Evolution versus Creationism

[Rubble10]

I'm just wondering, what are your views on this issue, fellow forumers? I live in a small town in Pennsylvania where most people are quite religious, and conservative, so you would suppose evolution is the last thing I would accept. But no, I became very interested in the theory and gradually adopted it. My family is disappointed in me because I've done this, but I care not. My personal research has proved beyond a doubt in my mind that evolution is indeed correct. I've studied embryoes of organisms and their similarities to each other, I've studied the similarities in chemical compounds (DNA and RNA), vestigial organs, Darwin's finches, the peppered moths experiment, the disproving of spontaneus generation and many other subjects. But I also studied Creationism, because it wouldn't be right to accept an argument without lending an ear to the other. I agree with some creationist ideas, but I found most of their arguments fruitless - by fruitless I mean that a lot of their arguments have little to do with evolution. Like, for example, my teacher strongly asserts Hitler and Stalin support Darwinism, and many famous scientists like Linnaeus were creationists. While the latter may be true, it has literally no affect on evolutionary theory. Of course, I admire the creationists who compose legit arguments, not to give you the wrong impression. Well, that's enough of my life story,

So, what are your beliefs concerning this topic? Let's have a nice -- and civil -- debate.

PS: Sorry for any spelling mistakes, my computer's keyboard is really messed up and its difficult to type certain keys.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, for starters, it isn't really just "the theory of evolution" versus Biblical Young Earth Creationism, two sides of the coin. There are an awful lot of mythical (I am not using this word in a pejorative sense) explanations for biodiversity and the origin of the earth, and YEC is the most well known not because it is inherently better than any others but because of the prevelance of certain kinds of Christianity.

 

[GoodGame]

IN BEFORE THE LOCK!!!!!!!! :LoL:

I'm abstaining from this poll on the grounds that it shouldn't be posted in the Science forum.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

To sort of follow on from what Eran said, evolution is compatible with certain sorts of creationism, ie deism.

 

[Cutlass]

Evolution does not deny the existence of a god. It only suggests that god is a whole lot subtler and more creative than man can imagine.

 

[Rubble10]

Evolution does not deny the existence of a god.

I know this. In fact, I do believe in God and my belief hasn't changed my opinion on evolution.

IN BEFORE THE LOCK!!!!!!!! :LoL:

I'm abstaining from this poll on the grounds that it shouldn't be posted in the Science forum.

Why is it in the wrong forum? It's science, after all.

 

[Padma]

Personally, I don't have a problem with it in this forum. Just because all the previous threads were in Off Topic doesn't mean it has to go there.

You might want to search for "The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread", in thread titles. You will find 5 threads, ~4500 posts, on this very subject....

 

[GoodGame]

I know this. In fact, I do believe in God and my belief hasn't changed my opinion on evolution.



Why is it in the wrong forum? It's science, after all.

I sympathisize, but creationism is not science. It tests no hypothesis. It finds no facts. It only casts aspersions, rightly or wrongly, on the work of scientists.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I sympathisize, but creationism is not science. It tests no hypothesis. It finds no facts. It only casts aspersions, rightly or wrongly, on the work of scientists.

Indeed. And it has absolutely no hold in my region i.e. Asia. We find it astonishing that this is viewed as serious science in some parts of the world...

I am inclined to move this to OT, but for now I will leave it here and see how it goes...

 

[Yeekim]

Evolution does not deny the existence of a god. It only suggests that god is a whole lot subtler and more creative than man can imagine.

Yeah, this.

Young Earth Creationists, however, are a real paradox. Anyone stupid enough to believe that the world is literally 6000 years old can't possibly be result of millions of years of evolution, nor even distantly related to beings as intelligent as chimpanzees or gorillas... :suicide: /sarcasm

 

[Perfection]

I met Richard Dawkins wednesday.

Just throwin' that out there.

 

[Aramazd]

I met Richard Dawkins wednesday.

Just throwin' that out there.

That's cool. Where were you at?

 

[Perfection]

My Alma Mater

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I bought The Ancestor's Tale with my Christmas gift cards. It was excellent . . . when he was talking about evolution.

 

[Perfection]

Mine's excellenter because it's a signed copy.

 

[Simple Simon]

http://www.gnmagazine.org/evolution/?S=2&gclid=CNTH3Y7OkJkCFQqT3wodRRzUbA

this link is what the ad banner at the bottom of this page showed me when I opened this thread the first time. I guess it is a sufficient description of creationism, in all it's theistic forms.

I am currently re-reading The God Delusion. It is right on target, much as many deists (and closet-deists who pose like theists) dislike this fact (let's not talk about what the theists think).

Evolution is a fact. A simple fact made obvious by the fossil record. Just spend a few days crawling across the Swabian Alb or the Vocontian basin collecting ammonites (I use these examples because they are the most gratifying place for an amateur collector that's easy and comfortable to get to that I know) and you can't help but see it: change of species through time.

I also have seen - and provided in my own scientific work - so ample evidence for the theory of evolution that I can only laugh at all alternatives that were ever presented to me. Who knows - one day someone may present a better explanation. That is about as likely as me winning the lottery (I don't play, ever), but it is theoretically possible.

 

[SG-17]

Just a few days ago in my AP European History class we were going over the different -isms that were prevalent in the Second Industrial Revolution. When we started to go over Social Darwinism, we also talked about Evolution and On the Origin of Species as well as The Descent of Man.
I of course already knew about and believed in the Fact of Evolution being a Deist. I was surprised and disgusted by the reaction of the majority of my class. The majority of them are deeply Christian, even some Catholics. Only one of them (excluding myself) was not Christian, she is a self proclaimed Agnostic.
Almost all of the Christians protested my AP Teacher even mentioning Evolution and some said they would report it. (Now to be clear I also live in a small mainly Christian, mainly Conservative area.)
One of the girls near me started to say "How can man have evolved if the eye can't have one part taken away and still function, there is nothing from which it came." or something along those lines. I explained to her how in evolution, over time when an animal lives in a relatively stable environment, its redundant systems are lost. I also asked her to explain the prescience of the Appendix, Tail Bone, and the muscles in the ear. I also asked her to explain why nearly all mammalian embryos look identical for the first few weeks (or relative timescale) of gestation.
She and the rest of the class proceeded to be quiet.

I find Creationism preposterous. There is not one single piece of scientific evidence that supports it, in fact most of it debases it.

 

[Simple Simon]

Were the latter actually pro-evolution? 'Cause that's what Ratzinger wants them to be, and so did Wojtyla.

 

[SG-17]

No, atleast none of them said they supported evolution. The only ones who were vocal about it was my agnostic friend and I.

 

[GoodGame]

http://www.gnmagazine.org/evolution/?S=2&gclid=CNTH3Y7OkJkCFQqT3wodRRzUbA

The blurb for the book they're selling is exactly why I conclude there's no reason for Creationism in a science discussion. Sure they question the science supporting evolution, yet the implication (by creationism vs. evolution, with a premise 'you can know if evolution is true' with only 'textual' citation to support creation) is that it's a zero sum game. I.e. If a particular theory of evolution is false then it follows that creationism is true. No where in science is it true that disproving one hypothesis automatically validates another hypothesis. Just because you use a null hypothesis and disprove one hypothesis, the onus is still to prove a separate one as fact. Each hypothesis must be tested to validate it.

Not to mention that their scientific interest is purely to assert that acceptance of evolution as fact = decline of moral value. I'd be curious to see them prove that hypothesis besides independently verifying that a supreme being created the universe.