| |
Okay, since it's apparent that the overwhelming preponderance of scientific
evidence will never convince the diehard Creationists of the fact of
evolution, just as the utter non-existence of any pro-creation evidence will
not sway critical-thinking non-creationists into that fold, let's examine
another question.
Assuming (by which I mean that since no evidence exists for such a claim,
we'll rhetorically take it as self-evident, though in fact it is not) for a
moment that a Supreme Absolute Benevolent Inteligent Being could somehow a)
always have existed or b) somehow created itself, why is it impossible for
this Being to have chosen evolution as the mechanism by which it created
man? I, for one, would be much more impressed with a deity who came up with
an intricate system such as we have in place, allowing it to progress over
billions (not thousands) of years, rather than say "poof! Everything's
created!"
Stated briefly: Darwin himself, whom creationists tend to revile more than
any other proponent of evolution, did not preclude the existence of a higher
power, and, as Bruce has pointed out, Darwin studied theology. All he did
was devise a system consistent with his observations of the natural world.
Why is this such a problem for creationists?
I know, I know: the Bible says "let us create man in our image" and all
the rest, but where does it say that we were created in one stroke, rather
than as the culmination of a process? The created-from-dust metaphor
doesn't convince me that we were cooked up directly from dirt; dust can as
easily refer to lesser organisms as to actual dust, since the Bible is
replete with vague metaphor. The "Worldbuilding in Seven Days" bit is widely
contested as literal vs. metaphorical, even among Christians, so why must we
constrain God to the letter of the Word in this case and not in others (or
are we literally mustard seeds?)
Just a thought. As an alternative question: can any Creationist here
provide a circumstance or condition under which they would be willing to
accept evolution as a process? Proponents of evolution here have already
named several conditions under which the theory of evolution (not the
process but the explanation) could theoretically be falsified; can
Creationists do the same of their theory?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Interesting proposition, and one I hold as a possibility. I am definitely in the camp of "evolution happens" (though I accept we may not have it quite right), but I also allow for the possibility that some outside force ("god" if you wish to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) I should point out that this perspective has already been advanced many times and has been debunked and pretty much rejected. While it is intellectually stimulating, it misses the scientific evidence for creation that is indeed consistant with (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
