The Foundations of the Debate

Apart from the quest for knowledge, why are we discussing this?(by "this" I mean creation/evolution) I've heard many evolutionistssay that there is no reason for arguing about creation and evolutionbecause the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God.Is this claim valid? If it is, why does this website exist?

My personal dispute with evolution is not that they don't deny theexistence of God, but that they have created a world in which God isnot necessary. The TOE is not dependant on God! This conflicts withBiblical Christianity because the Bible indicates that the methodwith which God created the Earth made it obvious that He created it.Here's a logical question. If God wanted it to be obvious that Hecreated the Earth, why would He create it in a way where He is notnecessary for its creation? Theistic evolutionists and intelligentdesign proponents have put God at the playwright's desk, where he ismerely starting the machine, but the Bible puts God at center stage.According to the Bible, human instinct is to want to live in a worldwhere they are not responsible to God. That is exactly what the manycontributors to the TOE have done. They may not say it, but the TOEof evolution makes it so they do not have to be accountable to oreven believe in God, whether unconciously or consciously done.A smart man once said (summarized) According to the Bible only God can change man's heart. Meaning,unless there is a supernatural intervention, Creationists andEvolutionists will never agree. In conclusion, that is why thedebate exists, because evolutionists have insisted on creating aworld where they do not need God, and creationists have insisted ondisagreeing with them.

He wanted it to be obvious so that those who know him will praise himand those who don't will have no excuse for not praising him. You're reading too much into my illustration. What I meant was thatin the TOE, God, if he exists takes the back seat to naturalselection and abiogenesis, while in the Bible, he is the Creator,orchestrating every part of his creation. I believe in a literalinterpretation of Genesis by-the-way. Why? Because context countswhen you're studying the Bible. If Genesis was poetry or prophecy,or some other type of writing which used a lot of symbolism, then Iwould be inclined to a less literal interpretation, but becauseGenesis is entirely styled in the historical narrative, I takeCreation literally as much as I take the fact that Methuselah lived nnearly 1000 years, or that Jacob had 12 sons literally.

Yes, but I think that producing such evidence would be next to impossible, because Genesis gives very little scientific data, it only summarizes events. Therefore, it would be difficult to point to a specific event and say, "That could never have happened". And anyway, that was not the point I was making. The point is that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the only logical way to take, because it is the only view that is consistent with the rest of the book.

Creating worlds is a poor choice of words on my part. The worldview evolution is a part of does not depend on God. That is all I meant.

Maybe I should make a whole new thread based on the obviousness of creation, but if I tried to do it justice here, it would go completely off-topic (the topic is by-the-way why we argue about creation/evolution). And God is clearly referred to as male in the Bible, though, as a spirit, he technically has no gender.

I'd like to see that story, it sound very intruiging. I don't meanthat as a challenge to whether or not the story is true, by-the-way,it really does sound like an interesting story. As for yourquestion, I really don't know how I would classify the analogy oftwo geniuses to powered flight. What's your point?

You are missing the point of my argument. I am merely representingthe Creationist viewpoint in which the possibility of a worldwithout God is a very serious matter indeed. I never said that Iwill not consider the possibility that God does not exist. I am justsaying that the reason that there is a debate because Christianshave a very hard time accepting the TOE because it does not need Godto work. From a Biblical Christian's point of view, that is not anoption, God must have been necessary for the creation of the Earth. Take your doubts about the validity of the Bible to The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum.

True. A God who doesn't need evolution is even more awesome.Aren't you glad I didn't use the word awesomer?

That depends on the opionion of the person you are talking to. Somepeople think that the "truth as uncovered by science" is evidence ofthe existence of God.

Or, as I said earlier, the problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it denies the existence of God, but that evolution does not need God. Hence the debate.