Creation vs Evolution

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » Creation vs Evolution

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 10:13 pm
What do you guys believe about these? Are you pro-evolution or pro-creation? Or maybe you are like me and believe that they both can exist and the truth is somewhere between them?

What do you forms your true opinion?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 10:31 pm
@Locke phil,
You'll find this conversation comes up here quite often (there are three other evolutionary biology threads open at the moment).

While this debate is often framed the way you have, only creationists argue as if there is some kind of direct debate between the two. Evolution advocates aren't "dismissing" creation as a cultural story of great importance. But it MUST be dismissed as a natural story of earth and its inhabitants absent empirical evidence -- and this is the sole domain in which evolutionary biology makes its arguments.

This is a matter of epistemology, Locke -- i.e. how do we come to know or believe anything.

Evolutionary biology is a scientific discipline based on a large, growing (and changing) body of empirically-derived evidence.

Creation is adapted from a scriptural tradition.

If you think they both can coexist, despite telling very different stories, then it's sort of a rationalization. But hey, whatever works for you.
 
Locke phil
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 10:40 pm
@Locke phil,
I sent you something that explains why I think they both exist. Though it is not the same "God created everything in 7 days and created man from sand" type of creation.
 
prothero
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 10:45 pm
@Locke phil,
The fundamental theistic notion is god creates.
The fundamental thesis of evolution is this is how life developed over time into the various forms we observe today.
They are only compatible if one accepts evolutiona as gods method of creation.

6 days, 10,000 yrs, fixed species, the garden of eden and adam and eve are out except as mythological expressions.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 02:11 am
@Locke phil,
To the degree that consciousness makes anything possible in the first place, it can be compared to God. But what is consciousness? How does it fit in with the theory of evolution? We study life by means of its outside, but this study itself is inside, and inside a particular species. At least "species" is what it calls itself. Can science fully take into account the biases and distortions of its one vessel, the human brain? And even calling this vessel the brain rather than consciousness seems questionable.

Man's cultural journey to greater self-consciousness is an evolution related to the biological evolution of his species, for it was one that made possible the conception of the other.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 04:14 am
@Locke phil,
Locke;110039 wrote:
What do you guys believe about these? Are you pro-evolution or pro-creation? Or maybe you are like me and believe that they both can exist and the truth is somewhere between them?

What do you forms your true opinion?


I agree with you Locke. There is ample scope for intelligent explorations of both perspectives. Certainly there are a lot of cultural reasons for the tension between the two perspectives. The religious and philosophical perspective tends to concern itself with the 'big questions' which are a matter of one's interpretation of the overall gist, whereas the empirical approach is more concerned with the specifics of how this or that instance occurs, allowing the creation of a general hypothesis.

You can be scientific without being materialist, and religious without being creationist. I don't believe Darwin was materialist, and I don't think Aquinas was creationist. There are many lesser minds who are one or the other.
 
de budding
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 07:20 am
@Locke phil,
Since Ted Haggard and Kent Hovind I have never been able to take
Creationism seriously- correction I have never been able to stomach creation theories and other young earth theories.

So what is you angle on the debate Locke? Do you touch on any of the ideas Kent and Ted supported?

Regards,
Dan.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 07:24 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;110046 wrote:
You'll find this conversation comes up here quite often (there are three other evolutionary biology threads open at the moment).

While this debate is often framed the way you have, only creationists argue as if there is some kind of direct debate between the two. Evolution advocates aren't "dismissing" creation as a cultural story of great importance. But it MUST be dismissed as a natural story of earth and its inhabitants absent empirical evidence -- and this is the sole domain in which evolutionary biology makes its arguments.

This is a matter of epistemology, Locke -- i.e. how do we come to know or believe anything.

Evolutionary biology is a scientific discipline based on a large, growing (and changing) body of empirically-derived evidence.

Creation is adapted from a scriptural tradition.

If you think they both can coexist, despite telling very different stories, then it's sort of a rationalization. But hey, whatever works for you.


Am I mistaken in thinking that evolution explains the diversity of life, and not the creation of life?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 08:25 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;110116 wrote:
Am I mistaken in thinking that evolution explains the diversity of life, and not the creation of life?


What do you mean "creation of life"? If you mean, does evolution explain how many life-forms came to be? Well, I would say the answer to this is yes. There is much detailed evidence in regards to the progressive change in genetic material of (a majority of) species. I suppose you could loosely say, we have evidence how new generations of life come, and have come, to be.

If you mean by "creation of life", how life, in general, started. That is, you're inquiring about what the "spark" was, an exaplanation as to what started life period, the answer would be no to your aforementioned question. But, of course, we have theories like abiogenesis which (I believe) attempt to explain how the first life-forms came to be. Evolution, as far as I understand it, deals with after the fact - the genetic change over time within a population.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 08:32 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;110131 wrote:
What do you mean "creation of life"? If you mean, does evolution explain how many life-forms came to be? Well, I would say the answer to this is yes. There is much detailed evidence in regards to the progressive change in genetic material of (a majority of) species. I suppose you could loosely say, we have evidence how new generations of life come, and have come, to be.

If you mean by "creation of life", how life, in general, started. That is, you're inquiring about what the "spark" was, an exaplanation as to what started life period, the answer would be no to your aforementioned question. But, of course, we have theories like abiogenesis which (I believe) attempt to explain how the first life-forms came to be. Evolution, as far as I understand it, deals with after the fact - the genetic change over time within a population.


Yes. The second. There are, I suppose explanations of how life came to be, or rather, explanation-sketches, still needing to be filled it. But evolution does not explain that. It explains, as I said, the diversity of life. But not the existence of life. For that, we need to turn to some other science. Maybe chemistry.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 08:42 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;110133 wrote:
Yes. The second. There are, I suppose explanations of how life came to be, or rather, explanation-sketches, still needing to be filled it. But evolution does not explain that. It explains, as I said, the diversity of life. But not the existence of life. For that, we need to turn to some other science. Maybe chemistry.


So, your point, then, was that it's silly to have an Evolution vs. Creationism debate, because these theories are not on equal ground - they are not even theorizing about the same matter. Evolution is not attempting to explain the origins of life, it is attempting to explain the genetic change (diversity) of life. Creationism is, I think, attempting to explain the origins of life.

And I would agree.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 08:52 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;110135 wrote:
So, your point, then, was that it's silly to have an Evolution vs. Creationism debate, because these theories are not on equal ground - they are not even theorizing about the same matter. Evolution is not attempting to explain the origins of life, it is attempting to explain the genetic change (diversity) of life. Creationism is, I think, attempting to explain the origins of life.

And I would agree.


Yes, something like that.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 11:36 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;110116 wrote:
Am I mistaken in thinking that evolution explains the diversity of life, and not the creation of life?
Yes, but the creationist idea is also about diversity -- i.e. it came about by creation and not by evolution from a created thing.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 11:37 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;110207 wrote:
Yes, but the creationist idea is also about diversity -- i.e. it came about by creation and not by evolution from a created thing.


So, I suppose, creationists believe that God is currently (at this very moment) changing the genetic material of species also, right?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 11:55 am
@Locke phil,
They have to either ascribe that to God or they have to disbelieve it as some sort of dualistic ruse from our imperfect senses.

But if you reject DNA evidence of evolution, you also have to reject paternity testing, forensic genetics, genetic disease screening, gene therapy, and everything else that uses identical tools and methods.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 12:56 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;110207 wrote:
Yes, but the creationist idea is also about diversity -- i.e. it came about by creation and not by evolution from a created thing.


But evolution is not about the start of life. Isn't that true? I don't care much about whether creationism is about diversity.
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 01:28 pm
@kennethamy,
I think we should discount fundamentalists views from both sides of the question. I agree evolution can and does only examines the progress nature makes. We observe the outcome of creation. Why is the word creation so despised, its not implicating a supreme deity in its use.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 03:01 pm
@Locke phil,
"Creation" suffers from guilt by association? But what can one do? We've got to find our way in a game that presumably transcends as it includes us.....
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 03:40 pm
@xris,
xris;110251 wrote:
Why is the word creation so despised...

Assumes a creator - something that creates - rather than maybe just is or other alternatives.
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 03:59 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;110323 wrote:
Assumes a creator - something that creates - rather than maybe just is or other alternatives.
You have assumed this singular identity, I feel free to say creation without mentioning a creator. Nature creates without a defined definition. Nature exists, its the force that evolves and urges life to succeed. It created life in my opinion. I dont see a conscious being as we imagine consciousness but i wont deny there might be some other consciousness, just because I cant find it, comprehend it.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » Creation vs Evolution
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/25/2019 at 08:58:06