Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Creation vs. Evolution
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11278		 Page 16 of 29
Author:  Jenny [ Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:17 am ]
Post subject: 
I think you were trying to say that humans have sentience, or are self aware... is that it?

Anyway, this seems like the place to post this:

I wrote this in a political forum that I belong to, and thought it turned out really cool so I wanted to know you guys's opinion on it.

Okay, my opinion on teaching evolution in schools:

First off, there are 2 different parts to this evolution business: short term evolution, such as "Darwin's finches," and the long term people from apes, mammals from amphibians dealie.

Short term evolution has been scientifically proven. It is a fact, and I dare anyone to deny it because you just need to look at the dog or cat next to you for proof. It is the result of breeding, which is virtually identical to short term evolution. Call it what you want, but it is a form of evolution.

I think this is the kind that should be presented in schools as fact. Students who learn about this aspect of the evolution theory can later apply it to a wide range of fields... medicine, veterinary, even raising livestock on a farm.

Now, as to the other part of evolution, that is as you know a theory... so yes, it is highly disputable. Still, schools have always emphasized (at least, at all of the 6 different schools I went to in multiple states) teaching students the theories or ideas that are at that point in time the most widely accepted by scientists and have the most facts supporting them.

For example, science class teaches you one thing, from the very beginning: experimentation. The essence of experimentation is to come up with an idea, then find ways to prove or disprove your idea. In my science classes, the idea (or theory) that had the most supporting evidence was the one we ended up learning about and getting worksheets on. Operating on that principle, evolution (despite its numerous holes) has the most evidence supporting it and therefore, until a better idea comes along, only makes sense as the one that is widely taught in schools.

I do believe it is more important to cover the idea of experimentation and theories and the basics of science than pounding "evolution is the only and right explanation for life!" into the brains of students. The best way, I think, to teach about it is to continually reflect on how scientists came to the conclusions they did, and what is still left in the theory that needs to either be proven or disproven for it to become "the law of evolution" rather than "the theory of evolution," or for that matter, what it would take for it to just be discarded and replaced by a different theory.

Students should know what the holes are, what the strengths are, and be left to decide for themselves later if the whole thing appeals to them. But, if they want to learn about creationism, which is not based in (forgive the bluntness) fact, but rather feeling (for lack of a better word) and religion, they need to go to a church.

Ultimately, every one of us makes choices about what we believe: some people decide more based on what they feel or believe in, while others decide based on what they know and can prove. School has always taught things that can be proven, and church has always taught us things that can be felt. That is why creationism belongs to church, and evolution belongs to the schools.

A well rounded person has attended some form of church and goes to schools, where they will be exposed to both concepts and styles of belief-decision making and can someday come to their own conclusions. Weighing either the church or school with more of the other's ideas can only take away the kid's right to make his/her own decision.

Phew! There we are. I put a lot of thought into this one. Hope it makes sense.
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
There isn't really any evidence to support creatism.

There's loads to support evolution.

Nonetheless, some of the hardcore atheists really bug me on this - if evolution reacts to the environment, then it is entirely possible there was a guiding hand. While we wouldn't be able to tell directly, there may still be some obvious effects. Maybe there are, and we're missing them.

Either way, believe what you believe aslong as it fits in with common sense and what we do know. I've been to too many forums where atheists shove pure evolution down people's throat and practically disallow them to believe in any form of a God guiding evolution - in fact, they even disallowed me to have an opinion that there may be a secondary biological mechanism guiding evolution. That's how small minded many modern science preachers are.

Yes, there are fundy atheists too, believe it or not. I dislike that atheists think they're perfect and get off the religious hook for being atheist, when many of them can be just as bad.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Nov 11, 2005 2:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's true that it's not scientific to believe that there is some guiding force involved. But it's also not scientific to believe there isn't. The only scientific principle that can be invoked here, at least that I can think of, is Occam's Razor ("when there is more than one possibility, the simplest is preferred"), but Occam's Razor doesn't explain anything.

Even if we take into account the possibility that this all happened by chance, that no being is involved at least after the creation of the universe, I can't shake the feeling that the universe may have been designed just so that it could happen by chance. But we can't really speculate on the origin of the universe. Neither the explanation of a supreme being or of the universe spontaneously creating itself seems simpler. Both are very farfetched, yet one of them has to have happened. Strange universe we live in.

- Kef
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
It's true that it's not scientific to believe that there is some guiding force involved. But it's also not scientific to believe there isn't. The only scientific principle that can be invoked here, at least that I can think of, is Occam's Razor ("when there is more than one possibility, the simplest is preferred"), but Occam's Razor doesn't explain anything.


Super-atheists bash our Occam's Razor like it's the be all and end all proof of their beliefs. They act like it's all fancy and scientific and technical, but it's basically just "The simplest path is the best".

That's more like philosophy, which they hate :/
Author:  IantheGecko [ Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
I bring you tidings of Toast Paint and something huge:

Judge John E. Jones III of the Middle District of Pennsylvania has ruled that teaching intelligent design in public schools is unconstitutional in the United States because "intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from creationism's religious antecedents." You can read the full story on Wikipedia.

It's settled; due to the Establishment Clause, public schools can't teach intelligent design. Do you think the debate over this will get even worse & go to the Supreme Court? Will they rule in favor of Jones? So far, there is "no intent to appeal", so cross your fingers...for now.
Author:  seamusz [ Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
IantheGecko wrote:
I bring you tidings of Toast Paint and something huge:

Judge John E. Jones III of the Middle District of Pennsylvania has ruled that teaching intelligent design in public schools is unconstitutional in the United States because "intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from creationism's religious antecedents." You can read the full story on Wikipedia.

It's settled; due to the Establishment Clause, public schools can't teach intelligent design. Do you think the debate over this will get even worse & go to the Supreme Court? Will they rule in favor of Jones? So far, there is "no intent to appeal", so cross your fingers...for now.


I had understood that the ruling was not that ID could not be taught, but that the statement that had been required of science teachers to read to classes was ruled against...
Author:  furrykef [ Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
seamusz wrote:
I had understood that the ruling was not that ID could not be taught, but that the statement that had been required of science teachers to read to classes was ruled against...


Correct, and I believe they are correct that the warning is unconstitutional.

- Kef
Author:  Kittie Rose [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
Why is this even an argument?

Creationism is just the result of the "Me too!" attitudes Fundies have; they see gay rights groups and other minorities campaigning and not only do they have the nerve to slam them and call them "moral degenerates", they steal their methods of gaining recognition and use it to form lobby groups to push their beliefs where they don't belong, acting like they're the chickens and not the fox and should be equally entitled to use their complete lack of understanding of equal rights to force inject their religion back into the system.

Note to Fundies; if you're feeling persecuted, it's because you are, for being an idiot.
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Do you actually have anything helpful or interesting to contribute to this thread, Rose?
Author:  Kittie Rose [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Do you actually have anything helpful or interesting to contribute to this thread, Rose?


Since your definition of "helpful" is probably "something you agree with and/or makes room for your lack of substance in presented argument", then no.

In the more general, and sane definition and of helpful, I certainly was as I provided an apt analysis of the situation that had at least some accuracy to it.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Now now, Didymus has been far more reasonable than most people on the literalist side of this thread. Give him some respect.
Author:  Kittie Rose [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
Now now, Didymus has been far more reasonable than most people on the literalist side of this thread. Give him some respect.


How much attention are you paying to the thread? I did not personally attack Didymus, and then in reaction he made some harsh criticism on my being in this argument without even dealing with the points I made. I don't see how he was being more "reasonable".
Author:  topofsm [ Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:21 am ]
Post subject: 
One of my teachers is probably the most religious person I know ever, so she probably has a better description. I'll give my argument.

I actually beleive in both. I beleive that God created this Earth to work an evolutionary way. Essentially, he created man through evolution, as well as the scientists explain the rest of the universe around us.

BTW, creation in the bible goes together very well with the steps of evolution described today.
Author:  Alberto [ Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:39 am ]
Post subject: 
A bit of both for Me.
Author:  Hi Guys [ Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm mostly for evolution. Because couldn't God have made evolution happen? *gasp*
Author:  fruiterian [ Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm pretty much 100% for evolution, no interference from God or a higher being. (As I've said in other threads, I'm still exploring my religious beliefs, although I doubt this will change.)

I've had exposure to both sides of the argument and I know more about some of the sham elements of intelligent design than my old biology teacher, actually. I haven't seen a true biblical account throughly described in a non-literal sense, something more moderate, so I'm not sure what most Christians do actually believe when it comes to this: I'm more familiar (and admittedly more interested) in the radical sides of this.

Though I heard from my new biology teacher that apparently intelligent design is being replaced in some spots by the phrase "sudden emergence". That's quite scary to me. My problems with intelligent design lie with how it cannot be proven true.

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20051218
I love this comic--it's still on my fridge. I mean, there is no way that every single organism alive was created at one point in time, because evolution does occur, and it has been proven at least on a small scale. If there was no such thing as evolution, we wouldn't need to create more and more antibiotics and drugs to combat bacterial infections.

Principle of parsimony/Occam's razor, as someone stated earlier in the thread doesn't explain much here, because who is to say that a supernatural being creating all life on earth is simpler than all life evolving from a single cell?
Author:  ShutItUpMe [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:16 am ]
Post subject: 
You really can't say that the two are mutually exclusive.

For the record, and I'm sure that this has been covered earlier in the topic, never in the Christian religion (and, that I know of, Judaism, and I can't speak for Islam) is evolution condemned. I read one person's post on the first page about how it bugs them that people say that "whoever supports the evolution theory is going to Hell." It's good that it bugs you- think about this. The Bible dictates that the world and life upon it was created in six days, with the seventh being for rest. There were no stars in the beginning- there was nothing. Define a day.

Who is to say, even/especially if you interpret the Bible 100% literally, that a day didn't refer to the billions of years of biological dormancy in the known Universe, and that the Lord still is enjoying his "day" of rest? Evolution and a kickstart from an otherworldly being do not overlap anywhere. Evolution occurs- species adapt and die out based on their fitness to survive in a particular environment. Here's where it comes crashing down, and we know evolution isn't the end-all solution:

You can't evolve from nothing.

As many of the evolutionists are the ones that deny the theory of spontaneous generation, that's one more explanation out the window. Am I right that something else was involved? The way I see it, there are two possibilities:

1) There was a supernatural guiding hand.

2) Our entire scientific knowledge will come crashing down- if evolution is an infinite process in both directions of time, life has always existed on Earth. Earth has always existed. There is no explanation for the "beginning of time," as time itself would then have to be either infinite or a loop.

"When there is more than one possibility, the simplest is preferred." :p
Author:  StrongRad [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:39 am ]
Post subject: 
ShutItUpMe wrote:
You really can't say that the two are mutually exclusive.

That's my feeling about evolution or science in general.

I'm a scientist, and I see nothing "unreligious" about studying science. Granted, studying weather is not going to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God.

Science is "how God makes it all work", more specifically, "evolution is how God got us to where we are now.."

I get weird looks from creationists and non-creationists alike...
Author:  topofsm [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
The bible isn't supposed to be interpereted completely literally. The creation story is basically the first story in the book, who knows how long ago it was made? Cavemen could have interpereted it from God for all we know.

But, the order of creation aligns very well with the series of evolution we know today. It meshes very well together.

I beleive God created evolution, and evolution created us. In that sense, God ultimately created us, but through evolution.
Author:  furrykef [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:06 am ]
Post subject: 
topofsm wrote:
The bible isn't supposed to be interpereted completely literally. The creation story is basically the first story in the book, who knows how long ago it was made? Cavemen could have interpereted it from God for all we know.


My problem with this argument is that the later books in the Bible do seem to take it literally. For example, when Jesus' lineage is traced all the way back to Adam. I think when I found the part that traced from Jesus back to Adam was when I started questioning the Bible more than ever. (Well, there you have it. Evolution is evil and turns people away from God...)

- Kef
Author:  lahimatoa [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:23 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I think when I found the part that traced from Jesus back to Adam was when I started questioning the Bible more than ever.


Exactly why did that make you question the Bible?
Author:  Capt. Ido Nos [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:39 am ]
Post subject: 
I always find it interesting that people are so troubled over the deal with the two creation accounts in Genesis. The deal is (we just did this in church, but I had heard it before then) is that the writing style of the ancient Hebrew civilization is different from that of modern English writing. In more complicated words, poetic Hebrew took a lot out of repetition, and that often spilled over into their other writing.
The "two" accounts are really two tellings of the same thing; the first one "in the beginning" is a play-by-play account that deals with the events in a chronological order. Interestingly enough, the Hebrew name for God used in this part is a name that implies God's inherent power. The second telling is less focused on when everything happens (they just told you) and instead deals with the more personal side of creation: Adam. It is here that we can see Adam's wonderings about his uniqueness in the world and God presenting Eve to him. As before, the name of God is used in a way that describes the more loving and personable nature of God.
So there's what I know/think on the Genesis accounts.
Author:  furrykef [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:00 am ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
Quote:
I think when I found the part that traced from Jesus back to Adam was when I started questioning the Bible more than ever.


Exactly why did that make you question the Bible?


Because for that to be taken literally, it requires that the story of Genesis be taken literally. For the story of Genesis to be taken literally, we must ignore everything science tells us to the contrary. Because science is a method of reason, I cannot accept that.

- Kef
Author:  Trev-MUN [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:27 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Because for that to be taken literally, it requires that the story of Genesis be taken literally. For the story of Genesis to be taken literally, we must ignore everything science tells us to the contrary. Because science is a method of reason, I cannot accept that.


Mind you, literal interpretation of that story isn't the ONLY interpretation. I never interpreted the creation as documented in Genesis as a word-for-word account, but as something more symbolic and metaphorical.

However, you say that science is a method of reason and that you doubted the Bible because it claimed Jesus was directly descended from Adam. So I assume your problem is from the idea of people having a common ancestor since, among humans, Adam and Eve were the first. But have you ever heard of Mitochondrial Eve?

While that's not the literal "first human being," it is referring to the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all living humans. In other words, we can all be traced back to her.

It's thought that Mitochondrial Eve lived sometime back, oh, around 130,000 BC. She wasn't alone, of course--there were other humans, and other matrilineal lines, but only hers has survived among all humanity.

Just thought I'd bring up this scientific study being done, as it clearly shows that the possibility of humans descending from a single man or woman is not out of the question. Indeed, it shows that all of us living today came from her, at least.

By the way, this is just an aside, yet an interesting one. The major scientific concensus is that humans originated first somewhere in Africa and flowed into the world from there (Mitochondrial Eve is seen as support for this). Some places in Africa are thought to have been the location of the Garden of Eden (though many locations have been named, usually located around the Cradle of Civilization, in the Middle East).
Author:  topofsm [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:05 am ]
Post subject: 
Question. Now that you say that, I wonder if the Garden of Eden existed. Is it possible that it was just a jungle.

With the poetic writings in Hebrew in mind, what if the apple was just a metaphor for humans crossing the line, from ordinary to intelligent beings? And the serpent was really another story, like the ones like "how the zebra got his stripes", They just put it in to explain that in the sense of those kinds of stories. What if they are completely separate, exept for the metaphoric message was taken after the account, based on a ficitonal character that everyone designates as the first man, whom we call "Adam". What if Genesis is just another story.

Again I say, the story of Genesis begins a long time ago, the story can't be exact. The whole thing is possibly just a story.
Author:  Trev-MUN [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:27 am ]
Post subject: 
Well, I'll just say this--though I have yet to fully investegate the matter in detail, there are unsettling paralells in scientific theories and studies with the general course of Genesis. I'm not wholly aware, but I think, that when you get down to the details, there are differences.

I thought the same thing, too, topofosm--that the expulsion from the Garden of Eden was humanity gaining intelligence (the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil), and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden the migration outwards, wandering, settling, civilizing.

Africa's center jungles are very much a garden in many ways ...
Author:  furrykef [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:36 am ]
Post subject: 
Trev-MUN wrote:
However, you say that science is a method of reason and that you doubted the Bible because it claimed Jesus was directly descended from Adam. So I assume your problem is from the idea of people having a common ancestor since, among humans, Adam and Eve were the first.


My problem was that the story was being taken literally and seriously. While I don't think creationism and evolution are irreconcilable, I do think a literal interpretation of Genesis and evolution is. To trace the lineage of Jesus back to Adam suggests to me that they really thought that he descended directly from Adam and that Adam was indeed the first man, which would imply a literal interpretation of Genesis. If Genesis was meant to just be a story, then tracing Jesus' lineage back to Adam would be mixing fact and fiction, which would be inconsistent and make one wonder where else fact and fiction was mixed.

To sum up, the only way Jesus could have descended directly from Adam are:
1. Evolution is false, and Adam was the first man
2. Evolution is true, and Adam did exist, but was not the first man. (Indeed, there would be no single "first man" if the evolutionary theory is true.)

The first rejects science, and the second is inconsistent. The inconsistency of possibility #2 is enough for me to reject it, because the Bible is usually assumed to be consistent. I must reject possibility #1 because I give science a higher priority than blind faith. Occam's Razor prefers evolution to creationism. We have piles of hard evidence of evolution, whereas we don't really have any direct evidence of creationism. Evolution fits neatly into a scientific worldview. Science has taught us things that were once unimaginable, and we know a great many of these things to be true through testing and empirical observation. Why would it suddenly be wrong about evolution?

- Kef
Author:  Tommygun141 [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:31 am ]
Post subject: 
These are my views/beliefs

-Evolution did happen (there is OVERWHELMING evidence that supports it) but a power did take place in the creation. Intellegent design.
-Some stories in the bible are not to be taken literally. Some are, but some are just that, stories.
Author:  Amorican [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:33 am ]
Post subject: 
But which ones are just stories, and which ones are actual events? God owes us an explanation so we can find something more constructive to fight over.
Author:  Tommygun141 [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:51 am ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
Trev-MUN wrote:
However, you say that science is a method of reason and that you doubted the Bible because it claimed Jesus was directly descended from Adam. So I assume your problem is from the idea of people having a common ancestor since, among humans, Adam and Eve were the first.


My problem was that the story was being taken literally and seriously. While I don't think creationism and evolution are irreconcilable, I do think a literal interpretation of Genesis and evolution is. To trace the lineage of Jesus back to Adam suggests to me that they really thought that he descended directly from Adam and that Adam was indeed the first man, which would imply a literal interpretation of Genesis. If Genesis was meant to just be a story, then tracing Jesus' lineage back to Adam would be mixing fact and fiction, which would be inconsistent and make one wonder where else fact and fiction was mixed.

To sum up, the only way Jesus could have descended directly from Adam are:
1. Evolution is false, and Adam was the first man
2. Evolution is true, and Adam did exist, but was not the first man. (Indeed, there would be no single "first man" if the evolutionary theory is true.)

The first rejects science, and the second is inconsistent. The inconsistency of possibility #2 is enough for me to reject it, because the Bible is usually assumed to be consistent. I must reject possibility #1 because I give science a higher priority than blind faith. Occam's Razor prefers evolution to creationism. We have piles of hard evidence of evolution, whereas we don't really have any direct evidence of creationism. Evolution fits neatly into a scientific worldview. Science has taught us things that were once unimaginable, and we know a great many of these things to be true through testing and empirical observation. Why would it suddenly be wrong about evolution?

- Kef


In the bible it says that Jesus was around when Lucifer was banished from heaven. Therefore, Jesus could NOT have decended from Adam. Maybe he meant humans in general or something.

Also, someone mentioned that god or a guiding hand was supported by that things cannot evolve from nothing. Well, when earth was cooling and the crust was extremely thin and composed mostly of viscous pools of mud, there was evidence of meteors hitting the earth and causing enough displacement of minerals that it began raining. Thus, maybe some bacterium or single-cell creatures were on the meteor or the meteor had some mind-numbingly primitive organisms that are so unbeleivingly small that it took billions of years that, even with the right conditions, (with the rain caused by the meteors) it took so long to grow into single cell organisms.
Although, this person made a good point. Where DID these single cell organisms come from?
Page 16 of 29 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/