Reasonable to me in that it makes sense and is in alignment with so much I’ve come across, I think the author was in contact with a highest source.
-
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!
Creationism and Darwin, are they cloven, parallel, or just "you never know"?
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
This is my first time reading about any of this... After googling the book, I couldn't read anything about evolution there nor was it ever mentioned. Maybe you could recommend a book to start with on the subject?
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure that is true. I don't see creationism being defined very much at all. Some people present their specific creationist beliefs (or at leas debate from that position) and some people challenge specific elements or aspects of creationism in general but I don't think anything is as straight forwards as you're presenting there.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".
I'm not sure that is fair either. Many of the attacks of "Darwinism" specifically come from people holding some kind of creationist position (even if they don't explicitly state it). It's perfectly possible to debate the specifics of evolutionary theory outside of any creationist context but that doesn't happen very often, certainly not in places like this.
Of course there are other kinds. Such generic labels shouldn't really matter though.
Some do, some don't, a lot probably couldn't care either way. That's an individual question.
Because human beings are flawed. Why is it when "Darwinian evolution" is challenged, the challengers so often refuse to acknowledge basic scientific facts and understanding as a "we know better" kind of argument? It's all pointless in the end.
It isn't religious or sectarian at all, that's the problem. Faith and religion shouldn't have any influence at all on scientific discussions and debates.
Oh! Nevermind, @firedragon, I found this.
Islamic views on evolution - Wikipedia
The 14th-century influential historiographer and historian Ibn Khaldun wrote the Muqaddimah or Prolegomena ("Introduction") on what he referred to as the "gradual process of creation." He stated that the Earth began with abiotic components such as "minerals." Slowly, primitive stages of plants such as "herbs and seedless plants" developed and eventually "palms and vines." Khaldun connects the later stages of plant development to the first stages of animal development. Finally, he claims that the greater thought capabilities of human beings was "reached from the world of the monkeys."[52]
Interesting.
Suave
Simulated character
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.
I'd define evolution simply as there being significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population.
Based on mathematical patterns found in genetic coding, I suspect our genetic code is likely invented by extraterrestrial intelligence. Our genetic code's creator has left this mathematical pattern in our genetic code conveying to me the symbol of an Egyptian triangle as well as the number 37 embedded in our genetic code.
Eight of the canonical amino acids can be sufficiently defined by the composition of their codon's first and second base nucleotides. The nucleon sum of these amino acids' side chains is 333 (=37 * 3 squared), the sun of their block nucleons (basic core structure) is 592 (=37 * 4 squared), and the sum of their total nucleons is 925 (=37 * 5 squared ). With 37 factored out, this results in 3 squared + 4 squared + 5 squared, which is representative of an Egyptian triangle. Based on this signal of intelligence left in our genetic code, I suspect our genetic coding was created by a greater intelligence beyond the limited scope of us humans on Earth.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Well. You will simply have to take my word for it.
Im just kidding. Can you tell me if you read the book somewhere? You said you couldn't read about evolution there nor was it ever mentioned! You mean it was never mentioned in the book? Please clarify.
He narrates that plants are evolved from metals which in turn gave rise to animals and the animals evolved into human beings. Thats Al Masoodhi. Its in arabic.
Maybe you should try and find ibn haldhoon from the 14th century. He even touches on his theory that humans evolved from monkeys. This one I'm sure you can find a translation because I have witnessed people in the forum googling his book and becoming experts on his life in a few minutes.
firedragon
Veteran Member
What straight forward thing did I present?
Thats empirically wrong.
Then why?
Well. You will simply have to take my word for it.
Can you tell me if you read the book somewhere? You said you couldn't read about evolution there nor was it ever mentioned! You mean it was never mentioned in the book? Please clarify.
He narrates that plants are evolved from metals which in turn gave rise to animals and the animals evolved into human beings. Thats Al Masoodhi. Its in arabic.
Maybe you should try and find ibn haldhoon from the 14th century. He even touches on his theory that humans evolved from monkeys. This one I'm sure you can find a translation because I have witnessed people in the forum googling his book and becoming experts on his life in a few minutes.
Oh, I found it! I just couldn't find it right away. Thanks!
firedragon
Veteran Member
Oh! Nevermind, @firedragon, I found this.
Islamic views on evolution - Wikipedia
The 14th-century influential historiographer and historian Ibn Khaldun wrote the Muqaddimah or Prolegomena ("Introduction") on what he referred to as the "gradual process of creation." He stated that the Earth began with abiotic components such as "minerals." Slowly, primitive stages of plants such as "herbs and seedless plants" developed and eventually "palms and vines." Khaldun connects the later stages of plant development to the first stages of animal development. Finally, he claims that the greater thought capabilities of human beings was "reached from the world of the monkeys."[52]
Interesting.
Dang. I must go through that wikipedia article. Thanks.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Oh, I found it! I just couldn't find it right away. Thanks!
Where do you get that green smiley face? How do you type it?
Above the typing field is a list of icons. Click the smiley face one and a list of emotes drops down below.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Darwinian evolution is a modern theory. I dont understand your question. Or do you think that I believe there is a conflict between what ever you refer to as "modern evolution theory" and "darwinian evolution"? If you explain what you mean by "modern evolution theory" I can probably understand what you mean by that.
Scientific theories dont care about a God or any metaphysical causation. Science assumes a naturalistic universe and that's that. Theists assume a methodological naturalism in science.
firedragon
Veteran Member
firedragon
Veteran Member
Above the typing field is a list of icons. Click the smiley face one and a list of emotes drops down below.
Lol. Thank you.
That's great. However, I wasn't speaking of Gradualism. Simply distinguishing between Divine Entity popping man into existence and an undirected process over time.
firedragon
Veteran Member
So that's how you'd define creationism!
firedragon
Veteran Member
I dont think I understood you correctly.
When I want to be flippant, sure. **Edit: you seemed fine with the version in my first response to your OP.
firedragon
Veteran Member
OK
an anarchist
Your local anarchist.
I made a thread in which I explained how I synthesized my young earth creationism beliefs with evolution. I believe you can be a believer of both
A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism
In the thread, my proposal was labeled as “Last Thursdayism” by others. But I think I make sense (don’t we all?)
A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism
In the thread, my proposal was labeled as “Last Thursdayism” by others. But I think I make sense (don’t we all?)