It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Non-Christians for Creationism

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   
In the current war raging between "Evolution-Theorists/Atheists" and "Creationists" most think its a given that Creationists are somehow Christian, Fundamentalist Christian or, at the very least, religious.

This is not true

Neither is it true that most perspectives on Creationism are of a religious nature. I am an example of this, because I am indeed anti-religious...and yet...I believe in our origins being the product of Intelligent Design and Creation.


The metaphysical perspective on Evolution & Creation

1. Most of us "metaphysical thinkers" dont actually see Evolution and Creation as mutually exclusive. Evolution-Theory simply describes the effects of what has been created. It does not contradict the idea of Intelligent Design. So, I have no problem whatsoever with Evolution...Evolution is in fact quite obvious in any Lifeform.

2. Evolution however, does not explain our origins or the origins of the Evolutionary Process. To sell it as such is deceptive. Proposing our entire existence to be the result of a chain of coincidences that have arisen from dead matter is entirely unsatisfactory as an "explanation" to our origins.

3. Creationism might involve a Supreme Being, but it doesnt have to. From a metaphysical standpoint, we could also be talking about souls, oversouls and Creation-savvy Wizards who design planets, design animals, design humans...just as we design things. I personally believe in a Supreme Being (without that being attached to any religious dogma), but can also imagine lesser forces involved in our Creation.

4. Evolution as something that "explains our origins" can easily be debunked within only a few seconds...by tracing back and asking "and so where did that come from?" And once someone answers, asking again "And where did that come from?", until they trace all the way back to Abiogenesis and to the Big Bang. And where did the Big Bang come from? The honest answer to that is: We dont know.

5. Modern physics puts the idea of linear time as a straight line of Evolution in question as well. While Evolution is apparent within linear time, it has been proven time and time again, that there is also a realm which does not obey the laws of linear time. Modern physics now offers proposals such as: Time as a spiral. Time as parallel universes. Time as a circle. Time as an artificial construct. Take your pick.

6. Judging from our own experience and observation has humans, we can see how things come to be. And they do not come to be "coincidentally", but by us creating them. The Internet for example, was originally created and only now follows a pattern of evolution and "natural selection".

So...despite all the threads in this Forum claiming that Creationists are "religious", and despite many trying to pass off Evolution/Abiogenesis as "explaining our origins"...and despite many trying to pass off Evolution vs. Creation as contradictory of each other (actually thats a false dichotomy): This Thread.

Looking forward to discussion...and maybe the realization that its not all black and white.




posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Some sort of Conspiracy?

In fact, plotting these two systems of thinking as contradictory or exclusive of each other, and having the "two sides" rage battles in the press, in schools, in politics, on the internet, almost seems like an artificially imposed war.

It doesnt take too much brains to figure out that both ideas can merge and be considered as both being valid.

Who benefits from all the confusion being sowed on our origins?

Who does not want humanity to find out about their origins?



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
If the human species was physically perfect and was never susceptible to syndromes, deformities and aging issues including tooth decay then I would happily support the Creationist story.

However, the case is that the human body is far from perfect, which strongly supports Evolution.

You see, Evolution makes changes quite willy nilly as nature deems necessary. So for this reason, humans still suffer from syndromes, deformities and aging issues including tooth decay. Otherwise we would be like sharks and grow new teeth when we lost one.

So as much as I appreciate your point of view, it seems to stem from wishful thinking rather than hard cold science.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by WatchNLearn
If the human species was physically perfect and was never susceptible to syndromes, deformities and aging issues including tooth decay then I would happily support the Creationist story.


Creations being perfect is a religious misconception. If you followed my opening post you can see how what we create is also imperfect. Its not any different for those who design various realities.

This is "Creationism - The Metaphysical Viewpoint", not the religious one.



However, the case is that the human body is far from perfect, which strongly supports Evolution.


This is an example of the false dichotomy as described in the OP.



You see, Evolution makes changes quite willy nilly as nature deems necessary. So for this reason, humans still suffer from syndromes, deformities and aging issues including tooth decay. Otherwise we would be like sharks and grow new teeth when we lost one.


I didnt actually deny the reality of Evolution.




So as much as I appreciate your point of view, it seems to stem from wishful thinking rather than hard cold science.


Im not denying hard science. I only acknowledge its current limits.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

The issue for me is not what a person's beliefs are, it is how those beliefs are going to impact on education.

Skyfloating,
Would you like your children, supposing you had some who were studying biological sciences at Uni, to have time taken out of their classes on evolution in order to discuss the theory that God did it?

When they found difficulties in explaining how something evolved, would you suggest they keep an open mind and watch out for further research, or try to solve the mystery themselves, or would you tell them it was pointless to look further, because this was proof that God did it?

I believe we all are god, and created the universe together. However I don't see that this has any relevance to science classes. I want my children to study hard, question everything rigorously, view the world with open minds, and never take the easy way out by saying: "It's too hard to see how it happened so God musta done it."



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
almost seems like an artificially imposed war.

Who does not want humanity to find out about their origins?

Excellent points. There are many individuals who would like to look more into the origion of man without making it a religious experience. They quickly find out that the establishment will label them as religious extremist the moment they question Evolution.

We the humans have become so intelligent, and have learned so much about the Universe, that we can completely rule out any outsider meddeling with the process of life on our planet. Or is it that fear that drives some to supress the possibility that there could be an outside source? The fear that there could be an outside force.

Part of the answer is that people don't like to feel helpless and want to see theirselves as the supreme commander of life. Any revelation to the contrary would sort of make them feel small. No one wants to feel that way. So we supress the possibility.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   


If the human species was physically perfect and was never susceptible to syndromes, deformities and aging issues including tooth decay then I would happily support the Creationist story.

Ironically I belive that things were made perfect, but micro evolutionary changes have made things worse. Every copy of the original perfect copy has flaws. Then when you get copies of the copy you introduce more flaws. If every copy were made from the original it would be different.


Originally posted by WatchNLearn
You see, Evolution makes changes

No, Evolution is at best an observer of what happens. It skips to the last page of the book and leaves out the details of the story. "The butler did it" Evolution cries "because no one else was strong enough to do it." Meanwhile we're left wondering why he did it, what his weapon was, how he obtained the weapon, and where the body was hidden.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   


The issue for me is not what a person's beliefs are, it is how those beliefs are going to impact on education.


Having an easy-going chat about the various possibilities of life, the universe and everything in school, isnt going to endanger evolution-theory.

Telling kids "Your life is a meaningless coincidence and you come from nothing" is questionable though.

Look at where it has brought us.



Would you like your children, supposing you had some who were studying biological sciences at Uni, to have time taken out of their classes on evolution in order to discuss the theory that God did it?


No I wouldnt. But it shouldnt be forbidden to discuss metaphysical aspects either.




When they found difficulties in explaining how something evolved, would you suggest they keep an open mind and watch out for further research, or try to solve the mystery themselves, or would you tell them it was pointless to look further, because this was proof that God did it?


No, Id encourage them to look, to explore, to ask questions.

On a side-note: Creationism/Intelligent-Design does not necessarily require a religious God-concept. As I said in the OP, it is a lie of our times that Christians have an "exclusive contract" on ID.




I believe we all are god, and created the universe together. However I don't see that this has any relevance to science classes. I want my children to study hard, question everything rigorously, view the world with open minds, and never take the easy way out by saying: "It's too hard to see how it happened so God musta done it."



Its only your prejudice that thats what we're proposing. Not all of us are backwater hicks who wish to brand Darwin as Satan himself.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Originally posted by dbates




Excellent points. There are many individuals who would like to look more into the origion of man without making it a religious experience. They quickly find out that the establishment will label them as religious extremist the moment they question Evolution.



Exactly.

Many dont yet know that when opposing Creationism-ideas they are not only opposing bible-thumpers but a lot of other people too.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I guess It's the answers people give that make the argument.
If it is from science, the answer is of science fiction.
If it is of Religious, the answer is of fantasy.
And if it is philosophical, hopefully the answer is simple


We don't know, and although I don't think it is impossible to know, I haven't found an answer even I'm comfortable with.
I have a hard time believing that all this, all existence, is the product of blind coincidence. The more I think about it, even when I try to realistically accept that that explanation is possible. It seems more ludicrous than to say "I am in a dream" or "this is just a video game".
Evolution by definition has to have some sort of first cause to "start the development".
It's funny because we still don't know what causes a consciousness, not in detail, we only know what it is like, what it does, and how parts of it work.
we do know that we have the ability to create, by belief or design.
It might be that "the beginning" was the result of some kind of networked volition from a singularity of thought, with the intent of "resetting life to preserve it" thus came "in the beginning" by Creation!
simple..



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
yeah. you gotta love the way some of these richard-dawkins-types live on a tiny, tiny planet in a tiny, tiny body and then start making grandiose claims purporting to know the "origins of life".



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
So, are there any non-Christian individuals or groups who speak out for creationism?

Apart from Muslim ones, I mean.

Anybody got any links to post?



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
So, are there any non-Christian individuals or groups who speak out for creationism?



Go to the new-age section of your bookshop. Without ever using the word "Creationism", most of them pre-suppose some sort of non-physical-universe origins.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

Thanks, Skyfloating, but that isn't really what I meant. Creationism isn't just a point of view on the origins of life; as you know, it's also a political issue regarding what schoolchildren are taught concerning those origins.

My question should be interpeted in that context. Are there any non-Christians (apart from Muslims) who publicly support the teaching of creationist 'theory' in schools?

Pardon me for not making myself clearer.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Are there any non-Christians (apart from Muslims) who publicly support the teaching of creationist 'theory' in schools?



Well...I dont support that...admittedly. I would support a general school class that combines ethics, metaphysics, philosophy, religion though.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 



Originally posted by dbates
Ironically I belive that things were made perfect, but micro evolutionary changes have made things worse. Every copy of the original perfect copy has flaws. Then when you get copies of the copy you introduce more flaws. If every copy were made from the original it would be different.


And yes, ironically you just vindicated my whole theory of evolution - thank you!



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Originally posted by Skyfloating
This is "Creationism - The Metaphysical Viewpoint", not the religious one.


Well, sorry but it kind of still is a "religious one". Call it what you like - Metaphysical Viewpoint - Christianity - Hocus Pocus - it is still arguing that some supernatural invisible "thingy" made modern humans from the ground up...sounds like something based on faith to me, which kind of sounds like creationism full stop. Certainly not science.

A monkey in silk is a monkey no less...



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
i is a bible thumper. i thump it cause it talks about the past that we know so little about. i also am a sumerian-akkadian story thumper. and a pseudopigraphical story thumper. and so on and so forth.

to me, those old texts are telling us something important but our great scientists aren't listening for various reasons, starting with assumption and ending with assumption (with a boat load of assumption inbetween).



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Well...I dont support that...admittedly.

I knew that already.


This may come as a surprise to some, but aside from a lively distaste for obscurantism, particularly of the religious variety, I don't object to creationism until people try to indoctrinate children in it, presenting it as though it were fact, or at least strongly supported by evidence, which it isn't.

So my interest in this thread topic is purely from that angle.

Of course the universe, and life, may have originated in acts of creation by some being, possibly one worthy to be called God. But if life originates in the universe, is not the universe the creator of it, or at least its matrix? God may be a null hypothesis, but it does no harm to invoke a null hypothesis - it simply does no good either, at least in terms of getting at the truth of something; still, it might be of some comfort to the invoker.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by Astyanax]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Unintended double post. Sorry!

[edit on 14-1-2009 by Astyanax]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join