your views on creationism please

[justcurious]

Here we go again...

I think there is a valid discussion to have, reformulated thus:

Does evolution leave room for another "guiding force" acting along natural selection and other evolutionary factors. I say "guiding force" as it can be accepted by the religious minded and the scientifically minded (see "strange attractors" for ex) .

Openmindedman, since you lead the SPIRIT approach in this "debate" (I still hope we can have one), can you point out facts or anomalies in the evolutionary process that could support your approach ?

 

[CapnG]

Poof you don't understand bias, the example is ignorant and miss categorizes what bias does.

I understand it enough to recognize yours... The difference BTW between gravity and evolution is that you accept one and not the other for reasons of your own choosing (ie personal bias). As they stand in terms of scientific theory, gravity actually has less explanatory evidence going for it than evolution (the ability to demonstrate gravity's effect is NOT proof of it's cause).

I'll tell you what's funny though, you and I do agree on something: evolution does not preclude the existence of a creator.

That, however, is not CREATIONISM, which is supposed to be the central topic of the thread. CREATIONISM is the literal, Biblical, Christian creation myth. Earth is 6000 years old, Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, blah, blah, blah. You're being intellectually dishonest by trying to polish it up and put it on par with evolution in terms of validity (as is every ID supporter). Your wasp example fails to support Creationism because other sciences approximate the fossil's age at roughly 34 million years, an impossible date to reconcile with even the most generous Creationist's "estimate" (by which I mean "completely made up date") of 12,000 years for the age of the earth itself, let alone all life.

Bottom line, these are your choices: Evolution, a theory based on fundamental sciences, flawed as it may be but accruing more and more supporting evidence incrementally with each passing year OR a quasi-religious belief system based on NOTHING but mythology, who's ultimate answer is always "God did it" and who's only form of support is faith.

OR some as yet undetermined third theory which right now is too fringey even for the most eccentric scientists out there, like we're all in a giant lab experiment (ie the "alien ant farm theory").

Take your pick.

 

[openmindedman]

That, however, is not CREATIONISM, which is supposed to be the central topic of the thread. CREATIONISM is the literal, Biblical, Christian creation myth. Earth is 6000 years old, Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, blah, blah, blah. You're being intellectually dishonest by trying to polish it up and put it on par with evolution in terms of validity (as is every ID supporter). Your wasp example fails to support Creationism because other sciences approximate the fossil's age at roughly 34 million years, an impossible date to reconcile with even the most generous Creationist's "estimate" (by which I mean "completely made up date") of 12,000 years for the age of the earth itself, let alone all life..

We do agree on something... which is a good thing, truly.

My question would be have you ever taken the time to read the biblical passages in question? For one, nowhere does it give a timeline for creation other than being 6 different periods of time. Which is what the actual Hebrew says.

When people attack the bible like you do, it's a paper dragon argument not based on what the actual text says.

Take books like "the lost world of Genesis"

"This book presents a profoundly important new analysis of the meaning of Genesis. Digging deeply into the original Hebrew language and the culture of the people of Israel in Old Testament times, respected scholar John Walton argues convincingly that Genesis was intended to describe the creation of the functions of the cosmos, not its material nature. In the process, he elevates Scripture to a new level of respectful understanding, and eliminates any conflict between scientific and scriptural descriptions of origins." ----Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God"

also look at this, there was a well received book which I can't remember the name that goes deeper in how Genesis rightly describes exactly how science says the universe was formed.

David L. Wolper: Genesis And Science: More Aligned Than You Think?

always remember: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein, 1941

 

[CapnG]

My question would be have you ever taken the time to read the biblical passages in question? For one, nowhere does it give a timeline for creation other than being 6 different periods of time. Which is what the actual Hebrew says.

You're talking to one of the few people who actually has read the bible rather than just saying they have. Genesis is a fairy tale told by people who were little better than stone-aged primitives to another group of such primitives. It's no more valid or scientific than any other creation myth in any other religion from the Egyptians to the Aztecs.

When people attack the bible like you do, it's a paper dragon argument not based on what the actual text says.

When people like me attack the Bible (and specifically the excessively narrow, fundamentalist interpretation of it espoused by Creationists) it's because it's deserved. The document is deeply flawed, in fact it contradicts itself so many times as to be considered laughable. But then again, we're speaking not of a single volume but a higgledy-piggledy mish-mash of texts, taken here and there from nearly 3000 years of histroy and bolted together by the council of Nicea. And you want to talk about biases? Yeesh...

"This book presents a profoundly important new analysis of the meaning of Genesis. Digging deeply into the original Hebrew language and the culture of the people of Israel in Old Testament times, respected scholar John Walton argues convincingly that Genesis was intended to describe the creation of the functions of the cosmos, not its material nature. In the process, he elevates Scripture to a new level of respectful understanding, and eliminates any conflict between scientific and scriptural descriptions of origins." ----Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God"

Irrelevant turd-polishing drivel, attempting to add legitimacy where none is deserved. What's more, a die-hard Creationist would call this blasphemy. For him ,the earth is 6000 years old, period and fossils are the work of the devil.

always remember: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein, 1941

Always remember: Einstein is dead.

 

[justcurious]

Here's a fascinating story about natural selection and human aesthetics.

 

[justcurious]

"He wasn't exactly an atheist, because atheism was a non-survival trait on a world with several thousand gods. He just didn't like any of them very much…" ~Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms

 

[tyder001]

Lol! So ya make up a fairy tale to explain a myth. ROFLMAO! Not ole Carl's finest hour.




Some folks are "educated" waaay beyond their intelligence.....Jerry Clower.

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

Now "afore" I get called a hack and an enemy of "science" just remember. Ole Carl didn't give a "reference" to his opinion" he just stated "theory" as fact. Matter of fact I "think" "Natural Selection" behaves with intent. Don't get "blind chance" of non intent out of that. Anyway, I'm sure the "we" brigade will be out in full force soon.

 

[justcurious]

Much of human ingenuity has gone into finding the ultimate Before.

The current state of knowledge can be summarized thus:

In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.

Other theories about the ultimate start involve gods creating the universe out of the ribs, entrails, and testicles of their father.* There are quite a lot of these. They are interesting, not for what they tell you about cosmology, but for what they say about people.
Hey, kids, which part do you think they made your town out of ?



*Gods like a joke as much as anyone else.

 

[tyder001]

One last thing cause I've already stated I'm not an "expert" on much of anything. But, isn't it just "possible" that the reason these crabs are so plentiful in this area might be because "humans" keep throwing em back? Hmmmm? Might that have more to do with it (since it is a stated fact) than "natural selection" in this case? I mean if you never ever eat the ones with the face then they will become the most plentiful. Didn't really need ole Carl to tell ya that! But, again I'm not an evolutionary Biologist. Hey wait! Neither was he.

Now as far as nothing before the Big Bang. Well no less than Sir Roger Penrose (worked with Stephen Hawking not steven greer) might disagree with that one. It's just that all of us rely on our sources of authority. Problem is "we" never seem to go beyond the one that pleases us the most. It's a human thang!

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 PM ----------

I know of at least one town I lived in that came from the entrails.

Thanks for the conversation. It's been nice to speak with somebody without the need to get "nasty" when they disagree or see things a little differently. Getting to be quite rare around here. 8)

 

[TClaeys]

If we could take out all this back and forth stuff this thread would boil down to very little content. Here's a story for you about evolution.

Quick synopsis:
Small lizard population isolated on island near Croatia. Researchers were not able to get back to the island for over 30 years due to war. Researchers get back to island to find some amazing things. Original polulation of 10 lizards have taken over the island and now number near 5000. And, shockingly, they have developed entirely new organs to meet the needs of their newfound home. Evolution in action?? Or is this just a belief that they developed entirely new organs?? However evolution is initiated, it certainly seems to confirm that biology can change due to environmental and whatever othere stresses it is subject to.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_2.html

The other thing is I never hear the outcry that physics is a belief system. Thermodynamics, .. is a belief. Modern medicine, .. belief. I don't hear any disagreement about the science that has extended longevity, given us technology like computers and worldwide communication, put Rovers on Mars, immunizations, anti-venom, and any number of other items where science has benifited us directly. .... Where is the picket line with large signs proclaiming "Gravity doesn't exist!!"??

This is the same science,.. the same methods, ... that gave us all of these benefits. But you hear zero opposition to any of it. We only hear opposition when it comes to the heralded egotistical human and his origins. Why is this?? Do we still have questions about evolution?? No doubt. Is it the best explanation that fits the data we have, .... why yes. Are revisions in the future, ... of course.

However long it takes, science has always been self correcting, ... religion not so much.

 

[tyder001]

Sounds good but it's not quite true. It's science to say "this is the best data we have for the development of biological life on earth" But, to say "therefore all reality everywhere can be put into this box." Well not so much. Acually, I think religion is self correcting. Just takes longer. By the way what you described is "adaptation" not evolution. Still, I'm not anti science. I love science. I'm anti "meatbot." I have spoken to "Christians" and Muslims and agnostics and the truth is you have to look farther than pat robertson or suicide bombers. Many honest "idividuals" use their religion along with science and common sense to relate to the world. IT's the loud and proud "kooks" that get all the attention.

Now, I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time.) But, I think the "church" as in Christian fellowships will eventually accept gay people (some very progressives do) and I think religion will "evolve" or die. But, I think it will evolve. Sorry, but to me the idea that we just simply crawled out of the myth of the primordial soup is as silly as talking snakes. But, even if we did I don't think "we" resemble that anymore than a mocking bird resembles a T-Rex.

A poster here who I find to be intelligent even though he is an atheist and I'm not made a good point. At which point did a "soul" get involved with evolution? Truth is I don't know. Maybe "soul" is all there really is. Maybe the myth is matter was first. It's not a popular thing to say but we really don't know (sorry but we really don't) what was before the big bang. I honestly can say I don't know if we are spirit or animal or even if it matters spiritually speaking. I just know that "I am" and I always have been me.

The problem with the paranormal is it is frustrating. It doesn't fit into a test tube. It's easy to dismiss out of hand. But, some of us have these "experiences" that we can't explain away. I have a very intelligent friend who simply "put it away" for now. Why? Because he is a scientist and it just doesn't fit his worldview. He will (or maybe he already has)take it out and look again someday. Maybe, we are using the wrong tools. I don't know. I just know that what we know is still very little compared to what is there. Anyway, I don't like to get into snippy name calling stuff. I know your scientist can beat up my scientist. Your god can beat up my god. But honestly, when did this forum "de-volve" into this? I thought it was for the "exchange" of ideas and that "human expereince" at least on a forum like this would be legitimate. I don't know how some of you even listen to the "drivel" on the show. It certainly won't hold up to your stats and test tubes. Oh well, at least your here to save the silly few from ourselves.

---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 PM ----------

What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study.

"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."



Now that is Science. We study and confirm and don't make blanket "we know for sure statements." But thanks for the link it's interesting. I still have no (and have never had) problems with biological evolution. As I've said before I take it on faith. I trust that we at least know that much. It's the ones who take it on themselves to confuse "fact" which is we seem to have evolution with the "misrepresentation" that it somehow belittles the human spirit. It's the "I Am" imo that enables us to be scientist or a doctor or an ice cream maker. But, then again I am getting very Holistic as I get older.

 

[SoCalGNX]

IGNORANT MOBS UNITE!!!

They are probably too health conscious to be interested in Dirty Sanchez.

 

[TClaeys]

Well, this is an example of a creature developing entirely new features that it would not have done within it's normal variability in it's original habitat. Isolation of a species can produce new features, new organs, and new ways to adapt to it's environment. Apparently it can also happen quickly.

Imagine this species surviving for a very long time adapting to whatever changes come along. At some point this species is no longer part of it's original ancient counterpart. It not only hardly resembles it anymore, but reproduction is now impossible. It is a new species of animal altogether. Now imagine a few billion years of this. I think that when we have documented examples of drastic adaptation it isn't hard to believe evolution, ... you can see it happening. And if we look backward at structural components, geologic timescales, DNA comparisions, embryology, and a whole host of other data, it all makes a lot of sense. I don't see any data suggesting we "poofed" into being. (On the other hand I do see evidence that our whole entire universe "poofed" into being, ... so go figure. )

Still, I agree, it doesn't make the whole of reality crystal clear. It's not supposed to though, it's just supposed to account for how living things have changed over time. Certainly there are a lot more questions.

 

[Michael Allen]

I am going to toss in some recommended reading: Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and The Meanings of Life by Daniel C. Dennett.

 

[NTS]

A sufficiently intelligent, powerful God could presumably create a universe that naturally produces the results that suit His purposes. From within that universe nature would appear blind and amoral, in no way different from what it would be in a universe not created by such a God. Since the two cases are scientifically indistinguishable the issue of purpose is not a scientific one. It becomes a matter of faith.

 

[exo_doc]

Every religion I have studied or read about have so many problems whole libraries couldn't contain them.
If you are talking about some gray haired sky-guy creating everything, I just don't see that anywhere,..... outside of human created religion.
Now if you want to talk about how the molecules came together and formed this world, and through chemistry, physics, and a dash of luck we humans appear with self-awareness and consciousness...I can understand a point of view that we are the children of the universe.
I mean, our sonsciousness came/comes from somewhere, so technically I think the universe could be considered to be alive in that we are created from it.
Now the big question I've benn pondering is,"Did the universe create us intentionally, or are we a purely random mix of chemicals?" I guess the problem I have with creationism is the definition of the word. Sky-Guy versus Universal ....intiative(meaning if it can happen, eventually it will), maybe?

 

[Michael Allen]

A sufficiently intelligent, powerful God could presumably create a universe that naturally produces the results that suit His purposes. From within that universe nature would appear blind and amoral, in no way different from what it would be in a universe not created by such a God. Since the two cases are scientifically indistinguishable the issue of purpose is not a scientific one. It becomes a matter of faith.

Breaking down the statement into its hidden assumptions

• Intelligence
  1. "Sufficient" is a term that may imply a graduated scale (or even continuum) of intelligence
  2. Means intelligence itself increases the ability for an acting agent to create a universe in such and such way.
• Power
  1. "Sufficent" again a term that implies a graduated scale or continuum
  2. Means that increasing an acting agents power increases creative ability.
  3. Essentially this assumes intelligence and power are prerequisites for creating a universe.

I have several problems with this:

(1) A basic assumption of your propositions set intelligence and power as a prerequisite for creating a universe in a particular way.
(2) But then your proposition states the two cases mentioned as scientifically indistinguishable.

(3) Now I assert that your premise "...the two cases are scientifically indistinguishable " is contradictory to the unmentioned assumption (1) -- such an experiment would require the very bases and assumptions that undermine its relevance.

So based on your own statements I cannot accept the conclusion.

 

[dyingsun]

Seems the summer heat is getting to all of us. (38° c here....)

 

[Ron Collins]

... and bolted together by the council of Nicea. And you want to talk about biases? Yeesh...

hahaha, I never thought of that. Kinda says it all doesn't it.

---------- Post added at 07:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 AM ----------

In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.

LOL, I told my son almost this exact phrase 2 days ago. I was half watching something on the Discovery channel and he says, "what is the big bang". So I said "Well, there was absolutely nothing and then it exploded and created everything. To wit he says "was it loud?".

Other theories about the ultimate start involve gods creating the universe out of the ribs, entrails, and testicles of their father.*
*Gods like a joke as much as anyone else.

You gotta love the Egyptians. You can almost see 9 bald guys smoking hash around a fire making all that shit up.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Monkey see, monkey do is the reason so many people believe in creationism. Oh, the irony...