I've found myself in the middle of a number of conversations lately about Creationism, Natural Selection and now, Intelligent Design. I suspect I know where this crowd will come down, but you never know...
Do you believe in Creation...
- Thread starter Stoo
- Start date
Yup.. As a guy with an M.Sc. in biology and physics, you can imagine where I fall into this.s-husky said:
I don't normally read stuff like this on terb, but I keep running into what I have come to call "Born Again Creationists".. They have accepted that the scientific evidence in favour of natural selection is pretty overwhelming. But because "science" can't definitively explain "exactly" how it all started, the Intelligent Design stuff seems to be getting a foot hold... It makes me laugh... If you can't explain something, invent a gaseous deity and put him/her in charge! Problem solved. Pesonally, I think the Church of the Flying Spaghetti God has potential...
What got me really thinking about it was the US Presidential Candidates are both busy courting the religious right and that drives me nuts...
This topic is bound to hit the streets when a number of Republican candidates for President openly and steadfastly announce that they believe in Creationism and reject science. I believe it was a CNN poll that suggested that 90% (plus?) Americans believe in God and around 50% believe in Creationism. Now one has to be wary of these kind of statistics because they are quite often structured to show something that they may not be reflective of the population. Eg: in Canada something like 65-70% of the population identify themselves as Catholics so the Catholic Church claims its dogma and rules should be demonstrated through law.. yet repeatedly 80% of Canadian Catholics are in favour of birth control and there is a split of roughly 50% who accept abortion in some situations. So one has to be careful about making automatic assumptions.Stoo said:
Of course that is what this whole topic is about though isn't it? Absence of proof therefore means the opposite is true? There is more scientific proof to support evolution than Creationism so that lack means no God... or because there is not absolute scientific proof therefore there must be God. The reality is that there is nothing to distinguish the two as mutually related. Science cannot explain the supernatural nor does it ever intend to. The supernatural by default defies the scientific process and as such has no role in that discussion.
As per the Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy: "what is the point of us staying up all night debating whether or not there is a God if this machine just gives you his phone number in the morning!"
The stupidity comes in when concepts like Intelligent Design are brought into play. The statistical basis for Intelligent Design is to deal out a Bridge hand and then say "the fact you could not pre-determine all four hands is proof that there is no way such a deal could occur." It is an example of reverse statistics that better demonstrate the inability of the population to grasp combient and permutational statistical theory than anything else. Of course when you start with the premise that because a concept is too complex to be comprehended you know you're in trouble. If you had told a Knight Templar that in the future it would not be walls but winged flyers that would determine the fate of Jerusalem he would have thought you possessed. Simply because we are unable to currently define Big Bang theory etc. does not mean it is impossible.
I always find it funny though to see the Evangelicals demand that Intelligent Design and/or Creationism be included in science class. I wonder what they would say if the State were to insist that following a sermon on Sunday that a scientist were to be mandated equal time to rebut what was just said?
1. I'm Anglican
2. I don't practice
3. I believe in God
4. I don't believe science can explain everything
If I had to choose between Creationism and Darwinism I choose Creationism. Darwin and Evolutionists cannot explain how the first creature on earth got here. Big Bang Theory my ass! Aliens my ass!
Too many things have to be in perfect syncronicity in order to procreate and evolve society. I can only explain this by a higher power controlling what the earth needs and wants. Nothing can convince me otherwise. This doesn't mean I don't subscribe to the theory of evolution. I think it explains hand in hand with creationism where we are at today.
2. I don't practice
3. I believe in God
4. I don't believe science can explain everything
If I had to choose between Creationism and Darwinism I choose Creationism. Darwin and Evolutionists cannot explain how the first creature on earth got here. Big Bang Theory my ass! Aliens my ass!
Too many things have to be in perfect syncronicity in order to procreate and evolve society. I can only explain this by a higher power controlling what the earth needs and wants. Nothing can convince me otherwise. This doesn't mean I don't subscribe to the theory of evolution. I think it explains hand in hand with creationism where we are at today.
This is exactly what a guy was trying to explain to me the other night... "Science can't demonstrate how things stated. Therefore, there must be a God."K Douglas said:
Why can't it be "science can't explain how things got started, so we need to keep studying it..." Fifty years ago, "science" couldn't explain a fraction of the things we now know to be fact. Creationism has a 2000 year head start on natural selection and even more on the big bang. It isn't hard to imagine that within out lifetime, they will have an explanation as to how "it" all started.
Another argument from last night: God sent his Son to Earth and he could cure blindness and cripples. My response: If God is so great, why did he allow blindness and lameness in the first place!
There's a comment above about all the good things that come from believing... and there has absolutely been a tremendous amount of good done without question. But how many millions of people have been killed over religion. It continues to be the largest cause of war to this day...
And now the religious right is trying to convince us that global warming is God's way of telling us to behave and look after his planet better. Pray harder and we'll be fine. Didn't I read about a church in the States praying for lower gas prices recently? That should work...
Explaining how it all started is a struggle for science, that much is true. So naturally we default to explaining it through a higher power. But answer me this, sir. How did that higher power come to be? How long has that higher power existed? Before the higher power set the course for our universe, what was this higher power doing?K Douglas said:
I'd be surprised if your answers are any better than science's attempt at explaining how the first creature on earth got here. I'll stick with science.
What I'd like to hear is a clear explanation for the driving "change" factors of Mutation.....being that the Natural Selection angle has lost its luster.K Douglas said:
I started to write something and realized that I couldn't write anything that expressed my beliefs any better than JFK has above!JohnFK said:
Illogical attempt explaining logic?
In point of fact though there does not need to be perfect synchronicity for evolution to work. If you want to see how life can start seemingly out of nothing you should check out some of the Miller Urey experiments.
The fact you can only explain what you do not have the knowledge or insight to comprehend by rejecting a theory in favour of a high power is a rather childish approach. There are all sorts of things you experience on a daily basis that you do not understand so why try to rationalize this in such a way?
The evolutionary theory should not be contrasted against Creationism. The two do not play on the same field. One is science and the other something mystical. Trying to suggest that because the scientific theory is not perfect or yet conclusive somehow makes a 'magical theory' as the next logical choice is a little self serving don't you think?
Besides there are roughly 5000 creation of the universe theories out there in the history of humanity, why this one?
So you want to use a chicken and egg theory? Except does not that logic also apply to what created God?K Douglas said:
In point of fact though there does not need to be perfect synchronicity for evolution to work. If you want to see how life can start seemingly out of nothing you should check out some of the Miller Urey experiments.
The fact you can only explain what you do not have the knowledge or insight to comprehend by rejecting a theory in favour of a high power is a rather childish approach. There are all sorts of things you experience on a daily basis that you do not understand so why try to rationalize this in such a way?
The evolutionary theory should not be contrasted against Creationism. The two do not play on the same field. One is science and the other something mystical. Trying to suggest that because the scientific theory is not perfect or yet conclusive somehow makes a 'magical theory' as the next logical choice is a little self serving don't you think?
Besides there are roughly 5000 creation of the universe theories out there in the history of humanity, why this one?
For another Einstein quote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."JohnFK said:
If we were created, then who created the Creator?
Who created the Creator's creator, and so on ...........
Why did the Creator wait so many hundreds of millions of years and multiple mass extinctions before creating humans?
Get over yourselves.
This planet was not created for our illustrious existence.
Who created the Creator's creator, and so on ...........
Why did the Creator wait so many hundreds of millions of years and multiple mass extinctions before creating humans?
Get over yourselves.
This planet was not created for our illustrious existence.
Actually, scholars are still debating whether his use of the word “god” as entirely metaphorical or if he was a deist. I suspect it was entirely metaphorical. Regardless, he would never have taken creationists seriously and, as your post states, he was not a theist.JohnFK said:
Has no-one read "The God Delusion" - Richard Dawkins? It was/is supposed to be a best-seller. Don't read it, whatever you do, if you think you believe in god. As for the origin of life (which occurred way before the first animals) read RD's "The Ancestor's Tale". The first things that could be said to reproduce didn't have DNA. DNA-based life started as bacteria. There was no "first creature". Even today, the major part of biomass is bacteria. Our ancestors were bacteria. The whole category known as "animals" is just a tiny twig in the whole tree of life.
