A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
John Bauer
Apprentice
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 64 times

A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #1

Post by John Bauer »

I am trying to construct a continuum of the different views regarding origins and would like some suggestions and feedback on constructing this thing. Maybe you think the order should be different, maybe I missed one or two perspectives, etc.

Here's what I've hammered out so far:

A. Theism
----- I. Creationist
---------- 1. Young-earth creationist
--------------- a. Flat Earth Geocentrist
--------------- b. Round Earth Geocentrist
--------------- c. Round Earth Heliocentrist
---------- 2. Old-earth creationist
--------------- a. Gap creationist
--------------- b. Day-age creationist
-------------------- i. Progressive creationist
--------------- c. Evolutionary creationist
---------- 3. Intelligent design proponent
B. Deism
----- I. Theistic evolutionist
C. Atheism
----- I. Evolutionary naturalist

Updated to add: Revised list (February 13, 2021):

A. Theism
----- I. Creationist
---------- 1. Young-earth creationist
--------------- a. Flat-earth geocentrist
--------------- b. Round-earth geocentrist
---------- 2. Old-earth creationist
--------------- a. Gap creationist
--------------- b. Day-age creationist
-------------------- i. Progressive creationist
--------------- c. Evolutionary creationist
--------------- d. Intelligent design
----- II. Evolutionist (i.e., theistic evolution)
B. Deism
----- I. Evolutionist (i.e., deistic evolution)
C. Atheism
----- I. Evolutionist (i.e., naturalistic evolution)
Last edited by John Bauer on Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 349 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #31

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #32]
God created nature. So a "purely natural process" is merely another form of God's creation.
Of the thousands of gods that humans have invented over the millennia (all long after the known universe and our tiny planet Earth appeared on the scene), which one "created nature"? Don't you have to pick a particular god for the creation to have this statement be justified? If so, how do you choose the correct one? What of all the gods that were described and believed in prior to the more modern monotheist religions? Do they not count? Which god are you referring to by the singular and capitalized "God", and why is this one the creator of "nature"?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #32

Post by The Barbarian »

Tcg wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 2:02 am
What aspect of the evolutionary theory does Michael Behe accept?
This kind of thing:

Unlike William A. Dembski[25] and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species,[26] including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe. In his own words:

"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." Darwin's Black Box, pp 5–6.

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives." The Edge of Evolution, pp. 71–72

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

You might want to consider the views of Michael Denton, another IDer, who inspired Behe:

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.

Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #33

Post by The Barbarian »

God created nature. So a "purely natural process" is merely another form of God's creation.
DrNoGods wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 10:02 pm Of the thousands of gods that humans have invented over the millennia (all long after the known universe and our tiny planet Earth appeared on the scene), which one "created nature"?
The one we have.
Don't you have to pick a particular god for the creation to have this statement be justified?
I don't see why.
If so, how do you choose the correct one? What of all the gods that were described and believed in prior to the more modern monotheist religions? Do they not count?
They do. Humans have always tried to understand God. And there have been many different ways.

Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life"
Pope Paul VI, Nostra Aetate

Online
User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7144
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1273 times
Been thanked: 1504 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #34

Post by Tcg »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:22 pm God created nature. So a "purely natural process" is merely another form of God's creation.
DrNoGods wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 10:02 pm Of the thousands of gods that humans have invented over the millennia (all long after the known universe and our tiny planet Earth appeared on the scene), which one "created nature"?
The one we have.
Godchecker has documented nearly four thousand gods and godlike things. We don't have only one god:
Welcome to Godchecker

We have more Gods than you can shake a stick at.

Our legendary mythology encyclopedia now includes nearly four thousand weird and wonderful Gods, Supreme Beings, Demons, Spirits and Fabulous Beasts from all over the world. Explore ancient legends and folklore, and discover Gods of everything from Fertility to Fluff with Godchecker...

https://www.godchecker.com/

Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #35

Post by The Barbarian »

Tcg wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:34 pm
Godchecker has documented nearly four thousand gods and godlike things. We don't have only one god:
One God. Innumerable attempts to describe Him.

Online
User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7144
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1273 times
Been thanked: 1504 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #36

Post by Tcg »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:06 am
Tcg wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:34 pm
Godchecker has documented nearly four thousand gods and godlike things. We don't have only one god:
One God. Innumerable attempts to describe Him.
That's a simple claim to make. Now all you have to do is support it with verifiable evidence of some sort. Oh, and document how many of these you've investigated to reach this unsupported claim.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #37

Post by Diagoras »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:06 am One God. Innumerable attempts to describe Him.
If I replaced the word ‘god’ with ‘theory of gravity’ (for example), and made the same claim, I’m sure most reasonable people would object that the theory isn’t very useful if it can’t be agreed upon. What makes ‘god’ so special that it can have multiple, vague and conflicting descriptions, and out of all of them, how can someone determine which is most accurate?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #38

Post by The Barbarian »

One God. Innumerable attempts to describe Him.
Diagoras wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:49 am If I replaced the word ‘god’ with ‘theory of gravity’ (for example), and made the same claim, I’m sure most reasonable people would object that the theory isn’t very useful if it can’t be agreed upon.
I believe you've found another difference between a theory and faith. Well done.
What makes ‘god’ so special that it can have multiple, vague and conflicting descriptions,
Unique in the truest sense, eternal, etc. However, even a thing like a mountain can have multiple, vague, and conflicting descriptions, and still be a mountain, with useful perceptions of that reality.
and out of all of them, how can someone determine which is most accurate?
Why would it matter? Whatever a particular person or culture comprehends of His being is of value.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #39

Post by The Barbarian »

Tcg wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:14 am
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:06 am One God. Innumerable attempts to describe Him.
That's a simple claim to make. Now all you have to do is support it with verifiable evidence of some sort.
It's not a scientific claim, although there are certainly logical arguments for Him. The existence of natural law, for example. The perception of God is universal in human cultures, and appears to have been so from the beginning of humanity.

Of what use is a universal code of right and wrong, from an evolutionary perspective? Or for that matter, a universal perception of God?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 349 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #40

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #41]
Of what use is a universal code of right and wrong, from an evolutionary perspective?
Not sure how you intend the word "universal" here, but some basic understanding of what is right and wrong (within their groups) appears to be inherent in all social animals in order for them to survive and reproduce optimally. I've seen plenty of groups of cows, horses, sheep, ants, etc. all living together and generally not eating their young or killing each other, without any instructions from a god or anything like the Ten Commandments. Certain behaviors are condusive to continued survival and reproduction, and some basic knowledge of right and wrong seems to be one of them that is beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply