Evolution vs. Creationism

[Satya]

Can someone explain to me why this is even an issue anymore? Why do some schools still want to teach that the world was created in 7 days about 5,000 years ago? Why do people still dismiss objective/scientific evidence for their own subjective/intuitive evidence?

 

[frozen_water]

*shudders*

haha I actually think I could argue better against creationism on biblical evidence than I could with what would be called scientific evidence....and I'm a science major. I personally think it's just another case of confused people equating "faith" and "not rational." Not all of them, of course... but the bulk who are making it an issue. The ultraconservative Christian community (talking like the people who derive their beliefs from the Reformation directly and stuff) in the northeast section of the country is more embarrassed about it than anyone else, believe it or not.

*runs and ducks for cover*

 

[Rosenrot]

7 days in Gods time could mean 5,000 years in our time. Anyways my thought on this is I dont care. I like hearing different theories, but as deciding on one, I will ask God when I die. Personally I find it rather funny if we were fashioned after monkeys. It would be a nice kick in the ego for some.

 

[Shai Gar]

What's wrong with monkeys? I'd not mind a prehensile tail like a spider monkey.

 

[Rosenrot]

nothing. Its just some people get very offended at the thought of humans evolving from them, which I find hilarious.

 

[G.Kai]

I don't think there's anything intuitive about saying that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, unless you equate intuition with idiocy.

 

[Satya]

I don't think there's anything intuitive about saying that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, unless you equate intuition with idiocy.

The Bible provides a very detailed list of all the generations back to Adam and Eve. If you add up all the years, then it comes to approximately 5,000. Or so I have been told. Therefore, that is what people have believed for centuries.

 

[G.Kai]

The Bible provides a very detailed list of all the generations back to Adam and Eve. If you add up all the years, then it comes to approximately 5,000. Or so I have been told. Therefore, that is what people have believed for centuries.

Well, yes, I was taught that in bible school. I didn't believe it then, either. I think using the Bible as an inerrant source of the history of mankind (it doesn't mention much of any cultures distant from the holy land), or using it as a science textbook is a flawed idea. Truth is, we can't even trust ancient science about simple things, like whether or not sun revolves around the earth. I believe the Bible is a guide for spiritual things to those who believe them.

 

[Shai Gar]

Shouldn't be taught in public schools, and christian schools should be free to teach them without teaching science, without public finances. That'd produce a generation of unemployable christians, or would bankrupt christian schools

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I think that both should be taught; evolution in science class, and creationism (from various religions) in a history class.
Let's face it. Science is not fact. No matter how much evidence we have on anything, we will never really actually know, will we?
And religion is a personal and broad topic. Given that the bible is one of the oldest books, if not the oldest, there is also a possibility of flaws with social, political, and lingual changes.
Neither is a perfect explanation, but neither is disprovable.

I personally believe that God did create the universe, but he would have done so before calenders, especially accurate ones, so the idea that he created Earth in 7 days is a human, and possibly (read: probably) flawed, idea. Also, I believe God created life so that it would evolve, as it would think and have free will; I like to relate it to how we have self-updating computers. If something were to happen or a better version would come along for that type of creature, it would simply "install" itself so that God wouldn't have to bother with all it.

 

[Satya]

Let's face it. Science is not fact.

How are you defining "fact"?

No matter how much evidence we have on anything, we will never really actually know, will we?

Science is probability. It is the measure of how likely something is.

And religion is a personal and broad topic. Given that the bible is one of the oldest books, if not the oldest, there is also a possibility of flaws with social, political, and lingual changes.
Neither is a perfect explanation, but neither is disprovable.

That is incorrect. Religion, by its very nature cannot be disproven, but science by its very nature can be disproven. All scientific knowledge is tentative and subject to new evidence or a better explaination. Arguing that you can't disprove science demonstrates that you don't understand science.

I personally believe that God did create the universe, but he would have done so before calenders, especially accurate ones, so the idea that he created Earth in 7 days is a human, and possibly (read: probably) flawed, idea. Also, I believe God created life so that it would evolve, as it would think and have free will; I like to relate it to how we have self-updating computers. If something were to happen or a better version would come along for that type of creature, it would simply "install" itself so that God wouldn't have to bother with all it.

Intuitive knowledge is an interesting device.

 

[Shai Gar]

So god is a lazy INTP?

 

[gloomy-optimist]

How are you defining "fact"?



Science is probability. It is the measure of how likely something is.



That is incorrect. Religion, by its very nature cannot be disproven, but science by its very nature can be disproven. All scientific knowledge is tentative and subject to new evidence or a better explaination. Arguing that you can't disprove science demonstrates that you don't understand science.

Science is the systematic observations of events to explain the universe and predict future events. And yes, science by nature is meant to be disproven; the nature of the scientific method is outlined so that all experiments can be recreated, and thusly further supported (or otherwise proven false).

In terms of creation and evolution, while the science behind the theories cannot really be proven by means of systematic observation (at the current point in time), it is also almost as difficult to prove that it did not happen, as neither event can be recreated by our current means.
Sorry if I was unclear in my first explanation.

 

[Satya]

In terms of creation and evolution, while the science behind the theories cannot really be proven by means of systematic observation (at the current point in time), it is also almost as difficult to prove that it did not happen, as neither event can be recreated by our current means.
Sorry if I was unclear in my first explanation.

Actually they have disproven quite a bit about evolution. With the discovery and mapping of DNA, many volumes on taxonomy have been thrown out and entirely new explanations for evolutionary process had to be created. And they have recreated the evolutionary process in the laboratory numerous time. My own university is famous for having a biologist who created a radiation resistant strain of bacteria by utilizing evolutionary processes.

Whereas religion is the same as it has always been. A bunch of people of varying interpretations trying to live as literally in accordance to a book as possible.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Actually they have disproven quite a bit about evolution. With the discovery and mapping of DNA, many volumes on taxonomy have been thrown out and entirely new explanations for evolutionary process had to be created. And they have recreated the evolutionary process in the laboratory numerous time. My own university is famous for having a biologist who created a radiation resistant strain of bacteria by utilizing evolutionary processes.

Whereas religion is the same as it has always been. A bunch of people of varying interpretations trying to live as literally in accordance to a book as possible.

I was not aware that they had gotten so far in the area of testing evolution, although I do maintain that it would be difficult to genuinely recreate such a process with our current technology. We could possibly do something on smaller scales, but to really disprove/ prove the entire theory would be difficult and take quite a bit of time, and I remain skeptical. It'd be interesting to see what the theory would morph into if they managed to, though; I look forward to it.

Religion, though, is a lot more complicated than that; there have been so many social and political changes over the course of Christian history alone...it'd be very hard to logically say that there have been no changes to the bible since it was first written. In fact, I sincerely believe that it would be foolhardy to take the bible exactly as written.
Plus, you factor in all the different denominations of the church and the different belief systems...Christianity alone is one giant puzzle, with no real right answers, when you get down to it

 

[ZenCat]

I don't believe there is any place in public schools (or non-religious private schools) for a single religion's beliefs to be taught. Whether in history, sociology, or any other subject. We have the choice and the right to attend the church of our choosing, and have our children educated in our faith's beliefs within those settings. There are enough faith-based schools, if parents want their children taught these things on a daily basis.

I imagine it must be especially distressing to those who practice a different faith, but who's children are forced to be taught both non-religious science and history AND another faith's religious beliefs as equal alternatives in public schools, which I already know happens in many parts of my country.

I don't think any of us or our children should have to experience the moral conflict, frustration and sociological pressures inherent in being forced to learn (be tested on, absorb, understand, whatever) information about a faith so different from our own that the forced learning of it might cause a deep moral, religious conflict within ourselves or our families.

 

[G.Kai]

As a medical journalist, I specialize in microbiology. One of the problems with evolution is that we focus on DNA lifeforms. DNA is very stable, making mutation a slower-than-slow process. If you look at RNA - less stable and prone to rapid mutation, especially in the field of RNA virology, you see these little critters adapt and evolve at light speed, comparatively speaking. They do this by swtching amino acids with alarming accuracy.

For a long time, scientists were in general agreement that DNA came first. However there is now evidence - and more logical in my thinking, that RNA came first. After all, DNA needs an extra protein to replicate. RNA can hairpin on itself and replicate completely unassisted.

Perhaps organic life began, well, not as a virus, but as a virus-like lifeform. The viruses we see now may have begun as nature's attempts at organic life, except that they didn't need to evolve any further once they found hosts. As humans, our host is the DNA ecosystem at large. It is huge, and extremely stable, except that our own plundering of the Earth may eventually make it unliveable.

The gathering together of amino acids into RNA may provide us with many answers to the question of how all this wonderful life got started.

 

[HolySmoke]

Can someone explain to me why this is even an issue anymore? Why do some schools still want to teach that the world was created in 7 days about 5,000 years ago? Why do people still dismiss objective/scientific evidence for their own subjective/intuitive evidence?

Some people can not think beyond the literal. Their brains don't function that way and it wasn't supported to do so in their upbringing. The bible then provides the answers, the real answers, and should be taken as the word, literally. To me, at least, it is something that is highly symbolic and there are meanings to uncover, just as with other religious beliefs. But, yes, 7 days is a big deal, even though may have represented 700 million years or more. Perhaps it is more numerology based. Isn't 42 used a lot as well? To me the numbers are simply representative of a symbol, but that is something too weird for those types.

 

[Dice]

who?

Who would be so ignorant to say there is no God I could never respect anyone who thinks they have the mysterious of the universe or for that matter earth. We think we are so much, people in a 100 years will look back at all of us and think where cavemen.

And do you really think that if God wanted something in his Bible any man on Earth could stop him from doing so ?
the language changes but never the meaning still the same as the Torah.

Every Noach and every Jidle.
the book of job is great for questioning one of my favorites.

My favorite proof: the Bible is alive to prove thus, grab your copy or borrow a friends close your eyes flip threw and point. I bet a million dollars that chapter directly relates to the battle you are going threw right now.
I love it, but sometimes knowing the true power I flee.

 

[Quinlan]

Who would be so ignorant to say there is no God I could never respect anyone who thinks they have the mysterious of the universe or for that matter earth.

There is no god as far as I can tell, I would happily change my opinion if hard evidence in his favour turned up but that is unlikely.

We think we are so much, people in a 100 years will look back at all of us and think where cavemen.

...because of science.

And do you really think that if God wanted something in his Bible any man on Earth could stop him from doing so ?
the language changes but never the meaning still the same as the Torah.

The meaning comes from your own interpretation.

My favorite proof: the Bible is alive to prove thus, grab your copy or borrow a friends close your eyes flip threw and point. I bet a million dollars that chapter directly relates to the battle you are going threw right now.

Confirmation bias and a far too small sample size.