Jump to content

Creationist Vs Evolutionary Theory


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Seeing as I started this thread, I suppose I'd better contribute.

 

I have no problem whatsoever with people and their religions but, I have an intense dislike for the 'we know better' attitude presented as a defense for any kind of argument.

 

Whilst evolution is not, strictly speaking, a "science" it's various proofs and research are based on sound scientific principles.

Creationism, on the other hand, has no supporting proofs. It's not just bad science, it's junk science.

 

What puzzles me is that so many seem able to believe in creationism whilst denying obvious evidence to the contrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer spiritual people to people who subscribe to organised religion. Some religious people believe in evolution.

 

Its interesting to note that when a forest fire occurs, the trees grow back faster. Could this same principle apply to the meteor that wiped out most of the dinosaurs? Could it be been the catalyst for evolution? I believe so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier in this thread, faith was mentioned as being a good thing. I couldn't agree less! I consider faith to be a form of ignorance; to blindly and unquestioningly accept information as fact. To accept creationism, you'd need to do a good job of ignoring the huge amount of evidence to the contrary

 

Faith is a good thing, sadly lacking in the modern world, but faith is born of ignorance.

 

Faith carries with it the baggage of religious associations, but any question of the merits of faith has to be answered with such rhetoric as "what are you made of?" "How do you know?" "How do they know?" and how much of of theoretical physics, metaphysics or sub atomic theory rides rough-shod over the boundaries between hypothesis and faith, one is lost without the other.

 

Will the sun rise tomorrow?

Yes, but is that 'yes' a statistical probability, or is it a matter of faith?

I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, but i dohn't know it, i can't, because it hasn't happened yet.

The belief that we know all, can prove all and that all is purely scientific is undermined by the fact that we neither know it all or can prove more than a fraction of the basic make-up of our world/galaxy/universe.

 

Without that extra information we are left with faith and hypothesis. :P

 

Don't confuse faith with christianity, islam, krishna or whatever, faith is a tool, often abused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't confuse faith with christianity, islam, krishna or whatever

To clarify my definition of faith, heres what my dictionary says -

1. belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof

2. a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it

3. belief in and devotion to God

4. a strongly held set of beliefs or principles

5. allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something

 

I think its common to associate faith with religion, but as you say, there are differing manifestations of faith. Will the sun rise tomorrow? That's beyond statistical probability, there is a huge body of evidence which tells us the sun will rise tomorrow. I'd say its well beyond having simple 'faith'. I'd say it can be accepted as fact that it will, unless a calamitous event takes place

 

hypothesis and faith, one is lost without the other
I fail to see how. A hypothesis is the basis for further exploration, not the answer in itself. A hypothesis seeks an answer. Faith needs no answer.

 

The belief that we know all, can prove all and that all is purely scientific is undermined by the fact that we neither know it all or can prove more than a fraction of the basic make-up of our world/galaxy/universe.
The fact that we can prove anything of the basic make-up of the universe is amazing in itself. Modern reasoned scientific debate and method are only around 200 yr old. Its brand spankingly new in terms of human evolution and the age of the universe. I think we're doing pretty well!

 

I don't understand why we shouldn't be able to know all and prove all. Where is the evidence to suggest that we can't? Why assume that because we currently don't know a lot of things, we never will? 'Faith' gets in the way of understanding. To have faith is to accept without question, which to my mind is the antithesis of scientific progress

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its common to associate faith with religion, but as you say, there are differing manifestations of faith. Will the sun rise tomorrow? That's beyond statistical probability, there is a huge body of evidence which tells us the sun will rise tomorrow. I'd say its well beyond having simple 'faith'. I'd say it can be accepted as fact that it will, unless a calamitous event takes place

So you can't say its a fact then, as you state yourself, surely you contradict yourself here?

It is an extremely high probability, but nothing more.

hypothesis and faith, one is lost without the other
I fail to see how. A hypothesis is the basis for further exploration, not the answer in itself. A hypothesis seeks an answer. Faith needs no answer.

Define hypothesis then, if you wish. I'll refrain but suffice to say that a scientist of whatever description must have faith in his findings otherwise he would not pursue his "tentative proposal" beyond that which he could empirically prove. Yes, it could be argued that this is more imagination that faith, but where does that leave us in scientific terms?

 

The belief that we know all, can prove all and that all is purely scientific is undermined by the fact that we neither know it all or can prove more than a fraction of the basic make-up of our world/galaxy/universe.
The fact that we can prove anything of the basic make-up of the universe is amazing in itself. Modern reasoned scientific debate and method are only around 200 yr old. Its brand spankingly new in terms of human evolution and the age of the universe. I think we're doing pretty well!

Yes we are doing absolutely brilliantly, but at the end of the day, what can actually be proved is not that much in an evolutionary or creationist sense. Hot off the presses, Homo Sapiens was around 195,000 years ago, it didn't just grow a brain 200yrs ago, or if it did, by your own reasoning, what prompted this "sudden advance?"

I don't understand why we shouldn't be able to know all and prove all. Where is the evidence to suggest that we can't? Why assume that because we currently don't know a lot of things, we never will? 'Faith' gets in the way of understanding. To have faith is to accept without question, which to my mind is the antithesis of scientific progress

 

You're not saying in this last passage that you may indeed exhibit faith in science by any chance?

 

And just to be a really annoying git, we are trying to examine the make-up of the universe with tools that are too big to see the smallest bits, too small to see the biggest bits and restricted to three dimensions, in a universe claimed by some to be multi-dimensional. Thats an awful lot of hypothesis required. We can't pretend to know everything anytime soon, in the meantime most of us non-geniuses do well to keep a healthy dose of faith in the unexplained, otherwise we'd be crushed by what we will never know. I have great faith in the scientists. And the scholars and the archaeoligists. Perhaps not the mainstream clergy and politicians. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to go with the evolutionists but do accept the creation is a fact, as has been said before the world/universe was created and has evolved the question is what instigated the creation and the subsequent evolutions.

 

Where the religions fail is that they try to say that god(s) created the universe as it is now and any changes are wrought by god(s). They really are missing the point, god is nature and nature is god they are the same so when they argue against evolutionary theory they are arguing against god.

 

I do not think we will ever know what happened before the big bang but it is possable that it was created in the laboratory of a very big scientist (god) and our universe is just somebodies phd paper. Or our universe is just an atom in another being.

 

But even if somebody was to proove to me beyond all shadow of doubt I still wouldn't sign up to a religion or change my lifestyle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to reply to Njugle!

 

You're using many of the same arguments used by some religious types I've locked horns with. I thought better of you!

 

So you can't say its a fact then, as you state yourself, surely you contradict yourself here?

It is an extremely high probability, but nothing more.

True, but we can never be 100% on anything. But by your reasoning, nothing can be considered a fact. Are you really suggesting that there are no facts, only high probabilities? While you may be right, I think you're being very pedantic

 

Define hypothesis then, if you wish. I'll refrain but suffice to say that a scientist of whatever description must have faith in his findings otherwise he would not pursue his "tentative proposal" beyond that which he could empirically prove. Yes, it could be argued that this is more imagination that faith, but where does that leave us in scientific terms?
I wouldn't use the word 'faith' to describe the reasoned probability of a hypothesis. Faith is the acceptance of something without the need for proof. I see faith and hypothesis as incompatible

 

Yes we are doing absolutely brilliantly, but at the end of the day, what can actually be proved is not that much in an evolutionary or creationist sense
Why's that then. I'm not sure I follow

 

Hot off the presses, Homo Sapiens was around 195,000 years ago, it didn't just grow a brain 200yrs ago, or if it did, by your own reasoning, what prompted this "sudden advance?"
It is generally accepted that there was an explosion in scientific advances around 1750 - 1850 which gave birth to fields of research including anthropology, archaeology, cell biology, psychology and organic chemistry. During this period the writing of scientific papers became commonplace, giving rise to international science, true collaboration and accepted standards of method and proof. This was also in the middle of the industrial revolution, and scientific research was carried out on an industrial scale for the first time. Electricity was still in its infancy and the first British museum was opened. I could go on....

 

You're not saying in this last passage that you may indeed exhibit faith in science by any chance?
I've had this levelled at me several times. No, I don't "have faith" in science. I have arrived at certain conclusions through reasoned thought and (usually fairly limited) investigation. I haven't mindlessly accepted what I'm told

 

Thats an awful lot of hypothesis required. We can't pretend to know everything anytime soon, in the meantime most of us non-geniuses do well to keep a healthy dose of faith in the unexplained, otherwise we'd be crushed by what we will never know
Personally, I enjoy the fact that we don't know everything. I don't feel 'crushed' to the point of believing unproven bumf to fill in the blanks between what we do know. There are new scientific discoveries and new techniques being pioneered every day, which I find fascinating

 

We could rumble on ad nausea about the definition of facts, proof, faith, hypothesis etc..........

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, i didn't take offense, i merely returned your personal line of attack (jerkass)

 

Anyway, lucky for you i saved the post i withheld,humble as it may be:

 

Quote:

"We could rumble on ad nausea about the definition of facts, proof, faith, hypothesis etc.........."

 

We could, and possibly will, but that is the statement of someone who has closed his mind and does not wish to debate further. Razz

 

Anyway, the point is that whenever a scientific fact is put forward, someone further down the line will prove it wrong or incomplete, that is the only consistent trend in science. Evolution? Until very recently it was scientific "fact" that we evolved from the neanderthal. Now it is "fact" that we co-existed with them for several myriad of years. One example, i could give many more. Your assessment of the 200 hundred years of 'progress' is elsewhere viewed as the start of the end or the koyaanisqatsi. Without painfully elaborating, the world and all the lifeforms therein existed for millenia without excessively poisoning their surroundings. Now we do. Fact. Science, Progress? Many of the faiths of the world did no harm for a very long time. I could also address every example of those progresses you mention as being 'old hat' but previously innocuous. If you like Wink

 

The industrial/technological revolutions may make our lives more "fulfilling" and entertaining but at what cost?

The root of this is the "hypothesis" that all sciencific progress is good and worth the risk. (Splitting the atom? That did heaps of good, didn't it?)

So, is it not yet another faith? A strongly held set of beliefs, that is in fact no better than those of the RC Church as they burned the libraries of the Mayans, or demolished the stone circles they perceived as pagan, which were actually scientific methods of domesticating animals and crops.

 

So, i'd say we have beneficial faith and destructive faith, both scientific and religious.

 

In the realms of non-destructive scientific faith there is a statistical hypothesis that the chances of our planet being exactly the right distance from the sun, with a protective moon and protective giant planets nearby to protect and propogate life are so incredibly small as to warrant consideration of more than that which is currently accepted as non-creationist fact.

 

As to god, i tend to agree with a similar view to turrifields, any god present around our planet is a scientific product of the life here, That is both a hypothesis and faith all in one. What happens on the next scalar level, i wouldn't like to speculate, unless you push me to Razz

Evolution? there are many glitches in the time line and overall progression that still don't add up. Creation? Not outwith the realms of hypothesis, given the gaps in scientific knowledge, but not "let there be light" and all that, there is a huge scope of other possibilities.

"i thought better of you". Another statement like that and i'll write even more, and that's a threat and a promise!

Wink

 

And here, today's addition. Consider prayer, a by-product of faith. Psychotherapy before psychology was a science? Could be. Vocalisation of concerns, fears, trauma and guilt is therapeutic, regardless of the end listener.

A benefit of Faith, present long before your perception of "modern science".

( And i don't pray and i'm not "religious". I can still see the benefits though)

:P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...