Why I Believe in Evolution AND a Literal 6 Day Creation

Creation, by Gore Vidal

Creation, by Gore Vidal

Yes I believe in “evolution” and in a literal six days of creation. Surprised? Allow me to unpack that and explain what I mean.

Unfortunately the word “evolution” is used to describe everything from micro to macro evolution all with the same word. Micro evolution is, of course, a scientific fact – changes within species over time – macro evolution is a myth and, as you and I know full well, is a very popular (and unquestioned) religion these days.

There are interesting elements to what Darwin was observing in the Galapagos islands which prompted his path toward his theory of evolution. He observed several varieties of finches across the isolated Galapagos islands and he discovered that they all had various differences that helped them in a particular function in different sections of the islands. Natural selection certainly has its merits. But we simply cannot, as Darwin did, apply these thoughts to explain the origins of the species, for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence.

Have you ever wondered what actual scientific evidence there is for evolution or even for Billions of years that is often proposed? Me too. It seems to me that most everything that is put forward by evolution never takes a worldwide flood into account or that the world was a vastly different place with a different atmosphere and ecosystem before the flood. The flood actually explains a great deal. It explains dinosaurs and the Grand Canyon, the existence of coal & oil and fossils, and even the salt deposits below lake Michigan. The list goes on and on. The flood is actually the key to understanding geology as we know it.

So what do you think? Does Macro evolution have a leg to stand on? Does it have merit? Why or why not? Lets discuss. Leave a comment.

Advertisements
Categories: Creation Science | Tags: , , , , , , | 13 Comments

Post navigation

13 thoughts on “Why I Believe in Evolution AND a Literal 6 Day Creation

  1. Evolution not only is testable, it has been tested in each particular, and observed to be accurate theory. (“Theory” in science is reserved for those truths that are so powerful they explain a lot, by the way. It doesn’t mean “hypothesis.”) Evolution has been observed in the laboratory, and in the wild.

    In lay terms, evolution is “proven.”

    More here: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/creationism-vs-christianity-a-reprise/
    and here: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/whats-the-difference-between-creationism-and-cold-fusion/
    and here: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/why-study-evolution/

    • I have to agree and disagree. Of course Micro evolution is observed and probably testable. Macro is not. Do you believe in a worldwide cataclysmic flood? Do you see evidence for that? If you can’t then maybe religion has blinded you.

      • Macro evolution is well documented (scientists can’t really distinguish two types – “macro” is rather arbitrary, and usually seen in retrospect). Check out Jonathan Weiner’s book, The Beak of the Finch, a story of evolution in our time. It won the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction, in 1994. It details several cases of “macro” evolution being observed, but the chief story is that of Peter and Rosemary Grant, Princeton U researchers who tracked every individual bird in three species on an island in the Galapagos — and after 30 years, they had the data which showed “macro” evolution.

        Ring species are another category where we can see that — the lesser black-backed gull to herring gull, for example.

        No, there is not evidence for a worldwide cataclysmic flood. Jericho is still dry.

      • I am of the opinion that the Bible is true and accurate in every respect, scientific and otherwise. It can be trusted because Jesus can be trusted. Though I don’t pretend to know “how” God accomplished the creation in 6 days, I know that he did because he revealed that to us (see my other blog post: https://daniellovett.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/creation-science-oxymoron/).

        So why do we believe Jesus or the word of God? Short answer: Because Jesus has been proven to be the Son of God and the Messiah, having fulfilled over 300 prophecies, lived a sinless life, worked miracles (all of which went unquestioned – people could have verified the facts by interviewing eyewitnesses), and finally the clincher – he rose from the dead.

        Jesus believed in creation:
        “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,'” Matthew 19:4

        He also believed in the flood:
        ‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all.’ Luke 17:26–27

        So to cling to a belief that Creation or the Flood is not true is to say that Jesus was a liar.

        Sorry if I offended you by saying your religion has blinded you, but my position is that a Godless scientific world view is a religion. An unbiased look at science will always reveal the Designer. The scandal of the Gospel is that this Designer then became the man Jesus who died for your sin and rebellion and to restore you to your loving heavenly Father. I pray you find him.

        your friend Daniel

      • I’ll answer over at my blog; interesting to me how you put words in Jesus’ mouth that He did not say, then claim to believe them literal because otherwise Jesus would be a liar — when those words make God a liar (fundie minds are boggling at the possibility).

        It’ll take a longer answer.

        You can find it at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, perhaps soon. http://timpanogos.wordpress.com (click on my name, it will get you there).

      • Should we take Scripture literally? All of it or just portions of it? Which portions? Is there a proper way to understand the Bible – the way Jesus and the apostles understood it – that we too can understand and apply it as intended by God?

      • No, we shouldn’t take scripture literally, especially where there is nothing in scripture to suggest that a literal reading is even suggested. In none of the creation stories is there a hint of any suggestion that the particular story of creation is to be taken literally, nor that any of the creation stories should be taken literally.

        Try it out: See if you can find someplace that says, “This account in Genesis is the accurate creation account, more accurate than the other Genesis account, even.” Or try to find anything that says the Earth is very young and created without much care or attention from God, quickly; or especially that we can calculate the age of the Earth from the begats.

        Jesus warned us that even the rocks cry out. Here we have a case where the rocks do, indeed cry out — and you call them wrong. I find that strange.

      • Honestly, I would be happy to believe that God used evolution to bring about the world if it were true. I’d be happy to believe in a big bang and life crawled out of some ooze in the sea and eventually made you and me. But, I simply cannot. To do so for me would be intellectual suicide. I’ve wrestled with the Scriptures and the scientific evidence. And though it may not be a very popular position, I must conclude that the earth is relatively “young” (yes, per some begats among a host of other evidence), that God created the earth and all that is in six literal days (because he spells it out for us in genesis one, and in case we weren’t listening, he cemented it literally in stone with his own fingers in the ten commandments), in a worldwide flood, in a virgin birth of the Son of God, in his death and resurrection, and in his word that he affirms.

    • seriously?

      • Yeah, seriously.

        It’s again an issue in Texas education, with an organized effort to dumb down biology texts. Two Ohio proposals would push creationism into classrooms.

        The draft was mostly done, left to other pressing business back then.

        Seriously. Creationism is still a misreading of scripture, and an insult to thinking people, and a threat to science education.

  2. Pingback: Jurassic World, Dinosaurs, and the Bible | Daniel Lovett

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: