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

[o_mlly]

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.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

Creation doesn’t explain anything. Creation is the claim, not the explanation. Evolution is a claim, the Theory of Evolution is the explanation.

And you claim to be a scientist, where's the explanation?

 

[Bradskii]

...creation is superior to evolution.

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

So creation is..a theological explanation? I'll go with that. And evolution is...a scientific explanation? I'll go with that as well.

So said, we have two 'non overlapping magisteria'. Like psychology and maths. Like biology and geology. What you are saying is akin to suggesting that 'chemistry is superior to astrology'. It's nonsensical.

But if you want to discuss the theology of how we have come to be what we are then I'm sure you'll have something interesting to say. And if you want to discuss the science then it'll have to include evolution. Which you reject because you believe the planet is only a few thousand years old. So based on that I'm not sure where this could possibly go.

And a couple of questions: If you say you're a scientist, in what branch of science are you qualified? It'll help with further discussions. And what's your self imposed post limit for this thread?

You can also give us your best estimate for the age of this 'mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam'. But I don't really expect an answer to that (which won't prevent me from continuously asking).

 

[VirOptimus]

Interesting combination: a trite trope as a response.

Your posts get the response they deserve.

 

[Frank Robert]

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

One explanation is dependent on belief the other on evidence.

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.

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

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.

You appear to think that is a bad thing.

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.

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?

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

Evolution does not pretend to know everything.

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".

Again, evolution begins with first life, not before.

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.

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.

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.

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As usual, I am underwhelmed by the depth of your insights.

Why do I feel like the Tom Hanks character in "Saving Private Ryan"?

Perhaps because you're out of your depth?

 

[pitabread]

Having read through the OP twice, this isn't really about the scientific theory of evolution at all. Rather this seems to be a thinly-veiled comparison between naturalism versus theologism.

The title boast, "creation is superior to evolution" is highly dubious in this regard. At least there is an honest admission that creation is non-scientific. Points for that. But effectively claiming that theology as a means of epistemology is superior to science just isn't supported. You're talking about two independent things. As Bradskii pointed out, it's a nonsensical comparison.

I suspect the claim that creation is "superior" to evolution is simply about the fact that creation supplies an answer (not to be confused with an explanation) for things that science does not. And this in turn satisfies the need for psychological closure and provides a measure of comfort in that respect.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Can you show creation?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know, I know, you're all upset that I've argued against your religion of dogmatic atheism.

I'm not arguing against anything. I'm just asking a simple question: can you show creation?

 

[VirOptimus]

I know, I know, you're all upset that I've argued against your religion of dogmatic atheism.

Atheism is not a religion.

Atheism (or religion) has nothing to do with the ToE.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Atheism is not a religion.

Atheism (or religion) has nothing to do with the ToE.

Insert argument that it is in 5... 4.... 3... 2... 1...

 

[o_mlly]

Having read through the OP twice, this isn't really about the scientific theory of evolution at all. Rather this seems to be a thinly-veiled comparison between naturalism versus theologism.

Thinly veiled? Perhaps a third reading is in order. The post explicitly identifies the scientific weaknesses in the theory of evolution.

The title boast, "creation is superior to evolution" is highly dubious in this regard. At least there is an honest admission that creation is non-scientific. Points for that. But effectively claiming that theology as a means of epistemology is superior to science just isn't supported. You're talking about two independent things. As Bradskii pointed out, it's a nonsensical comparison.

And, I suggest you read the title of this forum as well.

I suspect the claim that creation is "superior" to evolution is simply about the fact that creation supplies an answer (not to be confused with an explanation) for things that science does not. And this in turn satisfies the need for psychological closure and provides a measure of comfort in that respect.

And your suspicion is incorrect. The claim is: 1) that creation provides a coherent explanation of how man came to exist with the faculties he possesses, 2) evolution theory is not good science.

Now any arguments in opposition to those in the post, anyone?

 

[VirOptimus]

Thinly veiled? Perhaps a third reading is in order. The post explicitly identifies the scientific weaknesses in the theory of evolution.

And, I suggest you read the title of this forum as well.



And your suspicion is incorrect. The claim is: 1) that creation provides a coherent explanation of how man came to exist with the faculties he possesses, 2) evolution theory is not good science.

Now any arguments in opposition to those in the post, anyone?

You want to argue against the ToE, write an article for peer-review.

If you cant, well, then your views dont matter.

 

[pitabread]

The post explicitly identifies the scientific weaknesses in the theory of evolution.

Where does it do that? The OP doesn't really talk about the theory of evolution at all.

And, I suggest you read the title of this forum as well.

I did. If you read it extra carefully you'll notice the "&" symbol in between creation and evolution.

As in: Creation AND Evolution, not Creation OR Evolution.

And your suspicion is incorrect. The claim is: 1) that creation provides a coherent explanation of how man came to exist with the faculties he possesses, 2) evolution theory is not good science.

Neither of these claims are demonstrated in the OP.

As I said, this isn't really about evolution at all and your other posts in this thread are reinforcing that. This is about perceived competition between philosophical baselines regarding the nature of the universe.

If you want to reject the philosophical baseline required by science as a means of epistemology that's fine. But that's not challenging science itself. Nor are the conclusions from science going to change for that reason.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm not arguing against anything. I'm just asking a simple question: can you show creation?

That's like asking you to show macroevolution, beyond mere speculation of course.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's like asking you to show macroevolution, beyond mere speculation of course.

Not really since evolution can be shown, it's just not our fault that you refuse to accept it as evidence.

 

[inquiring mind]

Not really since evolution can be shown, it's just not our fault that you refuse to accept it as evidence.

One side sees peceived facts and runs with conclusion, the other sees perceived facts as just that, perceived facts and conclusions drawn from speculation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

One side sees peceived facts and runs with conclusion, the other sees perceived facts as just that, perceived facts and conclusions drawn from speculation.

Doesn't really follow what I said, so I'll just repeat what I said: Not really since evolution can be shown, it's just not our fault that you refuse to accept it as evidence.

 

[o_mlly]

Where does it do that? The OP doesn't really talk about the theory of evolution at all.

Apparently your avatar needs a corrective lens.

I did. If you read it extra carefully you'll notice the "&" symbol in between creation and evolution.

As in: Creation AND Evolution, not Creation OR Evolution.

If you'd read more than headlines then you'd know that:

Creation & Evolution Forum Statement of Purpose

The Creation & Evolution Forum is a discussion and debate forum and is open to believers and non-believers to address the similarities and differences of creation and evolution. ... Discussions here should be on the nature of creation and evolution, not focused on bashing or uplifting those who are proponents of these beliefs ... (emphases mine).
​

Neither of these claims are demonstrated in the OP.

As I said, this isn't really about evolution at all and your other posts in this thread are reinforcing that. This is about perceived competition between philosophical baselines regarding the nature of the universe.

If you want to reject the philosophical baseline required by science as a means of epistemology that's fine. But that's not challenging science itself. Nor are the conclusions from science going to change for that reason.

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

 

[o_mlly]

Not really since evolution can be shown, it's just not our fault that you refuse to accept it as evidence.

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?