Evolution vs. Creationism... (dramatic music)

[Spikeshade]

so basically the whole damn poit of this thread is to debate which side of the "fence" you are on. I will not think any less of any of you no matter which side you are on. Personally I do not believe in creationism I honestly believe in Evolution because Nature has show that evolution helps the world cope with the constant changes. A good example of this is the Shark, they've been roaming the oceans forever and they were here long before the dinosaurs. My god look at the cockaroach the can survive being stepped on and could even suvive nuclear fallout, that shows some serious F**king inginuity on Natures part.

I really look forward to having this discussion with all of you..

 

[speed]

Um yeah... I actually think we're like 75 million years old, brought to earth by the evil galatic emperor Xenu on a airplane similar to current models. I for one, am quite close with my inner Thetan.

 

[Justin S.]

...I do not believe in creationism I honestly believe in Evolution because Nature has show that evolution helps the world cope with the constant changes.

But it appears you think teleologically, which is only a step away.

 

[Spikeshade]

speed
that may be a possibility too...see we don't honestly know everything about the universe we could be just a figment of a 2 year old's imagination

 

[Black Core]

It's proven already that we've evolved, not created

 

[Spikeshade]

i know this but i'm interested in knowing what other people think, yes its nice that it has been proven but there are still those who refuse to believe that we evolved from something and not created by a "God".

 

[Cythraul]

Evolution vs. Creationism? Is this even a serious debate? Was it ever? I really don't know how one could take someone seriously who thinks creationism is a serious alternative to the theory of evolution. This post is crap but I don't really see much to debate about here. Whatever, some creationist will probably come in here and try to prove to me that macroevolution is impossible and that radiocarbon dating is flawed.

 

[Justin S.]

Cyth baby,

It is, as you said, basically a non-issue in the circles we might frequent. However, to some, this is a most pressing matter (believe it or not).

So yeah... I don't have much to say on the matter, as I get all irritable when hot-topics poke up their absurd little heads.

As you can see Spikeshade, we here at the philosopher are quite a dull bunch.

 

[Cythraul]

I realize that this whole thing is a pressing concern for certain people. I don't think such people are motivated by purely epistemic considerations. Rather, such people seem to think the idea that we humans evolved from lower primates is positively insulting. They want some kind of grand narrative in which we matter and our place in this world is "meaningful". Look, I'd love for our best theory to give me some sense that we all matter in some special way just as much as the next guy, but that's just not how shit has worked out.

 

[Spikeshade]

I understand this, but I still would like to dicuss this topic and why people decide to take sides, not just how it happens and why religion backs Creationism.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I don't think such people are motivated by purely epistemic considerations. Rather, such people seem to think the idea that we humans evolved from lower primates is positively insulting. They want some kind of grand narrative in which we matter and our place in this world is "meaningful".

Exactly.

This debate really doesn't seem that contentious to me. Either you believe a myth some dude wrote down a couple thousand years ago because it helps you justify your place in the universe, or you actually try and think critically about the origin of life, and work out a hypothesis which is of some use to science and is at least subject to testing.

When comparing the track records between science and religion in predicting natural phenomena, I'm much more willing to go with what scientists commonly believe than what theologians do.

 

[Mistress Death]

Of course evolution!!! But I think some religions finally accept the evolution theory cuz there are a lot of evidences. Only orthodox defend creationism...

But in old times was difficult to accept that we [the most important creation of humanity (like religion defends)] have the same origin than apes... but it's true we are at the end animals.. sociable but animals

 

[speed]

Exactly.

This debate really doesn't seem that contentious to me. Either you believe a myth some dude wrote down a couple thousand years ago because it helps you justify your place in the universe, or you actually try and think critically about the origin of life, and work out a hypothesis which is of some use to science and is at least subject to testing.

When comparing the track records between science and religion in predicting natural phenomena, I'm much more willing to go with what scientists commonly believe than what theologians do.

Remember your Popper. Even the theory of evolution requires a heavy dose of faith. ALhtough its obviously ridiculous to believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

[JoeVice]

evolution has been proven. but, i don't understand the point of the debate because creationism and evolution don't have anything to do with eachother. one is concerned with how we exist, and one with what we do while we are here. the comparison is pointless.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Remember your Popper. Even the theory of evolution requires a heavy dose of faith. ALhtough its obviously ridiculous to believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

My typical counter to the argument that evolution theory requires faith is this: at least it's an informed faith that arose from critical thinking. Sure, we haven't really observed evolution (as far as I know), but it sure explains a hell of a lot about biology when one assumes it to be true.

 

[Metal_Rocker]

Religion (especially the evangelical movement in the United States) has started using the term intelligent design. They have started to view that evolution is something that was helped along by the hand of God. It is an attempt to show that science can be used to prove religion and it has failed.

 

[JColtrane]

Evolution has been proven? That is ridiculous. There is a reason it is called a THEORY. Face it, it all comes down to belief. Evolution cannot explain how matter originated, so either you think it was created or choose to ignore this question and hold out hope that physics or some other branch of science will eventually come up with an answer.
For some reason you people think that all "Creationists" that are Christians believe the world was created in 6 days. Really, the belief in that is a modern (fundamentalist) thing, Christians throughout the centruies, beginning with the early church, have interpreted Genesis 1 as allegorical, right down to St. Augustine himself. That evolution has occured is not a problem for most Christians (cf. the entire Catholic church), we just believe that God created matter, which is at least, if not more, rational than ignoring the question or placing blind faith in science.

 

[Uladyne]

I think mainstream religion will eventually find a way to work evolution into its system. If I'm not mistaken, it took the Catholic Church a couple hundred years to recognize that the Earth is indeed round, but the Intelligent Design thing makes it seem like evolution may not be such a hard concept for some to accept.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

That evolution has occured is not a problem for most Christians (cf. the entire Catholic church), we just believe that God created matter, which is at least, if not more, rational than ignoring the question or placing blind faith in science.

I forgot, writing off natural phenomena as the work of God is clearly more rational than anything having to do with science. The only reason God has ever been used to explain anything throughout history is simply because no one had a better explanation at the time. Science has been steadily filling in those gaps over time.

Regardless of how much you consider faith in science to be "blind", science will almost always have the advantage of producing explanations you can actually test and observe.

 

[Blowtus]

we just believe that God created matter, which is at least, if not more, rational than ignoring the question or placing blind faith in science.

You merely change the unexplainable from 'matter' to 'God' - just as a scientist would probably change it from 'matter' to 'fundamental laws of the universe' or the like. Science posits theories with the aim of better understanding the universe, Christianity (or other non rational viewpoints) posits theories with the aim of fitting our increasing understanding to pre-concieved notions.

One day I will have the strength to not click 'reply'