As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Please stay on topic. The OP is limited to the evolution of man. What evidence does evolution theory have that demonstrates that a creature that possesses the faculties of consciousness, rational thought, ie., abstract reasoning, imagination and free will evolved from a bug?

No, the topic isn't limited to just evolution. You claim that creation is better, but you've not even offered anything to show that creation is a fact. No evidence, no claims, nothing. You just said that it is and left it. That's it.
So before anything else, can you show us evidence of creation?

 

[o_mlly]

No, the topic isn't limited to just evolution. You claim that creation is better, but you've not even offered anything to show that creation is a fact. No evidence, no claims, nothing. You just said that it is and left it. That's it.

"
No, this is it: "As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution".

So before anything else, can you show us evidence of creation?

Look in the mirror.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, this is it: "As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution".

That is a claim, I will grant you that, but nothing else.

Look in the mirror.

I see a white male, late 20's, dark brown hair and beard with blue-grey eyes. No evidence of creation since it can easily be said to be evidence of evolution, and the latter is more likely than the former.
So, do you have evidence of creation?

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a clean up. Please remember this in the Statement of Purpose:
​

Discussions here should be on the nature of creation and evolution, not focused on bashing or uplifting those who are proponents of these beliefs. Do not flame other viewpoints. Christianity and creationism cannot be called a myth or fairytales, and evolution should not be called pseudoscience nor should evolution or science be called a religion.. Please be aware that there are Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution or simply Evolution. Implying they are less Christian will be seen as flaming. Refrain from names that will be viewed as goading by a different viewpoint.

​

Keep it civil. ​

 

[pitabread]

After you read the Statement of Purpose you can post any argument that contradicts the OP. Your opinions are not arguments.

I'm simply trying to cut to the heart of the matter.

If you want to reject science and it's associated philosophical bases as a means of epistemology in favor of a theological basis (per point #6 in the OP), there's not really anything to argue.

Your views don't really challenge anything in science, nor are scientific conclusions going to change thereof.

If I had to sum up my response to the OP, it's simply: "So what?"

 

[Larniavc]

Creation is not a scientific explanation for the existence of man.

Correct. For that you need the sciences to determine an answer.

 

[Larniavc]

Like psychology and maths.

You take that back! Lol.

I learnt more maths doing my psychology degree than I could ever use on civie street.

 

[Frank Robert]

No, this is it: "As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution".

One explanation is based on belief. No argument there

The other explanation is based the science of evolution which you chose to argue against.

My understanding is Catholics do not have a religious barrier to affirm or reject either explanation. You are entitled to your belief and your opposition is entitled to affirm the evidence. So what's the problem?

 

[dlamberth]

As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution.

1) Creation is a unified explanation of all that is. Evolution attempts to explain only a fragment of what is, ie., the diversity of life on earth, and presumes, without explanation, the prior existence of that which is necessary for the origin of life to have emanated from the natural order.

2) Bias is intrinsic to a scientific explanation for the observed diversity of life. Constrained to the material, evolutionists’ hypotheses (as they ought) posit only material causes for observed material effects. However, working under the principle of uniformity, the scientist introduces bias as he shapes the evidence and strains reason to conform to his proposed hypotheses. Rather than follow the evidence, the evidence is made to follow the hypothesis.

3) Creation explains the orderly operation of natural laws as rooted in and emanating from an unchanging rational ground. Evolution has no explanation.

4) “Mind from matter” presents a difficult and unresolved problem for evolution. Evolution proposes that “mind” spookily emerged from matter only in the most recent geological moments of time. Creation proposes the intuitive "mind from Mind".

5) When the evolutionary scientist cannot provide natural explanations for observed effects, he often masks his ignorance with flowery language, eg., “order emerges from the interactions of multiple subsystems as a result of their intrinsic properties, without external guidance …”. Rather than assign the observed effect to a super-natural or unnatural cause the scientist presumes a natural cause without identifying it.

6) Creation is not a scientific explanation for the existence of man. However, the forced scientific explanation for man's existence lacks intelligibility and strains credulity.

Yet, after reading all of that, the bottom line is that it is through change (evolution) that new life forms are created. That is what the Earth is showing us. And the Earth can not lie.

 

[eleos1954]

One explanation is dependent on belief the other on evidence.
Evolution does not presume origin of life it merely goes forward with what is already there.
You appear to think that is a bad thing.
Humans can not escape bias, even theists are prone to bias. Science does have the scientific method to limit bias. What does religion have to limit bias?
Evolution does not pretend to know everything.
Again, evolution begins with first life, not before.
Some evolutionists are materialistic others are theistic. There are many Catholic theistic evolutionist like Kenneth Miller who received the University of Notre Dame’s 2014 Laetare Medal, the oldest and most prestigious honor given to American Catholics.
You are entitled to your opinion.

Evolution does not presume origin of life it merely goes forward with what is already there.

The claim of the biblical narrative is that God created the UNIVERSE and everything in it ..... to compare (apples to apples) evolutionists must include the question of the origin of life or it's not an actual comparison and the conversation is futile (of which it is). The universe is vast .... small percentage of it is observable, testable etc. can only be theorized as to it's origin ..... the universe? creator God or evolved somehow? We don't know and both are theories in an attempt to explain the unknown.

 

[pitabread]

We don't know and both are theories in an attempt to explain the unknown.

They aren't both theories in a scientific sense. A theory in science has a vastly different meaning than a theory in lay-usage.

In addition, theological claims about the universe don't really attempt to explain anything. It provides an answer, but an answer and explanation aren't the same thing.

 

[Yttrium]

Oh good, a thought problem.

1) Creation is a unified explanation of all that is. Evolution attempts to explain only a fragment of what is, ie., the diversity of life on earth, and presumes, without explanation, the prior existence of that which is necessary for the origin of life to have emanated from the natural order.

This is true. If you're looking for a philosophy of life, the universe and everything, then the Theory of Evolution is a complete dud. On the other hand, if you're looking for an explanation for the morphologic trends we see, both in modern day and throughout the fossil record, as well as the genetic relationships, then creationism has nothing to offer. Meanwhile, one can have a philosophy of life, the universe and everything that even includes creation of life and the universe by a supreme being, and still have ToE too. They're not mutually exclusive. There's only conflict if one sticks to a literal interpretation of a portion of a particular religious scripture.

2) Bias is intrinsic to a scientific explanation for the observed diversity of life. Constrained to the material, evolutionists’ hypotheses (as they ought) posit only material causes for observed material effects. However, working under the principle of uniformity, the scientist introduces bias as he shapes the evidence and strains reason to conform to his proposed hypotheses. Rather than follow the evidence, the evidence is made to follow the hypothesis.

Well, that's backwards. Creationism starts with Genesis and tries to make all the evidence fit into the interpretation. Any evidence that contradicts the premise is ignored or scoffed at. Science starts with the evidence and tries to make a theory that explains it. The ToE was made to fit the evidence. As new evidence comes in, it isn't stuffed into the theory. The theory is adjusted to fit the new evidence. ToE has undergone a great many adjustments over the years.

3) Creation explains the orderly operation of natural laws as rooted in and emanating from an unchanging rational ground. Evolution has no explanation.

See #1. And I don't really see creationism providing much explanation beyond "God did it". We have all sorts of scientific theories dealing with all sorts of things in nature (gravity, electricity and magnetism, optics, molecular bonding, etc etc), none of it coming from creationism.

More later. Time for some exercise.

 

[o_mlly]

I'm simply trying to cut to the heart of the matter.

If you want to reject science and it's associated philosophical bases as a means of epistemology in favor of a theological basis (per point #6 in the OP), there's not really anything to argue.

Your views don't really challenge anything in science, nor are scientific conclusions going to change thereof.

The OP does not reject science at all. The claim is that the theory of evolution is not good science. Perhaps breaking down the claims and addressing them independently would be helpful.

Prior to DNA, evolution theory relied primarily on the historiographical sciences of geology, paleontology and archaeology to support its claims. These sciences propose theories that give meaning by organizing events in a manner that shows coherence. As a science, historiographers make observations and use inductive reasoning to offer support to the theories concerned with the origin and history of living beings. Because phenomena of the distant past are not open to observation and experiment, historiographers must attempt to reconstruct the events of the past and appeal to the principle of uniformity.

Their conclusions are less derived and more contrived (at times, from outright falsified evidence) to support the evolution hypothesis that the grant money which underwrote their endeavor expects. This methodology undeniably introduces systemic bias into the findings and conclusions. The pressure to publish or perish cannot be dismissed as a motivating force to find exactly what they were looking to find. It is reasonable to claim that they shaped the evidence to support the desired end rather than being led by the evidence.

As written elsewhere, the move to the experimental science of molecular biology will remove some of the bias. But today, the theory of evolution stands on the work of the weaker historiographical sciences and its problems of inherent bias.

 

[o_mlly]

This is true. If you're looking for a philosophy of life, the universe and everything, then the Theory of Evolution is a complete dud. On the other hand, if you're looking for an explanation for the morphologic trends we see, both in modern day and throughout the fossil record, as well as the genetic relationships, then creationism has nothing to offer. Meanwhile, one can have a philosophy of life, the universe and everything that even includes creation of life and the universe by a supreme being, and still have ToE too. They're not mutually exclusive. There's only conflict if one sticks to a literal interpretation of a portion of a particular religious scripture.

Please stay on topic. We're looking only for an explanation of the existence of mankind. Ditto the balance of your post.

 

[o_mlly]

In addition, theological claims about the universe don't really attempt to explain anything. It provides an answer, but an answer and explanation aren't the same thing.

? An explanation requires the identification of the cause to its effect. You may reject the explanation but not its lack of coherence as an explanation.

 

[pitabread]

Prior to DNA, evolution theory relied primarily on the historiographical sciences of geology, paleontology and archaeology to support its claims. These sciences propose theories that give meaning by organizing events in a manner that shows coherence. As a science, historiographers make observations and use inductive reasoning to offer support to the theories concerned with the origin and history of living beings. Because phenomena of the distant past are not open to observation and experiment, historiographers must attempt to reconstruct the events of the past and appeal to the principle of uniformity.

The principle here shouldn't be controversial. Events of the past leave evidence that we can study in the present.

The only thing we really need to assume is objectivity with respect to the nature of universe.

Their conclusions are less derived and more contrived (at times, from outright falsified evidence) to support the evolution hypothesis that the grant money which underwrote their endeavor expects.

That's not how research grants actually work.

This methodology undeniably introduces systemic bias into the findings and conclusions. The pressure to publish or perish cannot be dismissed as a motivating force to find exactly what they were looking to find. It is reasonable to claim that they shaped the evidence to support the desired end rather than being led by the evidence.

This is just conspiracy-mongering.

It also completely ignores the commercial side of science and the fact that the theory of evolution has practical, commercial application. When you look at the interests of commercial enterprise, such charges of systemic bias tend to fall by the wayside.

If there really was a superior alternative to the modern theory of evolution, industry is the first place you'd hear about it.

 

[expos4ever]

In addition, theological claims about the universe don't really attempt to explain anything. It provides an answer, but an answer and explanation aren't the same thing.

I am not sure I agree with you here (although I definitely believe evolution is a fact). While you might find the creation account simplistic, it seems to me that it is an explanation. Are you suggesting that it is not an explanation because there are no mechanism details? Well, I suspect you will agree that the Biblical is conceivable - it could be the case that God simply spoke mankind and all the animals into existence.

Anyhoo, I am interested in why you would say creation is not an explanation.

 

[o_mlly]

My understanding is Catholics do not have a religious barrier to affirm or reject either explanation.

That is incorrect. While Catholics are free to accept or reject bugs to primates, in the creation of man we believe the spiritual soul is immediately created by God. Consequently, theories of evolution which…consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

 

[expos4ever]

The claim is that the theory of evolution is not good science.

This is exceedingly hard to believe. For this to be true, thousands, nay tens or even hundreds of thousands of highly trained scientists would all need to have made a monumental blunder. This seems a priori exceedingly unlikely.

Can you think of one other example, during the era of modern science (say after the Enlightenment) where one cay say that a widely accepted scientific theory turned out to be "bad science"? Stuff like replacing Newtonian physics with Einsteinian is not such an example since Newtonian physics was "good science" given the observations that were available at the time.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

The OP does not reject science at all. The claim is that the theory of evolution is not good science. Perhaps breaking down the claims and addressing them independently would be helpful.

Prior to DNA, evolution theory relied primarily on the historiographical sciences of geology, paleontology and archaeology to support its claims. These sciences propose theories that give meaning by organizing events in a manner that shows coherence. As a science, historiographers make observations and use inductive reasoning to offer support to the theories concerned with the origin and history of living beings. Because phenomena of the distant past are not open to observation and experiment, historiographers must attempt to reconstruct the events of the past and appeal to the principle of uniformity.

Their conclusions are less derived and more contrived (at times, from outright falsified evidence) to support the evolution hypothesis that the grant money which underwrote their endeavor expects. This methodology undeniably introduces systemic bias into the findings and conclusions. The pressure to publish or perish cannot be dismissed as a motivating force to find exactly what they were looking to find. It is reasonable to claim that they shaped the evidence to support the desired end rather than being led by the evidence.

As written elsewhere, the move to the experimental science of molecular biology will remove some of the bias. But today, the theory of evolution stands on the work of the weaker historiographical sciences and its problems of inherent bias.

What are you expecting "molecular biology" to show since thus far the study of DNA, a biological molecule" and proteins and protein structure etc. have only reinforced the theory of evolution? Phylogenies based on DNA have recapitulated those created priorly from morphology alone.
As for the rest of the post it is more appropriate for the conspiracy subforum.