Creationism / Intelligent design

[WanderingKnight]

(I believe me I have tried many times).

Yeah, me too, but then again, I never met someone who actually asserted that the earth was 6000 old, and that dinosaur fossils were put here by god in order to test our faith...

[ImClueless]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Yeah, me too, but then again, I never met someone who actually asserted that the earth was 6000 old, and that dinosaur fossils were put here by god in order to test our faith...

I have and the person was in biology and said that biology supported his position...
People like that scare me because their way of thinking is totaly incomprehensible to me. They might as well be tripod aliens.

[felix]

It's quite simple christianity stands for freedom, harmony peace to all human kind. When something like the theory of evolution came about the uproar wasn't caused because the theory opposed the bible, but because it denied it. And no, I do not mean it in the sense that the theory itself denied it... but human idiots did.

All the people that have read the bible and either have been schooled in religion will tell you that it doesn't matter if x y z happened 400 years ago 401 years ago 1mil years ago or if it happened at all. The important part is that the teaching be remembered. The human idiots went against the teachings, in a literal fashion, as in saying line this that and that are invalid. So really the problem was never weather either is true or false. (they might as well both be false or both be true)

I won't bable any further in the goods and wrongs done because its meaningless to the discussion..

-----
Moving along..

Can one believe in god and the big bang evolution? Yes.. it's hard to phrase but basically the bible isn't a science, it is a teaching. God isn't a dude with a hammer and wrench.. not even the word thing applies. You could say that god created the big bang etc. (but if I don't yell METHAFOR in your face then people will make the same mistake again and again)

The bible's teachings are of peace understanding and harmony. To go around looking down on people, cursing people, judging people is not only non-conformant to the bible, but totally against it's teachings.. to spell it out they are sins. (and sorry but these are hard written in the commandments, and there's no metaphor for the specific ones in question)


I myself don't believe in what the majority know as christianity. I don't really care.. be it as is that the part I believe in has lost its name, it means nothing to me. If christianity will become a name for persecution then fine you people can keep it, I don't need a name or pieces of paper for something to believe in it.

[Vexx]

As many state here.... "creationism" and "intelligent design" have very little to do with actual christianity as a spiritual belief system and more to do with spin-off cults and sects who over-focus on particular pieces of the Old Testament (which by not even Jews subscribe to literally in most instances) -- which I find to be a riot when the focus of Christianity is supposed to be on what Christ said - aka New Testament writings).

Its anti-intellectualism at its worst and turns many off to the positive aspects of religious spirituality ("Follow the Shoe!!! -- Life of Bryan).

Any further comments would just be quoting Richard Dawkins (or even Billy Graham, whom I think gets what is important about his belief system).

[Aoie_Emesai]

If all you can believe in is only 1 solution to anything, then you're being too much one sided and you deserve the criticism. But this is what we call faith. Believing in something w/o and scientific or evidence to support it.

[WanderingKnight]

As many state here.... "creationism" and "intelligent design" have very little to do with actual christianity as a spiritual belief system and more to do with spin-off cults and sects who over-focus on particular pieces of the Old Testament.

Yeah, but even so, the fact that they actually are going to open a theme park amazes me to no end. Where the hell did they get all the money to do it?

And I'll pose a new question to the American community: What's the state of its influence in public education? I've heard of cases where schools actually did not teach or mention the theory of evolution at all. I haven't heard whether they predicated the creationist science doctrine or not, but yet... not talking about something as important as Darwin's theory on evolution seems so alien to me...

Then, I look back at my own country, and I weep for my people. Someone (I think Crovax) has asked me whether this situation was like this in Argentina--not only there are lots of people who have no idea what the theory of evolution is, but most of people don't even bring up the question about the origin of the universe to themselves, not even in an extremely superficial fashion. The things are less grim in the capital, where I live, but when you go to the inland provinces, you start seeing all sorts of creepy stuff.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

And I'll pose a new question to the American community: What's the state of its influence in public education? I've heard of cases where schools actually did not teach or mention the theory of evolution at all. I haven't heard whether they predicated the creationist science doctrine or not, but yet... not talking about something as important as Darwin's theory on evolution seems so alien to me...

It depends really. Most of the country, as far as I know does teach evolution. Every now and then though a school board gets a creationism requirement passed. However, in most of those cases, the next election those members are voted out and evolution is back in the course.

I honestly believe people who don't support evolution don't know what evolution is. Proponents of creationism don't argue against evolution, but rather a parody of it. Unfortunately, their followers who are not versed in evolution see that parody as the actual position. I'm convinced if they were shown what evolution really says they wouldn't be quite so hostile to it. Sure a strict fundamentilist most likely will never accept human evolution, but I can't see any reason they wouldn't support evolution in other life forms.

[Kaioshin Sama]

Guy's we all know the universe was created by Suzumiya Haruhi 5 years ago.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

And I'll pose a new question to the American community: What's the state of its influence in public education? I've heard of cases where schools actually did not teach or mention the theory of evolution at all. I haven't heard whether they predicated the creationist science doctrine or not, but yet... not talking about something as important as Darwin's theory on evolution seems so alien to me...

It really doesn't affect the schools too much here, despite all the hype. Not that creationism is limited to the US, of course. It's been around far longer than any other origin beliefs.

The biggest problem here is that people on both sides of the debate for some reason cannot separate the concepts of evolution with the specific beliefs that all life has a common ancestor--or, more generally, that humans and apes have a common ancestor. THAT is what the real hubbub is about: Semantics.

Heck, our first understanding of modern genetics was laid out by a Roman Catholic priest. We can observe evolution happening all around us. There is zero conflict between evolution and Christianity/Judaisim. There can be a conflict between those religions and "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" (as opposed to merely the basic theories of evolution that he described in proposing his ultimate conclusions), depending on how the Bible is interpreted, but that's a much smaller issue.

The fossil record between ape ancestors and humans isn't at all conclusive. It's barely suggestive. Now, that fact doesn't in itself mean it isn't true! It just means that 90% of this whole debate could be solved by the word "if": If a person does not believe that the world created by an intelligent designer, of course it makes sense to assume that humans and apes, being so similar, have a common ancestor, but to a person whose religious belief inclines them to believe that humans were created as a separate species, it would take a more conclusive fossil record for them to believe God created humans as ape descendants.

The whole debate could end there. But so many Christians panic and believe they have to argue 100% in the opposite direction, and so many people who have pursued science in an attempt to disprove religion (somehow mistakenly believing that the two were opposed) egg on the debates by treating hypothesis as fact. Both sides end up building their support bases by convincing impressionable people that they are right and the other side is evil for thinking differently. Somehow, along the way, each side adopted the severely mischaracterized arguments they were (formerly falsely) accused of having.

And the much, much more minor debate about the actual age of the earth? I couldn't care any less. The research that places the earth at 6,000 years old is flawed. Then again, so is the traditionally trusted research that places it as so much older. The sad fact is that "most scientists aren't". I expect we'll eventually find that our land mass floating in space has been around for millions of years, but life itself as we know it is far younger than we've been taught.

Suffice to say that I'm already separately ashamed of both my brethren in both the Christian and scientific community... and this debate only highlights why.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

I honestly believe people who don't support evolution don't know what evolution is. Proponents of creationism don't argue against evolution, but rather a parody of it. Unfortunately, their followers who are not versed in evolution see that parody as the actual position. I'm convinced if they were shown what evolution really says they wouldn't be quite so hostile to it. Sure a strict fundamentilist most likely will never accept human evolution, but I can't see any reason they wouldn't support evolution in other life forms.

This true to a degree. Many of the supporters of Creationism are relatively ignorant as to what evolution actually says (heck, most of them mistake it for abiogenesis), and it's quite evident in the way they frame their arguments. However, the reason why they won't support evolution in other life forms is because the same arguments apply equally to human evolution. Hence, it'd be equivalent to conceding the debate.

Originally Posted by Kaioshin_Sama

Guy's we all know the universe was created by Suzumiya Haruhi 5 years ago.

Scarily enough, there's just as much proof for this as there is for either Creationism or Intelligent Design. Thankfully, the theory of Haruhification doesn't have enough of a following yet.

[Solace]

Some Christians have latched onto the idea that science can support biblical things. The basic idea is that everything is so complex and yet works so perfectly that it can't be a coincidence, some higher power had to be behind it. It's a thought process that tries to discredit any notion that things are coincidental, and that everything was planned to happen. Intelligent design fits that process.

Evolution tends to favor the lucky/coincidental. In looking at the rest of the animal kingdom, only humans are different. While we still have the same instincts to hunt, protect, breed, we also have higher thought that gives birth to things like art, technology, and an innate curiosity to wonder things like "why is the sky blue" "what happens if I do this" "how did the universe come into being" and other such questions.

I'm not entirely sure we evolved from apes, but the resemblance is rather striking. We have many things in common with apes. However the fossil record is incomplete and we're still scratching our heads wondering how man actually evolved higher brain functions while other animals have not. We still know very little about the brain even with our "modern" technology.

The beauty of god based faith is that it fills in for absence of evidence. When you can't explain something rationally, you simply say god did it, it was his will. Such an easy answer allows people to get on with thier lives without questioning how things really work.

Science is not a religion, just a process of figuring out a hypothesis. Those ideas, theories, and how they are worked out are changing all the time. It's rather comical to look back at old "science" and laugh at how people used to think. However, a poor scientist is one who finds an answer and does not question it. A good scientist questions everything, no matter how conclusive the findings are.

In any case, neither evolution or creationism/intelligent design are right answers. We know relatively little about how things work, no matter how good our guesses are. Eventually, we'll probably know the answers to a great many things beyond what we know now, but the curiosity will never end and I doubt any human will be satisfied with the answers.

I don't think Intelligent Design or Creationism should be taught in science class. There is no scientific proof or method that can show either theory has merit. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution and natural selection however. I don't think a mention of those ideas and how and why they oppose evolution, and discussion on the subject is unhealthy. However, teaching it as scientific fact when it is not such is completely against the point of a science class in the first place.

I'm rather sick of people trying to force religion into schools and government establishments. Keep that stuff in the church and home. The constitution allows you to practice any religion you like, but it does not give you the right to force it upon others. By disguising things like Creationism as Intelligent Design under the pretense of science, people with religious agendas are pushing poor information and personal moral beliefs onto impressionable minds.

And this might end up sounding inflammatory so I apologise in advance, but the Bible is awful moral teaching. It advocates violence, prejudice, bigotry, cruelty, intolerance...people like to pick and choose what to follow from the bible and what to ignore. It can't work like that. If the bible is really the "word of god", then you must follow all of it. But any intelligent person who reads the bible can tell you straight up that you can't take it literally or metaphorically. In fact, the bible hardly makes any sense trying to read it from cover to cover. It was written by many men, editted over many years by men, and the faith it is based on has committed many atrocities in the name of God and the words of the Bible.

Does this mean that the bible teaches nothing but bad? No. There is some good, but it's all common sense. Don't lie to others, don't kill them, don't steal from them, don't break a bond of marriage by commiting adultery. Certainly nothing to form a religion over. You don't need a God to become a better person, all change begins with taking responsibility for your own actions and learning from your mistakes.

Personal belief here. There is nothing wrong with faith. Faith in yourself, in others, it can help pull you through some bad times. There is certainly nothing wrong with prayer to a higher power. But the blind following of a religion or a book /writing to give yourself moral code is a poor excuse for not thinking for yourself. You should never say that something is bad because the bible says it is. You should be saying it's bad because YOU feel it is. You should be understanding that not everyone feels the same as you, and that it is better to compromise than to be forceful in your objections due to your moral center. Peace, love, and understanding don't require heaven, god, or religion. They just require some common sense, compassion, and a little faith that things always work out no matter how bad they seem at the time.

[monster]

Originally Posted by ankoku

the Bible is awful moral teaching.

Certainly if you look at it from human perspective. But that is why the Bible has a different standard for "good" and "bad". Human morality is not even really the main point of it all.

But, anyways, to the subject at hand:

While I won't necessarily ignore the idea of evolution (at least, my physics teacher told me that the different dog breeds is a result of microevolution, but whatever) it doesn't necessarily mean it's what happened in the past. For example, an adult comes from a child, which in turn comes from a baby. But it doesn't mean that's what happened to Adam.

So now this brings me to my point that people (who believe in creationism, at least, the Christian version) shouldn't have to try to use science as a support for their belief, although I have yet (with my limited knowledge) know of any scientific theory that truly contradicts the Bible beyond the shadow of a doubt, and this includes evolution (see my reasoning above).

I mean, when you look at it, what is the theory of evolution really? (Correct me if I'm wrong or missing some vital part, but) doesn't it basically describe what seem to have possibly happened with life on Earth and how based on the variations and similarities among different species that Darwin and other scientists may have noted as well as our understanding on how genes (and therefore traits) are passed on?

So going back to my point, the rules (laws of physics, chemistry, etc.) may be there (and according to Christian belief, it would have to be made by God), and since it is made by God, He has the choice of when and at what stage to implement them.

Therefore, the only thing I'm worried about are the fanatics that try so hard to use science to support their creationist belief (which is I believe what the opening post is about?) to such extreme that it may ended up giving people the wrong idea. At the worst case possible, they may end up trying to use the Bible to justify their own sets of belief: (I just remember the geocentric view). (I'm 99.99% sure the world is round, )

On the other hand, I'm also weary with people who says evolution proves Genesis, and the whole Bible by extension, wrong. I mean, it's like seeing a curve with a slope of 1 at around the point (90, 90) and concluding that the curve must pass through the origin. Who knows, it might be a piecewise function and the curve never even get near the origin. But you can't see that because you're only seeing a part of the curve.

P.S.
I agree on someone's opinion that creationism shouldn't be taught in a science class (as most people understand it today, science class that is).

[raikage]

Bananas: proof that God exists and shaped the universe.
Hopefully the guy's not serious and this is a parody video, but sadly I don't think it is...

Originally Posted by Lexander

Intelligent design makes sense to me overall. I mean even if you establish that life could have began randomly evolved there is no evidence to support that this is how it started.
I am not religious, but I leave the possibility of intelligent design open. I don't believe it's plausible, but defitnitely possible.

I don't have a source in front of me, but I hear that quite a few scientists, as they get further and further into theories, begin to believe in...well, not in Creationism per se, but that things really do work so perfectly together that it can't really be chalked up to coincidence anymore.

And, for yet another spin on things -- I recently read Deepak Chopra's Life After Death (very possibly where I heard about the above scientist belief) and he said something about us and our understanding of the universe that went like:

Imagine you're an ant, inside a television. You see these pixels flying around, some red, some blue, some green. When you're right next to the tube, the patterns appear random, senseless. There is no order to it, each one appearing to be spontaneous.

However, when you step back, step out of the frame of reference you're used to...you begin to see shapes. Those patterns that seemed so random and senseless, begin to form lines.

Step back further. Now you see faces, now you see things, and you realize those pixels that seemed so random, really weren't...

[ibreatheanime]

I would like people to consider this...

science and religon seem to be locked in a battle agianst one another. Maybe we interpret the bible to literaly. In theory God created the everything, but does the bible specify how? Perhaps the "days" they speak of are really thousands of years. Perhaps the animals god created included dinosaurs.

I am not a very religous person, but when people are closed minded and decide that dinosaur fossils are fakes, sent to test our faith, it disturbs me.

In school they never mentioned anything to us about evolution they simply didn't mention it. (I guess they didn't want to create controversy)

[monster]

Originally Posted by ibreatheanime

Perhaps the "days" they speak of are really thousands of years.

I can't speak for other Christians (or Jews). But from my perspective, if this was so, then the significance of Sabbath is diminished, or maybe even lost. Now I won't be so dogmatic about it, but unless there's a really compelling justification for it (and no, trying to reconcile the Bible with world view is not it), reading the "days" as actual days is more logical to me.

dinosaur fossils are fakes, sent to test our faith, it disturbs me.

Well there's certainly no biblical justification for the bolded part. Consider this, the main theme in the Bible, as I understand it, is about human relationship with God, and by extension, with other human. It's not about some animal that may or may not have lived on Earth before human came to be.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by ibreatheanime

In theory God created the everything, but does the bible specify how?

It's been said that religion tells us why, science tells us how. Things break down when you try to use religion to tell you how or science to tell you why.

[TinyRedLeaf]

I am mildly surprised that no one has yet brought up mention of the august Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, while having existed in secrecy for hundreds of years, only recently came into the mainstream when this letter was published in May 2005.

With millions, if not thousands, of devout worshippers, the Church of the FSM is widely considered a legitimate religion, even by its opponents - mostly fundamentalist Christians, who have accepted that our God has larger balls than theirs.

Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment, satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, but rather a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools. These people are mistaken. The Church of FSM is real, totally legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental.

[WanderingKnight]

I don't have a source in front of me, but I hear that quite a few scientists, as they get further and further into theories, begin to believe in...well, not in Creationism per se, but that things really do work so perfectly together that it can't really be chalked up to coincidence anymore.

It's called determinism. Not all scientists agree on it, though--but the main point is, things happen as consequences of an unstable system (someone with more knowledge could correct me on this, it's just my amateurish assumption). It's cause-consequence. An animal like the human was supposed to appear because, according to the circumstances of the system, there was no other choice--it happened because of a reason, and were the same (possibly unaccountable) elements of that system which generated humans to be gathered again and put back to the same state, we'd get the same result--the birth of the human race. It's a pretty abstract concept, but if you believe that everything has an explanation, that everything has a cause (as scientists do most of times), then this abstraction starts feeling more and more plausible.

The problem is, we can't (yet) have an account of every single element of a system, and that's why most of things can't be fully explained scientifically.

To dig further into the topic, there's the Theory of the Eternal Return (not too sure of the title or where did I get it from, maybe I'm talking about something else...), which understands the universe as a perpetual coming and going of the same--the Big Bang explodes, the universe expands, gets to a standstill and starts contracting again, till we get to a single point where all the mass and energy of the universe is concentrated. Then the Big Bang occurs again, and every single element reorganizes itself exactly the same way as before--so we'd get the same results, the same history of humankind, the same evolution of species, everything.

For a (kind of) applied determinism -on society-, read some Marx, which helped me build most of my background theoretic corpus.

[Spectacular_Insanity]

I am now going to specifically state now that I'm not going to get involved in this debate aside from giving my opinion:

I believe God created the heavens and the earth, and that God gifted humans with the power of analysis to determine the properties upon which He created the Universe and lets it run. The chances of life spontaneously forming and then evolving, even over tens of millions of years, is statistically ridiculous. After all, how can one explain the more-or-less perfect conditions for living on the planet in terms of perfect distance from the sun, gravity, composition of the atmosphere, etc. with mere science. Whatever we think we might know about the universe is substantially greater (and, IMHO, will always be) that what we actually do know.

[WanderingKnight]

The chances of life spontaneously forming and then evolving, even over tens of millions of years, is statistically ridiculous....
.....After all, how can one explain the more-or-less perfect conditions for living on the planet in terms of perfect distance from the sun, gravity, composition of the atmosphere, etc. with mere science.

The whole assuming of the existence of a god that created it is as much of a belief as science--don't dismiss it. You're making statistics out of what? We are already here. Out of the gazillions of planets and solar systems existing, life was born on this planet, and we're the only ones to record that. And you're reversing the conditions of adaptation: this planet seems perfect for life because life was perfectly adapted to this planet, not the other way around. Who knows, life may exist on other planets with completely different characteristic than ours.