Evolution vs. Creation

[Stanislaw]

I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it.

[Redzeppelin]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
According to this poll back in 1991 about 46 per cent of theists in the U.S. (I assume the over-whelming majority of which are christian) do indeed believe humans evolved from monkey-like species over millions of years.

The only 1991 poll listed on this page concerns the general public - not exclusively Christians. As well, the only 1991 poll on this page indicates that the Creationist view was held by 47% in the "Everybody" category. While my guess was wrong, your numbers do not add up either. As well, I indicated "monkeys" while you have conveniently added "monkey-like": there's a difference. The poll indicates nothing about developing from monkeys, which was the focus of my comment (I specifically avoided saying "evolution" because I'm aware that a portion of Christianity believes in some form of that).

In 1997, the poll indicates that a little less than half still believed in Creationism (44%) and only a tiny number (10%) believe in Naturalistic evolution (that which I am primarily arguing against).

As far as the poll from the Christianity section of About.com - those results are not clear in how they were tabulated; as well, the sample was very small (2904 votes) - highly unrepresentative of mainstream Christianity. Below this poll is the following disclaimer: "Needless to say, Internet surfers are are not necessarily typical of the general public."

You can post your retraction of your uneducated "guess" now.

Why? Here's what I said: "I'm willing to guess that an equally small percentage of Christians believe we evolved from monkeys - so?" Where on that page did you find anything that contradicted that idea? Here's an interesting note from the page:

Auctioneer Gary Corwin said: "I believe that the Lord God created everything, just like the Bible says, I don’t think we came from apes." [Author's note: 95% of scientists support evolution and have reached a consensus that humans did not come from apes either; they believe that humans and apes have a common ancestor.

As far as I'm concerned, my numbers may be off (it was a guess, after all) but I don't think you've made a solid "hit" of any sort.

And why not at least consider refraining from posting anymore such "guesses" in the future - ones based solely on wishes or fantasy - "guesses" that any person who reads a daily newspaper will recognize immediately as just plain wrong?

I am free to post whatever I wish that conforms to the forum rules. I could easily respond that your commentary about the Bible and Christianity (to any well-read Christian) is equally uninformed.

Name one theologian that revolutionized philosophical ideas like he has.

Irrelevant. That's an "apples vs oranges" comment. Your original comment dealt with "intelligence" rather than philosophic thought - now you've changed the comparison - faulty reasoning. CS Lewis revolutionized Christian apologetics and it was said that an atheist never bested him in a debate.

It's not like the Church went public and said "adam and eve is fake". It's one of those things an educated Christian understands. They even teach this in CCD and sunday school nowadays.

Oh - it's a conspiracy thing. I get it. Only those "in the know" understand. Utterly ridiculous. Whenever I post such things about Christianity and how unbelievers cannot fully understand the message of the Bible I get criticized for saying such things. Now you do too.

You really have to stop taking Genesis so literally.

Why? Because you said so? You're kidding, right? I don't recall asking either you or JGL for advice as to what I "have" to do. Perhaps you could table your unsolicited "advice" and concentrate on your argument?

[atiguhya padma]

<er, it is primarily the basis for western thinking.>

I think you'll find that Greek philosophy is primarily the basis for Christian thinking.

To claim that some texts from ancient Palestine are the basis for western thinking is unbelievably christocentric of you. For starters, lets ask where virtually all the languages of the West came from. Then I suggest you start looking at where the knowledge that inspired the Greek philosophies came from.

[Pendragon]

The fact that Nietzsche was more intelligent than any Christian that ever lived would be authoritative enough.

You know, I respect Nietzsche as a philosopher, and many of his statements that at first glace seem to be attacks on Christianity are more "live up to what you claim." But this statement is inflammatory, questioning the intelligence of a great number of Christian scholars, and should not have been allowed. That said, might I remind you that Nietzsche died mentally unstable?

[atiguhya padma]

<That said, might I remind you that Nietzsche died mentally unstable?>

What point are you trying to make? That people who die mentally unstable are unintelligent?!?

[Pendragon]

That is not true. As I understand it, given infinity, anything that can happen, musy happen at some point. If something is possible in an infinite time, then it will occur. You need to show that God is possible before you can claim that infinity proves his existence. Regarding God's possibility, if you look at the attributes that have been traditionally been given for him, it is pretty obvious that they are not all compatible. A concept that contradicts itself or isincompatible requires a lot more than infinity to be true.

This is a circular argument. You understand that given infinity, Anything can, and even must happen. Your words. But then you say I must prove that God is possible. We are talking Infinity here, where Anything is possible, so God is possible. Compatibility is not a question, because Infinity makes it possible. Ergo, Infinity makes God's esistance as much a fact as anything else. Because the concept is beyond your own way of thinking doesn't put it beyond Infinity. That is like making A the proof of B, then turning around and making B the proof of A.

You seem to equate provability with empirical evidence. This is incorrect. A mathematical equation can be true without reference to empirical evidence. When Hume claimed that miracles can be dismissed because it is more efficient, or more plausible to accept a physical explanation for any event than a miraculous one, he was referring to probability.

Taking a belief system from pre-scientific peoples and applying it to the whole system of scientific thought regarding the Universe's origins reduces the strength of the scientific explanation. Can't you see that? Why don't we take the beliefs expressed by the ancient Greeks add it to evolution theory and see what we get? It would be a contradictory mess. A religious belief of the world's beginning created by people a couple of thousand years ago is a ridiculous way of explaining the universe in the 21st century. What can they tell me about the solar system? about the temperature of the core of stars? of the rate at which the universe is expanding? They couldn't even get it right with objects near to the earth like the sun, could they?

I only talked about empirical proof because that's what everyone seems hung up on. The dismisal of things without giving any reason besides "improbbable" is certainly the easy way out, for either side, that is for sure.

And since we learn that what we think is correct is often mistaken upon further research or new discovery, are we doing that much better a job? We devote time to the study of the tempetature at the core of stars when we don't yet understand the complexity of the Earth around us.

Oh, and how much Science has been put to a search for Atlantis, which was in a book written by Plato, I believe?

[hyperborean]

I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it.

That's what I believe as well. I'm arguing that God didn't create humans in the beginning and from scratch. He created the universe which led to evolution of microscopic organisms which led to us.

that said, might I remind you that Nietzsche died mentally unstable?

Did he write his great works while he was mentally unstable? I didn't think so. At least he is one that created his own philosophy and questioned faulty metaphysics + religion. He didn't live his life according to some "book"...a book filled with myths that weren't meant to be translated literally.

[Pendragon]

<That said, might I remind you that Nietzsche died mentally unstable?>

What point are you trying to make? That people who die mentally unstable are unintelligent?!?

No. Simply that it doesn't happen overnight.

[atiguhya padma]

<This is a circular argument. You understand that given infinity, Anything can, and even must happen. >

I actually said anything THAT can happen, not anything can happen. If something is impossible, no matter whether the Universe be infinite or not, it cannot happen. How does limitless time make something contradictory possible? If something is impossible it is impossible now and every other now til infinity. Just by adding an infinite number of nows does alter the possibility of something impossible.

<Oh, and how much Science has been put to a search for Atlantis, which was in a book written by Plato, I believe?>

Big deal. Plato, in the Timaeus, writes of a fable about Atlantis. Again, what is your point? Furthermore, the reason why so little science has been put into a search for Atlantis, is because scientists don't tend to waste their time on fables and myths like Atlantis and the Creation story. Leave that to the people who do not care about evidence-based theories.

[atiguhya padma]

<And since we learn that what we think is correct is often mistaken upon further research or new discovery, are we doing that much better a job? >

The great thing about science, is that it is constantly open to revision and updating, if the evidence suggests this is necessary. Unlike most religion I might add. Furthermore, what would you suggest? That we abandon all knowledge that doesn't claim to be absolute? That we ditch any methodologies which are mutable, open to improvement? What kind of world do you live in?

[hyperborean]

<And since we learn that what we think is correct is often mistaken upon further research or new discovery, are we doing that much better a job? >

The great thing about science, is that it is constantly open to revision and updating, if the evidence suggests this is necessary. Unlike most religion I might add. Furthermore, what would you suggest? That we abandon all knowledge that doesn't claim to be absolute? That we ditch any methodologies which are mutable, open to improvement? What kind of world do you live in?

nicely put.

[atiguhya padma]

Stanislaw said: <I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it. >

Hyperborean said: <That's what I believe as well. I'm arguing that God didn't create humans in the beginning and from scratch. He created the universe which led to evolution of microscopic organisms which led to us. >

Once you have accepted evolution, why do you need to find some design behind it? What are you actually adding to the theory by postulating that God designed evolution?

[hyperborean]

I believe in the divine. You can accept evolution and believe in the divine.

[atiguhya padma]

You can accept the divine and evolution if you so choose. It adds no value to either in my opinion. Furthermore, as evoltuionary processes reveal a cold, cruel world, the world of Tennyson's In Memoriam, belief in evolution does make some kind of negative statement about the divine. I find it difficult to accept the rosy-spectacled lover of benign nature, of the spiritual, divine in nature, when it is so obviously indifferent to suffering, pain and misfortune.

Children born with genetic deformties, that mean their bodies are time bombs, programmed to kill them in a year, two three etc, are surely evidence of an indifferent blind natural process of evolution in the world, rather than a divine benevolent overseeing designer of evolution. Quite frankly, if there were a God who created evolution, then I can see very little benevolence in him/her. If a scientist created the evolutionary process in a garden of eden type world, I'm sure we would condemn that scientist as the most evil human that ever existed.

[Stanislaw]

<er, it is primarily the basis for western thinking.>

I think you'll find that Greek philosophy is primarily the basis for Christian thinking.

To claim that some texts from ancient Palestine are the basis for western thinking is unbelievably christocentric of you. For starters, lets ask where virtually all the languages of the West came from. Then I suggest you start looking at where the knowledge that inspired the Greek philosophies came from.

Firstly, Hi atiguhya, long time...

Secondly...Its crazy to deny the influence of the bible (both hebrew and new testamnet) on western cultural development. In literature, history, science, and even mathematics. Western culture has been heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs, and writings. "In God we Trust".

Stanislaw said: <I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it. >

Hyperborean said: <That's what I believe as well. I'm arguing that God didn't create humans in the beginning and from scratch. He created the universe which led to evolution of microscopic organisms which led to us. >

Once you have accepted evolution, why do you need to find some design behind it? What are you actually adding to the theory by postulating that God designed evolution?

well... eventually, God comes into play, unless you believe that people create the universe in the future by travelling back in time and thus existance is just a gigantic cirlce...which started just cause...gotta be a beggining somewhere.

I believe in the divine. You can accept evolution and believe in the divine.

indeed.