Creationism or Evolutionism? Or could it be a combination of both?

a reply to: UB2120

"Yes, I agree that at some point material life was initiated (whereas prior it was only spirit life), I am just saying it was a purposeful act of God."

Well taken, but I would like to go way back to the original point of your thread.

Creation vs. Evolution is really a case of apples vs. oranges.

Creation implies a cosmological origin of the universe,

Whereas evolution implies changes since the first appearance of biological life.

Your reference to spiritual life is welcome, but it is a philosophical matter, beyond the scope of biological evolution.

I guess that my question would be, "Are you in favor of including God in a high school biology course?"

As far as man is concerned it is both as stated in Genesis 1:26, "Let US make mankind in our image" The Father and Holy Ghost made the son. Science recognizes some aspects of the Holy Ghost (material universe) but it cannot comprehend the whole because it is incomprehensible. So we can admire science because it shows the greatness of the Holy Ghost whilst still knowing that everything came into existence from the one God.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: UB2120

"Yes, I agree that at some point material life was initiated (whereas prior it was only spirit life), I am just saying it was a purposeful act of God."

Well taken, but I would like to go way back to the original point of your thread.

Creation vs. Evolution is really a case of apples vs. oranges.

Creation implies a cosmological origin of the universe,

Whereas evolution implies changes since the first appearance of biological life.

Your reference to spiritual life is welcome, but it is a philosophical matter, beyond the scope of biological evolution.

I guess that my question would be, "Are you in favor of including God in a high school biology course?"

This thread is really about how I believe it to be a combination of both. Purposeful creation and progressive evolution. That everything is not an accident, but is unfolding according to the infinite wisdom of an all powerful and eternal being. What we call evolution is nothing more than the time/space technique used to create.

I would be all for including God in biology and other science classes, but I think it would be important portray God in a non-denominational way. Also to discuss similarities and not differences among religions. Say that various religions explain creation differently. The over all point should be intelligent and purposeful design and not to get into theology.

originally posted by: glend
As far as man is concerned it is both as stated in Genesis 1:26, "Let US make mankind in our image" The Father and Holy Ghost made the son. Science recognizes some aspects of the Holy Ghost (material universe) but it cannot comprehend the whole because it is incomprehensible. So we can admire science because it shows the greatness of the Holy Ghost whilst still knowing that everything came into existence from the one God.

To me the "Let us make mortal man in our own image" refers to our potential spiritual nature and not our physical bodies. I think that one statement has caused a lot of the anthropomorphic concepts of God throughout the ages. It also makes more sense that God was referring to our spiritual nature if you believe that intelligent (mortal) life exists on other planets.

a reply to: UB2120

I look at it this way, the image of our physical nature is based on the Holy Ghost which is motion. The image of our spiritual nature is based on the Father which is rest. Otherwise its hard to understand the plural in "we created" and "our image". So it allows for the creation of all types of life throughout the universe, not just homo sapien's.

a reply to: UB2120

"I would be all for including God in biology and other science classes, but I think it would be important portray God in a non-denominational way. Also to discuss similarities and not differences among religions. Say that various religions explain creation differently. The over all point should be intelligent and purposeful design and not to get into theology."

I am afraid that at this point we have a profound, fundamental disagreement.
I do agree that high school students should be discussing creation and theology, but not in a biology class.
This should occur in a philosophy or comparative religion course.
Creationism is religion, not science; it rises upon a foundation of doubtless certainty of the reality of God.

I do, however, appreciate your search for conciliation.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: UB2120

"I would be all for including God in biology and other science classes, but I think it would be important portray God in a non-denominational way. Also to discuss similarities and not differences among religions. Say that various religions explain creation differently. The over all point should be intelligent and purposeful design and not to get into theology."

I am afraid that at this point we have a profound, fundamental disagreement.
I do agree that high school students should be discussing creation and theology, but not in a biology class.
This should occur in a philosophy or comparative religion course.
Creationism is religion, not science; it rises upon a foundation of doubtless certainty of the reality of God.

I do, however, appreciate your search for conciliation.

I understand it is a touchy subject, but I don't see why it could not be discussed. God should be most widely discussed in a religious type of class, but what we call the material universe is a direct result of the volition of God. In a science type of discussion God should be looked at as the First Source and Center.

a reply to: UB2120

Because a biology class is for science. There is no evidence for god or creationism. End of story. Thus, it has no place in the science class. Furthermore, trying to crowbar god into explanations of the real world because your faith compels you is the antithesis of science and intellectual honesty.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: UB2120

Because a biology class is for science. There is no evidence for god or creationism. End of story. Thus, it has no place in the science class. Furthermore, trying to crowbar god into explanations of the real world because your faith compels you is the antithesis of science and intellectual honesty.

Science is the study of the physical/material aspects of God's creation. Knowing that God is the ultimate source of, insert topic here, does not in the least take away from the experience of trying to understand how or why it works.

God is not just a part of this or that and the discussion of God cannot be confined to just religion. Religion generally refers to one's belief system as it relates to salvation/after life and topics of moral code. God is the source of all things and beings. He is the source of all matter, all energy and all spirit.

You say there is no evidence, but I guess that is a matter of opinion. The physical sciences are teeming with examples of pattern and intelligent design. Look at the latest data on DNA, or even the unbelievably complex functions that transpire within a single cell. Our bodies are highly advanced bio-machines with the powers of procreation.

Again, knowing that God is ultimately responsible for the design and outworking of that should not take anything away from the pursuit of knowledge about that topic.

The majority of people who accept Evolution believe in theistic evolution. God either creating the first life then letting it go on its own or just helping evolution along in some way. I think natural evolution (no god taking part) comes second if I remember right. Creationists are a minority.

I think this is reasonable numbers how it is. We be in trouble if most people were creationists who deny evolution, as wed have no vaccines if it were up to them.

originally posted by: UB2120

Science is the study of the physical/material aspects of God's creation.

Wrong. You're starting with the premise "My personal religion is true therefore" and working your way backwards from there. Bull#. This is not science and never will be science. Scientists aren't trying to get science preached from the pulpit so quit trying to get religion preached in the science classes.

a reply to: UB2120

"I understand it is a touchy subject, but I don't see why it could not be discussed. God should be most widely discussed in a religious type of class, but what we call the material universe is a direct result of the volition of God. In a science type of discussion God should be looked at as the First Source and Center."

Dear, Dear UB2120, You try ever so valiantly to nudge God into the biology class.

A biology class is not the setting for a discussion of the primacy of God.

Just as a church sermon is not the setting for a rational discussion of the scientific method.

I am as far left leaning as they come.... and beyond possibly people coming out of it with hurt feelings.... I would have no issue with my future tenth grader (he's currently in eighth grade) being exposed to this debate during a day of his biology class. Every class should be interrelated anyway, and philosophy is something that is wholly lacking in the pubic school curriculum.

originally posted by: UB2120
Science is the study of the physical/material aspects of God's creation. Knowing that God is the ultimate source of, insert topic here, does not in the least take away from the experience of trying to understand how or why it works.

Science does not care about something untestable such as God and creationism. You can teach all you want kids in Sunday school, but in science class there should be no God mentioned. But to mention, you can talk all you want about Gods in history class - from ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamians, to Greek and Roman's Gods... All mythology, including modern religion is part of our history, and for some reason, our history when religion was on power is for some reason called 'dark ages'. Wonder why...

originally posted by: UB2120
God is not just a part of this or that and the discussion of God cannot be confined to just religion. Religion generally refers to one's belief system as it relates to salvation/after life and topics of moral code. God is the source of all things and beings. He is the source of all matter, all energy and all spirit.

And that is what you think. But if you were born in small village in Africa, you might think that God - big snake, allowed humans to live inside its belly, where all world is placed... Their belief is no more or less right then your, it is belief. We can scientifically study both, compare numbers of people believing, but there is no simple thing to validate either claim... (what do you know, universe might be inside enormous snake ) If you try to invalidate their claim in belief, same practice can be used for your religion, so be careful not to go in there...

originally posted by: UB2120
You say there is no evidence, but I guess that is a matter of opinion. The physical sciences are teeming with examples of pattern and intelligent design. Look at the latest data on DNA, or even the unbelievably complex functions that transpire within a single cell. Our bodies are highly advanced bio-machines with the powers of procreation.

Care to provide info on those patterns? Our bodies have some obsolete parts that evolution removed, but, never got completely rid of them. You know what I mean?

originally posted by: UB2120
Again, knowing that God is ultimately responsible for the design and outworking of that should not take anything away from the pursuit of knowledge about that topic.

Witch god? African snake god? See where we going with this?

originally posted by: Aural
The majority of people who accept Evolution believe in theistic evolution. God either creating the first life then letting it go on its own or just helping evolution along in some way. I think natural evolution (no god taking part) comes second if I remember right. Creationists are a minority.

I think this is reasonable numbers how it is. We be in trouble if most people were creationists who deny evolution, as wed have no vaccines if it were up to them.

Care to provide source for this claim. IMHO it is very different depending on localization, for example here in USA creationist are majority...

a reply to: SuperFrog

Yes its pretty difficult. I think it was off something I saw in the past and it was likely just about the US but once you get the whole world thrown in it gets more tricky because "creationism" is a bit more of a Christian term it seems isnt it? I also mistakenly divided it out incorrectly i must have been thinking how evolution is the majority (which it is at least in the us) but forgot once you split it up that makes it not a number one in its two separate groups. Creationism is number one, then theistic evolution, then naturalistic evolution but theistic and naturalistic combined beat creationism. So i was a bit off. Also these polls seem to exclude people who dot believe in creation or evolution (although i have no clue what that could be)

www.gallup.com...

ive not even seen a world poll yet. i guess you have to combine countries?

in european countries about 80 percent are for evolution but it this poll doesnt divide between theistic and naturalistic
news.nationalgeographic.com...

This one says about 53% of muslims are for evolution but obviously this would be theistic evolution most likely. This being a world majority religion that is significant i suppose?
ncse.com...

this one again shows evolution at majority but again doesnt split it between theistic and naturalistic but considering most the world is theistic you can presume it right? I dunno.
ncse.com...

its hard... too much numbers. Bring in some mathematician to add these up

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: UB2120

Science is the study of the physical/material aspects of God's creation.

Wrong. You're starting with the premise "My personal religion is true therefore" and working your way backwards from there. Bull#. This is not science and never will be science. Scientists aren't trying to get science preached from the pulpit so quit trying to get religion preached in the science classes.

I am not trying to preach science from the pulpit or religion from the science class as you mentioned. Acknowledging the source is all I was saying. How does that take away from the scientific discovery?

a reply to: UB2120

Acknowledging what source? There is no evidence for your god existing, let alone having a hand in anything.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: UB2120

"I understand it is a touchy subject, but I don't see why it could not be discussed. God should be most widely discussed in a religious type of class, but what we call the material universe is a direct result of the volition of God. In a science type of discussion God should be looked at as the First Source and Center."

Dear, Dear UB2120, You try ever so valiantly to nudge God into the biology class.

A biology class is not the setting for a discussion of the primacy of God.

Just as a church sermon is not the setting for a rational discussion of the scientific method.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe these subjects cannot stand on their own, isolated. I think so many show antagonism toward this subject due to their own preconceived ideas about God, which more times than not means Christianity.

Christianity is not the only kid on the block, so to speak. Granted, it is the most common religion in the USA. To be honest it has fallen behind the times. It crystallized and as such has made many parts of it incompatible with today's youths.

If you let Wisdom work her wonders, you will realize that God is something that no one religion could contain. Also, no one religion is right over another. Different cultures will view similar things in different ways and the subject of God is no different.

So when you think of the discussion of God within the sanctum of Science, please to use the narrow view of Christianity. It would have to be bigger and broader than that.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: UB2120

Acknowledging what source? There is no evidence for your god existing, let alone having a hand in anything.

I guess that is a matter of opinion. There is overwhelming evidence of design throughout the universe. From the atom to a gigantic galaxy. What proof are you looking for? Do you really think all the universal laws that science so revers are just accidents? Do you believe universe effects to be higher than universe causes?

originally posted by: UB2120
I guess that is a matter of opinion.

Luckily, science is not a matter of opinion.