Why Creationism over Evolution? Bring on the arguments

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am trying to understand how you are determinig evolution occured over millions
of years since it appears to be a totaly random process and we were not there to
make any observations. If there is no true limiting factors then what is the difference
of 1 year, 100, or 1 million.

First off, in evolutionary terms, mutation happens exactly once per generation. The time from when you're born until you have offspring is one "tick" of the evolutionary clock. You aren't going to see evolutionary changes in less than the lifespan of the organisms that are evolving.

Second, the random process is in the copying and combining of DNA. In simplistic terms, there's some very small but non-zero chance that a particular bit of DNA will be copied wrong. Small changes are quite likely; very large ones are much rarer. It's even less likely that a large change will be beneficial, and that it will be passed down to future generations.

Maybe a conceptual illustration will help: imagine your family has a tradition. On their 20th birthday, the eldest child goes out into a field where a huge bullseye with concentric rings around it is painted - the whole thing is a mile across. There's a marker on the field: the birthday boy or girl stands on the marker and throws a lawn dart straight up in the air. Where it lands is completely random; sometimes it'll be caught by the wind and blow off one direction or another, other times the wind will be completely still and it will fall straight down. In any case, when the dart lands, if it's closer to the centre than the marker was, then the marker is moved to where the dart landed. If the dart lands farther away, the marker doesn't move.

If your great-great-great grandfather started off on the edge of the mile-wide circle, how long do you think it'll take before your family's marker reaches the bullseye?

 

[Autodidact]

I am trying to understand how you are determinig evolution occured over millions
of years since it appears to be a totaly random process and we were not there to
make any observations. If there is no true limiting factors then what is the difference
of 1 year, 100, or 1 million.

:banghead3 Evolution is not a random process. If it were, it wouldn't work. I repeat: Do you know what the theory of evolution says?

The limiting factor, if I understand you, is the rate of mutations per generation.

 

[mingmty]

That's exactly why they can go together. They don't really conflict except when one or the other is taken for something it is not.

Sorry for the late reply...

That's exactly why the can't go together; science and religion are different explanations for the same phenomena, but science requires empirical evidence and the chance to evolve knowledge, and religion doesn't provide any evidence, just assumptions, and gives no chance to evolve knowledge, it IS incompatible with the scientific thought.

One can claim to believe in creationism while also being a scientist, but that really is not being a scientist, is just using science for those things that have so much proof that would be dumb to question while using a completely unscientific theory whenever there is a chance, trying to better fix unproven unscientific beliefs...

 

[sandandfoam]

Sorry for the late reply...

That's exactly why the can't go together; science and religion are different explanations for the same phenomena, but science requires empirical evidence and the chance to evolve knowledge, and religion doesn't provide any evidence, just assumptions, and gives no chance to evolve knowledge, it IS incompatible with the scientific thought.

One can claim to believe in creationism while also being a scientist, but that really is not being a scientist, is just using science for those things that have so much proof that would be dumb to question while using a completely unscientific theory whenever there is a chance, trying to better fix unproven unscientific beliefs...

I am not a creationist, however I think it is important to differentiate between conceptual questions and empirical ones. I think religion applies to the first and science to the second. To try and apply science to a conceptual problem posed by religion or philosophy is like trying to solve a math problem using physics. A valid concept (religious or philosophical) should be consistent with science but I disagree that "science and religion are different explanations for the same phenomena, but science requires empirical evidence and the chance to evolve knowledge, and religion doesn't provide any evidence, just assumptions"

 

[mingmty]

I am not a creationist, however I think it is important to differentiate between conceptual questions and empirical ones. I think religion applies to the first and science to the second. To try and apply science to a conceptual problem posed by religion or philosophy is like trying to solve a math problem using physics. A valid concept (religious or philosophical) should be consistent with science but I disagree that "science and religion are different explanations for the same phenomena, but science requires empirical evidence and the chance to evolve knowledge, and religion doesn't provide any evidence, just assumptions"

Science has its roots in philosophy, just as theology does, but those are completely different and incompatible. You seem to forget that religion was the science of the dark times, but our modern science has since long exceeded what we could understand by using religion, the only thing that keeps religion in the picture is culture and society.

A member of my family went to a seminar to become a reverend, so I could chat with theologists from time to time, and let me tell you this, when they speak about science it is severely flawed, and that's because the philosophical postulates that create theology and science are completely against each other, theologists have their own distorted notion of what science is.

 

[sandandfoam]

Science has its roots in philosophy, just as theology does, but those are completely different and incompatible. You seem to forget that religion was the science of the dark times, but our modern science has since long exceeded what we could understand by using religion, the only thing that keeps religion in the picture is culture and society.

A member of my family went to a seminar to become a reverend, so I could chat with theologists from time to time, and let me tell you this, when they speak about science it is severely flawed, and that's because the philosophical postulates that create theology and science are completely against each other, theologists have their own distorted notion of what science is.

I am generally in agreement with you. My point is that modern science has produced empirical findings which show some religious beliefs/conceptions to be incorrect (eg. the basis of this thread. ) Religion/Philosophy needs to formulate theory which makes conceptual sense and can then be tested by science. I don't think they're incompatible. I think that religion like science must move forward with the times. It is my view that a dynamic religious/philosophical background should set the scene for science to test the answers it provides.

 

[Willamena]

That's exactly why the can't go together; science and religion are different explanations for the same phenomena, but science requires empirical evidence and the chance to evolve knowledge, and religion doesn't provide any evidence, just assumptions, and gives no chance to evolve knowledge, it IS incompatible with the scientific thought.

Yes, but only, as I indicated earlier, if "the creation" is taken for something it's not, which is (in my belief) the literal interpretation that the Creationism movement uses ("creation" IMO is the being of reality, and Genesis I is a myth depicting that); and/or if "science" is taken for what it's not, which is (in my belief) as a mechanism of explanation rather than of discovery and application of the natural world.

One can claim to believe in creationism while also being a scientist, but that really is not being a scientist, is just using science for those things that have so much proof that would be dumb to question while using a completely unscientific theory whenever there is a chance, trying to better fix unproven unscientific beliefs...

In order to compare science and the literal Creationism, we must of course find a common ground, and you've chosen "explanation" as that common ground of comparison. In order to do that, you bend both science and Creationism to be about explanation, but there are other more appropriate commond grounds by which to compare them, mainly in their underlying philosophies.

 

[Evolution_Not]

Thought I would work up a study outline-comments welcome
Decent with Modification- Slight changes passed by DNA to offspring (generational changes)
1) Cause for Change
2) Mechanism for changing DNA
3) Limitation of changes
4) Undesirable changes
5) Population growth and decline
A) Envionmental
B) Predatory
C) Age
6) Length of generation-not fixed?
7) Death before replication or extinction
8) Migration

 

[Autodidact]

Thought I would work up a study outline-comments welcome
Decent with Modification- Slight changes passed by DNA to offspring (generational changes)
1) Cause for Change
2) Mechanism for changing DNA
3) Limitation of changes
4) Undesirable changes
5) Population growth and decline
A) Envionmental
B) Predatory
C) Age
6) Length of generation-not fixed?
7) Death before replication or extinction
8) Migration

Sorry, too terse, don't know what you're getting at. What is this supposed to be an outline for?

 

[Evolution_Not]

I don't want to leave any stone unturned so I have listed everything which I believe is applicable.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't want to leave any stone unturned so I have listed everything which I believe is applicable.

To what? Maybe if you used some sentences we might catch on to what you are driving at.

 

[Evolution_Not]

I thought it would be obvious, If I want to understand how something works then I have to consider
all parameters that may apply. If you think something I have listed does not apply then let me know
since you are the experts.

 

[Autodidact]

Are you trying to lay out an outline of the theory of evolution? Because if so you haven't. The parameters that apply to what? What are you trying to outline?

 

[JamBar85]

I would substitute the words "self importance" with "self worth." In a godless, evolutionary universe, the human has neither importance nor inherent worth, so anything goes: murder, rape, torture, etc. After all, if we are only animals, why should we act any differently than animals?

I know this is quite an old post, but it interested me.

To me this quote sais if we were all created by God, then we all have the self worth to realise that murder, rape, torture etc are all wrong.
OK fair enough, but those things happen in the world all the time anyway so it sounds like it wouldn't make a difference if God created us or not.

It just sounds a bit contradictory. Someone tell me if i've missed anything.

 

[McBell]

I would substitute the words "self importance" with "self worth." In a godless, evolutionary universe, the human has neither importance nor inherent worth, so anything goes: murder, rape, torture, etc. After all, if we are only animals, why should we act any differently than animals?

Ego.
Humans have some sort of need to think they are better than everything else.
Better than all other life forms is just a start.
How many theists take the attitude they are better than non theists simply because they believe in a deity?

One can even see this need for self righteousness within individual religions.

Whereas, humans who are created in the image of God have an inherent worth that makes murder, rape, torture, etc. detestably evil and wrong. Evolutionists have no fixed reference point from which to claim any evil act is actually evil. They have no true basis for saying humans deserve to be treated with respect, or that human life is valuable, when humans are merely a product of mindless chance.

And here we see the justification used by many as to the WHY they are so much superior.

 

[Autodidact]

I am trying to understand how you are determinig evolution occured over millions
of years since it appears to be a totaly random process and we were not there to
make any observations. If there is no true limiting factors then what is the difference
of 1 year, 100, or 1 million.

Evolution occurs all the time. It is a very slow and gradual process, so for it to have resulted in the abundance of species on the planet, it would have to have been going on for billions of years.
And it's not a totally random process. Didn't I already explain this in this thread? EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM.

 

[Papersock]

It seems to me that the debate between Creationism and Evolution is often a debate between two unrelated subjects.
People who argue for creationism seem most concerned with the origin of the universe and life and about moral values.
Whereas the theory of evolution has nothing to do with any of those things. It is just about biological change.

 

[McBell]

It seems to me that the debate between Creationism and Evolution is often a debate between two unrelated subjects.
People who argue for creationism seem most concerned with the origin of the universe and life and about moral values.
Whereas the theory of evolution has nothing to do with any of those things. It is just about biological change.

It is actually a debate between THREE totally different things:

What evolution actually says
What creations claim evolution is
the beginning of life
​

 

[theDamagedOne]

Hi! New here! Interesting thread. I'll just jump in with both feet! I believe BOTH.

I have a degree in psychology (which brings out the scientist in me), and a Master's Degree in Social Work (counseling). I mention these 2 things simply because they explain how I've come to believe in both evolution and creation. Most therapists are "grey" thinkers- meaning, there is no black or white.

I most definately believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour. But, by being a Christian, I simply cannot discredit the skeletal remains of ancient societies, the carbon dating of dinosaurs, the dna similarities humans and monkeys have. That's the SCIENTIST in me. I am a Christian- my ability to see grey areas is what allows me to incorporate evolution INTO creation.

I belong to a United Methodist Church, and I asked our Pastor this question. He pointed out that there doesn't HAVE to be a debate over evolution vs. creation. He pointed out that in Genesis, God created the world in 6 days and on the 7th day, He rested. My pastor (who is a phenomenal theologian, with a PhD in Religious Theology) said that people often take those 6 days VERY LITERALLY. He explained that it is quite possible that the ability to measure time didn't occur until God created the sun, which was on the 4th day.

Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament of Heaven, to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon; but not named), and the stars.

My pastor believes that the measurement of time wasn't possible without recognizing day/night with the setting and rising of the sun. Therefore, there are many theologians out there who believe that the 6 days weren't measured in the same way our days are. For example, Day 1 may have taken 1000 years (using our measurement system). He also talked about the theory of how certain people in the Bible lived to be 800 years old (Moses, I think)- that same idea that the measurement of time and what constituted "a year" quite possible.

My Pastor also explained to me that the "calendar" that was used in the Old Testament was not 365 days- it was MUCH shorter, meaning a person who in our time is 30 years old, would have been maybe 300 (or whatever #) in Old Testament time.

And, now that I'm out of breath and have written a novel, that is what I believe.


God Bless! <><

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I belong to a United Methodist Church, and I asked our Pastor this question. He pointed out that there doesn't HAVE to be a debate over evolution vs. creation. He pointed out that in Genesis, God created the world in 6 days and on the 7th day, He rested. My pastor (who is a phenomenal theologian, with a PhD in Religious Theology) said that people often take those 6 days VERY LITERALLY. He explained that it is quite possible that the ability to measure time didn't occur until God created the sun, which was on the 4th day.

Phenomenal theologian or not, his methodology impresses me as somewhat reminiscent of Humpty Dumpty ...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

- From Through The Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll​

I trust that, being a man of the cloth, he pays Genesis handsomely to mean what he wants it to mean.

I'd be curious to know the cost of making sense of Genesis 1: 21 in light of 1:24 ...