Creationism vs Theistic Evolution vs Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Camilla
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 37
  • Views Views 12K

I'm curious, which one holds the most merit to you? Please explain why.

  • Total voters
    0
C

Camilla

Active member
Messages
34
Reaction score
3
Gender
Female
Religion
Agnosticism
I'm curious as to which of these you believe hold the most merit.
 
It's not about belief nor should it be!
It's about what is demonstrable and factual!
We've many threads on thus title it's best to go through them than start the same topic again!

Best,
 
I am afraid thats going to lead no where for each individual has a different perspective.
 
:embarrass Sorry have to look up the meanings... I only know evolution.... mmmm I know that it does not explain humans... Can't poll imsad :D
 
Theistic evolution for me.

Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.
Click to expand...
 
White Rose said:
I am afraid thats going to lead no where for each individual has a different perspective.
Click to expand...

That's where you and I disagree. I love hearing other people's perspective, so long as its respectful. Everyone has differing opinions, true. But I don't think it's a waste of time to hear them. You can learn a lot of insight from other people this way.
 
Hulk said:
Hi Ms Camilla you can try searching the forums but here's two existing threads you can check out.
Click to expand...
There's been a poll?
I understand that this topic has even discussed, by I'm also interested in the statistics of it.
 
العنود;1583272 said:

How scientific do you expect these stats. to be?

best,
Click to expand...

Very, I plan on compiling a manifesto.

Look, I'm not trying to publish anything. I'd just like to have a general idea.
 
Camilla said:
Very, I plan on compiling a manifesto.

Look, I'm not trying to publish anything. I'd just like to have a general idea.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter to me personally either way- you brought up statistics, I rather think it is the natural Q to follow suit.
good luck with your quest!

best,
 
Camilla said:
There's been a poll?
I understand that this topic has even discussed, by I'm also interested in the statistics of it.
Click to expand...
I am not sure how such a poll would be of benefit to you especially since one wouldn't know just how knowledgable the voters are in the mentioned subjects. Before any discussion or "poll" is to take place shouldn't there be an understanding for everyone as to what the definitions of each term is? I for one had no idea there was such thing as "theistic evolution".

If the option wasn't there and if some were to pick "Evolution" would it then assume that the person was an atheist?

I think if you're interested in the subject it would benefit you to take some time to try and see what the Islamic understanding of the concept is(since this is a muslim forum).
 
Hulk said:
If the option wasn't there and if some were to pick "Evolution" would it then assume that the person was an atheist?
Click to expand...
To begin with we don't know what her definition of evolution is? micro, macro? I dislike immensely these catch all terms.. but it isn't my thread and I didn't vote so I don't care either way..

:w:
 
Evolution is evolution to me.
Macro or Micro, Its all evolution on a different scale.

As for the definitions (in a nutshell):

Creationism: Is the belief that all life on earth was created by Allah/God.

Theistic Evolution: Is the theory that Allah's/God's creation was designed in a way so that it would naturally evolve.

Evolution: is the idea of a change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes asmutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.


And, I will make sure to try an educate myself more on this. My intent is not to insult anyone. I don't mean to come off that way, and if I do: I sincerely apologize.
I was under the impression that the Muslim creation story was, somewhat, similar to the Christian one.
 
No I'm sure you have no ill intent and I believe no one here does (God willing). It's an online medium so we really can't actually sense the tone of people's voices so it's easy to misunderstand sometimes.

Personally I still don't get why there has to be such a thing as "theistic evolution". Let's say for example the topic at hand is hypertrophy and not evolution.

Creationism: Is the belief that all life on earth is created by God.
Theistic Hypertrophy: Is the theory that God's creation was designed in a way so that it would naturally grow.
Hypertrophy: The enlargement of an organ or tissue from the increase in size of its cells.

First we see that by the definition of "evolution" or "hypertrophy(my example)", it is not something that is necessarily at odds with belief in a Creator. Belief in how nature works whether it be how rain is formed, how electricity works, how our human bodies work, etc does not negate the belief that there is a Creator. So even if one were to subscribe to the belief that evolution is true it doesn't negate that one might believe in the Creator unless this person believes that the living thing that evolves came from nothing(has no Creator).

By this reasoning I feel there is no need for there to be "theistic evolution". As one can then stick "theistic" to just about any other process to point out that the person who believes in the process also believes in the Creator.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to express.
 
Islam says that Adam and Eve came to this world miraculously, not through natural selection. However, I don't know what's the case about animals existence but I highly doubt it has anything to do with evolution. It could be the case, since I haven't found anything that contradicts that.

Saying that the human-being has evolved from another creature is surely incompatible with Islam.

Evolution is a way for the kafir to justify his/her disbelief, we should never rely on it if it contradicts the Quran and the Sunnah.
 
Hulk said:
No I'm sure you have no ill intent and I believe no one here does (God willing). It's an online medium so we really can't actually sense the tone of people's voices so it's easy to misunderstand sometimes.

Personally I still don't get why there has to be such a thing as "theistic evolution". Let's say for example the topic at hand is hypertrophy and not evolution.

Creationism: Is the belief that all life on earth is created by God.
Theistic Hypertrophy: Is the theory that God's creation was designed in a way so that it would naturally grow.
Hypertrophy: The enlargement of an organ or tissue from the increase in size of its cells.

First we see that by the definition of "evolution" or "hypertrophy(my example)", it is not something that is necessarily at odds with belief in a Creator. Belief in how nature works whether it be how rain is formed, how electricity works, how our human bodies work, etc does not negate the belief that there is a Creator. So even if one were to subscribe to the belief that evolution is true it doesn't negate that one might believe in the Creator unless this person believes that the living thing that evolves came from nothing(has no Creator).

By this reasoning I feel there is no need for there to be "theistic evolution". As one can then stick "theistic" to just about any other process to point out that the person who believes in the process also believes in the Creator.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to express.
Click to expand...

I think i do.
I wanted to use evolution as an athiest choice.
And use theistic evolution to support faith and science. Just not taken word for word from a religious script.
But, the woman above me is correct: my options are too vague and too open do interpretation and each persons opinion is very different.
 
Greetings and peace be with you Camilla;

I voted Creationism; every creature created according to its kind.

I have a limited acceptance of evolution, if a white man lives in Africa, his skin will become darker, if he has children with a black woman the skin colour and some features might change slightly.

Single cell life three and a half billion years ago to fish to mammals to man with all the missing links is just a big no

In the spirit of searching for God the creator of all that is seen and unseen

Eric
 
Eric H said:
Single cell life three and a half billion years ago to fish to mammals to man with all the missing links is just a big no

In the spirit of searching for God the creator of all that is seen and unseen
Click to expand...
I agree completely that naturalistic evolution is inadequate to explain the origin of the species. However, the exact mechanism through which God created the species is unknown to us. If we can use our own individual origin as an analogy for the creation of the human species we can come to some understanding. Our individual development began with the development of sperm inside our father and an egg inside our mother. The sperm and egg came from a reductionary division of a gametic mother cell that began with the duplication of genetic information through pairing of 4 different nucleic acids that were formed in a specific manner from the elements carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. The sperm and egg mother cells went through specific divisions and changes to give rise to sperm and egg that have no reason for existing apart from leaving the body and becoming united with the corresponding gamete of the opposite sex. The union of the sperm and an egg forms a most elemental single cellular zygote that undergoes replicative divisions and positionally controlled cellular differentiation to form specific organs and tissues from the information that exists within the undifferentiated zygote. Amazingly, the sperm, egg, zygote and young embryo of many animal species look incredibly similar. Despite the apparent similarities in early morphology and even in genetic information the embryos go on the develop into vastly different species.

Now the origin of the original pair of each species is up for debate, but the simplest means is that they were assembled intact in a manner beyond our comprehension. Otherwise, God could have directed the changes in a manner that seems evolutionary like the development of a zygote into an infant and then into an adult, but at a much faster pace than ToE allows and not through haphazard chance.

If one thinks about it, all animals are built with the same basic elemental building blocks which are themselves built of electrons, protons and neutrons which are basically just negative, positive or neutral electrical charges. The amazing thing to me is how all of this came into existence from nothing. If one thinks only a little bit, he would know that order does not arise from disorder without the exertion of an external will with the power to create. The Theory of Evolution leaves my intellect completely and utterly unsatisfied. I am much more comfortable with Intelligent Design defined as:

"Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."

However, ID is not the same as creationism.

"The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural."

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Personally, I am a creationist for I can see no other 'intelligent cause' capable of designing biological systems and species of life except that being is itself uncreated and superior to the creation. I equate the 'intelligent cause' with the One God and none else.
 
Last edited:
I believe in Theistic Evolution. I simply believe that God used the process of evolution to create all living creatures, including man.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top