Who is right Charles Darwin or god?

Answer 1

Creationists say that in The Bible it says "God created us in His image." BUT, what does God look like? Are "we" able to make Him look like "us" in ALL our variety? No one that I have ever heard of has been able to supply an 8x10 glossy autographed by God proving what He looks like.

The "image" that we are created in is our intelligence. Our ability to think and reason. And, THAT is our greatest gift.

Perhaps He started out with an amoeba and waited a few millions of years to get us to where we are now. We tend to want to constrain God to our own limitations. In Second Peter Chapter 3 Peter is reminding his followers that question the second coming saying that God is not keeping His word. Verse 8 :

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. "

In other words, God works on His time not ours. There is no right or wrong. Both are equally correct. God took billions of years to create our universe/galaxy/sun from nothing. So what is a few million years to get "us" in all our stupidity and ignorance.

DO NOT PUT HUMAN CONSTRAINTS ON GOD!

Answer 2

This is not the right question. Darwin only described the process of evolution, he did not address creation. If you are asking which is right, evolution or creationism, the clear winner is evolution. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The fields of geology, anthropology, Paleontology, chemistry, physics, and genetics all support the theory of evolution. Creationism is an appeal to religion and is not backed up with any evidence.

Some Creationists will try to dismiss evolution as "only a theory". Those who do so do not understand that the term "theory" when used in science is different that when it is us in casual conversation. Gravity is only a theory yet we can not deny that it is real. The evidence that gravity is real is overwhelming.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.