Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Artimis]

I have a great deal of sympathy for the rational Christian Faithful, it must be the greatest irritation to be associated with the laughing stock of the scientific community known as creationists.

[PLAYER57832]

Here is a posting that I took from the Lancaster Creation Studies Institute:

Establishing Scientific Guidelines for Origins Instruction in Public Education
by Judith Tarr Harding

Two major challenges face creationists who wish to see the scientific content of creationism penetrate into educational circles and public school curricula.

The first task is to find the most efficient means of obtaining a hearing. Approaches will vary according to the organizational structure of each school district. An impressively growing number of creationists are exploring many avenues—editorials, personnel workshops, lectures, writing, etc.

But a second challenge is far more problematic: how does one achieve communicative dialog about the science involved in creationism when a good number of educators may not be willing to seriously discuss scientific issues? What if those evaluating curricula expansion insist instead upon debating the philosophical-religious overtones of a creationist explanation as an infringement of the separation of church and state? Deadlocks are then inevitable.

A teacher workshop in Baltimore County (Winter, 1978) stalemated at this precise juncture. Creationists were graciously allowed a 40-minute presentation, during which time comments were confined to scientific material. (Previous months were spent preparing supplemental written materials for take-home review after the workshop.) A teacher-panel with questions and answers followed that barely skimmed scientific issues. Most of that time was consumed with topics unrelated to a science workshop—a critique of Christian Heritage College, the religious dignity of evolutionists, the size of Noah's ark, textbook controversies, etc!

Many creationists have been disappointed by such a priori dismissal of creationism as a valid scientific model. Such unfortunate communication breakdowns show the imperative of developing clear guidelines by which groups can assess creationist material in a scientific manner. Initially, certain philosophical tenets must be thought through, before scientific material is even introduced. If at all possible, it would be well if the following suggested criteria, formulated into a ballot, were voted upon by educators BEFORE any scientific data is presented for evaluation:

A vote of "no" indicates that our group will not use such an argument as grounds for rejecting either evolution or creation as suitable curricula material, provided that either origins model can meet the scientific requirements we will collectively establish. A vote of "yes" means such logic may be used as we evaluate the scientific content of our origins curricula.

Note that a poll follows. It was long, so I did not copy it, but here is a link:
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/175/218/

The following lists some SPECIFIC topics and approaches:

If educators are willing to try a ballot approach, the above questions may clear up erroneous concepts that exist in the minds of a policy-making group concerning which many creationists may not be aware. If the evaluators agree to use the ballot approach, the next decision is to set rules that qualify any origins view as a scientific model. The following three guidelines seem logically applicable. The same general principles could also be used to solidify the evolutionary model as a science model:

I. CAN THE CHIEF CREATIONIST HYPOTHESIS—DESIGN (pre-programmed pattern) BE INFERRED FROM EMPIRICAL DATA WITHOUT REFERENCE TO RELIGIOUS WRITINGS? (The complexities involved in the origin of a single cell must be thoroughly discussed.)

II. CAN THIS DESIGN HYPOTHESIS INCORPORATE THE MAJOR KNOWN EMPIRICAL DATA USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS AND CREATIONISTS INTO A COHERENT SYSTEM? (Scientifically demonstrable facts — empirical evidence — must be separated from ideas that may have logical supporting evidence, depending on one's interpretation. If, for example, the creationist hypothesis were to deny that fossils are arranged in depositional sequences in many instances, it would be ignoring obvious, empirical evidence. However, uniformity of process rates and dating methods must be shown to admit varied interpretations and conflicting data. They do not fall into the category of hard-core scientific proof.)

III. CAN THESE DATA (including the need for local or more widespread catastrophism to interpret the fossil record) BE DRAWN FROM THE VISIBLE WORLD, AND NOT FROM RELIGIOUS WRITINGS?

Those who believe that the catastrophism of the creationist model can only be inferred from the Genesis flood account should bear in mind that:

Almost all fossils are buried in sedimentary strata.
The process of fossilization requires some form of catastrophism in most cases: i.e., quick burial (often of whole herds) in aqueous sediment or volcanic outpourings, to prevent destruction of remains by decay.
A scientific attempt is made to explain worldwide climate changes and glaciation. Such drastic changes, documented by geologic history, cannot be adequately accounted for by local catastrophic events, and thus the model postulates larger-scaled events.
A scientific hypothesis of catastrophism seems needed to explain anomalous fossils and "out-of-order" geologic layers of thousands of square miles, where physical evidence for over-thrusting is lacking.
An examination of the geologic column shows earmarks of fixed life forms without transitional forms, and catastrophic annihilation.
No one should assume that agreement upon the logical sequences of the first ballot will be easily achieved, and that further discussion of evidence related to the three scientific assessment guidelines will always be objective dialog. If educators will consent to use the ballot approach, however, it will help objectivity on both sides.

Educators should remember at all times that science is a communications system. Scientific "facts" are not in themselves magic wands to settle issues. "Facts" are perceived by each listener through his own sets of educational experiences, interpretive systems, biases, skepticism, and motivational stance. Motivation is extremely crucial; when all has been argued and set forth, the educator may simply yawn and reply, "So ... who cares?"

Such varied interpretive equipment is brought into an arena of almost endless scientific arguments for or against either view. Complicating the situation even further, deep religious-philosophical world-life beliefs are operating in each individual. Misunderstandings and skepticism are not surprising! (See Table 1)

If, however, a solid majority vote on the proposed ballots can be achieved, the stage is at least set for better communication. The creationist's task is then to carefully confine his workshop or petitionary material to the three scientific assessment guidelines. The first ballot can be used as a sort of parliamentary reference point if discussion strays from the science of origins into sociological opinions about origins.

Since the Scopes trial, origins in public education has been riddled with communication barriers. Hopefully the approach just set forth could minimize the unfortunate tactics of the past — innuendo, mud-slinging, ridicule. Perhaps the use of such parliamentary scientific rules could stimulate personal scientific growth through more dispassionate investigation into diverse scientific views.

[AAFitz]

I think I can understand AAFitz theory and there is one big thing that brings your theory and atheism together and one big thing that bring your theory and religion together; you believe that we aren't special or choosen, and you believe that something intentionally created the materia. (thats how I understood you, correct me if I'm wrong)

You're close, but actually I'm not saying what I believe. What I posted could be true for an atheist, or someone who believes in God. Though I understand how you missed it. No scientist in the world, can disprove an all powerful creator. Said creator would necessarily make it possible that he could not be proven. All powerful means he can create a scientifically possible world, that started naturally, and you would never know he was there. So its impossible to say there is no possibility of a God, because its just not a possible thing to say.

I am also saying, that for someone who believes in God, to not accept the possibility of scientific principles simply because they conflict with their religious traditions, is simply short sighted. There is no reason to preclude scientific theories, because there is no scientific theory, that will ever make it impossible for your God to exist. Certainly if you believe in an all powerful God, he could easily create the world to have evolved as it did. In fact, its clearly far more likely that he did create things in this manner, since all the scientific data is there to suggest it. Why religious people fear science is beyond me. Its almost as if they dont trust their religion and God enough to let them discover the processes that were put into place as it was created.

Specifically, the need to believe that the earth is only ten thousand years or younger is the most astonishing. I simply dont understand why a religion needs to have everything start one day to believe in its existence. god was eternal, and therefore time has no meaning, so I see no reason to preclude the millions of years of evolution, because any all powerful, eternal god could easily have created everything to work just like this. Perhaps it was a test to see if we actually could figure it all out. Perhaps thats the reason for the complexity of everything.

That is what I dont understand. As far as my beliefs. I believe that ignoring scientific study because of scripture is as silly as naming the sun RA, and praying to it. I cant prove it isnt a god, but I think its much more likely a big ball of hydrogen. I also believe in the possibility of a god. As I said, there is absolutely no way to ever disprove there was a creator. However, I do not believe that one has to exist either. I see no reason why things could not have happened naturally, without any intelligent being directing it. There are events taking place in the universe right now, supernovas, new stars, black holes, colliding universes, etc. I see no reason to have an almighty figure to have these things happen.

And although it would be comforting to believe there is such a Creator, there is no more evidence that there is a God, than there isnt a God, except for the infinite different theories that have been made about the type, name, wishes, and nature of such a god.

What I do know, about any true fair all loving God is this. Any after-life would necessarily be perfectly equitable. There would be no black and white. It simply does not make any logical sense. Those who did the most good, would be rewarded the most, and those who did the most wrong, would need to be punished the worst. Any other system would be completely unfair, and above all, to allow, only a small group to reap the rewards at the end of life, essentially because they were lucky enough to be taught about the correct god, while the rest of the earth accidentally worshiped the wrong one, is about the most unfair system that could ever be devised... which leads me to assume more than anything, that not only could it not be right, but most likely not exist at all. The sheer insanity of creating a world so that only a select few get to be rewarded, while the rest suffer, does not sound like any true loving god. It sounds more like a man to me, and since men are the ones that have written down the stories, written the rules, created the rituals...it really does seem more likely, that they too created the existence. Again, though...there is no way to prove this. It just seems to flow more logically for me.

What truly is a shame, that in the name of God and religion, so many people have suffered. While without a doubt its possible religion has helped many through tough times, it is an impossible to know if it has helped mankind, or hindered it.

Only time will tell...and even then...who knows?

[sailorseal]

Evolution and creationism have nothing to do with one another but creationism is the insane idea that one giant white guy in the sky decided to make everything, just randomly, then a bunch of great white people did stuff that somehow was linked to him even though he never talks to anyone then someone wrote a book about them. Creationism in a nut shell.

[PLAYER57832]

Evolution and creationism have nothing to do with one another but creationism is the insane idea that one giant white guy in the sky decided to make everything, just randomly, then a bunch of great white people did stuff that somehow was linked to him even though he never talks to anyone then someone wrote a book about them. Creationism in a nut shell.

I don't agree with Scientific Creationism, but you can leave the racist garbage out.


God is all people, not one race. Creationism is believed by a small groups of Christians of ALL races.

[Backglass]

Evolution and creationism have nothing to do with one another but creationism is the insane idea that one giant white guy in the sky decided to make everything, just randomly, then a bunch of great white people did stuff that somehow was linked to him even though he never talks to anyone then someone wrote a book about them. Creationism in a nut shell.

I don't agree with Scientific Creationism, but you can leave the racist garbage out.


God is all people, not one race. Creationism is believed by a small groups of Christians of ALL races.

He does have a point. Jesus/God is ALWAYS portrayed as a white, human male...never as a flying ball of spaghetti.

...um, wait a minute...nevermind.

[tyche73]

think he says it better than me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

[MeDeFe]

Evolution and creationism have nothing to do with one another but creationism is the insane idea that one giant white guy in the sky decided to make everything, just randomly, then a bunch of great white people did stuff that somehow was linked to him even though he never talks to anyone then someone wrote a book about them. Creationism in a nut shell.

I don't agree with Scientific Creationism, but you can leave the racist garbage out.

God is all people, not one race. Creationism is believed by a small groups of Christians of ALL races.

He does have a point. Jesus/God is ALWAYS portrayed as a white, human male...never as a flying ball of spaghetti.

...um, wait a minute...nevermind.

Although god has been a black male in every bible audio book sold in the USA for the last 40ish years. Or so I read in Time magazine. The voice of god had an English accent before that.

[PLAYER57832]

Evolution and creationism have nothing to do with one another but creationism is the insane idea that one giant white guy in the sky decided to make everything, just randomly, then a bunch of great white people did stuff that somehow was linked to him even though he never talks to anyone then someone wrote a book about them. Creationism in a nut shell.

I don't agree with Scientific Creationism, but you can leave the racist garbage out.

God is all people, not one race. Creationism is believed by a small groups of Christians of ALL races.

He does have a point. Jesus/God is ALWAYS portrayed as a white, human male...never as a flying ball of spaghetti.

...um, wait a minute...nevermind.

Although god has been a black male in every bible audio book sold in the USA for the last 40ish years. Or so I read in Time magazine. The voice of god had an English accent before that.

God is portrayed in various ways by various cultures.


Christianity HAS predominated in the primarily white west, so yes, many protrayels do show Christ as a "white guy" (God only occasionally protrayed at all).
Also, some of the earlier churches, and most of the Eastern Church was/are Iconoclastic, meaning they eschew ANY protrayel of Christ or God as creating idols. So, most religious art depicting either Christ or God are of the West, where white are dominant.

At any rate, this has nothing to do with Creationism.

[Snorri1234]

Evolution and creationism have nothing to do with one another but creationism is the insane idea that one giant white guy in the sky decided to make everything, just randomly, then a bunch of great white people did stuff that somehow was linked to him even though he never talks to anyone then someone wrote a book about them. Creationism in a nut shell.

I don't agree with Scientific Creationism, but you can leave the racist garbage out.

God is all people, not one race. Creationism is believed by a small groups of Christians of ALL races.

He does have a point. Jesus/God is ALWAYS portrayed as a white, human male...never as a flying ball of spaghetti.

...um, wait a minute...nevermind.

Although god has been a black male in every bible audio book sold in the USA for the last 40ish years. Or so I read in Time magazine. The voice of god had an English accent before that.

What about Morgan Freeman?

[a.sub]

OFF TOPIC
lol i think its funny how WM hasnt responded in a while, its ciz we go on random tangents that are unrelated and stupid.

[PLAYER57832]

OFF TOPIC
lol i think its funny how WM hasnt responded in a while, its ciz we go on random tangents that are unrelated and stupid.

No, its because as he stated a few pages back, the debate has largely moved over to the Real University.

[Neoteny]

Well, he usually only responds every fifty or so pages anyhow.

[jonesthecurl]

Anyone actually interested in evolution and objections to it should get the latest New Scientist.
But please read it, don't just read the headline and then post.

[Neoteny]

Heh, that was kind of a big deal, wasn't it?

[jonesthecurl]

Yes, and it very much concerns the argument "evolution is a blind faith, scientists don't ever question it". The whole point of being a scientist is that you are never happy that you have the full, entire answer. You keep examining the evidence, asking yourself "what would it mean if x weren't so", "how would the evidence be different", "what experiment can I set up to check the theory".

It turns out that, surprisingly, DNA can move from one species to another. The mechanism is uncertain, but for instance the most obvious and startling example is that a while ago they discovered that cows (or some at least) had picked up some snake DNA. Mutation within a species is not the only agent of change/evolution.

[AAFitz]

my favorite cross species animal is the liger... i feel bad for the things, because they couldnt possibly be more unhealthy...i mean the big ones... but it really is like seeing an animal from another planet

[jonesthecurl]

No, not just cross-breeds, which are usually sterile. The whole concept of the "tree of life" may be fundamentally flawed.
Not that there is any evidence here for creationists, far from it - but the headline (and it's the lead story) is "Darwin was wrong". Partly I think this is just a teaser to get certain people to buy it so they can wave it about and shout "aha!", and in the hope that they'll actually read it before they decide what he was wrong about.
I think if you're up to date on all this stuff it won't be too startling right now - there are a lot of references to findings from several years ago - but I was cetainly unaware of some of this stuff.

[MeDeFe]

my favorite cross species animal is the liger... i feel bad for the things, because they couldnt possibly be more unhealthy...i mean the big ones... but it really is like seeing an animal from another planet

I like the Jagualep better, but Wholphins are ok, too.

[Neoteny]

The next step is obviously manimals.

[MeDeFe]

The next step is obviously manimals.

Imagine the possibilities!

nsfw, but I can't see any nipples or genitalia no matter how I try.

show

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, and it very much concerns the argument "evolution is a blind faith, scientists don't ever question it". The whole point of being a scientist is that you are never happy that you have the full, entire answer. You keep examining the evidence, asking yourself "what would it mean if x weren't so", "how would the evidence be different", "what experiment can I set up to check the theory".

It turns out that, surprisingly, DNA can move from one species to another. The mechanism is uncertain, but for instance the most obvious and startling example is that a while ago they discovered that cows (or some at least) had picked up some snake DNA. Mutation within a species is not the only agent of change/evolution.

As it turns out all life on Earth shares much of the same genes. The variation is more in the expression of the genes than in the genes themselves ( .. see February 2009 National Geographic Article on modern evolution studies and theories).

This is partly why many scientists are so worried by genetic experimentation. (but that is a whole other thread topic!).

[Frigidus]

The next step is obviously manimals.

You're not thinking big enough.

[Juan_Bottom]

You're not thinking big enough.

Cause Frigidus is stealin' images while you're asking permission!

[Frigidus]

If it's publicly available on the internet it isn't stealing.



Vae victis.