Creation vs. Evolution

[neophyte]

Yes, that's what he's saying, and I say that is an erroneous conclusion. There is no reason in the world (or elsewhere, for that matter) to conclude that an acknowledgement that at the beginning and the end of time and space and infinity there is God would or should affect the pursuit of science. Indeed, I see it as the greatest motivator of all.
Rick

And that is why I, for one, would never dream of arguing against your faith.

On the other hand, when one starts from the above acknowledgment, proceeds through a careful reading of (mainly) "the begats" section of the bible while doing some math, determines that this planet is ~6000 years old, and concludes by denying the validity of carbon dating and anything else that would indicate otherwise, well, that IS affecting their pursuit of science.

That's why I want creationist explanations kept entirely out of science classrooms. Both science and religion/theology/faith can be full of and lead to, wonder. When one masquerades as the other, the outcome is stifling.

And yes, according to the above linked site at least, the "evidence" that our planet is only 6,000 comes from an only slightly more complex biblical interpretation. Don't believe me?

Look here

 

[Rick Murchison]

That's why I want creationist explanations kept entirely out of science classrooms.

Ahem...
I believe that God created the heavens and the earth.
I believe He took a very very long time to get the job done. Likely longer than the current scientific calculations (scientific calculations on the age of the universe have been expanding steadily for centuries - when I was in grade school it was 4 billion years or so... last I heard was about 20 billion... what are we up to now?)
I believe He's still at it.
I believe scientific research is key to understanding Him better.

Now tell me again why you'd want to keep that "entirely out of" the classroom?
Rick

 

[Rick Murchison]

It's sort of like the Calvanist doctrine of predestination where the eternal destiny of some to salvation, and (by inference) the rest to H*E*L*L. If that were true, what would be the point?

Theirs is an interesting view. An all-knowing God must know the future, and therefore who's "in the book." Reconciling that with free will will make a Gordian knot of your brain. How does that old song go? "I'll swear there ain't no heaven and I'll pray there ain't no hell..."
Rick

 

[Warthaug]

Damn, should have jumped on this last night when there was only two pages of replies. Oh well...

Firstly, I should point out that I'm a biologist by training and a scientist by profession, so I'm pretty familiar with evolution.

To "Lost at sea", if your planning on pursuing a degree in marine biology you're going to run into problems. Evolution is to biology what relativity & QED is to physics - it explains every biological phenomena we've ever encountered. Without evolution biology is just a collection of interesting facts; with evolution all of those facts become interlinked and form a single, concrete continuum of life.

If you don't at least understand the basic principals of evolution you are going to have a great deal of trouble understanding many of the concepts they are going to try and teach you - genetics, population dynamics, ecology, physiology, even biochemistry - they all have evolutionary underpinnings. The fact you don't seem to know the difference between the definitions of "adaptation" and "evolution" tells me you have a long ways to go.

As for evolution in general, it occurs, and you pretty much have to have had your head in the sand since 1905 to have not seen this - 1905 being the first time the evolution of a new species was observed. And it isn't some obscure speciation event either; many of us have the offspring of that speciation event in our gardens - the evening primrose. And that's just one of ~2000 speciation events observed & recorded so far. Right now I'm monitoring a student who is using evolution to identify forms of a pathogen resistant to our immune responses. We even use our knowledge of evolution to design the next years flu vaccine (how else could we predict what the next years flu virus is going to look like in advance?).

The last thing I'd like to comment on is the theme of "evolution vs religion", or for that matter "science vs. religion" which so often comes up in these discussion. Many people - creationists in particular - like to cast evolution/science as some form of atheism. This is an out-and-out lie of the part of those people. I've known dozens of scientists, of many different faiths, who believed in their god, their religion and evolution, all at the same time. Why people want to exclude evolution (or the big bang, or theories of abiogenesis) as ways god could have created us is a mystery to me. Who are we to put limits on god, to say what god can do?

Bryan

 

[scubafire]

There appears to be plenty of scientific evidence that evolutuion has been occuring for quite some time.

If you really believe that, prove it. Microevolution, yes. Macroevolution, no. As a Christian I believe the Bible, not to mention that evolution is a statistical improbability.

So if you really believe what you say, visit www.DrDino.com. They offer a large sum of cash if you can prove just one evidence of macroevolution. I have heard the guy speak. Colleges around the nation refuse to debate with him. Kind of funny.

 

[Jamdiver]

Damn, should have jumped on this last night when there was only two pages of replies. Oh well...

Firstly, I should point out that I'm a biologist by training and a scientist by profession, so I'm pretty familiar with evolution.

To "Lost at sea", if your planning on pursuing a degree in marine biology you're going to run into problems. Evolution is to biology what relativity & QED is to physics - it explains every biological phenomena we've ever encountered. Without evolution biology is just a collection of interesting facts; with evolution all of those facts become interlinked and form a single, concrete continuum of life.

If you don't at least understand the basic principals of evolution you are going to have a great deal of trouble understanding many of the concepts they are going to try and teach you - genetics, population dynamics, ecology, physiology, even biochemistry - they all have evolutionary underpinnings. The fact you don't seem to know the difference between the definitions of "adaptation" and "evolution" tells me you have a long ways to go.

As for evolution in general, it occurs, and you pretty much have to have had your head in the sand since 1905 to have not seen this - 1905 being the first time the evolution of a new species was observed. And it isn't some obscure speciation event either; many of us have the offspring of that speciation event in our gardens - the evening primrose. And that's just one of ~2000 speciation events observed & recorded so far. Right now I'm monitoring a student who is using evolution to identify forms of a pathogen resistant to our immune responses. We even use our knowledge of evolution to design the next years flu vaccine (how else could we predict what the next years flu virus is going to look like in advance?).

The last thing I'd like to comment on is the theme of "evolution vs religion", or for that matter "science vs. evolution" which so often comes up in these discussion. Many people - creationists in particular - like to cast evolution/science as some form of atheism. This is an out-and-out lie of the part of those people. I've known dozens of scientists, of many different faiths, who believed in their god, their religion and evolution, all at the same time. Why people want to exclude evolution (or the big bang, or theories of abiogenesis) as ways god could have created us is a mystery to me. Who are we to put limits on god, to say what god can do?

Bryan

Bravo!

 

[Warthaug]

Ahem...
I believe that God created the heavens and the earth.
I believe He took a very very long time to get the job done. Likely longer than the current scientific calculations (scientific calculations on the age of the universe have been expanding steadily for centuries - when I was in grade school it was 4 billion years or so... last I heard was about 20 billion... what are we up to now?)
I believe He's still at it.
I believe scientific research is key to understanding Him better.

Now tell me again why you'd want to keep that "entirely out of" the classroom?
Rick

I think he was talking about the 6-day, 6000-year old version of creationism . . . not all "creations" are created equally

Bryan

 

[scubafire]

Just to post a quick question to evolutionists...Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. That is a law of Science. So then what was there at the beginning of time? Particles? Okay well where did they come from. It is a statistical improbability to say that they came from something which came from something and did not ever have a beginning. Unless you admit that it is possible for something to NOT have a beginning....but then you would acknowledge the possibility of God. (And that, to most evolutionists, is the problem).

It is tough to realize that if there is a Creator that you may be held accountable for the things you say and do on earth. Much easier to think we happened by chance and there are no moral implications.

 

[neophyte]

Ahem...
I believe that God created the heavens and the earth.
I believe He took a very very long time to get the job done. Likely longer than the current scientific calculations (scientific calculations on the age of the universe have been expanding steadily for centuries - when I was in grade school it was 4 billion years or so... last I heard was about 20 billion... what are we up to now?)
I believe He's still at it.
I believe scientific research is key to understanding Him better.

Now tell me again why you'd want to keep that "entirely out of" the classroom?
Rick

There is one simple reason I'd want to keep that out of the science classroom.

It's not science.

It is a context within which to approach science. For that reason I don't find the notions I quoted as damaging as plenty of the creationist interpretations I've heard (the site I linked to above, for example) which seem to be contexts within which to avoid science.

Supernatural, metaphysical, larger than life and grander than our experience cosmologies have a place in education. Philosophy classes and comparative religion classes are two great examples. The science classroom is not.

To me it's just that simple.

For whatever it's worth, I'm speaking of public classrooms, into which my tax dollars are flowing through the state.

 

[Thalassamania]

No, in point of fact matter can be converted to energy and back. E=MC^2