Creationism and Evolution. Conflict or reconciliation.

[firedragon]

Just to make sure that this thread also does not become a debate about the definition of creationism, I am not referring to the wave of YEC or is it Young Earth Creationists. By creationism I mean the typical theistic stand that the universe was a creation and God exists and was/is the creator.

Thus, with this understanding it might be an interesting discussion to analyse what you have to say.

In the past there have been some mainstream theologians who propagated evolution. The query is, is evolution necessarily debunking creationism?

 

[darkskies]

The query is, is evolution necessarily debunking creationism?

No.

 

[firedragon]

No.

Great. Thanks.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It would depend on how one perceives "creation."

If we are speaking of "creation" as a concept where species exist today as they did at the time of creation, then yes, evolution necessarily debunks creation.

However, if we are speaking of "creation" as going back to the origin of the universe, with natural selection being the process of how species evolved, then I don't think there is anything to debunk, given it is not known for certain what kickstarted everything.

But you're asking someone who has an understanding that the reality we perceive is illusory anyway.

 

[firedragon]

It would depend on how one perceives "creation."

If we are speaking of "creation" as a concept where species exist today as they did at the time of creation, then yes, evolution necessarily debunks creation.

However, if we are speaking of "creation" as going back to the origin of the universe, with natural selection being the process of how species evolved, then I don't think there is anything to debunk, given it is not known for certain what kickstarted everything.

But you're asking someone who has an understanding that the reality we perceive is illusory anyway.

I think I agree with you. It seems like there are some who claim evolution by default debunks all types of creationism, whether it is the young earthers or the traditional creationism.

But why did you bring in natural selection into it? I said evolution. I prefer not to narrow things down so much and these things would lead into a different topic. Natural selection is not equal to evolution. And if that is another topic you wish to discuss, no worries, another thread could be opened.

Cheers.

 

[SalixIncendium]

But why did you bring in natural selection into it?

Natural selection is the mechanism behind evolution.

 

[metis]

In the past there have been some mainstream theologians who propagated evolution. The query is, is evolution necessarily debunking creationism?

As you already encountered on another thread, this largely depends on one's definition of "creationism".

 

[Thief]

Just to make sure that this thread also does not become a debate about the definition of creationism, I am not referring to the wave of YEC or is it Young Earth Creationists. By creationism I mean the typical theistic stand that the universe was a creation and God exists and was/is the creator.

Thus, with this understanding it might be an interesting discussion to analyse what you have to say.

In the past there have been some mainstream theologians who propagated evolution. The query is, is evolution necessarily debunking creationism?

I have no problem at all

been posting the blend for years

both are true

 

[firedragon]

Natural selection is the mechanism behind evolution.

Thats Darwinism.

One has to recognise the theory of evolution existed prior to Darwin, but not with Darwins mechanism. So for the purpose of the thread, it is just about evolution. Again, natural selection and evolution could be discussed in a separate thread.

 

[firedragon]

As you already encountered on another thread, this largely depends on one's definition of "creationism".

Of course. That is why I have said so in the OP. It is about this particular definition I have already elaborated in the OP. Its done.

 

[Heyo]

The query is, is evolution necessarily debunking creationism?

No.

Science begins with an observable universe, i.e. the Big Bang. Everything before that is speculation (if there is a "before"). So a belief in a creation that instigated the Big Bang doesn't contradict science.
Biology begins with the first living thing. So even a belief in a creation of life doesn't contradict current biology. But this belief is in danger to be proven false when we find out how abiogenesis works. And while it is not in principle conflict with biology, it is in conflict with naturalism, the scientists axiomatic belief that there is no magic.

 

[Polymath257]

No matter what physical theory you have, you can postulate a deity that decided to do things in exactly that way.

So, no, evolution does NOT debunk creationism as you have defined it.

BTW, the modern theory of evolution does depend on natural selection. The older versions of evolution have not been supported by the evidence and are NOT considered to be part of the theory of evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

Just to make sure that this thread also does not become a debate about the definition of creationism, I am not referring to the wave of YEC or is it Young Earth Creationists. By creationism I mean the typical theistic stand that the universe was a creation and God exists and was/is the creator.

Thus, with this understanding it might be an interesting discussion to analyse what you have to say.

In the past there have been some mainstream theologians who propagated evolution. The query is, is evolution necessarily debunking creationism?

Evolution theory does not have any influence on the belief on a god, gods, or goddesses. It is only the explanation of how life developed on Earth. That said when you use the word creationism you are typically referring to a myth of explanation of how life came on Earth whether it is Native American, Norse, Greek, or Abrahamic. That is where conflict arises. These myths have meaning to those who follow that faith and use symbolic representations rather than factual accounts. Thus one can believe in a god or goddess or both and accept the theory of evolution without any conflict. On the other hand if one makes the claim that their religious myth is the actual way that life on earth came about, then you have a conflict when twisting symbolic myth into factual explanations of how life developed on earth you will get meaningless arguments and imaginary thinking over actual evidence and thus the conflict.

 

[WalterTrull]

Looks like...looks like...looks like. One thing. Fun to see different folks vision though.

 

[The Hammer]

The query is, is evolution necessarily debunking creationism?

Of course not? Why would it be?

 

[firedragon]

No.

Science begins with an observable universe, i.e. the Big Bang. Everything before that is speculation (if there is a "before"). So a belief in a creation that instigated the Big Bang doesn't contradict science.
Biology begins with the first living thing. So even a belief in a creation of life doesn't contradict current biology. But this belief is in danger to be proven false when we find out how abiogenesis works. And while it is not in principle conflict with biology, it is in conflict with naturalism, the scientists axiomatic belief that there is no magic.

Great. Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Of course not? Why would it be?

Good question. Why would it be?

 

[firedragon]

Evolution theory does not have any influence on the belief on a god, gods, or goddesses. It is only the explanation of how life developed on Earth. That said when you use the word creationism you are typically referring to a myth of explanation of how life came on Earth whether it is Native American, Norse, Greek, or Abrahamic. That is where conflict arises. These myths have meaning to those who follow that faith and use symbolic representations rather than factual accounts. Thus one can believe in a god or goddess or both and accept the theory of evolution without any conflict. On the other hand if one makes the claim that their religious myth is the actual way that life on earth came about, then you have a conflict when twisting symbolic myth into factual explanations of how life developed on earth you will get meaningless arguments and imaginary thinking over actual evidence and thus the conflict.

Myths or not is an irrelevant topic.

Does evolution debunk creationism is the question.

 

[sun rise]

The query is, is evolution necessarily debunking creationism?

From the OP definition, no. Meher Baba's Creation/Evolution chart shows how evolution fits:

 

[firedragon]

From the OP definition, no. Meher Baba's Creation/Evolution chart shows how evolution fits:

Maybe I cannot understand this properly. But interesting.

• Does it say that stones evolved into metal, metal into vegetable?
• And does it say Worms, insects and reptiles were the first to appear and then fish, birds and so on?
• What does it mean by "Many stars, many suns".