Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[viole]

Creationism is defined however a person defines it. In my eyes, evolution is simply a part of creationism.

If we believe that God tinkers with proteins, weather changes, continental drifts and huge asteroids in order to achieve His objectives, that is true.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes, you have molded your god to fit your beliefs.
Nothing new or unusual about that.

Never mind -thought your post was addressed to me

 

[Berserk]

Cell biologist, Kenneth R. Miller, can be deemed the poster boy for the defense of conventional evolutionary theory against creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design. He has co-authored a standard biology high school text book for teaching evolution in public schools and has served as a key witness in landmark court cases that rejected the claim the Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. He is probably the most in demand pro-evolution speaker on the public lecture circuit.

Yet to me great amusement, many evolutionists apparently do not realize that Miller is a devout Catholic who believes in God, miracles, an answers to prayer. See e, g,

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_01.html

 

[Skwim]

Cell biologist, Kenneth R. Miller, can be deemed the poster boy for the defense of conventional evolutionary theory against creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design. He has co-authored a standard biology high school text book for teaching evolution in public schools and has served as a key witness in landmark court cases that rejected the claim the Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. He is probably the most in demand pro-evolution speaker on the public lecture circuit.

Yet to me great amusement, many evolutionists apparently do not realize that Miller is a devout Catholic who believes in God, miracles, an answers to prayer. See e, g,

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_01.html

Not to be snide, but I have to ask, so what? Were evolutionists denying he was a Catholic who believes in god, miracles, an answers to prayer?


.

 

[OurCreed]

If we believe that God tinkers with proteins, weather changes, continental drifts and huge asteroids in order to achieve His objectives, that is true.

Ciao

- viole

God doesn't tinker with anything, He decrees everything from the beginning. And regarding objectives. God has already technically achieved His objective. Time doesn't exist for Him. It's just that we humans who are living within this process of change (time), are seeing everything unfold in a straight pattern. But for God, it's like boom boom, snap of fingers, universe came into existence, universe came out of existence.

 

[Skwim]

God doesn't tinker with anything, He decrees everything from the beginning. And regarding objectives. God has already technically achieved His objective. Time doesn't exist for Him. It's just that we humans who are living within this process of change (time), are seeing everything unfold in a straight pattern. But for God, it's like boom boom, snap of fingers, universe came into existence, universe came out of existence.

This is remarkable. Where did you learn of it?


,

 

[Etritonakin]

If we believe that God tinkers with proteins, weather changes, continental drifts and huge asteroids in order to achieve His objectives, that is true.

Ciao

- viole

That would be consistent with biblical scripture.
God is able to act directly, but is often described as acting through "nature".

On a global scale, a third of sea life and a third of the ships on the sea are to be destroyed by "a great mountain burning with fire" being "cast into the sea".
Whether a volcano/landslide or an object from space, that would at least indicate foreknowledge -but other scriptures indicate overall intent.

On a smaller scale, it is said that God has his way in the storm -directs the actions of animal life -uses diseases to affect change, etc....

 

[NoorNoor]

A creationist (devout catholic) teaches evolution and co-author a book teaching evolution in public school. A student learn evolution from a book by a creationist, then becomes an evolutionist who is very confident that science contradicts creationism??? What a mess!

 

[LuisDantas]

A creationist (devout catholic) teaches evolution and co-author a book teaching evolution in public school. A student learn evolution from a book by a creationist, then becomes an evolutionist who is very confident that science contradicts creationism??? What a mess!

How so? It is to be expected.

 

[idav]

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?

No science doesnt appeal to authority like religion, thats actually taboo in science circles. The knowledge comes from peers getting the same results.

 

[NoorNoor]

How so? It is to be expected.

A distance or a value can't be identified unless compared to a (trusted) reference. Similarly, Observations and data wouldn't have any meaning or value unless evaluated by a logical human intellect (similar to raw material waiting to be fabricated by an intelligent process). Science and logic are inseparable but Logic is a higher reference that gives science itself a meaning.

Logic is a product of human intellect but what identifies logic itself as a trusted reference? I imagine a higher external reference would be required.

You always need a trusted reference to identify any value. The hierarchy of references keeps escalating as you find every reference dependent on another higher reference. As the process continues, a logical end would be a final single trusted reference higher than all other references.

Going back to your comment, if a creationist (Ken Miller) can't be trusted/ accepted as a viable scientific mind (from evolutionist perspective), then trusting him or his work as a credible science reference would be illogical. But that would only depend on your definition of logic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A distance or a value can't be identified unless compared to a (trusted) reference. Similarly, Observations and data wouldn't have any meaning or value unless evaluated by a logical human intellect (similar to raw material waiting to be fabricated by an intelligent process). Science and logic are inseparable but Logic is a higher reference that gives science itself a meaning.

Logic is a product of human intellect but what identifies logic itself as a trusted reference? I imagine a higher external reference would be required.

You always need a trusted reference to identify any value. The hierarchy of references keeps escalating as you find every reference dependent on another higher reference. As the process continues, a logical end would be a final single trusted reference higher than all other references.

Going back to your comment, if a creationist (Ken Miller) can't be trusted/ accepted as a viable scientific mind (from evolutionist perspective), then trusting him or his work as a credible science reference would be illogical. But that would only depend on your definition of logic.

Miller isn't a creationist.

 

[LuisDantas]

A distance or a value can't be identified unless compared to a (trusted) reference. Similarly, Observations and data wouldn't have any meaning or value unless evaluated by a logical human intellect (similar to raw material waiting to be fabricated by an intelligent process). Science and logic are inseparable but Logic is a higher reference that gives science itself a meaning.

Logic is a product of human intellect but what identifies logic itself as a trusted reference? I imagine a higher external reference would be required.

You always need a trusted reference to identify any value. The hierarchy of references keeps escalating as you find every reference dependent on another higher reference. As the process continues, a logical end would be a final single trusted reference higher than all other references.

Whatever you are describing is not science.

Going back to your comment, if a creationist (Ken Miller) can't be trusted/ accepted as a viable scientific mind (from evolutionist perspective), then trusting him or his work as a credible science reference would be illogical. But that would only depend on your definition of logic.

It maters not what he believes in, or even whether he is honest or sane, as long as the claims are falsifiable and testable.

 

[NoorNoor]

Miller isn't a creationist.

Miller's theory points to a deity that created a self-sufficient world, which functions virtually independently from God's influences. In this view, God used science and physics to create a complex world and then allowed it to evolve on its own

 

[OurCreed]

This is remarkable. Where did you learn of it?


,

Through logic, given the attribute of God being eternal. If we accept any entity to be eternal, as well as being outside of time, then this universe literally existed within a blink of an eye (even less), in God's perspective.

 

[LuisDantas]

Miller's theory points to a deity that created a self-sufficient world, which functions virtually independently from God's influences. In this view, God used science and physics to create a complex world and then allowed it to evolve on its own

That is not what most people call a creationist.

 

[Desert Snake]

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?

Not necessarily. Creationism can be reached from /logical inference, no teaching or religious ideas involved.

 

[NoorNoor]

That is not what most people call a creationist.

If Ken Miller believes that God is responsible for the existence of our world, then he is essentially a creationist. The details of his specific perspective, don't change the fact that he believes in God.

 

[NoorNoor]

It maters not what he believes in, or even whether he is honest or sane, as long as the claims are falsifiable and testable.

Most people wouldn't trust a dishonest insane to be a credible reference.

 

[Skwim]

Through logic, given the attribute of God being eternal. If we accept any entity to be eternal, as well as being outside of time, then this universe literally existed within a blink of an eye (even less), in God's perspective.

So being eternal means "God has already technically achieved His objective" and "God doesn't tinker with anything." Honestly, I don't see how these follow at all, much less logically. Perhaps you could lay out the logic you used for us.


.