Heyo
Veteran Member
Most - but not all. I try to use "YEC" whenever I talk about those who follow Ken Ham and the like to avoid confusion.Most of those that consider themselves as creationists on this forum do not accept evolution.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Most - but not all. I try to use "YEC" whenever I talk about those who follow Ken Ham and the like to avoid confusion.Most of those that consider themselves as creationists on this forum do not accept evolution.
Well, there was no such thing as evolutionary biology before Darwin. But when Linne proposed his classification of life a century before Darwin it didn't make a big fuss. Some people felt their ego scratched when they were put into the same category as the other apes but that was accepted theory long before Darwin.
If people think that humans are not related to apes they have not really accepted the theory of evolution and are denying the evidence as well.Well, there was no such thing as evolutionary biology before Darwin. But when Linne proposed his classification of life a century before Darwin it didn't make a big fuss. Some people felt their ego scratched when they were put into the same category as the other apes but that was accepted theory long before Darwin.
Was that proposed at that time?Then probably some peoples ego was pretty mild to propose that humans evolved from apes in like the 14th century.
I am used to referring to them as creationist out of habit from years of using that blanket term. Though I do recognize the differences between YEC and OEC versions.Most - but not all. I try to use "YEC" whenever I talk about those who follow Ken Ham and the like to avoid confusion.
Was that proposed at that time?
Theistic evolution from a Christian perspective is a concept that applies what we know from biology to a belief in God. Inclusion of that which has no evidence renders it outside of science.
Agreed, but you said that one is not the other. Now you seem to be saying they are different names for the same concept. Is that the case?
This reads more like the 'great chain of being', which is not evolution in any modern sense. It reflects direction and purpose that is not part of evolution. However, it is change over time, so I suppose it qualifies as a step in the evolution of the idea.You mean in the 14th century?
1. It was minerals and it progressed in a gradual but an ingenious manner
2. Progressed to plants and animals
3. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants.
4. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish which have only the power of touch.
5. The word "connection" with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group.
6. The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in agradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and toreflect.
7. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of the monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking.
8. At this point we come to the first stage of man after (the world of monkeys).
This is as far as our (physical) observation extends.
I agree that evolution is simply the scientific explanation as it stands. Not requiring modification or qualification to make it more palatable to some theistic view.Its just evolution. Thats it. Evolution is not Theistic evolution. You have said this too. So thats it. Evolution.
Theists also study and accept evolution. Just like other sciences and philosophies.
Just evolution.
This reads more like the 'great chain of being', which is not evolution in any modern sense. It reflects direction and purpose that is not part of evolution. However, it is change over time, so I suppose it qualifies as a step in the evolution of the idea.
I have actually read some of the history of this, now that I recognize it from seeing it written down. It is a recognized part of the history of science and the concept of evolution.
I agree that evolution is simply the scientific explanation as it stands. Not requiring modification or qualification to make it more palatable to some theistic view.
You are aware that concepts of evolution stretch all the way back to ancient Greece? The 'scala naturae' I mentioned was formulated by Aristotle about 1,000 years before the work you have been referring to.
I find the history of the development of these concepts fascinating. I wish I could devote more time to reading on the details of the development over time and through different cultures than I have.Actually they are also students of older writers on evolution who were probably inferior in advancement. And i quoted verbatim just to be authentic. But i must say that these people a millennium ago were far superior to some modern day creationists who flatout deny any kind of evolution, believe the universe was born 5 thousand years ago, and we were all created the way we are, along with adam, the man, was made a few days after the universe was created.
Far far superior. And of course, maybe years from now humans will be far superior than today.
Well. Thats how it works.
Cheers.
No matter how much evidence is found, there will always be gaps. But gaps do not have to be a problem when the overall course is very well mapped out and explained. Creationists should consider that there is a huge gap between London and Los Angeles, but travellers starting in London still make it to LA, even if they know nothing about what is in between.
If this an actual quote (as you claim below) it would be nice to acknowledge the author(s).You mean in the 14th century?
1. It was minerals and it progressed in a gradual but an ingenious manner
2. Progressed to plants and animals
3. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants.
4. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish which have only the power of touch.
5. The word "connection" with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group.
6. The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in agradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and toreflect.
7. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of the monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking.
8. At this point we come to the first stage of man after (the world of monkeys).
This is as far as our (physical) observation extends.
If this an actual quote (as you claim below) it would be nice to acknowledge the author(s).
It appears that this can cover a sizable group of varying views, but those we have been talking about should have no problem.What about creationists who accept evolution?
It appears that this can cover a sizable group of varying views, but those we have been talking about should have no problem.
Imagine - scientists actually learning new things.New discovery on the evolution of the beak in birds:
From: Scientists make new discovery about bird evolution | Stock Daily Dish
Scientists make new discovery about bird evolution