Creationism v. Evolution - There's STILL a Debate??

to me, it's not annoying that people don't all think the same thing, it's that people refuse to agree to disagree.
 
To not teach evolution as part of a SCIENCE class is rediculous and devalues what they are supposed to be teaching. If they want to teach evolution then it should be done in a Religion class. Of course, that would be blocked by the separation of church and state but at least it will give them something else to argue over.
 
I am finishing my Ph.D. in evolutionary biology and I can tell you first hand that there is essentially no debate on this matter in the scientific community. We do argue over details of the mechanics of how it works, but no legitimate biologists argue that evolution is not a fact.

But then again, scientists are studying "facts" and not looking for "truths", which are the realm of philosophy and religion. There are actually many scientists (I am not one of them) who are religious and have no difficulty reconciling the idea of god and evolution, they merely believe that evolution occurs and that god caused it.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Probably better to have this is VS.
These sort of threads don't tend to end well :)[/QUOTE]

Why? Seeing as all the vs topics keep being locked, although it appears I have you to thank for the last one.
 
It seems that religion has been talked out to death. I'll keep an eye out for any really good points that come up, but until then...

gumby.gif
 
to choose one viewpoint over the other without proof of the correctness of one and the incorrectness of the other is to sacrifice the objectiveness that is at the core of science.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Why? Seeing as all the vs topics keep being locked, although it appears I have you to thank for the last one.[/QUOTE]

:-({|=

VS topics don't tend to get locked if they actually **GASP** stay on topic.
If you want to throw a few flames, do it in a PM. I doubt anyone wants the board chewed up by them.

[quote name='atreyue']and now this one's being helped down the same road...[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't worry atreyue. I've said my piece. Anything else I post in this thread will be entirely topical.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']:-({|=

VS topics don't tend to get locked if the actually **GASP** stay on topic.[/QUOTE]

That's funny the last one seemed to be doing a good job of that.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']That's funny the last one seemed to be doing a good job of that.[/QUOTE]

and now this one's being helped down the same road...
 
well put it back on topic... the thing that i hate about this whole thing, is that there is no reason the two cant coexist, the two extremes of the debate are just so hard headed, they have to be right and the other side wrong, its irratating
 
[quote name='iheartmetal']cant god and evolution coexist... GOD IS ALMIGHTY! stupid pagans :hot:[/QUOTE]

I'm kind of curious which groups actually believe that.
By dicates and speeches from Pius XII and John Paul II, evolution is not itself inherently contradictory to the Catholic beliefs.
I'm sure that some other churches would also have similar stances.
 
[quote name='atreyue']and now this one's being helped down the same road...[/QUOTE]

We've already got 2 topics like this in the vs. forum, one on this same case that was started a few days ago.
 
[quote name='iheartmetal']well put it back on topic... the thing that i hate about this whole thing, is that there is no reason the two cant coexist, the two extremes of the debate are just so hard headed, they have to be right and the other side wrong, its irratating[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Many evolutionists can't stand the fact that creationists need God to be invovled, but they just as vehemently need god NOT to be invovled.

On a related note, this dichotomy seems to be the primary theme of ABC's miniseries 'Revelations'.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']I'm kind of curious which groups actually believe that.
By dicates and speeches from Pius XII and John Paul II, evolution is not itself inherently contradictory to the Catholic beliefs.
I'm sure that some other churches would also have similar stances.[/QUOTE]

I think it's one of those things preached in the pulpit regularly, since Christianity for one seems to have such a great distrust of science. But most churches don't want any of the trouble that comes with publicly making those claims.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I think it's one of those things preached in the pulpit regularly, since Christianity for one seems to have such a great distrust of science. But most churches don't want any of the trouble that comes with publicly making those claims.[/QUOTE]

See, I really dislike such broad statements as that.
Christianity covers a great deal of ground.... and most of you everyday Catholic and Prodestant preachers will not be ranting on about the evils of science as the fundamentalist branches of them will.

Just like all scientist shouldn't be branded under the same banner, doing the same to religion hurts the debate as well.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']See, I really dislike such broad statements as that.
Christianity covers a great deal of ground.... and most of you everyday Catholic and Prodestant preachers will not be ranting on about the evils of science as the fundamentalist branches of them will.

Just like all scientist shouldn't be branded under the same banner, doing the same to religion hurts the debate as well.[/QUOTE]

like most debates the extremes dictate what is heard, while the silent majority lie somewhere inbetween
 
Is it hard to look through the VS. forum to find the existing evolution/creationism/intelligent design threads? These have been discussed before.
 
[quote name='jmcc']Is it hard to look through the VS. forum to find the existing evolution/creationism/intelligent design threads? These have been discussed before.[/QUOTE]

Hence my suggestion made in the second post.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']See, I really dislike such broad statements as that.
Christianity covers a great deal of ground.... and most of you everyday Catholic and Prodestant preachers will not be ranting on about the evils of science as the fundamentalist branches of them will.

Just like all scientist shouldn't be branded under the same banner, doing the same to religion hurts the debate as well.[/QUOTE]

Catholics are not bible literalists. The people who support creationism tend to self-identify as evangelicals or essentialists. Both groups recognize the *literal* word of the Bible as flawless and indisputable. Thus, if the Bible says that God created everything perfectly the first time, they're going to believe that.

Catholics are not, generally speaking, such literalists. So, it is important to specify what kind of Christians you're talking about when making broad statements (atreyu, or whomever JSweeny's quoting).

There is a national creation museum opening up about 20 miles from where I live. I want to go soooo bad (but for all the wrong reasons).

The reason that this debate matters is because people who disagree with evolutionary biological theory as an explanation of development. They want, at most, evolution completely stricken from science textbooks; at least, textbook notifications that state that since evolution is a theory, they ought to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. They have succeeded in implementing the latter into public schools in a small part (or is it all?) of Georgia.

myke.
...does anyone else relish in the irony of people promoting scientific skepticism (which is what scholars learn to do) towards evolution's existence, and completely ignoring (1) whether these kids should be skeptical of any other scientific theory and (2) that they demand (evangelicals again) complete, unquestionable compliance in accord with their specific faith doctrines? Me personally? I love it.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Probably better to have this in VS.
These sort of threads don't tend to end well :)[/QUOTE]
i second that, this might get ugly
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Hence my suggestion made in the second post.[/QUOTE]

Clearly no one listened to that, as we're on page 2 now of a rehash of a rehash.
 
The most difficult part of this subject for me is what I perceive to be hypocricy on the part of the scientific community.

I have always perceived a need for them to eliminate God and creation from discussion. Even more frustrating, they go even further and peg "Christians" as closed-minded and "anti-science". So what do you do when someone tells you that your beliefs are without validity, refuse to debate or discuss intelligently, and labels you a blind zealot who wants to force your beliefs on everyone else if you try to have a meaningful discussion? Talk about tying someone's hands.

Evolution is not so much frustrating to me as the fact that honest and open debate is being stifled by hollow accusations of religeous fervency, and the community who is supposed to be open to all ideas without prejudice keeps pushing others out of the discussion.

Again, it's the hypocricy that makes me crazy.
 
I can only speak for what kinds of churches I was raised in. Black (Baptist, evangelical, pentecostal) types are what I primarily know. I wasn't including Catholics in my statement since I felt Sweeney had already covered them. I presonally have never encountered a religious group as progressive as catholicism. Most (that I have encountered) keep their more controversial beliefs private.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']The most difficult part of this subject for me is what I perceive to be hypocricy on the part of the scientific community.

I have always perceived a need for them to eliminate God and creation from discussion. Even more frustrating, they go even further and peg "Christians" as closed-minded and "anti-science". So what do you do when someone tells you that your beliefs are without validity, refuse to debate or discuss intelligently, and labels you a blind zealot who wants to force your beliefs on everyone else if you try to have a meaningful discussion? Talk about tying someone's hands.

Evolution is not so much frustrating to me as the fact that honest and open debate is being stifled by hollow accusations of religeous fervency, and the community who is supposed to be open to all ideas without prejudice keeps pushing others out of the discussion.

Again, it's the hypocricy that makes me crazy.[/QUOTE]

Science can't recognize god because there's no empirical evidence of it. Do you understand how science works at all?
 
[quote name='jmcc']Science can't recognize god because there's no empirical evidence of it. Do you understand how science works at all?[/QUOTE]

I thought that disproving something was just as important as proving it. So if you had no evidence either way on a subject, you could make no call one way or the other.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I can only speak for what kinds of churches I was raised in. Black (Baptist, evangelical, pentecostal) types are what I primarily know. I wasn't including Catholics in my statement since I felt Sweeney had already covered them. I presonally have never encountered a religious group as progressive as catholicism. Most (that I have encountered) keep their more controversial beliefs private.[/QUOTE]

What, if it remains on topic, are some of these controversial beliefs?

If you consider catholicism to be more progressive, I recommend the Episcopalians or the United Church of Christ.

Someone mentioned being bothered by scientific hypocrisy; while I understand your point (that scientists tend to blow off creationist debate), to have made a better point, you should have addressed what someone posted on the first page; that the scientific community has, for the most part, agreed upon the existence of evolution. I would like you to do two things, if you don't mind: (1) elaborate on your accusations of hypocrisy; how is the scientific community being hypocritical in this case? and (2) provide a sketch (rudimentary, if you need) of how a scientist would test any 'intelligent design' hypothesis, *without* running the risk of falsely affirming the consequent.

myke.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I thought that disproving something was just as important as proving it. So if you had no evidence either way on a subject, you could make no call one way or the other.[/QUOTE]

There is no need to disprove something if there's no proof supporting it in the first place.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I thought that disproving something was just as important as proving it. So if you had no evidence either way on a subject, you could make no call one way or the other.[/QUOTE]

It can be neither disproved nor proved, which is why science isn't interested in discussing it.
 
How exactly does science explain the creation of the universe? Big bang? What banged? Where did the first speck of dust come from? All questions eventually lead back to "We don't know."

To believe solely in evolution without the existence of God is saying that the beauty of nature, the complexity of the human brain, the millions of living creatures, everything, was created by a domino effect accident. I find that much harder to believe.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What, if it remains on topic, are some of these controversial beliefs?

If you consider catholicism to be more progressive, I recommend the Episcopalians or the United Church of Christ.


myke.[/QUOTE]

Being one given to sweeping statements, I lump the episcopalians in with the catholics :p

The controversial beliefs are pretty much what you'd expect: gays are bad mmmkay, (reverse) racism is good, science is just a front for atheism, dancing is an act of the devil.
 
[quote name='jmcc']It can be neither disproved nor proved, which is why science isn't interested in discussing it.[/QUOTE]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this statement, since it doesn't deny the possibilty.
 
[quote name='hulk409']How exactly does science explain the creation of the universe? Big bang? What banged? Where did the first speck of dust come from? All questions eventually lead back to "We don't know."

To believe solely in evolution without the existence of God is saying that the beauty of nature, the complexity of the human brain, the millions of living creatures, everything, was created by a domino effect accident. I find that much harder to believe.[/QUOTE]

Using the word "accident" is the most gross misrepresentation of evolution and natural selection possible. Man is unable to look beyond the big bang because all laws break down; relativity and quantum mechanics cannot be used to deduct anything. Not being able to account for what happened before or how it happened is not conclusive evidence of a god.
 
[quote name='weimerwanger']Using the word "accident" is the most gross misrepresentation of evolution and natural selection possible. Man is unable to look beyond the big bang because all laws break down; relativity and quantum mechanics cannot be used to deduct anything. Not being able to account for what happened before or how it happened is not conclusive evidence of a god.[/QUOTE]

Well, that's the wonderful thing about science. This just means there's a better law/theory on the way.
 
[quote name='hulk409']How exactly does science explain the creation of the universe? Big bang? What banged? Where did the first speck of dust come from? All questions eventually lead back to "We don't know."[/quote]

The big bang is used to describe the outward expansion of all matter after the matter of the [this] universe was compacted into a singularity. The first speck of dust, or rather, the first atoms, came out of it, though it would be hard to pinpoint which one was first, given the fantastic velocities they were travelling at. And all questions do not lead back to "we don't know." They lead back to "I think." The difference between science and religion is that religion stops with "I think" where science goes on to see if what they think can be proven through observation and experimentation, and if not they change what they think.

To believe solely in evolution without the existence of God is saying that the beauty of nature, the complexity of the human brain, the millions of living creatures, everything, was created by a domino effect accident. I find that much harder to believe.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just one domino effect. It was billions upon billions of them per lifeform. Evolution isn't a linear path. There's countless forks, most ending in failure.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Here is a great article from the science side.

If creationism is right, why do some whales have vestigial leg bones? Why do humans still have a tailbone?[/QUOTE]

There's the linchpin of the argument; if we know that, in general, the average human lifespan has grown over time, in addition to more salient physical characteristics (height, for instance), how can we deny the existence of change over time (when it is staring us in the face)?

myke.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Here is a great article from the science side.

If creationism is right, why do some whales have vestigial leg bones? Why do humans still have a tailbone?[/QUOTE]

I'm curious at to whether this guy is actually in the scientific majority...

Besides, I think most people who believe in God more than religion would say they believe that God created the cosmos that science attempts to explain. In other words, God created nature and evolution, blah blah blah. I reccommend that anyone who wishes to claim that humanity is the ultimate culmination of God's 'plan' read the Hitchhiker's Guide.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I'm curious at to whether this guy is actually in the scientific majority...

Besides, I think most people who believe in God more than religion would say they believe that God created the cosmos that science attempts to explain. In other words, God created nature and evolution, blah blah blah. I reccommend that anyone who wishes to claim that humanity is the ultimate culmination of God's 'plan' read the Hitchhiker's Guide.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but the Hitchhiker's Guide, as interesting a read as it is, has no bearing on anything. It is not a work of science, or theology, nor philosophy.
Even mentioning it in the context of the argument doesn't add anything.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']I'm sorry, but the Hitchhiker's Guide, as interesting a read as it is, has no bearing on anything. It is not a work of science, or theology, nor philosophy.
Even mentioning it in the context of the argument doesn't add anything.[/QUOTE]
For some people, it IS a work of theology. ;)
 
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']For some people, it IS a work of theology. ;)[/QUOTE]

But it will never join the other great books of theology until they start killing for it. :cool:
 
[quote name='jmcc']The big bang is used to describe the outward expansion of all matter after the matter of the [this] universe was compacted into a singularity. The first speck of dust, or rather, the first atoms, came out of it, though it would be hard to pinpoint which one was first, given the fantastic velocities they were travelling at. And all questions do not lead back to "we don't know." They lead back to "I think." The difference between science and religion is that religion stops with "I think" where science goes on to see if what they think can be proven through observation and experimentation, and if not they change what they think.



It wasn't just one domino effect. It was billions upon billions of them per lifeform. Evolution isn't a linear path. There's countless forks, most ending in failure.[/QUOTE]

Where did the "singularity" come from? Oh, that's right, we don't know.

I didn't say there was just one domino effect. Pure evolution still leads to the position that we, and everything else, are an accident.
 
[quote name='weimerwanger']Using the word "accident" is the most gross misrepresentation of evolution and natural selection possible. Man is unable to look beyond the big bang because all laws break down; relativity and quantum mechanics cannot be used to deduct anything. Not being able to account for what happened before or how it happened is not conclusive evidence of a god.[/QUOTE]

I never said it was conclusive evidence of God. I did say that I find it much easier to believe in God than I do believing solely in evolution.

Unless the universe was planned as it is, it was an accident. Yes, the accident could have had billions and billions of chains of cause and effect events that lead us to our current existence, but it would remain an accident.
 
[quote name='hulk409']Where did the "singularity" come from? Oh, that's right, we don't know. [/quote]

A big crunch. No one says this is the first or last universe our matter and energy has been involved in. Gravity dictates that our universe won't go on expanding forever. Small objects will combine with bigger ones until everything crunches back down to another singularity again.

I didn't say there was just one domino effect. Pure evolution still leads to the position that we, and everything else, are an accident.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but science isn't interested in why things happen, only how. Even if you argue evolution is based on successful accidents (mutation) that doesn't do anything to the theory. It's still sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top