Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RusSpencer
I am opposed to teaching creationism in public, tax-supported schools. There is no scientific evidence to back it up; whereas evolution has tons of evidence to support it.

---

I don't see a problem in teaching creationism in public schools. However, I don't think it should be taught in biology class. Many of the proposals for introducing creationism into public schools call for it to be taught in science classes right along side evolutionism, and as an alternative to it. Therein lies the problem: there is no scientific evidence, to back up 'intelligent design' theories. Creationism does not belong in a science class, but in a philosophy class. It is not based in science; rather, it is based in faith. Creationism would be just as much out of place in a biology class as it would be in an algebra or geometry class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiSaNtHrOpE

Is God really moral? Oh I wrote a 3-page paper on all of the things His followers did throughout history, and a book on morality called The Science of Good & Evil by Michael Shermer provided most of the paper. Suggested reading if you want to know about how a lot atheists can be more moral than some Christians. Shermer used data from many Christian poll organizations on various topics like being a good samaritan, divorce rates, intolerance, cheating on exams, (these were all completed by self-proclaimed Chistians) and concluded that "Not only does religion not necessarily make on more moral, but it can also lead to greater amounts of racism, sexism, and an erosion of cherished values that are so important to a democratic society" (236).

---

A question, please. You and I have spoken before, so you know I do NOT condone evil done in the name of Christianity or in the name of God, whatever religion people may follow. But does teaching evolution do anything to stem the tide of this same flow of evil? And if there have been people through out history, (and there have) who have used the name of God and religion for hypocritical purposes, does that mean everyone is to be tarred with the same brush? It is like finding a counterfeit $20. You don't then throw out every one you have, but you do examine them closely. Why do people make counterfeits? Because there is something real out there that people may mistake it for to give it value. It's just something to think about. Not everyone who holds a Bible and talks the talk actually walks the walk unfortunately, and it makes it hard for anyone to trust someone who talks about the Bible. Olive branch?

clandestine is right. teaching creationism in biology would be as bad as teaching the ten commandments in ethics class -- or something. actually, no, it would be quite worse, because ethics is a branch of philosophy, whereas, science is supposed to be empirical. If creationism must be included, and i don't see why it should in any class but a religion course, it should be taught in a philosophy of biology class, or even just plain philosophy. (but in a class in just plain philosophy I'm sure there is no time to cover such a trifle)

"But does teaching evolution do anything to stem the tide of this same flow of evil?" This "flow of evil" is not associated with science or secularism, I can assure you. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...8944-2,00.html The study that the article refers to is here: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

From Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer, Creationism/ID "'would be like the Flat Earth Society insisting their theory be taught in the public schools'" (166).

There are a lot of weird theories about the world and people. Why arent scientologists rallying for public acceptance of their theories as well (that we were created by aliens)?

We recently tackled the teleological argument (the ID/Creationism argument for Gods existence) in Philosophy, and despite popular opinion in the class (that "Adam & Eve rode dinosaurs to church" [Tina Fey, Weekend Update on SNL]), the idea fell flat on its face. You cant teach something in science class that cant even hold its own in Philosophy. In fact, none of the proofs of the existence of God held up. It's all about legitimizing bad science, and scientists wont have it. Science is the search for applicable and objective truths. You can believe that Adam & Eve rode dinosaurs to church all you want, but science will continue as science.

It is actually high time that Christians embrace evolution. Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. Genesis can certainly be read, and quite reasonably, as a metaphor for what science supports as the actual history of our universe/world. Furthermore, God having caused evolution to occur, could have still sent a son to sacrifice to the sinners of the world. (Do note, in case you are unfamiliar with my frequent posts concerning christianity, I am not a christian.)
Shunning evolution, and clinging to the asinine belief that the world is no more than 10,000 years old, only causes the learned community to disregard Christian beliefs as unfounded and outrageous, and Christianity as no more than a highly successful cult.
Science is not a collection of "flaming darts" shot from the sling of the "evil one." It is science. It is mathematical. Christ or no Christ, God gave man a rational mind, and may in fact be quite offended if we were to shun the use thereof.

You know, a philosophy class doesn't make the best platform for throwing out creationism. Philosophy doesn't really deal with absolutes, but with gray areas. Still many philosophers and many scientists do believe in a devine being. And they have no real problem with that being starting the whole thing off, as it were. The problem seems to lie with the Bible itself, they have trouble accepting anything written therein as devinely inspired, or anything but retold myths. If that be their stand, then OK, let them act as they see fit, I believe in freedom and the first admendment. But I will expect the same from them in return, my freedom to believe as I will. And even if we disagree, I still would defend their right to have no religion or any that they choose as strongly as I defend my own! And you can go to the bank with that!

[QUOTE=Pendragon]You know, a philosophy class doesn't make the best platform for throwing out creationism.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Would you kindly clarify?

Pendragon, do you know what philosophy is?

Philo - Love
Sophia - of knowledge

While philosophers do deal predominantly with grey areas, it does hold that the Scientific Method of Belief is the best method of belief. They seek to find out what things are defended best, to believe whatever has the most evidence to support it. Philosophy could, in my opinion, be called an "intellectual science."

Of course some scientists believe in a divine being, but that doesnt lead to a strict, rigid adherence to some ancient book. The Founding Fathers believed in a Creator, but had no respect for the Bible.

With that being said, lets look at Evolution and Creationism:

Creationism: A 10,000 year old book of ancient laws and myths, a few billion followers (which doesnt count as "evidence")

Evolution: Fossil records, physical data, DNA, geneology, behavioral similarities between species which one can observe and many have written about, real species variation (Flu variants, adaptation to insecticides, etc).

Which do you think the philosopher will be more likely to believe?

The problem with Evolution is that Evolution is more than a theory based upon science. "Science," by definition is what we can study and observe.

What can we study and observe.
First, in order for our observable, tangible Universe- (by the way Universe in Latin means single spoken sentence) -three things need to come into existence simultaneously.
1. Time 2. Space 3. Matter

The Evolution Theory does not account for the true start, the absolute beginning of the Universe, because Evolution fails to solve how time and space came into existence.
The theory of evolution only accounts for matter, and at that Evolution claims that all the matter of the Universe was once rolled up into a dot no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence (Paraphrased from Stephen Goul). This Big Bang Theory also claims that this really heavy dot (In the Greek that is an "Infinitesimal Region), this dot that contained all the matter necessary to make me and you, evolved from literally nothing. Not only is the Big Bang Theory fanciful, it is flatly contradicted by Modern Science. "Matter can not arise from non-matter." Something can't come from nothing.
Even if it was "Billions and Billions of years ago."

The only way the known Universe could have come into existence was if Time, Space, and Matter we brought into being simultaneously.

The only place that is explained is found in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Beginning- time Heavens- space Earth- matter

As for the young Earth, take a couple quick examples:

The Earth’s core is cooling down, if the Earth was a billion years old, the Earth’s core would be cold, done, no magnetic fields. In fact all the stars are cooling down and they could not be millions of years old.

The moon is getting farther and farther away from the Earth, which means at one time it was closer. If the Earth was millions of years old the moon would have been so close that the tides would have continually flooded the earth.

The Earth’s rotation is slowing down, which means it was spinning faster before, of the Earth was millions of years old, the Coriolis Effect would have been out of control, the wind would have over 500 miles an hour.

If people had been around for 3 million years there would be ten—thousand people per square inch of the planet, the current Population curves down close to zero 0 around 4,400 years ago (roughly the time of the Biblical Flood).

The oldest Tree isn’t older than 4,000 years old; the biggest desert isn’t older than 4,400 years old.

The Evolutionist believes, in the beginning was DIRT, but they can’t explain how it got there.
The Bible teaches that God created the heavens and earth in seven days, and I can’t tell how God got there, but God’s very character is eternal.

Evolution is a crumbling theory (2nd law of Thermodynamics, everything goes from order to chaos), take Evolution out of Science classes and put it in the world religions or philosophy class.

For more and more precise facts, check out drdino.com

There are flaws with what you say. It doesnt matter how "big" something is, its how much matter (atoms) are contained in it. It didnt contain the material to make "me and you," that came much later, when atoms bonded together, as the first step, to form DNA, then came single-celled organisms, which asexually reproduced, etc.

Your theory with population is incorrect because you are not accounting for diease, climate change, or natural disasters or interspecies competition. There are many factors that contribute to population size, and no population steadily increases from start to extinction.

The biggest tree is 4,000 years old. So? Disease, natural disasters, etc. It also depends on the species of tree and its life span. As long as trees live, they dont live forever.

Dirt: Lava to molten rock which erodes by the sea always putting steady pressure on it (seven wonders are bizarre rock formations due to water), rock degrades to sand, and dirt is sand mixed with other elements.

If you can't determine what Time is, how are you supposed to define "Eternal?"

Do you have any hard facts to support that?

Besides, if the 2nd law of thermodynamics directly applied to biology* how could the universe have lasted even eight thousand years?

*Law 2 of thermodynamics (Entropy) doesn't directly apply to the field of biology or to the Earth, the Earth is not a closed system of matter or energy, and biological systems behave in distinctly anti-thermodynamic behaviors. The formation of gastrula from ovum, and that gastrula's eventual development into a human being is proof of this. Hell, there are even examples of counter-entropy in theoretically entropic systems, namely the formation of crystalline structures. Osmosis and leveling aren't constants, merely common. To confuse the two elements, or to over-broadly attempt to implicate information's probative value, is one mistake science itself seeks to correct.

If anything, the real flaw with Darwinian evolution is its racism. Darwin himself was highly racist, and a supporter of fellow racist biologists. That was why a primarily Christian intelligentsia bought into it. They were also hard-core bigots. The term 'unapologetically racist' is typically reserved for that movie (I know the name of the damn movie, but I don't want to drop it needlessly, and potentially derail the thread) by DW Griffith, the writings of FW Nietszche, and the 'typical' attitude in 'white' America. However, all those pale in comparison to people who frothed at multiple orifaces to justify their self-serving notions of ethnic superiority, which they as court historians to powerful kings did sell for centuries.

The only place that is explained is found in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

You need to read up on your history, you seem to be pulling from Anglo-Saxon resources only. There are at least two continents with differing opinions.

The Earth’s core is cooling down, if the Earth was a billion years old, the Earth’s core would be cold, done, no magnetic fields. In fact all the stars are cooling down and they could not be millions of years old.

Understanding what I do of physics, this is nothing to even look at. It takes millions of years for the combination to run its course. For the stars we must also take into account that our closest star is 4.4 light-years away from us, which means we have a later look on things, so come on, what is time in that sense. You are going to have to bring some hard credibility to pull this one off.

The moon is getting farther and farther away from the Earth, which means at one time it was closer. If the Earth was millions of years old the moon would have been so close that the tides would have continually flooded the earth.

I am almost sick of Kepler by now. The moon comes and goes, that is known. Elliptical!

If people had been around for 3 million years there would be ten—thousand people per square inch of the planet, the current Population curves down close to zero 0 around 4,400 years ago (roughly the time of the Biblical Flood).

Cite your facts, and good facts not some creationist website, this is just wrong on so many levels. BYW evolution from common descent.lol


The Evolutionist believes, in the beginning was DIRT, but they can’t explain how it got there.

Neither can you. Does that make evolution wrong? Ad hominum TO ad absurdum.


Evolution is a crumbling theory (2nd law of Thermodynamics, everything goes from order to chaos), take Evolution out of Science classes and put it in the world religions or philosophy class.

Superfluous if you were right. He said and she said does not hold up, but I am not Aristotle.

I do not mean to step on toes, but not anyone here is a scientist on the topics and all I seem to be reading is speculation. This is the reason that people that come to the internet looking for information are so confused, "there are as many opinions as there are people"(Cicero) When will we learn that misinformation is not the solution, it just hides the problem with a veil of arrogance. Take the works of your favorite author and gather their opinion on the world, but don't espouse it as the end-all of history, are you Lucretuis? are you Saul? were they right? are they not authors themselves? and, saying that, are we not merely readers?

Even if someone knew what happened in the beginning of the universe, there would still be people who would doubt. There is no such thing as truth. <---Get this into your head. If enough people believe in something does it make it true? No. If you can logically explain why this or that point of view is true does it make it true? No. We live in a world where it is possible to doubt the very existence of yourself. Truth is a point of view. Scientific facts have done as much for society as any religion's point of view on creation.

[QUOTE=ThatIndividual]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

You know, a philosophy class doesn't make the best platform for throwing out creationism.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Would you kindly clarify?

---

I simply meant that philosophy doen't negate creationism in and of itself. That philosophy will argue more with the Bible than with whether or not a creator was involved in the begining of things. It's the Biblical record that people question most of all. Using philospophy, you may prove to everyone's satisfaction that everything is just an illusion and nothing really exists. However, others do not appear to agree. I am content to leave it lay and believe as I choose and allow them to do the same. This bickering gives me a headache. :wave:

Even if you could prove Evolution wrong, that in no way makes creationism right (Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer).

If evolution is wrong, biologists will pick up the adventure again. Dont ever think scientists will resort to mysticism to explain the origins of life.