creation and evolution?

creation and evolution? Topic: creation and evolution?
July 19, 2019 / By Isaac
Question: even if many people can reconcile religious and evolutionary worldviews, it seems that many evolutionary biologists cannot. Biologists seem much more likely to express hostility toward religion than practice it. Several persons have said that a religious person cannot be a true scientist. Does an evolutionary world view gradually drive a person toward atheism?
Best Answer

Best Answers: creation and evolution?

Farran Farran | 4 days ago
Unfortunately, in many cases it does simply because while studying evolution, one gets bombarded by the idiot end of the religious spectrum. Constantly. Using the same, stupid, out-dated arguments, over and over and over and over and over and over again. Eventually, unless one already had a strong faith to begin with, it can't help but erode whatever faith you already had when every representative of religious thought you see is a complete moron, or almost as often, a lying scum-bag with a personal agenda. This in turn, tends to make many biologists feel intellectually superior to anyone who is religious - and they are startled, even surprised when they find out that someone whom they consider intelligent is actually religious. This arrogant attitude is hardly welcoming to anyone with religious views, and religious biologists tend to keep their mouths shut about their religious views, or stay away from the field entirely. This, then increases the exposure of the scientists to only moronic or disingenuous religious people, reinforcing the feedback and creating a vicious cycle that makes the two viewpoints seem like diametrically opposed opposites - when they are not. So if more religious folks would voice their views that they accept evolution (as most Christians do, despite the vocal minority that would have it otherwise), and more scientists would voice their own religious beliefs, then perhaps this gap in understanding would disappear and people would realize that the two worldviews are no more incompatible than it is to believe in both Jesus and that the Earth goes around the Sun.
👍 156 | 👎 4
Did you like the answer? creation and evolution? Share with your friends
Farran Originally Answered: Evolution vs Creation (Latest Evolution Claims?)?
This question is actually kind of tricky. It's not because there's ambiguity in the science, or that evolution is on shaky ground. In fact, the opposite is true, and evolution is one of the most solidly supported theories in all of science. The problem is that there is so much misinformation out there. Part of that is due to the fact that evolution is a complicated idea, based on even more complicated biology, yet we expect high schoolers to be able to understand and evaluate it on their own. The rest of the misinformation out there comes from various creationist groups, which constantly put out misunderstood ideas and incorrect claims, mixed with deliberate lies. So the first step is to make sure that you know what evolution actually is. This site is a great resource, and has straightforward and unbiased explanations: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary... I'm putting this out there because I can tell from your question that you don't know what evolution actually says. It sounds like you're using the creationist version, which they have intentionally made wrong. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with God. It disagrees with a *literal* reading of Genesis... but then again, if you're being strictly literal, the two accounts of creation in Genesis contradict each other, and both are contradicted by most of what we know about science. Evolution says absolutely nothing about God, one way or the other. It's simply an explanation of how existing life changes over time. Nothing more, and nothing less. It doesn't comment about an afterlife or morality, it doesn't explain where the universe came from, and it doesn't even explain where life came from. It's how life changes, and it follows the basic laws of the universe. If you believe that God created those laws, then you can believe that God is behind evolution. The topic of your essay is also key here. It's about belief. You're free to believe whatever you want. If you believe in creation, and you want to reject evolution, then that's fine. Science isn't the be-all and end-all of human existence. Science supports evolution, though, 100%. This is where creationism runs into trouble. It's fine to believe in creation, and to reject any part of science that you want, but it's not ok to say that science supports creation, or that it doesn't support evolution. When creationists state their beliefs, there's no problem, but when they start to try and support their beliefs with science, they're either misinformed or dishonest. People are entitled to their own beliefs, not their own facts. So which is more believable? It depends on your beliefs. I place a very high value on observation and testable claims, so I accept evolution as the best explanation for how life changes over time. If your faith is more important, then your beliefs might override science... and that's the whole point of faith, right? To me, it seems incredibly hypocritical when creationists talk about the importance faith, and then turn around and distort science and make up lies to support their beliefs. Science unequivocally supports evolution, but you're free to believe whatever you want. Just make sure that, if you're talking about evolution, you're using the *real* version of evolution, and not the intentionally-wrong one fabricated by creationists to trick people. The real version has absolutely nothing to do with God, and can exist in a naturally-formed universe as well as a created one. *Edit* Wow. OK. Where to begin. Lets start with the termite claim. Termites have a symbiotic relationship with their gut microbes. So do humans. Most large organisms can't properly digest and process food without them. Just because we're inseparable now doesn't mean that we were always that way. The ancestors of termites wouldn't have died out because they were able to eat different foods that didn't require those gut microbes. Over time, they developed a symbiotic relationship - the microbes adapted to the termites' guts, and the termites' diet diet shifted to primarily cellulose (since they were one of the few species that could break it down, and there was plenty of it around). Likewise, the evolutionary ancestors of other animals didn't require gut microbes - we co-evolved into a symbiotic relationship to the point where we can't survive without them. I have absolutely no idea what you're claiming with the sunlight. Sure, according to creation, the sun came a day after plants... but do you really think that science tells us that sunlight came millions of years after plants? The sun formed 4.6 billion years ago, and the earth came together about 100,000 years after that. The first actual life didn't arise until about 3.8 billion years ago, and photosynthesis didn't really take off until about 2.8 billion years ago. That's 1.8 billion years between the formation of the sun and the earth, and the beginning of life that could actually harness the sun's energy. This is actually pretty typical of creationist arguments - they rely on ignorance, and fall apart easily with just a little bit of basic knowledge. If you're learning this from your teacher, then your teacher is pushing ignorance on you. I'm not talking about belief here, or different ways of looking at the same data. You have absolute freedom of religion, but the "facts" that you're presenting are demonstrably wrong.

Curt Curt
Only if you assume that the bible and religion is telling us specifics aspects of the real world that are testable. Many consider the bible an instrument to teach one about the spiritual. If you take it as that, then you have no contradiction with sciences. Science doesn't attempt to or apply to the religious or spiritual arena. Trouble comes with people taking religious texts completely literally and say things that can be checked. Many don't check out - in my opinion because they were written as allegories, metaphors, and not meant to be taken literally. Allegory, as a teaching tool, can be much more powerful than literal text. Look at Genesis version of the creation - if this is taken as a metaphorical representation of the big bang and the arising of life on this planet, then it becomes a story that could be understood by Bronze age semitic tribes in the middle east, yet still not really contradict the scientific views of how the universe and creation happened. If God used the Big Bang and Evolution to create the universe and life's diversity, would it be less miraculous? For the record, I'm an atheist. However, I can see how the bible can be interpreted, and has been for a long time, so that it's not contradicted by science. One aspect that attracts some to science is the testability and its requirement for evidence. Many will feel these principles are important and start applying them to other areas of their lives. The existence of God has no supporting evidence - given that, many are pushed away by this. I, personally, have a strong basis I use to decide if I accept something as truth - a criterion of truth. That criterion requires evidence. It may be inductive truth - that I've seen the sun rise every day of my life, so expect it will tomorrow. Some are a different type of induction - someone I trust tells me they will do something. Because they have established a trust with me, I accept they will do what they say. Someone knowledgable in an area will allow me to accept what they say with a large degree of credence, because they've established they are accurate a large percentage of the time.
👍 60 | 👎 -3

Assur Assur
Look deeper. The hostility is not aimed at religion nor religious persons per se....it is aimed at the very real threat that religious belief poses to true science. Here is an example. Mormons believe that Native Americans are actually the descendents of an ancient tribe of Jews that came here around 5000 yrs ago. In an effort to prove their holy book they have twisted archaelogical finds and studies. No independent scientist will back up their claims because they simply do not hold water. You simply cannot start with a statement or belief and then set out to prove it right. It will skew your perceptions of the evidence. You must first look at evidence and then after careful examination you can come to an objective conclusion. Religion, no matter what it is....skews facts to it's own liking. Knowledge only drives a person to give up false and antiquated superstitions, usually from book-based religions. There are many religions in the world that support science, rationality and reason.
👍 57 | 👎 -10

Verity Verity
The issue is that enpiricism drives you away from accepting mere assertions and untestable claims. Scientists test and test again. They seek independent confirmation of facts and findings. They debate the evidence from all points of view. They accept nothing on the basis of tradition or the authority of a person making a claim. They believe if it can't be tested and measured then it's just speculation. It's very hard when you're entire mentality is based on precision of thinking and analysis to just throw that all away and believe just because tradition says so.
👍 54 | 👎 -17

Septima Septima
"Does an evolutionary world view gradually drive a person toward atheism?" It drives them away from old superstitious religions, but not always from some definition of God. See: Agnostic, the fence sitter's choice
👍 51 | 👎 -24

Septima Originally Answered: Creation V.S Evolution?
Read The Case for Creation, by Lee Strobel.It explains so much! It talks about how the Archeopteryx is not a link to evolution, the Cambrian explosion and how it is evidence for Creationism, and other handy things like that. For example: "What is not so well known is that Java Man ( a prehistoric skeleton) consists of nothing more than a skullcap, a femur, three teeth, and a great deal of imagination...Dubois' shoddy excavation would have disqualified the fossil from consideration by today's standards...the femur apparantly didn't really belong to the skullcap.The skullcap,according to prominant Cambridge University anatomist Sir Arthur Keith,was distinctly human and reflected a brain capacity within the range of humans today." ( Strobel 38, 39). And another: "I soon discovered, however, that scientists today consider the archeopteryx to be a member of an extinct group of birds--not as part bird part reptile.After all, we see strange animals around today,like the duck-billed platypus, which nobody considers transitional but which has characteristics of different classes of animals." ( Strobel 36). And ANOTHER: "Darwin's theory predicted a long history of gradual change, with the differences slowly becoming bigger and bigger until you get the major differences we have now.But the fossil record, even in Darwin's day, showed the opposite.Instead of slowly developing over time, major groups of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record in what's called the "Cambrian Explosion".To get an idea of what happened at the Cambrian explosion, imagine yourself on the goal line of a football field.That line represents the first fossil, a microscopic, one-celled organism.Now start marching down the field...You come to the sixteen yard line, and now you see the appearance of some sponges and maybe some jellyfish and worms.Then--boom!--in the space of a single stride, at least twenty and as many as thirty of the world's thirty five phyla, the highest category in the animal kingdom,suddenly appear fully formed,without any of the ancestors required by Darwinism." ( Strobel, 31-32). Hope this helps! I'm sorry that nobody else is trying to help you..they ( atheists) are being very rude about this.

If you have your own answer to the question creation and evolution?, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.