what flavor of creationism/evolutionism?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

How did the universe and ourselves get here?

Poll ended at Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:46 pm

Literal Biblical 6 Day Creation
2
11%
God set the universe in motion and stepped back, no more intervention.
1
5%
A Form of Young Earth Creationism other than option 1
0
No votes
God used Evolution but intervened from time to time.
2
11%
Totally Natural Forces created the Universe.
6
32%
Totally Natural Forces created the Universe.
6
32%
The Universe is Eternal.
2
11%
 
Total votes: 19

User avatar
starseyer
Student
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:56 am
Location: USA

what flavor of creationism/evolutionism?

Post #1

Post by starseyer »

For the creationists here, I am just curious . . .
What form of creationism do you belive in? The literal 6 day creation as described in the Bible? Some other form of Young Earth Creationism? God-guided evolution? A God who got the process started and then backed off? Intellegent design? Don't care as long as there's room for God in it?

Also, any evolutionists who want to specify their views are also welcome :D

If I'm gonna talk about evolution vs creationism, I'd like to have a good survey of who I'm talking to . . .

steen
Scholar
Posts: 327
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:23 pm
Location: Upper Midwest

Post #11

Post by steen »

starseyer wrote:I always think of astronomy and cosmology in harmony with the Theory of Evolution. This is mainly because it was in my college Astronomy class, when I learned about the scientific theories of the origins of the universe (the big bang in particular) that my mind was open to the possibility of biological evolution. (I used to be a staunch anti-evolutionist.) The theory of how the atoms we are made of were formed in the stars, and how the earth itself came to be formed, goes hand in hand with the Theory of Evolution as a coherent scientific view of where we came from.
Well, kind of, as all are developed through the application of the Scientific Method. Thus, as science is about what we can meassure or observe. And that all tends to be what is around us, explainign how it got there. So most science does lead to "how the world ended up like it looks today," except that it goes further to predict what will happen tomorrow as well.
Science is the exploration of the "what" and the "how," while Christianity and religions are the exploration of the "why." They need not be in opposition, except for those who insist on crossing over and have one seeking the answers of the other.

(he, he showing MY bias here. I still believe that if creationists would take a look at talk.origin and weed out some of the more absolutist and erroneous claims about evolution, the discussions would be a lot more fruitful.)

(PPS. EDIT> That wasn't meant as a criticism of you, sorry if it gave that impression. I suddenly realized that when I read my reply
No offense taken, even if it had been a criticism. ;)
I strongly believe that any natural explanation of the universe and life and all cannot be absolute disproof of the existance of god(s). Though I do think that the evidence points in that direction . . .[/quote]Well, I personally have no problem being both a Christian and a scientist. Again, I don't see the conflict, I see complementation.
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!"

Post Reply