Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TealVeal · 12-17-2002, 10:00 PM

I have tried really hard to figure out if there is some sort of false dichotomy present when creationists say it's either evolution or creationism much like there is a false dichotomy in pascal's wager. Any ideas? I am fresh out

Camaban · 12-18-2002, 12:43 AM

Quote:

I have tried really hard to figure out if there is some sort of false dichotomy present when creationists say it's either evolution or creationism much like there is a false dichotomy in pascal's wager. Any ideas? I am fresh out

IT'S TRUE!

just as if I break up that really cute blonde and her boyfriend, of COURSE she'll choose me.

It stands to reason.... all the other, better people simply don't exist....

they DON'T exist.....

I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!! *blocks ears and sings*

emotional · 12-18-2002, 01:39 AM

Evolution and creationism are both ways of creating life. Creationism is the ex-nihilo, witchcraft way ("POP! Light", "POP! Plants" etc), and evolution is the gradual naturalistic way.

Along the continuum, I've often mused about what ways could be there. Some ideas:

Deistic evolution: God loads the elements with the parameters necessary for combining into living organisms and let the whole thing run freely. Nice compatibility with both naturalism and the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.

Theistic evolution: God directs evolution in its course for finally forming mankind. A bit too <a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/anthropocentrism.htm" target="_blank">anthropocentric</a> for my taste, but it keeps God as the controlling agent for classical theism's sake.

Intelligent evolution: my very own try at an Intelligent-Design/Evolution combo. The universe is simply a computer program running. The programmer (you can call him God if you like) sits there and fashions DNA source code in gradual development (think of Open-Source projects like Linux). For example the source codes of cat.dna and tiger.dna are both branchings of the main source code of feline.dna, which itself shares some code with canine.dna, which are both branchings of the mammal.dna, which... you get the idea. Neat, huh?

Progressive creationism: the "POP! Thingy" pattern of creationism spread of long ages, according to what the fossil record says. "POP! Dinosaurs" some many million years ago and all that.

Animistic evolution: an animistic pantheist theory, with which I have some sympathy. All matter is alive and has soul. It is by the action of these living souls that matter combines. Mating of atoms to form living creatures.

Mature-image creationism: why should God need long ages, or even six 24-hour days to do the job? It was all done yesterday, complete with memories of billions of years! That's also known as the Omphalos hypothesis, after Phillip Gosse's book about Adam's belly-button problemo. Kazaam!

Too many cooks (polytheistic) creationism: seeming bad design is the result of too many cooks making the broth. Allah started doing the eyes, but then Osiris had to invert the retina to complete the work. Jupiter was in charge of fashioning Homo from the ape-like ancestors, but during the process he forgot to remove the apes' Plantaris muscle and appendix.

Raelian (UFO) creationism: scientists from other planets created all living organisms here on Earth. Problemo 1: the scientists themselves? Were created by scientists who were created by scientists (do loop until infinity). Problemo 2: Design quirks. Like what kind of scientist designs the nerve-wiring of a giraffe to go back all the way?!

Beetle-Goddess creavolution: the original plan of the Designer (whom we shall name the Beetle-Goddess) was to populate the planet with beetles (quoting Haldane about God: "He has an inordinate obsession with beetles"). Homo was an unplanned side-effect. Swallow your pride!

This is by no means an exhaustive list of alternatives to the simplistic creation/evolution scenarios. It just goes to show you that there is no shortage of theories that can account for biodiversity on the planet. Even if evolution is somehow proven false, you can't rule Raelian-UFO or Beetle-Goddess theories out.

Cheerio,

dev

mark24 · 12-18-2002, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TealVeal:
<strong>I have tried really hard to figure out if there is some sort of false dichotomy present when creationists say it's either evolution or creationism much like there is a false dichotomy in pascal's wager. Any ideas? I am fresh out

</strong>

3rd option. Life always existed, somewhere, somehow. I don't buy this, personally, but it is a possibility.

Mark

Tom Sawyer · 12-18-2002, 06:42 AM

I think that a dichotomy does exist. Although, as devnet pointed out, there are many different types of both creationism and evolution and mixtures of the two but that isn't the point. The dichotomy is one of whether life came about through natural or supernatural means.

In my opinion, if you think there was a supernatural agent involved in the process, you are a creationist. It doesn't matter what role you think that supernatural agent had in it, if you believe supernatural forces played any part, you're in the creationist camp. If you think the Christian God created the universe 6,000 years ago or you think some amorphous deistic entity set things in motion 15 billion years ago and then just let things happen on their own, you're a creationist. There could be a million different theories whose only relationship to each other is one of some kind of intervening hand, and many of them could take in almost all of the concepts of evolution, but they're still creationist theories because they invoke a supernatural role in the process.

It's the same thing for the evolutionary camp, which probably isn't the right name for it since creationist theories could include evolutionary theory, so I'll call it the naturalist camp. If you believe only naturalistic forces played a role and there was no intervention by anyone or anything along the way aside from the blind forces of nature (not nature in a deistic sense, though) then you are in this camp. You could believe modern evolutionary theory or some crazy idea that you pulled out of your ass last night; as long as no supernatural guiding force is involved, you're a naturalist.

So no matter how you label yourself or what beliefs you have, there really is a clear dichotomy between the two. There are either supernatural forces involved or there aren't. That's it.

Principia · 12-18-2002, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Evolution and creationism are both ways of creating life.

I am not so sure about this characterization of evolution... I brought up a similar issue with respect to the E/C forum tagline <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000651" target="_blank">here</a>.

emotional · 12-18-2002, 10:31 AM

I was listing a continuum of creavolutionary (handy term!) beliefs between totally naturalistic evolution and totally occult-magical creation (ie 6-day "And God said and POP! Thingy" creationism). In it you can see also the converse ideas of supernatural evolution and naturalistic creation. Theistic evolution, with God guiding the process actively, is supernatural. Intelligent evolution is a sort of evolutionary creationism which can be either natural or supernatural. Raelian-UFO creationism, where living organisms are created by scientists from other planets, is a scenario of naturalistic creationism. Cf Theodore Drange's article at

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/creationism.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/creationism.html</a>

Between the scenarios of "gradual evolution" and "special creation" I don't think there's any more to add, though. Maybe "image projection" or "dreaming" or some sort of otherworldly scene...

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: devnet ]</p>

Allen Roy · 12-18-2002, 11:43 AM

What about the possibily that the question is Evolutionism vs. Creationism?

Mageth · 12-18-2002, 11:48 AM

I give up: what's "Evolutionism"?

callmejay · 12-18-2002, 12:07 PM

There's a cake on the table. You may create a dichotomy: Some argue that the cake was magically poofed into existence, while others examine it and suggest the hypothesis that it was baked using heat, flour, water, eggs, sugar, chocolate, etc. They come up with some example recipes as to how such a cake could be baked.

Suppose someone comes along and proves that "Aha! You scientists said that there was white sugar in this cake, but really it was corn syrup! Therefore, it was poofed into existence." Do you see the flaw?

Obviously, it's a less-than-perfect metaphor, because a) it requires a Baker and b) humans can bake a cake and EASILY prove that it can be done.

12-17-2002, 10:00 PM	#1
TealVeal Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: WM Posts: 208	false dichotomy of evolution/ceationism? I have tried really hard to figure out if there is some sort of false dichotomy present when creationists say it's either evolution or creationism much like there is a false dichotomy in pascal's wager. Any ideas? I am fresh out

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-18-2002, 01:39 AM	#3
emotional Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah Posts: 1,945	Evolution and creationism are both ways of creating life. Creationism is the ex-nihilo, witchcraft way ("POP! Light", "POP! Plants" etc), and evolution is the gradual naturalistic way. Along the continuum, I've often mused about what ways could be there. Some ideas: Deistic evolution: God loads the elements with the parameters necessary for combining into living organisms and let the whole thing run freely. Nice compatibility with both naturalism and the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. Theistic evolution: God directs evolution in its course for finally forming mankind. A bit too <a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/anthropocentrism.htm" target="_blank">anthropocentric</a> for my taste, but it keeps God as the controlling agent for classical theism's sake. Intelligent evolution: my very own try at an Intelligent-Design/Evolution combo. The universe is simply a computer program running. The programmer (you can call him God if you like) sits there and fashions DNA source code in gradual development (think of Open-Source projects like Linux). For example the source codes of cat.dna and tiger.dna are both branchings of the main source code of feline.dna, which itself shares some code with canine.dna, which are both branchings of the mammal.dna, which... you get the idea. Neat, huh? Progressive creationism: the "POP! Thingy" pattern of creationism spread of long ages, according to what the fossil record says. "POP! Dinosaurs" some many million years ago and all that. Animistic evolution: an animistic pantheist theory, with which I have some sympathy. All matter is alive and has soul. It is by the action of these living souls that matter combines. Mating of atoms to form living creatures. Mature-image creationism: why should God need long ages, or even six 24-hour days to do the job? It was all done yesterday, complete with memories of billions of years! That's also known as the Omphalos hypothesis, after Phillip Gosse's book about Adam's belly-button problemo. Kazaam! Too many cooks (polytheistic) creationism: seeming bad design is the result of too many cooks making the broth. Allah started doing the eyes, but then Osiris had to invert the retina to complete the work. Jupiter was in charge of fashioning Homo from the ape-like ancestors, but during the process he forgot to remove the apes' Plantaris muscle and appendix. Raelian (UFO) creationism: scientists from other planets created all living organisms here on Earth. Problemo 1: the scientists themselves? Were created by scientists who were created by scientists (do loop until infinity). Problemo 2: Design quirks. Like what kind of scientist designs the nerve-wiring of a giraffe to go back all the way?! Beetle-Goddess creavolution: the original plan of the Designer (whom we shall name the Beetle-Goddess) was to populate the planet with beetles (quoting Haldane about God: "He has an inordinate obsession with beetles"). Homo was an unplanned side-effect. Swallow your pride! This is by no means an exhaustive list of alternatives to the simplistic creation/evolution scenarios. It just goes to show you that there is no shortage of theories that can account for biodiversity on the planet. Even if evolution is somehow proven false, you can't rule Raelian-UFO or Beetle-Goddess theories out. Cheerio, dev

12-18-2002, 06:42 AM	#5
Tom Sawyer Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, eh Posts: 42,293	I think that a dichotomy does exist. Although, as devnet pointed out, there are many different types of both creationism and evolution and mixtures of the two but that isn't the point. The dichotomy is one of whether life came about through natural or supernatural means. In my opinion, if you think there was a supernatural agent involved in the process, you are a creationist. It doesn't matter what role you think that supernatural agent had in it, if you believe supernatural forces played any part, you're in the creationist camp. If you think the Christian God created the universe 6,000 years ago or you think some amorphous deistic entity set things in motion 15 billion years ago and then just let things happen on their own, you're a creationist. There could be a million different theories whose only relationship to each other is one of some kind of intervening hand, and many of them could take in almost all of the concepts of evolution, but they're still creationist theories because they invoke a supernatural role in the process. It's the same thing for the evolutionary camp, which probably isn't the right name for it since creationist theories could include evolutionary theory, so I'll call it the naturalist camp. If you believe only naturalistic forces played a role and there was no intervention by anyone or anything along the way aside from the blind forces of nature (not nature in a deistic sense, though) then you are in this camp. You could believe modern evolutionary theory or some crazy idea that you pulled out of your ass last night; as long as no supernatural guiding force is involved, you're a naturalist. So no matter how you label yourself or what beliefs you have, there really is a clear dichotomy between the two. There are either supernatural forces involved or there aren't. That's it.

12-18-2002, 10:31 AM	#7
emotional Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah Posts: 1,945	I was listing a continuum of creavolutionary (handy term!) beliefs between totally naturalistic evolution and totally occult-magical creation (ie 6-day "And God said and POP! Thingy" creationism). In it you can see also the converse ideas of supernatural evolution and naturalistic creation. Theistic evolution, with God guiding the process actively, is supernatural. Intelligent evolution is a sort of evolutionary creationism which can be either natural or supernatural. Raelian-UFO creationism, where living organisms are created by scientists from other planets, is a scenario of naturalistic creationism. Cf Theodore Drange's article at <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/creationism.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/creationism.html</a> Between the scenarios of "gradual evolution" and "special creation" I don't think there's any more to add, though. Maybe "image projection" or "dreaming" or some sort of otherworldly scene... [ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: devnet ]</p>

12-18-2002, 11:43 AM	#8
Allen Roy New Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ash Fork, Arizona. USA Posts: 3	What about the possibily that the question is Evolutionism vs. Creationism?

12-18-2002, 11:48 AM	#9
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I give up: what's "Evolutionism"?

12-18-2002, 12:07 PM	#10
callmejay Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 466	There's a cake on the table. You may create a dichotomy: Some argue that the cake was magically poofed into existence, while others examine it and suggest the hypothesis that it was baked using heat, flour, water, eggs, sugar, chocolate, etc. They come up with some example recipes as to how such a cake could be baked. Suppose someone comes along and proves that "Aha! You scientists said that there was white sugar in this cake, but really it was corn syrup! Therefore, it was poofed into existence." Do you see the flaw? Obviously, it's a less-than-perfect metaphor, because a) it requires a Baker and b) humans can bake a cake and EASILY prove that it can be done.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.