Skip to comments.Does evolution contradict creationism?
Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi
There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.
If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...
Both are sound arguments, and ironically I've watched a program on the latter, which showed a milky volcanic brew from some location in Hawaii. On your side of the debate, here's another with statistics (Kurzweilai is one of my favorite people to read):
When I was younger (Spock was my hero as a child) and working as an analytical Chemist, I was on your side of the debate. I couldn't rationalize how any sensible person could see things differently. But now that my eggs are in many baskets and I've lived a bit, I see things differently (my home page tells the story). From a scientific perspective, your argument is as sound (if not sounder) than the other chemist.
You may rest assured you aren't the among those to whom I was alluding..... they know who they are, and so do we.
It does however point out that evidence shows the centers of civilization around the world were destroyed by natural causes evidently simultaneously (as compared to war, etc.). The articles suggests the cause was cosmic debris floods, tidal waves, volcanic activity, earthquakes are all mentioned as evidence. The article however indicates that the causation is not fully resolved and leaves the subject open for further speculation. Flooding is specifically mentioned in the middle east.
It is interesting that the timing mentioned in the article ( 2300 BC, give or take a century or two) is correct for the Noah flood. It is also curious that the actual Hebrew word used for breath in Genesis 7 and 2 refers to a particular kind of creature, Adamic man. None of the other creatures were made with that breath of life, i.e. made a living soul (neshama).
All of this may be much ado about nothing to you and Young Earth Creationists who believe that Genesis 1-3 occurs at our space/time coordinates. However, some traditions believe that Adam was the first ensouled man, not the first physical man. And some believe that Adam was created in heaven and banished to earth, thus being a peculiar type of man among men.
It is a matter of worldviews. I am on the Plato side of the argument (especially as it pertains to mathematics).
For Lurkers, Aristotle gives priority to the senses and experience, he sees physical reality as fundamental and mathematics as an approximation. He would say that the mathematician invents the geometry to describe the physical world.
Plato on the other hand gives priority to the ideal or the forms, he sees the mathematical structure as the true reality and we are the imperfect observers. He would say that the mathematician comes along and discovers the geometry, e.g. pi, Reimannian geometry, etc.
The Aristotle-minded person is satisfied when the experiment meets the prediction, the Platonist-minded person wants it to make sense, e.g. why pi?.
The Aristotle-minded persons curiosity ends with the becoming whereas the Platonist-minded person is keenly interested in both the being and the becoming. Or to put it another way, timelessness as well as space/time.
This has been an on-going and very respectful discussion among the brightest mathematicians, physicists and philosophers and it continues even here on Free Republic. The latest thread on the philosophical discussion is: On Plato, the Early Church, and Modern Science: An Eclectic Meditation
But getting back to your question
We Christians are even more keen on these issues than mathematical Platonists such as Max Tegmark, Roger Penrose and John Barrow. BTW, Tegmark's Level IV Multi-verse is the only closed theory because of its radical mathematical Platonism, i.e. that all existents are mathematical structures in higher dimensionality (mathematical structures are non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal).
To illustrate the difference, Plato saw the beyond as unapproachable, whereas we Christians have the indwelling Spirit thus, for us, there is revealed Truth (both personally from the indwelling Spirit and in the Scriptures) which cannot be apprehended by reason alone.
For those who are metaphysically naturalist (atheist) and also Aristotlean neither Platos beyond nor Judeo/Christian Truth exists in their definition of all that there is. Whereas for us, reality or "all that there is" does not begin or end within space/time coordinates.
If you wish to engage on any of these subjects, I welcome the debate - but preferably not on a thread consigned to the "smokey back room" since there would be a great deal of research required and a wide interest in the subject matter.
Equating the living God, with Ra or Thor is silly.
There are good factual reasons for believing in Christ, who is God.
What do you see as the impediment to symbiotic relationships?
Did he ever answer this question?
Only biological scientists are concerned with the TOE. Other scientists discoveries have confirmed the TOE, but fields like geology are really not that interested, except in the history of the geology.
Paleontology is a biological science that draws on geology.
But your assertion that every has to believe in biological evolution is only true so far as to be considered sane and rational, one must. I would be leery of hiring anyone that was so divorced from reality they thought Noah could get millions of animals on a boat, feed them, shovel out their waste and care for them (including their diseases and parasites) over the period of a year. I think I could find a better employee with a more stable mental state.
cc:Negative. I am saying atheists have nothing to gain from a god if one exists. Not that people who believe in evolution. Personally I accept that however the universe was created, is secondary to the need of salvation. It does not matter if the creation was literal or figurative, it happened and must have happened.
Atheists have nothing to gain from god is a given.
"Not that people who believe in evolution", is incoherent.
I agree with your last thought, but know by the evidence for biological evolution that creation was not the literal nonsense espoused by the various classes of creationuts.
His answer was "abject ignorance and personal incredulity".
This is, of course, insufficient.
On the other hand I am leery of voting into office any man that thinks his greatest accomplishment is to get a blowjob from the help.
I thought that would make as much sense as your reference to Noah.
Noah was a reference to literalist nonsense they are attempting to use to argue against TOE.
Now, we are getting somewhere. Biological evolution is not a belief. It is a rational decision based on mountains of intertwining evidence that leads any honest person to see it as "scientific fact". It is reality.
Unless you can falsify the TOE, you cannot substitute the literal Bible interpretation or put a creator in the mix that is not in the TOE to begin with. So, your task is to falsify the biological theory of evolution. So far, your attempts have been largely philosophical, attacks on cosmology and physics. While these subjects have confirmed parts of the TOE, they are not in the TOE themselves.
No one has been able to falsify the TOE, since its inception. They have been able to get the TOE modified since Darwin proposed it, because that is how science works. As we learn more, we modify. However, Darwin was essentially correct in the main concept, that life has diverged from some single primary source, probably a unicellular organism.
If you want to say this primary organism was "designed" by God, there is no one to contradict you. However, that is an argument of abiogenesis which is not in the TOE. You also run the danger that if science discovers that abiogenesis did create the first life form, you are left without a god. This happened when the world was proved round, to those that asserted the Earth was designed flat.
| On the 2000 year bible and literal interpretation post... I seriously doubt that you consider the bible to be the authoritative word of God. Therefore, using it to prove or disprove evolution is moot and useless, unless we could both agree upon it's origins. I seriously doubt the poster of this thread believes in it either, and is simply using the concept of creation from a christian perspective to generate a heated argument.
On your second post to me...
Perhaps you should learn something more about the Bible, if you intend on using it to support evolution.
On your third post to me....
You just so happened to stumble into the very point i've been making all along.
Tell me... is there ANYTHING you DONT understand?
Is there or has there ever been any man or woman who understands everything? (omniscience)
Is there any being in the universe more intelligent than man?
At what point do you break away from what you know in order to accept what must be accepted by faith? If man is not intelligent enough to understand everything, then logic suggests that there must be SOME intelligent being who does, and is more than likely responsible for the creation of man.
It is illogical for anyone to use a book they believe to be written by man to prove the existence of God.
It is just as illogical for the same person to use the same book to prove or disprove arguments made by another man.
It all boils down to who YOU consider to be the authority on the origins of life. If your authority is Darwin, then don't violate the very charges you bring against me by using incredulous arguments about God.
Yeah, I told him it was Pascal's Wager and gave him a link so he could read about it.
| Where exactly did I try to prove or disprove evolution through the use of the Bible?
It pertains to the question presented in the title of this thread. Your defense of the thread's author places you on that side of the debate. If this is not the case, then the first point in my previous post is validated.
Break it down into a syllogism for me so I can see how you come by that statement.
Lets use man's historical quest for the creation of artificial life as an example... In fiction as well as in real life, man has demonstrated both his desire and capacity for creation, but has yet to successfully create something from scratch that equals let alone surpasses his own existence. Only in fiction has man been able to re-create anything remotely comparable to his own being. Man has the capacity to understand that he cannot re-create himself, because he does not have the intelligence nor knowledge to accomplish such a task. Clone? maybe... but not create. This realization once made leads man to the conclusion that there must be an intelligence greater than his own to explain self existence... it is therefore natural and logical for one to seek out that intelligence. Rejection of this conclusion and response leads to the opposite conclusion that man is supreme in the universe by way of natural selection, or whatever you want to call it.
What was that one movie called?... where astronaughts traveled to mars to investigate the facial image anomoly...
If you are familiar with the movie, the astronaughts were forced to demonstrate a certain level of intelligence (they completed the dna sequence of man in a transmission). Once done, the superior intelligence revealed itself and disclosed the mystery of life on earth.
Of course, the conclusion of the movie offered the evolution theory as valid, but re-affirmed the conclusion that the creator (alien dna seed planter) was of superior intelligence to man. Fictitious yes... but the conclusion of a higher intelligence was real in the author's mind.
| Break it down into a syllogism for me so I can see how you come by that statement.
Try this one too... from one of your own
I do know that it becomes anything God haters want it to be. If you want it to be a space-time expansion, an explosion, or a simulation, then it will be that. We do know one thing, no matter what the evidence it will never be allowed to be anything like Creation or ID. Big Bang has never been theory, and doens't even pass itself off well as a hypothesis. It does make for some interesting science fiction. Still you have the problems with Big Bang violating the uncaused cause and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics (plus a ton of other things). So if you can write off basic laws of physics, why not invent any explanation that defies the obvious?
"Does evolution contradict creationism?"
It is clear in the Bible that God created all in 6 twenty-four hour days and on the 7th day He rested. We are also NOT in the image of an "ape". God created us in His image so clearly evolution is a contradiction of what God states. Like it or not, it is a FACT that evolution contradicts creation. Ah, Lucifer is laughing his arse off at silly Christians with "itching ears" and atheists that push this trash - evolution.
Methinks thou art a troll. LOL
"why not invent any explanation that defies the obvious?"
You mean like each "kind" was poofed into existance or
dino bones were put in chronological order in the strata to fool us into thinking the Earth is old and forms changed and disappeared over time or
the Earth is only 6000 years old or
the term day in Gen 1 means a 24 hr day and not an indefinite period of time like Gen 2:4 says or
| Re-defining what God says about reality so that it will fit into the confines of what man can comprehend is like a three year old rejecting the laws of physics because he cannot spell 'Apple' yet.
Falsifying a theory is hardly done from ignorance. It would take a lot of knowledge to falsify biological evolution, considering the mountain of evidence that has accumulated supporting the ToE.
Abiogenesis is basically the hypothesis that first life originated from naturally occurring chemicals without any intervention by God or any living entity. You must have heard the arguments against life forming from slime from whatever creationcrapsites you have been getting your information from.
... PP: You have no idea what Pan paniscus is?....
oh big words!! run away!!
worse than that, I couldn't care less what it means.
but your views of a godless creation...
I'll be glad to read it, given time. (which would not be midnight). Spare me the condescenscion, though, if you would. I understand quite well, although unlike the materialists here I am comfortable admitting I don't have all the answers.
You did not address the content, however, while feeling the need to substitute links for a response.
There is always someone to talk to...........and always someone who listens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.