Creationism and Evolution. Conflict or reconciliation.

[firedragon]

Creationism espouses that God created the wolrd in six days

That's an anecdotal fallacy.

You are speaking about the Young Earth Creationists. There are other creationists around the world and has a history. Everyone is not a YEC. This is a hasty generalization.

They cannot both be true.

Why?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The fact of evolution does not refute Christianity.

Agreed that the fact of evolution doesn't contradict Christianity, but I'd say that the theory is at odds with Christian dogma: Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image." That would be directed evolution. If that's correct, the theory is incomplete, since in it, only blind natural (unintended) mechanisms direct evolution.

There are "all or nothing" Christians out there. Some of them believe that if anyone refutes any part of the Bible that it is all refuted.

I was such a Christian once. Just like the Christians on RF, I just never allowed anything to refute the Bible. If I had, I would have to admit that the Bible contains errors and that therefore, at least some of it was written by men speaking for a god, and there was no test to help one determine which were the words a god authored.

 

[Muffled]

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?

On one side one has a theory developed by the flawed thinking of men and on the other side one has the Word of God who knows all things.

 

[Muffled]

Natural selection is the mechanism behind evolution.

I have always wondered how mutation would survive. To survive it needs to replicate but since it is new it does not have a mate. I suppose if it is close enough it can mate with something different after all the Neanderthals did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed that the fact of evolution doesn't contradict Christianity, but I'd say that the theory is at odds with Christian dogma: Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image." That would be directed evolution. If that's correct, the theory is incomplete, since in it, only blind natural (unintended) mechanisms direct evolution.

Let me take on the role of a rational Christian apologist (I know, that is a mythical critter)

The image that Genesis is talking about is a mental image. Our minds reason in a similar way that God's mind reasons. There is no seeing of an invisible being. God has no physical form so we cannot be made in a physical image of God. But God has a mental image. And we can be made in that.

That is at least an argument that a rational Christian would use in my opinion.

I was such a Christian once. Just like the Christians on RF, I just never allowed anything to refute the Bible. If I had, I would have to admit that the Bible contains errors and that therefore, at least some of it was written by men speaking for a god, and there was no test to help one determine which were the words a god authored.

Okay, the imaginary Rational Christian apologist again:

There are clear errors in the Bible. That is why it is an error to demand that all of it is literally true. But there is a deeper underlying truth to it. I do not know of any Christian that follows the old laws of slavery. Of what to do with adulterers. Of what to do with people with different religious views living in one's neighborhood. One simply cannot interpret the Bible literally and still be a "Christian". Some of the least Christian people that I know of are those that are overly literalistic. Jesus even warned us of those people. They are the people that openly worshipped Jesus but never followed his commandments on how to treat others, especially those in need. Matthew 7 1-23 is a very good example of this. To those that did not follow the Golden Rule and love others as they love themselves he will say "I don't know you". Sadly this does apply to most literalists.

Okay, back to normal mode. I can appreciate a lot of the teachings of Jesus. Of course the claims of how to get to heaven are what bother me. Substitutionary atonement is actually evil. It is unnecessary. If God is omnipotent he does not need an apology to him. There was no need for Jesus to die for the sins of others. That is just based upon a flawed idea that revenge is part of justice.

 

[firedragon]

On one side one has a theory developed by the flawed thinking of men and on the other side one has the Word of God who knows all things.

Thanks for that statement.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That's an anecdotal fallacy.

cre·a·tion·ism
/krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/
noun
the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

You are speaking about the Young Earth Creationists.

Not at all. In fact, I consciously chose words that would leave it open to both young earth creationists, and creationists who think the six days were very long, extended time period.

Why?

If you reference the dictionary definition I gave, it specifically says "rather than natural processes such as evolution." IOW I'm not making it up. You are trying to redefine what creationism means, and you don't get to do that.

 

[firedragon]

cre·a·tion·ism
/krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/
noun
the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

You must look beyond quickly googling something.

Yes. "As in the biblical account". A good example for the west. You are doing a slippery slope fallacy.

Maybe you should read a non-religious more comprehensive, still absolutely western centric source just to get a tad acquainted with some nuances. Creationism, Ideology, and Science | National Center for Science Education

If you go to Islamic books in history it's all creationism. Some scholars believed or wrote about evolution while being creationists. Not like the YEC in the west.

If you reference the dictionary definition I gave, it specifically says "rather than natural processes such as evolution." IOW I'm not making it up. You are trying to redefine what creationism means, and you don't get to do that.

Not good enough. This is such low level of research you are doing. I think it's beneath you.

Evolution could never prove the non-existence of God. Even hard atheists like Richard Dawkins affirms that being such a strong evangelist.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You must look beyond quickly googling something.

Yes. "As in the biblical account". A good example for the west. You are doing a slippery slope fallacy.

I have no idea what slippery slope you are referring to. I simply gave the facts about what the word means in English. A dictionary is a perfectly authoritative source for what words mean. My objection to you is that you are trying to redefine the word, and you simply don't have the authority to do that.

 

[firedragon]

I have no idea what slippery slope you are referring to. I simply gave the facts about what the word means in English. A dictionary is a perfectly authoritative source for what words mean. My objection to you is that you are trying to redefine the word, and you simply don't have the authority to do that.

Let me give you a slightly better source than "a dictionary". I can see you are not interested since I gave you already. But for the sake of understanding better, I will do it once more. Just so that you can read the nuances.

Creationism, Ideology, and Science | National Center for Science Education

by Eugenie C. Scott Many causes and movements were discussed during the "Flight from Science and Reason" conference. Most reject science as a way of knowing, or denigrate logic or reason.

ncse.ngo

You claimed that creationism as a whole is the belief that the universe was created in "six days". I told you you are referring to the YEC movement specifically. This is not just a word in a dictionary. This is about studying the topic. Since you love dictionaries, read about the YEC in "a dictionary" - Creationism | Definitions, History, & Facts

I know that you don't care to learn something and go beyond "a dictionary" or what you have heard in the west from somewhere. But let me give you some information.

In Arabic it's called Alkhalkeeyah. This is a western term, translated into Arabic. And it refers to Islamic creationism which had included evolution since maybe the 14th century or even further.

Ciao.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Let me give you a slightly better source than "a dictionary". I can see you are not interested since I gave you already. But for the sake of understanding better, I will do it once more. Just so that you can read the nuances.

Creationism, Ideology, and Science | National Center for Science Education

by Eugenie C. Scott Many causes and movements were discussed during the "Flight from Science and Reason" conference. Most reject science as a way of knowing, or denigrate logic or reason.

ncse.ngo

You claimed that creationism as a whole is the belief that the universe was created in "six days". I told you you are referring to the YEC movement specifically. This is not just a word in a dictionary. This is about studying the topic. Since you love dictionaries, read about the YEC in "a dictionary" - Creationism | Definitions, History, & Facts

I know that you don't care to learn something and go beyond "a dictionary" or what you have heard in the west from somewhere. But let me give you some information.

In Arabic it's called Alkhalkeeyah. This is a western term, translated into Arabic. And it refers to Islamic creationism which had included evolution since maybe the 14th century or even further.

Ciao.

A book is not authoritative in determing the meaning of a word. A dictionary is. That's why I quoted it for you. I'm sorry you can't accept that you are misusing the word.

Again, I specifically worded it that the six day could be literal or figurative, which means a person can be a creationist and blieve those six days are extended periods of time.

If you are i.e. a theist who believes in a Creator, and you believe that this happened via the big bang, and that perhaps there was intervention in th ecreation of life from non-life, but you do accept evaolution, that is not anything even remotely close to being a creationist.

I'm not going to continue arguing with you. I won't be responding further. It's entirely your decision whether you want to face the facts or remain in denial. Be well.

 

[Valjean]

There are "all or nothing" Christians out there. Some of them believe that if anyone refutes any part of the Bible that it is all refuted. I think that is rather foolish belief since there are parts of the Bible that clearly never happened. The still work as morality tales, but that is not good enough for literalists.

The Bible has parts that refute each other, and many of its morality tales are questionable, at best.

 

[McBell]

Agreed that the fact of evolution doesn't contradict Christianity, but I'd say that the theory is at odds with Christian dogma: Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image." That would be directed evolution. If that's correct, the theory is incomplete, since in it, only blind natural (unintended) mechanisms direct evolution.

I was such a Christian once. Just like the Christians on RF, I just never allowed anything to refute the Bible. If I had, I would have to admit that the Bible contains errors and that therefore, at least some of it was written by men speaking for a god, and there was no test to help one determine which were the words a god authored.

It is my opinion that evolution does not have to conflict with Christianity.
It is also my opinion that some Christians are so desperate for a bad guy to fight that they jump on the "Evolution is evil" bandwagon.

 

[McBell]

On one side one has a theory developed by the flawed thinking of men and on the other side one has the Word of God who knows all things.

Actually, one side has a theory and the other side only has wishful thinking.

Of course, I am using the science definition of theory, not the religious definition of theory.

 

[McBell]

Let me take on the role of a rational Christian apologist (I know, that is a mythical critter)

Spoiler: Unpopular opinion

To be completely honest, It is my opinion that the majority of Christians are rational.
At least for the most part.

The problem, as I see it, is that it is the irrational nut job Christians who make the most noise, so they are the ones heard from the most.
Which makes it appear that the majority of Christians are irrational nut jobs.

 

[McBell]

A book is not authoritative in determing the meaning of a word. A dictionary is.

Is not a dictionary a book?
And if so, would that not mean, by your own first sentence, that it is not authoritative in determining the meaning of a word?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Bible has parts that refute each other,

Yes. I find that these sorts cannot see anything other than inerrancy, because it protects them from their fears. The real world is a messier place where we are often unsure of things. In the back of their minds, they are afraid that if the Bible has an error in it, that the world will come crashing down. And indeed, their fantasy world would collapse.

 

[Valjean]

On one side one has a theory developed by the flawed thinking of men and on the other side one has the Word of God who knows all things.

No, One side has observable, tested facts, the other has an anthology containing clear factual errors, contradictions, edits, and questionable moral precepts.

Why do you consider the Bible the word of God, Muffled?

I have always wondered how mutation would survive. To survive it needs to replicate but since it is new it does not have a mate. I suppose if it is close enough it can mate with something different after all the Neanderthals did.

What does mutation have to do with mating? A mutation's more like a typo in the genome of a cell. Cells reproduce by fission. They don't mate. They just split in two.

Of course. When a sexual organism mates, the cells, mutated and otherwise, are copied. But it's reproductive variation -- the mixing of the genes of two different individuals -- that creates most of the variation evolution works with, not mutation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

On one side one has a theory developed by the flawed thinking of men and on the other side one has the Word of God who knows all things.

I agree with Valjean. You have no evidence that the Bible is somehow written by God. Clearly its books were written by all sorts of men. Many times one book has more than one author, whose writings have been spliced together by editors.

And yes, men make mistakes. Which is clearly why the Bible has contradictions and errors. I'm sure you don't think that a Master can rightfully beat a slave because the slave is his property.

 

[Valjean]

Evolution could never prove the non-existence of God. Even hard atheists like Richard Dawkins affirms that being such a strong evangelist.

When did 'evolution' even try to prove the non-existence of God?