Creationism v. Evolution

The BBQ Pit
1

Although this has been posted on another board here, i thought it best to put this highly rational, yet extremely flammitory statement here for your edification…

What is it that makes completely rational people actually belive in the letter by letter account that is given in the Bible? i’m not saying that the Bible has no value: it is a great book with many stories that are essentially fables that outline the difference between the Christian right (correct, that is…) and wrong. But to believe that simply because it is written it is true is absolutely absurd. Keep in mind that alot of these people are the same ones that don’t believe everything they read in the papers…hmmmmmm…

…which brings me to Creationism. Here are a few points that i hope are valid:

  1. As a history buff, i immediately have to cast doubt on anything that is not written by a direct witness (and, in turn, keep a watchful eye on those things that were). Last time i checked, Adam was not created until the Sixth Day (i hope I’m right here), so HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THE OTHER 5??? Also, Adam apparently did not write the book of Genesis, in fact, we don’t know who did (but i’m getting ahead of myself).

2)Many of the Bible faithful like to point to archaeological evidence that proves Biblical events did happen; ergo, the Bible is fact. This only shows that it may have happened, not necessarily that the Bible is the be-all end-all chronicle of that event. Exhibit A is the story of Noah and the Flood. The Epic of Gilgamesh (sorry, can’t remember the culture…) was told for centuries before the Noah story ever made its presence. The Epic concerns…A GREAT FLOOD!!! Evidence has shown that there may be a great flood before written history. Could it be that Christians adapted someone else’s story for their own purposes…? They’d never do that…after all, Saints are nothing like the Roman gods, who are nothing like the Greek gods, etc., etc.

3)What is so contradictory between religion and science after all? Where is it written that the Six days of creation are actually six human days? Where does it say that the six days aren’t an evolutionary process in themselves? Am i the only idiot here who thinks this? Am i lucky not to have been struck by lightning?

  1. And to the people who think that they can “prove” that God does exist (and there are some – there was an engineering professor at my school who said he could mathematically prove His existence), i have only this to say – Thank You. Thank you for removing any logical argument that religion is based on. Now move out of your church. After all, the basis of religion is faith, which means to believe in something that you cannot necessarily prove true. Without faith, you might as well worship 2+2=4.

Ok, so that last one isn’t expressly about creationism…so flame me :wink:

And my last point (i think) may be peculiarly southern, but those of you who are familiar with the Christian fish on the cars, then the Darwin fish, now may have seen a fish eating the Darwin with the word TRUTH written on the fish. Give me a friggin’ break. As a good Darwinist, i propose that we not allow these kind of irrational people have children that they may pass these irrational beliefs to. This train of thought leads to other logic gaps such as:

Guns don’t kill people; people with guns kill people.

God created Man in his own image (except for gays, of course)

Playing the Mr. Ed Theme Song backwards…

Tammy Faye Bakker…

…dare i continue???

Whew. i feel better. And let me finish by saying that i do beleive in God, but i also believe that He is disgusted by most of the behaviour that goes on under “His” name.

Forever and ever.

Amen

shiner bock

2

I do not believe that everything in the Bible is the literal truth; much of it is clearly allegorical. I think some people take every sentence as literal truth because they are afraid of repudating their faith or because their faith is so small that any challenge becomes a personal matter.
In response to your numbered points:
1) I believe the majority of Biblical scholars attribute Genesis to Moses. Could be wrong on this, though.
2) While obviously the Catholic Church “converted” many of the pagan deities into saints, there is archaelogical evidence for some things in the Bible, i.e. a recently discovered stele in the Holy Land provided actual proof that King David was a real personage. Of course, this does not prove the existence of God, but that is a matter of faith, anyway.
3) This is a point that Christians who believe in evolution have made. I believe Genesis should be interpreted solely as an allegory.
4)Actually, you can prove the existence of God mathematically. Consider this statement: If 2 + 2 = 5, then God exists.
Under the formal rules of logic, the conclusion is true since the premise is false. Logically, you can prove anything from a false premise.
(logic has given me many a woe this semester!)

3

In response, Peyote Coyote, the great thing about logic is that you can prove anything given the right “facts”. And isn’t that what this argument basically boils down to – there are more facts pointing to Evolution than Creationism…but then again Creationism is based on faith rather than fact…o jeez, i’m getting a headache.

…for my next trick, i’ll try to prove that black IS white, and promptly get killed at the next zebra croossing (apologies to douglas Adams)

BTW, i loathed logic as well when i was in college…kept me out of a math class, though :slight_smile:

Another of my problems with the Bible is that through the centuries, it was been rewritten by soooooooo many people down through the ages, can we really count on “divine providence” that it is the word of God? I’m sure that a few Benedictine Monks during the Middle Ages put in their $.02 (or 2 gold coins, anyway), along with Matthew, Luke, John, etc., not to mention King James (or even our modern equivalent – L. Ron Hubbard)

Before i get blasted on this, i know that L. Ron didn’t rewrite the bible…just created a religion…

…and with that (un)enlightening post, i’ll call it a night…

shiner bock

“Now its over, I’m dead and I haven’t done anything that I want, or I’m still alive and there’s nothing I want to do.” – They Might Be Giants

4

Remember folks, if you hear voices in your head and talk about your invisible buddy, you’re a nutcase. If the voices in your head tell you that certain people are evil and deserve to die, and your invisible buddy is infinitely large and can do EVERYTHING, you are a religious fundementalist.
When I grew up, I quit believing in fairy tales and magic genies.

“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Hunter Thompson

5

I must agree with SB in that much of the bible is metaphorical, and is not meant to be taken completely literally. I have known certain people who refused to believe in the dinosaurs, or else said that God scattered fossils around in order to fool non-believers. We’re not living in the Dark Ages anymore, and there’s no Inquisition to burn heretics. Some here in the Bible belt where I live would undoubtably rather it be otherwise.

6

Erm…? What is this? The BBQ pit is the one place where the debate is level-headed and interesting? I guess that’s what I meant when I said Hell was filled with interesting people. “BBQ Pit” reminds creationists a little too much of the Fiery Pits.

Hey, this is a place to flame. So allow me.

GODDAMMIT WHAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH YOU CREATIONISTS? HOW CAN YOU ACCEPT THE BIBLE BLINDLY AND YET CRITICISE SCIENCE WITHOUT EVEN DOUBLE-CHECKING YOUR FACTS?

Aaah.

7

Hope you feel better Elijah. I am not a creationist, but I think I can at least explain why creationist hold on to their belief so strongly.

Creation is an idea that came long before the idea of evolution. It and religion are embedded in Western history and culture. That’s what makes it so hard to shake.

Going to church on Sunday just makes some people feel good. Without religion, they feel life is empty and meaningless.

8

Hey Curious George, it was only when I quit going to church (and got a private and more personal relationship with God) that my life stopped being meaningless and empty.

With my mom a Lutheran and my dad a geologist, I got a mix of religion and science growing up. I feel the Bible is a book of morality and a historical account how some people dealt with their world. I’ve never been a creationist, but take the Genesis story in as much stride as other beginning myths.

“On the edge of sleep, I awoke to a sun so bright…”

9

sigh Yeah yeah, I know. Just like heliocentrism and the Big Bang; the modus operandi of Science is to question everything, and that of the Church is to accept Faith.

It’s just frustrating that creationists question Science with such zeal they never apply to the most contradictory of their beliefs. Questioning Science should always be done; but ignorant dismissal and dishonest sophisms merits only contempt.

I get a taste of how Newton and Galileo must have felt.

10

Oh, geez, I’m gonna get flamed out the door here, but what the hell…

to provide a christian response to SB’s original post:

  1. If you cast doubt on anything not written by a direct witness, then how can you be so sure of evolution? For that matter, great amounts of our history is written second-and third-hand. Are we to chuck it all? If you’re going to be skeptical, you gotta run it both ways.

  2. The Archaeological evidence does not prove the Bible to be true, just as the fact that my grandmother hasd never lied to me doesn’t >prove< that she someday won’t. The point is that the bible is a historically reliable document, used by archaeologists and historians of all persuasions, and held by them to be accurate in its history. Proof? No. Credible? Yes.

  3. There is no contradiction between Science and Religion. Many great scientists (Newton, Pascal) were devout believers, and for much of history, the church actively patronized science, just as it did the arts. The percieved dichotomy is of recent vintage.

And the idea that 6 days may mean 6 “eras” or “epochs” possibly lasting millions of years each is >very< common among Christians (Yes even fundamentalists). This view is not inconsistient with the wording of the Hebrew text.

  1. I agree with your statement about the existence of God being a matter of faith and unprovable. But you seem to want to have it both ways. You castigate christians for being too ready to believe in something without proof, and then when they say they have proof, you say that evidence invalidates faith. Which way do you want it?

And as to your assertion that the bible was “rewritten,” you are at odds with the facts. As a history buff, you are no doubt aware that our whole knowledge of Ceasar rests on a dozen or so manuscripts dating centuries after his death, and that everything we have on Socrates is in about 6 MSS dating centuries after his death. For Jesus, on the other hand, there are >40,000< MSS, some dating to the first century. Doesn’t make it true, of course, but it is the best-preserved historical document we have prior to Gutenberg.
As an aside, I reccommend Cecil’s column on Jesus. very fair and accurate, I thought.

11

Gosh, furt, you made a few good points up there. :slight_smile:

Regarding Science and Religion being at odds: indeed, Science has long been a religious activity, whereby you learned of God’s nature by studying His work. I think it’s sad Science is always rejected by Religion because it contradicts earlier beliefs.

Boyle said, ‘If Reason and Faith are in contradiction, reexamine your Faith’. Note he didn’t say discard your Faith, but try to see how the apparent contradiction can be alleviated by closer examination of the roots of your beliefs.

Science is preoccupied with the How; Religion with the Why. When Science tries to say Why, or when Religion tries to say How, this is when bitter conflicts arise.

12

My response is that Science doesn’t even TRY to say why, but religiosos constantly try to say how AND why.
Science is taking ALL the evidence (while constantly updating) and coming to the most plausible conclusion.
Creation Science is making the conclusion, then gathering ONLY the information that fits the conclusion.
As far as historical accuracy goes, the bible is at best a collection of facts and fables collected from older manuscripts from other civilizations and religions, and crudely reworded to follow a certain belief system.

“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Hunter Thompson

13

In response to furt –

  1. I will agree that there is no witnessed evidence to human evolution. The only thing that we have to go by is archaeological evidence of humankind’s ancestors. However, since the advent of written history, there is evidence of Evolution, if only in less significant than monkeys-to-human ways. The white moth/grey moth incident tht was explained in another thread is one example.

  2. I am not doubting that the Bible may be an accurate record of events that did happen, but there are those (obviously not you) who believe that events portrayed in the Bible are exactly as they happened, and that the interpretation of why they happened is correct as well. I can believe the what, but not always the why

  3. As for science and religion not coexisting, what about Galileo? Anybody who claimed that the Earth was not the center of the universe was denounced as a heretic. At that time, it would be easier for a scientist to still be a believer than it would be acceptible for a Christian to believe in science.

  4. Yes, I do want it both ways…i was a political science major after all :wink:
    Seriously though, i’ll try to explain away my dichotomy. God, in my mind, is something that cannot, and should not, be proven to exist. The Deus Ex Machina/Man Behind the Curtain should stay where they are. I personally feel that something had to get the evolutionary ball rolling. Which, in a sense, could make me a creationist (i can feel the flames now). The difference between believing in God and believing in Creationsim is that with God, there really is no evidence other than personal belief. Sure, we have everything around us, but what else is there? Any logical statement that can be made to prove God exists can be refuted with a negative, and neither can honestly be proven true (see Thomas Aquinas and Aldous Huxley). Creationism, on the other hand, does have evidence against it. However, i don’t feel that humankind now is the same as humankind always has been. According to some recent study, humans are getting fatter. Obviously its because we don’t do as much manual labor (on the average) as we used to. Isn’t this in its own small way an evolutionary process???

To your point about the Bible. OK, so maybe i was talking a little bit out of my area of expertise (i prefer modern military history myself). However, i still feel that my point about different versions of the Bible is valid. For example, ever see a movie that was taken from a book (or vice versa) and see that things were slightly different between the director’s interpretation, the writer’s interpretation, and your interpretation? Its all about relativity (which is also a great cop-out :wink:

And also, if many Christians feel the way you do, why is there such a backlash against Darwin and Evolution on their part? Maybe its just the part of the country i live in, but there are still those (a vocal minority, granted, but still being heard) that believe that Creationism should still be taught in public schools.

Like Elijah was saying, ther really isnt that much of a contradiction between Science and Religion, its just that i can’t understand why more people don’t see it that way.

I guess i just get frustrated by the “unenlightened” who prefer to take the Bible word-for-word as fact, rather than allegory. Of course, this really is the wrong place to try and fight ignorance in.

too many enlightened people here (which is why i come)

shiner bock

“Now its over, I’m dead and I haven’t done anything that I want, or I’m still alive and there’s nothing I want to do.” – They Might Be Giants

14

SB, we’d better be careful, we’re being civil, and this is the internet after all. We’d better start making personal attacks.

  1. Agree, no problem.

  2. I AM one of those people. I believe the bible to be literally true and accurate, every durn word. However, “believing the bible literally” is often misunderstood. One example is when people miss the imoprtance of intent. If someone asks what I did last night, I say “Bill and I had a couple of beers together,” that can be a true statement even if the actual number of beers was 3. I answered the question accurately. In the same manner, If the Bible says “Jesus fed 5000 people,” the point of the passage is that there were >about< 5000 people. If there were 5002, that’s beside the point.

The other common error is that people think a literal reading means excluding allegory. It doesn’t, of course, because Jesus says things like “I am the Door,” and nobody thinks he means he’s made of plate glass. The only question is which things are intended as allegory, and which are written as history. Some things–the miracles of christ, for instance–are presented as historical events that really happened, and one must accept or reject them on that basis (I accept them). Psalms, on the other hand is poetry, and should be read as such–containing spiritual truths, and not meant to be taken as history.

Of course, some things are somewhat unclear as to whether or not they are allegory, and some Christians disagree. Job, Jonah, and Creation are examples of this.

This is not “my” take on this, BTW, this is literal interpretation as it is taught in conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist seminaries (I know, I went). If someone tells you that they believe the earth is stationary because the Bible says “The sun rose,” tell them to talk to their pastor.

  1. Galelio: No question, the church pulled a rock on this one. Dead flat wrong. Of course, science has pulled a few too–remember Piltdown Man? Everybody who was anybody in paleontology was saying this was the missing link, the last nail in the creationist coffin. Then it turned out to be a pig. We all make mistakes…

  2. Again we agree. The question of God’s existence is not a scientific one.

I can think of at least 3 reasons for the current perception that Science and religion are opposed. First, Christians way overreacted to Darwin. (As did many people) Nobody knew what to make of it, it scared the crap out of them to think of Humans and apes were cousins, and it upset everyone’s preconcieved ideas. (much like galileo) It took them awhile to figure out that “Y’know, this doesn’t >necessarily< go against the Bible.” People often believe what they want to believe, and they put words into other people’s mouths to back them up. God’s is a handy mouth to put words in.

Secondly, there was, and is, the idea loose that a literal 144-hour creation is essential to Christianity. It isn’t.

Thirdly, a number of prominent Scientists have been quite aggressively hostile to Christianity. Steven Jay Gould is one currently, There were others in the early 20th century. Understandably, this poisoned the waters a bit.

It should be noted, finally, that almost all of the people who see a conflict are working in evolutionary biology. Many mathmeticians, physicists, and especially astronomers talk about “design” in the universe and the “Miracle” of the big bang, etc.

15

furt
Member posted 04-30-99 01:12 PM

Furt, there’s this thing called Provenance. Not Providence, “provenance.” Scan the dictionary for a concise definition.

What it boils down to is that one accepts a certain story as reliable based on the reliablity of the person who told it to you, and on the reliability of the person who told it to him, etc.

In Islam, this procedure created the Hadith which is an explanation of the origins of their practices, not the origin of their religion.

A key point is that a Hadith is not considered valid if there’s a gap in the telling, such as “John heard it said that Jack told Jill and then Jill told Harry who then told Sally who then told me.”

A valid Hadith would be “John heard Jack tell Jill and then Jill told Harry who then told Sally who then told me.”

Now what’s the “Hadith” for creationism? None. Thanks for the quick answer.

The “Hadith” for history, especially current history, is pretty well obvious. And, yes, I do realize that those facts can be skewed to different agendas. But at least they get reported.

16

Anyone interested in this topic will find Megabites of similar meusings here:
http://www.nitcentral.com/discus/
under the catagory the kitchen sink/5 most recent/eating a jeep. Its a discussion similsr to this thats been going on for 6 months now. Check it out, but it’ll probobly take you about 10 hours to read the religious musings section that is the whole discussion. Eating a jeep proper is a new discussion about the nature of belief/religion/etc… The above terms will makwe sense when you get there

17

Lets try that again
www.nitcentral.com/discus/

18

furt – i accept your challenge to resort to personal attacks…

you rational christian, you!!!

aaahhhhh…flaming at its best.

at least we don’t resort to “the freemasons are poisoning the wells”

shiner bock

“Now its over, I’m dead and I haven’t done anything that I want, or I’m still alive and there’s nothing I want to do.” – They Might Be Giants

19

Monty–

Again, I turn the question around: what’s the Hadith for evolution? “None. Thanks for the quick answer.”

They are both questions for which we do not have eyewitnesses, nor even scientific information in the strict sense of the word (observable and duplicatable). What we have are a bunch of rocks and fossils that our current science tells us are millions of years old. But as I noted, science has made plenty of mistakes, and has often done 180 degree shifts in its explanations of things.

Creationists have a document, with, yes, an unbroken provenance (and, yes I know what it means, let’s not condescend) going back thousands of years that has been proven to be a reliable historical record again and again by archaeology.

That doesn’t mean it must be believed, but given that we do not have an eyewitness account, intellectual honesty requires that it not be dismissed out of hand. If my grandma says she saw a UFO, I might be a bit skeptical, but I’d also remind myself that she’s an intellegent, stable person who’s never lied to me before.

It comes down to who you choose to believe. And that, amigos, is faith. Whether it’s the Bible or Steven Jay Gould, you’re picking who you want to trust. Most people understand this instinctively, except for those who are determined to believe that reason and logic alone will save us all. Of course, rationalism itself is a faith. We have no a priori reason for believing that our reasoning is accurate. David Hume, brains in glass jars, etc, etc.
Again, let me reiterate, creationism is NOT Christianity. There are many, many, many who are one without the other. Heck, the Pope accepts evolution as compatible with the Bible’s creation account. I personally am undecided, and if you took me back in a time machine to see the primiordial gook, it wouldn’t necessarily affect my faith. If the time machine showed me that Christ didn’t rise from the dead, then my faith would be ruined–just as Paul said in Corinthians. But evolution? No big deal.

20

Then

No. No. No. No. No!

The (RC) Church did not simply condemn Galileo out of hand for publicly proposing the heliocentric theory. Galileo received support and encouragement from two popes to pursue his studies. He got in trouble with the Inquisistion when he insisted that several of his views be taken as corrections to Scripture. This despite the fact that his own science was wrong. He declared that heliocentrism was “proved” at a time when the Church was willing to accept it as a better hypothesis than the terra-centric theory of Ptolemy–yet it was not proved at that time, requiring another 150 or so years before improved telescopes could discern a stellar parallax. He also insisted that the planets’ orbits were perfect circles about the sun–a point which his contemporaries knew to be false.
When Galileo was hauled up in front to the Inquisition, he was let off. Twenty years later when he got hauled up again, a letter was “discovered” in the original case records that ordered him to be silent on the subject. There is some evidence that this letter was a forgery planted by one of the many enemies he made with his frequent harsh personal attacks. It was on the basis of his obvious violation of this (now suspicious) letter that he was put under house arrest.
The Church never condemned the heliocentric theory. The enraged court that convicted him did use a phrase refering to his “heresy” of heliocentrism–but they had gone overboard in their anger because heliocentrism has never been a heresy and has been supported by Catholic scholars since Galileo first made his theories known.

On the other side:

Piltdown man was recognized as and condemned as a fraud (or a terrible error) from its initial “discovery.” It was never cpmpletely accepted by the scientific community. Its loudest champions got it into the popular press, but it was never given the stamp of approval by the paeontological or anthropological communities.

Piltdown man–as with the trial of Galileo–has a whole lot more to do with substituting popular mythology for facts than with understanding actual events.

(BTW, I hope that the reference to “pig” regarding the Piltdown man was a shortening of “pig in a poke” or something similar. I hope none of our more impressionable readers took that to mean an actual pig–the hoax was done by marrying human and ape bones.)

Tom~