Talk:Progressive creationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"it rejects much of modern biology or looks to it for evidence that evolution by natural selection is incorrect."

It is not my experience that this is the case. With the exception of the special creation of humanity, most progressive creationsits, including Erickson and Ramm, would not disagree with modern evolutionary science.

[edit] Not much of a difference

The intro statas:

... posits that the new "kinds" of plants and animals that have appeared successively over the planet's history represent instances of God directly intervening to create those new types by means outside the realm of naturalistic science. In contrast, theistic evolution holds that natural, evolutionary mechanisms were guided by God.

I don't see the difference between:

1. God directly intervening to create those new types; and,
2. natural, evolutionary mechanisms were guided by God

Wouldn't any "guidance" by God be a direct intervention? Can God perform a miracle without performing a supernatural act? --Uncle Ed 16:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggest that you consult the Reverend Baden Powell about the distinction between God's laws and miracles. .. dave souza, talk 09:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "guided" would be more along the lines of planned from the beginning to play out in a certain way, and because he's omniscient things do without further intervention. However direct intervention means he's haphazardly putting things in and taking them out until he gets to us. But this is my personal view, not something that's really based on anything, just thought I'd throw that in anyway. Balderdash707 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Many games with randomly generated levels work off a random seed fed into a deterministic algorithm. If you use the same seed, you'll get the same level. In fact, some games give you the option to input a seed value, so as to create a given level.

Applied to creationism, this line of reasoning states that God, being omniscient, was able choose the appropriate seed value to generate the world he wanted.

Direct interventions do not have to be haphazard. In cooking, a chef will guide the ingredients through a series of natural processes (e.g. fermentation) via a series of direct interventions (eg. adding something to stop fermentation) to achieve a specified goal. (In this case a recipe.)

Applied to creationism, this line of reasoning states that God acted as a "cosmic chef" guided by a recipe of his own design in creating the world he wanted. In this view, his actions were not haphazard, but rather deliberate.

While I find both viewpoints to have merit, I tend to endorse the "cosmic chef" theory. (However, that's because I like cooking...)

Bridnour (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The 'omnisciently choose the seed that will lead to the desired level' approach is analogous with theistic evolution. The analogy for Progressive Creationism is to hack the level at key stages to alter the flow of the game to get the result you want. It is, of necessity, a 'tinkering'/'making it up as you go along' approach that casts doubt on the omniscience of the hypothesised creator. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Would the concept of a series of preplanned interventions fall under the concept of Theistic Evolution or of Progressive Creationism? Or is there a third position that falls between the two? For that matter, is the term "preplanned intervention" an oxymoron?

I'm curious as to where the precise dividing line between the two is. Ever since the term "Intelligent Design" has become associated to closely with religion-in-school advocates, I've been trying to find a term that fits my own beliefs. (I'm beginning to think it's Theistic Evolution.) Bridnour (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at the Eugene Scott Article referenced below. It answered my remaining questions. Bridnour (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory meanings of theistic evolution

Cut from intro:

In contrast, theistic evolution holds that natural, evolutionary mechanisms were guided by God.

Quoting from Theistic evolution:

... the general opinion that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.

It's not clear whether theistic evolution is (1) a particular theory or belief, or (2) an argument that two different beliefs or ideas are compatible.

Are we defining theistic evolution as any idea which asserts that God created forms of life progressively or that God set everything in motion and "used" the natural forces of evolution which He set in motion but otherwise left alone?

Or is theistic evolution the viewpoint that there is no contradiction between the naturalistic theory of evolution and many popular religious ideas about origins?

I'd like to nail down the terminology here. --Uncle Ed 00:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

See Eugenie C. Scott (December 7, 2000). NCSE Resource. The Creation/Evolution Continuum. NCSE. Retrieved on 2007-11-19. .. dave souza, talk 09:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)