Mutually Exclusive?

[Autodidact]

I don't believe they are incompatible, but maybe I'm using the terminology incorrectly. I believe in evolution and in a very, very old earth (Skwim, you should know that evolutionists would tell you the earth has been around not for millions but billions of years.) I believe the process unfolded pretty much as described by evolutionists, except that it happened in accordance to God's plan. I also suspect that I'm not alone in believing as I do.

I would say that this reasonable position accepts science as a way to learn about the world and so, oddly enough, is not really what we mean by the term "creationist." To be a creationist, in common modern terminology, is more than just being a theist. It means rejecting modern biology and geology in favor of a Biblical explanation of life on earth.

btw, "evolutionist" is a meaningless, unhelpful term. I would use the word "scientist" or "science" there.

 

[Autodidact]

Agreed: Not mutually exclusive. Evolution is a scientific theory (and a rather good one) that looks at development of life within the physical universe. Creation focus's on an act of God that transends the physical relm and is therefore beyond the scope of science.

Well it would be nice if creationists would accept this view, and not try to tell scientists that they're wrong.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim - Agreed the action of creating is change, if first one is not creating and then one is creating. Perhaps this alternate universe or God is entirely and eternally one creating action. IE no change.

Well, you're using "change" in two different contexts here. One stands in opposition to a state of stasis---absolutely nothing happening---and the other is in reference to an alteration in an on-going process.

Oddly this fits well with the Christian notion of God as perfect as any change regardless of how small would be a change away from perfection. The Christian God is an eternal static being.

While your god may be unchanging, always retaining the same character, he does act, which necessarily entails changing.

Evolution is a scientific theory (and a rather good one) that looks at development of life within the physical universe.

No less so than gravity is a theory. So while we have gravity and theory(ies) of how it works: the theories of gravity, so too do we have evolution and theory(ies) of how it works: the theory of evolution. One is taken as fact and the other an explanation of that fact.

Creation focus's on an act of God that transends the physical relm and is therefore beyond the scope of science.

Which is why evolutionists fight so hard to prevent its introduction into public schools.

 

[Katzpur]

I would say that this reasonable position accepts science as a way to learn about the world and so, oddly enough, is not really what we mean by the term "creationist." To be a creationist, in common modern terminology, is more than just being a theist. It means rejecting modern biology and geology in favor of a Biblical explanation of life on earth.

Okay, then for sure I'm not a creationist. I've never thought the world was created in six 24-hours days, 6000 years ago.

btw, "evolutionist" is a meaningless, unhelpful term. I would use the word "scientist" or "science" there.

Agreed.

 

[orcel]

Well, you're using "change" in two different contexts here. One stands in opposition to a state of stasis---absolutely nothing happening---and the other is in reference to an alteration in an on-going process.

While your god may be unchanging, always retaining the same character, he does act, which necessarily entails changing.

No less so than gravity is a theory. So while we have gravity and theory(ies) of how it works: the theories of gravity, so too do we have evolution and theory(ies) of how it works: the theory of evolution. One is taken as fact and the other an explanation of that fact.


Which is why evolutionists fight so hard to prevent its introduction into public schools.

re: God acting while remaining unchanged: God's actions appear as chage within our tempral universe. But from an extra-temporal perspective each "action" is a static connection between God and our universe.

re: gravity: Yes its another theory and another darn good one at that.

re: school: I agree, evolution like gravity ought be taught in public schools. And for the pupblic schools teaching religion. Why?

 

[ZeusTheist]

They most certainly are not mutually exclusive but, if you accept the mountain of positive evidence pointing to slow, gradual random variation selected for by nature, what is the need for supernatural influence? And why infer it? You are right to point to the gap in knowledge about the absolute beginning of life, possibly that gap will never be filled, but why stick anything into that gap that suits you with absolutely no corroborative evidence? Pardon any offence to believers although I assume the intelligent thrusts amongst you will simply give me a reasoned argument rather than take personal affront.

 

[orcel]

I would say that this reasonable position accepts science as a way to learn about the world and so, oddly enough, is not really what we mean by the term "creationist." To be a creationist, in common modern terminology, is more than just being a theist. It means rejecting modern biology and geology in favor of a Biblical explanation of life on earth.

btw, "evolutionist" is a meaningless, unhelpful term. I would use the word "scientist" or "science" there.

Your definition of creationinst is in error. It is too specific, Yes there are creationists that reject aspects of human scientific understanding, but there are also many biologists that are creationists. A creationist is somebody who accepts God as creator. Theories as to how and when God created differ amoungst creationists.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Old question perhaps but are Creation and Evolution really mutually exclusive?

Nope.....

 

[camanintx]

While it's easy to speculate about such things, the speculation must conform to the meaning of the words we use to describe it, otherwise our speculations end up as gibberish. When one says that there's a form of existence where time doesn't exist then there's no possibility of anything happening because the notion of time implies Act B follows Act A. As soon as something, anything, happens time raises its head. Conversely, where time doesn't exist nothing happens. Of course if that's what you're saying, that there's a higher plain where nothing happens, fine; however, any existence would be in absolute stasis, and would be a meaningless one.

My thoughts exactly. If time is not a fundamental property, then saying that something exists "outside of time" is meaningless.

 

[camanintx]

I suggest God created past, present and future all at once. Mankind therefore was created whole, with a past that may include evolution.

How do you reconcile a future created whole along with the past and present with the concept of free will?

Oddly this fits well with the Christian notion of God as perfect as any change regardless of how small would be a change away from perfection. The Christian God is an eternal static being.

How can an eternally static being be omnipotent?

 

[ellenjanuary]

Oh, here we go... sects in creationism. Someone who believes in god, yet does the science, is a scientist. Someone who believes in god, lets that belief get in the way of science, is a creationist. That's all there is to it.

 

[orcel]

Oh, here we go... sects in creationism. Someone who believes in god, yet does the science, is a scientist. Someone who believes in god, lets that belief get in the way of science, is a creationist. That's all there is to it.

Ah I guess it would be much easier to dismiss if you control the termonology. I unfortunatly can not accept your definitions.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Ah I guess it would be much easier to dismiss if you control the termonology. I unfortunatly can not accept your definitions.

Then you're a creationist. See how easy that is?

What should be important is the fact that the Bible does not support creationism. Does anybody ever read this book, I wonder, or does everybody take someone else's word for it? Genesis is Moses writing backstory. Moses's real job is rather clearly defined within the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy; i.e. laying down the law for the Jewish people. But Christians (who have no real perception of YHWH in the first place) take a couple of paragraphs from mere backstory, and add to the book of prophecy (ironically forbidden by their favorite work Revelation) with this "creationist gospel" - which is a straight crock.

 

[orcel]

How do you reconcile a future created whole along with the past and present with the concept of free will?

How can an eternally static being be omnipotent?

re: predestination & free will: it sounds almost like a paradox but the difference is the perspective. Being temprol we face a decision and make a choice. Being extra-temporal God see's the choice and allows us the authority to make it all "before" we ever did = predestination.

Imagine a train. A train can only go where the track is already. now imagine we are the engineer and God is laying the track. He "waits" for our decision as to where to go and then lays the track.

re: omnipotent: If God exsists external to this universe as the creator He can "hold" the universe in total and examine any and every aspect. He would be ominpotent and omnipresent and all knowing too.

 

[orcel]

Its about time I clarify that I do not claim that my argument here as fact. Rather they are one man's logical construct that can mutually accept Biblically inspired faith and perceived scientific fact.

if i can find a way to meld the 6 day creation story and evolution, then an infinatly greater God could as well, and not necariously the same way I did.

 

[PolyHedral]

Imagine a train. A train can only go where the track is already. now imagine we are the engineer and God is laying the track. He "waits" for our decision as to where to go and then lays the track.

He can't wait for a decision that's already happened and doesn't happen for a very long time.

 

[orcel]

My thoughts exactly. If time is not a fundamental property, then saying that something exists "outside of time" is meaningless.

Nothing part of this universe can exist outside of time. But if an external creator does in fact exist and created this universe, then that external creator must exist external to this universe. And since time is a property of this universe then that external creator must exist external to time. Note; I did not say before time as that would be meaningless.

Also this of course does not claim what that external creator is. Some current quantum physics theories suggest and external creator that they have labeled a multiverse.

 

[orcel]

He can't wait for a decision that's already happened and doesn't happen for a very long time.

We are temporal beings, Our thoughts and words are temporal. This makes thinking extra-temporal really really hard. But if you keep trying you can do it.

In this case "waiting" is an example of our troubles. Yes there is no waiting external to time. We however are within time and I was refering to our perspective of the track layer.

 

[waitasec]

Then you're a creationist. See how easy that is?

What should be important is the fact that the Bible does not support creationism. Does anybody ever read this book, I wonder, or does everybody take someone else's word for it? Genesis is Moses writing backstory. Moses's real job is rather clearly defined within the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy; i.e. laying down the law for the Jewish people. But Christians (who have no real perception of YHWH in the first place) take a couple of paragraphs from mere backstory, and add to the book of prophecy (ironically forbidden by their favorite work Revelation) with this "creationist gospel" - which is a straight crock.

you bring up a very important point here. most creationist do not have an understanding of the jewish tradition which changes over time...
oddly enough, it's this tradition that christians came from...
i guess the adherence of bronze age understanding is what takes precedence because ancient tribal writings seem to have the impression of authoritative knowledge of the unknown....

 

[ellenjanuary]

Its about time I clarify that I do not claim that my argument here as fact. Rather they are one man's logical construct that can mutually accept Biblically inspired faith and perceived scientific fact.

if i can find a way to meld the 6 day creation story and evolution, then an infinatly greater God could as well, and not necariously the same way I did.

"6 day creation story" is not science, it is law; it establishes the Sabbath. Where science and law meet is an arena called forensics. And all of this, fails forensic analysis.