As there are plenty of topics about the generalized debate over evolution vs. creationism, I really would much rather this one stay very specific and about the topic of theistic evolution.
That is, the idea that creationism and evolution may be blended together seamlessly - depending on the religion in question, it may be in different ways. My knowledge pertains solely to the perspective of the Christian religion, but I'll abstain from entering this discussion until some people give their opinions. If you want to bring in other religions or even a deist point of view, feel free.
I think this is fairly different enough for a new topic, but if a mod sees otherwise, feel free to close it. ;-)
Anyway, my question is simple: can evolution and creationism as commonly defined actually work together in a logical, cohesive way?
I am just trying to be fair and neutral... That is why I posted that... There are some good ones there, but I didn't feel like going through and looking for them since it was already 2 AM when I posted that for me... Simply put, I was tired...
I'll throw in some $.02. I think that no theory, whether it be strictly evolution, strictly creationism, or a blend of both as it would be with theistic evolution, will ever be able to give a 100% answer to where it all started.
What I do think is that the theories of evolution consistently rely on what science has discovered and learned, rather than what man has invented in his head (as creationism is, just a story after all). I believe evolution has a lot of credibility, whereas creationism does not.
I don't think a combination of the two would make for a valid theory. It's very hard to have this discussion without a religious debate, but I think that religion clouds a lot of people's judgment in a strong way, making them thing that the idea of a creator is viable.
I have yet to see any proof, any facts, anything at all, to presume that creation is valid in any way. The Bible is not, and never will be evidence to me, as it's just a book of fiction, like any other book of fiction that has ever been written sitting on a library shelf somewhere. Evolution doesn't have all the answers, and I don't think any theory ever will, but I think that as we learn more and more, it will be more solidified with evidence - something that creationism or 'intelligent design' really can't be a part of.
Well I do believe in Creationism, but the Evolution Part I belive is that things do evolve, but it does not to about 100 million for a Tadpole to grow a pair of legs than end up on land. It was the order God had put it in that certain order. In the movie "Explelled" The top Evolutionism Professors can't answer the ultimate question. If Creationism isn't real then how did the Organisms come to be? Well in the Movie, the Proffesors said many different Theorys But none with Clear Answers.
Part of the problem here is that you're getting a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, just like the movie did. Evolution does not ever attempt to explain the origin of life; that's abiogenesis. Evolution takes over from the moment we have a self-replicating cell and goes from there.
Go see the movie, It explains A LOT.
I disagree. The movie was built on propaganda and attempting to continuously connect the theory of evolution to things such as social darwinism and, for god's sake, Nazism and the Holocaust. That doesn't further the public debate at all, that's simply sickening. I thoroughly recommend anyone who has seen the movie or wishes to see the movie will read [url=http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html], if only the last half or so. The footnote, in particular, explains a lot about the theory of natural selection.
The biggest problem with intelligent design & the fusion of religion and science is that the questions that they try to answer only ask bigger questions.
Some argue that the complexity of the development of life couldn't have happened without a plan, without a 'creator' with a 'design' for life.
However it does beg the question - any being that is capable of designing such a complex form of life and/or universe, must be incredibly complex themselves - one which could not have existed without being created. And that further creator must be exponentially more complex then the first.
Then you just run into who created the creator's creator's creator? It becomes cyclical, and unanswerable. As such, it's not really *science* and becomes philosophy and spiritualism.
That's why they don't blend well. Science comes from observation of evidence, and the ID/creator/creationism comes from faith and belief. It doesn't work. Though, it can be helpful for religious people to stop hating on evolution so much.. but it does depend on the religion also, and how strongly the followers adhere to the text.
However it does beg the question - any being that is capable of designing such a complex form of life and/or universe, must be incredibly complex themselves - one which could not have existed without being created. And that further creator must be exponentially more complex then the first.
That is a good point, Distance. But religious people think(or at least I think) that the complex creator could be very simple to its eyes. If, however, there is no creator, then we are the closest ones to judge complexity. And the universe, from our perspective, is very complex. That sounds a bit weird, but hopefully that makes some sense.
That sounds a bit weird, but hopefully that makes some sense.
No, it absolutely makes sense.
How complex is the pythagorean theorem to an ape? Or a snail? Or an ant? It's possible that there are forms of life in our universe that are beyond our level of understanding, in that exact sense.
But it does fall to my other point - it's not scientific to believe in them either without solid evidence for them.
But it does fall to my other point - it's not scientific to believe in them either without solid evidence for them.
That's where I lose the debate. I can only fall on faith, which doesn't hold up on AG. I just have a feeling about God, and my religion doesn't harm my regular life. It actually helps out my morals. But it'd be impossible for me to convert someone to it (that's why I'm not a Jehova's witness).
Well, that's true. A lot of people get very touchy when religion is even mentioned, so I figured I'd remind the viewers that I wasn't trying to force my religion on anyone. But yes, I have never seen a problem with evolution, and it is even taught at my Christian high school.
The 'theory' of evolution isnt really a theory anymore. We have an @$$load of proof. Did any1 watch the Link on History? Thats all scientists needed to prove evolution.
creationism and evolution may be blended together seamlessly
In a religion that involves a deity/deities, it is impossible for them to be involved with ANY KIND of Evolution, since the genetic code for life, like DNA and RNA does not need any kind of deity to intervene when an animal mates. They act on their own and form with variety when the two sex cells fertilize.
So for those that are interested in this sort of thing please watch this youtube video about the origin of life. It explains that there cannot be a deity involved in evolution, while proving that living things came from non-living things at the same time. It is both entertaining AND funny, if you get his crude innuendos.
In a religion that involves a deity/deities, it is impossible for them to be involved with ANY KIND of Evolution, since the genetic code for life, like DNA and RNA does not need any kind of deity to intervene when an animal mates.
As I understand it, it also depends on chance. I would consider chance to be the diety. For example, whether you are a boy or a girl depends on which gene you get from the father, X or Y. There is no rule that says one is going to happen and not the other in certain circumstances. Besides, even if it was all based on a logical order, couldn't a diety have created the logical order?
