If neither evolution (yes) nor creationism (no) were neither fact nor fiction, which view would you hold most comfortable as reality?

Asked by: Yarowold
  • The world is too awful to be comforted by God.

    Look at the world around you. Look at the wars, crime, bigotry, famine, poverty, and death that surrounds us. It's bad enough to think that the world is just naturally this way and we can't change it, but to think that there is an intelligent being who purposefully made it this way is downright suicide-inducing.

  • Yes, to be perfectly honest

    First, let me say that I am a Christian. That being said, in the absence of ANY supporting evidence for creation or evolution I would probably be more comfortable with evolution. This may sound like a contradiction to both creationists and evolutionists, but it is an honest answer. At a very early age the concept of evolution appealed to me and intrigued me. As an elementary school student I was instantly drawn to it in spite of my lack of knowledge of real evidence. It amazed me and it stirred an interest in the sciences. It appealed to my sense of discovery.

    I believe in a Creator, but this thought provoking question explores the feeling of comfort associated with a particular viewpoint in the absence of any supporting evidence. In a way it actually explores whether we are more willing to place faith in concept or a divine being as an explanation for our existence. In a strange way this question addresses the whole concept of faith in something which has yet to be proven.

  • Yes, I definately would.

    As Richard Dawkins once argued, religion is based off faith and science is based off skepticism and evidence. I would be much more comfy knowing the truth of the reality around me then knowing the a contradictory, hypocritical and I would say evil God rules over my own life. And I would rather learn about how I existed then how God made it exist through the faith-based broken theories.

  • Nature provides freedom.

    I, myself, would be more comfortable with evolution. The only laws organisms would be forced to obey is that of physics.

    Some might say that freedom entails a great risk, that humans would abuse it for greater advantage. That we need to have been designed from a superior template in order to function together and account for the fine-tuning we observe around us.

    On the other hand, maybe the condition of our world and humanity's development sprung, and is organized by, natural selection on both a cosmological and a organic scale. We would be able to explain how nature operates, and where we came from and where we might be headed.

    If not comfort, then evolution would provide certainty about us humans in such a way that encompasses many aspects of human nature. That is, if one where to examine on a closer look what is around us, we would eventually find many unexpected answers. And I would find much more comfort in the "how" rather than the "why".

  • Disregarding that Evolution is a fact...

    It is still a naturalistic explanation for the diversification of species and there is never ever a point where you should feel obliged to put in an unnecessary supernatural force because throughout the entirety of human history, things attributed to supernatural causes have been shown to be naturalistic (lightning, earthquakes, sickness, mental illness etc)

  • It makes sense.

    People are comfortable when things make sense. Evolution just makes too much sense for it not to be comfortable. Basing perceptions of the world based on objective observation of the world is just so natural, that given the choice, anyone would chose it over a random subjective interpretation created by religion.

  • I agree completely!

    Personally, I would feel a lot more comfortable with evolution. One reason being I would not like to put faith and trust into something that may not exist, and has no physical evidence of existing. I accept creationism as a theory, and do not quickly dismiss it as something completely unrealistic, even though it is on scientific terms. I am from a family who believes completely in a god, but they don't take other religions, or gods, into consideration- Like the chance of having multiple gods instead of just one, high ruling one. I disagree with them, and ask "how" and "why" questions.

  • The Natural world and me

    Considering we're not discussing fact or fiction, it defeats the purpose of why I enjoy exploring the wonders of nature.

    The reason why I enjoy the beauty of nature is because it's taken a long time and effect to come to the present point in time, disregarding the evidence is like telling us it's just a fairy tale, if so I'd take any other better tale over that.

    But because it's real and because we know how nature has been brought up to this point is the exact beauty that creationists miss the point on.

    So to answer your question, Yes nature but it's far better when you can review the evidence yourself because that's where the fun actually begins.

  • I could only go with that for which there is available, testable evidence, so Evolution would still Shine:

    If we scrapped Evolution and re-examined the world from scratch, we would still end up with Evolution. Even if Charles Darwin never existed, we would still have Evolution, possibly with a different name, but the concepts would still be Identical. That's the beauty of Science:
    The evidence is there for all to discover and test, so in the end, the concepts would be precisely the same. Charles Darwin may have initiated it earlier, but the theory would still arise, regardless.
    Charles Darwin was really inconsequential to Evolution.
    Many of the ideas existed long before he was born.

  • Evolution is a fact.

    It's rather difficult to conceptualize it as "neither fact nor fiction" when it's observable and supported by more hard evidence than almost any other scientific theory in history.

    Creationism is also a bit too ridiculous to be considered. It's the "science is too hard and I don't get it, so magic" response to understanding the world.

  • Yes , as far as evolution is concerned, and also the creation of earth,

    Well peoples have made both concepts opposing to each other, i consider it lack of knowledge. Evolution do not suggest ever that GOD do not exist. And also GOD never said evolution do not exist.
    As Muslim i know that most of confirmed parts of evolution, means those parts which confirmed by science are there mention in our holy book Quran. And there are many other which science cant understand or is silent or is searching. Should i not become amazed to see those processes mentioned in Quran, which world understand after spending billions of dollar.
    In my opinion evolution is systematic process or automatic process of creation. COZ ALLAH said in Quran "kun" means happen then that thing happens. Which means ALLAH do not create any thing with hands which he can but with saying word. And that automatic process starts. So it is also the evidence of the great powers of ALLAH.
    Because when u see the study of evolutionary process. I bet with you those scientist had taken the clues from Quran. They as being hypocrites or coz of there income issue and fame issue they dont mention it.
    Its long. I will debate soon IN SHA ALLAH.

  • Evolution is pseudoscience; but what we see in nature conforms to the idea of an Intelligent Designer creating the Cosmos.

    For nearly over a centuries now, research on evolution has still not verified the hypothesis. Even those research which tries to "support" evolution were either misled or later exposed as false. For brevity's sake, evolution has had fair amount of exposure and research. Scientists and academics should look to and now put to scientific scrutiny creation/ intelligent design just as they did to evolution. It is no wonder why Darwinism- a dogma held in such so-called "scientific" establishment are nothing but a front for the activities of the Church of Darwin. Now, my brothers, hear the Word of Darwin. Praise Darwin and preach the evolutionary gospel, amen! Romans 1:20 anyone?

  • I believe in god

    I don't believe the human race to be a mere coincedence there's no way possible that we dominated earth, we invented space travel, we advanced technology, we question our existence, we pushed ourselves forward and then be just like any other species. We learn from our mistakes. Give a monkey unlimited amount of time to make an iPhone, but I guarantee he will never succeed in doing so, our existence is not a mere coincidence. Our human characteristics act as proof that only god could have created us. To be considered a mere species, is like saying all these creations of man have no importance

  • Would evidence of God be comforting? Sure.

    I see no evidence to support a divine creation, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be comforted by such evidence. If the Earth is a big blue spaceship wobbling its way through the universe, it would be nice to know that there was a pilot at the helm from which we might infer a destination, a purpose for mankind. Clearly, most people must feel this way since so many are so motivated to look past the facts at hand and pretend certainty where none exists.

  • The theory of evolution is constantly changing

    The theory of evolution is constantly changing as scientists are constantly making new discoveries and debunking old ideas. IF both evolution and creationism were neither true nor untrue, the theory of creationism would be much more easy to agree with, due to the fact that its beliefs are already set in stone. Also, if not for evidence proving evolution, The idea of evolution would seem extremely Un-realistic and bizarre.

  • It would be easier to believe in god.

    If there was no evidence for either, than I would be more comfortable with creationism. It is easier to believe that there is a greater being that created everything, it makes us feel like there is a greater purpose than what we have experienced on this earth. If we live our lives believing that our short lives on this planet is all we will ever know, and that there is no after-life, it makes it harder to deal with death.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Jonbonbon says2014-01-24T23:31:36.167
Dude, your grammar broke down halfway through, and I have no idea what the crap you're asking.
Yarowold says2014-01-25T01:04:11.547
What I mean't was; if there were no proof of either position, which one would you be more comfortable with. And as for the grammar... Sorry, I wasn't really clear-minded when I wrote this.
Jonbonbon says2014-01-25T05:29:34.773
Alright, now I understand.
tahir.imanov says2014-01-25T20:16:07.367
As a Muslim, I would say this question does not apply to me. Because Theory of Evolution has no theological problem with Quran. The creation of the man may seen as only problem, but it is debatable. The problem of Muslims with atheists is that, atheists (or Atheists) say there is no divine intervention, but Muslims would say hand of God (metaphorically) guided it.
Rami says2015-06-01T00:45:50.693
Am I the only one who thinks that many people misunderstood this opinion?