A very one sided debacle.

[XaWN]

This is a discussion question; it makes no explicit sense, but hopefully someone will have a very profound thought on the topic. Add your vote to the poll.

Creationism and Evolution seem to be opposing sides of an argument. Why is it that evolution has both atheistic and theistic proponents while creationism only has theistic proponents?

The answer is obvious, but why is it not profound and convincing?

[XaWN]

I would rather not guess but speculate.
The fence is fine with me but I voted deistic evolution jus tin case God is nothing more then a human construct or a way of talking about what we don't understand.

Reasonable, and well said.

[QED]

I'm still trying to work out what it means to be a Theistic "evolutionist"

The obvious answer is that a Deist God created evolution and left it to do whatever it would do. This sounds very fishy to me (no pun intended). Could we really imagine that any God who could set up such an experiment would have no inkling that it would end up with sentient beings running around asking existential questions after a few billions of years? This still sounds very much like a Theistic creationist to me.

And there are plenty of scientific ideas on the table about Atheistic Creationism -- the notion that we're a deliberate experiment of some other life-form having God-like powers due to superior technology -- but then we're still considering these types to be the product of some natural process if the prefix of our label is Atheistic.

So the prefix seems to be all we need, and the one-sidedness goes away(?).

[XaWN]

And there are plenty of scientific ideas on the table about Atheistic Creationism -- the notion that we're a deliberate experiment of some other life-form having God-like powers due to superior technology -- but then we're still considering these types to be the product of some natural process if the prefix of our label is Atheistic

Hadn't heard of this as atheistic creationism. I suppose it could be called that; though who created the life form that created us?

Honestly, I hadn't considered that there would be an argument for "Atheistic creationism."

[QED]

And there are plenty of scientific ideas on the table about Atheistic Creationism -- the notion that we're a deliberate experiment of some other life-form having God-like powers due to superior technology -- but then we're still considering these types to be the product of some natural process if the prefix of our label is Atheistic

Hadn't heard of this as atheistic creationism. I suppose it could be called that; though who created the life form that created us?

That's a matter of taste, and in this case is indicated by the Atheistic prefix. Reasons for being atheistic can readily "skip over" another naturally evolved intelligence as our creator i.e. if we can't accept that intent can exist outside of a biological (or material) matrix. In this case we are prepared to accept that the "eeties" were themselves a natural product of an unintentional process, but used their evolved intent to create us as (perhaps) some kind of entertainment.

Honestly, I hadn't considered that there would be an argument for "Atheistic creationism."

I highly recommend you pick up a copy of Paul Davies book "The Goldilocks Enigma" (different title in the US). In it he presents a comprehensive survey of the range of ideas like this on the table today.

[upallnite]

And there are plenty of scientific ideas on the table about Atheistic Creationism -- the notion that we're a deliberate experiment of some other life-form having God-like powers due to superior technology -- but then we're still considering these types to be the product of some natural process if the prefix of our label is Atheistic

Hadn't heard of this as atheistic creationism. I suppose it could be called that; though who created the life form that created us?

That's a matter of taste, and in this case is indicated by the Atheistic prefix. Reasons for being atheistic can readily "skip over" another naturally evolved intelligence as our creator i.e. if we can't accept that intent can exist outside of a biological (or material) matrix. In this case we are prepared to accept that the "eeties" were themselves a natural product of an unintentional process, but used their evolved intent to create us as (perhaps) some kind of entertainment.

Honestly, I hadn't considered that there would be an argument for "Atheistic creationism."

I highly recommend you pick up a copy of Paul Davies book "The Goldilocks Enigma" (different title in the US). In it he presents a comprehensive survey of the range of ideas like this on the table today.

I was think of somethig along the lines of Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question". I love weird Sci-fi stories. http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
Or The Ragged Trouser Philosophers "Conversation with God" http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal

[PC1]

I'm on the fence big time. If I absolutely HAD to chose, I'd probably go with Intelligent Design, but I'm really not sure (Would that count as theistic creationist?). My folks are theistic evolutionists and I used to be really excited about Young-Earth Creationism, but lately I've sort of lost interest in it. Honestly, as time goes on I find myself being able to accept evolution much more readily. A big reason why I wouldn't accept evolution is because you've got people like Dawkins going around saying that to properly understand evolution means it is impossible to be a theist.

[OpenedUp]

I'm on the fence big time. If I absolutely HAD to chose, I'd probably go with Intelligent Design, but I'm really not sure (Would that count as theistic creationist?). My folks are theistic evolutionists and I used to be really excited about Young-Earth Creationism, but lately I've sort of lost interest in it. Honestly, as time goes on I find myself being able to accept evolution much more readily. A big reason why I wouldn't accept evolution is because you've got people like Dawkins going around saying that to properly understand evolution means it is impossible to be a theist.

Did Dawkin's really say that?

[Goat]

I'm on the fence big time. If I absolutely HAD to chose, I'd probably go with Intelligent Design, but I'm really not sure (Would that count as theistic creationist?). My folks are theistic evolutionists and I used to be really excited about Young-Earth Creationism, but lately I've sort of lost interest in it. Honestly, as time goes on I find myself being able to accept evolution much more readily. A big reason why I wouldn't accept evolution is because you've got people like Dawkins going around saying that to properly understand evolution means it is impossible to be a theist.

I would like to see where he said that.

However, properly understood, a person would realize that science does not make any kind of statement about God what so ever.

Now, properly understood, evolution DOES eliminate the literal interpretation of Genesis, but so does geography, astrophysics, physics, history, archeology, paleontology, meterology, and pretty much any science out there does.

[PC1]

As for the Dawkins statement, I was reading up on Peter Hitchens (an ID advocate, and ironically the brother of Christopher Hitchesn) on Wikipedia and it said, "He agrees with evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins that a belief in the truth of evolutionary theory, properly understood, is incompatible with a theist position." If you check that is still there under the heading "On Evolution." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitc ... _evolution

It cites this article: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/ ... ce_an.html

Reading that, I don't really see where it mentions anything about that. So I guess Wikipedia lied to me, what a surprise I guess Dawkins never said that.

[Goat]

As for the Dawkins statement, I was reading up on Peter Hitchens (an ID advocate, and ironically the brother of Christopher Hitchesn) on Wikipedia and it said, "He agrees with evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins that a belief in the truth of evolutionary theory, properly understood, is incompatible with a theist position." If you check that is still there under the heading "On Evolution." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitc ... _evolution

It cites this article: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/ ... ce_an.html

Reading that, I don't really see where it mentions anything about that. So I guess Wikipedia lied to me, what a surprise I guess Dawkins never said that.

It would be a logical fallacy if he did. There are SOME theistic positions that evolution is incompatible with, to be sure, such as 'young earth creationism' , or the literal reading of Genesis. But all of science has falsified those positions anyway.