Does Evolution Conflict With the Bible?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Nyril
Scholar
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Does Evolution Conflict With the Bible?

Post #1

Post by Nyril »

I contend that every branch of belief that does not require a young Earth is not entirely incompatible with evolution. If you view the bible/koran/torah as a general life guide, a means through which one can better oneself and serve your deity of choice, without requiring that every word be a literal truth, then there is no apparent conflict that I can see.

I've heard a great deal of people dictate how evolution basically tells god what it can or cannot do, while they themselves impose strict limitations on what they are willing to believe he could do.

Instance 1:

The god you describe often enough does not seem to be one mostly concerned with instant gratification. If I'm wrong on this point, do correct me, but I think all of you can agree at this point that god is willing to wait for good things to occur, and has patience of such that no mortal can compare.

If such a god is an accurate picture of what you believe in, why would it not do something amazing clever like create a single self-replicating polymer in a sea of chemicals and then proceed to watch it blossom and grow until it got us several billion years down the road? Although the holy books get a number of the fine details wrong (we can forgive the translations a bit), it seems to allude that this is entirely what could of happened:
Genesis
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
You can't say for sure what precisely god did when he created the Earth, such details were simply not included in the bible/torah/koran. You can't say he did it one way or another, but I read this to say that god wanted life on the Earth, and it let the Earth take care of the fine points once the process had started.

Instance 2:

Lets step back a bit. We've covered the idea that god may have simply created everything up to the Earth and then stuck some chemicals on it, but why god need to go that far? That seems like a horrifying amount of detail work, something that although not difficult for an all-powerful being, is not consistent with the way we're told the god operates.

You tell me that this god thought of a flood as a good idea when such a being could easily of zapped all the wicked folk off the surface of the Earth, but such a description is useful for our purposes. If god was willing to go to all that effort and wait out all that time to have god's task complete, why not the same with the Universe?

Why create all the stars, galaxy's, and planets, when a simple bing-bang event, carefully created, would yield us in 15 billion years. I've heard that god wouldn't of done it that for a number of nebulous reasons, but that is not consistent with the bible. Lets review.

City into salt, rather then simply vanish the city.
Flooded the Earth, rather then simply vanish the bad folk.
Important prophet/son/etc... to convince the masses on foot, rather then spelling "Worship me fools!" in the stars.
Plagues of Egypt, rather then simply snap the followers out of safety and into paradise.

All the indications your holy books give is that this god is a god that is willing to wait things out a bit, a god that is not concerned with instant gratification, a god which is relatively patient.

Why then, would you tell me that god's greatest work, all of creation, was made in an instant (or something in that vicinity) when god had the option of waiting for his greatest work to come to fruition over the billions of years?

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #41

Post by harvey1 »

YEC wrote:harvey1, I read your post and it doesn't make much sense...perhaps you can focus in on one point an explain it a bit beter....how does it reference evolutionism?
I'm not sure exactly what is not clear to you. You'll have to go through the statements you are looking for clarification and tell me what you don't understand.

User avatar
seventil
Scholar
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Sophia Antipolis, France

Post #42

Post by seventil »

juliod wrote:
OK, OK. The big three sciences that directly contradict creationism are biology, geology, and astronomy. Their closely associated fields are also taken down: biochemistry, geophysics and astrophysics. General physics is wiped out by the creationist claims about the speed of light. Chemistry is incompatible in terms of the chemical basis of evolution and genetics, and creationist notions about organic vs inorganic chemistry. Physical chemistry is in conflict due to phoney thermodynamic creationist arguments.

Creationism is even hostile to pure math in that they constantly misuse propability arguments.

I can't think of any field of science that isn't fundementally in conflict with creationism.

Genesis 1 and 2 are integral parts of the bible. The stories they tell are at least clear, if not accurate. Therefore the bible = creationism in this context.

DanZ
General Physics: Speed of Light

I disagree that Creationism conflicts with the speed of light. I believe you're using a rigid point of thinking here; you won't find many Creationists that disagree with the speed of light being what it is now. Athiestic scientists use this argument a lot: that the speed of light is constant and cannot change. To think that c, the speed of light, could ever be a) different or b)changed or accelerated during creation... it's crazy! Tell me though: who is more close minded; the Creationist who allows for science to be flexible, or the atheistic scientist who claims everything is always as we observe it now to try and uses this thinking to try and disprove a theory based on faith?

Chemistry: Chemistry is incompatible in terms of the chemical basis of evolution and genetics

Could you expound on this, please?

Geology: Physical chemistry is in conflict due to phoney thermodynamic creationist arguments

I'm assuming you're talking about dating techniques here? Please, tell me you're not saying that geological sciences are without faith or fault?

Mathematics: Creationism is even hostile to pure math in that they constantly misuse propability arguments.

Probability arguments? Probability arguments?! Of a Biblical Creation? How about we look at the probability arguments of life arising by "chance"?

User avatar
juliod
Guru
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
Location: Washington DC
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #43

Post by juliod »

who is more close minded; the Creationist who allows for science to be flexible, or the atheistic scientist who claims everything is always as we observe it now to try and uses this thinking to try and disprove a theory based on faith?
Your question is a non-sequitor because the creationist/scientist thinking does not go the way you are saying. Creationists do not allow science to be flexible, but insist that everything must conform to their already-flasified theories. Scientists allow for change (that's what research is). But it is unreasonable to reject the conclusions that are firmly established by comprehensive evidence. Finally, there is no creation "thoery based on faith". It doesn't exist. Look at my thread titled "Theory of Creation".
[Re: Chemical basis of evolution:] Could you expound on this, please?
It's a minor point. Creationists often insist that evolution cannot happen. Yet chemists are studying the reaction mechanisms that lie at the heart of mutation, DNA replication, DNA repair, etc. There is also a small sub-field of chemical evolution, studying things like self-replicating systems.
Geology: Physical chemistry is in conflict due to phoney thermodynamic creationist arguments

I'm assuming you're talking about dating techniques here? Please, tell me you're not saying that geological sciences are without faith or fault?
No. You've conflated geology and physical geology with physical chemistry. PChem, as we call it, is the study of things like thermodynamics. Creationists sodomize theormodynamics all the time.

How about we look at the probability arguments of life arising by "chance"?
That's what I mean by misusing probability arguments. Someone once defined "creationist" as "someone bad at math".

DanZ

User avatar
YEC
Sage
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:44 pm

Post #44

Post by YEC »

harvey1 wrote:
YEC wrote:harvey1, I read your post and it doesn't make much sense...perhaps you can focus in on one point an explain it a bit beter....how does it reference evolutionism?
I'm not sure exactly what is not clear to you. You'll have to go through the statements you are looking for clarification and tell me what you don't understand.
Basically...your whole post..it just sort of goes on and on not really explaining things.

In a few places I noticed that you slipped in the word evolution, but never really made a point.
You even uses some biblical references, once again not really explaining why you used those verses.

User avatar
YEC
Sage
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:44 pm

Post #45

Post by YEC »

Juliod said:
Your question is a non-sequitor because the creationist/scientist thinking does not go the way you are saying. Creationists do not allow science to be flexible, but insist that everything must conform to their already-flasified theories.

You're kidding right?

I respond with several dozen creationist scientist on a regular basics and have seen thinking move all over the place.

Now if you are referring to flexibility towards evolution, yeah, you're right. They all know evolutionism is the hoax of the last century and a half.

On the other hand...seems like the evos can't allow their science to be flexible towards creation science.

In fact I'll start a topic that shows you just what I mean.

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #46

Post by harvey1 »

YEC,

The problem I found with your reply is that you didn't really express an idea that references, in a tangible manner, the complaints that you had with my post. For instance, you talk about my reference to evolution and biblical verses, but you didn't point out what it was about those references that were difficult to follow. Can you explain a little more in terms of exact points of my post that you do not understand by specifically showing how I vague or difficult to understand? Otherwise, I don't know how to elaborate further than I already have elaborated.

User avatar
YEC
Sage
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:44 pm

Post #47

Post by YEC »

harvey1, if you post is that bad that it is so difficult to figure out what you are trying to say...you ought to re-write it.

You quoted scripture...so what?

Perhaps if you explained the scripture and why they talk of evolutionism you might have a better post.

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #48

Post by harvey1 »

YEC wrote:harvey1, if you post is that bad that it is so difficult to figure out what you are trying to say...you ought to re-write it. You quoted scripture...so what? Perhaps if you explained the scripture and why they talk of evolutionism you might have a better post.
Thanks for your recommendation, however you weren't clear enough in your comments for me to act on that recommendation.

User avatar
YEC
Sage
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:44 pm

Post #49

Post by YEC »

harvey1 wrote:
YEC wrote:harvey1, if you post is that bad that it is so difficult to figure out what you are trying to say...you ought to re-write it. You quoted scripture...so what? Perhaps if you explained the scripture and why they talk of evolutionism you might have a better post.
Thanks for your recommendation, however you weren't clear enough in your comments for me to act on that recommendation.
Personally harvey, I don't really care if you re-write it.

I have followed this stuff for years and if you confuse me and make me wonder what your point is and how you are supporting it..then think about the newbee's

I bet they skip right over your post.

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #50

Post by harvey1 »

YEC wrote:Personally harvey, I don't really care if you re-write it.
I have followed this stuff for years and if you confuse me and make me wonder what your point is and how you are supporting it..then think about the newbee's I bet they skip right over your post.
If anyone has any questions, please free to ask specific questions. I'll be more than willing to explain.

Post Reply