I once read in an answer that God doesn't believe in evolution-is that true?
415158
Islam agrees with Both.... God is The Creator, and He is also Evolver. these are one of the attributes of God in islam. Whereever there is a Creation, He is "The Creator", Whereever there is an Evolution, He is "The Evolver"\n\nIt depends on which evolution you are talking about .>>>> Islam does not believe that humans have been evolve from monkeys??? \n\nThis evolution is not a fact. thats why it is called as "darwins THEORY of evolution"\n\nIslam belives that God created the whole universe... and we know ,, that after big bang there is a continues evolution in the universe. God says in Quran that first human being was "Adam" , and he was a complete man. Islam believes that "God is also the evolver">>> and we know ,, that when child borns,,, he is not able to sit properly ,, and evolution of his body does takes place. and child grows up. whereever you see,, there is a design in teh evolution... because there is a designer behind that. i.e GOD ALMIGHTY. ... GOD IS THE CREATOR AND SUSTAINER OF ALL THAT EXIST,,,, God makes that child to grow up. SO! WHERE EVER THERE IS A CREATION... GOD IS THE CREATOR,, WHEREEVER THERE IS AN EVOLUTION. GOD IS THE EVOLVER. \n\nTHESE VERSES OF QURAN MIGHT HELP YOU..hope this is clear to you\n\n\n30:27 God begins the process of creation; Then repeats it; and For him it is most easy. Yusaf Ali \n\n24:45 And God created from water every living creature. Some of them walk on their bellies, some walk on two legs, and some walk on four. God creates whatever He wills. God is Omnipotent.
755030
Technically, and scientifically it is a theory. Theory doesn't  mean that it isn't true though, it simply means it is the most widely accepted opinion of the scientific community until someone can come along with a better theory or disprove the theory.\n\n"God created Us" is not a scientifically accepted proof against the theory of evolution. This is because without evolution DNA mutation makes no sense, even though it is a well observed phenomena.\n\nFossils also would have no explanation.\n\nAnd as a teacher, it would be best to say that it is okay to not believe every theory, because many past theorems have been proved wrong, but that he or she should maybe look into evolution a little more before casting a judgement.
228836
Working on my BSc in Biology\n\nNo, it has had no effect. I neither believed in gods before I had learned about the field of evolution, nor do I believe in gods now.\nHowever, had I believed in some god or gods, I find it highly doubtful that studying evolution would have changed my views in the least. If anything, I would have been impressed that the god/s could create such an elegant and dynamic process to provide life with the means to adapt and diversify over time.\nAs others have mentioned, the only people for whom studying evolution is likely to change their beliefs are those who insist that their chosen religious text (typically, in my experience, the bible) must be interpreted literally, or it is invalid. Of course, such individuals have much bigger challenges to their interpretation than evolution, but they seem to percieve it as a major threat, for some reason.
326636
THIS TOOK ME A WHILE TO TYPE -- I HAVE RESEARCHED THIS A WHILE--BOTH SIDES EVOLUTION AND CREATION--PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS BEFORE SHOOTING IT DOWN... \n\nFIRST, I will talk about what is called THIESTIC EVOLUTION which means, GOD created the universe threw Evolution...\nWhat does the BIBLE SAY ABOUT MILLIONS OF YEARS? \num... NOT that God used Evolution...\n\nSECOND, I will talk about THE BIG BANG; BIG DUD...\n\n=====\nGod made us--However we did not EVOLVE into what we are today--God created ADAM in a matter of minutes not Billions of Years... It is more reasonable to believe that God SPOKE the universe into existance rather than using BILLIONS of years...\n\nI think that God is POWERFUL ENOUGH to do it RIGHT the FIRST TIME...\n\nGod is not IMPERFECT and does not need Billions of years of trial and Chances to Make Creation--He can cirtanly SPEAK everything into existance in a matter of Minutes...\n\n\nPeople use this verse: 2Pet 3:8"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."\n\nThis verse is talking about how GOD is OUTSIDE of our time space continum--IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIBLICAL CREATION...\n\nThe Bibles says that there was NO death before Adam--I WILL TALK ABOUT THIS IN A MINUTE... If there were Thousands of years before Adam in which Natural Selection took place then that would place DEATH before Adam--The Bible is CLEAR THERE WAS NO DEATH BEFORE ADAM...\n\nI think God is GOOD, he would not use MISFITS and DEATH to bring about creation. God looked upon his creation and said "IT IS GOOD"--Not, It is getting better...\n\nGod created the Earth, Space, Water, Animals and Man in a specific ORDER on different DAYS which could not include thousands of years and this is why: \n\n1. God created Plants on Day 3\n\n2. God created Sunlight on Day 4 \n \n3. If a Day = 1 thousand years then Plants went without sunlight for a thousand years. Plants need sunlight.\n\n-------Still not convinced?\n\n1. God made plants and flowers on day 3\n\n2. God created the Birds and the BEES on day 5\n\n3. Bees polinate the flowers \n\n4. Flowers would have to go TWO THOUSAND YEARS without bee polination--and Sunlight--\n\n-=-=-=-=-=- what about Days and Nights?\n\n1. If one day is a thousand years; the Day would be 500 years and the Night would be 500 years... 500 years is a LONG TIME...\n\n2. Some Animals can not hunt at night and need the day to hunt for food because they can NOT SEE--yet others animals are Nocturnal and need the Night for hunting...\n\n3. If Natural selection is true during this period--Animals needed to HUNT in order to survive;\n\n4. MANY ANIMALS WOULD DIE OFF DUE TO THE NIGHT AND DAY CONDITIONS--Leaving us with ONLY DAY DWELLING CREATURES or ONLY NIGHT DWELLING CREATURES and an unequal balance in the food chain.\n\n-=-=-= How long did God create the Universe?\n\nI think its interesting to note: \n\nUniverse = (Uni-verse) root word, Single Spoken Verse(word)\n\nGod SPOKE the universe into existance\n\nBecause the Bible says so: -Then God said "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years, and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth." And so it happened\n\nGOD SAID; IT WAS SO....\n\nGod SPOKE the universe into existance...\n\n-=-=-=-WHAT ABOUT ADAM?\n\nIf Natural Selection was the case, there would be Thousands of years of DEATH before Adam...\n\n\nHowever, the Bible teaches Adam sin brought Death;\nDeath entered the world because of man's(Adams) sin:\n\n"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Romans 5:12 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses," Romans 5:14 "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." I Corinthians 15:21-22 &q
1022720
I agree.  Evolution is the basis of life as we know it?  Where is the evidence?  Even if I wanted to believe that evolution was the method that God used to create our world, where is the evidence of that?  \n\nThe evolutionist isn't looking for a "missing link"...they are looking for countless missing links between EVERY species, and have nothing to show for it.  The fossil record would be rife with evidence if the theory had one ounce of merit.  Rather, it shows the complete opposite.\n\nLikewise, mutations are an extremely implausible vehicle through which upward change can occur.  They put their "faith" in mutated DNA somehow producing new species, I put my faith in a Creator.\n\nWhy do they still believe evolution is plausible?  Because they want to reject God, and evolutionary theory is the best they've got...
803709
Why should they be mutually exclusive?  The concept of God is in many religions, not just Judeo-Christian ones.  He/She/It is believed in in Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, by the ancient Hermetics and by Hindus just to name a few.  So, if there is a God, it's certainly possible that He/She/It DID indeed cause evolution to take place.  In fact, there are many Christians, Jews and probably a large number of Muslims who believe that.\n\nBelief in God is separate from the literal belief in a holy book.  First of all, a holy book can be interpretted metaphorically.  I think the concept that the six "days" of creation in Genesis may be longer than days now is a perfectly good one.\n\nAlso, many believe that God is ineffable and mysterious and therefore that no words and no book can accurately express who He/She/It is, but only provide us with metaphors that approach but never really get to that understanding.  If that's true, than it's meaningless to say that some holy book rules out evolution.  Science has proven evolution (the only reason we say "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is that Darwin explained the fact of evolution by the notion of natural selection and it's only that explanation, not the fact of evolution itself, that scientists ever dispute - and even then they only point out that mutation plays a role AS WELL AS natural selection - but I digress).  So, it seems to me that it makes more sense for anyone who believes in God to believe that God caused evolution to take place.\n\nMoreover, there are other ways to look at God besides purely literal ones.  The mythologist Joseph Cambell believed that all myth is metaphor and saw God as a metaphor for whatever is best for humanity.  One can look at God in terms of gnosis, too, rather than knowledge.  Knowledge is the objective truth of science.  Gnosis is how we experience our universe, which is different from objective truth, because of psychology and also because of our own perspectives as living beings trying to make the most out of life.  Many people of many religions have had experiences of the Divine (some of various Deities or and others of a One God).  That doesn't mean that the Divine is literally true, only that they had powerful experiences.  But, if those experiences make us better people, maybe this gnosis of the Divine is still worthwhile even if it's NOT literal truth.\n\nSo, in summary, I think you need to figure out what you mean by "God" and what exactly you believe about God before you can know whether or not evolution is mutually exclusive with that concept.
569372
Rejecting the idea of God and rejecting God are to separate things.  Rejecting an idea doesn't prove existence.  I am sure that you reject evolution, so does that prove its existence?  I admire your effort and desire for apologetics, however I cant jump on board with your theory.  Good luck and God Bless.
1180171
Hi, EyeLoveJesus!  I like your question!  :-)   Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet.  Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries.  I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"".   Science isn't focusing on "god".  It is focusing on studying the world and universe.  :-)  Anyway....\n\nScientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery.   It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better.   Scientists don't think alike at all.  They tend to see different things in the same objects.  :-)   There are usually heated debates and discussions among them!  ;-)\n\nFor me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed:  macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution.   I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution.  That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism.   Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.\n\nI hope I clarified.  I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the link.  :-)
346312
Before answering the question definitively, I think it may important to be aware of a few important details.  When we speak of "evolution" we are generally referring to the notion of species evolving by means of natural selection.  Many evolutionary biologists argue over the details, but all agree that natural selection is part of the evolutionary mechanism.  And so, there are actualy more than one "theory of evolution" when it comes to the details.  \n\nLet's assume for arguments sake that your question therefore could be slightly rephrased into: is evolution by means of natural selection truly happening?  The answer, I think, is a clear yes.  You may have heard some say that evolution is a controversial theory among scientists.  That is actually not the case.  what is controversially discussed are, as I pointed out above, the details of the evolutionary mechanisms.\n\nNow, assuming that evolution by natural selection is real, and therefore, that not only we as human beings evolved, and that we furthermore are still evolving, does that mean that therefore religious believes are impossible?  Again, I think the answer is clear.  And this time it is no.  science and religion are absolutely reconcilable.  But as always the devil is in the details...  When some scientists say that science is the only way to the truth and therefore evolution has done away with God, the problem is that they are making a metaphysical, that is anon-scientific, philosophical statement: The statement cannot be tested by a scientific experiment.  Consequently, if the statement were true, it would prove itself false, since it is not scientific.  It is, what we call in philosophy, the liar's paradox (If I told you I am a San Franciscan, and all San franciscans are liars, am I telling the truth?).  On the other hand, when a biblical literalist tells you that the Bible has told us how the world was created in six 24 hour days (and one Sunday of rest...), the problem lies in reading the biblical text literally.  The Bible is full of what in theology we call obscure text passages...  There are contradictions, there repetitions, etc.  For example, if Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, how come he dies at the end of the fifth book and writes about it?  I could list more examples, but I think you get the point.\n\nSo, we can conclude that indeed a materialistic interpretation of the world (i.e., science is the only way to the truth) and a biblical literalism (i.e., the biblical text is to be read literal by the mere literal meaning of its words) would present two irreconcilable positions.  But as we have seen, both positions are problematic.\n\nIf we allow for science and religion to communicate with one another, they can actually inform each other and in there dialogue provide one interpretation of the human experience of reality.  Accordingly, religion would thus attempt to interpret the world in light of Scripture, but also its tradition.  Science on the other hand tries to attempt the same using its own very particular methodologies.  The concepts from both disciplines are then brought to a dialogue with one another, and from that dialogue one new understanding can emerge.  And with this new understanding we engage yet once again in a new cycle of interpretation.  As such, even religion science, and definitely our overall understanding of our human experience of reality grows continuously, or if you like, evolves.\n\nI hope that helps.
283170
A god-fearing fundamentalist named Charles Darwin first theorized on evolution. Here's what he wrote (see ref.):\n....During these two years (March 1837 - January 1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than....the beliefs of any barbarian....\n  ....Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.\n  And this is a damnable doctrine....\n\nSomehow I suspect he was less "ineduacted" than the questioner...
565629
simple: humans didn't evolve from monkeys!!! :D yeah, I believe in creation too-- and the God who made it.
615453
Why does evolution have to mean there is not a God?
286327
If you believe that God is the creator of the universe, then all consequences of that creation--including evolution by natural selection--are the result of God's divine work.  That doesn't even need to mean God guided the process of evolution, but rather that God's divinity is written into the fabric of the universe itself.  After all, isn't God omnipresent?\n\nCreation is one thing, but creationism--generally thought to mean a literal interpretation of Genesis--is another altogether.  I believe in God and Christ, but I cannot believe that the Genesis story is literally true.  The distance to stars is so great that if the universe were in fact a few thousand years old, then there would be no way for us to see those stars yet, unless God deliberately tried to deceive us.  The God I believe in is not a deceiver, for it is Satan who is the father of lies.  Many of the works of nature--fossils, marsupial distribution, geologic records, etc--suggest that Genesis cannot be meant to be taken as a literal truth.\n\nIf God made me in His own image, I believe this is not to say he is a 6'1" blue-eyed blond-haired white male.  I think that is to say that our intelligence, creativity, conscience, and will are in the image of God.  My curiosity is part of that, and my curiosity leads me to discover the broad support of evolution.  Hence, I believe in evolution, and I believe that God wants me to understand the working of his universe.\n\nSpirituality is spiritual, and the material world is the material world.  The Bible suggests that one should not obsess too much on "wordly matters;" how, then, does it make sense to think that the Bible should be devoted to such worldly matters as the order of the apperance of species, or the age of rocks on the ground?  Such matters are trifling.  To focus on these is to miss the forest for the trees.  The allegory of Genesis remains important in creating an understanding of you and you your relation to the world God has given us.  Literal tales of creation could offer nothing so valuable as the lessons in the Bible.
124342
I am a Christian, and I believe the world was created by God. Every finest detail was His idea.\n\nLet me staff my point. Scientist of today believe in evolution. This theory states that everything you see today was created by chance. It states that right in the beginning, a little one-cell'ed animal fell into the ocean by accident. This animal started to grow and learned to swim and to have kids. Later on, it found out that it could live on land, and (over millions of years) grew feet to walk on. The evolution process went through all the different stages of animal life, and at last humans came into existence.\n\nMy first objection towards this is that, if humans were evolved, two humans had to be "evolved" or "born" at the very same time for humans to continue to exist. It is insane to think that mankind came from only the evolution of one man. There had to be a number of men which "evolved" at the very same time. Now that is a lot asked.\n\nI want to tell you a story which Sir Isaac Newton used to prove that evolution is false. One day, one of his friends (a devout evolutionist) was sitting at Sir Isaac's desk. Sir Isaac was busy doing some work. The friend was busy admiring a very beautiful model of the universe which stood on Sir Isaac's table. \nThe friend then asked, "Who made this thing?"\n"No one," replied Sir Isaac bluntly.\n"No, really, tell me who made this thing. It is very beautiful." said the friend.\nTo which Sir Isaac replied, "All the pieces of that model were just lying around here, and they all just started to drift toward each other, and one day when I came here, this beautiful thing was standing on my desk!"\n\nI think Sir Isaac really answered the question.\n\nHope I helped you out on that one...
636760
because most people see it as either an attack on god or as an attack on science. there are however a few of us who believe that the theory of god and the theory of evolution can coexist. i try to keep an open mind about things that are not yet proven or unproven to be true.
978072
It also could have been someone being a prick.  There was one question about how people could be stupid enough to believe in evolution.  I posted an answer that stated that I personnally felt that God created life by making a single-celled organism that evolved into people.  It was reported as violationing Terms and everything.
33683
<I>darwin denoiced his theroy before his death, claiming that a God could have only done this but the history books forgot that part</I>\n\nThere's the source of all life, and there's the concept of evolution.  These are two different discussions, and Darwin himself said that a "creator" started it all off and we could never know how.\n\nBut he always believed in evolution, which is provable (although not necessarily to the extent he was considering).  God and faith can exist while recognizing what we know about evolution.