Evolution an Creation 2 sides, 1 coin?

[Pvt. Stash]

Having grown up in a private school (first 9years anyways) I got a good grounding in the Christian Faith and for a long time Creationism was IT for me simply cus' thats what I was taught and I'd accepted it without question.

While watching Discovery channel one day (something I do often) I marvelled at the genious of the Creator as I watched how well-developed these creatures were with thier enviroment and a realization struck me. God created evolution. Its His design. We're Both Right, Creationist/Evolutionists.

Until someone developes a time machine and observes different, its as good as anyone else's claim...






PS

[UnrepentantSinner]

One of the most crucial considerations on the issue is the age of the Earth. Most creationists who accept an old Earth really shouldn't have a problem integrating evolution into Genesis.

The problem with Creationists is that the most vocal are a) Young Earthers and b) stidently anti-evolution. That's where the contention comes from.

As far as your time machine comment goes. We don't have to directly observe to develop hypotheses as part of a theory. If such was the case forensics would not be a science. But it is. Check out This essay detailing 29+ Evidences for macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) BTW, that essay was writen by a Christian.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pvt. Stash

While watching Discovery channel one day (something I do often) I marvelled at the genious of the Creator as I watched how well-developed these creatures were with thier enviroment and a realization struck me. God created evolution. Its His design. We're Both Right, Creationist/Evolutionists.

Until someone developes a time machine and observes different, its as good as anyone else's claim...


We do have a 'time machine' of sorts: scientific reasoning. We can determine to a good probability what happened fractions of a second after the Big Bang. We can also use mathematics to predict when things like eclipses will occur, measure the amount of shared lineage between animals, and tell us where our spacecraft went, are going, and will go.

Some questions: So God created evolution.. which god, and how do you know? What created God? And he/she/it/they really designed all the bad things and things that don't make sense in the world? Couldn't a god simply not design a Satan and make things easier?

[Crossbow]

Strictly speaking, Pvt. Stash is right, the best way to settle the evolution/creation question would be to use a time machine.

However, even without a time machine one can examine the available evidence and still determine a good bit about what has happened in the past. And the fact that there is voluminous objective evidence to support the theory of evolution is just one of the many things that makes for a very strong case in support of it.

However, there is not any objective evidence to support a theory of creation which is one of the many things that make it such a weak theory.

[Gregor]

Evolution might be a coin with one side being gradual natural selection and one side being punctuated equilibrium. However, religion is not on the coin. Religion is outside of the coin.

There are three explanations for the evidence we see relating to evolution, old-earth, old-universe, & big bang cosmology:

1. A prankster God created it all ten thousand years ago and made it all look evolved and old.

2. It is old and evolved, but a god designed it and is moving it along.

3. It is old and evolved, but since we have no evidence at all for a god, god is not involved in design or motivation.

The rule of parsimony advises to follow option three.

Let me cut and paste from a web article purporting to be a speech from Stephen Hawkings:

"There is a probably apocryphal story, that when Laplace was asked by Napoleon, how God fitted into this system [of cosmology], he replied, 'Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis.' I don't think that Laplace was claiming that God didn't exist. It is just that He doesn't intervene, to break the laws of Science. That must be the position of every scientist. A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not intervene."

[roger]

Pvt. Stash,

Let me recast your post so it reads as unlikely to you as it currently does to me. Not in an attempt to belittle, but to make the arguments above clearer.

"I was raised to believe that little invisible fairies were inside my stereo speakers and spoke/sang/whatever when I turned it on. Thats what I was taught and I'd accepted it without question.

While watching Discovery channel one day (something I do often) I watched an electronics show and marvelled as I watched how well electrons, tranistors and wire worked together, and a realization struck me. The invisible fairies _carried_ the electrons through the circuits rather than doing the singing themselves. We're Both Right, fairiests/electrical engineers.

Until somebody invents a way to observe invisible fairies, its as good as anyone else's claim..."


I'm sure you see the problems with this story - there is no need for the fairies whatsover in this story. The electronics work just fine w/o fairies to carry the electrons. So, the story with the fairies is more complicated, and without any evidence whatsoever for either fairies or fairies carrying electrons, we reject the theory. Reject it, not say it's as good as any other theory.

Likewise, evolution does not require anything to "start it off" or to direct it. Just as soon as you have some kind of self replicating device, evolution will occur. Guaranteed.

Anyway, plenty of religious people have integrated their beliefs with science in the way you describe, either by concluding that God started it off by creating the original chemicals that self replicated, or by 'nudging' evolution along here and there.

If that's what you want to believe, that's okay by me, I don't particularly want to argue the point. But you can't claim that it is 'just as good' as theories based on evidence. Adding something both unsupported and unnecessary to an existing theory that is already proven is intellectually unsupportable.

Welcome to the forum!

[Upchurch]

You're right, there is nothing to say that "God" is the driving force behind evolution and the creation of the universe. In fact, that's how most rational theists reconcile the physical evidence with their faith.

The conflict, to my mind, occurs when people want to introduce unscientific philosophy into science. Yes, science is a subset of philosophy, but that does not mean that all philosophy is science. The study of physical processes belongs in a science class. The study of possible metaphysical causes behind physical processes belongs in a philosophy class. They shouldn't be confused and mixed.

These are two great tastes that don't taste great together.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Pvt. Stash

Until someone developes a time machine and observes different, its as good as anyone else's claim...
PS
Actually, no, it isn't. Since you are touting a much more complex solution; i.e. a magical being in the sky who began all this, it is up to you to supply evidence in support of your more complex solution. Otherwise, parsimony leads us to provisionally accept the simplest solution that consistent with the evidence.

[jan]

I guess god is obsessed with beetles (and insects in general). Look how many different species of beetles there are. Certainly, god is not very interested in apes and primates.

[jan]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
One of the most crucial considerations on the issue is the age of the Earth. Most creationists who accept an old Earth really shouldn't have a problem integrating evolution into Genesis.


I would agree that there are many Christians having no problem with evolution. But I think there are more obstacles than just the age of earth. If we agree that humans descend from non-humans and life from non-life, it becomes problematic to explain how immortal souls come into play. Obviously, amino acids don't have immortal souls, but humans are supposed to have one.

Not that it is impossible to find many different explanations how this is possible, but it poses a problem a Creationist doesn't have.

[jimlintott]

Its His design. We're Both Right, Creationist/Evolutionists.

This might be a way for the religous people to accept evolution but a scientist cannot invoke the paranormal as an explanation for anything.

[Bentspoon]

The problem with this philosophy of evolution being the tool of the creator and the Grand Design theories is that they are based on the "fact" that design for adapatability in nature is perfect - animals are perfectly suited to their environment.

to Quote the start of this thread:
"I marvelled at the genious of the Creator as I watched how well-developed these creatures were with thier enviroment and a realization struck me. God created evolution. Its His design. We're Both Right, Creationist/Evolutionists."

I recommend some SJ Gould, like "The Panda's Thumb" so called because the panda's modified thumb is not well suited to stripping off bamboo leaves which is what it is "designed" for.

He goes on to site many examples in nature. Examples of adaptation that is barely suited to its purpose and lending itself to imagined improvements. The point is that evolution is not perfect. Nature adapts to survive - just barely in many cases. Perfection is not a hallmark of nature and, therefore, not a product of a perfect creator. I must ask, "why invoke such a myth to explain evolution?"

My own considered example is human childbirth. Perfect? Not by any definition. Walking upright didn't help the ladies give birth - it screwed it all up - but what the hell - we'll get by.

We get by and that is the point.

And I can't finish without this one

What perfect creator would put a sewage pipe right in the middle of a major recreation area.

Oh well, I'll get by.

Bentspoon

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by jan
I would agree that there are many Christians having no problem with evolution. But I think there are more obstacles than just the age of earth. If we agree that humans descend from non-humans and life from non-life, it becomes problematic to explain how immortal souls come into play. Obviously, amino acids don't have immortal souls, but humans are supposed to have one.

Not that it is impossible to find many different explanations how this is possible, but it poses a problem a Creationist doesn't have.

Most of the ones know have it rationalized in one of two ways.

Some thing the Adam creation story is metaphorical and that at some point in the recent past God imbued a first man with a soul.
Some just try not to worry about it and much like those old Reeses peanut butter cups, just find that their science and religion taste great together.

I'm sure there are other ways of reconciling the issue, but those are the ones I encounter most.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Stash said:While watching Discovery channel one day (something I do often) I marvelled at the genious of the Creator as I watched how well-developed these creatures were with thier enviroment and a realization struck me. God created evolution. Its His design. We're Both Right, Creationist/Evolutionists.
Is everything really all that well developed. Was god having a little chuckle when he gave us a tailbone? Was he out to lunch when he did our backbone?

~~ Paul

[Upchurch]

Yeah, actually. Let's talk about why everyone in my family requires glasses. Or why I needed braces. Talk about design flaws.

[Franko]

ArticPenguin:
Since you are touting a much more complex solution; i.e. a magical being in the sky who began all this …

Actually he never used the term “magical” you added that.

Why don’t you explain why you believe the “Big Bang” is less of a “magical” solution?

If you can’t explain how no time, no matter/energy, and no laws of physics, became – matter/energy, time/spacetime, and a complete functioning set of TLOP, then your “explanation” for genesis is even more magical than Pfc Stash.

The reason I say more magical is because you can comprehend what it is to be conscious, but you have no idea what it is to be a rock (“matter”).

… it is up to you to supply evidence in support of your more complex solution. Otherwise, parsimony leads us to provisionally accept the simplest solution that consistent with the evidence.

Actually YOU are the one assuming that “matter” exist independent of observation. This is an unfounded, untestable, unverifiable assertion which directly violates the “scientific method” which you claim to live and die by. Furthermore you have given no reason why it is necessary to make this assumption to begin with (although I think we all know why you made it). You are simply asserting it and insisting that it must be true.

Unless YOU can explain why we should believe that something inherently unobservable exist then YOU are the one expounding a belief in the supernatural. And until YOU can explain the necessity of making this assumption YOU are the one violating the principle of parsimony.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko


Actually he never used the term “magical” you added that.

Why don’t you explain why you believe the “Big Bang” is less of a “magical” solution?:id:

sorry, couldn't resist.

[jan]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yeah, actually. Let's talk about why everyone in my family requires glasses. Or why I needed braces. Talk about design flaws.

A simple one, and often quoted, I guess:

The nerve ends of the receptors in the human eye are wired the wrong way, pointing inside the eyeball instead of outside towards the brain. It evolved that way, and now it's too late to change.

A more ambitious one (discovered by Stanisław Lem):

Why is the blood circulation done in a mechanical manner, instead of electromagnetism? The mechanical solution has lots of problems with wear and tear, and there are animals using electromagnetism, so it would have been in no way impossible.

Also, it is rather obvious that human teeth are not supposed to last a full lifetime.

[pupdog]

From Pvt. Stash:
Until someone developes a time machine and observes different, its as good as anyone else's claim...

Well, no, it really isn't "just as good." Not because (as some posters have claimed) just because it's more complicated than their reasoning, but because it really doesn't explain anything, and there is no supporting evidence for it.

On the other hand, it is better, in some respects, than some other, more fundamentalist ideas. Indeed, there is a range of Creationist beliefs from extremely fundamentalist--Bibical literalist to mainly scientific-but-God-is-still-behind-it-all.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by jan
Also, it is rather obvious that human teeth are not supposed to last a full lifetime.

Not to quibble, but they are... for a being that lives 35-45 years.

[T'ai Chi]

Speaking of time machines..

Who has a better chance of making one, scientists, or people who put their hands together and wish there is a god of some kind?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Franko
Actually YOU are the one assuming that “matter” exist independent of observation. This is an unfounded, untestable, unverifiable assertion which directly violates the “scientific method” which you claim to live and die by. Furthermore you have given no reason why it is necessary to make this assumption to begin with (although I think we all know why you made it). You are simply asserting it and insisting that it must be true.

Unless YOU can explain why we should believe that something inherently unobservable exist then YOU are the one expounding a belief in the supernatural. And until YOU can explain the necessity of making this assumption YOU are the one violating the principle of parsimony.
Poppycock.

Scientists "assume" no such thing. If I throw a brick at you behind your back, and aim well, and then turn my back and run, you will be hit. I didn't observe it. You didn't observe it.

[jan]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Speaking of time machines..

Who has a better chance of making one, scientists, or people who put their hands together and wish there is a god of some kind?

And the Lord spoke thus: I will give the children of Israel a machine, and this machine will be a time machine, for I am a mighty god. And they shall use this time machine to prove Young-Earth Creationism. But those unrighteous A-theists shall labour in vain to built a time machine, since I am the Lord.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Franko
Why don’t you explain why you believe the “Big Bang” is less of a “magical” solution?Well, it fits the evidence we have gathered so far, and it's disprovable. That makes it science, and not magic.

Come on Franko, you can do better than that! Oh yeah, and welcome back. I haven't had a chance to say that yet.


If you can’t explain how no time, no matter/energy, and no laws of physics, became – matter/energy, time/spacetime, and a complete functioning set of TLOP, then your “explanation” for genesis is even more magical than Pfc Stash.Saying "I have no evidence on which to make a conclusion at this time" is not a "magical" explanation. Science has no problem saying "I don't know". Magic and religion have large problems saying "I don't know".


Actually YOU are the one assuming that “matter” exist independent of observation. This is an unfounded, untestable, unverifiable assertion which directly violates the “scientific method” which you claim to live and die by.No, it doesn't.

For instance. No one is observing the table behind me right now. It was there a few minutes ago, when I looked at it; in fact, it has been there every time I have looked in that direction for the last three years. But no one is looking at it right now.

If I were to say that it no longer exists, I would have to provide an explanation regarding where it went. I know that the annihilation of a chunk of matter the size of my table would require a great deal of energy. I would have noticed that much energy being used four feet behind me. And my co-workers would have noticed, and the people on the street under my window, and the drivers driving by. I bet the total disintegration of my table would even make the 6 O'Clock News tonight. And it's not even that big a table.

The theory that my table is still there when no one's looking at it may be untestable and unverifiable, but it sure as anything isn't unfounded.