Is evolution vs creationism that important.

[themadhair]

What exactly is this point that you keep referring to? Evolution integrates various fields of science, so says it's creationism vs science rather than creationism vs evolution is simply semantics that don't address the issue of this thread at all.

The point is that creationism doesn’t disagree solely with evolution – it disagrees with pretty much the entirety of modern science. By attempting to frame this ‘debate’ against evolution, groups like AiG, DI, etc. are exploiting this ignorance – and this is before you even get to the importance of evolution to everyday life.

 

[MindHunter]

The point is that creationism doesn’t disagree solely with evolution – it disagrees with pretty much the entirety of modern science. By attempting to frame this ‘debate’ against evolution, groups like AiG, DI, etc. are exploiting this ignorance – and this is before you even get to the importance of evolution to everyday life.

Ah, ok, now I understand your point. However, framing this debate around evolution, makes it a bit easier to compare evolution and creation. After all, creationism is about how life began and such, and evolution is how humans and other organisms evolved. Creationism may disagree with all of science, however, not all of science is relevant to a creation vs science debate; only the biological evolution part is, thus, it seems fitting to call it an evolution vs creationism debate. Saying creationists disagree with all of science I think is inaccurate, as this would be that they disagree not only with evolution but also medicine, physics, chemistry, mathematics & arithmatic, biology, genetics, etc... . I have yet to see a creationist refuse to believe in mathematics & arithmatic , for a rather simple reason: quoting their bible passages involves counting numbers, therefore, they must believe in some aspect of science. If you're going to say that they disagree with all of science, then you cannot simply show they disagree with evolution and generalise it to all of science, you'd need to show that they disagree with each branch of science, then conclude they disagree with all of science.

 

[linwood]

I am not saying that evolution can not explain why germs and bugs are getting stronger and resitant it makes a great case for that, but God could have just made the bugs and germs stronger as well and we would have to deal with it.

If we simply believe God made the bugs stronger we have no reason to pursue an understanding of how to deal with it.

Why bother?

 

[painted wolf]

aying creationists disagree with all of science I think is inaccurate, as this would be that they disagree not only with evolution but also medicine, physics, chemistry, mathematics & arithmatic, biology, genetics, etc... . I have yet to see a creationist refuse to believe in mathematics & arithmatic , for a rather simple reason: quoting their bible passages involves counting numbers, therefore, they must believe in some aspect of science. If you're going to say that they disagree with all of science, then you cannot simply show they disagree with evolution and generalise it to all of science, you'd need to show that they disagree with each branch of science, then conclude they disagree with all of science.

Young Earth Creationists disagree with math especially physics and chemistry, the list of scientific fields that they ignore is quite massive and comprehensive.

Physics, astronomy, geology, archeology, biology, medicine, chemistry... just to name a few.

wa:do

 

[MindHunter]

Young Earth Creationists disagree with math especially physics and chemistry, the list of scientific fields that they ignore is quite massive and comprehensive.

Physics, astronomy, geology, archeology, biology, medicine, chemistry... just to name a few.

wa:do

So if they disagree with mathematics & arithmetic, then they don't quote the passages in the bible? After all, counting is part of mathematics and arithmetic, so disagree with that, then how can you count the passages? Heck, how can they use the bible as reference then?

 

[themadhair]

So if they disagree with mathematics & arithmetic, then they don't quote the passages in the bible? After all, counting is part of mathematics and arithmetic, so disagree with that, then how can you count the passages? Heck, how can they use the bible as reference then?

Arithmetic ≠ Mathematics

Don’t make me say this again.

 

[painted wolf]

So if they disagree with mathematics & arithmetic, then they don't quote the passages in the bible? After all, counting is part of mathematics and arithmetic, so disagree with that, then how can you count the passages? Heck, how can they use the bible as reference then?

If they agreed with mathematics then they wouldn't be arguing about a young earth. Physics provides so much evidence against the Earth being young that it's only the most blatant disregard for mathematics that could justify such as belief.

Counting is quite different from higher order mathematics. After all, you are talking about a people who didn't have the mathematical concept of zero until it was introduced by Arabic scholars.

wa:do