Creationism vs evolution (warning: long)

[billvon 3,033]

With all the hubbub about creationism vs evolution, both in the US at large and here, I thought I'd get some thoughts down on the differences between the various 'forms' of the controversy.

There is a very wide range of views on the topic of evolution vs. creationism in the Christian world. Religious types often sneer at evolution, saying that such a philosophy is cold, godless, immoral etc. Scientists often sneer at creationists, thinking that anyone who believes that woman was literally created from a man's rib, and that a flood once covered the entire planet to a depth of 30,000 feet, is nuts.

But they are both seeing the extremes. There is a whole spectrum of opinions on this, and they exist in more than one dimension. The main axis of belief has to do with what part of the creation story is true. You could break them down like this:

Creation end
----------------
Flat earthers/Geocentrists
Young earth creationists (YEC's)
Old earth creationists (OEC's) (there are a lot of these!)
Theistic evolutionists
Physical evolutionists
Religious-atheist evolutionists
--------------------
Evolution end


1) Geocentrists

The flat earthers/geocentrists believe the Bible so literally that they believe the parts about the Earth being fixed and immovable; the sky is a vault above them below which all the stars and planets move. There are actually people out there like this, but they are pretty few in number, since the mental gymnastics required to believe that GPSes work on a fixed planet are pretty extreme. But these people do exist, and they have organizations. Which makes sense; there are people who believe so fervently in the exact wording of the Bible that they see their belief in the face of science as a badge of honor.

But most creationists are not like this.

2) YEC's

YEC's believe in a somewhat literal interpretation of the Bible. They believe that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that life was created in six 24-hour days, that death came as a result of Adam & Eve's fall in the garden, and that geology must be interpreted in terms of the Deluge. However, they accept a heliocentric solar system and a round earth. One variant on this is the Omphalos argument, dating back to the 1850's. This variant claims the earth was _created_ to look old but is really quite new.

YEC is probably the most popular form of creationism today, because it requires the least compromise in a strict interpretation of the Bible. You can keep 90% of the Bible, discarding only the most outlandish things (fixed earth) as metaphor.

3) OEC's

OEC's essentially mix a belief in creationism with an acceptance of a planet that is billions of years old. They do so by turning more of the bible into metaphor; each 'day' of creation was billions of years, for example. This results in some odd accomodations of science and religion, but it allows more flexibility. Not as much science must be discarded to reach an acceptable compromise of belief.

One variant of this is "day-age" where each day of creation is a long period, as mentioned above. Another variant is the gap theory, where millions (or billions) of years elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

A third important variant of OEC's are progressive creationists, who accept much of conventional planetary formation, and even some evolution theories, but claim God created life at certain points. A common form of this is that God created life, and then some time much later, he took an ape and turned it into a man.

The latest in progressive creationism is intelligent design, where the history of the planet, including the development of life, proceeded as science has described it, but along the way God 'helped out.' This is then presented as a scientific theory by attempting to prove that no other explanation for life is possible. This has become immensely popular because it is seen as a way to "attack science with science."

4)Theistic evolution

This is quite similar to intelligent design, but is important in that it has been espoused by the Pope and taught at many Protestant seminaries. Basically God creates through evolution. It proceeds pretty much as science describes it, but God is guiding it. This is a fairly defensible position because it can effectively be 'redefined' as science learns more about the process of evolution; it can me made to not conflict with new science as long as there is some uncertainty (which will almost certainly always be the case.)

5)Physical evolution

These people believe that evolution is a physical process, guided by the principles first established by Darwin, but since greatly refined. They often believe in God as well, but feel that he does not generally meddle in simple physical processes. Any such meddling must be discovered and proven before it is taken seriously, as with any other scientific theory. Most scientists take a position similar to this one.

6)Religious-atheist evolution

This is a pseudo-religious position that states that not only is evolution not directed by God, the fact that evolution occurs is proof God does not exist. They feel that every new discovery of science (the heliocentric theory, paleontology, cosmology etc) is another nail in God's coffin. Few scientists actually believe this, although the 'battle' is often framed by creationists as a battle between themselves and religious-atheist evolutionists.



That's a pretty simplified one-dimensional span of beliefs in the creationism-evolution argument. Often, creationists feel anyone who does not believe in Genesis is by definition a religious-atheist evolutionist; just as often scientists feel that anyone who does not believe in evolution is a flat-earther. But that's a fallacy, and leads to a lot of people not listening to each other.



There are some orthogonal directions that also have to do with creationism/evolution:

A) Non-christian creation stories

The Islamic creation story is somewhat similar to the Genesis story; they claim Genesis is a corrupted version of the Koran's version. The Vedic story (Hindu) has humans existing for billions of years. American Indians have a great many creation stories. There are literally dozens of accounts of creation from cultures throughout the world; they tend to be similar along geographic lines (i.e. the Egyptian story is similar to the biblical one; the Norse one isn't so similar.) The plethora of creation stories can lead to problems when a creationist group succeeds in having "alternatives to evolution" taught as science. Which one to teach?

B) NOMA

This theory, which stands for "non-overlapping magisteria" is a term used to describe the beliefs of many scientists who believe strongly in God but also work on the science of evolution. Religion and science are two completely different fields, and thus one simply does not affect the other. Religious creation stories are works intended to teach the readers about the importance of worshipping God, his power etc and are not intended to be literal accounts of how the world was created. Likewise, proof that evolution follows strictly physical processes is not an attack on God since science does not describe religious belief, morals, behavior, definitions of sin etc.

C) Ignorance

This sounds bad, but it's really not. There are people out there who believe strongly in the biblical story of creationism AND the science behind planetary formation, evolution, plate tectonics etc. These beliefs can coexist because they have never really studied either one intensively. As an example, I once talked to someone who believed the earth (and man) was created in seven days billions of years ago. He thought this consistent with both biblical teachings and science. When I pointed out the fossil record of life, with man appearing fairly late in the game, he said "hmm, that doesn't sound right, I should check that." When I asked him if he really thought that man has been around for five billion years, living through the evolution and extinction of the dinosaurs, he said he had to check his Bible about that. He thought it mentioned that.

Rather than an indication of a lack of intelligence, I see this as someone with better things to do than study the Bible and evolutionary theory.

c) Incredulity

This argument, the argument from personal incredulity, is also somewhat orthogonal to the main line of creationism/evolution. Instead of claiming that God did X because of Y, they claim that "I cannot understand how the HOX gene could be the same in flies and man; therefore, it is not understandable because God works in mysterious ways. Hence the action of the hand of God is clear here." It's similar to the ignorance approach, but more formalized.


A final comment is that the above axes are not intended to attempt to define people's individual feelings on the role of creationism vs evolution - rather, they define how some groups (like the intelligent design group) define themselves. There is a continuum of belief along that axis and in many others (like the axis that goes from science and belief being tightly coupled to them not having anything to do with each other.)

[philh 0]

Your category 6 seems a bit strange. atheism is not the belief that god does not exist but the absence of belief in god. A=without ;thesit=someone who believes in god. I am an atheiist and i've never met anyone or even heard of anyone who thinks the non existence of god can be proved. Instead the facts of the physcial world show no reason to believe in god, thereofre i do not believe in god. Just as there is no reason to believe in Santa Claus,tooth fairy etc. Whilst we cannot prove Santa does not exist we can show how the elements of Santa (delivering presents to every good child on Xmas eve, flying reindeer etc) are not compatible with known science and how the cultural understanding of Santa leads us to conclude he is a cultural invention and not a physcial reality. Same with god and the bible.

[billvon 3,033]

>Your category 6 seems a bit strange. atheism is not the belief
>that god does not exist but the absence of belief in god.

I agree, in general. That's why I called that category a pseudo-religious position. Some atheists have very strong (almost religious) belief in the absence of god, and they proselytize as much as any Jehova's Witness. Often they use science to 'sell' their views on religion. Other atheists simply don't believe in god and leave it at that. They would fall more under the fifth category.

[Deuce 1]

That's a nice summation Bill.

These arguments historically get hottest before they are solved. People invested in the flat earth system get really antsy when somebody loads up a ship and departs to the west and arrives from the east.

As the scientific community continues to decode DNA, we'll find out if there is a cro-magnon or neanderthal man in our past. Maybe even if that first amphibian is programmed in there somewhere.

I think a neat question that has not been answered, will be. That is, does DNA even allow for evolution? One of the most convincing arguments I've heard is that DNA does not allow for evolution, but only for mutation. That perhaps the fossil record is just a record of other species existence, but not that the fossil record points towards current species.

I think in cases like these, the loudest arguments are from the folks with the most pride or whatever to lose.

[billvon 3,033]

>we'll find out if there is a cro-magnon or neanderthal man in our
>past.

There's not much doubt about Cro-Magnon man; Cro-Magnon is a variant of Homo Sapiens. They lived about 10,000 years ago in Europe, around the beginning of recorded history (which means they wrote some of it!) They created jewelry, art and calendars. They cared for each other; skeletons have been found with healed badly-broken necks and pelvises.

Neanderthal is a different story. It's looking more and more like the Neanderthals are a branch of hominids (like the hobbits of Indonesia) that speciated (i.e. split off from the main branch) and didn't survive.

>Maybe even if that first amphibian is programmed in there somewhere.

We've got most of the same DNA. here is a study of the Ikaros gene. It turns on the mechanism that causes various kinds of white blood cells (T, B and NK lymphocytes) to start forming from stem cells. It's the same in humans and amphibians.

Heck, even the HOX gene is the same. So we use the same gene to control the development of our body segments (abdomen, head, limbs, appendages etc) as frogs! One of the more amazing findings of genetics is that much of life uses the same genetic 'toolbox' to create animals from earthworms to humans.

>That is, does DNA even allow for evolution? One of the most
>convincing arguments I've heard is that DNA does not allow for
>evolution, but only for mutation.

Mutation and selection, over a long enough period, IS evolution. We turned wolves into chihuahuas in a few thousand years. Given that, I don't see any problem turning a rodent into a wolf in ten million, or a fish into a rodent in 100 million.

Think about it. A wolf into a chihuahua in just a few thousand years. Imagine what we could turn a wolf into if we had a thousand of those thousands of years. Try to imagine an animal a thousand times as different from a chihuahua as a chihuahua is from a wolf. Would it have eyes? How many would it have? How about number of feet? On those timescales, we could wait for the incredibly rare mutation that produces a six-legged dog (which has happened) then breed that one until we had what we wanted.

That's all evolution is. Selective breeding, but instead of a breeder, we have natural selection to propel the design in the direction that is most survivable - and most likely to reproduce. It's a very slow process, but it has had billions of years to make progress.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>Your category 6 seems a bit strange. atheism is not the belief
>that god does not exist but the absence of belief in god.

I agree, in general. That's why I called that category a pseudo-religious position. Some atheists have very strong (almost religious) belief in the absence of god, and they proselytize as much as any Jehova's Witness. Often they use science to 'sell' their views on religion. Other atheists simply don't believe in god and leave it at that. They would fall more under the fifth category.

You are confusing an atheist with an agnostic.

You may need a new category :-)

[billvon 3,033]

>You are confusing an Ateist with an agnostic.

Well, no, an agnostic isn't sure; he's skeptical, or thinks there is no way to know. An atheist thinks there is no god.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>You are confusing an Ateist with an agnostic.

Well, no, an agnostic isn't sure; he's skeptical, or thinks there is no way to know. An atheist thinks there is no god.

Let me clarify what I was saying to you and the poster you responded to. You sort of agreed with this:

"atheism is not the belief that god does not exist but the absence of belief in god. "

That is wrong, Atheism IS a belief that God does not exist.

[philh 0]

No Im not confusing atheist with agnostic. just look at the words and it should be clear. A in the english languange (and its Latin route) means without. A peroson such as Hitler is considered immoral because he had an evil morality. This is not the same as someone without morals ,who is considered ammoral. A theist is someone who has the belief in god so thereofre an athiest is someone who without the belef in god. it is an absence of positive belief not the presence of negative belief. the lack of belief in god is all it takes to be an athiest.
Agnostic:gnosic means knowledge. So an agnotstic is someone without knowledge of god. Gnosis =knowledge, theism=belief. simple really.
I am an athiest because I do not believe in god. I also believe there is no god, but that is a seperate(although obviosuly not incompatible) issue. can I prove god does not exist? No. Its impossible to prove something doesnt exist, so why not be undecided on the issue as there is no evidence either way. well to that i would say why not be undecided on the existence of Santa Claus. Are you undecided on the existence of Santa Claus since we cannot prove he does not exist?

[dorbie 0]

Going back to the Latin can get you in trouble, English is not latin, (especially the way you did):


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic

[likearock 2]

Quote

Going back to the Latin can get you in trouble, English is not latin, (especially the way you did):

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic

I agree.

Quote

atheist
One entry found for atheist.
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

You may not be able to prove the non-existence of God, but you certainly believe in it. It's not the absence of belief.

[StreetScooby 5]

So, where does the belief that God is a verb fall in here? A thorough analysis of God under the light of the 1st Law Of Thermo leaves essentially no other conclusion - God must be a verb, not a noun. It's beyond belief, actually. It simply IS.

We are all engines of karma

[philh 0]

i agree enlgish is not latiin, but it has a latin route. But moreover in ENGLISH when a word has a prefix of a that means without here are some examples:
amoral
asexual
apolitical

[popsjumper 2]

I like the idea that God created evolution...saves on maintenance time.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[likearock 2]

Quote

i agree enlgish is not latiin, but it has a latin route. But moreover in ENGLISH when a word has a prefix of a that means without here are some examples:
amoral
asexual
apolitical

Boy, you really must be an atheist! If you believe so strongly that it means something after you were shown it doesn't, I guess that carries over into belief in God (or the absence of God) as well.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

amoral
asexual
apolitical

atypical?

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[kallend 2,070]

Quote

Quote

amoral
asexual
apolitical

atypical?

apoplexy
apple
attention

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

amoral
asexual
apolitical

atypical?

apoplexy
apple
attention

John, did anyone every tell you you were "without nal"?

[kallend 2,070]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

amoral
asexual
apolitical

atypical?

apoplexy
apple
attention

John, did anyone every tell you you were "without nal"?

And you are "without sshole".

asparagus

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

amoral
asexual
apolitical

atypical?

apoplexy
apple
attention

John, did anyone every tell you you were "without nal"?

And you are "without sshole".

[philh 0]

brillaint argument mate, youve convinced me with your amazing reasoning.

[philh 0]

kallend i expect more form you. a means without when used as a prefix to another word. Moral is a word, put an a infornt of it and it means without morality. Hardly the same with apple, the a is not a prefix and pple is not a word. Its not that hard. Anyway im waiting to hear from those dont have the balls to say you dont believe in god (perhpas becuase you live in the Christian theocracy of America?) but have to remain on the fence on the issue take the same position on Santa Claus?

[likearock 2]

Quote

brillaint argument mate, youve convinced me with your amazing reasoning.

Still unconvinced I see! Let's recap.

You claim:

Quote

atheism is not the belief that god does not exist but the absence of belief in god.

Dictionary definition of atheism:

Quote

one who believes that there is no deity

Now if you still want to argue the point, I suggest you take it up with Merriam-Webster. However, I'm inclined to think you'll be hurting your debate with the Creationists once they see that you are unwilling to accept the dictionary definitions of words.

[kallend 2,070]

Quote

kallend i expect more form you. a means without when used as a prefix to another word. Moral is a word, put an a infornt of it and it means without morality. Hardly the same with apple, the a is not a prefix and pple is not a word. Its not that hard.

Wow, thanks for the update on the language, I so needed that.

Here, take an a-rbitrary number: 187.1234667883

PS here's an example of an English prefix + infix in the same word: unf*ckingbelievable.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jpjc2000 0]

My best guess would be that being dead will be like it was before I was born, and from what I remember, that was ok!