The battle of evolution vs creationism

[ONEWAY]

Let me clarify some of my statements from before. When I said our worldview influences science, I do understand there is a process to scientific inquiry and method. Yes, science researches and obtains certain results from their research. However, this research and the results must not stand alone, but they must be and are interpreted by scientists, of all kinds. This is where the issue comes. How are the results to be interpreted? How is the interpretation arrived at? If one's worldview begins with the idea that there is no Creator or that there is a Creator, one's interpretation will be effected.

Yes, a scientist's interpretation will be read by others and critiqued, but this does not leave out the reality that worldview matters in one's interpretation of the facts. This again has been argued from postmodern scholars (not that I am saying I am fully in agreement with postmodern scholars). Another example of this problem is found among historians, who are seeking to be objective as they can, but still their interpretations of artifacts still must be sifted through their worldview and how they explain the meaning of their artifacts. This too has been shown by many scholars.

Where does this leave us in interpreting the Bible? We come realizing we are not worldview neutral and we must come to the text itself. We must hear the claims of Scripture within Scriptures own presentation and storyline.

Now, in relation to the overall question, this I still say leaves us with the need to present both views in the classroom. Both evolution and creation do not come worldview neutral, but they have their own presuppositions that each is bringing to the table.

As I am sure one can surmise, I heartily disagree with evolution and its worldview, but this nonetheless does not mean that in the public sphere, both should not be presented. Both should and people should be allowed to think through the issues and challenge them.

 

[outhouse]

Hence, they should both be properly given time in the classroom. .

Mythology has no place in a science class.

Although I disagree with the evolutionary viewpoint

Which is personal opinion due to your theistic BIAS only!

for both are believed and argued for in science and as worldviews

This is a lie, and or intellectual dishonesty.

The scientific debate over evolution has been over for long over a hundred years.


Only those holding mythology instead of reality, fight biology.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't believe there is a battle, creationism simply makes no sense, so where is the battle ?.

 

[outhouse]

However, this research and the results must not stand alone,

This is delusional

The observed results show FACTS about evolution./ Speciation has been observed.

What has never been observed in biology or any other part of nature, is FACTUALLY, no hand of a deity can be attributed to anything anywhere ever, with any credibility what so ever!

Where does this leave us in interpreting the Bible?

You need to learn about the bible before you post such blatant misinformation.

The Exodus has not been substantiated or proven
Jericho walls have been prove to be uninhabited when it was supposedly there in scripture.
Moses has no Historicity
Abraham has no Historicity, nor Isaac or Jacob
Noah has no historicity
No global flood has taken place scientifically.

Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That means an exodus of the scale described in the Torah would have been impossible.

the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated

the tradition of Moses as a lawgiver and culture hero of the Israelites can be traced to the Deuteronomist source, corresponding to the 7th-century Kingdom of Judah

This means moses is thought to have been created by Deuteronomist during the 7th century.

Wall of Jericho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. They did not find substantial evidence for renewed occupation in the late Bronze Age at the time of Joshua, which in general agreed with the earlier statement by Watzinger that "in the time of Joshua, Jericho was a heap of ruins, on which stood perhaps a few isolated huts".

This means it did not happen as written.


Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the beginning of the 21st century, and despite sporadic attempts by more conservative scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen to save the patriarchal narratives as history, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".

The two works largely responsible were Thomas L. Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974), and John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition (1975). Thompson's argument, based on archaeology and ancient texts, was that no compelling evidence pointed to the patriarchs living in the 2nd millennium and that the biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns; Van Seters, basing himself on an examination of the patriarchal stories, agreed with Thompson that their names, social milieu and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations

This means they have no historicity


Noah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The earliest written flood myth is found in the Mesopotamian Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh texts. Many scholars believe that Noah and the Biblical Flood story are derived from the Mesopotamian version, predominantly because Biblical mythology that is today found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mandeanism shares overlapping consistency with far older written ancient Mesopotamian story of The Great Flood, and that the early Hebrews were known to have lived in Mesopotamia

What part of flood myths, don't you understand?

Flood myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The flood myth motif is widespread among many cultures as seen in the Mesopotamian flood stories, the Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology, the Genesis flood narrative

FLOOD MYTH

Genesis flood narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Genesis flood narrative is a flood myth in the Hebrew Bible


FLOOD MYTH

 

[outhouse]

I don't believe there is a battle, creationism simply makes no sense, so where is the battle ?.

In the imagination of certain theist. Scientifically there is no debate regarding biology.

 

[psychoslice]

In the imagination of certain theist. Scientifically there is no debate regarding biology.

Yes so sad isn't it ?.

 

[outhouse]

As I am sure one can surmise, I heartily disagree with evolution and its worldview,

.

This is a prime example of the dangers of theism and faith. This is not responsible religion when one is trying to drag education and knowledge, back into the stone age.

It saddens me that some people are still this confused over facts of biology, due to closed minds.

 

[outhouse]

Yes so sad isn't it ?.

I would be sad, if I don't see the danger in such right wing behavior.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Let me clarify some of my statements from before. When I said our worldview influences science, I do understand there is a process to scientific inquiry and method. Yes, science researches and obtains certain results from their research. However, this research and the results must not stand alone, but they must be and are interpreted by scientists, of all kinds. This is where the issue comes. How are the results to be interpreted? How is the interpretation arrived at? If one's worldview begins with the idea that there is no Creator or that there is a Creator, one's interpretation will be effected.

Yes, a scientist's interpretation will be read by others and critiqued, but this does not leave out the reality that worldview matters in one's interpretation of the facts. This again has been argued from postmodern scholars (not that I am saying I am fully in agreement with postmodern scholars). Another example of this problem is found among historians, who are seeking to be objective as they can, but still their interpretations of artifacts still must be sifted through their worldview and how they explain the meaning of their artifacts. This too has been shown by many scholars.

Where does this leave us in interpreting the Bible? We come realizing we are not worldview neutral and we must come to the text itself. We must hear the claims of Scripture within Scriptures own presentation and storyline.

Now, in relation to the overall question, this I still say leaves us with the need to present both views in the classroom. Both evolution and creation do not come worldview neutral, but they have their own presuppositions that each is bringing to the table.

As I am sure one can surmise, I heartily disagree with evolution and its worldview, but this nonetheless does not mean that in the public sphere, both should not be presented. Both should and people should be allowed to think through the issues and challenge them.

Actually the data is clear and real scientists of all kinds have come to a unanimous conclusion of evolution being correct. There is no discrepancy.

The only ones who don't believe in evolution are those that have a very rigid religious denial of it.

 

[outhouse]

I don't believe there is a battle, creationism simply makes no sense, so where is the battle ?.

So I have developed a method to corner these YEC types into a mythological corner they cannot escape.


What date did the flood happen.?

Its something they cannot answer, any date given, boxes them into reality as we can show them writing from this period of time showing them people factually existed when the book states everyone was killed.


If they do not give a date, it is because something has had to have actually taken place before a date can be given.



Of course, logic and reason were not used for them to gain their faith, and no amount of logic, reason, or education will change their faith.

BUT it stops them cold from spreading more misinformation.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This is a prime example of the dangers of theism and faith. This is not responsible religion when one is trying to drag education and knowledge, back into the stone age.

It saddens me that some people are still this confused over facts of biology, due to closed minds.

Believe me, I'm just as embarrassed by Christians who reject scientific fact as a Christian as you are as an atheist. I think I speak for many other Christians when I say that. There is no real conflict between belief in God and acceptance of evolutionary theory.

 

[outhouse]

Believe me, I'm just as embarrassed by Christians who reject scientific fact as a Christian as you are as an atheist. I think I speak for many other Christians when I say that. There is no real conflict between belief in God and acceptance of evolutionary theory.

I understand brother.

You wont see me fighting theistic evolution at all, even though I don't think for a second it has any merit.

I don't think most Christians even have a real issue. But the USA has a terrible YEC problem, almost one of the worst in the world. Turkey is actually worse. But we are next to last.

It does bother me that in some states the politics are still trying to place mythology in schools today, in this modern age.

 

[Skwim]

Let me clarify some of my statements from before. When I said our worldview influences science, I do understand there is a process to scientific inquiry and method. Yes, science researches and obtains certain results from their research. However, this research and the results must not stand alone, but they must be and are interpreted by scientists, of all kinds.

And such interpretations are all in accord with the scientific method that brought them into being. There may be differences of opinion on certain facets of evidence, but among actual scientists within the relevant field they are not a result of any differences inherent in some world view they may subscribe to.

This is where the issue comes. How are the results to be interpreted? How is the interpretation arrived at? If one's worldview begins with the idea that there is no Creator or that there is a Creator, one's interpretation will be effected.

Obviously you haven't an inkling of how scientists think and approach their objects of investigation. Here is a simplified outline of the process.

​

And HERE is a more detailed explanation.
​

Yes, a scientist's interpretation will be read by others and critiqued, but this does not leave out the reality that worldview matters in one's interpretation of the facts.

Fine, then there must be good examples you can provide to back up your claim here. And by "good" I mean examples that illustrate an appreciable effect on the results of genuine scientific investigation---not pseudo-scientific fringe musing by science dabblers.

This again has been argued from postmodern scholars (not that I am saying I am fully in agreement with postmodern scholars).

Which scholars are these? Two or three names will suffice.

Now, in relation to the overall question, this I still say leaves us with the need to present both views in the classroom. Both evolution and creation do not come worldview neutral, but they have their own presuppositions that each is bringing to the table.

Your vague "worldview" aside, even if I was to agree with you, creation stories still fail to qualify as science and therefore have no place in public school science classes. Want to teach the various creation stories, then a class in world religions would be more suitable---although, considering how precious class time is now days any such class would be a disservice to the educational process. The time could be used far more beneficially.

As I am sure one can surmise, I heartily disagree with evolution and its worldview, but this nonetheless does not mean that in the public sphere, both should not be presented.

Out of curiosity, could you described this evolution world view, particularly the "world view" part?

And, exactly, what do you mean by "public sphere"?

​

. . . people should be allowed to think through the issues and challenge them.

I wasn't aware anyone isn't allowed to. Do you have some examples where this thinking is prevented or outlawed?

 

[metis]

Let me clarify some of my statements from before. When I said our worldview influences science, I do understand there is a process to scientific inquiry and method. Yes, science researches and obtains certain results from their research. However, this research and the results must not stand alone, but they must be and are interpreted by scientists, of all kinds. This is where the issue comes. How are the results to be interpreted? How is the interpretation arrived at?

But there's no demand for conformity in the vast majority of cases when it comes to interpretation. Evidence is evidence, which is why we prefer that word over "fact" or "proven", both of which may give the impression that whatever is being established one way or the other is a done deal. There are no "done deals" in science, even if something is considered an axiom, and that's because there are always details that may be variable, plus it's always possible that mistakes might be made.

If one's worldview begins with the idea that there is no Creator or that there is a Creator, one's interpretation will be effected.

We simply cannot plug in a "Creator" if we're not certain this "Creator" actually exists. How do you know it's not "Creators", for example?

Now, in relation to the overall question, this I still say leaves us with the need to present both views in the classroom. Both evolution and creation do not come worldview neutral, but they have their own presuppositions that each is bringing to the table.

As I am sure one can surmise, I heartily disagree with evolution and its worldview, but this nonetheless does not mean that in the public sphere, both should not be presented. Both should and people should be allowed to think through the issues and challenge them.

Because you don't actually recognize that there has been an evolutionary process that we are absolutely certain exists (things change over time, right?), you place "evolution" into the "belief based on faith" category along with "creationism"-- but it doesn't belong there because we don't rely on faith because it involves bias.

But I think we gotta be careful about not defining terms, so let me give you the simple definition that I used to give to my students, and let's see if you agree or disagree with this. The reason I'm doing this is because I have long experienced that many people attach various concepts to "evolution" that are not implicit in the basic definition. So, here's the definition I used to give:

Changes in the genetic code in organisms that eventually may lead to new species.

Now, that's "evolution". Note what's not there. No reference to God or Gods or any denial that they may exist; no reference to various hypotheses, such as one hypothesis that all life may have emerged from a single organism billions of years ago; no reference to just chance being the driving force (there's others); etc.

So, do you accept that basic definition above minus the various hypotheses?

 

[Windwalker]

Let me clarify some of my statements from before. When I said our worldview influences science, I do understand there is a process to scientific inquiry and method. Yes, science researches and obtains certain results from their research. However, this research and the results must not stand alone, but they must be and are interpreted by scientists, of all kinds.

I don't think you read my post. I'll explain this another way. Yes, worldviews can actually blind someone to seeing something that is there because their overall framework of reality does not allow them to see it. But then there is also being outright in error. When it comes to the "science" of creationism, this is not a worldview matter, as there are huge numbers of scientists who accept the Theory of Evolution, who also believe in God. It is not a matter of an atheist paradigm, versus a theist paradigm and resulting worldviews that makes someone "believe" in evolution or not. Both theist and atheist accept the data as valid. It proves itself again and again and again through its predictive nature.

Creationism isn't wrong because of a difference in worldviews, it is wrong because it makes errors in doing science (or pretending to do science, which is really more the case). It's not wrong because of beliefs. It's wrong because it makes errors in method. It's not science, at least not modern science. What argument you could make however is that modern science is not the only way to do science, and that we should allow the science of medievalists to be equally taught in a science classroom. Because THAT, is the true comparison. Creationism is bad science stood up against modern standards. That is the issue. Not worldviews.

BTW, I believe in God and have no issue whatsoever with evolution. So clearly, worldview has nothing to do with me rejecting creationism. Explain that if you think that's why I reject it because of my religious beliefs.

This is where the issue comes. How are the results to be interpreted? How is the interpretation arrived at? If one's worldview begins with the idea that there is no Creator or that there is a Creator, one's interpretation will be effected.

Except of good 30-40% of scientists that accept evolution also believe in God. Oops, so much for that argument. Again, I believe in God and fully embrace evolution. Explain that.

Yes, a scientist's interpretation will be read by others and critiqued, but this does not leave out the reality that worldview matters in one's interpretation of the facts. This again has been argued from postmodern scholars (not that I am saying I am fully in agreement with postmodern scholars).

I always enjoy why fundamentalists will agree with scholars when it suits them, and reject them when it challenges them. Yes, postmodernism shows this, and I agree with it. It also does not apply to what you are trying to make it apply to. Creationism is rejected because it's bad science. Not because it's advocates believe in God! I believe in God, and I see evolution as wholly compatible with God.

Another example of this problem is found among historians, who are seeking to be objective as they can, but still their interpretations of artifacts still must be sifted through their worldview and how they explain the meaning of their artifacts. This too has been shown by many scholars.

Which is curious why then you are likely a Biblical Literalist, and yet are citing something which destroys that belief. Now this is a prime example of what is rightly called cherry picking. You accept it when it suits you, in a distorted manner applied here, and yet ignore it when it puts your views on the hot seat.

Where does this leave us in interpreting the Bible? We come realizing we are not worldview neutral and we must come to the text itself. We must hear the claims of Scripture within Scriptures own presentation and storyline.

Nonsense. You cannot read these without your biases. You see what I said about cherry picking postmodernist views? Scripture does not present its own storyline, you see in it what you are programmed to see in it from your limited perspectives and cultural biases.

Now, in relation to the overall question, this I still say leaves us with the need to present both views in the classroom.

No it does not. It's it not an alternative scientific explanation. It is not scientific and has been demonstrated it is not. We do not teach the science of the 1300's in classrooms today either. There is a reason for that. Creationism is no exception because you can't fit it into your extremely narrow understanding of the Book of Genesis.

Both evolution and creation do not come worldview neutral, but they have their own presuppositions that each is bringing to the table.

As I am sure one can surmise, I heartily disagree with evolution and its worldview, but this nonetheless does not mean that in the public sphere, both should not be presented. Both should and people should be allowed to think through the issues and challenge them.

Then we need to teach astrology too. We need to teach spell-casting, necromancy, voodoo, phrenology, and all of it too. Right? No? Why not?

Please address my post this time.

 

[Ouroboros]

As I am sure one can surmise, I heartily disagree with evolution and its worldview,

Even though I agree with you that everyone makes judgments based on their worldview, evolution isn't a worldview, it is a science and extremely well established and supported by evidence.

 

[ONEWAY]

Sorry, I will be back shortly, gone for Thanksgiving. Have a great Thanksgiving and God bless!

 

[outhouse]

Sorry, I will be back shortly, gone for Thanksgiving. Have a great Thanksgiving and God bless!

Thanks you too, brother oneway.

 

[Mycroft]

1)Biology Scientists need to make it clear that evolution has no bearing on the condition of God.

Actually biology does have a bearing on the condition of god. Much of biology contradicts some of the notions of what God is like in the Bible (Ie: perfect).

 

[Slapstick]

Actually biology does have a bearing on the condition of god. Much of biology contradicts some of the notions of what God is like in the Bible (Ie: perfect).

No it doesn't. Because god didn't claim his (her, its) creation to be perfect.

The entire story of god flooding the earth was because people were evil and morally repulsive. It follows other mythologies as well, such as people eating babies and killing lesser ones and the Pagan Gods, I think Zeus did the same thing. All of the mythology stories vary in some degree, but it involves god flooding the earth or killing off lots of people.

The Bible never claims god to be perfect. Genesis 6: Does God Make Mistakes? - Life, Hope & Truth