What Does Special Creation Mean?

[Jukia]

The purpose was to try to clear away the fog surrounding this term.

Well you have certainly not done much to defog it.

 

[bob b]

I really do not know how to make the situation clearer to those who stubbornly refuse to see it.

As Jukia admitted in this thread, and I agree, the term special creation ( a religious term) refers to the Genesis account of creation.

Over time there arose confusion about the terms "kind" and "species".

To add more confusion Greek ideas about the "fixity of species" became popular, because in early and middle age Europe the ancient Greek philosophers were revered as the fountainhead of knowledge.

So if one erroneously equates "kind" with "species" then it provides a certain amount of support for the false concept of "fixity of species", because Genesis does say that animals reproduced "after their kind".

So when Darwin discovered that the more modern definition of "species" falsified the "fixity of species" he had been taught in theology school he knew there was a problem.

According to Darwin's observations, if Genesis taught "fixity of species" according to his, Darwin's, concept of species then Genesis must be wrong.

But Genesis was not wrong, because it never taught "fixity of species", especially the more modern biological definition of "species" that had been developed a few years previously to Darwin's time.

I hope this clears up the fog regarding the error in including the false idea of "fixity of species" in some evolutionist's definition of "special creation".

If evolutionist's do not themselves mend their ways in including "fixity of species" as part of their definition of "special creation", then creationists have no choice in avoiding confusion by simply not using the term "special creation" in discussions with evolutionists. We will simply have to refer to the Genesis account itself and avoid using the shorter term "special creation".

 

[Jukia]

Well thanks bob b. Although I am not sure that my statement was really an admission of anything.
However, to cut to the chase. I think it safe to say that those who believe in "special creation" really believe in a literal reading of Genesis. As far as I am aware they are, therefor, sadly mistaken on the facts and on the real world.

 

[bob b]

Well thanks bob b. Although I am not sure that my statement was really an admission of anything.
However, to cut to the chase. I think it safe to say that those who believe in "special creation" really believe in a literal reading of Genesis. As far as I am aware they are, therefor, sadly mistaken on the facts and on the real world.

What originally impressed me in the past few years is that the major accounts in scripture, creation of multiple kinds, the Ark, etc. seem to be unique in the world of religion in being scientifically feasible, especially for anyone who dares to admit the possibility that God exists.

 

[Jukia]

What originally impressed me in the past few years is that the major accounts in scripture, creation of multiple kinds, the Ark, etc. seem to be unique in the world of religion in being scientifically feasible, especially for anyone who dares to admit the possibility that God exists.

Ah yes, there is all that science that shows the earth is only a few thousand years old, that there was a world wide flood, that plants and animals were created as separate kinds out of whole cloth.
Where is that evidence again?

 

[Humpback]

There's an interesting skeptical treatment of the subject here that might be helpful:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_watts/evolution_and_creation.html

:e4e:

That's way too many words dude. Anything with that many words cannot be trusted. lain:

 

[bob b]

Ah yes, there is all that science that shows the earth is only a few thousand years old, that there was a world wide flood, that plants and animals were created as separate kinds out of whole cloth.
Where is that evidence again?

If you are interested in those things you might wish to make your comments on the thread that talks about how many animals were on the Ark where we are discussing this in more detail.

 

[noguru]

I really do not know how to make the situation clearer to those who stubbornly refuse to see it.

As Jukia admitted in this thread, and I agree, the term special creation ( a religious term) refers to the Genesis account of creation.

Over time there arose confusion about the terms "kind" and "species".

To add more confusion Greek ideas about the "fixity of species" became popular, because in early and middle age Europe the ancient Greek philosophers were revered as the fountainhead of knowledge.

So if one erroneously equates "kind" with "species" then it provides a certain amount of support for the false concept of "fixity of species", because Genesis does say that animals reproduced "after their kind".

So when Darwin discovered that the more modern definition of "species" falsified the "fixity of species" he had been taught in theology school he knew there was a problem.

According to Darwin's observations, if Genesis taught "fixity of species" according to his, Darwin's, concept of species then Genesis must be wrong.

But Genesis was not wrong, because it never taught "fixity of species", especially the more modern biological definition of "species" that had been developed a few years previously to Darwin's time.

I hope this clears up the fog regarding the error in including the false idea of "fixity of species" in some evolutionist's definition of "special creation".

If evolutionist's do not themselves mend their ways in including "fixity of species" as part of their definition of "special creation", then creationists have no choice in avoiding confusion by simply not using the term "special creation" in discussions with evolutionists. We will simply have to refer to the Genesis account itself and avoid using the shorter term "special creation".

Bob, I have never thought genesis was wrong. I have adjusted what I find to be scientifically and historically accurate with what I think is allegorical based on my current understanding of knowledge and wisdom. I strongly suspect that even you have followed this same path. Except perhaps you believed at one time that if some things were allegorical they were wrong or false.

 

[noguru]

If you are interested in those things you might wish to make your comments on the thread that talks about how many animals were on the Ark where we are discussing this in more detail.

You mean that thread you thought was started with a stupid question?

 

[bob b]

Bob, I have never thought genesis was wrong. I have adjusted what I find to be scientifically and historically accurate with what I think is allegorical based on my current understanding of knowledge and wisdom. I strongly suspect that even you have followed this same path. Except perhaps you believed at one time that if some things were allegorical they were wrong or false.

Although I have known that evolution from a single ancestor, usually called a protocell, has been false for some 25 years, it was only in the past dozen years that I began to realize that the account in Genesis was a better solution to the mystery of the origin of life and tthe variety we see in nature.

There is no need to allegorize Genesis. Once one realizes that God could have created the first "kinds" of creatures at the beginning there is nothing unscientific about natural processes generating all of the variety seen in nature in only thousands of years instead of millions.

Random mutation plays a very minor role in this process, and mostly, if not exclusively, is a role that generates a deterioration of the genome.

 

[disciplesixelleven]

Special Creation is not a biblical word.

 

[bob b]

Special Creation is not a biblical word.

Good point.

The problem is that evolutionists think the term represents the thinking of creation scientists and that it is a synonym for "fixity of species". See Wikipedia.

The primary rationale for thinking this is the fact that it it was Church doctrine in the past and in some denominations may still be.

When the Church "adopts" ancient Greek philosophy like "fixity of species" and turns it into a doctrine confusion ensues, as the case of Aristotle and Galileo illustrates.

 

[noguru]

Although I have known that evolution from a single ancestor, usually called a protocell, has been false for some 25 years, it was only in the past dozen years that I began to realize that the account in Genesis was a better solution to the mystery of the origin of life and tthe variety we see in nature.

Did you know this the same way you knew that the question in the OP for the thread about "How Many Animals Were on The Arc?" was stupid?

Here is your first post from that thread:

This is a pretty dumb thread in my opinion.

There is no possibility of knowing in absolute detail what was on the Ark, although certain observations can be made based on scripture and logic.

For example, only animals specifically were brought unto the Ark, althought it should be obvious that a few bugs would have been hitchhikers. Bugs seem to survive long winters. They also can survive in floating debris.

Other observations can be made, but nothing that would convince a dedicated skeptic that a global flood actually happened.

 

[Jukia]

Good point.

The problem is that evolutionists think the term represents the thinking of creation scientists and that it is a synonym for "fixity of species". See Wikipedia.

The primary rationale for thinking this is the fact that it it was Church doctrine in the past and in some denominations may still be.

When the Church "adopts" ancient Greek philosophy like "fixity of species" and turns it into a doctrine confusion ensues, as the case of Aristotle and Galileo illustrates.

Nice try bob b. But lets be clear. Special creation means that the hand of God created everything in 6 days including the Biblical "kinds" of living things. It is nonsense. Worse than nonsense, it is dishonest and does nothing to support Christianity except to line the pockets of fundy preachers. It is sinful.

 

[noguru]

Good point.

The problem is that evolutionists think the term represents the thinking of creation scientists and that it is a synonym for "fixity of species". See Wikipedia.

The primary rationale for thinking this is the fact that it it was Church doctrine in the past and in some denominations may still be.

When the Church "adopts" ancient Greek philosophy like "fixity of species" and turns it into a doctrine confusion ensues, as the case of Aristotle and Galileo illustrates.

Evolutionists really are not concerned with the thinking of creation scientists when there thinking is not scientific. They do become concerned however, when creation scientist try to put their religious claims in the same arena as science. Which does seem to be what is implied by the term creation scientists.

 

[bob b]

Nice try bob b. But lets be clear. Special creation means that the hand of God created everything in 6 days including the Biblical "kinds" of living things.

I am glad that you have come around to a reasonable definition of special creation.

Too bad more people don't do this so we could use the term in discussions with those who don't agree with your definition (including preachers).

 

[Jukia]

I am glad that you have come around to a reasonable definition of special creation.

Too bad more people don't do this so we could use the term in discussions with those who don't agree with your definition (including preachers).

Well, thanks. But it makes no real difference 'casue there is no evidence of it happening that way.