Evolution and Creationism: because ...

[First Baseman]

Only one is an explanation. The other is just an assertion of agency.

Only one changes with the times while the other is solid and never changes and never will.

 

[George-ananda]

The confusion might be because the word 'creationism' has been given a much broader scope by some. That one word 'creationism' is not clear anymore. People need to clarify their beliefs with more than one word to avoid this confusion.

For example, I believe in abiogenesis and evolution fostered by intelligence through nature spirits/beings. Am I a 'creationist' or an 'evolutionist'? Or both? Any one word will leave many with the wrong impression of my beliefs.

 

[Quintessence]

Ok, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I asked because I suppose the way that you use the word "god" is a little ... different than most monotheists, to say the least! I think I could use the word "god" to mean "all things", but I just find the term redundant.

*laughs* Well yes, Paganisms are definitely different than monotheist religions, theologically. Perfectly fine if you find the term redundant - folks whose theology incorporates elements of pantheism wouldn't consider it redundant. I see that word "god" as non-redundant for two reasons: (1) it's an honorific title, akin to "lord" or "lady," that conveys a special status of honor or worth, (2) by extension, granting something an honorific has implications for how we behave towards that thing, or the relationship established with it. Honestly, the word "god" itself isn't particularly important to me - it's the function it serves in terms of being an honorific and how it adjusts expectations for relationships and behavior.

I can say that I revere all things, ( and call that god ) but .. I really don't revere all things, not really. In theory I can.. but in practice, no. I am NOT so idealistic as to want to revere childhood leukemia, for example. I'm that shallow, I suppose.

I don't think it's shallow. From my perspective as a polytheist, it mostly just looks like you're choosing what you want to actively worship, which is what all polytheists do. You get to pick favorites - honor the things that are most meaningful and important to you, personally (or your community, as the case was historically, at least).

To me, saying that there is some "essence or nature of things" is very confusing. I would like to know what you mean by that if not another concept. Again, to me, it seems that you revere your concepts.

Maybe I should ask what you mean by "concept?"

At any rate, another way of framing what I mean by "spirit" is the identity of something, or it's persona or character. The spirit of a thing answers the question "what is this thing?" Think about some particular tree you know of. The spirit of that tree is that tree - it's all that the tree is: the bark, the roots, the leaves, the relationships it has with other things in its community... all the stuff that makes its "treeness" or its nature. Or to put things another way, the "spirit" itself is the territory, but the human understanding of that would be a map or what you might be calling "concept." Unless your ontological philosophy is such that you believe there is no territory at all, the things I'm talking about are not "concepts" they are actual things, whether tangible, intangible, or both. Something like the Spirit of Evolution isn't a tangible thing that can be pointed to, but it is a phenomena that happens (well, unless you deny evolution is a thing at all, as some do).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Only one changes with the times while the other is solid and never changes and never will.

Changing in accordance with the available information is what makes something MORE reliable, not less. If something is wrong, then it will forever remain wrong. Never changing is not a virtue.​

 

[Quintessence]

The confusion might be because the word 'creationism' has been given a much broader scope by some. That one word 'creationism' is not clear anymore. People need to clarify their beliefs with more than one word to avoid this confusion.

For example, I believe in abiogenesis and evolution fostered by intelligence through nature spirits/beings. Am I a 'creationist' or an 'evolutionist'? Or both? Any one word will leave many with the wrong impression of my beliefs.

Well, if we bothered to be consistent about how we use -ist terms, the only people who would properly be called evolutionists are biological scientists who specialize in researching biological evolution (just as a chem-ist is a scientist who specializes in chemistry, a meteorolog-ist is a scientist who specializes in atmospheric sciences, etc.).

 

[George-ananda]

Well, if we bothered to be consistent about how we use -ist terms, the only people who would properly be called evolutionists are biological scientists who specialize in researching biological evolution (just as a chem-ist is a scientist who specializes in chemistry, a meteorolog-ist is a scientist who specializes in atmospheric sciences, etc.).

Agreed. Actually 'evolution believer' and 'creation believer' is a better way of putting it than 'evolutionist' and 'creationist'.

 

[Quintessence]

Agreed. Actually 'evolution believer' and 'creation believer' is a better way of putting it than 'evolutionist' and 'creationist'.

That framing can be problematic in that it assumes that these are matters of belief rather than, say, experience, practice, or knowledge. Many discussions about religious topics in America slant towards "belief" and "faith" language, which is a byproduct of the dominance of Protestant Christian thought - which emphasizes these things. It's not the best term for religions that aren't belief-based or faith-based, and definitely not a good term for discussing scientifically-derived knowledge. Really, the entire conversation about the topic should not be simplified. To often it gets framed into a dichotomy, yet it is not a dichotomy. While there is really only one story told by the biological sciences pertaining to evolution, there are many, many stories told about the possible role of the gods in the making of things, and thus many, many varieties of "creationism." Given the dominance of Biblical mythos in America, though, we tend to default to "creationism" meaning "the god of the Bible created the universe" and unfortunately sometimes to "the Bible literally describes how the universe was created" (more properly, YEC).

Bah... rambling now. Stopping.

 

[Valjean]

Only one changes with the times while the other is solid and never changes and never will.

One changes as additional evidence accumulates, the other changes with the political climate.

 

[George-ananda]

That framing can be problematic in that it assumes that these are matters of belief rather than, say, experience, practice, or knowledge. Many discussions about religious topics in America slant towards "belief" and "faith" language, which is a byproduct of the dominance of Protestant Christian thought - which emphasizes these things. It's not the best term for religions that aren't belief-based or faith-based, and definitely not a good term for discussing scientifically-derived knowledge. Really, the entire conversation about the topic should not be simplified. To often it gets framed into a dichotomy, yet it is not a dichotomy. While there is really only one story told by the biological sciences pertaining to evolution, there are many, many stories told about the possible role of the gods in the making of things, and thus many, many varieties of "creationism." Given the dominance of Biblical mythos in America, though, we tend to default to "creationism" meaning "the god of the Bible created the universe" and unfortunately sometimes to "the Bible literally describes how the universe was created" (more properly, YEC).

Bah... rambling now. Stopping.

I think the terms 'belief' and 'faith' are often interchanged unfortunately. I call my beliefs on the origin of life 'belief' as it can not be proved but that it is based on my best analysis of all the evidence and argumentation. So I do not call my beliefs, 'faith'. It is like say 'I believe OJ is guilty', I don't have proof but that is my belief based on my analysis of the evidence and argumentation. So I would never call that 'faith'. In the same way I don't refer to my beliefs about the origin of life 'faith'.

Bah... rambling now. Stopping.

 

[Skwim]

Gotta thank evolution for the creationist movement. Without evolution it would have no reason to exist. Which is why its undertaking necessarily focuses on attacking and dismantling evolution: creationists realize that on its own, Biblical creation fails to convince people it's right and evolution is wrong. On the other hand, evolutionists don't give a hoot what creationists think or do---except when they try to get creationism into public school science classes. So the clash between creationism and evolution is basically a one way affair.

....

EVOLUTIONIST..........CREATIONIST


,​

 

[Altfish]

Altfish,
That is what many people believe, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
Let me ask you; who do you think would know more, and I mean know more about everything? Would it not be The Almighty Creator, who is also PERFECT in knowledge? Job 36:4, 37:16.
Actually, it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than in Creation!! The reason being; there is absolutely NO evidence of evolution, despite the many claims. People believe evolution because people who are supposed to be very smart, say that anyone who does not believe in evolution is ignorant, and most are reluctant to be called ignorant, even though very few have actually investigated evolution, or the Bible, for that matter.
There is a dictionary term, Prestabilism, which means that everything God created, both animal and plant, can ONLY reproduce after its own KIND. This is written several times, in the first chapter of Genesis, 1:11,12,21,24,25. This is a hard and fast law of God!!! For many years scientists have tried, but have failed to be able to break this law. They have made animals put on different looks, longer or shorter legs, make them more aggressive. All these changes are within the established KINDS, and called, Ontogenesis, or Ontogeny. Scientists have experimented with Tsetse Flies, which reproduce very fast, so that many generations can be studied and attempts made to cause evolution. They have failed, totally, both In vivo, and Invitro.
When Darwin was researching the idea of evolution, he said that if evolution could not be proven but the fossil record, it is a false concept. Well that would be the end of the theory, according to Darwin, because the fossil record definitely does NOT support evolution. There have been millions of fossils found, but not ONE that was evolving into a higher form of life. Every fossil was easily differentiated, was easily recognized as to what it was.
Have you ever heard of the dictionary term, Homoplasy??? This concept, which would, necessarily happen, is a complete impossibility. Can you even imagine, two animals, evolving along, one growing female organs, the other male organs, completely independently of the other. They must mature before they could mate to produce offspring. How could they live before they reproduce, and what would be the chances that they would find each other, in the entire earth.
So people think it could happen through Mutations, but no mutations can reproduce. Even such animals, such as the mule, cannot reproduce, because it is getting close to the boundaries of KIND.
Just one more point, although I could write a book on this subject, even though I am not a scientist, but a religious Minister.
If evolution was true, and happening for millions of years, as scientist claim, there would be no distinct Kinds, but all animals would be found to be evolving to a higher Kind. Scientists are always looking for their Scared Monster, the one link between any Kind. Don't you think that at least monster, between all the different Kinds would have been found, by now??
Evolution is really a blasphemy against our Creator!!!

I have some very basic problems with your response.
I don't believe God exists or existed; you quote the Bible - a book written by dessert nomads. Straight away I'm ready to switch off but being a good rational person I read on in the hope of some evidence.
Then it gets worse into the realm of Answers in Genesis. You obviously do not understand evolution and I will assume that is because you have not been taught it.
You then try to be scientific using technical sounding terms and prove that you totally misunderstand evolution. Of course a mutation can't reproduce, a mutation is a by-product of reproduction.
I'm sorry 12jtartar but your knowledge is limited by not being exposed to evolution taught by scientists.
Evolution is a marvellous explanation of the diversity of life on earth. To me, it makes much more sense than creation which makes absolutely no sense and just leads me to ask, "Who created God?"

 

[Acim]

Some people invoke a creator in order to prove that a creator exists. Such circular thinking is never convincing.



1. The scientific method does not include "faith".
2. Denying facts isn't convincing.

Curious what this 'scientific method' is of which you speak. Cause I'm in discussion on another thread, with an self identified scientific practitioner who swears such a method is fictional, or over simplified to point of being meaningless.

But yeah, science filtered thru methodological naturalism does rest on faith, and/or circular reasoning. If convinced by findings in such an endeavor, then perhaps circular thinking is a) all we have and b) entirely convincing.

 

[Shad]

Only one changes with the times while the other is solid and never changes and never will.

Which only demonstrates that an ideology can continue to exist long after not only science but archaeology has shown it to be a flawed view. Also literalism and inerrancy for the complete text as an ideology is Protestant view point, not a Catholic or even that of the earliest leaders of the Church.

 

[First Baseman]

Which only demonstrates that an ideology can continue to exist long after not only science but archaeology has shown it to be a flawed view. Also literalism and inerrancy for the complete text as an ideology is Protestant view point, not a Catholic or even that of the earliest leaders of the Church.

You can't prove it is flawed. So why do you assume it is?

 

[Shad]

You can't prove it is flawed. So why do you assume it is?

Actually looks at modern archaeology; no Hebrew slavery in Egypt, no exodus, no conquest. It has already been shown to be wrong for decades.

 

[First Baseman]

Actually looks at modern archaeology; no Hebrew slavery in Egypt, no exodus, no conquest. It has already been shown to be wrong for decades.

You are quite wrong, sir. Archaeological finds have proved that many of the places mentioned in the book of Exodus did in fact exist. Exactly where the text said they were. You need to stop listening to propaganda and do the research yourself.

 

[Shad]

You are quite wrong, sir. Archaeological finds have proved that many of the places mentioned in the book of Exodus did in fact exist. Exactly where the text said they were. You need to stop listening to propaganda and do the research yourself.

Not really. You are talking to an archaeologists I know my field. You can look up the Exodus conference at Caltech a few years ago to see that no one takes the Biblical story as history which included one of my professors. Lets see your so-called research. I expect to see ramblings by people with no expertise in the specific sub-field be it Syro-Palestine and/or Egyptology or outdated material from the 60s and 70s.

 

[First Baseman]

Not really. You are talking to an archaeologists I know my field. You can look up the Exodus conference at Caltech a few years ago to see that no one takes the Biblical story as history which included one of my professors. Lets see your so-called research. I expect to see ramblings by people with no expertise in the specific sub-field be it Syro-Palestine and/or Egyptology.

If you claim to be an archaeologist and deny that places mentioned in the book of Exodus existed then you are already far too biased for me to have a meaningful conversation with you.

Have a good day, sir. And don't believe everything your professors tell you. Much of what they say is based on assumption, not fact.

 

[Shad]

If you claim to be an archaeologist and deny that places mentioned in the book of Exodus existed then you are already far too biased for me to have a meaningful conversation with you.

Strawman. I said the story of Exodus, the Wandering in Sinai and Conquest as per the Bible are not supported. Anyone can write a fictional story which contains references to real places. Read Sherlock Holmes

Have a good day, sir. And don't believe everything your professors tell you. Much of what they say is based on assumption, not fact.

Amusingly you, a laymen, are declaring what experts know and do not know. What are assumptions compared to valid conclusions.You have provided no evidence to support your claims thus your claims are dismissed on this basis. Your ideology has blinded you, nothing more

Try again, this time remember what evidence is and that is your burden to show said evidence. Let see it... Go

Do not believe what your religious leaders claim about their texts. Oh wait too late.

 

[First Baseman]

Strawman. I said the story of Exodus, the Wandering in Sinai and Conquest as per the Bible are not supported. Anyone can write a fictional story which contains references to real places. Read Sherlock Holmes



Amusingly you, a laymen, are declaring what experts know and do not know. What are assumptions compared to sound valid conclusions.You have provided no evidence to support your claims thus your claims are dismissed on this basis. Try again.

If you go back and look at my post you are referring to I in no way implied that archaeology confirms everything in Exodus. Go back and read it again. You are arguing with the wind here.

You start off by claiming I am guilty of a Straw Man and do exactly that in your next paragraph. How do you expect me to take you seriously when you do that?

Your anti-Christian bias bleeds profusely. Let it bleed full force or put a tourniquet on it. I can see it clear as day in your posts.