Evolution vs. Creationism... (dramatic music)

[JColtrane]

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.

First question: Do you ever forsee science explaining how matter originated in a way that can be tested and observed?
Second question: Can you call the origin of matter a "natural phenomena" without knowing anything about how it happened?
Observation: Your view of theists is flawed, as I alluded to in my earlier post. St. Augustine (who lived in the 4th century) taught that science and reason should be attended to in interpreting the Bible. He did not interpret Genesis 1 literally, as most Christians throughout history have not. This might be hard to understand for someone that does not know much of the history of religion, but fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon.
Really, I think your whole view is flawed. Everyone starts from the point of belief, and whichever way you choose you are just as free to scientifically and rationally examine the world. I personally think that there is nothing nor will be anything in science that will undermine my faith in God, therefore I can be just as rigorous in my scientific pursuits as any atheist. For instance, I don't see evolution as being at all contradictory to my faith.

 

[JColtrane]

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'

Christianity is not a non-rational viewpoint, and it is not at all fitting to our pre-concieved notions (try reading Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments).

My point is that despite what you all (and fundamentalists) think, the Bible is not a science textbook. It is not trying to teach science. It is teaching a way of understanding God.

 

[Under The Oak]

Evolution has been proven? That is ridiculous. There is a reason it is called a THEORY.

I'm so sick of hearing that. Theory in that sense does not mean it's a hypothesis or a guess. Gravity is a theory too.

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.

Firstly, evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of everything. That's yet another misconception I see a lot. It's the Big Bang theory that says we all exploded from nothingness. Evolution IS a fact, it does happen, it has been observed. Here's the deal: science has come up with plenty of answers already that have revealed how the explanations religion/creationism offer are not necessary. So yes, I'd rather hold out for science or physics to explain our origins than just make shit up.

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.

If evolution is no problem for you, then why are you arguing that it's unproven and getting so defensive? Where do you draw the line on what's allegorical and what isn't in the Bible? And Jesus titty-fucking Christ, you think it's blind faith to believe in science??? Faith is the enemy of rational, scientific thinking - it's scared to question things and be objective.

I have this bumper sticker on my car that says "those who don't believe in evolution are the ones who need it most". You criticize people for thinking the origin of life happened in a natural way, but why blindly assume it was caused by supernatural interaction? You seem to like saying "we don't understand it, so let's attribute it to a god". How do you know it wasn't a natural occurence? More often than not, there are rational, NON-supernatural explanations for everything in every aspect of life.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

First question: Do you ever forsee science explaining how matter originated in a way that can be tested and observed?
Second question: Can you call the origin of matter a "natural phenomena" without knowing anything about how it happened?
Observation: Your view of theists is flawed, as I alluded to in my earlier post. St. Augustine (who lived in the 4th century) taught that science and reason should be attended to in interpreting the Bible. He did not interpret Genesis 1 literally, as most Christians throughout history have not. This might be hard to understand for someone that does not know much of the history of religion, but fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon.
Really, I think your whole view is flawed. Everyone starts from the point of belief, and whichever way you choose you are just as free to scientifically and rationally examine the world. I personally think that there is nothing nor will be anything in science that will undermine my faith in God, therefore I can be just as rigorous in my scientific pursuits as any atheist. For instance, I don't see evolution as being at all contradictory to my faith.

My view of theists is based off my interactions with them (mainly Christians, of course). I'm glad to hear you don't interpret the Bible as literally as a lot of the people I know. I was mainly responding to your comment that faith in God is more 'rational' than faith in science alone.

I am well aware that my worldview does not account for the origin of matter, and I'm fine with that. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some god behind it all. But to even begin to assume that we know anything about the nature of that being is a leap of faith which I simply cannot take. It's an even bigger leap to assume that the Bible - a product of human imagination, in all likelihood - contains any information about this being.

 

[JColtrane]

I'm so sick of hearing that. Theory in that sense does not mean it's a hypothesis or a guess. Gravity is a theory too.



Firstly, evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of everything. That's yet another misconception I see a lot. It's the Big Bang theory that says we all exploded from nothingness. Evolution IS a fact, it does happen, it has been observed. Here's the deal: science has come up with plenty of answers already that have revealed how the explanations religion/creationism offer are not necessary. So yes, I'd rather hold out for science or physics to explain our origins than just make shit up.



If evolution is no problem for you, then why are you arguing that it's unproven and getting so defensive? Where do you draw the line on what's allegorical and what isn't in the Bible? And Jesus titty-fucking Christ, you think it's blind faith to believe in science??? Faith is the enemy of rational, scientific thinking - it's scared to question things and be objective.

I have this bumper sticker on my car that says "those who don't believe in evolution are the ones who need it most". You criticize people for thinking the origin of life happened in a natural way, but why blindly assume it was caused by supernatural interaction? You seem to like saying "we don't understand it, so let's attribute it to a god". How do you know it wasn't a natural occurence? More often than not, there are rational, NON-supernatural explanations for everything in every aspect of life.

You seem to have had to say this all before However, it seems as if you have not read my arguments well and given stock answers.
First of all, my point was that creationism and evolution are not necessarily opposed. I know that evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of matter, and this very fact should illustrate my first point. (the big bang does not try to explain it either!).
You still won't admit or even argue with the point I base everything on, which is that both views start with belief. I don't KNOW it was not a natural occurence, you don't KNOW it was. Both of us believe.
And the statement that faith is the enemy of rationality is ridiculous. Einstein and Newton were some pretty good questioners and scientists if you ask me, and they both had faith.

 

[JColtrane]

My view of theists is based off my interactions with them (mainly Christians, of course). I'm glad to hear you don't interpret the Bible as literally as a lot of the people I know. I was mainly responding to your comment that faith in God is more 'rational' than faith in science alone.

I am well aware that my worldview does not account for the origin of matter, and I'm fine with that. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some god behind it all. But to even begin to assume that we know anything about the nature of that being is a leap of faith which I simply cannot take. It's an even bigger leap to assume that the Bible - a product of human imagination, in all likelihood - contains any information about this being.

Some of the most vocal advocates for Christianity are fundamentalists, and I think that does shape the public opinion of them. Also, if you go back and look at the post, you'll notice that I said faith was possibly even more rational than science along. I really think the two are fairly equal, and it's really just a matter of belief.
I think you are correct in saying that Christianity does require a certain leap of faith in believing that God is personal and active. I think there must be a distinction between a worldview that is purely rational and one that is not anti-rational.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Some of the most vocal advocates for Christianity are fundamentalists, and I think that does shape the public opinion of them. Also, if you go back and look at the post, you'll notice that I said faith was possibly even more rational than science along. I really think the two are fairly equal, and it's really just a matter of belief.
I think you are correct in saying that Christianity does require a certain leap of faith in believing that God is personal and active. I think there must be a distinction between a worldview that is purely rational and one that is not anti-rational.

Fair enough. Shall we agree to disagree, then?

 

[JColtrane]

Fair enough. Shall we agree to disagree, then?

Haha, sure thing

 

[Under The Oak]

Yes, when it comes down to it, we all believe in something, but you seem to think that believing is all it takes to make something true.

 

[Seditious]

It is not only pointless, but misguided.

It would take about 9 seconds out of the science curriculum to include a comprehensive teaching of creationism...

*insert biology, archeology, geology, astronomy, physics here* *add '...and maybe aliens,or even one supreme alien, made all these things the way they are' here*

 

[Blowtus]

I think you are correct in saying that Christianity does require a certain leap of faith in believing that God is personal and active. I think there must be a distinction between a worldview that is purely rational and one that is not anti-rational.

How can a worldview with such a concoction at it's heart be viewed as anything but anti-rational? Either you seek 'the truth' or you don't, as far as I can see. Starting with an invented premise and pursuing it rationally, does not seem particularly rational...

 

[JColtrane]

How can a worldview with such a concoction at it's heart be viewed as anything but anti-rational? Either you seek 'the truth' or you don't, as far as I can see. Starting with an invented premise and pursuing it rationally, does not seem particularly rational...

Notice I said it takes a certain leap of faith to believe that God is personal and active, not that he exists. The starting point is, I think, belief in God or belief in nature.
Since I believe that God does exist, I don't think it is irrational at all to believe that He has revealed himself to humanity, or that in this revelation God is described as personal and active. Altough it does take faith because it cannot be proven, that does not mean it is an absurd or anti-rational belief. It may seem so to you, but that is because you are starting from a different premise.

So, with your logic, it would be anti-rational to believe anything that is not proven. Can a person really live that out?

 

[Seditious]

Since I believe that God does exist, I don't think it is irrational at all to believe that He has revealed himself to humanity, or that in this revelation God is described as personal and active. Altough it does take faith because it cannot be proven, that does not mean it is an absurd or anti-rational belief. It may seem so to you, but that is because you are starting from a different premise.

why do you believe in God?

So, with your logic, it would be anti-rational to believe anything that is not proven. Can a person really live that out?

I imagine his premise would involve something like Occam's Razor, the logic being that the more comprehensive explanation is accepted. Sure maybe unicorns create our emotions, but that requires more independent posits than the neural model of emotion, so even though either could be true, and it certainly isn't proven that we're not all just brains in vats without a world to cry about, that doesn't mean we are rational to believe the unicorn hypothesis over the neural one.

your comment here is just a non sequitor from what he said, which really was really if you want the truth you'll prefer the explanation that seems truer and continue to review it in light of new evidence in your searching, you don't decide which you want to believe and then try to affirm it, ignoring all the theories which better account for your evidence and the rest of the evidence in the world. It doesn't follow at all that if nothing is provable that, because no one can live accepting nothing as true, we should just accept any old idea (That seems to be what you/theists do). of course he can't live acting as if nothing he believes is true, it's rather that if this is the case then we should merely restrict ourselves to the most believable idea, the one most likely to be true, for that is what rational people do---people disinterested in the outcome, people interested in the truth, not their being right or getting the outcome they hope for. If you do anything else you're just displaying a bias and being irrational.

 

[YsteJammer]

Might as well stick my opinion in here.

I'm one that believes in evolution, not creationism. I was actually discussing this topic with my friend, who is a strong believer in God. Her reason for believing in creationism is because, if we simply evolved and were created because of an explosion in the universe, we are here for no reason and purpose. We will live our lives with no reason and we will die with no reason. As she said, and I quote, '.. We might as well kill ourselves'. Perhaps that could be a reason why people have faith in the creationism theory? But then again, there are others that don't and they certainly aren't killing themselves. Anyways, not to get off topic, I don't think it's wrong believing in God, certainly as others on this thread have noted, but as someone pointed out (hopefully I'm not getting this information from another thread), you either have a belief in God and the other, a belief in nature. Since I was young, I've always had the belief in nature, not God. I practise no religion, so basically explains my reason for believing in evolution.

And to answer the question, maybe it is pointless, and maybe it isn't. Actually, I find it to be quite an interesting topic sometimes because you can see the reasons from both sides. It makes you see the two sides and some great opinions.

 

[s_a_o]

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.

I agree. There is basis in science, found in things as simple as the fossils of animals.

Snakes, when looking at their skeletons, have structures that are akin to legs protruding slightly into their bodies. Of course, we don't see that, but it's pretty cool to think about why they could of have been there.

 

[JColtrane]

why do you believe in God?



I imagine his premise would involve something like Occam's Razor, the logic being that the more comprehensive explanation is accepted. Sure maybe unicorns create our emotions, but that requires more independent posits than the neural model of emotion, so even though either could be true, and it certainly isn't proven that we're not all just brains in vats without a world to cry about, that doesn't mean we are rational to believe the unicorn hypothesis over the neural one.

your comment here is just a non sequitor from what he said, which really was really if you want the truth you'll prefer the explanation that seems truer and continue to review it in light of new evidence in your searching, you don't decide which you want to believe and then try to affirm it, ignoring all the theories which better account for your evidence and the rest of the evidence in the world. It doesn't follow at all that if nothing is provable that, because no one can live accepting nothing as true, we should just accept any old idea (That seems to be what you/theists do). of course he can't live acting as if nothing he believes is true, it's rather that if this is the case then we should merely restrict ourselves to the most believable idea, the one most likely to be true, for that is what rational people do---people disinterested in the outcome, people interested in the truth, not their being right or getting the outcome they hope for. If you do anything else you're just displaying a bias and being irrational.

(1)Your question is a misunderstanding. Faith is not objective knowledge; one cannot communicate the reasons for it through words to another.
(2)Belief in God is more comprehensive because it explains everything, including the origin of matter.
(3)Your whole last argument contains many grammatical flaws and is rather difficult to decipher. Suffice it to say that I don't think you understand human nature very well. People will always have some kind of bias and you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. I don't ignore facts or evidence; as I said before I affirm evolution.

 

[Blowtus]

1. You suggest that every belief requires faith - I can very easily state the reasons for my supposed faith.

2. Belief in God does not explain where God came from or why he exists - it suffers exactly the same problem as present scientific theories, but posits an extra unknowable in the equation.

3. Funny, I thought Seditious did a great job with his explanation...

 

[Seditious]

(1)Your question is a misunderstanding. Faith is not objective knowledge; one cannot communicate the reasons for it through words to another.

I call bullshit. You believe in yahweh rather than ahura mazda or the horny unicorn for some reason that can be communicated, unless you are thoroughly irrational, and admitting so.

(2)Belief in God is more comprehensive because it explains everything, including the origin of matter.

no, belief in the unicorn creator is more comprehensive because he created your belief in God which explains even more than your God hypothesis did.

simpler words aren't the same as simpler explanations.

(3)Your whole last argument contains many grammatical flaws and is rather difficult to decipher. Suffice it to say that I don't think you understand human nature very well. People will always have some kind of bias and you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. I don't ignore facts or evidence; as I said before I affirm evolution.

is English not your first language?

affirming evolution and saying 'god did it' isn't the conclusion the evidence leads any rational person to, there is no 'therefore god did it' involved. I may as well say 'of course evolution is real... I myself created it, I'm God.' I haven't done anything, I just put myself behind everything I accept as true. It's a complete child's game.

 

[Under The Oak]

Her reason for believing in creationism is because, if we simply evolved and were created because of an explosion in the universe, we are here for no reason and purpose. We will live our lives with no reason and we will die with no reason. As she said, and I quote, '.. We might as well kill ourselves'.

I love sheer emotional extremist responses. She assumes that without creation there is no purpose? How so? What if our purpose is to spread our genes? Can't we still have reasons to live even if we evolved to our current state? Even if there is no fundamental purpose to my existence, I will make my purpose to live a good life and treat others well without a god looking over my shoulder and no "eternal forgiveness" promised if I screw up. I think it's important to live well and do good to others this first time around, because who knows what's beyond this?

Anyways, not to get off topic, I don't think it's wrong believing in God, certainly as others on this thread have noted, but as someone pointed out (hopefully I'm not getting this information from another thread), you either have a belief in God and the other, a belief in nature. Since I was young, I've always had the belief in nature, not God. I practise no religion, so basically explains my reason for believing in evolution.

And to answer the question, maybe it is pointless, and maybe it isn't. Actually, I find it to be quite an interesting topic sometimes because you can see the reasons from both sides. It makes you see the two sides and some great opinions.

I was raised as a Christian, and it's taken quite a long time to tear down the mental damage and brainwashing it did to me. I realize that not everyone goes through that, and I don't think religion is the scourge of the earth anymore than politics, jealousy or greed, but it certainly doesn't help things at all. However, I think we all look for whatever answers seem most sufficient to us and it's hard to persuade someone to change those beliefs.

Also, I do think it's a bit naive to say there's no debate going on over evolution, because even among secular scientists, there is debate taking place. I'd encourage some of you to read "Darwinism and it's Discontents" by Michael Ruse, as it's a very comprehensive look into Darwin and evolutionary theory. But if you read that book and still believe evolution is not fact, then you need to go back to school.

 

[Seditious]

Can't we still have reasons to live even if we evolved to our current state?

yea. it's what I call the pouty child conclusion: "nobody cares about me, I'm not important to anyone, nothing I do matters, I'm not a special and beautiful and unique human being in the opinion of the entire universe, so nothing in my life is worth living for and I may as well kill myself!!@#$%"

To me an orgasm is enough to refute the idea that death is as good as life if there is no great eternal meaning. Hell, the hot cross buns I ate 10 minutes ago were pretty damn good, so why should I go to the bother of killing myself ...cos my eating those hot cross buns wasn't in God's plan? because I didn't become famous or save humanity? because they wont write about it in the history books? oh my god no!!! they taste so much worse now!!! fuck sex, where's the razorblade there's nothing worth living for!!