I fail to see a contradiction between creationism and evolution. Most all Christians that I know personaly believe in evolution, they believe that God found the perfect mechanism for dealing with an ever changing planet. He put the tools in place so that it could manage itself however brutal that might be at times. I believe that most of the major churches also accept evolution but don’t quote me on that. The Catholic church accepts it.
It’s not a religious issue but a political one. The people who run campaigns against evolution do so for political and financial gain.
I think the problem comes from some (not all) private Christian schools that want to teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old and came about literally as described in Genesis.
But, I agree with you that there is no spiritual quandary with believing that a higher power started the process and let evolution take its course.
What practical knowledge does “god did it” add to our understanding of evolution and biology? If god created the mechanism in such a subtle way that his interference or design would never be testable, observable, or ever look any different at all from what would naturally occur, what does adding the “god did it” component to our understanding of evolution actually accomplish?
If nothing, why does it need special treatment? Do we say “here’s how the planets orbit around the sun, and here’s a totally natural explanation for how it came to be, but also god did it”? “Here’s how gravity works, and the way this bowling ball will fall when we drop it is exactly in line with our understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe, but god did it”?
You’re right that religious people could be more rational and less ridiculous by using your rationalization, but it doesn’t add anything to our understanding of the world. It’s eliminated as part of the explanation by the actual proper use of Occam’s razor (which, by the way, is almost always misused). It’s an unnecesary component to the explanation that doesn’t add anything to it.
Lots of other Christians think that your friends are wrong.
Most Christians in the US do not.
Which doesn’t prevent large numbers of Catholics from not accepting it.
Agreed. I don’t think that “God did it” should be taught in science classes. But since the origin of the creation of matter and the universe is in doubt, that should simply be left up to the individual.
In other words, don’t teach is science class that God is a bunch of nonsense. Just state that the purpose of this class is to test what we can observe. A person’s faith or non-faith on things that we cannot observe is outside the subject matter of this class.
I know a lot of Christians like myself. I don’t have a clear concept or any concept of what God actualy is . I like most of the Christian values and the lessons from the Bible for how they help to define civilization and provide a moral platform I can base my life on. We are thousands of years away from a clear enough understanding of the universe to eliminate the need for God in my eyes. We are still weak and fragile beings being able to place our faith in a greater being is healthy for us emotionaly.
Agreed. But that’s Sunday School, around the corner, third door on the right. In science class you teach what can be tested and observed. God doesn’t belong in science class any more than in English class.
Speak for yourself. “God” does nothing but add an extra, unnecessary layer of complexity and shut down rational inquiry.
What you actually fail to note is the correct definition of Creationism as opposed to Theistic Evolution.
Most mainstream Christian churches do accept that evolution occurs in pretty much the way that Darwin, (modified by Dobzhansky and others), laid out. However, the point of Creationism is to claim that evolution has not occurred, or that it only occurs on very tiny scale of action.
The Catholic Church professes both a belief that God created all things and that on this Earth, life arose and then evolved without direct intervention by God. The belief in that original creative act is not the definition of Creationism which holds that God did the whole thing; creating each individual species.
Believing in God does not have to shut down any form of research in anyway. At the end of the day when I want to turn my brain off and relax and sleep I like to think their is a God who has a design in mind regardless of how it will turn out in the end. I am speaking for myself. A lot of mental health proffessionals who very much believe in science agree that a belief in a higher power is simply healthier.
Why are you changing the topic?
You asked a question regarding Creationism vs Evolution. Belief in (a 19th century reactive version of) God might be a good thing or a bad thing, but it is pretty clearly responsible for the gap between Creationists (who hold that view) and both atheistic and theistic evolutionists.
In other words, regardless how one views a God, one does not have to stop believing in that God to accept evolutionary theory, but one does need to embrace that belief, (or one like it), in order to accept the separate belief in Creationism.
God may be there. God may be necessary for a nice world or good human development, but those are separate questions for a different debate. They are not tied to a discussion of Creationism because that is a specific belief that requires one to ignore science. Belief in God does not require one to accept Creationism, but acceptance of Creationism does require that one ignore science.
I don’t agree. We are perfectly capable of having healthy and fulfilling lives without religion, and in any case there has never been a religion that has given us an understanding of the universe that’s more encompassing and correct than the non-religious scientific understanding we’ve got today (less politely, science does more than just make up shit, and does it a lot better too).
Now none of that means that evolution is incompatible with religion or even creationism in the broad sense. It just means that some particular religious ideas are incompatible with reality.
You do have to explain a few things to actually continue to uphold theistic evolution.
-
Why didn’t God just make the world as it was straight away? If he’s all powerful he could have done it in an instant. Evolution is unnecessary.
-
Evolution is brutal. Countless billions must die before humans come along.
-
And at what point are humans divinely appointed by god as his ‘children’? Did Neanderthals go to hell? We didn’t just evolve straight from a lower primate into humans, it was a gradual process. Was Homo heidelbergensis where god started with us, or was it Homo Sapiens? Which one caused original sin, or are the beginning chapters of Genesis just a ‘metaphorical’ fable? If so, why did Jesus take it seriously and die to solve the problem?
Evolution and Christianity are not compatible.
Yep, the big problem I see is that the evidence out there shows that unicellular life ruled the earth for billions of years, we would have to conclude that as “god made us in his image” that he is very soupy looking. 
I mostly follow the Deism the founder fathers had, god (he-she-it?) may had started the spark but we are not the overall reason why the universe came to be. IMHO many believers should take into account the possibility that we also may not be the end result expected by that supposed overseer.
Not really.
It is fine for you to set up some things to question or ponder, but none of them actually impose a compulsion of theists to answer the question in the way you want them answered.
meh ~
If you want to start a separate thread on that topic, feel free to do so, but it is a separate discussion from the one in this thread.
As others have noted, the position you’ve described isn’t creationism. It’s an acceptance of evolution.
The contradiction some people experience comes from scripture. It’s impossible to reconcile what the Bible says with what the science of evolution says. The two contradict each other. Some Christians reconcile this by dismissing any portion of the science which contradicts the Bible. Other Christians reconcile this by dismissing any portion of the Bible which contradicts the science.
Actually, recognizing mythology for what it is–the expression of a truth held by a people in the form of story or poetry–does not require one to “dismiss” anything.
Defining a made up story as “mythology” does not make it easier to discern the true parts of any religion.