Creationists & evolution, hugging or enemies?

[firedragon]

Creationists have been propagating evolution for a pretty long time. I believe with the advent of Darwin, and him being such a profound influence to the world there were some movements like the YEC's in the west who arose relegating evolution to something opposing their theological foundations. Thus, those who call themselves atheists, agnostic and of course others have become people who embrace evolution as fact understanding that creationists are all anti evolution. Of course this is not general to all in the whole world, but at least to those who participate in anti theistic dialogue.

To me this sounds like a pretty strange position since though I do know some creationists are against evolution, I or the people I know of around the world did not really grow up to this phenomena where creationists were known to deny evolution. As far as I know most creationists only learned from atheists or/and agnostics on TV, other media and panels that creationists are by definition against evolution. Of course there are many anti theistic apologists like the great Dawkins and many others eternally speak of evolution and pin it against all theism which is quite strange.

Anyway the issue lies in the western perception of creationists which I believe is anecdotal, and its not a blame game but an avenue to explore further, that there is another world outside.

From an atheistic point of view how does creationism as a platform deny evolution? From a creationists point of view how does evolution deny your foundations?

 

[Meow Mix]

I don’t think there has to be conflict; and I’m definitely part of a culture where it’s perceived that there has to be (USA).

 

[firedragon]

I don’t think there has to be conflict; and I’m definitely part of a culture where it’s perceived that there has to be (USA).

But the thing is, you are a sweetheart and I am bias so that conversation would go nowhere.

 

[danieldemol]

I don't see any necessary conflict, although I think it is interesting to explore how those who believe in an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent God explain away the suffering inherent in evolution.

I also think that those who believe that sin is the cause of physical death have some explaining to do.

However let the buyer beware, some people who claim to support evolution are not supporting the theory of evolution as it is known involving the occurrence of random gene mutation, natural selection etc, some believe in a sort of evolution that occurred in the complete absence of these in the natural world (that is to say they believe that there is no such naturally occurring thing as random gene mutation and/or natural selection)

 

[firedragon]

I don't see any necessary conflict, although I think it is interesting to explore how those who believe in an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent God explain away the suffering inherent in evolution.

So which creationist are you referring to here?

I also think that those who believe that sin is the cause of physical death have some explaining to do.

Which creationists are you referring to here?

However let the buyer beware, some people who claim to support evolution are not supporting the theory of evolution as it is known involving the occurrence of random gene mutation, natural selection etc, some believe in a sort of evolution that occurred in the complete absence of these in the natural world (that is to say they believe that there is no such naturally occurring thing as random gene mutation and natural selection

Which creationists are you referring to here?

 

[danieldemol]

So which creationist are you referring to here?

Those who believe in an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent God and evolution.

Which creationists are you referring to here?

Those who believe that sin is the cause of physical death.

Which creationists are you referring to here?

Those who claim to believe in evolution, but reject the occurrence of random gene mutation and natural selection.

I won't name any names, but I have bumped into these three types of creationist amongst other types, so you should question what each of them believes about creation, God and evolution to discover if they fit any of these three categories.

 

[exchemist]

Creationists have been propagating evolution for a pretty long time. I believe with the advent of Darwin, and him being such a profound influence to the world there were some movements like the YEC's in the west who arose relegating evolution to something opposing their theological foundations. Thus, those who call themselves atheists, agnostic and of course others have become people who embrace evolution as fact understanding that creationists are all anti evolution. Of course this is not general to all in the whole world, but at least to those who participate in anti theistic dialogue.

To me this sounds like a pretty strange position since though I do know some creationists are against evolution, I or the people I know of around the world did not really grow up to this phenomena where creationists were known to deny evolution. As far as I know most creationists only learned from atheists or/and agnostics on TV, other media and panels that creationists are by definition against evolution. Of course there are many anti theistic apologists like the great Dawkins and many others eternally speak of evolution and pin it against all theism which is quite strange.

Anyway the issue lies in the western perception of creationists which I believe is anecdotal, and its not a blame game but an avenue to explore further, that there is another world outside.

From an atheistic point of view how does creationism as a platform deny evolution? From a creationists point of view how does evolution deny your foundations?

I think the first thing to get clear is what you mean by creationist and creationism.

Strictly speaking, in its older sense, it can simply refer to the religious view that everything was created by a creator God. Obviously that includes all followers of the Abrahamic religions, many or most of whom have no difficulty accepting what science has to say about the history of the cosmos or life on Earth. Science in no way precludes such a God being ultimately responsible.

However, latterly, the term creationism has become a label for that subset of religious believers that prioritises literal reading of scripture over scientific understanding. This sense of the term is today almost exclusively what people mean when they speak of creationism and creationists.

It looks to me as if you are using it in its older sense here. Which is OK, but it would help to make that clear, or a lot of misunderstanding is likely to ensue.

 

[firedragon]

Those who believe in an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent God and evolution.

But Daniel, that's too vague. When you say "those", that's a show of you dont know who you are referring to.

Those who believe in an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent God and evolution.




Those who believe that sin is the cause of physical death.




Those who claim to believe in evolution, but reject the occurrence of random gene mutation and natural selection.

I won't name any names, but I have bumped into these three types of creationist amongst other types, so you should question what each of them believes about creation, God and evolution to discover if they fit any of these three categories.

I think since the rest of your post is the same, there is nothing to respond with. Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

However, latterly, the term creationism has become a label for that subset of religious believers that prioritises literal reading of scripture over scientific understanding. This sense of the term is today almost exclusively what people mean when they speak of creationism and creationists.

Who are you speaking of specifically? And what do you mean "literal reading of scripture"? Which scripture?

I think you are just referring to the YEC's. But you are putting it in general terms.

It looks to me as if you are using it in its older sense here. Which is OK, but it would help to make that clear, or a lot of misunderstanding is likely to ensue.

I am putting it generally, and I have also said in the OP of the nuances.

 

[danieldemol]

But Daniel, that's too vague. When you say "those", that's a show of you dont know who you are referring to.

Not at all, I have given a very narrow set of specifications, as narrow as can be done without naming them outright. And it makes more sense to do it that way, as it allows you to identify them by their characteristics. That way you won't be confused when a new group with a new name occurs under the same old beliefs.

 

[firedragon]

Not at all, I have given a very narrow set of specifications

Nah. Vague.

 

[exchemist]

Who are you speaking of specifically? And what do you mean "literal reading of scripture"? Which scripture?

I think you are just referring to the YEC's. But you are putting it in general terms.



I am putting it generally, and I have also said in the OP of the nuances.

No I'm not referring just to YECs. There are also, among Christians, OECs. These accept more of the science but still reject all or part of biological evolution (and thus, often, common descent), because of their reading of the bible. Followers of so-called "Intelligent Design" fall into the OEC category, for instance. I don't know about the other Abrahamic religions.

But the modern sense of creationism is certainly not confined to YECs only.

 

[firedragon]

No I'm not referring just to YECs. There are also, among Christians, OECs. These accept more of the science but still reject all or part of biological evolution (and thus, often, common descent), because of their reading of the bible. Followers of so-called "Intelligent Design" fall into the OEC category, for instance. I don't know about the other Abrahamic religions.

But the modern sense of creationism is certainly not confined to YECs only.

Ah. The OEC's. I think if I am not wrong, I might have heard of this term from you. Not sure.

The word creationist does not confine itself to YEC's. No way. But most in this forum, if not all over the internet refer to them though they dont mention the word YEC.

Thats the whole point of the OP.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Creationists have been propagating evolution for a pretty long time. I believe with the advent of Darwin, and him being such a profound influence to the world there were some movements like the YEC's in the west who arose relegating evolution to something opposing their theological foundations. Thus, those who call themselves atheists, agnostic and of course others have become people who embrace evolution as fact understanding that creationists are all anti evolution. Of course this is not general to all in the whole world, but at least to those who participate in anti theistic dialogue.

To me this sounds like a pretty strange position since though I do know some creationists are against evolution, I or the people I know of around the world did not really grow up to this phenomena where creationists were known to deny evolution. As far as I know most creationists only learned from atheists or/and agnostics on TV, other media and panels that creationists are by definition against evolution. Of course there are many anti theistic apologists like the great Dawkins and many others eternally speak of evolution and pin it against all theism which is quite strange.

Anyway the issue lies in the western perception of creationists which I believe is anecdotal, and its not a blame game but an avenue to explore further, that there is another world outside.

From an atheistic point of view how does creationism as a platform deny evolution? From a creationists point of view how does evolution deny your foundations?

Serious answer : Theism is a broad umbrella. There are LOTS of beliefs under there. If I say anything about theists, it's a massive over-generalisation. Also, I'm Australian. Most Aussies accept evolution, regardless of their religious beliefs, so I don't tend to equate it to anything much. (Of course I'm generalising to an extent there)

Less serious answer : I'm happy to hug a creationist, but it might depend on which particular creationist. Also, I'm married these days, so I can't be just wantonly handing out hugs to hot creationists.

 

[exchemist]

Ah. The OEC's. I think if I am not wrong, I might have heard of this term from you. Not sure.

The word creationist does not confine itself to YEC's. No way. But most in this forum, if not all over the internet refer to them though they dont mention the word YEC.

Thats the whole point of the OP.

I disagree. There are many many threads on "Intelligent Design" on this forum. You will find that the people ( including me), who criticise ID will often refer to creationism and creationists when doing so.

 

[firedragon]

Serious answer : Theism is a broad umbrella. There are LOTS of beliefs under there. If I say anything about theists, it's a massive over-generalisation. Also, I'm Australian. Most Aussie accept evolution, regardless of their religious beliefs, so I don't tend to equate it to anything much.

Less serious answer : I'm happy to hug a creationist, but it might depend on which particular creationist. Also, I'm married these days, so I can't be just wantonly handing out hugs to hot creationists.

I used the word creationists with a purpose. But I agree with you about not hugging hot creationists, especially during this COVID problem. Especially if you are married. This world has too many cameras, and every tom, dick and harry is carrying one.

 

[firedragon]

I disagree. There are many many threads on "Intelligent Design" on this forum. You will find that the people ( including me), who criticise ID will often refer to creationism and creationists when doing so.

What do you disagree with?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I used the word creationists with a purpose. But I agree with you about not hugging hot creationists, especially during this COVID problem. Especially if you are married. This world has too many cameras, and every tom, dick and harry is carrying one.

Given that you mentioned 'creationists' who accept evolution, I am assuming you mean theistic folk who believe in a supreme creator of life, but also recognise evolutionary mechanisms at play in the world, per scientific concensus.
If so, I think my response holds water.

If not, I confess I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

 

[firedragon]

Given that you mentioned 'creationists' who accept evolution, I am assuming you mean theistic folk who believe in a supreme creator of life, but also recognise evolutionary mechanisms at play in the world, per scientific concensus.
If so, I think my response holds water.

I dont disagree with you.

Anyway, I spoke of creationists who "propagated evolution". Not just "accept". There were many, and that's way way before any "scientific consensus" in evolution you spoke of.

Your response does hold water. I agree with you. I just wanted to point out that I used the word creationists in order to make a distinction from the generic word theist. But that would now lead to another topic.

 

[exchemist]

What do you disagree with?

Eh? ID is pseudoscience bunk from start to finish.

In fact I was going to address your OP question by saying I'm happy to (metaphorically) hug some creationists, but ID proponentsists [sic] generally deserve a kick in the balls. That's because ID is inherently deceitful, in a way that other OECs or YECs are often not.