Evolution vs. Creation

Here's a request:

Could somebody kind enough and knowlegeable enough PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE explain the theory of evolution, what it actually is. Somehow, it tends to get mixed up with what people believes it means and all the other things. Who would volunteer to do that? Anybody?

And then, I could help to write out the creation explained in the Bible. No more and no less. From there on, we can understand what people is talking about, or referring to. I must confess sometimes I get lost. :D

Hopefully after this, it will help a bit.

So... who's going to volunteer and help me with the evolution part? I don't know enough about it to give a good background. Besides, I'd be too biased. :D We need someone who doesn't get too biased easily.

Adelheid.....
The theory of evolution is the process of change over geological time. This change can affect many things, from physiological appearance, to cultural evolution.
Most of people's thoughts on evolution are concerned in the evolution of mankind, but as has been pointed out by previous posts, evolution is not as cut and dry as that.

The process of evolution is affected, sped up or slowed down, by a number of factors, namely, the desires of reproductive dependants - i.e., in a group of animals who rely heavily on competition for mates, where more males of the species exist than females, this leads to female selection, so evolution will be affected by the needs and wants of the females of the species.
This is not to say that evolution only operates and exhibits itself when women are unhappy about their men!!
There is also the utilitarian aspect to consider, the best example I've heard is put across by use of the relationship between male and female long tailed wrens - accepting that the theory that a male wren's tail is so decorative, solely for the use of attracting a mate, and accepting what was proposed earlier, about feminine selection, the wrens tail should in theory grow to the end of time.
From a utilitarian perspective, this obviously cannot happen, as the bird would not be able to fly, so evolution has to balance between the two. Generally, the exhibited feature would be found to be the average of the two aspects.
There are other aspects which will affect evolution, for example, parasites will have a large role to play in selection and change.

The most interesting fields of evolution I find are those that are exhibited in a social or cultural environment. For example, one of the reasons I believe the world has managed to cope with such unsegregated societies, as compared with how segregated the world was only a hundred years ago, is the evolution of man's ability to empathise. Granted, a lot of this has come from education and understanding, but I feel that evolution is still ongoing within our own minds, as well as physiologically, and it is here that we will see the most evolutionary progress over the next hundred years or more.

So in short, evolution is a strive for efficiency and stability with an organisms surroundings, and is affected by it's surrounding environment, organisms, physical ability and sexual tendencies, and also is affected and driven within the human mind, and can be expressed in the form of human culture.


From this you could think that I am incredibally biased for evolution, and I admit that I am, in a way, however, only because religion never answered any of the questions I had to ask. However, I don't HATE religions, as I feel it has had a large part to play in the world today, and would be surprised if religion itslelf has not affected the process of human evolution over the few thousand years that human kind have had a religion of sorts. Personally, i don't think what you believe is important, not as much as belief itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay

Isn't 'freak of nature' supposed to mean 'one of a kind'? My point, if I understand what you're saying, there'd be too many freaks of nature in the past.

---

Hi Jay. And I just said the words "may have been". Wiggle room. Maybe. Maybe not. But if only one of the lineup of the descent of man figures could be a "freak of nature", then while it would not disprove evolution, it would make us more cautious in our work of identifing fossil records. This is not from a religious site but from the Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Java Man was one of the first specimens of Homo erectus to be discovered. It was originally given the scientific name Pithecanthropus erectus by its discoverer Eugène Dubois. The word "pithecanthropos" was derived from Greek roots and means ape man.

Dubois' find was not a complete specimen, as many are led to believe, but consisted merely of a skullcap, a femur, and three teeth. A 342-page report written shortly after the find throws much doubt upon the validity of this particular specimen. Despite this, the Java Man is still found in many textbooks today.

---

In this we see that a mistake was made, reported, and acknowledged, for which I salute the scientific community, they are only human, and these things happen. They tried to clear the mess up. But Java Man still appears in many textbooks to this day. Now I would think a 342 page scientific report a good refute of the find. Evidently, most scientists agree. Why does it keep slipping into the textbooks? Who knows?

With the tangled mess that religous people can make out of things, I would be the first to say that the creationist camp could hardly point fingers. I know many preachers who won't even speak to each other while claiming to believe the same Bible. You'll find that if I am anything, I am fair. I won't take sides, even if I believe in God, I believe in right. I still think it takes both to make sense of this old world. A creator and evolution work together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

Chook,

I think that what really bothers you is the fact that removing God from the equation takes away the claim that humanity, and by extension you, has a special place in the universe; that we are somehow unique and here for a purpose. I will admit that this is a terrifying concept and one which most of us do our best to filter out of our daily lives.

But the question is: should we believe in God merely because we don't like the idea of the alternative? Isn't this just the metaphysical equivalent of burying our heads in the sand? To refuse the abyss won't make it go away if that is the correct view of the universe; which many of us believe it to be.

But on your other point, about the things that matter; surely the simple fact that there are atheists as well as religious believers on a forum like this, discussing great works of written art and their relevance to ourselves(occasionally, amidst all of the jokes ;) ), would imply that they find just as much beauty and significance in these works as anyone else does? My own particular take on it, is that I am here for a short time only and that after that there is nothing - sounds bleak, doesn't it? - but it is also liberating; it frees me from the notion that life is a prelude to some more significant after-existence and makes me appreciate the beauties and marvels of art and nature all the more - or at least I feel that it does. When one short life is all you have, it is worth more than if you see it as just part of an eternal process.

If there is no place for God, then the things that matter take on greater significance, because they become all that matters.

---

I apologize for not making myself clear in my earlier post. I meant no offense to atheists. I have meet some crazy theists believe me. I think it likely in fact that an atheist might even have richer experiences of this world than a theists because, as you say, to them this is all that there is to enjoy.

I agree that believing in the existence of God merely because we don't like the alternative would be a very weak position. It is true that I do not find the alternative very attractive. But it is not merely a matter of taste or emotion. (Though it is that also.) Any theory which attempts to explain our existence or the existence of a universe such as the one we find ourselves in has to be able to give an account of the real universe, not a subset of it. I agree that a resort to nature as a total explanation of our exixtance may be able to explain the existence of the natural world. But my experiences of truth, beauty, morality, love, reason and rational thought are as much a part of my existence as are the sun the moon and the stars. Any explanation of my world which precludes an explanation of the existance of the significance that we find in these other things is at best incomplete. I do not say that the naturalist position is totally wrong. I am sure that there is much truth in it,but it cannot be all that there is.

Or if we were able to show that the the naturalist position was actually the whole truth, then we should at least face up to the consequnces of it. If when I say that the abuse of children is wrong, then all that is happening is that some complex arrangement of space,time,matter and energy has come into play then let us at least stop acting as though it had significance. We might still continue to use the words right and wrong, should and should not, but we should at least be aware that as we do so we are merely giving vent to steam, complex steam, more complex but of the same sort as the emissions of a volcano. We might still go on doing good (or evil) but we must realize that at the core these words have been emptied of any meaning. By good I would simply mean that my collection of atoms and energy reacted in a certain fashion to the actions of your atoms and energy, no different than a collision between billard balls. It is no good saying that there are some wicked theists and good atheists. The words good and bad have a natural, physical cause. We would be better to use the words convenient or inconvenient. Furthermore it seems to me that an acceptance of the fully naturalist position also destroys the very possiblity of rational thought. But that is to much for this forum and I will not debate it here.

Though then you may disagree with my views I hope that you see that it is not entirely a matter of taste. I want an explanation of existence that includes all of my universe. Either much of what I thought was real was actually an illusion and I need to radically change the way I see the world. Or ultimate reality is more than mere nature.

Chook,

You made some good points but (as always, I'm afraid ;) ), I have a few points to make.

Quote:

---

I apologize for not making myself clear in my earlier post. I meant no offense to atheists. I have meet some crazy theists believe me. I think it likely in fact that an atheist might even have richer experiences of this world than a theists because, as you say, to them this is all that there is to enjoy.

---

My belief is that to all of us this is all there is to enjoy. Of course you have the right to differ. My only regret is that, assuming for a moment that I am right, there will never be an opportunity to say, "I told you so!"

I am not at all sure that what you are describing is the naturalist viewpoint. It reads closer to the existentialist viewpoint to me. Knowing that "experiences of truth, beauty, morality, love, reason and rational thought" are merely the result of the passage of electrons in my brain in no way invalidates them, nor makes them any the less worthwhile from my perspective; these kinds of experience are what makes life worth living to all of us, it is invalid to claim them as the sole preserve of the theist.

On good and evil, lack of credence in the existence of a deity has no bearing on empathy either; causing pain deliberately for selfish motives is as abhorrent to me as I am sure that it is to you. Added to this, is the rationalist approach that treating other people well is likely to be reciprocated. Where we differ is that I have no compunction about breaking so called "Laws of God"; working or shopping on a Sunday is no problem to me and what I eat or who I sleep with is a matter for my personal taste and conscience (and in the latter case, the willingness of the other individual(s) involved! :brow: )

And on your final paragraph; of course it is not a matter of taste - there is a right and a wrong answer out there somewhere. It is a matter of deciding what one personally believes and, importantly to me, why one believes it.

"Where we differ is that I have no compunction about breaking so called "Laws of God"; working or shopping on a Sunday is no problem to me and what I eat or who I sleep with is a matter for my personal taste and conscience (and in the latter case, the willingness of the other individual(s) involved! )"

Xamonas Chegwe
I think that we would be both very surprised to find how little difference that there is between what we would both describe as 'morally correct" actions though you might not use the same words to describe such actions. I have heard the words 'appropriate and inappropriate" also used in this context. Atheists of good intent are no more or less prone to good or bad behaviour than anybody else. It is misconceived pride by some on myside of the debate that causes some of us to talk at times as though a belief in God of itself somehow made us better people. I could wish it were true but I know full well it does not. There would of course be some differences in what we considered a good or bad action, but not so much as you might imagine. There are as many varieties of theists as atheists. For myself and I am not so unusual, I have little time for simply religious duties, such as not working on Sundays. Certainly, if you believe in the sort of God that I do, then there will be time for worship etc but these are a personal matter. If you were my neighbour I suspect that my mower would be safe from theft and that you would find me a very normal chap who happens to like football, timber and poetry. It is the fanatics on both sides that give the problem. That is not to say that I believe that it makes no difference in the end what side you come down on. If ultimate reality is what I believe it to be then to reject this is to miss the point for which we were created. But you are right, whatever may be the case neither of us will get the chance to poke out our tongue and say I told you so!

I will do some research on existentialism. Maybe that is what I was describing.

Wow. You take some time off and threads almost disappear. I thought this a bit funny. People often do not take too well to opinions different from their own, and will even ridicule them. So here's something to think about:

People laughed at Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin.

People have laughed at every religious leader there has ever been.

None of this helps to prove them right or wrong.

People also laughed at The Three Stooges! http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/n020.gif

Were you not leaving Pen? I don't suppose this is the right place to discuss tolerance, but, although we should be open to new ideas, and carefully consider them, we need not accept everything as right, and we can say why we do not agree.

Sorry to see me back, my dear little Piglet? I'm not saying anything about people not being able to disagree or think for themselves. I'm simply saying that when you do so, do it with a logical, straight forward approach without snide remarks. The rightness or wrongness of a belief will never be taught to anyone simply by laughing at them, and telling them they are wrong. An understanding of the other man's viewpoint may either solidify or cast doubt upon your own belief. In the meantime, have a nice day! :)

I voted for creation.
I for one most certainly did NOT come from a monkey!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhimsySA

I voted for creation.
I for one most certainly did NOT come from a monkey!!!

---

Well... When you come to think of it... The idea of having descended from a man who could not say no to an apple is not very flattering either!

Although I don't really want to venture deep into this battlefield, I will mention that I did not come from a monkey either, but still accept the theory of evolution.

Just because my Grandgrand x10000 father was a 'monkey', doesn't mean I came from one, my father is homo sapiens, and so is my mother.

Then again, I wouldn't so easily refuse an apple offered by Eva either.

Anyway, time for a tactical retreat to safer pastures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhimsySA

I voted for creation.
I for one most certainly did NOT come from a monkey!!!

---

No, but many of your ancestors were something that, if you saw it, you would call it a monkey. And before that, your ancestors were probably some sort of slime.

"Apemen are not proud of their ancestors, and never invite them round for dinner"
-Douglas Noel Adams

"The only reason why God created man is because he was disappointed with the monkey."

Mark Twain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

"The only reason why God created man is because he was disappointed with the monkey."

Mark Twain

---

Twain did have a way with words, didn't he? :lol:

I read where he also said "Man is the only animal that wears clothes--or needs to."

I also read a quote by someone, seems like it was a line in a movie: "Man is the only animal smart enough to build the Empire State Building, and stupid enough to jump off of it!"

Note: The above line containing the word "stupid" is not personally directed towards anyone. It is simply a quotation. Thank you. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/h020.gif