Creation, science, and the Nicene creed

[Everybodyknows]

It's not a "little creed", it's THE Creed of Christ's holy Church.

And the Creed says absolutely nothing about evolution for or against. We believe that God is the Maker of all things, seen and unseen, and therefore this universe and all that it is in it, and all the natural processes which work within it, are His divine handiwork--that includes evolution.

-CryptoLutheran.

Well said. The conflict is in Genesis not it the creed.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well said. The conflict is in Genesis not it the creed.

I wouldn't even say there is a conflict in Genesis. Genesis itself says nothing on the matter. Those who insist that the only possible reading of the early chapters of Genesis is as a woodenly literal historical narrative haven't, as far as I'm concerned, really taken the time to read and consider and take seriously what the text is saying.

It seems somewhat obvious to me that if it was meant to be taken so literally then there wouldn't be two completely conflicting creation accounts side by side. The creation story of Genesis 1 and the creation story of Genesis 2 are completely at odds in their accounts if they are supposed to be read as little more than a journalistic style play-by-play. I suspect that the editors and redactors of Genesis weren't complete nincompoops, but actually had some idea what they were doing. It's not like modern people were the first to notice that the accounts conflict, this has been well known for over two thousand years (c.f. the Lilith myth).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Everybodyknows]

Creationism, as it exists today, is largely a product of mid-20th century Fundamentalism. Most Fundamentalists in the early 20th century, while not evolutionists, didn't subscribe to what we know as Young Earth Creationism, such Fundamentalists such as William Jennings Bryan, the prosecuting attorney at the famous Scope's "Monkey" Trial and avid "anti-Darwinist" was one such Old Earth Creationist.

For the most part most Christians following Darwin's findings and his theory of natural selection really weren't bothered. Darwin, by the way, didn't come up with the theory of evolution, Darwin's contribution was the theory of natural selection; evolution was already fairly established and accepted in Darwin's time, but the mechanism for how evolution worked was still largely missing from the puzzle. That's where Darwin comes in with his theory of natural selection, natural selection was the key to understanding evolution. Opposition to evolution largely came later, while there was opposition to Darwin in his lifetime, the massive anti-evolutionist movement didn't really reach any steam until the birth of modern Creationism in the mid-20th century (specifically the 1960's); where evolution became one of a number of social ills targeted by the emerging Religious Right.

The conflict between religion and science, which seems so prevalent and dominant in our current narrative of Western culture is almost entirely an artificial construct of the modern age, perpetuated by a rather (comparatively) fringe minority of Christians who are very vocal and those who have come to think that all Christians (and religious people in general) have a problem with science. It's a false narrative that serves no purpose except to, ultimately, make religion (and Christianity in general) seem like the dying beliefs of a backward people. The problem is that some of the most important contributing minds to the relevant fields to evolution have been practicing Christians from a diverse array of denominational backgrounds and traditions: Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox alike.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for your enlightening comment. Where can I find out more about this topic?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks for your enlightening comment. Where can I find out more about this topic?

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia

History of creationism - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Everybodyknows]

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia

History of creationism - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks

 

[Zoii]

Could you please tell me how you get from the emergence of a singularity to a God? why a God and not a magic Unicorn? because neither one of them explain anything at all, you still don't know how it happened all they do is stop you looking for the real answer by making you believe you already have the answer.

I already explained this before. I accept I have no proof - If I did then wow there'd be no debates and this would be a different world.

Of all the unanswered issues of the universe this is one of the most important because it literally is the origin of everything... time, space, matter/anti-matter, energy and life. So my hypothesis is that it started with God because with the knowledge I and science have on the issue, this is the only one that for me can explain it. A hypothesis doesn't make me turn a blind eye to new knowledge.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I already explained this before. I accept I have no proof - If I did then wow there'd be no debates and this would be a different world.

Of all the unanswered issues of the universe this is one of the most important because it literally is the origin of everything... time, space, matter/anti-matter, energy and life. So my hypothesis is that it started with God because with the knowledge I and science have on the issue, this is the only one that for me can explain it. A hypothesis doesn't make me turn a blind eye to new knowledge.

I think it is important to keep science and theology as distinct disciplines and thought. To believe that God is the author and originator of the universe is a theological proposition; but it can never be a scientific proposition or hypothesis. Science has methodological naturalism built-in as a feature (not a flaw); thus "God did it" can never be a valid scientific hypothesis--not necessarily because God didn't do it, but because that's simply not in the purview of the scientific method.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Everybodyknows]

I wouldn't even say there is a conflict in Genesis. Genesis itself says nothing on the matter. Those who insist that the only possible reading of the early chapters of Genesis is as a woodenly literal historical narrative haven't, as far as I'm concerned, really taken the time to read and consider and take seriously what the text is saying.

It seems somewhat obvious to me that if it was meant to be taken so literally then there wouldn't be two completely conflicting creation accounts side by side. The creation story of Genesis 1 and the creation story of Genesis 2 are completely at odds in their accounts if they are supposed to be read as little more than a journalistic style play-by-play. I suspect that the editors and redactors of Genesis weren't complete nincompoops, but actually had some idea what they were doing. It's not like modern people were the first to notice that the accounts conflict, this has been well known for over two thousand years (c.f. the Lilith myth).

-CryptoLutheran

The inconsistencies of the two creation accounts in Genesis sounds like a really interesting topic. You should start a thread on that if you haven't already.

 

[AV1611VET]

The inconsistencies of the two creation accounts in Genesis sounds like a really interesting topic. You should start a thread on that if you haven't already.

Thanks for the advice!

QV please: Two Creation Accounts or One?

 

[Doveaman]

Why doesn't dark energy explain anything?

Why doesn't God-energy explain anything?

Dark energy actually does explain something and gives us some possibilities to investigate which are measurable and testable.

God-energy actually does explain something and gives us some possibilities to investigate which are measurable and testable.

"I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens...My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts." -- (Isa 44:24, 45:12).

Above we have an ancient record of a being called God who claimed to have expanded the heavens. That ancient record can serve as a prediction which has now been verified by our observation of an expanding universe. The accuracy of a prediction is a measurement of the accuracy of a claim -- God-energy did it.

You cannot claim dark-energy did it without first identifying what dark-energy is, just as you cannot claim the magic Unicorn did it without first identifying what the magic Unicorn is.

You say dark-energy did it, I say God-energy did it.

What makes your claim more valid than mine?

 

[Kenny'sID]

The conflict between religion and science, which seems so prevalent and dominant in our current narrative of Western culture is almost entirely an artificial construct of the modern age, perpetuated by a rather (comparatively) fringe minority of Christians who are very vocal and those who have come to think that all Christians (and religious people in general) have a problem with science. It's a false narrative that serves no purpose except to, ultimately, make religion (and Christianity in general) seem like the dying beliefs of a backward people.

Thanks for taking the time for that..

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "conflict between religion and science".

First I would ask if you are actually saying "conflict between evolution and creation"? just so we can get things narrowed down.

Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "science". I used to be pretty clear what the term meant, but either I still know and it's just being grossly misused, or I just don't know what it means. See, there's a deceptive practice here that I've seen play out time and time again, to call a theory, or opinion, science. IOW take actual science/a clearly there physical something, and assume it means this that or the other thing, and even worse...eventually that somehow evolves into fact then it's all rounded off into being science, implying science doesn't lie so what isn't by any means a fact, becomes fact if one buys it all, and all because it sounds right to some. and I won't even get into the agenda factor.. Then we have to deal with those who say "theory" is not defined as Webster or the like would define it, scientist have a special definition for it....sounds awful convenient to me. Then on top of that we have to deal with things like "science proves nothing" seriously? what are we supposed to do with that?

So you see, the term science is far from a simple one, or it is what it is, but there is some deception going on that completely alters the truth.

As far as it being an artificial construct, at least at this point, I would have to disagree. Seems to me, there is a complete lack of proof for evolution. Sure, we have those opinions, but as I've mentioned before, a ton of non factual/wrong opinions don't make a single fact.

As to when evolution became acceptable and when not by whomever, not sure that makes a difference.

 

[Zoii]

I don't think the bible should be used as the standard to measure if slavery is right or wrong as so much of the practices in biblical times is considered unlawful now - eg marrying a minor, summary executions/stonings, polygamy etc

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for taking the time for that..

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "conflict between religion and science".

No, he was quite right. Evolution is science based, creation is religion based. That has been shown to be the case, not only in the world of science, but even in courts of law. The reason your side loses all of the time is that they are not evidence based.

First I would ask if you are actually saying "conflict between evolution and creation"? just so we can get things narrowed down.

Again, it was quite clear what he meant. I will repeat it for you: Evolution is the science side, creation is the religion side. People can help you with those concepts here.

Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "science". I used to be pretty clear what the term meant, but either I still know and it's just being grossly misused, or I just don't know what it means. See, there's a deceptive practice here that I've seen play out time and time again, to call a theory, or opinion, science. IOW take actual science/a clearly there physical something, and assume it means this that or the other thing, and even worse...eventually that somehow evolves into fact then it's all rounded off into being science, implying science doesn't lie so what isn't by any means a fact, becomes fact if one buys it all, and all because it sounds right to some. and I won't even get into the agenda factor.. Then we have to deal with those who say "theory" is not defined as Webster or the like would define it, scientist have a special definition for it....sounds awful convenient to me. Then on top of that we have to deal with things like "science proves nothing" seriously? what are we supposed to do with that?

It is quite clear that you have no clue what science is. Science is simply studying nature. One first observes, then one forms a testable hypothesis. The idea is then tested, not just once but again and again. And not just by the person that came up with the idea bu any other competent person that cares to test it. The hypothesis is adjusted as needed and when the hypothesis continually passes all tests given to it that is when the idea can be thought to be a theory. Creationism fails because of the fear of its protagonists. They are afraid to create a reasonable testable hypothesis for creationism. They know all to well that it would probably fail. And in fact creationist claims have been tested and they have failed. That is why evolution is science based and creationism can't get off of the ground.

So you see, the term science is far from a simple one, or it is what it is, but there is some deception going on that completely alters the truth.

There is no deception at all, except by certain creationists. Like it or not scientists that support evolution are very open with their work so that others can test it. You see they are not afraid. The fear is on the part of those that will not submit their ideas for testing.

As far as it being an artificial construct, at least at this point, I would have to disagree. Seems to me, there is a complete lack of proof for evolution. Sure, we have those opinions, but as I've mentioned before, a ton of non factual/wrong opinions don't make a single fact.

And this statement alone tells us that you have no understanding of science. First off nothing in science is proven. Concepts in the form of theories and hypotheses are supported by evidence. Robust theories, such as the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity are extremely well supported by evidence. These are not mere opinions. These are repeatable observable facts that support the theories that I mentioned.

As to when evolution became acceptable and when not by whomever, not sure that makes a difference.

Me either. The plain and simple fact is that it has been accepted because it is massively supported by scientific evidence and there is no scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, he was quite right. Evolution is science based, creation is religion based. That has been shown to be the case, not only in the world of science, but even in courts of law. The reason your side loses all of the time is that they are not evidence based.

No, what? there was nothing to to yes or no too there...lol. Guess you are a little mixed up? I could only imagine what the rest of your post read like so I passed.

I don't think the bible should be used as the standard to measure if slavery is right or wrong as so much of the practices in biblical times is considered unlawful now - eg marrying a minor, summary executions/stonings, polygamy etc

Agree. Unlawful both by secular and some of it by Biblical standards...thank goodness

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, what? there was nothing to to yes or no too there...lol. Guess you are a little mixed up? I could only imagine what the rest of your post read like so I passed.

I am so sorry that it was too difficult for you to understand. I know that your reading comprehension cannot handle some of the posts here. When that happens you should not be ashamed to ask for help.

Let me try to explain the obvious to you. You made a rather gross mistake in your post. That is why I started the sentence with "No". When you don't understand an answer it is generally a good idea to read your own post again. There was nothing mixed up about that response. The confusion all came from you.

 

[HitchSlap]

Thanks for taking the time for that..

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "conflict between religion and science".

First I would ask if you are actually saying "conflict between evolution and creation"? just so we can get things narrowed down.

Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "science". I used to be pretty clear what the term meant, but either I still know and it's just being grossly misused, or I just don't know what it means. See, there's a deceptive practice here that I've seen play out time and time again, to call a theory, or opinion, science. IOW take actual science/a clearly there physical something, and assume it means this that or the other thing, and even worse...eventually that somehow evolves into fact then it's all rounded off into being science, implying science doesn't lie so what isn't by any means a fact, becomes fact if one buys it all, and all because it sounds right to some. and I won't even get into the agenda factor.. Then we have to deal with those who say "theory" is not defined as Webster or the like would define it, scientist have a special definition for it....sounds awful convenient to me. Then on top of that we have to deal with things like "science proves nothing" seriously? what are we supposed to do with that?

So you see, the term science is far from a simple one, or it is what it is, but there is some deception going on that completely alters the truth.

As far as it being an artificial construct, at least at this point, I would have to disagree. Seems to me, there is a complete lack of proof for evolution. Sure, we have those opinions, but as I've mentioned before, a ton of non factual/wrong opinions don't make a single fact.

As to when evolution became acceptable and when not by whomever, not sure that makes a difference.

Falsifiability of theories make for bad conspiracies.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Falsifiability of theories make for bad conspiracies.

Surely you could have worked a few straw men, arguments from incredulity, along with some logical fallacies into commenting on my post?

Ho hum.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I am so sorry that it was too difficult for you to understand. I know that your reading comprehension cannot handle some of the posts here. When that happens you should not be ashamed to ask for help.

Let me try to explain the obvious to you. You made a rather gross mistake in your post.

So, tell me which one of the two following comments that you replied to was that "gross mistake"?

Thanks for taking the time for that..

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "conflict between religion and science".

*My* reading comprehension? Good one.

And all the cut downs there to hide your mistake? Well, lets just say I'm not in tears because you made me sad.

Riot.

 

[HitchSlap]

Surely you could have worked a few straw men, arguments from incredulity, along with some logical fallacies into commenting on my post?

Ho hum.

No need to, I'm not an IDist. We have the facts.

Don't be afraid to ask questions, god won't mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, tell me which one of the two following comments that you replied to was that g"gross mistake"?

I see that those reading comprehension problems just won't go away. The post was quite clear. You could not understand how evolution is science based, your implication that it it not was a gross error on your part.

*My* reading comprehension? Good one.

It happens quite frequently when cognitive dissonance strikes. A person may be quite bright but when reality shows that a basic belief is dead wrong the mind won't allow the person to understand the simplest of concepts. Your inability to understand how evolution is science based is a perfect example.

And all the cut downs there to hide your mistake? Well, lets just say I'm not in tears because you made me sad.

There were no "cut downs". I was simply answering your post and trying to help. Your false beliefs are affecting your ability to reason. Perhaps if you understood the cause of your inability to reason you could recover. What mistakes do you think that I made?

Riot.

Denial does not lead to the road to recovery.