Creation & Evolution ‘Free-for-all’

[Astrid]

This is the problem, isn't it? Scientific explanations do not make the assumptions of a creator god and manage to make a good fist of describing evolution. Creationist theology will not permit such explanation, leading to its dismissal as 'vanity'.

Asking about the creation or evolution and being told it was done by God and further enquiry is not allowed is deeply unsatisfactory. It amounts to a denial of human intellect.

I maintain that the creation and evolution are explicable without reference to a creator. The probing of these are part of human endeavour, not to prohibited in such a way.

I see huge vanity / egotism in the belief that
one has the skill to choose the one True
religion, and, has the (infallible) ability to
simultaneously determine what is True
about both God and science.

 

[Astrid]

There is no vanity in neutral scientific explanations.


Sure, I agree. I was just explaining some's rationale. To me, vanity comes when you think you are speaking for God, or when you deny His involvement (which you know nothing of).


How can creation be explicable without a Creator?

Creation without a creator is impossible by
meaning of the words.

But its cheating to assume the universe was created.

Maybe the question is, can the universe exist
without an existor?

 

[inquiring mind]

Creation without a creator is impossible by
meaning of the words.

But its cheating to assume the universe was created.

Maybe the question is, can the universe exist
without an existor?

You know my answer to that, and personally I don't think it's cheating... my rationale I guess.

 

[Astrid]

You know my answer to that, and personally I don't think it's cheating... my rationale I guess.

What name would you give to assuming the conclusion?

For creation / therefore creator i call equivocation.

 

[Whyayeman]

OK, inquiring mind, let me get the vanity thing out of the way.

It comes from authority, I think; religion posits an authority which needs obedience to doctrine, with sanctions for falling short. (The best example of this I have ever come across is that ten minute video posted here a day or two ago featuring a young man who appears to be obsessed with sin to the degree that he cannot live any kind of life.) I am not bound by such an authority so am free to seek explanations for creation and evolution.

The question of creation without a creator is the stuff of science. We see that living things fit into patterns which change through time in numerous ways. New species evolve and this is explicable without reference to a creator. Darwin pointed the way for studies of evolution and work has continued ever since.

Then there is the matter of the creation of all physical matter; the universe. Of course we know only a limited amount about it, and what we do know is inferred from the available evidence. Nevertheless, some things are partially understood (the most one can expect from science as well as theology).

What we know and what we can see that we don't know are interesting for human beings. Nearly all religions have creation stories which are really just fables, simple tales for scientifically unsophisticated people, which reveal that earlier civilisations shared our quest to understand the world.