Can evolution and creation work together?

[Nimos]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

PS: I am not going to jump on anyone who wish to discuss this OP.
So both believers and non believers alike are welcome to discuss

It might change depending on what religion we are talking about.

But in creationism, it is said that animals were created after their kind, so a dog kind, a cat kind etc. Which is not what evolution tells us. So God in this case, if its the biblical one created, the dog or whatever kind they put them in, rather than that they evolved, from some other animal, which can be traced back to a common ancestor.

So even if you could accept that God put it in motion, one would at least have to admit that the bible is wrong or extremely vague on this.

 

[Heyo]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

PS: I am not going to jump on anyone who wish to discuss this OP.
So both believers and non believers alike are welcome to discuss

Yes, technically it could. Before t=10⁻⁴³ seconds, all laws of nature lose their validity. Everything before that is speculation.
Divine intervention past that point is magic and in conflict with science.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If you want to believe that but you still have the issue of how was a god or goddess (do not forget that a goddess could have started everything) were created. The theory of evolution does not need a god or goddess to start it but if you want to believe that is the way it started since none of us were there it is an option.

However if you want to apply a creation story whether it is from from what ever religion you will find no connection unless evolution is your creation story written not in books or words but written in the world itself.

Personally I believe it somewhat different the the question in the OP
My understanding is that the universe we are in now is only a series of universes that has existed. But yes a form of evolution do occur too

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This sounds like deism, the belief in a God who set things in motion then stepped back and let things unfold without further intervention.

Evolution and cause-and-effect are active and observable forces in the world, but the other premise, that there was a god at the beginning that started everything off, seems like pure speculation.
An intentional personage who left and leaves no evidence for himself seems like emotional comfort food. Is there any actual reason to believe such a being exists; any actual evidence?

We've been cultivating spiritual teachings for thousands of years, and looking for meaning and purpose. You'd think that after ten or twenty thousand years we'd have some of this figured out, that there would be some universally agreed on principles -- but there aren't. Our spiritual quest has got us nowhere, as a species. In fact, religious differences have contributed to a great deal of strife and misery.

A dispassionate, scientific approach, on the other hand, has magnified human understanding of nature and our place in it beyond the wildest imagination of our forbears, in just a couple hundred years.

It may not be intuitive, easy to understand, or comforting, it may not augment social bonds, but reason and logic yield objective truths. What we do with them is up to us.

So here we go. Have you ever come across the claim that knowledge is conditional? Or wonder how it is that we have the distinction between methodological naturalism versus philosophical/metaphysical naturalism?
Have you wondered about that? Or how it is that there is no absolute truth or how come epistemological rationalism doesn't work as reason and logic yield objective truths? Or how it is that Agrippa's 5 tropes against justification have never been refuted?
Or indeed what the problem of what a thing in itself(das Ding an sich) is?

In short what if there is a limit to evidence, that you have overlook and your claim of "...observable forces in the world.." is also pure speculation? Or that "reason and logic yield objective truths" don't work?
As far as I can tell you are conflating in effect methodological naturalism versus philosophical/metaphysical naturalism and epistemological rationalism, and treating them as one.

So philosophy it is.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

A "form" of evolution? There's only one "form" of biological evolution. And it's the process detailed in the theory of biological evolution.

Having said that: sure it "can". It could also have been an extra-dimensional unicorn.
But since there is no valid / rational reason to believe or even suggest that, why would I entertain such an idea?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

No. "correct" is that which can be objectively and independently verified and confirmed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The only "evidence" I can think of is that I can not see how a world like our universe can create it self from nothing (nothing means no form of God or creator) but in my limited understanding it more likely that a being set it in motion.

That's not "evidence", not even using quotes. Insterad, it's an acknowledgement of ignorance which is then used in an argument from ignorance. More specifically, as you worded it, an argument from incredulity.

It's a fallacy.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That's not "evidence", not even using quotes. Insterad, it's an acknowledgement of ignorance which is then used in an argument from ignorance. More specifically, as you worded it, an argument from incredulity.

It's a fallacy.

It was a reason I wrote " evidence" because it is my own understanding, not a scientific proof.
You can view it as you wish.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But I must then immediately point out that the creative part of that cooperative effort would immediately lose control.

What do you mean by that?

This is one of the big fears about Artificial Intelligence (AI) for example:

A fear, which mostly lives in hyped up media. When techies like Elon Musk express a fear of AI, it concerns how such technology might be implemented and used. Tesla's are packed with AI. I can assure you that Musk doesn't fear his cars to learn to become a terminator.

It may be (and now surely is) possible to teach a machine how to learn on its own.

But only within the parameters it is initially created for. People tend to misunderstand or ignore that part.

Let's continue with the Tesla example.
The self-driving function of a Tesla car might be connected to a cloud based self-learning AI, which over time makes Tesla cars better at self-driving. And this based on a variety of factors. For example: it would become better at anticipating weather conditions and how the breaks, speed etc could better respond to icy roads or certain types of wind or alike. And all that to increase safety. And over time, after analysing ridiculous amounts of "experience" data, they will become ridiculously good and driving safely.

If the AI is made for making self-driving cars safer, then that is what that AI engine will be learning. It won't suddenly learn the car how it can become a suicide bomb in a self-invented quest to exterminate all humans.

AI engines aren't like human brains. They can only learn the things they are made for.

Having done so, however, the programmer who managed the feat will have little control over what happens next.

Only in terms of what it will be learning within the parameters it was build for.
And that is kind of logical, because if the programmer didn't need the AI engine for the "safety algorithm" to become so good, then he could just write the perfect safety algorithm right from the beginning, without needing a long period for the AI to continuously improve such a function.

This is pretty much the same story as with genetic algorithms - essentially an optimisation module.
If the engineers at Boeing knew from the start how to develop a highly efficient fuel/fluid distribution system in their airplanes, then they wouldn't have commissioned the development of such a GA system to evolve one... instead, they would have just designed it themselves.


Another big point I feel like making here, is that the analogy between evolution and AI is a false one.
An AI has an intended goal. Evolution does not.

An AI can be thought of as an entity as wel: a program. Evolution isn't an entity nore a program. Instead, it's an inevitable process.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To each their own

No, sorry.

You have a right to your own beliefs - no matter how crazy they are.
You do not have a right to your own version of the facts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe that both do work together - just not in the way that any of us realize or understand.

So if you have no understanding or realization of it whatsoever... why do you believe it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

No. "Correct" is that which can be objectively and independently verified and confirmed.

Let us test that: "Correct" is that which can be objectively and independently verified and confirmed.
What does that sentence require? That someone believes it. The content/meaning of the sentence is subjective and thus it can't itself be objectively and independently verified and confirmed.

That is the trick, all of you, objectivists, as objectively verifiable, believe in. You make a subjective rule, which is not correct itself according to its requirements for being correct and that you deny that it is relevant, when it is pointed out.

You are so easy and in effect you are no different that some religious people. You ignore that you are subjective and claim subjectively in effect that the objective is the only thing that matters. That it matters, is subjective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It was a reason I wrote " evidence" because it is my own understanding, not a scientific proof.
You can view it as you wish.

It's not my "wish" to view it as a fallacy.

It factually is a fallacy. Textbook-style, even.

"I don't know / understand, therefor god dun it".

 

[HonestJoe]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

That's logically possible but there is absolutely no reason to believe it is the case, certainly not about any specifically defined creator.

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

No. Religion doesn't have an answer because religion is an abstract concept. All sorts of religious people have come up with a massive range of different answers. Only a tiny proportion of those are close to what you describe and pretty much all of them will add a whole load of other unsupported details and assumptions.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It's not my "wish" to view it as a fallacy.

It factually is a fallacy. Textbook-style, even.

"I don't know / understand, therefor god dun it".

You do realize that I write " in my understanding" because I do not hold the full answer, but it is how I understand it in the current moment.

I do not claim to be correct not do I claim that all I say must be wrong.
All I do is to answer out of how I "Amanaki" understand the topic we discuss.

I can not and will not be able to answer different then how I understand something.
If you have a different understanding or view, that is totally up to you.

But I am not going to let you dictate what I can or can not believe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let us test that:

Ok. Let's take the statement: "if I'm on earth and drop my keys, they will shoot of into space".

We then have a million people on earth drop their keys and observe the keys falling to earth every single time. We also have a theory of gravity explaining why that happens. This theory itself can also be tested independently.

So, these tests show the statement to be incorrect.

Do the same for the statement "if I'm on earth and drop my keys, they will fall to earth".
Now we can conclude that the statement is correct, as independent testing will show every single time.


It's not hard.


And since I fully anticipate you once again coming back with ridiculous arguments about objectivity and how you can't "know" that they will always fall to earth....

Here's a bet which I'm 120% sure that you won't take: I'll happily literally bet everything I own, including the clothes I'm wearing, that next time I drop my keys, they'll fall to earth and not shoot into space instead. Will you take the bet?

"Correct" is that which can be objectively and independently verified and confirmed.
What does that sentence require? That someone believes it. The content/meaning of the sentence is subjective and thus it can't itself be objectively and independently verified and confirmed.

That is the trick, all of you, objectivists, as objectively verifiable, believe in. You make a subjective rule, which is not correct itself according to its requirements for being correct and that you deny that it is relevant, when it is pointed out.

You are so easy and in effect you are no different that some religious people. You ignore that you are subjective and claim subjectively in effect that the objective is the only thing that matters. That it matters, is subjective.

Gratz on once again completely missing the point and instead poisoning the point with a toxic mix of misrepresentation and half-philosophical gibber gabber which has nothing to do with the point being made.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok. Let's take the statement: "if I'm on earth and drop my keys, they will shoot of into space".

We then have a million people on earth drop their keys and observe the keys falling to earth every single time. We also have a theory of gravity explaining why that happens. This theory itself can also be tested independently.

So, these tests show the statement to be incorrect.

Do the same for the statement "if I'm on earth and drop my keys, they will fall to earth".
Now we can conclude that the statement is correct, as independent testing will show every single time.


It's not hard.


And since I fully anticipate you once again coming back with ridiculous arguments about objectivity and how you can't "know" that they will always fall to earth....

Here's a bet which I'm 120% sure that you won't take: I'll happily literally bet everything I own, including the clothes I'm wearing, that next time I drop my keys, they'll fall to earth and not shoot into space instead. Will you take the bet?




Gratz on once again completely missing the point and instead poisoning the point with a toxic mix of misrepresentation and half-philosophical gibber gabber which has nothing to do with the point being made.

Now you don't even represent my argument in the correct manner.
Here is objective in its 3 different versions as relevant to your usage:

1. expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
2. of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
3. having reality independent of the mind.

It is the 3rd one, where you are doing philosophy and aren't even aware of it.

So my objection is about the 3rd one, where as you focus on the 2nd one.

 

[Kenny]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

PS: I am not going to jump on anyone who wish to discuss this OP.
So both believers and non believers alike are welcome to discuss

For some Christians evolution can be a reality except when it comes to man as we know him today.

The Bible doesn't express "how" God created the animal kingdom, just that He spoke and were created.

But in reference to man, he formed man.

 

[Fool]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

PS: I am not going to jump on anyone who wish to discuss this OP.
So both believers and non believers alike are welcome to discuss

no there is no heavenly being vs earthly being, its just being with no qualifier other than loving being maybe. its a loving mind, loving consciousness, loving spirit that doesn't have an exact form but does infinite forms and is eternally active

 

[Aupmanyav]

OP: Not for me at least.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The only "evidence" I can think of is that I can not see how a world like our universe can create it self from nothing (nothing means no form of God or creator) but in my limited understanding it more likely that a being set it in motion.

Can you understand/comprehend how a crystal might form itself? How a star is constantly in motion and turmoil due to the massive forces of gravity working on its content? How water becomes precipitation, which in turn helps feed moving rivers, ultimately feeding into lakes and oceans as the process continually starts itself over and over again?

Matter is in motion and participating in complex activities all across the universe, at all times. The Earth itself could definitely have formed without an intervening hand according to the rules and conditions we see unfolding in the universe around us. But toss "consciousness" in there and people's minds go absolutely bonkers.