1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Creationalism vs Evolution

Discussion in 'SC Archive' started by PaulStat, 18 Dec 2005.

  1. PaulStat

    Soldato

    Joined: 1 Mar 2003

    Posts: 5,443

    Location: Cotham, Bristol

    After watching Robert Winstons "story of God" and a discussion of creationalism vs evolution. I decided to do a bit more research into creationalism.

    http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp1no2.htm

    What an utter load of tosh! At one point this person seems to muttering on about the properties of water for some reason.

    Apparently this belief is fully backed by George W!

    I must admit i've met Christians in the past who don't believe in evolution, which has left me compeltly lost :eek:
     
  2. Omicron

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 26 Jan 2005

    Posts: 1,553

    Location: Surrey

    Creatonism supporters operate under the insane methodology of "Evolution has some non-perfect parts, therefore it is wrong. We should use another theory. That should be Creatonism" which has some whoppingly huge errors and contradictions in it with itself and evidence.

    They also have a tendency to align evolution with the big bang, because Creationism puts them very close together (7 days of Creation and all that), despite evolution having nothing to do with the BB. For instance, navigating around http://www.pathlight.com you come to here which has nothing to do with Evolution, despite being in the " Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia" and turns out almost all 42 proofs can be sorted with a modicum of physics knowledge, though the author didn't bother to research it obviously.

    Creatonism has it's place in school, just that place is in Religous Studies or Philosophy. To be taught in science class something must have evidence. Creatonism has no evidence other than "I say it is" and in some cases directly contradicts evidence. Intelligent Design (ironically the evolved form of Creatonism once they realised Creatonism was doomed to failure) makes the additional assuming God guides things. You can reach the same end results without assuming the existance of God, which has no evidence anyway, and since science uses the minimal number of assumptions to generate theories (Occum's Razor) God is not included.

    If Creatonism/Intelligent Design warrants being taught within a science class, it must have evidence which shows it is a superior theory to evolution. Despite there being several religious journals willing to publish such research, and there being money for such research, nothing has arrisen in several year. Why? Because, in terms of science, Creatonisn/Intelligent Design is not a science.

    Even the Pope admits evolution is inline with Catholic teaching! It seems the only remaining truely ardant groups for Creationism almost all live in the south/mid United States.
     
  3. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Nov 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    George Bush likes his religion predictable - my favourite religious quote from him...

    "I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision."
    -- George W. Bush to ABCNEWS, June, 1999
     
  4. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 49,162

    Location: Plymouth

    I agree with Omnicron here, to a point anyway.

    One thing worth remembering is that even if there was an intelligent creator, if he/she/it operated consistantly (or consistantly with only the very very occasional anomly) it would be undetectable by science and simply become absorbed into the predictive model. That doesn't mean to say that something like that is definately there, it just means that having a perfect predictable model doesn't mean there definately is nothing there.

    Intelligent design is, however, an unfalsifiable hypothesis and therefore not scientific in the slightest.

    The problem is people don't differentiate between science (using repeated observations to build a predictive model) and Faith (deciding something is true when you can't prove it either way).

    And that's without even getting into the extremely common misconceptions and misunderstandings surrounding science (many of which I guarantee will crop up in this thread) made by people with no scientific training.

    -Dolph
     
  5. growse

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,139

    Location: Ironing

    This is the absolute key thing that is forgotten when discussing creationism and evolution. It forms the foundation of why the two are not equivalent. You might as well have a discussion debating the merits of nuns over screwdrivers.

    I therefore hearby declare a null and void argument. Because there isn't one. :)

    On a more serious note - agree with dolph and omicron. As ever...
     
  6. Crofter

    Gangster

    Joined: 17 Nov 2005

    Posts: 153

    Evolution makes a lot of sence but I would find it hard to belive that before everything there was nothing. Something or someone must have started the ball rolling. Then why not call that creator God ?

    Hey just my opinion.
     
  7. The Halk

    Capodecina

    Joined: 13 May 2003

    Posts: 11,862

    Location: Hamilton

    Big bang and evolution are the 'best fit' theories that we have. There's gaping holes in them, and in some places they are very weak.

    But I think when we eventually unlock the secrets of the universe, we'll find we were on the right track.
     
  8. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    I think the difference between the two is that, whilst they both have their problems, most (although not all) proponents of evolution accept this and don't regard evolution as infallible, whereas proponents of ID tend to do the opposite.
     
  9. D_Brasted

    Gangster

    Joined: 10 Oct 2003

    Posts: 438

    Neither do people differentiate between operational science (working with repeatable, observable processes in the present) and origins science (making educated guesses about unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events in the past). Both Creation and Evolution are examples of origins science. The same data/evidence is available to both sides, but philosophical considerations (assumptions) govern which interpretation one gets to explain what happened.
     
  10. The Halk

    Capodecina

    Joined: 13 May 2003

    Posts: 11,862

    Location: Hamilton

    Nah. Creationists take all the evidence, throw it away, and get a mad gleam in their eye.

    Evolutionists try to make something fit which might, but might not - but there is no mad gleam in their eye.
     
  11. Event Horizon

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 2,169

    Location: Let me out!

    creationism is a dangerous and destructive movement that must not be allowed to undo two hundreds years of science. How even ten people could hold this belief is beyond me, let alone 50% of the American population. I am in the fortunate position of working with someone who believes in creationism, i take great satisfaction in demolishing his arguments as the best defence he has is "because it is".
     
  12. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 12,016

    Location: Vvardenfell

    My fave argument against "Intelligent Design": "If it's so intelligent, why did God make such a hash of the human knee joint?" It makes no sense for a creature designed to walk upright, but a lot of sense if we evolved from something that walked on all fours. Ditto the human spine. And I'll add: why has God got so little imagination? For instance, all mammals have the same number of vertabrae - why? That would again make sense if they had a common ancestor, but you'd have thought God might want to help out the giraffe with a couple of extra cervical ones?


    M
     
  13. jezsoup

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 9 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,024

    Location: Bradford


    Such a hash of the knee joint, hmm right.. As part of my uni course we did a module on Biomimetic (the copying of systems within nature) and one thing we looked at extensively is the knee joint. Its absolutely perfectly formed! Its an example of what is known as an irreducibly complex mechanism. As in there are so many individual components that make up the knee and with out jst one of them it wouldn’t work. But the way the knee is shaped and with the cruciate ligaments the knee works like nothing we could create on our own!. For more information on the cruciate ligament and knee design there’s a book called Hallmarks of Design written by a Lecturer at The University of Bristol, Stuart Burgess.

    Re the rest of your post that book covers a lot of reasons behind the similarity we see in nature, its a hallmark of design. For example an architect, by enlarge they have a style of their own and a lot of what they design all look similar or have very common traits. Its what you would expect froma designer really.
     
  14. Omicron

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 26 Jan 2005

    Posts: 1,553

    Location: Surrey

    No, I wouldn't agree with that.

    Consider the similarities between cars and articulated lorries. Both are designed and follow the same basic ideas. However, given the slightly different shapes and purposes of cars and lorries (lorries transport much larger loads over an average of longer journeys) the lorry have 6, 10, 12 wheels instead of 4. This helps spread the load better. This is something you would expect from a designer.

    You would expect from a designer for an animal who is very large to have a more intricate spinal structure and perhaps more legs, to support it's load a lot more. Instead, a mouse and an elephant have skelatal strutures which are almost the same, just different sizes. Something you would expect from gradual changes from a common ancestor, not a ground up approach from a common premise you'd get from a designer (as you get with road vehicles).

    I'd be interested in your views on if Creatonism should be taught in science class, as per some mid-west US views, though something tells me we might have had that conversation before somewhere.
     
  15. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 13 Jan 2005

    Posts: 10,708


    Quite - an omniscient, omnipotent 'god' is the ultimate get out of jail free card - there is nothing in science that will ever be able to disprove the existence of god.

    But thats the difference between the two sides - a scientist (a decent one, anyway), will *always* concede that it is entirely possible that there is a God who controls the universe. But try getting a creationist to concede that its possible that evolution actually happened, and you'll struggle....
     
  16. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    You are right of course, there are many flaws in the human body which no decent designer would put in there, but your argument is wasted. When it comes down to it, they can always rely on the old "God made the human body imperfect to test our faith coping with illness" type thing.
     
  17. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: 28 Jun 2005

    Posts: 48,107

    Location: On the hoods

    Ooh! Ooh! I've got one! Evolution is just a theory and not actually a fact! It's just an idea!

    Seriously though. I don't think evolution is an adequate explanation for all that we see around us. Likewise, I don't think creationism is adequate either. Evolution is full of holes and creationism is full of inconvenient fossils and rocks that are much older than they should be.
     
  18. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: 28 Jun 2005

    Posts: 48,107

    Location: On the hoods

    Actually, that's not the argument that would get used. The argument would be that when sin and evil entered the world after the fall various things in creation were twisted and contorted for the worse.
     
  19. jezsoup

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 9 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,024

    Location: Bradford

    I see what your saying about the cars, but with humans we are so limited with our understanding of materials and processing of them, the material processing seen in living creatures is on another level to what we can even come close to. In nature while one design can be applied to both an elephant than a mouse, our understanding of materials wont allow us to reproduce structures covering such a huge scale (more often than not).

    This line of discussion for evidence for/against evolution is a bit of a grey area, each side of the argument will pick their own reasons for the similarities seen as evidence for their side.

    As for it being taught in school, I dont quite like how its taught in America, they seem to have done what they do best over in the Bible Belt, taken it too far! Granted the teaching of God isnt really the most scientific of topics. But I think it is important, for the sake of a balanced education, that kids are made fully aware that evolution is only a Theory and there is a poissible alternative. While I was at school it was taught to us as gospel and when ever I asked about various flaws in the theory I was looked down upon as if I was stupid, whats so stupid about questioning what your being taught?

    I would like to see something being taught along the lines of creationism, I havent thought enough really about this because it is very hard to sepearte what should be taught and not be. Ill have to get back to you on that one!
     
  20. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    Such as? I'm not denying there are certain things it can't prove, like the origin of life for example, but it explains vastly more in nature than it can't explain, and so "full of holes" is overstating it a lot, as is comparing it to the enormous number of holes in creationism.