Evolution as a necessary socio-political creation story

[stevevw]

I think its more than creationism verses evolution. It seems to me the debate is not purely about a rationalism verses irrationalism but about worldviews inherent in the debate. Strict materialist evolution not only discounts creations and ID but discounts any idea that is not deterministic. In some ways the materialist worldview not only discounts God but any implication of teleology and agency altogether.

Thus all explanations have to be reduced to material processes that make humans passive robots subject to reductive processes that can be empirically supported. Any sense of agency or purpose is an illusion which seems to be counter intuitive and contradictory to our experience of the world.

 

[stevevw]

Methodological Naturalism is basically a compartmentalized version of Philosophical/Ontological/Metaphysical Naturalism. One creates a little micro-universe where all of reality is reduced to the cause and effect of natural processes.

As soon as you begin hearing yourself chant mystical mantras like "the present is the key to the past" then that boundary between method and philosophy has been erased, and you begin projecting methodological naturalism into all of reality and the history of the entire cosmos itself. A kind of metaphysical circularity is established where you *know* something is true because the explanation is bounded in naturalism.

And yes, one becomes "hooked"... they can no longer view reality in any other way, like a permanent psychedelic experience.

I kind of like the gateway drug analogy. There is something deeply intoxicating about the cultural mythos of the Enlightenment... the feeling that one has gained a special insight into hidden forces and energies of nature to dispel some great illusion that captured humanity for so many millennia.

Great analogy.

 

[FireDragon76]

Creationism is a foolish hill to die on, especially as there have been plenty of Christians, even in the premodern world, that were not Creationists in the modern sense.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
-Augustine, the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, Chapter 19

 

[Cis.jd]

Forcing an interpretation of universal history through the lens of metaphysical naturalism abounds with ideological overtones, which is what you desire as part of state-enforced public education for all young people. You don't really care if Johnny develops a good handle on the nature of allele frequencies. What you really care about is that he believes the overarching creation story of man evolving from fish-like creatures over millions of years, because that is the mythos that maintains ideological power in society.

It's not forcing an interpretation, it's just putting our religious pride in check and accepting we discovered something we didn't know about. In other words, we went to were the evidence is.
Back then people thought the moon was like that of a star, yet now we teach that the moon isn't a ball of gas like we thought it was but a rock that is just reflecting the light of the sun. People thought the earth was flat and taught it that way until we discovered it wasn't. Are these forcing an interpretation of universal history? No. We just discovered the facts after the bible was written. Same with evolution.
Creation-evolution is the most rational thing because we are combining two worldviews and showing how they need each other. Evolution can't happen with out a designer, and creation had to adapt to continue life in a changing environment. In short, we don't deny God nor deny the facts.

 

[Aussie Pete]

And if it turns out that the Theory of Evolution is actually reflective of the Reality we find ourselves in, then what?

From my philosophical perspective, you're offering a half truth here and conflating two or three different ideological and historical trajectories. It's better to keep them separate. There can still be a Devil deceiving the World on the one hand while, on the other, it's also true that the world really has Evolved (via God's providence).

The only reason that some Creationists can't get a handle on this is because...............well, there's a lot of reasons.

The main reason that this Creationist can't get a handle on it is because it denies the fundamental truth that God is the Creator. The more I research evolutionary theory, (yes, from my own perspective) the more absurd it becomes. The only hope that evolutionists have is that somehow, some day all the contradictions, inaccuracies and misunderstandings will be resolved. Of course, this will require more funding from the ever suffering taxpayer. The Darwin gravy train is the main reason that science opposes the Creationist. Countless careers would be terminated and money could be poured into research that has some value instead.

Silly Darwin Stories Continue – CEH

crev.info

People have spent money on that research. I rest my case.

 

[Aussie Pete]

It's not forcing an interpretation, it's just putting our religious pride in check and accepting we discovered something we didn't know about. In other words, we went to were the evidence is.
Back then people thought the moon was like that of a star, yet now we teach that the moon isn't a ball of gas like we thought it was but a rock that is just reflecting the light of the sun. People thought the earth was flat and taught it that way until we discovered it wasn't. Are these forcing an interpretation of universal history? No. We just discovered the facts after the bible was written. Same with evolution.
Creation-evolution is the most rational thing because we are combining two worldviews and showing how they need each other. Evolution can't happen with out a designer, and creation had to adapt to continue life in a changing environment. In short, we don't deny God nor deny the facts.

Don't tell the Darwinists that evolution can't happen without a designer. They will have a fit.

 

[Cis.jd]

Don't tell the Darwinists that evolution can't happen without a designer. They will have a fit.

I know.. likewise, creationists that are told that evolution can happen after end up having the same reaction. It's like the rights vs the left, the more further you are on the spectrum the more you see the same line of rationalism ends up becoming the same.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's not forcing an interpretation, it's just putting our religious pride in check and accepting we discovered something we didn't know about. In other words, we went to were the evidence is.
Back then people thought the moon was like that of a star, yet now we teach that the moon isn't a ball of gas like we thought it was but a rock that is just reflecting the light of the sun. People thought the earth was flat and taught it that way until we discovered it wasn't. Are these forcing an interpretation of universal history? No. We just discovered the facts after the bible was written. Same with evolution.
Creation-evolution is the most rational thing because we are combining two worldviews and showing how they need each other. Evolution can't happen with out a designer, and creation had to adapt to continue life in a changing environment. In short, we don't deny God nor deny the facts.

It was accepted even back in the day by some theologians and churchmen that the creation stories in the Bible were not literal history. Some accepted the Aristotilian notion of abiogenesis. There are even intimations of this interpretation in Genesis 1, where God speaks and the Earth brings forth life, so it wasn't a stretch to reconcile that with Aristotle's notion of abiogenesis.

 

[FireDragon76]

The main reason that this Creationist can't get a handle on it is because it denies the fundamental truth that God is the Creator.

No, it doesn't. It's only a problem if you have an anthropomorphic notion of God.

 

[Aussie Pete]

No, it doesn't. It's only a problem if you have an anthropomorphic notion of God.

Not at all. I have God's perspective on man. You have it in reverse. Man is created in God's image. If man evolved then you may say that God evolved, which is ludicrous.
Psalm 8: 4-6
…what is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that You care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler of the works of Your hands; You have placed everything under his feet:…

 

[FireDragon76]

Not at all. I have God's perspective on man. You have it in reverse. Man is created in God's image. If man evolved then you may say that God evolved, which is ludicrous.

Haven't you heard of Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy? Or the evolutionary theology of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? Yes, there is a changeless aspect of God, but to suggest nothing about God can change, is potentially to deny that God is a living God. Our relationship to God's eternal nature certainly changes, we can certainly see that even in the Bible.

And humanity being created in God's image isn't meant to be taken literally, necessarily.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The main reason that this Creationist can't get a handle on it is because it denies the fundamental truth that God is the Creator. The more I research evolutionary theory, (yes, from my own perspective) the more absurd it becomes. The only hope that evolutionists have is that somehow, some day all the contradictions, inaccuracies and misunderstandings will be resolved. Of course, this will require more funding from the ever suffering taxpayer. The Darwin gravy train is the main reason that science opposes the Creationist. Countless careers would be terminated and money could be poured into research that has some value instead.

Silly Darwin Stories Continue – CEH

crev.info

People have spent money on that research. I rest my case.

Ok. Fine. As a fellow Christian, I'm not here to change your mind on your opinion about Evolution. You're free to think as you will and to choose your sources of information as you will. You have yours, and I realize that.

 

[Cis.jd]

Not at all. I have God's perspective on man. You have it in reverse. Man is created in God's image. If man evolved then you may say that God evolved, which is ludicrous.
Psalm 8: 4-6
…what is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that You care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler of the works of Your hands; You have placed everything under his feet:…

Not at all. I don't get how you think man evolving is supposed to suggest God evolved. We say God designed evolution because our planet changes and in order for his creation to continue life on it then they have to adapt and evolve along with it long with it.

Here is an example. Do you think our skin had pores during the beginning? Our ability to sweat is one of the main reasons we are capable of living in various areas in the planet because we have something that helps in preventing to overheat when we work or live in areas where it is hot. You think we just had pores or even arm hair in the beginning for no reason at all?

Genesis is more likely metaphorical and written in a narrative by moses' understanding, or it can be assumed it is a universe different from ours today.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Haven't you heard of Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy? Or the evolutionary theology of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? Yes, there is a changeless aspect of God, but to suggest nothing about God can change, is potentially to deny that God is a living God. Our relationship to God's eternal nature certainly changes, we can certainly see that even in the Bible.

And humanity being created in God's image isn't meant to be taken literally, necessarily.

Do you take God's word seriously? Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God. (Colossians 1:15) I don't know how much more literal you can get. The way that God deals with man change, as God deems fit. He Himself has stated that He does not change. I long ago gave up arguing with God.

Not at all. I don't get how you think man evolving is supposed to suggest God evolved. We say God designed evolution because our planet changes and in order for his creation to continue life on it then they have to adapt and evolve along with it long with it.

Here is an example. Do you think our skin had pores during the beginning? Our ability to sweat is one of the main reasons we are capable of living in various areas in the planet because we have something that helps in preventing to overheat when we work or live in areas where it is hot. You think we just had pores or even arm hair in the beginning for no reason at all?

Genesis is more likely metaphorical and written in a narrative by moses' understanding, or it can be assumed it is a universe different from ours today.

You can throw out the Old Testament if you wish. Jesus quoted from it constantly and so did the NT writers. If Jesus took it literally, I see no justification in doing otherwise. If it does not fit into the view of worldly philosophy, then the world is the devil's domain. It's hardly surprising that the world finds fault with God's word. I do not.

Conflating evolution and adaptation is wrong. They are not the same.

 

[FireDragon76]

Do you take God's word seriously? Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God. (Colossians 1:15)

He didn't exist from all eternity as a human being.

 

[Cis.jd]

Do you take God's word seriously? Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God. (Colossians 1:15) I don't know how much more literal you can get. The way that God deals with man change, as God deems fit. He Himself has stated that He does not change. I long ago gave up arguing with God.

You can throw out the Old Testament if you wish. Jesus quoted from it constantly and so did the NT writers. If Jesus took it literally, I see no justification in doing otherwise. If it does not fit into the view of worldly philosophy, then the world is the devil's domain. It's hardly surprising that the world finds fault with God's word. I do not.

Conflating evolution and adaptation is wrong. They are not the same.

Seriously, yes. I take it seriously to the point that it should not be misrepresented and one of the biggest misrepresentations a christian makes is by making the Bible to be a source for the facts of our natural universe. Saying the "Bible says this" when trying to deny scientific evidence isn't taking the Bible seriously, it's the other way around, it's showing others not to take the Bible seriously.


Here is an example, what if a person came to you and denied the moon is a rock reflecting the sun's light but an independent ball light on it's own based on his literal reading of Gen 1:16., by your rubrics you have to agree to that otherwise you aren't "taking the Bible seriously", right?

 

[Platte]

Creationism is a foolish hill to die on, especially as there have been plenty of Christians, even in the premodern world, that were not Creationists in the modern sense.

Evolution is the construct of hypocrisy

 

[Aussie Pete]

Seriously, yes. I take it seriously to the point that it should not be misrepresented and one of the biggest misrepresentations a christian makes is by making the Bible to be a source for the facts of our natural universe. Saying the "Bible says this" when trying to deny scientific evidence isn't taking the Bible seriously, it's the other way around, it's showing others not to take the Bible seriously.


Here is an example, what if a person came to you and denied the moon is a rock reflecting the sun's light but an independent ball light on it's own based on his literal reading of Gen 1:16., by your rubrics you have to agree to that otherwise you aren't "taking the Bible seriously", right?

There is no information about the sun or the moon apart from them being lights, one greater than the other. And that God made them. Anything apart from that is either speculation or left to us to discover. Where the Bible does speak, I believe it to be authoritative. So when Genesis tells me that God made man in His image, I believe it.

That man somehow evolved from a lower form of life leads to unanswerable questions. Apart from the problems with evolution itself, we have the problem of how a being could suddenly evolve a soul, a conscience, awareness of God, moral culpability and language. Language is learned. How could this being have a language when there was no predecessor to pass it on?

 

[Cis.jd]

There is no information about the sun or the moon apart from them being lights, one greater than the other. And that God made them. Anything apart from that is either speculation or left to us to discover. Where the Bible does speak, I believe it to be authoritative. So when Genesis tells me that God made man in His image, I believe it.

That man somehow evolved from a lower form of life leads to unanswerable questions. Apart from the problems with evolution itself, we have the problem of how a being could suddenly evolve a soul, a conscience, awareness of God, moral culpability and language. Language is learned. How could this being have a language when there was no predecessor to pass it on?

But we know what v16 is referring to with those two great lights. What else could they be other than the sun and moon? You know the moon isn't exactly a light of it's own, the sun is still a source of that light additionally.. the other planets and stars are bigger than the moon they only appear smaller in our sky due to their distance, so how would it be technically another great light when it's only big to us on earth not our solar system?

Now if someone came to you and said that the moon being just a reflector is a lie and that it is an independent light, and you know he is factually wrong you just contradict your stance on the Bible being authoritative when it comes to natural science.

God made man in his image, but that is spiritual.. not the physical.

 

[Platte]

But we know what v16 is referring to with those two great lights. What else could they be other than the sun and moon? You know the moon isn't exactly a light of it's own, the sun is still a source of that light additionally.. the other planets and stars are bigger than the moon they only appear smaller in our sky due to their distance, so how would it be technically another great light when it's only big to us on earth not our solar system?

Now if someone came to you and said that the moon being just a reflector is a lie and that it is an independent light, and you know he is factually wrong you just contradict your stance on the Bible being authoritative when it comes to natural science.

God made man in his image, but that is spiritual.. not the physical.

Are you saying the moon is not a light source for the earth?