Some thoughts about evolution vs creation debates

[nPeace]

In that post I concluded, "ID is without a doubt a version of Christian creationism." In your reply you copied that statement and replied "Uh...NOPE."


As even your own post illustrated, the concept of "intelligent design" is explicitly about creation by the Christian God. Thus ID is indeed a form of creationism.

Perhaps that's because the evidence supports Christian Creationism... although it just supports creation. Obviously you disagree. No problem.

 

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps that's because the evidence supports Christian Creationism... although it just supports creation.

Empty assertion.

Obviously you disagree. No problem.

At least we have established that "intelligent design" is a form of creationism.

 

[Nimos]

Okay. I'm just trying to understand your perspective, since I'm not getting you clearly. So I hope you don't mind the questions.

No that is fine, otherwise there would be little point of being on a forum, if it weren't to share ideas and views, I think

You see it as history, but not accurate history, or you see it as history by a people who had strange beliefs and rituals, because they believed in a god (imagined) whom the thought requested these things of them?

I think some of the stories reflect actual historic events, which the Jews could relate to, if the stories was nothing but made up stuff, I don't think they would have bought it. But when that is said, I also think that these stories suffers from being manipulated, to make them appear more heroic and more intense than they probably were. Especially the parts regarding how Israel and how they fought those around them. These stories would have to show how heroic the Jews were with their God behind them. These I would consider to have historical importance.
Then you have stories that seems to be purely moral or symbolic, like the story of Job, Samson etc. Which are there so they would be able to relate to these different characters and use them in their daily life as role models or as ways to point to something that happened to someone, that did something to defy God and point their finger at them to show, what happened if you are not nice . To me these basically work as a way to educated the Jews in how they ought to behave to be considered good people. One have to remember that they did not have law enforcement as we have to day, so it probably weren't that easy to solve crimes, so using an all mighty God that keep an eye on you and punish you, when you misbehave probably have a rather good effect, if one believe in him. This is also were I would append the Laws given to Moses, which tells the Jews how to behave, how to punish from varies crimes etc.

Last is more from an overall perspective when looking at humans from different cultures. Just as one could look at the ancient Norse or Native Americans and what they believed. And even though the stories might not be true, they are still historical important, because it tells us about what people believed, how their culture and society might have been.

So for instant, when it is said in the OT by God, that you should kill witches. Then it tells us something about the Jews, and that they most likely believed that these existed, and that occasionally people were killed for it. Also it would have made no sense to add to the OT, if they didn't.

Some people speculate that God was the light, and energy that nourished life before the sun. There are many guesses, as you said.

Light and darkness is used a lot of times in the bible, so its not easy to figure out, if they are talking about the same thing all the time. I do not however think that Light in Genesis refer to God himself.

It could maybe be a reference to time it self. As the separation between light and darkness could suggest some sort of cycle. One have to remember that the Jews would obviously be aware that they aged and things changed over time, but whether they understood time as we do, with our clocks etc. im not really certain of.They didn't really have anything other than the sun to give them an idea of it.

Another possibility could be that light refers to bringing "Light/Life/Good" into everything and therefore see it as good, as he is separating "Darkness/Death/Evil" from it. So many its a reference to what one might call the glory of God. Now if God liked the darkness equally to the light, then there would have been little point in creating the light in first place, i guess. So I think the separation between the two are very important.

Reading Job there could be some indications of this:
Job 33:27-30
27 "He'll sing to mankind with these words: 'I've sinned. I have twisted what is right. Yet he has not repaid me like I deserve.
28 He has redeemed my soul from going down to the Pit; my life will see the light.'
29 Indeed God does all these things again and again with a person
30 to bring back his soul from the Pit; to light him with the light of life."

But again there are so many references to light and darkness, that its really not easy to figure out in which context it is suppose to be understood. The only reason I think that time or life might be what is meant, is because we are talking about the creation. And because we already have references later in Genesis about the sun and the moon as the two lights. I really can't see how these can be understood to be anything else. Also I think its very important to read this from the perspective of how the ancient Jews would have perceived these things. Therefore I doubt they would have thought of the sun as a huge burning object, but rather as they actually wrote, that its a light put in the skies. Again one have to remember that they thought the Earth were a hemisphere.

Nonetheless it is interesting hearing your view on it as well, as I haven't been able to find any good explanations for how it is suppose to be understood.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course not.
Post #66




According to the articles. what you said is evidently false.
There were scientific reasons for proposing intelligent design as a hypothesis to explain the evidence.

There are no scientific reasons for ID. If there were, you would have included those. I believe you are aware it is not science.

 

[Jim]

i don’t depreciate people who do not believe that we and gorilla share a common ancestor. If that is what their mind tells them, it is OK for me.

i don’t depreciate gorillas who do not believe that they and humans share a common ancestor, either.

I’ve decided to stop using the word “depreciate” for what I’m trying to say. I’m seeing the problem now as using some words and ways of thinking in ways that draw lines of alienation between people, or using them as reasons for animosity towards other people or for disparaging their character and capacities.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’ve decided to stop using the word “depreciate” for what I’m trying to say. I’m seeing the problem now as using some words and ways of thinking in ways that draw lines of alienation between people, or using them as reasons for animosity towards other people or for disparaging their character and capacities.

Jim, I am educated in biology and my work experience has been to continue to learn and apply that education to observation of the natural world. My acceptance of explanations about the natural world determined through science is based on evidence and methodology and I accept the theory of evolution on this basis. I am also a Christian by belief.

There are, as well, a number of others on this forum that identify as Christians and claim to reject the theory of evolution based on science. However, during discussion and debate it has become clear that their rejection of science is on ideological and doctrinal grounds as part of their personal belief and personal religious agenda. Among that group, I find a repeated pattern of reliance on logical fallacies, misinformation, ignorance, and what I can only determine to be mendacity. Some have developed sets of tactics employed so frequently and commonly that they can be readily identified by them and their future use of these same tactics is highly predictable.

When, in the course of discussion, I and others point out the flaws that these dissenters typically rely on, these points of fact are often denied or ignored. Many times--very many times--the denial is offered as argument by assertion where naked, unsupported, assertion is offered as the argument. No factual support is provided and none is attempted. A very basic example is the co-mingling of the origin of life and the theory of how that life evolved. Often cosmology is included in the assertions as well. When corrections to this are offered, it is clear these corrections are purposefully ignored.

My point here, or question, is that in such discussions as I have described, how would you suggest that common ground can be found. This is not a case made up of a discussion of ideological differences, but one where established facts are ignored and poor tactics are revealed based on logic and evidence. How do you propose that this barrier is to be surmounted?

 

[Jim]

Jim, I am educated in biology and my work experience has been to continue to learn and apply that education to observation of the natural world. My acceptance of explanations about the natural world determined through science is based on evidence and methodology and I accept the theory of evolution on this basis. I am also a Christian by belief.

There are, as well, a number of others on this forum that identify as Christians and claim to reject the theory of evolution based on science. However, during discussion and debate it has become clear that their rejection of science is on ideological and doctrinal grounds as part of their personal belief and personal religious agenda. Among that group, I find a repeated pattern of reliance on logical fallacies, misinformation, ignorance, and what I can only determine to be mendacity. Some have developed sets of tactics employed so frequently and commonly that they can be readily identified by them and their future use of these same tactics is highly predictable.

When, in the course of discussion, I and others point out the flaws that these dissenters typically rely on, these points of fact are often denied or ignored. Many times--very many times--the denial is offered as argument by assertion where naked, unsupported, assertion is offered as the argument. No factual support is provided and none is attempted. A very basic example is the co-mingling of the origin of life and the theory of how that life evolved. Often cosmology is included in the assertions as well. When corrections to this are offered, it is clear these corrections are purposefully ignored.

My point here, or question, is that in such discussions as I have described, how would you suggest that common ground can be found. This is not a case made up of a discussion of ideological differences, but one where established facts are ignored and poor tactics are revealed based on logic and evidence. How do you propose that this barrier is to be surmounted?

I like that post, and your question, but it might be a few hours or more before I find time to respond to it the way I want to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I like that post, and your question, but it might be a few hours or more before I find time to respond to it the way I want to.

No worries. It is not a simple and easy question to answer. I would be more concerned with simplified responses quickly fired off.

 

[Jim]

My point here, or question, is that in such discussions as I have described, how would you suggest that common ground can be found.

I’m not sure about what you’re trying to do, and for what purpose. Are you trying to convince them that they’re wrong? Are you trying to keep them from fooling other people? Something else? What are you trying to do, and why?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m not sure about what you’re trying to do, and for what purpose. Are you trying to convince them that they’re wrong? Are you trying to keep them from fooling other people? Something else? What are you trying to do, and why?

I see no reason to think such posters will ever go against their dogma and doctrine. I have seen no amount of reason or evidence sway them to think. All that can be done is to correct their misinformation and reveal their tactics so that others are not taken in or mislead.

However, they do represent a problem to the creation of an open, inclusive, and congenial environment in discussions that you are interested in fostering. I am merely pointing out the existence of zealots that will brook no discussion and the fact that honest responses to those tactics are the only means to respond meaningfully to them. To some this may appear confrontational and divisive. But it is not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m not sure about what you’re trying to do, and for what purpose. Are you trying to convince them that they’re wrong? Are you trying to keep them from fooling other people? Something else? What are you trying to do, and why?

How do you think they should be dealt with? They represent a view that goes beyond differences in belief and interpretation. To my way of thinking, they are the biggest threat to productive debate and discussion and efforts to be more inclusive with them seem fruitless.

 

[Jim]

I’ve decided to stop using the word “depreciate” for what I’m trying to say. I’m seeing the problem now as using some words and ways of thinking in ways that draw lines of alienation between people, or using them as reasons for animosity towards other people or for disparaging their character and capacities.

My point here, or question, is that in such discussions as I have described, how would you suggest that common ground can be found. This is not a case made up of a discussion of ideological differences, but one where established facts are ignored and poor tactics are revealed based on logic and evidence. How do you propose that this barrier is to be surmounted?

I am merely pointing out the existence of zealots that will brook no discussion and the fact that honest responses to those tactics are the only means to respond meaningfully to them. To some this may appear confrontational and divisive. But it is not.

How do you think they should be dealt with? They represent a view that goes beyond differences in belief and interpretation. To my way of thinking, they are the biggest threat to productive debate and discussion and efforts to be more inclusive with them seem fruitless.

I’ve revised what I’ve been saying. I’m seeing the problem now as people using words and ways of thinking in ways that facilitate drawing lines of alienation between people, and disparaging people’s character and capacities.

 

[Jim]

... during discussion and debate ... I find a repeated pattern of reliance on logical fallacies, misinformation, ignorance, and what I can only determine to be mendacity.

I see all that too, and I would add intimidation and treachery.

... points of fact are often denied or ignored. Many times--very many times--the denial is offered as argument by assertion where naked, unsupported, assertion is offered as the argument. No factual support is provided and none is attempted. ... When corrections ... are offered, it is clear these corrections are purposefully ignored. ... established facts are ignored and poor tactics are revealed based on logic and evidence. How do you propose that this barrier is to be surmounted?

That confuses me. If you aren’t trying to change their minds, then why are you asking that question? Why would you need to surmount that barrier, if you aren’t trying to change their minds?

I have seen no amount of reason or evidence sway them to think. All that can be done is to correct their misinformation and reveal their tactics so that others are not taken in or mislead.

However, they do represent a problem to the creation of an open, inclusive, and congenial environment in discussions that you are interested in fostering. I am merely pointing out the existence of zealots that will brook no discussion and the fact that honest responses to those tactics are the only means to respond meaningfully to them. To some this may appear confrontational and divisive. But it is not.

So one of your purposes is to correct misinformation and reveal deceptive tactics, and another is to promote and facilitate an open, inclusive and congenial environment for discussions? You’re asking me how I would try to do all that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I see all that too, and I would add intimidation and treachery.

That confuses me. If you aren’t trying to change their minds, then why are you asking that question? Why would you need to surmount that barrier, if you aren’t trying to change their minds?

So one of your purposes is to correct misinformation and reveal deceptive tactics, and another is to promote and facilitate an open, inclusive and congenial environment for discussions? You’re asking me how I would try to do all that?

I didn't mean to imply I wasn't trying to get them to understand. I still have some hope of reaching them. It is just that I think it is incredibly difficult and and unlikely based on my experience, so I focus on what can be achieved. Even that has some small possibility of inspiring one or more to examine their position. I just haven't seen it happen.

Actually, it is to your interest in breaking barriers that I am looking to. Perhaps you have thought of something or have some ideas that might help to actually spark that type of posters. My main interest is to discuss science and defend it from attacks by those that clearly do not understand science. That does not mean that I am against seeing them learn and discover that their church is not the arbiter of science.

From a practical stand, it may be this type of posters will always exist and there is no easy way to bring them understanding and avoid drawing lines with them. I do not know, but my opinion leans that way. What I do not feel is of any value is a tolerance for nonsense and silence when it is preached. Maybe that idea and inclusion are too divergent to set at the same table.

 

[Jim]

I didn't mean to imply I wasn't trying to get them to understand. I still have some hope of reaching them. It is just that I think it is incredibly difficult and and unlikely based on my experience, so I focus on what can be achieved. Even that has some small possibility of inspiring one or more to examine their position. I just haven't seen it happen.

Actually, it is to your interest in breaking barriers that I am looking to. Perhaps you have thought of something or have some ideas that might help to actually spark that type of posters. My main interest is to discuss science and defend it from attacks by those that clearly do not understand science. That does not mean that I am against seeing them learn and discover that their church is not the arbiter of science.

From a practical stand, it may be this type of posters will always exist and there is no easy way to bring them understanding and avoid drawing lines with them. I do not know, but my opinion leans that way. What I do not feel is of any value is a tolerance for nonsense and silence when it is preached. Maybe that idea and inclusion are too divergent to set at the same table.

Let’s see if I’m following you. You’re trying to defend science by pointing out tactics that are being used to fool people into not believing what it says? You think that I’m objecting to that? You think that it’s better for my purposes, for some people to be doing that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let’s see if I’m following you. You’re trying to defend science by pointing out tactics that are being used to fool people into not believing what it says? You think that I’m objecting to that? You think that it’s better for my purposes, for some people to be doing that?

I think you are missing entirely my point.

Several people, including myself, are engaged with a creationist on another thread. The creationist has asserted that intelligent design is the best explanation for the so called universal fine tuning. Despite requests to provide any argument to support this claim, the creationist has, instead, turned to tactics like shifting the burden of proof, straw man arguments and smoke screens. Each time this is pointed out and further requests are made for support of the creationist claim, the creationist doubles down and repeats tactics.

Do you consider calling out a person using such tactics as furthering division? Is it deriding the capabilities of the creationist to do so? I see it as honest responses to someone that has crossed a line. Any division is established by those that resort to the tactics. These must be dealt with and if you have a different take or some thoughts how to better respond, I am interested.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let’s see if I’m following you. You’re trying to defend science by pointing out tactics that are being used to fool people into not believing what it says? You think that I’m objecting to that? You think that it’s better for my purposes, for some people to be doing that?

My defense of science is through explanation of science, arguments, and evidence. Pointing out tactics is to reveal how others are applying flawed tactics in denial of science in favor of subjective belief and religious doctrine.

 

[gnostic]

Jim, I am educated in biology and my work experience has been to continue to learn and apply that education to observation of the natural world. My acceptance of explanations about the natural world determined through science is based on evidence and methodology and I accept the theory of evolution on this basis. I am also a Christian by belief.

There are, as well, a number of others on this forum that identify as Christians and claim to reject the theory of evolution based on science. However, during discussion and debate it has become clear that their rejection of science is on ideological and doctrinal grounds as part of their personal belief and personal religious agenda. Among that group, I find a repeated pattern of reliance on logical fallacies, misinformation, ignorance, and what I can only determine to be mendacity. Some have developed sets of tactics employed so frequently and commonly that they can be readily identified by them and their future use of these same tactics is highly predictable.

When, in the course of discussion, I and others point out the flaws that these dissenters typically rely on, these points of fact are often denied or ignored. Many times--very many times--the denial is offered as argument by assertion where naked, unsupported, assertion is offered as the argument. No factual support is provided and none is attempted. A very basic example is the co-mingling of the origin of life and the theory of how that life evolved. Often cosmology is included in the assertions as well. When corrections to this are offered, it is clear these corrections are purposefully ignored.

My point here, or question, is that in such discussions as I have described, how would you suggest that common ground can be found. This is not a case made up of a discussion of ideological differences, but one where established facts are ignored and poor tactics are revealed based on logic and evidence. How do you propose that this barrier is to be surmounted?

I like that post, and your question, but it might be a few hours or more before I find time to respond to it the way I want to.

To @Jim

Just as Dan here, is a Christian and a theist, who have fully accepted evolutionary biology as fact, I know of someone, like yourself who follow Baha’i Faith, but like Dan, who fully accepted the science behind evolution.

I am referring to @shunyadragon .

I don’t recall if shunyadragon posted anything here, but from my experience with him in other threads, he completely understand and accepted the theory of evolution that explained the fact about biodiversity of life, while at the same time rejecting the pseudoscience of YEC and Intelligent Design.

Both Dan and shunyadragon not only understand evolution, they have both quite active in exposing propaganda/misinformation regarding to evolution, spread by these dishonest creationists and ID creationists.

And Dan is far from the only Christian who accepted evolution as fact.

There are also a RF number of Christians, Jews and Hindus and Buddhists, who understand and accepted evolutionary biology. Like Dan and shunyadragon, they found balance between science and their respective personal religions.

 

[nPeace]

No that is fine, otherwise there would be little point of being on a forum, if it weren't to share ideas and views, I think


I think some of the stories reflect actual historic events, which the Jews could relate to, if the stories was nothing but made up stuff, I don't think they would have bought it. But when that is said, I also think that these stories suffers from being manipulated, to make them appear more heroic and more intense than they probably were. Especially the parts regarding how Israel and how they fought those around them. These stories would have to show how heroic the Jews were with their God behind them. These I would consider to have historical importance.

So, you think, Israel acted no different to other nations, and exaggerated the truth. In other words, their God was not real, or any more powerful that the gods of the other nations. Is this an accurate understanding of your view?

Then you have stories that seems to be purely moral or symbolic, like the story of Job, Samson etc. Which are there so they would be able to relate to these different characters and use them in their daily life as role models or as ways to point to something that happened to someone, that did something to defy God and point their finger at them to show, what happened if you are not nice . To me these basically work as a way to educated the Jews in how they ought to behave to be considered good people. One have to remember that they did not have law enforcement as we have to day, so it probably weren't that easy to solve crimes, so using an all mighty God that keep an eye on you and punish you, when you misbehave probably have a rather good effect, if one believe in him. This is also were I would append the Laws given to Moses, which tells the Jews how to behave, how to punish from varies crimes etc.

How do you suppose Samson is a moral story?
What you say here seems similar to the situation where people have used the idea of eternal torment in hellfire, to scare people into doing right.

Last is more from an overall perspective when looking at humans from different cultures. Just as one could look at the ancient Norse or Native Americans and what they believed. And even though the stories might not be true, they are still historical important, because it tells us about what people believed, how their culture and society might have been.

So for instant, when it is said in the OT by God, that you should kill witches. Then it tells us something about the Jews, and that they most likely believed that these existed, and that occasionally people were killed for it. Also it would have made no sense to add to the OT, if they didn't.

Now that you mentioned killing witches... where do you get that from?
As far as I know, God gave commandments to Moses, that involved removing anything that would make his people unclean.
That included spiritistic practices (done by both men and women), prostitution (done by both men and women), etc.

They were not to go hunting down witches to kill them. They only removed what was bad from among Israel. There was a reason for that. God - the holy one - was dwelling among them. So all unclean practices were to be removed.
Which explains why rebellious children were to be removed. Was that fair? I think so. Here is why.
God allowed for repentance, so the fact that the child was rebellious to the point of being put to death, meant they were beyond reform. They actually rebelled against God, and would break his laws... including the law forbidding idolatry.
So even though young, they fell under the death penalty.

Today, we see, particularly in the US, thousands of children, ranging from 11 (perhaps younger) to 16, imprisoned for heinous murders. Some are described as monstrous, by law enforcement.
I just watched one where twins murdered their mother.
We don't have the details surrounding the circumstances, but if we did, in all cases, we could judge the case accurately. For example, we would know if the murder was premeditated.

With God, he knows, and being much wiser than humans, God's laws are designed to prevent future ramifications also. The child was removed... and the parents who were faithful, understood this.
The faithful parents understood something else. They knew that children are an inheritance from God.
(Psalm 127:3) . . .Look! Sons are an inheritance from Jehovah; The fruit of the womb is a reward.
So they knew that the child was lent to them, but really belonged to the creator.
They also knew that if God wanted, he could give them children, as numerous as the stars... or, he could give them none.
So even though it was painful to lose their child, they knew they did the right thing.

Similar to when God destroyed those who turned out to be extremely bad, during the time of Noah.

Light and darkness is used a lot of times in the bible, so its not easy to figure out, if they are talking about the same thing all the time. I do not however think that Light in Genesis refer to God himself.

It could maybe be a reference to time it self. As the separation between light and darkness could suggest some sort of cycle. One have to remember that the Jews would obviously be aware that they aged and things changed over time, but whether they understood time as we do, with our clocks etc. im not really certain of.They didn't really have anything other than the sun to give them an idea of it.

Another possibility could be that light refers to bringing "Light/Life/Good" into everything and therefore see it as good, as he is separating "Darkness/Death/Evil" from it. So many its a reference to what one might call the glory of God. Now if God liked the darkness equally to the light, then there would have been little point in creating the light in first place, i guess. So I think the separation between the two are very important.

Reading Job there could be some indications of this:
Job 33:27-30
27 "He'll sing to mankind with these words: 'I've sinned. I have twisted what is right. Yet he has not repaid me like I deserve.
28 He has redeemed my soul from going down to the Pit; my life will see the light.'
29 Indeed God does all these things again and again with a person
30 to bring back his soul from the Pit; to light him with the light of life."

But again there are so many references to light and darkness, that its really not easy to figure out in which context it is suppose to be understood. The only reason I think that time or life might be what is meant, is because we are talking about the creation. And because we already have references later in Genesis about the sun and the moon as the two lights. I really can't see how these can be understood to be anything else. Also I think its very important to read this from the perspective of how the ancient Jews would have perceived these things. Therefore I doubt they would have thought of the sun as a huge burning object, but rather as they actually wrote, that its a light put in the skies. Again one have to remember that they thought the Earth were a hemisphere.

Nonetheless it is interesting hearing your view on it as well, as I haven't been able to find any good explanations for how it is suppose to be understood.

How do you go about determining what is literal or figurative when reading the Bible?
By the way... nice graphic... and glad we can share our views.

 

[Jim]

I think you are missing entirely my point.

Several people, including myself, are engaged with a creationist on another thread. The creationist has asserted that intelligent design is the best explanation for the so called universal fine tuning. Despite requests to provide any argument to support this claim, the creationist has, instead, turned to tactics like shifting the burden of proof, straw man arguments and smoke screens. Each time this is pointed out and further requests are made for support of the creationist claim, the creationist doubles down and repeats tactics.

Do you consider calling out a person using such tactics as furthering division? Is it deriding the capabilities of the creationist to do so? I see it as honest responses to someone that has crossed a line. Any division is established by those that resort to the tactics. These must be dealt with and if you have a different take or some thoughts how to better respond, I am interested.

My defense of science is through explanation of science, arguments, and evidence. Pointing out tactics is to reveal how others are applying flawed tactics in denial of science in favor of subjective belief and religious doctrine.

Thank you. I’ll try again. From your point of view, when people are applying flawed tactics in denial of science in favor of subjective belief and religious doctrine, it’s important for them to be called out? You think that’s better for my purposes also?