A solution to the creationism v. evolution debate

[PedroSteckecilo]

I don't agree with this theory but I can state it in some comfort...

Progressive Evolution is perfectly in sync with creationism, it is the belief that everything is Evolving but always into something better. And many sane Creationists believe that God is the driving force behind evolution in this sense, that he has a plan for life as we know it and is using natural and scientifically understandable means to achieve it. It is part of a wider belief that God works THROUGH natural means rather than outside of them, and that all of nature is in fact gods work.

As well I find more proponents of this theory not concerned about whether or not it is "taught in schools" since you learn about Evolution in School, then your priest can hopefully tell you how all that science fits INTO God's plan, rather than how science is against religion.

For the record, this is not my belief, I am a rationalist and an Atheist, but I find this theory "permissable" since it isn't dangerous to science, it is rather a hopeful statement from someone who needs the hope that everything is always moving towards a better end, not necessarily true, but hey, it's also a nice comprimise so we can all get along.

 

[molesgallus]

This unification is silly. Evolution is one argument, creation another. Both are arguments about how life came into existence, and each is contradictory to the other. The big bang theory has nothing to do with this debate. I am amazed when people, including, i beleive, the pope, try and unify two these two theories. Evolution argues that we only exist because of natural selection. Basically, that means; If it works, it stays, until it no longer works. So, the theory of evolution argues that we are here because of chance, and adaption. If you then say, god guided evolution, it is no longer evolution. Evolution is only evolution if their is no guiding force. That's the argument, for god's sake! If you add an external, sentient, force, it becomes creation, not evolution.

 

[molesgallus]

As far as I'm concerned, atheists are essentially the same thing as those who are religious. Both believe in something, with no proof. In fact, I think there is more evidence towards the existence of God then to the opposite. For instance, what created the universe? The Big Bang is not a theory about the creation of the universe. Even before the Big Bang, there was something, some tiny point of matter, from which the universe sprang. So, what created that?

Clearly it was not a tiny point of matter. It was a point of energy. And, why did that have to have a creator. Arguing that everything must be created is not at all sensible or logical. Think of it this way; If god created the universe, then what created god, and what created that, and what created the creator of that...........and so on. You would need an infinite number of creators. Is it not much easier to believe that things just are. The key thing here is, intelligence, and consciousness are not needed to create things. So god, therefore, does not need to exist. He might, but their is no need for him.

 

[Zixinus]

And to therest of you: 9/10ths of science is a combination of theory, corroboration and guesswork.

Like with most creationists, you are ignorant.

And while you may all hate religion for your own teen-angst reasons (says the 18 year old Marxist with plans to carpet-bomb Mecca(JOKEJOKEFUCKINGJOKEDON'TBURNDOWNMYHOUSEPLEASE)) the fact of the matter is that religion has helped people.

Oh yes, it has helped people to hate each other more, to give excuses to oppress women, free-thinkers or pretty much anybody and spread terror throughout history. It has also given wonderful excuses for the elite to their claim to be the elite, so that the ignorant masses can work while the elite wank their egos. Oh, and it has given us good excuses for committing genocide and the Holocaust (look into Mein Kaft to see the true religion of Nazi's). It also helped foster and bloat immature fears of sexuality to be turned into blind, fanatic hatred, so those damn faqs ,that usually don't really want to be faqs, can suffer.

Perhaps religion has made a few people happy, but all I see troughout history, is that its a parasite to humanity that would be best removed.

Look, the two of you (Zixinus and Simiski) are both the exact same as the creationist nutters. You both refuse to acknowledge other opinions, you both are rude and abrasive, and youare both fanatics.

My opinion and abusiveness came from dealing with creationist and reading about them. Everything I have read about them and experienced with them is that they are cowards and liars, who would rather resort to violence than even consider their position to be wrong.

Furthermore, everyone has an opinion. Opinions don't matter, only facts.

You're no better than Bible-beltist demagogues who insist the world was created in 6 days- no, in fact, you're worse.

Like I said, everyone has an opinion and yours don't matter, especially to me. In fact, you are behaving predictably: your entire post is an ad hominem attack in the vain hope of credibility and trying to appeal politeness.

In case you don't get it: take your pretencious, centrist dick and shove it up your ass.

Those people have the excuse of ignorance, stupidity, poverty and, in some cases, inbreeding- excuses you LACK.

You are pathetic.

And Zixius- As far as I'm aware, neither side here has commited any crime.

How about lying, a repeated and insistent tactic of creationist, as well as violating the very laws of their country? The very first fucking amandent of their own country?

So there is no need for one side to be 'wrong' when you can't prove EITHER SIDE TO BE RIGHT OR WRONG.

Oh, wait, I can!

Biologists have fossils, DNA, several rainforests of repeated and well-documented cases that can be best and only explained by evolution, and the entire fucking zoology database. Oh, and almost every modern biology paper every made today.

Creationists have... a 2000 year old book that is essentially a collection of fables.

Why doesn't god let everyone know he exists, if he does?
Why doesn't god let everyone know he exists, if he does?

I'll answer yours if you answer me this: Why should there even be a God? How God or gods nothing but a superstitious concept from the Bronze Age?

I'm going to fight for the middle ground because, in any argument, it's the only one that's right.

Why?

Do you think that by always taking the middle ground you are somehow always right? Not everything is a family squabble you know.

Unfortunately, it is arguably not an actual side and so is generally ignored.

You can side with those people who believe that humanity is a result of aliens.

Thing is, that you can't pick middle ground in a question "Should we or should we not teach children creationism?"

They say 'look to the past and learn from your mistakes', but if you ask me looking into the past in the first place was a bad idea; now we have debates over things that happened billions of aeons ago, which affect nothing we do today.

Creationist using underhanded, aggressive tactics in order to teach their bullshit is happening now and not just on the internet scale. There are many cases where it took a court of law to tell these fuckers to shut up and get out of public schools.

Because as far as I'm aware my being a Christian automatically makes me a Creationist..

Depends. If you only personally believe in creationism, that's your business and none of mine.

The thing starts getting complicated when you want it to be taught in public schools, under science class. Then you and I have a problem.

Then again, since you are unlikely to live in the same country as I do, we might not.

As far as I'm concerned, atheists are essentially the same thing as those who are religious. Both believe in something, with no proof.

Than you know nothing of atheism.

Calling atheism a belief is like calling "bald" a hair colour.

So, what created that?

Why must it be created? What if the answer lacks a God or even any sentient force but involves a naturalistic explanation unverifiable or simply incomprehensible by human perception?

 

[Redlac]

"Clearly it was not a tiny point of matter. It was a point of energy."

Heh, the way that's typed molesgallus it's almost as if we were all stood there a few seconds before the Big Bang, arguing over what we could see before the fireworks. Sorry I'm being nit picky, my imagination took over for a second and it made me giggle is all.

Who created God? Ah, that old chestnut. As my view of God as a being that isn't tied down to linear time as we know it then it's perfectly acceptable that this being always has been and always will be. Certainly from our limited human perception of time anyway. That's my answer for that.

You are right, intelligence isn't needed to just create stuff. But to make stuff that looks nice, you do need an artist, which takes a bit more than just creation. Taking your point about God not needing to exist, we could also swing the other way and say the universe doesn't need to exist either. But it does. There's no point for me and you to exist for that matter. But we do. And here we are splitting hairs over the 'why' of the universe as countless others have.

When it boils down to it, I can see we all fall into two camps.

There are those that see the beauty and majesty of the cosmic ballet of the universe, seeing all the stars and animals and plants and all this amazing stuff and say, "This is it."

And then..

There are those that see the beauty and majesty of the cosmic ballet of the universe, seeing all the stars and animals and plants and all this amazing stuff and say, "Is that it?"

And on that note, I'm going to leave all these philosophical threads and post about games or something.

 

[Maze1125]

I made this account here because of this thread, just so I could say: Thank you all for being so intelligent.

I've argued for Evolution on multiple internet forums (not specifically for that, but when you're on a forum for long enough it tends to come up) and this is the first time I've felt I don't need to add anything because it's all already been said. Of course on the other forums there have been people who argued along side me, but most of the time they seem as ignorant about Evolution as the creationists themselves (which isn't their fault, there are a hell of a lot of myths about Evolution being spread about), but not here!

Even when the idea, about there being only Atheism, Agnosticism and Theism, and them being mutually exclusive, was brought up, one of you quickly and effectively explained how it was wrong, a rare thing indeed.

So again, thank you all that the only thing I feel the need to post in this thread is this thank you.

 

[Samirat]

As far as I'm concerned, atheists are essentially the same thing as those who are religious. Both believe in something, with no proof. In fact, I think there is more evidence towards the existence of God then to the opposite. For instance, what created the universe? The Big Bang is not a theory about the creation of the universe. Even before the Big Bang, there was something, some tiny point of matter, from which the universe sprang. So, what created that?

Clearly it was not a tiny point of matter. It was a point of energy. And, why did that have to have a creator. Arguing that everything must be created is not at all sensible or logical. Think of it this way; If god created the universe, then what created god, and what created that, and what created the creator of that...........and so on. You would need an infinite number of creators. Is it not much easier to believe that things just are. The key thing here is, intelligence, and consciousness are not needed to create things. So god, therefore, does not need to exist. He might, but their is no need for him.

No, it's not any more logical, or any easier, to assume this just are, both are ideas with no proof or evidence. Your argument wouldn't even be sensical to someone faithful in a supreme being, just as their argument wouldn't be sensical to you. I tend to think that what you say is true, but I'm not going to make assumptions with no basis of reason. My point is that believing in a god and believing in no god (the nonexistence of any god) are both baseless; they're matters of faith.

 

[Duke Machine]

Somehow i miss the point of arguments like this...in the end is anyone really going to sway the opinion of someone who holds the opposing view?

 

[ffxfriek]

You all know about it. The debate about How god created everything or it all started slowly creating itself from a giant explosion.

The thing is i think that the stuff that caused the big bang had to come from somewhere so there is the distinct possibility that this 'stuff' had to come from some form of higher creator.

However i have i theory that will satisfy both parties in this argument.

God created the building blocks for the universe and then guided the evolution of the universe to what it is today.

An equivalent in our lives is spore. Guiding games moulding the universe, constantly improving on his creations, adapting them to better suit their environments, also known as evolution , much like a kid in a sandbox.

Do you have a theory that would satisfy both sides and allow this debate to cease or is this a fairly decent one?

Spoiler: for the record

I'm an Agnostic. I'm open to the concept me religon but I have never been truly convinced by it.

im not going to bother reading all 4 pages of this so if i say anyone elses post im sorry. but heres how i see it. we OBVIOUSLY evolved over time look at the average lifespan of humans. AND God created us so there ya go

 

[black lincon]

You all know about it. The debate about How god created everything or it all started slowly creating itself from a giant explosion.

The thing is i think that the stuff that caused the big bang had to come from somewhere so there is the distinct possibility that this 'stuff' had to come from some form of higher creator.

However i have i theory that will satisfy both parties in this argument.

God created the building blocks for the universe and then guided the evolution of the universe to what it is today.

An equivalent in our lives is spore. Guiding games moulding the universe, constantly improving on his creations, adapting them to better suit their environments, also known as evolution , much like a kid in a sandbox.

Do you have a theory that would satisfy both sides and allow this debate to cease or is this a fairly decent one?

Spoiler: for the record

I'm an Agnostic. I'm open to the concept me religon but I have never been truly convinced by it.

that theory has a name its called clockwork Christianity. the only time i had heard of it before was when the pastor i don't listen to because she is a lunatic said it was a load of lies and creationism is correct. number one i don't believe in creationism note that the pastor mentioned above is a loony, however she did bring up the fact that it doesn't satisfy both sides for 2 reasons;
#1 it requires atheists to acknowledge god.
#2 it requires Christians who don't believe in evolution to start.

P.S. sorry if someone mentioned this before i didn't feel like reading four pages of comments.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Warning: Incoming quotewar

Like with most creationists, you are ignorant.

Actually, I believe wholeheartedly in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. I also believe wholeheartedly in common politeness, something it would appear your mother, in her infinite wisdom, failed to teach you.

Oh yes, it has helped people to hate each other more, to give excuses to oppress women, free-thinkers or pretty much anybody and spread terror throughout history. It has also given wonderful excuses for the elite to their claim to be the elite, so that the ignorant masses can work while the elite wank their egos. Oh, and it has given us good excuses for committing genocide and the Holocaust (look into Mein Kaft to see the true religion of Nazi's). It also helped foster and bloat immature fears of sexuality to be turned into blind, fanatic hatred, so those damn faqs ,that usually don't really want to be faqs, can suffer.

Perhaps religion has made a few people happy, but all I see troughout history, is that its a parasite to humanity that would be best removed.

Now firstly- a parasite is an organism that invades a host creature and uses it as part of it'ssurvival. Now, the flaw in your argument here is that earlier it was stated that man, in essence, created god. And if religion is a human creation, it cannot be a parasite, any more than an organ of our body is a parasite.

Secondly, if you argue the intervention of an outside force that created religion- you've just admitted the possibility of the existence of a supreme being.

Thirdly, it was earlier argued that it was people, and not religion, that was responsible for the various works of beauty that I mentioned. I won't state that it was you, because I can't remember, but logically: Either religion is responisble at once for Michalangelo's David and the myriad other works of beauty that adorn the Vatican (as an easy example) and the crusades, oppression and terror. Or alternately, it is responsible for none of it, it all being a facet of human nature that has attached itself to religion.

My opinion and abusiveness came from dealing with creationist and reading about them. Everything I have read about them and experienced with them is that they are cowards and liars, who would rather resort to violence than even consider their position to be wrong.

Furthermore, everyone has an opinion. Opinions don't matter, only facts.

The ideal sentiment for a man who professes himself as a partisan of 'The people'- opinions don't matter. So democracy is stupid. Let us all be ruled by scientists!

Like I said, everyone has an opinion and yours don't matter, especially to me. In fact, you are behaving predictably: your entire post is an ad hominem attack in the vain hope of credibility and trying to appeal politeness.

In case you don't get it: take your pretencious, centrist dick and shove it up your ass.
(SNIP)
You are pathetic.

I would respond rationally, but I'm too insulted and in too much of a rush (West Wing is starting) so I'll leave it at this: Give my regards to your mother.

How about lying, a repeated and insistent tactic of creationist, as well as violating the very laws of their country? The very first fucking amandent of their own country?

They are contravening theright to free speech, by making use of the right to free speech?

Your logic astounds me.

Biologists have fossils, DNA, several rainforests of repeated and well-documented cases that can be best and only explained by evolution, and the entire fucking zoology database. Oh, and almost every modern biology paper every made today.

Creationists have... a 2000 year old book that is essentially a collection of fables.

Agreed. That dosen't make you in any way a superior being to them.

I'll answer yours if you answer me this: Why should there even be a God? How God or gods nothing but a superstitious concept from the Bronze Age?

Why?

Creationist using underhanded, aggressive tactics in order to teach their bullshit is happening now and not just on the internet scale. There are many cases where it took a court of law to tell these fuckers to shut up and get out of public schools..

Please provide some form of evidence, Mr Dawkins.

The thing starts getting complicated when you want it to be taught in public schools, under science class. Then you and I have a problem.

Agreed. Teach it in RE.


And as a final blow, I shall point this out: Charles Darwin was a member and CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

I rest mine case.

 

[hypothetical fact]

Actually, I believe wholeheartedly in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. I also believe wholeheartedly in common politeness, something it would appear your mother, in her infinite wisdom, failed to teach you.

Politeness is irrelevant stick to the point!

Now firstly- a parasite is an organism that invades a host creature and uses it as part of it'ssurvival. Now, the flaw in your argument here is that earlier it was stated that man, in essence, created god. And if religion is a human creation, it cannot be a parasite, any more than an organ of our body is a parasite.

Secondly, if you argue the intervention of an outside force that created religion- you've just admitted the possibility of the existence of a supreme being.

Religion is more like a cancer; it started in the body, corrupts and grows off innocent naive red blood cells. The whole system will eventually die if science doesn't intervene and contain it.
Alternatively think of breeding a disease and injecting yourself with it, either way your parasite = god logic doesn't make sense.

Thirdly, it was earlier argued that it was people, and not religion, that was responsible for the various works of beauty that I mentioned. I won't state that it was you, because I can't remember, but logically: Either religion is responisble at once for Michalangelo's David and the myriad other works of beauty that adorn the Vatican (as an easy example) and the crusades, oppression and terror. Or alternately, it is responsible for none of it, it all being a facet of human nature that has attached itself to religion.

Is the beauty of the Vatican worth the countless deaths during the crusades? Besides Hubble has taken many beautiful photos of other galaxies and not one cost a single human life.

The ideal sentiment for a man who professes himself as a partisan of 'The people'- opinions don't matter. So democracy is stupid. Let us all be ruled by scientists!

Now you're talking my language, I get shivers of delight thinking of all the progress that could be made without primitive ethics.

I would respond rationally, but I'm too insulted and in too much of a rush (West Wing is starting) so I'll leave it at this: Give my regards to your mother.

No mother wants an anonymous poster's regards, it's creepy.

They are contravening theright to free speech, by making use of the right to free speech?

Your logic astounds me.

Free speech is perfectly fine until you start using it to push an agenda that will detrimentally affect scientific advancement. Guess we should destroy all these dinosaur bones that don't exist and ignore their remarkable similarieties to birds or ours to apes.

Agreed. That dosen't make you in any way a superior being to them.

Doesn't make him superior but it makes his information more accurate and reliable to yours, and that's what matters.

Please provide some form of evidence, Mr Dawkins.

From experience I know that the evidence won't change your mind since you don't want to be proven wrong. Want to prove me wrong? Go get some evidence of creationists losing court cases and I'll accept that you are capable of changing your opinion. However I do support

And as a final blow, I shall point this out: Charles Darwin was a member and CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

As a not so final blow if you feel like replying, Charles Darwin is irrelevant it is his theory that matters.

I rest mine case.

Case closed.

 

[klakkat]

As far as I'm concerned, atheists are essentially the same thing as those who are religious. Both believe in something, with no proof. In fact, I think there is more evidence towards the existence of God then to the opposite. For instance, what created the universe? The Big Bang is not a theory about the creation of the universe. Even before the Big Bang, there was something, some tiny point of matter, from which the universe sprang. So, what created that?

Except that atheism is the absence of belief in God, no more, no less. It's not belief in the nonexistance of God, although there are more than a few atheists who hold that view.

The Big Bang is a theory about how the universe as we know it began. As to where the Big Bang came from, we're still looking. The fact that we don't know where the Big Bang came from is not evidence that it was done by God.

Technically, Atheism is the belief that religious views are wrong, thus no god (literally speaking, synonymous with anti-theist, though that term normally implies a significantly more militant view over spreading atheism).

Agnosticism is the "I don't know" point of view; saying essentially that it's impossible to tell which religion, if any, is correct and leaving the rest to whatever deific presence does or does not exist.

I follow the agnostic point of view. My only arguments against religion is when it hurts people; typically though, those cases are people hurting others and then using religion to justify it; religion becomes their moral shield rather than the actual instigator (which is also a little wrong, but in that case religion isn't the root of the problem).

The problem I have with teaching creationism is that it isn't the only creation theory. In addition, it doesn't match up with experiment, so it doesn't provide students with a useful way of approaching physical problems. That isn't saying it's wrong, but it isn't useful to students, just as the Big Bang is of questionable usefulness; the math involved turned out to be a huge cluster-fuck. Creationism suffers a different problem: there are no attempts to quantify it into a useful worldview to mathematically describe the physical universe. So, since it can't be used in that fashion, teaching of it should be limited to areas where it is useful, philosophy, ethics, and sociology.

As for which is correct, why does either one have to be correct at the exclusion of the other? It is actually quite common for natural phenomenon to exist in a linear combination of two states. So why not both? That seems just as plausible as either one on its own. Scientific inquiry doesn't necessitate a distinction either; creationism doesn't predict future events, therefore it is not contradicted by scientific model.

 

[Saskwach]

Actually, I believe wholeheartedly in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. I also believe wholeheartedly in common politeness, something it would appear your mother, in her infinite wisdom, failed to teach you.

Politeness is irrelevant stick to the point!

If half your 'point' was to call Fondant ignorant, then he was staying on topic.

Now firstly- a parasite is an organism that invades a host creature and uses it as part of it'ssurvival. Now, the flaw in your argument here is that earlier it was stated that man, in essence, created god. And if religion is a human creation, it cannot be a parasite, any more than an organ of our body is a parasite.

Secondly, if you argue the intervention of an outside force that created religion- you've just admitted the possibility of the existence of a supreme being.

Religion is more like a cancer; it started in the body, corrupts and grows off innocent naive red blood cells. The whole system will eventually die if science doesn't intervene and contain it.
Alternatively think of breeding a disease and injecting yourself with it, either way your parasite = god logic doesn't make sense.

I think thousands of years of humanity getting on as it has under religion shows that we aren't incapable of surviving with this particular 'parasite'. Personally, I'm much more worried about those nifty scientific discoveries called nuclear bombs, in the hands of anyone, whether they be religious fundamentalists or - would you believe it? - politicians and world leaders, many of whom are likely atheist, and whose chief motives are much more secular than religious anyway.

They are contravening theright to free speech, by making use of the right to free speech?

Your logic astounds me.

Free speech is perfectly fine until you start using it to push an agenda that will detrimentally affect scientific advancement. Guess we should destroy all these dinosaur bones that don't exist and ignore their remarkable similarieties to birds or ours to apes.

I'm glad to know that free speech applies to everything but science. I'm not so glad, though, to see that you equate 'free speech' with destruction. That way lies every curtailment of free speech right there has ever been.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Hitler was Christian. .

A man who killed clergymen left, right and centre, suppressed both the Catholic and Protestant churches and occupied Rome was a Christian. Great logic there,ol' boy.

Words are not the same as actions. Just because he claimed to be a Christian (which I'm fairly sure he did not) does not remove the fact THAT HE SUPPRESSED AND TERRORISED THE CHURCH! LEARN HISTORY PLEASE, O SPOT-RIDDEN ONE!

*Calms down.* As Possum could tell you, I get very annoyed when people distort history. It offends me far more than rudenss, or, for any other matter, much else.

And if you want to start comparing, why not have a look how many people have died due to Religion.

Almost as many who died due to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, perhaps? Far less the people who died in every god-damned war, scuffle and skirmish since the Paeolithic age?

Every weapon is an invention of science. Every vaccine, is an invention of science.
Much as the Crusades were a result of religion. Just as was so much of the world's art.

There is no 'good' and 'evil' here. There's only humans-kind, loving, murderous, touchy, irrational, brilliant, tender, sadistic, stupid, brave, feeble, narrow-minded, passionate humans. Religion is neither 'good' or 'evil'. Neither is science. Neither is the North Pole.


We've had 4,000 years of religion, and so far we're fine. We've had the same 4,000years of science, and we're still fine.


Also: My proposal works.

 

[Rahnzan]

I recall Creation vs Evolution being moot.

First of all, no human being is immortal, in roughly 100 years give or take 20 we'll all find out who was right and who was wrong the hard way on our own times. Secondly, Evolution doesn't set out to explain the universe, just why we have thumbs. It's a completely seperate debate and somewhere along the line Creationists decided that Evolution denounces God.

It's a lesson in reproduction and survival of the fittest, which I can admit shamelessly that science has allowed me to avoid weeding out of the genetic pool on account of my poor vision and hearing that would otherwise make me dead in the water, NOT a lesson in where matter came from. Find a different theory to pick on. Shouldn't it be Creationism vs Big Bang Theory? If we just keep rewinding back in time, where did all this matter start? You can say God did it but then where did he come from. From that you can say 'well he's always been' then why is this answer not acceptable for matter? It had to have come from somewhere, or it has always been and we can leave it at that.