What's your view?

[thegandyman]

So this isn't a creation vs. evolution thread per se. I was debating with some friends of mine a recent bill in the state of Tennessee that allows teachers to bring up strengths and weaknesses of topics like evolution. It doesn't change the actual state curriculum. In my point of view, any scientific topic that holds water should be able to take on any opposing views on its own evidence. So I started thinking. There are bascially four views on creation. If you had to pick and back yours based on evidence. Which one would you say, and what evidence would you give?

1. Young earth creation: All animals created in current forms, earth about 10,000 years old

2. Old earth creation: All animals created progressively through different eras, earth billions of years old

3. Intelligent design: Could believe in creation or evolution, just prove that Darwinian evolution cannot explain life processes

4. Theistic evolution: God guided the evolutionary process forward looking

5. Darwinian evolution: Nature guided evolution backward looking (in other words, with no end in sight).

I have my own views, but I'm always interested in learning what others think.

 

[TheReasoner]

So this isn't a creation vs. evolution thread per se. I was debating with some friends of mine a recent bill in the state of Tennessee that allows teachers to bring up strengths and weaknesses of topics like evolution. It doesn't change the actual state curriculum. In my point of view, any scientific topic that holds water should be able to take on any opposing views on its own evidence. So I started thinking. There are bascially four views on creation. If you had to pick and back yours based on evidence. Which one would you say, and what evidence would you give?

1. Young earth creation: All animals created in current forms, earth about 10,000 years old

2. Old earth creation: All animals created progressively through different eras, earth billions of years old

3. Intelligent design: Could believe in creation or evolution, just prove that Darwinian evolution cannot explain life processes

4. Theistic evolution: God guided the evolutionary process forward looking

5. Darwinian evolution: Nature guided evolution backward looking (in other words, with no end in sight).

I have my own views, but I'm always interested in learning what others think.

There is no doubt, evolution is a fact.

I believe God is real. I do not think He guided the evolution in the traditional context, poking it into line at every bend and turn, but I do think He - with His intellect - knew the end product when He got the universe going about 13.7 billion years ago. Much like I in the lab can design an experiment which will end up with a desired end product without the need to chaperone the process at every step. If I can do that, well... God sure can. And, that's what appears to be the case.

As to whether evolution happens or not we're dealing with fact. It happens. As to why or who if anyone is behind it, that's faith. And my personal belief is that there is a God.

So, I suppose I am at none of these points? 5 maybe. I don't see how it would be any problem if we're an intermediary product. God is God. He knows His design and intent. It would be arrogant and foolish of me to imagine myself at the top of some illusory pyramid. The sole focus of God's attention. Does He love us? Sure. I think so. Do we have His love and care? Yep. Does this mean we have to be the end product of His design? We might be. But it wouldn't matter if we are or are not. God is God either way.

 

[jayem]

When you mention creation, are you talking about the origin and development of the universe as a whole, or just about the origin and development of life on earth? Cosmogony and biogenesis/evolution are different topics. But as I see it, there are fundamentally two types of theories for both:

1) Naturalistic, which holds that everything is purely a function of matter/energy and the natural properties thereof. Particles in motion is all there is. Nothing is supernatural.

2) Non-naturalistic, which invokes supernatural forces or entities outside the realm of matter/energy, yet which affect its behavior.

Different theories exist within these divisions. The pure standard model of cosmogony (Big Bang) would be naturalistic. Cyclic models, which describe a universe that has always existed in alternating phases of expansion and contraction, would also be naturalistic. Young or old earth creation would be non-naturalistic. Naturalistic theories state that life began and developed solely by physiochemical processes. (Parts of classical Darwinism, like natural selection and descent through modification are still accepted. But modern concepts of organic evolution have gone beyond that.) There are attempts at blends--like the idea that the Big Bang was set in motion by some power. Theistic evolution is a blend. Though if any kind of god or supernatural agency is postulated to be involved, that would make it non-naturalistic. I am a naturalist, so I confess a bias towards this view. For the many things we can't explain naturalistically, I just admit that we don't yet have an answer. I think that's much better than making up some unknown power or force to fill in the gaps. That raises more questions than it answers. And I have no problem with teaching non-naturalistic concepts. Many more people will accept them in some variety or other than are comfortable with hard-core naturalism. But I define science as obligatorily naturalistic. Students should learn about intelligent design/creationist theories. But make it clear that these concepts rely on mysterious forces outside of the natural realm. And they make no attempt to explain how these forces operate. To me, that's a fatal flaw, and makes such ideas fundamentally unscientific.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

God created evolution.

 

[TheReasoner]

When you mention creation, are you talking about the origin and development of the universe as a whole, or just about the origin and development of life on earth? Cosmogony and biogenesis/evolution are different topics. But as I see it, there are fundamentally two types of theories for both:

1) Naturalistic, which holds that everything is purely a function of matter/energy and the natural properties thereof. Particles in motion is all there is. Nothing is supernatural.

2) Non-naturalistic, which invokes supernatural forces or entities outside the realm of matter/energy, yet which affect its behavior.

Different theories exist within these divisions. The pure standard model of cosmogony (Big Bang) would be naturalistic. Cyclic models, which describe a universe that has always existed in alternating phases of expansion and contraction, would also be naturalistic. Young or old earth creation would be non-naturalistic. Naturalistic theories state that life began and developed solely by physiochemical processes. (Parts of classical Darwinism, like natural selection and descent through modification are still accepted. But modern concepts of organic evolution have gone beyond that.) There are attempts at blends--like the idea that the Big Bang was set in motion by some power. Theistic evolution is a blend. Though if any kind of god or supernatural agency is postulated to be involved, that would make it non-naturalistic. I am a naturalist, so I confess a bias towards this view. For the many things we can't explain naturalistically, I just admit that we don't yet have an answer. I think that's much better than making up some unknown power or force to fill in the gaps. That raises more questions than it answers. And I have no problem with teaching non-naturalistic concepts. Many more people will accept them in some variety or other than are comfortable with hard-core naturalism. But I define science as obligatorily naturalistic. Students should learn about intelligent design/creationist theories. But make it clear that these concepts rely on mysterious forces outside of the natural realm. And they make no attempt to explain how these forces operate. To me, that's a fatal flaw, and makes such ideas fundamentally unscientific.

Bold: Agree. First bolded statement is hard not to agree with. Our world (as scientists or scientists to be) is obligatorily naturalistic and empirical to the core. Underlined text: Hmmmmm.... Not so sure. First off, I would not validate most of them by use of the word 'theory'. Most do not come close to being testable in the least. It's in the realm of philosophy or something along those lines those positions have their domain - provided they are not empirically falsified! If they are, then they belong in education as just that, a dead philosophical construct of ages past. And that's where you find the norse creation myth, the hindu view of the earth resting atop elephants and so on and so forth. Those positions are proven wrong and should IMO not be taught as viable options.

 

[Michael]

So this isn't a creation vs. evolution thread per se. I was debating with some friends of mine a recent bill in the state of Tennessee that allows teachers to bring up strengths and weaknesses of topics like evolution. It doesn't change the actual state curriculum. In my point of view, any scientific topic that holds water should be able to take on any opposing views on its own evidence. So I started thinking. There are bascially four views on creation. If you had to pick and back yours based on evidence. Which one would you say, and what evidence would you give?

1. Young earth creation: All animals created in current forms, earth about 10,000 years old

2. Old earth creation: All animals created progressively through different eras, earth billions of years old

3. Intelligent design: Could believe in creation or evolution, just prove that Darwinian evolution cannot explain life processes

4. Theistic evolution: God guided the evolutionary process forward looking

5. Darwinian evolution: Nature guided evolution backward looking (in other words, with no end in sight).

I have my own views, but I'm always interested in learning what others think.

I personally tend to lean toward categories 3-4.

Electric DNA

Maybe it's a bias related to my background in computer programming, but DNA seems to me to be "preprogrammed" to adapt to just about any possible environment that can support life. It seems to me that the seeds of life in the universe were intelligently designed, by a master engineer that is still active in the process of life on Earth.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Might have been easier if you created a poll.

Theistic evolutionist here. My logic is that if God made the world then everything we know is a result of His creation. Using evolution to try and disprove Hi existance seems pointless to me.

 

[TheReasoner]

Might have been easier if you created a poll.

Theistic evolutionist here. My logic is that if God made the world then everything we know is a result of His creation. Using evolution to try and disprove Hi existance seems pointless to me.

Agreed. Only thing is, creationists and IDers sure do give that perception a LOT of fuel! It would not be a discussion at all if they did not insist that it was a problem.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

God created evolution.

Man created god.

 

[Michael]

Man created god.

Nah, the universe/God is ancient.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

Man created "dark energy", "dark matter", "inflation" and confusion.

 

[acropolis]

There are bascially four views on creation.

There are nearly as many creation myths are there are religions, and I wouldn't mention any of those myths in the classroom unless I was teaching a comparative religion course.

 

[Michael]

There are nearly as many creation myths are there are religions, and I wouldn't mention any of those myths in the classroom unless I was teaching a comparative religion course.

Or "Big Bang" theory.

 

[thegandyman]

When you mention creation, are you talking about the origin and development of the universe as a whole, or just about the origin and development of life on earth? Cosmogony and biogenesis/evolution are different topics. But as I see it, there are fundamentally two types of theories for both:

1) Naturalistic, which holds that everything is purely a function of matter/energy and the natural properties thereof. Particles in motion is all there is. Nothing is supernatural.

2) Non-naturalistic, which invokes supernatural forces or entities outside the realm of matter/energy, yet which affect its behavior.

Different theories exist within these divisions. The pure standard model of cosmogony (Big Bang) would be naturalistic. Cyclic models, which describe a universe that has always existed in alternating phases of expansion and contraction, would also be naturalistic. Young or old earth creation would be non-naturalistic. Naturalistic theories state that life began and developed solely by physiochemical processes. (Parts of classical Darwinism, like natural selection and descent through modification are still accepted. But modern concepts of organic evolution have gone beyond that.) There are attempts at blends--like the idea that the Big Bang was set in motion by some power. Theistic evolution is a blend. Though if any kind of god or supernatural agency is postulated to be involved, that would make it non-naturalistic. I am a naturalist, so I confess a bias towards this view. For the many things we can't explain naturalistically, I just admit that we don't yet have an answer. I think that's much better than making up some unknown power or force to fill in the gaps. That raises more questions than it answers. And I have no problem with teaching non-naturalistic concepts. Many more people will accept them in some variety or other than are comfortable with hard-core naturalism. But I define science as obligatorily naturalistic. Students should learn about intelligent design/creationist theories. But make it clear that these concepts rely on mysterious forces outside of the natural realm. And they make no attempt to explain how these forces operate. To me, that's a fatal flaw, and makes such ideas fundamentally unscientific.

Oh, sorry. I guess I assumed people would know that I meant biology and the first causes of life on earth and so forth. Although that does bring up an interesting point. You really never hear anybody claiming that the earth was created in its current form totally out of nothing. Well, at leat nobody I've ever talked to. Yet there are plenty of people that believe that if humans weren't created in their current forms in invalidates the Bible. Anybody have any comments on that?

 

[thegandyman]

When somebody states "evolution is a science fact" does it ever bother you or make you wonder about the other long accepted theories of science that have been discounted: geocentricism, static state universe, spontaneous generation, etc?

Again, I'm not stating which side I believe in yet. Just a question.

 

[TheReasoner]

Oh, sorry. I guess I assumed people would know that I meant biology and the first causes of life on earth and so forth. Although that does bring up an interesting point. You really never hear anybody claiming that the earth was created in its current form totally out of nothing. Well, at leat nobody I've ever talked to. Yet there are plenty of people that believe that if humans weren't created in their current forms in invalidates the Bible. Anybody have any comments on that?

Just one:

 

[thegandyman]

There are nearly as many creation myths are there are religions, and I wouldn't mention any of those myths in the classroom unless I was teaching a comparative religion course.

True, but in pretty much every creation story, the current earth and creatures appeared fully formed. Plus, you don't have anybody trying to scientifically prove that the Sumerian creation story is accurate.

 

[thegandyman]

Just one:

I'm assuming (and of course we know what happens when you assume) that you would not be a believer in creationist ideas.

 

[TheReasoner]

When somebody states "evolution is a science fact" does it ever bother you or make you wonder about the other long accepted theories of science that have been discounted: geocentricism, static state universe, spontaneous generation, etc?

Again, I'm not stating which side I believe in yet. Just a question.

Ah. Now we're talking. Yes, that is true. Plenty of things have been falsified before. And if we are to bring the big guns on deck we can start discussing scientific philosophy and epistemology if you want. But that can get a little... Heavy and have little relevance I think.

How can we say that we now know something? Well, if I am to talk to fellow students or professors I use different language than I do here. We speak of theories and hypothesis and the like. I would not say we know this or that. Certainly not in a paper. But that is because scientific lingo is very different.

Evolution is, when you speak of it to people who are not scientists an incontrovertible fact. This is not because we can describe every step that has happened before or predict future evolution with great accuracy. We can't. But we still know the basic stuff. We can say the following with extreme certainty: Evolution occurs. And We are the product of evolution.

Even if we change the theory completely that will still be true. We may have misunderstood this or that, or new evidence may come to light. But those basics remain. It's a little like Newton's theory of gravity did not change the fact that if you throw a stone up it will fall down. Neither did relativity or quantum mechanics. Even if all three radically changed physics.
That evolution happens is known. What evolution is and the specifics concerning the mechanisms and finer detail, that can, has and will change. Not totally - at least probably not - but our understanding of it will -heh- evolve.

Also. Looking at my posts I see I may appear arrogant. Sorry about that. A character flaw I fear :/

 

[TheReasoner]

I'm assuming (and of course we know what happens when you assume) that you would not be a believer in creationist ideas.

I'm a bionanoengineering student. Master level for now. I can't be. It would be absurd for someone who works with what I do to be a creationist. I would have to reject everything I know. I'd be... Incompetent. Unable to do what I do, unable to deliver the results I deliver. A little like an electrical engineer who rejects Maxwell's laws or a physicist who rejects Newton's laws - and substitutes either/all with models known to not work. They would be incompetent too. I don't intend to be arrogant here, but... You can't really change a-posteriori knowledge with a totally conflicting a-priori assumption.

 

[ComradeAgopian]

I'd say , ' 4 ish ' in the sense I believe God is the first cause , but did not pop in and out to move evolution along , so to speak . My evidence would be the entire weight of scientific evidence . I see no conflict in faith in the Risen Christ , and science .