Can you believe in God and Darwin's theory of Evolution at the same time?
408641
Absolutely! The bible says that “God created the heavens and the earth” and that he did this in 7 days. As I understand it, the original text really said something more like “7 periods of time”. Even if you take the literal 7 days, just how long is a day for God?\nIt also does not say how. \n\nAs I read the story of creation, I soon realize that when God created man, he created mankind not just a single man. This is illustrated when Cain killed Able and was sent away. He said that the others would recognize him. If you were to read the story literally, then there would be no others. There was Adam, Eve, Cain and Able. Cain was killed.\n\nI have always interpreted “God created man in his image” to mean that there were already people on earth, however God gave man a soul. First man then women. Before that men were more like animals. \n\nThe bible does not spell out much about creation; it just simply states it happened. It does not really define how or over what period of time. Who is to say that God did not create man by evolving primates? Isn’t that really the whole basis of the new “Intelligent Design” theory? The why of course is not spelled out either. Maybe so that there would be the debate…\n\nI’m going to leave my religious believes out of this discussion, they are not important to this discussion. Just suffice it to say, don’t jump to conclusions about my believe system based on the answer above.
340817
Oh good grief.\n\nHow can someone not believe in evolution?  The evidence is freakin' everywhere.\n\nFirst off: evolution is not incompatible with creation theory.  You just have to widen your theological perspectives and stop being a tool.\n\nSecond, there is a host of evidence for evolution.  Just look at the biological tree.  Life has trended from simple life to complex.  There are also fossil records that demostrate quite concretely (excuse the pun) that creatures have changed over the centuries.\n\nIf you write such glaring evidence off as some sort of "demonic trickery" then I truly have to wonder about your gullibility.  I mean, some people seriously need to think about the full rammifications of their religious beliefs.
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.
205562
I TOTALLy agree with you in that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.  A belief in God (as depicted in the Bible) has ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM for macroevolution.  Similarly, a belief in macroevolution has NO PLACE for God.  \n\nSome individuals try to merge the two, saying that God used macroevolution as THE CREATION MACHINERY. That's like Jews or Muslims saying Jesus was a good man, a great teacher but not the Messiah. THERE'S NO MIDDLE GROUND.  GOD OR EVOLUTION? MESSIAH OR MADMAN?  The choice is yours.\n\nIncidentally, macroevolution has never been proven, either.  BOTH must be accepted on FAITH!!!!
1158348
Either you believe Gods Word or you dont.  There is no inbetween like believing God allowed evolution.  God said He created everything in six days, do you take it by faith or do you need proof.  Their's the 2 choices.  Its not that difficult.
96948
i guess if you believe in evolution because they are a mammal that breath air. but if you believe that God created everything then that would be a different story, right?
123134
Of course it's possible. Evolution is merely the mechanism of God's creation.\n\nPersonally, I feel the inherent contradiction is in the opposite direction. Rejection of evolutionary theory reduces God to a deceiver, to a 'God of parts' filling in the gaps in our understanding of creation, rather than underpinning it in it's entirety, it also rejects one of the greatest of God's gifts, the faculty of pure reason.\n\nPeople are, of course, welcome to their opinion, but I feel that the belief that God would create the universe in seven days, ten thousand years ago and then fix it in such a manner as to give all the impressions to the contrary is close to blasphemy
981042
I believe that both creation and evolution rely on religious belief and are supported by scientific observation.  The fundamental beliefs vary as well as the interpretation of the scientific facts.\n\nAs for your points:\n\n1.  I would agree that Creationism does not fit the description of a testable, repeatable, scientific theory... but neither does evolution.  However, there are theories as to how observable scientific facts fit together to support both creation and evolution.\n\n2.  Some "believers" WILL accept evidence against their religion and some NON-believers WILL NOT accept any evidence supporting religion.  But this is irrelevant and does not lend scientific credibility to either side.\n\n3.  There are theories supporting both creation and evolution that allow for error and are peer reviewed.  In fact, many theories for both sides are continually modified, updated, or rejected based on new evidence.  In this way both ideas are very similar to all other pure scientific fields.\n\n4.  When talking about the origin of the universe and life, ANY theory must have its origin in belief of something that was not observed, cannot be repeated, and will not happen again, as well as the assumption that something existed in the first place to start it all.  Creationists believe in God and creation while Evolutionists believe in the Big Bang and a monstrously long list of extremely statistically improbable occurrences that take place in an amazingly perfect order.  Almost sounds like it needs "divine intervention"...
1103050
No.\n\nBut I think its fair to say that Christianity is incompatible with a believe in evolution.\n\nNot that you are an idiot just that the real Christian bigots won't accept you.\n\n10 dangers of theistic evolution\nby Werner Gitt\n\nThe atheistic formula for evolution is:\n\nEvolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.\n\nIn the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:\n\nTheistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.\n\nIn this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.1\n\nDanger no. 1: Misrepresentation of the Nature of God\nThe Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that ‘God is love’, ‘light’, and ‘life’ (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy 32:4).\n\nTheistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)\n\nDanger no. 2: God becomes a God of the Gaps\nThe Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things … and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1 Corinthians 8:6).\n\nHowever, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution’.2\n\nDanger no. 3: Denial of Central Biblical Teachings \nThe entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:\n\nBiological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form. \nIn the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11). \nIn the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5). \nNowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report. \nThe doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.\n\nDanger no. 4: Loss of the Way for Finding God \nThe Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam’s fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke 19:10).\n\nHowever, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, w
224608
"Dr" Hovind is a complete charlatan, and the arguments as far as Earth's rotation and the distance to the moon are fradulent.\n\nIn any case, I know a number of people, including one who is a priest, who believe in both God and evolution.  In this viewpoint, God is more of a supreme architect who created the basic structure of the universe, and evolution is one of the ways in which this universe operates, giving rise to life in all its complexity.  It's a reasonable viewpoint, given that you can neither prove nor disprove God.  Personally, I don't find God necessary, so I don't include such a being in my view of reality.  Can I prove this?  No, not really.  But a believer in God can't prove to me that this being exists, either.  As far as whether you're a creationist of an evolutionist, I'd say you're an evolutionist since you believe that life diversified through evolution.  Darwin was also a believer in God, although not a personal God you could communicate with.  His viewpoint was much more like the school of theological thought that was very popular at the time called Deism, which proposes a God that exists as a permeating force, but which does not perform miracles, or give prophecy to individual humans.  In other words they view God as more of a force of nature than an anthropomorphic God.   So, if the originator of the theory of evolution could believe in God, and felt that he was learning about the works of this God by understanding nature, then I'd say someone who believes in God and considers the process of evolution to be one of the achievements of that God is an evolutionist.  \n\nThe idea that a belief in God and acceptance of evolution as a scientific throught are impossible to hold at the same time is a straw man set up by religious con men who are mostly interested in controlling people's thought for the purpose of building up their own political power.  By creating a false dichotomy, they can get people to isolate themselves from other schools of thought, which makes them easier to control.
1091627
yes!\nWe share 95% of our DNA with monkeys. We have watched the evolution of animals as they have become more adapted to their changing environments. Humans have been able to teach monkeys to communicate too. It seems obvious to me that god created a universe that is ever changing and growing, not stagnant. Why is it so hard to believe that god may have started evolution? Maybe Adam and Eve were the first man and woman but not created from the dust of the earth? Just a thought
442693
Darwin did not believe in God.  There were rumours that just before he died he converted and became a believer,  but those who knew him best, including his wife, adamantly refuted this.  He went to his grave believing his own theories and a staunch agnostic.\n\n"Despite this hope, very similar stories were circulated following Darwin's own death, most prominently the "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915 which claimed he had converted on his sickbed. Such stories have been propagated by some Christian groups, to the extent of becoming urban legends, though the claims were refuted by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians."
346820
No. Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution.There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle\nhttp:/
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...
536832
Yes. Many people hold those sorts of beliefs. God created the universe, and Evolution is part of His plan. No biggie.
1186647
If you believe in evolution, then by your question, it sounds like you need Darwin either way.
173278
Wait a minute people! Let's be honest with Pastor. \n\nOf course evolution, and the rest of science, requires a kind of "faith." In fact it requires two inter-related "faiths," or constructs not subject to further analysis.\n\nThe most rudimentary one is rooted in the concepts of logic. Or, put another way, scientists "assume" certain elementary building blocks of logic, for example axioms. They also have a qualified "faith" in the scientific method.\n\nThere is a  difference between this "faith" and what the asker is referring to as "religion." Scientists require predictable, reproducible results from their theories. Luckily for religious & non-relgious folks alike, scientists are NOT faithful to the particulars of a theory. In fact, when empirics call for it, a whole theory can be discarded by the its very authors. It has a self-correcting dynamic - BECAUSE IT DAMN WELL HAS TO WORK IN THIS WORLD. \n\nThat last element is inimical to most religious dogma. That "faith" requires a vast array of perpetual and unchanging tenets. It even provides for the logically impossible by positing forces necessarily beyond the reach of reason. \n\nThis gives that "faith" a great advantage over science. It is impervious to any force that pretends to question it.