Can a creationist be an evolutionist?

(Chris Falter) #61

Why not take offense at meteorology? It has the same disregard for Scripture and God’s sovereignty as evolution.

As for whether evolution is science: have you ever seen the electrons in a water molecule? Has anyone?

Have you ever seen a star bending light rays by sheer gravitational force? Has anyone?

Have you seen individual molecules of H2O coalesce into a water droplet? Has anyone?

(Quincy Hansen) #62

That’s a pretty blatant false dichotomy. It’s a logical fallacy, by the way.

Look, man, restating your same few talking points over and over again doesn’t make them more true. You’ve run around in circles, and if you get cornered you simply move the goalposts. It’s pretty tiring, even just to read through as I have been doing.

There’s lots a could address, but I’ll just stick with this: evolution is an incredibly powerful scientific theory. It has literal mountains of evidence backing it, explains most, if not all, of our observable data in these subjects. Biologists have been basing ecology, phylogenetic and even medicine off the premise of biological evolution for decades, and with great success. And, no, it does not disprove God, anymore than the water cycle or human fetal development disproves God.

The Bible says that God sends the rain, and that he makes the sun rise and set. (Matthew 5:45) We know from scientific observation that natural process like evaporation, condensation, and precipitation are responsible for the rain, while the earth’s orbit is responsible for the sun’s rising and setting. All of this happens without any observable intervention from God. Does this make Jesus a liar? Of course not! We are right to thank God for the rain, he simply uses natural process to send the rain. Similarly, the Bible also says God “knits us together in our mother’s wombs.” (Psalm 139:13) The process of fetal development is well documented, again with no observable intervention from God. Does this mean the Bible is wrong? No! It means God uses natural processes for the purpose of developing human babies. As you know, the Bible says God created all life on earth. (Genesis 1:1) We now know that God used evolutionary processes such as natural selection and genetic drift to diversify life on earth. Evolution does nothing more to God than the water cycle or fetal development does to God. Not that this will change your mind, as you seem to be devoted to your interpretation of the Bible and not actual truth.

Finally, you can disagree that the evidence for evolution makes it more probable than YEC, you can disagree that evolution is the best explaination for the observable data, and you can accept YEC. But claiming that the evidence for evolution simply doesn’t exist is simply denialism of reality. Period.

(James McKay) #63

Wookin, you haven’t even attempted to give an explanation of why it doesn’t prove evolution. Without any such explanation, you’re just repeating the same unsubstantiated assertions over and over again and bringing nothing new to the table. As others have said, it’s getting tiresome.

Bottom line is, if you want to try and tackle the subject of creation and evolution, you need to understand what you are talking about. You don’t do yourself or anyone else any favours by rushing headlong into the debate with all guns blazing only to prove that you haven’t a clue what you are talking about and that you have no desire to learn either. It’s a very bad witness and it undermines the Bible rather than upholding it. Remember Proverbs 19:2 — it is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.

I thank God for your simple, trusting faith in the Bible. But please, remember what the Bible is all about in the first place. It’s about the completed work of Christ on the Cross. Treating it as if it’s somehow dependent on how old the earth is or who or what did or didn’t evolve from what completely misses the point of it.

(Casper Hesp) #64

I think the easiest response to your remark is to deny it all the same, which renders this conversation with Mr. Wookin Panub rather pointless.

(Tom Larkin) #65

I feel this article misrepresents Dr. Francis Collins and states that only the “Answers in Genesis” view of creationism is acceptable. In “The Language of God”, Dr. Collins presented a strong argument for faith and evolution while evaluating “options” for alignment of faith and science. I do not recall him ever stating that the creation of the first life on earth had no intervention of God or that he ever stated the flood did not occur.


What do you call someone who believes that God created everything and used evolution to create biological life? Is there no room for that in your false dichotomy?


So…where do you draw the line between geographic, cosmological, and meteorological metaphor and “science”? Because people really used to believe the “heavens” were supported by “pillars”–because the Bible says so. But I presume (I’m sorry if I’m being presumptuous)…that you don’t? And if you don’t, why not (when some of our predecessors did)?


Such an accusation requires some evidence to back it up.

Galileo used a telescope.


That would be true of every single theory in science. No theory in science is ever proven, only tested. This is true of Germ Theory, Atom Theory, Relativity . . . well, you get the idea. Your criticisms only show that you reject all of science.

You rejected science when you said that tests of a theory do not qualify as science.

(Phil) #70

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.