Design on a Dime

You know my position but it is not my intention to hijack your thread with atheistic evangelism. If you feel I am doing so please do let me know and I will desist.I thought I would try answering your questions from the context of the creationist position as I (and other non-believers) understand it to be. In the name of clarifying their position maybe a creationist can then tell us where I have got it wrong? Literalists claim six days but there seems to be some internal dispute as to exactly what a 'day' means in the absence of the objects normally needed to define such things (i.e. the Sun) Around 6 thousand years ago according to calculations of age and geneology stated in the bible starting from Adam. 4002BC I believe was once the official date of creation according to the church? As I understand it creationist believe that no new 'kinds' are possible but that microevolution and some form of speciation (in the sense of related creatures diverging to the point of being unable to breed together) will continue. Hmm. Enough to make the ongoing existence of humans a certainty at the very least. I would guess most creationists would believe that the initial setup was 'planned' in the sense that it was intended to a very high degree but that subsequent events have been left to the laws of nature initially setup. Initially very little if anything. Subsequently the laws of nature including chance events have taken place as God has sat back with a more 'hands off' approach. I think the real fundamentalists believe in the 'created whole' version of events. It is this that is most at odds with scientific findings and it is this that less fundamentalist believers have on the whole rejected in favor of the more incrememtal approach that science suggests.I think this is the key difference between fundamentalists and the majority of believers who accept the conclusions of mainstream science to some degree. Hmm. That is difficult. At a 'changing natural laws' or 'interfering in natural processes' level the answer has to be 'no'. But at the same time belief in a personal God does imply that God has a personal interest in the lives of individual humans and the ability to change their lives as the result of prayer or other communication. Unless God is just providing spiritual comfort but not intervening physically in any way this seems internally contradictory so it may well be that I have got that wrong.Be interested to see what creationists make of my 'role playing' answers and how they would correct them.Ana - Please do tell me if you would rather I left you and the genuine believers to get on with the discussion undisturbed.

Firstly let me state that I am not here to pick an argument with you and will take your answers at face value and without cynicism.I wish only to clarify not to contest.Ana set up this thread for her fellow Christians to explain their views in the context of belief and I will respect that.But I do want to clarify your position regards this as I think it is also relevant to what Ana is interested in - Does this mean that whatever physical evidence is or can be found for evolution you will ALWAYS believe evolution to be wrong?
Is your belief in the literal truth of the bible so strong that your views on evolution are effectively fixed irrespective of what science has to say on the matter now or at any point in the future?

My genuine aim is to be a help not a hindrance in this particular thread. I am glad that you think my contribution so far has met that aim. Bishop Ussher calculated the date of the Creation at 23 October 4004. My understanding is that this was adopted as the official date of creation by at least one particular church but I am having trouble finding which one it was. It may well be that I have got my facts wrong. I am not sure what exactly is meant by a 'kind'. It is a creationist term that frankly seems fairly loosely defined. As I understand it all forms of canine (dogs, wolves etc.) are one 'kind' whilst all forms of cats (tigers, panthers, lions etc. etc. etc.) are another 'kind'
Whatever the case this fundamentally disagrees with evolutionary theory which is based on descent from a common ancestor. According to evolutionary theory cats and dogs share a common mammalian ancestor and are thus related but seperate species of mammals.The short answer to your question is 'yes'
New 'kinds' are possible and indeed have occurred (according to evolution) but the term 'kinds' is not a term that has any real meaning within evolutionary science. Presumably a chance event that would potentially lead to the extinction of the human race (a comet hitting the Earth for example) would be something that God would actively not allow.
That would be my take anyway. Well yes obviously I do agree. BUT this is linked to my question to NJ regarding the extent to which science is effectively irrelevent on the subject of how various life forms came to exist.
For the answer to this we need a real hardcore creationist rather than my adopted role version. Yes I suppose that is what miracles are. I was thinking more along the lines of slightly influencing the life of an individual person on a day to day basis rather than drastic measures such as bringing back from the dead and such like.BTW Whatever you say I quite like the title of the thread

Yes. Given environmental conditions conducive to change and enough time for change to take place. That is definitely the conclusion of evo theory.Evolution is seen as a current and ongoing process not just something that has taken place in the past.'All species are transitional' as they say.............Your thread seems to have taken off and be achieving the aims you had for it. No mean feat in this climate of atheistic cynicism

Ana is not the only one that is unsure of your exact position.What role, if any, do you think God plays or has played in the physical universe (or even multiverse should that be the case).Once again I feel that I need to state that this is a genuine question not a percieved opportunity for confrontation of any sort.

Your approach seems more deistic than theistic?Or have I got that wrong?Do you differentiate between the two (deism and theism)? If so how? And which do you consider yourself to be (deist, theist)?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Would a freewheeling playwrite be a better analogy than an artist?One who defines the story, sets the scene and creates the characters but who ultimately lets the actors interpret those characters to the best of their ability and lets the story unfold within certai predefined parameters?All the worlds a stage........etc. etc.

Never occurred to me to think you were dispensing with freewill!!Was simply proposing that a playwrite writing for a set of ad-libbing and improvising actors was maybe a better anology than an artist painting a picture. Nothing more. OK but I am not sure how that fits in with what we 'know' about the universe. Namely that it had a beginning in the form of the Big Bang and that ultimately it will either collapse or stagnate into an entropic 'death'.
Or am I still confusing physical universe with the way you meant to use the word in the phrase ?In other words I don't think I get what you mean by ??

Well I do now see the context of what you meant but I am not sure that any of this (the definition) makes any real sense.
It strikes me that phrases like 'God is all and all is God' or 'God is the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be' are basically just superficially profound statements that don't really mean anything at all. Not even to the people that make them.They are the sort of thing that teenagers trying to sound impressively deep and meaningful might say after a few too many spliffs.Is the idea that God is an all pervading omni-consciousness without physical form? Again - What does that actually mean in practical terms? Is God really partaking in my decision as to whether to go to the gym this evening or sit at home and drink wine with Mrs Straggler? Does god experience my most intimate and embarressing moments? If so why? To what purpose? I may have been pussy footing a bit in general but I had genuinely not even considered the question of freewill until you said I had!! Playwrite seems to me to be a better anology for a god than an artist does. That is all.

The more I hear here at EvC and the more books I read on the nature of the universe etc. The more I think that there is at least an arguable case for some sort of deism.At the moment I would even go so far as to describe myself as a middling to strong atheist with weak deistic tendancies. (Yikes!)However I do find the idea of a personal God completely unbelievable and I don't get the 'all pervading consciousness' concept at all.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The cause and effect argument is not a good one from a practical point of view.Quantum theory suggests (and there is physical evidence for) "uncaused" events.Why does one atom of an element decay when another does not is the simplified and easily observed version of this question.
Any theist advocating cause and effect as a founding principle of nature should investigate this first before extrapolating to the universe as a whole.
Quantum theory suggests that cause and effect as we know it is more a limitation of human macroscopic perception than a fundamental principle of nature.The idea of the universe as uncaused in terms of a probabilistic events is speculative but grounded in well founded quantum principles.Where the "rules" or "laws" that allow this probabilistic outcome to occur come from is the deeper and more meaningful question.I am not dismissing your misgivings but there is an extra layer of complexity that you seem unaware of before the concerns you espouse are to any practical intent relevant. (IMHO)