Sunday, May 08, 2005
Differences and Similarities between Evolutionists and Creationists
Most people think that evolutionists and creationists are separated by a large gap. They think that everything creationists believe in are being countered by evolution and vice-versa. However, biologically, evolutionists and creationists agree on most things. Here are some of the many points of agreement:
So, with all of the agreement, where is the disagreement? The disagreement lies, primarily with three issues:
The idea of "millions of years" is somewhat in conflict with some theories of creation, but technically, I think it belongs in the categories of geology and perhaps astrophysics, not biology.
Now, you see that there is actually very little that is disagreed upon. In fact, if you look on the list of agreements, #3 is used by some to be the very definition of evolution. Therefore, it is hard to say that creation is anti-science or even completely anti-evolution. The main differences are simply how many roots we perceive to be at the basis of ancestries, and whether or not complex systems can arise on their own by mutation and natural selection.
I've already dealt with most of the arguments about Universal Common Ancestry being way oversold.
I also think that the de novo creation of biological systems is quite disputable, but I don't have the time to mention it here. However, this is really a secondary point for creationists. I know for certain that Creationists would not be as livid, active, or vocal if Universal Common Ancestry and Origin of Life were removed, and only the creation of biological systems were left in. However, I think that biologists would have little reason for advocating the de novo creation of biological systems if multiple tree roots were allowable.
Really, creationists and evolutionists are nearly identical, with the primary difference being the number of roots of our proposed biological trees.
- Speciation occurs (I know that many uneducated creationists disagree with this, but this point is agreed upon by AiG, ICR, CRS, and ARN).
- Many species can be traced back to a common ancestor.
- The frequency of alleles within a population varies over time.
- Mutations occur.
- It is possible for a beneficial mutation to occur.
- Most aspects of genetics (in fact, genetics was discovered by a creationists and used as a rebuke against evolutionary ideas).
So, with all of the agreement, where is the disagreement? The disagreement lies, primarily with three issues:
- The origin of life (which is, technically, not part of evolutionary theory anymore).
- Universal Common Ancestry vs Multi-Rooted Ancestries.
- Emergence of New Biological Systems by Undirected Processes.
The idea of "millions of years" is somewhat in conflict with some theories of creation, but technically, I think it belongs in the categories of geology and perhaps astrophysics, not biology.
Now, you see that there is actually very little that is disagreed upon. In fact, if you look on the list of agreements, #3 is used by some to be the very definition of evolution. Therefore, it is hard to say that creation is anti-science or even completely anti-evolution. The main differences are simply how many roots we perceive to be at the basis of ancestries, and whether or not complex systems can arise on their own by mutation and natural selection.
I've already dealt with most of the arguments about Universal Common Ancestry being way oversold.
I also think that the de novo creation of biological systems is quite disputable, but I don't have the time to mention it here. However, this is really a secondary point for creationists. I know for certain that Creationists would not be as livid, active, or vocal if Universal Common Ancestry and Origin of Life were removed, and only the creation of biological systems were left in. However, I think that biologists would have little reason for advocating the de novo creation of biological systems if multiple tree roots were allowable.
Really, creationists and evolutionists are nearly identical, with the primary difference being the number of roots of our proposed biological trees.
Permanent Link posted by crevo @ 7:17 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
There are actually different kinds of creationism -- e.g., young-earth creationism (YEC), old-earth creationism (OEC), and day-age creationism. I think that YEC's do not agree at all with the Darwinists. OEC's can agree with the Darwinists in some areas -- e.g., "changes through time" and common descent. OEC can be the same as "theistic evolutionism."
i think creation is more realistic evolution is just confusing but they could be related in some way even though it is just a theory and most people don`t beleive it
# posted by 
: 4:46 AM
: 4:46 AM
how is it more realistic. That some "god" was just chilling and was bored and poof earth. Or scientist using "confusing" logic and test to try to find the origin of life.
# posted by : 2:05 PM
: 2:05 PM
First of all God.The maker of heaven and earth wasn't just bored and said I'm going to make earth. I believe God is more so an artist/visionary whom created earth who spoke it into being, but I actually in a way do like that we as humans are trying to see where we come from and how the earth came into being because the more people try to find out the more awesome you can see how God really is and till someone convince me otherwise that God isn't real than I'm staying with God who I KNOW Is REAL.
# posted by : 4:52 PM
: 4:52 PM
I believe in evolution because there is no way that just with two people a whole universe can be created i believe in more that a big bang created all this because what if god is something we believe in that is fake i mean Jesus was real he can be considered a god but god is someone You believe in that they have existing prof of look at all the supposed "GODS" the hindu one buddah one they all have proof that they were physically like that and its not just some random thing everyone believes in. so im and EVOLUTIONIST.
# posted by : 6:37 PM
: 6:37 PM
A lot of the formulas used to date and record the age of the things that are observed such fossils and the measure of space have been proven over and over to be highly in accurate. Carbon dating is used by measuring the decayance of isotopes. The isotopes are so unstable and unpredictable, the measure of space is used by a formula involving three points of measurement that have been proven by some colleges to be very inaccurate when just measuring the distances from one state to another in the us. So there are a lot of holes in the theories and then there are a lot of questions about the creation (or the bible). That doesn’t mean that there are contradictions in the bible only questions that if go unanswered by the right sources can lead to contradictions through a lack of knowledge in certain areas of the creation. To put everything in perspective here is how I see it (as a person who came from atheism back to Christianity and having studied deeply in the evidence of evolution), we have a question that cannot be answered, and if god created everything then what created god and what existed before him? And if the big bang created everything then how did the matter get here first and what was here before the matter? So when I questioned both I found that there was far too many “chances” to have to occur for everything to have evolved to where it is today. I would much rather believe that god created everything perfect the first time in a literal 6 day creation than to believe in the possibility of trillions of random occurrences to have led to where it is today.
I just read this book called GENE616. It was the most amazing book I have ever read. In it the author explains how the world was "created" why and by whom, how the garden of Eden got its name, how Adam "named" all the animals, how Eve was made from Adam's rib, how Lucifer changed himself into a serpent, why it didn't rain in the garden, what the number of the beast really means, how the war in heaven was really fought and on and on and does it in a way using science where it seems completely plausible. I have read it three times now and I am still noticing new things. My wife is reading it now. It is just amazing! It makes you believe that both Science and Creationism are just two forces working together not two forces in opposition to each other. You would swear when you read it that the author was actually there when the earth was created!
You stupid dumbass. Creationists and Evolutionists are more different than black and white. Creationists believe in a stupid fairy tale book that mentions the talking snake and an invisible man up high in the sky. Evolutionists base their argument on facts and evidence such as Fossils, Vestigial organs, gene sequences, and many more. The fact that you even dare to bring Evolution down to the level of Creationism is an insult to science and all the brilliant minds persecuted by the Church, such as Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Halley, and most of all, Darwin
# posted by : 8:54 PM
: 8:54 PM
I think evolution is how humans came about as there is nothing that proves God and Adam and Eve have ever existed, although, there is nothing to say that there ISN'T such a being as God. Just because we don't have any proof of His existence doesn't mean there is no such being; we don't have evidence for many new species of animal until they reveal themselves to us or we find them. In this day and age we need to keep an open mind because rules are always being broken in all fields of life.
# posted by : 12:18 PM
: 12:18 PM
Evolution is only an academic theory.It tells us that things happened by chance,this is a failure of giving a defined reason of how life come into being.Farther, human could have,by now, developed into a better specie if evolution were a true concept.Creation on the other hand is biblical,like other bible lesson,this requires faith.No questions or testings! the two are different and should not be a source of conflict.
# posted by : 8:02 AM
: 8:02 AM
Even with evolution there had to be the "first" of the Homo sapiens, and whether that first was one man or multiple beings across a wide region or time span doesn't stop people from needing to simplify it to just one man and his mate. The Bible speaks in terms understandable to people at the time in attempt to explain beginnings. It is true in its intent and message as far as it is translated correctly. Who is to say that God didn't have a hand or understanding of evolution. Genesis only says mentions when He deemed His creations good, but it doesn't dive into His processes.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 12:27 PM
: 12:27 PM << Home
