Evolution vs. Creation

[JGL57]

When our cat Indy jumps in bed with us at night, she makes a choice--should she curl up next to me or my wife? Her decision varies based on some thought process of her own.

Also, if one assumes choice to be a 'gift', then one must also assume something gave the gift--which kind of limits one's choice, no?

Maybe "gift" is the wrong metaphor. Maybe the universe is a free lunch. No reason that it can't be.

Where's your god then, Moses?

[ennison]

Well if one takes 'choice' to be along the lines of .... If not A Then B, I'd have to say yes it's fairly obvious that animals work at that level. My sheepdogs do anyway. But perhaps what Pendragon means is a more complex form of choice, which involves moral decisions and the choosing between the good and the better. My sheepdogs cannot do that but mind you I reckon we are not all that consistently good at doing that ourselves.

[Stanislaw]

One thought here. People keep talking about empirical proof. I find that defined as provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. Now we come to something called burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with the person presenting the case, not the ones to whom the case is being presented. With something this big, there can be no room for simple preponderance of the evidence. This needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. The fact is, there are holes in evolution theory. There are problems with Creation, some that are not going to go away. The burden of proof lies with those who present the evidence. The other side doesn't have to do anything. There is no empirical evidence one way or another. There is what we call “most likely.” There is what we call "Faith." Either could be wrong. Neither wrong could also be correct. No unimpeachable proof, just a universe of endless posibilities. Why do we tie ourselves to a single viewpoint? "With God, all things are possible."

well said

What reasonable person wouldn't agree that "anything is possible, nothing is certain"? But not all assumptions are equal. Knowlege is not UTTERLY subjective. All ideas are not equal, just because no human can know anything for absolute certain.

Science over the centuries demonstrates the truth of certain theories beyond any reasonable doubt - Atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, heliocentricity - just to name a few.

Evolution is in this category of proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If the Darwinian concept is greatly modified or somehow overthrown in years to come, it will scientists producing a better scientific theory through scientific methods - it won't come from a vision of the Virgin Mary or Jesus or Allah, etc.

People are free to "believe" in whatever the heck they wish - invisible pixies hiding behind tree stumps in the forest, if that makes them happy. Who should care if such people obey the law?But science tries to actually understand the universe, not interpret it according to some faith-based initiative of dogmatic adherence to two thousand year old "science".

Live and let live works here - when people know their places and actually live and let live, not just say the words. E.g., when school board members pronounce on what science is or isn't, even thought they are laymen, and inject politics (it's really politics, not religion) into science, then we have a problem.

Every judge to date - pretty much - has thrown the creationists out of the business of interfering with science classes. Believers in creationism have changed the language used recently name to promoting "Intelligent Design", but they are not fooling anybody - a wolf in sheeps' clothing is still a wolf.

If scientists don't get to teach science in Sunday school in churches on some equal time basis, then creationists don't get to push their foolishness on public school science classes - just like astrologers can't sell their garbage in public school astronomy classes.

THAT is the issue. And if the scientific community doesn't win this particular fight, and similar fights, then it may very well be back to the dark ages for us all.

Let science be science and religion be religion. That's the best that can happen, giving the circumstances of our society, composed as it is of such a huge number of people who are as ignorant of science as I am of 15th century French literature.

science and religion don't really have to be seperate...they are not opposites, nor are they completely different:

Both require blind faith.
Both require people.
Both compliment eachother.

and...science has not proven what has created the universe. and...theories...theories...theories...nothing human is a fact.

Maybe "gift" is the wrong metaphor. Maybe the universe is a free lunch. No reason that it can't be.

Where's your god then, Moses?

*sigh* your right...this has proven to me that religion is useless...science is correct...oh but wait...it can't be correct either because its not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt since perception using the senses is involved...

I guess it could be said that we don't exist...or maybe...just maybe...theres something else...I know its whacked out...but possibly theres something that answers the most basic question...something that ties all the theories together...but thats impossible...

[ranzy]

:

science and religion don't really have to be seperate...they are not opposites, nor are they completely different:

Both require blind faith.

Science does not require blind faith. Science requires proofs, theories and explanations. If scientists had blind faith as regards scientific theories, science wouldn't change a bit through time and we would still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe.

[Pendragon]

There is a difference between conscious choice and instinctive or learned behavior. Your cat has learned that it can sleep on the bed and it merely curls up where it feels most comfortable.

BTW, JLG57, please do not compare me to Moses. I am not worthy to hold Moses’ staff for him.

The truth is where you find it. “Seek, and ye shall find.” If you are convinced of what you believe, let me say this: It should be strong enough a conviction that you will stand for it against all odds. Do not waver from point to point, remain with what you believe. God bless.

I think I have meddled enough in a thread I washed my hands of long ago.

[Stanislaw]

Science does not require blind faith. Science requires proofs, theories and explanations. If scientists had blind faith as regards scientific theories, science wouldn't change a bit through time and we would still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe.

Blind faith in a theory, and supposedly an open mind to accpet a change, i am not so sure.

There is a great degree of faith required for a great many theories.

[Redzeppelin]

There is a great degree of faith required for a great many theories.

Absolutely. Science can only prove certain things beyond a shadow of a doubt. Some things it has a pretty good argument (and proof!) for - but other things are based upon the best estimate/measurement/speculation/"facts" currently available. Those things do not consitute absolutely verifiable "proof" - for some of science's claims, faith (in science and its claims) needs to be exercised.

[JGL57]

Absolutely. Science can only prove certain things beyond a shadow of a doubt. Some things it has a pretty good argument (and proof!) for - but other things are based upon the best estimate/measurement/speculation/"facts" currently available. Those things do not consitute absolutely verifiable "proof" - for some of science's claims, faith (in science and its claims) needs to be exercised.

Yes, science proves scientific theories true beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not provide certainty to people who demand certainty, or they will just fall back on the religion that was instilled in them as children - because it offers certainly and thus is comforting to their fragile egos.

This is really just so sad. Science is what it is. If it can't give you what you desire - who's fault is that? I think it is the religionist, demanding something from science that it never promised in the first place.

As I indicted in previous posts, too many people do not even understand what science is all about. And all most of them know about religion is their own religion which was inculcated into their brains as children.

If a person wants a feeling of certainty, then pick a church and go. If a person wants to actually know something about reality, I would suggest they get into science. Viewing science through the eyes of religion is goofy.

Have a nice day.

[ranzy]

Blind faith in a theory, and supposedly an open mind to accpet a change, i am not so sure.

There is a great degree of faith required for a great many theories.

It is true just if you don't know enough of the argument to have a real opinion about it. I think maybe I'm not expressing myself very well (btw english is not my mother tongue). Let me make an example: I don't know much about physics so if you talk me about the relativity theory either I don't accept it or I accept it with an act of blind faith. But if you study in depth relativity (or evolution or whatever) no act of blind faith is required. You have to decide rationally if the proofs the scientists bring in support of their theory are enough and the theory works or you can bring forward other arguments that prove that that theory is wrong.
If you say that science requires blind faith, this would stop this whole discussion about evolution. Because being faith something that doesn't have to be rational, it cannot be discussed. It must be accepted as it is.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, science proves scientific theories true beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not provide certainty to people who demand certainty,

These two statements contradict each other. Which is it?

or they will just fall back on the religion that was instilled in them as children - because it offers certainly and thus is comforting to their fragile egos.

Can you make your point without trying to insult people, please?

This is really just so sad. Science is what it is. If it can't give you what you desire - who's fault is that? I think it is the religionist, demanding something from science that it never promised in the first place.

As I indicted in previous posts, too many people do not even understand what science is all about. And all most of them know about religion is their own religion which was inculcated into their brains as children.

If a person wants a feeling of certainty, then pick a church and go. If a person wants to actually know something about reality, I would suggest they get into science. Viewing science through the eyes of religion is goofy.

Have a nice day.

Do you even read my posts? I'm not asking science to do anything. I'm not complaining that it doesn't offer "certainty," I'm pointing out that its inability to do so in all cases makes it similar to religion: both require faith, and some questions simply cannot be answered with definitive, unequivocal evidence. In terms of "reality" - science and religion offer two different versions (which are not always contradictory of each other). Just because you don't understand one doesn't mean it's any less "real." It just means you don't get it.

[Virgil]

I don't usually enter religious discussions, especially when the break down to "I'm right-your wrong" dichotomy, but since this one has trned on science, of which I know a little something about, let me venture in, not to pick a side but to throw in my perspective.

As someone who believes in God and is an engineer who works with physics, I believe that science itself is the hand of God. I will also say that we do not have a complete understanding of science. Perhaps humanity will never have a complete understanding. To me the more we learn of science, the more firmly I believe that all this could not have been randomly generated. I proudly stand on this with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

I agree with whoever above said that science and God are not mutually eclusive.

[Stanislaw]

I don't usually enter religious discussions, especially when the break down to "I'm right-your wrong" dichotomy, but since this one has trned on science, of which I know a little something about, let me venture in, not to pick a side but to throw in my perspective.

As someone who believes in God and is an engineer who works with physics, I believe that science itself is the hand of God. I will also say that we do not have a complete understanding of science. Perhaps humanity will never have a complete understanding. To me the more we learn of science, the more firmly I believe that all this could not have been randomly generated. I proudly stand on this with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

I agree with whoever above said that science and God are not mutually eclusive.

Thankyou. That is what I have been attempting to say...

...I follow Galileo and Copernik, both were devote in their fatih, but also studied science. They both believed that science was a means to understand God's creation...even Darwin stated as such.

...but my point about science is more one of philosophy, we require our senese to determine empirical value, and our senses can easily be decieved.

...however time for a little sharing of my personal belief: everything can be true, it just all dempends on you point of view and how true it is for you...ie, in you mind it is the truth, so for you it is true, it really depends upon perspective...

...also, real scientinst admit they don't know everything...

...time for a pointed comment: not all realigeous people are dumb to science, some infact hold degrees and work in the sciences. So claiming ignorance based on association is blatent biggotry.

[Wintermute]

I agree with whoever above said that science and God are not mutually eclusive.

As an agnostic, I can say with certainty: You might be right! The question is, which God? The Christian one? The Hindi one? Zeus? Ra?

No one can say for certain that a universal creator exists or not (imo). But one can certainly postulate the attributes of such an entity assuming it exists. And, to date, none of the gods I've learned about have the properties I can accept. Perhaps God is a little 'more' than its current status in earthly religions? I certainly hope so.

[ennison]

Practising Catholic
Devout Baptist
Confirmed Atheist
Uconvinced Agnostic

OH and Contradictory Calvinist - That's me ... well up-to-a-point

[Stanislaw]

As an agnostic, I can say with certainty: You might be right! The question is, which God? The Christian one? The Hindi one? Zeus? Ra?

No one can say for certain that a universal creator exists or not (imo). But one can certainly postulate the attributes of such an entity assuming it exists. And, to date, none of the gods I've learned about have the properties I can accept. Perhaps God is a little 'more' than its current status in earthly religions? I certainly hope so.

well...think of it this way, God is a bad label, infact, any earthly label is bad, because, atleast in my humble opinion, God cannot be defined by Human definitions, God is perfect beyond human definition.

Hence why there are many different religions, perhaps, they are all right, yet not 100% there, maybe together an aproximate can be reached...but people aren't ready to percieve such an Idea yet.