The problem arises when scientists say "there is no God and you are foolish for believing in such a thing." And the creationists say "you're a fool for not!"
And the battle ensues.
So to get into the debate, the first thing that has to happen is God, in whatever form one chooses to believe, has to be defined. So what is God?
Is God merely a higher form of intelligence that has a way better grasp on the technology of life than we do? Does God have the power to give life as I mentioned in the previous post? So in order to have the debate, one has to set parameters on the idea of God. Scientists will say "there is no God!" However, will also admit that humans are continually evolving. And if we are evolving, what are we evolving to? Does ego not permit them to believe there could be a higher form of existence out there somewhere? That perhaps in the (supposedly) 13.8 billion years the universe has been around life had already reached levels we hadn't seen before and surpassed us? So will scientists that believe only in things they can prove deny the possibility that life could have evolved somewhere else and created life here? Because it defeats the whole purpose of science to dismiss a theory out of hand especially when they cannot explain the how and why of life as it is.
So this gets a little crazy when the idea of a creator of life (God) just so happens to coincide with the views of evolution since, again, people are evolving and eventually we should take that next step to a higher form of life. So if creationists believe God is a higher form of existence and evolutionists believe we will eventually evolve to a higher form of existence...
Is God that higher form of existence? Does the Bible not speak of God creating man in his own image? Does God not have a pretty firm grasp on the ability to create life according to religious views? Especially since we are unable to do so? So are the theories of evolution and creation so different really? Life was created from no life in the basic building blocks of matter. And then given the will to live. Scientists cannot explain how it happened, just that they believe it did. Evolution says the basic building blocks of life came together and eventually multiplied and continued to evolve. Creationists also say life was breathed into the basic building blocks. Of course, creationists also believe humans were fully developed so there is that factor. But creationists are also getting into the understanding that the Bible has a lot of metaphors and some things are not to be taken literally such as Noah carrying all the species of the world on the Ark.
Did a higher form of life, God if you will, create life as we know it and even influence our early history? Is there more in common between evolutionists and creationists than they care to admit? As stated, most people don't accept the 6000 year old Earth theory anymore. Science has proved that pretty well to be false. But scientists cannot tell you exactly how life started or rather what gave the basic elements of life the initial will to live. The "why" of it all. Creationists give the account of God, a higher form of being than humans, giving life on this planet.
So is there a middle ground to be achieved from science and religion?
