I've been going down a rabbit hole recently pertaining to evolutionary biology. I do not want to dismiss criticism of evolution, but more accurately understand what the most convincing arguments in favor of creationism are and why.
For those who follow creationism, what are the most convincing arguments in favor of creationism?
- Thread starter RexBowie
- Start date
This is a pretty succinct summary of creationism tbh
Honestly the OP sounds like he’s genuinely curious and wants feedback.
"Follow" creationism seems like an odd way to put it. My guess is that it's your way of backhanding the idea as some sort of religious "kookdom", but giving you the benefit of the doubt:
Because all known evidence suggests that complex life on this planet arose toot sweet. And if you read up on abiogenesis, you'll realize that it is essentially every bit as faith based (and, IMO more so) than the idea of a creator. (Not talking Bible/religion here, just the idea of an external hand)
Taking religion out of the equation, a creator, based upon what we know/have observed seems more likely than "soup goo" turning into complex life forms. Folks that patently dismiss some sort of external force, IMO, don't actually understand what they're talking about, when it comes to, as I said, abiogenesis. It's nothing more than a case of ignorance and what might be a completely justified dislike of religion.
Because all known evidence suggests that complex life on this planet arose toot sweet. And if you read up on abiogenesis, you'll realize that it is essentially every bit as faith based (and, IMO more so) than the idea of a creator. (Not talking Bible/religion here, just the idea of an external hand)
Taking religion out of the equation, a creator, based upon what we know/have observed seems more likely than "soup goo" turning into complex life forms. Folks that patently dismiss some sort of external force, IMO, don't actually understand what they're talking about, when it comes to, as I said, abiogenesis. It's nothing more than a case of ignorance and what might be a completely justified dislike of religion.
Last edited:
Well, thats a big question. For brevity I'll say I am a Bible believer and proof of its accuracy is found from time to time. That reaffirms my belief.
I also have no issue with science and the Bible. I believe in the big bang theory, I do not believe in the young earth theory espoused by many Evangelical Christians.
Finally, I haven't seen a convincing argument against Creationism.
Im biased towards evolutionary theory, but Im also genuinely interested in creating a "steel man" argument in favor of creationism transparently. So my goal is not necessarily to shootdown all argument in favor, but moreover understand the best arguments in favor. I have no interest in misrepresenting views.
So far, from @HymanKaplan :
Evolution requires belief in abiogenesis, thus the need for a creator. He also said life on this planet arose " arose toot sweet", which I assume to mean too soon. True?
Creation vs. abiogenesis is a completely different debate than evolution. Evolution (or not) comes after...
When I said toot sweet, I meant that complex life forms appear suddenly in the fossil record, like out of the blue. And a single celled organism is a complex life form. The Saturn V rocket is tinker toys compared to the simplest life form on earth.
When I said toot sweet, I meant that complex life forms appear suddenly in the fossil record, like out of the blue. And a single celled organism is a complex life form. The Saturn V rocket is tinker toys compared to the simplest life form on earth.
This is true. In that way, belief in evolution wouldn't exclude creationism, but more specifically young earth theory. True?
True. Belief in a creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Darwin's stuff hasn't aged well, but that doesn't mean evolution isn't real.
I'm sure this has been discussed on this board many times. Everyone has different beliefs. And every one of those has theories (no proven evidence) at the heart of their beliefs.
Personally, I believe that God does exist. That God did create the universe, and used it and chemistry and physics and biology to create what we have now on Earth. Everything had to start from something. If you believe that the oceans formed from meteors of frozen ice crashing into Earth, fine, but where did those come from? What are the infinite odds that everything that needed to happen did happen, and in the right order and timeline for life to be created here and flourish. I am a mathematician/statistician, and I can't even imagine how big they are. Do I think some things have been exaggerated, yeah probably. But that doesn't make them wholly false either.
Personally, I believe that God does exist. That God did create the universe, and used it and chemistry and physics and biology to create what we have now on Earth. Everything had to start from something. If you believe that the oceans formed from meteors of frozen ice crashing into Earth, fine, but where did those come from? What are the infinite odds that everything that needed to happen did happen, and in the right order and timeline for life to be created here and flourish. I am a mathematician/statistician, and I can't even imagine how big they are. Do I think some things have been exaggerated, yeah probably. But that doesn't make them wholly false either.
jonathanw - I'm with you. Science and religion don't HAVE to be at odds with each other. But the majority of people on both sides stubbornly seem to want it that way.
Put simply: it’s too complex to be accidental; there are hints of a universal design throughout science and math; we are like children in our ignorance of this universe.
As a Christian and former youth minister I have had this discussion many times.
First and foremost, I believe the Bible cover to cover.
I tend to look at the major flaws of evolution when discussing this topic. I feel like using logic to show why evolution cannot be real is better than just depending on the Bible when talking to someone with doubts on the Bible.
Namely Darwin's grandfather was a big proponent of evolution so he went to the Galapagos trying to prove his grandfather's theory and it makes his research flawed and biased. Even the captain of the ship he sailed on refuted him time and again (mainly do to his religious beliefs).
Second, if we evolved from monkeys, and we still have monkeys and we still have humans, where is the missing link? Why do you have the beginning and the end of the evolutionary chain but the middle just happens to be extinct. The missing link HAS to exist for this theory to hold water, but it does not. Anything close was a fake and in all this time, if it ever existed, it would have been found by now. That makes absolutely zero sense.
There is a huge difference in evolution and adaptation. Humans are all one species but we are different colors due to adapting to the climate of our ancestors
First and foremost, I believe the Bible cover to cover.
I tend to look at the major flaws of evolution when discussing this topic. I feel like using logic to show why evolution cannot be real is better than just depending on the Bible when talking to someone with doubts on the Bible.
Namely Darwin's grandfather was a big proponent of evolution so he went to the Galapagos trying to prove his grandfather's theory and it makes his research flawed and biased. Even the captain of the ship he sailed on refuted him time and again (mainly do to his religious beliefs).
Second, if we evolved from monkeys, and we still have monkeys and we still have humans, where is the missing link? Why do you have the beginning and the end of the evolutionary chain but the middle just happens to be extinct. The missing link HAS to exist for this theory to hold water, but it does not. Anything close was a fake and in all this time, if it ever existed, it would have been found by now. That makes absolutely zero sense.
There is a huge difference in evolution and adaptation. Humans are all one species but we are different colors due to adapting to the climate of our ancestors
Imo there is zero doubt we were created at least to some degree. The correct question should be - who created or designed us?
Okay, additional claims here:
Claim:
Against evolution: Darwin had a preconception that evolution was true because his grandfather had such a bias, thus negating the theory. In addition, the ship captain also did not agree with Darwin due to religious beliefs.
Secondly, since monkeys still exist and humans exist, humans could not have evolved from monkeys. No missing link has ever been found indicating otherwise.
Third Claim: Adaptation is not the same as evolution. I assume you're indicating here that macroevolution does not take place, where microevolution is equivalent to adaptation.
I have a question pertaining to your second claim. Let's imagine a missing link was found. What traits do you expect the missing link to have?
I gave him benefit of the doubt too but, like you, i saw this movie before. Hopefully i am wrong.
It's gotten to the point that I never know when these are intentional and when they aren't.
FWIW, I prefer toots wheat.
If a creator did create life, just how was it done? That's what science would really like to know.
I bet they would. They've been trying to figure it out for literally, EVER.
The odds that everything that needed to happen did happen, and in the right order and timeline for life to be created here and flourish, are 100%. Because here we are.
Also, the universe is a rather large place. Let's say the odds of the conditions being right for life are 0.00000000001%. Over the course of the entire time and size of the universe, that might still leave countless places/times when the conditions existed.
I think a lot misunderstanding can be chalked up to interpretations of definitions. For example, an organism can never depart from the clade they belong to.
This means in terms of taxonomic classification that if an organism inherits from an alligator that it’s always an alligator and its offspring will always be alligators. It wouldn’t be any different for humans and their ancestors by definition.
This means in terms of taxonomic classification that if an organism inherits from an alligator that it’s always an alligator and its offspring will always be alligators. It wouldn’t be any different for humans and their ancestors by definition.
Who created the first matter? The first antimatter?
So assuming even what you say is true, there is still the issue of the unfathomable size of an endless an ageless universe that will exist in perpetuity.
Thats why i dont the question is "if" but "who".
LOL - We know it happened by accident, because it DID.
For one protein chain to develop on it's own, through trial and error, having to go through all the combinations would take longer than the universe has been around. LOL And that is just ONE.
You need a page full of zeros added to your estimate.This is what I'm saying. People that believe it happened all on it's own (abiogenesis) honestly have no actual idea of what it would take. And that is ignoring what fossil evidence, right here indicates to us.
Last edited:
Creation or abiogenesis it HAS to be one or the other. It's a binary proposition, and all KNOWN evidence SO FAR actually indicates that a creator is the more likely choice. That's logic and science speaking.
LOL - We know it happened by accident, because it DID.
For one protein chain to self-assimilate on it's own, through trial and error, having to go through all the combinations would take longer than the universe has been around. LOL And that is just ONE.
This is what I'm saying. People that believe it happened all on it's own (abiogenesis) honestly have no actual idea of what it would take. And that is ignoring what fossil evidence, right here indicates to us.
Freudian slip? (It's also redundant to say "self-assemble on its own.")
You don’t appear to be a disagreement with the basic theory of evolution tbh. At least I haven’t read anything in direct opposition.