Would it be best for evolutionists to just ignore creationsts?

[McBell]

So... if we can find an example of a thistle or thorn-bearing plant that's older than the first human, this would prove the Bible wrong?

I strongly suspect that even if god himself came down and told him he was wrong he would find some way to rationalized to himself that he is not wrong.

 

[Man of Faith]

No, he didn't. What he actually said, at least in the passage I quoted above, is that evolution proceeds according to laws of God's design.

He kept God, but one step removed. It's as if instead of saying "we have widgets because God made every widget with his own hands", he said, "we have widgets because God made an automated widget factory that never breaks down."


I don't think that's true. If God had scientific support, he'd be right at home in a science classroom.


Can you not see the contradiction in citing a passage that basically said "God set evolution in motion according to natural laws he designed in order to effect Creation" as support for the idea that Darwin proposed a "godless" system?

We can debate about what Darwin meant all day long, but the evidence for the godless system is in the acceptance of atheists that it can be in schools.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The evidence for the godless system is in the acceptance of atheists that it can be in schools.

It seems to me that this view assumes that atheists are atheists because of a closed-mindedness to evidence and not as the result of a conclusion drawn from evidence.

Should I be upset that you have such a low opinion of me?

 

[Man of Faith]

I strongly suspect that even if god himself came down and told him he was wrong he would find some way to rationalized to himself that he is not wrong.

I would ask myself if that is really God.

 

[Man of Faith]

It seems to me that this view assumes that atheists are atheists because of a closed-mindedness to evidence and not as the result of a conclusion drawn from evidence.

Should I be upset that you have such a low opinion of me?

Do atheists allow God in science class? My understanding of Darwin's writings are more inline with and validated with what is taught in schools, a godless evolution and man came from an ape like creature, that no one has ever seen.

 

[Draka]

the evidence for the godless system is in the acceptance of atheists that it can be in schools.

Atheists determine what we can learn and what we can't? It's not because it is "godless" that atheists accept it, and it's not because atheists accept it that it is in schools. It is in schools, and accepted, by not just atheists, but theists as well, because...now follow me here...it is science. Just like gravity, physics, electronics, biology, pharmacology and so on and so forth. It has been proven over and over that evolution occurs and has occurred and is the method by which we came to be what we are.

***Evolution is NOT directly related to atheism at all.***

There is nothing that prohibits a person from accepting the facts of evolution AND believing that it is the method by which some deity decided to bring certain lifeforms about.

Evolution just is. That's all. It's neither "godless" nor having anything to do with atheism. It's science. Deal.

 

[Draka]

Do atheists allow God in science class?

I'm a theist and feel no discussion of any particular god should be in any science class. Deity cannot be tested for. Cannot be examined under a microscope. Unless that ever changes, no god has any business being taught about in a science class. Leave that stuff in mythology classes where it belongs.

 

[Photonic]

If I consider evolution to be adaptation and change to environmental pressures then yes God does use that. However the ToE as a whole where mankind came from an ape like creature and that ape like creature came from a different creature, on down the line to a mud puddle, isn't Biblical.

Evolution states that death came before mankind.
The Bible states that death came after mankind had the capability to sin by eating a forbidden fruit.

Evolution states that thorns and thistles came before mankind.
The Bible states that those were a result of mankinds sin.

Evolution states that dinosaurs were extinct before mankind came into the scene.
The Bible says all animals and mankind were created on the same day.

Evolution states that mankind came about from millions of years of evolution.
The Bible states that all life forms, the earth and the universe were created in 6 days and the earth is approx. 6,000 years old.

Because the bible isn't right...? :redcard:

 

[Skwim]

I see, I'll look for that in a science book.

How about the book you lifted the quote from: Darwin's On the Origin of the Species. BTW, it's proper form and even required to cite your sources. In this case; page 578 of On the Origin of Species: fifth British edition (1869).

I'll use a famous evolution tactic. "We are talking evolution vs creation, not the big bang" or the beginning of the world.

And it is evolution we're talking about, its laws and the agency Darwin saw as setting them down: the creator.

 

[hey there]

When it comes down to serious scientific debate and some detractors from a certain theory still persist in their steadfast views in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, would be it be best to just ignore them, brush them off and move on to more serious scientific debate such as competing models of evolution theories and hypothesises rather than arguing adnauseum about all this discredited nonsense about young earth creationism. Should these young earth creationists and all creationists be just simply lumped in the same category as flat earth believers and be just simply booed off the scientific stage and just say, next! If they a contributing nothing scientifically IMO I think the best course of action is to just ignore them, period. Evolutionary biology is in itself an evolving discipline and those pesky creationists are contributing nothing.

Ignoring anyone would be like saying you don't want them to think. To debate you need an opposing view. Your saying that if it is scienfic knowledge, you should delibrate?

 

[Photonic]

Ignoring anyone would be like saying you don't want them to think. To debate you need an opposing view. Your saying that if it is scienfic knowledge, you should delibrate?

No, we encourage them to actually educate themselves on it.

It's important for people that spread misinformation to education themselves to prevent the spreading of truly harmful ideas.


Also, creationism has never helped anything but itself. Evolution helps all people.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, we encourage them to actually educate themselves on it.
It's important for people that spread misinformation to education themselves to prevent the spreading of truly harmful ideas.
Also, creationism has never helped anything but itself. Evolution helps all people.

It's fine to believe that.
Just oughta not say it to the creationists.
It makes'm more defensive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do atheists allow God in science class?

Oh, come on.

First off: you seem to be confusing atheists with secularists. The categories overlap, but they're not the same.

Second: why do you think these people are opposed to God in science class?

My understanding of Darwin's writings are more inline with and validated with what is taught in schools, a godless evolution and man came from an ape like creature, that no one has ever seen.

I'm not sure what to say to that. I showed you a quote from Darwin's own writings that talked about evolution as the mechanism of God and then you came back with one of your own! It seems that you're bound and determined to hold on to your position regardless of evidence to the contrary.

 

[cablescavenger]

I strongly suspect that even if god himself came down and told him he was wrong he would find some way to rationalized to himself that he is not wrong.

If God came down from wherever he is hiding, sat on my lap and whispered sweet nothings in my ear, I would question my own sanity long before I ever questioned the existence of a God.

You show me God, and I will show you someone who has mastered the art of making a quick buck!

 

[Matthew78]

So you're saying that On the Origin of Species left out God as a creator? Too bad nobody told this to Darwin:



Edit: in On the Origin of Species, Darwin doesn't present evolution as some sort of "God-free" system. To the extent that he mentions God at all, he uses his theory to show God as an all-knowing architect who could set a process in motion and leave it than as an imperfect tinkerer who has to continually adjust his Creation to get it to run properly. In this regard, the theological picture that Darwin presents is a lot like Newton's.

My own impression of Darwin's religious evolution is that he went from being a Bible-believing Christian to becoming something of a more liberal Christian when he was aboard the Beagle. At least his views on creation changed and I get the impression quite grudgingly. He compared admitting that evolution is true to confessing a murder, IIRC, which indicates to me that his theory of "descent with modification" is a hypothesis he came to very reluctantly and wished that the religious views that he started out with were true.

After reading an essay by Stephen Jay Gould titled "Darwin's Sea Change: Or Five Years At the Captain's Table", I came to think that having to put up with the captain of the Beagle really dimmed his view of Christianity, coupled with the horrible thought that his father, grandfather, and other freethinkers in his family would suffer for eternity in hell. When he was conducting his research on the origin of species, I think the quote you mentioned above shows that he embraced a sort of deism. There was a creator who made the universe, designed the laws of the universe, and may have even made the very first life forms, but since then left natural selection to take over for him.

I think he transitioned from being a deist, to being an agnostic, then to being an agnostic nontheist. I think it was the death of his daughter which destroyed a belief in any kind of god, loving or not. Losing his daughter may have been the straw that broke the camel's back for him.

 

[lunakilo]

So the Bible got a few more things wrong.
So what?
It is not like those are the only things they got wrong.

I see that there is more than one interpretation.
Of course, I don't argue against yours.

The man was asked (by Revoltingest) to provide examples from the bible that contradicts evolutio.

That he did.

 

[Looncall]

Do atheists allow God in science class? My understanding of Darwin's writings are more inline with and validated with what is taught in schools, a godless evolution and man came from an ape like creature, that no one has ever seen.

So, which creation myth should be in schools? There are lots of them to choose from. Why should yours get special privilege? Wouldn't it be better to go with what actual evidence shows instead of clinging to superstition?

 

[Noaidi]

So, which creation myth should be in schools? There are lots of them to choose from. Why should yours get special privilege? Wouldn't it be better to go with what actual evidence shows instead of clinging to superstition?

Exactly. By the time teachers had covered all the gods of all the religions, there would be no time to teach the science.

 

[Revoltingest]

The man was asked (by Revoltingest) to provide examples from the bible that contradicts evolutio.
That he did.

Tis good. I'm interested in seeing how different Xians reach their various conclusions from the Bible.
Thus, if I ever want to sway a believer, I'm equipped with a most fell weapon...that of encouraging novel conversation between Xians.

 

[javajo]

FYI, evolution and the beginning of the universe/life have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Perhaps you should go back to studying, you seem to have missed a few things the first time.

Also to the "great flood" I would like to respectfully point out that there is not enough water on the planet to cover as much volume as stated.

Thank-you for your reply. I still believe in Creation over evolution. You have a nice day, and again, thanks for your reply.