evolution vs creation vs Intelligent Design

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 10 2006, 08:20 AM) [snapback]237501[/snapback]</div>

I snipped this out of your post because it highlights one of the primary problems with this debate.

The suitability of evolution as a scientific concept must be completely and absolutely separated from the question of other theories, including religious ones. It is enough to show that evolution is accepted as the best explanation by nearly all of the scientists in biology, chemistry, physics, geology and most other physical sciences.

By attacking religion you play directly into the hands of the Creationists, who frame the debate as part of the "culture war" of godless liberals who support evolution not because its true, but merely to try and disprove the existance of God. It polarizes the debate, with belief in God on one side and belief in science on the other. When the debate is framed that way, 85% of the American people will side with the Creationists.

How do you think they keep winning skirmishes with school boards?

Besides which, attacking people's faith isn't nice.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikepaul @ Apr 10 2006, 11:20 AM) [snapback]237593[/snapback]</div>

The ID people follow the lead of Creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, one of the first Creationists to accept an old earth model, because he realized that red shift did indeed happen. The problem is that once you open the door to anything less than a wooden literalism for Genesis, you've opened the door to allegory for the entire passage, so the "young earth" Creationists protest this approach mightily. So the ID people at least accept the teaching of science on the age of the universe. Good first step.

But I keep wondering if they have actually read Genesis:

OK, so we have the creation of the earth and the heavens, and the creation of light. Fair enough. But what's this? As we read farther, we see that the author uses the thematic device of that last phrase several times as things are created ... "evening and morning" were the first day, second day, the third day, etc. After the third day of creation as told in Genesis, we have land coming forth from the sea, grass growing, fruit trees budding and bearing fruit and God saw that it was all good. Then, on the fouth day of "evening and morning" we find this:

OK - we know for a fact that the author - traditionally Moses - was not an idiot. But what is going on here? There are three "evening and mornings" before there is a sun and a moon? Just where is the evening and morning coming from? Even primative man recognized the sun as dividing the day. Surely Moses knew enough that the sun and moon divided the day and the night. Where the heck is the light coming from? Do we have to make up a new appearance of Jesus, flying around the globe like Superman to provide the light to support photosynthesis (one answer I have actually gotten)? So were these "days" actual light and dark days, or is the light and dark inserted for clarity of the text, but we are "sure" they are 24 hour days (another answer I've gotten).

The internal evidences in the creation account itself show that it is not intended to be a literal textbook of the creation of the earth, but a wonderous, creative telling of the beauty of creation. It is the telling of the creation of the earth and mostly, the creation of man, and man's relationship with God.

It is probably a song, chant or poem, based on the structure. Read those words again, and see how close they come to being a song lyric from someone like Paul Simon or a poem from Maya Angelou. Its a love poem. Not a textbook.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 10 2006, 01:09 PM) [snapback]237680[/snapback]</div>

Galaxee: I don't get what you're saying here. Clarify pls?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Apr 10 2006, 07:25 PM) [snapback]237857[/snapback]</div>

I wrote several paragraphs, and then I had a realization and deleted them, because:

A true Christian probably wouldn't rise to the bait.

Suffice it to say that someone who is truly like Christ ("Christian"):

a) isn't rascist,

b.) would not accept that there's any other way to God through other faiths, idols, or through human works and deeds (pluralism -- "it's all okay if we all respect each other, and all faiths are equally valid, important, and true!")

C.) accepts all other human beings as equally deserving of love and respect, regardless of whether or not those people believe as he does!

 

If the human race is an example of intelligent design then someplace the drawing instrument slipped and made a terrible blot on the paper.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 10 2006, 11:11 PM) [snapback]237936[/snapback]</div>

There is a belief that animals do not have a concept of time and that man invented time to keep everything from happening at the same instant. So if you apply this to the "days" in Genesis then the proposition that everything happened in 7 days is not so farfetched.

That being said, when you look at some of the people that are currently running things I propose that these are the best cases to use against intelligent design. Who (or what) would "design" something that would make such a mess of things. h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zapranoth @ Apr 10 2006, 10:49 PM) [snapback]237928[/snapback]</div>

See (b.) is what I am talking about. Conservative Christians say they are respectful of others... bahbahbah... and when it comes to religion, then all bets are off... then any other views, other than their religion is wrong (or devil worshipping).

And you wonder why People around the world thinks Western Cultures are arrogant?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Apr 10 2006, 07:26 AM) [snapback]237502[/snapback]</div>

Yes, most mainstream christian churches believe that evolution is the tool god used to create life.

When I assert that if there is a god he is intensely cruel, I am not refering to that cruelty that people inflict on each other in the name of religion or greed; I am talking about the processes of nature itself, which existed for billions of years before humankind existed. Most creatures on the Earth live out their lives hungry, and infested by disease and parasites, and end their lives by being torn apart and eaten by something bigger.

The theory that god is a jellyfish is as valid as the theory that god made us in his image. In fact, the jellyfish god is much more logical, since if god is a jellyfish he probably does not care about us, and this would explain why there is absoluetly no evidence of his existence. Tree frogs, cats, snakes, and many other animals have also been suggested as models for god, and a standard line from A.A. is that "Your Higher Power can be anything. It can even be a door knob." So we have door knobs suggested by a fairly large organization as a model for god. The ony model that really is completely at odds with the evidence of the world around us is a "god who loves us."

Evolution, BTW, only means change. It is patently obvious that things change, including living things. Whether this change is directed by an "intelligent creator" or by natural selection, is a separate issue, making the title of this thread a poor choice. It should not be "evolution vs. intelligent design," it should be "Natural selection vs. intelligent design."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 10 2006, 11:20 AM) [snapback]237501[/snapback]</div>

You forgot ONE word:
*BAD* religion is one of the principal causes of preventable suffering in the world today.
Why can't people figure out that there is such a thing as a "good" or a "bad" religion? Why can't they see that some religions, far more than others, have been corrupted and manipulated by the people in power for their own agendas? Does that make the God bad? Why?

Don't even get me started on the origins of the Hellfire doctrine.

Because, you can't have your cake, and eat it too. Jesus, and the entire Bible, leave no doubt that there is only ONE, cramped, narrow path to life. All other religions were created by the Devil to draw people away from serving the only true God:
Acts 4:12 - There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.
John 14:6 - Jesus said to him: "I am the way and the Truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me".
2 Corinthians 11:14 - Satan keeps transforming himself into an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 6:17 - What agreement does God's temple have with idols?...get out from among them, and separate yourselves.
Revelation 18:4,5 - "Get out of her my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind".

Sooo...you think Jesus was a racist, or arrogant, because he believed that he preached the Truth?
Matthew 18:37 - "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the Truth".
However, although Jesus refused to compromise his beliefs, and died for them, its plain to see that he would never have tortured, burned, shot, blown up, or otherwise killed someone who would not accept his "Truth". In fact, his whole life is an example of utmost humility, and he constantly gave counsel on doing good toward ALL. His parable of Good Samaritan especially showed that true Christians show love and good neighborliness to even those who do not believe as we do.

The answer is VERY simple: the Hebrew word for "day" was used much the same as we use it today. It *can* mean a 24 hour day, but it can also be used when referring to an epoch of time. It is not unusual for us to speak of something in our "grandfather's day". According to Old Testament Word Studies the Hebrew word translated "day" has a variety of meanings, including "a long time", or "the time covering an extraordinary event". So, when anyone who wants to take a literalist view of the creative days is just being dogmatic, and going beyond what was written. The Bible was never intended to give us the history of the universe, or even our planet, and its quite evident that the creative days could have been thousands, if not millions, of years in length. In fact, ALL the creative days are referred to as one day, or ONE EPOCH OF TIME.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 10 2006, 09:51 PM) [snapback]237910[/snapback]</div>

I agree with your premise, but it would have been more effective to illustrate your point using the original language, not the translation.

B)

(please excuse the formatting problems)

 

Truth is mutually exclusive.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 10 2006, 11:20 AM) [snapback]237501[/snapback]</div>

As a scientist (not an evolutionary biologist, but I talked to a friend who is, and he basically agrees with me), I respectfully disagree with you. When you say "fact," I think of something that cannot be disputed. However unlikely, can you not admit that it is possible that God put all of the fossils there to "fool" us? Maybe the similarities in our DNA are just because God created us all. If you think these seem artificial and arbitrary, I totally agree with you. However, you can't apply Occam's Razor to religion; religious folks use the saying that "God works in mysterious ways" to wipe their hands of anything that doesn't fit into their world view. There is no reasonable scientific argument that can counter "God works in mysterious ways," since that is, by it's very nature, not a logical argument.

I would say that all evidence points to evolution and that natural selection is the best explanation that we have right now to explain that evolution, but I would never say it was a "fact."

I want to be very clear: I am not a creationist and I think ID is insideous pseudoscience, but if you're going to claim that science is on your side, you need to carefully use the language of science to make your argument.

 

My Bible doesn't mention whether the 7 days of creation were consecutive.

Can the results of genetic engineering be considered to be research into the leading edge of our capabilities for Intelligent Design of new life?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Apr 11 2006, 10:54 AM) [snapback]238084[/snapback]</div>

I agree.

Remember, Science is in constant conflict with Religious Leaders all the time.

Anyone remember when Pope John Paul II officially recognized that Earth rotates around the Sun (1984, I think)? It has always been the Church's view that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Catholics were just 400 years late in even knowing it is the TRUTH? Oh yeah.... Galileo was denounced by the Roman Catholic Church. Guess Galileo was not a devil worshiper after all.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Apr 11 2006, 02:54 PM) [snapback]238115[/snapback]</div>

Oh, c'mon... You make it sound like they refused to believe it until 1984... :lol: More like they never got around to it. Cannon Laws and varying grades of church related doctrines are just like laws in this day and age: you get some weird stuff that has been on the books since the 1700's... There was one in MA law that said something like ALL hotels MUST provide a place for your horse. For which some young attorney turned it into a publicity stunt, and went to one of the best hotels in Boston with a horse, and demanded it be taken care of... :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Apr 11 2006, 12:19 PM) [snapback]238032[/snapback]</div>

Well, in my case, I divide Religious Leaders into two catagories: do-gooders and power-mongers.

Do-gooders lead people into heaven. Power-mongers demand all people conform to their rules and go to heaven at gunpoint if need be.

All religions have members in the Power-monger category. Unfortunate how some people think the ends justify the means...

Ummm, well, one has to accept that the Bible is an accurate reflection of what actually happened. I believe that the reason Fundamentalists require ALL of the Bible (Genesis included) be accepted as the absolute truth is to validate any of Jesus' quotes as the truth too.

My Big Problem with Organized Religion comes from Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard is reported (by people I trust) to have made-up Scientology on a bet. This fact (disputed by people with a vested interest in Scientology) apparently did not prevent it from becoming accepted as a Religion. If one Religion can be made up, why not another? If a move to end its status as a Religion starts now, would any other Religion be willing to prove it wasn't made-up too? As long as Scientology as valid Religion exists, all Religions should be suspect.

So, when people go out of their way to prop-up things like Genesis with Intellegent Design, I think of people propping up Scientology. Nobody with a vested interest seems to be willing to conceed fraud on either part...

 

Freedom of religion, if I understand the concept correctly, allows us to proclaim our beliefs, whatever they may be, without the justification of evidence or rational explanation. If it's acceptable to say "I believe...", it should be equally acceptable to say "I don't believe..."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 11 2006, 12:06 PM) [snapback]238120[/snapback]</div>

Yeah I know. But it was serious back then to have Galileo removed from their exclusive club because he thought differently.... so different that it conflicted the church's own teaching (Bible study if you will).

It is same here with the Evolution theory now. Since we don't have that final prove yet, some are opposed to even "believe" it is "possible"... and pointing at the Bible as prove.

Just drawing historical context of how Science and Regilion cannot be both right. And in the case of Galileo, Science won over Religion... or Did we? :lol:

TO BE CONTINUED....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Apr 11 2006, 04:42 PM) [snapback]238182[/snapback]</div>

Actually, Galileo was EXTREMELY religious, as were many other great men of science, like Newton. Therefore, just because their beliefs conflicted with the church in power at the time does not make religion, or the Bible, bad or wrong. You can't use the arguement Catholic Church= Stupid, so Bible= bad. Its like saying A=B, so X must =Y. I get just a little upset when people repeat the garbage (as someone DID earlier) that "the Bible says the earth is flat, so it must be so". NOWHERE does the Bible say the earth is flat, and NOWHERE does it say the earth revolves around the sun. In fact, Psalms talks about the "circle" or "sphere" of the earth, long before that was verified by science. It was SOME religionist's wrong interpretation, or deliberate twisting of scripture, that asserted such claims. Again, as I stated earlier, the Bible was never intended to be a science book, so anyone who likes to be dogmatic about their particular interpretation, when it comes to scientific issues, is going beyond what is written.
Its also ridiculous for someone to say "Science and Religion cannot be both right" when both are HUGELY diversified fields of study, and I seriously doubt if anyone has studied ALL science and ALL religions, so as to be able to justify that statement.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Apr 11 2006, 02:18 PM) [snapback]238212[/snapback]</div>

So are you saying that Evolution and Gensis can both happen? Please clarify.