evolution and creation

most of the christians i know assume that genesis is allegory and evolution is scientific "fact." i can't imagine why the two can't be resolved. i think there are far more christians taking genesis literally than jews, and christians didn't write genesis.

but this forum... talks all day long about evolution vs. creationism in thread after thread, and you never hear from christians that think the two can be resolved here, even though i think they're the norm anywhere else.

that is, that a creator god could put evolution in motion. and the idea that people promoting evolution would call this resolution a "copout." most christians think the earth revolves around the sun, i don't think that's a copout. why would being aware of any other scientific knowledge be? evolution doesn't prove there's no god, it merely works without requiring one.

religion is a seperate issue, and should be treated as one, by both sides. but no one here ever agrees with that.

IF god created the universe, and evolution is part of the universe, god created evolution as well, right?

lol, i think thats my first try at "logic!" , does that actually work? im pretty sure thast correct...

Nothing wrong with that. It's just, science does not consider speculation without foundation. Whether a god had a hand in it is not directly addressed.

IM ASSUMING GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, WHICH I THINK MAKES THAT LOGIC WORK, EVEN IF ASSUMED.

BUT I REALLY DONT THINK GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, AT LEAST IN THE MAINSTREAM SENSE.

More specifically, one could say that all we know has come about through the operation of natural law and God is the author of natural law.

This, however, still leaves much to speculation.

You are correct!

My question for the ID crowd is that lets say that tomorrow we were to meet a whole culture of beings (none of which were gods), and say one of those beings came forth and said "I did it, I created the universe," what would the ID responce be?

A) To accept that the universe was created but not by a god (or gods).
B) To reject that the being created the universe even though it supported their beliefs that it was created.

if B, what type of evidence would the ID crowd demand from this being to validate it's claim. I think the answer would be quite profound as to the true beliefs of the person.

T
K
O?

Wouldn't such a culture of creatures necessarily be classified as gods according to most people's definition? I'm curious as to how an entity would have the capability of creating a universe without fulfilling the criterion for dietyhood.

Hence the paradox.

T
K
O

For instance, it could be pixies. The means of creation could be magic. Not gods, but still created.

For instance, it could be aliens from a different universe. The means could be science. There universe being created by a different race of aliens from yet a third universe and so on.

It doesn't have to be a god by definition. I think IDers just insist that it is intenionally created or designed.

T
K
O

OK, thanks for clarifying Deist.

if aliens did create life on earth, would religion be in essence propaganda they used to control us like slaves?

and if they didnt, isnt religion still propganda used to contorl peoples minds?

i think humanity has alot of religious weaning to do before we can elevate ourselves to higher standards.

by weaning i meant from "blind-faith" religious dogma, buddhism for example is ok, it harms noone else. (or it is supposed to at least )

yet christianity has lead a swath of terror beyond even hitlers wildest dreams.

I don't think that the decisions of christians should be used as a criterion for determining the validity of their beliefs; the actions you listed are generally considered immoral by the majority of christians. More importantly, these actions have no connection to the concept of creationism or evolution. Please leave the red herrings and ad hominems at the door.

Re: evolution and creation

It depends on whether you take it literally or not.

Some people take it literally. Those people have to adjust their view of reality to make it fit the bible.

Other people take it metaphorically. Those people adjust their view of the bible to make it fit reality.

A few people realize that the bible is just another fable, so they don't have to worry about it at all.

it's funny to me when people are "all or nothing" about something. i mean we are, sometimes. and a lot people are, a lot.

id is a very all or nothing approach to the interpretation (a "literal" interpretation is an interpretation, too...) of scripture. to have people believe in god without throwing out something as reasonable as evolution is good, i think. but that's just not good enough for some people, as though science requires atheism.

science never did require atheism, it just doesn't require god. that's why it's so odd for the church to fight scientific thought.

but when people that realize evolution makes perfect sense start telling people that god is unreasonable, i start to see rational religious believers and on the other hand, irrational fundamentalists fighting on the side of science. that makes me sad.

of course i think science can just throw id right out. when there is scientific evidence (not just tabloid crayon scribbling) for god, science can study it. until then, i *really* wish that "evolutionists" wouldn't alienate the ally they have in liberal christians, etc. by saying "oh you believe in evolution, great, but now about this god nonsense..." we agree it has nothing to do with science, that should be good enough. everybody has stupid beliefs, atheists included.

Well Put.

T
K
O

tinygiraffe, I agree that evolution vs. ID is separate from the theism/athiesm debate (yes, I used different formats for the two different debates. So sue me), but I don't agree that atheism is without evidence. When making a claim as extraordinary as the existence of a god, extraordinary evidence is needed is needed to back it up. In a case such as this, a lack of evidence is evidence of lacking.

But, back on topic, ID is a giant, steaming load of BS. It troubles me that people buy into it, and it troubles me even further that they buy into it forcefully enough to try to force it into schools.

they should be two separate issues, but unfortuately they're often intermingled. i wasn't accusing you personally of anything!

atheism is perfectly reasonable. the fact that it's perfectly reasonable being used as an excuse to go force other people to be "perfectly reasonable" bothers me.

i think atheists and believers should be free to talk about what they think, so long as it abuses no one. on the point of regulation, i think they should say whatever, i'm not talking about limiting the speech of others.

on the point of human decency, i think extremism fails on both sides. i'm talking about simply being fair to people. it's the taunting on both sides that i find disgusting, more than the views themselves. a little bit of taunting will happen, but there's got to be such a thing as "too much," whatever it is. i don't think it's a way to enlighten people, whether it's religious enlightenment, or rational and scientific enlightenment.