Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: How about Evolution AND Creationism, instead of VS.

  1. #1 How about Evolution AND Creationism, instead of VS. 
    New Member Calicis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    3
    If all man-made things were invented & created by someone - cars, computers, artificial intelligence, etc. - then why do some people get so repulsed by the idea that the universe and its laws were also created by someone?

    Evolution is undoubtedly real, because fossil records proved as such. But like missing links in fossil records, just because a higher being can't be seen/found doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So how about this, a higher being started it all (creation) and is guiding it along (evolution). This just might solve the conflicts between the two parties. Or offend both. *sigh* there's just no pleasing some people.


    "We gather strength from sadness and from pain. Each time we die we learn to live again" - Unknown
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Well, as Voltaire said: “If God didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Calicis
    If all man-made things were invented & created by someone - cars, computers, artificial intelligence, etc. - then why do some people get so repulsed by the idea that the universe and its laws were also created by someone?

    Evolution is undoubtedly real, because fossil records proved as such. But like missing links in fossil records, just because a higher being can't be seen/found doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So how about this, a higher being started it all (creation) and is guiding it along (evolution). This just might solve the conflicts between the two parties. Or offend both. *sigh* there's just no pleasing some people.
    You'll undoubtetly offend both parties.

    Creationists because they don't want to believe that they are animals, they want to believe we're created in our present form as a "special creation of God", which is stupid.

    Evolutionists/scientists because of the scientific method. A nonexplanation like God can't satisfy as a logically sound explanation for a phenomena/observation. You'll just replace one unknown with another.

    However, there are people who think God is driving evolution. Though I doubt they consider "missing links" a work of God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: How about Evolution AND Creationism, instead of VS. 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Calicis
    If all man-made things were invented & created by someone - cars, computers, artificial intelligence, etc. - then why do some people get so repulsed by the idea that the universe and its laws were also created by someone?
    Unlike cars and corporations and all human appliances, the universe and its laws don't break. Why would something unbreakable require a builder? I know it's impossible to wrap one's mind around, if one cannot grasp infinity. Very many scientists are still enthralled to the assumption our universe (and laws) were created e.g. Big Bang.

    Quote Originally Posted by Calicis
    how about this, a higher being started it all (creation) and is guiding it along (evolution). This just might solve the conflicts between the two parties.
    If it can't be broken, does it want a maintenance guy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    New Member Calicis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    3
    Man made things break because the tools (the math & engineering) we use to create are only estimates, never completely precise. The laws themselves are perfect, but we aren't so we can't utilize them perfectly. Then it's only expected that man made things break over time. A perfect being can create perfect laws, and since it makes sense that one knows its own creation inside out, this being can execute the laws flawlessly.

    Calicis wrote:
    how about this, a higher being started it all (creation) and is guiding it along (evolution). This just might solve the conflicts between the two parties.
    If it can't be broken, does it want a maintenance guy?
    It's not maintenance, it's progress.
    "We gather strength from sadness and from pain. Each time we die we learn to live again" - Unknown
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    So how about this, a higher being started it all (creation) and is guiding it along (evolution).
    My stand is that God might well exists and might be experienced subjectively by individuals (which I seriously doubt but I give the benefit of doubt to those believers), he doesn't play any role in the natural processes (as far as we know).

    If evolution can be explained by purely natural phenomenons such as natural selection, we should leave God out of any scientific explanation. Any argument along the line that evolution depends on too "luck" and is therefore unlikely to happen spontaneously is basically just argument from ignorance since there might be new evidences that proves otherwise. Creation-cum-evolution is therefore highly improbable.
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Calicis
    Man made things break because the tools (the math & engineering) we use to create are only estimates, never completely precise. The laws themselves are perfect, but we aren't so we can't utilize them perfectly. Then it's only expected that man made things break over time. A perfect being can create perfect laws, and since it makes sense that one knows its own creation inside out, this being can execute the laws flawlessly.
    The laws aren't necessarily perfect, but they might seem perfect.

    The way I see it, the forces or laws of nature are simply a product of matter and energy, and that seems to be the case. For example natural selection is a force which is dependent upon enviroment, and the strenght of gravity depends upon mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    If God existed and did anything that affected our universe, all the things God did were done before Big Bang.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    If God existed and did anything that affected our universe, all the things God did were done before Big Bang.
    Where did God find the time to do anything before the Big Bang?
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    "Evolutionist" and "Creationist" extremists who believe that their ideas cannot be reconciled are like the following idiots in a grocery store. The "creationist" says, "see how perfectly red, round, fragrant and beautiful the tomatoes are, this is proof of design and so there must be a factory somewhere employing the very best engineers so that these tomatoes can be constructed according to exacting specifications." To this the "evolutionist" says, "there is no evidence of any engineers here so you are obviously delusional, these tomatoes must have come into existence entirely due to the action of the mathematical laws of nature." Both are idiots because they fail to see one simple fact that is in front of their face and that is that tomatoes are alive and are a part of living organisms. As a result neither sees the truth which is a relationship between the farmer and the tomato plant -- how blind can they be?

    This fact and nature of living things is what makes nonsense of both the creationist's divine watchmaker and the evolutionist's mechanistic laws. The fact that what they are discussing is alive, means two very important things. One is that living things do things for their own reasons and come into existence NOT by design and construction but by growth and learning. The other thing is that living things do not grow and learn in a vaccum but are radically open to their environment and thus they have plentiful room in their lives for caretakers, shepherds and teachers. Yes. teachers. For here we find the role of God. Not controling. Not designing. But involved in a relationship with the student, trying many different ways to .... to what? To remake the student in some pre-envisioned pattern that all people should be? To stamp them out according to factory specifications? To make them understand the world as the teacher believes is the only way that the world must be understood? OR... is it to facilitate, aid and inspire them to find their own understanding, to find and become according to their own choices the person that they can become?

    Yes there are factual goals. For we do not want them to confuse 1+1=2 with a matter of opinion as if 1+1=3 were just as good. And likewise we do not want them to be confused about the difference between science and theology, imagining that creationism is a scientific theory, or that evoution is a religious heresy. Oh well I suppose parents and pseudo-christian cults can program and indoctrinate their children to believe that scientists are all going to hell. I certainly cannot stop them. But I will certainly fight to keep their filth out of the public classroom. Meanwhile I shall also try to put out the fires of outrage they create to assure the more reasonable atheists that not all Christians are brain dead zombies.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    caretakers, shepherds and teachers. Yes. teachers. For here we find the role of God...
    IIRC you're a tutor, not a teacher yet. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    BumFluff wrote
    Where did God find the time to do anything before the Big Bang?
    I don't really know. I just know that God (if exist) did not do anything after the Big Bang.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: How about Evolution AND Creationism, instead of VS. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Calicis
    If all man-made things were invented & created by someone - cars, computers, artificial intelligence, etc. - then why do some people get so repulsed by the idea that the universe and its laws were also created by someone?

    Evolution is undoubtedly real, because fossil records proved as such. But like missing links in fossil records, just because a higher being can't be seen/found doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So how about this, a higher being started it all (creation) and is guiding it along (evolution). This just might solve the conflicts between the two parties. Or offend both. *sigh* there's just no pleasing some people.
    Finding out how the universe works is not about "pleasing some people" but about actually finding out how it works. Creationists are pissed off because their claims for creators and designers fail miserably under scrutiny. They live in a fantasy world.

    Why kowtow to them? They simply need to get an education.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Yes. teachers. For here we find the role of God. Not controling. Not designing. But involved in a relationship with the student, trying many different ways to .... to what? To remake the student in some pre-envisioned pattern that all people should be? To stamp them out according to factory specifications? To make them understand the world as the teacher believes is the only way that the world must be understood? OR... is it to facilitate, aid and inspire them to find their own understanding, to find and become according to their own choices the person that they can become?
    Substitute the word "God" for Thor, Zeus, Mithra, Allah or any other supernatural entity ever proclaimed to exist and you have a nonsensical explanation.

    What Mitchell is stating is that you MUST find the role of HIS god.

    Oh well I suppose parents and pseudo-christian cults can program and indoctrinate their children to believe that scientists are all going to hell. I certainly cannot stop them. But I will certainly fight to keep their filth out of the public classroom.
    How do we keep your pseudo-christian cult nonsense out?

    Meanwhile I shall also try to put out the fires of outrage they create to assure the more reasonable atheists that not all Christians are brain dead zombies.
    I don't think I've ever considered you brain dead, Mitchell. Brain MIA, perhaps, but not dead.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    God is not necessary for the theory of evolution, and the theory of evolution doesn't explain things or predict things with any greater accuracy when you add god. You can tack god on to the theory of evolution if you want, but you are just making the theory more complicated without actually improving it.

    By "improving it" I mean improving its rationality or predictive accuracy. If you want god to exist and are out to reconcile his existence with evolution, then that might be an "improvement" on the theory in terms of your own comfort. That's true of tacking on "because that's how god wants it" to any scientific theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    BumFluff wrote
    Where did God find the time to do anything before the Big Bang?
    I don't really know. I just know that God (if exist) did not do anything after the Big Bang.
    Because time didn't exist before the Big Bang, or so the theory goes.
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    How do we keep your pseudo-christian cult nonsense out?
    But I am not the one who has a problem making a distinction between his religions ideas from that which ought to be taught in public schools. So the truth is that we have much more reason to be concerned if you are ever hired as a teacher.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    But I am not the one who has a problem making a distinction between his religions ideas from that which ought to be taught in public schools. So the truth is that we have much more reason to be concerned if you are ever hired as a teacher.
    True story:

    Today an ant was on a mat outdoors. I began to shake it off, when my son intervened. He said that is just the same as if I'm shaking a person. I said no, animals are not people. He insisted they are just like us, his teachers said so. Then he added, "We have to be kind to nature."

    The discussion ended pretty shortly with my son rolling his eyes at Papa's nutty beliefs, that contradict his teachers, summer camp, and the books in his school library.

    Is that not religion? Religion taught in schools, without parents' consent?

    How do religions really start anyway?



    BTW I did and have tried to explain the difference between feeling something and thinking something (e.g. why treat animals humanely), he kinda grasps it, but public education's idiotic moral lessons are so persistent and appealing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    True story:

    Today an ant was on a mat outdoors. I began to shake it off, when my son intervened. He said that is just the same as if I'm shaking a person. I said no, animals are not people. He insisted they are just like us, his teachers said so. Then he added, "We have to be kind to nature."

    The discussion ended pretty shortly with my son rolling his eyes at Papa's nutty beliefs, that contradict his teachers, summer camp, and the books in his school library.

    Is that not religion? Religion taught in schools, without parents' consent?

    How do religions really start anyway?



    BTW I did and have tried to explain the difference between feeling something and thinking something (e.g. why treat animals humanely), he kinda grasps it, but public education's idiotic moral lessons are so persistent and appealing.
    If only all the nonsense that is taught in schools were that harmless. But for the most part, what is important is to to give them alternatives so that kind of crap isn't all they hear, so they can learn to think for themselves and make their own choices. Hopefully there will be improvements as time goes on, however slowly. For example, I had a teacher in high school who had a rather amazing talent - he could insult every female student in the room within the first 5 minutes.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Yeah, it could be worse.

    Ironic I feel an imposition, 'cause I'm all for social engineering... just, Not In My Back Yard apparently.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Yeah, it could be worse.

    Ironic I feel an imposition, 'cause I'm all for social engineering... just, Not In My Back Yard apparently.
    Yeah! That's alway the problem with social engineering. It ok as long as it is used on somebody else. But people have got to learn and understand that the world remade in their own image would be hell.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •