Creationism and how it can be true.

[George-ananda]

while true


its nothing more then trying to smuggle god in the back door of science

No. Science describes how the physical operates. It can't address the valid questions of 'Why' and is there greater intelligence involved. Those are questions for Theology. Science and Theology are both valid human endeavors.

 

[outhouse]

An Index to Creationist Claims


here are rebuttles to all those silly creationist arguements

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Often, in debates concerning creationism and evolution, the argument tends to turn to an either/or mentality. Either you believe what I say, or you're wrong and ignorant (and ignorant is one of the nicer terms used)....
This is where we get to the real meat of the discussion, as these forms of creationism in no way oppose evolution...It doesn't need to be an either/or situation, and future talks do need to actually realize that, as well as the diversity in the idea of creationism. Otherwise it just alienates people.

It's a little sad how quickly the purpose of the OP was not just ignored, but resulted in the exact type of dynamics it was written to caution against (and with good reason). Which makes statements like this:

So, as long as one's creationism allows for evolution there's no problem. It's just that "creationism" as popularly used and understood does conflict with evolution.

particularly commendable. It's easy for those who follow some sort of creationism to support the OP, and just as easy for those who do not to attack it. And the result is the same described in the OP (for the most part).

Which again make statements like the one quoted above a laudable example for us all.

 

[Quintessence]

Some folks, for whatever reason, refuse to accept there are types of creationism other than the one that gets bandied about ad nauseum. They have their strawperson, and they like beating on it, I guess?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

People calling themselves creationists yet believing in evolution and an old universe is just confusing. We should come up with a new name.

 

[Quintessence]

People calling themselves creationists yet believing in evolution and an old universe is just confusing. We should come up with a new name.

Possibly. I, for one, refuse to let extremist fringes dictate the language. I refuse to give them that much power.

 

[George-ananda]

*edit*

I don't have a problem with this statement.

*edit*

I have a problem with this statement. I believe in Creationism and Evolution and God...And my beliefs are not faith-based but reason-based. I consider all ideas and believe the most reasonable.

*edit*

Ah, the old I want hard physical proof that there are things not physical. Good luck

*edit*

Hmm, before you blanketly dismiss the entire fields of Theology and Spiritual thought, I hope you are familiar with Advaitan (Indian) philosophy and the modern school of more liberal thinkers on spiritual issues. Some of these I actually find to be very deep thinkers and not holding views in conflict with science.

 

[George-ananda]

People calling themselves creationists yet believing in evolution and an old universe is just confusing. We should come up with a new name.

I agree. As there's so many nuances of beliefs, everyone should define their position with a sentence or two; not one word.

 

[George-ananda]

An Index to Creationist Claims


here are rebuttles to all those silly creationist arguements

These are just rebuttals to anti-evolutionist claims. Doesn't really apply to us Creationists that are also evolutionists.

 

[Quintessence]

These are just rebuttals to anti-evolutionist claims. Doesn't really apply to us Creationists that are also evolutionists.

It was entertaining to glance through the list, though. Particularly the teeny tiny section at the bottom called "Other Creationism" that was woefully inadequate.

 

[outhouse]

I have a problem with this statement. I believe in Creationism and Evolution and God...And my beliefs are not faith-based but reason-based. I consider all ideas and believe the most reasonable.

there is no reason or logic to creation, only required faith

Hmm, before you blanketly dismiss the entire fields of Theology and Spiritual thought, I hope you are familiar with Advaitan (Indian) philosophy and the modern school of more liberal thinkers on spiritual issues. Some of these I actually find to be very deep thinkers and not holding views in conflict with science.

yes and they all fall under the term pseudoscience

Ah, the old I want hard physical proof that there are things not physical. Good luck

I dont want hard proof about one of many deities


I already have hard proof, that creation as written never happened, and people still have the nerve to use these unfounded mythological events as a foundation to change creation to fit their personal fantasy

 

[outhouse]

These are just rebuttals to anti-evolutionist claims. Doesn't really apply to us Creationists that are also evolutionists.

false

it deals with ID, another form of creation.


remember, ID is creation simular to theistic evolution which is a way to try and sneak creationism in the back door of science

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

theology has no buisiness in science what so ever.

I would tend to agree, but just as in my first response within this thread, there is a rather important caveat, given the intellectual history and traditions of "Western" culture, whence the origins of modern science come. This is not to denigrate the intellectual achievements of other cultures, as there are many (e.g., the work Aṣṭādhyāyī, a comprehensive grammatical analysis written in Sanskrit long before even Aristotle, a Chinese text which included methods of solving systems of equations the West would have to wait over a millenia to match, the Middle Eastern origins of Algebra and the classical texts preserved only thanks to the Islamic empire, etc.). Yet however much the "founders" of the modern scientific enterprise benifited from, or could have benefited from, the achievements of other cultures, modern science can only be directly traced to its Western founders.

However, theology may be very much the reason that those like Descartes, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Euler, Kant, Laplace etc. were able to "found" modern science (understood as a belief that the cosmos operated according to particular laws such that systematic investigation was even possible, let alone useful, in that repeated measurements and mathematical models enabled one to both predict the behaviour of some system or phenomenon and to describe the mechanics/structure underlying physical reality) while other cultures, despite developing sophisticated approaches to particular issues, never generalized these into a comprehensive endeavour comparable to early modern science.

It takes more than brilliance, ingenuity, and curiosity for any society produce what we call the scientific method. Individuals endowed with such traits have come and gone everywhere throughout the ages, sometimes contributing a great deal to what we might now interpret in the light of science. However, at its core, science requires a particular worldview: the cosmos has a particular "order" and "structure" which not only can be discovered, but should. After several centuries of largely undoing the accomplishments of Greece and Rome (not to mention trailing behind other cultures), the Catholic church went from merely ensuring that at least some texts which concerned philosophy were preserved and studied (even many written by non-Christians) to founding the modern university and encouraging the study of God's universe largely in order to understand His works and "know the mind of God". Naturely, of course, the impetus created friction pretty early on (Galileo), but for the most part the achievements of the scholastics were transformed into the origins of modern science not simply through discovery or genius, but because philosophy and theology were at the same time inseperable and provided a framework in which scientific inquiry made sense.

In The Problem of China Betrand Russell expresses both a certain regret and perplexity regarding the "failure" of China to match the scientific progress of the "West", as in China there was no Christianity to stand in the way of science. His solution was mainly to attribute this to certain brilliant Western thinkers, yet this is inadequate both because the Chinese certainly did not lack of brilliant minds and because it doesn't explain why the brilliant minds Russell praised were able to achieve what they did in spite of Christianity.

The sociology of religion (and indeed the research of social psychology/sociology in general) provide a better explanation. Throughout history, many cultures have believed that the cosmos is more or less unchanging; an eternal constant such that what was is and what will be was already. For others, the concept of a creator whose creation (the universe) was ordered and (more importantly) knowable never developed. Instead the idea, that the creation of God could be no more understood through reason and discovery than could God, and likewise should not or could not be conceptualized as rational without limiting God's power, either remained or developed.

Nothing intrinsic in Christianity made the advent of science inevitable, anymore than anything intrinsic in other worldviews ensured it would not develop. Christianity developed out of Judaism, which provided the omniscient, omnipotent Creator concept Plato lacked (making his cosmological model flawed or at least incomplete), and the interchange between converted intellectuals, who had studied both their pagan and Jewish forebears, combined theology and philosophy in a manner that made linking religion, cosmology, and the product of Greco-Roman philosophical thought a feat achieved with an ease that even Julian (who, unlike Plato, had at his disposal all that the Christian apologists did) could not compete with. The religion of the Roman empire, despite its diversity, had for too long seperated cultic practice and their mythoi from philosophy.

So even when the Roman empire dissolved, and no imperial power existed which could, like Constantine all the way to Theodosius II, integrate laws of state with the laws of the Church, and only a small fraction remained of Greco-Roman intellectual achievements preserved in monasteries, the explicit use and even sanction granted by Christian apologists of pagan & Jewish philosophical works made it far easier for these to be incorporated into scholastic study. Meanwhile, the Islamic empire which had done far more to preserve and to build on Greco-Roman thought, lacked that foundational relationship and concentrated far more than did Christians on continuing a jurisprudence approach to "knowing God" through His his texts.

As a result, when countries began to emerge out from the squabbling little fiefdoms of a would-be Europe, the learning and study left the confines of the scattered monasteries and (in part because of the need for an "learned" clergy) the universities appeared, both the philosophical framework and the cosmological worldview existed in which scientific discovery could fit, at least for a time. The unification of a single Creator, the teleology which developed after the endtimes never came, and the rationality and order which had begun before Jesus was born and indelibly stamped into Christian thought by (at the very least) the Johannine logos, all led to the gradual transformation of Scholasticism into what Plato's Socrates had so ardently denied he practiced: natural science.

Just as Newton, who was more concerned with biblical study than physics, is usually counted among the first modern scientists (as is, for that matter, Descartes), so too is Thomas Aquinas demoted to the rank of scholastic, yet in both cases the lines are not so clear, because the program and approach did not appear out of thin air. The early scientists and late scholastics shared both a worldview and an intellectual tradition. Most important, though, was that these included a rational "mind" of God and an ordered cosmos which required reason and investigation in order that God be known.

Without that theology, we wouldn't have Descartes, Newton, Liebniz, etc., at all.

 

[outhouse]

Understood, and a excellent post again.


Im not a anti-theist


but im definately anti creationism of amy kind. in this modern time with our understanding of nature. There is no real value or place for it.

It only gives certain theist a sense of false inerrency, while trying to impose theistic belief in schools ruining scientific credibility and validity, in childrens minds.

Understood most of this is handed down from theistic parents, but theistic fundementalist still try to ruin education in america

 

[R34L1TY]

 

[Skwim]

People calling themselves creationists yet believing in evolution and an old universe is just confusing. We should come up with a new name.

I say, let them come up with a new name, because after having consulted more than a three dozen sources to find definitions of "Creationism" for a previous post, all those that gave one---all dictionaries---pretty much agreed that when used in a biological sense it stood in direct opposition to evolution. Not that dictionaries are the last authority, but they do point to the common understanding of words, and in this case they don't support the sense of the word as expressed by George-ananda. So while he and others may feel fine using "creationist" to describe himself, I don't believe anyone need deal with this exception to the word. If he and others choose to use and explain it, fine, but I don't see this as being of any value to the discussion of C v E.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Often, in debates concerning creationism and evolution, the argument tends to turn to an either/or mentality. Either you believe what I say, or you're wrong and ignorant (and ignorant is one of the nicer terms used). However, such a position is foolish, and only hampers actual understanding and acceptance. I am proposing here that a both/and solution is just as possible, where creationism is recognized not as opposed to evolution, but an idea that can peacefully coexist.

The form of creationism that is usually criticized is a literalistic view of the Biblical creation stories. In particular, an extreme literalism, which often manifests itself in the Young Earth Creationism viewpoint, is critiqued, but more so, it is argued as if that is the only form of creationism. Often it is misconstrued as Intelligent Design, or pretty much the only form of creationism (or even the dominant form), which simply is incorrect on all three accounts.

What is often left out are the many forms of creationism, that make up the majority belief, that do accept part of all of the scientific explanation of evolution. This includes a variety of different forms of Pagan forms of creationism (which make up a considerable amount of adherents), to more deist views such as proposed by likes such as Thomas Morgan, which states that God created the world, but then left it alone (as in, he was the beginning cause). Even much of the ideas of Intelligent Design (there are different schools of thought within this group) accept evolution as a fact, but believe that God had a part in it.

This is where we get to the real meat of the discussion, as these forms of creationism in no way oppose evolution. Evolution does not tell us, nor can science tell us (at this point), how life first originated. Evolution does not tell us that, but instead starts after life first originated and began changing or evolving. Evolution also does not tell us how the world formed, or how the universe formed, as that is not what evolution is about. There are other theories regarding the formation of the world and the universe, but they do not necessarily disagree with these other forms of creationism either.

More so, since science can not tell us how this all first began forming (the Big Bang is not an explanation as it only gets us to the a certain point, and does not explain how this matter first came to be, or how it all happened to converge), and really does not contradict the idea that a supreme being was the initial cause or the beginning. The two ideas do not need to be opposed, and in fact, most don't see it that way.

So when talking about evolution, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. One can also accept creationism, and be very well-informed about the nature of evolution and the scientific theories that explain the formation of the world. One can accept creationism, and at the same time, accept evolution and have no actual problem there. One can even accept evolution, and that God created humans, and have no actual problem. It doesn't need to be an either/or situation, and future talks do need to actually realize that, as well as the diversity in the idea of creationism. Otherwise it just alienates people.

I agree, in a society where people are too acknowledge the presence of diversity some people do a very poor job of doing it. It is no different than choice of food. Some people might like option A) on the menu while others like option B). Does that cause people to discriminate against one another? No, because when you look at the big picture those two people are eating at the same restaurant and are probably both eating the same type of food, but everyone can agree on variety.

I think just about everyone can agree to evolution, especially in theory. Although I do think people are capable of distorting the facts or give an inaccurate description as to what evolution actually is. Is there any real reason to go back 10’s of thousands of years to search for a common ancestor? Some people might think it is interesting while others could care less. And as far as a common ancestor goes: All living organisms live in the same biosphere and everyone can agree that we all share the same habitat. Why throw a lot of extra information into the puzzle or problem that isn’t really needed? It gets to the point where it becomes redundant and it doesn’t really matter.

Atheist and those who take evolution as their life blood care no more about their ancestry than they do about claiming their long lost relative is an ape. It is just a reason for them to defile something they don’t believe or agree with, and that is religion. I can disagree with religion without having to rely on some scientific theory, without holding grudges or ignoring the truth and those that do tend to ignore human progress.

A lot of great ancient philosophers believed in god (as in those who are well respected). They are highly respected in the science community even when their theories become outdated due the advancement of new ones.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Gregor Mendel for example. The father of genetics. Do you hear atheist speak of this man.
Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, because they are bias and have one train of thought. To reject anything and everything that has to do religion, whether they believe in god or not.

 

[Skwim]

I agree, in a society where people are too acknowledge the presence of diversity some people do a very poor job of doing it. It is no different than choice of food. Some people might like option A) on the menu while others like option B). Does that cause people to discriminate against one another? No, because when you look at the big picture those two people are eating at the same restaurant and are probably both eating the same type of food, but everyone can agree on variety.

I think just about everyone can agree to evolution, especially in theory. Although I do think people are capable of distorting the facts or give an inaccurate description as to what evolution actually is. Is there any real reason to go back 10’s of thousands of years to search for a common ancestor? Some people might think it is interesting while others could care less. And as far as a common ancestor goes: All living organisms live in the same biosphere and everyone can agree that we all share the same habitat. Why throw a lot of extra information into the puzzle or problem that isn’t really needed? It gets to the point where it becomes redundant and it doesn’t really matter.

Atheist and those who take evolution as their life blood care no more about their ancestry than they do about claiming their long lost relative is an ape. It is just a reason for them to defile something they don’t believe or agree with, and that is religion. I can disagree with religion without having to rely on some scientific theory, without holding grudges or ignoring the truth and those that do tend to ignore human progress.

A lot of great ancient philosophers believed in god (as in those who are well respected). They are highly respected in the science community even when their theories become outdated due the advancement of new ones.

FYI. Those who support evolution have no problem with creationism or anyone who chooses to believe it. However,"evolutionists," as it were, do challenge creationists when they attempt to get it into public school science classes, or present it as a belief supported by science. And this, and this alone, is why there is such a confrontation between the two. If creationists would stop pushing creationism where it doesn't belong and lying about it evolutionists wouldn't care one wit what they believe.

 

[outhouse]

Gregor Mendel for example. The father of genetics. Do you hear atheist speak of this man.
Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, because they are bias and have one train of thought. To reject anything and everything that has to do religion, whether they believe in god or not.

doesnt have anything to do with bias.


he did good work for his time, allthouigh interpretation of his results were a bit of a mystery as noted in the wiki link.