Evolution and Creationism

[agricola]

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking. I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious. I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty... I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect. I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech... I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run. I believe in the reality of progress. I - But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.

- H.L. Mencken

[SolaDude]

I homeschool. I'm teaching my kids Big Bang and evolution, and I've told them that Genesis 1 doesn't have to be taken literally and that you can believe in an old earth/universe and still believe God did it. In our history last week, we were talking about times when the church thought the Sun revolved around the earth, and I explained that the Bible isn't intended to be a science book. It's intended to tell about the nature of God.

Very good points Shrubbery. Genesis chapters 1 and 2 simply declare God to be the creator, and the bible was never intended to be a science book. These chapters in Genesis are intended to tell us about the WHO of creation, and not about the HOW of creation.

Nicely put Opie....

[SolaDude]

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking. I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious. I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty... I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect. I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech... I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run. I believe in the reality of progress. I - But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.

- H.L. Mencken

What an illustrious figure that guy was....but I myself always perceived ignorance to be a form of slavery and ignorance is something that you see everywhere esp. in the vast, desititute majority of the planet....so his belief in the capacity of man is great...but it would STM that there would be an underlying presumption that you start with a group of men who have all been educated to a certain level first....hence the great head scratching conundrum of the world: the endless and continuously failed fight against ignorance....

[Shrubbery]

OK..since this is all about science...surely something of this must be measurable right?

Tons of things are measured. That's where the scientific theories (not "just theories", but explanations based on reams and reams of observable data) come from. The YEC'ers just make stuff up NOT based on observable data, and then they have to somehow make the world fit their non-scientific theory that is only based on the first couple chapters of Genesis. They'll have humans walking with dinosaurs because their non-scientific theory doesn't fit dinosaurs being here before humans, despite there being ZERO observations that even suggest humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs (and the supposed cave paintings of dinosaurs have been debunked... one was just smudges of dirt on the wall!). They throw out radiometric dating, saying that it isn't accurate, despite there being 40 different types of radiometric dating that have been used in correlation with other things such as tree rings and such, and they all matched when tested in numerous studies.

Do you believe that gravity exists? What if you don't, will anything happen? Well, I guess you might try to pick up a 200 lb box and throw your back out. Whoops! That pesky gravity that can't be directly observed. Oh, but the EFFECTS of gravity were observed. We know it exists. But scientifically, we still call it a theory because you can't see or directly observe gravity. The theory explains how it works (since that's what a theory is) based on numerous observations and measurements of the effects of gravity. But we can't see this mysterious force itself. I'll bet you still believe it's there and agree with the science that says it exists.

Science and math that are observable and repeatable and knowable are simply not dependent upon any set of personal beliefs. Cancer research? drug development? I hope there is more than just hope and belief that some new treatment is worth giving to a patient....better be some testing to back up the theory.

Absolutely. So where is the observable and repeatable research showing YEC?

I'll let the specific examples go, since I don't think you totally grasped what I said, and even if I rehash it, I don't think you'll understand the point I'm making.

Is there any actual harm to believing a God created everything and that it didn't just pop up out of nothing?

Who said anything about this being about God vs. no-God? That's what the coc says. That's what many of the YEC'ers say. That is NOT what most Christians say. A lot of scientists are Christian and believe in an old earth and evolution. They also believe God did it. I believe God created everything. I think the Big Bang fits very well with belief in God creating.

And one point I didn't make but probably should based on your last sentence... YEC'ers tend to say that if you don't believe in a young earth, you might as well throw the whole Bible out. This can be destructive to a Christian's faith when they learn that the "science" they were taught by their YEC preacher, parent, or private Bible school turns out to be bunk. The preacher at my congregation equates "evolutionists" with "atheists" in his sermons. I have a real problem with that.

I honestly could care less what people believe about how the earth came to be or how old it is, but I do care that science is left science. I've read the YEC books. I found them lacking in actual science. This was a problem even when I believed YEC! That's why I had so much trouble teaching my kids the YEC view. There wasn't any science there. And every time there was a question, I'd have to figure out how the YEC'er explains it, but there was no data to explain how they got that idea. They just made stuff up to fit their view. Then I started reading about modern biology, and wow... our questions were being answered with actual data to back it up! It made sense! Same goes for astronomy. And again, this gets dangerous when they say, "Well, scientists are all wrong about YEC, so they're also wrong about vaccines, how to cure cancer, and all these other things." I have a friend who died last year because she followed some debunked-by-research advice of natural voodoo cancer cures, so what would normally be a treatable cancer ended up not treatable after she'd let it go and used coffee enemas (!!!) instead. Her 3 year old daughter is without a mother because of lack of science literacy. So yes, it matters when people say, "Those scientists are all lying to you! The earth isn't more than 6000 years old!" Then it becomes, "Those doctors are lying to you! Coffee enemas work and will cure your cancer!" I've seen this over and over again with various medical topics, but in this particular case, it took a life.

[gordie91]

I still don't get the connection that if you think the earth is young, you disavow science and if you think the earth is billions of years old then science reigns supreme.

Reality is and there is no amount of changing that, in terms of gravity and things like cause and effect. Which I don't see happening when picking the age of the earth. If it is 10 billion years old or 10 thousand years old gravity is gravity. I think the problem cited about distrusting scientist that are atheist, is not directly connected to the age of the earth. I think the problem of the CoC folks that tend to be strange in their beliefs are really based on other things, mostly their distrust of anything material sort of a re-boot of gnosticism. But still, one can believe the earth is young and still have rational thoughts and understanding about science and how the natural world works. A young man, who I trust and is a CoC'er, has a Ph.d. from a very prestigious university. His doctorate is in Chemistry. I am not sure what his beliefs are on the age of the earth but this man is very rational, scientific and grounded firmly in the natural world and at the same time a practicing NI-CoC'er.

I know because I have solicited his help in understanding dilution rates at the molecular level when disputing with homeopaths about the validity of their claims (better yet their practice of mysticism). Avogadro's number was explained and to my limited knowledge is very based in science and reality and is not only mathematically demonstrated but consistently reproducible test after test in the lab. My point, he is very rational and at the same time a believer neither of which cancels the other out nor does it change reality a realm in which this man lives and works. I think, as stated above, a hatred for material things is at the root cause of many fundamentalist religionist behavior and beliefs.

[Tsathoggua]

I accepted evolution pretty early in my childhood. There was always a nagging doubt in my mind about the bible -- if it actually was divinely-inspired, why would this supposedly-omniscient being provide us with the inaccurate "six days of creation" just-so story that would be easily debunked by scientists centuries later?

Why not provide something spectacular within the text, like maybe a description of Saturn's rings, or the many moons of Jupiter, that would later be confirmed by astronomically-minded people after the invention of the telescope? That would kind of clinch the idea that the bible was indeed written from a cosmic viewpoint.

Instead, we get nonsense like night and day before the creation of the sun, and birds appearing before any type of land animal.

I see no logical reason to cling to this outdated and inaccurate text.

[KLP]

One does not simply put a rock on a radiometric machine and have the age display as a number like a bathroom scale.

Radiometric dating, like all such measurements, are interpretations of a current observation, based on assuming uniformity, and require correlating the original amount of one or more isotopes to what is the expected age of the object. And then based on those beliefs about how old something must be...ba-da-bing the numbers back up the expected result. There is always a need to have correlative and surrounding information such as where did the object come from and at what layer it was found. In the very least there is the need to assume the original state of isotopes in order to assume the current age. But there simply is no valid source of original state, there is no knowing of how or where something came into existence. But of course this belief system is draped and wrapped and packaged as "just science"....all the while it trades on just as much of the unknowable as does any other world view. But yes, given slavish adherence to the same set of assumptions the result is repeatable....is that the new definition of accuracy?

But contrary to implications above....the Creationist is not opposed to observable fact or the use of scientific method. No Creationist is opposed to the discovery of actual facts. The difference is in the interpretation of data, the assumptions about original conditions, and whether or not uniformity as a dogma is valid. Accepting a young earth is not a denial of what is "known" but instead is a denial of what is assumed and interpreted about what is known. Being a slave and prisoner to the dogma of current beliefs and assumptions about uniformitarianism is what prevents actual progress.

So does anyone have the number yet on the exact percentage of Global Warming caused by Mankind or is it still lost in the vast amount of compiled evidence?

I say these things to highlight the overstatement and mischaracterization of interpretation as being "known" and "scientific knowledge"...when really it is a belief system. I am not saying the belief system does not have basis but that it is still, and only, a belief system.

The reasons to brag about holding one belief system and demeaning other belief systems is not scientific.

And there still is no described practical impact of Creationism to anything Mankind is doing or needs to do be it fighting disease or caring for animals.
But I guess haters are gonna hate and continue to demonize others. How does this differ from any other one-true-church attitude of patting themselves on the back for being right and harping on the denominations?

[KLP]

BTW, KLP's position is that KLP simply does not know one way or the other how old the Universe is or the age of Earth or how to understand the Creation account. But KLP does not think any of it matters one way or another. No one denies radioactive decay or commonality in life forms. But KLP is saddened by the hate and division caused by the various sides considering all the others to be bad and unworthy and a danger to children.

It just doesn't matter in a practical way. Much like the fighting and division over end time or eschatology. It makes no practical difference in life (well, unless you are in the business of selling snake bite kits).

[flawed]

I accepted evolution pretty early in my childhood. There was always a nagging doubt in my mind about the bible -- if it actually was divinely-inspired, why would this supposedly-omniscient being provide us with the inaccurate "six days of creation" just-so story that would be easily debunked by scientists centuries later?

Why not provide something spectacular within the text, like maybe a description of Saturn's rings, or the many moons of Jupiter, that would later be confirmed by astronomically-minded people after the invention of the telescope? That would kind of clinch the idea that the bible was indeed written from a cosmic viewpoint.

Instead, we get nonsense like night and day before the creation of the sun, and birds appearing before any type of land animal.

I see no logical reason to cling to this outdated and inaccurate text.

Or just some type of tangible proof. Why not provide us the garden of Eden with the flameing-sword yielding angel guarding it. Even doubting Thomas got to see nail holes. But instead we are just supposed to believe no one has ever found it or poof it just disappeared one day. Now I know this is where people are going to come in with the whole that’s what makes it faith argument, but there’s an awful lot of skeptics in the Bible stories and they also needed proof and got it. So it really doesn’t make sense to me that god created us this way, yet the silly stories in the Old Testament he’s always worried about humans becoming smarter than him, yet we get left with all sorts of conflicting evidence that suggests evolution but we aren’t supposed to believe that because the Bible tells us how and when we were created.

[Ivy]

Is there any actual harm to believing a God created everything and that it didn't just pop up out of nothing?

Yes.

This type of black & white thinking / logical fallacy (i.e., that it has to be either a) a God created everything OR b) everything popped up out of nothing) has been shown to cause delays in brain development and critical thinking abilities if maintained into adulthood.

The reality is much more complex. It's simplistic to think we can reduce the laws of the entire universe to the limited scope of our current knowledge, or the "known" universe. As an example, it has been shown that particles can come in and out of existence within a vacuum......or, "pop in and out of nothing". So......what else that we think we know isn't true, or is partially true, or is beyond our scope of understanding?