The battle of evolution vs creationism

[bobhikes]

It occurred to me today how silly this is.

Evolution a scientific study
Creationism a philosophical study

The 2 are not even related so that they can be compared.

1)Biology Scientists need to make it clear that evolution has no bearing on the condition of God.

2)Religions need to make it clear that scientific studies are human studies.

If we want to teach both evolution and creationism they should be taught under there appropriate studies(Science or Philosophy). Evolution should never be brought up in a religious environment and Creationism should never be brought up is a scientific environment.

If Scientists and Religions make this clear we will no longer need this debate room. If Scientist just do their part we can call this room Creationism (Philosophy or Science)

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It occurred to me today how silly this is.

Evolution a scientific study
Creationism a philosophical study

The 2 are not even related so that they can be compared.

1)Biology Scientists need to make it clear that evolution has no bearing on the condition of God.

2)Religions need to make it clear that scientific studies are human studies.

If we want to teach both evolution and creationism they should be taught under there appropriate studies(Science or Philosophy). Evolution should never be brought up in a religious environment and Creationism should never be brought up is a scientific environment.

If Scientists and Religions make this clear we will no longer need this debate room. If Scientist just do their part we can call this room Creationism (Philosophy or Science)

Well it does not have a bearing on whether God exists or not, it does have a bearing on the concept of what is God like.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Creationism a philosophical study

Nonsense.

 

[fantome profane]

Well it does not have a bearing on whether God exists or not, it does have a bearing on the concept of what is God like.

And what doesn't?

 

[bobhikes]

Well it does not have a bearing on whether God exists or not, it does have a bearing on the concept of what is God like.

No it does not. Philosophically God can do anything even put false paths for humans to follow.

This is the problem a rationalist can no see this. God may have made dragons in the past and had the bone structure set so that scientists see dinosaurs millions of years old in the present.

The question becomes should we teach the science that man has discovered, has it been helpful for us or should we stick to the philosophy of our religion has it been helpful enough. Can we teach both for what they are.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

And what doesn't?

Evolution, doesn't have a bearing on whether God or Gods exist or not. It's focused is on how life became diverse, not how the universe was created, not how life was started, all it questions is that "we have life, there are factors that came into play that has allowed life to diversify itself, what are these factors?" Any God can exist under those conditions.

But it does challenge the concepts of God(s) as people have known them. The qualities in particular. Does that make sense?

Or did you mean something else by what doesn't?

 

[bobhikes]

Evolution, doesn't have a bearing on whether God or Gods exist or not. It's focused is on how life became diverse, not how the universe was created, not how life was started, all it questions is that "we have life, there are factors that came into play that has allowed life to diversify itself, what are these factors?" Any God can exist under those conditions.

But it does challenge the concepts of God(s) as people have known them. The qualities in particular. Does that make sense?

Or did you mean something else by what doesn't?

see above

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No it does not. Philosophically God can do anything even put false paths for humans to follow.

This is the problem a rationalist can no see this. God may have made dragons in the past and had the bone structure set so that scientists see dinosaurs millions of years old in the present.

The question becomes should we teach the science that man has discovered, has it been helpful for us or should we stick to the philosophy of our religion has it been helpful enough. Can we teach both for what they are.

While yes "philosophically" God can, "Theologically" it isn't likely.

Theologically depending on the God you are talking about there are certain things that God will and will not do. For instance your example goes contrary to the belief in the Christian God who is not "the author of confusion."

But would go well with say the various Trickster Gods, like say Anansi or Loki. It wouldn't even need to be a God, it could be even tiny little demons or imps, or the fair-folk.

A theory like evolution posits that the methodology that life uses to attain it's diversity, is not only imperfect (running contrary to a perfect God), but also cruel; millions of extinct species and counting, organisms who lived in environments which changed so rapidly they could not adjust and died out, mutations that resulted in short life-spans or just right death (running contrary to Gods benevolence).

If you mean God as just a supreme being, sure that works fine, but there are other qualities theologically associated with God.

 

[Valjean]

Originally Posted by bobhikes
Creationism a philosophical study

How so?

I would say that evolution is a description of mechanism, while creationism is an assertion of agency.

 

[fantome profane]

Evolution, doesn't have a bearing on whether God or Gods exist or not. It's focused is on how life became diverse, not how the universe was created, not how life was started, all it questions is that "we have life, there are factors that came into play that has allowed life to diversify itself, what are these factors?" Any God can exist under those conditions.

But it does challenge the concepts of God(s) as people have known them. The qualities in particular. Does that make sense?

Or did you mean something else by what doesn't?

What I mean is for example, if we teach about the holocaust that could have theological implications and challenge the concept(s) of God as people have known them. If we teach about war that could have theological implications and challenge the concept(s) of God as people have known them. If we talk about cosmology or astronomy that could have theological implications and challenge the concept(s) of God as people have known them. If we talk about disease and suffering that could have theological implications and challenge the concept(s) of God as people have known them.



There is nothing that you could mention that would not have theological implications for somebody.

 

[bobhikes]

While yes "philosophically" God can, "Theologically" it isn't likely.

Theologically depending on the God you are talking about there are certain things that God will and will not do. For instance your example goes contrary to the belief in the Christian God who is not "the author of confusion."

A theory like evolution posits that the methodology that life uses to attain it's diversity, is not only imperfect (running contrary to a perfect God), but also cruel; millions of extinct species and counting, organisms who lived in environments which changed so rapidly they could not adjust and died out, mutations that resulted in short life-spans or just right death (running contrary to Gods benevolence).

If you mean God as just a supreme being, sure that works fine, but there are other qualities theologically associated with God.

This is the problem though you are mixing Philosophy and Science they are not compatible. You have defined your view of god to scientific happenings while I can challenge it on many levels it is not the point.

How science perceives the birth and growth of life is only relevant to how science uses it. If science wants to use it to prove the non-existence of something. It needs to define that something scientifically. Define God scientifically so that you can challenge God. No true scientist would ever take this task. There is not enough visible material to do so.

So you work with you own inadequate definition of God and once someone points out that there God is different you have to start again.

Is you point to prove Evolution is correct or God is wrong?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What I mean is for example, if we teach about the holocaust that could have theological implications and challenge the concept(s) of God as people have known them. If we teach about war that could have theological implications and challenge the concept(s) of God as people have known them. If we talk about cosmology or astronomy that could have theological implications and challenge the concept(s) of God as people have known them. If we talk about disease and suffering that could have theological implications and challenge the concept(s) of God as people have known them.



There is nothing that you could mention that would not have theological implications for somebody.

Well yeah, and they do. But evolution in particular is attacked, because it goes against the description found in Genesis.

Things like War, Disease and suffering I have seen easily reconciled (I find it a bit harder to do but to each their own), and even cosmology or astronomy are reconciled. Because they all have explanations that can be found in Genesis to match up with the belief. Evolution doesn't have that, it seems to fly in the face of everything in Genesis from chapters 1 to 7.

 

[bobhikes]

How so?

I would say that evolution is a description of mechanism, while creationism is an assertion of agency.

Isn't your agent God? Does God have a scientific definition? I only know of Philosophical definitions of God, but I could be wrong.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This is the problem though you are mixing Philosophy and Science they are not compatible. You have defined your view of god to scientific happenings while I can challenge it on many levels it is not the point.

How science perceives the birth and growth of life is only relevant to how science uses it. If science wants to use it to prove the non-existence of something. It needs to define that something scientifically. Define God scientifically so that you can challenge God. No true scientist would ever take this task. There is not enough visible material to do so.

So you work with you own inadequate definition of God and once someone points out that there God is different you have to start again.

Is you point to prove Evolution is correct or God is wrong?

I'm not talking about "my" definition of God. In theology there is very strict definitions of God. One may tend to philosophically go out and about and modify them to fit with the natural order, but theologically no.

Of course there is more than one way to define God, but for those who take accounts like Genesis Literally, or those who believe the Bible infallible, the nature of God is not up to question. They have a strict concept of what God is. That definition does not just exist in the philosophical realm for them, but in the natural realm (which is the realm that science deals with). So not only are the traits attributed to God existent in philosophy but they permeate through reality as well.

 

[bobhikes]

I'm not talking about "my" definition of God. In theology there is very strict definitions of God. One may tend to philosophically go out and about and modify them to fit with the natural order, but theologically no.

Of course there is more than one way to define God, but for those who take accounts like Genesis Literally, or those who believe the Bible infallible, the nature of God is not up to question. They have a strict concept of what God is. That definition does not just exist in the philosophical realm for them, but in the natural realm (which is the realm that science deals with). So not only are the traits attributed to God existent in philosophy but they permeate through reality as well.

Yes they do and their God can make the whole universe in 7 days and make man think it is much older.

I have stated both Science and religion needs to play there part. Science sticks to science and religions sticks to philosophy. However if science just states it can not be used to define god, it would be simpler in the legal system to separate evolution and creationism.

If I was a creationist I would just argue that if sciences wants to challenge my religion they need to provide a scientific definition of God or proof that no God can exist. Evolution is not that proof.

 

[Valjean]

Isn't your agent God? Does God have a scientific definition? I only know of Philosophical definitions of God, but I could be wrong.

Isn't your agent God?

That's my whole point, bob. Creationism, in a nutshell, is simply saying "Goddunnit." It says nothing of the poofing mechanism.

Science describes how.
Creationism asserts who.

Is that better?

 

[McBell]

If I was a creationist I would just argue that if sciences wants to challenge my religion they need to provide a scientific definition of God or proof that no God can exist. Evolution is not that proof.

Evolution does not address nor even concern itself with the existence of god.
The only time the two are ever put together is by creationists who think that if they poke a hole in evolution it somehow validates their creationism.

 

[McBell]

Creationism a philosophical study

only if you change the definition of philosophical...

 

[McBell]

If Scientists and Religions make this clear we will no longer need this debate room. If Scientist just do their part we can call this room Creationism (Philosophy or Science)

Except it is not the scientists who go running to creationists.
It is the creationists trying hard to disprove evolution thinking that it somehow validates their wishful thinking.

 

[bobhikes]

That's my whole point, bob. Creationism, in a nutshell, is simply saying "Goddunnit." It says nothing of the poofing mechanism.

Science describes how.
Creationism asserts who.

Is that better?

But you who isn't defined in science just in philosophy so how can it be considered science.

Science requires solid definitions.
Philosophy requires thoughtful definitions.

Again I have said if Religion does not want to cooperated the debate would be is creationism a science or philosophy and I am not prepared to debate right now.