I am reading a wonderful book on God and Evolution. The author dedicates one chapter to the young earth creationists. After he has disproven their arguments and showed that their claims threaten many fields of science, he adds that their claims ALSO threaten their own God:
Samkhya,
I think you need to expand on this a bit. Your quotes may raise controversy but there needs to be some sort of description of the whats, hows, and whys. Be warned, this topic is the incubator for major **** storms!
JT
There are lines of evidence from physical sciences which indicate that earth is old.
So, young earth creationism has to hold that God made an earth which appears old to scientists, but in fact which is young. God has to fool scientists fore some unknown purpose.
An earth the origin of which would be more logically explained by evolution, is in fact explained by an arbitrary creation.
God of YECreationism is deceitful.
No, No. God isn’t deceitful, man has simply fooled himself into believing that his ‘science’ is accurate. Carbon 14 dating is flawed, the fossil record is incomplete, there are no missing links,… All the usual denial games.
Creationism is the most blatantly ridiculous claim of the literalist religious right. There are others, but this one takes the cake. There is no room for discussion here. To buy into creationism requires the most closed of closed minds. To try to reason with this point of view is to talk to the wall. For all that evolution has yet to explain, there is no excuse for the creationist claims other than their extreme literalist biblical interpretation of the creation story.
JT
As a related topic on the essence of God, I recommend the philosophy of time debate between Ghazali, Avicenna and Averroes. Arguments for and against the notion that the universe, world, etc. was created or always was and how that may or may not breach the notion of the boundlessness of God.
Agreed.
As the quote goes, ‘only in America’…
Man who really gives a crap about Creationism/Evolution. This is just a stupid language debate. Was the bible using the literal term of create and nothing, or the sentimental
I don’t even entirely comprehend why the point of evolution is so DEVASTATING to the religious.
an interesting conceptual point regarding the use of language
A belief in creationism
A theory of eveloution.
Eveloution has a theory with some physical (extentional) characteristic.
Wheras belief’s object is purely intentionally in-existant.
Just to bring some philosophy to this debate.
irony:
“theory - …A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment…”
-Imp
I have no problem with calling evolution a theory. As a scientific exploration, it is very incomplete and will probably be re-written many times as we discover more over time.
It is the insiduously implied invalidation of the field coupled with the claim of ‘truth’ in the allegorical creation story of the bible that is absolutely mind-boggling. Is evolution, anthropology, geology, and all the other earth sciences just theory? Yes. The fact that each of these disciplines confirm each other does lend a bit of credibility to the ‘theories’. 
That the sun won’t go nova for a few more million years is just a theory.
Hey, it could happen tomorrow!
Yuxia,
I’d like to see something philosophical here, but for the life of me, I can’t see what it would be. We aren’t discussing metaphysics or spiritual understandind inside this issue, it’s about our ‘knowing’ of the external world. If you see a philosophical question here, please share.
JT
Just so I know how these words are defined:
-
How do you define evolution?
-
What is the difference, if any, between evolution and adptation?
-
What does it mean to “Create”?
-
What is the difference between creating something and just reshuffling what is already there?
-
If you shuffle a deck of cards and put out a new layout of ten cards and then you shuffle again and put out a new layout of ten cards, have you created a new layout? Has anything been “created” or has materiality just been reshuffled?
-
If you don’t shuffle and just turn the pack upside down and just pull out ten cards of your choice and post them into a layout, have you created anything or is it just the redistribution of what is already there?
Nick,
You’re asking questions that are the beginning of a different thread. Yes, the coming into being of the ‘ten thousand things’ and their return to that which is could be discussed, but the issue in this thread is much simpler. It is biblical allegory challenging scientific method. Plain and simple. The real issue is which viewpoint has the greater credibility?
JT
JT
How can you judge without first having a common understanding of how terms are defined? How can people speak of evolution, for example, without first appreciating how another understands the term? How can people speak of creationsism without appreciating what another means by “create” Two people can understand creation in an entirely different manner. Speaking with each is speaking often of completely different understandings.
Nick,
It isn’t just evolution. That’s the stalking horse. It’s about ALL earth sciences. It’s about the validity of the scientific method in explaining obdurate reality.
For a definition of creationism, read Genesis.
JT
JT
Obdurate reality is one thing, From Dictionary.com:
.
Reality itself without the emotional connotation of the word is another.
Science cannot explain reality simply because it is not designed to do so. Science measures differences between before and after. it exists in linear time. Reality is the quality of the moment itself which is not an attribute of linear time but exists within the scale of qualitiative “being”, in the context of what is above and below it and is experiential.
Science is excellent for what it can do and caution against self deception but cannot judge the timeless quality of the moment or the essence of creation itself. For that you need the essence of religion.
I would say… bring a thing into being out of nothingness.
The difference lies in the presence or no of a material cause. A mere transformation is just to give a new form to some matter.
Creation occurs when something appears out of nothing (namely, not out of something) by the agency of a cause.
The answer to your question lies in the matter-form distinction.
However, it is a commonsensical metaphysics, and physical sciences (with atomic theory) could compel us to address the question otherwise.
S
This is what I mean by the importance of definitions. I don’t beilieve in just the two extremes of something and nothing. I believe in a scale of creation as depicted in Genesis 1 which creates levels of “somethings” as in the waters above and the waters below. We could argue all day but just from this difference, there could never be any agreement.
What kind of middle can be there between «something» and «nothing»?
Aristotle’s «materia prima»? An indeterminate stuff, kind of chaos?
S
The whole world of vibrations and densities of matter divided into levels. Cosmology is based on this.
Classical logic is based upon the excluded middle. Yet I’ve become more in agreement with what I believe to be the more ancient knowledge of the included middle. It makes “Creation” more comprehensible.
Rather then get into all that, if you have a real interest, read the following article especially (2) “The logic of the included middle”. It’s not easy but worthwhile for those really desiring to understand our universe and ourselves.
I may not be in high school, but i think i may grasp a few things better than some of you. I agree with some of you, but the others, i cant help but laughing. I am of the Christian religion and i believe in God. He did create us and there is no such thing as evolution. And if u believe otherwise, please refer to these.
- If we did come from monkeys/apes, where are the halfway points? where is what isnt monkey/ape, and isnt human?
- God said in the Bible that he created us in his image, and that he created us on the spot, not over a course of millions of years.
3.If we did “evolve”, why didnt the rest of the world? What i mean by this is that, if we have been ‘evolving’ over a course of millions of years, why isnt the grand canyon deeper, or niagra falls longer?
please respond, im looking forward to having some other peoples input.