Creationism and how it can be true.

[fallingblood]

Often, in debates concerning creationism and evolution, the argument tends to turn to an either/or mentality. Either you believe what I say, or you're wrong and ignorant (and ignorant is one of the nicer terms used). However, such a position is foolish, and only hampers actual understanding and acceptance. I am proposing here that a both/and solution is just as possible, where creationism is recognized not as opposed to evolution, but an idea that can peacefully coexist.

The form of creationism that is usually criticized is a literalistic view of the Biblical creation stories. In particular, an extreme literalism, which often manifests itself in the Young Earth Creationism viewpoint, is critiqued, but more so, it is argued as if that is the only form of creationism. Often it is misconstrued as Intelligent Design, or pretty much the only form of creationism (or even the dominant form), which simply is incorrect on all three accounts.

What is often left out are the many forms of creationism, that make up the majority belief, that do accept part of all of the scientific explanation of evolution. This includes a variety of different forms of Pagan forms of creationism (which make up a considerable amount of adherents), to more deist views such as proposed by likes such as Thomas Morgan, which states that God created the world, but then left it alone (as in, he was the beginning cause). Even much of the ideas of Intelligent Design (there are different schools of thought within this group) accept evolution as a fact, but believe that God had a part in it.

This is where we get to the real meat of the discussion, as these forms of creationism in no way oppose evolution. Evolution does not tell us, nor can science tell us (at this point), how life first originated. Evolution does not tell us that, but instead starts after life first originated and began changing or evolving. Evolution also does not tell us how the world formed, or how the universe formed, as that is not what evolution is about. There are other theories regarding the formation of the world and the universe, but they do not necessarily disagree with these other forms of creationism either.

More so, since science can not tell us how this all first began forming (the Big Bang is not an explanation as it only gets us to the a certain point, and does not explain how this matter first came to be, or how it all happened to converge), and really does not contradict the idea that a supreme being was the initial cause or the beginning. The two ideas do not need to be opposed, and in fact, most don't see it that way.

So when talking about evolution, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. One can also accept creationism, and be very well-informed about the nature of evolution and the scientific theories that explain the formation of the world. One can accept creationism, and at the same time, accept evolution and have no actual problem there. One can even accept evolution, and that God created humans, and have no actual problem. It doesn't need to be an either/or situation, and future talks do need to actually realize that, as well as the diversity in the idea of creationism. Otherwise it just alienates people.

 

[Breathe]

Otherwise it just alienates people.

I totally agree.

Many people incorrectly believe you can't believe in God and evolution. This does a lot of damage and people exploit this kind of ignorant mode of thinking and puts people further apart; this goes to help the ones who want to make the world into a theocracy, and the ones who want to rid the world of religion. In my opinion, both groups are more or less the same; the literalist and the anti-theist have the same religious beliefs, only one thinks they're not true, while the other thinks they are.

Although I consider theistic evolution to be a form of evolution, and not a form of creationism, personally, so I'm probably making a mistake. Perhaps next time someone says "I am a creationist" online (since I've never met a creationist IRL), I will say "What kind of creationist?" or "Evolution with God?", instead.

Just my ignorant opinion.

 

[R34L1TY]

I personally don't care about Creationism. If you want to deny your own existance, go ahead. The problem I have is when you got religious groups knocking on the door of Science Classes. **** off, if you're that ridiculous you should be excavated from socializing with worldy people. Why not put Creationists on one big island? They would all be happy there. Regardless..Tear down the Creationists Museum, keep the bible talk to Churches and in the walls of your house. If you deny the facts.. Well that's why you're not a Scientist.

As for your "how life oriented" what do you mean by that?

 

[R34L1TY]

I totally agree.

Many people incorrectly believe you can't believe in God and evolution.

This is true. You can believe whatever you'd like, that's fine. But when people go too far, that is when measures need to be taken. I have no problem with talking about Religion with someone. That's fine that you believe in a God, but if you're going to tell me there is no evidence to Evolution..well you need to be educated.

 

[Breathe]

This is true. You can believe whatever you'd like, that's fine. But when people go too far, that is when measures need to be taken. I have no problem with talking about Religion with someone. That's fine that you believe in a God, but if you're going to tell me there is no evidence to Evolution..well you need to be educated.

Indeed, although the denial of evolution is very recent (as some of our older members will inform you) which makes me think politically (for lack of a better word) motivated and is reactionary against anti-theism, propagated further by ignorance of what evolution actually teaches, and, well, just ignorance.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Evolution does not tell us that, but instead starts after life first originated and began changing or evolving.

You have an excellent point and for all intents and purposes I'd say I agree. However, there is one aspect to the argument (or perhaps proposition?) you present which might pose difficulties. It is true that evolution is, strictly speaking, not concerned with how life began (those who study evolution may also study this issue, and various journals, conferences, organizations, etc., which are concerned with evolution or publish on the topic may include discussions and publications on the origins of life; however, any such material has necessarily gone beyond the theory of evolution). It is also (and necessarily) true, then, that no theory of evolution can contain a theory of life's origins which excludes divine explanation, because such a theory consists of more than evolutionary processes and hence is not just a theory of evolution.

However, the nature of science and of the scientific method (as it is usually understood), still poses a problem for any theory of creationism, at least potentially. Even (to quote Pinker) a "sophisticated deism", in which the creator simply set things in motion in a certain way, can be said to conflict with the theory of evolution, because any scientific theory of evolutionary processes necessarily restricts the "causes" of these processes to natural forces. For those like Francis S. Collins, who (if memory serves) posit a God who created the "initial conditions" behind the origins of life as well as the "natural laws" which in turn ensured evolution would have certain results, there remains a conflict with the ToE in that although evolutionary research does not include the origins of life, it does preclude divine mechanisms underlying evolutionary processes, from the initial conditions of the universe and the laws of nature up to and including any "tweaking" (for want of a better term) of the environment in which life originated such that evolution would consist of x set of processes and not y.

Thus, while experts in fields related to evolution (e.g., Behe, Collins, Peacocke) may argue, perhaps correctly, that the processes which the theory of evolution describes (or, alternatively, which are evolution) are in some way the work of divinity, and that this view does not conflict with any findings in the fields behind research on evolution, even if true that does not mean there is no conflict between such a view and the theory of evolution.

For many, I imagine this distinction is trivial. However, I find it hard to believe that those like Dawkins (or those like his fans) would agree, because it means that divine will is in some way behind evolution (even if only in the sense posited by the weakest form of deism). This in turn means that something which is very much the within the realm of scientific inquiry is at the same time very much the product of, or influenced by, something which is not within the realm of scientific inquiry.

Personally, I don't see the problem, as long as scientists continue to look for explanations and to construct theories using the scientific method. So long as this holds true, if it turns out that we can explain everything without recourse to divine power, or that we can't, or that it is impossible to know whether we can or can't, the scientific endeavour remains uninhibited. Only when scientists abandon attempts construct explanations and theories without invoking divinity (or some equally unfalsifiable explanation just to avoid the possibility admitting "we can't know"), do I see a problem. But as I probably have too little in common with those who have strong beliefs about the issue, I'm likely missing numerous objections.

 

[PolyHedral]

(the Big Bang is not an explanation as it only gets us to the a certain point, and does not explain how this matter first came to be, or how it all happened to converge)

God doesn't explain either of these things either. It simply kicks the question of "How did it appear?" back one step.

 

[Super Universe]

I personally don't care about Creationism. If you want to deny your own existance, go ahead. The problem I have is when you got religious groups knocking on the door of Science Classes. **** off, if you're that ridiculous you should be excavated from socializing with worldy people. Why not put Creationists on one big island? They would all be happy there. Regardless..Tear down the Creationists Museum, keep the bible talk to Churches and in the walls of your house. If you deny the facts.. Well that's why you're not a Scientist.

As for your "how life oriented" what do you mean by that?

You don't care about Creationism? It doesn't care about you.

What Creationist denies their own existence?

You have a problem with religious groups knocking on the doors of science classes? What are you afraid of?

They should be excavated from socializing with wordly people? Uh, you're not in charge and what of the world have you seen?

Why not put Creationists on one big island? You're very outnumbered so our island would be all the continents and yours would be the Galapagos, appropriatte, don't you think?

Aren't you the one who thought the earth impacting meteor that created the moon was the same that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?

Maybe before you "think" you're a scientist, you should actually become a scientist.

 

[Super Universe]

You have an excellent point and for all intents and purposes I'd say I agree. However, there is one aspect to the argument (or perhaps proposition?) you present which might pose difficulties. It is true that evolution is, strictly speaking, not concerned with how life began (those who study evolution may also study this issue, and various journals, conferences, organizations, etc., which are concerned with evolution or publish on the topic may include discussions and publications on the origins of life; however, any such material has necessarily gone beyond the theory of evolution). It is also (and necessarily) true, then, that no theory of evolution can contain a theory of life's origins which excludes divine explanation, because such a theory consists of more than evolutionary processes and hence is not just a theory of evolution.

However, the nature of science and of the scientific method (as it is usually understood), still poses a problem for any theory of creationism, at least potentially. Even (to quote Pinker) a "sophisticated deism", in which the creator simply set things in motion in a certain way, can be said to conflict with the theory of evolution, because any scientific theory of evolutionary processes necessarily restricts the "causes" of these processes to natural forces. For those like Francis S. Collins, who (if memory serves) posit a God who created the "initial conditions" behind the origins of life as well as the "natural laws" which in turn ensured evolution would have certain results, there remains a conflict with the ToE in that although evolutionary research does not include the origins of life, it does preclude divine mechanisms underlying evolutionary processes, from the initial conditions of the universe and the laws of nature up to and including any "tweaking" (for want of a better term) of the environment in which life originated such that evolution would consist of x set of processes and not y.

Thus, while experts in fields related to evolution (e.g., Behe, Collins, Peacocke) may argue, perhaps correctly, that the processes which the theory of evolution describes (or, alternatively, which are evolution) are in some way the work of divinity, and that this view does not conflict with any findings in the fields behind research on evolution, even if true that does not mean there is no conflict between such a view and the theory of evolution.

For many, I imagine this distinction is trivial. However, I find it hard to believe that those like Dawkins (or those like his fans) would agree, because it means that divine will is in some way behind evolution (even if only in the sense posited by the weakest form of deism). This in turn means that something which is very much the within the realm of scientific inquiry is at the same time very much the product of, or influenced by, something which is not within the realm of scientific inquiry.

Personally, I don't see the problem, as long as scientists continue to look for explanations and to construct theories using the scientific method. So long as this holds true, if it turns out that we can explain everything without recourse to divine power, or that we can't, or that it is impossible to know whether we can or can't, the scientific endeavour remains uninhibited. Only when scientists abandon attempts construct explanations and theories without invoking divinity (or some equally unfalsifiable explanation just to avoid the possibility admitting "we can't know"), do I see a problem. But as I probably have too little in common with those who have strong beliefs about the issue, I'm likely missing numerous objections.

Evolution is not concerned with how life began? That's because it doesn't explain it. The scientists would love to have one theory about how life began and evolved, it just doesn't work so they say "Well, evolution is not concerned with it", bull, they wish more than anything that it did.

No theory of evolution can contain a theory of life's origins which excludes divine explanation? So you have proof that there is not a superior alien race out there who goes around planting life?

Any scientific theory of evolutionary processes restricts the causes of natural evolutionary forces? Not if it's built in to DNA to evolve. You guys just don't think for yourselves at all, no imagination whatsoever. You're so used to having others figure everything out for you.

Name one evolutionary process, or any other process, that precludes divine intention.

You find it hard to believe that Dawkins would agree? So, Dawkins is not in charge. Does the wind check with Dawkins before it does it's thing? Does the rain? Does DNA before it divides? Nope. Not even his own DNA does.

Not yet but down the road a bit the real scientists are going to come up against a wall and the only way to get around that wall is to include God in their theories.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I personally don't care about Creationism. If you want to deny your own existance, go ahead. The problem I have is when you got religious groups knocking on the door of Science Classes. **** off, if you're that ridiculous you should be excavated from socializing with worldy people. Why not put Creationists on one big island? They would all be happy there. Regardless..Tear down the Creationists Museum, keep the bible talk to Churches and in the walls of your house. If you deny the facts.. Well that's why you're not a Scientist.

As for your "how life oriented" what do you mean by that?

This is true. You can believe whatever you'd like, that's fine. But when people go too far, that is when measures need to be taken. I have no problem with talking about Religion with someone. That's fine that you believe in a God, but if you're going to tell me there is no evidence to Evolution..well you need to be educated.

I could write an entire response to the above, from the problems with the status of the scientific enterprise inherent in the posts, along with the view of "science" as a far more unified entity than it really is, to the issues (both theoretical and practical) which result from attributing objectivity to the ill-defined (or variously defined) scientific method and its practitioners compared even to religious beliefs, but I think the final clause in the second quote above makes this unnecessary at the moment.

 

[Father Heathen]

You have a problem with religious groups knocking on the doors of science classes? What are you afraid of?

No one is "afraid" of anything. The fact of the matter is that only science belongs in science class.

Why not put Creationists on one big island? You're very outnumbered so our island would be all the continents and yours would be the Galapagos, appropriatte, don't you think?

Actually, the whole evolution vs. creationism debate is only prevalent in the U.S., the the vast majority of the rest of modern, civilized world accept evolution. The only places outside the U.S. where creationism prevails is in 3rd world countries that have lackluster education and/or are ruled by theocracies.

Aren't you the one who thought the earth impacting meteor that created the moon was the same that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?

The only people I can see saying such a thing are creationists trying to concoct another ridiculous straw man.

 

[Super Universe]

No one is "afraid" of anything. The fact of the matter is that only science belongs in science class.



Actually, the whole evolution vs. creationism debate is only prevalent in the U.S., the the vast majority of the rest of modern, civilized world accept evolution. The only places outside the U.S. where creationism prevails is in 3rd world countries that have lackluster education and/or are ruled by theocracies.

The only people I can see saying such a thing are creationists trying to concoct another ridiculous straw man.

So no new ideas? Only peer reviewed theories? Who decides what is science and what isn't? You?

The vast majority of the modern, civilized world accepts evolution? But with a Creator.

From the "Why didn't God stop the Super Storm Sandy?" thread:

I think that if we focused on methods to understand and control the climate on our Earth, that, that would be a much better way of going about protecting ourselves. We look at all these storms as "Natural Disasters" but yet why don't we actually do something about it? Is it inhumane to be able to control the world we live in? Perhaps I am being a bit too futuristic for some but the idea is there.
What happens if Earth gets tilted off its axis? We die. Our planet spirals out of the goldilocks zone, we freeze. Everything on earth dies. So why not put more money into THAT, generate more Scientists and Engineers to work and contribute to the devlopment of instruments that can stop hurricanes and massive tsunamis.
We spend more money on the idea to blow each other up than we do on protecting our species and all living creatures existance.
Just a Futuristic idea.

　

If the earth gets tilted off it's axis, whatever caused that would wipe out all life.

Not necessarily ^ although very probable. (We did survive the impact that took out the dinasours and originally put us on our axis).
I like your profile picture, its so much prettier without the picture of borders and "countries"

He thought the earth impact that caused the formation of the moon was the same that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs but there is a few billions years between the two.

 

[Father Heathen]

So no new ideas? Only peer reviewed theories? Who decides what is science and what isn't? You?

The scientific method, evidence, logic.

The vast majority of the modern, civilized world accepts evolution? But with a Creator.

Theistic evolution is fine.

 

[Super Universe]

The scientific method, evidence, logic.



Theistic evolution is fine.

Does the scientific method work for String Theory? What evidence for it? What logic?

 

[Father Heathen]

Does the scientific method work for String Theory? What evidence for it? What logic?

I don't know or care enough about string theory to defend or form an opinion on it. I believe that has more to do with mathematics than anything else.

 

[Super Universe]

I don't know or care enough about string theory to defend or form an opinion on it. I believe that has more to do with mathematics than anything else.

String Theory does have to do with mathematics because the scientists are having a tough time coming up with experiments to test it so other scientists are suggesting the whole idea should be abandoned because it's inherently non-testable.

But that is putting your made up rules higher than the truth. It's like saying "We don't care if string theory is true because there is no way to verify it".

 

[idav]

Often, in debates concerning creationism and evolution, the argument tends to turn to an either/or mentality. Either you believe what I say, or you're wrong and ignorant (and ignorant is one of the nicer terms used). However, such a position is foolish, and only hampers actual understanding and acceptance. I am proposing here that a both/and solution is just as possible, where creationism is recognized not as opposed to evolution, but an idea that can peacefully coexist.

I tend to think evolution goes against intelligent design, however I don't necessarily thing it has to be both intelligent and design for it to be meaningful.

The form of creationism that is usually criticized is a literalistic view of the Biblical creation stories. In particular, an extreme literalism, which often manifests itself in the Young Earth Creationism viewpoint, is critiqued, but more so, it is argued as if that is the only form of creationism. Often it is misconstrued as Intelligent Design, or pretty much the only form of creationism (or even the dominant form), which simply is incorrect on all three accounts.

Though I have seen this, there is also argument that humans were not specially designed and are about equal with the other primates. Most of the idea of creationism is in order to make humans special which isn't wrong, the question is how "special".

What is often left out are the many forms of creationism, that make up the majority belief, that do accept part of all of the scientific explanation of evolution. This includes a variety of different forms of Pagan forms of creationism (which make up a considerable amount of adherents), to more deist views such as proposed by likes such as Thomas Morgan, which states that God created the world, but then left it alone (as in, he was the beginning cause). Even much of the ideas of Intelligent Design (there are different schools of thought within this group) accept evolution as a fact, but believe that God had a part in it.

I can totally accept god having a part but I have yet to see anyone actually show where god intervenes if at all within the evolutionary paradigm. Can be so hidden that it's unprovable in which case nothing anyone finds could refute creationism.

This is where we get to the real meat of the discussion, as these forms of creationism in no way oppose evolution. Evolution does not tell us, nor can science tell us (at this point), how life first originated. Evolution does not tell us that, but instead starts after life first originated and began changing or evolving. Evolution also does not tell us how the world formed, or how the universe formed, as that is not what evolution is about. There are other theories regarding the formation of the world and the universe, but they do not necessarily disagree with these other forms of creationism either.

Your speaking of biological evolution. Chemical evolution gets involved in the actual abiogenisis of life.

More so, since science can not tell us how this all first began forming (the Big Bang is not an explanation as it only gets us to the a certain point, and does not explain how this matter first came to be, or how it all happened to converge), and really does not contradict the idea that a supreme being was the initial cause or the beginning. The two ideas do not need to be opposed, and in fact, most don't see it that way.

Kind of a gap thing here. There is plenty of evidence of how the sun formed and how each planet in the solar system all formed differently using the same elements. Earth became a water planet and if that was some sort of divine intervention I'd be happy to hear about it.

So when talking about evolution, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. One can also accept creationism, and be very well-informed about the nature of evolution and the scientific theories that explain the formation of the world. One can accept creationism, and at the same time, accept evolution and have no actual problem there. One can even accept evolution, and that God created humans, and have no actual problem. It doesn't need to be an either/or situation, and future talks do need to actually realize that, as well as the diversity in the idea of creationism. Otherwise it just alienates people.

I agree that it is not an either or. Anything created would evolve. So what has to be shown is intelligent intervention of some sort. ID needs some sort of credence.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Does the scientific method work for String Theory? What evidence for it? What logic?

Which string theory?

String Theory does have to do with mathematics because the scientists are having a tough time coming up with experiments to test it so other scientists are suggesting the whole idea should be abandoned because it's inherently non-testable.

No, string theories have to do with mathematics because the entirety of physics has to do with mathematics. The difficulty with some aspects of physics is that we know something is missing, and we can in many cases say which theories fail to fill the gap, but for others we can't (at least yet) go beyond the theoretical. However, as often enough theory comes before confirmation (sometimes long before), this isn't an "unscientific" approach. And scientists who believe "the whole idea should be abandoned" do not think it is untestable, as some versions were tested and falsified.

But that is putting your made up rules higher than the truth. It's like saying "We don't care if string theory is true because there is no way to verify it".

It's nothing like that. The problem is one of interpretation: we can conduct certain experiments and take certain measurements, and these produce particular results. We can, for example, prepare quantum systems and produce accurate measurements consistent with predictions. The problem is that while the mathematical descriptions are consistent with the results, we don't always know what they are describing.

Imagine you have millions of coins and you drop them at various heights from various structures. They all fall. You drop other items, and they also fall. You try to throw items up (and jump up yourself) and you fall back down. What's causing this? You can produce a name, measurements, predictions which are consistent with results, all without knowing what is going on. And at least until Einstein (and to a certain extent still today) that's still true. That doesn't mean there's no gravity.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I think everyone knows that you can mix creationism and evolution - the question is; what's the point?

 

[Breathe]

I think everyone knows that you can mix creationism and evolution - the question is; what's the point?

Because some people believe God uses science?