Replies

Pinging for opinions...

Also, I always thought it peculiar how 90% of the evolutionists are almost always environmentalists.

Thanks. I'm probably going to lurk this one out. If anyone cares, here's a link to a large amount of information accumulated during more than five years of these threads: The List-O-Links.

Thank you so much for the ping, orionblamblam!

The question of what is creationism? was the topic of a research thread years ago.

It recently resurfaced on on another thread. For the discussion, this is what I posted to the recent thread – to define creationism and contrast it with intelligent design:

Creationism generally refers to a Christian interpretation of Scriptures which says that Adam was the first man (mortal or ensouled) based on a strict reading of Romans 5:12-14 and I Corinthians 15:42-48. By genealogy, Adam had to be created 6000 years ago. A group of Jewish mystics also agree that Adam had to be created 6000 years ago.

Naturally, there are differences in specific doctrine – but the narrowing in on Genesis 1 is a misdirection when speaking to Christians. It is a doctrinal issue which can only be addressed by theological argument.

The creationist group breaks down into several sub-groups:

One side believes that the physical evidence supports a young earth (Answers in Genesis, Creation Institute, et al) – these are “easy prey” for mainstream scientists and thus the “spit wad” arguments are directed to this group as if they were representative of all (which they are not).

Another side believes that God created an “old” looking universe, 6000 years ago. There is no scientific argument against this group at all – because there can be no scientific argument that God did not create ‘all that there is’ last Thursday. It is theological and everyone knows it.

Another side believes that Adam was specially created and zapped into an old universe, 6000 years ago. Again, there is no scientific argument against this group.

Another group – a mid ground between creationism and evolution – is the interpretation that Adam was the first ensouled man. This is the Catholic doctrine and again, there is no scientific argument against this group.

Still another group (my group) – says that God was the only observer of creation week and thus those 6 days must be viewed from inception space/time coordinates (inflationary theory and relativity). Using that formula, 6 days at the inception coordinates equals approximately 15 billion years at our space/time coordinates, Genesis 1-3 apply to heaven and earth and Adams’ time begins when he is banished to mortality in Genesis 4 (6000 years ago).

Intelligent Design – unlike creationism – has no basis in theology at all. It does not specify the designer. The designer could be God, collective consciousness, or aliens.

Alien seeding of life on earth is called “panspermia”. Crick – of DNA double helix fame – was a panspermiast. The subject is not far afield of NASA research in exobiology and astrobiology.

Collective consciousness is Eastern metaphysics and very popular among a number of scientists outside the United States. Again, this is not far afield of research in swarm intelligence, the behavior of ants, bees and the ilk.

God, of course, is the most logical candidate for designer among most Western civilizations whether Judeo/Christian, Islamic or myriad other religions.

At bottom, the Intelligent Design argument is a collection of objections to the paradigm of scientific materialism to account for the origin of species. The theory of evolution is frankly incomplete – Darwin never asked or answered the question “what is life?”

The chief objection to the theory is that “randomness” cannot be the prime factor in the formulation: random mutations – natural selection > species.

In the naturalistic, determinist view (and theological, predestination view) – every effect has a prior cause – and therefore - even under strict scientific materialism - there is no such thing as randomness per se - only pseudo-randomness. Chaitin's Omega, for instance, is the effect of a cause. Brownian motion is caused, etc.

This is fairly basic stuff these days – that is why the mathematicians have turned to “self organizing complexity” to explain master control genes and the ilk which allow such functions as eyeness to evolve concurrently across phyla, i.e. it is not “random”.

For all the objections to Intelligent Design and the tossing of spit wads – the mathematicians and physicists are already engaged and working on the very things which are necessary to give a complete picture of origin of species: information (successful communications), autonomy, semiosis, complexity, intelligence.

IMHO, it doesn't matter whether the work is done because of Intelligent Design objections or despite them - in the end, the randomness pillar will be pitched and we will be looking for non-corporeal causation for the "will to live", "fecundity principle", "evolution of one" - or whatever one wishes to call it.

However, my pal claims to be a Creationist, but to her it means "I believe that God created man through scientifically discernable natural processes, including evolution from non-human forms over the scientifically accepted geological time spans."

On these threads, your pal would be considered a "theistic evolutionist" like many who argue from the evo side of things. The various creationist sites, needless to say, do not consider TEs to be real creationists or real christians.

"Pinging for opinions..."

Only the opinions of those who don't deny this premise will be considered as carrying any weight. The opinions of the rest would only be considered valid by other emotionally unstable mentalities who also engage in self-deception.