Third Choice In a Two Sided Argument

Why do people insist that Creationism and Evolution are mutually exculsive theories? And I’m not talking about the full-blown explanation of evolution, just the main tenets, the principles on which all the arguments are based. I still have never seen, read or experienced anything, anywhere that shows that the two cannot co-exist.

I base all the confusion on 2 unrelated flawed thoughts, one scientific and one religious. The flawed thoughts can be used for numerous different arguments, but certainly explain the point I’m trying to bring out here.

The Christian Flawed Thought is to think that God did not create science or the principles and techniques associated with science. Just because something can be proven does not mean it is not of God.

The Scientific Flawed Thought is that because something can be proven means it is not of God and there is no God. Science cannot explain away God, but Christianity cannot explain away science.

This blog has a section called QuickPress. I haven’t used it yet and thought I might. What better subject to use then one that don’t have the time to completely hash out but that is heavily on my mind? Comment on this subject and let’s see where it leads.



Filed under Uncategorized

13 responses to “Third Choice In a Two Sided Argument

  1. I would disagree; creation as a Divine fiat is mutually exclusive over against evolution without qualification. You are advocating a third position presumably *theistic evolution*. However, I have always found TE to be logically incompatible with creation as it posits a secondary cause where one is unnecessary. In other words, the genesis of homo sapiens depends on the second cause of genetic mutation (or macro evolution).

    • Actually, no, I am not advocating what I believe you mean by theistic evolution. I didn’t go into the details because that wasn’t exactly my point with this blog. It was more of a “test the water” type blog, which this comment (as well as the others) is exactly doing for me.

      When I mention the tenets of Evolution I refer to the survival of the fittest, natural selection, etc. not the theory that life started as ooze and became man running to and fro wondering what his digital watch told him the time was. I am fairly confidant you would disagree with my point, but I will mention it anyway. In the Genesis creation story there were really 2 times that God created. He created everything in 1:1, then in 1:26 He made man. This is based on the Hebrew words, the other times He said, “Let there be…” and there was. My personal (un-backup-able) position is that there is no “missing link” between man and monkey because there was no link, there is monkey and there is man. Again, though, this was not the point I wanted to get into just yet.

      My main musing here were the 2 flawed thoughts, and from what I have read you appear to subscribe to at least one. That is what I was focused on.

  2. Pingback: god, not God | Atheist Dave

  3. After looking up the FSM, I can see that you could take my original statement and use it in a similar fashion. However, that would take a belief in the FSM, which in turn would push the discussion back further into an apologetic discussion between the existence of God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That was not my intent with the line of reasoning, but rather a parallel one.
    I would also say that there could be a flaw in your logic, in that just because 100,000 copies of the book were sold (an impressive number) it does not follow that there are 100k followers of the FSM. Some copies may have been purchased by curious people, and more then a few were probably bought by people who simply wanted to read up on the creature to be able to have more accurate apologetic discussions as alluded to in the previous paragraph. And yes, that could still mean there is a 5 to 6 digit number of people who try to prove or disprove the existence of the FSM, but it seems a high number to me. I’ll also assume there is a corresponding number for the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

    • Dan

      Maybe, but like I said, that number was just a guess. Discussion over how many devotees of the FSM there are is a distraction from the main point though. That point being of course, “So what that science can’t prove the non-existence of something that’s utterly ridiculous.”

      • This whole line of thought is a distraction from the main point that Creation and Evolution are not mutual exclusive. I mentioned that science has a flawed thought process that proving something scientifically is in turn paraded as proof that God does not exist. It is that last step that I believe is part of a syllogism. We seemed to have spun out on the syllogism, though not entirely to no avail. I have learned something very interesting from it.

  4. Dan

    The Scientific Flawed Thought is that because something can be proven means it is not of God and there is no God. Science cannot explain away God…

    Replace “God” with “Invisible Pink Unicorn,” “Flying Spaghetti Monster” or Peter Pan and that statement remains logically true.

    • Yes, but how many people try to prove there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

      • Dan

        I’m not sure. I think it’s somewhere in the 5-digit range in terms of followers, but that’s just a guess. Why do you ask?

      • Dan

        Correction: The wiki for The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster indicates that >100,000 copies of the Book have been sold. So I’d revise my estimate to 6 figures.

      • I intended the original question as a serious one, but am now intrigued about the spaghetti monster. Perhaps I’ll google it later.

      • Dan

        That’s good, because I intended my original comment and following replies seriously also. Especially my original comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s