Creation and the creative process

[Being1]

I am wanting to present a new view on creation. A view that I believe has the potential to settle argument between the creationist and evolutionist. Is this the place to do so? Is anyone interested? Or would that spoil the game?

[bernee51]

You're correct. Creation is a misleading word. Manifestaion would be much better...

Sir, you are shadow boxing. Cut to it or you will lose our interest.

It won't last long.

[Sender]

If that is your belief. If that serves you. But if you are considering anything, then you cannot be the truth of which you speak.

Well that's profound. All of my "life's" questions have now been answered. How did you do it in only a few posts?

[bernee51]

If that is your belief. If that serves you. But if you are considering anything, then you cannot be the truth of which you speak.

Well that's profound. All of my "life's" questions have now been answered. How did you do it in only a few posts?

I'm still waiting for the 'fresh new view", waitng for the 'game to be spoiled' and the "argument between creatininst and evolutionist ' settled.

So may promises, so little substance.

The story of my life

[Sender]

agreed.

[USIncognito]

Ok. Just testing the water. Could it be that the answer to the fundamental questions we ask ourselves (like who am I, how did I get here, what is the meaning, how does it work etc) are not to found through theories such as evolution, or beliefs such as creationism. They are to found through observing the closest thing to us when it comes to creation - ourselves.

This sounds like an interesting tangent, but hardly the Deep Thought saying "42" moment your suggesting. I notice a lot of discussion on the side of Creationists (just mentioning this as a tangental point myself) about things utterly unrelated to biology. In a recent thread I pointed out that while televangelist D. James Kennedy devoted an hour of air time to supposedly discussing evolution - he mostly just talked politics and sociology. Not that there aren't conclusions to be made from archaeology and evolutionary psychology about man's current state - but he never actually discussed any issues actually related to evoluiton at all.

As far as the fundamental questions go, they're actually quite simple... as long as we remember the answers are merely penultimate.

Who am I? I have a name. I have a family history. I have a myriad of social constructs like race, nationality and political affiliation. I have a myriad of social conventions like employment, areas of interest, choice of pet or preferred topics of discussion. I have a phylogenetic classification. Who I am is, if anything, over defined these days.

Of course that's a penultimate answer, as is the one to "How did I get here?" My parents, one from Texas, one from Massachusetts, after millions of years of evolutionary selection and social development happened to meet in the late 1960s, married, had sex and I was born. The same can be said for any other person, rabbit, gecko or pineapple on the planet.

What is the meaning? Hmmm. What is the meaning of the Earth itself? What is the meaning of life? Of the life of a rabbit, or gecko or pineapple? Of a person born into prosperity in the U.S.? Of a person born in Niger, or Darfur? What about a baby born with a congenital defect that dies within days of birth?

Astrophysics, Biology, Archaeology and Genetics can give us a very straight forward answer as to why certain lives play out as they do... but science can never assign meaning, importance or value to those lives.

How does it work? Actually the very core of the theory of evolution describes "how it works." Associated fields like Archaeology and Evolutionary Psychology delve deeper into "why it works" regarding the connection between "how" and your previously mentioned ultimate/penultimate questions.

Of course all of my responses are predicated on atheistic materialism, but a theistic evolutionary response would be similar save the periodic detail.

By observing the creativity of our own being, we can come to understand creativity at a larger scale, ie the creation of the universe, and how all things come into being. Then there can be agreement, and then some peace.

Now you're stepping from the penultimate to to the ultimate.

Not to be dismissinve, but here's a problem I think you'll find in trying to moderate between Creationists and the evolution side. When it comes to the ultimate questions - many creationists who are theistic evolutionists and materialist atheists don't waste much time debating the origin of the Universe, matter, the Earth or life. Biological Evolution of extant life on an extant Earth from extant matter in an extant Universe happened....

Of that question, there is no disagreement between the two sides mentioned above. It's only the Creationists who have a problem with it

[CJK]

Could it be that the answer to the fundamental questions we ask ourselves (like who am I, how did I get here, what is the meaning, how does it work etc) are not to found through theories such as evolution, or beliefs such as creationism. They are to found through observing the closest thing to us when it comes to creation - ourselves. By observing the creativity of our own being, we can come to understand creativity at a larger scale, ie the creation of the universe, and how all things come into being. Then there can be agreement, and then some peace.

I agree; God was created as an ideological ideal of Mankind's image.