Evolution and Creation: the Middle Ground?

[Himantolophus]

Hey everyone, Happy New Year

I've been away for the holidays so I've missed out on all the fun since mid-December. I have been reading some of the new posts and my old posts have kind of drifted down the page and I wanted to throw something out there.

You have two camps:
Evolutionists: believe in an old Earth and the currently accepted scientific theories on evolution. Species evolve into species and kinds evolve into kinds through mutation and natural selection. The idea has been developed over 200 years and is supported by numerous lines of convergent evidence from all fields of science. Evolutionists do not evoke a supernatural being in explaining the Universe.

Creationists (YEC): believe in a young Earth and reject macroevolution but accept speciation by microevolution. God created every kind in the Beginning and the Flood explains the fossil record. This idea has been around for 2000 years. The Bible is 100% literally true and all evidence we see must fit God's Word.

Now, we all realize that both camps have problems with their theories.

Evolution: Where did the Big Bang come from? What was the origin of life on Earth? What caused the Cambrian Explosion? What causes shifts in evolution? What is the path of human evolution from ape to man (kind to kind evolution)?

Creation: What created God? How do you find evidence for a supernatural occurrence? Why does the Bible contradict modern scientific theory in almost every field? Why has creationism declined with the rise of science?

In my opinion, it seems like the intermediate theories like ID, progressive creationism, Gap Theory, theistic evolution, and the like are the most effective ways of explaining both the natural world and the ways of God. I consider myself a theistic evolutionist in that I believe in an Old Universe and an Old Earth and also in evolution. I see all the lines of evidence from so many different fields and they all point to this conclusion. These are ideas formulated by some of the greatest minds in history and ideas that fit very well with the evidence before us. I think theistic evolution also involves an all-powerful God since He created the Universe (whether it be the Big Bang or something like it) and everything in it, and also the laws of nature (including evolution). Evolution was the mechanism for God's creation and it explains why we see new forms popping up throughout geologic time. I believe in all of the Bible literally except for the creation myth and the "globalness" of Noah's flood, which I take as glorified stories (Flood myths and creation myths are universal but none are exactly the same). I believe in the Bible as a moral and spiritual guide and I believe in Jesus as our Savior. Believe in science does not cause me to doubt God at all.

My question is why believe in atheistic evolution OR young Earth creationism if there are ways you can believe in both the existence of a Creator and also in the realities of modern science? If you are a believer in evolution, it allows you to explain some of the problems, If you are concerned with the existence of God, it allows for a Creator. I am not in favor of all of these "intermediates" but I think they are superior to the alternatives. I'd like to hear from creationists, evolutionists, and those in between when you believe is good or bad about believing in "both sides at once" and the reasons why those views may be right, wrong, or flawed.

[zoegirl]

AS a progressive creationist (and my only worry about the term theistic evolutionist is that I worry that the term does not fully convey the scriptural account of God's sovereignty), I don't view the model as a compromise, so don't feel as if I am somehow believing in both sides at once. I would agree with much of what you say, my only caution would be to not remove God's involvement in the process.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
I'm not sure I understand your question.
Wouldn't an Atheist holding to any belief involving God cease to be an Atheist?
.
.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Your position is not really a compromise. Neo-Darwinism says that all life can be explained by natural selection acting on random mutation. There is no design, there is no purpose. Christianity says that God created all living things. Now, if you claim God can create through evolution, then you are no longer talking about the theory of evolution because evolution is unguided. If you turn around and say evolution is unguided, then you're saying Christianity is false.

Evolution: Where did the Big Bang come from? What was the origin of life on Earth? What caused the Cambrian Explosion? What causes shifts in evolution? What is the path of human evolution from ape to man (kind to kind evolution)?

Creation: What created God? How do you find evidence for a supernatural occurrence? Why does the Bible contradict modern scientific theory in almost every field? Why has creationism declined with the rise of science?

I think the explanations of any problems in the two opposing systems could use a make-over. Neo-Darwinism isn't concerned about the origin of the universe-many Darwinists are. The two main explanations for the origin of life are 1) it evolved on Earth or 2) it came to Earth from outer space (so it evolved somewhere else). What created God is not a problem for Creationism-the answer is God was not created. And if this is supposed to be a forum of discussion, how does the Bible contradict modern scientific theory in almost every field? And is this a problem for the Bible or science, with its guiding principle and assumption of materialism?



And to those who remember me...I'm baaaack.

[Kurieuo]

Please leave. I'm about to surpass your post count.

[jenna]

You better hurry, K!

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Please leave. I'm about to surpass your post count.

lol


Let the battle begin.

[johnt]

Can we keep it simple? What came first "the chicken or the egg"? By the way there are some egg layers out there to this day that don't need a male counterpart to fertilize the egg.

[jenna]

Can we keep it simple? What came first "the chicken or the egg"?

Umm.. God created the chicken, which laid the egg?

[johnt]

And the rooster too. Just like everything else in good time and on His schedule!

[jenna]

And the rooster too. Just like everything else in good time and on His schedule!

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Yeah I caused the topic to derail. I actually started posting again because after looking up an old thread, I realized I still had the most posts, but not by much.

[FFC]

Can we keep it simple? What came first "the chicken or the egg"?

Umm.. God created the chicken, which laid the egg?

Yes, God created both at the same time.

[frankbaginski]

Hi all,

Man cannot serve two masters. So when a disagreement occurs between science and Scripture what do you do? Do you allegorize science or scripture? Man is wholly responsible for one of these and the Holy Spirit is reponsible for the other. Just how does one go about this ground that both seem to define?

I for one do not place my faith in man. Man it seems does not concern it self with the preservation of the soul. In fact man seems to say that it does not even exist. Just look at the line form at the abortion clinic. A recent PBS show on the earth started out by saying man believed the Bible until science came along. No explaination was given, it was stated as fact. You see there are two masters. You cannot keep a foot in each camp. Where science and the Bible disagree I always chose the Bible and say man has it wrong. The only people who give me greif on this are people who are grounded in science.

If a man of science comes up with a new theory which "disproves the Bible" he will get awards, his books will be pushed by all of the major newspapers, He will be invited to the talk shows. The science magazines will call him a learned man. He will be invited by the Universities to teach at their schools. If however a man of science says the Bible is right and science has it wrong then he is tossed from the university. Banned from the talk shows, and his books are not published. Now one of these men has treasures on the earth and the other has treasures in heaven. So a book written so long ago predicted this and thousands of other events. So I ask again, who is your master?

[David Blacklock]

I'm going to believe evidence.

Today, yesterday, and probably tomorrow many biblical Christians and many non-theistic scientists accept the theory of evolution, but others do not. The issue seems to stay in focus better when the issues are not mixed. If you want to know more about evolution, study it in an atmosphere of mainstream science. If not, don't worry about it, but quit thinking it matters. It should suffice to say "I believe in the biblical accounts of creation and I believe in the scientific theory of evolution." Some might say that is impossible, but I suggest they are being too hung-up on the details. The Bible was written at least partially by error-prone men just like ourselves during the bronze age. You can't expect them to represent science the way a modern science journalist would.

DB