Why must creationism and evolution be seperete?

[camanintx]

As Henry Morris pointed out in his commentary Evolution Is Religion--Not Science and quite well I might add, The Scientific Case Against Evolution.

You and Mr. Morris seem to share an unusual definition of "religion". Do you really think that a civil engineer knows more about the science of evolution than all of the biologists who actually study it?

 

[AgreeToDisagree]

i believe in both ...

God triggers the creation and gradually develop in evolution

 

[Father Heathen]

Evolution (a religion)

Then that makes gravity a religion as well.

 

[McBell]

To go to the start of the thread, you really should ask why does Evolution (a religion), Intelligent Design (just acknowledging the fact what has happened took a creator as a First Cause to create the universe), and Creationism which is closely tied to the Judeo-Christian religions.

As Henry Morris pointed out in his commentary Evolution Is Religion--Not Science and quite well I might add, The Scientific Case Against Evolution.

Actually ID'ers may not even be Christian and sometimes put out articles such as, What Intelligent Design Offers to Agnostics. I would also some atheists while not becoming Christian adopted the idea of Intelligent Design, see the obituary for Professor Antony Flew: philosopher

Of course as far as Jews and Christians are concerned--

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.---Scripture Quotations Taken from the NASB

So, while Creationists and ID'ers basically get along, since the religion of Evolution is so hostile to Jewish and Christian religions, we end up getting into vigorous disagreements.:sorry1:

I agree that you should apologize for that big blob of propaganda.

 

[johnhanks]

... As Henry Morris pointed out in his commentary Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

I quote Morris's opening paragraph, with my own added numberings.:

The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from [1] admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. [2] There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and [3] the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

[1] relies on highly selective quotes taken out of context.
[2] is simply untrue.
And so is [3].

 

[outhouse]

i believe in both ...

God triggers the creation and gradually develop in evolution

yet there will never be anything that shows of a man made gods hand in anything.


there is no evidence other then imagination a deity created anything to start evolution rolling.

Abiogenesis is not magic either.

 

[Acim]

Why must God and evolution be separate

It doesn't have to. But distinction is very important to minds that are self identified as intelligent. To share ideas with colleagues or to teach ideas to students, the distinctions become crucially important. Without the distinctions, those in an endeavor of ongoing research either lose patience for what is being discussed and/or feel communication is in domain of absurd / pointless. People rely on understandings that conform to earlier or recent teachings.

why couldn't evolution be a creation of God used as tool a God machine to create life, and as a way to continue the life without God having to directly effect every creature's exact actions?

Again, there is not a great reason why this couldn't be the case, but also nothing compelling for the masses why the God concept (especially traditional concept) needs to be involved in sharing ideas about biological evolution.

Creationism deals with question and preconceived answer of 'how did all this (including me) get here?' From there, purpose of life and in managing affairs of a society follow. Hence what religion is essentially up to.

Physical sciences (unlike behavioral sciences) are ambivalent toward that question, and see it as very unnecessary given the preconceived notions about the data available for research. Mainly the notion that we need not know / understand anything about a metaphysical past to determine what the physical phenomenon is 'showing' us. IOW, we will derive our own metadata from the (false) idea that the evidence itself is providing.

Besides we all believe in at least some type of science, i doubt anyone here believes God resides in us and works our every bodily function.

I know God resides in us, and I believe it. In my understanding, it is knowledge that God resides in us, and is how we know what we know.

Like many around me, I have misplaced faith in notion that there is world outside of me, and that it is showing me something very important. Something that impacts my very physical life, and that I have evidence showing me my physical life is in doubt, that survival is a struggle and physical death inevitable.

Knowledge tells me consistently, often that I am manifesting world perceived as outside of me, and that I have given all meaning to these things (phenomenon). The world is showing me precisely what I desire to 'hear' while I pretend otherwise and play a very elaborate game of ignorance, whereby I, and others, can conclude (via faith) that this world is not of my making. I have no knowledge of what will come next.

I am becoming accustomed to the fact that we are evidence (we are the proof) of Intelligent Design. Our consciousness demands meaning, and our sciences requires it. In some ways, to not see this is at best absurd. It is akin to maintaining an infant awareness of our role in 'scheme of things.'

Most of what I've said so far doesn't need a "God" concept to explain it, to understand it. The God outside of Me concept is dying. I say good riddance.

Evolution as theory needs an intelligent agent to explain it, to rationally understand the design. Evolution outside of consciousness is meaningless. It is rather obvious that what is going on 'here' intended for itself to learn about itself. To deny this is folly.

 

[Skwim]

To go to the start of the thread, you really should ask why does Evolution (a religion), Intelligent Design (just acknowledging the fact what has happened took a creator as a First Cause to create the universe), and Creationism which is closely tied to the Judeo-Christian religions.

As Henry Morris pointed out in his commentary Evolution Is Religion--Not Science and quite well I might add, The Scientific Case Against Evolution.

I've always gotten a kick out of Morris' signature: "by Henry Morris, Ph.D" as if his doctorate in hydraulic engineering is meaningful. I bet he use to sign his checks with a "Ph.D." tacked on.

 

[fantome profane]

Creationism deals with question and preconceived answer of 'how did all this (including me) get here?' From there, purpose of life and in managing affairs of a society follow. Hence what religion is essentially up to.

This is exactly and precisely wrong. How things originated is a question that creationism is unable and unwilling to even begin to answer. They have no answer to this question, preconceived or otherwise. Ask for a creationist answer to the question of how life began, and all you will get is “goddidit”. But that is an answer to the question of who is responsible, it is not a response to the question of how. The same applies to the I.D. version of creationism. Ask Behe how the bacterial flagellum originated and he will have no answer, he will only tell you that he believes the evolutionary explanation is insufficient, but he has no explanation to replace it with. Creationists do not have a response to the questions of how life originated, how species originated, how planets or stars originated, or anything else. In fact if you pay attention to their arguments they will usually boil down to there is no answer to how these things came to be, therefore “goddidit”.

 

[Protester]

You and Mr. Morris seem to share an unusual definition of "religion". Do you really think that a civil engineer knows more about the science of evolution than all of the biologists who actually study it?

Considering a lot of biologists are discussing religion rather than science, as the Henry Morris article, Evolution Is Religion--Not Science.

But more to your comment:

One of the more frequent questions people ask about intelligent design is whether any scientists actually support ID theory. There are many notable biologists, biochemists, physicists, and astronomers who support intelligent design, and their work continues to develop the young scientific theory. Here are just a few of them:

and after this introductory comment, you'll find a list that is in this article, Scientists who support intelligent design - Evolution News & Views

By the way, the above article is quite short, so it shouldn't tax your patience, I would hope.

 

[Acim]

This is exactly and precisely wrong. How things originated is a question that creationism is unable and unwilling to even begin to answer. They have no answer to this question, preconceived or otherwise.

Surely you can't be serious. Creation stories are all about providing an answer to how life began.

If you are saying the answer wouldn't meet up with rigorous proof, okay. I'm there with you on that. But to say the stories are not answering the question of 'how to men get here' just surprises me that you'd say this.

Ask for a creationist answer to the question of how life began, and all you will get is “goddidit”. But that is an answer to the question of who is responsible, it is not a response to the question of how.

It is an answer to how. It is not an elaborate answer, and it may or may not have details to support the answer. Creation stories are generally going into a pretty elaborate version of how. But lack of certain details leave a skeptical or scrutinizing mind with much to be desired.

Creationists do not have a response to the questions of how life originated, how species originated, how planets or stars originated, or anything else. In fact if you pay attention to their arguments they will usually boil down to there is no answer to how these things came to be, therefore “goddidit”.

I somewhat agree, but in principle I disagree. They have an explanation, just not one that you may agree with.

Me, I'd like a clear cut definition of species, but it's not like biological evolution can (so far) provide that. No one can. Even while it is clearly the focal point of the discussion. Just comes down to nature-did-it.

 

[fantome profane]

Surely you can't be serious. Creation stories are all about providing an answer to how life began.

If you are saying the answer wouldn't meet up with rigorous proof, okay. I'm there with you on that. But to say the stories are not answering the question of 'how to men get here' just surprises me that you'd say this.



It is an answer to how. It is not an elaborate answer, and it may or may not have details to support the answer. Creation stories are generally going into a pretty elaborate version of how. But lack of certain details leave a skeptical or scrutinizing mind with much to be desired.



I somewhat agree, but in principle I disagree. They have an explanation, just not one that you may agree with.

Me, I'd like a clear cut definition of species, but it's not like biological evolution can (so far) provide that. No one can. Even while it is clearly the focal point of the discussion. Just comes down to nature-did-it.

I am completely serious, and frankly not surprised that this surprises you.

Yes there may be some creation stories that offer some vague details as to how their chosen deity went about doing what it did. But that is not what creationism is about. It is not about how things originated. It is about an assertion that their chosen deity (or intelligent agent) is responsible. It is that assertion that defines creationism. Speculation as to how will vary greatly and will most often be completely absent. But the assertion of agency will always be there. Saying creationism is about how things originated is like saying Moby Dick is about 19th century fashions of New England. You’re missing the point.

And no, the science of evolution is not just an assertion that “nature did it”. Unlike creationism, evolution is all about how it happened, in detail.

 

[McBell]

Considering a lot of biologists are discussing religion rather than science, as the Henry Morris article, Evolution Is Religion--Not Science.

But more to your comment:

and after this introductory comment, you'll find a list that is in this article, Scientists who support intelligent design - Evolution News & Views

By the way, the above article is quite short, so it shouldn't tax your patience, I would hope.

Four?
The way ya'll were going on I was expecting at the very least five scientists on the list...
Interesting how "many" and "a lot" is merely four...

four.
Out of 5.8 million.

i am like so impressed.

 

[painted wolf]

Henry Morris was not a biologist... he was an engineer.
So you are down to three... One of which admitted in court that his views on creationism/ID were not scientific. And that if you accepted his ID work as science you would also have to admit that Astrology and Alchemy are science too.

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

Considering a lot of biologists are discussing religion rather than science, as the Henry Morris article, Evolution Is Religion--Not Science.

But more to your comment:

One of the more frequent questions people ask about intelligent design is whether any scientists actually support ID theory. There are many notable biologists, biochemists, physicists, and astronomers who support intelligent design, and their work continues to develop the young scientific theory. Here are just a few of them:

and after this introductory comment, you'll find a list that is in this article, Scientists who support intelligent design - Evolution News & Views

By the way, the above article is quite short, so it shouldn't tax your patience, I would hope.

By the way, how's that working for them? Have they come up with an actual theory yet? I'll settle for just a hypothesis.

 

[Protester]

I quote Morris's opening paragraph, with my own added numberings.:

[1] relies on highly selective quotes taken out of context.
[2] is simply untrue.
And so is [3].

You probably gathered that was a rhetorical question, The Scientific Case Against Evolution.

The Case for Intelligent Design in a Nutshell Chrysalis - Evolution News & Views It seems like Darwinists are not very open minded, q.v. Series of Costly Case Settlements Warns Darwin's Bullies: Stop Censoring Intellectual Freedom - Evolution News & Views as they should be, if they were scientific.:cigar:

 

[Photonic]

Surely you can't be serious. Creation stories are all about providing an answer to how life began.

If you are saying the answer wouldn't meet up with rigorous proof, okay. I'm there with you on that. But to say the stories are not answering the question of 'how to men get here' just surprises me that you'd say this.



It is an answer to how. It is not an elaborate answer, and it may or may not have details to support the answer. Creation stories are generally going into a pretty elaborate version of how. But lack of certain details leave a skeptical or scrutinizing mind with much to be desired.



I somewhat agree, but in principle I disagree. They have an explanation, just not one that you may agree with.

Me, I'd like a clear cut definition of species, but it's not like biological evolution can (so far) provide that. No one can. Even while it is clearly the focal point of the discussion. Just comes down to nature-did-it.

Here's the problem though with Creationism, they think it's a science and should be taught in school. That's why it's so widely ridiculed.

That and it's wrong.

 

[Acim]

Yes there may be some creation stories that offer some vague details as to how their chosen deity went about doing what it did.

I'll take that as a partial concession, to when you claimed:

How things originated is a question that creationism is unable and unwilling to even begin to answer.

Anyway continue.

But that is not what creationism is about. It is not about how things originated. It is about an assertion that their chosen deity (or intelligent agent) is responsible. It is that assertion that defines creationism.

Responsible for how things originated. The story then goes onto to explain how the deity did this. If you wish to paint that as 'some vague details,' I'll let that be how you see it, as long as you realize creationism is able and willing to begin to answer how life originated.

Your hang up, which we can go back and forth for awhile longer if you desire, is that because it lacks details that you desire, it is in hyperbolical domain (really opinion) of 'it doesn't even attempt to do so.'

Speculation as to how will vary greatly and will most often be completely absent.

Well let's go with a popular creation story called Genesis. Around verse 11, plant life enters the picture of creation.

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.

Then later, around verse 20, animal life is created.

“Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”

Now, if you or anyone wishes to say that I believe this as 100% accurate, that would be fine for you to believe that. I do not believe this account is accurate for how. Though I do acknowledge it as a story of how did all this (including me) get here. That how includes:

- passages that come before this to set up conditions, fostering life for animals
- God creating creatures
- God blessing creatures
- God saying "reproduce, increase your numbers."

But the assertion of agency will always be there. Saying creationism is about how things originated is like saying Moby Dick is about 19th century fashions of New England.

That is a wonderful analogy. Did you come up with that yourself?

And no, the science of evolution is not just an assertion that “nature did it”. Unlike creationism, evolution is all about how it happened, in detail.

I agree 'nature did it' is not the only assertion. My apologies if you got that from what I wrote earlier. What I meant to say is it comes down to nature-did-it. It is not about how life originated. It is about an assertion that a humanly designed concept (nature) is responsible.

 

[Photonic]

I agree 'nature did it' is not the only assertion. My apologies if you got that from what I wrote earlier. What I meant to say is it comes down to nature-did-it. It is not about how life originated. It is about an assertion that a humanly designed concept (nature) is responsible.

Sorry, but nature is not a human concept, it has existed and will continue to exist long after humanity. Don't be so damn selfish.

 

[Acim]

Sorry, but nature is not a human concept, it has existed and will continue to exist long after humanity.

In regards to evolution, it is a concept.

Apart from theories and mind-made stuff, I would agree that it is long lasting. Though might depend on what is deemed nature / natural. In my understanding Divinity is natural. While existence of a material world is not (fundamentally) natural. But this argument only serves to prop up a mental construct on either side. So best to let bygones be bygones, as no one wins this debate except the one who remains silent.