Evolutionary Creationism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2011, 02:45 PM
RE: Evolutionary Creationism
(28-12-2011 02:17 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  You're the kind of Calvinist makes me not wanna kill Christians. It is tao.

Tao my ass. Have you seen his collection of kitchenware, should you happen to disagree within crossbow range? Tongue

Doc HoC you're awesome in this thread Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
28-12-2011, 04:38 PM
RE: Evolutionary Creationism
(28-12-2011 02:45 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(28-12-2011 02:17 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  You're the kind of Calvinist makes me not wanna kill Christians. It is tao.

Tao my ass. Have you seen his collection of kitchenware, should you happen to disagree within crossbow range? Tongue

Doc HoC you're awesome in this thread Smile

Thank you.

I say Gwynnie did it. I consider that a universal compromise is not only possible but extant - that where creation is the question love is the answer. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
29-12-2011, 01:52 PM
RE: Evolutionary Creationism
@KOC
You say that god's morality is within science, yet science is nothing more than a process for explaining nature. And we have yet to see any evidence that nature is capable of conscious thought much less that it is anything other than indifferent to life at all. So, what morality exists within science? What morality exists within information? My guess is 0. Information and science are amoral, they are absent of morals. They are neither moral nor immoral. What humans (or other lifeforms) do with information can make it moral or immoral.

As for the topic behind the thread being that god has some "guiding hand" that shapes evolution or that god "designed" the pattern of evolution that we see in nature, what evidence exists that suggests this? Pattern itself demonstrates nothing. Look at snowflakes or any other crystal form. They are ordered and minerals grow in specific patterns, these patterns and shapes are dictated by their molecular structure and form completely naturally in the absence of any intelligent guidance. What reason does one have to suspect that evolution behaves in any way other than that of unconscious nature?

Not trying to be confrontational or a dick (so I hope you don't read my above post as such). I genuinely have an interest in trying to learn how the religious mind works and what evidence the religious mind uses to justify its beliefs.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2011, 02:08 PM
RE: Evolutionary Creationism
If nothing else its a catchy name. It actually gives me some hope that the ancient texts are finally being discarded as myths. 20 years ago it would have been horrific to discount the literal story of Adam and Eve but rational thought is steadily showing itself.

Curious, how does originl sin fit into EC ? If this was already addressed I apologize for missing it.

.
I wasn't . . . until I was
I am . . . until I'm not
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2011, 02:23 PM (This post was last modified: 29-12-2011 02:31 PM by kingschosen.)
RE: Evolutionary Creationism
(29-12-2011 01:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You say that god's morality is within science, yet science is nothing more than a process for explaining nature. And we have yet to see any evidence that nature is capable of conscious thought much less that it is anything other than indifferent to life at all. So, what morality exists within science? What morality exists within information? My guess is 0. Information and science are amoral, they are absent of morals. They are neither moral nor immoral. What humans (or other lifeforms) do with information can make it moral or immoral.

It's the belief that as a creature elevates higher on the evolutionary scale their morality increases. That is the morality in science. If morality wasn't scientific, then bacteria would be able to show empathy thus have some morality. Then you would say that higher brain function creates morality; creates empathy. But, isn't that scientific? I hope you see where this is going: as we increased on the evolutionary scale; so did our morality. So, our morality is rooted in science, and if God created science, then He guides our basic morality.

Quote:As for the topic behind the thread being that god has some "guiding hand" that shapes evolution or that god "designed" the pattern of evolution that we see in nature, what evidence exists that suggests this? Pattern itself demonstrates nothing. Look at snowflakes or any other crystal form. They are ordered and minerals grow in specific patterns, these patterns and shapes are dictated by their molecular structure and form completely naturally in the absence of any intelligent guidance. What reason does one have to suspect that evolution behaves in any way other than that of unconscious nature?

There is no concrete evidence to support my claim that science is supernaturally guided other than my faith. I'm not going to pretend that there is.

Quote:Not trying to be confrontational or a dick (so I hope you don't read my above post as such). I genuinely have an interest in trying to learn how the religious mind works and what evidence the religious mind uses to justify its beliefs.

No, dude, you're cool. Completely polite and justified in your questions.
(29-12-2011 02:08 PM)free2011 Wrote:  If nothing else its a catchy name. It actually gives me some hope that the ancient texts are finally being discarded as myths. 20 years ago it would have been horrific to discount the literal story of Adam and Eve but rational thought is steadily showing itself.

Curious, how does originl sin fit into EC ? If this was already addressed I apologize for missing it.

OS isn't necessarily a component of EC... at least to me. It's more along the line of my Calvinistic point of view. Original sin isn't a doctrine that my beliefs adhere to. I believe that God created sin for a purpose; therefore, we were all destined to sin. It wasn't because of one man's sin that anyone is damned. It's because of God's plan that humans are damned.

But, in relation to your question, I don't know how Arminians would reconcile an EC belief with their adherence to OS. This is why you will find most Arminians as YECs or OECs and occasionally as a TE (although it's hard to reconcile this belief as well).

I think for the most part many Christians just say "screw it" and not talk about it.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2011, 12:29 AM
RE: Evolutionary Creationism
(29-12-2011 02:23 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(29-12-2011 01:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You say that god's morality is within science, yet science is nothing more than a process for explaining nature. And we have yet to see any evidence that nature is capable of conscious thought much less that it is anything other than indifferent to life at all. So, what morality exists within science? What morality exists within information? My guess is 0. Information and science are amoral, they are absent of morals. They are neither moral nor immoral. What humans (or other lifeforms) do with information can make it moral or immoral.

It's the belief that as a creature elevates higher on the evolutionary scale their morality increases. That is the morality in science. If morality wasn't scientific, then bacteria would be able to show empathy thus have some morality. Then you would say that higher brain function creates morality; creates empathy. But, isn't that scientific? I hope you see where this is going: as we increased on the evolutionary scale; so did our morality. So, our morality is rooted in science, and if God created science, then He guides our basic morality.
[/quote]

OK , I have to disagree here.
How does a evolutionary scale work ?
IF it relates to genetic information then an amoeba has more DNA info than a human being.
And for the complexity argument , both bonobos and chimpanzees share about 98% of DNA with humans.
Chimps kill each other and beat their females as a rite of passage into adulthood.
There is not a single case of bonobos killing each other in the wild or in captivity.

Also , I don't see evolution as a ladder to a goal. It just means you adapt to your environment. And being a social species brings with it rules to maintain cohesion in that group.

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes gaglamesh731's post
02-01-2012, 04:22 PM (This post was last modified: 02-01-2012 04:25 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Evolutionary Creationism
@KOC
A couple of things. First off, science is a human construct. Science is a method by which to explain nature and without humans, science would not exist but nature would continue to exist. I think you are trying to use science and nature interchangeably and this has lead me to become a bit confused. I will consider your uses of the term "science" to really mean "nature." That makes your statements easier to understand.

Back to morality and nature (science being the method by which we describe nature).
Your argument above is that morality is a result of higher brain function as a result of the natural process of evolution. As humans evolved, the average brain-size increased and therefore "morality" also increased. If this is true, then we must have some way of measuring "morality" on some absolute scale. I do not know of one, but let's pretend that one does exist and we can rank it on a scale of 0 to 10. 10 being the morals of humans and 0 being completely amoral. Your argument is that the lowest forms of life as we know it would be a 0 (bacteria for example, viruses may be the lowest but that is another debate entirely) and those organisms capable of thought are the only ones capable of having morals? And as brain size increases, so does the amount of morals? And none of these organisms capable of thought have morals that are as high as humans at a value of 10?

This is probably not going to be a surprise but I disagree with that idea. First off, we identified problem 1, that is, how does one measure morality? Is morality a measure of an individual doing what is good for the species instead of what is good for itself? If so, then all organisms are equally moral because all organisms seek to reproduce and further the propagation of their species so that the species survives after the individual dies. As a matter of fact, humans may be the only species that is immoral in this regard because we are the only species I know of that contains serial killers that seek only personal satisfaction at the expense of the lives of its own species. Other animals may kill one another, but they do so only for survival and not pleasure. Even cannibalism in other species is the result of a strong desire to eat, survive and therefore reproduce.

Is morality helping out other members of your species at your own expense in order to help other individuals survive and reproduce? If so, then there are other organisms that are equally as moral as humans and have much smaller brains (in absolute terms and proportional terms). Vampire bats, lions, birds, fish, reptiles, etc, etc all have species that exhibit altruistic behavior where one individual gives some benefit to another individual. Often times this altruism is reciprocated at a later time. The benefit of such "moral" actions is so that each individual is given aid in a time of need to ensure the survival of as many of the species as possible to go on to reproduce.

Basically I would say this, morality is a descriptor that we use to judge someone's value to society and this term as it exists applies only to humans. All other organisms and inanimate objects and forces are amoral. Morality in humans is constantly changing and is the result of civilization. Morality was a necessary component to our evolution in order to ensure that those selfish individuals who cared only for themselves and not for the tribe, were branded as immoral and ostracized. This was for the good of the community and the good of the community is also for the good of the species. This view of changing morals through time would explain why early human morals (like those from the bible) are very similar to acceptable behaviors in other animals. Rape exists in nature as a means by which less desirable males procreate and the bible ensures that someone who rapes a woman can take her as a wife. That is not to say that rape is good for both individuals but rape provides the undesirable male the opportunity to pass on his genes (part of the reason why females don't rape men is that they are the ones who actually have the power to select mates and very rarely in nature is it the males that actually do the selecting). Rape still exists as a form of procreation in all animals (including humans) but we have grown to a point as a civilization where we no longer consider it acceptable (most females of other species that are raped are , by definition, forced against their will to copulate and would also not consider it acceptable on a personal level) as a form of procreation because as a species we are in no apparent danger of going extinct (I say apparent danger because we do obviously have problems that may bring about our demise but that is another topic) and rape is therefore more detrimental to our society than it is beneficial, but during biblical times that was apparently not so. Human numbers were low enough and infant mortality high enough that a male who raped a woman took her as a wife and it was socially acceptable. Our morals certainly evolve as our societal needs evolve. I therefore find it impossible to believe that any morals outlined by any book written more than a few hundred years ago is still relevant or accurate. Sure, some things remain the same, like don't murder, but others are no longer relevant at all, like thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy. If anything I said above is true then; 1) the term "morality" applies only to humans since it is a human construct 2) the precursor to morals in humans is altruistic behavior in other organisms that exists irregardless of brain size and 3) morals are not static and continue to evolve through time as the needs of our society change.

This was a fairly lengthy diversion away from the initial topic of this thread. I was happy to see that you recognized that your belief in supernaturally-guided evolution was based on faith and not evidence. Just as you cannot assert that it is, I cannot assert that it is not. In matters such as these I have come to the conclusion of no supernature for 2 reasons. 1) there is no evidence for it and 2) there is no need for it. Ocam's razor basically says that simplest answer is often the correct one and in the case of evolution or any other natural process, it is simpler to conceive of nature being the only factor rather than constructing supernature as a partial explanation. Using supernature only adds another level of complexity because supernature itself now requires an explanation, and what would dictate the existence or guidance of supernature?


So, when you use the term "Evolutionary Creationism" you are asserting that something we observe is "nature guided by supernature" and we have only evidence for nature. I am very much for not teaching creationism/intelligent design in science classrooms because, to put it bluntly, it is not science. Even your term of "Evolutionary Creationism" is not science because it is untestable and unfalsifiable (what I meant when I said it was not science). If alternative ideas such as creationism, intelligent design or evolutionary creationism are to be taught, then they should be taught in the proper setting and heading. Either under "history" or "religion" but not under the title of science.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: