# Creation v. Evolution **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [February 17, 2003, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-v-evolution/155545 "2003-02-17T02:03:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-v-evolution/155545/21 "2003-02-18T07:24:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sqube \* > \*\* Similarly, the Darwinist extremists tend to consider the Bible as BULLSHIT. \*\* I don’t think the debate is science vs. the Bible. It is science vs. bogus science. I don’t recall any post that said the Bible is a pile of junk. > [@](#): > > \*\*Personally, I take elements of both. You know, God kick-started the show and then the actors just improved it. I wonder if that’s blasphemous… \*\* That’s pretty close to _theism_ which has been out of favor as and organized religious system for quite a while now. ---
**Author:** ![Already\_in\_Use](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@Already\_in\_Use](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Already_in_Use)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-v-evolution/155545/22 "2003-02-18T08:58:30Z")
**David** , I think you mean Deism. Theism refers to the belief in God or gods. As for creationism, if people are going to look to the Bible as the source of scientific fact, they might as well believe in [geocentricism](http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfile=/texts/english/religion/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w&act=text&offset=3994588&textreg=0&query=sun) and [a](http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfile=/texts/english/religion/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w&act=surround&offset=2615577&tag=Ezekiel,+chapter+7&query=four+corners) [square](http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfile=/texts/english/religion/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w&act=surround&offset=3320479&tag=Isaiah,+chapter+11&query=four+corners) [earth](http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfile=/texts/english/religion/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w&act=surround&offset=5667878&tag=Revelation,+chapter+7&query=four+corners). ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-v-evolution/155545/23 "2003-02-18T13:19:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lorenzo \* > \*\*You might like this site. > > [www.answersingenesis.org](http://www.answersingenesis.org) > > Lots of free info with more science than you may be used to for a creationist site. They sure would like to sell you their materials, though. \*\* Yeah, I have that site already bookmarked. It’s a bit refreshing that they have lots of material, but the problem with that site is, is that they are (IMO) a disingenious. For example I don’t like the implication between evolution and [Nazism](http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/communism.asp). On the other hand, I like the [Arguments a Creationist should _not_ use.](http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp). I also don’t like the either or manner in which they present evolution and creation. On a whole though, it’s a better site than say…[Dr.Dino](http://www.drdino.com/) ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-v-evolution/155545/24 "2003-02-18T13:32:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > **I think a certain part of some people’s unwillingness to accept whatever belief/scientific principle is that they believe their religion is an all-or-nothing proposition: if you don’t accept everything, you aren’t welcome. This is further emphasized in places such as church services (at least the ones I’ve been to) where a regular recitation of various beliefs is emphasized as part of the whole thing. It was actually the realization that to be Catholic I had to “believe” some things I just couldn’t accept as fact (and also that I didn’t believe any G/god worth serving would make me believe something I just couldn’t accept) that showed me my truer calling is specifically _to_ question. Specifically it was the Marian Doctrines that just don’t compute to me, if anyone really cared that much;)** I agree, and I’ve actually seen such an attitude of all-or-nothing. It’s a shame because in order to get people on their side they present their interpretation of the bible as the _only_ interpretation. Slighty Hijack: What are the Marian Doctrines? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > **And, in turn, some people who base enough of their lives on their religious beliefs must think it so important to them to maintain this belief in creationism (or whatever it is that others believe is lacking in logical or scientific proof). The only technique I have seen other than the one Poly suggested is to remind them that their relationship with God isn’t doomed just because they disagree with their local religious authority (and there’s where the bible quotes start pouring in when I discussed this very point with baptists at my old school). In fact, it serves a rather backward purpose to deliberately _not_ educate one’s self on consistent matters of science vs. religion debate, IMHO.** I agree. I’ve also found that simply stating something to the effect of “Jesus saves” holds very little water. I find that a little contradictory because generally these same people are very adament about not being able to get to heaven based on “works”. I could be making a bad analogy here, but that’s the way I think. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > \*\*No, I haven’t been involved in any 180 degree turns. However, I know of at least one person with whom I’ve had repeated, deliberate discussions on the whole issue of science and religion who has gone from a position of “The Bible is the only authority ever” to accepting that while it can be a good book to use for reference, it isn’t really meant as a Guide to Science. \*\* I’ve witnessed a few 180 degree turns, and I think the people are better for it. Unfortunately I was not _involved_ in the turn, I witnessed the before and after from the individuals. The turns that I have seen all involved face-to-face discussion though, so I don’t think it translate as well on messageboards. I do know of one 90 degree turn, where the person accepts more about evolution but still requires a form of creationism to maintain their faith (a creationism that still says evolution is invalid that is). ---
**Author:** ![Lorenzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4da419/32.png) [@Lorenzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lorenzo)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-v-evolution/155545/25 "2003-02-18T17:52:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > \*\*And, in turn, some people who base enough of their lives on their religious beliefs must think it so important to them to maintain this belief in creationism (or whatever it is that others believe is lacking in logical or scientific proof). \*\* The scientific method is not useful for explaining one-time events such as the origin of our universe: There can be no reproducibility. There is no variance in the data. It is impossible to invert a singular Hessian. One cannot conduct an experiment on a one-time event. None of the assumptions are fulfilled. You can draw the slope any way you like with a sample of one. The only thing that can attempt to explain a one-time event is a theory, which, by definition is not a law or immutable truth. There is no scientific proof regarding the origin of the universe, despite what some may believe. The best approach, IMHO, is to observe the body of evidence and make a decision based on what seems to best explain this unique event, realising that any two people may arrive at different conclusions when presented with ostensibly the same evidence, much like differences can be found among jurors at the same trial or witnessess to the same event. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-v-evolution/155545/26 "2003-02-18T19:39:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Already in Use \* > \*\ ***David** , I think you mean Deism. Theism refers to the belief in God or gods. > > \*\* You’re right, of course - followed by the call of the Common, or California, Klutz. Oops. For those who want a good laugh, or a retch depending upon your present state of mind, try this [Creationist Site.](http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/) ---
**Author:** ![DeVena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dec6dc/32.png) [@DeVena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeVena)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-v-evolution/155545/27 "2003-02-18T21:05:36Z")
As a Christian, I have no trouble believing both the Bible and evolution. After all, when you read Genesis 1 from a scientist POV, it basically outlines the steps of evolution (planet - water/land - plants - sun/moon - fish/fowl - mammals/man) A little jumbled but the idea is there. How else to you discribe it so that a bronze age person can understand? Also I think that God has a wicked sense of humor (Hey! Look what happens when I do this!!) Hence, we get dinosaurs, mules, giraffes, and TV evangelists. Just my thoughts… ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-v-evolution/155545/28 "2003-02-18T23:16:54Z")
First of all, **Lorenzo** , let me say that while I disagree with you, I respect you, your right to your beliefs, and your courtesy and eloquence in discussing them. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lorenzo \* > \*\*What I don’t get is how intelligent, educated, skeptical, cynical folks can state their beliefs with such certainty as though they were natural laws or undeniable facts. Where is the doubt? How can anyone be that sure of something that’s only a belief or a theory? > \*\* A good question. Trouble is, I would claim that it applies far more to creationism than evolution. If you talked to a biologist who studies the process of evolution, asked her to explain how evolution works, and then asked “are you 100% certain that every single word you just said is precisely correct”, she would (if she were a remotely good and responsible scientist) admit that she was not certain. The theory of evolution, as it is understood today, is not set in stone. It is being continuously investigated, tested, and updated. (Which is not to say that there are not some scientists or evolution-believers who are close-minded assholes). By contrast, creationists, stereotypically at least, believe in the inerrancy of the bible. Which means, by definition, there are tenets of their belief that can not ever possibly change even slightly. Suppose that the truth of the matter is close to what evolutionists believe, but they are currently crucially wrong about 15% of things. I have no doubt that, eventually, they’ll get it right. On the other hand, suppose that the truth of the matter is close to what creationists believe, but they are currently crucially wrong about 15% of things. Well, there they will stay, 15% away, forever. \*\* > [@](#): > > No theoretical set of equations explain 100% of the evidence–if it did there would be no debate. \*\* This I must also respectfully disagree with. Suppose, for a moment, that the theory of evolution is fundamentally correct. If it continues to be studied and discussed for generations to come, and easy-to-understand clarifications are added to it, and eventually it is such a solid intellectual edifice that there are no remotely reasonable arguments against it… there will still be people who believe in creationism. As is their right. \*\* > [@](#): > > The scientific method is not useful for explaining one-time events such as the origin of our universe: There can be no reproducibility. There is no variance in the data. It is impossible to invert a singular Hessian. One cannot conduct an experiment on a one-time event. None of the assumptions are fulfilled. You can draw the slope any way you like with a sample of one. > \*\* Again, I must take issue. (I assume you’re discussing the Big Bang here, as opposed to evolution, given that evolution isn’t really a “one-time event”.) Suppose that you become a world authority in the fields of cosmology, astrophysics and quantum mechanics (assuming, of course, that you aren’t already 🙂 ). After years of thought and research, you publish a new paper proposing a newly revamped quantum model of the Big Bang. Despite the fact that the Big Bang occurred only once, billions of years ago, there are still experiments that can be performed to verify your model of it. For instance, the **Lorenzo Model** might predict very specific things about levels of cosmic background radiation, neutrino flux capacitance, the weather on Pluto, or other such things. If your model correctly predicts what astronomers observe, that is very strong evidence that your model is correct. If it is correct and comprehensive (ie, answers all questions), then it will eventually find widespread acceptance. Of course, it still doesn’t **prove** anything, in a mathematical sense. However accurate and useful a model the **Lorenzo Model** turns out to be, there’s no way to prove that God didn’t create the universe 4000 years ago _with evidence of the Lorenzo Model built into it_, or for that matter that God didn’t create the universe umpteen billion years ago, and set the **Lorenzo Model** in motion. To sum up, I think it is definitely possible for science to meaningfully and rigorously investigate and model one-time happenings such as the big bang. And doing so in no way argues against the existence of God. ---
**Author:** ![Lorenzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4da419/32.png) [@Lorenzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lorenzo)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-v-evolution/155545/29 "2003-02-19T01:52:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MaxTheVool \* > **First of all, Lorenzo, let me say that while I disagree with you, I respect you, your right to your beliefs, and your courtesy and eloquence in discussing them.** > > Thanks > > **A good question. Trouble is, I would claim that it applies far more to creationism than evolution. If you talked to a biologist who studies the process of evolution, asked her to explain how evolution works, and then asked “are you 100% certain that every single word you just said is precisely correct”, she would (if she were a remotely good and responsible scientist) admit that she was not certain. The theory of evolution, as it is understood today, is not set in stone. It is being continuously investigated, tested, and updated. (Which is not to say that there are not some scientists or evolution-believers who are close-minded assholes).** > > Agreed with the above. > > **By contrast, creationists, stereotypically at least, believe in the inerrancy of the bible. Which means, by definition, there are tenets of their belief that can not ever possibly change even slightly.** > > This is probably going to sound really stupid, but I do believe that the bible is inerrant but I also know that I am certainly not inerrant and then that nasty doubt creeps in and then it goes away. I think that John Lennon had something compelling to say about the ease of life for those who have no doubts. > > **Suppose that the truth of the matter is close to what evolutionists believe, but they are currently crucially wrong about 15% of things. I have no doubt that, eventually, they’ll get it right.** > > That is your hope and belief but nothing more. Either you’ll one day be shown right or wrong. > **On the other hand, suppose that the truth of the matter is close to what creationists believe, but they are currently crucially wrong about 15% of things. Well, there they will stay, 15% away, forever.** > > This syllogism is missing the middle part? > **Of course, it still doesn’t prove anything, in a mathematical sense. However accurate and useful a model the Lorenzo Model turns out to be, there’s no way to prove that God didn’t create the universe 4000 years ago _with evidence of the Lorenzo Model built into it_, or for that matter that God didn’t create the universe umpteen billion years ago, and set the Lorenzo Model in motion.** > > Bingo. Bullseye. Ding a ling a ling. (apologies to Neil Simon and everyone else) > > That is my point, I think, in a nutshell. I could not have said it better myself. > \*\*To sum up, I think it is definitely possible for science to meaningfully and rigorously investigate and model one-time happenings such as the big bang. And doing so in no way argues against the existence of God. \*\* I think the “sample of one” issue is valid and a stopper pertaining to scientific experimentation but can’t really support it without breaking out the books. ---
**Author:** ![Lorenzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4da419/32.png) [@Lorenzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lorenzo)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-v-evolution/155545/30 "2003-02-19T01:56:25Z")
You MSPIMS folks sure are a polite bunch. Imagine a creation v evolution discussion this civil. So far. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-v-evolution/155545/31 "2003-02-19T03:07:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lorenzo \* > \*\*You MSPIMS folks sure are a polite bunch. Imagine a creation v evolution discussion this civil. So far. \*\* On a whole, I’d say that the SDMB has much more civil and intellectual debates than other boards (and as you’ve read I’ve been to several). Maybe it’s the way the boards are set up and the interviening Mods, but I find open discussion here to be really a key quality of this board that other boards just don’t have. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-v-evolution/155545/32 "2003-02-19T04:50:52Z")
> [@](#): > > ## _Originally posted by Lorenzo_ quote: > > Originally posted by MaxTheVool > > ## On the other hand, suppose that the truth of the matter is close to what creationists believe, but they are currently crucially wrong about 15% of things. Well, there they will stay, 15% away, forever. > > **This syllogism is missing the middle part?** I don’t think that **MaxTheVool** was constructing a syllogism, but rather was stating what the evidence shows about the position of Creation Science. For example, the book _Scientific Creationism_ from the Institute For Creation Research (ICR), El Cajon, CA says the following: “… it is precisely because Biblical revolution is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture.” I think, then, that the point was that the ICR at least, starts with the Bible as absolutely true which means that “rightly interpreting” scientific facts results in reinterpreting them until they agree with the Bible. Therefore, if the ICR position is wrong in some aspects it will stay wrong in those same aspects. There is no self correcting mechanism when you insist that your answer must agree with a position that is stated as true in advance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-v-evolution/155545.md?page=1)