Does anyone feel like explaining to me: "Why is there a dichotomy between Creation and Evolution"?

Hi there dear Ratia!

I would love to explain.

In reality you cannot design an explosion its self.You can direct it or decide the size.

Evolution says that accidental biological changes and natural selection (survival of the fittest) have somehow produced every living thing on the face of the earth,just after a disordered chemical reaction happened.(ie Abiogenesis}

It teaches that no matter how complex living creatures may be, the only thing that produced these complexities is random chance of positive mutation - pure accident. Accidents that were beneficial were supposed to result in survival and accidents that were not beneficial were supposed to result in death. So, the entire panoply of life creeped up - with the strong living and the weak dying over eons of time. This cavalcade of purely accidental mutations somehow culminated in man.

Creation tends to show an order and reason for the order but not how the order was culminated in order for us to understand how it was accomplished.So order and disorder are at odds,which is self explanatory .The scriptures indicate more than just order in creation,it expresses moral order as well.

Which is where the dichotomy between Creation and Evolution starts.

Evolution expresses a happenstance of life's biologicals and that morals are something humans came up with. What many fail to realize is that harmonious order has never been humans strong point.So how did we create it? What science sees in the universe and on planet earth is a marvelous order of all things.Not chance and might have been. Even the mathematical equations express a decisive order in everything from Molecules to a Quasar to the Earths perfect location .

So ...is it order from chaos and disorder..... or is it a frame work as if it were designed for order?

Have humans been able to design everything we create...0r....do humans sit and hope til something just creates its self?Did humans design morals?Or were Morals created in order for human life to be beneficial for earth and all of its inhabitants.

The truth does reveal order. What does disorder reveal...except more disorder.

I see an order in the circle of life.The only disorder I see are the humans who create it.

Thanks for asking the question!

These are entirely different like 'invention' and 'discovery'.

We can create something new that is not existing and we can not evolute. Evolution is natural which if taken as artificial would be called as transformation.

More explanation

Dichotomy is division into two parts or classifications, esp when they are sharply distinguished or opposed and you ask "Why?".

As you know, the Evolution is said to be true because there was not a time of creation of earth or its lives. All were here including the earth and solar system and systematic and natural transformations were occurred from time to time in all parts of the Universe. Thus the creation is artificial and never natural. When a child is born, it belongs to the evolution and no one can create their children or next generation (if so, the quantity and quality of wisdom and other virtues could be developed and even flying human beings would be simple.

Evolution - as the mechanism that explains the diversity of all the earthling living beings and connects each one of them to a common ancestral is not incompatible with the term Creation if

Creation = …the action or process of bringing something into existence… (Oxford Dict.)

In this definition, evolution ~ Creation of diversity of life on earth and this creation DOES NOT NEED the interference of anything else rather that basic laws of chemistry (at the molecular level) or processes like natural selection...

(huh??? That simple???)

Allow me to compare natural selection to the learning process (of the mouse of Skinner, for instance) - a certain behaviour leading to a positive consequence is retained but if leads to a negative will tend not to be repeated.

The initial behaviours are random, right? (Like random mutations in cells) They are then kept or dismissed if rewarded or punished. In the case of the mouse this ability to learn = memory and inteligence but IN the case of evolution by natural selection, the inteligence part = the selection of a certain thing against another is based on it's capacity to be transmitted to the next generation. If it's positive (increase survival AND offspring) is kept (passed to the other generation and increasing its proportion in a population) if not it can be eliminated (by competing with more successful ones!).

Going back to semantics...

What has CREATED your body? When that certain sperm cell fecundated that certain egg, that new-born cell, with a mixture of their DNA, went through numerous divisions of equal cells. Then gradually these cells started to differentiate into cells with specific functions and cluster together to form the different tissues - of the heart, the brain, the liver, the skin. These tissues developed into defined and functional organs, ready to function and work together outside the mother... This is the process that made a microscopical cell transform into the amazing machine you now have!

The incompatibility can rise when CREATION (of the Universe, the Earth and its Life) are a literal interpretation of descriptions such as the Genesis, which are scientifically absurd when put as an explanatory alternative to what we currently know in terms of Bio-Logy.

I don't understand why it should be such a shame that we have an ape-like ancestor or that we were not "created" differently from other animals. With higher potentials and complexity, its true, but exactly through the same process. We had to surrender to the evidences about our material existance - the Earth is almost 4.5 000 000 000 years and what we can call Life has existed for the last third of that time. Mammals only (?) had 200 million years to evolve into today's species and the Homo genus is thought to be around during the last 2 million. Can we even conceive these timescales?...

By the way, between the XVII and XIX centuries, when the knowledge of fertilization and embryology wasn't as clear as it is today, it was believed that life, in particular human life, was "preformed" at the moment of Creation and that the successive generations of individuals were encased one inside the other - in increasingly small and perfectly formed versions of the adult self. Not surprinsigly, it was the sperm male cell that carried these miniature generations, while the mother would only contribute with substract and a confortable enviroment for the amplification of the new being.

Sorry... I went off the subject a bit...

Best wishes!

I don't believe in any version or description of a God and I don't believe for one instance that Evolution happens without some higher intelligence of conscious order being involved. I am not a religious man, or one who adheres to traditional formulas for how to live a life. But I have read a little of the genesis story which clearly shows some degree of evolution. It clearly illustrates a conscious force, involved in seven days of work to complete the process of creation. I feel the problem is that both sides have been spinning arguments to resist reaching a common consensus that evolution is creation and is governed by an intelligent conscious force, and that evolution is the gradual arrangement of natural development. Evolution has been used as a weapon against those who were trying to communicate the Christian message of a "God" existing and evolutionists were trying to convince people that evolution happens without A God or conscious intelligent force.

Those who can see the bigger picture without getting entangled in the petty arguments will see that the two are really one process. It is funny though that science has now reached a platform where it can accept that there is some grander conscious force of movement that energetically connects everything that exists. So the argument of evolution minus an intelligent conscious force is debunked. Only those who live in ignorance continue to maintain this argument. I bless me in you and you in me for we are truly one!

If you would like me to add video of the scientific agreement let me know.

I don`t see it that way. I feel I`m drawn to dualism in a way and can understand the apparent conflict. I see creationism as being the first part of evolution. If there was only one, then our lives would be very short. If nothing changed we would cease to exist rather quickly. Nothing can`t evolve. I mean, can you imagine if you had never been born? what would it be like? You couldn't`t describe it because nothing would have a definition. I am in agreement and would have to say that one can not exist without the other.

The only reason of dichotomy between creation and evolution is that the process of evolution is deadly slow. It has taken millions, billions or trillions of years to reach up to the human beings. Hence the reality is that we can see the creation but can not see/feel evolution.

For example the neck of the giraffe was not so long, but since some of species lived, where their food was beyond reach, being at height, they went on trying and gradually their neck gone long.

लख चउरासीह भ्रमतिआ दुलभ जनमु पाइओइ ॥

Through 8.4 million incarnations you have wandered, to obtain this rare and precious human life.

नानक नामु समालि तूं सो दिनु नेड़ा आइओइ ॥४॥२२॥९२॥

O Nanak, remember the Naam, the Name of the Lord; the day of departure is drawing near! ||4||22||92|| {{{Guru Arjan Dev Ji, Siree Raag 50}}}

{{{remember, besides physical evolution there is spiritual evolution as well, along with}}}

Dear asker you may study the following hymn for better understanding of our origin.

http://www.sikhitothemax.com/page.asp?ShabadID=523

Therefore dear sir, without evolution coming into existence of this world, was not possible, the creator Lord God has adopted this procedure to create all beings. This just like you know we are moving in the space with a speed of 1000 kms per hr but we can not feel, being on earth since our relative speed to earth is zero when standing.

I think the "dichotomy" came from three things: (1) people don't believe in the unseen God, (2) creation as depicted in Sacred Scriptures appears to have been done in such a short time, and (3) human soul.

The first reason causes a contradiction between two versions because people do not see God. And what appears to naked science as a natural process cannot be conceived as something possibly supernatural. But it is perfectly logical to believe in a God who created order in things. I mean, what does science have to offer but an equally unbelievable proposition that everything started with a Big Bang. And for me, the latter is more unbelievable because you cannot expect random molecules without order to create order by itself. And not only any order but a beautifully intricate system of life down to the last living cell. I can easily believe more in a God who is order Himself to create a universe with order like Himself, although imperfect. For more order cannot come from things with less order. If you have an intricate pattern, you can very well conclude that there is design. Like a sand castle and a lump of sand caused by the waves. The lump of sand can be treated as random occurrence. The sand castle, however, is obviously design because there is a pattern with an infinitesimally small probability of existence given no designer.

The second reason causes contradiction because evolution is slow and creation seems fast. Bible fundamentalists say that the world was indeed created in seven days. The proper interpretation according to scholars is that the world was created "in time." There are two concepts of time in theology, cairos and chronos. Our understanding of creation is limited by chronos, which is a concept of past-present-future as opposed to the former which is just time in itself. Before creation, there is only cairos, but at the moment of creation, the concept of periodicity came into picture (there was day and night to separate seasons according to Genesis). It was only during creation that time as chronos began. In that sense, we were created "in time" or "in saeculo." There is chronology of events as written in Genesis because it had to be easier and more pleasant to understand by the people of those era.

The last reason is a clearer reason why people cannot accept the two versions to be BOTH true. It's simply unacceptable to believe that humans had the soul of a monkey and then just all of the sudden became a human rational soul. This would be possible in other religions which believe in reincarnation, but not in Christianity.

Because like you said most choose one,

Creation: God created the living in the form they are presently in.

Evolution:Things changed to adapt and survive, from form to form to how they presently are.

And as you can see one rules out the other,

now both have proof(whether ones is more logical than the other) but are not

all the way considered a fact by everyone so

once you choose one, the other is wrong and for someone to choose the

other, yours is wrong and if conversation about it was started both of you would

defiantly defend what they thought was right!

there isn't

but there IS a dichotomy between Christianity and belief in evolution. It goes like this:

1. The Bible is God's Word

2. God states that all things were created by His Word KIND AFTER KIND, meaning that everything was created perfectly and all creatures were made to reproduce with their own kind.

3. This includes man and man is described as being made in the Very image of God

4. If you discount this or try to say that "Genesis was not to be taken literally", well.... you might as well consider the whole thing a fable

Finally! Somebody else sees this!

They aren't even opposites. People keep comparing the two, but it would be better to compare Creation and Abiogenesis. They both have to do with the origins of life. Evolution has NOTHING to do with how life began.

The only real way that the two conflict is if you believe that God created lifeforms that never ever change and that the Earth absolutely is 6,000 years old. The majority of Christians don't believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old or that lifeforms don't change. So there shouldn't be a major conflict.