Creationism vs. Evolution

[Xilef]

I really like this debate so I want to bring it over to my favourite forum.

My grandfather is a scientist, it was his profession and the scientific method is how he carried out his job, it is how he cooks his dinners too (Measures, tests food, etc), but he is a Christian who believes in God, perhaps it's because of the time he grew up where Christianity in England was taught as truth along side science.
I think the reason he is still a Christian is because at some point a scientist will see something so perfect with no way to prove it and then they just believe in something.

Anyone can be a scientist, you're a scientist when you practice of the scientific method, so the argument isn't science versus religion because science isn't a religion, but Creationism vs. Evolution.


Evolution is a theory, proving it is still quite difficult as it's a slow process and only the theories of natural selection can be proven, so the example of changing an environment and seeing how the offspring of creatures become adapted where their ancestors failed to survive long enough to reproduce.
A notable examples is the peppered moth that appeared to change colour during the industrial revolution [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth]

Creationism is the origin of everything based on a book with stories that are common across Judaism, Islam and Christianity (And some other religions) all with the same god, and the book is the only source of truth and people probably believe that because of it's age (Which is actually older than the 6000 years Creationists cite as the age of the Earth). If you don't know the story of Creation, basically a god made the Earth and Sun in 6 days, took a break, and humanity comes from 2 people, the female came from the rib of the male. Later on there was a flood, 8 people build a wooden boat and fit a load of animals on it, a year later the flood ends and the 8 people restart humanity, then eventually people build a big tower which angers the god who then gives them all different languages and then humans spread across Earth depending on what language they were given.

 

[Spoo]

It's not absurd to believe a higher being played a role in the creation of mankind. Space is a massive thing, and claiming with any sort of certainty that we are alone in this universe is foolish and sad. That being said, biblical fundamentalism gains us no credible information regarding humanity's true beginnings either, though it's not to be said that nothing is there for us to yet find.

 

[Injury]

I will say right out, I'm an atheist.

My evidence that would support evolution/science over creationism:

-The Fossil Record
-The variety of species based on geographical location
-Continuity issues with the biblical telling of the world's creation
-Age of stars as determined by distance from our local star system

Oh and...

If god made the sun, the moon and the stars on the fourth day, how did he know four days had passed?

Noah's Ark is an impossible scenario, thus creationism cannot be supported based on these stories. Did Noah swing by to the Galapagos to pick up everyone there, because Darwin sure as hell found them when he wrote the Origin of Species.

The most damning of all evidence is what the creationism model is built off of, the bible. A book written by man, translated over and over again, isn't something we should base anything on. Great story, teaches great morals and virtues, but it should never be taken seriously as a replacement, or even an equal, to science. Keep it out of our schools, keep it to yourself.

Evidence is key, and I haven't seen any from the creationism side.

 

[Nachos]

I think the reason he is still a Christian is because at some point a scientist will see something so perfect with no way to prove it and then they just believe in something.

And all it takes to change that is a change of paradigm. There are scientists nowadays that strongly think like that, its just kinda... and I don't like to abuse this word...relative.. Even the most accomplished physicist of our time could just come up and say "Well given that there is no actual and definite proof that X happens because Y, as everybody thinks, I'll just attribute it to a supernatural being of my choosing."

 

[Xilef]

Yep Nachos, that's exactly how it is. The difference is that people find a their own reason to believe "oh can't explain it, it's so perfect, must be a god" and then there are people who are just told and taught to believe.

 

[Ellie]

I've given up debating because I just find it so silly. If the argument was agnosticism vs atheism I could understand. But it's not, the argument is always "any fantasy we want to make up" vs "atheism", pitting all religion possible against atheism. It's impossible for more than one to be right. No matter what you think of Judaism, Hinduism, Norse Mythology or Shintoism, they can't all be right. To defend all of them against atheism as a whole is silly.

I know people generally are using their specific religion, but they do it in such a way that what they are defending is their right to believe in a religion in general, and not that specific religion.

Mainly because if we picked apart the specific religion it would fall apart very easily.

On top of that, creationism isn't a suitable answer to "where everything came from". It adds something inbetween creation and us, but doesn't explain where the Creator came from. So we have exactly the same problem, and nothing is answered.

 

[Jason]

I've always hated this topic in debates, since the people that believe in evolution always seem to patronise those that believe in creationism, it pretty much always ends up as scientists bashing christians/religious people.

And the way you've wrote out the story of creationism is a joke, as if you're basically just shitting on millions of peoples beliefs, obviously to them it's more in depth than how you put it, but it's like you're just sat there like "HURR DURR GOD MADE STUFF!" as you were writing it... doesn't seem very respectful in my opinion.

Even though I call myself an athiest, I do sometimes consider, what if there was some sort of god, but not necessarily god, but a greater being (Or a whole other species of them) that created us, along with everything on our planet, our solar system, galaxy etc... personally I find the idea really interesting, although there isn't enough proof to back up either creationism or evolution in my opinion, I mean, I know some people that say evolution has been proven... whereas I'm pretty sure we're still waiting for the missing link, sure there are similarities between certain species, such as humans and apes, but why are there humans and apes separate, but no half species that's in the process of evolving from one to the other?

 

[Ellie]

There's creationism Jason, and then there's the specific Christian story of creation, and I'm sorry but the Christian story is laughable if it's not taken as an analogy and taken literally. The Bible is cringeworthy to read if not taken as a book of fables. I can see it's worth as that - a book of stories with morals - but as a description of how the world was made it is plain silly.

 

[Xilef]

I wrote it up how it is, didn't mean it to come across as mocking the religion, my apologies I will see about rewriting it to be more sensitive.

 

[Ellie]

I'm not sure there is a kind way to put it. Believing we were created is one thing, but surely nobody actually believes the Christian stories can be real. They're so contradictory from the get go.

 

[Glitchfinder]

There are some rules that seem silly now, but were very wise in context. Pork was banned because of a parasite that could be fatal if the pig wasn't cooked properly. Shellfish can be poisonous depending on the conditions of the water. There are a lot of things in there that have to be placed in context to be understood, and so many people pretentiously re-quote them with no context to make an invalid point. There are other examples that are translation issues, as well. (If I remember correctly, nobody knows what the word that gets treated as variants of "homosexual" most of the time actually meant at the time. Other issues involve what amounts to dropping context via poor translation.)

 

[Xilef]

Circumcision was performed because of infections gained from sand and dust getting under the foreskin, but religion also gave basic laws that we still hold and consider important today; Don't steal, don't kill, don't commit adultery, don't covet, don't lie.

 

[BizarreMonkey]

A moral compass would have been invented without a book to give it to us, in fact we've had a moral compass since BC.

We are Humans, and are capable of inventing concepts and ideas.

I don't think theism or atheism is entirely a good way to go, I think it's both arrogant and pretentious to assume we know anything of our lineage or the existence of immortal beings.

Me and a friend were having this debate the other day, and we agreed that religion is a necessary blindfold for society. Whilst also serving to bring about many interesting concepts, mythology for example.

Leviathan, Quetzalcoatl, the Phoenix, The Satyr, Thor, Hercules, all legacies of history due to their ties to theistic tribulations of their time. A world without religion may be a lot more dull, or it may be a lot more wack and awesome. One things for sure, we'd be a lot further along technologically, but we also might have wiped ourselves out by now.

Currency is the worst thing that has happened to us. Things aren't done 'for society' anymore, they are done for corporate monopoly.

I think we should just all become socialist at once, that would be the best thing to do. Money becomes irrelevant somehow, so we again have to rely on our own desires and ambitions to get anywhere. Passion, determination and the love of what we do.

It's incredibly worrying entering the world of a developer, with corporations like PopCap and others ready to buy you out for the bit of promise you show.

I have actually made it a pledge to NOT use characters I've become attached to in my university studies, because during the PSP I was made aware that successes you win any sort of award for are then the property of the University.

I think that is fucking despicable, but.. whatever! Just means I'll have to create new characters and ideas which thankfully, isn't something I'm bad at.

Anyway, back on the topic at hand... a lot of the debate between who made us is entirely pointless. What happens when we find out? One party is going to feel smug, the other is going to get really mad butthurt... I don't see the point to proving either way what created us, we are here now, and have been and will be for some time. Who honestly gives a shit? It'll be super gratifying to know that I'm not an ape-bred fuck, but an inbred fuck instead.

Vice versa.

Like really? Is this seriously a topic worth investing money and resources into? Couldn't we be doing what this raptor does instead?

 

[TotaliterAliter]

Oh, I know that I am quite new, and I also know this topic is two months old, but please humor me as my interest in responding is piqued (and the topic is still on the first page, huzzah!)

So, I'll start out by disclosing: I'm a Presbyterian and it's my position that both the New and Old Testaments of the Bible are the infallible revelation of the God-man, Jesus Christ. As such, I have no interest in Creationism in general but rather the Christian claim, because the Bible similarly is not interested in defending merely the idea that God created the heavens and the Earth, but that God did through Jesus Christ. Hence, John 1 says "In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being." Genesis 1 distinguishes its Creation story as unique as well. If you ever look at any other religions in the Ancient Near East, the world is not created through the calm command of a singular god, but rather from the chaos that comes out of various gods fighting against one another.

But with all that being said, I do not take the view that God created the world in six literal days 6,000 years ago, namely because I don't believe the text teaches it. As Injury pointed out, in Genesis 1, God created the sun and the moon three days after light; from where then did the concept of days or light come? Genesis is not interested so much in telling the exact order of how God created the Earth, but rather it is a polemic against paganism telling the structure of God's creation.

Hence, before God starts creating things, Genesis 1:2 notes "The earth was formless and void." That is actually the structure of the entire story. So, formless describes that creation did not have structure, or kingdoms. Void describes that creation did not have inhabitants, or kings. The first three days address the formless bit; God creates kingdoms. So, Day 1, he creates light and dark. Day 2, waters and sky. Day 3, land. In the next three he fills the void by creating kings to rule the kingdoms. So, Day 4, sun and moon to rule light and darkness. Day 5, fish and birds to rule water and air. Day 6, man and beast to rule the land. As for the seventh day, God rests, which is also a synonym for ruling, and thus rules over the creation of the previous six days.

To make things simpler, here's a chart.

So, all of that to say: I don't find the Biblical story of creation attached to any sort of dating, whether it be 6,000 or 4.5 billion years. The pivotal issue between Christianity and modern agnosticism/atheism, therefore, is not whether we can pile-up enough evidence to prove the Earth was this x amount of years old, but rather the different statements of faith from which we operate.

For example, let's take some items Injury lists as his reason for supporting "evolution/science over creationism" (and, not to pick on you, Injury. But, you do provide a wonderful springboard for discussion!): "The Fossil Record," "The variety of species based on geographical location" and "Age of stars as determined by distance from our local star system." Now, do any of these things, in and of themselves, disprove anything I've said so far about how God structured creation? Someone digs up some fossils that resemble another animal; couldn't God have used a template? There are different varieties of species depending on locations; doesn't it make sense God would create species with similar features to live enjoyably in the same environment? By dividing the distance of stars from us by the speed of light, it seems like the universe is billions of years old. Does that disprove the structure of creation I have proposed? Furthermore, aren't you assuming the speed of light has remained constant? How can you even assume there are such things as constants? Couldn't God have even created light already emitted from a star?

The point is, you can't falsify the Bible with such empirical evidence because it does not make claims concerning such. If you assume science contradicts the Bible it is because you are assuming that naturalism (the idea that the only thing that exists is nature; everything that has ever occurred has been a natural process without supernatural intervention) is true. You cannot prove in a laboratory that amoebas eventually evolved into amphibians, which evolved eventually to rudimentary mammals, which evolved eventually into humans. You cannot reproduce that at all. Now, you can show that mutations and natural selection happen in a particular animal in a laboratory over time. However, you cannot empirically evidence a wolf evolving into a whale in a laboratory, as modern naturalists claim. Furthermore, you cannot empirically evidence abiogenesis, the creation of life in primitive earth by natural phenomena, as it has never been reproduced, though it has often been tried.

Ergo, to believe that evolution and naturalism explain the totality of what exists, is to make a leap of faith much like a Christian, a Hindu, or a Mormon. And that being said, I'd like to pose two final questions to whomever is still reading at this point (long post is long!):

1. Do you really believe in evolution in your day to day life?
If humankind is merely a product of evolution, do you live your life like it is? Do you believe we should care for the poor, the mentally ill and the handicapped? Because, evolution advocates survival of the fittest. Do you believe bestiality is disgusting? Because there are bioethics professors, such as Peter Singer at Princeton, questioning why we do given the belief of naturalism. Have you ever had your heart broken or been betrayed by someone close to you? If philosophical evolution is true, you should just get over it and move on because that's weakness in yourself. Do you actually live, believe or think as if survival of the fittest is the golden truth as philosophical evolution purports?

2. Are you willing to stake your eternity on it?
Given that one cannot empirically prove naturalism, you are making a leap of faith as a Christian, Hindu, or Mormon does. Are you willing to stake your eternity on that? If Jesus Christ is the Son of God, it does not contradict anything that's been empirically proven, just your assumptions about those things. And if Jesus Christ is the Son of God, there is a reason to help the poor, needy, and weak, because we ourselves are dependent on God and his grace. There is a reason to oppose bestiality, because it is perversion and not just another viable method of sexual expression. If Jesus Christ is the Son of God, it is okay to have a broken heart, because Christ is coming back to redeem all the hurt and suffering of humankind, but that is only for the people who believe him.
So, ask yourself that question. I cannot prove Christianity in a laboratory experiment to you, just as no one can prove evolution in a laboratory experiment; they are both faith statements. But unlike naturalism, we have legal evidence for Christianity. Christianity makes the claim that Jesus existed (as Tacitus the historian notes), died, was buried, and rose again from the dead (and his grave was empty and we have never found his body. Furthermore, Paul referred people to five hundred witnesses who saw the resurrected Jesus after he had died in 1 Corinthians 15:6. The New Testament is also littered with the names of witnesses). Is evolution so surefire that you're willing to discount all that testimony for Jesus?

So, that's my three page essay two cents. Sorry, it was so long!