Creationism and Evolution. Conflict or reconciliation.

[viole]

The query is, is evolution necessarily debunking creationism?

No. in the same way embryology does not debunk the stork theory of children delivery.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nimos]

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?

It doesn't as such debunk creationism, if by creation we simply mean that something was created, whether that is by God or some other supernatural event.

Evolution doesn't really have a lot, if anything to do with creation, but rather how something evolve from one thing to another, but not the initial cause for such creation.

But I don't really think that a lot of religious creation ideas or theories, that involve a supernatural cause, works very well at explaining why evolution is there at all. Meaning why would something with such power find evolution important, it doesn't really seem to serve any purpose in such context.

Evolution in its most basic understanding, is just something that evolved over time based on its environment and whatever might drive evolution. In a lot of cases survival is extremely relevant, like how to combat diseases, getting food etc. And those individual that are best adapted to are more likely to survive. This make sense if evolution is not guided.

But why would an intelligent or supernatural thing care about that? Except as an experiment or for fun or whatever? Which might obviously be the explanation But to me at least, it doesn't really seem likely that anyone would design life to work like this, because it was the most effective solution, when you could simply design it some other way. But rather it seems like something natural.

But again, it doesn't debunk creation, because we might simply not know why evolution and a creation could be.

 

[Valjean]

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?

As Metis pointed out. This question can revolve around definitions:
Creationism: "magic poofing."
Evolution: "Change over time."

 

[firedragon]

No. in the same way embryology does not debunk the stork theory of children delivery.

Ciao

- viole

Generally when people grow up they find out.

 

[firedragon]

As Metis pointed out. This question can revolve around definitions:
Creationism: "magic poofing."
Evolution: "Change over time."

Already addressed in the OP.

And you misrepresented both.

 

[firedragon]

Evolution doesn't really have a lot, if anything to do with creation,

Exactly.

But why would an intelligent or supernatural thing care about that? Except as an experiment or for fun or whatever? Which might obviously be the explanation But to me at least, it doesn't really seem likely that anyone would design life to work like this, because it was the most effective solution, when you could simply design it some other way. But rather it seems like something natural.

Good topic for a new thread.

 

[exchemist]

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?

Not creationism in the sense in which you are using it. However that is not the sense it generally has nowadays.

A huge number of scientists, not to mention vast numbers of other educated people, are religious believers and don't see any problem with anything in science.

(In fact it is mystery to me why it is always evolution that comes up in these threads, when there is plenty of other science that one might think would present equal difficulties to the simple-minded bible believer.)

 

[viole]

Generally when people grow up they find out.

well, it appears some do not. They are called creationists.

Ciao

- viole

 

[sun rise]

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".

What is noted is the journey of the drop soul through forms of increasing complexity starting with gas and winding up with the human form. In the earlier forms, gas, stones and meta, evolution as typically understood is not present because these are not living forms.

Biological evolution as we know it starts with living forms and continues until the point where the soul is fully formed and can start the reincarnation process. At the end of the reincarnation process the soul enters the spiritual path leading to increasing inner knowledge.

As far as I know, Meher Baba did not speak to biological evolution, certainly not in great detail, but biological evolution is an inherent part of the process of forms through which the soul can experience greater consciousness. So, from the perspective he offered, there's a teleological reason for evolution.

Many stars etc means the entire universe.

 

[firedragon]

Not creationism in the sense in which you are using it. However that is not the sense it generally has nowadays.

Could be. Word definitions change through time, and through geographical distances. Most in the U.S seems to understand creationism as YEC's, while in some other places like lets say Syria, Egypt, or maybe even some places in Asia, YEC concept is not there and creationism is never in their life associated with YEC's.

So we should be open to empathise with the other and look at it from their point of reference for the sake of conversation.

I knew a lot of people would keep on hammering about the definition about the word like an obsession. Thats why I already addressed it in the OP.

(In fact it is mystery to me why it is always evolution that comes up in these threads, when there is plenty of other science that one might think would present equal difficulties to the simple-minded bible believer.)

I think its because of the conflict between Darwinists and the YEC response that came up in the western discourse and kept going for a long time. So Darwinists and YEC's have been the sworn enemies and they identify everyone by the same spoon they have been fed with. Any theist, as soon as the word "creationist" is mentioned, the tail stays still as if they are suddenly alerted of the enemy.

 

[firedragon]

well, it appears some do not. They are called creationists.

Ciao

- viole

When people grow up, they normally find the maturity to not get little pleasures you can't find elsewhere, in random side remarks. So I think you should, or find something.

 

[firedragon]

What is noted is the journey of the drop soul through forms of increasing complexity starting with gas and winding up with the human form. In the earlier forms, gas, stones and meta, evolution as typically understood is not present because these are not living forms.

Biological evolution as we know it starts with living forms and continues until the point where the soul is fully formed and can start the reincarnation process. At the end of the reincarnation process the soul enters the spiritual path leading to increasing inner knowledge.

As far as I know, Meher Baba did not speak to biological evolution, certainly not in great detail, but biological evolution is an inherent part of the process of forms through which the soul can experience greater consciousness. So, from the perspective he offered, there's a teleological reason for evolution.

Many stars etc means the entire universe.

Did not answer the question I asked brother.

 

[viole]

When people grow up, they normally find the maturity to not get little pleasures you can't find elsewhere, in random side remarks. So I think you should, or find something.

What? Lol. Whatever does that mean? Some more deep spiritual language without any meaning?

ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

Myths or not is an irrelevant topic.

Does evolution debunk creationism is the question.

Evolution debunks certain versions of creationism. There is no single version of creationism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Yes, by definition of the word "creationism".

Words have meanings. If you mean something other then what is defined here, you should use another word.
Sure, you made it clear in your OP that you are not necessarily talking about how the word is defined in dictionaries and how the word is used in every day conversation.

But I think that's just stupid and confusing.


To me, that's akin to saying "by 'toilet', I don't mean the thing we go nr 2 in, but I really mean a chair to sit on at the dinner table".

Ok, fine. But what purpose does that serve?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

The "theory of evolution" refers specifically to the darwinian theory of descent with modification followed by natural selection.

If you are going to mean something else by this, just like you are going to mean something else with "creationism" then the dictionary definition, all you are going to accomplish is confusion and talking past eachother.

 

[Windwalker]

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 believe the RCC officially accepts evolution, and last I checked they still believed God is the Creator. So, no evolution does not conflict with all Christians. There are of course many Christians who accept evolution, and I can say if I were to look at it from a Christian perspective I could identify with if I chose to, there is no conflict at all. On the contrary, science started out trying to understand God's Creation. So when this is what they found, why should that understanding not be accepted, since that is the reality of the Creation itself?

The conflict isn't if God exists or is the Creator, if evolution is true. The problem is not wanting to accept something that turns their ideas about God upside down. They mistake what they think about God, with the reality of God itself. If evolution is what we have evidence to support, then evolution it is, and it's up to us to rethink how we've thought about God.

One thing that helps right out of the gate, is to stop thinking of Creation as an event one time in the past. Evolution is creation in motion. God did not create, but God creates in the present-continuous tense. Evolution is God creating. Evolution is Spirit in motion, creating all the way. Evolution services Life.

 

[Valjean]

Much as you dislike them, Dragon, everything hinges on definitions. You've been on RF a long time. Surely you've noted the prevalence of straw manning and people talking past each other in various endless threads.

Sorry, but many things are just complicated. Ambiguous ideas just make them more so.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

You can no more discuss evolution without natural selection than you can discussing a crankshaft without mentioning an engine.

 

[PruePhillip]

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?

The reconciliation with the first creation account in Genesis - filtering the Bronze Age
language and the symbolic language (seven days - seven being the sign of perfection)

God created the heavens
and the earth

(and now the observer is on the earth itself)

the earth is dark, oceanic and sterile
the skies open
the continents rise
life emerges on land (fresh water)
life appears in the oceans
then man.