Creationism or Evolution?

[Dalaena]

Creationism is belief in the Bible's story of God creating the Earth. This would include the Garden of Eden stuff.

Evolution is a complex theory based on genetics and Darwinism.

Obviously, this is an oversimplification of both sets of beliefs. I just generalized them to make sure people knew what they were voting about.

[Graeblyn]

I think the Earth was created old... with a fossil history and deviation of current species built into the plan. Kinda like a novel with a rich backstory that we the fans (or paleontologists in this case) can create detailed documentation and speculation for.

continuing evolution is just the Author's plan taking shape as the story plays out.

[Ysadri]

Both.

I think God created the earth and permitted it
to evolve. Time as we perceive it is not, IMO
as God sees it. So a "day" could well be an
aeon.

:snake

[Sier]

I'm an old fashion church boy bible thumper. I believe that if there was no God..what's the point of going on since it's all going to end anyways.

[Solmyr]

Agree with Ysadri. It can easily be both - the Bible need not be taken literally, and God could have easily created the universe and then sat back and watched it evolving (I know that's exactly what I'd do if I were God ).

[Kharum]

Since "creationism" as a philosophy refers not to the belief the the universe is of divine origin, but to the more specific belief in a literal interpretion of the Biblical cosmogenic myth, it is really not possible to believe in both creationism and evolution. If some upstart tribal war god actually did create the world a mere 6000 years ago, by definition there has been no evolution of the species. It is, however, possible to believe in evolution and a divine origin to the universe, which is perhaps what some folks mean when they say the believe in both. My own tendency is to invoke Ockham's razor on that score and just stick with evolution.

In regards to creationism, which Biblical creationist myth are we talking about? There are, after all, two contradictory accounts of God's creation of the world in Genesis, which makes one wonder whether the original authors ever even intended a literal interpretation of the stories.

[Unelican]

I believe in a God who created a universe that operates according to consistent laws that humans discover through science. I believe this God also tweaks things now and then to make sure things go the way they need to go. Like the first single celled organism was probably a tweak.

[Grantref]

Originally posted by Graeblyn
I think the Earth was created old... with a fossil history and deviation of current species built into the plan. Kinda like a novel with a rich backstory that we the fans (or paleontologists in this case) can create detailed documentation and speculation for.

continuing evolution is just the Author's plan taking shape as the story plays out.

This is the 'Omphalos' argument, which is latin for belly-button. that refers to the question of whether Adam and Eve, not having been born normally, would have had navels. The argument is that, as God would foresee that future generations of humans would have navels, He would create Adam and Eve with them to be consistent in design, even though they had been formed as full adults.

The problem with applying this to the Earth is that there is no way to interpret any evidence using this method. If this were the case, the universe would look old, it would appear old to all scientific methods of measurement, and there would be no way to tell the difference between such a universe and one that was 'actually' old. In such a situation, it would be better to invoke Occam's razor and assume that a universe that looks old, is old. How does it harm the concept of God in any way to suppose that He created a universe that lasted for 15 billion years rather than for 6000? Only if your concept of God is pathetically small.

And Sier, Evolution does not imply that there is no God, or that when you die that it is the end. These are metaphysical questions that are entirely outside the domain of evolutionary science. Thousands of professional biologists who work in the field of evolution also believe in various versions of a god or gods, in life after death or reincarnation or what have you. The only way that Evolution makes your (that's a non-specific 'you', not Sier specifically) religious beliefs untenable is if your religious beliefs consist of matters which are contradicted by physical reality, and 'faith' for you consists of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting 'lalalalala I can't hear you' whenever scientists bring up DNA or fossils or experimental evidence of speciation or radioactive dating.

[Sier]

True true. But think of this, if you're talking about God, then you're talking about having no limit's in what he can do. What stops him from creating the earth 60 billion years old instead of 1 day old? I think if he made it fresh and brand spanking new it would be unsuitable for life anyhow.

[Katidyd]

God could have created the earth etc. But the Bible is a myth, stories humans created to help explain the world they live in. It is rediculous when religious people try to stretch the Bible as the story of man to the story of the world. Evolution explains a mehanism that was created to regulate itself in which god could take a vacation and not have to decide every time wheter or not a fruit fly should have legs growing out of its head. When evolutionists discount the existance of a god, that's just as rediculous since they wouldnt be able to explain everything.

That sounds a lot like using god as a cope out, but isnt that how people have been using the entity in their own ways.