Is the debate between Creationism and Evolution serious in America?
- Thread starter heyheysg
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well:
And so on (there are a lot more episodes on these on youtube, check them out if you want to)
Now if scientists aren't engaging in a serious debate with the creationists, I think I can sympathize with them. Mainly because if they tried the scientists wouldn't be able to give a proper response to anything that the crationists say, because they would be constantly out of breath due to laughing hysterically at the ignorance and stupidity of pretty much all of the creationists arguments...
And so on (there are a lot more episodes on these on youtube, check them out if you want to)
Now if scientists aren't engaging in a serious debate with the creationists, I think I can sympathize with them. Mainly because if they tried the scientists wouldn't be able to give a proper response to anything that the crationists say, because they would be constantly out of breath due to laughing hysterically at the ignorance and stupidity of pretty much all of the creationists arguments...
I'm not sure. I thought that it died a while ago, but apparently some people still want to draw attention to the issue instead of something important.
Truthfully, who cares? If someone wants to believe evolution doesn't exist, is it really our right to force them to? Evolution and paleontology are both useless sciences except in virology. It's not like the world will end because some people have the wrong idea about something that doesn't matter.
Truthfully, who cares? If someone wants to believe evolution doesn't exist, is it really our right to force them to? Evolution and paleontology are both useless sciences except in virology. It's not like the world will end because some people have the wrong idea about something that doesn't matter.
Yes, creationists and evolutionists have debates. However, convincing people you are right can be done in a number of ways, many of which don't require facts, intelligence, common sense, relevant topics, or any basis in reality.heyheysg said:
What people believe has little or no relevance to most of reality. If a nuclear bomb goes off next to you, not believing in nukes won't stop you being annihilated. And if by some bizarre possibility creationists ever do prove current models of evolution is wrong, that still doesn't mean the creationists got it right.
I think part of the problem is people are taught that God created everything and did so intentionally and as part of some grand design. (If memory serves) Evolution says that things have changed over time and we could in theory have things that God did not intend to create. This goes against what many Christian religions believe in that God is infalible. If evolution could be 100% proven that we evolved for instance from Apes that could show that God didn't create man and that he is falible and that could destroy the church.
Also people have a hard time with the concepts that happen over thousands of years. People can't see evolution happen in their lifetime, so it is difficult to grasp the concept.
Also people have a hard time with the concepts that happen over thousands of years. People can't see evolution happen in their lifetime, so it is difficult to grasp the concept.
I don't get why the two have to be mutually exclusive. Let's hypothetically say there is a God of some sort, I don't believe in one, but for the sake of argument let's say there is, couldn't this God have put Evolution in place so that the Universe was self-sustaining?
Well unless I take the Evil and Destruction domains. Islam!heyheysg said:
[small]... Too soon?[/small]
Well actually he has a point. Except that it is not easily falsifiable, which is probably what he means. Popper called it a 'metaphysical framework', a hypothetical notion from which theories can be derived. So, yeah, according to Popperian thought it technically isn't a scientific theory. It is, however, one of the most convincing and corroborated paradigms in modern science, and the basis of pretty much every biological and behavioral science at the moment.
That said: by calling it non-science, creationists get even more fodder for their uneducated and irrational outrage. So for the sake of argument let's call it science, right guys?
This is a false distinction that creationists invented. There is no such thing as "species". It is an abstract, human-invented category, and unfortunately, it is faulty. There is no universally accepted definition of what a 'species' actually is, and any definition has serious flaws. There are no species. There are just organisms living, breeding, and dying, and they don't care whether humans have an easy time of classifying them or not. This is called the "species problem".Lorok said:
The only way you could infallibly categorise organisms together like that would be based on the distance to a common ancestor, (short distance --> closely related, long distance --> distantly related), but unfortunately, we just don't have anywhere near the data available to actually do that. I don't even know how far back my common ancestor with -you- is, and that's only a couple thousand years at most. The fossil record is better than creationists say but it's not even remotely good enough to do taxonomy.
Its been observed in both labs and the wild.DannyBoy451 said:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
There are more of course but these are two of the most interesting experiments, I think.
I know of no scientist or even a professor in the field of science that takes creationism serious.heyheysg said:
Mainly because it does absolutely nothing. There is a book called "Only a Theory by Kenneth Miller [http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/067001883X]" that I suggest anyone curious on the topic read. It goes to great lengths to explain that there basically is no question that Evolution is a real scientific principle based on actual real life events, in fact most creationists are arguing against darwin's theory of evolution which hasn't even been what Scientists have been examining for basically...I dunno...the vast majority of time between when he brought up Evolution and folks started examining it.
So basically you have group A discussing an ever growing understanding of organic matter and using it to further health and science as a whole and you have group B which is going Space Marines on the whole situation and really not making any point besides "NUH UH!"
Had a guy at work tell me his church said that the Organisms that don't make sense in Planet Earth (I'm sure you all have seen the series) are mistakes. I thought...really?...you would rather believe your god is fallible than accept evolution? That's pretty intense stuff right there
.That stuff is in the book too!WeedWorm said:
One of my favorite parts. Mainly because it blew my asshole out. (I got it fixed)Well I'd hope if you actually built a universe you'd be competent enough to make it very friendly to the life you placed in that universe. Considering the HUGE hurdles life has to overcome just not to be whipped out of existance (which as I imagine you know basically all life that has ever existed on Earth alone has) it does seem like if someone DID built this stuff they are pretty shitty at LEGOs.canadamus_prime said:
But basically it is because Creationists won't allow Evolution to exist, if they'd just ignore it like they do all other information that doesn't conform to their beliefs (which is a very unhealthy thing from a Biological Psychology perspective) they'd be fine.
It is a sad and puzzling truth that in America there is serious debate about evolution.
What puzzles me is why Christians in the US don't think that evolution and God can't co-exist. Other religious countries don't have such a problem with evolution, they just say "well, yeah things evolve, but God is still pulling the evolutionary strings, so what's the big deal".
What puzzles me is why Christians in the US don't think that evolution and God can't co-exist. Other religious countries don't have such a problem with evolution, they just say "well, yeah things evolve, but God is still pulling the evolutionary strings, so what's the big deal".
I'm not convinced there is a serious debate. Just like healthcare it seems to be more of one side trying to help the world as a whole and the other side screaming fanatically.BonsaiK said:
I think it's just that creationsts don't want to admit that evolution exists because that will make them "admit" that the Bible is wrong so God doesn't exist. Personally, I don't think a book tells wheter or not the man (or woman) upstairs exist but I don't care. I say let people believe what they want to believe, regardless of how little sense it makes to you.
That banana thing was something else, was on that Charlie Brooker show, right?Superior Mind said:
There was also the one where they invite 10 people to discuss the existence of angels on a show. They have one (read it, one) person giving logical explanations, then he's labelled as the bad one and ignored for the rest of the show whilst they discuss the types of angels!
Evolution has been proven by fact, creationism is just that - a creation in somebody's head.
God is an unknown entity. If that entity exists then all of science is worthless because you can never know how it would affect a test result.canadamus_prime said:
However, the debate is about creationism in science classes. Which would be like teaching students about biology in any theology class.
That's actually what most Christians think.BonsaiK said:
Mostly it's the Fundamentalist Christians that make all the noise about evolution being wrong, and they're the same type that does pretty much anything associated with people's negative viewpoints of Christianity.
God hates fags? Fundies.
Creationism is the only way? Fundies.
And so on and so forth. The Fundies are the most vocal group out there, but that doesn't make them indicative of what the rest of us think.
I don't think there is any "real" debate going on within the scientific community about creationsim v. evolution. 99.999% of scientists accept evolution.
Speaking as someone who considers himself a Christian (albeit an unorthodox one...fundamentalist Christians would probably call me a heretic) I think the idea of creationism as literal fact is laughable.
I view the creation story as a fable that you tell your kids who won't understand the complex intricacies of the whole truth. When your kids ask where babies come from, you don't tell them about the processes of fertilization, implantation, and cell division. You tell them a story about how the stork flies in a baby when mommy and daddy love each other enough. When they get old enough, they will be able to understand the whole truth and also the necessity of the simplistic story they were told as a child.
Creationism is that same kind of story. Stone/Bronze Age ancestors knew little to nothing about astrophysics or biochemistry and couldn't absorb that information. If you look at Genesis as a simplified story, it's actually pretty close to the Big Bang/Evolution theory.
(I'm drawing this from memory so if there are minor discrepancies, just get the gist of it)
God creates light - the first thing that happened was the debris from the Big Bang condensed into stars and galaxies.
God creates the heavens and the Earth - after the stars formed, the planets formed, including the atmosphere.
God creates the oceans - once the Earth cooled down, the water vapor became liquid.
God creates animals - animals came before people.
God creates man - who evolved from the animals.
So yeah. Just because we understand what natural processes created the universe doesn't mean that God didn't create those laws of nature to exist and set things into motion. I don't even see a conflict between the two TBH.
But for that reason, I tend to view creationists like I would a teenager who stubbornly refuses to accept that Santa Claus or the stork really was just a story. No offense to anyone...just a personal opinion here.
Speaking as someone who considers himself a Christian (albeit an unorthodox one...fundamentalist Christians would probably call me a heretic) I think the idea of creationism as literal fact is laughable.
I view the creation story as a fable that you tell your kids who won't understand the complex intricacies of the whole truth. When your kids ask where babies come from, you don't tell them about the processes of fertilization, implantation, and cell division. You tell them a story about how the stork flies in a baby when mommy and daddy love each other enough. When they get old enough, they will be able to understand the whole truth and also the necessity of the simplistic story they were told as a child.
Creationism is that same kind of story. Stone/Bronze Age ancestors knew little to nothing about astrophysics or biochemistry and couldn't absorb that information. If you look at Genesis as a simplified story, it's actually pretty close to the Big Bang/Evolution theory.
(I'm drawing this from memory so if there are minor discrepancies, just get the gist of it)
God creates light - the first thing that happened was the debris from the Big Bang condensed into stars and galaxies.
God creates the heavens and the Earth - after the stars formed, the planets formed, including the atmosphere.
God creates the oceans - once the Earth cooled down, the water vapor became liquid.
God creates animals - animals came before people.
God creates man - who evolved from the animals.
So yeah. Just because we understand what natural processes created the universe doesn't mean that God didn't create those laws of nature to exist and set things into motion. I don't even see a conflict between the two TBH.
But for that reason, I tend to view creationists like I would a teenager who stubbornly refuses to accept that Santa Claus or the stork really was just a story. No offense to anyone...just a personal opinion here.
And just to throw even more irony on the issue, as far I as know the Catholic church still officially sees no mutual exclusion between church dogma and evolution.scotth266 said:
Of course, quite a few (maybe even most) Fundamentalists don't consider Catholics Christians, which just adds more irony...