Evolution vs Creationism

  • Checked and the debate is no longer on the boards. So here is a new one.


    The denial of science has occurred for a long time. One of the most controversial scientific theories in the public mind is Evolution. Despite the overwhelming evidence, there are individuals that disbelieve reality. Creationists argue for a variety of things but that a deity made the world.


    So. State your personal belief and why. Feel free to provide evidence to support that, opinions will be reported. For the sake of simplicity, Intelligent Design will be classed as a form of creationism.

    Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you

    oZM3SIa.png

  • I have never believed in Creationism as I am a person who had dealt with scientific evidence and I at first wanted to study biology at university. The evidence we have in a scientific level is absolutely in favour of evolution. I have never seen any conclusive and convincing evidence that the earth is only a few thousand years old. That goes against everything we know. There is a vast difference between knowledge and belief. There is no shame in admitting that some of the evidence is hard to be understood as many people are not schooled at science. I would say though that even though I am a big fan of questioning, some trust should be put into those who are therefore experts.


    Creationism is based on a book written by humans a few thousand years ago. In those times, knowledge about science was scarce, thus people tried to explain their surroundings with God and His doing. What seems to be ignored as well is that there is no region on earth that does not claim to know about God(s) and how the Earth came about. They differ, for good reasons, as all they used to know where their surroundings from which their beliefs came from. The success of Christianity has its reasons in what was promised, especially appealing to those who were poor. To elaborate this would need an essay. The problem is that many people take the bible literally, even though theologists often say themselves that those are meant to be examples to go by, partly stories of events that happened a long time ago and interpreted in a way they could grasp it, e.g. floods.

    Gone as BA.



    Thank you ruby_kirby, you are a true artist. :)
    Be head to serve, not to reign(Bernard von Clairvaux)

  • Indeed, this is one of the problems I have with pseudoscientific belief, it requires faith. In science the methodology is an attempt to prove an idea wrong. If it can't be proven wrong then it can over time be accepted as theory. There is no such rule for faith, the acceptance of the flaws or to overlook can be misguided.

    Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you

    oZM3SIa.png

  • Science in and of itself requires faith.


    To clarify, your argument is in the denial of scientific evidence. To your dismay, you will find many Christians do not deny scientific evidence, such as carbon-dating, biology, genealogy, or other forums of science. In fact, they embrace it and still incorporate the basal values of their faith, such as honesty, work-ethic, and some generalised format of generosity and kindness. Much likes certain areas of curriculum, however, Earth's history in Christian teachings needs to be updated.


    Anyhow, not everything in science is rooted in absolute certainty, and many dynamics require faith.


    The idea of Monotheistic faiths denying science as opposed to history are two very different concepts, and much of it boils down to a matter of societal mores and morals, and the grander question, "The meaning of life."


    To believe that we exist for the sole purpose of creating more degenerate offspring is a hard pill to swallow. Many religious individuals lead generally happier lives, due to a sense of life greater than what science bleakly posits.


    "Those whose perspective realities diverge from our own are not necessarily evil or dangerous, but rather seek to align closer with true reality... Though we will never attain full synchronicity between our perspective realities and true reality." - Ryan A. Vetter.

    Trouble wrote:

    Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D


    Doc Brown wrote:

    I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
    What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.

  • Hmmm, not letting me quote properly. Let us hope.


    Quote

    Science in and of itself requires faith


    This depends on the definition of "faith". In regards to religious beliefs that run counter to knowledge then that is a different definition than say complete trust or confidence in someone or something.


    Science requires faith in the latter form only. We trust/ have confidence in that the philosophy that underpins science works. The faith here is evidence based. On the contrary, religious faith, such as creationism is not evidence based, it is based on spiritual conviction rather than any evidence (proof is not a good word in science, so I've decided to use evidence instead). Therefore it is problematic to talk about the two definitions interchangeably as it creates a strawman (that faith in science is the same as faith in religion).


    To your dismay, you will find many Christians do not deny scientific evidence

    Bit of a strawman, I'm not referring to "Christians" but anyone in a religious faith that states that their deity created the world and deny speciation that occurred due to mutation and natural selection. This is important because it is not only the Christian religion that has this issue, so does Islam and there have been problems in places like Turkey because of it.


    I am happy to acknowledge that there are Christians that believe in their God and that Evolution occurred. There are even Evolutionary Biologists such as Kenneth Miller who have written books on the subject. I am not arguing against all those that follow this religion.

    Anyhow, not everything in science is rooted in absolute certainty, and many dynamics require faith.

    This is different type of faith to religious faith as discussed previously. As for certainty, science has never claimed that, only those who are religious do. The entire point of science is to disprove something, we can't prove something.

    To believe that we exist for the sole purpose of creating more degenerate offspring is a hard pill to swallow.

    Depends on perspective. For me, it gives a freedom and opportunity that religious faith can never bring, along with intellectual considerations. Philosophically I find it more appealing in other words.

    Many religious individuals lead generally happier lives, due to a sense of life greater than what science bleakly posits.

    Assumption. Evidence please. Also for rebuttal:

    “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved."


    - Charles Darwin

    Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you

    oZM3SIa.png

  • I'd refer to my 4.0 (Perfect grading) in my sociology studies in college. It wasn't an assumption, as the restrictive life style provides a much needed basis of structure in the individual's life. Just as well, I stated that those whom maintain their faith lead happier tend to lead happier lives ( a majority statistically based on general life satisfaction, in excess of 60% but under 68%). It's been a few years, but it isn't an assumption, I assure you.


    As for the assumption of a strawman... You're awfully apprehensive when your religious views are under examination, I never generated a strawman argument; in fact I'm confident in my post-Independence Day stupour that I used the term monotheism or a variation thereof to clarify.


    If anything, you literally agreed with everything I said, let your guard down, because you're getting defensive on the subject.

    Trouble wrote:

    Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D


    Doc Brown wrote:

    I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
    What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.

  • Quote

    I'd refer to my 4.0 (Perfect grading) in my sociology studies in college. It wasn't an assumption, as the restrictive life style provides a much needed basis of structure in the individual's life.


    What grade you got is irrelevant, I could say that dog dental calculus is a great source of ancient proteins and aDNA which would be great for bioarchaeology, but without references to studies then it is an assumption. Without those I am taking your word on it and this doesn't answer a lot of questions about the variables and whether it not correlation equals causation. Without more evidence it is impossible to say such a thing and I am interested in what evidence there is for it.


    Quote

    As for the assumption of a strawman...


    Apart from you started discussing Christianity, which is irrelevant. Not interested in discussing that, as creationists are more pseudoscience than religion and that is more an interesting topic as well as relevant. Your point seemed to suggest I was railing against Christianity, which is surprising because I haven't mentioned it once. Monotheism was mentioned more as an after thought, but creationism is more religious extremism and not necessarily restricted to monotheistic religions. All religions have creation stories. It is part of what they are for.


    Quote

    You're awfully apprehensive when your religious views are under examination


    Eh? Science is not a religion. Philosophy, yes, but not religion, and my points were to clarify that philosophy. Unless you have assumed I am an atheist, which again would not make sense because lack of religion is not a religious view.

    Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you

    oZM3SIa.png

  • What grade you got is irrelevant, I could say that dog dental calculus is a great source of ancient proteins and aDNA which would be great for bioarchaeology, but without references to studies then it is an assumption. Without those I am taking your word on it and this doesn't answer a lot of questions about the variables and whether it not correlation equals causation. Without more evidence it is impossible to say such a thing and I am interested in what evidence there is for it.


    You can loosely string words at an attempt to satire my logical point, but it doesn't invalidate my argument. If you're concerned with my credentials, then take it up with WCTC; if you're concerned with my sources, then we become bogged in a cycle of source against source arbitration. For your humour, here is a sociological thesis pertaining to the correlation between "happiness" and religion.


    Of course you could just as easily declare this as being hearsay and biased; it seems scientific principles are more convoluted than are of benefit to your argument.


    Quote

    Apart from you started discussing Christianity, which is irrelevant. Not interested in discussing that, as creationists are more pseudoscience than religion and that is more an interesting topic as well as relevant. Your point seemed to suggest I was railing against Christianity, which is surprising because I haven't mentioned it once. Monotheism was mentioned more as an after thought, but creationism is more religious extremism and not necessarily restricted to monotheistic religions. All religions have creation stories. It is part of what they are for.


    I briefly touched on Christianity, if only for exemplary reasons. Whom is creating straw-man arguments, if you could answer that please? You seem all too eager to dissect monotheistic philosophies, if simply to bolster the general standing of your atheistic philosophy.



    Quote

    Eh? Science is not a religion. Philosophy, yes, but not religion, and my points were to clarify that philosophy. Unless you have assumed I am an atheist, which again would not make sense because lack of religion is not a religious view.


    With the same fervency you attempt to defend/iterate that science is purely philosophical, would be the same fervency you'll see Abrahamic philosophies defend/iterate that God (et al) is real. Science is a philosophy, a way of life, a means to explain existence, but not non-existence, as science in its core dejects the idea of non-existence; the belief in disbelief. Science is just one atheistic religion, you either believe in it or you don't. It is a split religion, with multiple sects, some sects containing sub-sects. FES, ICGS, IZS, etc.


    Like your philosophy, monotheistic and polytheistic philosophies have their finer points, as well. In fact, after multiple dissections of the Bible as iterated by the NIV and KJV, there are quite a few interesting scientific bits dispersed throughout, and a plethora of real historical events, which chronologically coincide with Native American history (this is based on my personal exchanges with the Lakota), East-Asian history, and Islamic history.


    Also, yes, I had assumed you were atheist, my apologies. I should point out, however, that science and philosophy are two separate disciplines, and should not be confused with each other.

    Trouble wrote:

    Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D


    Doc Brown wrote:

    I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
    What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.

  • Quote

    You can loosely string words at an attempt to satire my logical point, but it doesn't invalidate my argument. If you're concerned with my credentials, then take it up with WCTC; if you're concerned with my sources, then we become bogged in a cycle of source against source arbitration. For your humour, here is a sociological thesis pertaining to the correlation between "happiness" and religion.


    Actually I referenced my unpublished Masters research, which if I had more opportunities (unfortunately the situation at the time stopped that) would have been a great start to an interesting paper. Point I was making was more to do with evidence which is customary in these exchanges. It is fair to request it, if only for my own personal education, as I am interested in the other factors that could produce such a result. Like I said, correlation does not mean causation. Which is perfectly reasonable to question such statements.


    Quote

    I briefly touched on Christianity, if only for exemplary reasons. Whom is creating straw-man arguments, if you could answer that please? You seem all too eager to dissect monotheistic philosophies, if simply to bolster the general standing of your atheistic philosophy.


    The paragraph where you denounce me for thinking that most Christians deny science is longer than the one on Monotheism. Fact is I had never said most Christians deny science, I am only referring to creationists who are religious people who deny scientific evidence and state their creation story is true. I am interested in pseudoscience, not religious here. Why would I be dismayed that most Christians believe that science works and trust in it? To me that is great, not upsetting. Hence the strawman.


    Quote

    With the same fervency you attempt to defend/iterate that science is purely philosophical


    Mainly because I object to scientific illiteracy. As that leads to trains of thought that include anti-vaxxers, creationism, racism, sexism and others, it is in the best interests to clarify misconceptions. The difference between myself and a religious person is that my evidence is formulated in a different manner, according to Popperian philosophy, which underpins science.


    Simply put, I do not go looking for evidence that proves scientific ideas right. The entirety of science is set up in order to prove something wrong, a form of reductionism.


    Quote

    Science is a philosophy, a way of life, a means to explain existence, but not non-existence, as science in its core dejects the idea of non-existence; the belief in disbelief.


    No, science is an attempt to explain reality consistently. It isn't a way of life, other than being practical. The difference between it and religions (which fall into a whole other philosophical category) is that it is amoral, concerned only with evidence of how reality works, rather than telling you how to live. To put it simply, science states what effect smoking has on a human body, it doesn't say that we should or shouldn't do it. We decide that.


    Quote

    Science is just one atheistic religion, you either believe in it or you don't. It is a split religion, with multiple sects, some sects containing sub-sects. FES, ICGS, IZS, etc.


    Apart from a) those who worship deities also can be scientists and b) it does not require the same type of faith that is required by religion, c) atheism cannot be a religion because it is a lack of belief.


    Quote

    In fact, after multiple dissections of the Bible as iterated by the NIV and KJV, there are quite a few interesting scientific bits dispersed throughout, and a plethora of real historical events, which chronologically coincide with Native American history (this is based on my personal exchanges with the Lakota), East-Asian history, and Islamic history.


    Well yes, of course there will be interesting pieces of knowledge that are scientifically sound, people in the past weren't stupid. They observed what went on and passed those observations down. To quote Terry Pratchett, "all fungi are edible. Some fungi are edible once". All science is, is an attempt to refine this process, so that our own preconceptions can be left at the door, most of the time.


    However, there is a lot of things in religious texts that are wrong or extremely skewed. Archaeology reduces many episodes in the Bible such as Genesis and Exodus to myths, without any historical occurrence. It also shows the rest of the Old Testament as extremely biased, written as propaganda for Judea and later on, the Achaemenid Empire. It is interesting, but caution always has to be displayed.

    Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you

    oZM3SIa.png

  • Actually I referenced my unpublished Masters research, which if I had more opportunities (unfortunately the situation at the time stopped that) would have been a great start to an interesting paper. Point I was making was more to do with evidence which is customary in these exchanges. It is fair to request it, if only for my own personal education, as I am interested in the other factors that could produce such a result. Like I said, correlation does not mean causation. Which is perfectly reasonable to question such statements.



    Mayhaps it has been such time I polish/publish my philosophical manifesto.



    Quote

    The paragraph where you denounce me for thinking that most Christians deny science is longer than the one on Monotheism. Fact is I had never said most Christians deny science, I am only referring to creationists who are religious people who deny scientific evidence and state their creation story is true. I am interested in pseudoscience, not religious here. Why would I be dismayed that most Christians believe that science works and trust in it? To me that is great, not upsetting. Hence the strawman.



    It was a suggestion, not an argument or counterpoint, therefore not a strawman. I think you're seeking non-existent arguments?



    Quote

    Mainly because I object to scientific illiteracy. As that leads to trains of thought that include anti-vaxxers, creationism, racism, sexism and others, it is in the best interests to clarify misconceptions. The difference between myself and a religious person is that my evidence is formulated in a different manner, according to Popperian philosophy, which underpins science.


    Simply put, I do not go looking for evidence that proves scientific ideas right. The entirety of science is set up in order to prove something wrong, a form of reductionism.



    Whose best interest, you simply must clarify whom. Tenets of Abrahamic faiths are genuinely based out of science, but much of the original knowledge has been lost through multiple translations, and bureaucratic practices to maintain the status-quo. The tenets that are shared between all Abrahamic faiths are based out of self-preservation and special preservation, mistakes that were hard-learned by generations forgotten. I will happily provide insight if requested.



    Quote

    No, science is an attempt to explain reality consistently. It isn't a way of life, other than being practical. The difference between it and religions (which fall into a whole other philosophical category) is that it is amoral, concerned only with evidence of how reality works, rather than telling you how to live. To put it simply, science states what effect smoking has on a human body, it doesn't say that we should or shouldn't do it. We decide that.



    So, then you're admitting that you have to believe some portion of science in order for it to be true in some context? That sounds like faith to me, buddy. As far as religions telling people how to live, I think that only exists in micro-social contexts, at least here in the States.



    As an example, I grew up in a split Christian household, Catholic on my father's side, Lutheran on my mother's. Both sects shared the exact same tenets, and both sects taught the only thing that mattered was one's belief in God, regardless of how the tenets influenced one's life. The tenets on the other hand, were in-house laws that I didn't have a voice in. The fourth tenet, "Honour thy mother and father," was one which was frequently flexed, in order to forcibly garner my compliance. I wasn't allowed to live my life the way I wanted/needed because two individuals chose to impose their viewpoints on my life. Just as well, I wasn't allowed to explore things such as my sexuality, my future, career paths, or romance, they had quintessentially predesignated how I was to live my life, which made me miserable.



    A stark contrast to this, my friend Baron, whom is Chinese, adopted Christianity in a moment of crisis in his life. It preserved his life, and empowered him to continue living. In much the same way I adopted the tenets of Buddhism, for had I not I would have ended my life ten years ago. The one thing I don't really see, is religious people telling me how to live my life. One thing I do see, quite frequently, is atheists intentionally instigating and attempting to disparage those whom have faith and may or may not be proud. I find this behaviour in atheists equitably perturbing as my parents behaviour.



    Quote

    Apart from a) those who worship deities also can be scientists and b) it does not require the same type of faith that is required by religion, c) atheism cannot be a religion because it is a lack of belief.



    You finally won a cookie, however the nomenclature of "atheism" defines your religious beliefs, which is, as you said, "none."



    Quote

    Well yes, of course there will be interesting pieces of knowledge that are scientifically sound, people in the past weren't stupid. They observed what went on and passed those observations down. To quote Terry Pratchett, "all fungi are edible. Some fungi are edible once". All science is, is an attempt to refine this process, so that our own preconceptions can be left at the door, most of the time.



    So science is based out of the religious scientific practices? You're culturally appropriating religion?! Sorry, my (censored) is finally kicking in. I just wanted to make one of my sour jokes, but at least we're finding common ground.



    Quote

    However, there is a lot of things in religious texts that are wrong or extremely skewed. Archaeology reduces many episodes in the Bible such as Genesis and Exodus to myths, without any historical occurrence. It also shows the rest of the Old Testament as extremely biased, written as propaganda for Judea and later on, the Achaemenid Empire. It is interesting, but caution always has to be displayed.




    If I were always cautious, I would never win games, and I certainly not win my big court case. I also wouldn't have discovered several things about myself, like my unique ability to imbibe excessively and not receive an hang-over, of which I yet to experience (yes, this does bother me, as I don't know my limitation on alcohol). I guess some are trail-blazers and others are path-finders. I'm curious if you're referencing a translation, because what I'd like to read is what the Vatican has stashed in their vault, what I imagine is a less diluted version of the original texts.



    For the record, I'm just playing devil's advocate, because nobody stepped up to bat.

    Trouble wrote:

    Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D


    Doc Brown wrote:

    I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
    What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.

  • Quote

    It was a suggestion, not an argument or counterpoint, therefore not a strawman. I think you're seeking non-existent arguments?


    You did seem to assume I was viewing all Christians with dismay.....


    it seems that we have two different interpretations of that paragraph.


    Quote

    Whose best interest, you simply must clarify whom.


    I could argue that everyone here. For example, anti-vaccination has led to increases of diseases which were thought to be wiped out in countries. Preventable deaths because some people would risk their child dying than being autistic. Then you also have the people who are at risk because they cannot be vaccinated, are very young babies, have a compromised immune system, by vaccinating yourself, you protect others through herd immunity.


    This is not mention things like climate change here as well, the cover up around smoking, lead, etc. When you ask whom, it is really hard to be specific because knowing how science works is invaluable to everyone. And encouraging science is positive for everyone in the long term.


    Might I suggest reading Ben Goldacre's Bad Science on the matter? A handy primer to give an extensive answer on this issue.


    Quote

    Tenets of Abrahamic faiths are genuinely based out of science, but much of the original knowledge has been lost through multiple translations, and bureaucratic practices to maintain the status-quo. The tenets that are shared between all Abrahamic faiths are based out of self-preservation and special preservation, mistakes that were hard-learned by generations forgotten. I will happily provide insight if requested.


    Aspects of Abrahamic texts will be factually correct, I agree. People aren't stupid and they will notice trends. Modern science is a philosophical approach to getting these trends right more frequently. An interesting read on the matter if you have time is the second Science of the Discworld book. It explores how science works in a rather accessible way.


    Quote

    So, then you're admitting that you have to believe some portion of science in order for it to be true in some context?

    No, not in the same way as religion does. Religion starts out with a supposition that a supernatural force exists. Science, is empirical and reductionist in nature, it removes bad explanations.


    To put it simply, I can explain a scientific theory. I can provide evidence which supports this theory and elevated it above a hypothesis. Science always encourages more and more questions. We once believed the atom was like a billard ball. Then we did more experiments and found that this wasn't a good enough explanation, it was more like a solar system. Do enough physics and chemistry you find out that this explanation isn't quite right and the current idea is something else, because it fits the observable evidence more.


    The idea is of course is that all science is wrong. However, it is less wrong than previous explanations. Hence reductionism. This is different from faith which relies on something being right. The only thing that science relies on that comes even close is that reality isn't the work of some cosmic prankster. That it is measurable, observable and has consistency, hence empiricism.


    Quote

    As far as religions telling people how to live, I think that only exists in micro-social contexts, at least here in the States.


    Religion can dictate what a person should eat, whether they should be circumcised, use contraception or abortions, their code of morals, how they should treat others, etc. Hell, the Bible has a whole book dedicated to it called Leviticus. Admittedly people use religion to suit their personal opinions, but the thing I dislike about that is that they cannot admit sometimes that this is the case. However, this may be the superiority complex talking ;)


    Your example shows how your religious upbringing was something that did not confirm to your personal tenets, so when you could, you changed. Same with your friend. I am not arguing that religion is necessarily bad for people, I think that is a simplistic argument and very patronising one that I avoid because it stinks too much of neo-atheism. I just know that it is used to inspire order in someone's life.



    Caution as don't believe things on face value, some things are good in moderation. And I am basing this on archaeological evidence along with historical context. A good introduction is The Bible Unearthed which delves into this evidence and the academic studies. Things like Genesis and Exodus never happened, whilst the rule of the Israelite Kings was from a propaganda perspective. To reassure you, the book was written by an Orthodox Jew who was a leading Biblical archaeologist.

    Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you

    oZM3SIa.png