Evolution vs. Creationism

I have not finished reading this entire thread, but I figured I'd drop this in here... That's my disclaimer. I may join the debate later.

There is greater difference between the genetic code of the cholera bacterium and the tuberculosis bacterium than there is between the genetic code of the human being and the potato.

-- Report of researchers who have recently sequenced all four genomes
Click to expand...
 
Well, that explains a lot of things about the intelligence of some people in this world :D
 
It makes perfect sense to me. It seems the more advanced creatures get the closer their genetic codes come together. It's kind of like a refining process. All the bits of code that are completely useless are filtered out as you move up the evolutionary ladder so you have less to choose from and by the time you get to multi cell organisms, we are closer related than single cell organisms.
 
I was listening to a guy talk about evolution and creation the other day. His argument is neither is a fact and they are both theories so neither of them should be taught. I think that they are both wrong to some degree although I fall into the group that thinks they both go hand in hand and Christians that condemn you for believing in evolution are blind to the truth they believe... Everything evolves even religion...
 
We were talking about evolution and creationism in our colloquium class the other day as well, and actually came to the opposite conclusion; we believe that it would be beneficial for both to be taught, perhaps as an elective rather than a required class, in which the idea of origins would be taught as theories and without emphasis on which is "right" and which is "wrong." Also, it wouldn't be just Christian creationism; it would be creationism over the major religions.

That way, many of the theories are presented, and those who are learning can choose as they wish which one they choose to believe; there would be no emphasis on whether Christianity is untrue (or any other major religious beliefs), but there would also be an understanding that science is not necessarily complete nor always absolute. In the end, it's all up to personal interpretation.
 
Evolution is a scientific fact; The great majority of U.S. citizens do not understand evolution and creationist and i.d. advocates exploit the public ignorance.
 
"Him that is ignorant, let him be ignorant."
sorry
"If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
 
Last edited:
Goethe said:
Evolution is a scientific fact; The great majority of U.S. citizens do not understand evolution and creationist and i.d. advocates exploit the public ignorance.
Click to expand...

THAT, SIR, IS WRONG.

I'm not for either because quite frankly, I really don't give a shit, but thinking that something like evolution is a scientific fact -- well, that's a very dangerous assumption. You cannot prove evolution; it is a theory. And, while it is the best theory we have, to blindly accept it as truth shows that you do not fully understand the path and history of science.

Most likely, the theory will change in the future, especially because there are still missing links in it. Therefore, it is not yet fact of any sort.
 
gloomy-optimist said:
THAT, SIR, IS WRONG.

I'm not for either because quite frankly, I really don't give a shit, but thinking that something like evolution is a scientific fact -- well, that's a very dangerous assumption. You cannot prove evolution; it is a theory. And, while it is the best theory we have, to blindly accept it as truth shows that you do not fully understand the path and history of science.

Most likely, the theory will change in the future, especially because there are still missing links in it. Therefore, it is not yet fact of any sort.
Click to expand...


It isn't proven scientific fact. However, it is a scientific theory, that holds true in nearly all cases. You can also see evidence of it on the molecular level.

Creationism on the other hand, has no basis with any kind of science. It isn't a testable theory. Basiclly it says "this is what it is and it wont change"

So really, evolution is much much much closer to science.
 
IndigoSensor said:
Since Darwin came up with the theory. aka, over 100 years.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I just wanted to confirm something I had in mind. I don't know a lot about most other religions, but Islam presents a lot of scientific evidence that was unknown before its birth. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, was only around for a short period of time and hasn't been proved. :)
 
The thing that bothers me most about Religion vs Science is subjectivity vs objectivity. Science strives for objectivity, while Religion is entirely subjective.

Science can be shared by all and is inclusive of all concious beings, whereas religion is individual and divisive.

Perhaps this is not the right thread, but just a thought that's been floating about my head.
 
Quinlan said:
The thing that bothers me most about Religion vs Science is subjectivity vs objectivity. Science strives for objectivity, while Religion is entirely subjective.

Science can be shared by all and is inclusive of all concious beings, whereas religion is individual and divisive.

Perhaps this is not the right thread, but just a thought that's been floating about my head.
Click to expand...

And yet again, you say what I want to say. But, in a much more clean, concise manor! :D
 
gloomy-optimist said:
I'm not for either because quite frankly, I really don't give a shit, but thinking that something like evolution is a scientific fact -- well, that's a very dangerous assumption. You cannot prove evolution; it is a theory.
Click to expand...
The theory of evolution, complete with its timelines and taxonomy, is an adjustable theory. But if Goethe meant evolution simply as the process, he was right. It's verified by observation and common sense in the same way as the fact that a weight will fall towards the earth when dropped. We reproduce sexually, and we have DNA, so the rest inevitably follows: ranges of variation shift over time.
 
Satya said:
It depends on the paradigm you accept. Assuming there is a design means assuming there is a designer. Design, by definition, means there is plan or purpose. If you have a telelogical paradigm, then you are likely to believe there is a supernatural designer. If you have a metaphysical naturalistic paradigm, then you believe human beings observe the natural forces of the universe and ascribe meaning to them and therefore there is no underlying design, but simply a human interpretation of the natural forces around them.
Click to expand...

This was the initial paradigm of science. It was accepted by the Roman-Catholic Church during the Renaissance period. The competing paradigm of the time was a self-determined universe which happened to frighten those within the Church hierarchy. The scientific paradigm itself has since evolved to effectively deify humans themselves, with "progress" as the salvation that the Church had previously promised.

Duty said:
People think that scientists "have faith" in science. So to them, it's about having faith in science or religion (and even though religion isn't necessary for a Creationist hypothesis, they're invariably linked in the mind of society). One promises eternal life in a heaven, promises of a God coming down and annihilating evil, etc. The other promises cold, hard truth about reality. It's easy to see why they might pick the former.
Click to expand...

They may not have faith in science, but they have faith in progress.

Satya said:
A spirit is not necessarily a supernatural entity. In fact, I would say it is highly unlikely that it is. It could be understood as the energy of a living thing; the spark of life so to speak. Religion may be concerned with transcendence in death and the supernatural, but spirituality is typically more akin to growth in life and the natural force that drives it.
Click to expand...

m087.gif
Satya said:
Ask yourself what all living things ultimately need to survive, and the answer is energy. All life on this planet is possible because of an intricate exchange of energy. Energy which travels from the sun, through the autotrophs, through the heterotrophs, through the decomposers, and back through the food cycle again until it is all eventually lost as heat. It does no one any harm to see the energy that exists within a human being, such as that which is stored in the chemical bonds of the molecules that make up their cells, the electrical impulses within their brains, and even the residual heat given off their bodies, as a natural, driving force of their existence as a living being. In fact, it isn't hard to see how energy within living beings is invested in their growth and continued survival. But for some reason, if you call that a "spirit" people get pretty upity and start making judgments about "superstitions" and "untruths" without really contemplating the nature of the natural world around them. Perhaps you might want to ignore and scorn it, but I prefer to find beauty and appreciation for that which that makes life possible, links all life together, and that drives us as individuals and a species to continue living and growing. And that is what spirituality is all about.
Click to expand...



(note to admins: thumbs up monkey needs to be added to the standard set. =p)

Duty said:
I think you're the first person I've conversed with that refers to a spirit as being the set of physical processes that take place within an organism. "Spirit", when used in a more common version of the word, and as a noun, typically implies one of these:
1. Certain types of alcohol (obviously doesn't apply here)
2. A supernatural entity such as a ghost (not what we're talking about either)
3. The immaterial essence that is the driving force behind consciousness in organisms.

But if you really want to call the set of physical processes that take place within an organism a "spirit," then that's ok too...it's only a collection of letters representing sounds.
Click to expand...

That's only because Satya beat me to it. But, you should realize that people realized this a LONG time ago. The word 'spirit' is derived from a word originally meaning 'breath.' Breathing of course allows our bodies to manufacture adenosine-triphosphate which in turn allows for metabolization, and of course the air is shared among all beings. =p

Satya said:
It makes perfect sense to me. It seems the more advanced creatures get the closer their genetic codes come together. It's kind of like a refining process. All the bits of code that are completely useless are filtered out as you move up the evolutionary ladder so you have less to choose from and by the time you get to multi cell organisms, we are closer related than single cell organisms.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's a refining process... Say millions of years ago, a species of bacterium begins living in colonies. Then maybe in some of those colonies, the bacterial cells begin to specialize in certain functions. The original colonies still continue down their own evolutionary path, while the new ones take a different path. Meanwhile the original single celled organisms still continue to mutate, evolve and diversify. My point was that we (humans) are not the goal of evolution, and neither is complex life itself. Diversity ensures that life will continue because any catastrophe that would cause one species to go extinct would not effect all species. It's more of a branching process.

Satya said:
I think they are mutually exclusive by their inherent arguments. Evolution holds that all life on this planet formed over a long period of time as a result of natural processes, whereas Creationism argues that all life on this planet was originally created instantaneously by a supernatural being. Regardless of the fact that they can't disprove each other, they both can't be true.
Click to expand...

In a certain sense the popular understanding of evolution is no different from creationism. Same story, different details. Both place humans above all else. Very anthropocentric.
 
Last edited:
One thing I see a lot in people that consider themselves very scientific is that they often believe that religion is totally subjective. Research has shown that there is definitely historical substance, even evidence, that religion has a "real" basis. At least, it's not just a bunch of people coming up with crazy ideas and trying to convince everyone to follow them like sheep.
In fact, there are many scientist that, after they research religion or after doing extensive research in science, come to become even more religious -- there are some things that science cannot explain (or can only explain very poorly), such as what was before the big bang and where life came from. Any scientist can tell you that you can't, by the laws of nature, get something out of nothing.

It's fine that you are more for evolution, but don't automatically assume that because religion is not a "science" (although there are real studies associated with it; it's not just an ignorant past time of the masses), it is totally subjective and whimsical.

TheLastMohican said:
The theory of evolution, complete with its timelines and taxonomy, is an adjustable theory. But if Goethe meant evolution simply as the process, he was right. It's verified by observation and common sense in the same way as the fact that a weight will fall towards the earth when dropped. We reproduce sexually, and we have DNA, so the rest inevitably follows: ranges of variation shift over time.
Click to expand...

Change happens; that is, indeed, a fact. However, the overall theory of evolution should not be blindly followed and totally believed in just because it is a scientific theory. I find that to be somewhat ignorant.
 
gloomy-optimist said:
Change happens; that is, indeed, a fact. However, the overall theory of evolution should not be blindly followed and totally believed in just because it is a scientific theory. I find that to be somewhat ignorant.
Click to expand...
I don't know of anyone who is doing that. I believe in evolution because it is a scientific theory that is consistently supported by new evidence, and better understood by us than most other scientific theories that we commonly accept (like atomic structure and gravity).
If not for creation myths, do you believe evolution would be doubted by more than 5% of the population?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top