Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Evolution of Creationism

  1. Jan 2, 2006 #1
    How has Creationism compensated and compromised itself in the face of irrefutable scientific evidence over the past 150 years? Will there come a day when all scientific discovery is alternatively "explained" for zealots in terms of the fundamentalist premise of Scripture, rivaling the scientific method for intellectuals?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 2, 2006 #2
    For some it appears that illusion is superior to the mental and physical necessities of reality.
  4. Jan 2, 2006 #3
    That's an interesting possibility, but I don't forsee it happening. The problem with religion is that it's illogical; therefore, it would be difficult for religious individuals to use scientific method properly while continuing to be religious. The two are opposites, despite what some may say. Intelligent design is an example of religious individuals attempting to use scientific method, and they have failed horribly. The only people who believe them, for the most part, are other religious individuals, which happen to control the government in some places.
  5. Jan 2, 2006 #4
    Logic and reason must follow from proven premises. Attempting to tack on a logical explanation to a faulty premise will eventually always end in ruin. Let's hope that reason will prevail or the ruin will be upon not only those who refuse to begin with reason but on all of us who do not meet the challenges created by living among those who prefer the denigration of reason to questioning the basis of their beliefs.
  6. Jan 2, 2006 #5
    Proven premises are excessive when common sense can prevail. We do not always debate the core premises of mathematics before discussing branches of those mathematics; we accept what has been concluded beforehand. Axioms are subjective, and, on this issue, what I said is what I believe to be self-evident.
  7. Jan 2, 2006 #6
    What prevents evolution from being created by Diety?
  8. Jan 3, 2006 #7
    I do not know about mathematics but philosophically common sense, (whatever that is), is not an issue. Axioms are self-evident and are the basis upon which all proofs rest. They have the property that any attempts to disprove them rely on the use of them in that attempt, therefore, such attempts can only fail. I am curious . . . do you happen to know whether mathematical axioms share these characteristics and if so, is there any simple explanation of this I might understand?
  9. Jan 3, 2006 #8
    Do you mean a 'Deity'? What difference would (does) it make?

    Philosophically, it would open a Pandora’s box of speculation but I believe there is plenty to speculate about for now. I imagine if we ever arrive at a point where such speculation would be all that was left then we would ourselves be equivalents, with the ability to create our own 'Deity' or universe. Not that some have not already tried.
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2006
  10. Jan 3, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Nothing. An all-powerfull being could very well have created the universe two seconds ago with all planted evidence to make us believe in evolution (and in the age of the universe). One just needs to justify this universe-size deception.
  11. Jan 3, 2006 #10

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It doesn't have to be two seconds ago; one could interpret Loren's statement to mean that the Deity created the basis of evolution, which has happened exactly as we've discovered it.
  12. Jan 3, 2006 #11
    Is it actually possible for a theory of creation by an intelligence(creation of anything at all) to be scientific?

    Are there any examples?
  13. Jan 3, 2006 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Something is self-evident only when your imagination is insufficient to imagine the alternative. :tongue:

    I don't think so. It's easy enough to consider scientific evidence into religion: for example, scientific evidence can be used to justify the interpretation of the creation story where "day" is to be interpreted as "age" or "era", and not as "24 hours".

    That said, I would certainly agree that most people who practice religion are illogical... just like most people who do not practice religion. :wink: And either way, those who are not willing to spend the time and effort to study things properly are left to believing the experts.

    Why? Nobody is asserting this to be true, so why would anyone need to justify it? :rolleyes:
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2006
  14. Jan 3, 2006 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Nothing at all. Evolution is not a denial of theism, just of folktales about cration that are accepted by some sectarian theists.

    The Roman Catholic church has evolved(!) a pretty nuanced view where all the hypotheses of evolution, including random variation of the genome and random events causing selection, hold true, but the whole scheme is due to the foreordained will of god, with a predetermined outcome. This view cannot be told from atheistic evolution by any finite test that I can think of.
  15. Jan 3, 2006 #14

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think the problem is empirical epistomology. Keep in mind, to be scientific, one ventures a hypothesis with the expectation that it can be confirmed by sense experience.

    Here's the catch: what if the experience of the proposed universal intelligence is not experienceable by the senses? If so, then it can never be subject to scientific research nor would it be possible to formulate a scientific theory (since it can't be confirmed via sense experience).

    So the question becomes (if we assume that experience is the basis of knowledge), is there a legitimate conscious experience that is not sensual and yet has the potential to reveal the universal intelligence?

    Good point. In my opinion, to study and properly evaluate reports of a universal intelligence is not furthered by studying religious or science experts. Neither seem to know a thing about the (reported) experience.

    One obviously can't turn to religious fanatics or blind faith believers to find out about that experience, and one cannot turn to the religious experts either because they are studying the history of events, not the experience.

    Right now, for example, a great many university Christian scholars are describing Jesus as some sort of religious reformer ranging from radical to passive. Not one single solitary scholar I can find (save possibly Elaine Pagels and Jacob Needleman) has thought to examine the conscious experience of Jesus. Too bad.
  16. Jan 3, 2006 #15


    User Avatar

    History does in many respects teach us about experiences. Studying the history of Jews for instance, not only gives you a cocktail of facts and opinions, but also gives you a sense of experience. The history of Anti-Semitism in the hands of Nazis engulfs you completely.

    And what was the conscious of Jesus? Don't you think that by attempting to judge, introspect and examine one's thought about Jesus's cousciousness creates subjective ideas that may be completely false? Whilst this may be totally acceptable in the minds of atheists, it is somewhat different in the eyes of Christians.
  17. Jan 3, 2006 #16
    But a creation theory of anything at all (cars, houses) surely cant be completely out of the reach of empiricism? We can observe people creating such things, yet I dont recall any scientific theories about creationary acts (which may be because i dont know enough about this stuff).

    Can u give examples of things that are not experienced through the senses? (thoughts perhaps?)
    I havent really thought which parts of my experience come from senses or not so im not sure about this.

    The question is also interesting even if it reveals anything at all, not necesarily a universal intelligence.
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2006
  18. Jan 3, 2006 #17
    OH the spiders, the spiders; they're crawling everywhere. See what you've done?
  19. Jan 3, 2006 #18

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You have to study looking specifically for clues to the conscious experience. Fortunately, there were a great many people who attempted to keep that experience alive, rather than turn it into a religion, so you don't have to rely just on the meager reports of Jesus' actual words to study the experience. I can see you know nothing about this subject, so you might do a little research into Christian mysticism before you go further with your arguments.
  20. Jan 3, 2006 #19

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Not "completely" out of reach, but it becomes a problem if you want to contemplate if some sort of universal consciousness has played a role in the development of the universe. Assume for a moment there is such a guiding consciousness. Yes, you can see all the stuff unfold from it, but you can't see the consciousness itself (with the senses anyway). So you can have a scientific creation theory from the point where we can sensually experience things, but not prior to that.

    Inner experience. There are people who practice actually withdrawing from the senses to have a purely inner conscious experience. It is the most successful of these people in fact who have provided the best reports of "something more" than physicalness.
  21. Jan 3, 2006 #20
    Deception only deceives the deceiver and those who hold the unjustified opinions of others above their own ability to reason.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook