The Theory of Everything

Are We Not All Creationists?

1612Language barriers are always difficult to overcome, particularly those regarding a more “scientific” rendering of “religious” principles. And so, the discussion of origins devolves into a camp evolution versus camp creation sort of drudgery. Sometimes, I forget the point of it all. What exactly are we arguing about in the first place?

For the simple-minded, it’s about science and reason versus superstition and religion; or the Word of God versus the lies of Satan; or the Believers versus the godless atheists. But what is it really?

I am a creationist who also understands the science of evolution. What do we have in the world around us, if not a creation? And is that creation not a constantly evolving, organic system? Ours is a universe governed by laws and ordered by invisible forces which we understand through what we call “science.” As our understanding evolves, what we consider “scientific” changes accordingly. It is how we grow as a species, through our understanding of the creation we inhabit. Knowing the creation leads to a certain understanding (and appreciation) of the creator, does it not?

Does being a “creationist” make one “religious,” and less “scientific”? I fail to see this correlation. Evolution, scientifically speaking, is a creative process which exhibits the governing laws of the creation. Whether we call it “natural” law, the “laws of nature,” “mother nature” — we are talking about the creation and the forces and laws which govern and shape that creation.

I suppose we could reign-in the argument a bit if we were to apply “scientific” to “evolution” and “creationism” — because there are certainly unscientific elements of both which are often brought to the table. Scientific evolution, referring to the known evolutionary processes which account for changes within species and living organisms over generations and time, which results in variation and statistical spread. Scientific creationism, which sticks to the processes of how and not pertaining to the who or why.

Once we’re settled on that, maybe then we can argue the merits of the specifics, and what we think we know.

About Quackzalcoatl

Phoneticist, Palindrologist, and freelance Sharknadologist. Inventor. Ruler of 2-acre lakes and small streams.


24 thoughts on “Are We Not All Creationists?

  1. I wish the sane world would just now get out of the Creationist debate. This is something for the religious to fight over, not everyone else.

    As it turns out, Pat Robertson is now a Heretic in the eyes of True Christians!


    Posted by john zande | 10 February, 2014, 10:31 am
    • I doubt either side will step back and reconsider. Science evolves, as new findings are incorporated and our understandings modify to accommodate them. As do renderings of the divine, and how we view “supernatural” phenomena.

      To me, science explains the “how God did it / does it” part of the puzzle. Magic, after all, is simply unexplained or unknown science, and God the creator of science, where science is the study of his handiwork. Science can’t necessarily explain the creator nor should it be expected to. That’s where metaphysics and “higher knowledge” come into play. But the two should be harmonious rather than antagonistic.

      Isaac Newton is a good case in point. He used his understandings of God through scripture to advance his knowledge of the creation through science — discovering the principles of “intelligent falling” and inventing calculus in the process, in an effort to bridge the gap.

      I think the problem with the whole Creation/Evolution thing is this effort to disprove one another, win the debate, in a sort of political game of “gotcha.” This constant one-upmanship quest for the latest sound-byte. Science should be debated and refined, but not under the shadow of dogmatic interpretation necessitated by an underlying belief system.

      Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 10 February, 2014, 1:42 pm
      • With all due respect, Newton didn’t use a single line of scripture to make any discovery. Just because he believed in a god amounts to nothing concerning his work. He also believed in alchemy. I’d challenge any creationist to name anything Newton or the others did that depended uniquely on scriptural doctrine.

        No, from this point on let the Religious debate creationism, for that’s where this “conversation” belongs: within those groups only. There is no science involved.

        Posted by john zande | 10 February, 2014, 2:08 pm
        • Newton didn’t use scripture to discover science. He used scripture to understand the creator, and science to better understand the creation of that creator. One desire fueled the other.

          Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 10 February, 2014, 2:38 pm
          • Nonsense. Religion played as much a hand in his discoveries as would have his vegetarianism… If he was a vegetarian. So he was a theist, who cares. In that day all Fellows at both Oxford and Cambridge were “required” to become ordained Anglican priests. Kind of a default position, really. Still, if you can point to just one thing he achieved which could not possibly have been achieved without scripture then i’ll change my mind.

            Posted by john zande | 10 February, 2014, 2:44 pm
          • When religion is used as inspiration to learn, I can’t argue against that. When it is used to determine the value of what is learned, that’s where the trouble begins.

            I’m actually in a conversation with a young earth creationist – tried to give the AnswersInGenesis theories a read. Couldn’t do it. The majority of what was written tended to be focused on disproving common understandings rather than presenting the understandings from their perspective. A focus on making excuses demonstrates a lack of desire to move forward.

            Posted by jasonjshaw | 10 February, 2014, 7:39 pm
          • When Newton finally used God as an answer to a problem his curiosity died and humanity had to wait for Laplace to answer the question Newton had penciled in “God” for. (The question was the multibody problem of celestial motion, if you want to look it up.)
            When Newton eventually thought he knew what God was doing, Newton was wrong. God wasn’t just irrelevant to his discoveries, God slowed them.

            Posted by Allallt | 19 February, 2014, 3:58 pm
  2. Quack – If logic and reason were truly the guides to understanding, we would all be deists or theists. As our tools of scientific inquiry provide us with ever more data about the nature of the micro and macro cosmos, intelligent design is becoming the only rational explanation.

    Some atheist will continue to cling to concepts like abiogenesis and multiverses in an attempt to avoid the obvious. For many, their egos are so inflated that they could never accept the possibility that they are mere creatures brought into existence by a Creator. Other atheists who have been victims of evil theists, may be able to come to a point where they accept deism.

    Posted by Marc | 10 February, 2014, 5:39 pm
    • Lol…I must resist the temptation…I MUST..please god…any god…help me…Though I wade through the valley of blogness, I will hold on to my rod. …and pray my torch batteries last….Or something… Amen…Ra

      Posted by Arkenaten | 16 February, 2014, 7:46 am
  3. Mmmmm,,,,so much I like about this Monday night post. Breakfast for dinner, I thank you for the pic!
    The words and semantics brought to mind Lennon’s song, Imagine. (written by a 1%er and an Atheist to boot!) Aside from the glaring hypocrisy, which is quite prevalent in the majority of today’s music, I do find this piece to touch upon the idea of words cancelling themselves by truth. Problem with Lennon (as well as Lenin) is that they didn’t know the Truth. Pour tu, cherie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTuzB3f2P2Y

    If this reply makes a lick of sense to you, call your doctor. ^Oh, that show is good. It is called Quantum Leap.

    Posted by kellsbellsfrompc | 11 February, 2014, 12:34 am
    • The song was Sam’s favorite, and as a fan, I thought it mine as well. Until the words gained meaning and I saw it as trite nonsensical crap.

      You make sense to one who’s set for stepping stones of our dead selves to higher things. Like a madman lost in a supermarket, killed by the very one he sought to save…

      Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 11 February, 2014, 2:31 am
  4. @Quack

    Your understanding about science would be greatly improved and clarified if you first understood it to be a method of inquiry rather than products. This method stands contrary to the method of inquiry we call ‘faith’. In this regard, science and religion stand at odds and reality demonstrates this again and again. Claims about reality from both methods produce incompatible results. And the brute fact is that the method of inquiry called ‘faith’ does not produce equivalent knowledge to the use of the method of science, which is why the knowledge exchange between them is unidirectional – from science to religion. The only ‘conversion’ between them regarding knowledge about the reality we share is from science that then forces prior religious claims about reality to retreat.

    The claim that reality and everything it contains was created (or influenced) by a creative agency is not supported by evidence adduced from reality. We find no supportive evidence where it should be present (for particular claims) yet find much evidence contrary to them. A good example is the area of science we call evolutionary biology – change to life over time, which is demonstrable – by various mechanisms observable in reality (like natural selection, mutation, migration, and genetic drift), The introduction of claiming a creative event at some historical time at the very least implies a creative interactive agency to do the creating (otherwise, we are talking about properties of physics and chemistry in action). If the creative agency were true, there should be evidence of and for this causal interaction. There isn’t. In the absence of such evidence, the religious claim stands empty of anything we can call ‘knowledge’. It is a claim of assumption, of assertion, of wishful thinking, of faith, that such an agency exists and has been (or is) a causal agency in reality. To claim ‘knowledge’ of this creative agency is simply not supportable by the reality we share. It is only supportable by an act of faith – a belief imposed on reality by those individuals (and not deduced from compelling evidence arbitrated by reality) willing to grant confidence to it. This faith-based claim is misrepresented when it is presented as any kind of equivalent but alternative scientific understanding. Belief in creation by a causal agency should be recognized solely as a faith-based claim. Petending otherwise is disingenuous.


    The reason why no knowledge gains have been made from the intelligent design hypothesis is rather telling, don’t you think? In any other area of scientific inquiry, such a massive failure justifies ejecting the hypothesis. Only when it is attached to religious belief does it maintain any staying power. This is indicative of what drives it: faith and not reality. Because faith does not, has never, and shall never produce knowledge about reality, we can safely set it aside as a quirk of biology that seeks agency even when none is present and lose absolutely nothing of knowledge value. A logical mind would deduce this conclusion. It takes something other than logic and reason to maintain unjustified beliefs and we have a name for this: faith. To suggest that doubt for claims of some causal force of Oogity Boogity implementing events of POOF!ism is really just atheistic ego rather than respect for the blunt arbitration and adjudication by reality for claims made about it is truly convoluted and bizarre reasoning. One might even be tempted to call such reasoning delusional because it operates exactly the same way: imposing a belief on reality and then not allowing reality to adjudicate it.

    Posted by tildeb | 11 February, 2014, 12:13 pm
    • Geeze. I couldn’t disagree with you more, tildeb. I have a doctorate in medicinal chemistry (which relies heavily on biochemistry). I understand the process of science quite well. It simply holds a different context for me than it does for you.

      In many ways we are examining individual pieces of a complex puzzle, the trees in the forest. The way I see it, your fear of “faith” forces your conclusions to be unreasonable. I hardly see how anyone of sound mind could ever see the profound levels of order which govern the cosmos and not infer a higher intelligence at play behind the curtain. That said, I never look to science to propagate what I believe about “the big picture.” I study science and engage in inquiry because it interests me to know these things, rather than debate the merits of what I so readily infer.

      Please understand, I have no interest in anything “faith” related being taught in schools or as science. Just putting that out there because you seem a tad on edge about the “separation” of anything remotely god-like sneaking its way from the pulpit and into the public square. I did fine going to a perfectly secular school and learning how to think critically for myself. The more one is challenged intellectually, the better. Propaganda, whether religious nonsense or state-sponsored rhetoric, is always seen for what it is when all is said and done. And for the most part, I would rather not hear about anymore public debates between “evolution and creation”.

      Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 12 February, 2014, 8:22 am
  5. Tildeb – It is probably just a matter of time until a falsifiable scientific model is prepared for the intelligent design theory. When this takes place the Darwinian Evolutionary theory will be shown to require far more faith. What you consider to be convoluted and bizarre reasoning will become mainstream, and you will likely remain on the fringe.

    Posted by Marc | 11 February, 2014, 2:38 pm
    • The Discovery Institute just celebrated its 25th anniversary. Now, you can read the Wedge Document for yourself because it lays out clearly what Intelligent Design is supposed to do… and it has nothing to do with coming up with a scientific explanation of how life changes over time and by what mechanisms. Your ‘faith’ in ID is simply not based on anything you have concluded (using logic and reason to deduce this explanation) by compelling evidence from reality because we know there’s nothing in support of it (so far, granted…); it is based on something else. That ‘something else’ is not scientific. I wonder what it might be?

      In contrast, compelling evidence for the explanation we call ‘evolution’ adduced from reality is widespread, easily available, and mutually supportive from every arena of inquiry… save one: religion. No equivalent kind of ‘faith’ of the religious kind is either needed or necessary to understand why evolution is probably the foremost scientific theory ever produced by human inquiry into reality. This evidence is available to you should you seek to understand it. To be clear, this mutually supportive evidence from different avenues of inquiry didn’t have to be this way. There could have been unequivocal evidence against it and in direct support for various creationist accounts. Sadly (for the believer in creationism) all the evidence points to evolution being true. And this may explain why personal beliefs in it don;t matter when it comes to applications, therapies, and technologies that just so happen to work for everyone everywhere all the time based on it being an accurate explanation. To be clear, faith plays no part in this. None. Zero. Zip. Nada., Bupkus. Claiming that a kind of faith similar to the religious kind is necessary to justify confidence in evolution is a scope of error that is either truly staggering in denialism if evolution has been understood or deeply submerged in a willful and intentional ignorance that refuse to respect reality. There simply is no other middle ground for such a ridiculous claim.

      Posted by tildeb | 11 February, 2014, 2:55 pm
      • You are correct in your observation about faith. The evidence against evolution will reach the point that the whole house of cards will collapse, and no amount of faith will be able to save this silly theory. Of course there are still silly people in the scientific community the deny that the cosmos had a beginning.

        Posted by Marc | 11 February, 2014, 3:22 pm
        • Ah…but the real fun begins when you ( or any/every christian) are obliged to demonstrate how Yeshua is that Creator.

          Now this is going to be worth watching!
          As Sheldon Cooper ( Big Bang Theory) says, it will be a ” Hoot an’ a half”

          Posted by Arkenaten | 16 February, 2014, 7:54 am
          • Ark – Jesus was able to create the universe because before His Incarnation He was the only begotten Son of God the Father. Along with the Holy Spirit that proceeds from the Father, the Triune God, One in essence yet three in persons, created the universe by using their uncreated energy to create the energy necessary for the “Big Bang.” The Triune God fine tuned this energy to bring about the cosmos we experience today, and will continue to fine tune the Creation to a point that even skeptics like you will find quite satisfactory.

            Posted by Marc | 16 February, 2014, 9:00 am
            • Lol…the Man-Made Triune

              How credulous some humans are.
              I am continuously amazed that certain (apparently sane) adults are able to rationalize this nonsense and still function.

              Oh, and this little outpouring is merely a regurgitation of church doctrine and explains nothing.

              Care for another shot?

              Go on, you;re a clever feller…

              Posted by Arkenaten | 16 February, 2014, 9:07 am
              • Given that there is no empirical explanation possible outside of time/space, it is all conjecture.

                I happen to think that the concepts agreed upon by the early Christian Church are more plausible than any others.

                You are far more clever than I am Ark, so please tell me what really happened 13.8 billion years ago. Who dun it?

                Posted by Marc | 17 February, 2014, 10:53 am
              • Er…why who?

                I Don’t Know what caused it.

                Posted by Arkenaten | 17 February, 2014, 11:43 am

Leave a Reply to Quackzalcoatl Cancel reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: