The Creationism vs. Evolution Debate Reviewed by Momizat on . [caption id="attachment_6655" align="aligncenter" width="615"] Source: worldofhopeministries.org[/caption] Written by Suzanne Ford; Media by Kelsey Kuethe. [cap [caption id="attachment_6655" align="aligncenter" width="615"] Source: worldofhopeministries.org[/caption] Written by Suzanne Ford; Media by Kelsey Kuethe. [cap Rating:
You Are Here: Home » Opinion » The Creationism vs. Evolution Debate

The Creationism vs. Evolution Debate

Source: worldofhopeministries.org

Written by Suzanne Ford; Media by Kelsey Kuethe.

Source: hcs.harvard.edu

Many people believe that creationism and evolution are about as similar as cats and dogs. There are dog people and there are cat people because the two animals have completely different traits (and dogs are clearly the more fun, loving, and superior pet). Likewise, many people stick to one belief or the other in the creationism versus evolution debate and they staunchly defend it. Here at Greenville College, we can make up our own minds on the subject. We are fortunate to be able to learn about both creationism and evolution when we take COR302. Some students believe that it should not be a required course, and some even say that believing in evolution undermines the fundamentals of our Christian faith. On the opposing side, some students believe that learning about evolution allows us to appreciate our God even more. Many of us might wonder which side is the right side to believe in as a Christian, or we might already be a firm believer in one or the other. Some people may not even care which theory is the right one because they have more important things to do, like tweet and watch Grey’s Anatomy. However, should there even be a debate between the two theories?

Source: irreligion.org

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, creationism is “a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.” The definition of evolution is “a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.” God can be the creator in both theoriesthe difference is the process that led to our formation in his image. When we assume that we know God and his actions in the past, we are putting him in a small box so that we can feel secure in our theories. In reality, God calls us to have a faith that is the opposite of security. We are not called to discover all of God’s secrets; instead, we are called to pursue him in awe and wonder through learning about his beautiful creation. By discrediting evolution, we do not allow the possibility that God was the mastermind of a plan that we cannot ever fully understand. By discrediting the creation story, we overlook the reason why God put us on earth, and we do not see his love for his creation.

This leads us to the main issue: what do we believe in and teach to others if we cannot be sure of either creationism or evolution? The truth is that the uncertainty of how we were formed is a minor issue when it comes to living as God has called us to live. As Christians, do we define our belief system solely on a literal interpretation of the creation story in the Bible, or is this belief simply one part of our faith? Do we allow one challenge to our beliefs to destroy our whole faith, or do we adapt and find God in the situation? A faith that is destroyed by one decision, like believing in either evolution or creationism, is a faith that was already weak and cracking at its foundations. Christians should not use the Bible solely as a textbook because that was not what God intended it to be used for. He did not include the laws of physics, the Fibonacci sequence, or deoxyribonucleic acidwhat he did talk about was Jesus, his forgiveness, and, most importantly, his love for his creation. God created us in his image; the details are not as important as the fact that he gave us a soul that enables us to be like him.

The Bible teaches us of a God who loves us and wants us to spread his love to others. We love others because he first loved us enough to make us. When we engage in debates that divide his people instead of bringing them together, we are not accomplishing what God wants. When we attack a theory different than our own, we are not furthering God’s Kingdom. Our own pride and self-certainty can hinder people with different beliefs from seeing God’s most important message of love and forgiveness. Instead of letting these matters drive us apart, we need to accept that others may believe and interpret facts differently than we do. God does not want a debate to divide or distract his people from spreading his love. God wants dog people to love cat people, and cat people to love dog people—what links them is that they both have a love for animals. In the same sense, whether we believe in creationism or evolution, our focus should be on loving other people the way God loves us.

Source: 1.bp.blogspot.com

Print Friendly

Comments (26)

  • Brian

    You refer to creationism as a theory. Strictly speaking, it isn’t. A theory begins as a hypothesis for which experiments can be performed that have to potential to prove the hypothesis wrong. Creationism doesn’t permit this, evolution does. After a number of extensive experiments not only does it become impossible to prove (a particular) hypothesis wrong, but evidence starts supporting it. Again, creationism doesn’t do this and evolution does. At this point your well-tested hypothesis can actually start predicting the outcome of experiments correctly. Creationism doesn’t do this. Evolutionary theory does. At that point you can call it a theory, and even gather more evidence (or attempt further to prove it wrong). Creationism is far from theory, and given there is no feasible way to test it as being false, it isn’t scientific. Furthermore, you refer to evolution as a belief. It isn’t. It’s a theory. As with the experiments I mentioned before, you do not believe the results of an experiment, you simply observe them. It would sound ridiculous to say I believe E Coli can be bred in a lab to survive without citrate, because you can witness it happening for itself. The fact that it happens is not dependent on anyone’s belief. Evolutionary theory is a collection of these observations, a method of explanation for them, not a belief. Creationism (not to sound insulting) is a belief because, as stated before, its validity cannot be tested. It was conveniently constructed in a way that makes it impossible to prove wrong, yet for that very reason, makes it too, impossible to provide any supporting evidence. I haven’t actually taken a position on these topics in this comment, but before you can talk about a debate, you at least need to understand what it is you’re debating.

    Reply
    • Brenda Tucker

      We are gathering evidence all of the time, because humans love to discover and sort through rights and wrongs. It is wrong to act as if one person’s views on evolution as a contradiction to what is written in the Bible cannot be resolved. I have resolved the two and found the Bible to be true AND evolution to be true. I spent 20 years studying theosophy and St. Germain Foundation literature (had to drop out of college to approach the study properly) and had an epiphany in 1995. Since that time I have been trying to share my findings and for 18 years have written on the internet (my writings can be found by searching “girasas kingdom.”

      The fact that a response to Darwin was written in 1888 should be relative to this discussion. H. P. Blavatsky’s written book, THE SECRET DOCTRINE, was ridiculed and misunderstood. I didn’t pretend to understand it when I first read it, but I took them up on the offer to test what was written and by practicing, reading, and meditating, there were results. I discovered a higher kingdom and named it girasas. This kingdom is instrumental in the human evolution just as the human kingdom is instrumental in the animal evolution and in a way not expected or understood yet as no claims about this have been written about previous to 1888 that I am aware of.

      The higher kingdom which is non-material enters the bodies and brains of the lower physical kingdom and in the process of changing places with the lower kingdom (much the same way as water displaces air), we learn a great deal. This is evolution: two kingdoms sharing one body with the lower kingdom being ascended off the earth and the higher kingdom descending into form.

      The idea that nature surrounding whatever evolving kingdom is currently in position on earth are involving lives or angels that accompany each evolving kingdom. Our nature will leave when humans leave and the fact that we see evolution occurring is a bit of an illusion because what we are witnessing is involving kingdoms brought by one kingdom replacing the involving kingdoms that accompany a kingdom residing in form.

      Reply
      • Yiweiwins

        Excuse me, Brenda, but in what ways do you see evolution as true? Creation and evolution are opposites; you either believe one or the other. Every Christian should believe in Creationism because it is part of God’s Word. Christians are not real if they claim to believe in God yet not believe in some things His Word tells us.

        Reply
    • Theot58

      I disagree with your comments. The theory of abrupt appearance is as valid (even more valid) than slow and gradual Darwinian evolution. The Cambrian explosion testifies of abrupt appearance. There are many other scientific evidences which speak against Darwinian Evolution.

      To agonize over the defintion of “theory” and “hypothesis” has no benefit.
      The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!
      The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.
      The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

      Dr Ben Carson; Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at one of the world’s greatest hospitals (Johns Hopkins), a groundbreaking surgeon, best-selling author, and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom said”
      “I think one of the most damning pieces of evidence against evolution is the human genome.
      You can see that you have very complex, sophisticated coding mechanisms for different amino acids, and various sequences that give you millions of different genetic instructions — very much like computer programming, which uses a series of zeros and ones in different sequences, but gives you very specific information about what that computer is to do.”

      Reply
  • theot58

    The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!
    The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.
    The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

    “Evolution” is a vague word. The main definitions in the text books are:
    1) “change over time”, this is silly as it is stating the flaming obvious.
    2) Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested.
    3) Darwinian/Macro evolution (where the conflict is) which asserts that:
    a) All living things had a common ancestor. This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.
    b) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer.
    Have a look at this link for details http://youtu.be/fQ_h-S7IuaM

    Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
    “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false,
    you can’t create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”

    Reply
    • Al Cibiades

      Spamming again theot58. You posted the same nonsense, virtually word for word in other discussions. All it shows is your abysmal ignorance.

      The repeated observation and measurement which is demanded is in fact present in voluminous, carefully scrutinized, detailed, verified and validated body of knowledge. It backs the theory of evolution as defined by science. Your elementary school level attempt at attack is based on lack of understanding of the terms and concepts of science. Peurile statements such as ” implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule” is a slightly updated argument from appeal to pride and incredulity when the ancestor was an ape.

      It’s too tedious to replicate my refutations of your previous instances of this post. Get an education and then maybe you can discuss intelligently.

      Reply
  • Skeptic NY

    The “debate” is entirely a manufactured and fake one. Creationism is an religious proposition and evolution is a scientific one. Saying there is a debate between Evolution and creationism is exactly the same as saying there is a debate between Astrology and Astronomy – there is done. To say there is one is either disingenuous or ignorant.

    Reply
    • angelino

      It is correct. The evolutionists use science to refute the Bible. Science is the fulfillment of Daniel12:4″knowledge shall increase at the end” God permits science to help the believers clearly understand the scriptures and not to refute His very own WORD. It is only the wrong interpretations of the scriptures that make the Bible seemingly wrong.(One of the indicators that could lead us that there is Prehistoric and Adamic life is the two Garden of Eden mentioned in the Bible. In Ezek28:13, the Garden of Eden was covered with precious stones while in Genesis1, the Garden of Eden was covered with trees, plants and vegetations.)

      Reply
  • Paul Kyprie

    Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is a religious belief. Therefore, do not teach religion in public schools. Do teach creationism in private schools if you want. I am sure that if you want to teach creationism in public schools, you do not want another teacher to teach atheism or satinism to your children. You can’t have it your religion only in public schools, which is why we separate church and state. BTW, cats are more fun loving and therefore are the superior pet.

    Reply
    • Brenda Tucker

      I don’t really mind that students are denied access to information that is better left to adults. Before we can develop with a girasas kingdom living inside of us, we should know what it means to be human and to have fully explored being human while we are young.

      The idea that a girasas kingdom will take up residence in humans evenly and widespread may be wrong. They may prefer to colonize and use selection in relaying important information to the earth. Because the idea is new, it hasn’t been fully studied, but learning about a girasas kingdom and involving lives or angels is rudimentary to choosing for our futures what we would like to experience. There may be children and people who are not ready for a girasas kingdom to live inside of them and as beneficial as they are for preventing wrong, there is a degree to which they destroy what being human is and people should be ready for this commitment when they make it.

      Religion is simply the process of using the girasas to accomplish certain ends, however the more we understand about the girasas kingdom, the better we will be able to meet demands they may make on humans and access them to accomplish things that humans cannot accomplish without them.

      The level of commitment is too high for most children to engage in. If it requires purification of the life so that abstaining from meat eating, from alcohol, and from drugs, and other impurities, then it may be a difficult road for those who require socialization in a business community. While results are possible even while engaging in worldly pursuits, managing those results should be a matter of concern and undertaking for the entire community, especially when any knowledge achieved may or may not be specialized for a certain segment of the population. How are we to communicate findings to a general public? It all becomes a matter for future planners.

      Reply
    • Fantazunique Brown

      I am not a religious believer. I have faith in God and believe that God is not an ape, therefore we did not evolve from apes! No one can prove that and that’s why Darwinism is just as much of a belief as Creationism! You EVILution cultists are as fanatic as any whacky church goer can be! The reason they should teach BOTH theories in school is so that people can intellectually choose which one they wish to believe in. Teaching EVILution like it is the only truth is very misleading and too one sided for real intellectuality! Just what are you EVILution cultists so worried about that you have to repress the truth so much? Are you worried the truth will come out and you will be proven to be teaching a false doctrine? Things that make people go, hmmmm?

      Reply
      • Someone

        Wow. Just wow.

        1. we can prove we evolved. The fossil evidence of the Homo genus (Homo erectus, homo habilis, homo sapians, Australopithecus, so on) can prove that we have evolved from some previous from of ape, monkey, or mammal.
        2.If Evolution and darwinism is wrong, why is your religion right? please give me some good, hard facts.
        3. Evolution is not a cult, as a cult is a;

        formal religious veneration
        system of religious beliefs and ritual
        a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious.

        First of all, Evolution is not a religion, which knocks its “Cult” status out immediately.
        Also, religion has no basis in science and never will. Lastly, why is Christianity right? Why not Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism?

        Reply
      • Yiweiwins

        Amen! lol. Well Said.

        Reply
    • angelino

      Evolution is still a theory. If good good science say that the DNA of primates and humans are 99.5% identical, I think a Christian could accept that but not through evolution. The Bible by means of the scripture could explain it how and why. Truly, Romans3:4 say, “By no means! Let God be true and man a liar.”

      Reply
  • Will F

    As a scientist and a Lutheran I like the tone and general direction of this article. We can learn to use logic and reason and the scientific method without compromising our faith if we want to be able to function in both areas of our lives.
    I have to share a few observations about the terms used here.
    They are critical to understanding where you are on the issue of evolution and creationism.
    First one does not choose to believe in evolution as the article puts it. Evolution is THE only scientific theory that has withstood the massive amount of testing, attempts to disprove and research to make the theory the foundational concept in the life sciences, biology,
    microbiology, antibiotics, paleontology, micropaleontology and others.
    Its data and observational tests intertwine with and are supported by the sciences of geology, physics, astronomy, radiometric age dating of minerals within rocks, plate tectonics, stratigraphy and many many other sciences. Most scientists are NOT atheists and there is no conspiracy to keep “creationism ” out of science.
    This articles author says that one can understand science as revealing the power and greatness of our creator.
    “Creationists ” as defined today are not those who believe God created us and our world. It is rather defined as those who have to defame science in order to maintain a pseudoscientific world view that
    has to attack reason and logic and the sciences to maintain the accuracy of its premises. The great scientists of the past and present have no magical or mystical components in the theories and scientific laws they discovered or the observations of the natural world they made and are continuing to make today.
    One can go to talkorigins.com to see the scientific explanation for many of the refuted claims today’s creationists make. Did Galileo claim to have scientific proof of an intelligent designer as part of his observations of the solar system? Does the theory of gravity contain a magic exponent? The great science of the past contains no “design “.
    It is based on natural laws, not supernatural claims.ID creationists
    have been trying to have magic inserted into the scientific method.
    Their pseudoscientific improbability claims have so far been refuted and denounced as “religion in a lab coat ” by the worlds credible science organizations, universities and even mainstream Christian churches (NCSE website church statements). The Supreme Court and Federal Courts have ruled that creationism in its many guises, is not science. At taxpayer expense, it cannot be taught in public schools.The Vatican says. Creationism is neither science or religion.
    There are NO creationism articles in theLibrary of Congressses catalog of 15 million research papers. Creationism “science ” articles are filed in the religion section.
    When a creationist tells you he or she has data disproving evolution,
    or supporting an alternative theory that explains the history of life evolving on earth, or the diversity of life we see, tell them to write their ideas down, submit them to a peer reviewed science journal and collect their Nobel Prize.
    Creationism because of these things, damages both faith and science. Christianity or real science? Choose both.

    Reply
    • Brenda Tucker

      In a sense, it is magic to suddenly have abilities that belong to a more highly evolved kingdom of nature. If this kingdom (I named it girasas), is willing to live inside of a human being and change both our bodies and minds by so doing, we are in for a bit of a spin through reality. While the girasas kingdom uses us are we able to function and understand what is happening? Some of what there is to do may fall on us. The girasas acts, then we continue the process. Or the human acts, and the girasas tries to alleviate any ills caused by human actions. It becomes a process of give and take. The art to the process becomes evident in the loving relationship that develops and the trust that we are able to learn. While the girasas kingdom may make itself known suddenly and spontaneously, there may be ways that humans can also attempt to control results. In my studies, I have found books written with invitations which can be repeated by the people willing to attempt a partnership with this kingdom and following those suggested “decrees” could definitely be a start in a successful relationship. The requests made with decrees are good things and if it seems as if a miracle is the result, then that is because a more highly evolved kingdom is acting and not the human.

      Reply
    • zeek flanders

      As a science teacher and former Baptist, I enjoyed your comments. Having written like-minded comments, I enjoy your articulation of the matter all the more. From the Vatican to the Library of Congress to the point that one doesn’t decide to “believe in” evolution, your excellent points were fun to read.

      Reply
    • angelino

      Good science and the Bible are compatible. When archaeologist found fossils of dinosaurs in mortal combant, and that two were even on the act of biting each other before their sudden death, I came to believe that the first cleansing of the earth was by ice. Study prayerfully 2Peter3:1-7

      Reply
  • Edward MacGuire

    As someone above pointed out, creationism is in no way a theory or scientific. One other point is that your definition (or Webster’s) is very narrow. There are many religions existing today that have creation myths different than Genesis, and from the point of view of science,, all these creation stories have equal validity as all are equally untestable.

    Reply
  • angelino

    True science and true religion or Christianity are compatible. The Bible is true and flawless. It is the only book that has something to say about the distant past, rescent past, present, and future. Science is fulfillment Daniel12:4 “knowledge shall increase at the end time.” Science helps the believers to understand the remaining mystery in the Bible and not to refute the WORD of God.

    Reply
  • angelino

    If you make a differ study on 2Peter3:1-7 you can believe that the earth is old. That the earth were already been subjectef to two cleansings and this present earth of ours is being stored up into FIRE. The first two cleansings were by ice and water. There was an ice age, Before the ice age is prehistoric life

    Reply
  • angelino

    When science say, the DNA of human and primates are about 99.5 % identcal, I could say it maybe true but not through evolution. And the bible can explain it, We need only the right revelation of the scriptures- scripture explain the scripture.

    Reply
  • Roy Bloomquist

    Here is something to consider, when one says that there is no proof of GOD. The origin of light is an energy force greater than light. As the energy drops from one level to the next light is created. What energy force is greater than light? The creator of light that called Himself GOD. Now if you have a theory that can create light without GOD than please tell us. Until then, I say GOD has proven his own existance by creating light. By the way, light was the first created energy force created on the 1st day according to the Genesis account. For one to say GOD does not exist (as many evolutionists propose) is foolish. Not my word (foolish) but the word GOD used to say people who believe not in GOD are fools at the highest possible level. Your proof may only come at the end of your life but I hope for your sake you learn better before that last moment when you WILL make an account of your life to GOD who is both alive and very well.

    Reply
  • James Menk

    I think the main difference is just the different mind sets people have when taking steps into either theory. Evolution permits deduction. It permits a scientist, when asked a question, to say “I don’t know, but let me get back to you on that.” Creationism, when presented a question that surpasses common knowledge lends a believer a reply invoking god. And the scientists to go out, collect data, and present an answer. While that is happening, those who believe in god (not saying scientists don’t believe in god, I know some do) are content with their own answer: “I already know God does it, so there’s that”.

    LIke Neil deGrasse Tyson says, “People invoke God at the limits of their knowledge” (I want people to really observe that remark and recognize it within their own selves). As an example: Aristotle invoked god when observing the way planets moved through the solar system and recognizing the complexity, saying that only an intelligent creator could engineer such a complex balance of movement. But then, Newton came along and actually came up with a scientific way of measuring, predicting, and recognizing the origins, velocity, and forecast of a planets movement. To do this, the man had to invent a new system of mathematics. He invented calculus.

    Back to the story, the scientist comes back and presents the data that points to the existence of a new scientific discovery (i.e. gravity, the next evolutional link, etc..) And the creationist or believer, retorts with “well, were did gravity come from?” The scientist again replies with “I don’t know, but let me get back to you on that”. Meanwhile, the creationist or hardcore believer is content and confident saying “God’s the answer.” And the scientist comes back holding in hand, Newton’s findings and studies of why things have gravity. And the believer invokes god again: “Well how do you explain why all that works?”

    So you see: it’s a paradox. As long as there is a “why, who, what, when, where, how”, some people will forever invoke god at the limits of their knowledge, other people will be fueled by the challenge and search for a different answer when they aren’t satisfied with simply “God does it.”

    Until humanity knows all things, a creator will forever be invoked.

    Reply
  • jelani

    Impressive. I found the dialogue and points very entertaining and articulate. It is, at least, somewhat evident that none of our thoughts or opinions will be totally changed or molded by what is read here. That being said; keep it up guys.

    Reply
  • Beanie Bunns

    HA GAAAAAYYYY

    Reply

Leave a Comment

                                                                       © 2013 Powered By GCDM

Scroll to top