Evolution or Creation?

[seagreenbeetle]

the mice got out, too.

 

[Synastren]

You know, this is immensely interesting, given the related thread I'm about to make.

In any case, I'm currently in a Philosophy of Religion class, and we covered a similar topic tonight. I think that there needs to be a third option (at least) entitled "Intelligent Design," which has only been lightly touched upon in one of Mediocre Tangerine's posts. Essentially, the three break down like this:

• Evolution Theory - All of the species on the face of the planet Earth has come into being from a singular ancestor organism. This belief is completely compatable with theism, however, as it says nothing against there being someone who created the universe, etc.
• Intelligent Design Theory - Evolution is close to the truth, however, there are certain phenomena (ie: the jump from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms; irreducible complexity; creation of life itself) that defy an exclusive rigid Evolutionist (Neo-Darwinist) theory. As such, a supermind, or an intelligent designer gave evolution a "push" in the desired direction. This supermind is not named or specified in any way (so, it could be aliens or God, so to speak).
• Creation Theory - All of the universe and everything within it was created by a singular Creator (usually refered to as God or a collection thereof) exactly as it exists today.

It should also be noted that Cat Fuzz's literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian God creating the world and man in six days was not a view held until Darwin's theory of Evolution had come about. In essence, it was an overreaction. Indeed, no one in the Church (Catholic or Protestant or even Jewish) took that description as six twenty-four hour days (with exceptions to radical fundamentalists).

That said, each of these three major competing theories have something to offer. The first person to say "Evolution is proven" should kindly point me and the rest of the inquiring minds on this planet towards the missing links. This is not to say that adaption or the generation of new species due to genetic drift and such is not true, but that an overall theory of Evolution whereby the entirety of life on Earth was decended by the same organism. If anyone can completely prove the theory of Evolution decisively, then I'm sure a Nobel prize is forthcomming. Just as an aside, anyone who has studied this debate extensively should know that while a fairly strong theory, Evolution is not proven, but parts of it are. As a whole, it has a long way to go. Dieists, by the way, could easily believe this and their religious beliefs... and that's what the fathers of the US were. Not Christians.

Intelligent Design is an intriguing theory and has several people rooting for it, and it has increasing support in the biology fields, especially in microbiology. While Intelligent Design mostly agrees with Evolution, it attempts to show that the holes in Evolution could be filled by a helpful prod from a supermind of some sort. It should be noted that this view can be held by an athiest or agnostist. This theory is more popular than Creationism, but it is far from being as accepted as Evolution.

Creationism is usually looked on as a complete fallacy by the scientific community, if only because of it's "young Earth" component. Usually, the oldest that Creationists believe the Earth is, is around 100,000 years. Proponents of the other two theories usually estimate the Earth is well over 10 billion years (or 10,000,000,000 years). This theory usually is not as attractive unless one is religious. Indeed, only theists can believe this theory (not "theists" philosophically speaking, but that's another story).

Right now, Evolution is the most accepted theory, with Intelligent Design and Creationism following respectively. As for myself... I really don't know. I may have an idea by the end of the quarter, but I honestly have no clue.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Explain plz, me muy curious!

And for me, it doesn't matter to me very much, as it doesn't...concern me. I'm not sure if I'm conveying the right attitude, because it isn't because "ha, who cares". There are just other debatable issues that I can spend my time with that I can see tangible results from. A discussion on affirmative action does more than a discussion evo vs creation.

Anyways, Sir Brizz, fill me in plz.

Here is what John 5:7-8 says.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven{, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are bone.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,} the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

According to the writings of Erasmus, over 5000 Greek manuscripts left out the section in red there (The Latin Vulgate, howver, included it). He took a lot of flak for it and said if one greek manuscrip could be provided that included the section, he would include it in his manuscript. One was found and it was added, as he said it would be. So over 5000 manuscripts were "tossed" in favor of one, basically (and as a side note, these verses are pretty much the basis of the idea of Trinity).

 

[MÆST]

Read this: http://www.cornerstoneuk.org.uk/q2_evol1.html ... all 5 parts.

 

[Dark[NSF]]

At this point I formally ask the m0derators to add a tertiary option into the poll, so it reads:

-Evolution
-Creation
-NO-ONE KNOWS. JESUS CHRIST, SHUT THE F*CK UP. THE NEXT PERSON TO SAY "EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY" WILL BE THROWN OFF A CLIFF WITH A PIECE OF PAPER READING "GRAVITY IS ONLY A THEORY" NAILED TO THEIR CHEST.

What about

-Evolution
-Creation
-Other

lol..

 

[NiftyBoy]

I move you add a comedy pie option.

 

[SlayerDragon]

I move you add a comedy pie option.

/me pies Mediocre Tangerine

 

[Dus]

I have to say that I find this topic quite intriguing. I'm a former Christian and I study Biology, therefore I've given this topic a lot of thought in the past. I decided to renounce my Christianity (for other reasons btw), but I still believe there are some things to be said for a creator, because I find it incredible that everything came about in one 'big bang'. The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution, but they are often associated.

To make a long story short: I believe the Intelligent Design Theory as descibed by Synastren is true.
Notice how I said believe, as none of these theories are proven (or can ever be proven). (I voted for evolution as I believe in that more then in creation, but a third or even fourth option would have been nice )

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

BTW, Pheonix, it's six days not seven.

Ah, good point.


The problem with this issue is that anything is possible.

Everything has to involve an element of faith, but some things require more faith than others, which tends to cut the odds down of it being true, but still you do not know that.

Personally I believe in evolution because it makes sense, it is logical, and many clever scientists believe it too...which is where my 'faith in evolution'.

Another reason why I believe in evolution is because Creationism (as in bible) is wholly dodgy to me, as is organsied religion. To me, too much faith is required in what specifically cannot seeimingly be proved and what has so many obviously simpler answers.

Religion is the belief in something higher than yourself, it gives purpose even if it does not always give comfort...and it nearly always involves life after death for it's followers whether you are devoted to jehova or zanakthor, god of skull crunching...this to me seems like such an easy and comforting self-delusion that it completely invalidates ideas of faith could I have towards the subject.

Christianity bugs me most because I know more about it than other religions, and I don't find any comfort in the teachings of a books of unknown origins.

I think there is a good chance that if I tried really hard I could start a new religion in even in this sceptical age, one which could possibly go on to gain all the power of any modern religion...and with belief being so fickle in the area of the unseen, I have very hard time trying to understand how other people could believe it all, but a worse time trying to deal with the fact that anything is possible and the power of the feeling of wanting to believe. I'd love for there to be a good god of some description...and an afterlife, but then my huge scepticism has rather big problems with that.

I'd say that my emotions on the subject are at fault, but then of course it could in theory be scepticism getting in the way of a feeling of faith that really is divine and is enough to put logical doubt aside.



But despite my overwhelming scepticism (boardering on cynicism) of something like modern Christianity, Judaism or Islam, when it comes to the idea of non-specific creationism (ie. a divine influence behind modern science and evolution, but not as layed out in any holy book) I really don't know. I don't really understand any logic that goes past the big bang idea...I find ideas of 'infinity' or cyclical space or time to be inconceivable, so in that area, a supreme being in some form or other makes just as much sense to me as any other idea.

All in all, faith as a concept is incredibly complex no matter what you think.

[ /RAMBLING]

 

[Sam_The_Man]

It's called Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation for a reason. Though your point stands if you change GRAVITY to RELATIVITY or something similar.

Prove to me that all the fundies will fall to the ground if we throw them off a cliff.

Gravity is only a theory, but we can be fairly confident that things will be attracted by the Earth in any case. Same with evolution. It may be only a theory, but it's got more going for it than any creation myth.

 

[LP]

creationism is bull**** imo. Evolution all the way.

 

[Metakill]

FYI, the Vatican, representing the oldest ongoing Christian tradition (and despite its crimes against humanity, often the wisest), completely accepts evolutionary science.

And no, it is not proven, because the changing of one species into another mutually-exclusive reproducable species has not been recorded. Considering that such an occurence occurs ONCE in the entire lifespan of a new species, it is not surprising that we haven't found it yet in the geological record. But we do see changes in population, measurable over successive generation, we do see subspecies become so diverse as to become sterile in regards to more distant relatives within the same species. Plus we have ourselves bred wild animals into domestic ones that are no longer generationally fertile with their wild relatives (i.e. dogs), proving that such a thing is possible. Besides this, it indisputable through our fossil record that the life on this planet has repeatedly undergone change. I can't deny that its possible that God regularly visits us and engineers subtle changes in the matrix of life on this planet. But that totally lacks any style. The evolutionary sieve seems more like the kind of cool efficiency a perfect God would use.

In short, there may not be proof, but there is a sh*tload of evidence supporting evolution, and none but faith supporting creationism.

My only problem with teaching Intelligent Design, since it's basically what I believe, is that it has no academic value. You either believe it or you don't. There's nothing to "learn" about it, no applicable principles you can use.

 

[Zarkazm]

It's called Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation for a reason.

There certainly is a reason. It's common to refer to basic equations as laws.
Relativity has been empirically demonstrated, yet you seem to have no problem referring to it as a theory. That isn't wrong, but I get the impression you don't mean it in the scientific sense.
Evolution is a theory. Creationism is at best a hypothesis.

 

[W0RF]

Maest summed up the semantic differences perfectly. That there is measurable change in organisms over time is an observable scientific fact. Whether the entire history of the universe is demonstrably a result of this phenomenon is unproven, and likely unprovable given the vast nature of the universe. We can't even sort out the history of our own planet without getting into distinctions about Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, Panspermia, etc etc etc. It's really no more conclusive than looking at 6000 year old texts and trying to sort out how much of the language is poetic and how much is scientific thesis.

Both would have been nice, but if we're strictly talking about origins, I selected Creation. I happen to believe that the Creation accounts in Genesis are true, though I'm not sure how literally accurate they're supposed to be. Given the form and the language, it's difficult for me to argue six literal days. But at the very least, even if the gap between the dawn of creation and the dawn of man is 6 days or 6 billion years, design must have a designer, causality must have a cause, a "prima causa" (I'm dancing dangerously close to Qabbalism here). The recent rise of "Blind Watchmaker" theories does nothing to disillusion my belief, since now even the scientists are acknolwedging the presence of patterns and consistencies that suggest an underlying design, even if in doing so they are denying a priori knowledge of a Creator.

 

[Bean 3:16]

FYI, the Vatican, representing the oldest ongoing Christian tradition (and despite its crimes against humanity, often the wisest), completely accepts evolutionary science.

What about the Eastern Orthodox church? Do they have an opinion on this? And on a side note, wouldn't they be just as old as the Catholics?

 

[purice]

i pick evolution as long as this thread gets a sticker that says "This thread contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

 

[Renegade Retard]

There certainly is a reason. It's common to refer to basic equations as laws.
Relativity has been empirically demonstrated, yet you seem to have no problem referring to it as a theory. That isn't wrong, but I get the impression you don't mean it in the scientific sense.
Evolution is a theory. Creationism is at best a hypothesis.

[Pointless babble]Ahh, but in the "scientific sense" a theory is an assumption that can be tested for accuracy. Neither creation nor evolution can be, and therefore I present to you that both are a hypothesis. [/Pointless babble]

MediocreTangerine - I know full well the difference between Marco- and Micro-evolution. However, in your post, you made no indication that you were changing definitions. Since the topic of the thread was Macro-evolution (the theory of change from one species to another, or Evolution, as you put it), I assumed your paragraph continued on the same topic instead of chaninging mid-conversation. My apologies for not understanding your direction.

The argument of creation vs evolution is one that can never be resolved because assumptions are made by both parties prior to research that skews the perspective. Each party enters the arena of study having a predetermined mindset. Even while trying to be objective, we cannot help but to have these pre-concieved ideas on what the outcome may be, and we slant our views of the evidence before us toward our already established assumptions.

For instance, Evolutionists view the "geological column" and the fossils it contains as evidence of an aged earth effected by an exuberent period of time in junction with the process of evolution. Creationists see the geolgical column with it's layers of sediment and localized fossil collection as evidence of a world wide flood. Likewise, Evolutionists may view a species such as a platypus as a possible link between species, while a Creationists would view it as a wise design by a Creator. Again, it all depends on your pre-assumtions in how you interpret the facts.

On the flip side, both creationism and evolution has it own "thorns in the flesh," or items it struggles to explain. Perhaps one of the weakest stances creationism take is, in fact, the very same "geolical column." There are aspects to the column that cannot be explained through the creation model, such as variations in strata from location to location and the progressive order of smaller to larger fossils found it the columns layers. On the same token, Evolution runs into one of it's strongest opponents when it comes to mathmatical laws of statistics and probablility. Even being as generous with the numbers as possible, evolution still appears to be mathmatically impossible.

All I'm asking is that people keep an open mind. Don't simply go by what your school teacher told you or your buddies told you. Do your own research. Research BOTH arguments from both view points. Then make your own conclusions.

I went through years of studying both viewpoints, because I wanted to find for myself which was the better choice. I've read books by great authors of both views. I've written arguments as proponents of both views in my quest to understand the truth. The one thing I could never get over, though, was how complex and amazing the human body is and how complicated and precise all living being are. How can something be so complicated and work so perfectly and come from random chance? Random order leads to chaos, no to more complexity and design. How can a simple one-celled organism, when left to chance, lead to something some amazingly complicated as the human body? If I take my watch, take it completely apart and put it in a box and shake it for a billion years, it will never become a watch again. On a much simpler scale, if I dumped a bunch of flour, sugar, yeast, icing, etc into a big pile and applied the right temperature to it, it still would never turn into a chocolate cake, no matter how much time it woul take. There needs to be some sort of order and design. How much more complicated is the human body, that it could ever arrive by chance, even if it evolved from species to species?

To me, when I look at something like a watch or a cake, I see evidence of a designer. Someone had to take the time to create it based on the complexity of it's design. Life is truly complex and is full of evidence of design. In my opionion, acquiring that type of complexity cannot happen by random change.

Just my thoughts anyhow.

 

[MÆST]

I get the impression you don't mean it in the scientific sense.

I am a physics major and I meant it in a scientific sense. There's no conspiracy or agenda this time.

Prove to me that all the fundies will fall to the ground if we throw them off a cliff.

Gravity is only a theory, but we can be fairly confident that things will be attracted by the Earth in any case. Same with evolution. It may be only a theory, but it's got more going for it than any creation myth.

It's just a minor quip I have. I believed what they taught me in high school too for the longest time. (That laws are just more true then theories). However, that is not the case. Laws pertain to observable things. Laws are able to predict. The Newtonian idea of gravity is a law. I can predict the orbit of planets with it and as in your example, I could predict the motion of a fundie thrown off a cliff. Theories, on the other hand, are explanations of those observations. I may be able to observe the law of natural selection taking place, however, to use the process of natural selection as the basis of a Theory of Evolution requires making the jump from observing to explaining (because we cannot observe the actual act of simple organisms evolving into human).

I'm done with semantics. I just think it's useful for everyone to be on the same semantic level before a debate begins. Otherwise, too often, the debate turns into people arguing of some little point because they each have different definitions of that one thing. Then, as soon as someone makes a universal definition they both learn that they really think the same thing.

 

[Jaxter]

There is no hitchhikers guide option

PS the idea that there is a god is totally paradoxical and the sooner the world realises religion is just a giant pyramid scheme the better

 

[MÆST]

I get the impression you don't mean it in the scientific sense.

I am a physics major and I meant it in a scientific sense. There's no conspiracy or agenda this time.

Prove to me that all the fundies will fall to the ground if we throw them off a cliff.

Gravity is only a theory, but we can be fairly confident that things will be attracted by the Earth in any case. Same with evolution. It may be only a theory, but it's got more going for it than any creation myth.

It's just a minor quip I have. I believed what they taught me in high school too for the longest time. (That laws are just more true then theories). However, that is not the case. Laws pertain to observable things. Laws are able to predict. The Newtonian idea of gravity is a law. I can predict the orbit of planets with it and as in your example, I could predict the motion of a fundie thrown off a cliff. Theories, on the other hand, are explanations of those observations. I may be able to observe the law of natural selection taking place, however, to use the process of natural selection as the basis of a Theory of Evolution requires making the jump from observing to explaining (because we cannot observe the actual act of simple organisms evolving into human).

I'm done with semantics. I just think it's useful for everyone to be on the same semantic level before a debate begins. Otherwise, too often, the debate turns into people arguing some little point because they each have different definitions of that one thing. Then, as soon as someone makes a universal definition they both learn that they really think the same thing.