Evolution V Creationism?

[Polymath257]

Actually repulsive gravity does exist and was instrumental in the rapid expansion of the universe during the Big Bang phase.

Good point. I was thinking in more modern situations, but you are right here.

 

[Laika]

Actually repulsive gravity does exist and was instrumental in the rapid expansion of the universe during the Big Bang phase.

I didn't know that, so thanks.

Plenty of evidence of very convincing nature exists and can be provided if asked in a thread.

I am aware of that. Unfortunately, this evidence typically tends to be weaponised to make those who question evolution as intellectual or moral inferiors. that's a problem because it often extremely authoritarian in treating science as a fixed set of facts which cannot or should not be questioned and should simply be received and accepted.

Not necessarily. Creationism need not require a god. The idea that existence is somehow a simulation is not a new idea. I would agree that "evidence" from one side is often not accepted by the other. But the evidence gets more and more complex, and research is often needed on both sides. But here is the rub, these, creationism and evolution, are not mutually exclusive ideas. What is mutually exclusive are concepts such as evolution as it currently stands and youmg earth creationism. To take the track that evolution is false requires some pretty far fetched theories. Questioning evolution does not. Taking the track that young earth creationism is false does entail far fetched theories.

Unfortunately, creationism is now synonymous with YEC. If you talk with most evolutionists you will find that very few are actually saying any form of creation is false.

Yeah, that's why I tend to think there is value in debating creationism because religion and science are compatible outside of YEC. Its much more difficult and interesting if you look at the possibility of reconciling religious and scientific views, such as over the Big Bang as a "creation" phenomena.

You have been hanging out with the wrong people. Questioning science is what it is about.

Is there arrogance out there? Of course, on all sides of every issue. But the foundation of science is questioning and evidence, while the foundation of religious belief is faith which, by definition, requires no evidence.

People are imperfect. That does not mean both views are equally valid. One is blind, the other is all about trying to see. One is calculating, the other is guestimating. Both are capable of getting it wrong but only one ever admits it.

The notion that the two outlooks are of similar validity is absurd.

The foundation of religion is not as simple as "faith" but is more complex set of philosophical problems. it is that "faith" requires no evidence, but that religion and science provide different interpretations as to the cause of phenomena. Science will look for a natural cause where as Religion will look for a supernatural one.

Beyond the success of science to reproduce and utilise natural phenomena by discovering natural laws it is not clear why one methodology should be preferred. Nor is religion necessarily unalterable and that is a peculiar feature of literalist interpretations of the bible, particularly genesis. Certain areas of inquiry (particularly Social Science and Humanities) have proven very resistant to using the methods of natural science despite the fact human beings are part of nature and would therefore logically be governed by natural laws. the belief that social science should not be treated to the methods of natural science in some ways is a legacy of religion in that man has a special place in the universe "above" the laws of nature because we are said to posses "free will" (which is extremely debatable). its therefore quite weird to have science, religion and philosophy treated as separate entities when they are historically so closely related as a means for discovering and assessing knowledge.

 

[Quintessence]

Yeah, that's why I tend to think there is value in debating creationism because religion and science are compatible outside of YEC.

What is this garbage? Everybody knows that the only creationism is young earth creationism that takes the stories of the Bible absolutely literally, because everybody knows the only religion is Christianity and all of them are mythical literalists!

Sarcasm aside, it would certainly be helpful if the OP would specify what type of creationism they might be referring to. In any case, Laika's point about "weaponizing" the discussion to suggest other points of view are intellectually or morally inferior is pretty spot on. That happens a lot on this particular topic. I hardly talk at all about the intersection between biological evolution and my religious tradition around here anymore because of it. It's not worth the trouble.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is ludicrous to talk of the two stances as if they were comparable, and it is most unfortunate that this area exists as such, particularly under "Religious Debates".

The true matter is one of ignorance and superstition vs awareness and education.

A good grasp of the specifics is indeed rare, but it is also quite unnecessary. By engaging in the so-called "debate" we end up emboldening superstition and ignorance.

Nor is there any real lack of incentive for learning about evolution in depth. Quite on the contrary, it is a very lucrative field of research with well-established applications.

Unfortunately, the lure of stubborn belief is much too strong for quite a few people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have!

Good for you, and not going on a rant like everybody else (seems some like get a knee jerk response when you ask them if people have considered the science for themselves).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That the model corresponds to reality was a more in-depth consideration, but it is clear that the basic ideas of modern evolutionary theory are correct.

Pretty much. But that isn't what I was getting at.

Not really thought about it that much. Evolution is something that is repeated everywhere and anyone who disagrees is ridiculed. There's not a huge incentive to question the science even to better understand it.

Then you are falling into the "what you are told" crowd. The biggest incentive of science is to understand things better, and asking questions is how we do that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But it's blindingly obvious that the critter that's best adapted to handle the situation it's in at any given moment is the most likely to survive and to pass its genes on to the next generation.

Me to. I wasn't even challenging evolution, just the notion of evolution v. creationism being "use your brain v being what you are told." As I suspected, not everyone who has accepted evolution has really gone beyond the "what you are told" crowd.

I have. It's not taught in school? So most people should have some grasp.

It is taught in many schools, especially outside of America. Hence, how many people who accept evolution have really "used their brain" over it or just taken it as "what they are told."

 

[LuisDantas]

Me to. I wasn't even challenging evolution, just the notion of evolution v. creationism being "use your brain v being what you are told." As I suspected, not everyone who has accepted evolution has really gone beyond the "what you are told" crowd.

It is taught in many schools, especially outside of America. Hence, how many people who accept evolution have really "used their brain" over it or just taken it as "what they are told."

That is true, but it should not be any more significant for Evolution than it is for, say, chemistry.

 

[Polymath257]

Pretty much. But that isn't what I was getting at.

Understood. Let's face it, the vast majority of people adopt the opinions they have because they were told them.

At some level, that is inevitable. Nobody can reproduce every experiment and observation leading to a modern understanding. At some point, you have to accept what an expert 'tells' you, even if that consists of the 'raw data'.

Then you are falling into the "what you are told" crowd. The biggest incentive of science is to understand things better, and asking questions is how we do that.

Exactly. As the old slogan says 'Question Authority'.

That doesn't mean the authorities are automatically wrong. But they should not be seen as automatically right.

But, the question is *always* what the evidence for a position is and how was it tested. What has been done to show the boundaries of that position and what alternatives has it been tested against?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

we're social animals and the desire not to be ridiculed is at least as "natural" even if it is an impediment to knowledge and progress. We might celebrate dissent doesn't mean we want to be the ones who have to make the sacrifices of expressing such views. It is more likely that subversives are despised within their own lifetime and idolised when they are dead because they have ceased to pose a threat to the status quo. who wants to spend the rest of lives under house arrest like Galileo, or be subject to continuous harassment as a "crank"?



And I'm guessing "educated individuals" does not include philosophers, historians of science or theologians because the only "approved" measure of education and intellect is submission and conformity to "science"?

I do not agree with that. I'm merely stating that individuals educated "in the subject matter' are much more credible than persons educated in completely unrelated areas.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Evolution is the product of Sex, therefore God supplied Mary with Sperm-DNA in order to create for himself a piece of flesh, else why didn't he just create a meat suit out of thin air like he did Adam.

The Foreskin is the product of Evolution, did God evolve us a foreskin or create an Adult man called Adam with a foreskin.

Was Adam a black man, Red man, White man or a yellow man and what skin colour was 'Noah' , Did God kill everyone but Noah (with a specific skin colour) whom's 3 sons went around the world and evolved different skin colours, was HAM cursed with Black skin.

Did God evolve from former Gods?

So many questions Christians are unable to answer.

Evolution is not a product of sex. Evolution existed 100's of millions of years before sexually reproducing organisms evolved. See virus, bacteria, protozoa, etc.

 

[Laika]

I do not agree with that. I'm merely stating that individuals educated "in the subject matter' are much more credible than persons educated in completely unrelated areas.

Fair Enough.

 

[sayak83]

I didn't know that, so thanks.



I am aware of that. Unfortunately, this evidence typically tends to be weaponised to make those who question evolution as intellectual or moral inferiors. that's a problem because it often extremely authoritarian in treating science as a fixed set of facts which cannot or should not be questioned and should simply be received and accepted.



Yeah, that's why I tend to think there is value in debating creationism because religion and science are compatible outside of YEC. Its much more difficult and interesting if you look at the possibility of reconciling religious and scientific views, such as over the Big Bang as a "creation" phenomena.



The foundation of religion is not as simple as "faith" but is more complex set of philosophical problems. it is that "faith" requires no evidence, but that religion and science provide different interpretations as to the cause of phenomena. Science will look for a natural cause where as Religion will look for a supernatural one.

Beyond the success of science to reproduce and utilise natural phenomena by discovering natural laws it is not clear why one methodology should be preferred. Nor is religion necessarily unalterable and that is a peculiar feature of literalist interpretations of the bible, particularly genesis. Certain areas of inquiry (particularly Social Science and Humanities) have proven very resistant to using the methods of natural science despite the fact human beings are part of nature and would therefore logically be governed by natural laws. the belief that social science should not be treated to the methods of natural science in some ways is a legacy of religion in that man has a special place in the universe "above" the laws of nature because we are said to posses "free will" (which is extremely debatable). its therefore quite weird to have science, religion and philosophy treated as separate entities when they are historically so closely related as a means for discovering and assessing knowledge.

Most of the debate that goes on here is against either YEC or OEC, both groups reject evolution as a mechanism for speciation and diversification of life on earth. These positions are untenable scientifically, but most long term members debating endlessly for these positions, base their beliefs on their personal faith. So it becomes pointless after a while.Then both groups simply do polemics and rhetoric. Apparently some folks find such things enjoyable.

Of course if anybody has genuine doubts and questions about the science, I and many of us are happy to reply.

 

[sayak83]

Me to. I wasn't even challenging evolution, just the notion of evolution v. creationism being "use your brain v being what you are told." As I suspected, not everyone who has accepted evolution has really gone beyond the "what you are told" crowd.

It is taught in many schools, especially outside of America. Hence, how many people who accept evolution have really "used their brain" over it or just taken it as "what they are told."

People don't use brains in schools? That's new.

 

[Stevicus]

Might as well have a forum called use your brain vs believe what you are told! Opinions?

I could never understand what the whole issue was about anyway. If one believes in Creationism, why should there be a conflict with the scientific theories regarding evolution? What is the actual point of contention? What is it specifically that they object to?

And why does this position only apply to evolution? Why not meteorology and atmospheric sciences?

In their view, doesn't God create the weather, too? If it's supposedly "sinful" to examine and observe the mechanisms by which nature operates, then shouldn't that apply to all observations of nature?

My impression is that Creationism has very little to do with religion and more to do with some people's shock and offense that they were somehow "descended from an ape."

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I could never understand what the whole issue was about anyway. If one believes in Creationism, why should there be a conflict with the scientific theories regarding evolution? What is the actual point of contention? What is it specifically that they object to?

TBH I believe the contention is more with the theory of Origin of Species, rather than evolution itself. For many people do not distinguish between the two. Evolution shows that new species originate slowly over time. Creationism holds that all species magically appeared all at once and new species do not originate. The two are completely incompatible

And why does this position only apply to evolution? Why not meteorology and atmospheric sciences?

At one point in history I'm sure it did. But now there just aren't many who feel threatened by the idea that solar heat and rotation of the earth causes the winds.

In their view, doesn't God create the weather, too? If it's supposedly "sinful" to examine and observe the mechanisms by which nature operates, then shouldn't that apply to all observations of nature?

My impression is that Creationism has very little to do with religion and more to do with some people's shock and offense that they were somehow "descended from an ape."

 

[George-ananda]

If you thinking of theistic evolution, I wouldn't consider that a "blending". When I think creationism, I think of things instantaneously "poofing" into existence in their first and final form.

And also when I think of 'evolutionists' as used in the OP, I think of a wholly materialistic chance process without intelligence being involved.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Understood. Let's face it, the vast majority of people adopt the opinions they have because they were told them.

Very true. That is why I mentioned the huge flaw in OP, in that even among the so-called "evolutionists" there are people who have just taken it as what they have been told.

People don't use brains in schools? That's new.

School is for being told things. Using your brain is what you do after/outside of school (and sometimes during if you have a good teacher/professor).

 

[sayak83]

Very true. That is why I mentioned the huge flaw in OP, in that even among the so-called "evolutionists" there are people who have just taken it as what they have been told.

School is for being told things. Using your brain is what you do after/outside of school (and sometimes during if you have a good teacher/professor).

I have not seen much difference between my school and college experiences, regarding learning things and using brain to understand it and apply it to new situations or problems. Even research is similar, except I choose what problem I should tackle and they are more complex and difficult.

 

[Polymath257]

School is for being told things. Using your brain is what you do after/outside of school (and sometimes during if you have a good teacher/professor).

Or are a good student.