In my view creation and the general concept of evolution (changes over time) are not mutually exclusive. Much of the debate seems to be over timing such as age of the earth and other when factors as well as specific changes and methods.
First of all, to understand the things of God you must first believe in God. I understand the things of Science because I believe in God and Science. An atheist and to a lesser extent an agnostic will never be able to properly understand the things of Science because they do not believe in God. Let us all seek the one true God and you will find him for he is near not far off.
Creationism and Science
1. I use the word Creationism to refer to the account of origin of species given in Genesis 1 and 2 of the King James Bible of 1611/1769.
2. There are two types of Science: that which includes Creationism and that which excludes Creationism. I subscribe to the former. In this section I hereafter use the word Science to refer to the latter.
3. Both Creationism and Science must begin with something so the question is who or what is that something and where did that something come from.
4. So then neither Creationism nor Science knows how that initial something came to be.
5. Science says that initial something divides and transforms/evolves itself over time.
6. Creationism says that something created many new somethings some with similarities and capacity to adapt to environmental changes such that none of the new affects the creator something that we call God.
7. The advantage of Creationism over Science is that Creationism can and does identify that something based on faith in a revelation as revealed in the KJV.
8. But Science cannot and does not make such a claim since Science is sight based whether by naked eye or instrument assisted. So Science has faith in its scientific methods in the absence of sight based proof to the contrary.
9. So both Creationism and Science require faith that an invisible something exists that is the source of all that is. Creationism claims that source has revealed himself/itself. Science says well we just don’t know.
10.I choose faith in the existence of a source that cares about me enough to reveal himself to me. You choose faith in the existence of a source that does not so care.
Darwin Theory of Evolution
Darwin Theory of Evolution assumes similarity means evolution from. But an Android and an IPhone have similarities but they are created machines not evolved machines. As I said similarity does not equate to evolution. Commonality does not equal evolution. We share traits with our parents and siblings. Yet we did not evolve from either. Parents created us through the capacity their/our creator gave them. Advances in scientific technology refutes evolution directly; indeed the cell phone was created by an intelligent designer with power greater than the cell phone. Shucks DNA advances demonstrates intentional design rather than arbitrary accidental events. Evolution is a made up theory proven wrong.
Some speak of macroevolution versus microevolution. To the extent microevolution means environmental adaptation it is reasonable and yet pro-Creationism. To the extent macroevolution means an animal turning into a human then that is unreasonable and anti-Creationism and rebuked by my example of Android and IPhone technological advances using good old fashion Common Sense. No Peer Study needed for the wise ones. Apply some good old fashion common sense to the modern knowledge of ancestry-descendancy including DNA, and the cell phone advances.
This should lead one to conclude that advances in science directly refute Darwin’s theory of Evolution.
According to the article referenced below Darwin was not an atheist but was rather an agnostic. An agnostic is one who says he does not know there is a God but he holds out that there might be one.
Darwin theorized that humans and monkeys have a common source. Darwin did not say that common source is God but he did not say it was not God. The bible says it is God.
So in my view it is reasonable to say God created humans with all the body parts humans have today but humans may have looked differently in the beginning and over time. The same can be said about all animals and other entities. Indeed, the events surrounding the creation of the woman Eve for the man Adam as given in Genesis 2 indicates there was a marked difference between the animals and humankind. Notice that all of the animals were brought before Adam; he gave them all names and the scripture says yet there was not found a helpmeet for him. But when Eve was created Adam immediately notes that she was like him suggesting the animals were not like him.
The article references a statement by Pope Francis. The National Catholic Registry provides the full statement. Pope Francis said the following:
“When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining God as a magus, with a magic wand able to make everything. But it is not so. He created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive and their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to the beings of the Universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a conjurer, but the Creator who gives being to all things.
The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Origin that creates out of love. The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”