Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
It is not the purpose of this answer to present a scientific argument in the creation vs. evolution debate. For scientific arguments for creation and/or against evolution, we highly recommend Answe...
Although a basic reading of Genesis chapter 1 seems to say that everything came into existence, including mankind, in six 24 hour days, it has always bothered me that the creation activity associated with the 6 days always precedes the delineation of each day. The Jews have a distinctive understanding that the beginning of a new day is at sunset, an understanding that is based on the Genesis chapter 1 statements, “And there was evening, and there was morning, the [first through sixth] day.” When this view is applied to the text of the six days of creation, a natural reading of the creation account describes six periods of creation, each occurring over unspecified lengths of time, and each ending with a 24 hour day signifying its completion. Viewing it this way, the 6 days of creation are 24 hour days; they are just not consecutive days. This interpretation neither supports nor refutes evolution. The Bible only asserts that God created the heavens, the earth, and the living creatures. However, with the exception of man there is no detail given on how the creation proceeded following God’s command. It is the study of the things God created that can shed light on how the creation happened. Through observation and experimentation the scientific process seeks to understand the world around us in an unbiased manner. To remain unbiased it necessarily assumes there is no meddling from outside the natural world. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a result of this scientific process in the field of biology. It has gained wide acceptance because it fits with the data buried within the earth and, most astoundingly, because the DNA in our own bodies holds convincing evidence of our connectedness to all other living creatures on the planet. Yes, there are difficulties in the details from the fossil record when compared with the theory. For example the “Cambrian explosion” shows a lot of change happening in a relatively short time to fit with the slow development anticipated by the theory. But in the scientific process, when difficulties arise more data is sought to either resolve the issue or initiate a modification to the theory. Also, evolution depends on an original single cell organism that replicates itself. Whether that happened randomly on its own or required the action of a creator is a matter of faith. It matters little to me whether God created the universe and mankind in 144 hours or 13.8 billion years. But the evidence gathered from God’s creation, just by “listening” to what the creation has to say about itself, screams, “Hey, I’m 13.8 billion years old, the planet you are living on is 4.5 billion years old, and the life on your planet has gone through a lot of changes since it started over 2 billion years ago, ([in a whisper] possibly 3.8 billion years ago).” There is no evidence to clarify exactly what happened 13.8 billion years ago, but whatever it was the Bible makes it clear that God did it. That alone makes God responsible for everything that has happened since, even the spontaneous beginning and development of life as purported by secular science, if that is indeed what happened. I believe that the Bible makes it clear that God took specific actions (did some super-natural meddling) at specific times to bring about the results He desired (the “Then God said …” statements of Genesis chapter 1). The evidence of those actions appears to be subtle enough that it doesn’t raise any red flags to atheist scientists (that is if the Cambrian explosion, the fine-tuning of the physical laws of nature to permit life, the perfect combination of conditions on Earth that allow life to flourish, and the consciousness and intellect of man that allow him to ponder the meaning of life, are actually subtle). To scientists who are Christians, these “fingerprints of God” stir the heart and inspire a sense of wonder and awe for the mighty workings of God.
This idea of comparing creation to evolution is an apple to orange comparison. It really should ONLY be a comparison of Creation to abiogenesis (the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.) Would someone promote that (the unmiracle of) abiogenesis & evolution is the definitive explanation for all we currently see, then just ask ‘em where the 2 genders originated and propagated with sexual reproduction. ‘They’ really have NO answer how, at one point of time, something resembling a sperm/ovum/uterus all was invoked in one generation, and was duplicated thereafter. But in Genesis 5:2a we read “He created them male and female”, so right there is God’s hand in creation, and would any critic admit to a divine hand in the universe then it’s inconsequential to claim a Creator was not the author of everything else. In the end, Creation based arguments include both a super-natural and natural explanation for everything. Yet the evolutionists would have to explain everything through ONLY natural means. Sure… it’s a tough sell, but they want everyone to take what they’re promoting on ‘faith’ and hope. (the very things they rail against in the first place.)
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.