Evolution vs Creationism
 

Curious to see what the general herp communities belief is when it comes to creationism and evolution.

Given my own particular inclinations, I object to the possible implications behind the choice to use that word. I'd word my thoughts like this: Until presented with compelling evidence that disproves evolution, I accept it as the most plausible explanation available.

I'll try to keep my answer as simply put as I can. (I'll try)

My observations and belief:
Most of my life, I have seen a classic divide between science & religion, a false battle that you have to choose one side or the other. I think this false choice of black vs. white was created by both sides, both the scientific community and religious community mostly out of financial gain, fear, ignorance, etc. This divide has led many people to think/believe that they have to make a choice between the two, it's only one or the other.

I disagree that there is only one choice or the other.

In my observations, many in the religious community shame evolution as impossible, a form of denouncing God that only sinners condemned to hell would consider. On the flip side, in my observations, many in the scientific community shame any belief in God, and denounce those who do believe as uneducated, fairy tale seeking idiots.

So... for many of the folks I know, they have allowed themselves to be trapped/baited into a choice between two poorly constructed explanations:
Option 1: Random evolution is real, the origin of existence and therefore God does not exist.
Option 2: God is real, the creator of all and therefore evolution never took place.

How about Option 3 instead?
I personally believe 100% in a Father in Heaven (God) and 100% believe in scientific truths. These do not need to be, should not be exclusive one from another. I believe God to be the master of all fields in science and that he uses the elements, scientific principles, laws of nature to do his work/job. God is not independent of the sciences, rather he uses them to fulfill his purposes.

Despite all of man's achievements and advances in science, we are still infants in understanding it and in its application when compared to God. I believe that at some point, some version of Evolution may have been used by God to bring our particular world into existence. A controlled, intended version of evolution may have been one of several scientific "tools" used in this process. I don't limit it as the only tool.

In the end, while I don't understand everything (nor do I feel the need to know everything before I decide to "believe") I am of the firm belief that all actual truths* from religion and all actual truths from science will eventually seamlessly and effortlessly merge and be shown to be all part of the master design, forming a perfect picture vs. two opposing sides.

I really enjoy this 4 minute video. Video heading, "Dr. Lewis is a renowned scientist who advises the European and NASA space programs. He believes in God."



* actual truths, not referring to every utterance of the religious or scientific community as truth. At some point God will help us understand all actual truths versus the philosophies / theories of man both from religion and science.

I am horrified that there are committees that choose what books children should read in some schools based on the presence or absence of religious/scientific content.
To decide what you want to believe or accept as plausible is one thing, to arrange the world so that others don't even know that there are different thoughts on the subject is to me unacceptable.

Evolution vs. Creationism isn't even really a valid apples-to-apples discussion. The former pertains to what likely happened after self-replicating life appeared; the latter focuses on the very appearance of life. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive propositions. If one chooses to believe in some sentient prime mover, it would be simple enough to simply say that entity willed primordial life into existence and set further evolution in motion. I think a goodly number of theists have adopted just such a stance to reconcile belief with evidence. I think abiogenesis vs. creationism is probably the more interesting (heated) discussion to be had.

There are also different groups who can see the exact same "evidence" without having to reconcile anything. One may see a set of circumstances and view it as "evidence" against a God, while others simply see it as yet another confirmation that God does in fact exist. One person's damming evidence can be another person's foundational block of belief.

One may see white, while the other sees black, yet they are both looking at the same thing.

This question is valid for any group.
Where did any of it all begin? The matter? The gas? The atoms? God?
If you don't simply default to a "God is God, always was, always will be" type answer, then I would guess, most thinking people will eventually wonder as the origin of God himself at some point or another.

I'm with Dan here. I don't believe in evolution, I understand it. The word belief implies an absence of evidence, when evolution has been studied for over 150 years now with heaps of evidence supporting it. We can make amino acids relatively easily in a laboratory (the building blocks of life), it's not a stretch that these organic compounds could also occur randomly in nature. We also have things like viruses, prions, and rogue proteins that are not living yet behave as such.

My opinion is that a "thinking person" probably wouldn't waste time trying to disprove an assertion for which the claimant's burden of proof hasn't been met. Doubt many rational people are actively trying to disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There are plenty of gaps into which any given god can be inserted, which suggests to me that there's some rampant fear of simply accepting " I don't know" as a valid answer to the mysteries of this universe.
This is a subject I find much more interesting. Here's a fascinating discussion relating to the subject, especially for physics fans.

Burden of proof is relative. It is relative to whomever is setting the bar, or defining the terms of what constitutes sufficient or necessary proof/evidence. One person's threshold or definition very well could differ from that of another individuals. It is opinion at best set by the person choosing to accept or receive the evidence as sufficient or not.

I won't pretend to know anything about the FSM. I do however personally know many individuals who cite the world's calamities, violence, hunger, war, rape or their own personal trials and burdens as evidence that no God exists. They say if he did exist such tragedies would not occur, and since they do, their burden of proof has been met. They choose the bar by which they define the existence of God, which is their prerogative. I choose a different standard.

I agree with all of the opinions stated here so far. As a scientist I understand evolution, and accept is as a true explanation for the development of species, but I have no issue if people think of it as the mechanism which a creator uses. Many scientists do just that.

One thing I can't get my head around is how people who breed reptiles for certain traits, are very educated about genetics, and see for themselves the development of changes in a species (albeit accelerated by deliberate human intervention) could still insist that every species is created as a finished product.