There are plenty of people who believe that a god created humans by using evolution as its method. Thus the two are not mutually exclusive. However, the modern creationist movement, grounded in a few young-Earth, fundamentalist, Bible literalist churches, claims that humans and all other species were created from nothing in their present form. This version of creationism is of course incompatible with evolution. In all probability, and according to the latest science on the subject, life did not come into existence at one specific moment. Rather, there was an evolution from what we would agree was non-living, to what we agree is living, through a long process during which there were forms that are very hard to categorize as one or the other. Check out the lecture series "The Origins of Life" from The Teaching Company. Fascinating material. It does not disprove the existence of a god, since a god still could have driven the process, but it does render the hypothesis of a god unnecessary. There need not have been a god to "create the spark" because there was no "spark." Just a long process of evolution from non-living to living. There are still forms today that are hard to classify. Crystals grow, but are they alive? Viruses reproduce, but they can do so only in a host cell. The dividing line between species in an evolutionary line is somewhat arbitrary. There is no "correct" moment when the first chicken was no longer the species that immediately preceded it, though it is useful for us to classify "chicken" and "proto-chicken" at a given point. Likewise, the definition of what form was the first "living" thing, distinct from its non-living predecessor is somewhat arbitrary. Just as the eye did not pop into existence fully formed, but evolved though many infinitesimal stages, so also there was no lightning bolt that created "the first cell" from a soup of amino acids. Rather, there was a long process, which science is beginning to get a glimpse of, even though we have not yet figured it all out. The fact that we have not yet unraveled the entire process does not mean there must be a creator.
Again I think you missed the point Bra... My statement that the creator may indeed be a process leans toward an explanation that the big bang is a "natural recurring event", when the environment for it to occur is there, another big bang will occur... and thus, another creation from the creator. perhaps when there is a sufficient vacuum in the void, "branes" can interact and produce a singularity that begins to expand... that "process" is not like what we have in our little books or scrolls, and it is not evidence of an interactive creator... nevertheless, it would be the creator of all we see.
i actually saw that on tv a year or two ago. i thought they were biased against creationism and i thought the expert representing the creationist belief did a poor job. those types of shows can be set up to make one side or another look bad. the part i had to laugh at was when the evolutionist said the little outboard motor thingy is exactly how evolution works. cracked me up, but that just may be my belief bias showing.
i agree, i was just turning it around to see how it sounded. but i do think there are some evolutionists who secretly hope their research leads to disproving a creator.
Are you a saying god cares about grammar... or are you a saying evolution is making people talk stupid...
I misunderstood you because the term "creator" seems to imply a being with volition. A process has no volition, so I would not have used the term "creator" to describe it. Anybody who understands science even just a little bit, understands that the definition of "god" in the principal monotheistic religions is written in such a way as to be untestable. Since it cannot be tested, it cannot be rigorously disproven. Therefore anyone who "hopes [their] research leads to disproving a creator" is thinking as irrationally as the creationists.
Years ago I would have argued that evolution does indeed care about grammar because women are generally attracted to a well-spoken man. However, I've also watch many reality shows and as evidenced by Jersey Shore, grammar and general intelligence is not really all that important to achieve sexual reproduction and the passing on of one's genes.
Educated women probably value education in a man, and vice versa. But an uneducated woman is unlikely to be attracted to an educated man. And the general level of education is falling, such that good grammar may now be a handicap in the search for a partner. The movie Idiotocracy comes to mind. I'm seeing more and more bad grammar and incorrect word usage in print nowadays, also. A depressingly large number of people have no idea when to use "I" and when to use "me" when combined with a third person. I.e. "You and I" vs. "you and me." ("You and I will go to the fair." "She asked you and me to go to the fair." To me these usages are obvious and automatic, but I see them the other way around all the time.)
If humanity were truly committed to evolving and thriving in the long term, only the most intelligent would be permitted to breed.
Let's not get started with Shockley's theories about breeding and intelligence... Yabbut, Brawndo has what plants crave. Brawndo has electrolytes!
Have you seen the smartest people in the world? Maybe that's why so many people have messed up vision.
