Creationists: What would happen if you de-converted from creationism?

[Silmarien]

Evolution is a theory not creation itself. This is what I am referring to. God doing all the Creation from the start. So far no evolutionist knows how it ALL BEGAN.
Maybe taking this subject matter to its logical conclusion is unusual.

Edit: Additionally evolution does not allow for "kind".

Are you saying that the logical conclusion of Creationism is theism, and the logical conclusion of evolutionism is atheism? As a theistic evolutionist, I don't see how that follows.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't think it would make a lot of difference. The only people this thought experiment would affect are people very rigid on their Biblical interpretation where having an old Earth etc. is somehow a Big Deal, Faith wise etc. and well that is not a me. I'm very use to the idea of an old earth.

Cool.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Are you saying that the logical conclusion of Creationism is theism, and the logical conclusion of evolutionism is atheism? As a theistic evolutionist, I don't see how that follows.

Maybe I see this too simple. Yes a creationist as we both know is rooted in theism. Evolution ,as I would understand it,is the process of change, not creation itself. Evolution does not allow "kinds" therefore I question it based on God's creation structure.
In all honesty, I do not see the connection between theism and evolution unless it takes into account "kinds". I do hold that scriptural teachings about creation and scientific theories do not necessarily contradict each other, I just do not hold to Darwinism as the end all on this subject matter. The unveiling of God's creation through science is a gift from God as long as it holds to scripture. One last thing, unless theistic evolution takes this into account, humans are made in the image of God not primates.

So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:21).

 

[pitabread]

If you do not believe God created everything then that in my belief means one does not believe in God The Creator.

There are those who believe that God is the creator just that they used processes like evolution as part of their process.

Again, this dichotomy between creationism and atheist is not really the case in the common usage of the term "creationist" on this forum. I would suggest that if you want to hash out such definitions, it might be better to start a different thread on that topic.

 

[Silmarien]

Maybe I see this too simple. Yes a creationist as we both know is rooted in theism. Evolution ,as I would understand it,is the process of change, not creation itself. Evolution does not allow "kinds" therefore I question it based on God's creation structure.
In all honesty, I do not see the connection between theism and evolution unless it takes into account "kinds". I do hold that scriptural teachings about creation and scientific theories do not necessarily contradict each other, I just do not hold to Darwinism as the end all on this subject matter. The unveiling of God's creation through science is a gift from God as long as it holds to scripture. One last thing, unless theistic evolution takes this into account, humans are made in the image of God not primates.

So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:21).

I'm not sure that I'd say that evolution doesn't allow for "kinds." There's disagreement on whether different species really exist or are artificial categories, but I think at the end of the day you have to recognize that there are real differences between a geranium's mode of being and a snake's. Evolution is the process by which those differences develop.

I also don't think that our descent from primates conflicts with us being made in the image of God, since I would say that the latter refers to our capacity for rational thought (particularly moral reasoning and creativity). Science is silent on the question of deeper metaphysical intent, since that's outside of its purview, but there's nothing to prevent someone from thinking that certain aspects of evolution have actually been directional and that humanity does represent an emergent form of life that is uniquely made in God's image.

 

[muichimotsu]

Are you saying that the logical conclusion of Creationism is theism, and the logical conclusion of evolutionism is atheism? As a theistic evolutionist, I don't see how that follows.

Creationism can involve nontheistic premises, though it's much more uncommon (Raelianism comes to mind), but we're in agreement that theistic evolution is possible: theism can kind of fit itself into scientific models easily enough anyway by just pulling God back one step before (God guided evolution, God stimulated the abiogenesis, God was behind the Big Bang, etc)

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm not sure that I'd say that evolution doesn't allow for "kinds." There's disagreement on whether different species really exist or are artificial categories, but I think at the end of the day you have to recognize that there are real differences between a geranium's mode of being and a snake's. Evolution is the process by which those differences develop.

I also don't think that our descent from primates conflicts with us being made in the image of God, since I would say that the latter refers to our capacity for rational thought (particularly moral reasoning and creativity). Science is silent on the question of deeper metaphysical intent, since that's outside of its purview, but there's nothing to prevent someone from thinking that certain aspects of evolution have actually been directional and that humanity does represent an emergent form of life that is uniquely made in God's image.

By primate, I would assume you mean the common ancestor, but yeah, our being animals doesn't have to conflict with the idea that God supposedly has some special image reflected in humans in particular anymore than the idea of animals has to entail some soulless automatons (thanks Descartes!)

The idea of evolution being directional seems to contradict the general idea in evolution of being descriptive rather than prescriptive. What survives is fit only relative to whatever situation is a pressure that can push those adaptations, but they can manifest in various ways.

 

[Silmarien]

The idea of evolution being directional seems to contradict the general idea in evolution of being descriptive rather than prescriptive. What survives is fit only relative to whatever situation is a pressure that can push those adaptations, but they can manifest in various ways.

From a theistic perspective, we can assume that a degree of providence might be at work even in naturalistic processes. One bacterium eats another and they both survive, leading to mitochrondria? Interesting. Extinction events lead to the emergence of cooperative and eventually intelligent mammals? Also interesting, as is the idea that cooperation and higher intelligence may be linked in some way.

I also mean "directional" in a somewhat Aristotelian framework: the series of vegetative, sensory, and rational life forms. Obviously that's somewhat simplistic now, but I don't think it's sane to claim that there aren't lower and higher forms of life. Evolution doesn't necessarily favor greater complexity over lesser complexity, but it does result in more and less developed stages of consciousness.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I'm not sure that I'd say that evolution doesn't allow for "kinds." There's disagreement on whether different species really exist or are artificial categories, but I think at the end of the day you have to recognize that there are real differences between a geranium's mode of being and a snake's. Evolution is the process by which those differences develop.

I also don't think that our descent from primates conflicts with us being made in the image of God, since I would say that the latter refers to our capacity for rational thought (particularly moral reasoning and creativity). Science is silent on the question of deeper metaphysical intent, since that's outside of its purview, but there's nothing to prevent someone from thinking that certain aspects of evolution have actually been directional and that humanity does represent an emergent form of life that is uniquely made in God's image.

Thanks for the dialogue!

 

[muichimotsu]

From a theistic perspective, we can assume that a degree of providence might be at work even in naturalistic processes. One bacterium eats another and they both survive, leading to mitochrondria? Interesting. Extinction events lead to the emergence of cooperative and eventually intelligent mammals? Also interesting, as is the idea that cooperation and higher intelligence may be linked in some way.

I also mean "directional" in a somewhat Aristotelian framework: the series of vegetative, sensory, and rational life forms. Obviously that's somewhat simplistic now, but I don't think it's sane to claim that there aren't lower and higher forms of life. Evolution doesn't necessarily favor greater complexity over lesser complexity, but it does result in more and less developed stages of consciousness.

You can assume it, but it's hardly able to be shown in any falsifiable manner any more than I could show that my shoes appearing to be repaired is the work of leprechauns who appreciated my gift. Extinction events also wipe out species, it's as much a cruel aspect of nature as the "nice" parts we see through a silver lining of a cloud. Assigning agency to natural events is applying the anthropic principle in terms of our understanding of things that don't necessarily work based on our potentially faulty inferences.

Of course in the sequential nature, this could apply, but more to biology in general and taxonomical considerations, not evolution, as the process doesn't happen constantly, the pressures will vary greatly

Evolution can make us more "evolved" in our capacity to make tools, but it also makes a lion more "evolved" in its capacity to hunt, it's problematic, if not a category error, to apply the notion of superiority in terms of evolution in a broad manner, like judging a fish by whether it can climb a tree, rather than its ability to swim

 

[Silmarien]

You can assume it, but it's hardly able to be shown in any falsifiable manner any more than I could show that my shoes appearing to be repaired is the work of leprechauns who appreciated my gift.

What I was describing was a theological interpretation of evolution, not a scientific theory. This thread is about the cost of deconverting from Creationism, not about the debate between theism and naturalism, so I'm not interested in defending theistic evolution against you. I'm only interested in defending it against Creationists who think it's theologically untenable and automatically collapses into atheism.

 

[muichimotsu]

What I was describing was a theological interpretation of evolution, not a scientific theory. This thread is about the cost of deconverting from Creationism, not about the debate between theism and naturalism, so I'm not interested in defending theistic evolution against you. I'm only interested in defending it against Creationists who think it's theologically untenable and automatically collapses into atheism.

Granted. The problem becomes how your interpretative framework is any more valid when the creationists will cling to theirs doggedly

 

[Jimmy D]

Additionally evolution does not allow for "kind".

The taxonomic system was created to categorize living organisms into different groups (or kinds, types, varieties or whatever appropriate synonym you want to use), what's the problem?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The taxonomic system was created to categorize living organisms into different groups (or kinds, types, varieties or whatever appropriate synonym you want to use), what's the problem?

We should not assume everything comes from one cell, and through the process of evolution the different kinds came from into existence. After all man is made in Gods image not a primate.I am basing my comment on the poster below.
Of note: Evolutionists can not explain the bottom of the chart. Where the cell came from.

 

[Jimmy D]

We should not assume everything comes from one cell, and through the process of evolution the different kinds came from that.

Quite right, evolution is not assumed, it is observed.

Common descent was inferred from evidence from multiple sources (the fossil record, biogeography, anatomy etc) and has been rigorously tested for over a century. Subsequent new evidence (genetics, new fossil finds etc) has only confirmed and helped strengthen the theory.

Of note: Evolutionists can not explain the bottom of the chart. Where the cell came from.

True. But whether God, Buddha, nature or aliens formed it has no bearing on the theory of evolution.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

edited

 

[Maria Billingsley]

True. But whether God, Buddha, nature or aliens formed it has no bearing on the theory of evolution.

There would be no tree without a seed, so it does have bearing my friend.

 

[Jimmy D]

There would be no tree without a seed, so it does have bearing my friend.

The tree is there, we can see it.

Not knowing the origin of the seed is no reason to deny the existence of the tree.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The tree is there, we can see it.

Not knowing the origin of the seed is no reason to deny the existence of the tree.

Ok, but my premise is the "origin of life" not how it changed over time.
Thanks for the engaging!

 

[Jimmy D]

Ok, but my premise is the "origin of life" not how it changed over time.
Thanks for the engaging!

The origin of life is a mystery alright