Creationism vs. Evolution

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zeebadee The very title of this thread, " Creationism vs. Evolution" is a non sequitor. You might as well start a thread entitled "Apples vs Oranges". Creationism is concerned with how life, and the universe originated. Evolution is a description of how existing life has adapted to the changing physical conditions it is subject to. Creationism, or Intelligent Design doesn't necessarily need to involve any religious beliefs, no supernatural events, or even any life-after-death scenarios. Is there really some reason that ID and evolution can't both be correct?

I agree with almost all the points within your post.

However, we are lacking the hard-core exhibits for both :
- Creationism
- Evolution
and attempt to replace empty data for both issues (due to variety of reasons) with some speculative theories on Homo Sappiens' "Genesis" (while the expression "Genesis" may correspondent with either religious and/or non-religious fundaments), instead.

Neither Theology nor Science and Technology can supply us with hard-core exhibits on Mankind's "Genesis".

[Jack]

Many of us, when science can provide no absolute proof (which is almost all the time), tend to believe that which is the most consistent with the known science. We look at biology, chemistry, physics, geography and the other sciences and accept the explanation that fits best with what we do know.
So I can easily accept that this planet came to be in the manner described by astrophysics and life evolved generally in the manner described by evolutionary theory.
Supernatural explanations are unnecessary and require violating physical laws for no purpose. You don't need the supernatural to explain what has happened.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Isherwood So I can easily accept that this planet came to be in the manner described by astrophysics and life evolved generally in the manner described by evolutionary theory.

So, to be perfectly clear, you could summarize those theories for us? No great detail needed, just where the universe came from and how life came to be. The Big Bang? A primordial mixture of various consistencies subjected to a freak lightning bolt? Exactly what is the latest non-ID theory of the origin of the Universe?

[Jack]

There is no single one. That's the beauty of true scientific inquiry. It isn't after a pre-defined "truth", it exams the evidence and makes suggestions about what it might imply. Those suggestions (theories) are explored by other scientists. Some are quickly discarded and others continue to offer possibility of fitting with the other known science about that thing.
There is no answer. There may never be enough evidence to get to the "truth". We come closest when the majority of known science can be applied to a theory and it all works together.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Isherwood There is no single one. That's the beauty of true scientific inquiry. It isn't after a pre-defined "truth", it exams the evidence and makes suggestions about what it might imply. Those suggestions (theories) are explored by other scientists. Some are quickly discarded and others continue to offer possibility of fitting with the other known science about that thing. There is no answer. There may never be enough evidence to get to the "truth". We come closest when the majority of known science can be applied to a theory and it all works together.

But you said, "So I can easily accept that this planet came to be in the manner described by astrophysics and life evolved generally in the manner described by evolutionary theory.". My question is simply, what do you perceive those descriptions to be? What supernatural explanations would be required to substantiate a theory of ID? I don't think there are any. I think that the theory of ID is at least as viable as the theory that we, and the entire universe, originated from an explosion from nothing.

[Kite]

There are many things that substantiate the Big Bang theory, such as Cosmic Background Radiation, The doppler effect, ect. The ID theory doesnt have such scientific evidence to support it, or at least nothing observable that couldn't easily be explained by something else anyway.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Kite There are many things that substantiate the Big Bang theory, such as Cosmic Background Radiation, The doppler effect, ect. .

And there are many things that the BB theory can't explain, such as why it occurred, why we haven't seen another one, why the farthest galaxies are continuing to accelerate, and what the universe is expanding into.

[Tony Clifton]

I believe in the big bang theory...

God spoke it...& BANG - it happened.

But, seriously folks - I'll be here all weekend. No applause; just throw money.

alright - alright - alright - I know bad joke

Actually I do believe in Creation - but, I also believe things have evolved. To think otherwise is a bit naive & well...ignorant. However, I don't believe man evolved from an ape or other such animal.

No long rant - no link - just a belief.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Well, you're acknowledgement of evolution is a start, and I'm not going to sit here and tell you that your wrong that the universe was created. However, I will say that you have just as valid a belief on the universe's creation as anyone else on this planet. As for myself, I'll take the agnostic path and say that I have absolutely know idea what happened. I know the universe is expanding but it hasn't quite settled with me that something can pop into existence, let alone an explosion. Just don't know. Cheers.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Zeebadee And there are many things that the BB theory can't explain, such as why it occurred, why we haven't seen another one, why the farthest galaxies are continuing to accelerate, and what the universe is expanding into.

There are also a lot of things that ARE explained, but I'll be damned if I can make sense of any of it. Quantum mechanics comes to mind.

Or to put it another way, we just don't know jack about much of what occurs in deep space and we may never know it all. You are right about unanswered questions. I think we've pretty well shown the galaxy is expanding but how much else do we really know as fact? The expanding galaxy seems to be proof of SOME kind of force moving things and I guess a bang is as good an idea as any.

[Kite]

When you get right down to it, science and religion serve the same purpose; they attempt to explain the unknown. The reason for this whole debate is to try and get the other person to subscribe to their own theory, because they feel that the theory they believe in is superior. Science uses math, experimentation and observation; religion uses stories, parables and faith. It is basically two routes to the same truth: we are afraid of the unknown, and therefore we attempt to explain it.

A side note: Yes, I know that most of what I just said sounds alot like what is said in the book Angels and Demons, but that part of the book at least is true to life.

[Zeebadee]

It seems to me that very little effort has been put into any scientific investigation of ID minus the religious aspects of such a theory. I don't think ID is any more ridiculous than claiming the universe exploded into existence from a point of nothing and that the physical laws we labor under came about by mere chance. If nature tends towards chaos, then why are there such orderly and structured processes as DNA and the periodic chart of the elements?

[Kite]

As to the first part of your response, the reason for the lack of research into the ID theory is due to the fact that there is no real way to find out if the universe was designed by a intellegent being. You could not even begin to investigate into it, because, quite frankly, who would you ask? I can't think of any feasible way to look into the validity of the ID theory, and if there is no way to investigate it, it's not really a theory anymore, just speculation.

To the second part, the only way to answer your question about the laws and properties of our universe is that it is just the way things happend to work out. If anything different had happened during the creation of the universe and the ensuing expansion, you would not be able to even ask the question, since you would not exist. The laws of physics and the fact that we are able to exist on this planet are coincidences. The chaos of the universe has just happend to produce some VERY orderly circumstances, thats all. Also, when you think about the duration of life on this planet, on a cosmic time scale it is really just a blip, a temporary fluke that will eventually dissapear.
However, this information doesn't mean that ID isn't a valid way of thinking, its just not the way I choose to think.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Zeebadee It seems to me that very little effort has been put into any scientific investigation of ID minus the religious aspects of such a theory. I don't think ID is any more ridiculous than claiming the universe exploded into existence from a point of nothing and that the physical laws we labor under came about by mere chance. If nature tends towards chaos, then why are there such orderly and structured processes as DNA and the periodic chart of the elements?

In every scientific experiment we must have a control. Something that we know for sure would give us a "positive" result. Until someone can find the controls to God entity, we're not going to be doing much testing of said hypothesis.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee It seems to me that very little effort has been put into any scientific investigation of ID minus the religious aspects of such a theory.

But when you remove the religious aspects of ID you are left with nothing. But you are correct that no scientific research in the field of ID creationism has taken place. Not even the ID creationists have any idea how to do that.

Quote by: Zeebadee I don't think ID is any more ridiculous than claiming the universe exploded into existence from a point of nothing and that the physical laws we labor under came about by mere chance.

So it is rational to claim that someone did something somewhere at some time in the past but we don't know who, what, where, or when and here we are? How very much more rational than to observe that everything is the result of the physical laws of the universe. It doesn't matter how they came about. As a point of information, who ever said that the universe exploded into existence from a point of nothing?

Quote by: Zeebadee If nature tends towards chaos, then why are there such orderly and structured processes as DNA and the periodic chart of the elements?

The answer is obvious, nature doesn't tend towards chaos. You seem to have confused chaos with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You see, order arises from chaos all the time in nature. It has applications in medicine, meterology, nuclear physics, and more.

[Mia]

There is scientific evidence to back up Creationism. I'm not saying it proves it, but there is science to back up the theory, and much of it doesn't conflict with much of evolution.

i.e. the earth could have been created in 7 days and this does not prohbit organisms developing and evolving.

I don't see what the big deal about presenting both theories side-by-side, with the scientific date for and and against on each laid out.

Parents can weigh in on what they'd like to guide thier children to believe. It certainly would not be promoting any religion, IMO.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Isherwood Many of us, when science can provide no absolute proof (which is almost all the time), tend to believe that which is the most consistent with the known science. We look at biology, chemistry, physics, geography and the other sciences and accept the explanation that fits best with what we do know. So I can easily accept that this planet came to be in the manner described by astrophysics and life evolved generally in the manner described by evolutionary theory. Supernatural explanations are unnecessary and require violating physical laws for no purpose. You don't need the supernatural to explain what has happened.

No sudden drive for polemics, though.

Example :
1.
The BigBang theory does not provide any data on the most crucial questions :
- cause for a single atom to appear and/or be created, emerged (not to mention another one, to interact with, since no action/interaction can manifest its presence or existance with a single matter only !)
- force that made the first move
No answers whatsoever. Just a plain speculative material, instead.

2.
The Bible's description for the Man's Creation is a symbolic one.

Creationism vs. Evolution ?
Except for some speculations, we have no clue on both subjects, respectively.

P.S.
We have a hazy view on Science, still. We are far better than guys who lived thousands years ago, though. I wonder people to think about us, some thousands years ahead.
I assume they would think in a similar way and take us as morons :-)
And it would continue (like "Energizer" battery) :-)

[gallo]

Quote by: Mia There is scientific evidence to back up Creationism.

No there isn't. I've and heard so much creationist stuff that was claimed to be evidence and none of it was.

Quote by: Mia I'm not saying it proves it,

That's good, since science doesn't prove. It explains.

Quote by: Mia but there is science to back up the theory,

What theory? Creationism isn't a theory. It is an unfounded assertion based on no science whatsoever.

Quote by: Mia and much of it doesn't conflict with much of evolution.

Really?

Quote by: Mia i.e. the earth could have been created in 7 days and this does not prohbit organisms developing and evolving.

But the earth couldn't have been created in 7 days. That is religious mythology.

Quote by: Mia I don't see what the big deal about presenting both theories side-by-side, with the scientific date for and and against on each laid out.

But creationism isn't a theory and there is no scientific evidence that supports it. In fact, the Supreme Court has found that Creationism is religiously motivated and is not science. Creationism can and is presented in public schools in appropriate classes, like comparative religion and mythology courses.

Quote by: Mia Parents can weigh in on what they'd like to guide thier children to believe.

They certainly can. They can do so by teaching their religion in their homes and in their churches. Why is it necessary to force your religion on everyone through the schools?

Quote by: Mia It certainly would not be promoting any religion, IMO.

According to the Supreme Court, it would be promoting, not only religion, but a particular religious view. You cannot use the schools to force other students to be taught your religion by pretending that it is science.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: gallo What theory? Creationism isn't a theory. It is an unfounded assertion based on no science whatsoever.

Horsepatootie. Creationism, or ID, is as much a theory as any other. It requires no link to religious beliefs, although many people continue to attach religious beliefs to it. It's merely the theory that the universe as we know it was created rather than came about by some unknown cosmic event. The fact that we currently have no means to test the theory doesn't negate the possibilty that it may be valid. There is also no requirement to define what or who created it, or by what process it was created to make it a valid theory. Of course, lacking any methods of testing, it's a pretty short and easily taught theory, but it's a theory nonetheless. We may someday develop appropriate means of testing, who knows?

Quote by: gallo But the earth couldn't have been created in 7 days. That is religious mythology.

Talk about unfounded assertions. You may believe that, but you have no proof of such a claim. Since you don't know how the earth came into existence, you obviously don't know how long that process took.

[Jack]

There is also no requirement to define what or who created it, or by what process it was created to make it a valid theory.

Of course there is. Science offers a hypothesis, then tests that hypothesis for consistency with known science. If the hypothesis of ID is that there is intelligent design, how would you begin to test that without knowing who or what was being suggested as the designer?
The real difference between ID and scientific inquiry is that science doesn't claim to know "the answer" and may never find one. ID, on the other hand, starts with the answer and then tries to find evidence that fits. ID is starting at the wrong end of the question, "how did all this come to be?"

Since you don't know how the earth came into existence, you obviously don't know how long that process took.

Current scientific knowledge says that creation and evolution in the span of 7 days is nonsensical. Geology alone would have to be ignored for that to be possible.