Creationism and Evolution. Conflict or reconciliation.

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, by definition of the word "creationism".

View attachment 48880

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?

An interesting note, the definition of "creationism" has changed over the years. And by its original definition evolution did refute creationism. Do you know who was first credited with using that term?

 

[Valjean]

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.

But that's not remotely how it happened.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The query is, is evolution necessarily debunking creationism?

If the creation story involves the creation of the species de novo, then the two are irreconcilable, as the theory of biological evolution posits a single last universal common ancestor that evolved into the present tree of life undirected.

If the story is like the deistic theology, where a god created a seed and walked away from it as it evolved into the forces, the elementary particles and the elements, galaxies of stars and their satellites, life, and mind that we find today, then that is not incompatible with the science.

Christianity is incompatible with the science, as it posits that man was created in God's image, is not one of the beasts, and unlike the beasts, has a soul. There is no room for any of that in the scientific theory. Even if one claims that life evolved from a common ancestor under the direction of a god, it is incompatible with Darwin's theory.

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.

This is the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: "a logical fallacy based on the metaphor of a gunman shooting the side of a barn, then drawing targets around the bullet-hole clusters to make it look like he hit the target. It illustrates how people look for similarities, ignoring differences, and do not account for randomness."

Make a list of all the claims of the biblical creation stories and another list of all of the claims of the scientific model, emphasize where there is overlap while ignoring the discrepancies, and claim that that is meaningful and prescient even. That's fallacious reasoning.

The commonest is to claim some kind of special insight because both the Bible and the science say that there was a beginning to the universe. The creation story missed universal expansion, symmetry breaking, inflation, 9 billion years between the big bang and the advent of our sun and the earth, the cooling of the earth, the acquisition of water from comets, and biological evolution.

By the way, life appeared in the oceans long before it appeared on land.

 

[PruePhillip]

If the creation story involves the creation of the species de novo, then the two are irreconcilable, as the theory of biological evolution posits a single last universal common ancestor that evolved into the present tree of life undirected.

If the story is like the deistic theology, where a god created a seed and walked away from it as it evolved into the forces, the elementary particles and the elements, galaxies of stars and their satellites, life, and mind that we find today, then that is not incompatible with the science.

Christianity is incompatible with the science, as it posits that man was created in God's image, is not one of the beasts, and unlike the beasts, has a soul. There is no room for any of that in the scientific theory. Even if one claims that life evolved from a common ancestor under the direction of a god, it is incompatible with Darwin's theory.



This is the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: "a logical fallacy based on the metaphor of a gunman shooting the side of a barn, then drawing targets around the bullet-hole clusters to make it look like he hit the target. It illustrates how people look for similarities, ignoring differences, and do not account for randomness."

Make a list of all the claims of the biblical creation stories and another list of all of the claims of the scientific model, emphasize where there is overlap while ignoring the discrepancies, and claim that that is meaningful and prescient even. That's fallacious reasoning.

The commonest is to claim some kind of special insight because both the Bible and the science say that there was a beginning to the universe. The creation story missed universal expansion, symmetry breaking, inflation, 9 billion years between the big bang and the advent of our sun and the earth, the cooling of the earth, the acquisition of water from comets, and biological evolution.

By the way, life appeared in the oceans long before it appeared on land.

Back about the year 2005 the idea of there being an early ocean was nonsense. Then came the
discovery of water in zircon crystals in Australia.
Can't remember when it was decided that the continents rose - but they needed water for subduction
and the formation of lighter granite.
The first real evidence for the early Venus-like atmosphere came in 2021. It's clearing opened the
earth to direct sunshine.
The conclusion that life came from the wetting and drying effect of fresh water for the early organics
came about 2020.

 

[PruePhillip]

But that's not remotely how it happened.

?????????????????????????????
That is the sequence.
Certainly there's tons of other things happening like the 'late bombardment' and
'snowball earth' and maybe other things we don't know about.
And you could also speak of proto-metalic stars, the ionization period, the Big
Bang, Membrane theory for the Big Bang etc etc etc etc..
The bible is not a science book - it was written, for the most part, who thought
the earth was flat.

 

[blü 2]

By creationism I mean the typical theistic stand that the universe was a creation and God exists and was/is the creator.

[...] is evolution necessarily debunking creationism?

If one takes the view that God exists and God is the creator and God chose evolution as the means to generate species, then that works, I guess.

Beneath the surface, though, is the simple harshness of the rules of survival which are part of the engine of evolution. It's not at all obvious that a god choosing evolution is a very empathic sort of character. [He] makes species to feed other species, [he] directs asteroids to collide with the earth and kill most things, and so on ─ then again, [he] already sits on [his] hands as natural disasters, plagues and Covids, wars and road accidents, droughts, floods and famines come and go, children are killed in accidents &c, so perhaps that's no problem at all.

 

[Deeje]

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?

Many people assume that belief in a Creator is the same as believing in magic......that is not true. What science studies is way more than magic.....the ultimate scientist is the Creator. How can anyone look at creation and not see intelligent planning? How can blind chance explain what science knows? How can laws exist that have no intelligent source?

If an all powerful Creator exists, then he did not create all that we see in his vast universe for no reason. There has to be a purpose for its existence.....and ours.

Too many things exhibit thoughtful and clever planning, something unique to God and man, (made in his image). Like the Creator, we too can plan the future and by our own endeavours make those plans come to fruition.

Animals act on instinct which is programmed into their DNA. They live in the present, and have no real concept of the future so they do not plan future activities....although they can retain memories of the past that affect the present.

So if we can find out why we are here, and how we fit into the big scheme of things, we will no doubt see why everything is the way it is.

It’s not like the Creator left us in the dark....

 

[firedragon]

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

The topic is not "mechanisms of evolution".

 

[firedragon]

If one takes the view that God exists and God is the creator and God chose evolution as the means to generate species, then that works, I guess.

Beneath the surface, though, is the simple harshness of the rules of survival which are part of the engine of evolution. It's not at all obvious that a god choosing evolution is a very empathic sort of character. [He] makes species to feed other species, [he] directs asteroids to collide with the earth and kill most things, and so on ─ then again, [he] already sits on [his] hands as natural disasters, plagues and Covids, wars and road accidents, droughts, floods and famines come and go, children are killed in accidents &c, so perhaps that's no problem at all.

I think a lot of people are obsessed with their favourite topics. Very good.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The topic is not "mechanisms of evolution".

No, but if you're going to talk about a computer at some point in time the hardware and software are going to be mentioned.

 

[firedragon]

No, but if you're going to talk about a computer at some point in time the hardware and software are going to be mentioned.

OK. Not a problem.

 

[blü 2]

I think a lot of people are obsessed with their favourite topics. Very good.

Which topic seems to you 'obsessive'?

 

[Etritonakin]

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?

No.

It is really just a question of which happened at which point.

Obviously, both evolution and creativity exist and naturally occur.

Specific points may be debunked, but the general idea of the necessity of a creator is logical.

Ironically, the idea that such a creator necessarily evolved is also logical.

"Everything" becoming self-aware and self-determining is actually the most logical explanation for the extreme purposeful complexity of the universe. Something must lie between the most simple state possible and the present -and the development of creativity is the "usual suspect" -a necessary intermediate stage for which we have billions of examples.

Strangely, a developing God would still be just as eternal. There could never have been absolute nothing, so that which exists has "always" existed. In a state of most extreme simplicity, time would have little meaning due to minimal interaction -but more so with increased complexity and interaction.

It may actually be true that evolution applies more to God than ourselves -and such a God would understand the concept enough to create thereby -to harness and direct that which is already in motion. It makes micromanagement unnecessary, but also can be tweaked at any point.

Referenced from most extreme simplicity, the fact that the various atoms and forces -which once did not exist as such -happened to develop into such an environment and also lend themselves perfectly to the development of inhabitants by DNA self-replication indicates extreme purposeful complexity -as does the fact that we as individuals have zero input until we awaken within an essentially mass-produced, extremely capable body and mind.

An original would necessarily have as much input as increasingly able -first understanding itself, then altering the otherwise-inevitable course of things.

DNA-based evolution is seen as an unguided process which has lead to the development of processors/guides -but an original processor/guide developing from simplicity would essentially be the first order of business - preceding and making possible the extreme process we know as the universe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No.

It is really just a question of which happened at which point.

I don't really see where the conflict comes in at when we think of religion as in all religions and not monotheism. In one form or another, in this religion and that religion, we are made from the Earth and elements (often a breath/wind) were used in our creation. And it turns out to the best of our knowledge it appears the Earth may have given birth to us. And in many religions we find the idea of life being connected somehow, such as through spiritual energies, a collective conscious, or being related to other animals. In this case we have solid evidence to showing us all life is actually all related.
It seems our best natural explanations are actually aren't really all that much at odds with many creation mythos. To Sagan we are made of "star stuff," to the Bible we are made from dirt, and that too is star stuff.

 

[We Never Know]

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?

What if a god started everything in motion and has since let everything evolve? Would there be a conflict, if so why?
What if everything is a result of nature and a god created nature? Would there be a conflict, if so why?
What if we are nothing more than an ant farm project to an alien race? Would there be a conflict, If so why?
What if everything is just a natural happening with an unknown start? Would there be a conflict, If so why?
What if everything we perceive as real is just our imagination and not what it seems? Would there be a conflict, If so why?

 

[PruePhillip]

If one takes the view that God exists and God is the creator and God chose evolution as the means to generate species, then that works, I guess.

Beneath the surface, though, is the simple harshness of the rules of survival which are part of the engine of evolution. It's not at all obvious that a god choosing evolution is a very empathic sort of character. [He] makes species to feed other species, [he] directs asteroids to collide with the earth and kill most things, and so on ─ then again, [he] already sits on [his] hands as natural disasters, plagues and Covids, wars and road accidents, droughts, floods and famines come and go, children are killed in accidents &c, so perhaps that's no problem at all.

And if this said God declared none of these calamities would happen then you could
call him a Liar. But God never said anything like that - indeed, as you read the Gospels
you get a very real sense that Jesus was warning about the brevity and uncertainty of
life.
Fer instance he spoke to those Jews who thought the falling of the 'tower of Siloam'
was meant to strike sinners, "No, but unless you repent you shall likewise perish."
So why did some die when this tower fell? Because they were underneath it. That's
all. Life is brief, life is tough and the universe is cruel.

 

[YoursTrue]

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 depends. Actually, part of it depends on definitions of what is evolution, and what is creation.

 

[YoursTrue]

And if this said God declared none of these calamities would happen then you could
call him a Liar. But God never said anything like that - indeed, as you read the Gospels
you get a very real sense that Jesus was warning about the brevity and uncertainty of
life.
Fer instance he spoke to those Jews who thought the falling of the 'tower of Siloam'
was meant to strike sinners, "No, but unless you repent you shall likewise perish."
So why did some die when this tower fell? Because they were underneath it. That's
all. Life is brief, life is tough and the universe is cruel.

Interesting. Not that I agree with everything you say, but the application you made of Jesus' statement is very interesting.

 

[Etritonakin]

I don't really see where the conflict comes in at when we think of religion as in all religions and not monotheism. In one form or another, in this religion and that religion, we are made from the Earth and elements (often a breath/wind) were used in our creation. And it turns out to the best of our knowledge it appears the Earth may have given birth to us. And in many religions we find the idea of life being connected somehow, such as through spiritual energies, a collective conscious, or being related to other animals. In this case we have solid evidence to showing us all life is actually all related.
It seems our best natural explanations are actually aren't really all that much at odds with many creation mythos. To Sagan we are made of "star stuff," to the Bible we are made from dirt, and that too is star stuff.

Please see edit above.

In addition (all of this is as I presently see it)...

"Everything" could only develop so far until it essentially looked in a mirror (self-replication) and understood enough to say "that is me". From that point it could knowingly alter the mirror image -and understand it could also alter itself. At such an early stage, however, that would not mean much. It would mean increasingly more as the self developed. That mirror image -from the beginnings of memory and imagination/modelling (necessary for processing) -would also be the point of logical separation of self and environment -as the self could be changed one way and the image another. I say logical separation as the mirror image and later environment would technically still be part of the overall self.

A universe -and especially a planet -such as ours developing before us (physical life) -essentially ready for us -is the cart before the horse -the opposite of what is logically to be expected in the beginning - but made possible by that beginning.
This is most true of humans -who have greatest understanding and dominion among Earthly life forms.

Simplicity is a suitable environment for the development of a decision-maker first -which may then create a rich, complex, extremely purposeful environment for itself and others. From our perspective alone, however, it has seemed the opposite is true -that allllllllllllllllllll that preceded us was necessary before true decision-making and creativity became possible.

We may consider the singularity/big bang to be the very beginning, but it was already extremely complex and specific. It was in no way the simplicity to be expected in the beginning. It's extreme purposeful complexity and specificity concerning what it would certainly become means it could not have been the beginning -as the beginning must be essentially irreducible and least complex.

What was inevitably caused by it after it's initiation was countless different environments/worlds upon which countless physical life forms could develop -from the same interactive forces and elements those life forms could then manipulate -eventually to wonder in awe about all other countless worlds and life forms -and the neverending things it might create.

If we can realize little wooden building blocks or Legos were made with care specifically for us -can't we even consider the same of the elements of the periodic table?

(Another way to say "that is me" is "I AM".
If we consider other statements attributed to God in reference to these ideas, a developing God is not against scripture...
"I AM THAT AM", "is, was and is to come", "Alpha and Omega", "the most high" etc., etc.)

 

[firedragon]

It depends. Actually, part of it depends on definitions of what is evolution, and what is creation.

Yep. Said in the OP.