Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[Troubleshooter]

You teach the theory of evolution in science class.

You teach intelligent design in a comparative religion class.

It's not terribly complicated.

Intelligent design isn't a theory because it cannot be tested.

You would also have to teach all of the intelligent design "theories", pagan, hindu, xtian, etc, before I would even accept it as a true intelligent design concept.

[elf]

I’m not the most eloquent person in the world so bear with me if you please . . .

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why couldn’t it be that God did make people from primordial ooze? Did He carve Adam out of rock or sculpt him from clay? It makes more sense to me that a higher power would have prompted it to grow with a mere thought or will to make it so. Does God have hands? Why would he? ‘In his own form’, so it says . . . but then, his own form would have needed air and food to survive just as we do. If He doesn’t need it, then why do we breathe and eat? Is it ‘in his own form, only not as spiffy?’

It says it is so in the bible, and therefore that’s the way it is. Would it be too much of a stretch that pehaps the bible had been simplified to understandable terms for the mindset of the peoples thousands of years ago? Just like schoolbooks are simplified to make it so that children can grasp the concepts, and then move on to make their own decisions and understand more deeply.<b> School is not the end-all be-all of education, and seeing as the bible is a tool of religious education, isn't there room for your own questions or conclusions? </b>Or do you have to read it and accept it just as it is worded (translated? How many times? To mean how many different things?) and not question?

To be perfectly honest, I find it difficult to believe any one theory. People’s minds and their souls are so very complicated that it is rather difficult to think that it was completely and purely evolutionary, and yet, to have God just decide to and proceed to slap together what is now ‘human’ and make everything just the way it is now, and just plunk them down onto a fertile ground seems kind of hokey to me as well.

The fact that different people view God differently tells me that there’s more than one way to believe and to have faith. The bible is not the only way, and therefore it doesn’t belong in school. The teaching of religion belongs in your house or your church.

Something scares me about teaching creationism in the classroom. It begs children not to question. No? I was taught evolutionism. No one ever brought me to church and told me “this is what you need to think” – or even “This is what we believe”. I was taught that science is just that, ‘science’ – studying, assuming, testing, drawing conclusions and linking things together in a way that makes sense. And yet still I believe in <i>a</i> god. it’s just not necessarily <I>your</I> God. Or, rather, not the <i>same way</i> you think of Him. I think it would be comforting to close you eyes and imagine that God looks familiar.

It seems so much easier to <i>know</i> wholly and completely that your belief is correct.
…

Wow, this got a lot wordier than I had intended. Must be off for now, work to do and all that rot.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Very eloquent, elf.

[elf]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Very eloquent, elf.

Thankee.

alphageek31337 had me nodding in agreement more than once. . . I wanted to mention something about the transitional species, but I couldn't find the right words. So thanks, Alph, for saying what I wanted to.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by elf

I’m not the most eloquent person in the world so bear with me if you please . . .

I'm far from eloquent myself, so join the club!

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why couldn’t it be that God did make people from primordial ooze? Did He carve Adam out of rock or sculpt him from clay? It makes more sense to me that a higher power would have prompted it to grow with a mere thought or will to make it so.

Well, there are lots of different "theories" out there, but I'm one of those silly literalists, meaning I believe God did it the way he said he did it in Genesis. That makes the earth about 6,000 years old, all of creation formed in 6 literal 24 hour days, it makes the earth formed before the sun, and it makes the evolutionist's idea that man showed up on the scene after millions of years of death and carnage completely wrong, because there was no death before Adam ate the apple.

Some other people (Hugh Ross and his intelligence design folks) try to fit millions of years of history into the bible, but the language and grammer of the old testament are pretty clear that day means day, not undetermined period of time.

Does God have hands? Why would he? ‘In his own form’, so it says . . . but then, his own form would have needed air and food to survive just as we do. If He doesn’t need it, then why do we breathe and eat? Is it ‘in his own form, only not as spiffy?’

It says it is so in the bible, and therefore that’s the way it is. Would it be too much of a stretch that pehaps the bible had been simplified to understandable terms for the mindset of the peoples thousands of years ago?

Actually, if you take the bible literally, and Man has been around as long as everything else, that means that all of the technology and knowledge known to the egyptians and babylonians and alexandrians came handed down from Noah and his 3 sons. Remember how long people lived in the bible? 900 + years is a long time to learn stuff and memorize it and hand it down to your kids (and their kids and their kids...) God wouldn't need to simplify anything.

Time was (within the last couple thousand years) when people could read and believed the book as it was written. If you read the book as literal, without ANY presuppositions or assumptions, you would have absolutely NO clue from the text about millions of years. It's just NOT there. Why are you trying to fit man's fallible ideas into an infallible book and then calling the book wrong?? Read it as it's written.

Just like schoolbooks are simplified to make it so that children can grasp the concepts, and then move on to make their own decisions and understand more deeply.<b> School is not the end-all be-all of education, and seeing as the bible is a tool of religious education, isn't there room for your own questions or conclusions? </b>Or do you have to read it and accept it just as it is worded (translated? How many times? To mean how many different things?) and not question?

If you're an omnipotent God, and this is your rule book, and your primary basis of communicating your wants and requirements to your believers, aren't you going to make sure it's right? I don't know what kind of diety you may worship (if any), but the one I believe in can make sure the books and verses he wants in the book stay in the book.

Which brings me to another point: The Creator I believe in can do it right the first time, but simply willing something into existance, without needing millions of years and death and destruction to do it. Another reason I have a problem with the ID theorists.

To be perfectly honest, I find it difficult to believe any one theory. People’s minds and their souls are so very complicated that it is rather difficult to think that it was completely and purely evolutionary, and yet, to have God just decide to and proceed to slap together what is now ‘human’ and make everything just the way it is now, and just plunk them down onto a fertile ground seems kind of hokey to me as well.

But see, he DIDN'T make it as it is now. He made it perfect about 6,000 years ago. Then the serpent came and since he was miserable and wanted to make everyone miserable with him, he lied to Eve, told her that God was wrong, don't believe him when he says "if you eat off this tree you'll die". She didn't trust what God said, and CHOSE to believe the serpent instead, and now everything has gone to shit over the last 6,000 years or so. God didn't make it like this. He made a perfect world and humans screwed it up for everybody. Now the serpent is using men to try to convince people that God is wrong (again) about what he said (In the beginning God created...), and people are choosing to believe the serpent instead. Same story, same species, just a different lie.

The fact that different people view God differently tells me that there’s more than one way to believe and to have faith. The bible is not the only way, and therefore it doesn’t belong in school. The teaching of religion belongs in your house or your church.

I absolutely and totally agree. However...evolution as taught as origin of man is a religion too. And my children shouldn't have to learn it in school, either.

Something scares me about teaching creationism in the classroom. It begs children not to question. No? I was taught evolutionism. No one ever brought me to church and told me “this is what you need to think” – or even “This is what we believe”. I was taught that science is just that, ‘science’ – studying, assuming, testing, drawing conclusions and linking things together in a way that makes sense.

Science is science. and it is studying, testing, drawing conclusions and then testing those conclusions, then having OTHER people test the same conclusions in the same way and getting the same answer, every time. (Assumption is not science.)

Evolutionary theory as it relates to origin of man is NOT science. It is all about assumption and guessing. You can't prove any of it. It's not science.

And yet still I believe in <i>a</i> god. it’s just not necessarily <I>your</I> God. Or, rather, not the <i>same way</i> you think of Him. I think it would be comforting to close you eyes and imagine that God looks familiar.

It seems so much easier to <i>know</i> wholly and completely that your belief is correct.
…

Wow, this got a lot wordier than I had intended. Must be off for now, work to do and all that rot.

I agree. My Creator may not be the same as your God. And he/she might not be the same as Elspode's Creator God, or the Hindu God, or the Egyption Dieties.

And I don't think Creationism or Intelligent Design or Evolution as it relates to origin of man need to be taught in school with my tax money.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

The Creator I believe in can do it right the first time,

The thing that always gets me is the difference between the vertebrate and the cephalopod eye. Why would the creator have created the eye 2 different ways? Why would squids have a superior eye if man was created in gods image?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

You teach the theory of evolution in science class.

You teach intelligent design in a comparative religion class.

It's not terribly complicated.

Intelligent design isn't a theory because it cannot be tested.

You would also have to teach all of the intelligent design "theories", pagan, hindu, xtian, etc, before I would even accept it as a true intelligent design concept.

Evolution Theory as it relates to origin of man cannot be tested either.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

A public school system is not free to teach religion in science class.

And therefore the ORIGIN OF MAN has no place in a science class.

[alphageek31337]

Since this got dredged up from the dark, horrible recesses of the Cellar, I feel I must add my opinions. I don't necessarily buy evolution part and parcel, but I see it as a much stronger jumping off point than "God made the world as it is today and it has not changed at all ever". Darwinian competition ("Survival of the Fittest") can be observed in the world today, with the evolution (yes, whether you believe evolution started it all or not, you cannot deny that it is happening today) of such things as antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the commonly cited case of Peppered Moths in Britain. For those of you unfamiliar with the moths, the basic idea is thus: there are moths in England that tend to gather on a tree with white bark. These moths varied in color from almost pure white to pure black. A pure black moth is easy for predators to spot, so the population tended to include very few pure or mostly black moths, with the dominance of color leaning toward the white moths. Around the time of the industrial revolution, however, a shift occurred. Coal smoke from nearby factories blackened the trees, suddenly making white moths very visible and black moths quite well hidden. Thus, obviously, the population swung toward black moths. Now, it has been argued that since no new genetic information was created, that evolution did not occur, and this is true. The moths are simply an example of natural selection, the driving force, the keystone if you will, behind evolution. If an omniscient, omnipotent being created all the creatures of Earth, why do things like this have to change? Creatures needn't adapt, because they were created in perfect balance by a perfect being. One might also note Albert's Squirrel on one side of the Grand Canyon versus the Kaibab Squirrel on the other side. The two are almost perfect genetic matches, with minor physical variations, and cannot interbreed. New genetic material and a new species were both created, theoretically by the Grand Canyon forming and splitting the populations. There we have proof that evolution does happen, though it will be impossible without some interesting manipulations of the fourth dimension to prove that it *did* happen. Never has it been observed that God plopped a new species onto the Earth, though if Creationism is correct in its assumptions, he wouldn't have to. There will also always be gaps in the fossil record, because we must note that it is an extremely rare occurence for an animal to be fossilized after death. Even in extremely successful species with millions in population at one time (and, we must assume, an exponentially greater number of deaths), there are not terribly many preserved fossils, especially those of full bodies of a single organism, which would prove infinitely more useful than single or small groups of bones, which could easily be attributed to the animal before or after the transitional species. Transitional species are just that, transitional. They exist for a short time as one archetype moves toward another. There are not nearly as many of them as there are of successful archetypes, and they do not exist for as long a time (hence, fewer bodies and exponentially fewer fossils).

On another note, one of the more common arguments for intelligent design is what I refer to as the automobile theory, essentially that evolution is just as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a complete, running automobile. The problem with this theory is that it assumes one junkyard, one planet on which life could possibly have evolved. Given that the universe is infinite (space is nothingness, nothingness can extend onward indefinitely, therefore the universe must be infinite in size), and that there are an absolutely mindblowingly large number of planets in the universe (a number large enough that it can be considered, for practical purposes, infinite), what is the likelihood that there is *not* a planet on which life could evolve? Essentially, given 1 junkyard and one tornado, the chances of assembling an automobile are infintessimally small, but given an infinite number of junkyards and an infinite number of tornados blowing through each of them, it is almost a guarantee that, at least once, the parts will come together by chance and form a running automobile. This is the same theory I present to people who don't believe that intelligent life exists off of the planet Earth: given an infinite number of attempts over time, even at infintessimally small odds, Earth cannot be the only place in the universe that fell within that precise range on the bell curve that permits intelligent life to develop. In fact, it is safe to assume that there are a vast multitude of civilzations throughout the universe.

Also, as a sidenote for intelligent design theorists who wish to argue, "your theory is wrong" != "my theory is right". Simply poking holes in evolution does not mean that there is a God. Come up with scientifically backed data that withstands scrutiny and provides mechanisms to explain the changes in organisms that we have observed, and you will begin to actually prove your theory.

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by alphageek31337

Given that the universe is infinite (space is nothingness, nothingness can extend onward indefinitely, therefore the universe must be infinite in size)

Space is not nothingness… it is a description of the geometry of the universe. The universe may indeed be finite, and therefore space is finite as well. Sorry, off topic.

On another note, I am not sure that I understand the distinction between presenting something as “fact” and presenting something as “theory” (I’m focusing on the dissemination of ideas in a classroom at this point). I would think that students should be encouraged to test everything that is taught to them. As long as students realize that the only thing human beings can do is provide descriptions of reality, is there really any harm in teaching anything?

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

On another note, I am not sure that I understand the distinction between presenting something as “fact” and presenting something as “theory” (I’m focusing on the dissemination of ideas in a classroom at this point). I would think that students should be encouraged to test everything that is taught to them. As long as students realize that the only thing human beings can do is provide descriptions of reality, is there really any harm in teaching anything?

Evolution is theory presented as theory because it is constantly being tested, creationism is presented as fact because it is an assertion based on no testing of any sort.

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Evolution is theory presented as theory because it is constantly being tested, creationism is presented as fact because it is an assertion based on no testing of any sort.

But creationism is being tested by those who believe in it. As people assimilate more information, they will incorporate this into what they believe to be facts. Creationism, though, is a very simple theory and isn’t dependent upon many observations (at the simplest level, only one observation is needed: people exist). The point is that I can test this. The presentation of the theory is independent of this. The distinction is subtle, but what I am trying to get at is that it is not the presenter’s (be that the teacher, school, government, etc.) responsibility to “classify” arguments into “facts” and “theory”; therefore, I tend not to see the teaching of creationism as crossing the barrier of church / state. Creationism isn’t a “religious” theory; it is a description of reality, like any other, though relatively simple. Perhaps it is better to leave the evaluation of the theories up to the students (hopefully with some guidance from their parents).

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

But creationism is being tested by those who believe in it.

No, it isn't. You don't test the Word of God(tm). By definition it should exist regardless of what we determine by study.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

On another note, I am not sure that I understand the distinction between presenting something as “fact” and presenting something as “theory” (I’m focusing on the dissemination of ideas in a classroom at this point).

In science, there are no facts. No theory is certain enough to be a "fact" in the philosophical sense. The closest thing in science to a literal fact is what science calls "data", but any step in the collection and/or interpretation of the data is enough to strip it of literal facthood.

Therefore, whenever the word fact is used (if it is) in science, it is shorthand for "we're pretty damn sure".

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Therefore, whenever the word fact is used (if it is) in science, it is shorthand for "we're pretty damn sure".

Under that definition, a fact is a theory that has reached some arbitrary level of acceptance. I'm not saying this is incorrect, I'm just using it to illustrate a point; most everyone treats the definition of “fact” as an absolute. However, most people also agree that there are various degrees to certainty, especially with reasonably complicated issues. The complication (for me) comes in when the two are mixed. No description of reality can be presented as an absolute fact (mathematics doesn’t count, it is a language, not a description of reality).