Thread: Evolution v. creationism

I dunno if any of the other UK cysters have seen any of Prof. Winston's *The Story of God* (I watch the first half hour then switch over for Corrie!) but last night's was about evolution versus something apparently called *creationism*.

Maybe because England's the home of Charles Darwin, who came up with the theory of evolution, I think you'd be hard put to find anyone in Britain who seriously doesn't believe in evolution. Whatever their religion. Although there are, of course, exceptions.

I remember making plasticene dinosaurs at our Church of England Sunday school, in my childhood - no-one would have seriously questioned Darwin, or the known, scientific origins of life on earth.

But apparently, there are fundamental christians (and presumably others?) who believe in the bible literally, to the point they cannot accept that dinosaurs didn't coexist with humankind (Adam & Eve). Prof Winston visited this museum (somewhere in the midwest? I forget....) where they are building the whole museum dedicated to creationism - to *prove* that god created the world in 7 days, dinosaurs, people, the lot... Maybe I'm a product of my sceptical culture, but I found this almost unbelievable. Prof Winston, who is Jewish and deeply spiritual despite being a man of science, clearly felt the same!

It made me wonder who believes in the bible to the extent they could possibly reject the scientific evidence (such as fossils of sea creatures half way up a landlocked mountain, as Darwin discovered in the 1830s). The man he interviewed wasn't very cogent, and didn't come out with any convincing argument or hard facts... Which branches of christianity believe in creationism? And why? And what about our Muslim cysters and people of other faiths? And my fellow pagans, as we are all of such different forms of paganism?

I have no problem buying into Darwin in fact, I always believed from the day Origin of Species was finally published in mid Victorian times, christianity was blown out of the water. But I know very many sincere people either reconcile evolution with their beliefs, or can reject it and genuinely believe they are right to do so.

I'd be really fascinated to see what creationists think, and see if anyone can come up with a more convincing argument, than I heard last night, to persuade me a god made the earth and everything on it only 4000 years ago (as these creationists claimed). As I'm still at a loss to understand how it could be remotely possible that the world is only 4000 years old, and that dinosaurs co-existed with man (as in the 1960s monster movies!)

Polly x

Originally Posted by PollySis

And what about our Muslim cysters and people of other faiths?

Hi Polly,

What a great topic! One of my favourite Muslim authors, Harun Yahya, has written so much on this topic. I feel he offers an accurate Islamic perspective on the matter:

www.harunyahya.com

Darwinism's Contradiction with Religion

In our day, some circles hold the view that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution does not contradict with religion, and that those who renounce the theory of evolution unnecessarily promote it. This view, however, includes many misconceptions. It is the result of a failure to grasp the main tenet of Darwinism and the extremely dangerous outlook it mandates. That is why, for those who have faith in the existence of God, the mere Creator of all living-beings, yet carry the conviction that "God created living beings through evolution", it would be quite useful to primarily review the fundamental tenets of the theory. In this essay, in an endeavor to warn believers who have this misconception, some essential scientific and logical explanations regarding why the theory of evolution is not compatible with Islam and the fact of Creation it introduces to mankind, are provided.

The basic tenet of Darwinism holds that living beings came into being spontaneously, as a result of coincidences. This view is completely contrary to the faith of Creation.

The most important misconception of those who think that the theory of evolution does not contradict with creation is their assumption that the basic assertion of the theory of evolution is that living beings came into existence through evolving from one another. Accordingly, they comment: "There is no reason why God did not create all living beings by making them evolve from one another; so what is the rationale to raise objection to it?" However, there is a very important point here which is ignored: the essential difference between the advocates of evolution and creation is not based on the question of whether "living beings appeared individually or through evolving from each other. The main question is "whether living beings came into existence by chance and as result of natural events, or they were consciously created?"

The theory of evolution, as known, claims that lifeless chemical compounds came together by chance and as a result of randomly occurring natural phenomena, they formed first the building blocks of life and ultimately life. Consequently, in its core, this claim accepts time, lifeless matter and chance to be creative powers. Even the layman, who is somewhat acquainted with the literature of evolution, is aware that this is the basis of the claims of evolutionists. Not surprisingly, despite being an evolutionist scientist, Pierre Paul Grassé, acknowledges the implausibility of the theory and summarizes what the concept of "coincidence" means for evolutionists:

"…Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped." (Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York, Academic Press, 1977, p.107)

That life is an arbitrary by-product of the compound formed by time, matter and coincidence, on the other hand, is a nonsense claim unacceptable by those who have faith in the existence of God as the sole Creator of all living beings. Believers should assume the responsibility to save societies from such perverted and unreal beliefs and warn them.

THE CLAIM OF "COINCIDENCE" PUT FORWARD BY THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS DENIED BY SCIENCE

Another significant fact that deserves a special consideration about this subject is that scientific discoveries also definitely refute the evolutionist claims that "life emerged as a result of pure coincidences and natural phenomena." This is because there are extraordinarily complex examples of design in life. Even the cell of a living being is a great wonder of design that totally annuls the concept of "coincidence".

This superior design and plan in life are certainly indications of God's unique and matchless creation, of His eternal knowledge and might.

The efforts of evolutionists to explain the origins of life with chance are rejected by science in the 20th century and today, in the 21st century, they met a total defeat. (See Harun Yahya, Blunders of Evolutionists, Vural Publishing) Indeed, the reason why they deny Creation although they see this fact is their blind adherence to irreligiousness.


GOD DID NOT CREATE LIVING BEINGS THROUGH AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS

Since the existence of creation, in other words, a conscious design, is obvious, the only question that remains is "through what kind of a process the living beings were created." The misconception of some faithful people emerges right at this point: The wrong reasoning that "Living being could have been created by evolving from one another" is actually related to how the process of creation occurred.

Indeed, had God willed, He could have created living beings through an evolutionary process from nothingness, as the abovementioned individuals propose. And had science proved that living beings evolved from each other, we could say, "God created life through evolution." For instance, if there were any evidence available that reptiles evolved to form birds, then we would say, "God transformed reptiles into birds with His command 'Be'!". Ultimately, both these living beings individually possess bodies overflowing with examples of perfect design, which cannot be explained away by chance. Transformation of these designs into one another -had such a thing really happened- would surely be another evidence for creation.

However, the situation is not so. Scientific evidence (especially the fossil record and comparative anatomy) point to the contrary; there is not single evidence on earth that an evolutionary process took place on the earth. The fossil record clearly indicate that different living species did not appear on earth through evolving from one another by fine gradations, but that on the contrary, distinct living species appeared on earth suddenly fully formed and without any preceding ancestors similar to them. Neither birds sprung from reptiles, nor fish transformed into land-dwelling animals. Each living phylum is created individually with its traits particular to its kind. Even the most renowned evolutionists had to accept this fact and confess that this provides an evidence for Creation. For instance, evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki confesses as follows:

"A major problem in proving the theory (evolution theory) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God. (Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, 19 January 1981, p. 56)

Especially during the last fifty years, developments in various scientific fields such as paleontology, microbiology, genetics and comparative anatomy, and new discoveries show that the theory of evolution is untrue and living beings appeared on earth all of a sudden in their distinct and perfect forms. Therefore, there is no reason to suggest that God employed the process of evolution in Creation. God created every species individually and at one moment, with His command of "Be!" This is a certain and explicit fact.

CONCLUSION

It is of vital importance for people of faith to be alert and cautious against the ideological systems committed to struggle against God and religion. For 150 years, Darwinism provided a so-called scientific ground for all anti-religionist ideologies that caused misery for mankind, such as fascism, communism, and imperialism and legitimized the merciless practices of those who adopted these philosophies. Hence, it would not be right to ignore the inner truth and the real purpose of such a theory. For each Muslim of conscience, it is a major responsibility to disprove every anti-religious ideology rejecting the existence of God with a thought struggle, to demolish falsehood with truth and warn people.

“God Created the Universe from Nothing”

With ample evidence discovered by science, the thesis of an "infinite universe" was tossed onto the scrap-heap of the history of scientific ideas. Yet, more important questions were forthcoming: what existed before the Big Bang? What force could have caused the great explosion that resulted in a universe that did not exist before?

There is a single answer to be given to the question of what existed before the Big Bang: God, the All-powerful and the Almighty, Who created the earth and the heavens in great order. Many scientists, be they believers or not, are obliged to admit this truth. Although they may decline to admit this fact on scientific platforms, their confessions in between the lines give them away. Renowned atheist philosopher Anthony Flew says:

Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. (Henry Margenau, Roy Abraham Vargesse, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, La Salla IL: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 241).

Some scientists like the British materialist physicist H. P. Lipson confess that they have to accept the Big Bang theory whether they want it or not:

If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?… I think, however, that we must…admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it. (H. P. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 138, 1980, p. 138).

In conclusion, science points to a single reality whether materialist scientists like it or not. Matter and time have been created by a Creator, Who is All-Powerful and Who created the heavens, the earth and all that is in between: Almighty God.

It is God who created the seven heavens and of the earth the same number, the Command descending down through all of them, so that you might know that God has power over all things and that God encompasses all things in His knowledge. (Qur'an - Surat at-Talaq: 12)

The third article is a broad outline on the Qur'an and Science. It is too long to post, but I would urge anyone who is interested in a full understanding of the Islamic perspective to read it:

http://www.islamtoday.com/printmenic...&sub_cat_id=42

This article in particular outlines the relation between scripture and science. I believe Islam truly unites the Evolutionist and the Creationist, and their ideologies into one universal way of life.

If’ you’ve made it this far, congratulations - you’ve won the ambitious reader award!

Take care.

Wow, thanks for that Diamond. I will work my way through it, as it's such an interesting topic. As every major religion seems to have conservative and liberal followers, and everything inbetween... would it be right to say there is a whole spectrum of opinion on this? Or do you think the vast majority of Muslims would be of this view?

I'm just curious! I think Darwin is such a deep part of the British psyche - even those who know very little about *The Origin of Species*, will accept it as the most valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth - that you'd be hard put to find anyone, outside the fundamentalist christians, who would question evolution, at all, here.

I think it's possible the evolution of various species is a separate issue to *how the world was made*, Big Bang Theory, etc? As the writer seems to be confusing theories about the origins of life on earth with Darwin's theory of evolution? And maybe there's some confusion there, too? And whether Genesis is taken as subtle, and allegorical or just a literal record? It does seem rather odd to blame Darwin for fascisim, etc as he was a liberal, intelligent, gentle man who was very concerned about the church's reaction to the book being published, and was demonised as irreligious but that wasn't the case. Also a garbling of world history as the major fascists like Mussolini and Hitler were born into Catholicism, therefore christian, not atheist?

Jashobeam thanks for your answer, too. I'll also look that up, although I think there'd probably be some really solid, academic evidence if that was the case which, almost 200 years on, would be staring us in the face - it will be interesting to see the credentials of whoever's making those claims, and precisely where they're published!

The Creationism Museum is the one featured on the TV show I mentioned, and the man pictured on the website is the one who seemed incapable of coming up with any firm evidence for what he was saying. It's interesting that it's quite a cultural issue, not just a religious one.

I'd be fascinated to read of other cultures' and religions' takes on evolution.

Polly x

Originally Posted by PollySis

I think it's possible the evolution of various species is a separate issue to *how the world was made*, Big Bang Theory, etc? As the writer seems to be confusing theories about the origins of life on earth with Darwin's theory of evolution? . . .

Jashobeam thanks for your answer, too. I'll also look that up, although I think there'd probably be some really solid, academic evidence if that was the case which, almost 200 years on, would be staring us in the face - it will be interesting to see the credentials of whoever's making those claims, and precisely where they're published!

The Creationism Museum is the one featured on the TV show I mentioned, and the man pictured on the website is the one who seemed incapable of coming up with any firm evidence for what he was saying. It's interesting that it's quite a cultural issue, not just a religious one.

There are two Creation museums, so I assume you looked at AIG and mean Ken Ham. I have been to his lectures, and he does present evidence. I don't know how the piece was edited, or how much time was allowed, what questions were asked, but his website has specific questions and answers to the general points in the Evolution vs. Creation debate.

ID or Intelectual Design is becoming more popular among even Athiests who do not believe in God, but find it hard to believe the complexities of life "just evolved" without design. DNA for instance being so precise, it's a written code. If there is a code, there must be a code maker.

Dig and study and you will find that a lot of Evolutionary theories are based on false assumptions. It's not just the hoaxes that have been found out but are still being used in textbooks as proof of evolution, but also ideas that go against the basic theories of science that have been proven.

I was taught Evolution and Creationism in high school and college. I think that is important to study both sides (three sides at least if you count in ID).

As someone with a science background, I hate the "v." part of your title! It does not have to be either or--really!

Science and religion are very different, but equally important, ways of viewing the world and explaining it's mysteries. Science uses only NATURAL explanations--never resorting to anything outside our ability to detect, measure, and quantify. Religion, by definition, explains the world using the supernatural. The two are not mutually exclusive!

If you can keep the two views separate in your mind, there is no "versus." Of course, few people CAN keep them entirely separate...

Hi Polly,

You are welcome for the info. I thank you for bringing up the topic. I know it is a lot to read through, but once you get used to an Author's style, it becomes a lot easier.

As for what the vast majority of Muslims believe, I would say with confidence, that they believe in creation, as there is great emphasis throughout the Qur'an, and Prophetic traditions (Sunnah) of God being the Creator and Sustainer. However, I am sure there are minor variations of the matter amongst some Muslims. I guess what is important to note here is that we should not judge a religion by how some adherents behave, but instead judge the 'adherents' by the way that Religion would measure them. It is a clear message throughout the Qur'an and Sunnah.

I don't feel there is a huge difference between the topics of the Origin of Species, and the Origin of the Earth. Geology is a vast subject, and one has to take a step back and look into the formation of the Universe and all it entails, to properly understand the origin of species, isn't it only natural? However, I do see your point. I think you would agree though, that because the articles were not written as a direct answer to your question, it is not a surprise that the topic is discussed at a greater length.

With respect to Darwin and Fascism, I would suggest you read the article “The Fall of Atheism” on Harun Yahya’s website to gain a better understanding. An excerpt: “At this point, we must recall another atheist ideology—Social Darwinism—which was among the causes for the outbreak of both the First and the Second World Wars. In his book entitled Europe Since 1870, Harvard history professor James Joll states that behind each of the two world wars lay the philosophical views of Social Darwinist European leaders who believed in the myth that war was a biological necessity and that nations developed through conflict.”

There are many books available in full text free on that website. One I would suggest to you is Evolution Deceit. I actually own the hard copy, but I enjoy reading online, it is just a click away!

Take care

Thanks, Molanna!

I think the *v* came naturally to me, which again possibly shows how deeply entrenched the construct of the two being mutually exclusive is, in my own culture. Maybe it's very different elsewhere, and that in itself, is fascinating!

I wonder if you could elaborate, as what you say is intriguing me, now! I wouldn't assume that science and religion (all science and any religion) are totally incompatible, but I always thought (assumed! maybe wrongly!) that the evolution of species theory was incompatible with a literal/conservative interpretation of creation myths from most religions?

As a former scholar of Old Norse and Old English, I've always preferred the Old Norse version of creation, to the Middle Eastern. They thought that a giant cow licked the shape of the world from a giant block of ice! I don't think any creation myth is more or less valid a concept as that - but even with that one, you run into problems once you hit Darwin! What I'm trying to say is, I don't think there's a creation myth in any culture - not just the present, accepted monotheistic belief systems - that can stand up to the more scientific theories.

I am not a scientist and generally as sceptical about science as I am about the major religions - but I think in the past few hundred years, science has informed us more usefully about the nature of the universe, than anything else.

I can see how more liberal believers (of any faith) can reconcile science and god, as they are able to assume that various holy books are not literal, but allegorical. But here, I'm talking about the more conservative philosophies (of whatever religion), where believers fall on that part of the spectrum that cannot admit the concept of evolution, at all.

Jashobeam, yes it was Ken Ham. I also wondered what got lost in the edit, which is one reason I posted here. I've followed your link and had a good read through the stuff on that site, and must admit it had a very *conspiracy theory* feel to it, which just fuelled my scepticism even more, I'm afraid! And still no hard facts, that convinced me.

The biographical stuff about Darwin was very odd, to put it politely!

Polly x

I can see how more liberal believers (of any faith) can reconcile science and god, as they are able to assume that various holy books are not literal, but allegorical. But here, I'm talking about the more conservative philosophies (of whatever religion), where believers fall on that part of the spectrum that cannot admit the concept of evolution, at all.

I guess that's the rub!

I've had this discussion with many people, including my fundimentalist Christian BIL. He doesn't "believe" in evolution, but accepted my brief explanation of why he doesn't have to "believe" in it. Basically, I told him if you ONLY use evidence gathered in nature (measurable data), evolution is the best explanation for pretty much ALL of the observations in biology. That doesn't mean it is TRUE, since science is not the pursuit of "truth," that's for philosophers! Science is the search for explanations of natural phenomena. If you want to believe GOD is responsible for those phenomena, that's religion. Science only attempts to explain them without referring to anything out of our natural realm.

Merry Christmas!
Molanna

I want to point out that since we Muslims do not have a single governing body and this issue was not an issue at the time of the Prophets, peace be upon them, we really don't have a consensus as to the Islamic view on it. I am Muslim and I believe in both. I believe God is the creator of all but I do not take everything in Qur'an as literal, although I believe it is all *true.*

Molanna, I really like your post!

Also, when I say I believe in both, I'll admit I don't really understand Darwin per se, but I believe that Allah (God) set things in motion so that things evolved and changed, and that is very beautiful to me. I don't know if I believe humans evolved from different species, though, but I do believe our Creator has a vision much broader than our minds can fathom.

Originally Posted by Ammaarah

I want to point out that since we Muslims do not have a single governing body and this issue was not an issue at the time of the Prophets, peace be upon them, we really don't have a consensus as to the Islamic view on it. I am Muslim and I believe in both. I believe God is the creator of all but I do not take everything in Qur'an as literal, although I believe it is all *true.*

Molanna, I really like your post!

Also, when I say I believe in both, I'll admit I don't really understand Darwin per se, but I believe that Allah (God) set things in motion so that things evolved and changed, and that is very beautiful to me. I don't know if I believe humans evolved from different species, though, but I do believe our Creator has a vision much broader than our minds can fathom.

Macro-evolution is the "we come from fish" idea, but micro-evolution allows for changes, just not species to species like apes become humans, etc. I believe dogs today come from a dog type like the wolf, etc. I don't believe poodles or chihuahuas were an original prototype, lol. I think genetics can be very amazing and allows for the beautiful diversity in life as God intended.