Which is true: Creation or Evolution?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by David H. Wilson, Jun 27, 2002.

Loading...
?

Which is true: Creation or Evolution?

  1. Creation is true and scientific

    6 vote(s)
    22.2%
  2. Creation is religion only

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. They are equally linked and work well together

    10 vote(s)
    37.0%
  4. Evolution is religion only

    1 vote(s)
    3.7%
  5. Evolution is true and scientific

    9 vote(s)
    33.3%
  6. I'm an athiest, that is my religion and truth

    1 vote(s)
    3.7%
  1. David H. Wilson

    David H. Wilson New Member

    Which is true: Creation or Evolution?
     
  2. Myoptimism

    Myoptimism New Member

    What do you mean by equally linked, and work well together? Do you mean intelligent creation? If so, that is my vote.

    Tony
     
  3. Who says it's an either/or question?
     
  4. Myoptimism

    Myoptimism New Member

    Exactly my point Kristin.

    Tony
     
  5. Orson

    Orson New Member

    Facts are not either/or questions....

    Evolution is a fact--even for most Biblical literalists.
    All one needs to have granted is the existence
    of heritable traits, or genes, which few educted people
    disbute. Hence,

    Premise 1) Populations have heritable traits;
    Premise 2) Populations exhibit hertiable variety;
    Thus, the manifestation of heritable traits differs over time, location, etc.

    Therefore, a given population's inheritance evolves,
    and ergo, evolution is a fact.

    Now, you might say this dodges the controversy of
    speciation; I say no, since given this fact, all speciation
    is open to investigation and some debate, but evolution as such, whatever one decides to make of it, is nonetheless a fact not open to debate!

    Anti-evolutionists debate mostly whether or not evolutionists make reasonable or unreasonable inferences as to what counts as evidence of the work of natural selection--or God's handiwork.
    To me, this debate is but a footnote, since it's so unreasonable not to concede the fact of evolution.

    As Richard Dawkins has observed, when Voltaire lived and died,
    given the evidence of (intelligent) design in nature, even he converted on his deathbed--a reasonable stance in the face of the facts. But with natural selection as a nonsupernatural explanation for natures variety or "design," suddenly the divine hand of God has competition, and unbelief looks more reasonable than belieg in God, the Creator.

    It's this reasonableness that threatens the theist and hence necessitates the century and-a-half long attacks on evolution.

    Them facts, they is powerful!
     
  6. wfready

    wfready New Member

    I don't know about you guys, but the only time I have seen evolution LINKED with creation was when a creationist was trying to disprove evolution.

    Personally, I think it COULD be used together. Why cant we have monkeys (please don't tell me they weren't monkeys) who evolved into man.... but, were created by god in the beginning.


    ....oh and the monkeys were cross bred by aliens to make humans too.. :D

    BR,
    Bill
     
  7. Myoptimism

    Myoptimism New Member

    Actually, yes they are. The question, most often about religion, is what are the facts. The same is true in economics (to a lesser degree) that we have imperfect knowledge of the "facts". In my opinion this is why new and original research is unequaled in importance. That is after going over the premises with a fine tooth comb.

    Tony
     
  8. Anthony Pina

    Anthony Pina Active Member

    I must admit to being a bit confused at this posting. This relates to distance learning.........................?

    Tony
     
  9. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    Believe whatever you want. Just don't whine when you get a zero in an exam requiring an answer relating to evolution.

    Consider it an unproven theory, as is much of science, and spout the pat answer.
     
  10. Howard

    Howard New Member

    Humanity has evolved. Yes, but it must have had a beginning. That beginning was creation. One only has to examine the first three laws of thermo nuclear dynamics to see that creation holds the only plausible beginning (Wysong). This is much better method of validating the Bible than the Bible itself - even for the Christian community. Scientific rule number 1 - you cannot create something out of nothing.

    Further, I might could accept that one part of a species could evolve, but isn't it interesting that they evolved in pairs so that each species could replicate itself.

    But, I am with several who ask "do the two theories have to be mutually exclusive?" Could there have been a creationist beginning from which we evolved.


    How does this relate to DL - Education was created and now has evolved into DL.
     
  11. Orson

    Orson New Member

    Yes and Yes--maybe

    Quote:
    "But, I am with several who ask 'do the two theories have to be mutually exclusive?' Could there have been a creationist beginning from which we evolved.

    As for the first, in this case, yes; as for the second, yes--if one is a Deist (as many of the Founders were)--but this position has gone out of fashion, unless you count the dwindling ranks of Unitarians as significant (I don't).

    --Orson
     
  12. irat

    irat New Member

    does this question make sense?

    I don't see creationism vs. evolution as an all or nothing thing. I think there are some people, more on the creationism side, that would like it to be all or nothing.
    Ultimately "science" is a search for the truth. Bits of data in science are argued, peer reviewed, interpretation changed. Theories change based on the data. I don't see how any person can look at the wealth of well debated data and conclude other than there the evidence clearly supports genetic changes over millions of years.
    Creationism does not truely apply "scientific" stardards to its theory. But then it does not need to. Creationism can merely claim an all-powerful being could create things any way it chooses. Essentially the bits of data man collects would only reflect the all-powerful beings creation, not "natural law".
    I don't see why one couldn't believe in natural law for the evolution of "soulless" animals but in divine creation for humans?
    I don't see why someone couldn't believe that evolution has happened since the all-powerfull beings creation. Clearly there have been significant changes in man controlled breeding programs for farm animals and plants. If man can breed a cow to give a ton of milk in a year, doesn't that prove evolution can exist?
    Ultimately the physical science goes back to a "big bang" The nature of that big bang can be extremely religious.
    Ultimately the creationists who claim to have a "literal" interpretation of the bible are choosing what parts of it to take literally. Many parts of the bible refer to the sun moving across the sky. That would place the sun in orbit around the earth. Do creationists really believe that? The original family, had one of the sons go to the "next county" (to borrow from Inherit the Wind) to take a wife. Was there another creation in the next county?
    I don't find the survey to be helpful. It makes the issues too simplistic to be meaningful.
    All the best!
     
  13. Tracy Gies

    Tracy Gies New Member

    Since when have evolutionists considered scientific data?

    If evolution is science, it is very poor science. The problem with evolution theory is that it seems to be subject to the fads and whims of a few well-know people. If a famous paleontologist suggests that birds evolved from T-rex, the rest of the "scientific" community latches onto it, and quicker than big-bang, schools are teaching that birds evolved form T-rex--without scientific evidence. I think that's preposterous.
     
  14. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Re: Since when have evolutionists considered scientific data?

    I'm not qualified to criticize the science behind evolutionary theories and natural selection. However, from what I've read over my years, it jibes pretty well with the observed facts. In our lifetimes we've seen both artificial and natural selection at work.

    (Ever wonder where pigeons got the "oil slicks" on their necks? If you're a pigeon who looks like a city street, you're more likely to survive and procreate, passing on this trait. Over time and large numbers, the pigeons with this trait are more successful than those without, and those with the trait in greater efficacy are more successful that those with less. Eventually, almost all the pigeons in the cities are gray with oil slicks on their necks!)

    The scientific method has supported the discovery of incredible things in our history, and has advanced the human condition greatly as well. Why it is challenged on this issue might lie in the very non-scientific beliefs of some people, people who feel their cherished beliefs threatened. Good science strives for the truth, wherever and however it might be. Science is the development of a theory to explain observed facts. That theory is then open to re-evaluation, constantly being assailed by the advent of new facts, countering theories, etc. A very open process to all. Dogma is the search for facts to explain a pre-conceived theory (or creed, or idea, or way of thinking, or whatever.)

    That species evolve is undeniable. That natural selection is the dynamic behind it is very clear. And both can exist in truth without anyone's creation myth being disturbed or challenged in the least. Science and religion are extremely compatible because they are mutually exclusive. I think that's nice. :)
     
  15. irat

    irat New Member

    newspaper science

    Part of the problem that science has, is the newspapers and the stripped down junk that gets printed.
    I'm not an expert on dinosaur and bird evolution. But the debate seems to be whether dinosaurs and birds evolved from a common ancestor, or whether birds evolved from dinosaurs. I have never seen anything suggesting birds evolved from t-rex. Yet it appeared here in this thread.
    The structure and genetics suggest the huge dodo bird and the pigeon have common ancestors. That does not say the dodo evolved from a pigeon.
    I think one of the difficulties we have is imaging how long a million things is. The two concepts in evolution are genetic drift and occational rapid mutation. Genetic drift can expain how you get a six ounce bird, and a 60 pound bird from common ancestors. It may take a rapid mutation to explain skin to feathers.
    In any case one does not have read very much in peer reviewed scientific (or education) journals to realize that the newspaper accounts drift far from facts. It makes me wonder what on earth is taught about science and discourse in the high schools and colleges.
    All the best!
     
  16. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    My response would have to be 'none of the above'. Unfortunately we weren't given that option, so I can't vote.

    Concerning 'creation', I'm inclined to call it 'religion only', except that myths of origins needn't be explicitly religious. I'd prefer to call them 'mythological'.

    Concerning 'evolution', I'm inclined to call it 'true and scientific', except for a couple of problems.

    First of all, science deals in probabilities. Only religion (and atheist zealots) claim to possess the absolute truth.

    Secondly, 'evolution' is an amalgam of many different scientific theories. Not all of them have the same probability. The existence of the fossil record itself approaches certainty, while the mechanism of the origin of life remains highly speculative. Within paleontology and molecular genetics, some things are well established, other things less so.

    'Evolution' in a broader sense includes not only biological evolution, but also geological evolution of landforms (mountain formation), astrophysical evolution (formation of solar systems), and evolutionary processes in nuclear physics (creation of the heavy elements). There are even evolutionary theories in history (the growth of technology).

    'Evolution' applies to any theory that seeks to explain what we see today in terms of processes that occurred over a long time-scale in the past.

    In that sense, the old-testament is an evolutionary system that explains the then-current situation of the Jewish people and (tangentially) the wider world in tems of mythological divine purposes and interventions extending back over a long timescale to the creation of man.

    So the real issue here isn't really evolution at all. It is whether or not it's proper to appeal to supernatural agencies and to divine revelations in providing explanations of observed states of affairs.

    My reply would be 'not in science'. Science requires that we explain the mysterious in terms of what is better known. Our explanatory principles must be less mysterious than are the things that we use them to explain.

    Obviously calling upon God as an explanatory principle violates that, because by the religious believer's own admission, God is the ultimate mystery. It's essentially a pretentious way of appealing to magic.

    Personally, I *don't* think that science has all the answers, and I *do* think that our world contains an element of magic. But I don't think that we can appeal to the unknown as an explanatory principle and hope to expand our understanding any.

    The transcendent has a very different role in our lives.
     
  17. Ike

    Ike New Member

    Credo unum deo

    I believe in God
    The almighty father
    The creator of heaven and earth
    And all things visible and invisible
    ......................................
    ......................................

    .
    (Period)
     
  18. Kane

    Kane New Member

    Oh Boy

    What a topic, this should start WWIII.:eek:
     
  19. telfax

    telfax New Member

    The need to explore

    I've never thought that there has been a division between science and religion. Religion, if studied from an 'academic' view point is just as rigorour as science, esepcially the study of Christinianity. I donlt think there is any single one of the world's major religions that has had its philosophy, scared texts, practices, etc torn apart and studied in greater depth than the Christian religion to the extent that you can have 'ordained clergy' who still wish to be seen as a 'special God person' but who do not literally believe in what has been handed down as 'God-given'! I would fir into that category. As a student of religion I do not believe in the virgin birth or that Jesus rose again from the dead just as I don't literally believe most of the things the other major religions of the world teach about their own gods and dieties. But that doesnlt mean I don't 'believe' in the essence of what the mythology of religion is all about! Whenever I visit the USA (and to some extent, increasingly, in the UK) I am always amazed as to how the fundamentalist evangelical preachers seem to know exactly what is in the mind of God and what he is thinking about everything we are doing! I find it very amusing and I could cry for the fact that people are being taken inby all this religious 'clap trap' as a result of not having had a systematic and thorough 'academic' approach to the teaching of religion. I don't agree with the separation of church and state and that religious stuidies should not be taught in schools. As an 'academic discipline', it is one of the most rigorous there is. You need to be a linguist, an historian, an archaeologist, a student of literature and so on. This stated, religious education has been a compulsory subject in British schools since 1944 (by Act of Parliament) and I don't think people are any more understanding or educated about the skills of what it means to be a student of religion than they were fifty years ago! You still hear the same old stories about their view of the bible and Christianity that most modern scholarship has thrown out years ago! We'll see!

    'telfax'
     
  20. irat

    irat New Member

    bloodlines of the holy grail???

    The last post is quite interesting. Have you read Blood Lines of the Holy Grail?
    I believe in both evolution and the god of Abraham. The same god as people of the jewish faith and moslem faith.
    I think no word or passage of an entire work can be taken separately. You have to evaluate the sentence in terms of the meaning of the rest of the document. This applies to the Bill of Rights and the new and old testaments.
    When you do that I think it is clear that "god does not play dice wiith the universe" (to borrow from A.E.) Natural law is there for us to discover. The ability to cure disease through understanding how genes work is there. The ability to understand how evolution works through understanding genetics is there. There is no indication that I have every found that god intended to trick humans. The laws of nature are there for man to discover.
    The Jesus mythology is interesting. The passages of the bible around the time of Jesus have to be interpreted based on the rest of the bible. Jesus was jewish. He practiced jewish customs of the period.
    I tend to believe in Jesus more along lines of the bloodlines of the holy grail. So I became a mason.
    All the best!
     

Share This Page