A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
John Bauer
Apprentice
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 54 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
Miles
Guru
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 233 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #21

Post by Miles »

John Bauer wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:29 am
Miles wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:21 pm
[N]ot being familiar with Evolutionary Creationists, I read up on them a bit and find their position doesn't fit under the category of Creationists, as creationism is commonly understood, but would be better categorized as Evolutionary Theists.
They would disagree with you on both counts, according to that same article you had read. The people at BioLogos prefer the term Evolutionary Creationists because, quite frankly, "we are essentially creationists. We are not mere theists. We believe that [the triune] God [...] created all things. Our beliefs about God and creation come first." That's a fair bit more specific than mere theists, especially when you take into account all that stuff about the Bible.

Please also consider, again, the statement by Denis Lamoureux (see post #5 for publication info): "The most important word in the term ‘evolutionary creation’ is the noun ‘creation.’ These Christian evolutionists are first and foremost thoroughly committed and unapologetic creationists. They believe that the world is a creation that is absolutely dependent for every instant of its existence on the will and grace of the Creator" (emphasis mine). Again, that is a belief far more specific than mere theism contains.

So if you want to say that their position disqualifies them as Creationists, you have an uphill battle to fight.

You want to call them Evolutionary Theists, despite the fact that they explicitly rejected both terms. Again, from that article you had read: "We are not mere theists. [...] ‘Evolutionary’ is simply an adjective that describes creation and marks our acceptance of evolutionary science as the best scientific explanation we have for the diversity and similarity of life." They are not mere theists; they are first and foremost thoroughly committed creationists. Their view is not an alternative to creationism, as your list has it, but a form of creationism, as my original list had it—and the arguments put forward by Eugenie Scott with the National Center for Science Education concur, arguments which I had found influential in my efforts.[1] As she recognized, "The differences between [evolutionary creationism] and theistic evolution lie not in science but in theology, with EC being held by more conservative (evangelical) Christians who view God as being more actively involved in evolution than do most theistic evolutionists" (emphasis mine). Again, this is creationism, not mere theism. So,

Theism ---> Creationist ---> Old-earth creationist ---> Evolutionary creationist

(Notice that Eugenie Scott likewise has it listed as a form of old-earth creationism. She made a good case and it makes sense, so I accepted it.)
Judging by your reworking of the taxonomy (post #13), it seems you want to get rid of the term evolutionary creationist entirely, despite the prolific and cogent arguments by those who self-identify as evolutionary creationists. Why is that? By way of contrast, what is your opinion of Christians who want to get rid of the term "trans woman" despite the arguments made by those who self-identify as such?
I did read it, and from the description of themselves, and the nature of creationism,

cre·a·tion·ism
/krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/

noun: creationism
the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

I believe their belief is better described as evolutionary theists: those who believe in both a personal god and in evolution. And because they don't subscribe to creationism as commonly defined (see above), to call themselves evolutionary creationist is a contradictory misnomer. Of course people can call themselves whatever they want, but it should at least make sense. That said, there needs to be a category for such people (those who believe in both a personal god and in evolution), which I believe is best described as "Evolutionary Theists" or "Theistic Evolutionists." OR, because they already fall under the heading of "A. Theism," in your chart, perhaps simply "Evolutionists," as I have them below.

Miles wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:21 pm
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
-------------------- a. Progressive creationist
----------------C. Intelligent design proponent
----- II Evolutionary Theists
B. Deism
----- I. Deistic evolutionist
C. Atheism
----- I. Evolutionary naturalist


1. I accept your suggestion for "Evolutionist" as an alternative to "Creationist" (your first rework), adding it under "Theism" (i.e., theistic evolutionist).

2. I accept your suggestion of deistic evolutionist (your second rework), adding it as "Evolutionist" under "Deism" (i.e., deistic evolutionist).

3. I got rid of evolutionary naturalist under "Atheism" in order to maintain a consistent pattern, instead adding it as "Evolutionist" (i.e., naturalistic evolutionist).

4. At this point, I cannot accept getting rid of "Evolutionary creationist" entirely, nor calling them "Evolutionary theists" (the more common term for which is theistic evolutionist, and that's already included).

5. I eliminated "Round-earth heliocentrist," subsuming under "Young-earth creationist" generally, as that describes the majority of YECs anyway. Since geocentrists are an exception, not the rule, they get their own category.

6. Are there any geocentrists who hold an old-earth view? I'm not aware of any.

7. I categorized "Intelligent design" proponents as a type of creationist because, well, they are. And most of them are old-earth creationists so that's where I put it.
8. Since ID is inherent in YEC, it didn't warrant a separate category under YEC. Thoughts?
Agreed. They are OE creationists as you show.

So, with that said, here is the revised ordering:

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)
Looking better. However, in as much as flat earthers are a minor subset of kooks---to put it kindly---do you really feel they deserve inclusion? I mean, they're even step below the hollow earthers. And, while geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, as could any other object in the universe be, it is hardly a reasonable one.



So I question its inclusion. If this was my chart I'd reorder it as:

A. Theism
----- I. Creationist
---------- 1. Young-earth creationist
---------- 2. Old-earth creationist
--------------- a. Gap creationist
--------------- b. Day-age creationist
-------------------- i. Progressive creationist
--------------- c. Intelligent design
----- II. Evolutionists
B. Deism
----- I. Deistic Evolutionist
C. Atheism
----- I. Naturalistic Evolutionist


Making the (i.e. . . . . .) references unnecessary
Last edited by Miles on Sun Feb 14, 2021 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thomas123
Sage
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:04 am
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #22

Post by Thomas123 »

The obtuseness of my logic processes draws me back to the modus being employed in this threads undertaking. Allow me to comment please!

I feel like this is becoming the fruit and veg stall in a supermarket. I do not know whether the arrangement is a single line or a collection of rows.
People put turnips beside potatoes, beside onions. You often see colourful things like oranges ,placed beside bananas. Perishables can be placed for easy access, some produce are sold in heavy amounts and these may be placed in a low position, tomatoes are often found beside apples, etc ,etc.

Where to put the flat-earthers, indeed?
Put them beside the tomatoes, if the demand warrants it! Maybe remove them, as suggested.

Why are cornflakes and bread excluded from this section? Where do you put the flowers?All these start in the earth.

What is this thread's section called? What is it?
Is it the Belief Systems Section? Is it the "How the earth was made counter". This is an interesting and worthwhile exercise that I have enjoyed observing. Thanks.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1405
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #23

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to William in post #18]
That is why I mentioned the idea of finding a way in which we could communicate with said intelligence [ as you point out - it/they must be intelligent] so that we at least have opportunity in which to ask rather than simply make up stories.
By pure coincidence, I went to look at a YouTube video this morning (I like the full episodes of Modern Marvels, and How the Earth was Made, along with some old flat earth debunking videos by CoolHardLogic ... all good stuff) and up pops a suggestion from a woman I've never seen before. It was posted just yesterday and happens to be a commentary on the "Simulation Hypothesis." I expect you would totally disagree with it (she apparently does science videos for some time), but here it is:



Thought it was relevant to this thread.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown..
Carl Sagan

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

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 292 times
Contact:

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #24

Post by William »

DrNoGods wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 9:17 am [Replying to William in post #18]
That is why I mentioned the idea of finding a way in which we could communicate with said intelligence [ as you point out - it/they must be intelligent] so that we at least have opportunity in which to ask rather than simply make up stories.
By pure coincidence, I went to look at a YouTube video this morning (I like the full episodes of Modern Marvels, and How the Earth was Made, along with some old flat earth debunking videos by CoolHardLogic ... all good stuff) and up pops a suggestion from a woman I've never seen before. It was posted just yesterday and happens to be a commentary on the "Simulation Hypothesis." I expect you would totally disagree with it (she apparently does science videos for some time), but here it is:



Thought it was relevant to this thread.
In what way do you think this information is relevant?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 292 times
Contact:

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #25

Post by William »

My observations re the video Dr NoGods linked:

The personality in the video begins by claiming that the idea we exist within a Reality Simulation is "unscientific"

The Questions then asked are.

1: Why do some people believe in the hypothesis?

2: What exactly is the problem with it?

from 2:33 -3:22 it becomes clear that the personality in the video doe's not like the idea of mixing religion with science. This is clearly a personal opinion rather than an actual scientific concern. The personalities opinion is in answer to [2] but that she has a "problem" with simulation theory because it "mixes religion with science" which is "generally a bad idea" is besides the point as it is not an actual argument against simulation theory from science, but merely a needless opinion of the personality and indeed, from all personalities who argue such opinion.] "Needless" as in it does not add any scientific evidence to back it up.

7:00...not knowing what algorithms can produce the Universe does not in itself mean that we are not existing within a Reality Simulation.

8:40...it appears that the personalities main problem with the simulation theory is that it cannot be comprehensively examined using current scientific testing devices...so one shouldn't believe it is true.

I agree and would argue as well, that one shouldn't believe in it, because belief is based upon science and not faith.

Where I think she misses the mark is that one does not have to believe [have faith] in the Simulation Theory [being true] in order for one to examine the evidence we do have, in that light nor to understand the implications IF indeed it is true, and because some scientists think that it might indeed be true, does not make these scientists 'nerds' or "pseudo" [see derogatory name-calling as a bad form of argument] [Link]

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1405
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #26

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to William in post #26]
In what way do you think this information is relevant?
r

Certainly the topic is relevant to your bringing up simulations as that was the topic of the video, and it just came out on Feb 13. But I didn't say I agree with everything in it. I personally don't believe that we live in a simulated reality for the same reason I don't believe that gods exist ... lack of any convincing evidence. What she did not address was the prospect of some sort of intelligent beings out there who are so far beyond humans we can't comprehend it. She just ignored that altogether and stuck with what humans are capable of, so that could be given as a weakness in her arguments. Then again, we have no evidence for the existence of such entities so it is only speculation that they might exist which may be why she ignored it. Once you start those kinds of speculations I don't see how that differs from god hypotheses, and you're back with anything is possible because of the all powerful god being ... science is out the window at that point.

But this is a deviation from the OP and the initial question you had asked about where the simulated reality fit into the OP's listing. So I won't make any more responses in this thread.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown..
Carl Sagan

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

Thomas123
Sage
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:04 am
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #27

Post by Thomas123 »

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."

Thomas123
Unless people ignore physical evidence then surely this matter of science is beyond opinion. What your list is ,therefore, is a list of religious belief types, concluding with the absence of any ?

1. Fantasy
2. Conjecture
3. Indifference

Is this not the same list?

The Barbarian
Apprentice
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #28

Post by The Barbarian »

Tcg wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 2:02 amWhat aspect of the evolutionary theory does Michael Behe accept?
He describes himself as an evolutionist, and accepts common descent. He just thinks that God couldn't create a universe in which all this happens, without having to step in and fix it every now and then.

He apparently now concedes that irreducible complexity can, in principle, evolve, but he doesn't think it happens. I'm kinda surprised that he is still being touted by the Discovery Institute, after his testimony in the Dover Trial where he admitted that ID was science in the same sense that astrology is science.

From deposition statement:


17 Q. Using your definition of theory, is Creationism -- using
18 your definition of scientific theory, is Creationism a
19 scientific theory?
20 Behe. No.
21 Q. What about creation science?
22 Behe. No.
23 Q. Is astrology a theory under that definition?
24 Behe. Is astrology? It could be, yes.

https://thedesigninterference.blogspot. ... ology.html

User avatar
John Bauer
Apprentice
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #29

Post by John Bauer »

[Replying to Haven in post #21]
Haven wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:49 am
Wouldn’t this just be a theistic evolutionist?

I thought an evolutionary creationist believed in the basic science of evolution, but think a god / gods were heavily involved in the process (which could not have occurred naturally). I think of people like William Lane Craig and Mike Liconia hold to this standpoint.
With the term "Bible-believing Christian" I was trying to capture the sense of an evangelical Christian who affirms the supreme authority of infallible Scripture. So, no, such a person would not be just a theistic evolutionist. As you recognized, evolutionary creationists believe that God is intricately involved in the natural world, whereas theistic evolutionists believe there is such a thing as purely natural processes. As Eugenie Scott said, "The differences between [evolutionary creationism] and theistic evolution lie not in science but in theology, with EC being held by more conservative (evangelical) Christians who view God as being more actively involved in evolution than do most theistic evolutionists."

The Barbarian
Apprentice
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: A Creation/Evolution Continuum

Post #30

Post by The Barbarian »

As you recognized, evolutionary creationists believe that God is intricately involved in the natural world, whereas theistic evolutionists believe there is such a thing as purely natural processes.
God created nature. So a "purely natural process" is merely another form of God's creation.

Post Reply