The battle of evolution vs creationism

[McBell]

Are they a result of artificial selection as well? That would explain a lot.

oh.
And here I thought Slapstick was saying that Slapstick is Slapstick's biggest fan....

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Technically there is no "Artifical Selection". Its still the same process and it isn't different in any meaningful way. However we use the term to draw a line between what has occured outside the control of humans and what we have actually had a hand in making. However there is no real difference in the processes.

 

[averageJOE]

I agree with evolution as a naturally occurring phenomenon as long as it isn’t forced or induced by artificial selection.

What about "pure bred" dogs?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Technically there is no "Artifical Selection". Its still the same process and it isn't different in any meaningful way. However we use the term to draw a line between what has occured outside the control of humans and what we have actually had a hand in making. However there is no real difference in the processes.

Does it suggest something about my juvenile state that every time people talk about 'Artificial Selection' I think about push-up bras and fake tan?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Does it suggest something about my juvenile state that every time people talk about 'Artificial Selection' I think about push-up bras and fake tan?

New Jersey?

 

[gnostic]

It occurred to me today how silly this is.

Evolution a scientific study
Creationism a philosophical study

Creationism is not a "philosophical" study.

Many fields of knowledge can be under the broad umbrella term - philosophy, including that of science and mathematics, and even psychology can under philosophical study. So philosophical study is rather too broad a term, and it would be terribly misleading.

I think that Creationism would fall under either "theological" study or a "mythological" study.

But I do agree with you that Creation and Evolution should only be taught in their respective environments, separate. Evolution in science classroom, lecture room, etc; creationism in church or Sunday schools.

 

[McBell]

New Jersey?

Jersey Shore is what came to my mind....

 

[Man of Faith]

Evolution a scientific study
Creationism a philosophical study

This is where you are mistaken, they are both philosophies.

Evolution is philosophical naturalism
Creation is philosophical supernaturalism

It just so happens that the philosophical naturalism recently won out on being called science and philosophical supernaturalism was put into the religion category. Of course it wasn't always that way. If pure naturalism isn't true for all of past history, then of course historical science is wrong.

 

[McBell]

This is where you are mistaken, they are both philosophies.

Evolution is philosophical naturalism
Creation is philosophical supernaturalism

It just so happens that the philosophical naturalism recently won out on being called science and philosophical supernaturalism was put into the religion category. Of course it wasn't always that way. If pure naturalism isn't true for all of past history, then of course historical science is wrong.

At best you are just wrong.
At worst you are a bold faced liar.

 

[metis]

This is where you are mistaken, they are both philosophies.

Evolution is philosophical naturalism
Creation is philosophical supernaturalism

It just so happens that the philosophical naturalism recently won out on being called science and philosophical supernaturalism was put into the religion category. Of course it wasn't always that way. If pure naturalism isn't true for all of past history, then of course historical science is wrong.

Evolution (and science in general) are only "philosophy" to the extent that they use the "scientific method", which indeed is at least somewhat philosophical in nature, although it's a stretch to call something that really is common sense as being "philosophical".

 

[Ouroboros]

This is where you are mistaken, they are both philosophies.

Evolution is philosophical naturalism
Creation is philosophical supernaturalism

I wouldn't make such an equivocation. "Is" means that it is that and only that.

Evolution is based on philosophical naturalism. That I could see. Evolution is a science, however, and science is based on the philosophy of naturalism.

Creationism being philosophical supernaturalism? I'm not sure what that means. To me, philosophical naturalism sounds like theology. Theology is philosophy about the supernatural, so theology would fit better. I think.

It just so happens that the philosophical naturalism recently won out on being called science and philosophical supernaturalism was put into the religion category. Of course it wasn't always that way. If pure naturalism isn't true for all of past history, then of course historical science is wrong.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but philosophical naturalism won because its immense power to explain natural phenomenon. Supernaturalistic events and experiences are very subjective and random. No two people have the same experience. Events are "miracles" that only happens when the supernatural powers want it to happen. It can't be repeated. It can't be formulated. It can't be explained, hence "super" in supernatural. It's above, beyond, outside of the natural. Science only tries to explain the natural, that's why it works consistently.

 

[Man of Faith]

Evolution (and science in general) are only "philosophy" to the extent that they use the "scientific method", which indeed is at least somewhat philosophical in nature, although it's a stretch to call something that really is common sense as being "philosophical".

Actually naturalism, meaning that all events in the past have been produced by natural occurrences is a philosophy and not observable repeatable science, its historical science. That is the first mandate of looking at the past by scientists. If they wrote a scientific piece and said that “the universe came about by the big bang, or by God, or anything that didn’t come about naturally”, well we all know what would happen to them and their funding.

Creationists are good with the scientific method which has never produced any findings or results that doesn’t fit into the creation model. All scientific data fits into the creation model. Once the data is interpreted by scientists based on the philosophy of naturalism, then it breaks out of creation. When the data is interpreted based on the philosophy of supernaturalism then it fits creation very well. Call one science if you will, however the constraint of the philosophy of naturalism is still there

 

[Man of Faith]

I wouldn't make such an equivocation. "Is" means that it is that and only that.

Evolution is based on philosophical naturalism. That I could see. Evolution is a science, however, and science is based on the philosophy of naturalism.

Creationism being philosophical supernaturalism? I'm not sure what that means. To me, philosophical naturalism sounds like theology. Theology is philosophy about the supernatural, so theology would fit better. I think.


I'm not sure what you're saying, but philosophical naturalism won because its immense power to explain natural phenomenon. Supernaturalistic events and experiences are very subjective and random. No two people have the same experience. Events are "miracles" that only happens when the supernatural powers want it to happen. It can't be repeated. It can't be formulated. It can't be explained, hence "super" in supernatural. It's above, beyond, outside of the natural. Science only tries to explain the natural, that's why it works consistently.

Science works when it can be observed, such as rain falling, computers working, a heart valve put in, however it doesn't tell us what happens when we die. It attempts to tell us where we came from, but if naturalism isn't true, then it could be wrong on evolutoin. History shows us that science isn't always right or that it can't explain everything. The scientific data doesn't fit evolution, which is why the evolutionary tree has been uprooted and now scientists are actually rethinking the tree of life and coming up with a web of life. Science was wrong again. They just don’t know however the naturalistic philosophy of “it happened we just have to figure out how” is alive and well.

 

[metis]

Actually naturalism, meaning that all events in the past have been produced by natural occurrences is a philosophy and not observable repeatable science, its historical science. That is the first mandate of looking at the past by scientists.

That's simply not true as there are a great many scientists that are also theists, so there's not an assumption by the scientific community one way or the other in regards to theistic causation. IOW, insisting that God caused all is not science, but insisting that there could not be a God causing all isn't science either. Both are just assumptions.

If they wrote a scientific piece and said that “the universe came about by the big bang, or by God, or anything that didn’t come about naturally”, well we all know what would happen to them and their funding.

Again not true as there are some cosmologists and physicists who have publicly stated their theistic beliefs, although granted they are very much in the minority.

Creationists are good with the scientific method...

I gotta stop it at the start of the sentence above because creationists do not use the scientific method to determine their faith in theistic causation. There's simply no objectively-derived evidence that the creation accounts are literally true, nor is there sufficient evidence to conclude there's a God or Gods. If one believes, then that's generally done on the basis of faith and not on scientific evidence.

 

[metis]

The scientific data doesn't fit evolution, which is why the evolutionary tree has been uprooted and now scientists are actually rethinking the tree of life and coming up with a web of life.

That's really not true as a hypothesis if one hypothesizes that all life came from one source, which is not a slam-dunk by any stretch of the imagination. Where did you run across this? Yes there is a "web of life" depiction as well, but that doesn't counter the "tree of life" depiction.

 

[Ouroboros]

Science works when it can be observed, such as rain falling, computers working, a heart valve put in, however it doesn't tell us what happens when we die. It attempts to tell us where we came from, but if naturalism isn't true, then it could be wrong on evolutoin. History shows us that science isn't always right or that it can't explain everything.

Well, it isn't wrong about evolution. Evolution is a fact. The evidence supporting it is overwhelming. If all that evidence is false, it would mean God planted it and created a world that would look like evolution was true but somehow it wasn't. That would make God a deceiver.

You see, evolution is based on evidence in the natural world. It's based on observations of this reality we live in. If God made this reality and this world, he made it look like evolution to be true, or God used evolution to evolve species.

When you're suggesting that naturalism is wrong about nature, you're essentially suggesting that we can't understand this world by being in this world and observing this world. Then you're suggesting that dreaming, visions, imagination, and delusion is more real that reality. Well... that's not a good thing.

The scientific data doesn't fit evolution,

Uhm... you're wrong about that. I've studied it. Scientific data supports evolution to a tremendous degree. Many different scientific fields all coalesce to one single truth, evolution is real.

which is why the evolutionary tree has been uprooted and now scientists are actually rethinking the tree of life and coming up with a web of life.

So you're saying that evolution is false because evolution is real? The web of life doesn't negate evolution, only expands it. The tree of life is only a simplification of a very complex pattern of geneflow.

Science was wrong again. They just don’t know however the naturalistic philosophy of “it happened we just have to figure out how” is alive and well.

Science wasn't wrong. Science is the method of study, but there will always be parts and pieces that are wrong in a scientific field, without making the whole wrong.

Just because you failed one of the tests in your math test doesn't mean that the whole test was wrong.

This kind of categorical and black-white thinking is what creates fundamentalism and extremism, and it's generally bad for all of us. Open your eyes and expand your vision. Learn a little.

 

[metis]

The reality is that the basic process we call "evolution" is just plain old common sense. Everything changes over time, at least so it appears, and this is true of genetic codes as well. The idea that these changes would supposedly miraculously stop at the "micro-evolution" stage really doesn't make any sense since why would the evolution of genes suddenly stop there?

Secondly, the fossil record is complete enough to give us a general picture of what happened even if so many of the details may not be fully understood. So in order for the creationists to try and explain that away, they have to come up with the concept that God continued creating and creating and creating, even though there's simply nothing in the Bible that says that this is what He supposedly did. Remember, He stopped at the end of the 6th day. IOW, all they are doing is fabricating stories in order to ignore the obvious.

And thirdly, the basic understanding of evolution in no way eliminates the possibility of there being a God, and yet I know from my own experiences as a young man growing up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that one supposedly had to either believe in evolution or the Bible, and that simply was not and is not true.

So, many people are simply not being told the truth on this matter by their own pastors and/or denominations, and that simply is shameful and repugnant. I just hope that more and more who are caught into this trap of distortions actually do some studying from scientific sources and look for themselves instead of blindly following what their leaders may be telling them. If they can read their Bibles and draw their own interpretations, then they hopefully should read some scientific sources on evolution and do much the same.

 

[Ouroboros]

So, many people are simply not being told the truth on this matter by their own pastors and/or denominations, and that simply is shameful and repugnant. I just hope that more and more who are caught into this trap of distortions actually do some studying from scientific sources and look for themselves instead of blindly following what their leaders may be telling them. If they can read their Bibles and draw their own interpretations, then they hopefully should read some scientific sources on evolution and do much the same.

Even though I don't fully agree with Dawkins on the meme virus being religion, I do think that the idea that evolution hasn't been confirmed or there's no evidence, is a meme virus or vicious myth that just keeps on coming back with new generations. It's like Santa Claus for grownups. The only way to get rid of it is educate people, but a lot of religious people just resist knowledge. Too sad.

 

[metis]

Even though I don't fully agree with Dawkins on the meme virus being religion, I do think that the idea that evolution hasn't been confirmed or there's no evidence, is a meme virus or vicious myth that just keeps on coming back with new generations. It's like Santa Claus for grownups. The only way to get rid of it is educate people, but a lot of religious people just resist knowledge. Too sad.

I agree, and I think a lot of this is due to the fear of finding out we might be wrong, thus possibly forcing us to make changes in our paradigm that would have to be done and would be rather painful. It's like the person who thinks he may have cancer but is afraid to go see a doctor to find out.

When I found out that I was not being told the truth, it really bothered me and led me out of the church I grew up in and loved. But it also had the effect of souring me on Christianity as a whole at that time because, once bitten, you really don't want to go through that again.

 

[Ouroboros]

I agree, and I think a lot of this is due to the fear of finding out we might be wrong, thus possibly forcing us to make changes in our paradigm that would have to be done and would be rather painful. It's like the person who thinks he may have cancer but is afraid to go see a doctor to find out.

Yup.

Something I learned from the experience of losing faith is that I went through a form of grief. Anger, disappointment, blame, etc, until some form of acceptance at the end. It is a form of loss or death of one's identity, so it's natural to be scared of challenging it.

When I found out that I was not being told the truth, it really bothered me and led me out of the church I grew up in and loved. But it also had the effect of souring me on Christianity as a whole at that time because, once bitten, you really don't want to go through that again.

That's why I think this anti-science attitude from the fundamentalist is detrimental in a larger picture. Every force has an opposite and equal force, and this anti-attitude is causing very strong reactions when people leave. It's such a big lie that going away makes someone reject everything.