Creationism v. Evolution

The BBQ Pit
41

quote:

I probably had the wrong reference with the piltdown man thing, but the point remains; Science regulary finds that what was once settled “fact” turns out not to be true at all. This does not mean that science is bad or invalid, but just that its a little silly to think that we’ve got it all figured out and our current scientific models are waterproof.

This illustrates an interesting point. Many scientists believed strongly in the Piltdown man. Too strongly, one might say. However, once the dis-proof was discovered (it was correctly identified as a human/monkey bastard) it was quickly dropped. Does this illustrate the infallibility of Science? The folly of Science? No. But it does illustrate that once disproof of a theory/hypothesis is discovered, science, maybe a little slowly, will admit it’s wrong and move on.

Let us contrast this with the folks who still believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Despite centuries of evidence of the ancient age of the Earth, this belief still persists. There are still those who believe that the Earth is flat or hollow. I don’t need to explain the evidence against these gems.

It’s been a couple of hundred of years that the theory of evolution has been around (the idea did not start with Darwin, he simply refined it) and yet nobody has yet to uncover ANY evidence against, and this smoking gun doesn’t seem to be coming soon. If things didn’t evolve, the world was certainly built as if they did.

And lets put this absurd “rational thinking breeds killers” idea to rest. Do we forget David Korresh/Jim Jones/that bald cult guy in California (the internet sneakers guys).

Let me also say: Evolution and Religion are not mutually exclusive. Where do these ideas come from.

42

Creationism vs. Evolution? Man!

All I have to say is, posting to talk.origins about Creationism is just like posting to sci.lang about the Tower of Babel.

(talk.origins was just an example.)

“If A=B, B=C, and C=D, do not get a job proofreading” --Quid’s Theorem

43

hmmm

I have to admit, that my trying to flame is not a very good idea. L Sorry if I was rough (and I realize I was overly so, for my own standards if for none others)…

As for the citations, it seems the interpretations along with the rest of the passage have already been left up in the air as to what side you wish to take (no prospect of resolution or understanding I don’t believe). And to tell you the truth, I was in the midst of doing something I knew to be wrong (and I apologize) which was singing out dogma and such. To be entirely truthful, my own interpretations of the bible and of the world around me, is not going to change any one else’s ideas or interpretations. And I dare say, I’d only be shouting in the wind (I mean… that IS what flaming is isn’t it?). So, I do hope, no one finds this cowardly, but I will take my own post and run with my tail between my legs for cover. I’m not about to change anyone’s mind, and I dare say, I hate to simply shout and not expect to understand or be understood. Thank you though, for entertaining my ideas. I do intend to continue to read, this is an amazingly interesting string. But I think I’ll keep this mouth of mine shut and hope for the best. Keep up the wonderful ideas guys. I have a lot of respect for the brave that are trudging head long into this conversation.

~Sara

Settle within the rushes and listen to the lark
Singing o’er hillock and dale.
Praise to the heavens and making his mark,
From atop our farthest fence rail.

44

Elijah,

Thanks.

Maury

45

SOMEBODY READ 2 Peter 3:8, or Psalm 90
GOD is so far above time it isn’t even funny!
I could try and do the math, 75 billon x 365/6 ‘days’ = well God’s days are obviously a Heck of a lot longer than our own, remember back in Moses day 75 billion, or however meny, years would be an uninmangionable number, but 7 days, well thats eazy to see.

A Creational-evolutionilist.

FireTiger
~Feel the Fire~

46

So let me get this straight.
God, who is infallable and omniscient, is said to have created the world in seven days.
He knows what we think of as days, but his definition means something entirely different. Using this logic, you could prove ANYTHING using the bible. Oh, that’s right. They do!

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

47

I see about 5 diffrent types of people, all a mix of the following, one letter, on how serious thhat person is about God’s creation of earth, and one number, for the person’s level of scientific acceptence of the Theroy of Evolution.

a) God is God and I take His words literaly.
b) The Bible is mostly true but the symbloys used can’t be taken literaly.
c) The Bible is a good book, full of stories that tell me how I should try to live.
d) The Bible has no implications now its not practical to me.
e) The Bible is full of rubbish. i am very scientific.

  1. Darwin is my god, I take his words as my law.
  2. Darwin’s theory is probally true, it does not clash with my religous beleifs at all.
  3. Darwin’s theroy could use work, I have trouble accepting it beacuse it clashes with my religion.
  4. Darwin’s theroy has no implications now it’s not relevent to me.
  5. Darwin was full of rubbish. I am very religous.

So who’s what, and can this stary over with this at the top?

And Slythe- I find that though there are ‘Christians’ who misuse God’s word, its not fair to say someone can prove anything with the Bible. In fact somethings can not be altered, see the Greatest Commandment, there are no loop-holes.

FireTiger
~Feel the Fire~

48

Short answer, NO. (partially because some of us don’t WANT to take this argument over again from the top.)
Longer answer, NO. (Partially because some of us don’t want to describe ourselves as fitting any of your categories).
Specific answer. I believe that the Bible is the uniquely inspired, authoritative word of God . I have been known to claim A, but then I get myself in trouble because I don’t REALLY believe everything should be interpreted literally. That doesn’t mean I’m B, because B says the Bible is “mostly true”, which implies that some might in fact be false, and I don’t like that implication.
And as for your numbers, well, I have a hard time deciding where I belong. 3, 4, &5 all seem equally likely to truly describe me. I don’t care to describe myself as very religious, Darwin’s theory makes no sense to me in practice, and since I believe the earth was created in 6 24-hour days, what does evolution have to do with me, anyway?

49

[[I see about 5 diffrent types of people, all a mix of the following, one letter, on how serious thhat person is about God’s creation of earth, and one number, for the person’s level of scientific acceptence of the Theroy of Evolution.
…

1)Darwin is my god, I take his words as my law.
2)Darwin’s theory is probally true, it does not clash with my religous beleifs at all.
3)Darwin’s theroy could use work, I have trouble accepting it beacuse it clashes with my religion.
4)Darwin’s theroy has no implications now it’s not relevent to me.
5)Darwin was full of rubbish. I am very religous.]]
This list, particularly number 1, reveals serious ignorance about science and evolution.

50

Hm… Not exactly.
If I’m not sadly mistaken, the original Hebrew word used here is “yom,” and literally means, “an expanse of time.” I believe it was the King James scholars who opted some 3000 years later to render it as “day.” Interestingly, the very same word is used in a variety of fashions throughout the Old Testament.

Very specifically:
“…until the fourteenth “yom” of the same month” (Ex. 12:6)

A little more generally:
“In God we boast all the “yom” long.” (Ps. 44:8)

And deliberately signifying an “age” or “era”:
“Your people shall be volunteers in the “yom” of Your power” (Ps. 110:3)

Even the second chapter of Genesis uses the word in what is an obvious intentional reference to more than one literal day, when it says, “This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the “yom” that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” (Gen. 2:4) Since the chapter before this one details creation as being a “6 yom” process (or at least 2, if you want to interpret “earth” and “heavens” more literally) it’s fairly clear that “yom” is, at least in this passage, something OTHER than 24 hours.

Out of respect to the creationist who believe in a more literal, 24 hour interpretation, I feel compelled to add that there certainly are some Biblical arguments that would seem at first glance to support their theory. For one thing, translating it as “era” or “age” would make it the only reference in the Bible where the word “yom,” accompanied by a qualifying numeral (or an ordinal, in this case) did not mean a literal, 24 hour day. Furthermore, we are told, “…He spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” (Ps. 33:9), the language of which certainly would seem to lend itself to a “quick” creation process.

I believe the creationist who does NOT accept the notion of a literal 24 hour day would counter that the ordinals accompanying the word “yom” in this case differ from the others in that they represent positions within a series, rather than days marked against a calendar (the “fourth yom” is different than the “fourth yom of September,” in their view). Furthermore, they would contend, the passage in Psalms doesn’t necessarily HAVE to mean things happened quickly, any more than “I gave the order to build a bridge and it was carried out” means that it necessarily happened in the twinkling of an eye.

I’ll confess to being somewhat apprehensive about posting in a forum specifically designated for venting, rather than seeking to reach understanding; for it truly is not my intent to “flame” anyone, on either side of the argument. There is so much we stand to learn from one another - Science, grounded in the principles of reason and logic and so carefully analytical in its quest for the truth; and religion, guided by precepts of faith and hope, and often zealously dogmatic in its.

Still, there is room within each of us for both heart and head, emotion and intellect, mind and spirit. Perhaps what we ought to seek is the understanding that leads to balance.

51

Let’s try balance, o.k.?
On one side we have Science, which is a never-ending quest to find out what is what, willing to examine all evidence without regard to the source, as long as verification is possible.
On the other side we have Creationism, which is a pre-determined answer, accepting only the evidence that follows the dogma, and believing that others who look elsewhere for answers are doomed to eternal damnation.
Would someone kindly tell me where the “middle” is where we are supposed to meet?

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

52

Slythe~

S I have a wonderful place in the middle to meet.

We, don’t have the ability to understand even half of what we look at with our scientific principles and ideas. We try to define a universe that is beyond comprehension. But, I believe, it is our nature to try and define our reality. It is a quest that we, as a species, have been attempting for centuries and longer. We “know” as well as we can, according to the information that we are able to gather at this moment in time, until new information is gathered and offered to us to digest and shift our system to accomodate. Therefore, we don’t understand what science is trying to make understandable.

We can’t comprehend God. I mean, really. I’ve been under the impression that if we took some understanding of God from every person who ever lived and put it all together, we might get to touch the top of the iceberg. We can’t understand how powerful love is, we can’t understand how a God who would make a universe we can’t comprehend, would exist…let alone be bothered with US… or how we might be judged according to our hearts… or how there could be a means of making us perfect… or how we might be loved despite ANYthing we’ve done wrong… or a million other things to sit and think on and never truly understand. L Hey! Guess, they are both mysteries to be delved into as best as we can with our incredibly limited view of the world.

How about, a middle ground of we don’t understand either one? We can try. And how about; there are things in the universe and beyond that our minds could never come close to comprehending. Let’s meet on the “grounds of wonder”. It’s a wonderful place to stand really… because you never really do have any answers and you always have something to share. :0) We can enjoy our discussions, have fun with our debates… and figure that everyone is right in a small way. And most of us are wrong. g Kinda cuts the pride out of ya and puts ya into a more open frame of mind.

Settle within the rushes and listen to the lark
Singing o’er hillock and dale.
Praise to the heavens and making his mark,
From atop our farthest fence rail.

53

So I should pretend that we don’t know anything for certain.
Going down that path is very dangerous, because if that is the reason to abandon science and believe in god, it is also a reason to abandon god and believe in Santa Claus, or Shiva, or Scientology. Blind faith in place of reason? I’ll tell you what-Why don’t all you christians use faith instead of science and see how far you get. They tried it out here in Oregon, and we have a cemetary full of dead children whose parents believed that god, not science, would cure their sick children.
Through science, things are found out. Through religion, people are ripped off, lives are lost, and ignorance is fostered.

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

54

Hmm… well. No, actually I don’t believe that is what I said Slythe. :0)

I said that we might try to consider that things are a bit grander than we could ever suppose. That there is always something to learn about the universe around us. That an answer is only a stop in the long continuum of truth, not the actual truth. Scientific answers are not a means to an end, but a journey unto themselves. That I think, that we can approach both religion AND science with this undestanding of our limited view and the humble comprehension that we are all really time limited, physically limited, and often wrong creatures. It adds a bit of wonder to our discoveries and a bit of … dare I say, a bit of humility to our “answers”.
As far as the faith healing Slythe, I’m not saying that many people have made even many more mistakes. However, how about the Syphillus project? There’s a nice graveyard for fourty years of human research there in the name of science. Good people who trusted a doctor and clinic created for their health. (Never heard of it? Let me see if I can site a bit on it here. It is called the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment [you can also site the Monyihan Report and a million others on the crime of using science for one person’s own agenda… one of the more modern and better known of these is the “Bell Curve” which has been used and still is being used, to discriminate against a multitude of races not to mention the african american and the hispanic inter-cultures] "The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment is perhaps the most notorious study on African Americans conducted in the United States. The stated purpose of the federally funded study was to document the untreated course of syphillis in African Americans. …consisted of 400 sharecroppers who were both poor and illiterate. Although penicillin was used to treat syphilllis [at the time], researchers deliberately failed to inform respondents…neglected to provide [penicillin]…researchers monitored the untreated respondents for 40 years (1932-1972) under the DISGUISE OF A PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE… " etc etc. ~sited Cochran, Donna L. ‘African American Fathers Focus on the Family: A group approach to increasing visibility in research’. Social Work with Groups. Volume 20(3) 1997~) There are plenty of mistakes on the side of humans practicing religion and there are plenty of mistakes on the side of humans practicing science. Neither side (if there are really sides in the true extent of things) is proof against it. It’s human nature to harm and make mistakes that harm. But we are talking not about what humans have done in the “name of God” or in the “name of science”… we are talking about religion and science.
My dear sir(?), it is my firm belief, that there are answers or vignettes of truth so to speak, in both religion AND science. I think the two may base the majority of their focus in two different sections of logic and thought. And I also think that there is greater overlap than many of us know, or understand. I can’t speak for creationists or physists… I’m neither and know little in either section. I will not pretend to understand dogma or string theory. And I’m sure that there is a middle ground. If not in the findings, then in the attitude of discovery. That, with a manner of approach that takes into account the fact we are often simply children in a world that is more complex and amazing and beautiful, than we could ever even BEGIN to understand, could be our middle ground. There’s a childish heart in that. And I think, that we can pass over difficulty and disagreement with more open minds (as I’ve said before) if we chose to approach our discoveries with the view of our limitations and the acceptance of possibilities beyond our imaginations.

Growing old is manditory. Growing wise is optional.

55

I believe the childishness is in the thought that, because there are two sides to an issue , both sides have equal validity. Round Earth vs. Flat Earth, anti seat belts vs. pro seat belts, and so on.
Once the people involved in the syphilis case found out about it, they were outraged and wanted justice from the government that deceived them. The members of that Oregon church, and other religious organizations, still dispute all the facts and protect their leaders and their faith.
As stated before, when science encounters mistakes in the system, other scientists will try to correct the mistake. Not so with religionists.
By the way, the problem with the syphilis program was not the science, it was the government, which at most times is run LIKE a religion, which explains the coverups and the inability to admit to and correct mistakes.

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

56

I’m hardly qualified to be an arbitrator for such matters, I’m afraid… and so much has to do with the willingness of the participants on either side of the argument to listen rationally to the other - and with an open mind.

Creationists - and Christian’s in general - ought not be so afraid of science; If there is a God, He is surely more than able to survive the scrutiny of His own creation. Although science is never going to conclusively prove His existance (what need would there be for “faith” if that were true?) neither is it likely to conclusively disprove it. The Bible indicates that man was to “have dominion” over the earth, and a very large part of that MUST come from understanding it in all it’s intricacies, and the best path toward that understanding is science. As Slythe said,

Surely God intended both? Just as the scientist re-examines his theories, and refines them in the face of new discoveries, so should the Christian be willing to re-examine his understanding of the tenets of his religion. The truth may well be that it is not the teachings of the Bible that is in question, here… but rather the limited way in which they are understood by fallible human beings.

Perhaps it could also be said that scientists - and evolutionists in general - ought not presuppose the non-existance of a controlling force behind the theories they develop; nor should they be so quick to proclaim as “fact” the conclusions they draw on the basis of the facts they do uncover. What I “deduce” based on the evidence I discover should not always be given the same scientific weight as the evidence itself; and in truth, I think, it is the deduction, not the evidence, that is typically rejected by the creationist (though I find myself sadly compelled to admit there are certainly pockets of “Christians” who reject BOTH out of hand).

Yes, Slythe, I’m sure there are graveyards full of dead children as a result of misguided faith. History is replete with examples of atrocities committed in the name of God - hatred and intolerance, hypocracy and ignorance, prejudice and all manner of scandal have been performed under the guise of “Christianity” or “religion.” I cannot begin to tell you how it saddens me to be collectively assimilated by stereotypical association into such a group. I can offer no defence for such misdeeds, except to say that they were often performed by leaders who saw religion as nothing more than a tool to their own ends, twisting it’s precepts and stirring up the hearts and passions of people too lazy, too sheep-like, or too ignorant to think for themselves. This is hardly a cultural phenomenon limited to Christianity, though… it manifests itself in nationalism, ethnic discontent, politics, trade unions, and yes, even science. It amazes me how often the Bible is both supported and condemmed by those who’ve never troubled themselves to try and understand it.

I’ll have to respectfully disagree. “Religionists” try to “correct” one another’s “mistakes” all the time! You’ve only to listen to the way the Baptist’s knock the Catholics who are outspoken against the Protestants who attack the Pentocostals to get a flavor of how far they’ll go. :wink:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-(o)-<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Life is a tapestry.
Each new day brings with it the opportunity to sew by
word and deed within the heart of someone around us.
Let us choose our colors with care.

57

Slythe: L I think, that Jonathon David has stated it perfectly. And if I can add a few things? I am not sure if ALL scientists try to reverse the atrocities of one another (as Jonathon David said within the religious context I would like to expand into the scientific region). The other two studies I cited (the Moynihan and Bell Curve Reports) are still often used to maintain prejudiced views against those not in the majority. Many scientists still believe that there is a “pathology” to an African American family (the Moynihan Report… Dodson, J (1988) Conceptualizations of Black Families (Ed.) pp.77-91)) And in my own research, I’ve been finding a multitude of those who refuse to believe that research done with the blatant disregard for the character and provisions of good scientific research, is refutable by concientious research by other scientists. Slythe, I agree. There are people on both sides that refuse to let go of the prejudices and false (and at times, harmful) judgements of their peers. However, I think it might be an overgeneralization to say that all christians do not put any stock in science. Some of the best and most competant scientists I know are christians. There must be a middle ground then. That is, for these professionals to work both with responsibility to their subjects and clients, and with a desire to discover other aspects of their studies they may have missed prior to the time through either human falliacy or through sensitivity of instruments.

:slight_smile: I really am not trying to say that the church you speak of in OR. is correct in not allowing their children to be healed with the advances we have made in modern medicine. Please, don’t misunderstand me. I think that is a tragedy that their children have died. I think there is tragedy any time we, as humans, refuse to see the other side and the benefits of it.

Perhaps the reason I am so intent of speaking of a middle ground sir, is that I am highly interested in science. I also am amazed at how I can have a glimpse into the complexity of the world, the universe, and the rest of God’s creation through science. Perhaps then, I have found the middle ground already? However, my middle ground can always be improved upon. And I must admit, I have an interest in what new insights you might have added to the balance of a personal relationship with God and a personal amazement in the wonders of science.

Growing old is manditory. Growing wise is optional.

58

S I stated one thing wrong as I read over my post that I would like to restate. David, you didn’t say that relgious groups fail at times to stop one another. You said the same thing from the other direction. w That relgious groups DO often times, try to stop one another. I apologize for paraphrasing you incorrectly.

Growing old is manditory. Growing wise is optional.

59

You guys are all too nice to be here in the BBQ Pit! If you’re not careful, Lynn’ll be in here with her knives chasing you out! <g>

Seriously, it’s nice to see a (reasonably) civil discussion of these issues. I appreciated reading . . . most . . . of it.

-Melin

I’m a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That’s me
(Maya Angelou)

60

Merlin:

:slight_smile: Why thank you very much. L maybe it is the wrong place to be having this discussion (in this manner L)… but it’s an interesting discussion no matter where it takes place I would suppose?

Growing old is manditory. Growing wise is optional.