Creation vs Evolution (split from other thread)

Anything having to do with religion or religious debate goes here.

Moderators: Theodore, elliemaejune

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2115
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

"Lucy" is only 40% of a skeleton...

Postby Theodore » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:15 pm


Nancette
User
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:33 pm

Postby Nancette » Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:58 pm


Paladin165
User
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:36 pm

Evolution is a system of thought

Postby Paladin165 » Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:03 pm

Man I hate to see all the otherwise reasonable and intelligent homeshool supporters on this site jump up and down about evolution. You don't need to feel defensive about your faith when evolution is brought up. Children need to slowly come to realize that the world is a complex place, adults don't know everything, and adults disagree about things. What better topic to put them on their own path to philosophical thinking than evolution?

Evolution is a fruitful system of inquiry, a way of thinking about nature that leads to progress. That's all it is. Its just like quantum field theory, or non-euclidean geometry. Its a system of thought, a way of explaining a set of observations. Systems of thought are not mutually exclusive. Its not about capital R-Reality, so it doesn't have to threaten christian beleifs.

Christian or other religious beleifs do not exist primarily to explain a set of observations. They define the world one lives it, they are a guide to living. They are about what we really think, deep down, not about making sense of the results of our latest research project.

Some of you might take a cue from Kant: tell your children, "science is about appearances, religion is about reality". I would rather say they are two different ways of talking about reality, but you might not feel evolution deserves that much credit.

What you shouldn't do is tell your children evolution is completely worthless, or to pretend that the bible covers modern genetics. It doesn't, and saying things like that risks some teenage rebellion later I think. The important point is just teaching them not to take science too seriously.

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2115
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Postby Theodore » Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:06 am


Paladin165
User
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:36 pm

Postby Paladin165 » Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:35 am


User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2115
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Re: Evolution is a system of thought

Postby Theodore » Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:35 pm

Some good points there. I guess the basic question is, are scientists who subscribe to evolutionary theory ignoring or modifying data in favor of their base assumptions, or modifying their assumptions in favor of the data? The former is religion, the latter science. An old skeleton is not automatically the missing link, nor is a particular rock sample automatically millions of years old because it's dated using the radiometric dating method for that time range. And if a fossilized tree is standing vertical through millions of years of rock layers, then the rock layers obviously do not span millions of years. You see what I'm getting at? It's not a matter of interpreting the data differently, it's a matter of ignoring data that contradicts your assumptions. Any reasonably intelligent mind without bias one way or the other will come to the conclusion that at the least, the large majority of evolutionary theory is contradicted by the available data. Those parts need to be removed for evolution to retain any sort of status under the definition of the scientific method.

Really, the pro-con evolution debate reminds me of Aristotle vs Galileo. Aristotle had very nice theories, so everyone ignored Galileo's evidence to the contrary. Which side followed the scientific method?

momo3boys
User
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:00 am
Location: Western Mass

In public school?

Postby momo3boys » Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:39 pm

Paladin165 you have some great points, you have argued admirably and better than any other science oriented person I've heard (read). My Father is a scientist that firmly beleives in evolution, my question for you is, if evolutionists are so secure in their findings and theories, than why won't they look at creationists evidence with scientific eyes? My father thinks that I am a crazy person for thinking that anything but the "big-bang" created the universe. Why can't public schools be ok with showing both theories if they are so sure that evolution is the logical choice?
Phi 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

bobbinsx5
User
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:24 am

Postby bobbinsx5 » Mon May 01, 2006 3:34 pm


bobbinsx5
User
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:24 am

Postby bobbinsx5 » Thu May 11, 2006 10:48 am


MeganWiles
User
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 8:16 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Postby MeganWiles » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:40 pm

I certain can't answer for SophiesMom, although I personallly know many people who believe that portions of the bible are fable and metaphor not neccessarily historical fact, so I am surprised to hear that you have never met ANY of these people.

I do have a question for you though. If you believe that all the books of the bible are the preservation of "His perfect word", what are your thoughts on the editting of the bible, where certain books have been excluded? Are those books not just as valid as the others?? There are different versions of the bible that include and focus on different texts, not to mention the variations in translation, so I just wonder how someone who takes all of this text as literal feels about those books that have not been included.

Also, have you been reading or hearning about the translation of the book of Judas that has recently been pieced back together? What are your thoughts on that text?

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2115
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

"Book of Judas" is almost certainly fake:

Postby Theodore » Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:40 pm

It's quite simple. Only those books that there were many different (but identical or virtually identical) copies of were kept. Also, the author had to be one of the known names, for instance someone with a connection to Jesus in the New Testament.

Through this method, you might theoretically leave out some Scripture, but you certainly weren't going to add to Scripture. My view is that it's better safe than sorry - anything outside the KJV is going to be doubtful, usually obviously so. The "Book of Judas" meets none of the requirements for inclusion.

bobbinsx5
User
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:24 am

Postby bobbinsx5 » Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:33 pm


Isikole
User
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:29 am
Location: North Carolina

Postby Isikole » Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:13 pm


User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2115
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Interesting series of Bible verses, but...

Postby Theodore » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:40 pm

[quote]"But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul aliveâ€

Isikole
User
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:29 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Interesting series of Bible verses, but...

Postby Isikole » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:41 pm

[quote="Theodore"][quote]"But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul aliveâ€


Return to “Religious Discussion / Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests