Continual Creation

juiblex

pessimist extraordinare
Just something my friend came up with, it fits God in perfectly and makes a lot of sense, what do you think?

OK, I'm going to try and simplify this issue here.
There are three possibilities of how life arose.

1) Evolution (or some variant thereof)
2) Creationism (or some variant thereof)
3) a mixture of both, continual creation

Now I am going to state the general theory of continual creation in its simplest terms. However, for the sake of completeness, I do at times state the obvious.


1) Organisms differ from one another. (e.g. We are not all clones)
1a) Organisms change with each passing generation.
1b) Organisms that reproduce sexually receive traits from both parents.


2) Organisms pass on traits to their offspring.
2a) If an organism reproduces, its traits will be included in the next generation.
2b) If an organism does not reproduce, its traits will not be included in the next generation.
2c) An organism must be alive in order to reproduce.


3) Organisms depend on certain resources in order to survive.
3a) There are a limited amount of resources available.


4) Certain organisms (e.g. carnivores) prey upon other organisms
4a) Carnivores are more likely to prey upon organisms that are easy to kill.


5) Because of (3) and (3a), organisms must compete for available resources.
5a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
5b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.


6) Because of (4) and (4a), organisms must compete (indirectly) to avoid being eaten by carnivores.
6a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
6b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.


7) Some traits are beneficial to an organism. (e.g. a chameleon's ability to camouflage)
7a) Some traits are detrimental to an organism. (e.g. blindness)


8) Organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).
8a) Organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).


9) Because of (8), organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
9a) Because of (8a), organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce.


10) Because of (9) and (2a), beneficial traits are more likely to be included in the next generation.
10a) Because of (9a) and (2b), detrimental traits are less likely to be included in the next generation.


Conclusion: Over time, beneficial traits are more likely to remain in the gene pool and detrimental traits are more likely to disappear from the gene pool.
As organisms possessing certain beneficial traits breed with organisms possessing other beneficial traits, their offspring inherit the traits from both parents, and therefore possess more beneficial traits than either organism of the previous generation.
Organisms change in each successive generation, gaining beneficial traits and discarding detrimental ones, and therefore improving the overall survivability of the organism.

And why does this all happen? God! Occasionally God changes an organism in order to make it change like he wants it to.

This wasn't as simple as I wanted it to be, but I wanted to make sure I didn't leave any loopholes.

Anyway, If anyone out there believes that the theory of continual creation (by which I mean the general theory, the one stated above) is incorrect, please state exactly which of these points you consider inaccurate, and explain why. Be sure to post any references you cite.
 
J

Jet Black

Guest
juiblex said:
Conclusion: Over time, beneficial traits are more likely to remain in the gene pool and detrimental traits are more likely to disappear from the gene pool.
As organisms possessing certain beneficial traits breed with organisms possessing other beneficial traits, their offspring inherit the traits from both parents, and therefore possess more beneficial traits than either organism of the previous generation.
Organisms change in each successive generation, gaining beneficial traits and discarding detrimental ones, and therefore improving the overall survivability of the organism. And why does this all happen? God!

This wasn't as simple as I wanted it to be, but I wanted to make sure I didn't leave any loopholes.

if it looks like evolution, sounds like evolution and does the same as evolution it is evolution. you addition of God right at the end seems almost pointless and ad hoc.
 
Upvote 0

juiblex

pessimist extraordinare
Jet Black said:
yes I have. your addition of God is entirely ad hoc and unnescessary. you have taken evolution as is, and then strapped on God in place of mutations and a good understanding of how reproduction works.

you haven't explained why it *couldn't* be God though.
 
Upvote 0
the problem is that you are asking an imposible task, you disprove something that is defined as being completly undetectable by all mortal means, and as such it also can't be proved. Now to make your theory mean diddle you must present evidence that god exists, then we can have a go at disproving you

[note to moderators: move, or delete, do not edit]
 
Upvote 0

tof

Regular Member
Sep 24, 2002
300
14
53
Lyon, France
Visit site
✟16,109.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
juiblex said:
...
And why does this all happen? God! Occasionally God changes an organism in order to make it change like he wants it to.
...
It is scientifically accepted that these changes are caused by random mutations.
What continuous creation does is replace random by God ordained. It can make sense for a theist, however, it makes the deity directly responsible of all the genetic diseases, some of which are particularly cruel. I am not sure that christians think their god is a sadist.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ReUsAbLePhEoNiX

Liberated from SinComplex
Jun 24, 2003
2,524
80
51
Earth, MilkyWay Galaxy
Visit site
✟10,562.00
Faith
Taoist
juiblex said:
Just something my friend came up with, it fits God in perfectly and makes a lot of sense, what do you think?

OK, I'm going to try and simplify this issue here.
There are three possibilities of how life arose.

1) Evolution (or some variant thereof)
2) Creationism (or some variant thereof)
3) a mixture of both, continual creation

Now I am going to state the general theory of continual creation in its simplest terms. However, for the sake of completeness, I do at times state the obvious.


1) Organisms differ from one another. (e.g. We are not all clones)
1a) Organisms change with each passing generation.
1b) Organisms that reproduce sexually receive traits from both parents.


2) Organisms pass on traits to their offspring.
2a) If an organism reproduces, its traits will be included in the next generation.
2b) If an organism does not reproduce, its traits will not be included in the next generation.
2c) An organism must be alive in order to reproduce.


3) Organisms depend on certain resources in order to survive.
3a) There are a limited amount of resources available.


4) Certain organisms (e.g. carnivores) prey upon other organisms
4a) Carnivores are more likely to prey upon organisms that are easy to kill.


5) Because of (3) and (3a), organisms must compete for available resources.
5a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
5b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.


6) Because of (4) and (4a), organisms must compete (indirectly) to avoid being eaten by carnivores.
6a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
6b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.


7) Some traits are beneficial to an organism. (e.g. a chameleon's ability to camouflage)
7a) Some traits are detrimental to an organism. (e.g. blindness)


8) Organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).
8a) Organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).


9) Because of (8), organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
9a) Because of (8a), organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce.


10) Because of (9) and (2a), beneficial traits are more likely to be included in the next generation.
10a) Because of (9a) and (2b), detrimental traits are less likely to be included in the next generation.


Conclusion: Over time, beneficial traits are more likely to remain in the gene pool and detrimental traits are more likely to disappear from the gene pool.
As organisms possessing certain beneficial traits breed with organisms possessing other beneficial traits, their offspring inherit the traits from both parents, and therefore possess more beneficial traits than either organism of the previous generation.
Organisms change in each successive generation, gaining beneficial traits and discarding detrimental ones, and therefore improving the overall survivability of the organism.

And why does this all happen? God! Occasionally God changes an organism in order to make it change like he wants it to.

This wasn't as simple as I wanted it to be, but I wanted to make sure I didn't leave any loopholes.

Anyway, If anyone out there believes that the theory of continual creation (by which I mean the general theory, the one stated above) is incorrect, please state exactly which of these points you consider inaccurate, and explain why. Be sure to post any references you cite.
Jubelix, welcome to theistic Evolution, you explained it better than I could. However if God is the one that directs mutations, hes very messy about it. I had a friend give birth to a baby so deformed the nurses screamed, the baby died a few hour later.
 
Upvote 0

Ratjaws

Active Member
Jul 1, 2003
272
37
68
Detroit, Michigan
Visit site
✟17,222.00
Faith
Catholic
OK, I'm going to try and simplify this issue here.
There are three possibilities of how life arose.

1) Evolution (or some variant thereof)
2) Creationism (or some variant thereof)
3) a mixture of both, continual creation

*********************************
:confused: Ok, you've stated the general hypothesis of continual creation but have not defined the first two. Also, it would be a little easier to understand your view if you summed up in definition the third possibility. Then I will be happy to critique what you've laid out.

Thanks

Lumen Christi :priest:

Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)
 
Upvote 0

Ratjaws

Active Member
Jul 1, 2003
272
37
68
Detroit, Michigan
Visit site
✟17,222.00
Faith
Catholic
Juiblex,
The reason I asked you to define the classifications for this world view relating to the question of genesis (how it all began) and biogenesis (how life began) is because there are many variations, as you've noted, which complicate the subject. Thus, within the first category you've chosen to call "evolution" falls what may or may not be acceptable to Christian revelation. I term these "materialistic" and "theistic" evolution. The first, in essence, does not recognize existence of a soul while the latter does. Creationism, from this perspective includes any hypothesis that recognizes God which would put it in the second category of theistic evolution or a category of its own for the strict sense. In this latter sense the word is used to indicate the idea where God either created instanteously or in six days (a literal reading of genesis biblical text). The idea that God created over longer periods of time to a creationist falls under the the idea of evolution for those in that camp. The problem with all this is the debate tends to revolve around the two extremes, so to speak, of either strict materialism or a strict literal interpretation of the genesis account (creation in six days). As a result I find both sides talking past each other rarely ever admitting any point of converging notions. Therefore I asked you to define your terms in order to avoid unnecessary confusion.

Myself, I hold to what may be termed the middle ground where both a first Cause (God) and the human soul (non-materialism) must be recognized, yet it is possible for the body of our first parents to have evolved from some other form of being including an ape. This means the soul which cannot evolve must have been directly infused by God at the moment Adam first came into existence. I fall back not only on the natural sciences and theology for my proofs but recognition of first principles found in philosophy (metaphysics). I've come to the conclusion that without an acknowledgment of the metaphysical principles involved "the water gets muddied" in this discussion beyond recognizing there are certain ideas common to both opposing positions. After all, both matter and man's body have the same material substance. This commonality alone is the basis for speculation on evolutionary development (of the body only) and we Christians cannot get around it except by denying reality itself. At the same time the human being is non-existent without a soul. This idea of soul predates all science including that of the physical sciences. It goes back to pagan Greek thinkers (Plato and Aristotle) who say with the aid of natural reason alone that there must be an animating principle for all life forms, especially man. So atheists who oppose Christian concepts fall into error when the reject the rational soul in man as his principle cause.

Once admitting the idea of soul into the discussion the whole world of spirit (and God) opens up since a soul is spiritual by nature. Of course an atheist complains we cannot "test" for an immaterial soul. Fortunately this not only prevents us from using science as our ultimate proof for the reality of soul but also disqualifies an atheist from precluding the existence of soul. That is, without another means of knowledge which is precisely why I bring up the metaphysical notion. Metaphysic's studies with the mind concepts not only in the material world but those of immaterial essense. Like physical science it starts with our five senses to arrive at cause from it's effects. Unlike science which ends in visible nature of being, what is called the accidents of nature, metaphysics moves through changing appearances to abiding being. This is possible because it is precisely that which is abiding and unchanging in being which is why we can study this or that particular being in the first place.

On the other hand, for us as Christians to not admit our common material nature with that of the rest of creation is to close ourselves off from an aspect of reality an atheist would not. They then have every right to deem us and our arguments unreasonable if we do. Once we admit this commonality the question of origins opens up to asking how exactly are we related to animals, plants, rocks, etc (and how did God do it because of man's soul). An omnipotent creator is just as capable of creating in an instant as creating through time and a process of development. That natural science studies this possible evolution is not wrong. That divine revelation and therefore theological dogmas have something to say about this evolutionary development is also not wrong. What it comes down to is both sides tend to speak past each other with character assassinations and and irrelevant propositions when these considerations are not taken into account. The Christian is concerned with loss of faith and morals in the debate while an atheist considers it dishonest to set aside valid scientific discoveries that inform us of all of nature's likeness. By taking into account theological limitations, metaphysical clarification and introspection into being itself it is possible for scientists to study the universe and come to certain conclusions on our origin. Their discoveries will not be any more invalid than those revealed to us by God and instead can fill in missing pieces of knowledge not attainable by any kind of superfacial reading of sacred scripture. These concepts can in no way be contrary to God's special revelation but more an extension or filling in of our understanding of the created order as well as our knowledge of the Creator.

With this said the next question becomes what are the theological limits and how exactly is philosopy used to clarify our understanding, look deeper into real being and in fact keep us from making mistakes in judgment of scientific procedures and conclusions? I would like to address these questions after we have discussed what has been said so far but suffice to say these things are important if we are to come to some agreement over origins. Meanwhile I'd like to make a point or two about the concept of continual creation. The idea is not new nor is it invalid but I don't think what you've posed here is exactly that. Continuous creation is demonstrated by the fact that when each new human being comes into existence a new and unique soul is created by God and infused into the matter of their body formed by the parents. This happens, according to current philosophical mind, at the moment of conception when a human egg and sperm successfully come together. Thus the idea that an omnipotent God needs rest after "six days of creation" does not imply He had to work in the human sense rather that this sabbath is the pattern for all human beings to follow. The sabbath rest is in scripture for our benefit to tell us we are contingent beings. It's therefore a mistake to think God's creative effort has ceased but instead a Christian imperative to realize married couples actually share in God's constant work by way of procreation. And this idea of cooperation between God and man which comes from the concept of continuous creation protects the inherent dignity of the human person. God being so closely involved in each new human being who comes into existence implies the sanctity of all human life. Even with this said continuous creation cannot be taken to mean there was no beginning. Whether there was a first primordial event such as the "big bang" or not remains not for the scientific method to prove conclusively but for God to reveal which in fact He has in divine revelation (see Heb.11:3). St. Thomas Aquinas with his brilliant mind and the philosophical reasoning of Aristotle concurs by insisting we cannot know accept by faith whether there was a beginning to the universe.

Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
juiblex said:
Just something my friend came up with, it fits God in perfectly and makes a lot of sense, what do you think?

OK, I'm going to try and simplify this issue here.
There are three possibilities of how life arose.

1) Evolution (or some variant thereof)
2) Creationism (or some variant thereof)
3) a mixture of both, continual creation

Now I am going to state the general theory of continual creation in its simplest terms. However, for the sake of completeness, I do at times state the obvious.


1) Organisms differ from one another. (e.g. We are not all clones)
1a) Organisms change with each passing generation.
1b) Organisms that reproduce sexually receive traits from both parents.


2) Organisms pass on traits to their offspring.
2a) If an organism reproduces, its traits will be included in the next generation.
2b) If an organism does not reproduce, its traits will not be included in the next generation.
2c) An organism must be alive in order to reproduce.


3) Organisms depend on certain resources in order to survive.
3a) There are a limited amount of resources available.


4) Certain organisms (e.g. carnivores) prey upon other organisms
4a) Carnivores are more likely to prey upon organisms that are easy to kill.


5) Because of (3) and (3a), organisms must compete for available resources.
5a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
5b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.


6) Because of (4) and (4a), organisms must compete (indirectly) to avoid being eaten by carnivores.
6a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
6b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.


7) Some traits are beneficial to an organism. (e.g. a chameleon's ability to camouflage)
7a) Some traits are detrimental to an organism. (e.g. blindness)


8) Organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).
8a) Organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).


9) Because of (8), organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
9a) Because of (8a), organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce.


10) Because of (9) and (2a), beneficial traits are more likely to be included in the next generation.
10a) Because of (9a) and (2b), detrimental traits are less likely to be included in the next generation.


Conclusion: Over time, beneficial traits are more likely to remain in the gene pool and detrimental traits are more likely to disappear from the gene pool.
As organisms possessing certain beneficial traits breed with organisms possessing other beneficial traits, their offspring inherit the traits from both parents, and therefore possess more beneficial traits than either organism of the previous generation.
Organisms change in each successive generation, gaining beneficial traits and discarding detrimental ones, and therefore improving the overall survivability of the organism.

Congratulations! You have just restated natural selection. So far your "continual creation" is theistic evolution.

And why does this all happen? God! Occasionally God changes an organism in order to make it change like he wants it to.

Now you went over the line. You stated a belief as a fact. Yes, evolution COULD be the means by which God creates.

Also, it is possible that God occasionally introduces a mutation into the gene pool. God can do this without getting "caught" by science. But both of these are beliefs, not facts. You can defend your statement as a belief, but you cannot state it as fact.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Jet Black said:
if it looks like evolution, sounds like evolution and does the same as evolution it is evolution. you addition of God right at the end seems almost pointless and ad hoc.

But that alone doesn't mean it is wrong. What he stated was evolution indeed. But since evolution is not atheism and does not state that it can operate in the absence of God, God may very well be necessary for evolution to work. We can't tell that by science.
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟21,317.00
Faith
Taoist
A couple things to mention,

•In science there is no so such thing as materialistic or Theistic Evolution. The are attachments that some put onto evolution to show their own personal opinions, however they have no baring the the definition of Evolution.

•Creationist comes is different forms, one is OEC (Old Earth Creationists) who are the same as Young Earth creationists except that they believe the earth could be old.

 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Jet Black said:
you haven't explained why it couldn't be invisible elves on flying carpets either.

A rose by any other name ...

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Show us this is wrong.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ratjaws

Active Member
Jul 1, 2003
272
37
68
Detroit, Michigan
Visit site
✟17,222.00
Faith
Catholic
Isaac,
I'll take that challenge! The confusion here exists because neither side is open as to what kind of evidence is admissable in their opposing views. On the atheist side of this debate in theory only a strict observation is allowed. On the Christian side revelation trumps all real observations to the point of becoming ridiculous. Furthermore common to both sides I find a pseudo-science being presented as thought science at particular points in the dialogue. Allow me to explain.

The problem with the atheist perspective is that the evidence required is so strict that most of what the average person knows is disqualified by the method. When it comes down to definition only an immediate observation by a person is permissable which means common knowledge such as the existence of Galileo, Newton or Einstein's is disallowed. Unfortunately with this kind of strict personal observation even one's own great great grand parents are unknowable. In other words all indirect experiencial evidence is disallowed from the persepctive. While this is typically how an atheist defines the evidence they consider permissable, in practice they don't live their life out this way. On the contrary the average atheist trusts not only their five senses but those of persons close to them such as family and friends. Indirect experiencial evidence is thus allowed in an atheist's world and so must be also admissable to the scientific worldview out of consistancy. Students are taught in our schools and universities about men like these as heros of the scientific world and don't doubt their existence or achievements. Therefore an atheist does in practice admit evidence they cannot directly experience through their own senses. This opens the door to trust and some degree of faith; faith in another person's sense experience as being trustworthy to transmit knowledge of past history (scientific or otherwise) in the form of information from one person to another. So in order to be consistent an atheist must allow at least the same kind of evidence admitted in everyday life for scientific endeavours. Mediated knowledge should be just as valid as that which comes from personal experience.

The fundamentalist Christian's insistance that revelation overrides all observation we make with our five senses is indeed true but can be and is also taken to far. Their claim that "God did" this or that from a literal reading of the Genesis text is merely a form of an old heresy called biblical concordism. This perspective seeks to fit all visible reality into the narrow width and breadth of a verse in the bible which is far from unambiguous. On the contrary the Church teaches scripture properly read limits how far we can carry the meaning of our observations when addressing nature (and therefore human nature or God) but does not insist scientific facts are hidden in the biblical text in some gnostic manner. Instead theologians must properly draw principles from texts such as "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Gen.2:7 RSV) These first principles are to guide how far what scientists observe can be taken when fabricating biological and other hypothesis on nature and man's innate being. Thus divine revelation should free scientists to work within visible reality rather than constrict observations to each person's narrow imaginative interpretation of a text.

With this said I can move on to the subject of God's existence. Can we know of this apart from divine revelation and faith? The answer to this is in the affirmative! As St. Thomas Aquinas states we can know with certainty that God exists by reason alone. This philosophical deduction starts with the same matter science works with... observation of the world around us ...and works from there. The scientific method is an effective tool because as we look at all things in our universe we see one effect is caused by another. As we look back through cause and effect we ultimately must end in either a first Cause or infinitely regress. This latter proposition is not only untestable by science (as is the proposition of God itself) but untenable philosophically because we find nothing that actually exists in the visible world that has infinite properties. Some might point to time or mathematics when considering infinity but these are strictly concepts in our mind and not real objects found in the universe. These concepts are so to speak attached to some real object but are not actual real beings themselves. In fact infinity is a characteristic attributable only to God so if it were possible to find infinite regression (an infinite being or process) we would have found God. But in fact we do observe only a finite succession of cause and effects in our world. By use of reason we can see there must be a first Cause... an uncaused Cause. This by definition is the Creator of Christian and mono-theistic religions. From this we cannot know that God is a personal being but at least have established existence. Prior to Christian new testament revelation Aristotle called Aquinas' first Cause the Prime Mover. Plato referred to the universal Ideas, implicating at least a plurality of gods.

From this we show that knowledge of God's existence is a reasonable proposition known through reason. It comes from conclusions made as we look over the same evidence that scientific method does. What is important to realize is that with this method formally called metaphysics, we move beyond what is observable to what is called first principles of being. This simply moves us from the changing (visible) characteristics of being to what is permanent and must be in order for us to know any particular being.

What may shock the newcomer to this philosophical way of thinking is not that it is not being done in scientific circles, but that it is done under the guise of a strict science musing. We encounter a pseudo-scientific perspective when we hear about theories such as the expanding universes or "anti-matter." Notice the latter idea is not just strictly observed but a purely intellectual concept. While the concept of an expanding universe is actually observed it moves into the metaphysical realm when we consider questions that emerge from it like ...if expanding is there an edge? ...what's the other side of this edge? ...what is the shape of the universe? ...and where is the middle?

Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)
 
Upvote 0