Creation

A very common view held by many Christians is that the first creation account (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) is then summarised for the creation of man in the second creation account (Genesis 2:4b-2:20). In fact, they are quite different and very inconsistent accounts. Leon R. Kass (The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis ) says that once we recognise the independence of the two creation stories, we are compelled to adopt a critical principle of reading if we mean to understand each story on its own terms. We must scrupulously avoid reading into the first story any facts or notions taken from the second, and vice versa. Interestingly, Young Earth creationists, believing in biblical literalism, usually attempt to read the first account literally to establish that the world was created in just seven days, but also read the second account to say that this all happened only six to eight thousand years ago. If they rejected one or the other creation account from Genesis, their position would appear more rational.

Another common view held by many Christians is that God began by creating the world itself, ex nihilo, as stated in the KJV English translation (Genesis 1:1): "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Scholars disagree with this translation. The influential eleventh-century Jewish scholar, Rashi, said that Genesis should really be read, "When God began to create" or "In the beginning of God's creation," which makes no suggestion of God creating the world. Instead of using the the KJV English translation, Robert Alter (Genesis Translation and Commentary) translates the first sentence as "When God began to create heaven and earth, and the water was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the waters ..." Thus the first act of creation was when God created the light of day, therefore the first day.

Because it is now known that the world is not six to eight thousand years old, but over four billion years old, some try to resolve this by saying that the 'days' of this creation account are actually of indeterminate length and could even be millions of real years long. This is unnecessary if, as explained above, the story does not credit God with creating the world itself, since the world could already have been billions of years old when God began his creation.

Generally, scientists do not consider it their role to actively disprove religious traditions, but they do acknowledge that this creation story is scientifically impossible. You can not have daylight on day one, but only have the sun, moon and stars created on day three. In any case, the sun and stars are older than the earth, and the other planets are a similar age to the earth: approximately 4.5 billion years. The firmament that separates the waters above from the waters below, does not exist. Overall, the order of creation is wrong and simplistic.

Kass says that in this, the first account, the animals come first and man is to be their ruler, whereas in the second, the beasts come after as man's possible companions.

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

Other answers from the WikiAnswers community:

Opinion

1. Man was not created by God. We evolved naturally from earlier species.
2. Certainly we are the most intelligent beings alive, but whether we should exalt ourselves as "extremely intelligent" is another matter. Perhaps we should wait until we meet a range of extra-terrestrial beings.

Another Opinion

Yes, man was intelligent from the very start and the idea of early man being lower in intelligence is not supported by evidence. Illustrations showing progression are theories, not factual. It is likely that humans were more intelligent due to the lack of genetic degeneration.

Religious tradition is that the earliest people were veryintelligent.

According to the Christian faith, God created everything "ex nihilo" which means "out of nothing" in Latin. Christians believe that God spoke everything into existence. He didn't use something to make everything. Then the question would read: "Where did that 'something' come from?"

In Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a ( up to first sentence of 2:4) there was a pre-existing watery chaos. 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. The big things (land, water, air) were already there. Many people believe that Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth, but this is not what the original Hebrew verse said. As long ago as the eleventh century CE, the influential Jewish scholar, Rashi, said that Genesis 1:1 should be read, "When God began to create" or "In the beginning of God's creation".

* Genesis 2:4b to 2:15 is actually the older account in the Judaic religion and says that there was pre-existing dry land, but Yahweh had yet to make it rain for plants to grow. A spring arose and God took some moist clay and made Adam from it. He made Eve from Adam's rib. In both creation stories, the basics were already there - the waters, the dry land, the wind and therefore the air. Many experts in Hebrew have carefully examined the texts and confirm that this is what they say.

Throughout history, religion has not only been used to fulfill people spiritually but also to explain the 'Un- explainable'...

For example, What is lightening? lightening was sent from a god named Zeus because he's angry.

As science shed light on the reasons behind nature and how things worked...people IN ALL CULTURES AND FAITHS began to lose their sense (or need) for faith.

Religion, by definition, is a belief based on some form of aphysical, faith; pretty much believing in something that can't wholly be seen, or heard, or held but something that just is.

Human Evolution has 3 components that cause religious people to question:

1.The first is the sense (even fear or belief) that if the scientific basis of Evolution becomes the accepted norm, people will discount the bible version of creation...(which according to many people of faith is in direct contrast with one another) and lead people to abandon god.

2. The second cause is this; It's hard to see Macroevolution, and microevolution never makes the cut.

You can talk about the fossil record all you want, or dinosaurs, or how Finches beaks change and adapt over time, or how a set of green eyed drosphilia fruit flies can be manipulated genetically into becoming red eyed over the course of 6 generations- The science is there.

BUT Huge evolutionary changes take hundreds of thousands/millions of years; there is no way for the Science side to show one organism change into a completely different being . Hard to see is hard to prove.

3. The THEORY of Evolution is just that. It is not a Law of science. Although science can prove many aspects, there is no way to bring back a trilobite or snap your fingers and fill gaps in the fossil record. Evolution is scientific and factual...but there is also an element of assumption and questions still exist.

Religious groups are not the only ones who deny human evolution. Scientists do as well since it is not actually a scientific fact at all. Religious groups deny it since it is not a fact, nor is it even implied in the Bible anyway and so there is no need either way to 'bend the Bible' to make it fit with the fallible theories of men.

So, religious groups are not in denial, they are in reality. In fact creationist groups are keen not to use fallacious argumentation and actively discourage it. They want to deal with, as Francis Schaeffer put it,' the world that is,' not a made up fairy tale, dressed up in scientific language.

The more evidence that comes to light the more problems are uncovered with the the theory of evolution. More than that, arguments found to be scientifically fallacious, even fraudulent, are still used to support it.

Christian believers also have problems, not with the data but with the way it is interpreted. Hence two people loooking over the rim of the Grand Canyon for example will say two different things. The evolutionist will say 'a little water over lots of time.' The creationist will say 'lots of water over a little time.' Evolutionists have specifically linked evolution to an agenda which is deliberately and militantly anti-christian. Thus it is not science as science that requires evolution to be true, but a philosophy. Not a few leading evolutionists have plainly stated it so.

Christians involved in scientific endeavour do not find the fact of evolution to speak for themselves. They see that evolution contradicts known scientific facts and even more so than in Darwin's day. So it is not really religious groups who are in denial. Proven laws of science, not theories, are against evolution so there is no denial.

In addition:

• "Man's attempt to take Go out of creation" is a label. Something that has been spray painted on the theory of evolution like so much graffiti. Who are the taggers who would do such a thing? Myopic fundamentalists would as they run around to rally other like (narrow) minds to the idea that man and/or science is out to prove that God does not exist. Science isn't in the business of proving that God does not exist. Why don't the Chicken Littles see that the faithful hold the trump card? God can do anything. He is omnipotent. Theory can't compete with that. And it does not try.

• With each turn of the spade or stroke of the dust brush, new evidence comes to light. It's happening right now. Somewhere in the world a crew is on a dig, and the next revelation is a millimeter away. Does this new find fill in a gap? No wonder zealots are in panic mode. What are they afraid of? Of what will be uncovered next? The rational person, the thinking person (be he a non-believer or a Christian) is excited about what that next find will be! Aren't you?

• Man uses the power of his God-given intellect to see the world and everything in it for what it really is. And in so doing, he honors the One who gave him the gifts he applies to that endeavor. He neither deceives himself nor others, and neither does he bear false witness by distorting what science is saying to prop up his own ideas.

• From a theological point of view, evolution can prove what it can prove. Nothing less, nothing more. The faithful would hold that nothing will come to pass that will dethrone God. And they would be right. That's the nature of their faith. That's what faith is. "Be ye not afraid...."

The word Philosophy itself means the "Love of Wisdom".

Dating back to around 600 BC, the philosophical tradition broke away from the previous mythological approach to explaining the world and mans place in it, and attempted to answer the question of how best to view the experience of life, and what could one do to attain the best experience of living this life. The approach that it offered was one based purely on reason and evidence.

Philosophy is defined as -

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: e.g. the philosphy of Plato.

4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.

6. The discipline is comprised of logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: e.g. an original philosophy of advertising.

8. A system of values by which one lives: e.g. he has an unusual philosophy of life.

Having provided this background, it should easily be understood that Philosophy attempts to answer the reason for mans existance. It attempts to answer the question of how to best view the experience of being alive, and how to view mans relationship to himself, to others, and to the world.

It uses the discipline of logic and reason, and through the process of argument attempts to discover truth and a clear perspective that can be relied upon, to discover the guiding principles upon which one can have the best experience of life that can be had.

That is the purpose of philosophy - to provide answers to life through a very specific and rigorous process of using mans innate power of reasoning and deduction.

It means that God gave us a soul and free-will.
See also:

Is there evidence that God made us?

The word "opposite" is inaccurate in this context. Any theory which completely differs from the Big Bang would be just that - completely different. There need not be a particular, literal opposite. Nonetheless, the clearest candidate for answering your Question would be the tradition of Creation; especially the Young-Earth model.

See also:

Is there evidence for Creation?

Can you show that God exists?

Seeing God's wisdom

"Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the world."

Matt 28:19-20

Also:

5For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

9And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

These things are put slightly differently in:

45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48And ye are witnesses of these things.

49And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

It is in Genesis which is in the Old Testament.

Another Answer:

The opening chapter of the Bible in the Old Testament's 1st Book of Genesis speaks to the physical creation as we know it today - man and the various species and plant life still around. But if you read Genesis 1, you will note the planet is already in place just in darkness and under water. So it had an earlier beginning which the sciences have discovered and is only briefly spoken of in Scripture (Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, John 1, Jude 6 to mention a few).

In the New Testament, it speaks of physical mankind becoming a new 'creation.' It ends with all who repented and followed Christ being changed into spiritual children in the God Family on Earth - the new Throne of God (see Revelation 21). The next chapter begins here.

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

"Irreducible complexity" essentially means that a usefully functioning, complex component of an organism can have no possible useful function if any of its parts are removed. This concept leads directly to the conclusion that the component must have come into being as a completely new, fully functional, complex organ or organelle, without any gradual evolution from earlier, less complex systems (which would not have had any useful function). This, in turn, leads to the conclusion that any fully functioning, complex component cannot have evolved because evolution is, by definition, a gradual accumulation of small mutations, as opposed to the sudden appearance of a completely new, fully functional, complex organ or organelle.

The concept of Irreducible complexity is vital to Intelligent Design theory because it it is the basis for the assertion that an organism is too complex to be just the result of a series of random, isolated mutations; one that came into existence independently of any organizing agent.

While Creationists have used the arguments put forward by Professor Behe it is worth remembering that he himself does not specifically point to creation but is only seeking to object to evolution and demonstrate its impossibility. Having said that it is easy to see why Creationists find much on common with intelligent design. Professor Behe has put forth a number of examples that purportedly demonstrate systems or organs that simply could not work unless the system or organ came into existence as a whole; in other words, that the individual parts simply could not work alone, and that therefore all the parts must somehow have "fallen into place" simultaneously for the system to provide any survival advantage to the organism.

It has been argued that one of Darwin's motivations was specifically to refute William Paley's argument from design. Behe has in a sense turned the tables on Darwin and demonstrated why unguided evolution, in his opinion, cannot work. Creationists would argue effectively that creation by an intelligent designer is tantamount to arguing for an intelligent Creator viz. the God of the Bible.

Many scientists have presented arguments that, they assert, refute the concept of irreducible complexity. The primary argument against irreducible complexity is the process, observed in nature, of exaptation, wherein an existing organ or system confers a survival skill other than that for which it originally evolved. One example of this that has been cited in the scientific journals is the development, in bacteria, of a secretory system (to secrete fluids) that, at a certain point in its development, also had the side-effect of causing the bacterium to move about, but in a useless, random fashion. This facility for random movement then, scientists assert, independently evolved into a functional system for directed, non-random movement, and currently exists as what is called the "flagellum" - the organ the gives bacteria the ability to move about. The existing flagellum would seem to have no effective function if any of its parts were removed; nonetheless, a potential mechanism for its evolution has been presented, thus, presumably, refuting the concept of irreducible complexity.

The following links provide details of some of the arguments and discussion surrounding Behe's irreducible complexity idea from a Creationist perspective. Also included is the "Wikipedia" article on irreducible complexity.

There is no rule that they have to, and no rule that forbids it.

However, most studies of "belief" indicate that the more education people have the more likely they are to see a strictly physical explanation for most of the natural universe. The implication is that, as astrophysicists are highly educated, they are more likely to discredit proposals like "Intelligent Design" which are based on supernatural causes.

Answer

Some astrophysicists might think there is some sort of god, yes. People from all professions might at some stage happen upon a religious thought or two. The above answerer makes the excellent point that the higher the education of a person the less likely they are to be susceptible to religious or supernatural ideas. Also, astrophysicists are of course highly educated by the very nature of their subject. Their education and them being scientists would preclude notions of the supernatural as their scientific work is based on logic and observation. Astophysics deals with the big bang and galaxies and nucleosynthesis as the workings of stars most of all. The kinds of insight this kind of study certainly precludes notions of gods and intelligent designers and the supernatural as, grouped with scientific ideas, these ideas would hardly seem sensible. Apart from invoking the supernatural, intelligent design is a political movement worthy of discredit that is simply trying to get itself onto school curricula and has no purpose apart from that. With this in mind it seems unlikely to even enter the conscienceness of a starscape-scanning astrophysicist.

Evolution is a fact. In the present day, evolution, as it is presented in modern evolutionary synthesis (MES) is no longer a theory. It is in abiogenesis that evolution cannot shed light, and it offers only theory. There is no direct evidence of the mechanism by which life began, and only possible explanations are offered by science for life arising from non-life.

As regards the long tenure of life on earth, evolution explains all the facts and discoveries. It was created to tie all we know together, and it is the only scientific thing that makes sense. The only scientific thing. Nothing scientific competes with it.

Another reason some decry evolution is because it is taught in public schools - and creation is not. These folks want "equal time" for creation, and, because they can't get it by way of law (owing to separation of church and state), they are trying to make and end run and attack the science on which evolution is based. And at the same time they are trying to prop up creation as "scientific" so they can create a "wedge" to get it presented in public schools.

Links are posted to related articles put up by our friends at Wikipedia, where knowledge is free.

Answer

Some believe that evolution is contradicted by many known facts of science, there are thus many who don't regard it as either proven or as fact, for purely scientific reasons. Many other evolutionists also acknowledge the many flaws in it, unlike the Law of Gravity which has no known exceptions.

Major problems with evolution as far as science itself is concerned relate to the fact that it contradicts known scientific Laws, such as the Law of Biogenesis, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Genetics also poses a number of problems for evolution as do the fields of biochemistry, geology, and astronomy. The fossil record is also another major problem area with only a handful of doubtful transitional forms, quite contrary to what would be expected if the theory were an accurate scientific description of life on earth.

Many people are also only taught the "evolution is a fact" doctrine and so they come out of the school system as dutiful believers in it, totally unaware of the great mass of scientific evidence which contradicts it. So, quite naturally, they repeat that it is a scientific fact. Although stating this does not actually make it so - no matter how sincere is either one's belief in it - or how profound is one's ignorance of the contradictory data.

On the first day, God created the Heaven And Earth. He also created light, which he divided among the two of them. Finally, he created water, to make the seas flow the next day.
First may I give the meaning of create? According to Word Web it means "To bring into existence". Might I suggest that "Organise" might be a better word to use. The reason I suggest this is that to create usually is interpreted to mean to make something from nothing, which even God cannot do. But He can organise matter which is already in existence to make the earth, the earth being the first to be organized. I am sorry if the answer is somewhat long winded but I thought some explanation might be in order.

One the first day of creation God created light, and seperated the light from the darkness. Therefore creating night and day.
and god said "let there be light"