Levels of EvC belief

[Strathos]

This is just an attempt to categorize the different gradations of beliefs regarding evolution and creationism, because there is quite a large spectrum. Starting from one extreme and proceeding to another:

1. There is no God or other higher intelligence, life arose from chemical processes and evolved on its own to the level we see today.

2. There is a God or higher intelligence, but it never did anything to encourage the development of life. Life arose from chemical processes and evolved on its own to the level we see today.

3. There is a God or higher intelligence, and it arranged things so that the laws of physics would be conducive to forming life. Life arose from chemical processes and evolved on its own to the level we see today.

4. There is a God or higher intelligence, and it directly intervened in some way to make sure life arose. After that, life evolved on its own to the level we see today.

5. There is a God or higher intelligence, and it intervened to make sure life arose, and continues to intervene to guide its evolutionary path. The modern science of evolution and biology is correct, but cannot detect God's interference.

6. Evolution and common descent are correct, but every step of the process is directly controlled by God.

7. Deep time is correct, and species can evolve into new species, but the ancestors of all modern lifeforms were divinely created by God.

8. Deep time is correct, and species can evolve to an extent, but not into new species. God created each species separately.

9. The earth and universe are only a few thousand years old. God created each species separately, but they can evolve, just not into new species.

10. The earth and universe are only a few thousand years old. Evolution does not and cannot happen. Every species today is exactly the same as when God created it.

I'll include a poll.

 

[Paidiske]

Somewhere between 3 and 5 for me, but I couldn't say exactly where with any certainty.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I would vote 9, believing in complete creationism while not ruling out micro-evolution within the same species, essentially adaptation.

 

[Ophiolite]

You omitted the option from your poll that would have allowed me to vote.

There may or may not be a God, or higher intelligence, or intelligences. This entity, or these entities may, or may not have played crucial, or minor roles in the emergence of life and its subsequent evolution. Who knows? I don't. However, the evidence fully supports natural evolution from a common ancestor over several billion years via mechanisms in which natural selection was a key component. There was no apparent involvement of the aforementioned entity, or entities in this evolution. As to the origin of life itself, that is a separate issue, though several plausible paths to emergence from chemical reactions remain the best currently availabel explanation.

I can see why you left it off.

 

[Paulos23]

The ccloses one is one, so I voted for that. Manly because there is no evidence for a god, an even if there was one, it doesn't look like they have been interacting with this universe.

 

[Strathos]

You omitted the option from your poll that would have allowed me to vote.

There may or may not be a God, or higher intelligence, or intelligences. This entity, or these entities may, or may not have played crucial, or minor roles in the emergence of life and its subsequent evolution. Who knows? I don't. However, the evidence fully supports natural evolution from a common ancestor over several billion years via mechanisms in which natural selection was a key component. There was no apparent involvement of the aforementioned entity, or entities in this evolution. As to the origin of life itself, that is a separate issue, though several plausible paths to emergence from chemical reactions remain the best currently availabel explanation.

I can see why you left it off.

There are only 10 options you can put on a poll.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is just an attempt to categorize the different gradations of beliefs regarding evolution and creationism, because there is quite a large spectrum. Starting from one extreme and proceeding to another:

1. There is no God or other higher intelligence, life arose from chemical processes and evolved on its own to the level we see today.

2. There is a God or higher intelligence, but it never did anything to encourage the development of life. Life arose from chemical processes and evolved on its own to the level we see today.

3. There is a God or higher intelligence, and it arranged things so that the laws of physics would be conducive to forming life. Life arose from chemical processes and evolved on its own to the level we see today.

4. There is a God or higher intelligence, and it directly intervened in some way to make sure life arose. After that, life evolved on its own to the level we see today.

5. There is a God or higher intelligence, and it intervened to make sure life arose, and continues to intervene to guide its evolutionary path. The modern science of evolution and biology is correct, but cannot detect God's interference.

6. Evolution and common descent are correct, but every step of the process is directly controlled by God.

7. Deep time is correct, and species can evolve into new species, but the ancestors of all modern lifeforms were divinely created by God.

8. Deep time is correct, and species can evolve to an extent, but not into new species. God created each species separately.

9. The earth and universe are only a few thousand years old. God created each species separately, but they can evolve, just not into new species.

10. The earth and universe are only a few thousand years old. Evolution does not and cannot happen. Every species today is exactly the same as when God created it.

I'll include a poll.

I'm missing an option...
I can only choose between options where it is said that a god does exist on the one hand, or an option where it says that there are no such things as gods.

I'ld require an option that says something along the lines of:
The science of biology is a valid and seemingly accurate explanation of the evolution of life and there is no reason or evidence to suggest that any god(s), if they even exist, have anything to do with it.


EDIT: @Ophiolite 's option would work for me as well. I expect that most, if not all, atheists on this forum will reply in roughly the same way. You might as well change your first option into the one suggested by @Ophiolite and myself, as I also expect that practically nobody will vote for option 1...

 

[RealityCheck01]

This is just an attempt to categorize the different gradations of beliefs regarding evolution and creationism, because there is quite a large spectrum.

This spectrum is not evolution and creationism. The inclusion of God existing or not mixes in theism/atheism. The inclusion of "life arose" is creation/abiogenesis.

Remove the extra theism/atheism + creation/abiogenesis and the physical evidence supports a version of 1 or 2 or 3 or 4: "life evolved on its own to the level we see today".

 

[Shemjaza]

I may be an atheist, but option 1 is a little too "I have faith THERE IS NO GOD!!!1!".

I spend enough time fighting that stereotype string here as it is.

 

[Nithavela]

I'm missing an option where a non-existant god guides every step while simultaneously having no idea what he/she/it is doing.

 

[Strathos]

This spectrum is not evolution and creationism. The inclusion of God existing or not mixes in theism/atheism. The inclusion of "life arose" is creation/abiogenesis.

Remove the extra theism/atheism + creation/abiogenesis and the physical evidence supports a version of 1 or 2 or 3 or 4: "life evolved on its own to the level we see today".

The point is that many people think it's an all or nothing proposition so it's useful to measure a spectrum. Also for option 1 you don't have to be certain that there is no God, you just have to believe that there isn't.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The point is that many people think it's an all or nothing proposition so it's useful to measure a spectrum. Also for option 1 you don't have to be certain that there is no God, you just have to believe that there isn't.

I could go along with that, except that I think it's probable that there are 'higher intelligences' out there. The probability that we are the most intelligent depends on the number of intelligent life forms in the universe; if there are more than a few others (e.g. more than single figures) we're almost certainly not the most intelligent.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The point is that many people think it's an all or nothing proposition so it's useful to measure a spectrum.

The point you missed is that you did not write a spectrum between evolution and creationism.
Creation only applies to creationism: Evolution is not abiogenesis.
God is irrelevant to evolution: Evolution is a science.

 

[ianw16]

Evolution created Man. Man created God.

 

[Strathos]

The point you missed is that you did not write a spectrum between evolution and creationism.
Creation only applies to creationism: Evolution is not abiogenesis.
God is irrelevant to evolution: Evolution is a science.

But... many people are taught that there is a connection and that they are in opposition. So it's useful to measure a spectrum.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The natural state of the universe is the absence of life, therefore biological life on earth is supernatural, therefore ..................

 

[VirOptimus]

The natural state of the universe is the absence of life, therefore biological life on earth is supernatural, therefore ..................

Support this with evidence, data and define the terms you are using.

Otherwise, its completely void of content.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The natural state of the universe is the absence of life, therefore biological life on earth is supernatural, therefore ..................

When you have to resort to word games to support your beliefs, it's not going well...

 

[ianw16]

The natural state of the universe is the absence of life, therefore biological life on earth is supernatural, therefore ..................

And if we then find evidence of it elsewhere, such as at Mars, your excuse will then change to.........what, exactly?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When you have to resort to word games to support your beliefs, it's not going well...

My beliefs are well supported.