Creationism vs. Evolution

[Jack]

can you reiterate what the difference is, or at least site the page where its on, cause the thread is wayyy too long.

Start at the post below and follow it for a ways. I'd summarize his position but I don't understand it myself, so that wouldn't too helpful.

Creationism vs. Evolution

[sevendogs]

Yes, I agree with you. Science is the best we have. Teaching of creationism as another version of "sciences" is disinformation and intellectual pollution in our schools. Students are smart, they will sort thing out anyway. I grew up in a country, where education in science was not bad, but it was heavily polluted by Communist ideology. It did the opposite, because it triggered counter thinking in us and we were craving for knowledge in depth and debated, sorting out what was sciences and what was ideology similar to another religion.

[kubedawg]

Actually, teaching creationism is not a bad idea. It just shouldn't be required, nor should be evolution of humans. Both creation and evolution are theorys, myths. No way to PROVE either one, and just because evidence to support evolution exists, does not make it true... Dinosaur bones millions of years old? God did it. God put those dinosaur bones on the earth when he made it.

Trump that argument.

[Jack]

Both creation and evolution are theorys, myths. No way to PROVE either one, and just because evidence to support evolution exists, does not make it true...

Evolution is a scientific theory, creation is not. Note: a scientific theory, not theory as used in everyday conversation.

If you don't accept evidence as a means to arrive at the best conclusion possible, what are your standards? Science isn't trying to arrive at the truth, but at the best explanation that accounts for the evidence. Our students in this country are already falling behind other developed countries in the sciences. Just how stupid do they have to become to satisfy the creationists?

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Isherwood Evolution is a scientific theory, creation is not. Note: a scientific theory, not theory as used in everyday conversation. If you don't accept evidence as a means to arrive at the best conclusion possible, what are your standards? Science isn't trying to arrive at the truth, but at the best explanation that accounts for the evidence. Our students in this country are already falling behind other developed countries in the sciences. Just how stupid do they have to become to satisfy the creationists?

I understand science isn't trying to 'arrive' at the truth, which is why this argument is pointless. Creation may be true. Hard to believe, hell yeah, but it may be. You don't know that. Just like we don't know that God didn't place the dinosaur bones on Earth some 10,000 years ago... Noone knows that.

You can only cross examine things and come up with the same conclusion so many times.... It makes sense that evolution exists the way we think it did, however, that doesn't mean it happened that way.

Explain the evidence as best as possible, however, accept that evolution is still only a theory, scientific theory allbeit, but still a theory.

[rez]

Quote by: kubedawg Explain the evidence as best as possible, however, accept that evolution is still only a theory, scientific theory allbeit, but still a theory.

I read this as...

Explain the evidence as best as possible, however, accept that evolution is still only a fact, a scientific fact, but still a fact....

The moral of the story is to learn the definitions of words. You will end up not having a hard time coming up with sound reasoning

[Jack]

accept that evolution is still only a theory, scientific theory allbeit, but still a theory.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

[Chris]

This brochure should be placed along side every evangelical paper written on the subject of Evolution in schools. The sad thing is, that the young earth creationists wont have any part of it, and will dismiss it as scientific "hocus pocus"

PDF

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: kubedawg Explain the evidence as best as possible, however, accept that evolution is still only a theory, scientific theory allbeit, but still a theory.

Yes it is. Biblical creationism is nothing more than a freakin' theory too, but without any "evidences". Just a book, like the last Harry Potter or any Stephen King you can find.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: nerdvincent Biblical creationism is nothing more than a freakin' theory too, but without any "evidences".

'fraid not. Biblical creationism is a hypothesis, and a weak one at that. Normally when a hypothesis is fully lacking in evidence over a prolonged period of time it's rejected, but some people have trouble letting go with they've investigated huge sums of time (and money) into it.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: kubedawg I understand science isn't trying to 'arrive' at the truth, which is why this argument is pointless. Creation may be true. Hard to believe, hell yeah, but it may be. You don't know that. Just like we don't know that God didn't place the dinosaur bones on Earth some 10,000 years ago... Noone knows that.

I also see no reason to believe that there are tiny aliens living inside my spleen that will, one day, erupt through my abdomen. In fact, you'd probably think I was insane if I seriously claimed that I was harboring some extra-terrestrial organism in my innards. I could also claim that you don't know that there's no such thing living within me. Yes, you could x-ray me or even surgically dig around yourself (if I gave you permission), but, against all scrutiny and investigation, I could still come up with an explanation for your inability to find these abdominal aliens. However, because the burden of proof is on me and, despite this, you've provided immense evidence to the contrary, whereas I've provided none, the logical conclusion would be to conclude my claim as illogical. At this point, you'd be fully in your right to reject it. How is any deity any different? No, I certainly can't deductively prove that there is no god, but a seemingly endless mound of debunking evidence should imply to any logical person that such divine concepts aren't worth perpetually pondering.

[Zeebadee]

The hard core evolutionists in this thread continue to insist that ID includes religion. While there are advocates of ID that attempt to include a deity, there certainly is no requirement for doing so. In fact, humanity itself may be nothing more than a passing temporary dominant life form on the path to whatever a creator had in mind at the beginning of time (as we know it).

In a couple of million years, there may even be the equivalent of a movie made about "Humanity Park", where humans have been resurrected from long lost DNA to match wits and ingenuity against whatever dominant life form exists at that time.

[Jack]

The hard core evolutionists in this thread continue to insist that ID includes religion. While there are advocates of ID that attempt to include a deity, there certainly is no requirement for doing so.

It's not the "hard core evolutionists in this thread" who insist that ID is a religious concept. It's the creators of the concept itself. Google "Intelligent Design" and see what you can garner from the returned hits.

If you support a non-theistic version of ID, you really shouldn't refer to it as ID, since that title belongs to Behe, the Creation Institute and those who do propose that the intelligent designer is god. Your argument isn't with us, it's with those who have wedded the idea of intelligent design with the idea of the Christian god. Otherwise, it's like saying you believe in the high mass, transubstantiation and saints, but you're not a Catholic. We can't help being confused if the terminology is consistent with what we and the rest of the world thinks of when hearing "intelligent design".

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee The hard core evolutionists

What's a "hard core" evolutionist? One who actually understands the theories of evolution or those who actually hold degrees in evolutionary biology?

in this thread continue to insist that ID includes religion.

It doesn't "include" religion - it is religion.

While there are advocates of ID that attempt to include a deity, there certainly is no requirement for doing so.

So you are saying that intelligent design "theory" doesn't include a designer?

In fact, humanity itself may be nothing more than a passing temporary dominant life form on the path to whatever a creator had in mind at the beginning of time (as we know it).

Then you are a Deist rather than a christian.

In a couple of million years, there may even be the equivalent of a movie made about "Humanity Park", where humans have been resurrected from long lost DNA to match wits and ingenuity against whatever dominant life form exists at that time.

So you accept evolution but think that your non-god designer is controlling evolution. Since evolutionary theory works without your non-god, why should we even give it any consideration?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: gallo So you are saying that intelligent design "theory" doesn't include a designer?

No, just that the designer doesn't need to be a god.

Quote by: gallo Then you are a Deist rather than a christian.

See above.

Quote by: gallo So you accept evolution but think that your non-god designer is controlling evolution.

Evolution needs to be controlled? Then who or what do you believe is controlling it?

Quote by: gallo Since evolutionary theory works without your non-god, why should we even give it any consideration?

Simply because evolution doesn't say anything about how life originated.

[Jack]

Since this thread is supposed to be about creationism vs. evolution, I have a question; why are Christians offended by the thought that we descended from an early form of primate but OK with the Biblical implication that we were created from dirt?

[xKitex]

No, just that the designer doesn't need to be a god.

You may say that, but what else really has the qualifications to have the job of 'creator of the universe and everything in it'? It would already need to be around even before the universe, a claim only a supreme being or god could really make. It would also need to be able to manipulate the forces of gravity, space, time, etc. Again a skill only deities would have. If you have a substitute for a god in the role of designer, please tell us, otherwise forgive us if we assume that ID includes a bit of religion by default.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: Zeebadee No, just that the designer doesn't need to be a god.

Well, given that the term "intelligent design" originated as a synonym for creation and gained recognition through a theistic "biology" book called, "Of Pandas and People", you should really consider using another term, as has already been stated.

Quote by: Zeebadee Simply because evolution doesn't say anything about how life originated.

Your blatant implication is so fallacious it hurts. No, biological evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life in the same sense that contemporary American history doesn't deal with early African history. While, yes, bio-evolution is a study in biology, it's a separate study from the origins of life, which is called abiogenesis. To put things a little more simplistically, biological evolution is the study of what happens after the origin of life. How is it logical to conclude that, because ToE doesn't deal with the non-biological origins of life, the conclusion is that there must be a divine power? I'm sorry, the conclusion does not follow the premises, but instead illustrates to me that you're lacking a fundamental understanding of what biological evolution is.

[Nemiroff]

the designer would have to be something supernatural, because nothing natural, as far as we can assume, no matter how advanced, can create something out of nothing.

[Nemiroff]

And why would god create bones in the Earth made to look really really old unless he was trying to decieve us? isn't deception the devil's work?
Maybe God wants you to know the truth and provided you with all the tools and facts, but the devil creept into relgion and twisted some of it's tales, teachings, and interpertations. That is if you believe in all that.

I dont understand the problem with evolution, perhaps the designer designed evolution as a way for his creations to improve, the 2 dont contradict each other. Its just that one doesn't have any proof and shouldn't be taught in schools until it gets proof. thats the original issue before everyone forgot about it