Thanks.
Pinging for opinions...
There is really a lot to be said for speaking where the bible speaks, and being silent where it is silent. Anything beyond this comes from...well, you know.
I have met very few people commit their lives to God because some one convinced them evolution was wrong. I have seen a lot of people come to know God because they saw a lot of kindness in someone who said they knew Him. I don't care what anyone thinks about how it all began. But when someone whose heart is bent even slightly to God sees a Christian who demonstrates goodness and mercy to others, when they see a Christian love their enemies, when they see a Christian turn the other cheek, they will have a response somewhere inside.
First off, it is clear by the way you put Creationism in parenthasis, that you clearly look upon those who believe in God or a Creator as less intelligent. Therefore you are not truly looking for reasonable discussion, but an argument. Nevertheless, I will take your bait.
God created the world essentially as it is. He set it all in motion. We are created in his own likeness, we still retain some of that likeness today although it has been greatly corrupted by sin and the devil. I do certainly believe that creatures do adapt to different environments, this is a key difference from "evolution." I have adapted physically to life in Alaska. Humans have adapted dependng on where they live, they have different characteristics depending on where their ancestors were from. As people meet and meld together they change, it is the way it works. Animals have changed and adapted to different environments. Think about it this way. If you were to make some different kind of animals would you make a cat and a dog totally different? No you would probably base the next design off of a working design. Similar yet different. This is what I think, and I do not presume to know the mind of God, but i think the way we think about things sometimes is a reflection of how He would.
So there is your comment.
I also am able to align my beliefs with a scientific world. As a computer programmer I have a fairly analytical mind, it was a necessity I suppose. But, whats a day to God?
So I agree with your friend, God did create, through his other creation, science.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
I do not dwell on what I believe because it becomes a red herring when the subject is Darwinism. So, no, "creationists" are not necessarily encompassed by the limited box you assume contains them.
I personally believe that ID makes the most sense. Provided that ID = God created everything including the evolutionary process. After all, who am I to place limits on God by claiming that evolution is beyond His power.
Strict fundamentalists beware! Archbishop Ussher's "The earth is 6000 years old" theory was debunked a few hundred years ago. (He created precision out of thin air, folks. Not only did he come up with the year, he somehow wrangled the day. Come on.) As I recall, a contemporary (J. Lightfoot) of his nailed down the exact time!
Heathen (Non-believers/Agnostics/Whatevers) types, your argument that God doesn't exist flies in the face of reason too. Only a caveman would marvel at a book/building/boat and, while proclaiming it's grandeur, credit its existance on itself, rather than the author/architect/shipwright.
Atheists, you are in the interesting position of denying that any author/architect/shipwright ever existed DESPITE the book's/building's/boat's presence. Regardless of this stance, very well thought of philosophers have taken this approach. You have to admit, though, it seems that Hume, Voltaire, Marx, et al. have a personal axe to grind with the Almighty. Their fervor makes me skeptical of their "reasoned" arguments.
That being said, the 800lb gorilla that seems to be lost in the mix is: "What does ANY of this have to do with salvation?"
"I believe that (a) God created mankind pretty much as he is now, relatively recently, and there has been no macro-evolution."
There is probably a wide range of belief on this for both groups. Adam being pretty much as we are now, physically, is probably believed by most, but the physical world was without death before the first sin against God was commited by man, and nearly all seem to believe that God's judgement had physical consequences on the world - after all, the Garden of Eden is envisioned as something different from the world as we know it now.
There's also a range on the issue of evolution of living things other than man. "Creationists" (or, "young earth creationists") tend to believe there has been evolution within "kinds" (as the Bible calls it, not to be confused with "species"), while "IDers" may well believe it all (even man, in some cases) evolved from a single organism.
Also, there are others who believe man was created by God but that the earth is old, but that there have been points of 'special creation' by God along the way, lining up the age of the earth closer to that estimated by Darwinists but the age of man closer to that of "Creationists."
Of course, all three groups can be identified with the word "Creationist" since the word implies only that the world (or, all things, really) were an intended creation.
Clearly, man is unique in God's creation, and his uniqueness is inextricably connected to his awareness and intelligence.
If, somwhere along the line of evolution, God were to imbue a primate, or primates, with a soul, then their awareness and intellignece would necessarily need to be altered profoundly, otherwise, what is the point. Such a condition would be indistinguishable from the evolutionary process which would take us there eventually anyway. There simply would be no further need for God to interfere in a system that would acheive the same results.
That said, why would there be a need for two mechanisms of awareness.
You're having a hard time nailing down the definition of "creationism" because its definition changes over time.
It used to be the literal word in Genesis (6 days duration, for example) but now that the process of evolution has been discovered and accepted by people who put a priority on the scientific method, the definition has to be modified to include metaphorical and not literal meaning.
The problem is, many people of faith do not accept that Genesis is metaphorical and believe that it always has been literal, while there are many other people of faith who have made the philosophical change to symbolism in the Bible. This has application to other Bible books such as Noah's ark and the Exodus of the Jews with the plagues and the parting of the red sea and so on. They used to be accepted literally by all people of faith but now there is a division among believers about how strictly to accept stories that have no merit scientifically but may be very profound religiously.
If that's what she believes, then she does not believe in the truth of scripture, which contradicts her.
You might ask her this --
The following is a technical version of what a creationist is. However, each individual has their own interpretation of what constitutes a creationist. Personally I do not consider a person a creationist if they believe that God created man thru the evolutionary manner. When He said that man was formed from the dust of the ground and woman was formed from the rib of man I consider that creationism. If it was an evolutionary process how could all the animals and humans been completely formed at the time of Noah and the flood and then there is no change in human form since? I just had to add that last sentence even though it doesn't refer to your question.
Creationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Creationist)
This article deals only with the concept of creationism as found in the Abrahamic religions. Please refer to Origin beliefs for other stories of creation.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism hold the belief that the universe was created by a Supreme Being.Creationism or creation theology encompasses the belief that human beings, the world and the universe were created by a supreme being. The event itself may be seen as either ex nihilo or order from preexisting chaos (see demiurge).
Some who hold this belief say that it is compatible with evolution by natural selection. They may say, for example, that the Biblical account of creation is a metaphor. Or they may say that evolution was created by a deity (see evolutionary creationism).
Many creationists adopt a literal interpretation, and say that it is a factual account and that the Bible supersedes science (see Young Earth Creationism, for example). This interpretation is rejected by mainstream scientists, who say that evidence from many scientific disciplines indicates that this interpretation is false. They also object to the basis of creationism, and see it as being based on speculation.
God told us to prove all things. Surely he would not have done that if it were not possible. Can we use scientific method to test the veracity of the witness? Nature and scripture have the same author, they agree.
I suspect that there are some events that happened before God created Adam, including war in heaven and the fall of Satan. I try to put them on a time line, using scripture. I am guessing they happened before God said, "let there be light." I guess this makes me an Old Earth creationist since I see a chunk of time in Gen 1:1-3.
If this is true, several other things might follow. The earth was created, destroyed, and recreated, which answers to birth, death and resurrection. It is death and resurrection that sets us apart from the angels. Perhaps that is why God made death to be the food of life.
The evolutionist does not ask WHY?
That definition of creationist is very narrow. For starters, a lot of religions (all?) have similiar beliefs, but with a much different time frame.
I don't know a whole bunch about the Vedas. Perhaps someone that does will follow up, but have a look at this from http://www.salagram.net/cycleOages.html. My point is simply that neither 'creationism' nor 'intelligent design' should be defined as only Christian concepts nor only in Christian terms.
The Vedic Calculation of Time: The Vedic concept of time is cyclic, rotating in cycles of four yugas:
Satya-yuga: 1,728,000 human years
Treta-yuga: 1,296,000 human years
Dvapara-yuga: 864,000 human years
Kali-yuga: 432,000 human years
Six 24 hour days.
And creating Eve from a rib seems preposterous
One time while Eve was having a PMS attack
she accused Adam of seeing another woman.
Adam used his best logic to convince her
that he was not seeing another woman.
or so he thought.
That night Adam awoke to Eve poking him in the
ribs going One......Two............Threee.....Four......
A distinction should first be made between "creationist" and "creationism." The former may apply to an individual or be used as an adjective, the latter to an ideology. I do not think you will find a conventional use of the words, just as the words "science" and "theory" are subject to wide and narrow meanings. I am quite sure that is why the debate becomes heated at times.
It is a good thing to seek clarity when other people are trying to communicate with you, so your attempt at understanding how these words are used is commendable. My guess is that you will find people on all sides of the debate using them in different ways, often without thinking through the implications and accuracy (or lack thereof).
I believe that God created man through scientifically discernable natural processes, including evolution from non-human forms over the scientifically accepted geological time spans."
This is a typical cop-out...Those who dont have the guts to take a stand ( mostly Moderate Women)
You cant have it both ways. it is the same as those who say they are Agnostic..They say there might be a god but
that we are too insignificant for Him to bother with us etc.
They want their "Fire Insurance"...But the policy will burst into flames on Judgement Day.
Evolution is a Lie, unproovable..Read "Bones of Contention"
There are no "transitional" Species. Period.
Evolution Never Happened.
I used to buy it Hook Line and sinker. but every Lie was exposed as I searched for Answers and looked at both sides of the debate.
Every piece of evidence used to support Evolution, is either, a Lie, a twisted fact, or a Biased conclusion.
Archiopterix...is "Fully a Bird"
Peking Man is a Fraud..He was a Monkey and was the real Peking Man's dinner.
Nebraska Man is a Pig's tooth. etc. etc. etc.
I consider the Leftist PHD's of this world with the LOWEST regard.
Scientists That are the Most Biased and Stupid Individuals On the Planet.
Louis Leaky's Wife is the Worst Liar in the World, She combined the Bones of 2 sepparate Animals to Get what She wanted...More Funding.