Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

I really tried to read all of this thread but it kept repeating the same old tired arguments on both sides so I didn't make it. If I repeat something that someone else has said - sorry. Definitions seem to be some of the difficulty in a discussion of this topic. I'll do my best to be clear in what I'm about to say - sorry if I'm not. Science is a lot like religion - each has many who disagree within its ranks as to particulars. Each is a system of faith - some based in truth others error. A discussion like this could never answer for all facets of either of these faiths, I don't claim to be able to either.

To start, here is some food for thought:

1. If God exists and is supreme, could he not have the power to create the universe in 6 days?

2. If God created the universe in 6 days, would it have to look brand new?

How did I do?

I think you did ok. I won't argue what should be taught in schools because there are a hundred other things about the public school system that bother me more than the science curriculum.

I get a kick out of the thought of a scientist in the garden whith Adam. The scientist would look at Adam and conclude that this man must have been born an infant. He must have had a mother and a father who also must have been born as infants. The scientist would then start looking around for ape fosils.

The scientist would cut down one of the trees that Adam was to eat from and see the growth rings and the seeds in the fruit. He would conclude that this tree must be very old. Because it must have grown from a seed. There had to have been trees before it.

The scientist would look up at the night sky and observe stars that are billions of light years away. He would be forced to conclude that those stars must be billions of years old in order for him to see that light.

No doubt the scientist would start picking stuff up off the ground and carbon dating it. He would probably start comming up with ideas of big bangs and ooz that spontaniously came to life and eventually began to question it's own origin.

It's not that the scientist has the observable data wrong. He just comes to the wrong conclusions because he's trying to rely completely on his own thoughts and wisdom though they are completely insufficient to the task.

Here we are only days into creation and already there's a man in that garden trying to assert his own ideas above those of God. Hey! Isn't that what Adam did wrong in the first place? Who know what magnitude of error this guy is capable of?

I could see it all. God, might say..."Hey, dummy. yes, you with the calculator and the note pad. I did all this". The scientist would respond...""But no, you don't understand. I counted the growth rings in the tree and tested my findings. I measured the speed of light and it just isn't possible for that star to be new. It must have been there for a VERY long time and I can prove it." And God might again say..."Trust Me! I did it" And the scientist would come back again with "But no God. You don't understand".

I think it would have made a great three stooges or Benny Hill skit.

 

[Hank49]

I could see it all. God, might say..."Hey, dummy. yes, you with the calculator and the note pad. I did all this". The scientist would respond...""But no, you don't understand. I counted the growth rings in the tree and tested my findings. I measured the speed of light and it just isn't possible for that star to be new. It must have been there for a VERY long time and I can prove it." And God might again say..."Trust Me! I did it" And the scientist would come back again with "But no God. You don't understand".

I think it would have made a great three stooges or Benny Hill skit.

I respect your beliefs Mike. But if you believe that this was "created" in seven days, don't you ever wonder what was here before that? This is what stumps me. Nothing is something. The deep vacuums of space are something....space. What did God do before he had all this to manage? Can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it? ( sorry, I had to throw that one in there... )
On the other hand, I have as many questions regarding evolution. Open one door to knowledge, as man has done over the last thousands of years, and you find 6 more doors......

 

[Daylonious]

This is the conclusion that just floors me, that because the idea of intelligent design isn't science then it ought to be excluded from the science classroom. There are many ideas that aren't science that have a home in the science classroom and are useful there as motivators or as "grease" for human/human interaction. One of Einstein's principle motivators was the desire to "know the mind of God." It is mine, too. Remove that and science becomes sterile and boring to me and to many, and you end up excluding contributors to the effort.
It isn't the rejection of the idea of intelligent design that I have a hard time understanding - I went through that period in my youth myself - but rather the seemingly paranoid attitude that if you let intelligent design into the classroom it will somehow be detrimental to the goal of science. As you say, intelligent design isn't science. Neither is "good manners." But both have a useful role in the science (or any other) classroom.
If I say "Wow! Ain't God Great!" or "Wow! Look at that!" when I make a new discovery what difference does it make, really? In fact, looking through the window of intelligent design often makes it easier to accept new truths than if one's only faith is in the "scientific method." There's little in this world harder than trying to convince scientists that new data blows a hole in their body of work - especially when it does.
---
It just dawned on me that there may be a key issue missing from the discussion.
Intelligent design also assumes that the design is ultimately beyond our comprehension; that all we can do is get closer to understanding the "Grand Plan" - so it always, always not only leaves room for, but demands new discovery, new thought, new conclusions. Why would you want to exclude that from the classroom or the lab?
Rick

Rick, I agree that creationism deserves to be taught, but not in the science class. In a philosophy class, in a comparative religion class, in any class you want, except science. I haven't read this entire thread, but I'm sure the idea came up of creationism and intelligent design as they stand up to scientific examination. What iks me is when people say "evolution is a theory" and compare that to "creationism and intelligent design is a theory" as if they both carry the same weight when it comes to the scientific method. I don't discount the benefit of learning alternative philosophies when it comes to how we all came to be, indeed, things get really interesting when you get into quantum mechanics - but the basis of the scientific method is that you have a theory or an experiment that is testable and measurable. Creationism and intelligent design theory do not possess those characteristics and cannot be tested via the scientific method. I don't discount their value as a learning tool or an avenue of intellectual thought, but it stands to reason that you cannot construct an experiment or a test that would allow you to measure or evaluate that position. Based on that, I believe that creationism and intelligent design are best left to philosophy and comparative religion classes.

just me humble opinion

D.

 

[scubafire]

I think you did ok. I won't argue what should be taught in schools because there are a hundred other things about the public school system that bother me more than the science curriculum.

I get a kick out of the thought of a scientist in the garden whith Adam. The scientist would look at Adam and conclude that this man must have been born an infant. He must have had a mother and a father who also must have been born as infants. The scientist would then start looking around for ape fosils.

The scientist would cut down one of the trees that Adam was to eat from and see the growth rings and the seeds in the fruit. He would conclude that this tree must be very old. Because it must have grown from a seed. There had to have been trees before it.

The scientist would look up at the night sky and observe stars that are billions of light years away. He would be forced to conclude that those stars must be billions of years old in order for him to see that light.

No doubt the scientist would start picking stuff up off the ground and carbon dating it. He would probably start comming up with ideas of big bangs and ooz that spontaniously came to life and eventually began to question it's own origin.

It's not that the scientist has the observable data wrong. He just comes to the wrong conclusions because he's trying to rely completely on his own thoughts and wisdom though they are completely insufficient to the task.

Here we are only days into creation and already there's a man in that garden trying to assert his own ideas above those of God. Hey! Isn't that what Adam did wrong in the first place? Who know what magnitude of error this guy is capable of?

I could see it all. God, might say..."Hey, dummy. yes, you with the calculator and the note pad. I did all this". The scientist would respond...""But no, you don't understand. I counted the growth rings in the tree and tested my findings. I measured the speed of light and it just isn't possible for that star to be new. It must have been there for a VERY long time and I can prove it." And God might again say..."Trust Me! I did it" And the scientist would come back again with "But no God. You don't understand".

I think it would have made a great three stooges or Benny Hill skit.

Awesome.

 

[scubafire]

I respect your beliefs Mike. But if you believe that this was "created" in seven days, don't you ever wonder what was here before that? This is what stumps me. Nothing is something. The deep vacuums of space are something....space. What did God do before he had all this to manage? Can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it? ( sorry, I had to throw that one in there... )
On the other hand, I have as many questions regarding evolution. Open one door to knowledge, as man has done over the last thousands of years, and you find 6 more doors......

Thats the thing...it takes faith no matter what side you stand for.

 

[Thalassamania]

Clearly I come down four-square on the Darwinian side, as far as I'm concerned all the other stuff is myth, sometime pretty myth sometimes a meaningful allegory, but myth just the same.

What gets me is how folks think that their myth is any more important than another’s myth? Is it not just as reasonable to believe that the world exists on the back of giant turtle as it is to believe the Judeo/Christian bible version? Should we be teaching all these myths in the chemistry lab? How about alchemy and astrology?

 

[MikeFerrara]

I respect your beliefs Mike. But if you believe that this was "created" in seven days, don't you ever wonder what was here before that? This is what stumps me. Nothing is something. The deep vacuums of space are something....space. What did God do before he had all this to manage? Can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it? ( sorry, I had to throw that one in there... )
On the other hand, I have as many questions regarding evolution. Open one door to knowledge, as man has done over the last thousands of years, and you find 6 more doors......

I suppose that on some level I wonder about a lot of things. I can show the existance of an infinate number but I can't really comprehend it. I can prove the existance of the square root of -1 but I don't know what it is. I can say that the universe is infinate but I can't get a handle on it. While I don't believe there was anything other than God before He started creating, I certainly can't picture it nor can I imagine the vastness of a God who could create the vastness of everything that exists. I certainly don't have any idea how God occupied his time before creation or for that matter how he occupies his time now since I don't think he is constrained by time. Time is another one of those things that was created for our benifit. I doubt that God has any other use for it.

At the same time, I find getting a grasp on the process without God only that much harder. It doesn't answer any questions at all and only raises more questions. Which is more far fetched, that God did it or that it did itself? As Rick pointed out, is this conversation and the very questions we ponder simply the result of some spontanious big bang and the resultant chemical reactions? Simple mechanics or is there spirit and purpose? Isn't ooz that gets up and starts walking around debating the existance of God the very stuff that science fiction is made of? How can you get more far fetched than that? Is life and consiousness spirit or more like a rock only self replicating? Could consiousness or spirit have any meaning without God?

It is easy for me to comprehend that man wants to be the boss, the big guy on the block, for there to be no God or at least for God to oporate on mans terms. Of course man wants to create God in mans image rather than realizing that man is created in the image of God. Maybe that's why scripture tells us that pride is one of the things that God hates the most. We see it all the time. Some one says...if God is God and if God is good, I can't imagine Him doing this or that...Maybe that's why scripture tells us that mans ways are not God's ways and that there is a way that seems right to a man but that way leads to death. Our science may be new but our rebelion is the same old stuff that has gone on since the beginning.

Why would we, the finite, be surprised that we are unable to understand the infinite whether it's God or random chance. Can a creation of God ever completely understand God? By the same token, can the creation of a random cosmic even ever really understand that cosmic event? The good news is that if God did it, I think some of us will eventually understand a good portion of it. The bad news is that if it was a raqndom consmic event, I don't think we will ever understand. If we ever really held the secret of creation in our hands we would be gods wouldn't we? A while ago I heard a scientist on TV say that life was just a chemical process and that it was just a matter of time before we could replicate it and that he didn't think it would be hard. Maybe that's what man really wants, to be God. Is this big bang and evolution stuff just another tower of bable?

I don't have an equation that proves the existance of God. I'm not a trained minister and I doubt I'm a very good evangalist. I not overly concerned with convincing any one of anything. I believe that it's fortunate for all of us that the Holly Spirit of God has His own ways that are NOT dependant on any of us. If your salvation depended on me I'm pretty sure that we would both be toast.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Thats the thing...it takes faith no matter what side you stand for.

Yes but do we choose to have faith in man or faith in God? If we place our faith in man then I pray that God help us! ooops, I guess I pick God. LOL

 

[fairybasslet]

In drawings in children's bibles of Adam and Eve, I see them drawn with belly buttons. Why?

 

[AevnsGrandpa]

I saw this thread a few days ago and thought, wow here we go again. I have not yet posted as I felt that I really would not add anything useful to this, but today when I checked the recent posts, I saw that Mike was the last one who posted and I have read his posts on similar things before and so I decided to read the last page of posts.

For a person to make a reasonable choice or decision on a topic, they must be willing to have on their "plate of choices" all the available options to make it. From things I have read and heard most people and especially those of higher learning, choose not to even allow the possibility of God in their "plate of choices", so it would never occur to that person that there might be a choice in their decision making outside of nature or what is able to be seen.

This would go with the example of the scientist in the Garden with Adam. Everything thing he would see or look at would be evaluated based on the “plate of choices” he has that leaves out God, so he would see long ages and uniform processes, even though it all would be incorrect.

I have chosen to believe the bible as written not because it feels right or I was brought up on it, though it has some to do with it, but mainly I have found it is a reasonable belief, not blind faith. As Mike stated, to me it takes more (blind) faith to believe in evolution, for something to actually come from nothing, that it does for me to believe there is an intelligent God who created all and left us a record of it to we would know what happened as much as we can.