Creation or Evolution?

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Since the other thread on this subject didn't include a poll, I decided to create one just to see how many people on this board believe one choice or the other.

Note:

Please don't confuse the question, this is not about the origin of the universe, and this is not about the origin of life (abiogenesis).

So... evolution or creation?

[Oleg Bach]

Since the other thread on this subject didn't include a poll, I decided to create one just to see how many people on this board believe one choice or the other.

Note:

Please don't confuse the question, this is not about the origin of the universe, and this is not about the origin of life (abiogenesis).

So... evolution or creation?

Thats stupid...If I say evolution everyone is going to think that I am some shallow institutionalized overly educated static dweeb....and if I say creation - then they are going to think that fossils are just six thousand years old...neither camp has it right - I say this over and over again - The concept of time must be addressed - scripture states that there is no time - and science states that time is so vast and never ending that it really does not exist - we as temporal beings will never grasp creation or evolution because we imagine time as being the master..there is no master - creation took place in a cosmic second - and evolution took place in a cosmic second - these seconds are equal to less than a second and more than a trillion years -both theories are correct.

[Sir Bandelot]

How about "both".

I don't think intelligent design has to preclude evolution. We are in a process that tranforms simple crude matter into complex living beings, over a great period of time. But that process cannot be a mere accident

So I can't vote in your poll... sorry

Edited May 27, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Chuck U. Farlie]

How about "both".

I don't think intelligent design has to preclude evolution. We are in a process that tranforms simple crude matter into complex living beings, over a great period of time. But that process cannot be a mere accident

So I can't vote in your poll... sorry

It sounds to me like you believe in evolution that is controlled by the hand of God.

That still sounds like evolution to me... I didn't ask if the change was by accident or controlled.

[Sir Bandelot]

It sounds to me like you believe in evolution that is controlled by the hand of God.

That still sounds like evolution to me... I didn't ask if the change was by accident or controlled.

But, is that considered "intelligent design"?

[M.Dancer]

But, is that considered "intelligent design"?

By intelligent design they mean that nothing was left to random chance...that the earth's orbit is precisely X because that is the only calculation to provide the necisities of life....whereas evolution relies on the premis that given enough mutations over 100s of millions of years, all happening randomly and being selected purely on its ability to better exploit its environment and reproduce, you get the world today.

Basically one is saying all this is the result of the supernatural guiding hand and the other doesn't consider a supernatural cause at all.

If I was to make an uniformed opinion about creation, it's like my fridge. Sometimes without me even being aware of it, new life forms on the cheese. I know I put the cheese there, and whamo....there it is, an evolved form of cheese.

I call it Unaware Design

[Borg]

I believe what ever you believe - it is that important to me.

Yawn.

You can believe what you want and I will still respect you in the morning.

Borg

[GostHacked]

But, is that considered "intelligent design"?

Maybe stupid meddling is a more appropriate approach.

[ToadBrother]

Thats stupid...If I say evolution everyone is going to think that I am some shallow institutionalized overly educated static dweeb....and if I say creation - then they are going to think that fossils are just six thousand years old...neither camp has it right - I say this over and over again - The concept of time must be addressed - scripture states that there is no time - and science states that time is so vast and never ending that it really does not exist - we as temporal beings will never grasp creation or evolution because we imagine time as being the master..there is no master - creation took place in a cosmic second - and evolution took place in a cosmic second - these seconds are equal to less than a second and more than a trillion years -both theories are correct.

We're talking about biological evolution here, not about grand cosmic thoughts (oh, and science says the Universe, or at least the Visible Universe has been around about 13.5 billion years, so it's a looong time, but not an infinite amount, and why should science have to explain your own particular theological musings).

The question is simple. It doesn't need to invoke any theological arguments, any more than the question "Do you believe that the Earth circles the Sun" requires it. If you wish to create more nuance due to your religious beliefs, then do so, but one does not need to invoke God to solve 2+2.

[ToadBrother]

But, is that considered "intelligent design"?

I think we need to clarify things here. Intelligent Design is a pseudo-theory manufactured by the Discovery Institute and its associates (mainly William Dembski and Michael Behe) in the late 1980s after the Creationist defeat in the US Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard). Basically, it's Creationism stripped of any overt religious claims (hence, Intelligent Designer instead of God), for the purposes of trying to fool the Supreme Court.

There is another concept, generally called Theistic Evolution, which is the fundamental idea that evolution happens, but that there's a guiding hand. There are a number of scientists who, to one extent or another, take this tact, not just with evolution, but with all science. The different between Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design is that TEists don't insist that their *religious* views are scientific views (they certainly view those religious beliefs as complimentary), whereas IDists explicitly claim their religious views (no matter how cleverly disguised), are in fact science.

[WIP]

I think we need to clarify things here. Intelligent Design is a pseudo-theory manufactured by the Discovery Institute and its associates (mainly William Dembski and Michael Behe) in the late 1980s after the Creationist defeat in the US Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard). Basically, it's Creationism stripped of any overt religious claims (hence, Intelligent Designer instead of God), for the purposes of trying to fool the Supreme Court.

There is another concept, generally called Theistic Evolution, which is the fundamental idea that evolution happens, but that there's a guiding hand. There are a number of scientists who, to one extent or another, take this tact, not just with evolution, but with all science. The different between Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design is that TEists don't insist that their *religious* views are scientific views (they certainly view those religious beliefs as complimentary), whereas IDists explicitly claim their religious views (no matter how cleverly disguised), are in fact science.

What makes ID especially confusing for creationists and evolutionists is that the leaders of this movement itself aren't even singing from the same hymnal! William Dembski, the mathematician who tries to create information theories to prove irreducible complexities in evolution -- believes that the basic "kinds" of life were created, so that puts him pretty much in the same camp as other creationists, most of whom accept the fact that mutation and forces of natural selection make small evolutionary changes.

On the other hand, Michael Behe, the guy who created this movement, is a theistic evolutionist, since he has stated several times since writing "Darwin's Black Box," that he accepts common origins of life: "I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent" (p.176). In his review of the book, biologist Gert Korthof notes that Behe avoids expanding on that point, unlike the other prominent theistic evolutionists: Behe did not bother to present the evidence for common descent. Is he interested at all in the evidence for common descent? Does he know or understand the evidence? Behe does not seem to realise the consequences of his statement.

Common descent of life means that all life is descended from the first form of life.

Common descent of life means that all life on Earth is physically, historically and genetically connected. It is one unbroken chain of ancestors and descendants.

Common descent of life means that there is only one tree of life.

Common descent of life means that gaps in the fossil record are gaps in the record, and not in the tree of life.

Common descent of life means that whatever the mechanism, every organism inherited its genes and all its so-called 'irreducibly complex' systems from the previous generation and so on until first life. Every intervention would be a violation of common descent.

Behe accepts that evolution occurred and accepts common descent, however he thinks that evolution was 'guided by God' (15). That makes him a theistic evolutionist. However, Behe does not give a rigorous definition of 'guided evolution', so I don't know whether 'guided evolution' is the same as 'supernatural intervention' or contradicting common descent.

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof8.htm

As Korthof points out, an ID proponent like Michael Behe, is presenting a theory loaded with internal contradictions, whose only value is to create confusion -- since most of the creationists who cite his work, do not even realize that he is making a muted argument for evolution, not creation!

Edited May 27, 2009 by WIP

[Chuck U. Farlie]

9 to 0 for evolution... should I pull a Betsy and declare victory?

[Peter F]

9 to 0 for evolution... should I pull a Betsy and declare victory?

Oh Damn! I voted for creationism by mistake!

[mjp]

creationism and intelligent design is exactly the same thing.. ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I would go for science because our understanding level is fairly small.

[Bonam]

Evolution, like all science, is not a matter of "belief". It's about evidence, and theories that can reasonably explain the evidence, and make predictions that can then be confirmed or disproved. If one "believes" in evolution, one has totally missed the whole point. Belief and faith are for religion, science is based on observation and reason.

Like all scientific theories, evolution may one day need to be revised, expanded, or even replaced with a new theory to explain all the phenomena that we observe, but for now it is by far the best explanation that we have. It has proved remarkably accurate, correctly predicting the results of many experiments and studies, even though the original ideas were developed before humanity knew anything of the mechanisms of genetics and mutation which facilitate evolution.

[Oleg Bach]

Evolution, like all science, is not a matter of "belief". It's about evidence, and theories that can reasonably explain the evidence, and make predictions that can then be confirmed or disproved. If one "believes" in evolution, one has totally missed the whole point. Belief and faith are for religion, science is based on observation and reason.

Like all scientific theories, evolution may one day need to be revised, expanded, or even replaced with a new theory to explain all the phenomena that we observe, but for now it is by far the best explanation that we have. It has proved remarkably accurate, correctly predicting the results of many experiments and studies, even though the original ideas were developed before humanity knew anything of the mechanisms of genetics and mutation which facilitate evolution.

Stop right there - "not a matter of belief - but of evidence" - to para phrase ---------------so ----some call human existance and this grand natural world "evidence" - Yes it is evident that we are a miracle...that we are natural and we are of the super nature also...The second you are approached by say - a good ---- or a dangerous person ------------you mutate in order to thrive or survive - call that evolution if you must - It can take place in seconds or billions of years...point being - It is actually reactionism - through stimuli...IN ancient doctrine is says - do not be a slave to sensuality...in other words do not be moved by every last little stimuli...only the natrual react to every last vibration or beam of light ------------- the super natural beings have power over the natural and are deciplined not to react to every little poke - some call evolution.

[Bonam]

Stop right there - "not a matter of belief - but of evidence" - to para phrase ---------------so ----some call human existance and this grand natural world "evidence" - Yes it is evident that we are a miracle...that we are natural and we are of the super nature also...The second you are approached by say - a good ---- or a dangerous person ------------you mutate in order to thrive or survive - call that evolution if you must - It can take place in seconds or billions of years...point being - It is actually reactionism - through stimuli...IN ancient doctrine is says - do not be a slave to sensuality...in other words do not be moved by every last little stimuli...only the natrual react to every last vibration or beam of light ------------- the super natural beings have power over the natural and are deciplined not to react to every little poke - some call evolution.

What incoherent ramblings. Surely you can do better?

To address a few of what I guess might be your points:

- evolution does not happen in "seconds", it takes multiple generations

- you do not "mutate" when you encounter a dangerous person

- what the heck are you trying to say with the natural and supernatural stuff?

[Oleg Bach]

What incoherent ramblings. Surely you can do better?

To address a few of what I guess might be your points:

- evolution does not happen in "seconds", it takes multiple generations

- you do not "mutate" when you encounter a dangerous person

- what the heck are you trying to say with the natural and supernatural stuff?

First - it is incoherent to you - but not to all - some will get it and some won't -------------adaptation takes place in seconds ---Lift a fist to a person and he mutates into a protective and defensive stance - he evloves instantly in order to survive. That is evolution also --- time and the length of time is irrelevant. Here is the seperation of religion and science in a nut shell....the word super natural does not mean myth or religion -- it is derived from the world NATURAL - OR NATURE.....SUPER--- Is not a pie in the sky mythical term - It means an extreme extension of the natural --- look at what we are seeing in quantum mechanics - we are seeing that the universe has no end - that nature and multi-dimentional realities co-exist all at once.....I saw this in scripture - "A second is a thousand years and a thousand years less than a second" - This statement is thousands of years old - it is the very basis of high super physics ----point being....supernatural is natural and it is not a myth.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Bonam, nevermind Oleg and his incoherent ramblings... just put him on ignore...

Anyway, I said belief while maybe I should have said accept. To the average person who doesn't study, evolution or creation comes down to a belief system. To a scientist it is not about belief and more about evidence, but not everyone has been in the position to study biology.

Oleg... I read your post only because it was quoted. Evolving, or even natural selection has nothing to do with adapting to a situation. A mutation is not a change in reaction. Here is a very simple graphical representation for you:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/index.php?page=2

[DFCaper]

I believe evolution that is controlled by the hand of God.

Atheist tried to prove God didn't exist with proof of evolution. Proves God was smart to somebody who understands science well.

I believe that intelligent design was non-scientist fighting back blindly. Unfortunately, they are hurting there own cause. I have a couple of science degrees and work in R&D, and never seen or heard anything to prove or disprove the existence of God. The more you understand, the less you know....

[GostHacked]

I believe evolution that is controlled by the hand of God.

Atheist tried to prove God didn't exist with proof of evolution. Proves God was smart to somebody who understands science well.

I believe that intelligent design was non-scientist fighting back blindly. Unfortunately, they are hurting there own cause. I have a couple of science degrees and work in R&D, and never seen or heard anything to prove or disprove the existence of God. The more you understand, the less you know....

Those athiests should realize that evolution does not deal with the god question, and it hurts their cause as well. And it was never evolution's intention to prove or disprove god. The thing many get wrong is that evolution deals with the physical world and what we have observed, it does not deal with supernatural. So evolution can't prove or dissprove god.

And the more I understand the more I know, but the quesition of God will not be anwered in my lifetime. My life has to end before that question can even be approached.

[eyeball]

Those athiests should realize that evolution does not deal with the god question, and it hurts their cause as well. And it was never evolution's intention to prove or disprove god. The thing many get wrong is that evolution deals with the physical world and what we have observed, it does not deal with supernatural. So evolution can't prove or dissprove god.

And the more I understand the more I know, but the quesition of God will not be anwered in my lifetime. My life has to end before that question can even be approached.

The supernatural can't be dealt with because it can't be observed so its not evolution's job to prove or disprove it. Why should anyone think it is?

[Chuck U. Farlie]

I believe evolution that is controlled by the hand of God.

Atheist tried to prove God didn't exist with proof of evolution. Proves God was smart to somebody who understands science well.

I believe that intelligent design was non-scientist fighting back blindly. Unfortunately, they are hurting there own cause. I have a couple of science degrees and work in R&D, and never seen or heard anything to prove or disprove the existence of God. The more you understand, the less you know....

As the others have said, god's existence (or not) has nothing to do with evolution.

Just how does evolution prove god is smart? Evolution doesn't say or imply anything about god what-so-ever.

There is no onus to disprove the existence of god - if we had to go proving the non-existence of everything that doesn't exist, we would be here a while! ;-)

How does the quote go? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."?

So... what makes you believe evolution is controlled by the hand of god? Where is your extraordinary proof?

[WIP]

I believe evolution that is controlled by the hand of God.

Why? And what is God?

Atheist tried to prove God didn't exist with proof of evolution. Proves God was smart to somebody who understands science well.

What evolution does prove is that the diversity of life on earth was not "intelligently designed" as described in Genesis, and believed by those who insist on religious literalism.

I believe that intelligent design was non-scientist fighting back blindly. Unfortunately, they are hurting there own cause. I have a couple of science degrees and work in R&D, and never seen or heard anything to prove or disprove the existence of God. The more you understand, the less you know....

God is the convenient explanation for questions that cannot be answered by observation or empirical evidence. People define "God" in many different ways that suit their need to remove unanswered questions. One thing I am sure of, is that God seems to want to hide from being discovered and leaves us with a world that does not prove his existence.

[WIP]

Those athiests should realize that evolution does not deal with the god question, and it hurts their cause as well. And it was never evolution's intention to prove or disprove god.

Hurts whose cause? I get tired of being lectured not to upset the fundamentalists by asking what evidence they have for their beliefs. In some ways, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are right when they say that liberal religionists enable the fundamentalists by attempting to squelch any probing questions about the value of religious belief and religious affiliation.