creationism and human races (adam and eve question)

imported_guy

my poor thread got hijacked by evolution vs creationism MORONS, all i want to know is how evolution/christianity explain HUMAN RACES.

Fanny Cradock

Yes, it has gone off on a tangent but that is no great surprise. I think that this thread will eventually be merged with the big thread. Anyway, I do believe that people have attempted to answer your question.

Distinct races are explained by evolution and many Christians have historically accepted evolution. Of course, we then spiral off into another debate ID = theistic evolution.

Also, it would also be nice if you didn't resort to insults.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is "directed by intelligence (God, man, aliens or whatever) at some point. Presumably this "direction" would be away from results that natural process would otherwise have produced" and of course the only point I was making is that such a belief is just intelligient design by another name. Intelligent design through the process of evolution is still intelligent design and is no more supported by evidence than creationism
.

Humm... I notice that you didn't answer any of my questions.

I contend there is evidence to support the claim that the evolution has been directed away from its natural course. We can both name various breeds of animals that would have been unlikely to have evolved by natural selection alone, not to mention the unlikeness of them successfully breeding. I've already mentioned the preposterous sausage dog, so we'll stick with that. What do you say about this breed of dog? Does it display any element of intelligent design? Is it a product of evolutionary process alone – with no evidence to suggest that there was some element of design involved? Something else?

(As an aside, I dislike the term intelligent design for the purposes of this debate. Firstly, I always associate design with intelligence and the term can be easily confused with the ID movement.)

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The results of evolution are exactly what we would expect them to be if they were directed by a natural process and not at all what we would expect them to be if an omnipotent designer was guiding it. Theistic evolution is an attempt to force a designer into a situation that does not require one and where one doesn't fit.

As for the results being the same as we would expect them to be if they were directed by a natural process. Well, that statement rather hangs on you claiming to know more about the end results than you can. Granted, we can expect the results to differ between guided and unguided, but how exactly can one predict what the evolution of mankind, for example, should look like both with and without any interference?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It takes the one explanation we have of complexity without design and says "na this had design too" and uses as supporting evidence the fact that I can't prove them wrong. And when I point to the aspects of animals that would be terrible design indicating direction by a natural process that couldn't tell the difference people ask who am I to question God

Dear me! If I didn't know any better I would think that your bottom lip was quivering and you were about to bubble up with tears at the injustice of it all

First things first, what design do you expect from an omnipotent designer?

Furthermore, though you seem to be under a different assumption, I haven't actually proposed any level of interaction God had in the evolution of our species, and I've not even broached this topic in other species. In other words, I've not claimed that God was there influencing every aspect of evolution in our species, nor have I made any statements about his involvement with the guided evolution of other animals.

I don't accept that theistic evolution forces in a designer. The processes remain the same with or without a designer, the only difference is the result. That such a notion fails Occam's Razor seems to have no bearing on its truth

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People who use the term theistic evolution who acknowledge that it does not require a God are the most confusing to me because they acknowledge that, given the laws of physics, it could have happened without God but they like to call it theistic evolution anyway. If they don't think God had a direct involvement in evolution then it is no more theistic evolution than the fact that I used the laws of physics to build a house makes it a theistic house. If its called theistic evolution only because the laws of physics allow it to happen then we can stick that label on everything in existence and claim God was involved because he didn't specifically prohibit it

Perhaps I did people who subscribe to such a thing a disservice by placing them in with theistic evolutionists. But perhaps they see don't see any problem. It would be best to seek them out, I guess.

Zombrex

imported_guy wrote: »

my poor thread got hijacked by evolution vs creationism MORONS, all i want to know is how evolution/christianity explain HUMAN RACES.

Well if fairness what did you expect. You asked a question that directly relates to the views of Creationists and then get annoyed when the thread becomes a debate about Creationism.

How "Christianity" explains human races will depend on how Creationist you are. I can tell you how evolution explains the different races (not that there is much biological basis for the concept of race anyway), but that has got nothing to do with how Christianity explains it.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well if fairness what did you expect.

He probably expected that people would stay on topic and attempt to answer his question within the parameters he specified. That would be a reasonable expectation for someone not familiar with the off-topic nonsense that anti-theists insist in bringining into this forum.

How "Christianity" explains human races will depend on how Creationist you are. I can tell you how evolution explains the different races (not that there is much biological basis for the concept of race anyway), but that has got nothing to do with how Christianity explains it.

Indeed - it certainly has got nothing to do with it. So maybe you would have been better off keeping quiet and letting people actualy address the OP.

As it is I'm locking the thread since we already have one Creationism thread and this one has been effectively derailed.