ever was on the planet can explain through natural or physical laws, what happened from time zero to shortly after the big bang. Relativistic physics break down; we can only speculate.

The big bang is an oddly singluar event where both quantum mechanics and relativity were in play. Unless we can find some means of recreating a similar event (on a much smaller scale of course), then we are stuck with insufficient data to form and test a theory of quantum gravity.

The universe doesn't need to be convenient to study, or traverse, unfortunately. We try anyway.

An atheist yearns for knowledge to find out how it happened. So does a Creationist! The difference is that we have an option of believing that God can change natural and physical laws. That doesn't mean we don't want to find out how to explain something just as much as an atheist. It simply means we believe in Divine Intervention.

So in other words you have no basis for believing science as anything other than God's attempt to give scientists some silly ideas. Thanks for clarifying.

[Aximili23]

I can't speak for what's been said in this forum, but this accusation has been repeatedly supported elsewhere. Simply put, creationism is not science because it isn't falsifiable. There is no such thing as evidence that might potentially falsify creation.

I disagree. Creation science is nothing more than science with a different set of presuppositions. We desire truth and understanding just as an atheistic scientist does. While our beliefs may be different, our goal is one.

You may disagree, but you didn't demonstrate how creation science can be falsifiable. If one of your "different set of presuppositions" is that science need not be falsifiable, then dialogue between us may not even be possible. Scientific theories have to be falsifiable, as far as I (and most scientists) are concerned.

No matter what evidence you turn up, a creationist can explain it as "God did it."

The #1 Creationist misconception. Do any non-God believers believe in the supernatural? Is there anything in the world that they can't explain? The answer is yes. If you don't believe in anything supernatural, you have the dillusion of self-omnipotence and all-knowing-intelligence.

Your counterargument is strange, because the sentence that you quoted has nothing to do with natural/supernatural phenomena. I wrote that to explain how nothing in creationism science is falsifiable. Similar gene sequences for conserved functions in different species? God did it. Biogeographical distribution that shows groupings of anatomically similar organisms? Endogenous retrovirus sequences that imply common descent? God did it. A fossil record that demonstrates change in species over time? God did it. A geological record that demonstrates an extremely old earth? God did it. There is absolutely no observation that one can make that cannot be explained away by this convenient yet unsupported creationist tenet.

But since you mention it, and since I did bring it up in a separate argument, I have a very open mind when it comes to the possibility of supernatural phenomena. I in no way discount that possibility. But supernatural phenomena do NOT fall within the realm of science. They don't represent reliable phenomena that can be repeated in a lab, they don't suggest any useful methods of investigation, they don't suggest falsifiable predictions, they can barely even be observed at all. Ghosts for example may or may not exist, but you won't find any credible scientists studying them, and the ones that do certainly haven't generated any useful or testable theories. Maybe someday, new tools and technologies may push today's supernatural phenomena into the natural, scientific realm of investigation, as has frequently happened in the past. But any supernatural explanation for any sort of observed phenomena is patently NOT scientific.

I have no problem with having faith as a motivation for studying natural processes through materialistic methods. I don't even have a problem with the idea that some god created the universe; i.e. started the Big Bang billions of years ago. But I do have a problem with replacing falsifiable theories with unsupported faith-based assertions. I have a problem with theories that contradict the evidence. I have a problem with filling gaps in our scientific knowledge with supernatural explanations that short-circuit further inquiry. I have a problem with claiming that a religious book is an irrefutably accurate source of scientific knowledge. I have a problem with a method of inquiry that starts with the conclusion and works backwards. I have a problem with scientists who claim that they possess some ultimate truth.