Are there many (educated) people out there that are strong believing creationists and insist that Adam and Eve was the only way we were brought unto this planet?
Just a bit of show of hands out there and maybe a gentle arguement for those who are and think they want to change my point of view.
Not in my forum!
Let’s move this to Great Debates.
Short answer. There are many educated creationists. There are many more educated evolutionists.
Has anyone seen a creationist argument that isn’t, “Evolution is wrong.”?? I mean, I’ve read lots of arguments between creationists and evolutionists, but invariably the creationists never have a pro-creationism argument! Is there one?
in my experience, pretty much every creationist argument (we’re talking young-earth stuff mostly) boils down to a critique of evolutionary theory. either that, or it relies on facts that have been debunked for years but are still circulated by the more famous creationist speakers like Duane Gish and Kent Hovind.
i’d refer you to www.talkorigins.org for a good breakdown of a lot of the issues involved. i’d go on, but i have a very visceral reaction to many creationist tactics in regards to debate and education, and i’d like to keep this civil if i can.
I know of several ‘educated’ people that believe in creationism, and i am always a bit surprised. they are from all levels of education- i know of doctors that deny evolution, even though much of modern biology, virology, etc. use evolutionary theory as a cornerstone.
i can’t say that i understand it, myself. but i was raised Catholic in NYC…now that I live in Arkansas, the issue has taken on a lot more immediate concern - mostly because i worry about my kids’ eduation- my middle boy wants to be a zoologist and i worry about the quality of his science education.
There are “educated” people who sincerely believe the world is flat. Enough said.
There are some gentle Christians who believe that God suffuses us all with life, and that guardian angels watch over us to guide our steps from sin. Some believe that God caused life to come into being in the Garden of Eden.
These are perfectly reasonable religious beliefs.
They aren’t scientific, that’s all.
Creationism, per se, is a religious tenet.
“Scientific Creationism” is (to quote a young friend) an ox-headed moron.
Trinopus
Out of curiousity, are there any Creationists who don’t enthusiastically embrace the Judeo-Christian idea of a Creator? I mean, all the Creationists I’ve heard from inevitably throw out the Bible as a cite for their views – are there any Creationists who believe that the universe was created from a lotus sprouting from the navel of Vishnu, or that the Earth was created from the various parts of the cosmic corpse of Pan Gu?
I would count myself as someone who believes that the universe was intelligently designed to accomidate life. I have no strong feelings on the exact methods involved in that life coming about. I wish I could find a better website, but this will have to do.
http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml
and in particular
The gist is that there are a multitude of physical constants (force constants and the like) where pertebations could result in wildly varying universes (i.e. all hydrogen universe, etc). Most changes would result in a universe where no life remotely resembling the life we understand could exist. The implication drawn is that the constants were carefully set by something that knew what it was doing. I suppose you could say that the only reason we are around to ask these questions is because the constants happened to fall as they did. This response is personally unsatisfying.
I am working on a PhD in engineering and know several engineering professors who share my view on the origin of the universe. Views on the origins of life seem more varied. Personally I have no problem with speciation; I am skeptical of the more broad “goo to human” forms of macroevolution. I am not a biologist or a physicist though, so I rarely think about it.
Yes creationists (biblical literalists/ IDer’s) can be educated, they can even be educated in biology-although I don’t think you will find many YEC/IDer who have Ph.D’s in evolutionary biology…
Have I got this straight? Creationists think that man began with Adam and Eve a few thousands years back. Evolutionists think that an ape-man accidentally spawned a modern-man about 10,000 years ago.
Does anyone think that both doctrines are ignoring the evidence? There have been archeological finds that put man on Earth millions of years ago.
Why don’t we all have an argument about whether the Earth is flat or pyramid-shaped?
To assume that they were set, and especially to assume that they are indepedantly determined, assumes far too much. In fact, it’s almost backwards: we shouldn’t be thinking of regularities as “laws” and then mix our metaphors and think that means they are “set” as if by some command.
No, you don’t have it straight. Evolution says nothing of the kind.
I am quite fond of a variety of “many worlds” interpretations of physics. For instance, in the “Expansionary Phase” refinement of the Big Bang, you might end up with domains in which physical laws vary slightly, each domain causally isolated from all others.
Another idea that’s being kicked around is that every singularity in a universe pinches off to become a Big Bang for another “daughter” universe. In such a case, the laws of physics in that daughter might be different from those in the parent. (They might simply be random, or they might actually be derived from the parent – universes themselves might be evolving!)
If either of these notions is true, then the Weak Anthropic Principle kicks in: we happen to exist in a universe where the laws of physics are sufficient to allow us to exist. There might be an awful lot of barren universes out there.
If you accept the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum physics, it becomes even easier – we just happen to live in that universe where things worked out well for us.
This leads to the “Ultimate Anthropic Principle,” indistinguishable from solipsism, in which YOU live in a universe that exists solely to support your unique personal point of view. (As do I, as does everyone else…)
(e.g., in 99.9% of all the “pasts” the we here share, the Cuban Missile Crisis got out of hand and the missiles flew. But those “pasts” are of no use to us: we don’t exist in them! So our own history accomodates that “bottleneck” as a miraculous escape from the death of civilization!)
Trinopus
p.s. I ain’t saying I actually believe any o’ this!
There’s a great quote along the lines of a puddle thinking the depression in the soil was custom-made for the puddle, because it fits so precisely. Too bad I can’t remember who said it!
But the essence is you’re thinking of this backwards. It isn’t that the parameters were tweaked to fit us, or life on earth in general; it’s that we have been tweaked to fit the parameters.
The most popular creationist argument goes like this: Oh those scientists don’t know what they are talking about they can’t even predict the weather from day to day. If they would only open a bible they would find all the facts they need to know.
I vaguely understand the “many worlds” interpretation of physics. It is interesting, but I wonder if there is any more evidence for it than there is for the existence of an intelligent creator. Is the “many worlds” interpretation a bogey man to scare off the necessity of God? I should probably check into that thread to learn more about it and the empirical evidence that supports it.
This isn’t quite right, as the parameters we are speaking of, if slightly different, would not accomidate life in any form remotely resembling what we know. You could say that spectrum of electromagnetism that we can visualize is what it is because of the color sun we have; that would be an example of what you are saying. If the universe is suddenly all hydrogen and no heavier elements, any life has a problem.
I realize that if you believe in infinite universes, anything is possible. I understand that you could say we lucked out that the universe happened as it did and we wouldn’t be around to ask questions otherwise. For me, the existance of an intelligent creator is more plausible than either of those explanations. For the record, I take issue with the young-earthers as well. I don’t think they have a leg to stand on.
As my mother once said - “Maybe God created evolution.” That was when my dear aunt decided that we were all hopeless heathens and gave up on us.
Just read the latest issue of Scientific American.
Man, i leave for school and theres about 10 new posts!
Well… this thread didn’t attract too many creationists did it?
Or is it just that there is a lack of them here (SDMB) because, most people in this message board a) have read straight dope articles which is what brought them to the MB and b) they aren’t ignorant.
Am i not correct? I may be acting a bit rude but its the truth.