Creationism and Evolution

[Tez3]

It's also mostly an American thing. In Europe they accept evolution, for the most part.



That's worth repeating. Creationism and science are totally separate and IMO mutually exclusive ways of viewing the world. Many people do try to weld them together, of course.



Yup. It also asks things of evolution--it's more anti-theory than theory, after all--that no one asks of other theories. Ask a creationist why things fall when you drop them. How does that dropped rock know where the center of the earth is? The gravitational (and electromagnetic) field is a convenient mathematical fiction that lets one maintain the illusion of conservation of momentum. What is spacetime that it may be warped? (Don't start asking what mass is--that leads to the new collider in Europe which is trying to answer that question.) Gravity is poorly understood theoretically, yet people fly in planes.

This is correct and it's puzzling as to why America is so bound up in this argument. Evolution is taught in science in schools, I imagine theres a fair amount of people who believe in creationism but it's not a topic of debate over here as people just accept that others may have views that they disagree with. To be honest if you want to believe the world is flat that's fine. No one side is shouting very loudly about evolution/creationism....not when bank interest rates, taxes, unemployment and other really important things are all on people minds here.

 

[elder999]

This is correct and it's puzzling as to why America is so bound up in this argument. .

Because Americans are crazy.

Really.We are. Quite mad.

When I first moved to Los Alamos back in '94, this very argument was taking place very publicly in the local paper (the Los Alamos Monitor, but you can see some of the letters archived here ) the school board and at the Lab itself-all marshalled by a few Los Alamos scientists who should understand, at least, that "creationism" doesn't qualify as a theory.....

Quite mad, I tell you...:lfao:

 

[BlueDragon1981]

I would agree with elder999 we are kind of crazy at times. Don't get me wrong I love living in America but sometimes... we simply make to many mountains out of mole hills.

 

[BrandonLucas]

This is correct and it's puzzling as to why America is so bound up in this argument. Evolution is taught in science in schools, I imagine theres a fair amount of people who believe in creationism but it's not a topic of debate over here as people just accept that others may have views that they disagree with. To be honest if you want to believe the world is flat that's fine. No one side is shouting very loudly about evolution/creationism....not when bank interest rates, taxes, unemployment and other really important things are all on people minds here.

That's a valid argument, and I can only answer this as it applies to myself, being from the U.S.:

I feel that evolution should be taught in the school system. It is a proven fact that things evolve...and I think it is worth knowing exactly what has evolved and how it evolved.

However, I do not agree with this being taught as an argument against religion. I don't think the religious views should be brought up in a school environment, as there are many different ethnic backgrounds to consider, and besides, religion is based on faith, not fact.

I, myself, am a Christian, but not by the textbook definitation of the word. I feel like I have my own way of believing in God, and that works for me. I believe that everyone should have the same opportunity to choose what they believe.

But, what people believe ends up being such a touchy subject since everyone figures that their way of believing is the right way. I think that it's very much like the martial arts: there is no one-size-fits-all way of believing...it's all individualized.

Science only goes so far as to what it proves. It's up to each person as to whether they choose to fill the gaps that science has with religion as previously mentioned, or to only believe what can be proven through science. Neither way is wrong. Nor is either way right.

It's all individual.

 

[Xue Sheng]

This is correct and it's puzzling as to why America is so bound up in this argument. Evolution is taught in science in schools, I imagine theres a fair amount of people who believe in creationism but it's not a topic of debate over here as people just accept that others may have views that they disagree with. To be honest if you want to believe the world is flat that's fine. No one side is shouting very loudly about evolution/creationism....not when bank interest rates, taxes, unemployment and other really important things are all on people minds here.

First elder999 is correct...we're crazy...mad as hatters I tell you :headbangin: :tantrum: :lfao: :boing2::boing1: :erg: :anic: :eye-popping:

Second, I beleive I read somewhere that of the developed nations of the world that America is by far teh most Puritanicle in it beliefs. Which I guess we owe to the Pilgrams... so you see...it is Englands fault after all :duh:

Now if you’ll excuse me I'm Late! I'm Late, for a very important date ...no time to say hello...goodbye. ..I'm late, I'm late I'm late!

 

[zeeberex]

Now I am warning everyone now this topic can get heated. I ask everyone to respect everyone else's opinion here. I'm sure the mods will agree with that. Don't say you are stupid because you believe creationism. Or you are stupid because you believe evolution. It is not needed. If you cannot argue without making personal attacks then leave it at the tips of your fingers and don't type.

This topic came up at our sunday dinner. (Although it is really a late lunch). My family every other Sunday goes up to my grandparents and partakes in a meal together now most the time I stay out of any squabbles because it just makes everyone mad. I'm more of a peaceful person. However my aunt proceeded to tell people they needed to go to this sunday school and listen to this preacher about evolution. Saying that we did not come from a rock. I spoke up and said that is not what all evolutionist believe and she then started getting peived because I spoke up against it. This is where I get mad a people from each religion. When they knowing they are of influence go and only talk about extreme ends of a theory. I never once in my conversation said I believed one way or another. I simply stated it is being twisted in an attempt for people to find falts in it. As are religions. She finally just said whatever i am right and you are wrong. Now I simply said you are entitled to your opinion and as are others to theirs. I did not say does your preacher have scientific proof of god. Earlier she had mentioned he backed it up by scientific proof. I did not say it but I should have said did you witness this proof. I was not arguing for evolution which is what she though I was doing. Just because I was not in that preachers line of view I was wrong. I dismissed it because once people get a conviction like this in there head they often don't listen.

However my personal belief and opinion is both creationism and evolution have something to offer. I for one am not at one end or the other. I am someone that has a different style of "religion". It is actually hard to explain but that is not my point here. Why is it that people cannot be open to both. Why does it always have to be one or the other. To me we not see any of it proven past a theory. We will never have "proof" of any one of these issues. Why get so upset about either. Am I automatically wrong by arguing. I argue against both points, because I do that some would say I'm misguided and you have to believe one or the other. I say I don't have to believe anything.

Here is a link I have found. I could not find any that argued both sides. So this one is kind of calm compared to the extremists on both sides. Oh and I have found a lot of things about Darwin treating Africans as not "human" but these people never mention how Christians once treated certian groups of people. As for what should be taught in schools. I say either both or neither.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/04/pope_benedict_b.html

we don't know the nuances, so neither side knows, so spare us the intelligent design ********. Its a way to shove creationism.

 

[zeeberex]

I believe in both... yes, both... the things that were created were also created to evolve as time goes on.

like many other things the answer is somewhere in the middle

 

[zeeberex]

Science should surely be taught in schools. Evolution has been shown to have a scientific basis that is undenyable.

Creationism is horribly bad science. I'm not even sure creationsim is scriptual. There are those who surround the scriptures with ungodly amounts of speculation which, in turn, become accepted as by some as fundamental beliefs. Why people try to read more into the scriptures than is there, I don't know.

I was once told by a creationist that man killed off the dinsosaurs, no basis of prove from evolution or creationist standpoints. They make it up.

 

[Cryozombie]

During the Cambrian Explosion, we went from simple bacteria to complex multicellular life in only a few hundred million.

Science Fact or Science theory?

 

[Makalakumu]

Science Fact or Science theory?

It's what the fossils show.

 

[arnisador]

Disproving is not the best choice of words... but there are scientist who are working to try and prove God does not exist

I think most scientists who are discussing ideas like this are functioning more as philosophers than scientists--someone like Richard Dawkins is discussing philosophy of science and religion, not forming a scientific theory of theism nor experimentally investigating it.

 

[Empty Hands]

Science Fact or Science theory?

A fact. It's what the evidence shows.

BTW, "theory" is not synonymous with "wild-*** guess" like you seem to be using it here (creationists do as well). Any scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation for facts in evidence. It isn't just a random guess with no evidence.

 

[Keith Kirkendall]

I will be a rebel and go with the creation idea. I believe this by faith...it is a faith issue. For me, knowing that I am created in God's image and likeness gives me confidence and assurance. I do not claim to have the answer as to how we were (what process) created...I do not know of any man that has the definitive answer for the "how". This may be something that needs to be kept an unsolved mystery for us.

 

[Ramirez]

I once had a college professor that said the whole evolution of man to him makes about sense as a tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747.... Not that it can't happen...it is just highly improbable…

And I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with that, just throwing it out there

I wonder what meteorology and aerospace engineering has to do with molecular biology. That quote btw is usually attributed to Fred Hoyle who also believed that life on Earth was propagated by space aliens.

I have a degree in statistics and I haven't seen a statistical argument against evolution that was not complete nonsense, usually those probability arguments are put forth by people who know nothing of statistics or probability and hope their audience doesn't know enough to question them.

 

[BanannaSmoothie]

It's a highly flawed analogy. A better one would be if the tornado kept on for 3 billion years, and once each piece of the 747 hit the right spot, it tended to stay there.

your analogy is just as flawed as the one you quoted. evolution isnt the spontainous appearance of life from a disasterous event. it is the non random survival of random mutations.

i'll repeat that, it is the NON RANDOM SURVIVAL of RANDOM mutations.

i'm not denying the existance of a higher power or creator, but to deny evolution is absurd. evolution is defined as change over time with diferent species resulting from common ancestors. intermediary fossil records have shown hundreds of "missing links" which never satisfies the creationists because the missing link arguement is never ending.

example, i give you A and C and say they are linked. you ask for the missing link. i respond by giving B. now, you ask for the link between A and B as well as B and C. i give you A.5 and B.5 and now you ask for 4 links. it goes on exponentially. So, no amount of fossile evidence will ever satisfy a creationist.

another thing i hear a lot is that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. i don't know where this got started, but there has never been an interpritation of that law that fit with creationism within the scientific world. the 2nd law applies only to closed systems. the earth is not a closed system, it's powered by the sun's radiation. thus, the 2nd law does not apply here. sorry creationists, no entropy cookie for you.

Also, creationism lends itself to christianity. i would say judaism, but as a jew, i can tell you that only a small minority of orthodox jews, who are a minority already, buy into creationism as christians say. most jews accept that science has proven the earth is billions of years old.

why should a religious based argument be taught in my kid's school? the science isn't there for it. there is zero peer reviewed evidence of the 6000 year hypothoses. and, the creation story as christians perport to pe scientific is mirrored by the raliens. its just they belive that aliens were the creators and not a god. so, why not teach ralein creationism in school? it's the same basic story with the same hypothesys.

oh, and notice i've used the word hypothesys a lot and not theory. don't confuse the two. theory doesn't mean guess, it means argument that has been tested as much as possible, but not enough to be a law. a hypothesis is a guess baised on observations. you know that thing about the earth revolving around the sun? yeah, thats a theory, just like gravity is a theory.

leave science to the scientists, and religion to the clerics.

i could go on for hours on this, but i think i'm gonna go do karate in the garage.

 

[BlueDragon1981]

your analogy is just as flawed as the one you quoted. evolution isnt the spontainous appearance of life from a disasterous event. it is the non random survival of random mutations.

i'll repeat that, it is the NON RANDOM SURVIVAL of RANDOM mutations.

i'm not denying the existance of a higher power or creator, but to deny evolution is absurd. evolution is defined as change over time with diferent species resulting from common ancestors. intermediary fossil records have shown hundreds of "missing links" which never satisfies the creationists because the missing link arguement is never ending.

example, i give you A and C and say they are linked. you ask for the missing link. i respond by giving B. now, you ask for the link between A and B as well as B and C. i give you A.5 and B.5 and now you ask for 4 links. it goes on exponentially. So, no amount of fossile evidence will ever satisfy a creationist.

another thing i hear a lot is that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. i don't know where this got started, but there has never been an interpritation of that law that fit with creationism within the scientific world. the 2nd law applies only to closed systems. the earth is not a closed system, it's powered by the sun's radiation. thus, the 2nd law does not apply here. sorry creationists, no entropy cookie for you.

Also, creationism lends itself to christianity. i would say judaism, but as a jew, i can tell you that only a small minority of orthodox jews, who are a minority already, buy into creationism as christians say. most jews accept that science has proven the earth is billions of years old.

why should a religious based argument be taught in my kid's school? the science isn't there for it. there is zero peer reviewed evidence of the 6000 year hypothoses. and, the creation story as christians perport to pe scientific is mirrored by the raliens. its just they belive that aliens were the creators and not a god. so, why not teach ralein creationism in school? it's the same basic story with the same hypothesys.

oh, and notice i've used the word hypothesys a lot and not theory. don't confuse the two. theory doesn't mean guess, it means argument that has been tested as much as possible, but not enough to be a law. a hypothesis is a guess baised on observations. you know that thing about the earth revolving around the sun? yeah, thats a theory, just like gravity is a theory.

leave science to the scientists, and religion to the clerics.

i could go on for hours on this, but i think i'm gonna go do karate in the garage.

I agree with some of your points on this. My point is why fight people or try to persuade them. Let them believe what they want to believe. If they can't agree to teach that there are alternative theories then don't teach either. I find no reason to argue about something that will never become "law". I don't even deny the theory that aliens were here. I simply say if that is what you believe, cool, I may not agree but hey it could be.

I have always had faith in a higher force or being. However I am not in the line of people who regard that force as something that is in the human image. My belief and you welcome to not agree is that whatever is out there is beyond our comprehension thus we will never know exactly what caused or exact origins or the origins of the universe. There were once things in science that were thought to be "laws" that were found to be untrue, and there are many things in religious writings that can be interpreted differently.

Once again each person has brought up valid points and i appreciate the fact that this has not come to personal attacks yet. :highfive:

 

[crushing]

I wonder what meteorology and aerospace engineering has to do with molecular biology. That quote btw is usually attributed to Fred Hoyle who also believed that life on Earth was propagated by space aliens.

I don't know Hoyle's specific beliefs, but the statement you used doesn't seem so far fetched. Would some spores or bacteria in/on a piece of space debris hitting the earth qualify?

 

[Ramirez]

I don't know Hoyle's specific beliefs, but the statement you used doesn't seem so far fetched. Would some spores or bacteria in/on a piece of space debris hitting the earth qualify?

No it is not that far fetched , I just find it ironic that creationists quote Hoyle when he was far from a creationist.

 

[Ramirez]

If they can't agree to teach that there are alternative theories then don't teach either.

If you mean alternative theories to evolution based on empirical evidence there are none. I am not quite sure what you mean but it seems that if you don't think evolution or creationism shoul be taught unless both are presented.

Sorry, science is not a democracy, we don't vote on whether pi is a rational number because God does not have a place in his universe for it and then not teach it, we would never produce engineers, mathematicians, physicists, chemists etc.

Similarly evolution is the framework by which modern molecular biology works, without it we would not have gene therapy, genetic engineering , we would not have mapped the human genome etc.

 

[Gordon Nore]

If you mean alternative theories to evolution based on empirical evidence there are none. I am not quite sure what you mean but it seems that if you don't think evolution or creationism shoul be taught unless both are presented.

Sorry, science is not a democracy, we don't vote on whether pi is a rational number because God does not have a place in his universe for it and then not teach it, we would never produce engineers, mathematicians, physicists, chemists etc...

Good to see you aboard, Ramirez. Agreed. Creationism and evolution are not alternative explanations of the same outcome.

I'm somewhat troubled to read in some of the posts that belief in Creationism is a matter of faith. My question: Whose faith? The Christians? The Jews? If, as a teacher, I am expected to give equal time to Creationism, then I should be teaching the Creation stories of all cultures and religions -- which would make for spectacular education.

However, that is not the expectation of those who fight the hardest to have Creationism (or its cousin, Intelligent Design) taught in a classroom alongside Darwinism.