Evolution vs Creationism

[Born Free]

This is a poll of your stance on Evolution vs Creationism.

In the move beyond Mormonism, we can take many different paths with respect to the many beliefs that used to be part of the Mo package.

The question of Evolution vs Creationism is one such question. Please answer the following poll about where you now stand on this issue.

Daryl

[lsands]

Dear Daryl,
I like the idea and the discussion it's likely to engender, however, I want to be able to choose: both a creator and evolution. Or maybe I want to choose I don't know! To make this even more unclear, let me just say that while I definitely believe in a divine power, I don't how the earth was created. There is plenty of evidence for some form of evolution, and I accept that as far as it goes. This does not rule out some role for a Divine Creator for me, however.

Clear as mud? :Crazy:

Laraine

[Born Free]

Dear Daryl,
I like the idea and the discussion it's likely to engender, however, I want to be able to choose: both a creator and evolution. Or maybe I want to choose I don't know! To make this even more unclear, let me just say that while I definitely believe in a divine power, I don't how the earth was created. There is plenty of evidence for some form of evolution, and I accept that as far as it goes. This does not rule out some role for a Divine Creator for me, however.

Clear as mud? :Crazy:

Laraine

Laraine,

There may be an advantage is having no middle path. You have to back one of the other 4 positions that way.

[miss taken]

Dear Daryl,
I like the idea and the discussion it's likely to engender, however, I want to be able to choose: both a creator and evolution. Or maybe I want to choose I don't know! To make this even more unclear, let me just say that while I definitely believe in a divine power, I don't how the earth was created. There is plenty of evidence for some form of evolution, and I accept that as far as it goes. This does not rule out some role for a Divine Creator for me, however.

Clear as mud? :Crazy:

Laraine

I am going to agree with Laraine on this one. Why can't we have an option that says that there is an intelligent force behind the natural laws of the universe. Whatever those natural laws are. So, I am withholding my vote!!!!! :o

[wescape]

Hey Mary,

I believe there is an intelligent force behind the natural laws of the universe (i.e. gravity, etc.). In fact, most of the first scientists felt the same way which is exactly why they studied the natural world. It made sense to them that the brilliant complexity of design and delicate balance of life they observed was an expression of this intelligent, creative force. The thought of the overwhelming order they saw in the natural world being attributed to random processes never even occured to them.

Wes

[miss taken]

Hey Mary,

I believe there is an intelligent force behind the natural laws of the universe (i.e. gravity, etc.). In fact, most of the first scientists felt the same way which is exactly why they studied the natural world. It made sense to them that the brilliant complexity of design and delicate balance of life they observed was an expression of this intelligent, creative force. The thought of the overwhelming order they saw in the natural world being attributed to random processes never even occured to them.

Wes

This is what Stephen Hawkins had to say in his book 'A Brief History of Time'

'Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe WHAT the universe is to ask the question WHY.'

He goes on to say that the people who ask WHY have been too busy doing that to keep up with advances in Scientific theories. He says that if we can find a 'unified theory' then we all (philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people), would be able to partake in the great discussion of why it is that we and the universe exist in the first place.

He finishes by saying that

'If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God'

I like that!!!!!!!

Mary

[wescape]

Interesting, I never knew Hawkings was a theist...

Wes

[Born Free]

Interesting, I never knew Hawkings was a theist...

Wes
Wes,

Re: 'If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God'

IMHO it is a big leap from this statement, which to my mind is a neutral statement (agnostic), on the existence of 'God', to assuming Hawking is a theist.

I see the open mind of the scientist who has not ruled out the notion of some 'force' and open to closing the gap that opened up between science and religion several hundred years ago.

I thought his observation about the gap was astute, and it is wise to keep in mind the traditional hostility of religion towards science. To my mind, religion has lagged badly on its embrace of 'truth', showing a strong preference for traditional superstitious ways of viewing many key issues, topped by an extreme willingness to use violence, right up to and including excruciatingly painful death, to 'help' the wanderers see the errors of their ways.

Personally I don't recall science ever used violence to impress its point of view upon others. The same cannot be said for any number of followers of the "God of Love".

Daryl

[Born Free]

Hey Mary,

I believe there is an intelligent force behind the natural laws of the universe (i.e. gravity, etc.). In fact, most of the first scientists felt the same way which is exactly why they studied the natural world. It made sense to them that the brilliant complexity of design and delicate balance of life they observed was an expression of this intelligent, creative force. The thought of the overwhelming order they saw in the natural world being attributed to random processes never even occured to them.

Wes
Wes,

Have you ever considered that it may reflect our human egocentricity that we need to see beauty and complexity created as an act of volition?

The human journey toward maturity is one of letting go of seeing ourselves as the centre of the Universe - having a Copernican Revolution if you will. The old biblical world view had the earth as the centrepiece of "Gods" creation, because we saw it as all about us. More recently we are coming to see we are just a part of this magnificant complexity. I am sure your studies of mental development and pathology is consistent with that - immaturity and pathology are linked to significant levels of egocentricity.

When we started to see the complexity of creation through the new optics of science, we had a few options in how we viewed it:

Wow, how wonderfully complex. How might this have come about?
Wow, how wonderfully complex! Some really clever dude must have 'organised' this! Must have been God!

For me, an interesting thought primer exosts in business. Have you ever seen the research on how many new products are created as an act of primary intention by comparison with as an accidental side discovery, whilst persuing another objective.

I like to kick around the possibility that we create a 'God' based upon our level of thinking. Someone once stated this "God created man in his own image; and man returned the compliment".

BTW, I don't ask the above question in the frame of "You are wrong, silly man!" I am asking whether you have considered another framework of interpretation of the data before us.

Daryl

[wescape]

Daryl,

With regard to Hawking, his statement seemed to assume that God does exist, rather than that God might exist, which is why I thought it was theistic.

I agree that people have done very unloving things in the name of God. This is a perfect example of the egocentricity you spoke of and I believe it is a problem for all of humanity, regardless of maturity. As for egocentricity being the reason for us needing to believe that the universe was an act of volition, I disagree. Honestly, I see no other explanation other than an intelligent, relational force. And if there is such a force, wouldn't it be egocentric and arrogant to think otherwise? Either way, I believe we all fit that category, spiritually minded or not. As your quote highlighted, we create God in our own image. Our former belief that everything revolved around the earth was a great example of this and so is Darwinism (in my opinion) but just in a different way. My point is this: Ultimately we all think (but usually not consciously) that we are God and that things should be done our way. You could say that is my definition of egocentricity and I believe that everyone suffers from it.

Wes

[miss taken]

Wes,


Personally I don't recall science ever used violence to impress its point of view upon others. The same cannot be said for any number of followers of the "God of Love".

Daryl

Okay...How about Aristotle/Plato's use of eugenics. To breed a super race, I could be wrong but I thought he based this on 'scientific' thinking, rather than religious, even if he/they were completely wrong, cause IQ genes don't work that way...

I thought Hitler, in part, used that ideology for his 'ayrian super race'

Mary

I also thought that science can get itself into some really dubious ethical systems.

I'll have a think about some more examples.

[Born Free]

Okay...How about Aristotle/Plato's use of eugenics. To breed a super race, I could be wrong but I thought he based this on 'scientific' thinking, rather than religious, even if he/they were completely wrong, cause IQ genes don't work that way...

I thought Hitler, in part, used that ideology for his 'ayrian super race'

Mary

I also thought that science can get itself into some really dubious ethical systems.

I'll have a think about some more examples.

Last time I looked, Hitler was not a scientist, but a few 2nd string nutters got on his bandwagon (e.g Mengel). And yes, the odd scientist gets off into problematic ethical territory.

But to achieve that all on a LARGE scale, with the conviction that God is behind you, indeed with a developed theological argument, in many cases, you need religion. Even Hitler, from my observation, achieved what he did by exploiting a human foible of being vulnerable to a call to "something greater", along the lines "Forget your shitty little life. Come and die for the Fatherland". Sound familiar?

To get back 2,500 years is taking "science" back very early. About the same time it was being argued that men's sperm was IT, that women only nurtured the growing life, contributing nothing beside nurturance. Over 1,500 years later the Catholic Church was beating up on Gallileo, and could not even apologise for their mistake until late last century.

I am reminded of hearing a top scientific ethicist being interviewed. She pointed out that the areas where science got into the biggest mistakes, looking back, were where the overwhelming good seemed so apparent, that no one wore the "black hat" to look at the downside.

Religion, IMHO, usually kills off at worst, or marginalises at best, its "black hats", and then rushes unchecked into really crazy-arsed space, convinced that God is on their side. It is the arrogant moral superiority of the religious position that alarms me.

Daryl

[wescape]

Daryl,

The "arrogant moral superiority of the religious position," as you put it, is the polar opposite of love. It is also precisely what Jesus opposed and criticized the religious leaders of his day for. Of course, they did not like that (among other things he stood for) and ended up killing him for it. Unfortunately, things have not changed much in 2000 years. It seems there will always be those who manipulate and mistreat people in the name of God for their own purposes.

Wes

[Born Free]

Daryl,

With regard to Hawking, his statement seemed to assume that God does exist, rather than that God might exist, which is why I thought it was theistic.

I agree that people have done very unloving things in the name of God. This is a perfect example of the egocentricity you spoke of and I believe it is a problem for all of humanity, regardless of maturity. As for egocentricity being the reason for us needing to believe that the universe was an act of volition, I disagree. Honestly, I see no other explanation other than an intelligent, relational force. And if there is such a force, wouldn't it be egocentric and arrogant to think otherwise? Either way, I believe we all fit that category, spiritually minded or not. As your quote highlighted, we create God in our own image. Our former belief that everything revolved around the earth was a great example of this and so is Darwinism (in my opinion) but just in a different way. My point is this: Ultimately we all think (but usually not consciously) that we are God and that things should be done our way. You could say that is my definition of egocentricity and I believe that everyone suffers from it.

Wes
Wes,
You may be interested in something I only came across via Spong a year or so back. Sadly this discovery is symptomatic that I have not spent as much time studying philosophy as I would like.

During John Shelby Spong's last visit to Brisbane he spoke to the subject "Is there a God beyond Theism?"

Until then I was not familiar with the notion that theism holds the belief in a Divine power that actively intervenes. What Spong was exploring was the notion of a "God force" that does not wind up the clock of the universe so to speak; of a non-Theistic God. It was a subtlety that I had been unaware of, which is not particularly surprising if you kick around the sort of God that a Western Mind might conceive of (Action Man!).

If the file was not so large, I could send you a copy of the address. In fact, if you are interested I will check to see how small I can make an audible quality MP3 file.

It was a new window for me. I have a real discomfort with a God of Miracles 2,000 years ago, who just ran fresh out of miracles somewhere in between.

See I got the impression from the Hawking statement, which I readily qualify as being based upon little knowledge of his actual statements on "God", that he is possibly a non-theist. Some physicists seem to be in that arena, prepared to countenance the possibility of some "grand organising Force", but still way short of a theistic God.

Daryl

[miss taken]

Last time I looked, Hitler was not a scientist, but a few 2nd string nutters got on his bandwagon (e.g Mengel). And yes, the odd scientist gets off into problematic ethical territory.

But to achieve that all on a LARGE scale, with the conviction that God is behind you, indeed with a developed theological argument, in many cases, you need religion. Even Hitler, from my observation, achieved what he did by exploiting a human foible of being vulnerable to a call to "something greater", along the lines "Forget your shitty little life. Come and die for the Fatherland". Sound familiar?

To get back 2,500 years is taking "science" back very early. About the same time it was being argued that men's sperm was IT, that women only nurtured the growing life, contributing nothing beside nurturance. Over 1,500 years later the Catholic Church was beating up on Gallileo, and could not even apologise for their mistake until late last century.

I am reminded of hearing a top scientific ethicist being interviewed. She pointed out that the areas where science got into the biggest mistakes, looking back, were where the overwhelming good seemed so apparent, that no one wore the "black hat" to look at the downside.

Religion, IMHO, usually kills off at worst, or marginalises at best, its "black hats", and then rushes unchecked into really crazy-arsed space, convinced that God is on their side. It is the arrogant moral superiority of the religious position that alarms me.

Daryl

Hi Daryl,
I don't think I was saying that Hitler was a scientist (God Forbid!!!), but that he used some of the idealogies of the ancient Greeks.

I put down Aristotle/Plato etc as scientists because, like Da Vinci, etc, they endeavoured to see and understand the natural world around them. The Greeks were responsible for the categorisation of materials/animals/ etc, even if they were wrong, they tried to be 'scientific' about it, as far as I was aware. (and I AINT that aware!!!!)

I take your points, but do maintain quite vigorously that non-theists, can be just as arrogant, evil, power seeking, manipulative, as theists. I'd put it down to human nature. And even non-theism could be categorised as a religion, because it is a way of viewing the world and our place in it.

I do agree that Hitler used religious symbols, methods, and so on, to influence people, but that he politicised them. Communism, which killed as many, if not more, people, under Stalin, did a similar thing..

Mary