Creationism vs. Evolution

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo That doesn't make sense. The point is that if god is all powerful then nothing can happen without his will and everything that he wills happens. No. Planning ahead means imperfect. Planning is a process and implies change. Something that can change is not perfect. Only in weak theologies is god changeable. If you ascribe thought, planning, design or any other human processes to god, they you are talking about a fiction of humans. I would not accept the job as PR man for some god. There is nothing to offer anyone in support of the existance of such a being.

I see no problem with consciousness creating and things reproducing and adapting to environmental sistuations. The big problem is not with the concept of a creation but rather with the concepts people use for creating a mythological god that does things with supernatural powers.

The whole idea that god is like a human being who walks around in the cool of the evening talking to Adam who is hiding behind a fig tree is in need of some repair work. As a P.R. person you would have to do a lot of damage control. It would be like proving that President Bush is making sense having a war in Irag.

They are making a comic book super hero out of god with such concepts.
Or a science fictional alien.

All such concepts must at least be in uniformity with what we now know about as human beings. We no longer live in the pottery era and so god concepts need to be upgraded to match current knowledge and must continue to upgrade as we learn more knowledge about our world, our self, and our poetic potentials to imagine things in a logical manner.

Faith and belief would be displaced by understanding and the next aha moment and would manifest as a theory that is like a progressive moderate, not as a mission impossible agenda for radical attachment.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: thantos Harry Potter could be nonfiction too. The Ministry of Magic would have its hands full trying to keep Hogwarts off of satellite imaging systems and preventing Muggles from leaning against a certain pillar in Kings Cross, but they're a determined bunch of wizards and I'm sure they would find a way. Proving the impossibility of disproving a conjecture does not equal proof of that conjecture. Barring unforseen mental gymnastics, I believe this line of argument has just come to a dead end.

Oh i donno. I can see why God made an Autobiography, but why would the wizards create a book under the alias of JK Rolling?

Quote by: gallo That doesn't make sense. The point is that if god is all powerful then nothing can happen without his will and everything that he wills happens.

sure, but he seems to want to work within the logic of his own world (to an extent).

No. Planning ahead means imperfect. Planning is a process and implies change. Something that can change is not perfect. Only in weak theologies is god changeable. If you ascribe thought, planning, design or any other human processes to god, they you are talking about a fiction of humans.

I don't disagree, but I think God seems to have wanted to work within the rules of the world he created (to a point).

So the best way to do that is to use the butterfly effect to manipulate the world.

I would not accept the job as PR man for some god. There is nothing to offer anyone in support of the existance of such a being.

You are absolutely no fun. :3

[Tycoon]

Oh i donno. I can see why God made an Autobiography, but why would the wizards create a book under the alias of JK Rolling?

You're ignoring the point of what he said.

Completely off-topic, but I have always wanted to replace all the bibles in a church with Harry Potter books!

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Winter wind Oh i donno. I can see why God made an Autobiography, but why would the wizards create a book under the alias of JK Rolling?

Plausible deniability That way if anything gets leaked they can blame it on overexuberant fans. It all makes sense now.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: thantos Plausible deniability That way if anything gets leaked they can blame it on overexuberant fans. It all makes sense now.

Haha. Sure.

But really, why do you think Christianity is more widely believed then Harry Potter?

[leegao]

That's a lie, everybody loves Harry Potter

[gallo]

Quote by: Winter wind But really, why do you think Christianity is more widely believed then Harry Potter?

Because the Bible is old. It has lots of rituals surrounding it. It is driven into the heads of children as "truth" at a very early age. It promises eternal happiness and threatens eternal punishment (while at the same time talking about the love of a vindictive god).

Parents tell their children that Harry Potter is a story.

By the way, what does this have to do with either creationism or evolution?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: gallo Because the Bible is old. It has lots of rituals surrounding it. It is driven into the heads of children as "truth" at a very early age. It promises eternal happiness and threatens eternal punishment (while at the same time talking about the love of a vindictive god).

Paganism is older.

By the way, what does this have to do with either creationism or evolution?

he started it :(

But really, I'm wondering how you really can compare Harry Potter with the Bible (other than in reading comprehension)?

It's not a good argument.

[gallo]

Quote by: Winter wind Paganism is older.

True, in many of its forms.

he started it :(

Knock it off or I'll just turn this car around.

But really, I'm wondering how you really can compare Harry Potter with the Bible (other than in reading comprehension)? It's not a good argument.

But you made the comparison by asking the question. I had no argument. I was merely answering.

[Jack]

But really, I'm wondering how you really can compare Harry Potter with the Bible

You can't fairly. The Potter books have consistent characters, a plot and reach conclusions consistent with the story line.
The Bible is an incomplete collection of various writings of unknown origin with no consistent character save one, no plot and an ever changing story line. It more resembles a short story collection with submissions from a variety of authors.
Not to mention there's far more sex and violence in the Bible than in the Potter books.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: gallo But you made the comparison by asking the question. I had no argument. I was merely answering.

Sorry, I mixed you and thantos up.

Quote by: jack You can't fairly. The Potter books have consistent characters, a plot and reach conclusions consistent with the story line.

Not to mention better dialog.

The Bible is an incomplete collection of various writings of unknown origin with no consistent character save one, no plot and an ever changing story line. It more resembles a short story collection with submissions from a variety of authors.

Fair enough, but it is the supposed to be the word of God through the word of man. I think the collection of short story style makes it more realistic, because history isn't all one cohesive story focusing on a few main characters and a central plot.

Non-fiction isn't good writing.

Not to mention there's far more sex and violence in the Bible than in the Potter books.

And yet the Bible is less gripping. How does she do it? :)

[Matt W]

Let's stay on-topic, please.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Technosoul]

The main problem as I see it is that the Creationists have still not wrtten a book. At least the Bible and Harry Potter is in book form.

Where is the final textbook that Creationists have agreed upon in their diverse collective that they want to use in a public school? How can anyone review it and debate that final product if it is still non-exsistant as a proposed textbook?

I know they sell a lot of small monthly newsletters to raise money from people who want Creationism taught in schools.... but when will they publish such a textbook so that the rest of us can see if it makes any sense or not?

[Vacuum]

Quote by: Gregory by saying "Well, where did God come from?:

This is an invalid argument on both sides, nobody can prove whether or not the universe has an origin.

[Jack]

New Creationist Textbook On the Way (Again) A document recently received by NCSE outlines the Discovery Institute's upcoming plans for its so-called teach the controversy strategy. In 2007, the Discovery Institute plans to release a "supplemental textbook" entitled Explore Evolution. According to the document, the textbook and auxiliary materials will teach the students the Discovery Institute's talking points against evolution. These talking points will evidently include the standard list of long-refuted creationist claims promoted by the Discovery Institute, including the inadequacy of the fossil record, biological complexity as a challenge to evolutionary theory, the inexplicability of the Cambrian Explosion, and other common creationist tropes. Students will be taught these talking points via the supplemental textbook and associated slide shows, study guides, and videos, and will be tested on the talking points in Discovery Institute-prepared "quiz questions". The book is discussed in a handout received by NCSE Supporter Keith Miller at the 2006 annual meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, which was held from July 28–31, 2006, at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The ASA is an association of scientists who are evangelical Christians, and although some members of the ASA are "intelligent design" or young-earth creationists, the ASA is not an anti-evolutionist organization, and many ASA members see no necessary conflict between evolution and evangelical Christianity. Miller received the handout while attending a talk by Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Michael Newton Keas. The talk was entitled, "Teach the Controversy over Darwinism: Sample Curricular Modules" (Keas 2006). Keas runs the Master of Arts Program in Science and Religion at Biola University (the name "Biola" derives from the university's previous name, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles). The Biola program is the only one in the United States offering a graduate degree in "intelligent design". According to Keas's abstract for his ASA talk, "[s]ince 1999 I have worked with Discovery Institute to develop AP and college biological origins curriculum. Some of this curriculum will be published in 2006." The one-page handout, entitled "Teaching Evolutionary Biology in Public High Schools and Colleges", lists a number of bullet points describing Keas's proposed curriculum modules and resources, including the Explore Evolution book. News of the Explore Evolution project is particularly interesting when the general history of anti-evolution strategies is taken into consideration. Directly following the 1968 Epperson ruling overturning bans on evolution, Henry Morris and others at the Creation Research Society constructed the "equal time" approach for teaching "scientific creationism" in public schools as an allegedly secular scientific view (Numbers 1992). Their first major foray in this direction was the textbook Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity (Moore and Slusher 1974; see Thwaites 1980). This book was the subject of a number of disputes in the 1970s regarding its use in public schools. However, in 1977 the book was ruled unconstitutional for use in public schools in a strongly worded decision, Hendern v Campbell, from a state court in Indiana (Matzke 2006). Hendren was soon obscured when the issue moved to the federal courts in the 1980s. In the 1987 Edwards v Aguillard case, the US Supreme Court ruled that teaching "creation science" in public schools was unconstitutional because it was a specific religious view disguised as science, rather than actually science. In the wake of the Edwards ruling, creationists relabeled their view "intelligent design" — a term they first systematically employed in the supplementary high school textbook Of Pandas and People (Davis and Kenyon 1989; see also Scott 1989). Wielding Pandas, the newly named "design proponents" asserted that their view was scientific, not religious, and pushed for it to be included in biology classrooms in public schools. Again, there were fights over the use of the textbook for years before it hit the courts (see the NCSE Pandas resources page for a history and analysis: Resources). As everyone now knows, the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover case revealed that Pandas began as an explicitly creationist textbook and only switched to "design" terminology after the Edwards ruling. These facts helped produce the decisive ruling in Kitzmiller that "intelligent design" was not science, but instead creationism relabeled. Following recent defeats for the "intelligent design" movement in the Kitzmiller v Dover case, in a February 2006 vote of the Ohio Board of Education, and in the August 2006 Republican primary election in Kansas, many observers have wondered what the next step would be for attempts to sneak creationism into the public schools. In response to questions from the media, NCSE staff have predicted that creationists would continue to move toward their so-called critical analysis of evolution strategy, in which long-refuted creationist arguments are claimed to be valid scientific challenges to evolution under the rhetoric of "critical thinking" and "teach the controversy". By not using the terms "creationism" or "intelligent design", creationists hope to teach their views in the public schools while avoiding constitutional challenges from the courts (Matzke and Gross 2006).

NCSE Resource -- New Creationist Textbook On the Way (Again)

[Halofan48]

Quote by: Jack NCSE Resource -- New Creationist Textbook On the Way (Again)

Gah, why can't they just give up?

[Winter wind]

Because they don't live near you. They live around people who agree with themselves.

It's homogeneous societies that create these people. .

[Ant32bit]

I'm not in the habit of reading 116 pages before posting, but I'll put in my two cents anyway:

Isn't it strange that the two pinned discussion boards here (Global Warming and Evolution) are non-issues, where the scientific community is able to provide an abundance of evidence on one side and the pseudo-scientists make up claims of the actual science being shaky and unprovable in order to promote their own agenda on the other side?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: ant32bit Isn't it strange that the two pinned discussion boards here (Global Warming and Evolution) are non-issues, where the scientific community is able to provide an abundance of evidence on one side and the pseudo-scientists make up claims of the actual science being shaky and unprovable in order to promote their own agenda on the other side?

I think that has something to do with the extremely vocal dissent in spite of all that evidence. What they lack in evidence, they make up for in volume.

[Gaussian]

Science is a primitive understanding about how the physical world functions. To reduce a computer program, given it has run a sufficient number of iterations such that the program is complex (e.g. cellular automaton rule 30), or a complex organic system of an equivalent structure, to its parts, would require an interval of time close to infinity (ergo a massive time coefficient). Therefore, scientific reductionism is a primitive concept which attempts to account for physical phenomena which would need close to infinite time to explain in absolute detail.

Mathematically, something that has 300,000,000 zeros after it is never going to happen. Period.

Also, a non-verbal debate on evolution vs creationism is perfectly valid.