Shadowy Man

What I mean is this:

Assume that the universe is only 6000 (or your favorite number) years old and that a supernatural god created all the species of the Earth as they currently are, and they did not develop over time from common ancestors through evolution by natural selection. Can natural selection cause changes in animal species for the future (if not the past)??

Do Creationists believe that evolution can take place at all? Whether or not evolution has taken place, the scientific ideas behind evolution, i.e. survival of the fittest, should still be valid, right?

So, to discount an "old Earth" theory, do you have to discount even the possibility of evolution?

Kuu

Most Christians I know believe in both creation and evolution. They see evolution as God's method of creation. Most of them believe that the Earth is billions of years old.

I think it is only the Young Earth Creationists that disagree with evolution and they are a minority group in the Christian community as far as I know. I think that some of them believe in microevolution but some even discard that.

On other sites I have heard them argue that man and dinosaurs existed at the same time and the dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible.

SanDiegoAtheist

Sadly Kuu, here in the US, it is not a minority opinion.

Last survey I saw done had it something like 40% believing in YEC, complete with humans being created within the last 10000 years.

Another 50% or so believed in 'theistic evolution' as you describe above, with an old earth and universe, and evolution as Gods chosen path to create humanity.

Only roughly 10% believe in unguided evolution.

It's a bit scary, ain't it? Especially considering that the US is such a powerful nation...yet nearly half the electorate is essentially completely scientifically illiterate.


Shadowy Man:

In general, most YEC's seem to accept some form of 'evolution', typically within that never defined term 'kinds' (cat-kind, dog-kind, etc). They consider this to be 'microevolution' and don't believe that a lot of this microevolution naturally leads to macroevolution (kind of like saying 1+1 = 2, but 2+2 doesn't equal 4).

Of course, they completely ignore problems with this point of view such as, say, the amount of microevolutionary difference between a tiger and a housecat would be what most people would consider a major evolutionary change. They generally get away with this amongst themselves by conveniently never defining the term 'kinds', and handwaving any objections away.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: SanDiegoAtheist ]</p>

Starboy

In answer to your question, I would say that if they are fundies, no they can't believe in evolution. The reason I say this, is they are caught in a truth trap. This trap is regularly inspected by their pastor to make sure they are locked in tight and can't escape. So don't bother, we either learn to ignore them, or figure out how to spring them from the trap.

Starboy

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Gringo

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0801022266/reviews/qid=1026448728/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/103-6072975-9247805" target="_blank">Science, Life and Christian Belief</a> by Malcolm Jeeves and R. J. Berry did a good job of linking fundamentalism with the theory of evolution (I was disappointed to see it out of print, but as soon as the fundies catch, there will be a 2nd edition ). Some of the articles from <a href="http://www.asa3.org" target="_blank">www.asa3.org</a> do the same.

Cretinist

A form of hyper-evolution is believed by Creationists because it is required by the Noachian Deluge. Without this hyper-evolution, the Creationists would be forced to believe things like Noah had 900,000 different species of beetles (1.8 million insects!) on his boat.

Kuu

Is it really that high? I have met some YEC on other boards (mainly Star Trek boards) but I thought they were just odd-balls I didn't realise the belief was so widespread.

In Australia I am sure that the percentage of YEC in the community would be much smaller. At least I hope it is.

excreationist

from <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank">AiG's "Which arguments should definitely not be used?" article</a>:
(see also <a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/bible/genealogies.htm" target="_blank">my Biblical genealogies chart</a>)
In this <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3563.asp" target="_blank">AiG article</a> they work out that the global flood happened in about 2304 BC.
(Answers in Genesis is probably the biggest and most professional creationist organisation I think)

Cretinist:
This is what AiG says about <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/speciation.asp" target="_blank">Rapid Speciation</a>. Basically they're saying that the animals on the ark were kinds that had lots of mixed traits and the species today are more specialized. (Like how there are different breeds of chickens, dogs, etc, except that there might be an inability to mate)

Well I think creationists just think that the evolution of the species and especially the naturalistic origin of life is incredibly unlikely. They think it is so incredibly unlikely that it is practically impossible. It's like a tornado making a 747 out of some scrap metal, etc.

atheist_in_foxhole

You might find this hard to believe, Kuu, but here in the U.S. our president's political party actually endorses biblical creationism in many of its state platforms.

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: atheist_in_foxhole ]</p>

Coragyps

Many or most of the creationist-leaning folks over here don't seem to be at all militant about their beliefs, though. They seem to have such a tiny speck of knowledge about anything to do with biology that they really can't even articulate what they think about, say, whether dinosaurs ever even existed. Pretty damn sad indictment of our educational system....