One big difference between Evolutionists and Creationists is that Creationists are one hundred percent sure that the universe was created in exactly seven days, and Evolutionists maintain the position that they are simply not sure what happened.  In my opinion, only a fool is so certain. Has anyone else considered the possibility that God invented Evolution as a means to creating people? We’ve believed crazier things before, things as crazy as the idea that God made the universe in seven days and then rested. I mean, what kind of God needs to take a break? He’s probably up there right now contemplating whether to appear on Earth just to clear the air about this subject: “Yes, I made the universe and created man, but it took longer than seven days. What were you thinking?”  According to mainstream Christian thinking, a million years goes by in the blink of an eye for Him. If God did create humans, it’s much more likely that he set in forth motions that would create the strains of bacteria that would give way to the first forms of life on earth, which he knew would eventually evolve into his desired end result, us.


Comments on: "Evolutionism vs Creationism – Why not both?" (2)

  1. I think that one of the issues is that evolution as described by Charles Darwin does not allow room for any type of intelligent design….whereas most people I know who think they accept the concept of evolution also think God may have set it in motion or guided it – they don’t realize it, but they actually believe in some form of intelligent design. Evolution isn’t just about something happening gradually over time, it is also about what factors were at work, and what factors were not at work. Darwinian evolution does not leave room for God – and many folks don’t realize that. Here is a site that I really like which looks at things scientifically but also from a Christian perspective – it does not espouse the “young earth” model, and yet it is an apologetics site: I think astronomer Hugh Ross does a great job in his books and videos.

  2. Tafacory said:

    I think a lot of the problem stems from arguing to the best explanation. In arguing to the best explanation, theistic evolution is decadent and unnecessary. Naturalism seems to explain the same range and scope of phenomena that theistic evolution does but in a simpler manner. Also, don’t listen to Rebelsprites comment about Hugh Ross and his “science.” That is not science. It’s pseudoscience.

    All the best.

What do you think?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: