7 ms·

>I struggled with the incompatibilities of evolution and the literal Christian creationist model I was taught. I had the opposite problem, with parochial schoo

>I struggled with the incompatibilities of evolution and the literal Christian creationist model I was taught. I had the opposite problem, with parochial school teachers well versed in shifting back and forth between "it was a metaphor" when evidence contradicted it, to biblical literalism when there wasn't clear contrary evidence. So it was right when right, and meant to show us what is right when it was false. I thought C&E was a philosophical question, like the ship of Theseus, it can't have a reductive answer because it represents ideals rather than logic. To be devil's advocate for your stance, the '... an egg that was a mutation from non-chicken parents' were themselves derived first from an egg, which could be said to be the origin of the chicken, but itself laid by antecedent.... So eventually it must go back to the first entity that laid the first egg, and whenceforth they, etc...hence a philosophical perspective.

LiquidSky 7y ago
>an egg that was a mutation from non-chicken parents' were themselves derived first from an egg But that's irrelevant. The argument isn't about where eggs come from, and simply laying eggs doesn't make something a chicken. If we define "chicken" as the biological creatures we know today that has a certain genetic makeup, then at some point in their evolutionary history there would be the first such creature that has this makeup being hatched from eggs made by creatures that don't. Just as, at some point in the past, there was the first genetic modern human born from pre-human parents. Hence, the egg must have come first. This is only an unsolvable problem if you hold that there have always been chickens that never evolved from earlier creatures, i.e. the Creationist model.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  No, the Creationist model would have Chickens born whole. Shazam - there's a chicken! It would have come first. If an egg had come first in that model, it would have died from not being incubated.
  - LiquidSky 7y ago
    That's a good point. So either way, we have a definite solution. Huzzah!
  - UncleOxidant 7y ago
    But in that model if the egg had come first then God would have incubated it, right?
    - mannykannot 7y ago
      The creationist position is that if it is not in scripture, it didn't happen.
      - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        So, my bad date last Wednesday didn't happen?! Huzzah!
  - rafaelvasco 7y ago
    I believe in both Creationism and Evolutionism, but in a modified way: For each entity there was a proto entity that was created by some process. Like you have some primordial elements that are intelligently organized in a way that creates life. Then, this first entity, evolved , during billions of years, following certain laws created by this Creator, to the form we have today. In sum, I don't believe everything came from Chaos by chance. There must be a sentient force, with a consciousness far beyond what we can conceive, that manipulated this Chaos , primordial elements and created everything from it. Chaos, by it's very nature cannot create order from itself. This is the only explanation that makes sense to me. To me we all got pieces of the truth. One day we'll merge it all and understand everything.
    - mwfunk 7y ago
      That's not Creationism though. Creationism really is, there is no evolution and everything was created as is. You can have a Creator but not have Creationism- that's basically what I was taught when raised as a Christian (Genesis is at least to some degree metaphorical or a remnant of an older faith, God was essentially the First Mover, we shouldn't disbelieve science, etc.). What you describe is more like Deism or Theism, where you believe in some sort of higher order intelligence behind the universe, but it's not incompatible with science and rationality and observation. You can't believe in both Creationism and evolution because Creationism is an explicit denial of evolution, and of anything but a literal reading of Genesis. But you're in good company, as you just described many/most of America's Founding Fathers, who today's Evangelicals would have lynched as heretics if they bothered to read their actual words rather than treat them as cartoon mascots for whatever they want to imagine America stands for at the moment.
- Firadeoclus 7y ago
  The semantic question is whether an egg is named for the creature that laid it or the creature it contains.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    Pretty sure it’s named after the physical structure and not the ortifice that spawned it.
    - Firadeoclus 7y ago
      How do you figure? I'm pretty sure we still call it "chicken egg", "duck egg", etc. even if the egg isn't fertilised.
  - Psyladine 7y ago
    That was my reading as well, sort of like 'have your cake and eat it too' or one hand clapping. An infinite loop not meant for logical reduction as much as contemplation on the 'is' identity. I thought I was on the right road with Theseus, but maybe not.
- Psyladine 7y ago
  Like the ship of theseus though, at what point does it stop being a chicken, i.e. its parent. The progenitor is 'obviously' whatever preceded the chicken, but that's just it - is that itself the egg or the chicken-maker? There you are started down the tautological root back to what first first conceived both whatwouldbe-egg and whatwouldbe-chicken to come.
  - LiquidSky 7y ago
    You're misusing the "Ship of Theseus" concept. That has to do with individual identity. >at what point does it stop being a chicken, i.e. its parent. When it doesn't meet the genetic definition of a chicken, however you choose to define that. Once you have a definition, there will be a point in evolutionary history where such a creature arises. Anything before that is not a chicken, so therefore >is that itself the egg or the chicken-maker Once again, the answer is "the egg". A pre-chicken creature produced an egg that hatched the first chicken. Problem neatly solved.
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      But what if ”chicken” is a singelton?
      - mannykannot 7y ago
        If that were so, everything about the issue would be different, but it is not so.

LiquidSky 7y ago

>an egg that was a mutation from non-chicken parents' were themselves derived first from an egg But that's irrelevant. The argument isn't about where eggs come from, and simply laying eggs doesn't make something a chicken. If we define "chicken" as the biological creatures we know today that has a certain genetic makeup, then at some point in their evolutionary history there would be the first such creature that has this makeup being hatched from eggs made by creatures that don't. Just as, at some point in the past, there was the first genetic modern human born from pre-human parents. Hence, the egg must have come first. This is only an unsolvable problem if you hold that there have always been chickens that never evolved from earlier creatures, i.e. the Creationist model.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
No, the Creationist model would have Chickens born whole. Shazam - there's a chicken! It would have come first. If an egg had come first in that model, it would have died from not being incubated.
- LiquidSky 7y ago
  That's a good point. So either way, we have a definite solution. Huzzah!
- UncleOxidant 7y ago
  But in that model if the egg had come first then God would have incubated it, right?
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    The creationist position is that if it is not in scripture, it didn't happen.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      So, my bad date last Wednesday didn't happen?! Huzzah!
- rafaelvasco 7y ago
  I believe in both Creationism and Evolutionism, but in a modified way: For each entity there was a proto entity that was created by some process. Like you have some primordial elements that are intelligently organized in a way that creates life. Then, this first entity, evolved , during billions of years, following certain laws created by this Creator, to the form we have today. In sum, I don't believe everything came from Chaos by chance. There must be a sentient force, with a consciousness far beyond what we can conceive, that manipulated this Chaos , primordial elements and created everything from it. Chaos, by it's very nature cannot create order from itself. This is the only explanation that makes sense to me. To me we all got pieces of the truth. One day we'll merge it all and understand everything.
  - mwfunk 7y ago
    That's not Creationism though. Creationism really is, there is no evolution and everything was created as is. You can have a Creator but not have Creationism- that's basically what I was taught when raised as a Christian (Genesis is at least to some degree metaphorical or a remnant of an older faith, God was essentially the First Mover, we shouldn't disbelieve science, etc.). What you describe is more like Deism or Theism, where you believe in some sort of higher order intelligence behind the universe, but it's not incompatible with science and rationality and observation. You can't believe in both Creationism and evolution because Creationism is an explicit denial of evolution, and of anything but a literal reading of Genesis. But you're in good company, as you just described many/most of America's Founding Fathers, who today's Evangelicals would have lynched as heretics if they bothered to read their actual words rather than treat them as cartoon mascots for whatever they want to imagine America stands for at the moment.
Firadeoclus 7y ago
The semantic question is whether an egg is named for the creature that laid it or the creature it contains.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Pretty sure it’s named after the physical structure and not the ortifice that spawned it.
  - Firadeoclus 7y ago
    How do you figure? I'm pretty sure we still call it "chicken egg", "duck egg", etc. even if the egg isn't fertilised.
- Psyladine 7y ago
  That was my reading as well, sort of like 'have your cake and eat it too' or one hand clapping. An infinite loop not meant for logical reduction as much as contemplation on the 'is' identity. I thought I was on the right road with Theseus, but maybe not.
Psyladine 7y ago
Like the ship of theseus though, at what point does it stop being a chicken, i.e. its parent. The progenitor is 'obviously' whatever preceded the chicken, but that's just it - is that itself the egg or the chicken-maker? There you are started down the tautological root back to what first first conceived both whatwouldbe-egg and whatwouldbe-chicken to come.
- LiquidSky 7y ago
  You're misusing the "Ship of Theseus" concept. That has to do with individual identity. >at what point does it stop being a chicken, i.e. its parent. When it doesn't meet the genetic definition of a chicken, however you choose to define that. Once you have a definition, there will be a point in evolutionary history where such a creature arises. Anything before that is not a chicken, so therefore >is that itself the egg or the chicken-maker Once again, the answer is "the egg". A pre-chicken creature produced an egg that hatched the first chicken. Problem neatly solved.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    But what if ”chicken” is a singelton?
    - mannykannot 7y ago
      If that were so, everything about the issue would be different, but it is not so.