Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Sapiens]

Exactly, our understanding evolves, what is considered as fact today (most probable), future scientific findings may change it.

More often there are rather minor modifications rather than wholesale changes.

 

[Sapiens]

For some reason, definitions such as "Universal spirit of higher power", deity, singular self-subsistent substance (Spinozism), or any spirituality definition would be more appealing to people than God. Even the belief that Aliens are involved or responsible for our existence is more appealing to many people.

People keep circling the idea of a higher power supreme being of some sort but yet don't acknowledge/understand his existence. Or they may acknowledge existence and deny involvement in creation. This is not logical. If you believe in a supreme being (of any sort), then he would to be involved in creation. In other words, it's a belief in God/Creation. The understandings or explanations of God (the supreme being) are many (as mentioned above) but beyond multiple explanations and definitions, God is one.

I do not believe. I think it is a sophomoric (literally) semantic game with not basis in reality.

 

[gnostic]

To me both are some sort of belief systems. People simply choose to follow one or another not because they are scientists, theologians or have specific compelling evidence but merely because they are free to choose what they believe in and when they choose, most people mainly follow the thoughts or teachings of others that they think can be trusted (whether right or wrong). In that sense, both Evolution and Creationism are similar. What do you think?

They are not the same.

Evolution is biology.

Evolution is science of which biologists explain the mechanisms for why and how life change, over period of time (generations, not years). It is related to genetics, but at population-level, and not merely from parents to children.

The study of viruses, diseases and vaccines, is most evident in evolution, therefore it is very clear that evolution is not merely a belief system.

That new strains of viruses developed resistance and even immunity against the current vaccines, demonstrate Natural Selection in action. Mutation, is another mechanism in evolution, that are possible in viral diseases.

In fact, Genesis 1 & 2 cannot explain one thing about the human anatomy or the anatomy of any animal, let alone how our body functions (physiology).

Creationism doesn't teach or explain the mechanisms in biology, or in any other fields of science, like earth science or astronomy.

For example, Genesis stated that God created the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day, without explaining anything. While science have been able to explain many things, omitted from the bible, such as how the earth, including other planets and even our sun, rotate on their axes, or how why the planets orbit around our star.

Astronomers can explain all this, especially the "how".

The bible don't explain the "how"; the churches only want you to accept their dogma and scriptures, without explanation, without questioning. In another word, Christianity want to accept all the miracles, all the supernatural, on faith alone in its belief and teachings, without evidences.

Science deals with explanation and evidences, religion on belief and faith. They are opposites to each other.

Another example of how science and religion deal with life - madness.

Science, or more specifically social science, like psychology and mental health, treat madnesses as mental illnesses or behavioural problem. But with the bible, it view as either God sending evil spirits (like King Saul) or demon possessions in the gospels.

Science require observation and understanding why patients break down, and suggest therapy or medical treatments, while Christians believe in superstitions, the belief in the supernatural, like evil spirits and demons, and in which case, the gospels' cases supernatural healing or cure, like exorcism, using mere words or laying of the hand.

Religion relies on superstition, science don't.

 

[NoorNoor]

No, that does not fly.

Maybe it would evolve and grow wings.

 

[metis]

Not true, scientific findings that support Intelligent creation/design exist. The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku said "“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.”

http://ageac.org/en/multimedia/scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists-2/

There simply is no objective evidence for theistic causation one way or the other although, frankly, I wish there was. Nor can we in any way discount that the basic laws of physics along with the laws of quantum mechanics alone could have created all that we perceive. Wish this wasn't true, but I'm afraid it is, at least as far as can be determined.

BTW, see my signature at the bottom on this page.

 

[Valjean]

"intelligence" is the opposite of "chance"

Then it need not refer to any sapient entity. Everyone knows there is order in the world; that things behave predictably.

There is absolutely no evidence of a conscious personage manipulating the laws of Nature.
You're equating order with God. That's not the understanding most people have of God.

 

[viole]

All right. Let's suppose that I am wondering whether absolute truth exists. By "absolute truth" I mean something that is true under all circumstances. Let us suppose that I think that absolute truth does not exist. So I formulate the statement "Absolute truth does not exist," but then I realize that this is a statement that I hold to be absolutely true. It cannot be absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist. Therefore, absolute truth must exist.

That absolute truths exists is obvious. For instance it is absolutely true that all bachelors are not married. We do not really need a lot of logical thinking here.

Once I realize that absolute truth must exist, I start to wonder. Where did this knowledge come from? Did I look out the window and see this absolute truth or did I come to realize that this truth is true a priori? Clearly this is knowledge that I gained without sense experience. Accordingly, I can demonstrate that it is false that all knowledge is gained through sense experience because I have knowledge that I have gained through other means.

Again, I think you are complicating things beyond necessity. That bachelors are not married is a-priori true, we do not need a lot of empirical research to validate that. So, there obviously is, at least, one a-priori truth.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

It's not logical that something would arise out of nothing.

May I ask what materials God used to create the Universe?

Ciao

- viole

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

May I ask what materials God used to create the Universe?

God gets a "free pass" on that one.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Once I realize that absolute truth must exist, I start to wonder.

It is a leap in logic, however, to determine that there is "absolute truth" in all matters.

Where did this knowledge come from?

You stipulate that one has knowledge of "absolute truth". Most who claim to know "absolute truth" can rarely demonstrate that "absolute truth"; and is thus nothing more than a belief that one holds to be true; because belief is not knowledge.

Accordingly, I can demonstrate that it is false that all knowledge is gained through sense experience because I have knowledge that I have gained through other means.

By what other means? Please advise.

 

[Zosimus]

That absolute truths exists is obvious. For instance it is absolutely true that all bachelors are not married. We do not really need a lot of logical thinking here.

I think you are confusing two things. Bachelors are not married by definition. These type of "truths" are only true because of the way we have defined the word. Empirical studies are not required to prove that insects have six legs.

By way of contrast, there are arguments that are purely rational and lead to truth. It is obvious to most people that in order to believe something is true, you should have some sort of reason for that belief. However, what is often claimed on this forum is that in order to believe something is true, you must have some sort of evidence. The assumption, therefore, is that evidence is the only valid reason for believing something. It is this assumption that I challenge.

With that in mind, let's take a simple thought experiment. Imagine that we have a super scientist named Mary. Mary, as it happens, is an expert on neurophysiology and vision. She knows every physical fact about seeing things. However, Mary lives in a post-apocalyptic dystopia in an underground bunker that is only lit by artificial red light. Thus, she has never seen the color blue. Everything she sees appears to be red, gray, or black.

One day when the radiation or whatever on the surface has cleared enough, Mary emerges into the light of the sun and sees new colors for the first time. She sees her companion wearing a green shirt. We now ask the following questions:

1. Do you think that Mary learns something new when she sees color for the first time?
2. Do you think that Mary, on the basis of her complete knowledge of neurophysiology and vision, could determine that the color was green by performing, for example, a brain scan of herself to determine which parts of her brain have been activated?

The traditional answers to this question are:
1. Yes
2. No.

This is a modified version of the Knowledge Argument. If Mary learns something new when she sees color for the first time, something that is intuitively obvious, then it follows that her complete physical knowledge of color was incomplete. From this, philosophers have argued that physicalism–the belief that everything is either material things, such as matter and photons, along with physical forces such as electromagnetic and nuclear forces–is false. Rational philosophers have argued that qualia, the name given to internal experiences comparable to knowing what it's like to see blue, is a non-physical experience of an extra-physical or perhaps even of a spiritual nature.

Obviously this argument is not accepted by most atheists. What's your take on the argument?

 

[Zosimus]

It is a leap in logic, however, to determine that there is "absolute truth" in all matters.

You stipulate that one has knowledge of "absolute truth". Most who claim to know "absolute truth" can rarely demonstrate that "absolute truth"; and is thus nothing more than a belief that one holds to be true; because belief is not knowledge.

By what other means? Please advise.

Your argument fails because you start out by saying or implying that it's not true that "there is absolute truth is all matters."

You are arguing that the above statement is absolutely true. By making this statement, you are tacitly accepting that absolute truth exists.

Since it's not possible to argue that absolute truth doesn't exist without making a statement that you claim to be absolutely true, absolute truth must exist. (Q.E.D.)

Once I realize that absolute truth exists, I also realize that it is possible to determine some absolute truths using logic alone. Now I have two known absolute truths.

1. Absolute truth exists.
2. It is possible, under some circumstances, to gain absolute truth using nothing more than rational thought.

Thus we can conclude immediately that radical empiricism, the claim that all knowledge comes from sense experience, is false.

What about moderate empiricism, the claim that some knowledge can be gained through rational thought, but that said knowledge is limited to analytic propositions. This argument is taken up by Laurence Bonjour in his book In Defense of Pure Reason, and I believe that his argument is irrefutable (although it is far too long to go into in this limited space).

 

[viole]

I think you are confusing two things. Bachelors are not married by definition. These type of "truths" are only true because of the way we have defined the word. Empirical studies are not required to prove that insects have six legs.

They are absolute truths, nevertheless, if statements can either be true or false. So, I do not see how you can exclude a-priori, that your proof that absolute truths exist (by negating it), does not cover only tautologies, hidden or not.

By way of contrast, there are arguments that are purely rational and lead to truth. It is obvious to most people that in order to believe something is true, you should have some sort of reason for that belief. However, what is often claimed on this forum is that in order to believe something is true, you must have some sort of evidence. The assumption, therefore, is that evidence is the only valid reason for believing something. It is this assumption that I challenge.

Personally, I have no problem to positively believe in things without evidence. For instance, I believe that there is life on other planets. So, it appears obvious to me that the existence of life on other planets might be true even if we get extinct before gathering any evidence thereof.

1. Do you think that Mary learns something new when she sees color for the first time?

Yes

2. Do you think that Mary, on the basis of her complete knowledge of neurophysiology and vision, could determine that the color was green by performing, for example, a brain scan of herself to determine which parts of her brain have been activated?

Yes. Especially if neither she nor her partner know in advance what is green and what not.

This is a modified version of the Knowledge Argument. If Mary learns something new when she sees color for the first time, something that is intuitively obvious, then it follows that her complete physical knowledge of color was incomplete. From this, philosophers have argued that physicalism–the belief that everything is either material things, such as matter and photons, along with physical forces such as electromagnetic and nuclear forces–is false. Rational philosophers have argued that qualia, the name given to internal experiences comparable to knowing what it's like to see blue, is a non-physical experience of an extra-physical or perhaps even of a spiritual nature.

I don't think that the possible necessary incompleteness of our knowledge of physical reality, entails that the experience of green is not physical. It just entails that our brains are not wired to access their meta level consciously. Or that they are limited in a strict computational way. Which they probably are, considering that they can have only a limited amount of states, no matter how big.

I know I have obvious limitations. For instance, I have no idea how it feels to see light beyond the frequencies we can see, no matter how much I know about neurobiology and electromagnetism. My nervous system is not wired for that. But I doubt that adding a bit of wiring, extending the bandwidth of some organic sensors, will turn the new experience into something spiritual. It would entail that spiritual experiences necessitate a physical support in order to materialize, which I find difficult to warrant.


Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

They are absolute truths, nevertheless, if statements can either be true or false. So, I do not see how you can exclude a-priori, that your proof that absolute truths exist (by negating it), does not cover only tautologies, hidden or not.



Personally, I have no problem to positively believe in things without evidence. For instance, I believe that there is life on other planets. So, it appears obvious to me that the existence of life on other planets might be true even if we get extinct before gathering any evidence thereof.


Yes


Yes. Especially if neither she nor her partner know in advance what is green and what not.



I don't think that the possible necessary incompleteness of our knowledge of physical reality, entails that the experience of green is not physical. It just entails that our brains are not wired to access their meta level consciously. Or that they are limited in a strict computational way. Which they probably are, considering that they can have only a limited amount of states, no matter how big.

I know I have obvious limitations. For instance, I have no idea how it feels to see light beyond the frequencies we can see, no matter how much I know about neurobiology and electromagnetism. My nervous system is not wired for that. But I doubt that adding a bit of wiring, extending the bandwidth of some organic sensors, will turn the new experience into something spiritual. It would entail that spiritual experiences necessitate a physical support in order to materialize, which I find difficult to warrant.


Ciao

- viole

Then, I think that we mostly agree.

 

[NoorNoor]

May I ask what materials God used to create the Universe?

Ciao

- viole

None, but that doesn't mean the universe appeared without a cause.

Your question imply a need for infinite regression or an existence of something before the beginning of its own existence. Creationism is about an absolute beginning of all what is physical (which necessarily needs or dependent on a cause). The first cause itself, would not be physical and without any need for prior cause. The word "prior" itself wouldn't apply in realm where nothing physical exist.

 

[NoorNoor]

Then it need not refer to any sapient entity. Everyone knows there is order in the world; that things behave predictably.

There is absolutely no evidence of a conscious personage manipulating the laws of Nature.
You're equating order with God. That's not the understanding most people have of God.

Order the world implies design. Design implies intelligence. Intelligence implies conscious self aware intelligent designer.

 

[NoorNoor]

There simply is no objective evidence for theistic causation one way or the other although, frankly, I wish there was. Nor can we in any way discount that the basic laws of physics along with the laws of quantum mechanics alone could have created all that we perceive. Wish this wasn't true, but I'm afraid it is, at least as far as can be determined.

BTW, see my signature at the bottom on this page.

Laws of physics are actually mathematical formulas that quantitatively describe the result of observations. Mathematics is the best "language" to describe the world. But it's Only a "description" of what the world is not why it is.
Physical processes depend on laws but the laws may not depend on physical processes. Why these laws exist? Why they have the form that they do? how they exist or function? laws do create specific order in the world but the question remains, what is the origin of those laws itself or how they came to existence

 

[metis]

Laws of physics are actually mathematical formulas that quantitatively describe the result of observations. Mathematics is the best "language" to describe the world. But it's Only a "description" of what the world is not why it is.
Physical processes depend on laws but the laws may not depend on physical processes. Why these laws exist? Why they have the form that they do? how they exist or function? laws do create specific order in the world but the question remains, what is the origin of those laws itself or how they came to existence

These "laws" exist because all sub-atomic and atomic particles, plus how they many manifest themselves in the formation of molecules, all have different properties that can and obvious do affect other particles and molecules. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist. And just because something exists does not mean that there absolutely must be a deity that made it. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, maybe there was more than one-- there's simply no way of knowing with any certainty because there is no objectively-derived evidence for either possibility.

 

[viole]

None, but that doesn't mean the universe appeared without a cause.

That is not my question. My question is whether God used some pre-existing materials to create the Universe. You seem to imply that He did not. So, He made the Universe out of nothing.

is that correct?

Your question imply a need for infinite regression or an existence of something before the beginning of its own existence. Creationism is about an absolute beginning of all what is physical (which necessarily needs or dependent on a cause). The first cause itself, would not be physical and without any need for prior cause. The word "prior" itself wouldn't apply in realm where nothing physical exist.

My question does not imply anything of the sort. Remember, I am a supporter of the block universe theory of time, so I do not really need to tackle with things like causes, beginnings or anything like that. This interpretation of time get rid of all your arguments, at once.

But I am curious. Suppose that I do not invoke it. Just for fun. What is the problem with infinite regress, if any?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Then, I think that we mostly agree.

Yes, with the possible exception that experiencing colors is a spiritual experience

Ciao

- viole