Which opinion is more popular- evolution or creation?

Answer 1

Answer 1 - BothAside from some "Creationists" many religious people accept both Creation AND Evolution. The problem with strict Creationism is that those who believe this accept the first few chapters of Genesis absolutely literally. However, Genesis was never intended to be taken literally but allegorically. In fact, in the original Hebrew, Genesis is a poem celebrating God's Creation of the universe, and telling the story of humanity's turning away from God because we think we know better. However, literal acceptance of Genesis at face value betrays the deeper truths in the text, as the majority of Bible scholars will confirm.

It is very clear that the universe is billions of years old - all evidence points this way. Even the Jewish nation of Biblical times accepted an old earth - far older than Genesis suggests. However, an old universe and the formation of life through an evolutionary process does not mean that God is not necessary. On the contrary. It suggests that there is a driving force within life itself, made up of the physical laws necessary for the evolutionary process, and an interaction within those forces that culminates in a pinnacle of Creation, humanity, that has a spiritual dimension i.e. made in the image of God the creator.

Nor does the acceptance of some form of evolution mean that evolution has been completely understood - it simply hasn't. In simple terms, the Anthropic Principle dictates that the initial parameters and constants laid down (such as the size of the gravitational constant, the mass of an electron and hundreds of other fundamental constants of the universe) are such that life can exist. Even the slightest fluctuations either way of any of these constants would mean that life could never evolve. It seems that the universe has bent over backwards to allow us to exist. And what is more, the same physical laws keep the universe fine tuned to ensure that life thrives. Therefore, within a framework of evolution and science, there seems to be not simply 'room' for a Creator but a necessity for a Creator. However, this is not a simplified version of Creator conjured up by the Creationists but the real, eternal Creator, God, as described in Genesis, who created the universe and continues to take part in that creation, through his laws and his intervention, theough the Holy Spirit, within our lives.

Answer 2 (Theistic Evolution - both again)Evolution is a correct scientific theory, but is incomplete. Theistic evolutionists believe the natural processes of evolution received divine guidance. Answer 3 (Creation)Many religious people believe that creation exists because they have faith. Creation is correct because it can be proved with The Bible or Holy Koran. For instance, if the evolution theory was true, how would the creation of whales be correct? Evolution demonstrates that a terrestrial mammal gradually evolved into modern cetaceans. Instead, God created whales to be so complex that the creation theory is true. Another fact: glow-worms and fireflies have the ability to create non-heat light. The evolutionary theory states that these animals are stupid, and have little brains. However, scientists have not been able to reproduce this kind of light. If God or Allah did not purposefully create these animals like that, how is it possible?

Answer 2

1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."

3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.

4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).

5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.

6) Evolving of new organs or species has not been witnessed during known history.

7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.

8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.

9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary Paleontology would require.

10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).

11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).

12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).

13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.

14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.

15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)

16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.
e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.Also see:

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

Dissent against Darwin

The facts

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation

Answer 3

The trouble with using a term like "creationism" is that there is an innate assumption that the Abrahmic faith is the only "created" model available. There are Hindu stories of gods floating on cobras creating everything, Viking myths of giants sweating humanity into existence, North American first nations stories of Turtle Island and Napi (Wesakechak) and South American stories of people created from mud. All myths are equal in weight in this regard. .The evolution model is the result of hundreds of years of scientific study, examined and peer reviewed to develop a consistent position and description. Most of the "creationist" attacks are fallacious arguments or the misinterpretation of scientific vocabulary.)

Answer 4

The manmade idea called the Theory of Evolution had its heyday in the Age of Enlightenment of the 19th and 20th Centuries. With advancements in the fields of science, this theory is being challenged on multiple fronts. Today, there is much debate on fundamental laws governing the entire universe. This is the Anthropic Principle: Many in the fields of mathematics and physics agree that from the very beginning - the Big Bang of some 15 billion years ago - these fundamental laws had to already be in place, and set exactly, to allow our universe to exist the way it does in our time - with us humans here. Indeed, mathematically, it is beyond improbability that this universe of ours would randomly come into existence with just the right properties to allow humans to exist. Life therefore requires a Lawgiver.

On the biological front, scientists are finding that intelligent design exists in everything they examine. In my school days, the simple cell was just that - an organism of matter with some vaguely identifiable parts within. Today, under very strong microscopes, we can see that the cell is a complex information-processing machine with tens of thousands of organelles and vastly complex protein molecules, each arranged in finely-tuned algorithms of communication and synthesis. And our human bodies contain some 60 trillion of these, which store information in DNA, replicated also in various forms of RNA, following the mathematical laws of information. To many, this shows Intelligent Design requiring a Designer and not random evolutionary change.

Just consider the human eye, which Charles Darwin, who fathered the modern theory of evolution, admitted that such complex organs as the eye would be difficult to explain using his theory. Or how about creating life from non-life as scientists have been attempting for decades now. Most have come to the conclusion that the law of Biogenesis is correct. Life can only come from life and requires a life-giver or Creator.

To conclude, one should also ask, how does evolution explain the mystery of human consciousness? Why do we know we know? Or how about dreams/visions or even the modern phenomenon of NDEs - near death experience. Without taking into account the God-given "Spirit in Man" (see Job 32:8 and 1 Corinthians 2:11), it is impossible IMHO. Yet rest assured, there will always be some scientists who, not wanting to believe in God, will remain determined to come up with some explanation which excludes Divine creation. Believers call these "fanciful theories" which attempt to explain the complexities of life. Reading most/all of these simply requires a huge leap in logic as they assume a mathematically improbable event "just happened to happen." For me then, Creation has the much stronger case.
The Apostle Paul was inspired to speak about those needing proof:

Romans 1:20Contemporary English Version (CEV)20 God's eternal power and character cannot be seen. But from the beginning of creation, God has shown what these are like by all he has made. That's why those people don't have any excuse.

Answer 5

It must always be remembered that popular opinion does not change the facts of nature, including the fact that evolution has been proven to have occurred. Having said that, most people in Europe believe evolution to have occurred, as do possibly half of North Americans.

Unlike creation, evolution does not require us to believe, because whether we believe or not, evolution of species is proven to have occurred. We not only have extensive fossil evidence for evolution, including transitional fossils, but we now also have DNA evidence of evolution. DNA even gives approximately the same estimate for the divergence of our ancestors from the ancestors of chimpanzees as does the fossil record. Evolution is still occurring, and can be observed among bacteria because bacteria have such extremely short lifespans that long multigenerational changes are readily observed.

Creation depends on faith and is not supported by empirical evidence, although creationists often refer to the strong anthropic principle (there is also a weak anthropic principle) which, according to one proponent, states, "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history," believing this at least proves the existence of a designer God. They also consider organs such as the human eye are too complex to have evolved. However, biologists point to simpler forms of eyes that do exist, right back to simple patches of light-sensitive skin. Whatever ideas creationists throw up against evolution, scientists have been able to show the falsity of those ideas.

Being proven and provable, evolution is more rationally believable than mere creation.