Creationism vs. Evolution

[JanYpe 17]

Eh, I would like to know from an atheist, what is the purpose of life? Thanks. quote>

To live.

[Boggy1 45]

The purpose of life, from a scientific point of view, is to procreate and to raise the next generation. Of course, thats the scientific viewpoint. My personal viewpoint is that the purpose of life is the further humanity into a form that is close to perfection. But I'm not an atheist, so I guess my view doesn't count.

[coolotter88 2]

oh no! someone is going to go into existential dispair!

[Godzillaman 21]

Wow...this is still on? Didn't all the evolutionists shoot down the creationists already?...

If you take the shoot down the creationists part literally, then....I don't even wanna say...

http://www.truthism.com/ Something to talk about.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 oh no! someone is going to go into existential dispair!quote>

To the Descartes mobile!

[purpledaddy 6]

I understand my distant relatives were made of burlap!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

panthersimcity4 said:  Quite frankly, I think it would be depressing to live day-by-day without God, without any hope for yourself or mankind as a whole. I mean, humans are meant to be spiritual, why do you think we all believe this stuff? Because the human soul hungers for purpose and reasoning.

Eh, I would like to know from an atheist, what is the purpose of life? Thanks.quote>

I think this is one of those things where perspective is important.  Theists often posit that life without God would be depressing and devoid of meaning.  However, this is not really true.  I cannot count the number of times that a believer has made a similar argument in a religious discussion.  It includes "Why not believe in God, in case you are wrong", or "Wouldn't God give your life some meaning?".  To me, this is all bologne.  God is not required to live a full and happy (not depressing) life.  I wish I understood why theists have this mindset.  Life is life.  You have ups, and you have downs.  In a way, life without God actually makes life more exciting, because I do not have to worry about supernatural things like burning in a lake of fire.  I know that I can live my life ethically, and do what I can to make my society more humane.

As for the purpose of life... well, a few have answered this question nicely, but I will state my ideas, anyway.

To me, life has the meaning you give it.  As Boggy said, the biological reason for life is procreation and the passing on of your genes.  However, Jan Ype said it best.  The reason for life is to live.  Realistically, there is no meaning of life.  Meaning has connotations leading to Purpose.  And, as we should all know, Purpose denotes a plan and a goal (I won't go so far as to say it means Pre-Destination).  There is no goal, there is no plan.  Life came to be because we happen to live on a planet conducive to life and its further development.  Just because we exist does not mean that we have to have a reason for doing so.

Barbarossaquote>

I understand your point, its a matter of opinion.

For me, I think atheism seems depressing since when I was younger I suffered alot from low self-esteem and depression, I felt like I was worthless. But in the 8th grade I became more religious and I guess that helped give my life meaning.

I'm really trying my best not to sound like some kind of zealot, since I'm not really that religous or anything.

As far as I understand everything has a reason. Like, Paris Hilton, the most useless thing on earth, is probably useful for something. I'm sure there's a reason why she's on earth (Maybe God's trying to annoy us )

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Micah

...

Now, you say that there is no division among athiests.

...

quote>

That's a little different to Christianity or any other religion. Atheism is not a religion (its the absence of belief in a god).  The only thing that is common to all atheists is that every single one of them does not believe in a god. Apart from that there is nothing that unifies them. They are not in any way an organised religion or group. There is no code or commandments or manifesto. It is simply a descriptor of one thing. You can't tell just by knowing that someone is an atheist what that person believes in or their ethical code, or their behaviour or how how they perceive their purpose (if they perceive one at all)  for example. It tells you nothing except that the person does not believe in a god. Its not meant to say anything else.

You can't even say that all atheists believe in evolution, because I think there are many who do not. You can't say that atheists are irreligious, because there are many that are (atheistic buddhist sects for example). You can't say that all atheists are not spiritual, because many are. You can infer nothing about an atheist except that they do not believe in a god.

But people get confused and try to ascribe to atheists as a group many different things which they are not.

Unfortunately I think some people are getting confused and equating evolution with atheism. They are not the same thing.

Originally posted by: Micah

...

Some believe there should be limits, some believe humans can do whatever they want as long as it does not harm a human, some believe people can do whatever they want no matter what, some believe science can be used as a propaganda tool, some believe in humanism... that human is god. Some athiests believe that religion should be dismantled everywhere including public property; however, some believe that as long as the religion causes no harm to them, they are okay with the, for example, Ten Commandments in front of courthouses. Some athiests believe that America was, in fact, founded on Christian principles and that we should use those principle to guide our country. Some athiests believe that while America was founded on religious principles, we live in a modern world where an ancient religion should not be guiding how we make our decisions.

...

quote>

There are theists who believe the same things (not necessarily all at once though, neither would any atheist). Like I said earlier, that someone is atheist tells you nothing about their position on anything else, particularly of the above things. However with an atheist, that they are atheist doesn't necessarily have any influence on anything else about them, unlike with a Christian for example, their faith (or their interpretation of it) tends to influence how they view other things.

If someone calls themselves a Christian though, that tends to tell you a lot more about them. For example they belong to a group (those who identify themselves as Christians), they probably believe in a God, they probably believe in Jesus Christ and that he lived and died and lived again. There are probably a few other things that they all agree on, for example the commandment Love thy Neighbour and that if you accept that Jesus is Lord and Saviour and died for the sins of man that you will go to heaven. They may all believe (but I don't really know) that God created everything one way or another.

But most of that probably belongs in the other thread, as this one is specifically about creation and evolution, rather than about belief or non-belief. The two are very different things.

But atheists are neither a group nor a religion. As such its not really appropriate to<

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

I wouldn't say Christianity is "ignorant" but rather "liberating." quote>

Well, that's how you see it. Frankly, I see atheism as "liberating", since it means I have no god to answer to on things, I can make my own decisions. One less authority figure to have to deal with, you know?

Quite frankly, I think it would be depressing to live day-by-day without God, without any hope for yourself or mankind as a whole.quote>

Well, the other side of the picture there would be to say that the hope of religion is false hope, that people don't want to deal with the idea of simply ceasing to exist upon death, and not having anyone watching over them, so they believe in such things as a way of coping. Sigmund Freud popularized this idea. Karl Marx had a similar view, too.

I mean, humans are meant to be spiritual, why do you think we all believe this stuff? Because the human soul hungers for purpose and reasoning.quote>

But see, that's the thing. It hungers for purpose, so it tries to come up with reasons for things that really don't have a reason. Which leads me to the next line:

Eh, I would like to know from an atheist, what is the purpose of life? Thanks.quote>

There is no purpose. It just is what it is, set in motion and brought to its current state by random chance and the whole "survival of the fittest" thing.

That's the key point that a lot of religious types seem to miss: not everything needs to have a purpose. Often it just is what it is for no real reason other than that that's the way the proverbial dice landed. Just look at quantum mechanics- chance and probability are what make things tick there.

[miguelkuk 109]

Originally posted by: Mikeaut1

Originally posted by: Micah It doesn't matter either way. Christianity isn't a religion. It's a lifestyle.quote>

WELL SAID!!!

I believe in Creationism. Evolution has some great points, but some of it is bizzarre, like we once were primates. I don't believe that, I think we were just created by God.quote>

 

We STILL are primates, as we are mammals, as we are animals...

Originally posted by: schm0

Originally posted by: PathE

Originally posted by: nealos101 I believe god when he tells me he created everything in six days, and I'll believe a scientist when he says that the earth was created in so many million years...(edit)....So I shall beilieve them both becuase A) God is my diety and I trust him and B) Scientists are my fellow men and women and I trust them. I don't try to mix them... It doesn't really work that way... Maybe put one before the other... But don't ever try to mix them up.

...You'll get confused if you do.

N.quote>

How do you reconcile the two? Don't they cancel each other out? Herein lies one of the fundamental questions: who do our youth turn to for their information about the beginnings of our planet and the life contained on it?quote>

 quote>

 

You don't need science to contradict religion. Religion does a pretty good job at contradicting itself. As Isaac Asimov once said :"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

And 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then he is evil!" (Epicurus)

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Duke87

One less authority figure to have to deal with, you know?quote>

So if one could convince prisoners there is no warden, they would be free as well?

Sorry, it seemed like an apt analogy.

quote>

[Mulefisk 15]

Originally posted by: manticorefan So if one could convince prisoners there is no warden, they would be free as well?

quote>

Your analogy is flawed because in a prison, we know that there will be a warden, but in this world, we don't know wether or not god exists.

Originally posted by: manticorefan

And if there is truly 'survival of the fittest', than let's do away with all those endangered species laws. If the spotted owl or polar bear cannot adapt to a world changed by humanity, then screw 'em. The god of natural selection has ruled against them. quote>

What are you trying to say? Evolution doesn't exist? I think you are making the mistake of thinking that evolution is some sort of strange natural law. It's just a naturally occuring phenomenon. If we, as humans, don't want to follow it, we don't have to. Unless you're advocating the killing of spotted owls and polar bears of course. That's a whole different matter.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

And if there is truly 'survival of the fittest', than let's do away with all those endangered species laws. If the spotted owl or polar bear cannot adapt to a world changed by humanity, then screw 'em. The god of natural selection has ruled against them.quote>

They are endangered just because of natural selection, if you destroy or change their natural habitat in a short term they won't be able to adapt to it, they won't have time to mute to a most adapted form, i. e. a forest animal cannot live in tundra. And no, natural selection is not a god

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

...

And if there is truly 'survival of the fittest', than let's do away with all those endangered species laws. If the spotted owl or polar bear cannot adapt to a world changed by humanity, then screw 'em. The god of natural selection has ruled against them.

...quote>

Actually a sound knowledge of evolution explains why it is important to protect species, and more importantly, how to do so effectively. It has been said that nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution (Theodosius Dobzhansky), and conservation science is one of those sciences where this is particularly true. Much of conservation science relies heavily on a sound understanding of evolution and its implications.

A sound understanding of evolution in my experience also creates a profound respect for nature and the natural world. I think those who accept the theory of evolution are far less likely to cause harm to anything in the natural world than those who believe that God gave man dominion over the earth to do with as he pleases. As an illustration of this, I once had a conversation with a creationist colleague who seemed to believe (and stated) that humans should (and had the divine right to) destroy the last pure population of a particular species so that people could have that piece of land without interference. Now, while I don't believe this would be the view of all creationists (and that other creationists may have a different interpretation of that bible passage), it stemmed directly from his religious beliefs. The creationist philosophy puts humans (and individual humans) at the centre of everything (metaphorically if not physically).

Evolutionists (and many athiests) have a very different perspective. The theory of evolution shows that humans are not the centre of the universe, as they once (and still quite commonly) believed. The theory of evolution shows the diversity, the complexity, and the interconnectedness of all living things and more importantly, where humanity fits in to the overall picture. This highlights the fragility of nature and our ability to protect it.

I don't think you would find many (if any) evolutionary scientists or even atheists who would subscribe to the "screw 'em" philosophy you propose. In fact conservation tends to be scientific endeavour (eg breeding programs in zoos and nature reserves), using knowledge and understanding provided by the theory of evolution, and the theory has been particularly helpful in this. As I've mentioned previously, a theory provides an explanatory framework from which reliable predictions can be made and which gives rise to practical applications (such as conservation science)

I think its also important for those who oppose a particular viewpoint to be careful to represent their opponents viewpoints accurately and fairly. It is better to ask and find out what their viewpoints are.

[coolotter88 2]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&print=true

Here's a good article summing up why evolution is right.

[DOXXP29 5]

Good article, Coolotter. Some common sense rebuttals to the usual questions.

[Joesocwork 4]

On a cursory level it looked like Mr. Rennie was answering straw man arguments and not the actual arguments that many people who believe in creation have with macroevolution.  In addition his article did not make the case that macoevolution as it is currently theorized doesn't violate currently known scientific laws.

[wir3d 2]

i have to tell that the spiritual world is very true.  I have an uncle who was a very very bad person.  Recently he came out coma after 5 heartattacks and and 2 strokes.  This is how he came out of it.  His 22 year old daughter was reading to him the bible and in the coma lying down he could hear her.  Then he saw a tunnel of flames and he was walking through the tunnel and he was at the gates of hell.  His mom and dad were behind the gates and his dad told him "go back it's not your time" and he woke up out of the coma and he's fine now.  I heard this twice from two sides of my family.

[wir3d 2]

actually we were created from dirt and here is a scientific fact.  We have all the cemicals that are in dirt but i don't know what they are.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Joesocwork On a cursory level it looked like Mr. Rennie was answering straw man arguments and not the actual arguments that many people who believe in creation have with macroevolution.  In addition his article did not make the case that macoevolution as it is currently theorized doesn't violate currently known scientific laws.quote>

Strawman or not, the article addresses questions that creationists have asked in this very thread, almost (if not) word for word. (I have also seen these questions listed in that form on creationist websites such as Answers in Genesis and other sites.) Now I tend to enter into discussions such as this thread with honest intent and assume that everyone else does too, ie if they ask a question then they are genuinely asking as opposed to having a go. If they make a statement they either genuinely hold that view or are honestly attempting to further the discussion (and want a response). I admit I could be wrong in those assumptions, but I can only conclude that people who have asked these questions here are genuine in their statements. As far as I am able to I try to provide answers to questions or responses or at least put forward relevant information.

You have stated that the questions in the article are not those held by creationists. But you have not provided a correction. What questions are asked (or arguments put) by creationists? If it is wrong, can we please get a clear indication of what these arguments really are?

What scientific laws does any kind of evolution break?

I don't think the author was trying to give a complete overview of the theory of evolution, just some responses to the top few questions frequently asked. (Like a website FAQ or a forum Search First rule). I'll admit I've seen more comprehensive evolution FAQ's. However this was an article in a popular science magazine.

There are always strict limits to article length in journals, which depend on the journal and section of the journal that the article is submitted for. For example a short article or rapid communication may have a limit of one to four journal pages, a full article longer than that if required, a letter to the editor 250 words, and an editorial or popular piece a limit of 500-1500 words might be expected.

I agree that the author treated some things only very briefly and that more depth would have been nice, but he would have been severely constrained by journal space limitations.

Originally posted by: wir3d actually we were created from dirt and here is a scientific fact.  We have all the cemicals that are in dirt but i don't know what they are.quote>

What do you mean by chemicals? I would assume compounds but whether you mean elements or compounds this statement sounds odd to me. What is your source for this? And what conclusion are you proposing we should draw from this?

As a quick and rough check of your statement I got the following numbers for elemental composition from Wikipedia (yeah I know, maybe someone can come up with some more accurate values):

Please note the units are different for the Human and Earth Crust columns, just use it as a present/absent indicator. I also assumed Earth Crust in place of Soil (seemed reasonable enough). But I would like to see the stats at the basis of your statement.

References:

Wikepedia - Chemical Makeup of the Human Body

[mayor of the manor 0]

I feel for those who believe there is no purpose to life. To live a whole life and achieve whatever one can, to see and do all that one can and believe that there is no purpose, no rhyme or reason, is a psychological and intellectual poverty all its own IMHO.

quote>

I do not believe there are any specific purposes in life. However I am content with my life becuase I believe that it is up to the individual to set there own goals and challenges. I'm not atheist however I am not Christian or a follower of any major religion nor do I believe in a god. With regards to the thread the theory of evolution has shaped my religious beliefs. I believe the purpse of evolution is for organisms to constantly strive to survive. Therefore the purpose of my life is to survive or as Jan Ype put it, 'to live'. We, as a species, filled a gap in the ecosystem and we have to try and survive and we seem to be doing a good job about it.

And if there is truly 'survival of the fittest', than let's do away with all those endangered species laws. If the spotted owl or polar bear cannot adapt to a world changed by humanity, then screw 'em. The god of natural selection has ruled against them.

quote>

I partly agree if that statement. I believe that becuase of how the human mind works, we think everything should be static and unchanging. It could be that some of these animals we are trying to save were dying out anyway but then again we as humans are part of the natural world and therefore are our actions not natural too? I think yes, to avoid using rhetoric, and because I think yes I also believe it is human nature to try and save them. It says something about our compassion for other creatures we pity. Of course people in the World will have varying levels of compassion but compassion none the less for other humans, organisms and sometimes even inanimate objects.

It is interesting to observe other animals with regards to this. All the great apes and a lot of primate species have been known to show compassion to other members of their clans and gorillas have been witnessed looking after sick animals such as birds. They also show the sometimes human-like behaviour of a lack compassion. Just like in human societies there are varying degrees of this emotion where murder, outcasting orphans and even canibalism occur. It is not just restricted to primates either. Other examples include dog species, cat species, whale and dolphin species and probably others.

So back to the topic, it is not just a human trait. It is probably an inherent trait that has expanded out to many species during the process of evolution.

[miguelkuk 109]

Originally posted by: mayor of the manor  It says something about our compassion for other creatures we pity. Of course people in the World will have varying levels of compassion but compassion none the less for other humans, organisms and sometimes even inanimate objects.

quote>

 

If we didn't help avoid these extinctions, we might well become endangered too.  The ecosystems of the world would suffer a tremendous blow and become way too unstable for major changes not to occur. And ultimately these major changes would catch up with us and probably make life impossible for humans. As such, saving other species from extinction is far from "human compassion". It's a selfish act to save our own species and maintain equilibrium within Earth's ecosystems.

[confused04 14]

I haven't chimed in for a long time with good reason, but I just wanted to point out a few things from my biological point of view...

A) The question about the purpose of life has arisen and one of the answers was "the purpose of life from a scientific view is to procreate" but I don't think that I as a geneticist and a biologist can agree with that. I'm agnostic and I can simply state that if the purpose in life is to procreate, then whats the purpose of procreating. In biology, its to pass on genetic information for the next generation to survive with the hope that some of this information leads to greater fitness and eventually evolution in the long term. But the question continues, why evolve? The traditional answer to "why evolve" is to become more fit and able to procreate... so the answer becomes cyclical. You procreate to procreate? Seems insufficient for the meaning of life. My belief is that there is no answer to "the purpose of life" other than to assist and catalyze the natural process of turning all energy into entropy. I honestly don't think life NEEDS a purpose.

B) Even though survival of the fittest is one of the tenets of modern biology, I do not think that gives us the right to free destruction and roam of the Earth for a multitude of reasons. One being that even though I might not be Christian, I believe that we should act in an ethical manner. Second, most species cannot be removed without detriment to the ecosystem as a whole and that could affect our bottom line. That is why deer overpopulate (because we removed the wolf), that is why crabs and submerged aquatic vegetation have declined (from the removal of oysters and eutrophication of the Chesapeake Bay). Nature is a web of relations and we cannot go willy nilly remove things. Its like dissecting a watch, you take what you think might be an inconsequential part away and now the watch doesn't work. Life is too complex for humans to go around and kill at our discretion.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[mayor of the manor 0]

If we didn't help avoid these extinctions, we might well become endangered too.  The ecosystems of the world would suffer a tremendous blow and become way too unstable for major changes not to occur.

quote>

Couldn't agree more

As such, saving other species from extinction is far from "human compassion". It's a selfish act to save our own species...quote>

I can't agree that every act of 'saving' a species is a selfish act to protect humanity. There is compassion in decisions made by people trying to achieve this. It doesn't cross my mind that I'm doing my bit towards ensuring the future of humanity when I put out food for the birds in my garden because the action of feeding birds (some of which are very rare now in the UK) and the result of the survival of humanity are so far apart. For the purposes of an example, it would be hard for an environmentalist to not have compassion for the few animals or plants that they work with because without that feeling would be borne out of the effort to try and 'save' it. I'm not saying that it's not a selfish act but more that the two values discussed are interdependant in my opinion.

You procreate to procreate? Seems insufficient for the meaning of life. My belief is that there is no answer to "the purpose of life" other than to assist and catalyze the natural process of turning all energy into entropy. I honestly don't think life NEEDS a purpose.

quote>

An interesting point. The way I look at this is that the ability is inbuilt into the minds (where applicable) and bodies of organisms and therefore something naturally practiced within an organisms lifetime. I love the idea of life's purpose being to turn energy into entropy brutally scientific but so so true IMO! My sole purpose stems from a desire to live. If I did not want to live I would die.

Even though survival of the fittest is one of the tenets of modern biology, I do not think that gives us the right to free destruction and roam of the Earth for a multitude of reasons. One being that even though I might not be Christian, I believe that we should act in an ethical manner.

quote>

Can't say fairer than that. But what governs what you believe to be ethical, Confused04?

That is why deer overpopulate (because we removed the wolf)...

quote>

A prime example is the slow destruction of the UK's oldest forest, the Caledonian Forest. Few saplings grow because the deer strip the ground of them.

Nature is a web of relations and we cannot go willy nilly remove things. Its like dissecting a watch, you take what you think might be an inconsequential part away and now the watch doesn't work. Life is too complex for humans to go around and kill at our discretion.

quote>

That is true to some extent but where do you draw the line? Homo Sapiens have been (controversially) attributed with the extinction of most megafauna in North America within the last 15,000 years. They presumably killed them off (much like we have in recent times with some animals) because they provided food, competion for other food and to protect themselves. I personally think the issue is the capacity to which humans can alter their surroundings and this can upset the balance.

[saltandsauce 0]

i go yes religion does exist because if you don't follow a religion you don't have any sort of purpose unless you devise it yourself and it seems to me that those who don't have a purpose end up as dobbers (unemployable  benefit claimants)

[coolotter88 2]

not quite the same topic as Evolution vs. Creationism here.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I am surprised that this is still a live thread.

The facile answer to this is that no one knows how long a day was in the eyes of the creator.  Could have been eons in our time scale. 

If you deny the existence of the creator and go for the steady state theory, then the whole argument is moot, as you are just debating about some sooth-sayers ancient version that was eventually written down.

This old chestnut is not worth wasting any further words.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce i go yes religion does exist because if you don't follow a religion you don't have any sort of purpose unless you devise it yourself and it seems to me that those who don't have a purpose end up as dobbers (unemployable  benefit claimants)quote>

Thats not necessarily true, its in fact the opposite. It tends to be that the poorer you are,  the more religious you tend to be, albeit the fit is sometimes less than perfect (R squared value much less than 1 or, p value >.1) Its true both on  a large international scale, and on a microcosm scale. Church attendance, number of churches and self declared religiousity increase with each subsequent decrease in earnings (or GDP per capita with some data sets). Conversely, atheism increases while church indicators decrease with increased wealth. Internationally speaking, it is the poorest of countries with the highest "religiousity". Western Europe is generally considered affluent and has amongst the lowest church attendance and self-declared religious affiliation. The poorer Eastern Europeans are slightly more religious and so on and the most religious nations are in Africa, the poorest continent. The notable exception on the international scale is the US, which I personally believe is due to the income disparity (lots of poor with high religious score versus few VERY wealthy non-religious people). Then theres other factors so this isn't a perfect fit, but you can't say atheists are likely to fall victim to "a lack of purpose" and become poor. In fact, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be atheist, and with education comes greater job opportunity to higher salaries.

But thats another subject matter.