1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Creationism and Darwin, are they cloven, parallel, or just "you never know"?

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by firedragon, Jul 17, 2021.

  1. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    First of all, there seems to be many many definitions of creationism and it seems like the definers are mostly the atheists in this forum. For most, Creationism is equal to YEC and they use it interchangeably, just like they use evolution and darwinian theory interchangeably. Sometimes, when a creationist insists "no no. creationism is not YEC" the atheists insists "no no. Creationism is YEC". And another person goes "that's a strawman". ;)

    Nevertheless, the idea that Darwinian theory is always used as an opposition to creationism is probably due to the YEC's who emerged as an anti darwinian group, threatened of their institutional empire so due to that the people who were opposed to YEC's still associate it with creationism. Thus the outcome seems to have become anyone who questions darwinian evolution is benchmarked against creationism, and that too specifically YEC's and sometimes explicitly explained as "people who believe living things were created as they are today".

    1. Is creationism YEC? Are there any other kinds of creationism?
    2. Do these so called creationists have a problem with evolution? How far does this problem go?
    3. Why is it when Darwinian evolution is challenged, the apologist compares it to YEC's as a "we are better" kind of argument? Is it a religious or sectarian strife that is never gonna end?

    As a side note, YEC's is a fairly new phenomena in the west. Its not universal. There were theologians who propagated evolution pretty heavily way back in the 14th century, and were accepted as prominent theologians, religious teachers and even clergy. This goes 4 centuries prior to that as well down to the 10th century. They were by definition "creationists" and they believed in evolution.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. lukethethird

    lukethethird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,700
    Ratings:
    +713
    Religion:
    Xian
    Where do you get your information?
     
  3. sun rise

    sun rise "This is the Hour of God"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    61,766
    Ratings:
    +29,914
    Religion:
    Love
    I don't see this at all. What I see from many posts here and articles elsewhere is a defense of science from an understanding about how science works and the value of science. If someone offers a pseudo-science argument with no basis in fact and claims that it is science, of course that will be answered with facts and logic.

    Of course this is from a position of knowledge is better than superstition of every kind. So yes, if you want to focus on knowledge being better than ignorance, then "we are better" applies.

    There is another view which is the "God is who. Evolution is how." argument. These are people and I'm included that believe the universe was created with laws of nature including evolution (not only deism) and that to learn the laws of nature is to learn the beauty of how the universe was constructed.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  4. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    36,877
    Ratings:
    +32,599
    Religion:
    None
    Creationism is well defined in dictionaries, atheist will usually accept dictionary definition.

    Bull, Darwin wrote an idea, 150 years of observation have honed that idea into a working theory. It seem to me only creationists and yecs use the term "Darwinian theory" as a pejorative to attempt to discredit evolution.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. George-ananda

    George-ananda Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    15,377
    Ratings:
    +5,722
    Religion:
    Advaita and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    My position is that Darwinism and creationism are both true. I do not think it likely at all that the complexity of life and DNA was produced by only the known physical laws operating without some conscious intent for life.
     
  6. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    12,902
    Ratings:
    +12,506
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    I have always distinguished two kinds of creationist: YEC and OEC, of which ID is an unpleasantly devious subset.

    I see both of these as distinct from the general religious belief in a creator of the universe and thus of all its contents.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    What information? Please specify.
     
  8. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    Then that question is not relevant to you.

    Thats not whats referred to as you know.
     
  9. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    Which is? Please specify. And please confirm if all atheists refer to that definition.

    Who is Darwin Bull?

    Nevertheless, you are wrong to say "only creationists and yecs use the term "Darwinian theory" as a pejorative to attempt to discredit evolution".
     
  10. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    How do you know "Darwinism" is true? And what you mean by that term?
     
  11. George-ananda

    George-ananda Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    15,377
    Ratings:
    +5,722
    Religion:
    Advaita and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    That survival of the fittest allows certain genetic types to more propagate their genes to future generations. This causes a slow change in the overall species' gene pool so the species 'evolve' over time. Sounds reasonable to me, but doesn't address why there is complex DNA and life in the first place.
     
  12. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    See. Being reasonable does not make it true. I am not arguing with you. I am asking why you think its true.

    This is a scientific theory and truth is not how scientific theories work. I hope you understand.
     
  13. Windwalker

    Windwalker Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    11,618
    Ratings:
    +7,656
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    Who are you referring to? Evolution was new at the time of Darwin. Are you sure about this statement of yours? Can you point to some reference we can verify?

    10th century? Who?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    937
    Ratings:
    +434
    Religion:
    None
    I would say creationism is a general label applied to any religious explanation for the creation of the cosmos by a divine entity. So yes, YEC is creationism, the story in Genesis is creationism, and to simply say all was started/created by a divine entity, without a detailed story, would fit under the general category of creationism.

    For the broad category, some may not, or perhaps many may not, have a problem with Evolution. You simply have to ask the adherent if they have a problem with evolution. If a group or denomination has creationist views that have a very strong literal stance that the Devine Entity made man specifically in an instant, and not through gradual evolution, then they as a group would have a doctrinal problem with evolution.

    Those that argue in defense of Darwinian Evolution are most likely defending The Theory of Evolution as it is understood to date. If the creationist references Darwin, the supporter of Evolution simply assumes everyone is talking about our current understanding of Evolution.

    You seem rather fixated on this specific reference to Darwinian Evolution or Darwinian Mechanism. What's up with that?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  15. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    Evolution was not new during Darwins time. Darwins grandfather was also a proponent of evolution. And I am stating facts. Please do a little bit of research. If you want to find a proponent of evolution who lived before Darwin, or if you want references to what I am talking about, maybe you can refer to someone like ibn haldhoon from the 14th century. BTW, you should know that the theory of evolution was known as mohammedan theory to some of the westerners prior to Darwin.

    Kithab al Thanbih wal Ashraf was written by a guy called Al Masoodhi in the 10th century.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  16. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    33,012
    Ratings:
    +13,688
    Religion:
    liber-scripta grim Christian
    The big problem with creationist presentations: Too often apologetic is aimed at children. Children aren't ready for this.

    Children should learn, and I agree with teaching them about faith but not apologetic. That is for mature minds. It is too much to put onto a child, and its worse to train them to view one view of things and then tell them they are seeing all views.

    Old earth creationism generally does not deny Science. Young Earth creationism generally does. Neither is Science, and neither is a good substitute for Science. There are books attempting to corroborate a literal interpretation of scripture with old earth creationism, just as there ones for young earth creationism which attempt to prove the evolution or that the age of the Earth is a lie -- too often aimed at children.

    Book Example: God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe
    written by J. Warner Wallace

    A four star review comments this: "A very interesting read proving Jesus Christ existed and that the Bible is the infallible word of God."

    A five star review quips: "...Highly recommended to Christians to quell personal doubt and to non-Christians to tip the scales in their mind as to the certainty of a Creator."

    I found the above book when looking at this page proposing an apologetics reading plan for children:
    Apologetics Reading Plan for Parents link here: LINK
    The goal of the book is *not to determine what Science tells us from the evidence as it claims* but to preserve the Christian faith and the literal view of the Bible in the face of arguments against. This is not Science, but it substitutes for Science for many. It should not be pushed on children. It acts like its hearing a message from the universe but is actually projecting one and is one sided.

    Notice how everything above is about keeping children in church, believing in God, believing in Jesus; but it claims to be an independent discovery of God by simple observation of all relevant facts! It also immediately distrusts Scientists about Science, pretty much assuming they are all against the Bible, against children and against God. No, Scientists don't know what they are doing, so it employs Detectives instead! It plays on the fears of parents to sell books to the parents.

    I think there are some good reasons not to try to teach children apologetic until they are at least conversant with some History, some Math, some Science, some Scripture; but the above page supports doing so well before they are able to articulate ideas. I'd say amounts to blinding them rather than informing them, and that's the main problem I see with creationism.
     
    #16 Brickjectivity, Jul 17, 2021
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2021
  17. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    So bottomline is, you are also saying that there are other types of creationism, other than the YEC.

    Thats a reasonable statement IMO. But you said gradual evolution. Do you mean darwinian gradualism or was that just a statement? Yet, I agree with what you said above.

    Actually, I was referring to those who bring up creationists and creationism even when discussing purely about the Darwinian theory of evolution. Even with another atheist who proposes that there are other arguments that contradict Darwin.

    You seem rather fixated in finding out personal agendas. Whats up with that? ;)

    Mike. Sometimes, people delve into one topic and then another topic springs out because of the first topic. So in an Internet forum like this, dont be fixated on trying to figure out what agenda someone has in bringing up topics. Its useless.

    Peace.
     
  18. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    6,970
    Ratings:
    +6,060
    There are all sorts of creationisms. YEC is one, then there's old-earth creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, intelligent design creationism, theistic evolution, and varieties of creationism that correspond to specific religions (e.g., Hindus have a version that focuses on cycles).

    To varying degrees. You'll have to look into each to see what they accept.

    Evolutionary biology is a science, not a religion, so it is not a "religious or sectarian strife". The root of the conflict is nothing more than religious people denying things that conflict with their beliefs. That's really all there is to it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  19. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    9,615
    Ratings:
    +9,481
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    What, in your view is Darwinian evolution and how is it distinct from modern evolutionary theory?
    The idea that species emerged by special individual acts of creation by God is what I would call against the scientific theory of biological evolution. So that version of creationism, young earth or old earth, will be against the scienctific view.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    937
    Ratings:
    +434
    Religion:
    None
    Yes.

    I mean gradual in the sense that the species that exist today, including Homo Sapiens, are the result of Evolution (as described in The Theory of Evolution as it is understood to date), that has occurred over billions of years. Seems safe to consider it gradual at that scale.

    And here again, you reference "darwinian gradualism." I think you would be much better off to assume the word Evolution refers to The Theory of Evolution as it is understood to date.



    My comment about fixation was not based on these two back-to-back threads. I have noticed that you often refer specifically to Darwinian Evolution when referencing Evolution. I'm curious as to why you reference Darwin's understanding specifically instead of our modern understanding of Evolution.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...