Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:54:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
198 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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!
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 the Biblical account - a literal 7-day creation.
Yes, God could have done anything He wanted - then why say He did something
different?
For Darwin - the theory he proposed was simple and was consistant with the
revisionist thinking of his day. It was a time when society and intellectuals
in particular believed that they could account for the world around them -
however, just as anyone who attempted at that time to explain the workings of
the atom without greater scientific knowledge - particle accelerators etc - the
truth of the matter was far more complicated than the simple explanation. So
is it with creation and origins - God's mechanism is far more complex than a
mid-19th century mind had tools to understand.
Finally - from my perspective theistic-evolution subjugates God to man's
understanding of the creation.
And I'll be glad to being to address the flaws in the evolutionary theory in my
other threads.
-Jon
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) All right. Once again it is apparent that your notion of scientific validity has little reference to the reality of modern scientific thinking. (...) Am I reading you right? You're saying that its fine for you to start threads and then refuse (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Why not Both?
|
| 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 (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
