Creation vs. Evolution poll II


#1

Since there have been quite a few responses to the previous poll from non-Christians (which is absolutely fine), I wanted to conduct the same poll for Catholics and other Christians only please. I want to compare the results.


#2

[quote=Melchior]Since there have been quite a few responses to the previous poll from non-Christians (which is absolutely fine), I wanted to conduct the same poll for Catholics and other Christians only please. I want to compare the results.
[/quote]

I am not sold on either but lean toards some form of evolution in God’s creative process and not towards a literal interpretation of Genesis.

So I did not answer the poll as neither answers really fits my beliefs…


#3

[quote=Richard Lamb]I am not sold on either but lean toards some form of evolution in God’s creative process and not towards a literal interpretation of Genesis.

So I did not answer the poll as neither answers really fits my beliefs…
[/quote]

I meant ot put a third option for those who are undecided. I am sorry about that, Richard :o . It seems you cannot go back and edit a poll. I will do a third one in a few days.

Mel


#4

[quote=Melchior]I meant ot put a third option for those who are undecided. I am sorry about that, Richard :o . It seems you cannot go back and edit a poll. I will do a third one in a few days.

Mel
[/quote]

Fair enough, my view is that not matter if it’s evolution of not when It was God that did it…


#5

All right, another evolution thread. Worded that way, macroevolution got my vote. You can read the large TalkOrigins.org 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, or my cliffs notes version, and then make an informed vote. :stuck_out_tongue:

Phil P


#6

I support the macro-evolution theory to the extent that it does not preclude God the creator of all, including in a special way the creation of mankind.


#7

[quote=Melchior]Since there have been quite a few responses to the previous poll from non-Christians (which is absolutely fine), I wanted to conduct the same poll for Catholics and other Christians only please. I want to compare the results.
[/quote]

I think your poll is misleading, as in modern science if you accept microevolution then you pretty much have to accept macroevolution. After all, there is no mechanism to prevent the accumulation of microevolutionary steps from becoming a macroevolutionary one-and really, that’s all macroevolution is.

So basically I think your poll should be changed to reflect accurate science, as opposed to being (unintentionally I’m sure) deceptive to something like this:

YEC (with no evolution) or Theistic evolution.


#8

[quote=Meatros]I think your poll is misleading, as in modern science if you accept microevolution then you pretty much have to accept macroevolution. After all, there is no mechanism to prevent the accumulation of microevolutionary steps from becoming a macroevolutionary one-and really, that’s all macroevolution is…
[/quote]

Not true. Micro-Evolution to Macro-Evolution is a huge leap in logic and many scientists would agree. Micro is observable. Macro is not. It is comparing adaptation to transformation. There is plenty fo room for disagreement and discussion on a scientific level. I am taller than my great grandparents (Micro). My great grandparents were monkeys I am human (Macro). There is a world of difference. One does not necessitate the other or even imply it for that matter.

So basically I think your poll should be changed to reflect accurate science, as opposed to being (unintentionally I’m sure) deceptive to something like this:

YEC (with no evolution) or Theistic evolution.

I respectfully disagree. I am a creationist. But I am not convinced that the earth is only 6,000 or 10,000 years old. I do not believe in macro-evolution. I do believe in micro-evolution because it is a scientifically observable (unlike macro). Theistic evolution is extremely problematic for the Christian as even Bertand Russell pointed out. It destroys the Gospel. Atheistic Evolution is at least consistant. Theistic Evolution is is just caving into atheistic theories that are incompatible with the Bible. Which then forces a reinterpretation of Scripture based on modern scientific theories. Never a good way to read scripture. I prefer to let God’s word be the lens through which I view the world and not vice versa. That doesn’t mena I close my mind but it does mean that as a Christian my presuppositions must be Christian in all things.

In Peace,

Mel


#9

[quote=Melchior]Not true. Micro-Evolution to Macro-Evolution is a huge leap in logic and many scientists would agree. Micro is observable. Macro is not. It is comparing adaptation to transformation. There is plenty fo room for disagreement and discussion on a scientific level. I am taller than my great grandparents (Micro). My great grandparents were monkeys I am human (Macro). There is a world of difference. One does not necessitate the other or even imply it for that matter.
[/quote]

Would you care to define macroevolution and microevolution as you understand them for us, and explicitly enumerate what prohibits macroevolution as you understand it?

I confess I am left somewhat mystified as to why you moved this discussion to a new thread when we had a perfectly good thread going already. Rather redundant, I should think.

Vindex Urvogel


#10

You forgot to put a choice in for a combination of both.

Was the earth and all on it created in 144 hours? No.

Did we evolve from chimps, or some other form of primate? Most likely yes.

In the Bible when it says God created, it doesn’t say how He created everything.


#11

I voted Creation.

Though, I think it’s the ‘wrong question.’ God is bigger than having to box it up in an either-or question.

Meaning… God could have chosen to do it both ways – simultaneously (sorta). Simply because WE are the ones who are constrained by Time and Space. God sure isn’t – He’s the One who created Time and Space, in the first place!

So… if there was a choice for the typical Catholic point-of-view, I would have chosen that BOTH/AND choice instead of one of the EITHER/OR choices.

:bible1: :heart: :coffee:

Meanwhile, for your consideration ==
Catholic Answers has 3 tracts on this topic at:

catholic.com/library/faith_science.asp

Adam, Eve, and Evolution
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Creation and Genesis (Fathers*)
catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

Creation Out of Nothing (Fathers*)
catholic.com/library/Creation_Out_of_Nothing.asp


#12

The Bible and the Catholic Church teach that all men and women have descended from two parents, Adam and Eve. The Bible and the Catholic Church teach that there was no death prior to the fall of original sin. If these are true then evolution is not. The ideas opposing the bible are held up as true for a few years until the next batch of guesswork changes it all. Evolution will run its course. The ideas opposing the bible are championed by Wiccans, atheists and agnostics. By twisting your thinking around to any form of evolution theory, theistic or not, you jump on their bandwagon and you travel on thin ice.


#13

Intriguing results so far Mel. A 20 / 20 (50% / 50%) split at the moment, compared to a ~ 60% / 40% split against evolution in the other poll.

So it seems there’s a lot of non-Christian evolution-deniers here :confused: :smiley:

Although, whenever I’ve pointed out to a creationist that most Christians accept both God and evolution, I’ve often been told that they are not True Christians ™, which might explain it… :wink:


#14

Edwin << The Bible and the Catholic Church teach that there was no death prior to the fall of original sin. >>

I would like to get this resolved. Does the Bible and the Catholic Church teach

(1) there was no animal death before the Fall
(2) there was no plant death before the Fall
(3) there was no cellular death of any kind before the Fall
(4) Adam/Eve could not even step on a cockroach in the Garden of Eden before the Fall

All right, skip (4) but the first three I’d like to see answered from the magisterial sources. I think what you will find is there was no human death (e.g. bodily immortality) before the Fall (Rom 5:12) but the Church is silent about animal death. And if Pius XII and John Paul II are correct about evolution probably being true, then the bodily immortality of Adam/Eve before the Fall needs to be re-interpreted.

Edwin << If these are true then evolution is not. The ideas opposing the bible are held up as true for a few years until the next batch of guesswork changes it all. >>

So evolution is just guesswork? I don’t think you have much respect for modern biology and geology, then? It doesn’t hurt to try to reconcile the Bible and Catholic theology with what we know from science. You young-earth guys need to stay away from the creationist literature and study some real science. There’s no use hiding from it and being afraid. It’s been around a while and is not going anywhere. :rolleyes:

Phil P


#15

I trust you have all seen this:

objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html

-C


#16

#17

JJJ << If humans evolved from chimps, apes or other primates, why are there still chimps and apes today? >>

The question can easily be extended, if amphibians evolved from fish, why are there still fish? If amphibians became reptiles, why are there are still amphibians? If reptiles became mammals, why still reptiles? The teaching of evolution as I understand it is that chimps and humans had a common ancestor several million years ago. The branching occured at that point, with some becoming the modern apes, the modern chimps, and the modern homo sapiens (humans). The ancient primates from which we diverged several million years ago, all became extinct, just like 99% of the rest of the creatures who have ever lived on the planet.

If humans, why still apes?

Hominids FAQ

Even AnswersInGenesis recognizes this is a dumb question

Article on Mass Extinction

Phil P


#18

Aw Phil, you’ve spoilt my fun! :mad: :wink: In six years of debating creationists, I had never personally come across the ‘why are there still monkeys?’ claim before. I was beginning to think it was a satirical legend, put around by people like me to give creationists a bad name… :smiley:

Cheers, Oolon

Edited to add to Phil’s answer: because there are loads of ways of making a living (loads of niches). Living like a chimp is one; living like a human, or a fish, or a sea squirt, or a sponge, is another. The rule of thumb is: if you’re already good at your niche, there’s not much selection pressure to change. Hence coelacanths. And monkeys.

(Note that niches tend not to be stable either, which is why ‘living fossils’ are fairly rare – the niche has to have been stable for a long time.)

But if you can get on in a neighbouring niche, the lineage can adapt further to fit that. The first ancestors of ours after the divergence from the line that led to chimps exploited a next-door-to-chimp niche by becoming bipedal… while the chimp ancestors carried on doing their thing. And their descendants are still here doing that thing, because it’s a different thing from ours.


#19

[quote=Vindex Urvogel]Would you care to define macroevolution and microevolution as you understand them for us, and explicitly enumerate what prohibits macroevolution as you understand it?
[/quote]

As Kylie might have sung, “You should be so lucky…”

I confess I am left somewhat mystified as to why you moved this discussion to a new thread when we had a perfectly good thread going already. Rather redundant, I should think.

No longer. The other thread’s closed. This one may have served its original purpose too, but the mods might like to allow it to continue as a way of corralling these discussions.


#20

<< In six years of debating creationists, I had never personally come across the ‘why are there still monkeys?’ >>

Not sure if the guy was serious…check out that link above from Calvin on the Creation Science Fair. Sounds like something from Landover Baptist site

joke science fair

science doesn’t make any sense

Ah ha, this site figured out they are a joke
Landover Shutdown

Phil P


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.