Creation and evolution - parts of the same?

Let's explore the possiblity that creation is one aspect of the divine gift of evolution established by God. Perhaps evolution is real, as is creation (as a mechanism selected by God to teach us something). This continuing dialog (argument) over which supervenes gets us no where. Let's try to solve the riddle! {Fixed typo/removed extra "l" from "evlolution" in topic title. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-16-2005 12:37 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I am trying to explore if it is possible that Agassiz who railed against Darwin might have been correct but that the advances in biology ever since Darwin might have enabled man to premeditate the specific TYPE of God Agassiz formed that Mayr rejected systematically. I think this qualifies as

quote:

---

the divine gift of evolution established by God. Perhaps evolution is real, as is creation

---

.Now I was in the mid-80s not thinking of biological change this way at all. In truth it was a graduate seminar in Ecology and Evolution at CU where our last paper was to write an essay on if there was any purpose in evolution that got the juice outgoing. I had never given the idea that evolution might embody purpose any thought nor much credence AT ALL. But these were "evolutionists" asking the question. So that meant that if there was any way that I could think such, as I said I had not thought so and doubted it previously, then it could really possibly be true. Now I understand this student work was to really only waste our time and five the profs ammo against creationists but if you plant a seed it can grow. Bad, bad evos... weeds can grow if you are not careful...

​

This is from Kant's Critique of Judgement.

​

There are two things I notice here.
A) evolutionists such as Gould shortcircuit any conviction this passage might give the reader by denying out right that there ARE things in themselves, NOT IN TIME, as Kant suggested, but not in space either as was his point relative the only appearences we have anyway.
B)much dicussion about the alien designs on Earth orginis are moot in the same same sense of Gould's simple denial because if they were true then one would know in the same same sense that Gould denies it, at least in principle and that seems to be all that is being suggested debates about "what if aliens made the design" etc.

​

What I can say is that if evolution indeed contains artifically selectable purposivities that can be reciprocally caused and effected during biologically changing form-making any temporal hierarchies (in macrothermodyanics for instance)can not violate Kant's apparent appearence dictum (monohierarchies can not be found quantum mecahnically to contain things in themselves (further engineerable nanotechniques for instance again) unless these are only components differentially in space but not in time) for the natural mechanism of godless evolution would be untouched and untouchable in the product if only the controls are engineered. They are not, not at least today as far as I understand and know.

​

This kind of thinking does not give up all the stictly material aspects of current evolution but only remands criticism about how levels of organization and levels of selection are causally represented. In truth, I have no idea but sometimes I think I get it, the noumena, I mean. Other times not so much.

​

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-15-2005 09:05 PM

That's certainly a possibility, but I don't think it's the evolution side that says it isn't possible. It's certain types of Creationists who believe that evolution and their particular creation myth are mutually exclusive. I am confident that evolution has and does occur, yet have virtually no opinion on whether or not Creation, in some form, has. From evolution's point of view, they are not mutually exclusive.

OP-

quote:

---

Message 1 of 4
08-08-2005 08:11 PM

​

Let's explore the possiblity that creation is one aspect of the divine gift of evolution established by God. Perhaps evolution is real, as is creation (as a mechanism selected by God to teach us something). This continuing dialog (argument) over which supervenes gets us no where. Let's try to solve the riddle!

---

You said, evolution is actual. Do you have any idea why from the possiblity of evolution you considered, that you can not think that the creation of forms already occurred?What is a possibilty?
that creation is an aspect?Is virtual creation a horizon in your sense??I was not worried about the small differences in the words in the post. I hope you were not. As far as I understand it it is the creationists who say that evolution is not as it is actually taught not that good science is really a possible thing to support in society. Do you understand this difference?From many and I do think most, evolutionist's point of view, which is a materialism in public, there is a sharp distinction, no matter what they may hold individually in private. I can trace this easily from the the mid 1800s where I might not have been able to say what I just did had I been around then, to the 1950s when, while the human population took off reproductively, population thinking and other advances in biology virtually eliminated vitalism and any other forms of form creation by any other means than evolution (as it was being taught) seemingly overnight. By the 80s it was gone. Now why is that? I do not think this was because creationists insisted that there was some energy converter mechanism if form-making was able to spatially translate during any of the times' past and since this did not exist in the science evolution was not good science, but because evolutionists no longer had to defend themselves. There position was a default after so many years of silence. That is the negative side.If you read Hume outside of this context you can get a completely different impression. Creation exists, if it can be also awoken by the thought of a one I. Kant. It is only that instead, today, Modern Philosophy is continually, and historically putting Kant to bed if not to sleep( I wont say how, let's just say they rock the crib).This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-16-2005 05:02 PM

The position that a God exists who has pre-programmed the laws of physics so that the unguided force of evolution would arrive at a specified outcome, with no specific post-hoc intervention by that God, is properly referred to as "theistic evolution", and is thus not generally considered a form of creationism.Creationism is a position that invariably denies common descent (specifically human descent) and rejects the proposition that natural phenomena operating according to natural laws are sufficient to account for all life on Earth. As such it can never be reconciled with evolution.The idea that a God created the universe is not contradictory to evolutionary models, certainly; but that position alone does not constitute "creationism."

It seems to me there is still room nonetheless for infinite divisiblity to be cognized WITHIN Crick's physical force code wise but cutting out the continuum particulately can be nervously impossible, at least it is for me at present. In which case it might go undetected that God operates in your version of defined theism even though he does or did to a lesser extant. If there is 1-D CREATION that is now only noise or thermal fluctuations GOD still could have done the change. If that is, well, it might not be enough to change forms but I can not calculate that yet.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-16-2005 06:39 PM

Oh, indubitably.

Lest we all or I forget, and to be fair, Malthus did say in his second edition of 1803

quote:

---

“In plants and irrational animals, the view of the subject is simple. They are impelled by a powerful instinct to the increase of their species; and this instinct is interrupted by no doubts about providing for their offspring. Whenever therefore there is liberty, the power of increase is exerted; and the super-abundant effects are repressed afterwards by want of room and nourishment.”

---

Malthus, TR edited by G.Himmelfarb ON POPULATION The Modern Library New York1 1960 page 152
There might not be room inside. I think this means there is space outside however.

There is MUCH that is possible. What is USEFUL is that which helps us understand and deal with the lives that we lead. Rather than tease the envelope regarding what MIGHT be, the challenge is to find an explanation that works for the individual. There may not be ONE answer that works for all. For example: if I believe that evolution accurately explains how life has come to exist on this planet at this time, I am posed a challenge by the story of Creation. However, if I, as most scientists, seek to find explanations that hold across vast considerations, I might accept that God intends the story of creation to teach us something within our evolving existence.

Agreed. Yet there exists conflict between the two theories. Why? It doesn't strike me as logical that God would leave us with that kind of conflict without some kind of purpose. N'est pas?

Well, I consider it to be a "tease" to say that offspring are only making shelter for an formerly equal number of adults, why else would one think that one KNEW the conditions that equilbrate the places that space between parents and spring forth children?Are you really trying to say that God's CREATION does not tell YOU PERSONALLY, in your study, anything about our changing existence??

We can tilt at the meaning of words...but we can also accept their common usage. As such, conflict exists in the masses' view between creationism and evolution. So, my interest is in discussing a paradigm in which the two might work together.

OK, I guess I was still cutting up your intentions, sorry.

Not at all. I'm much more interested in agreeing on a construct which will allow us to deal with the two (seemingly) conflicting concepts in a way that allows God to speak to us.