Creation and evolution - parts of the same?

NP. What I actually think is that we have evolved from earlier forms. In our earlier forms we existed according to the code of "kill or be killed" and also "kill to protect your ability to procreate and extend the species". That drive is probably just as fundamental as the drive to procreate. But, we are being challenged to live accroding to the golden rule. That constitutes a major change from the "old rule". Perhaps the story of creation in the beginning of God's efforts to retrain us into something better and more sophisticated than we once were.I'd appreciate your thoughts on this one.

What did "NP" mean, 'nope'?I do not consider eating bark, dead leaves and even finger nails to be part of "killing" yet it was here that Darwin might have causally linked some past form. Are you thinking of formations that were prior to this part of western culture?If a couple could easily live on the frontier then as long as you are not talking about black widows then there would not be an innate instinct to kill to reproduce. The motivation whether taught or in the genes would be to elope and do like an antelope when not outside the edge of some fronTIER.Now if you are trying to say something Biblical at this point you would have to be more obvious for me to understand why you think next of the "golden rule".I take it you get this idea of "k" or not be OK, as ill taken on my current apprehension of what you are asking, and from some schooling about what an older human society looked like? Do you have some other reason to think that "kill or be killed" and "kill to protect" are not also not the same part of today's world?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-20-2005 06:05 PM

NP = no problemFormations: I'm actually thinking about the people around us on the interstate (eg). We read about and experience anger (which sometimes leads to violence). Society generally considers violence by one human against another to be unacceptable except that there is considerable human-to-human violence in today's world. And yet, there are some of us who have "evolved" to the point where we offer no violence against any other person. The differences ask the question of "Why?" One possible explanation is the extent to which the lessons of creation and subsequent biblical (I include the Koran and other sacred writings here) teachings have taken hold on some individuals and not others.If we accept that kind of relationship between the two belief structures, we can begin to explore the intended impact of the lessons without having to consider any conflict between the two constructs.

Ok, now I understand. I am low on battery power so we will have to continue later. I can say that one more, I have tWo children illegitly and it seems to be passive violence that produced them. This is hard to explain but sometime when I feel like having a therapy session I'll explain. This is more subtle than "road rage" that clearly should not exist.The differences between creationism and evolution do not really help me because the only diffrents between US(her and me) is Catholic vs Protestant and I know nothing of Ireland etc.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-20-2005 06:19 PMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-20-2005 06:20 PM

I feel strongly the twin aspects creation/evolution dovetail perfectly. When people speak from within a religious context there are always problems because religions are man made and men are fallible. We can study God's works without the limiting filters of dogma however. I have some strong convictions as a result of long study.If the reader will go to my profile page and select my three postings he or she will get an idea of my beliefs on the general subject.Jacob

Thank you for your thoughts, Jacob. As you, I believe the two streams dovetail nicely. However, from what you've said, I infer that you feel that thoughts arising from a religious construct may have an unfair bias...or at least an inaccurate bias.My belief is that religion exists to meet the needs of each individual believer and therefore has no bias. One could examine each main stream or fringe faith and find that beliefs, or rules, or tenents, etc. more fully satisfy a given individual which is why an individual becomes an adherent...and why there is such a diversity of faiths.At a more fundamental level, I believe that evolution does and has always occurred. God has chosen to raise us to a higher level than evolution would. (If you consider the process of evolution as it is currently understood: there is little that would serve to create a sense of "love for each other" within evolution.)One tool God has chosen is the story of creation...or the teachings of Buddha...or the Koran. None is more right than another...just more effective for a given individual.The issue for me, really, is that God has chosen to raise us to a higher level...one supported by love for each other and care in the way we deal with each other. Consequently, we are obligated to pursue that concept to find its ultimate activation in our lives.Paul

"my interest is in discussing a paradigm in which the two might work together."Since the topic is word games why not use the logic of the creator of the philosophical word games, Wittgenstein.It seems to me that there is much room for evolution and creationism interconnect, but as you say the definitions need to be skewed. The fact of the matter is Creationism looks to God and the metaphysical for answers. Evolution relies on facts and things that are natural and observable. By how we interpret these today, we cannot let them coincide since they both have different goals.However, if you change the definition of science (i.e. what Discovery Institute is trying to do) then you can put these two ideas together.Of course you yourself can mash these two together with relative ease. This is because your definition of science is not what everyone elses is. For the Christian or other faiths for that matter, science includes God (This can obviously vary because of differing feelings of who and what God is). For the atheist, their idea of science does not include God. Since the atheist definition is the universal definition, until a new definition is sustained, the combined view of God and Evolution will also need to be done in a secular mannor.

Hi JJPgac, glad to see you getting involved in the discussions.Here is a way to make quoted text stand out.[qs]text to be quoted[/qs]This shows up as The "qs" stands for "quote shaded".When you are edit a reply, you should see "dBCodes On (help)" to the left of the edit window. Click on the "help" to open a window with help for other codes you can use.You can also click on the peek button at the bottom right of a message, to see how somebody else achieved the effect you are seeing.

---

NWR,
Thank you for the help. I appreciate seeing such courtesy when talking about such 'cutthroat' topics. You are a person that I feel is actually looking for knowledge, not just here to prove a point.- JJPgac

I agree. And indeed, many Christians accept evolution, and many evolutionary biologists are Christians. Many scientists believe that, in studying nature, they are studying God's handwork. They have no difficulty concluding that evolution is part of God's grand design.The is a debate only because a relatively small group of fundamentalists Christians insist on an unrealisticly literal reading of the Bible.

I personally believe that evolution is a result of God's work. However, what I am trying to say is that by the our definition of science today how could this truly be scientifically accurate? One is natural and the other is supernatural. Like I said if you could prove God's existence he could then be considered natural and therefore integrated into evolution. Since that has not happened I feel that myself and the scientists who believe evolution is from God have a different personal definition of science than those who believe evolution is independent of God.

Science is not about finding the complete and final explanation. Science is about finding practical explanations that allow us to make useful predictions.If God interacts with the world in predictable ways, then science will eventually discover these interactions, and they will become part of science. If God acts in mysterious ways, such that his actions are not predictable, then God's actions are not part of science (because they are not predictable).

Hi all.
Was just reading thru and I have to say, why is it that science is always expected to change to fit the demands of religion? Science is there for a reason, and only works in one way.
To change it's definition is to destroy it, while changing the interpretation of Genesis away from a literal one does nothing to the Bible's overall message. ....No offense, but this just isn't true.
Science is a formal discipline and as such has a strict methodologyScientific method - Wikipedia
Gives a basic runthru. Again, Science doesn't say that it can't find God, it says it can only observe the natural world, if you define God as being supernatural, then science won't find it, but it's not because of atheism.
To be honest, I don't think Creationism and Science can be "meshed". The only way this would be possible is if scientists discover the Bible to be accurate in what it says, and science hasn't done that, beyond placenames etc.
Usually tho' the best method of reconciling opposites, is to introduce a third element which checks both of the originals. (ie Liberty/equality 3rd element fraternity, which controls the conflict between the first two)
I think the element of "experimentation" fits here well, or perhaps "autonomy" if God created a system, then left it to see what would happen, evolution fits quite well here, so does the idea that God considered us "special" (we could hardly be considered so if we were exactly what was expected).
I'm an atheist personally, but don't see that others should believe what I do, Creationism, however sticks to a rigid principle, (which is actually unimportant to the Message of Christianity) regardless of evidence that they are wrong (not that the Bible is, just their view of it).
As has been pointed out many scientists are Christians, and have no problem reconciling the two.
The conflict here seems to be more of a power conflict imo than any real disagreement.

I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.
For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.
Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139
To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?There are six specific categories of life formed in the six?day account: 1. Plants in the sea, 2. Vegetation (plants and trees) on the
land, 3. Life (fish) in the sea, 4. Birds over the earth, 5. Life (cattle, etc.) on the earth, 6. Man.
The order of their listing in the six?day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence:
O1. Sea-plants: Pre?Cambrian 531 million B.C.
2. Land vegetation: Mid?Silurian 365?380 million B.C.
3. Aquatic life: Devonian 255?316 million B.C.
4. Birds: Jurassic 131 million B.C.
5. Land life: Paleocene Epoch 50?60 million B.C.
6. Man: Late Tertiary Period 1?3 million B.C.Do you really believe that this is coincidental? How did Moses know the correct order when he wrote Genesis thousands of years ago, long before the rise of the scientific methods that have objectively verified the Genesis account? The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence. Truly the Bible is the inspired Word of God!