I don’t mean to be prejudice against religous fanatics here, but growing up all my life without learning about the religious aspect of creationism, I tend to lean towards evolution. It just makes more sense to me.
Here’s how I see things. Studies and researches and numerous intelligent scientists have proven the earth existed for billions of years. Fossils that look like ancestors of present organisms have been found. Survival of the fittest have been tested over and over again with positive results.
Let’s just for a second, imagine that evolution is “wrong”. First off, Charles Darwin would get a swift kick in the bum [his skeletal pelvis, that is]. Then, what about all the other theories that have been based on evolutionism? The cell theory [which states that all cells originate from other cells] will be wiped away. That also means the other aspect of the cell theory [cells are capable of replicating themselves] is not true. This then means we can’t have cells die off in our body and allow them to be replaced in our body. That is just the beginning. What about genetics? What about medical science? What about sex for reproduction?!
Now, moving onto creationism. As I have said, I have not researched this in detail, so from what the religious fanatics I have spoken to have said, I know it as this. god created adam and eve and put them in the garden of eden. They had sex and it was a sin. So god kicked them out and they have children and these children bred [with each other? :eek: ] and so we are all related to each other and we are one.
So, to me, evolution is the one that is plausible. If I have gotten any information wrong on creationism, do tell me of them because as I have said, I’m somewhat ignorant of the subject. I just know the basis of it.
So, as this is the debate forum, what are your thoughts? Which one do you believe in? Which one is more plausible?
While I agree that evolution is far more plausible than genesis on the evidence, I’m not sure all of your reasoning makes sense. I mean, if evolution were knocked down, theories that came out of the study of evolution would not necessarily be knocked down as well. Cell theory, for instance, wouldn’t suffer in the way you seem to be implying. The proof of that theory rests on other things than just evolution. Historically, we cannot imagine cell theory without evolution leading us to it, but that’s not the same thing as saying that it stands or falls with evolution.
First of all, referring to it as evolutionism seems to bring it down to the level of creationism. I believe just evolution is the proper terminology.
If evolution is to be called into question, then why not astronomy, chemistry, physics, geology, mathematics etc ? Should we offer alternative Biblical explanations for ALL other natural phenomena ? To me it seems evolution really sticks in the craw of fundamentalists because it seems to take away from God’s realm of responsibilities. I haven’t heard Jerry Falwell complain about the anti-Christian secular humanist explanations for stellar parallax, Snell’s Law, Boyle’s Law, etc. I think this “argument” made by fundamentalists is based solely on emotion rather than on reason.
I’ll be picky and say I don’t like the term “evolutionism.” It’s not a belief and doesn’t tend to come with all kinds of moral and religious values attached, unlike creationism. It’s also based on science (and everything tied into that), not belief.
I’m aware creationists will disagree with this last, but ask me if I care.
As evolution does not (IIRC) require, at the end, a certain sort of “::shrug:: it’s just what I believe”, attaching an “ism” to it as though it carried a following in the manner of some religions (viz creationism’s) is a bit inappropriate, IMO.
Well, I´m goign to say something not very related to the matter at hand, but…
I´ve read the Bible several times, and I talked to catholic people often in this matter (priest and religion teahcers).
Adam and Eve´s sin was not sex. The sin was eating from the tree of "knowledge of Good and Evil2. Say, their sin was to question what was Good or Bad (Moral thought). Establish what is good or bad is Gods prerrogative, and even to consider questioning it is a sin (the worst, seems).
By the way, I recently heard (in a documentary at national geographic) that all the actual human race descends froma single woman (maybe a common place for creationism and evolutionism). If it is so, we all are relatives… what a huge family I´ve got, phew!
7 up yours welcome aboard! You have relatively few posts and apparently relatively little knowledge of this board. Most of the people posting in GD are not “fanatics” religious or otherwise, and there are a sizeable group of people here that are both people of faith and believers in evolution. Read the informational links offered and do a search on past evolution threads. They are many that are huge and comprehensive.
There’s not really much of a debate here as you are preaching to the choir. If you wanted to defend creationism this would be a much more lively discussion.
“Creationism” as used in the sense in the OP is the doctrine that is based on the idea that the first few chapters of Genesis are to be read as historical accounts, talking snake and all, and that therefore anything that appears contradictory to them must be deceptive and evil. A prerequisite for the study is the course on straining out gnats while swallowing camels.
Most theists of varying stripes accept the idea that the best scientific explanations of how the world came to be must accord with what God actually did. They are therefore small-c creationists who accept evolution as an aspect of the explanation of how God (or a god or gods) created.
Finally, nobody in either camp who has paid any attention to the Scriptural text thinks that sex in and of itself is sinful. To be sure, within the context of a system of behavior founded on a right relationship to God and decent treatment for one’s fellow man, there are a wide assortment of possible sexual sins – since virtually everyone’s first experience of sexuality is in the nature of self-gratification (whether this be masturbation or just the need to get laid), developing a health adult sexuality that is founded on mutual pleasure as an integral part of a total relationship is key. But the last few verses of Genesis chapter one would militate against any concept of sex being related to the Fall – while A&E are still in the Garden and sinless, God’s told them to “be fruitful and multiply” and presumably He had a pretty good idea of how they were to go about doing that.
As I understand the Genetic Eve idea, although we are all descended from her, she is not the only female ancestor. She wasn’t the only breeding female at the time, or the only one whose children survived to reproduce themselves- there was a viable breeding population. It’s just coincidence that we trace back to her.
Geneticists are making all these interesting discoveries. For example, all of Europe can be traced back to seven women. That doesn’t mean that just seven women wandered onto the pennisula and started giving birth. These are just the seven whose DNA happened to survive. It’s similiar to how Henry VIII has no known descendents while Mary Queen of Scots has many.
I was actually thinking recentally. While Genesis does say that God created Adam and Eve, IIRC it doesn’t specify when. The first man and woman were created on day 4 (IIRC), then in chapter 2 Adam is created, then Eve. I was jut thinking that perhaps, the other two people (who were created on the same day) lived in Nod.
I’ve got a really cool pastor at church. He believes that God created the Universe. And that science can show us just a tiny little bit of what He put into it. (It would show us more, but it will be the work of our species’ lifetime to accomplish that; the most exciting thing about science is that we know so little about the universe that there is always something new and amazing to explore!) Evolution, therefore, is not a problem. God made the universe. And evolution occurs. What’s the quandry? I’ve never quite understood why there has to be a conflict between creationism and science. But then, I don’t really understand Biblical literalism either.
Well the idea is, if Genesis is allegorical, then why should you believe the rest of the bible.
Or at least that’s what certain Christians keep asserting. They are also the one’s who think that all of science is wrong and that there is a conspiracy afoot to keep secularism going strong.
Or something…
Im not really a creationist or an evolutionist…I tend to think it is a combination of both. That things evolve based on their enviroment is a well proven fact, not a theory. However, that by itself does not rule out creation. Why couldnt something be created to evolve? Why must it be one of the other?
If we are created wouldnt the creator make sure we could adapt and survive? Of course its all possible that maybe just humans were created, but the world was left to evolve. There are many holes in the chain of evolution, and plenty more in creationism…I think looking between them we can find the truth.
Anyone who doubts this should read Psalms very carefully.
Correct. There is actually a logical proof of the necessity of a universal common ancestor in any increasing population. In our case, this ancestor is Mitochondrial Eve, given that all our mitochondria (little organelles within our cells that have their own genetic code) ultimately come from her.
The important thing to realize, however, is not only that mEve was not the only woman alive in her day, but that the designation mEve is not eternally fixed. When mEve was alive, there was another mEve. And if certain individuals alive today died off, then there would be a new mEve. This is because mEve is simply: most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent.
Daniel Dennet’s proof of mEve is as follows:
You can make the exact same argument for a Y-chrome Adam.
These were, of course, absolutely terrible names to give to these two identities, because creationists immediately jump on the idea that this proves there was a Biblical Adam and Eve. But, in reality, our best guessing on identifying when the current holders of the mEve and yAdam titles lived puts them tens of thousand years apart.
And, of course, while scientists do real work, and have real debates about mEve, creationists sit around crowing about the fact that scientists are so often wrong (missing, of course, that this is the whole point of sceince) http://www.apologeticspress.org/inthenews/2003/itn-03-03.htm
This article is truly interesting, in that it presents many perfectly true facts about the mEve debate, but manages to spin them into some sort of insane conspiracy.
What, exactly, is this “chain of evolution” of which you speak? If you are referring to something similar to the “evolutionary ladder”, such is not representative of current theories.
