The Creation - Evolution Debate. (again)

I am going to wax philosophical for a few minutes so if that bores you just go to one of the blogs with pictures in it because we are going to re-visit the long simmering debate on Evolution - Creationism.

As you probably know by now I am a Darwinist and not a Creationist but that does not mean that I reject “Intelligent Design” out of hand. (I was asked, during a chat room discussion on evolution, whether I had read Michael Behe. I replied that I had, at which point the person let out a self-rightgeous “Ah HA!”)

What this person didn’t realize is that he asked the wrong question!

Yes, I have read Michael Behe, but that by no means indicates that I agree with him.

On the contrary, his crap about “Irreducible Complexity” is full of holes and contradictions. Besides that, who uses words like irreducible anyways?

No, my point there, and in this article, is that we are asking the wrong questions in the whole debate over creation and evolution. It is not an either/or answer.

First, we have to take a brief look at the whole concept of God and Creation.

Everything we do and wonder about is grounded in THIS Universe and we have to apply the “laws of nature” to understand them in a “this world” context.

Another way to define this is by a line of reasoning by Dr. Michael W. Tkacz concerning some points that were first voiced by Thomas Aquinas.

Strictly speaking, points out Thomas, the Creator does not create something out of nothing in the sense of taking some nothing and making something out of it.

This is a conceptual mistake, for it treats nothing as a something. On the contrary, the Christian doctrine of “creation ex nihilo” claims that God made the universe without making it out of anything.

In other words, anything left entirely to itself, completely separated from the cause of its existence, would not exist—it would be absolutely nothing.

The ultimate cause of the existence of anything and everything is God who creates, not out of some nothing, but from nothing at all.

Now, that is pretty heavy and convoluted, but basically it says that God is not of this universe, but rather “apart” from it and we cannot use physical terms to describe God, or the process (act) of creation.

There is no way we can describe “God and Creation” in “earthly” terms since there is no frame of reference for us.

But, after the Force we describe as God created this universe, IT operates according to laws we can understand. (Science)

In other words, the Universe was created as a single thing quite apart, but caused by, the creator. Then, “after that,” the laws of this universe took over and guided the process of evolution.

With this in mind, and after all is said and done, this means that Creation and Evolution are not an “either / or” proposition. Rather, it turns out that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

Yes bunky, "Intelligent Design" was used in the creation of the Universe, but since then...............God only knows!

Now, take two aspirins and go do something else!

Yer "The Olde Philosopher" scribe;
Allan W Janssen


Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) at; www.God-101.com
And the petition to have people mind their own business instead of yours at; http://www.petitiononline.com/moses/petition.html

Oh for God's Sake!

Dr. Richard Dawkins has been one of the leading proponents of the atheistic point of view and according to some articles I have read he is slowly starting to preach atheism with the same feverous zeal that is displayed by some evangelical religious adherents.

He started off slowly with his first book "The Selfish Gene" back in the seventies, but has been gathering up momentum recently in his quest to disprove the existence of God.

He describes his astonishment that, at the start of the 21st century, religious faith is gaining ground in the face of rational, scientific truth.

Science based on scepticism, investigation and evidence must continuously test its own concepts and claims.

Faith, by definition, defies evidence: It is untested and unshakeable, and is therefore in direct contradiction with science.

In addition, though religions preach morality, peace and hope, Dawkins says; "They bring intolerance, violence and destruction. The growth of extreme fundamentalism in so many religions across the world not only endangers humanity but, is in conflict with the trend over thousands of years of history for humanity to progress –to become more enlightened and more tolerant."

In his latest book "The God Delusion" he has a few comments that I would like to expound upon, and a few that I would like to refute!

Consciousness is the biggest puzzle facing biology, neurobiology, computational studies and evolutionary biology. It is a very, very big problem. I don't know the answer. Nobody knows the answer.

I think one day we probably will know the answer. But even if science doesn't know the answer, I return to the question, what on earth makes you think that religion will?

Just because science so far has failed to explain something, such as consciousness, to say it follows that the facile, pathetic explanations which religion has produced somehow by default must win the argument is really quite ridiculous.

Nobody has an explanation for consciousness. That should be a spur to work harder and try to understand it. Not to give up and just say, "Oh well, it must be a soul."

That doesn't mean anything. It doesn't explain anything. You've said absolutely nothing when you've said that.

Now, Dr. Dawkins is right when he states that we don't know the answer to conciousness, but I believe he is dead wrong in saying that a religious explanation has no merit. (This in spite of the fact that I have absolutely no use for any mainstream religion whether it be Christianity, Islam or Buddhism. They are just interpretations of the Divine that are flawed by human agendas and purposes!)

We cannot look upon this marvelous Universe without some degree of awe and wonder. The notion that all of creation is only a matter of chance and random luck would be as big a fallacy as as making proclamations of blind faith to a belief system that was thought up by some fast talking shaman.

We have to look upon conciousness as our link with the Divine - since this seems to be the root of its purpose. We are living in the here and now of this Universe and although we have some empirical evidence of other planes of existence they are by their very nature beyond our ken.

This by no means precludes their own reality in a way that is not verifiable by us and this is where conciousness could play a role. It might be a link with other realities and this allows us to make conjectures about their validity.

From the book: "The Plain Truth About God-101" (what the church doesn't want you to know!)

The gulf between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom is so great because of our unique outlook and appreciation of existence! (Conciousness)

As far as we know, not even the great apes, dolphins, whales, dogs, cats, or any other living thing, has ever given even the slightest thought to our reason for being here!

You will never hear fido say to you, "What's it all about - Alfie.”

People, on the other hand, spend an inordinate amount of time and effort on the question of purpose. So much so, that it seems to influence almost every aspect of not only our lives, but everything around us.

We might see flashes of pseudo-cognizance in fido's eyes every now and then, but I can tell you for sure that fido and his buddies do not sit around and discuss the merits of art or literature!

Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) at; www.God-101.com
And the petition to have people mind their own business instead of yours at; http://www.petitiononline.com/moses/petition.html