Creation

Studies show that about 90% of the world's population believe in a higher power. See also:

Is there evidence for Creation?

Can you show that God exists?

Seeing God's wisdom

Answer by Dick Harfield

In the first biblical creation account (Genesis 1:1-2:4a), God created trees on the third day, which was at a time when there was no sun to sustain them - the sun being created on the fourth day.

In the second creation account (Genesis 2:4b-2:25), God does not seem to have created plants or trees. The account simply says they were already there, waiting for God to make it rain and for a man to till the ground(Genesis 2:5): "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 1

There are no serious questions in the scientific community that create a stumbling block for evolution by natural selection. One of the main sources of negative questions concerning evolution is that those who reject the idea, usually on religious grounds, think that evolution is a replacement for all aspects of Creation and therefore target, primarily, questions that Creation answers but that Evolution says nothing about.

Evolution by natural selection only asserts that each creature, even each sex within the same creature, and the general environment exerts a selection pressure on every other creature. These selection pressures will guide a species to center on a particular variant within the species best suited for the environment. That variant will then become the new base and the selection pressures will narrow again. Over millions of years, this will result in species going extinct completely or in one area and being replaced by a different but similar species. Eventually, this will result in creatures significantly different than the original creature.

Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis which is the idea that life can come from non-life. Evolution requires something to be living to be alive for it to work. Many people raise the question of abiogenesis, which has much less evidence than evolution in order to question evolution. However, since evolution does not deal with abiogenesis, the questions are irrelevant to evolution per se.

Evolution does not deal with early cosmology, the formation of the universe, or the formation of the solar system and Earth. Evolution is a biological theory, not a physics or cosmological theory. However, some individuals will ask, "If you believe in evolution, where did the Earth come from?" Evolution has no connection to that answer. It would be like asking, "If you believe that Jesus was resurrected after three days, why did Buddha need to starve himself for forty-nine days to receive revelation?" The two fields are irrelevant to one another.

[See the discussion section for more of a debate on some semantics about evolution.]

Answer 2

Although the prevailing opinion regarding origins has the majority of scientists in support, many of these acknowledge that there are a number of questions which remain unanswered regarding evolutionary theory. Most would agree that these questions, while unresolved, do not 'oppose evolution' but are merely unresolved questions. Noted atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins in an interview about his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" referred to four of his favourite "unsolved mysteries" as follows:

1. The origin of life- "That is a complete mystery" he said.

2. The origin of sex.

3. The origin of consciousness.

4. The rise of morality.

(source: Boyle, A., The not-so- angry evolutionist, 14th October 2009)

The evolutionist G A Kerkut defined what is called the 'general theory of evolution' (GTE) as 'the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.' Dawkins, as mentioned above, (as do many other evolutionists) regard this issue as one that remains to be solved. Some evolutionists try to suggest that the origin of life issue is not connected with evolution at all. However, this has not generally been so from Darwin himself onwards.

Evolutionist Gordy Slack states on this issue, "I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself...And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close." (Slack,G What neo-creationists get right-an evolutionist shares lesson's he's learned from the intelligent design camp, The Scientist, 20 June 2008).

Other scientists highlight the following issues which remain to be addressed:

1. Information Theory (i.e. biological information): Living things contain masses of information encoded in their DNA, as well as the code-reading mechanism, together with the epigenetic code which controls gene expression. Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker (p115) stated There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopedia Brittanica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over." In The Greatest Show on Earth (page 405) Dawkins states, "The difference between life and non-life is a matter not of substance but information. Living things contain prodigious quantities of information.

An intelligent message always requires an intelligent sender. This would appear to be simply impossible through random unguided naturalistic means. Computer simulations where evolutionists control the result through their intelligent input and produce a result supposedly showing evolution can happen are far removed from the real world due to the unrealistic scenarios favourable to their outcome.

2. Mutations: do not create new Genetic information necessary for microbes to man evolution to work. For a dinosaur to change into a bird would require an incredible amount of new DNA to be written into its genome. Mutations are shown universally in science to be harmful in terms of the information content. Where an organism benefits from a mutation there is still no increase in information but often a loss. Dawkins himself when asked could not give one single example of an information-adding mutation.

3. Natural Selection considered to be a mechanism of evolution can only select from what is already there (and there often is a high degree of adaptability in the genome of various species e.g. all the different dog breeds but still all dogs). Nothing new is ever created by natural selection, as shown by the modern science of genetics, developed since Darwin's time. As someone aptly stated -natural selection may explain survivalof the fittest, but it doesn't explain arrival of the fittest.

4.Genetic Entropy- although estimates vary (some higher some lower) human geneticists generally agree that the human genome is accumulating around 100 new mutations per person per generation. These mutations are too small to produce measurable effects and so are not 'weeded out' by natural selection. Geneticists also note the 100's of mendelian genetic disorders in mankind. These figures also suggest strongly that mankind should not exist at all if it as old as postulated.

Day by day, God created the universe and its contents (Genesis ch.1).God created the universe out of nothing (Exodus 20:11, Isaiah 40:28; Rashi commentary to Genesis 1:14; Maimonides' "Guide," 2:30).Note that the Torah, in describing the Creation, deliberately employs brevity and ellipsis, just as it does in many other topics. See the Talmud, Hagigah 11b.

• On day 1: God created the universe in general, light, and this Earth. The light was not the same as that of the sun. Rather, it was light that God created before the sun, and which emanated from a point in space without any physical source; like what we might term a "white hole."
  
• On day 2: God created the separation between the Earth and the upper atmosphere.
  
• On day 3: God separated the continents from the oceans, and created plants.
  
• On day 4: God created the sun, moon, and stars.
  
• On day 5: God created birds and fish.
  
• On day 6: God created animals and people.
  
• On day 7: God ceased creating, thereby creating the concept of rest.
  

See also:

Is there evidence for Creation?

Can you show that God exists?

Seeing God's wisdom

• On day 1 (a Sunday): God created the universe in general, light, and this Earth. The light was not the same as that of the sun. Rather, it was light that God created before the sun, and which emanated from a point in space without any physical source; like what we might term a "white hole."
  
• On day 2: God created the separation between the Earth and the upper atmosphere.
  
• On day 3: God separated the continents from the oceans, and created plants.
  
• On day 4: God created the sun, moon, and stars.
  
• On day 5: God created birds and fish.
  
• On day 6: God created animals and people.
  
• On day 7: God ceased creating, thereby creating the concept of rest.
  

See also:

Is there evidence for Creation?

Can you show that God exists?

Seeing God's wisdom

If we were the masterpiece of God's creation, we would have been designed to walk upright without back problems and hernias resulting from a posture that does not well suit our skeletal structure. If we were the masterpiece of God's creation, we would be at peace with each other, rather than persecuting those with whom we disagree, and fighting endless wars. I do not think we are the masterpiece of creation.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

he creation stories teach us that the authors perceived limits to the power of God. In both stories, the earth already existed.

In the first account, the ocean was already present and a wind moved across the surface. The seas rested on the dry land, which appeared on day 3 when God gathered the waters together.

In the second creation account, there was pre-existing dry land, but God had yet to make it rain for plants to grow. God could not even make Adam and Eve out of nothing. He made Adam and each animal out of the dust of the earth. He made Eve out of Adam's rib.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Yes, it is possible. It is no longer possible to believe literally in the Genesis creation accounts, but they can still be accepted for their religious and symbolic meaning. In fact, attempting to maintain literal belief in the Genesis creation accounts could arguably be considered an exercise in self-delusion.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Since this question asks for facts, I will ignore the many religious traditions and summarise the facts as we know them:
DNA evidence indicates that our earliest pre-human ancestors diverged from the ancestors of other primates around seven million years ago. This appears certain to have taken place in eastern Africa: certainly the oldest hominid fossils come from that area. The creation of the Great Rift Valley separated our ancestors from other primates to the west of the Valley and provided a completely different environment in which to evolve.

Our early Australopithecus ancestors had small brains but it was already possible to see human traits in their bone structures. Perhaps the first truly human species was Homo habilis, which emerged around 3 million years ago. The species still looks primitive, but the teeth are smaller and the brain is larger and more human-like than in Australopithecines. Homo habilis was probably capable of rudimentary speech. Homo erectusfollowed, around 1.9 million years ago, then our own species, Homo Sapiens, around 300,000 years ago.

Although the early Homo Sapiens were almost indistinguishable from modern people, they lived very primitive lives, differing from other primates in their advanced use of tools and weapons. Their higher intelligence, use of speech and their opposable thumbs were what made the difference. Gradually humans learnt how to control their environments, build permanent dwellings, farm and then develop great civilisations.