NationStates Jolt Archive

At their purest, not the ramifications, do they? For example, evoulutionary theory does not state we evolved out of whatever, that is a ramification. On the other side, where does it say anywhere that after creation, things could not change. Just throwing out food for thought (although a clumsy throw it may be).

Given that creationism has been invented purely to give a gloss of science to the beliefs of people who refuse to accept any evidence for evolution, I'd have said that they were mutually exclusive, yes. That's rather the point of creationism, as far as i can tell.

No, they don't. It's entirely possible that if we were created by some higher being, it was in a slightly different form to the one we are in now, and that we have arrived at this new form via evolution.

Yes.

You can't test for the existence or non-existence of God......

Sort of, but a muddle of creationism and evolution can no longer be counted as science.

No, they don't. It's entirely possible that if we were created by some higher being, it was in a slightly different form to the one we are in now, and that we have arrived at this new form via evolution.
That isn't actually the core of creationist theory though: the whole argument is that God created all the creatures on the earth in their present form in seven days. Any extinctions took place during the flood, apparently.

I would have to say that creationism and evolution are not necessarily exclusive to one another. Some people believe in Intelligent Design as a theory, and that pretty much blends both together. I think the issue has been polarized by the extremes and the battle is being fought in terms of black and white. Either way both are theories and there is no way of proving either absolutely true or false. With that kind of uncertainty I would hope that there would be some middle ground.

The religion of creationism is necessarily mutually exclusive with scientific theories such as evolution, because they don't share the same language, and creationism does not acknowledge the same values, nor agree to the same basic concepts as science.

It's like asking if birds and deep-sea fish are mutually exclusive. No, they aren't, you can get an individual of each and compare them side-by-side, but that doesn't make much sense in the first place.

That isn't actually the core of creationist theory though: the whole argument is that God created all the creatures on the earth in their present form in seven days. Any extinctions took place during the flood, apparently.

Have I mixed up Creationism and Intelligent Design?

I think that if Evolution and Creationism want to date other people, as long as they both agree to it, they should be able to do so.

I would have to say that creationism and evolution are not necessarily exclusive to one another. Some people believe in Intelligent Design as a theory, and that pretty much blends both together. I think the issue has been polarized by the extremes and the battle is being fought in terms of black and white. Either way both are theories and there is no way of proving either absolutely true or false. With that kind of uncertainty I would hope that there would be some middle ground.

Saying they are both theories is like saying that a color and a fruit are both oranges. It is technically true, but you have to go through two different definitions to get there.

Yes, evolutionary theory is a theory, as are the theory of relativity, the laws of thermodynamics, the idea that DNA is the information carrier of life, etc. In science, theory means much, much more than in lay-terms.

Meanwhile, like all scientific theories, evolutionary theory cannot be proven absolutely true, but it can be proven false. This is a requirement in science. On the other hand, religion cannot be proven true or false, it is faith-based.


To the original poster: I can't answer the poll until you define [i]exactly[i] what you mean by Creationism. If you are referring to a literal interpretation of one of the Genesis creation stories, then yes, they are mutually exclusive. If you are referring to the idea that there is a deity of some sort that created everything, then no, they are not mutually exclusive.

Have I mixed up Creationism and Intelligent Design?
I think you may have, but I'm not entirely sure where one starts and the other leaves off, to be honest.

It also depends on what the OP means by mutually exclusive.

Does the OP mean to ask: Does the truth of one require that the other be false?

Or: Are the two concepts seperate with no overlap whatsoever, though both might exist in the same reality?

It depends on how you define creationism and evolution.

For example, if you define creationism as "The Judeo-Christian god created the earth with all its 'kinds' of creatures less then 10 thousand years ago" commonly called Young Earth Creationism then yes it is incompatible...

However if you subscribe to the idea that a god-like figure created the universes in such a way that through the specific seeming randomness of natural law mankind developed then no it isn't incompatible, it wouldn't be science, but it wouldn't conflict. (I've heard this called Initial Value Theory).

yes they are mutually exclusive.

creationism relies on the validity of the book of genesis. adam and eve, the garden of eden, the creation of all life in its current form, the ark, sodom and gamorrah. the whole 9 yards

intelligent design on the other hand is more amenable to evolution. it just suggests that "god" started it all and personally guided the evolutionary development of the various species.

intelligent design on the other hand is more amenable to evolution. it just suggests that "god" started it all and personally guided the evolutionary development of the various species.
Which suggests that God doesn't have a clue what he's doing, really, even if it is less laughable than the other.

Which suggests that God doesn't have a clue what he's doing, really, even if it is less laughable than the other.
so true

but if you think of god as the nerdy guy in that big laboratory in the sky you wont get so hung up on why everything he makes is so screwed up.

i dont see why having a creator means he has to be good at what he does.

so true

but if you think of god as the nerdy guy in that big laboratory in the sky you wont get so hung up on why everything he makes is so screwed up.

i dont see why having a creator means he has to be good at what he does.
Quite. Perhaps he subcontracted the act of creation out to slightly dim dwarves, as in Time Bandits...

As far as Intelligent Design (ID) Theory is concerned, it is in fact incompatible, at least as I understand ID. ID's central claim is that there are biological features of "irreducible complexity" that cannot possibly have been evolved, and therefor must have been specifically created by something (ID doesn't say whether God or space aliens or something else did it). A common example of such a feature is blood clotting. It works in such a particular, intricate way the ID Theorists claim it could not have evolved. By analogy, someone walking along the road that finds a watch would not assume that all the intricate gears and mechanisms are the result of geology, but rather that there must be some watchmaker responsible for it's creation. ID Theory is specifically a refutation of evolution.

For the record, I don't hold this position. I'm just trying to present it as I've studied it in a Philosophy of Science course. As such, I may have presented the argument wrong, but it generally goes along those lines.

Quite. Perhaps he subcontracted the act of creation out to slightly dim dwarves, as in Time Bandits...
hahahahha

that would explain SOOOO much!

No. (to original question)

Even abiogenesis is not contradictory to my religious beliefs.

Wasn't this addressed just recently? Someone even started a club with propellor hats.

cre·a·tion·ism Audio pronunciation of "creationism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-sh-nzm)
n.

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

So yes ... now the belief that god set things in motion
THAT does not nessisarily have to conflict but evolution and CREATIONISM does

people just confuse what creationism is

The Catholic Church doesn't have an issue with Evolution, because they -unlike some other so called christian groups- understand that God does not have to contradict reason.

intelligent design on the other hand is more amenable to evolution. it just suggests that "god" started it all and personally guided the evolutionary development of the various species.

That isn't the ID they are trying to force into the schools. It specifically says, "Evolution couldn't have done this, therefore Goddidit..."

Creationism is irreconcilable with evolution as per definition of creationism.

Edit: Oh, I see someone beat me to it.

Not at all. There are many people who believe in theistic evolution (God created the universe through evolution). They dont throw away the book of Genesis, they simply interpret it differently. They interpret each "day" of creation as an age (in other parts of the bible it mentions that God is beyond time and one day to him could be like a thousand to us) rather than a period of 24 hours.

They are mutually exclusive by definition. Evolution is formation through gradual change, meaning it is based on what came before, while the Creation is bringing things into being fully formed from nothingness.

I think that if Evolution and Creationism want to date other people, as long as they both agree to it, they should be able to do so.
lol

At their purest, not the ramifications, do they? For example, evoulutionary theory does not state we evolved out of whatever, that is a ramification. On the other side, where does it say anywhere that after creation, things could not change. Just throwing out food for thought (although a clumsy throw it may be).

[To re-interate what I have interated before in previous threads]

There are various "Creationistic" theories, ranging from absolute pure mythos [Young Earth Creationism] to interoperable views [Theistic Evolution]...

Of the various somewhat mainstream views in present culture, included are:

Young Earth Creationism
Old Earth Creationism [Day-Age Theory]
Progressive Creationism
Theistic Evolution [and Evolutionary Creationism]

Now, science, as normally understood, specifically the empirical sciences [ex. Physics, Chemistry, Biology]... Are just that empirical... Only dealing with the physical facts and evidences to postulate a position... However, unlike the "Creationistic" views, science itself does not invoke the non-empirical... Thus, the above views are not compatible within a science class...

Theistic Evolution [for example], may have scientific [read empirical] aspects, but much like Young Earth Creationism, does not actually belong in a discourse on biology, because, while scientific [once again read empirical] in certain elements; is not completely empirical.

No matter what the personal philosophical adoption regarding the creative aspects of the universe , as soon as you invoke non-empirical elements, it no longer belongs within the realm of [i]science.

Science is not set upon prooving or disprooving the non-empirical.

Can there be a "cohabitation", at least within people, of "Creatorial" elements and empirical evolutionary elements? Yes... Theistic Evolution, Evolutionary Creationism and Progressive Creationism proove it can.... Should this "cohabitation" be extended into the curriculum of a class in the empirical sciences? No...

Also, if you're saying that creation was ex-nihlo, and then stating that, in basic, the evolutionary processes are an occurance after this point; then you are most certainly adopting a view of the Progressive Creationist... And would not be counted with, what is widely being dissiminated as "Creationism", which is almost exclusively being used as total ex-nihlo Young [mostly] and Old Earth Creationism [Which ID is a synonym of].

Maybe not the theories. But Creationism is not a theory in the scientific sense.

A theory, to be scientifically useful, has to be testable. You have to be able to stress it and "break" it with other, scientifically given facts.

We know, from observation and experiment, how some of the universe works. And we have a theory, based on those observations and experiments, that the universe came into existance in a certain way.

On the other side sits God, who cannot be tested, scientifically. Does he exist? If you believe, he does. If not, he does not. But there is no objective test to challenge him.

Science is a very objective way of approaching something. Sure, some will defend their point of view against all odds (hell, scientists are humans after all and we all have our pet theories), but those theories can be "tested to breaking point". And should they break against other scientific proof, they are shattered and gone to the trashcan.

God cannot be put to test. God is. Or not. Depending on your point of view, but there is no objective way to challenge him.

So comparing those theories is moot. Evolution offers some scientific "hooks" to which you can hang it. There are fossils, there are layers in the earth in which they're found, there are bones and shells, there are extinct species, there are trilobites and dinosaurs. There's support from geology which tells us the Earth is (correct me if I'm wrong) about 5 billion years old (a bit more than the 5000something the Bible comes up with). Also geology supports the idea of developing species with different species found on different parts of the Earth, with tectonic and the spreading of the continents.

Biology chimes in with mutation as the change in DNA, which is a SLOW process, but as geology told us, we got plenty of time at hand.

On the other hand stands ... God. Sure, if you believe in him, he can do whatever he wants, in 6 days (or less, if he so chooses, but he wanted to do it in 6 days, his choice). But it's a matter of faith.

Not science.

Creationism is irreconcilable with evolution as per definition of creationism.

Edit: Oh, I see someone beat me to it.
Yup ... people just incorrectly use the term creationism

Well . . . sometimes they have to be exclusive. For example, almost all creationists believe in micro-evolution, and most creationists believe in an old world, with progressive creation. However, it depends on how you interpret the Bible. (considering that most creationists are Christian.) You can take the creation of man literally, or figuratively. Also, the Bible makes claims about creation and promotes statements that occasionally contradict some factors of evolutionary theory. Evolution is accepted by science, so many atheists take the chance to hit a blow below the belt, calling creationists stupid and anti-science. There is also faults with creationists, who affirm that all evolutionists go to Hell, knowledge that is held only with God.

I think that if Evolution and Creationism want to date other people, as long as they both agree to it, they should be able to do so.
Point for Gymoor.

They are mutually exclusive, because one is based on science, the other on a bunch of stories for people who apparently can't comprehend unguided complexities determined by natural forces.

Science is a very objective way of approaching something. Sure, some will defend their point of view against all odds (hell, scientists are humans after all and we all have our pet theories), but those theories can be "tested to breaking point". And should they break against other scientific proof, they are shattered and gone to the trashcan.
...
On the other hand stands ... God. Sure, if you believe in him, he can do whatever he wants, in 6 days (or less, if he so chooses, but he wanted to do it in 6 days, his choice). But it's a matter of faith.

Not science.


Well said.

Evolution and Creationism per the Genesis account are irreconciliable if Genesis is to be taken literally in its current translation. However, Genesis can be taken a number of ways, and many Biblical scholars will argue that the Bible is timeless (not that it will stand the test of time...we know that...but that there is no defined timeline.)

The six days may be a metaphor. Also, keep in mind that the idea of a day wouldn't have been defined before God created all the stuff he created. Did God have a well-defined plan or did He go into this by the seat of His pants? Also, bear in mind the Biblical notion that a day in heaven is equivalent to a thousand years on Earth. That still puts the time to create everythin at 6,000 years, which certainly is a far cry from the 4.5 billion years the Earth is said to have aged since its earliest days. However, it's difficult to think that, in the Biblical days, anyone had any idea that that the Earth could be over four billion years old. Before science could indicate anything like that, thousands of years were seen as a virtual eternity (granted, a thousand years is a long time, but it's far more measurable now that human history can be measured in centuries and millennia.)

Evolution and the broader idea of Intelligent Design are reconciliable, however. Many people point to the eye as an argument for ID, since it's considered extremely perfect and fine-tuned. However, the eye is absent from a species of cave fish that live underground and used to have eyes; the species no longer has any use for the eye and therefore it has evolved to the point of not having it. Regardless of its creation, evolution is present in nature in some clear ways to those who study history. We as humans are not as good at climbing trees or spearing animals as we once were; however, we build things, we have new ways to preserve things, and we adapt to a more connected world. That may not be evolution in the typical sense, but it is adaptation and learning to survive in new surroundings. This form of evolution is extremely evident in today's world, and since it is irreconciliable with Creationism, then Creationism as we know it cannot be right, QED.

I know there's probably a logical fallacy in there, but I don't really care; Creationism doesn't make sense to me and that's just that.

As far as I'm concerned, everything preceding the Big Bang is fair game for God.

What?

Evolution and Creationism per the Genesis account are irreconciliable...
Actually...no.

The principle of evolution is compatible with the Genesis or even the great flood.

It is merely the observed evidence that contradicts a simple* Genesis....Complex** Genesis being irrefutable.

* Evidence supports it as the best solution
** God is omnipotent (which in itself is a logical fallacy but serves to drive a point).