Creatiolutionism

[Universal]

Just comment on it.
Do you believe it or not, and do you think we could use this to our advantage?

[Faceless]

OK, I don't have a clue what this is... I assume it is "evolutionism" and "creationism" somehow merged into one monstrous hodge-podge of pseudo-scientific pseudo-religious mumbo jumbo. But I am quick to judge and I've only got one word to go on.

I do have some thoughts for the scientists/ scientifically inclined.

I am a physics student myself and I have been doing a few interesting modules at uni which touch on "The origins of life". One of my professors in particular specialises in so-called "astro-biology". Basically I've been doing a fair bit of stuff this semester which explores the limits between organic and inorganic matter, which is very interesting for a dialectician. I have been disturbed to find how much philosophical idealism actually exists amongst the experts in the field. In particular this review article called "Origins of Life" by a guy called AK Lal was presented as good background reading to the subject. It's got a lot that is actually pretty interesting about how living matter may have evolved from inorganic matter (read on wiki about the so-called RNA world hypothesis if you are interested) but what disturbs me about the paper is how seriously the author treated an alternative hypothesis called "panspermia".

Basically panspermia suggests that tiny little bundles of virus-like life forms exist all through space, colonising potentially habitable planets. The theory makes no attempt to explain where these life forms come from: apparently they are eternal and distributed everywhere - thus Lal skims over the very real problem of how organic matter evolves from inorganic matter by saying that proto-life forms are eternal and ubiquitous. To jusitfy this theory he has to throw away the big bang hypothesis which would mean that early life forms couldn't be eternal and static, incidentally I also have problems with big bang cosmology. Anyway, because this was just a review article it turns out that the theory of "panspermia" wasn't originated by Lal, but by someone else. I did my homework and it turns out that Fred Hoyle, notorious in cosmology for denying the big bang, originated this theory. It turns out that in his later years he developed this "theory" and eventually began believing in "intelligent design" too. I researched further and it turns out that the colleague that he developed this "theory" with, called Chandra Wickramsinghe, has co-written a book on the "life force" which pervades the universe with the leader of a notorious Buddhist cult, Daisaku Ikeda. That panspermia, a fundamentally anti-dialectical viewpoint which supposes an eternal non-evolving "agent of life" existing throughout the universe, is so intertwined with the strangest forms of philosophical idealism is no coincidence.

What is most insidious about this idealism-motivated pseudo-science is that it is taught legitimately by professors who are obviously regarded as authorities by their students. Like I said, I have problems with conventional wisdom on things like the big bang (it is ironic that a theoretical blunder in one field can be a corrective to blunders in other fields) but I make a point of explaining the philosophical underpinnings of my disagreements. So yeah, don't believe everything you hear from your teachers. Consciously or otherwise they have much philosophical baggage and it is neccesary to bear this in mind as a student.

[Universal]

First, for people who don't know, creatiolutionism is when god created and evolved life in slow, long bursts of evolution. Or god created man, man was stupid, gad gave man a brain, man got smart, god gave man tools, man built houses and towns, extra.

Last, i do agree that what teachers say is not always true. My history teacher states that socialism and communism distroythe human arts and creative abilities, which is not true. He is just a radical form of capitalists in America.

[Faceless]

First, for people who don't know, creatiolutionism is when god created and evolved life in slow, long bursts of evolution. Or god created man, man was stupid, gad gave man a brain, man got smart, god gave man tools, man built houses and towns, extra.

Ah, in that case I don't subscribe to it. Most marxists aren't religious and all marxists, being materialists, tend to favour scientific, non-mystical explanations for worldly phenomenon - I'd be surprised if you found any who aren't out and out Darwinists.

[P.O.U.M]

First, for people who don't know, creatiolutionism is when god created and evolved life in slow, long bursts of evolution. Or god created man, man was stupid, gad gave man a brain, man got smart, god gave man tools, man built houses and towns, extra.

This isn't so bad. It leads me to think that an individual who believes this is just spiritual. Not a bible thumper or not attached to a religion, which ever it may be.

Basically it just sounds like someone who believes in the scientific process but wants to cover all their bases. So throwing God in the beginning as a "just in case" scenario.

[Universal]

Actually its literally what i said before. God made man, God gave man brain, man got smart, God gave man tools, man build city, God made man even more smarter, Man build computers and rebuked God; the list goes on. After all, whats worth killing each other over? A computer or Gods will, that could justify everything if we can have a Christian church preach socialism WITH the bible.
After all ,it said that God is fair and forgiving to all, right?

[P.O.U.M]

God made man, God gave man brain, man got smart, God gave man tools, man build city, God made man even more smarter,

So... Is this your version of evolution? Just skipping the monkey part? Or God just kinda threw a brain at man somewhere down the caveman era.

Man build computers and rebuked God; the list goes on

Well. Man has rebuked God/s long before the Christian/Jewish God hit the scene.

After all, whats worth killing each other over? A computer or Gods will

...

After all ,it said that God is fair and forgiving to all, right?

Have you read the Bible? He is a very vengeful being in the old book. He doesn't play nice till the new testament. And that right there is a whole new point of contention thing. The evolution of God's will. From ridiculously jealous vengeful being to the nice caring father figure. Some omnipotent being. And I'm not knocking God, I'm just knocking the bible's view.

If you want to believe in God. No harm in that. Just drop the church. Jesus was a socialist. But you'll be damned if you ever hear that in church. And the Church, during times of revolution always sides with the reaction. So the church will never preach socialism.

[Lech]

In essence its kinda like Deism, a rational approach to religion. A way to have faith without sacrifcing your common sense as it were. I don't subscribe to it myself but I assume this is the reasoning behind it.

[Universal]

Have you read the Bible? He is a very vengeful being in the old book. He doesn't play nice till the new testament. And that right there is a whole new point of contention thing. The evolution of God's will. From ridiculously jealous vengeful being to the nice caring father figure. Some omnipotent being. And I'm not knocking God, I'm just knocking the bible's view.

Yes i have read the Bible

Just drop the church. Jesus was a socialist. But you'll be damned if you ever hear that in church. And the Church, during times of revolution always sides with the reaction. So the church will never preach socialism.

Churches will only preach socialism if the society in which they exist in is socialized. Churches support any other party however, so you will not find a church preaching socialism. Also, a church is a religious institution for many people, they are there to learn about God and receive Jesus, not to hear political philosophy. I don't know about the church where you are, but in America (surprise, surprise) the church actually preaches God and not politics.

[Christopher Hill]

I myself have a similar view, that being that if a higher power exists that it likely created life and then allowed it to evolve on its own.

[Universal]

Yea, I believe in the watch maker theory wereGod created the cosmos and then allowed it to just take off by itself without his help.

[Christopher Hill]

Yea, I believe in the watch maker theory wereGod created the cosmos and then allowed it to just take off by itself without his help.

It does seem far more likely than an active deity, it also explains the problem of evil, but I still don't believe in any diety and am thus an Atheist.

[Elisabeth]

A bit of creationism and a bit of evolution, shake it all up and you've got today.
 Muscle Max

[Paula Marx]

I don't think one man (or force) could ever be above everything in the way he created all the world.
There are millions of theories which cannot be proved. Those dogmas are called religions.
And there are also millions of theories which cannot be achieved, but people can fight for them. Those non-dogmas are called ideologies.
I don't know where should I put creatiolutionism. It's not a religion, not an ideology.

Also, I think Bible is an important book for literature with lots of interesting stories and characters.
But why should we think everything written in it has happened? It contains everything - drama, thrill, crime, love, comedy, SF.

[Kenway]

hello guys..
thanks for sharing information..