Does evolution contradict creationism?

Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

[shubi]

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

[Thatcherite]

I now recall that that there is a further pair of response and counter response in the Theobald/Clark debate. Ashby's 2nd responses are in green in Theobald's response to Ashby, and are replied to in that document.

[shubi]

The Theory of Evolution can be falsified, I don't know what Darwinism is.

To falsify the theory, just find a human fossil and a dinosaur fossil in the same rock strata (not burial of human).

Another way to falsify the Theory is to show that species are not continually changing allele frequencies in populations over time. Show that no one needs a different flu shot each year (that flu virus is not mutating to make vaccinations ineffective).

Just for interest sake, please tell us what Darwinism is and who told you it was a theory.

[Right Wing Professor]

You must be a liberal. They are the only ones that yell "racist," whenever anyone notes that humans come with different shades of skin.

You must be clueless about conservatism, if you think that.

Attributing aptitudes for particular classes of human endeavor based on racial origins is racism, by the textbook definition of the term.

[shubi]

"Once again you cannot propose any other theory except Creationism, or Evolution to explain life"

Once again, the Theory of Evolution (biology) does not concern itself with creation. The ToE explains how life changes over millions of years, but NOT how life came to be.

[Right Wing Professor]

You can spank any creationist with obfuscations and meaningless wrangling over biological processes.

We can usually out-debate any creationist on about 10 different planes. But where's the fun in that? It's like playing a video-game on level 1. Even libs usually pose more of a challenge.

[Right Wing Professor]

To bad (according to Popper) Darwinism CANNOT be falsified. Therefor it is NOT a scientific theory.

Too bad Popper changed his mind about that. But since you've read Popper only in snippets on creationst websites, you wouldn't know, would you?

[Right Wing Professor]

Link to a letter by Popper to the New Scientist, in 1980, emphasizing that he regards TOE as scientific.

[shubi]

Right, Darwin's theory, the Theory of Evolution (biology) does not contain creation. That is what he was saying in your quote.

The Creationists science objects to are those that try to use a strawman and place it into the Theory and then argue against it. Science probably cannot determine who created everything. For those that want to believe God did it, you are safe, unless you insist on a young Earth, worldwide flood, special creation or any of the other flatly ridiculous proposals ID and CS attempt to equate with science. To insist on such things turns people away from belief in God.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

[shubi]

Yes, but Jehu inserted Darwinism for ToE and thus made his statement ambiguous.

[conservative_crusader]

"It seems to me that you are assuming omnipotence and/or omniscience on the part of your hypothetical God. Neither are necessary conditions of being Aquinus's uncaused cause. A lesser but still functional God who created the universe and the people on planet earth might create the malevolent being in error, or as an experiment."

Very neat argument, but I'm afraid we're misunderstanding each other. In order for god to have created the universe he does not have to be omnipotent nor omniscient. He merely has to be powerful enough to create everything that there is, and smart enough to be capable of mature thought. While I do believe in an omniscient and omnipotent god, realizing that you've created something that will doom your own creation, is something that can easily be discerned. And of course remedying that problem is perhaps just as easy for this supreme being that created everything.

"Also to say that the God that creates beings cares about them is to presume your conclusion. You cannot be certain of this. Do we care about the bacteria in a petri dish? Yet God would be far further above us than we are above the bacteria. The Christian God of Love does care, but that God is only one possibility"


Also very good, however; a god would care about his creation in much the same way a biologist would care about a new strain of microscopic organism. If some third party were to enter the laboratory with the sole purpose of overturning the petri dish, the biologist would stop this third party.

" (though the truth as you see it?)"

correct.

"At the end of the day I think we are going to disagree on this one too. I think that Pascal's wager as stated with its 4 possible outcomes is so much simpler than the true set of possibilities with their varying possible outcomes that it is not a useful argument, unfortunately."

But, if nothing else, you are better off to believe there is a god than to believe there is none.

[shubi]

If all there is to your attempt at evangelism is Pascal's wager, you better find some other ideas.

It is really pretty weak to threaten someone with not going to Heaven if they don't believe. Talk more about how God has helped you, your experiences in His service.

[js1138]

But, if nothing else, you are better off to believe there is a god than to believe there is none.

You don't benefit unless you believe in the right God and the right interpretation of God. If you accept the logic of thos on these threads who argue for creationism, you must belong to the correct sect and denomination to be counted as a believer. If you deviate in your interpretation of Genesis, you will be damned forever.

[BMCDA]

"My Pascal-Counter^TM runneth over" placemarker

[Right Wing Professor]

One bar is worth 100,000 Pascals.

[js1138]

What kind of "bar". Are you referring to "Malt does more than Milton can, to justify God's ways to man"?

[Right Wing Professor]

Malt does more than Milton can, to justify God's ways to man"?

Hey, it's Friday night, and that's exactly the kind of bar I'm thinking of, but a bar is also a unit of pressure. And a Pascal is also a (very much smaller) unit of pressure.

[shubi]

God used evolution to create all life.
Those that do not believe in evolution, do not believe in God.


Original proposition placemarker

[TigerTale]

The Bible is not science. It's theology.

That being said, I think you overstate your case when you claim that "those that do not believe in evolution, do not believe in God."

It is possible to believe in God, but misunderstand what scripture has to say about him.

[BMCDA]

LOL!! Actually I meant the unit of wagers which is coincidentally also Pascal ;)

However, since my Pascal-Counter^TM ran over I'll have to reset it anyway. Guess a bar is the best place to do so.

[shubi]

I think God revealed a lot of science in Genesis.
For instance the let there be light comports quite well with Einstein.

My little proposition is for those who insist on a simplistic literalist view of the Bible. To me it shows a lack of faith.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437