Creationist vs Evolution

So, in America they're teaching creationist theory as well as evolution in biology classes. Do you think this is right, or should it belong in religious education classes? Which do you believe, and why?

I agree with Alan, actually.

To put it simply, as I'm not in the mood to write an essay like Alan has eloquently done;

Proven science with evidence should be taught in the classroom. Perhaps students could be made aware of alternative theories, but these should not be tested upon, and take up no more than an hour of the curriculum - just as a sort of interest point.

Even though I personally believe in the creation of the world by an omnipotent being, I don't interpret the seven days as seven days being 24 hours thing, and agree with the evidence of how the world progressed over a lot of time. Although I'm biased in this way, I still think only objective, proven science has a role in the science class, and anything else belongs outside.

as i said in the atheist thread, why not both?

Quote: Bunny_

on the science issue, if you look at the evolutionary timeline there are considerable inexplicable jumps that follow the seven day story of creation. just replace day with several millenia and it's all there. but i don't know if i believe that.

Everyone just repeats themself over and over again, too, no one's saying anything new, just a slight variation of their opints tailored to the appropriate thread.

Quote: Caged_Liberty_

Everyone just repeats themself over and over again, too, no one's saying anything new, just a slight variation of their opints tailored to the appropriate thread.

except me, who just quotes directly tis indeed impossible to prove either way so ultimately nothing is going to be decided

1)Creation should not be taught in biology, biology is for dissecting stuff
2)I would explain why we still have monkeys but it would turn into an essay and frankly I have enough of them to write

Firstly, before I answer your points, I did not say evolution was a fact. If you would care to read what I said. I said it was a theory that fits the available facts. Whilst it is true that there are still some things that cannot be explained by the theory, it fits the facts. Things do change as time goes on. Mutations do happen. These are completely and totally observable. The Theory of Evolution explains these. Creationism does not.

It's funny, but people expect science to be totally right 100% of the time, or totally wrong 100% of the time. Which is utter nonsense. Which is better, a theory which does not explain the facts, or a theory which explains some facts, but cannot explain others? The latter, obviously. Just because something isn't totally right does not mean we have to dump it in favour of something that does not explain any of the facts whatsoever. For instance, take gravity. Newton's theories came about, and then, Einstein refined and extended those theories, included some of his own, to explain facts that mean that Newton's theories were not totally correct. Still, no, people are refining and extending those theories, etc, etc. The same happens with biology. We didn't stop at Darwin and say: "Right. This is right. Nothing else will be researched in Biology from here on." Theories are still being refined and developed. Now, onto your points.

Quote:

1. Tell me where the flipping atom that started the 'big bang' appeared from?!

The Big Bang Theory is a completely seperate branch of science, and is not relevant to this discussion, this is about evolution and the development of life. The Big Bang Theory is a part of astrophysics.

Quote:

2. Tell me how a coincidental accident can form intricate and systematic things such as the human body?

Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but your question completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection in the theory of evolution, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Quote:

3. Show me the inbetween stages of evolution. how come a skeleton has never been found showing the changing process in species?

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Quote:

Why do we still have monkeys if they evolved into people?! Why did some members of the species not evolve?

Again, this shows a fundamental misconception about evolution. We did not evolve from any kind of species that is still around today! We share a common ancestor with the monkeys, and at some point we took different paths, us down the family Hominidae, the monkeys in another family. Our ancestors found it useful to adapt to stand upright, theirs found it more useful to stay in the trees. Natural selection.

Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.

See, maybe all of what you said is true, Alan. Maybe its not. But regardless of this - its still impossible to prove other theories to be incorrect. All you or anyone else can do is add weight to your claims or beliefs. You can't dispel anyone elses. If it was possible, it'd have been done. Is it going to be done for the first time in the history of everything right here on this thread? No, no its not.

And so this thread will go round and round and round with half the posts making one claim, and another half making the other.

There is never going to be an end result, other than people getting worked up over something that is impossible to fully comprehend.

Quote:

Where was the first atom you ask?Well who created God and where was he before he created the heavens?I don't know enough about creationist theory to comment on it. That question can be asked forever and the answer will never be found.What was first?Who knows. [

Precisely. Waste of time even debating it.

Alan seems to have the right idea on this one. Everything he said holds true (and very well put, I may add). Creationism is not science, and thus shouldn't be taught in science class. While I believe people have the right to believe what they want, let's teach them all about it in the proper environment. Also, it's only a one or two states in America that are teaching it in science class, and in the past week the ruling that allowed them to do this in one particular state was overturned.



Aside from the discussion at hand, I find the idea of an omnipotent being very convenient. Got something you can't explain adequately? Easy, just say God did it. He's omnipotent, and can do anything. Anyone asks why God did it that way? I don't know, God moves in mysterious ways, who are we mere mortals to question an omnipotent being...

Quote:

My point is we could debate this until everyone turns blue - we already know what the final outcome will be.

You could apply that attitude to life, and you wouldn't get anywhere...

Let's see how this goes, it's a good sort of thing to discuss!

Quote: LoonyPandora_

You could apply that attitude to life, and you wouldn't get anywhere...

Let's see how this goes, it's a good sort of thing to discuss!

It interests me lots, don't get me wrong. I've been here lots and lots of times, and at the end of it all I just think 'what the hell was the point of that'.

Hopefully everyone can remain calm and not post hurtful or unthoughtful comments.

Discussions like this rarely, if ever result in agreement being reached. The point of this thread is not to reach a conclusion, but to enjoy the discussion of it. It relies on us having the right calibre of people on VR to keep it from degenerating into a slanging match. I think we have those kind of people here, so it's good to discuss.

Quote: LoonyPandora_

Discussions like this rarely, if ever result in agreement being reached. The point of this thread is not to reach a conclusion, but to enjoy the discussion of it. It relies on us having the right calibre of people on VR to keep it from degenerating into a slanging match. I think we have those kind of people here, so it's good to discuss.

I agree. So, not that anyone will, theres no need for people to try and get one over on anyone else. Things can easily get out of control, like Alan just demonstrated, with a subject such as this.

Once again - not saying anyone will try and get one over on anyone.

I can't see why you're immediately starting on the back foot here Martin. I came out of the Person Above thread with exactly the same opinions as I started with. Actually, slightly lower opinions.

Actual Debates > The Person Above thread.

Actually, Alan's covered pretty much everything I was going to say. I remember reading that one state (possibly Alabama) actually tried to get evolutional theories taken off the curriculum in the 70s. The way I see it, things need to be PROVEN, not disproven, that's the way every justice system works. There is actual evidence that evolution probably happened. Creationism is a nice idea but can't be proven short of 'it said so in this book'.
The American one-eyed reliance on religion ahead of rational thought is disturbing (I admit since the gay-bashing government policies I'm extremely biased against fundamentalist Christianity, however as I said in some thread the other day, I'm not an atheist).

Right troops, back to the debate, or I'll set my teeth on you. I swear I will.

I didn't mean to insult science with my questions.
But you've got to understand, as a Christian, i am constantly asked to justify my beliefs against something which the world claims to be 'fact' when actually all i was trying to point out is that evolution also has loose ends and questions which need to be asked, just as creationalism does. I wasn't discrediting all of science as i know it provides some interesting theories on topics. However Darwin actually discredited his own theories on his death bed and turned to God....Theories are theories. My theories on God are theories too. But it doesn't mean mine are less powerful because science doesn't back them up.

I believe I have a relationship with a God and time and time again he has come through for me. In the past i received healing, I have been directed towards verses or towards people which have spoken into difficult situations for me, I have seen people turn from drug adictions because of faith in God. I believe because it's what i have experience of....I'll be honest, I'm not scientifically minded, but studying biology on my course has amazed me. The systems inside us work together in the most amazing ways which i believe were formed for their purposes. I just can't believe it was accidental. But these are my beliefs, i'm not trying to force them on people, I'm just standing up for them. Maybe my views seem simplistic and stupid but they are what i will hold onto. i'm never bothered who laughs at me because of them as i find that to be ignorance. most people who debate with me have never even opened a Bible. They haven't studied it (like my cousin who was an atheist did and then concluded it was an unbelievably historically accurate book) and present a one sided scientific view. I don't know much about science but i try to learn so i can weigh my views against others. Maybe i did offend science by asking simple questions, but they're the questions the everyday normal person wants to know. I accept questions on Christianity and never find them offensive because i know they're what people want to know. But at the end of the day, i'll probably ask them to reach for a Bible and judge for themselves.

Anyway, I respect everyones beliefs as much as i do my own and i hope that others can respect mine.

Sarah xx

Erm, Sarah, Darwin never recanted evolution. It's a popular myth; shortly after Darwin's death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin's illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views.

Anyway, even if Darwin had recanted, it wouldn't affect the theory. Scientific theories rest on the available evidence, and not the authority of any one man or person.

Sarah, I don't mean when I say "Creationism is not a theory" that I am in some way disparaging the belief, you have to realise. I simply mean that under the definitions of such, creationism cannot be considered to be a scientifically valid theory. It doesn't predict anything. I am sorry for my earlier outburst to Martin, but his statement, at that time to me, seemed supremely apathetic. And I can't stand apathy. You weren't offending me or "science" when you made those points. You asked questions, and I answered them. At least, I think I did, and that is, indeed, the best I can do.

I agree with everything Sarah said in her last post.

Anyway, as for the "who created God" debate, we as humans always try to picture God within our time barriers, because that's what we're constrained to and used to, and it confuses us to think of something that exists outside of time, however this is the situation with God - he created time and everything within, there is no time outside time, God is outside time, therefore there is no 'was' or 'will be', there just is. God just is.

Personally I see the evolutionary theory as terribly flawed, and the idea that God created it all makes so much more sense to me.

Quote: Freshly_Squeezed_Cynic_

I am sorry for my earlier outburst to Martin, but his statement, at that time to me, seemed supremely apathetic. And I can't stand apathy. You weren't offending me or "science" when you made those points. You asked questions, and I answered them. At least, I think I did, and that is, indeed, the best I can do.

Ah you've no need to apologise! I didn't set out to offend anyone, I just wanted everything to remain calm really, because I know how these things can escalate. Thank though

My answer to the original question is a tricky one to answer - because both aspects are according to my perception of truth to be true.

I have pondered this question and I still haven't come to a full conclusion - at least enough for me to write it down confidently - but I think it is all a question of faith at the end of the day. People put their trust (translation: faith) in ideas like evolution or creation and don't question them further, it is good enough for them. It isn't for me as both ideas hold principles that I adhere to.

Firstly is the idea that God created the universe (and all other ones if there are any) and everything in them. I believe and think that that is plausible. Then if we go down that assumption then we can that this further:
[list][*] If God created the universe then God must have some blueprint or plan for it.

[*] If the above assumption is true, then when God planted life on Earth there also must have been some plan for it - plants grow in soil, fish live in water, all require oxygen etc - and provided the necessary elements for it to exist.

[*] If above is also true then God must have planned for life to change and adapt so that it could survive - this is of course important as we all believe that God is beneviolent and caring - this could be proof of it.[/list]
In a nutshell what I am trying to say is that life is part of God's plan for the universe and part of God's plan for life is that evolution takes place. Of course that is a massive cop out. However I refuse to conclude that neither is absolutely correct and fact. I doubt that we will ever know the facts anyway.

I tend to go along these lines of thinking too:

Quote:

In a nutshell what I am trying to say is that life is part of God's plan for the universe and part of God's plan for life is that evolution takes place.

But apparently humans have similar DNA to bananas. Would that mean we possibly evolved from them?

Hehe...
I remember a discussion I was having at college once...
Friend: Humans share a large percentage of their DNA with bananas!
Me: Your point being?
Friend: We could genetically engineer humans with skins!

Oh how we laughed.

Religious thought is too over awed by its own over-inflated sense of self-importance and reverence to history to look at the facts and knowledge that we now have at our disposal. Creationism is barely out of the Dark Ages in terms of rational ideas and considered evidence- it's still stuck in the cause and effect argument, it still considers a mytholgical sentient personified 'God' to be a reasonable case for proof of creationism. Religion asks "why" and is happy with a nieve answer that it claims to be the truth. Science asks "how", is puzzled over the answer, but at least tries to formulate new ideas and theories based on observation.

I'm going to stop now, because if I told people what I really thought about religion, there would be a whole lot of bother.