Utrimque writes:
It's like saying the paint is white because it reflects most of the light hitting it or saying it is white because that is the color the artist chose, in some peoples mind only the former is true, and other refuse that light is involved. I'm saying I view both as equally correct statements and that neither negates the other, not that the artist existence affects the fact that white paint reflects light.
I like your analogy. I also don't see any problem with religion and science. As you've defined them, anyway. I'm just not sure that your analogy correctly displays what we are able to witness in reality. Let's start with what we both agree with, your definitions:
Evolution: The creation of new types organisms by a complex series of genetic modifications and natural selection.
Creationism: The creation of the universe and all thats in it by god(s for you polytheistic types)
In their most basic sense it means that god created the universe, big bang, and all of its/his/her laws are merely tools for making sure that every thing runs smoothly.
I agree with everything you've said here. Well, your ideas, at least. I would rename what you've labelled as "Creationism" to be "Theism", but that's just semantic nit-picking. To me, Creationism carries a lot more baggage than simply the belief that God began the universe. We'll use your definitions anyway, though.
Now, getting into where I start to disagree:
Would it be so overreaching to assume that god created the universe in such a way that with the laws as he created, (physics, gravity, magnetism, chemistry, ect.), to cause the big bang to unfurl in such a way that it would create the earth and know that intelligent life would spring up in an exact way? (God is omnipotent after all.)
I actually agree that there's nothing contradictory to this view from what we can witness here in current reality. My disagreement comes from the equality you're giving this Creationist view with the Evolutionary view. I agree that both views have nothing contradictory to what we can witness in current reality (they are "equally correct"). But we have reason to believe that Evolution occurs. We can witness it, and see it happening. We can see the affect it has on resulting species, and we can predict how it works. The Creationist view has none of this. Sure, there's nothing contradictory about it, but what's our reason for thinking it's actually a part of reality?
Which brings me to the problem I have with your paint analogy. Lets look at the two statements:
"it's white because it reflects most of the light hitting it"A true statement. The wall
is white, and we understand this because of how much light is reflected.
"it is white because that is the color the artist chose"Another true statment... if there was in fact an artist that chose the colour. What tells us that the wall isn't simply naturally white to begin with? If there was an artist, then yes, this statement is perfectly valid, and doesn't contradict the other statement. If there wasn't an artist, then this statement is wrong, although it still doesn't contradict the wall being white. With the wall in your analogy, we can see if the wall is naturally white, or if it's been painted. With reality, we are currently unable to determine if we were created by a "painter" or if we're simply natural.
That's where I disagree with your ideas. I agree that the 2 ideas of religion and science are equally correct. However, until you can show anything that implies the necessity of religion with respect to our origins... it is not equally probable as the science we witness every day, it just simply doesn't contradict it.
™ Version 4.2