I do not find the concepts of Creation and Evolution to be mutually exclusive.
Like the mind/body inverted-dichotomy, simutaneity within time dictates that Creation and Evolution logically must coexist both theoretically and in re
And exactly like the mind/body simutaneous dialectic it is frequently misunderstood in concept and reality/execution for logically, in both examples the one [sic] cannot exist without the other [sic]
Excerpt from my undergrad Senior Honors Thesis in Philosophy:Inspired by Descartes, this Conversation is being written as Conversation, rather than a logical dissemination of postulates and derivations of dialectic semantics. It is the genetic hybrid of form and substance, mind and body, logic and method. The reason for this is simple: I have found no convincing argument for the bifurcation of the world
Now is the time for true philosophy to beginnot tabla rasa (the blank slate) as Aristotle would have it, but wei wu wei (action without action) in the Chinese tradition (Buddhist and Taoist). The substance and form flow naturally from moment to moment, ensuring sincerity (if not Truth) according to the Present. Sincerity is what I consider to be truth enfleshed. When figured temporally in the world, this rational ideal becomes a familiar notion not only to our brains, but to our bodies as well. Not surprisingly, our present Conversation closely resembles Derridas assemblage, Carses infinite game, Whiteheads wonderment, Whitmans witnessing, Bubers I-Thou relation, Hartshornes shared creative experience, Thoreaus love, Nietzsches will to power, Pirsigs quality, Lao Tzus tao
When I associate these different concepts in such a list, I say that they closely resemble one another. This resemblance is similar to Nietzsches assertion regarding re-presentation of the non-re-presentable. For the purposes of communication (and cognitive processes are also communicativebetween knower and known) we mistranslate the similar into the same. Each individual leaf closely resembles the mass population, but never exactly. Our concept of same-ness is the artificial melding generality at the cost of individual differences. This does not effect any Kantian alteration except in the realm of discourse. In communicative contexts, in other words, in Conversation, the transmogrification is as real as anything can be. And that transports our present Conversation from the realm of concept, semantics, logic, epistemology and linguisticsto metaphysics. The Philosophy of Conversation as The Real
</BLOCKQUOTE>Many philosophers over the centuries have (whether intentionally or not) delved into the area of simultaneity, inverted-dichotomy, similarity, sincerity, relationship, and Conversation
as either modes of epistemology, logic, mathetmatics
(Whitehead and Bertrand Russell not only wrote the book on Mathematics in their day, but also...)
- Bertrand Russell and A.N. Whitehead (The World of Philosophy)
Metaphysics literally as a mode of mathematical understanding, almost viz. old-school "Geometry Style" proofs from Baruch Spinoza...
- Spinoza's Philosophy
This relates to Creation and Evolution because as both "concepts" and "modes of reality"
they can be best understood using methodologies developed and strengthened over centuries by philosophers
Not politicians. Not theologians. Not partisan laymen.
As a philosopher my re-evaluation of the "concepts" of Creation and Evolution are as follows (in shorthand):
1. "The World" is what it is, and was what it was
2. All we know about it is what we've found out about it
where it came from (in terms of scientific method) is unknowable
4. Educated guesses can be made from masses of data collected by astrophysicists from galactic telescopic observations, combined with laws of physics and theoretical constructs (i.e. the "formation" of the planet, gravitation collecting many meteorites into a mass, etc.), but CERTAINTY eludes them...
5. Another point of speculation from scientific evidence gathered and educated guesses made is from archaeologists and very old samples from bones and earth and layers etc., connecting with very high likelihood the "evolution" of certain species one to another and painting a very nice big picture, but again CERTAINTY eludes them...
6. On the other side of the coin, the Book of Genesis is a sacred text dictated directly from God (or coming directly from Heaven, depending on which theological strand you are following), and specifically states not only the Creation of Humankind, but also the Creation of all the creatures of the earth.
7. More compelling than the pure Creationism from the Book of Genesis "argument", however, is one that people almost never use in their own defense of Creationism: in the Sacred text it does not simply state the fact of the Creation of the world and of Humankind and of all the creatures of the earth.
It also expressly tells us how God asks Adam to exercise one of the most POWERFUL acts ever executed by Man over Nature:
HE who is Not to be Named asks Adam to Name them all.
- COULD ADAM REALLY NAME ALL THOSE ANIMALS?
8. Philosophically, as a concept, in reality, naming something is in itself an act of "creation"
, an act of Identification, of Classification, of gaining Power, of becoming Lord and Master in one sense over all the world.
Before Adam named them "bunnies" -- in one very significant conceptual sense -- there were no bunnies.
Because without a Name, without an identity, without an Object-Concept, they were just "hoppy thingys out there". As "bunnies" they gained value
, they gained identity
, and what is more important, we as humans gained a way to communicate about them conceptually
Multiply that by "every" creature in the world, and Adam literally "created" all the animals, all the fish, all the birds...
In our minds. In our discourse. In our perception.
BUT THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS AN ARTICLE BASED ON BELIEF...
And like the scientists, CERTAINTY also eludes them...
(Pragmatism and belief are two "concepts" at the core of one of America's greatest philosophers, William James, whose philosophy I have adapted to fit this situation as a part of my thesis [see below].)
: I am in agreement with William James in some sense on this issue (not that he addressed it directly, that I am aware).
In pragmatic terms the product of belief is as much evidence of its "truth" as any other leading indicator.
This does not mean that what The Book of Genesis says is necessarily "literally" True.
What it means is that: people who believe
it, behave and act and argue and vote and bring up issues in certain ways, so that the world is impacted by the Book of Genesis in a very real way.
So whether or not it is "true" is moot, according to James' Pragmatism: its results are real.
On the flip side: those who "believe" (and yes, belief in the Religion of Modern Science is indeed a true religion of Faith) in Evolution also produce results in the world in much the same way.
My thesis is that Creation and Evolution are in fact, an inverted-dichotomy both conceptually and in the real world, which cannot exist one without the other, and are not in fact mutually exclusive.