Creation-Evolution continuum

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by James R, May 2, 2004.

?

On the Creation/Evolution Continuum (see below), I am...

  1. a flat-Earther

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. a geocentrist

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. a young-earth creationist

    1 vote(s)
    3.8%
  4. an old-earth creationist

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. a day-age creationist

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. a progressive creationist

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. an intelligent design creationist

    1 vote(s)
    3.8%
  8. an evolutionary creationist

    1 vote(s)
    3.8%
  9. a theistic evolutionist

    2 vote(s)
    7.7%
  10. a neutral evolutionist

    6 vote(s)
    23.1%
  11. a materialist evolutionist

    11 vote(s)
    42.3%
  12. OTHER (please explain)

    4 vote(s)
    15.4%
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    This thread is inspired by an article in the current issue (Vol.10, No.4, 2004) of Skeptic Magazine.

    Many - if not most - Americans think of the creation vs. evolution argument as a matter of choosing one of two sides of the fence. In fact, though, there are many positions one can take. Below is a brief summary I wrote, adapted from the Skeptic article.

    Where do you fit on the continuum?

    Flat Earthers

    This is the most extreme biblical literalist position. Flat Earthers believe the bible says the Earth is flat, and therefore it must be, despite all evidence to the contrary. They also believe in the literal truth of the Genesis story, along with the literal truth of rest of the bible.

    Geocentrists

    People with this view accept that the Earth is spherical, but hold that the Earth is the centre of the universe. They reject virtually all of modern physics, chemistry and biology, and, like flat-earthers, believe in the literal truth of the bible.

    Young-earth Creationists

    These people generally accept a sun-centred solar system, but reject most of modern physics, chemistry, geology concerning the age of the Earth and biology. According to their view, the Earth was created by God 6000 to 10000 years ago, along with all modern lifeforms. They believe that the Noah flood story is literally true, along with the Genesis story.

    Old-earth Creationists

    These people accept modern geology and the conclusion that Earth is billions of years old. They believe that God was intimately involved in the creation of all life on Earth, although precisely what form that involvement took is debateable. They believe that lifeforms can change over time, but God guides changes. They generally reject the theory of descent with modification.

    Day-Age Creationists

    These people are old-earth creationists who believe in a mostly literal reading of the bible. However, day-age creationists say that each "day" of creation in the bible actually corresponds to a much longer period of time - perhaps millions of years. Thus, plants appeared millions of years before animals, and humans came even later.

    Progressive Creationists

    Progressive creationists accept scientific estimates of the age of the Earth, and much other modern science besides. However, only some parts of modern biology are accepted. PCs believe that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially. They do not believe that later kinds of animals are descended from earlier ones - each kind is a separate creation by God. They allow for changes to occur "within a kind", although "kind" is defined somewhat inconsistently. Thus, the created cat "kind" could have changed gradually to produce lions, tigers and house cats. Thus, PCs accept a kind of "microevolution", but draw the line at major changes.

    Intelligent Design (ID) Creationists

    ID Creationists hold that some biological features of plants and animals are "irreducibly complex", and so could not have evolved by means of Darwinian evolution. ID allows for some microevolution, but supporters deny that mutation and natural selection are sufficient in themselves to explain the evolution of one "kind" of life from another (e.g. they cannot explain the evolution of humans from apes).

    Evolutionary creationists

    ECs believe that God uses the process of scientific Darwinian evolution to bring about his plan. Thus, ECs accept all of modern science and can be considered "evolutionists". Their position is distinguished from theistic evolution mainly on theological grounds - it tends to be held by more conservative and evangelical Christians.

    Theistic evolutionists

    Again, TEs believe that God creates via the process of evolution as described by Darwin. God intervenes at critical times in the process of evolution, giving life appropriate "nudges" in the right direction. This is particular relevant in the evolution of human beings. This is the official position held by the Catholic Church, as stated explicitly by Pope John Paul II.

    Neutral evolutionists

    NEs hold a non-religious view of the development of life on Earth. They believe that religion and science are separate domains, and that religion and God are not required to explain the development of life on Earth; science is sufficient for a complete explanation. They do not express a view on whether God exists or guides evolution, because this is not relevant to the question at hand.

    Materialistic Evolutionists

    Believers in ME also hold a non-religious view of the development of life on Earth. They differ from NEs in that they propose in addition that the laws of nature are all that exists; they assert that supernatural forces such as God do not exist.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Lemming3k Insanity Gone Mad Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,180
    Isnt creation in the bible flawed as it was all done in seven days? And if you're Christian arnt you supposed to believe everything the bible says as its gods word?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Munchmausen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    71
    Only certain sects of Christianity are Bible-literalists. Furthermore, only some within that group require their followers to rely on scripture superceding other evidence as a requirement of faith.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Lemming3k Insanity Gone Mad Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,180
    Thats good because theres a few scientific errors in there, i always thought it said somewhere in there about it being gods word, that was why they had to believe it because they'd be going against gods word if they didnt, but thats got that cleared up anyways.
     
  8. luuk Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    Can you prove it wasn't done in 7 days? p.s. It was 6 - on the 7th day God rested. You only consider it flawed because you believe something else.
     
  9. Lemming3k Insanity Gone Mad Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,180
    Yes, the animals gods supposed to have created didnt exist when the earth was created, fossil records show dinosaurs ruled the earth before cattle and fowls had a look in, and then theres humans, we have an evolutionary link between us and apes, which doesnt exist according to the bible.
    Also i found an interesting quote in genesis:
    Let US make man in OUR image? i thought there was only one god? Whos he talking to if nobody else exists? Who's this US?
    Genesis is the story of creation, and its been proved wrong by science, though most christians accept this.
     
  10. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    I believe it was Joseph Campbell's "The Masks of God" that showed a connection with the Christian creation myth and earlier Babylonian creation myths. Something about God was on the face of the deep. The deep having connections with Tiamat. God being Marduk. I need to buy these books, I checked them out at the library. They deserve more attention than a couple of weeks allow.
     
  11. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    James, you mised an option. What about the hollow-earth theory?
     
  12. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    Not to mention the ever-popular panspermia.
     
  13. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Sorry, I don't see the difference between neutral and materialistic evolutionists in the definitions.

    Could someone enlighten me.
     
  14. Halcyon Guest

    NE's :No view on whether or not god was not involved
    ME's: No god exists

    neutrals still entertain the possibility of a God. Materialists don't.
     
  15. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    acceptance of evolution would exclude the possibility of any involvement of god and therefore I do not see how you can be neutral on the view whether god is involved or not.

    I do not think that a similar situation can exist as in theism that has agnostics and atheists. If you accept evolution by natural selection you exclude any possibility of god. It is a choice. It is not neutral.
     
  16. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Evolution doesn't necessarily rule out some type of god. Why couldn't evolution be used by a god? Just because he's a god doesn't mean he has to do everything by hand. He could easily have set up the system and just sat back and watched the show.
     
  17. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Then you are a creationist.
     
  18. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    No, I'm a neutral evolutionist. I admit to the possibility of there being a god, but don't hang my hopes or scientific beliefs on it. A creationist depends on god. Without god, they have nothing.

    It is quite possible that if there is a god, he didn't even have anything to do with creation. He might have been created right along with the rest of the universe. Or developed later in some evolutionary type way. Who knows? That's the point. There may or may not be a god, but evolution is real.
     
  19. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    I just want to add something: I know many would like Christians to state categorically that "God's Word" should be infallible in all aspects, and reflect His knowledge in ways that supercedes our own. But the two aren't necessarily compatible. "Infallibility" in a scientific sense would mean God prefers scientific accuracy above less human-dependent truths. God did not wish to nullify our thirst for knowledge in one fell swoop. Genesis could be seen as a God-conscious and human-conscious version of the idolatrous and personalized creation myths prevalent in the day. It's a commentary on paganism and naturalism as much as it was a cultural "just-so" story. Therefore it should be no surprise that Genesis reflects other creation accounts. Something that didn't address human perceptions would have little relevance because it wouldn't relate to the real issue: God's relationship with his creation. Just like a scientific paper on the chemistry of the brain would have little relation to the relationship between a father and his son.

    My point is this: God's word "says" a different thing than the scientific word. This is perspective is evident in for instance that God separated light and darkness "days" before He created the sun. That's a clue that it addresses a different issue, even though it uses something parallel to science to explain it. If the Bible had explained the quantum-genesis of matter - apart from being incomprehensible to perhaps 5000 years of people (who says even we would be able to understand it today?) - it would ironically have had nothing to to say; it would not have been God's Word.
     

Share This Page