Quote:
Originally Posted by Burninator
Evolution doesn't prove or disprove god, it just doesn't require a god for evolution to work.
|
This is sort of what I was trying to get at in differentiating physics / cosmology above. I thought about how to put it another way even though I'm preaching to the choir at this point.
If you're a theist talking to a cosmologist, they may tell you, "what our field is concerned with is the structure and origin of the universe, and here is what we've managed to discover". As a theist, you may respond, "Okay, but all of that was caused by a divine creator who set up all the physical norms you're talking about". At which point, the cosmologist would have a lot to say as to whether that makes sense, in what circumstances that might be a reasonable conclusion, why reality as it currently stands does or doesn't support the notion that a divine creator caused the universe, or indeed whether you're even talking about the problem using language that applies (see Carrol in that debate up there). There's some intersection here - there are things that the creationist can meaningfully talk about with the cosmologist.
Now, if you're a theist talking to an evolutionary biologist, they may tell you, "what our field is concerned with is the way new species are created, how they develop and change over time, and why they change in particular ways". If you're a creationist, you might say "Okay, but regardless, all of this was set in motion by a divine creator who set up all of the biological rules you're talking about". At which point, the biologist would shrug his shoulders and tell you that whatever set up the rules of the world is irrelevant to the study of how it actually operates.
This of course assumes you're a reasonably modern creationist who doesn't think that dinosaur bones are a hoax and that the world is 6000 years old and that biblical stories are literally true. If not, there's no point in involving you in a discourse anyway.