Creationism vs. Evolution

[KonstantinII 1,106]

You people are all wrong for it is not creation vs evolution. Now Charles Darvin was a Jewish. He believed in the jewish creation which the christian  creation is based on. Evolution explains how God created living creatures and how they change over time. Evolution is basically a by-product of creation. There is no reason for it to be against creation if it is part of it. Now there are some people (and I'm not pointing fingers) who try to create a gap between evolution and creation. There was a first creation when God made the universe in the big bang but that's not all. Creation hasn't stopped. It's going on now and forever. All around us erosion and volcanism happens; new stars born and old ones die; living creatures evolve and change; the universe is sculpted with the active-passive force of creation. Our planet is changing. Evolution is just a natural part of creation and you just can't deny it in any way. Case closed.

[hym 358]

Let's remember to be nice.

[astronelson 339]

Irrelevant to the point as it may be, Charles Darwin wasn't Jewish. He even undertook training to become an Anglican pastor for some time.

[LexusInfernus 908]

And before someone brings it up, Darwin also did not renounce his own theories on his death bed. That was a lie cooked up by some American evangelical decades after Darwin had died. 

[Bdub01 201]

You people are all wrong for it is not creation vs evolution. Now Charles Darvin was a Jewish. He believed in the jewish creation which the christian creation is based on. Evolution explains how God created living creatures and how they change over time. Evolution is basically a by-product of creation. There is no reason for it to be against creation if it is part of it. Now there are some people (and I'm not pointing fingers) who try to create a gap between evolution and creation. There was a first creation when God made the universe in the big bang but that's not all. Creation hasn't stopped. It's going on now and forever. All around us erosion and volcanism happens; new stars born and old ones die; living creatures evolve and change; the universe is sculpted with the active-passive force of creation. Our planet is changing. Evolution is just a natural part of creation and you just can't deny it in any way. Case closed.

However many people and denominations believe in the literal translation of the Bible and truly believe God created the Earth by hand as well as Adam and He made Eve out of Adam's rib. So many Christians would actually disagree with you! Go to the Creation Museum in Kentucky, it's very ummmm creative to say the least.

[Cobraroll 138]

You people are all wrong for it is not creation vs evolution. Now Charles Darvin was a Jewish. He believed in the jewish creation which the christian  creation is based on. Evolution explains how God created living creatures and how they change over time. Evolution is basically a by-product of creation. There is no reason for it to be against creation if it is part of it. Now there are some people (and I'm not pointing fingers) who try to create a gap between evolution and creation. There was a first creation when God made the universe in the big bang but that's not all. Creation hasn't stopped. It's going on now and forever. All around us erosion and volcanism happens; new stars born and old ones die; living creatures evolve and change; the universe is sculpted with the active-passive force of creation. Our planet is changing. Evolution is just a natural part of creation and you just can't deny it in any way. Case closed.

 

 

Case closed? The Hindus are very disappointed with you. So are the Zoroastrians, the remaining Mayas, the Buddhists, the Pastafarian, and pretty much everybody who doesn't follow an Abrahamic religion. Until further evidence is presented, "God caused the Big Bang" is just one hypothesis in line with all the others. Case still open, but we're working on it.

 

But apart from that little "God" detail, I agree with you. I don't know exactly what set it into motion, and it doesn't matter much to me anyway, but either way, evolution is happening. It's just a natural part of our existence.

[KonstantinII 1,106]

Living creatures are created over time through birth,growth,death,and evolution.

[Mr Saturn64 742]

Living creatures are created over time through birth,growth,death,and evolution.

True. Completely true.

But everything else will always be debated. Taking from an Urban Dictionary statement, I quote (with "choice" words removed". Good (insert religious group here): kind and respectful of others, accepts per people's beliefs, and would get int a friendly, formal debate. Bad (insert religious group here): Self absorbed, egotistical jack*** who doesn't accept others and is rude to anyone who doesn't accept their opinions and beliefs.

[The Pennsylvania Turnpike 252]

As a catholic going to Catholic School, Creationism is forced down my throat every day.  I still believe in Evolution. Science backs it up. There is little or no science that backs up Creationism, just belief. I still believe in God, just not Creationism. I also don't believe in all the Bible's teachings. 

[Mr Saturn64 742]

This is where faith comes in. It's really a personal issue, while people of all sides will stick their noses into other people's beliefs. This is a mysterious world, and what is going to be believed is what is believed.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Someone said "Faith without Science is blind".

[MandelSoft 2,769]

^^ And science without faith can be immoral or unethical

[astronelson 339]

The problem with quotes is that you can find one to support anything, and adjust them as you wish to support everything.

 

The quote Nonny is referring to is one from Albert Einstein; the rest of the quote, which precedes that phrase, is "Science without religion is lame", a sentiment I disagree with.

 

^^ And science without faith can be immoral or unethical

 

Only if one holds that faith has a monopoly on morality and ethics, rather than those being a part of the human condition. And, indeed, only if one holds that all faith is by necessity moral and ethical.

 

To use an example from the field of medicine - say you subscribe to one of the faiths that forbid blood transfusions, and have a child who, if they do not receive a transfusion, will die. Is it moral or ethical to forbid the doctors from giving the child a transfusion in full knowledge that without it the child will die? Likewise, is it morally or ethically permissible for the doctors to ignore the parent's orders and give the child a transfusion anyway? This is an actual dilemma occasionally faced in hospitals. The doctor who saves the child's life may be committing a crime in doing so.

 

And to take this back on topic: say you are a scientist of some description, and have a deep faith in young-earth creationism but know the facts support evolution (which, beyond reasonable doubt, they do). Is it immoral or unethical to ignore all the facts and solely teach young-earth creationism?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Does provide an ethical paradox, doesn't it.  I don't believe that one or the other should ever be taught exclusively.  Faith is at best a guess.  Science tends to move from proof to proof, discarding things that turn out to be false.  Faith clings to the idea of "revelation" generally caused by some internal or psychiatric disorder.

 

When the shaman is asked some question for which he hasn't the answer, his recourse to the the gods.  Saying it, even if you are the tribal elder, doesn't make it so.  Usually turns out that some snarks are boojums.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Only if one holds that faith has a monopoly on morality and ethics, rather than those being a part of the human condition. And, indeed, only if one holds that all faith is by necessity moral and ethical.

No, that assertion would only hold if science itself was morally and ethically completely neutral, which it is not. Science itself creates its own morality through its excessive focus on rationalism. It leads to a form where efficiency becomes a goal that need to be maximized all the time, and such an attitude can be reflected in the way people make moral and ethical choices as well. Which is why many of the more radical atheists for example want God completely gone from every aspect of our culture, because they view it as something inefficient. All the time you spend worshiping something that cannot be verified is time wasted because it is not spend on maximizing productivity and efficiency in more measurable ways. And this attitude has already resulted once systematic mass murder, the Holocaust. 

 

I'm gonna include some history here. It is a mistake to believe that the Nazis wanted all the Jews dead from the start. They hated Jews yes, and they couldn't care less if one died, but they were not committed to their actual destruction until after the war had started. Before then, more humane alternatives such as banishing them to Madagascar had been proposed. And in reality, all the Nazis really did was intimidate Jews so they would flee to other countries. But then the war began and for various reasons, it was decided that killing them all was an easier way of getting rid of all of them and also faster. One can once again see this attitude that is very much focused on efficiency in the way the Nazis set up the holocaust. If anything, it was a constant task of SS leaders to optimize the efficiency of the killing process. Auschwitz is the ultimate symbol of this. In efficiency it was not much more than a slaughterhouse factory for human beings. 

 

Of course, and I must be very clear in this, I do not mean that science will automatically lead to another holocaust. Certainly not, the holocaust was the result of a whole range of factors coming together. But excessive rationalism combined with some other factors can result in people accepting mass murder as a viable option simply because it is deemed the most 'efficient'. 

 

Now why is religion a good counter balance? Because it is inefficient and never seeks to be efficient. It is irrational and never seeks to be fully rational. And because of that, it gives people that little bit of irrationality in their moral codes, which makes them rather unbending. For those people, killing is never okay, even if technically speaking it is simply more efficient to kill a bunch of people to get to a certain desired state. It must be said though, this is the result of a religion influencing an entire society or culture, not religion at a personal level. And as such, religion also doesn't need to have a monopoly on morals and ethics (which it doesn't have anyways). 

[AkemiAzula 280]

Scientific evidence stands up to creationism and they remind one of the Death Star facing up against a teddy bear. Having said that the whole point of religion is not to tell history. History and religion coincided in the past and while many believed religious tales (think Romulus and Remus, the Dreamtime, or later stuff like the Newton's Apple story) the two served different functions. In some cases they mixed quite intimately and intertwined.

 

However in today's light of science religion is seen more as a way of life than a history course. Ministers are not Professors but serve various social and spiritual functions with little to do with politics or actual concrete acts of historical development. It would take a very firm or little-read believer to actually visit biblical times in the TARDIS and expect Bible scenes to unfold as they were told at a Catholic school. This doesn't make the stories nonsense or pointless.

 

I myself was brought up by a former Christian though not of very orthodox manner, who became aetheist and later Buddhist. My childhood began in churches and ended in my developing a rational scientific evidence based outlook of a Darian nature. I became Holmesian. This from one who until around 1999 actually believed in Santa Claus and the Bible as real history!

 

Santa Claus is a good example of why we can't bash the Bible purely because of it's lack of historical evidence. There are many myths suffered despite their fantastic nature. I know a girl who believes in ghosts. That is almost 'normal'. But then again ghosts are vague mysterious concepts, whereas 'And Biblicus Mannius then slew 700 Elven Elephants' is a statement pertaining to describe a real event.

 

Religion imho should be considered as a way of life and as a cultural and artistic entity. Like 'English'. I drink tea but I know a girl who drinks only coffee. We are both English. This simple example demonstrates why religious nonconformity and anomalies do not stand up as an argument against the actual cultural entity itself. Belief is something which can be abused, whereas the truth can not. But consider how many people would love to believe in Star Wars or Doctor Who as being real. I used to have a lightsabre. I know it's a film. I am not saying religion is escapism or a mind drug. 

 

The scientific evidence is clear regarding evolution. Creation is a nice story and it would be more aesthetically pleasing and civilized than the truth. But the evidence backing evolution is so utterly damning (sorry for the pun) that it just... It would take a very devout person to read the evidence, to see it, and to deny it as reality. But there is nothing wrong with the religion itself or with... The concept of creation. We are god, we are real. If creation is a pure and good concept then I daresay one day one of us will create.

 

"To use an example from the field of medicine - say you subscribe to one of the faiths that forbid blood transfusions, and have a child who, if they do not receive a transfusion, will die. Is it moral or ethical to forbid the doctors from giving the child a transfusion in full knowledge that without it the child will die? Likewise, is it morally or ethically permissible for the doctors to ignore the parent's orders and give the child a transfusion anyway? This is an actual dilemma occasionally faced in hospitals. The doctor who saves the child's life may be committing a crime in doing so."

 

And this is why I stand firmly by my defense of science. I hate reality. Who doesn't. But to deny the truth is dangerous.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Myths are usually created by primitive peoples to explain those things that can't be explained in their knowledge base.  However, the childhood of the human race is pretty much over and we are into adolescence.  We are typical teenagers: quick, destructive, and ready to have regrets when things don't work out.  The knowledge base is advancing at a rate that outpaces ethical behaviour, even with predators such as us.  We are trying to grow up, but as long as patriotism and nations exists, we won't have made it. 

 

{rant}

 

The amount of continuing poverty throughout both the "civilized" and "uncivilized" worlds is disgusting.  If we abrogated the capitalist paradigm we have the ability to feed everyone just now.  However, the seven deadly sins (a religious concept) are in full swing.  Right now, the big operator is Avarice.  This also gives rise to the modern trend towards Hedonism and Isolationism.  The attitude is getting to be "Screw you, Jack, I'm in board". 

 

The falling away of organized religions is a symptom of the fact that these organizations are operating in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for the most part.  The trappings of the Vatican are a bad example.  If you are a Christian, how can you condone the accumulation of wealth by the church and its hierarchy when their duty is to be charitable?  The current bishop of Rome is trying to make this plain by refusing as much of the pomp and ceremony as possible, but he is like a fly trapped in amber, and really is not in a good position to change much without the full support of the hedonistic curia.  Where is Martin Luther when we need him? 

 

Sack cloth and ashes for the lot of them. 

 

{/rant}

[Mr Saturn64 742]

From your first statement, as a humanity, we will develop into Adulthood. There will always be people fighting, over one thing or another.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Yep.  It is in our genes.  We are a predatory species.

[timmie 988]

That's quite a deterministic statement.

[Flat Raver 59]

^^ And science without faith can be immoral or unethical

 

Actually, non-existent would be a better description. Most scientific discoveries were driven by strong faith in the hypotheses in question (even though many of them turned out to be dead wrong). It doesn't matter what you're driven by, as long as you're driven to do it.

 

So I say, believe in anything, except for you always being right.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

{Aside}  I used to work with a couple of people that can illustrate something along the lines of the previous poster.  One of my colleagues last name was Wrong.  Our boss was Mr. Wright.  When Wright and Wrong went to visit a customer, Wrong the tech consultant was usually right. {/Aside}

 

"Fair is foul, and foul is fair" - Wm. Shakespeare from the Scottish play.

[Mr Saturn64 742]

Interesting. Funny enough how Wright and Wrong should meet each other, let alone work each other. Seems like good times.

But really, faith is really a personal issue, and no one to our knowledge is "right" or "wrong", but as stated earlier. What is to believed will be believed.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I think I've said before that all cats are gray in the dark.

[Mr Saturn64 742]

True. We naturally have biases. Nobody is unbiased, we all have it whether you want to admit it or not. But on the issue of faith, you have extremists of everything, though in the world today, Muslim extremists seem to get the most attention. They are the most biased. But people are biased. There are people who persecute others for their faith, but they are hypocrites, assuming their religion practises peace. But they can still be good. Take St. Paul for example. He killed plenty of people, including St. Stephen. Then he got his faith and wrote his letters of what he's learned and his understandings of the Scriptures. But to the point, the argument over religion will always be going on, but we can try to stop it and make peace. It would be better if we could have peace between separations and groups.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Every religion has schismatic factions, some more violent than others.  Right now, Islam is undergoing some growing pains, but many of the sects in Islam that are at eachother's throats have been around since shortly after the Hegira.

 

If you look at Christian history, the Church was unified, often by force until Martin Luther nailed his theses to the church doors.  Luther was a monk, and didn't really want a schism but that's what he got.  After that, Christianity fragmented because there was no force to stop it.  Think about some of the violent sects that burned and drowned witches (all nonsense) in early America.  Many Christian sects migrated to America to escape from Catholic Europe.  And what have we got?  Well, among other problems we have the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

Only one world religion can claim origin in America and that is  the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.  The rest are just a bunch of schismatic protestants.

[Mr Saturn64 742]

What else is interesting is that Martin Luther didn't want to break away from the Catholic Church. He only wanted to reform it. So it's really that the Protestant (Lutheran, for example of Luther's) is that it's really a reformed Catholic church. My mother is Litheran and my Father is Catholic, so I was forcibly raised Catholic, but I find the Lutheran church is much more accepting. Jesus healed and talked with people like prostitutes and tax collectors, right?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

One of the best persons I knew when I was growing up in a Catholic family was a Lutheran minister that I only knew as "the Rev.".  A man of great charity and peace.  My spotty memory says his name was Wiesbach.

[Mr Saturn64 742]

But there are good people of every religion, though some extremists may say otherwise.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Most people are "good", that is follow the local ethic.  The problem is the malcontents who stir up trouble, and trouble is often infectious.  The devil makes work for idle hands.