Jump to content

Creationist Vs Evolutionary Theory


Colin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Surely evolutionism (?) (science) pushes the problem of origin down a level.

 

Which is the correct direction if you ask me. Complex behaviour is explained in terms of simpler, more easily understood processes... in theory. We run up against problems in this direction too; uncertainty principles and quantum fluctuations for example.

 

On the whole though, at least the scientific principle is an attempt to understand. Invoking a higher being is merely avoiding the questions all together. So long as 'God did it' is the answer, we must be content that we can never know.

 

Besides, who said that God is the top level? Where did He appear from? Perhaps this is also cyclic; when we look into the sub-atomic world we find universes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Surely evolutionism (?) (science) pushes the problem of origin down a level.

 

Which is the correct direction if you ask me. Complex behaviour is explained in terms of simpler, more easily understood processes... in theory. We run up against problems in this direction too; uncertainty principles and quantum fluctuations for example.

Indeed, i agree, but we will always reach a point beyond which it is impossible to examine further. The downside to this approach is that experimentation into this unknown realm, with particle accelerators and suchlike, could conceivably generate a rip in the very fabric of space-time, perhaps another big-bang.:?

On the whole though, at least the scientific principle is an attempt to understand. Invoking a higher being is merely avoiding the questions all together. So long as 'God did it' is the answer, we must be content that we can never know.

Knowledge is power, however, science has created the new "god" of the big-bang, that entity which is accepted to be unfathomable in it's very nature, and the origin of which is accepted as eternally unkown, reminds you of something else....hmmm...

 

Besides, who said that God is the top level? Where did He appear from? Perhaps this is also cyclic; when we look into the sub-atomic world we find universes.

 

I would have to immediately attack your gender stereotype, i think 'It" would be a fairer term. I subscribe to the cyclic theory, as i've alluded to earlier in this debate. The cyclic theory may also apply to a a non-sentient 'god-being' who did not create anything but was indeed created by everything.

 

As science has proven , the left hand frontal lobe of our brains only really becomes active when engaged in religion-based meditative techniques. For what did this cerebral area evolve?

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to immediately attack your gender stereotype

 

Then you are drifting off-topic ;) But, since we're here: 'He' is the Biblical term which, if you believe the Bible, is the word of God and therefore what God decided He wanted to be referred to (mistranslations and historical biggotry aside, of course ;) )

 

As for the "non-sentient 'god-being' who did not create anything but was indeed created by everything" idea, I quite like this idea as it is described in God's Debris by Scott Adams.

 

As science has proven , the left hand frontal lobe of our brains only really becomes active when engaged in religion-based meditative techniques.

 

Have you a source for this? Interested to read more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

Aah, but then, who said we were confining our debate to christian doctrine. Most international religious theories of creation involve a deity of some sort, not always a "He".

 

"God's Debris" sounds interesting, i may have to look that one up. The theory exists elsewhere, but is pretty much masked in a lot of new-age bumpff. I would rather pursue the scientific angle of it, believe it or not.

 

The frontal lobe stuff was published in some years ago, in hard-copy. I don't have a reference to hand, but i'll see what i can find. Interestingly i heard the same thing again recently from a psychology graduate. I'll see what i can find later. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm interested in this frontal lobe thing too. I ponder whether or not we just haven't found any alternative stimulus. Does the meditation need to be religious?

 

I suppose we could have a bit of the brain which has evolved to be in some way religious, or similar at least. Blind faith (no offence intended to any god-botherer) could aid survival. While other parts of the brain try to decipher the world, this could be the cut-off switch that says we don't always have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologise McFly, i hadn't heard or read that existance prior to the Big Bang had been quantified, or what caused it. If that is so i will stand corrected. :)

 

Stephen Hawking has been quoted to the effect that asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologise McFly, i hadn't heard or read that existance prior to the Big Bang had been quantified, or what caused it. If that is so i will stand corrected. :)

 

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort my dear Njugle, your right to say that it's a completely unknown, but that's very different from saying it can never be known.

 

I don't think that's accepted at all.

 

There are several theories, Evil Inky has just alluded to one of them, that space-time is somehow wrapped around on itself, and that we'll eventually find ourselves back at the Big Bang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what evil inky was meaning was that time started with the big bang, ie, there was no 'before'.

 

There is also a fundamental difference between science and religion. Religion says 'This is how it is/was/always will be'.

 

Science says 'This is how it is/was/always will be, as far as we know at this time but this opinion is subject to change/modification due to new discoveries or the formulation of new theories which better explain the observed facts.

 

Religion is not subject to change. Only denial. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what evil inky was meaning was that time started with the big bang, ie, there was no 'before'.

 

I'm not sure exactly what Evil Inky meant, but that's not exactly what Hawking meant either.

 

The point of comparing the big bang to the north pole was that, while you can't go beyond it, there is no boundary. The idea of a start of time or of a time before the big bang is meaningless.

 

I won't pretend to understand it at all, but what I think he was getting at is that our idea of time as a linear flow is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time present and time past

Are both perhaps present in time future,

And time future contained in time past.

If all time is eternally present

All time is unredeemable.

What might have been is an abstraction

Remaining a perpetual possibility

Only in a world of speculation.

What might have been and what has been

Point to one end, which is always present.

 

T.S. Eliot, 'Burnt Norton'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what evil inky was meaning was that time started with the big bang, ie, there was no 'before'.

 

From our perspective, it appears that time started with the Big Bang. To a two-dimensional being, a sphere passing through its universe would appear first as a point, then a circle of increasing size, then a circle of decreasing size, and then disappear. To the two-dimensional creature, the sphere had a start and an end, but from our point of view, it doesn't.

 

( I've just read that back, and I think I'm just confusing matters. Oh, well. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you're not. Its a very good analogy. :)

 

It may have little to do with the subject, but it is very valid in the wider context.

 

If (and it's a very big if, as you can see :P ), there was a form of deity which indeed existed outwith the perceived linear constraints of time as we react to it, we could no more hope to comprehend it than could the 2D creature comprehend the sphere. :wink:

 

In certain modern belief systems there is described two levels of 'god'; That which is of the earth and that which is eternal and outwith our sphere of existance. Bringing in the whole pan-dimensional element to the debate opens up another realm in which belief can roam unhindered by the constraints of fact. :razz:

 

A concept that circumscribes a number of paranormal things too. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bringing in the whole pan-dimensional element to the debate opens up another realm in which belief can roam unhindered by the constraints of fact. :razz:

 

Pan - noo dere's a god wirt his shelfroom. Aye tocht he hed a bit o a haand in UpHellyAa mesel ... mebbie dat's da secret da Elite protect?

Link to comment
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...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...