Creation vs. Evolution

[Theunis]

With all due respect, you're falling into exactly the trap that the religionists want you to. It's not a question of religion vs. atheism as two competing belief systems. What the religionists want most is to define their crapola as science, thus ID and to define a "religion" of secular humanism / atheism that they can be in conflict with and they can have excluded (along with such secular humanistic beliefs as evolution) in much the way that they have been excluded by the courts. You play right into their hands. The Georgia courts slapped them down for this approach, as did the Kansas courts and the Delaware courts ... don't you go crediting them.

Sorry, you are wrong about this one. I don't set traps for anybody. I was merely making a point. Why are you so suspicious?

 

[Sas]

Does it mean that scientists like Dr. Gentry and Dr. Veith, with different views on the theory of evolution, are not scientists anymore? They have done studies on the subject as well, can't their voices be heard, or should only the scientists supporting the evolution theory be heard?

Scientists are not always right. Many scientists have been wrong about many things. So scientists should only be taken seriously if their work is peer reviewed, reproducible and able to be tested. I don't know those scientists well but if they are saying that evolution did not take place or that the Earth is 6000 years old (which is about the extent of my knowledge of what they believe), then they are NOT credible and should NOT be taken seriously. I don't care what their qualifications are or their past work, they are arguing against reality. A few bad eggs spoiling the bunch really.

Sorry, you are wrong about this one. I don't set traps for anybody. I was merely making a point. Why are you so suspicious?

I don't think Thal was referring to you Theunis. Just a certain class of Christians that state that to support the theory of evolution, you are probably an atheist. I think a large percentage of Christians who have done any kind of reading on evolution are not creationists. Catholics, for example, do not see a contradiction between evolution and God.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I never stated that there was perfect and complete understanding. Frankly, the Wiki article on the origin of life is rather more convincing than any creation mythology I've ever read.

It's convincing alright.

But that was not what I asked for, nor did I ask for your critique as to if "evolution" adequately explains the life we have on this planet, all I asked for was a single example of where science and religion had come into conflict and where the resolution of the disagreement had been in favor of the religious view.


Do you have one or not?

In regards to any position I've taken in the discussion the question is not only irrelevant but completely nonsensical.

Are you unwilling to take up the question of whether or not "evolution" adequately explains the life we have on this planet?

 

[MikeFerrara]

I just jumped to the last of this and don't want to get into the muddle of things, but I have never seen the real conflict between Creationism and Evolution. Maybe it is just because I have created a lot of things in my life, and their creation has been an process of evolution. (Hey, if at first you don't succeed.....)

There are potential conflicts but those conflicts, IMO, are best addressed in the venue and context in which they belong but that's not what's going on.

 

[Sas]

Are you unwilling to take up the question of whether or not "evolution" adequately explains the life we have on this planet?

It has already been answered before Mike, so I think people did not want to be repetitive. Abiogenesis is not required for the theory of evolution to hold true, if that is what you are referring to with whether evolution explains the life that we have on the planet. All you need is the origin of life, as evolution explains from this point onwards, so it explains the type of life we have all around us today. So this is why many Christians do not feel that evolution and an original 'Creator' are contradictory.

How abiogenesis came about, is still fairly uncertain. This does not mean that the theory of evolution is then uncertain. There are mountains of evidence for the fact of evolution, but not the origin of life.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Scientists are not always right. Many scientists have been wrong about many things. So scientists should only be taken seriously if their work is peer reviewed, reproducible and able to be tested. I don't know those scientists well but if they are saying that evolution did not take place or that the Earth is 6000 years old (which is about the extent of my knowledge of what they believe), then they are NOT credible and should NOT be taken seriously. I don't care what their qualifications are or their past work, they are arguing against reality. A few bad eggs spoiling the bunch really.

I don't know. I think much of the science regarding creation is pretty thin. As evidence for it's strength some present he argument that there are no viable competing theories. Being the "best" isn't the same as being good.

I've only just started looking into whether or not there are other "scientific" theories and whether or not they are as "thin" as the commonly accepted theories.

I don't think Thal was referring to you Theunis. Just a certain class of Christians that state that to support the theory of evolution, you are probably an atheist. I think a large percentage of Christians who have done any kind of reading on evolution are not creationists. Catholics, for example, do not see a contradiction between evolution and God.

I don't think that's accurate but which aspect should we look at?

I'm not sure I know where to start here. It's one thing for a Christian to question their understanding of scripture...or for that matter their understanding of the natural world. It's a completely different matter to try to rewrite scripture because of what the rest of the world is doing or thinking.

You mentioned Catholics. The Catholic church seems to be an example of what you get when you let worldly matters alter your view of scripture.

 

[MikeFerrara]

It has already been answered before Mike, so I think people did not want to be repetitive.

Nonsense. They seem to be repetative by nature.

Abiogenesis is not required for the theory of evolution to hold true, if that is what you are referring to with whether evolution explains the life that we have on the planet.

As I already stated, it seem clear that abiogenesis is required in the context of the question posed by the opening post of this thread. To set it aside is to just duck the question.

All you need is the origin of life, as evolution explains from this point onwards, so it explains the type of life we have all around us today.

I disagree. It establishes some mechanisms but hasn't come close to documenting the complete genesis of life.

How abiogenesis came about, is still fairly uncertain.

uncertain? That's the understatement of the day.

This does not mean that the theory of evolution is then uncertain. There are mountains of evidence for the fact of evolution, but not the origin of life.

There are mountains of evidence that "evelution" happens. I'm not so confident that the evidence really supports the degree to which some claim that evolution did happen.

 

[adurso]

I have to agree with you concerning NCLB, but in this case (and maybe only in this case) the definitions are useful. I would really like to see a standard in place in all districts that requires all science teachers (at least) to complete an accredited college level course in evolutionary biology.

The difficulty with creating more standards lies in the dearth of highly qualified teachers. If we make the requirements more stringent, particularly in math and science, which have become critical, we run the risk of an even greater shortage. There is a move afoot to REDUCE the requirements so that the employment pool is larger. Should this happen as a nation we will fall further behind in the sciences.

 

[Sas]

As I already stated, it seem clear that abiogenesis is required in the context of the question posed by the opening post of this thread. To set it aside is to just duck the question.

I never stated that evolution explained life, the universe and everything actually. And we're now over 5000 posts so we've moved a long way from the OP. And personally I cannot take the post of a person who thinks the world is 6-7000 years old seriously. It would be the same as if I took someone who said 2+2=5 seriously... The big bang, which is what s/he referred to, is not within evolutionary theory anyway. Please do yourself a favour and actually look at what the theory of evolution attempts to explain as you have it wrong.

What evolution does explain is how after abiogenesis, life in all its forms progressed and how it did not require a 'Creator' to make the multitude of different life forms around you that you see today. Of course, if there is a God he could have cleverly made the entire world appear like it is 4.5 billion years old, plant all the fossils and transitional fossils, and continue to fiddle with species to fool scientists viewing evolution in progress today. But firstly, this would never be testable so is outside the scope of science, and also, this would be a pretty deceptive thing for a God to do. Dunno if I'd want to worship a God with such a deceptive nature...

I disagree. It establishes some mechanisms but hasn't come close to documenting the complete genesis of life. uncertain? That's the understatement of the day.

Ok, what mechanisms do you think the theory of evolution explains? And what don't you think it explains properly (apart from abiogenesis which is outside the scope of the theory anyway)? You just seem to throw out statements like that with out saying what you are referring to mike.

There are mountains of evidence that "evelution" happens. I'm not so confident that the evidence really supports the degree to which some claim that evolution did happen.

Again, what in particular are you referring to? However, I am glad you recognise that there are mountains of evidence that evolution happens.

 

[Sas]

Wait! I just saw this Youtube video and am convinced that the failure of scientists to explain abiogenesis destroys the theory of evolution!

YouTube - Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!