Jump to content

The Can of Worms called Creation and/or Evolution

Recommended Posts

Hey Gold Winger, science is the only "religion" that works


Yah, yeh still don't get that you can substitute "Christianity" for "science" in the above sentence, eh? Or Judaisim, or whatever. You are makin' a religious argument. You are a Believer, and you're stating your belief.


Yeh disparage religion sometimes because some formerly accepted religious practices weren't very effective (your "reading goats entrails"). But yeh fail to acknowledge that some formerly accepted scientific practices ("bleeding" patients, alchemy, etc.) weren't very effective either.


Yeh disparage religion for advocating "magic" to explain aspects of the universe, but you fail to recognize that science advocates the same "magic" when it talks about invisible, mysterious "forces", "fields" and the like, eh? Some of them turn out to be wrong, too, eh? Phlogiston?


Yeh trumpet science for being "right" because its magical tales successfully predict some things, eh? But yeh fail to acknowledge that religion's magical tales are also successful at outcomes. Here in the U.S., it's well established that religious folks give far more money as a percent of income to charity than non-religious. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a pretty successful ethical recipe, eh? So is "love your neighbor as yourself". Moses admonishes that if the society fails at following commandments like "thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bear false witness", it will become corrupt and fall apart. That, too, has enormous predictive power.


Yeh need to go back and read some history & philosophy of science, eh? It's just a human discipline, not a Divinely Ordained one.


But I don't expect yeh to be rational about it, eh? You're a True Believer. You think your view is da only "right" one, and yeh want to convert everyone else for their own good. And yeh think that the Government should only support education in your Madrassas, where your view is da only one which is allowed to be taught.



(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Beavah, you're perfectly welcome to read goat entrails or whatever other bizarre religious methods you like to try and make up answers. I'll only note that evolution is a branch of science that gets taught in science class, whereas creationism and intelligent design are not science and not taught in science class.


(fixed typo)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Link to post
Share on other sites


>But try getting past a peer review board if your ideas aren't >within scientific orthodoxy even if your methodology is flawless. >Talk about groupthink... peer review would be great if ideas were >truly examined but they are in reality put to the orthodox >examination of the field wherein the theory lies.


I would think this would be seen as logical and sensible. Imagine taking a new proof developed for an algebraic problem for peer review by the geometry community. Or a biology theory for peer review by physics experts? What would be the point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite book on the topic:


Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution,

by Kenneth R. Miller


3 main take-aways:


1. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural, because science is by definition limited to the material world. Therefore, anyone who claims that science proves the God does not exist is an idiot. Science CAN, however, illuminate our understanding of God, and often does challenge dogma (cf: Copernicus).


2. While the debate commenly focuses on the two polar extremes (Did humans evolve from pond slime or did they pop up fully formed from the earth?) it rarely goes beyond to the more important questions of "first cause", and the basic ramifications of God's involvement with the development of life, or on the other hand, what is the logical end of the atheist's convictions?


3. Faith is a logically viable position; the rejection of evolution may not be. However, if we could explain and exhibit God's workings clearly, then faith is unnecessary and we spin off into a whole different debate on free will.


Now I will hide behind my asbestos shield...


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eagledad writes:

Not the evolution that is so controversial. No evidence of species evolving into a different species


Speciation has also been observed, also both in the wild and in the lab.


(fish into cat, ape into man, etc.) has been found or proven.


Humans ARE apes, and speciation has been found.


Its still just theory.


"Theory" is as good as it gets in science, nothing is ever proved. Theory of gravity, theory of electromagnetism, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans ARE apes, and speciation has been found.


That could explain some of the exceptionally hairy individuals I know, but to state humans are apes just ain't fact! Sure they are supposed to be closest to us but they ain't human & we ain't apes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eagledad writes:

I work in a research science field and what we would translate you to say is that there is absolutly nothing anyone can say that you will allow make you feel insecure.


I don't CARE if you work in a research science field; you don't know that "theory" is as good as it gets, because you used it in the typical science-ignorant whine that evolution "is only a theory." Of COURSE it's a theory. It's a very well-tested and fruitful theory. If you whine about evolution being "only a theory," do you similarly object to teaching about gravity, electromagnetism, or the atomic theory of matter? They're only theories too.


You also made a completely inaccurate statement, that "No evidence of species evolving into a different species" has been found when speciation has been observed.


Gravity is only a theory, so it shouldn't be taught exclusively in schools without equal time for "intelligent falling": http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512



Link to post
Share on other sites

"Not for some years now. Gorillas, . . ."


Depends on who you talk to, biologists say one thing but anthropologists say another. I guess it is just a case of the priests of science disagreeing. Or you could say that one group of science priests is modifying their "theories" to better support their beliefs.




(This message has been edited by Gold Winger)

Link to post
Share on other sites

" . . . science is the only "religion" that works even if you don't believe in it . . ."


Some of you are missing Merlyn_LeRoy's point.


In English, he's 'Merlin the King'. The 'real' Merlin served the King. But this Merlin serves no one: he IS himself the king of both knowledge and men.


Clearly, neither you -- any of you -- nor I, ignorant hillbilly that I am, are worthy to dispute his wisdom.





* Of all the king legends in history, the legend of Arthur is almost as Christological in form as the history of King David. Has anyone else noticed the irony of an avowed atheist adopting as 'nom de forum' the persona of Merlin, prophet and mentor of that most Christian king, Arthur?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...