Evolution vs. Creationism

[gloomy-optimist]

"Creation myths" is not a very appropriate or correct title, first off

Secondly, I think that the population would follow whatever was preached as truth. I don't choose to care about what the population doubts, since that is usually misleading and rather constricting of ideas.

 

[TheLastMohican]

"Creation myths" is not a very appropriate or correct title, first off

What would you call them?

Secondly, I think that the population would follow whatever was preached as truth. I don't choose to care about what the population doubts, since that is usually misleading and rather constricting of ideas.

Good, exactly what I'm driving at. If fairly exposed to the relevant evidence, almost everyone would except evolution. But we have churches that depend on doubt about such things, and by spreading false claims among the populace, and telling people they must believe in creationism or go to hell (i.e. scaring them into being convinced), they have successfully suppressed science. They preach as truth that which is false, and since they are paid to do it every Sunday, they can keep up quite well with those honest scientists who do the hard work of producing the evidence that few pay attention to.
My main point is that evolution really shouldn't have so much controversy compared to other scientific theories; the reason why it is so widely doubted is simply because Genesis says it isn't true, and Genesis, though it is by no means scientific evidence, is influential.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

What would you call them?



Good, exactly what I'm driving at. If fairly exposed to the relevant evidence, almost everyone would except evolution. But we have churches that depend on doubt about such things, and by spreading false claims among the populace, and telling people they must believe in creationism or go to hell (i.e. scaring them into being convinced), they have successfully suppressed science. They preach as truth that which is false, and since they are paid to do it every Sunday, they can keep up quite well with those honest scientists who do the hard work of producing the evidence that few pay attention to.
My main point is that evolution really shouldn't have so much controversy compared to other scientific theories; the reason why it is so widely doubted is simply because Genesis says it isn't true, and Genesis, though it is by no means scientific evidence, is influential.

First off, you have to remember; no one in the church preaches what they believe to be "false claims." That's your opinion, sir Don't mix that up with what's happening in the world around you.

Secondly, with all my religious experience, I have never been told that I would go to hell if I didn't believe in creationism. In the past, even the more distance past in the past 50 or less years, that might have been the case, but it's not quite so common now. That's a misleading and rather ignorant argument. What you're doing here is pointing fingers rather than arguing your position.

Thirdly, evolution does not describe some of the things that creationism does; many people use creationism as a method to explain what happened when the universe came into being, rather than how people were just thrown on Earth. Genesis does not say evolution cannot happen.


Your argument lacks substance.

 

[TheLastMohican]

First off, you have to remember; no one in the church preaches what they believe to be "false claims." That's your opinion, sir Don't mix that up with what's happening in the world around you.

Some do. Granted, people usually don't bother to question Kent Hovind, and they go about repeating his BS with perfect sincerity. But it did start with an ignorant and/or dishonest person.

Secondly, with all my religious experience, I have never been told that I would go to hell if I didn't believe in creationism. In the past, even the more distance past in the past 50 or less years, that might have been the case, but it's not quite so common now. That's a misleading and rather ignorant argument.

Again, it's easy to find softer examples, but that is irrelevant. Many fundies only accept literalism as true Christianity, and if you believe in evolution, then you are a "fake Christian," and destined to burn in hell. Maybe they aren't that common where you live, but I've seen plenty of them. You have no grounds to call me "ignorant" on that point.

What you're doing here is pointing fingers rather than arguing your position.

There is no difference between the two. My argument is pointing fingers, since what I am explaining is why so many in the U.S. doubt evolution, unlike most other well-established scientific theories.

Thirdly, evolution does not describe some of the things that creationism does; many people use creationism as a method to explain what happened when the universe came into being, rather than how people were just thrown on Earth. Genesis does not say evolution cannot happen.

Genesis does say that God created the major forms of life within six days of starting his project. That pretty effectively rules out evolution as I see it.

Your argument lacks substance.

What exactly are we arguing? Are you denying that churches are largely responsible for widespread creationism?

 

[gloomy-optimist]

1)Some do. Granted, people usually don't bother to question Kent Hovind, and they go about repeating his BS with perfect sincerity. But it did start with an ignorant and/or dishonest person.



2) Again, it's easy to find softer examples, but that is irrelevant. Many fundies only accept literalism as true Christianity, and if you believe in evolution, then you are a "fake Christian," and destined to burn in hell. Maybe they aren't that common where you live, but I've seen plenty of them. You have no grounds to call me "ignorant" on that point.



3) There is no difference between the two. My argument is pointing fingers, since what I am explaining is why so many in the U.S. doubt evolution, unlike most other well-established scientific theories.



4) Genesis does say that God created the major forms of life within six days of starting his project. That pretty effectively rules out evolution as I see it.


5) What exactly are we arguing? Are you denying that churches are largely responsible for widespread creationism?

1) I've never even heard of him. Perhaps that's more of a local/sectional/area thing.
What started with an ignorant person?

2) Extremists are...well, extreme. You shouldn't base your entire opinion or knowledge of Christianity on a literalistic sect. There are Christians that are more reasonable, and probably better examples of the Christian religion as a whole.

3) The reason many people don't trust evolution so much as other scientific theories is because it is harder to prove and more personal. Anyone could believe in gravity because anything can see something fall to the ground. Now, coming from fish and monkeys after years and years of change...that's harder to grasp, and much shakier. Even if that is believable, there's really not much that says how life came to be in the first place, and don't even get started on the origins of the universe. Even with all the theories on evolution, the question still exists of where we came from, and thus creationism still exists.

4) In six days.....before there was any concept of a day. Literally, yeah, that wouldn't coincide with evolution at all. But if you take it a bit more abstractly (which, personally, I believe it was meant to be taken in such a manner), or, if you consider it with a more thoughtful and logical approach, a day in God's time is really not comparable with a day as it exists today, especially because part of that time was before He even "made" the sun and the moon, which basically were the determinants of a "day" as we, as people, understand it.
The theory of intelligent design combines the two concepts; the first day, God created the Universe, light and dark...in other words, the big bang. The Earth was also created because the religious purpose of human beings would not require the time frame from the conception of the universe to the creation of the Earth, and therefore doesn't need to be separated; it is the first day of "our" time.
In short, the "six days" could very possibly be viewed as periods of history or times of the Earth, rather than six literal days. And that is an example of interpretation.

5) That's what you were arguing, I think, but I was arguing against following anything without a full understanding of the mechanics and standpoint of both sides, and, more specifically, science's rather quick assumption that the church is just a collection of dumbasses that like making up things in their utter ignorance of everything. Sure, they have been, and still are in many places, corrupt, but that doesn't mean the entire principle is useless.

 

[TheLastMohican]

What started with an ignorant person?

The false evidence for creationism or against evolution.

2) Extremists are...well, extreme. You shouldn't base your entire opinion or knowledge of Christianity on a literalistic sect. There are Christians that are more reasonable, and probably better examples of the Christian religion as a whole.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are only unwittingly using that strawman. To explain again: I obviously know that there are more reasonable Christians, but that is irrelevant. Many of those more reasonable Christians also believe in evolution. The point is that those Christians who are unreasonable regarding this subject do plenty to perpetuate creationism. That is all.

3) The reason many people don't trust evolution so much as other scientific theories is because it is harder to prove and more personal. Anyone could believe in gravity because anything can see something fall to the ground. Now, coming from fish and monkeys after years and years of change...that's harder to grasp, and much shakier.

The gravity analogy is a bad one. People don't believe in special relativity only because things fall; the result of seeing things fall is that they believe things will fall consistently. In other words, they believe in the effect, even if they don't know the cause.
Compare that to evolution: the cause is what people doubt. Nobody doubts the effect, as that is simply the existence of complex life. It's just that some people believe that a divine entity created complex life, and others believe that it formed through a process. Both hypotheses explain how complex life could exist. Furthermore, if the Bible said that God directly controls falling things (intelligent falling), that would explain the phenomenon just as well, and then people would be just as likely to doubt the theory of gravity in favor of God's constant intervention.

4) In six days.....before there was any concept of a day. Literally, yeah, that wouldn't coincide with evolution at all. But if you take it a bit more abstractly (which, personally, I believe it was meant to be taken in such a manner), or, if you consider it with a more thoughtful and logical approach, a day in God's time is really not comparable with a day as it exists today, especially because part of that time was before He even "made" the sun and the moon, which basically were the determinants of a "day" as we, as people, understand it.

Sure, it can be taken abstractly. But many people don't take it abstractly. End of story.

In short, the "six days" could very possibly be viewed as periods of history or times of the Earth, rather than six literal days. And that is an example of interpretation.

A problem with that is that the days still weren't the right order.

5) That's what you were arguing, I think, but I was arguing against following anything without a full understanding of the mechanics and standpoint of both sides, and, more specifically, science's rather quick assumption that the church is just a collection of dumbasses that like making up things in their utter ignorance of everything. Sure, they have been, and still are in many places, corrupt, but that doesn't mean the entire principle is useless.

Now is this shifting to the usefulness of religion?

 

[gloomy-optimist]

1) The false evidence for creationism or against evolution.



2) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are only unwittingly using that strawman. To explain again: I obviously know that there are more reasonable Christians, but that is irrelevant. Many of those more reasonable Christians also believe in evolution. The point is that those Christians who are unreasonable regarding this subject do plenty to perpetuate creationism. That is all.



3) The gravity analogy is a bad one. People don't believe in special relativity only because things fall; the result of seeing things fall is that they believe things will fall consistently. In other words, they believe in the effect, even if they don't know the cause.
Compare that to evolution: the cause is what people doubt. Nobody doubts the effect, as that is simply the existence of complex life. It's just that some people believe that a divine entity created complex life, and others believe that it formed through a process. Both hypotheses explain how complex life could exist. Furthermore, if the Bible said that God directly controls falling things (intelligent falling), that would explain the phenomenon just as well, and then people would be just as likely to doubt the theory of gravity in favor of God's constant intervention.



4) Sure, it can be taken abstractly. But many people don't take it abstractly. End of story.



5) A problem with that is that the days still weren't the right order.



6) Now is this shifting to the usefulness of religion?

1) I hate to say it, but you can't disprove it either You can argue till you're blue in the face, but you can't really disprove it. Therefore, you can't yet call the theory false -- unlikely, yes, hard to believe, yes, but it is scientifically incorrect to call it false.

2) Those Christians that ignorantly perpetuate creationism are becoming less and less in number, and are usually specific to certain communities. It's surprising how many of the others that perpetuate creationism have surprisingly strong arguments.

3) We know now and accept that falling objects aren't just because God wants them to fall; there are rules of physics and laws of nature that dictate that (although, some religious arguments involving that is that there is no reason why God shouldn't create physical laws).
And it's not really a bad analogy; there is a factor in both that is hard to grasp. We don't even really know what causes gravity. However, we can see it in effect; we have accurate equations to describe it; we have proved that they work countless times. Therefore, we can believe that gravity is, in fact, there. Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to do the same with evolution; all we have is the end result. That allows for a much more debatable cause and process.

4) Once again, you may be surprised. It depends more on the community you're referring to.

5) There is a day off; the sun and the moon should have been day 1, but for the most part it's more or less in chronological order, considering that this describes the period before mankind existed and was written in a time before scientific involvement.

6) I would honestly rather not get into that right now. There are pros and cons to religion -- we've established that much on this forum. I think we could argue fairly well on the usefulness of just about any major institution, so really, it wouldn't get anywhere. You cannot really view that objectively and get a clear answer.
However, I maintain that the belief that religion is based totally on nothing and is full of only the ignorant is in itself a very close-minded concept, and I personally believe that the person that believes that has not yet fully researched or attempted to experience it.

 

[TheLastMohican]

1) I hate to say it, but you can't disprove it either You can argue till you're blue in the face, but you can't really disprove it. Therefore, you can't yet call the theory false -- unlikely, yes, hard to believe, yes, but it is scientifically incorrect to call it false.

I was talking about evidence, not a theory. "Evidence" can be and sometimes is plainly false.
Also, science allows for disproof of theories. That's a very important characteristic of a valid theory (falsifiability). What science does not allow for is the absolute proof of a theory, though it can get very close, to the point where it is most practical to take the theory's veracity for granted.

2) Those Christians that ignorantly perpetuate creationism are becoming less and less in number, and are usually specific to certain communities.

Maybe, maybe not. How many times do I have to point out that this is an irrelevant point?

It's surprising how many of the others that perpetuate creationism have surprisingly strong arguments.

I'd like to see some of these "surprisingly strong" arguments. Thus far, I have consistently found that they were based on false data, or scientifically illiterate interpretations of data.

3) We know now and accept that falling objects aren't just because God wants them to fall; there are rules of physics and laws of nature that dictate that (although, some religious arguments involving that is that there is no reason why God shouldn't create physical laws).

But how can you tell the difference between "intelligent falling" and gravity? Might it be more reasonable to assume that such a handy gravitational constant is governed by an intelligent being, rather than some random force of unexplained origin?

And it's not really a bad analogy; there is a factor in both that is hard to grasp. We don't even really know what causes gravity. However, we can see it in effect; we have accurate equations to describe it; we have proved that they work countless times. Therefore, we can believe that gravity is, in fact, there. Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to do the same with evolution; all we have is the end result. That allows for a much more debatable cause and process.

It was a bad analogy because of the similarity you just described. By their own merits, the plausibility of gravity and evolution are similar; that further demonstrates my point that evolution's status has to be artificially reduced by misrepresentation.

4) Once again, you may be surprised. It depends more on the community you're referring to.

Again, it doesn't matter if you find communities lacking fundies. We both know they exist, and obviously they have influence.

5) There is a day off; the sun and the moon should have been day 1, but for the most part it's more or less in chronological order, considering that this describes the period before mankind existed and was written in a time before scientific involvement.

That just shows why it's unreasonable for people to accept it as a scientific guide to the origin of the world, then. You can make excuses for the clearly incorrect information it contains, but the very fact that it was incorrect should be enough.

6) I would honestly rather not get into that right now.

I don't either; I was just wondering where you were going with that paragraph.

By the way, I don't believe you ever answered my question about "creation myths." What would you call them?

 

[just me]

Just for the sake of others, maybe beliefs.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

1) I was talking about evidence, not a theory. "Evidence" can be and sometimes is plainly false.
Also, science allows for disproof of theories. That's a very important characteristic of a valid theory (falsifiability). What science does not allow for is the absolute proof of a theory, though it can get very close, to the point where it is most practical to take the theory's veracity for granted.


2) Maybe, maybe not. How many times do I have to point out that this is an irrelevant point?



3) I'd like to see some of these "surprisingly strong" arguments. Thus far, I have consistently found that they were based on false data, or scientifically illiterate interpretations of data.



4) But how can you tell the difference between "intelligent falling" and gravity? Might it be more reasonable to assume that such a handy gravitational constant is governed by an intelligent being, rather than some random force of unexplained origin?



5) It was a bad analogy because of the similarity you just described. By their own merits, the plausibility of gravity and evolution are similar; that further demonstrates my point that evolution's status has to be artificially reduced by misrepresentation.



6) Again, it doesn't matter if you find communities lacking fundies. We both know they exist, and obviously they have influence.



7) That just shows why it's unreasonable for people to accept it as a scientific guide to the origin of the world, then. You can make excuses for the clearly incorrect information it contains, but the very fact that it was incorrect should be enough.


8) I don't either; I was just wondering where you were going with that paragraph.

By the way, I don't believe you ever answered my question about "creation myths." What would you call them?

1) Which is what I was referring to: you can't use falsifiability on creationism -- you can't really truly disprove it, which makes it difficult to disprove the theory. And likewise, you can't totally prove evolution, so we just take it for the best we have -- that doesn't mean it's necessarily correct.

2) I dissent; I think it is quite relevant. It irks me that you base your opinion on creationism off of the attitude of only certain Christian groups in certain communities. You agreed that there are more reasonable Christians, and yet you seem to be stuck in the idea that the only ones perpetuating creationism are literal extremists; it's making it very hard to see you as arguing objectively and with every prospective in mind.

3) What have you researched? There are some strong arguments along the line of Intelligent design -- or theories of similar nature -- but if you're using wikipedia or a normal google search, your information might not be very reliable.

4) It might very well be I don't know, and I don't pretend to know; all we have a is a formula.

5) What I was pointing out was how they were dissimilar, not how they were alike. You're argument is still unclear to me.

6) Somewhat limited influence, yes.

7) One part of it was incorrect, first of all, which, if you know the history of science, is not that uncommon, and secondly, for the time it was written and the understanding of the world at the time, I'd say it was rather remarkable. Once again, it depends on how literally you want to interpret it.

8) I call it creationism, or Genesis, or just Christian creation. "Creation myth" is rather disrespectful, and automatically implies falsehood; although I don't necessarily follow those beliefs myself, I don't feel the need to stomp around on the beliefs of others, especially when I have no power to disprove it myself.

 

[Quinlan]

GO, religion by it's very nature is subjective, it is based on personal beliefs, beliefs which cannot measured, observed or repeated by others. I cannot share another person's relationship with god, that relationship exists entirely within their own perception. It is because of this subjective nature that Religion can head any direction, from Christianity, to Islam, to Satanism and cults. Science on the other hand heads in one direction, towards objective truth, now I'm not saying science can ever reveal objective truth but at least it strives for it, by accepting faith as truth then you accept anything that can exist inside the human mind as truth. Now as societal beings that share the world, accepting anything the human mind might believe in as truth is unacceptable.

 

[dissonance]

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?

Creationism is basically a mass movement of dissonance resolution.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

You're right, for the most part Quin Science is, by nature, much more objective than religion. However, the interpretation of science is sometimes more subjective than it should be; science does not hold all the answers, and it is by no means as solid as most people make it out to be.

And religion is not always as subjective as people make it out to be, although spirituality is almost always so. Most organized religion has a direction, even if there are many branches to each main, and there are historians that can find evidence to at least some of the claims made by those religions. Now, that doesn't make it objective...but that does mean there it's not purely chaotic ignorance or made up stories.

To tell the truth, I myself am more in favor of the scientific approach. However, I understand that science is not infallible, and religion is not quite as baseless, as people tend to make them out to be.

 

[Satya]

Creationism is basically a mass movement of dissonance resolution.

It's no fun when people give the clear cut and concise answer. Could you muck it up with some ideological perceptions and value judgments please?

 

[dissonance]

It's no fun when people give the clear cut and concise answer. Could you muck it up with some ideological perceptions and value judgments please?

I...can't...force...myself...

You'll have to torture me first!!!!

Edit: Plus, it is fun. I say things that are blatantly true, and that I can easily back with argument, and just wait for someone to argue. Most people don't like how simple things are, so they argue.

 

[Satya]

I...can't...force...myself...

You'll have to torture me first!!!!

This is my problem with INTPCentral. I try to post a meaningful thread and the first 5 posts are witty remarks which make fun of the original post or thread title, and the 6th or 7th post provides the concise answer. That pretty much ends the thread. No emotional spillage or ardent ideological debates, just a simple answer. Where is the fun in that?

Damn Ti, damn you to hell!

 

[dissonance]

This is my problem with INTPCentral. I try to post a meaningful thread and the first 5 posts are witty remarks which make fun of the original post or thread title, and the 6th or 7th post provides the concise answer. That pretty much ends the thread. No emotional spillage or ardent ideological debates, just a simple answer. Where is the fun in that?

Damn Ti, damn you to hell!

Ti is a fun party trick, though. Someone will take the bait and jump right into an argument, then I can proceed to trounce the shit out of them and look super smart to the girls that are watching.

As long as I phrase my arguments all politician like (INFJ powers!), I can both look like a nice guy and a smart guy. It's all about asking questions and making them realize their own contradictions.

I do this to teachers too. That way I'm not that one asshole in the class who thinks I know it all. But I still get my opinions validated and the class ends up respecting me instead of hating me.

 

[Satya]

It's all about asking questions and making them realize their own contradictions.

I do that, but come off looking like a bully or asshole. I guess I need to work on integrating my Fe in there instead of taking the Te route of demoralizing my opponent. Less hostility means less annoyance for everyone else.

 

[dissonance]

I do that, but come off looking like a bully or asshole. I guess I need to work on integrating my Fe in there instead of taking the Te route of demoralizing my opponent. Less hostility means less annoyance for everyone else.

Yeah, one condescending look on your face can ruin the whole thing.

You need to take a tone that makes it seem the other person is the authority on the subject and you're merely asking them to grace you with knowledge.

Believe me, it works wonders.

(And yes, I'm quite manipulative.)

 

[Satya]

Yeah, one condescending look on your face can ruin the whole thing.

You need to take a tone that makes it seem the other person is the authority on the subject and you're merely asking them to grace you with knowledge.

Believe me, it works wonders.

(And yes, I'm quite manipulative.)

Fe by definition is manipulation. You can't maintain harmony in a confrontation by being any less than manipulative. But not all manipulation is bad. A potter manipulates clay into a vase, a carpenter manipulates wood into a cabinet, and an INFJ manipulates feelings into understanding.