Why is creation and evolution at odds with each other? (genesis, America)

[LZKay1]

In todays world, you can find the creation and evolution debate on practically any Internet forum.

But why are they at odds with each other? I've even seen on a science news website (I think it was Scientific American) calling creationism nonsense. This leads me to believe the debate isn't just about facts and whatnot, it's also bias and personal belief.

Why is creation and evolution at odds?

[fishbrains]

Don't you think it pretty obvious?

One the one hand, you have evolution with a myriad of evidence. The concept that every species currently in existence is the descendant of a slightly different species. This concept it backed up with cellular, DNA, and fossil evidence.

One the other hand, you have creation, which says "poof", it just happened. Ignore all of that evidence, just believe in the poof.

This is a pretty serious dichotomy, and one that has an effect on the public discourse. Teach the basic concepts of evolution in the schools, and you are educating children in the truth, and perhaps starting a few down the path of a scientific career that could lead to medical advances. Teach creationism in the schools, and you are telling fairy tales, essentially extending kindergarten for another dozen years or so, and holding back scientific progress.

And that, in my view, is why there are debates. People who accept the physical evidence and truth are opposed to those who want to believe in groundless fairy tales.

[wallstreeterww]

Fishbrains that is a very elemtary definition of creationism. there are many christians and theists today that know that the book of genesis and revalations werent written in the same way that the rest of the bible was written. Genesis and revalations were written to be interpreted in a conceptual sense. God understood that people back then couldnt even come close to understanding him the way we are starting to understand him now. I believe that evolution proves the existence of god because it takes some kind of mechanism to cause evolution to happen. Im sure one day we will be able to create things that dont evolve by finding a sequence in their gene structure that can turn off mutations or adaptations.
everything in this universe has an ordered formula or structure to it from galaxies to living organisms.
God = order, atheists believe that things pop up magically with no purpose or order or they have always existed. Think about it folks. It makes no common sense at all

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by LZKay1

In todays world, you can find the creation and evolution debate on practically any Internet forum.

But why are they at odds with each other? I've even seen on a science news website (I think it was Scientific American) calling creationism nonsense. This leads me to believe the debate isn't just about facts and whatnot, it's also bias and personal belief.

Why is creation and evolution at odds?

If you're talking about rational creationism, then I don't believe they are at odds. By rational, I mean people who understand that the world is older than a few thousand years. They understand that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. But they believe that there is a guiding hand behind everything, and they teach their children their views at home and at church, because there is no rational evidence to prove their point. It doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means there is no proof of a creator.

However, teaching creationism is trying to tell students that,

A. The entire Universe is 6,000 years old (or 12,000 as I've seen some people post).

B. All of the fossil records come from the great flood of Noah.

C. Men and women started with just one man, and one woman, and the woman was created from the mans rib.

There is no scientific evidence for this. There is plenty of evidence that the world is 4.5 billion years old roughly, and that the Universe is much older. A flood killed the dinosaurs? give me a break.

[justme58]

Originally Posted by wallstreeterww

Fishbrains that is a very elemtary definition of creationism. there are many christians and theists today that know that the book of genesis and revalations werent written in the same way that the rest of the bible was written. Genesis and revalations were written to be interpreted in a conceptual sense.

Hence the folk make BS up as they go along. One need only look at the xian forum to see you folk cannot agree on much.

Oh and BTW, if the buybull is inerrant, don't you think interpretation would not be required. Why does one need the holy spook to glean off an understanding as to the "true" message. If as you xians claim it is the "owner's/creator's manual", the creator sure did a bang up job in making it nonsensical.

God understood that people back then couldnt even come close to understanding him the way we are starting to understand him now.

And you know this how exactly?

I believe that evolution proves the existence of god because it takes some kind of mechanism to cause evolution to happen.

No it does not, you need to brush up on how exactly evolution works before making such silly statements.

Im sure one day we will be able to create things that dont evolve by finding a sequence in their gene structure that can turn off mutations or adaptations.
everything in this universe has an ordered formula or structure to it from galaxies to living organisms.

Keep up to date buddy, we already can do this.

God = order, atheists believe that things pop up magically with no purpose or order or they have always existed. Think about it folks. It makes no common sense at all

We do? That is news to me but I have heard this line of argument before.

If that assertion were true, how does that differ from instapoof of your buybull? Godunnit?

[achickenchaser]

Because evolution tosses out the whole Adam and Eve creation story, which does away with the concept of original sin. That means there's no need for Jesus in order to save mankind and get into heaven.

Many Christians can't agree with that, which is why you'll see them defending such ridiculous stories as the ones in the book of Genesis, no matter how silly they are.

Scientist, well, there's the whole lack of evidence thing when it come to creationism. Hardcore YECs don't like that, so they lie, make up "proof" that doesn't allow for peer review, and sometimes even slander the character of evolutionist. It's not hard to see why there's gonna be animosity between the two at times.

There are those who believe in evolution and that God set things into motion. If numbers are correct, there's 10 of millions of people in America who believe this. You just don't hear much from them, or at least I don't.

[stillkit]

Personally, I don't think they are mutually exclusive, though the issue is usually couched in those terms.

In the first place, who's to say that the "Big Bang" wasn't God directed?

In the second, the "creation" story beginning in Genesis 1:2 is actually the "re-generation" of an already existing earth.

Note the the word translated as "created" in Gen 1: 1 is not the same word translated as "Let there be" later in the book.

[Thomas R.]

It depends on what means by either one. However "achickenchaser" gets at a core problem.

The traditional idea of original sin, that Nature is Fallen, is seen as being at odds with evolutionary ideas of natural history. Even if there literally was an "Adam and Eve" evolution states that before humanity there was death, pain, suffering, and so forth. Some see this as problematic.

I am not sure the notion of original sin means that pre-human animals can't die before humans arrived. Or that "death" and "Fall" have to mean what they did to more primitive peoples. (In fact in early Christian writing "death" seems to mean more than just cessation of life. Jesus is said to "end death", but obviously people still die so what is meant is the Resurrection or afterlife) Still the existence of "natural evil" before Homo sapiens sapiens I think makes some sense as an issue. It rarely troubles me, but I can understand why it might some.

Now if by "creation" you mean in some kind of deistic sense than evolution might be totally irrelevant. However there is "The Cosmological natural selection hypothesis" which posits that the Universe itself is a product of evolution and there is no ultimate creation moment. That form of "evolution" I suppose could contradict creation in the broader sense.

[mb64282]

I think it's because America lags so much behind in math and science, people don't really understand the theory of evolution here, and some people take everything literally in the Bible and the people who support evolution in the Church feel like they are going to offend people if they say that they can work together, I would also like to add that it was Christians that basically endorced evolution, this theory is not really acredited to opponents of religion as so many people against religion like to think. The Catholic Church paid for the foundations of evolution. Some of the methods and reasonings they used were questionable, but nonetheless it is not a theory that began outside of religion, that's why I think it's so funny when people try to use it against Christians, like gee no kidding, thanks for that update. Not to mention, nobody can 100% disprove Adam and Eve, but evidence is overwhelming that it is indeed a parable. What's so wrong with parables? The only thing I am worried about is the next huge break, I don't think some Christian Churches are preparing people enough for scientific discoveries...Churches need to prepare their congregations more and more for the compatibility of science and religion or people are going to freak out the more evidence that is aquired in support of the theory.

[mb64282]

Another thing that is kind of annoying is that some people think science is some sort of 'trick' or 'test' to see if we will acept it, this is not limited to outside of education, I even heard at school before religious instructors ranting about science, imo these people should be removed from the accedemic setting, but since they are in religious departments I suppose that is why administration lets them stay. Instructors that a weary to accept evolution do not bother me because even some strictly scientific people are weary of it as well, not just the religious or scientifically religious. Also, I think more math and science should be required in college, I am going back to school and have found that it's been so long since I've studied math and science I am a bit behind I feel like, whereas people fresh out of h.s. are much more prepared.