It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation", as opposed to through natural processes, such as evolution.
Now, I see a dichotomous problem here within this definition. The problem with this definition which is also a pretty accurate reflection of many of the beliefs that are shared by numerous people in some parts of the world is that it implies evolution and creationism both defy one another which in fact they don't. Creationism is a matter of faith and evolution is the study of the progression of living organisms.
Furthermore, evolution hasn't yet told us about the initiation of life and universe; if had there would be no need for other branches of science such as theoretical physics for example. By the same token, creationism, which relates to a matter of faith doesn't tell us anything about the origin of life and the universe either; hence it's a matter of faith.
So to conclude, one can still accept evolution and still believe in either a religious divine or intelligent design that initiated the processes that relate to evolution. Likewise, one can still be an evolutionary biologist and still be a faithful person. I do not see any reason as to why the two cannot currently co-exist.
Now I would like to ask your views and I look forward to some rebuttals if any (the fun part).
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 37%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: private school    creationism   peoples throats   myths  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Who/what are you referencing when you talk about religious people shoving creationism down people's throats? Also, what is the relevance of myths and private schools?
Forgive me if seems like I am challenging you; I am not. I just some clarification so as possible future responses based on misunderstandings can be avoided.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: private school    possible future responses   religious people   private schools  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.44  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: private school    religious people   peoples throats   private schools  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: literal creationism    old earth creationism   Wikipedia's definition   term creationism  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
You can believe in Creationism and Science theoretically without issue, but in practice it's much more difficult because
a) Creationism is usually brought about by particular religions, which will in turn have far more beliefs than "god greated life" and thus grounds for conflict.
b) It involves applying contradictory methods of making determinations. Is the scientific method the best determination for making judgements about the objective nature of our universe or not? If it is, then blind faith seems irrational. Perhaps not mutually exclusive, but certainly requiring some cognitive dissonance to believe in the two simultaneously.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Hmm, interesting. I am not familiar with abiogenesis. As for the initiation of the origination or the origination of the initiation of life neither evolution/science or creationism as of yet gives us any substantiative answers. Therefore, the idea that an intelligent design that is a possibility is still up for belief.
This specific bit here is a very good point actually and reminds me of a quote by Scientist Peter Atkins that said:
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 47%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human beings    Artificial intelligence   bias views   truth history  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: own perception of the truth    hypotheses   nbsp    
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
Religions and evolution can’t be Quantified they are both human belief and just Theories religion is faith or hope and evolution is more mutation a description of human perception which can’t be proven just like the universe just as the Theory of the universe as Einstein said the only thing that infinitive is the universe and stupidity!
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human belief    Theories religion   description of human perception   Religions  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
As I already mentioned Evolution wouldn't give you answers to why life began because it's a different topic that doesn't cover life beginning; it covers who life evolves after it began not how it began. In the same way astrophysics wouldn't give you answers to a biology problem or atomic theory wouldn't help you calculate the mass of Jupiter; it's not that science doesn't have answers it's just you're looking in an inappropriate subset off science.
Here's an overview of Abiogenesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Essentially we've a decent grasp of how simple molecules could turn into cells and scientists have already managed to change inorganic compounds into proteins in lab conditions which replicate the factors that would have been in play on earth billions of years ago. There are some questions and the one that will probably never be answered is not "How could life possibly begin" but rather "Out of the many different scientifically valid ways life could originate from nothing but inorganic matter, which is the one that actually occurred and kickstarted life".
If you look through the article, you'll see there are several potentially valid options for how life could have originated scientifically - a god is not one of them because whatever the answer is it should conform to the known parameters of how the universe works. The issue is that there's probably never going to be a way to find out which of the scientifically feasible options are correct.
Yes. While we can throw in the usual disclaimers like "potentially all things are possible and science is open to change as new evidence comes to light", that puts the existence of a deity on par with the idea that I could turn around and find that the cupboard in my house is a magical portal to Narnia. It's something that no-one should seriously logically believe until actual evidence comes to light to support it.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.84  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 26%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Young Earth creationism    Evolution   age of the earth    
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Generally speaking, accepting the mere possibility of occurrence is not akin to magical thinking. Accepting the possibility of occurrence is sensible so long as the notion of something being possible revolves around something that has been already known I think.
I do have some uncertainty but for the most part, I actually do agree that there is no reason to accept the idea of something as possibly being true that isn't substantiative knowable. And it's just too easy and probably lazy to just turn around and say "God did it."
As for the magical portal to Narnia that just defies all of the laws of physics, and reason; so we can say with absolute certainty that will never be the case.
This all being said, I am leaning more to the side that definitely most if not all religious creationism that encompasses a great many people that are intent of infringing and preaching their supernatural beliefs upon others can't co-exist with science at all let alone evolution.
My uncertainty revolves more around that some scientists that are also nonreligious ponder the idea of intelligent design which given their intellectual and academic status I sometimes find hard to fathom. However, as long as all scientists don't all of a sudden start pondering the idea and then start looking for things to confirm they're pondering there shouldn't be any problems.
I conclude that the only way creationism in terms of intelligent design can co-exist with science is within speculation; nothing more. As for religion, I am at the point now where I think this is outmoded and it is time everyone moved on into the 21st century.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
"A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.~Orson Welles
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: god anyways    Creationism   Evolution   fact  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra