To me both are some sort of belief systems. People simply choose to follow one or another not because they are scientists, theologians or have specific compelling evidence but merely because they are free to choose what they believe in and when they choose, most people mainly follow the thoughts or teachings of others that they think can be trusted (whether right or wrong). In that sense, both Evolution and Creationism are similar. What do you think?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?
- Thread starter NoorNoor
- Start date
Sapiens
Polymathematician
I am a scientist I can tell you unequivocally that what you are saying, at least in my case, is nonsense.
Specifically referiing to the phrase "To me both are some sort of belief systems" my answer is "Yes, but they are not equal". What you are saying is largely a re-interation of an on-going dispute between the social sciences and the natural sciences known as the "Science Wars". The social sciences and "post-modernists" criticise natural science as a "social construct" that is an idea and a human creation which is no more true than any other belief system (e.g. religion and creationism). The natural sciences (represented by "scientific realists") however will assert that scientific ideas are "real" and true, and that scientific knowledge is knowledge of the objective world. This can be demonstrated by the success of natural science to master various natural processes and so they can be utilised in various ways (mainly in technology and better means and processes of production).
Whilst Evolution and creationism are both products of the human mind, the scientific method is by far superior in ensuring that the theory of evolution corresponds to data and evidence that has been collected. It is not perfect but if we expect omniscience and absolute cliams to truth we are asking for answers from dieties rather than people. It is possible to get creationists who are intelligent, articulate and well aruged but it relies primarily on philosophical challanges to the scientific method as representing an ideology in its own right ("atheistic-materialism") rather than examining the evidence and the methods which are used to complete the picture.
At a minimum, evolution is a more useful theory which allows us to harness already existing natural processes in the way that farm animals such as cattle and poultry can be breed down the generations for specific purposes such as milk or egg yield, meat quantity, etc, or in how dog and bird breeders can do the same thing for asethetic characitstics such as plummage. This was a well known process in the 19th century and was used by Darwin as evidence for natural selection by demonstrating "domestic selection" by man. He took those observations and went one step further by suggesting that changes in animal populations based on competition for food supply and sexual partners worked as a mechanism for "natural selection".
Creationists cannot cliam such scientific applications, even if they insist there are "moral" reasons for supporting creationism. However, that morality is built on the authority of the bible which can be challanged from a number of angles, both as a flawed historical document which has undergone a process of "chinese whispers" through selection of material, intepretion, re-interptration and re-writing by translators, but also as lacking "evidence" to support the view that such morality is objectively valid and demonstratably benifitial to it's adherents. Appeals to authority and tradition, whilst admittedly something that favours our social instincts to "belong" and feel rooted in historical and cultural norms- is not the same as arguing that it is "true". If you are looking for a true depicition of the natural world, evolution is what to look for.
I am sorry, but what you are saying betrays a lack of basic knowledge of the facts of the theory of evolution and, most likely, of science as well.
Were you somewhat correct, the Theory of Evolution would not even exist. Darwin only published it because he realized it would eventually come to light anyway, through Wallace or someone else.
It would be utterly impossible for it to be a scientific theory at all were there is evidence supporting it.
Science is not doctrine.
Last edited:
Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
Where is the compelling evidence for creationism?
Many would argue Science is an ideology and this position is typically used by oppoents of mainstream science. Nowdays that's mainly religious groups who describe Science as an ideology "atheistic-materialism" . you also get that from other areas such as Nazis (who make the accusation of "Jewish Science") or the Soviets (who would accuse it of being "Bourgeois Science"). These are closely linked to debates regarding the neutrality of science and its relationship with politics and religion.
The fact that such a view comes from opponents of mainstream science should not discredit it as a legitimate discussion within the scientific community itself. The accusation of "scientism" is the most common defence against these views which does treat science as an ideology and implicitly treating ideology as "false". This makes an error in treating objectivity and subjectivity as mutually exclusive, where "objective" is true and "subjective" is false. In practice, it's not that simple.
In more respectable academic circles, the history of science demonstrates dramatic changes as scientific revolutions or "paradigm shifts" in scientific thought (e.g. Einstein's theory of relativity versus newtonian mechanics) such as the view presented by the philosopher Thomas Kuhn. Philosophically, it is a legitimate debate in the philosophy of science over realism and anti-realism but is very damaging in that it has allowed a host of "reactionary" ideas to come forward and challange science based on assuming that all ideas are "equal" because people are "equal".
However, the fact that science is understood by its methods as used in the laboratory rather than its history means that typically we over-estimate the degree of scientific objectivity. It's only when we take a long view that we can start to see major shifts in scientific reasoning. It should be taken implicitly that I'm using "ideology" to mean ideas in general rather than specifically false ideas. I'm of the view that Science is an ideology because it is inescapably a product of philosophical reasoning about the properties of nature and knowledge, but has better methods for demonstrating its views than the alternatives. I'm still on the side of evolution, but recognise that it's the historical product of alot of philosophical controversies as well as scientific ones.
Many would say such a thing, I suppose.
Which is why it is so sad that science education has failed so much.
Which is why it is so sad that science education has failed so much.
I agree that many people do blindly follow either scientists or religious leaders without examining the facts for themselves. Belief in evolution is an act of faith, IMO, and often an act of blind faith. On the other hand, many believe the earth was created a few thousand years ago in six 24-hour days, simply because their religious leaders tell them to. Both beliefs are accepted without convincing evidence, IMO.
McBell
Unbound
I think you have a serious misunderstanding of one, if not both.
Correct rusra02, Belief in evolution is an act of faith. The evolution is a theory that I can claim most evolutionists have very limited knowledge of but yet they accept it not as a theory but as a fact. I consider that an act of faith
sapiens, it appears that you are limiting the subject to your case? I said people. Don't you know or agree that most people are not scientists (like you). I am not a scientist my self but as a scientist don't you need enough knowledge about a subject to be able to make a sound judgment. Do you have theology knowledge? I simply say that most people ( including my self) neither have complete science nor theology knowledge and equally follow the evolution or creationism as an act of faith.
sapiens, it appears that you are limiting the subject to your case? I said people. Don't you know or agree that most people are not scientists (like you). I am not a scientist my self but as a scientist don't you need enough knowledge about a subject to be able to make a sound judgment. Do you have theology knowledge? I simply say that most people ( including my self) neither have complete science nor theology knowledge and equally follow the evolution or creationism as an act of faith.
McBell
Unbound
I have serious doubts that anyone has "complete knowledge" of anything, let alone science or theology.
While there is plenty of evidence for change over time, there is no evidence to suggest anything ever needed to be created. In fact the law of thermodynamics prohibits it, in other words matter and energy have to come from somewhere, it can't be "created".
That being said, I'm guessing that you have one or more misconceptions about evolution or the evidence for it. Can you give me a basic summary of how you think evolution works?
I can say that most certainly is not the case with me. I took a college course in evolutionary biology and even read my evolutionary biology book cover-to-cover a year or so ago. I know what evolution is and (just as importantly) what it isn't. I'm quite well informed about evolution and know that the evidence for it is significantly stronger than mere faith.
WOW - just WOW!
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
I would agree that many laymen out there will blindly follow science and scientific theories with little understanding, including the Theory of Evolution, but it doesn't make it any less wrong. Evolution it self, is not a belief system, even if many laymen treat it like one. Furthermore, many laymen may accept evolution without understanding the basics, simply because it's "science", and they may simply trust scientists purely because they are "scientists" but it's not pure blind faith. They at least understand that science works. They know the cell phones and computers around them that they all enjoy, are thanks to science. They recognize that everything around them that they benefit from, is thanks to science.
My point was that whatever you follow is a choice of a free individual in an act of faith that for most people may not be actually dependent on clear or solid facts.
If you talk about science, it's important to acknowledge the difference between facts and theories. Science itself is ever changing. Accepted since principals according to Newton were revolutionized by Einstein.
Yes, I am a creationist but that doesn't mean I am against science. It's actually totally the opposite. Yes science is an extreme necessity in our lives. I even would accept specific scientific aspects of the evolution itself. I accept that live as created can adapt and evolve within limits but as a theory, the evolution is by no means a solid fact nor it explains the origins of live.
Evolution is theory that try to explain live in absence of creation but creation is not limited to live, its about every thing in existence. So if I would compare, I would compare Creationism vs the Big Bang not the evolution.
If you talk about science, it's important to acknowledge the difference between facts and theories. Science itself is ever changing. Accepted since principals according to Newton were revolutionized by Einstein.
Yes, I am a creationist but that doesn't mean I am against science. It's actually totally the opposite. Yes science is an extreme necessity in our lives. I even would accept specific scientific aspects of the evolution itself. I accept that live as created can adapt and evolve within limits but as a theory, the evolution is by no means a solid fact nor it explains the origins of live.
Evolution is theory that try to explain live in absence of creation but creation is not limited to live, its about every thing in existence. So if I would compare, I would compare Creationism vs the Big Bang not the evolution.