Evolutionism vs. Creationism: Why - Page 3

northstar · 03-26-2005, 02:30 PM

I have no problem with teaching creationism in schools, as long as it's in the appropriate context. Evolution is based on science. Creationism is based on philosophy.

Teach the theory of Evolution in the Physical Science class, and teach the theory of Intelligent Design in Humanities, or whatever class handles philosophical matters. Seems like a rational concept, but unfortunately, policy makers and politicians want to either protect or advance their political agendas.

In the end, the real casualties are students and the integrity of their education.

Newbeing · 03-26-2005, 02:37 PM

We had this dicussion once in High school, about teaching creationism I mean.

My question is, if one form of religions theory of creationism is taught, why shouldn't other religions creationism theories be taught as well?

But I can see what your saying.

The kids that argued for teaching creationism seemed to be greatly against the teaching of evolution (though they didn't openly admit it) and there excuse was "science is a form of religion" which I guess could be true in some sense, but when teaching evolution there are, well, facts. Creationism doesn't require any process or hands on theory, such as experiments.

So once again they are split in that sense as philosophy and science. I guess its just better to think of it that way :/

northstar · 03-26-2005, 03:07 PM

My understanding of Intelligent Design theory is that they use a very broad concept, so it doesn't really matter what religion the student belongs to.

They don't so much teach from any particular religious perspective, they just teach from the general idea of creationism by a higher power. But my problem with it, is if it's implemented in a science class. Intelligent Design is not science, it's philosophy. You don't teach philosophy in a science class. That's just a stupid idea.

KayaYautja · 04-07-2005, 07:56 PM

When I read the Bible I realize that it has been filtered through the generations through translations. I just look at the whole story and interpret(sp?) it the way I see it. Not the word for word crap but what its meaning is. When I was little and was asked to quote scripture I would just tell the sunday school teacher what I thought it ment, and when she/he asked me to read an actual quote I would just simply ask "Which version is God's true word." Would usually shut em up

I've always believed that even though certain words might have been changed, the meaning of the story has stayed the same.

So for the whole creationism and evolutionism thing I just combine em both and look at God creating the world in a "cause and effect" type of way. He would create something, then wait a bit for the desired effect to take place, then add a little something else and repeat.

But then again, I have always compared to trying to think about what God is thinking about is like a dog trying to understand what a human is thinking about. I mean God is considered a higher being (that is if you believe in him) so I guess the way He made things or whatnot will always lead us to another question....

Oh no I have gone cross-eyed.... :-\

Conner Macleod · 05-01-2005, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by J A Eyers:
Temples have existed since people first started worshipping the sun 5000 years ago (perhaps more). Churches are just the modern incarnation of temples.

Actually it began 7000 years ago with Hinduism, the world's oldest established religion. I suppose it goes back even further with the Egyptians whose religions trace back 12,000 years.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dempsey:
If the big band theory is proven, as well as evolution, then god has absolutely no place...anywhere.

Does this theory begin with the phrase "And this one time at band camp..."?

Seriously though, whatever science proves, god will always have a place within people's rationale.

Quote:

Originally posted by Newbeing:
But in anycase it can be hypothesized, theorized or whathaveyou up the ying yang.

Not to be a typographical Nazi, but it's yin not ying, which is a common mistake. That aside your post was excellent and I agree with the points you made. Religion/philosophy steps in where science ends.

On topic, I think an important distinction needs to be made between the Bible and creationism since some people seem to be lumping them together. There is nothing really wrong with combining the Bible's teachings with science since there is a lot of wisdom in the writings which can be applied to science as far as ethics go and what not, but the problem lies with a literal interpretation of the text, such as creationism, which is virtually like a religion in and of itself.

The way I view the Bible is that it's really no different than, for example, Native Americans' creation stories about mother earth giving birth to life, and all the symbolism between animals and humans, etc. Their oral tales passed down from generation to generation are essentially the same at least in principle when compared to the Bible, except it just happens to be written down. The purpose of these creation tales were to give people some kind of concept of how all things came about, as well as to teach good moral values about how one should interact with the world and that one should respect mother nature and the earth that sustains life. Anyway the point of all this is that it is a life teaching tool, and its purpose is to maintain some kind of order in society. None of it is really meant to be taken literally, but rather to impart some kind of wisdom onto the people. Science wasn't really around at the time when any of these religions were created, at least not in the sense that it is now, so naturally it isn't meant to be viewed in academic terms. To do so would be silly. It's all metaphorical.

As Northstar pointed out, creationism should if anything be taught in religion/philosophy classes since it isn't based on anything scientific but rather folk tales of morality and wisdom. Creationism requires a leap of logic so it isn't within the same context as science.

About the interpretation of the 7 days, that's clearly a metaphor. Just look at Jesus who said he would return to earth after 2 days. That didn't mean literally 2 days, it was intentionally vague so that nobody would know exactly when he would return. A common interpretation is that it meant 2000 years, give or take however many years, around the end of days, aka armageddon.

Humans are used to thinking on a very small scale, so the term day is used, but since god has been around forever, a day for it means something entirely different. Even though we know what a billion years means, we don't TRULY understand it since we cannot possibly exist for such a long period of time. It is a foreign concept to us, so instead of saying god spent 576 million years on creating the solar systems on day 1, it's just easier for teaching purposes to say "one day". Also, saying 1 day instead of 3.5 billion years or 2.37 million days, whatever, makes the listener not pay too much attention to the figure so that the message is not lost. People would get too caught up with thinking about and analyzing the length of time rather than trying to decipher the significance of the story, so for simplification or practical purposes, the unit of 7 days is used.

StrangeWill · 05-01-2005, 12:21 PM

I have a problem with teaching Creationism in schools... and why you might ask?

Because I KNOW not every religion will be represented, the majority will probably be the native religion to the reigon therefore you're forcing views instead of teaching them (I like learning about all religions, but I see this as a tool to force religion on young impressionable kids)

I say if they make it so you must teach all viewpoints and it works I'm 100% for it, but I am NOT for brainwashing and converting in our schools.... I want kids to make their own choices based on what they learned about all religions and which one matches their personal beliefs better, not what some teacher shoved down their thoat....

Nightwolf · 07-03-2005, 10:49 PM

Not to bump this up but...

I never noticed but theres this station that my mom listens too. A chirsitain radio station. Where it's usally relgious songs and that sort and they throw in a few talk shows... I never noticed this until now that between breaks sometimes theres this "moment" its called "Beyond Science" and supposely renowned Dr or scientist comes on and comepletly bashes the Evolution theroy and many scientific studies that are conducted. Using big words and misquoted information he makes himself sound Beyond intelligenct. But i can smell bullshit and I smell his.

Is this what it's coming too? Why can't we just put both together? Why must people fight on? Can't we all just get along!?

redxavier · 07-13-2005, 04:10 PM

Why not? I'm mean when you think about it despite the opposition between the two, science and religion, couldn't it be said that they are searching for almost the same thing: truth?

Religion searches for truth? You're having a laugh.

For all we know Eden existed and when we fucked up God erased it created the big bang or whatever and started the human species a new

This really isn't a valid argument to use. For all we know the planet is moved by an enormous invisible pink elephant that's whipped along by a horde of gremlins.

This logical fallacy is known as the argument from ignorance.

ThumperLM · 07-14-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

This really isn't a valid argument to use. For all we know the planet is moved by an enormous invisible pink elephant that's whipped along by a horde of gremlins.

This is ridiculous. An invisible elephant can't be pink. And it's turtles all the way down.

Quote:

Why not? I'm mean when you think about it despite the opposition between the two, science and religion, couldn't it be said that they are searching for almost the same thing: truth?

Religion searches for truth? You're having a laugh.

Religion at one time WAS considered science. It was based on observation, with conclusions draw based on the given observable knowledge at the time. Now, in the face of the "new" religion (science) it is intent more on maintaining itself. What "science" is doing to "religion", newer and newer religions have been doing to each other for many centuries.

However, I could also laugh at science's search for the "truth" in general as well. Why? Well, to be a good scientist, you MUST be an atheist.
God can not be seen, felt, or proven. Basically, if it can't be quantified, qualified, put into a box with a bow on it it can not exist. Specifically, when we are proving a point, do NOT include/discount/state non-existance of anything that you can't measure. Mucks up the results.

Therefore, as a "scientistist", you must also NOT believe in any of the following that have not been "proven":
Dark Matter; Dark Energy; Singularities; Superstrings; Cosmic Strings; Extra Dimensions; Gravity Particles (gravitons); The Big Bang (no, it is not proven, just the most "logical" explanation at this time - still has unresolved issues)
etc...

Yes, there have been calculations, and there have been observations of effects, and there is reasonable certainty of many of these, but proof? Measurements? Tied up, qualified, quantified and placed in a box with a bow? No, but they become the "dogma" of the current times in opposition to Religion.

Unfortunately, it seems that both Religion and Science are extremes in the quest for "truth".

This still holds true when we encounter issues such as Creationism vs. Evolution. Could it be a mixture of both? Why not? Why do we assume that "god" always has to violate/bastardize creation in order to get anything done?

Even so, I am against teaching creationism in schools as part of science. I have to agree with northstar that if you

redxavier · 07-14-2005, 06:51 PM

Well I don't think Science is interested in the truth either, as it is more of a philosophical concept.

And who are you to say that the invisible elephant cannot be pink? I mean occasionally, it might reveal itself... to special people.

Well that's what I've been told.

ThumperLM · 07-15-2005, 09:56 AM

Quote:

And who are you to say that the invisible elephant cannot be pink? I mean occasionally, it might reveal itself... to special people.

Well that's what I've been told.

Simply a matter of consistancy.

If there is an elephant, then yes, it may have revealed itself to special people.

However, if it did reveal itself, then it wouldn't be invisible, now would it? I do not believe that even the elephant would screw with the universe to try something like that. Perhaps it would remain highly transparent with a pink tinge, instead of just pink or invisible (or just black and white, as most elephants are invariably grey)?

redxavier · 07-16-2005, 05:00 AM

But if it was visible, it would be pink. The elephant wears a stealth suit that bends the light around his form, only people with special glasses can see it, and they can see it is pink.. For those who don't want to see the elephant, they see nothing - hence it's invisible.

ThumperLM · 07-18-2005, 10:45 AM

So...

God/Elephant has the means to remain invisible to people in general, occasionally revealing him/her/itself to selected individuals.

We however, with our vast knowledge of God/Elephant, have determined that God/Elephant MUST BE pink.

Further, only an individual that truly believes in God/Elephant, and has some sort of tool/symbology (e.g.: crucifix, holy item, lucky charm, Ouija board, etc.) could be in contact/see him/her/it. Of course, if we just don't believe in God/Elephant, than obviously they must not exist. (Of course, this means I could walk/drive to Hawaii, as I no longer believe in the ocean).

My point was that it is more likely that God/Elephant would use "natural" means of achieving God's/Elephant's goals, rather than just using magical powers that would violate the laws of a universe that he/she/it created. It he/she/it was NOT the creator, it would be even more likely that he/she/it would be bound to affecting change through available means within the universe.

HOWEVER, since this is ALL philosophical speculation, it should still be taught as such, and not taught as science.

03-26-2005, 02:37 PM	#62
Newbeing Featured Creature Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: some dark pit in space.... Posts: 2,287	We had this dicussion once in High school, about teaching creationism I mean. My question is, if one form of religions theory of creationism is taught, why shouldn't other religions creationism theories be taught as well? But I can see what your saying. The kids that argued for teaching creationism seemed to be greatly against the teaching of evolution (though they didn't openly admit it) and there excuse was "science is a form of religion" which I guess could be true in some sense, but when teaching evolution there are, well, facts. Creationism doesn't require any process or hands on theory, such as experiments. So once again they are split in that sense as philosophy and science. I guess its just better to think of it that way :/
	My pudding is trapped forever!

07-03-2005, 10:49 PM	#67
Nightwolf Registered User Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Souderton, PA Posts: 2,919	Can\'t we all just get along?! Not to bump this up but... I never noticed but theres this station that my mom listens too. A chirsitain radio station. Where it's usally relgious songs and that sort and they throw in a few talk shows... I never noticed this until now that between breaks sometimes theres this "moment" its called "Beyond Science" and supposely renowned Dr or scientist comes on and comepletly bashes the Evolution theroy and many scientific studies that are conducted. Using big words and misquoted information he makes himself sound Beyond intelligenct. But i can smell bullshit and I smell his. Is this what it's coming too? Why can't we just put both together? Why must people fight on? Can't we all just get along!?

03-26-2005, 02:30 PM	#61
northstar Registered User Grizzled Veteran Join Date: May 2002 Location: Northern California Posts: 3,142	I have no problem with teaching creationism in schools, as long as it's in the appropriate context. Evolution is based on science. Creationism is based on philosophy. Teach the theory of Evolution in the Physical Science class, and teach the theory of Intelligent Design in Humanities, or whatever class handles philosophical matters. Seems like a rational concept, but unfortunately, policy makers and politicians want to either protect or advance their political agendas. In the end, the real casualties are students and the integrity of their education.

03-26-2005, 03:07 PM	#63
northstar Registered User Grizzled Veteran Join Date: May 2002 Location: Northern California Posts: 3,142	My understanding of Intelligent Design theory is that they use a very broad concept, so it doesn't really matter what religion the student belongs to. They don't so much teach from any particular religious perspective, they just teach from the general idea of creationism by a higher power. But my problem with it, is if it's implemented in a science class. Intelligent Design is not science, it's philosophy. You don't teach philosophy in a science class. That's just a stupid idea.

04-07-2005, 07:56 PM	#64
KayaYautja toolhead Grizzled Veteran Join Date: May 2002 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,343	When I read the Bible I realize that it has been filtered through the generations through translations. I just look at the whole story and interpret(sp?) it the way I see it. Not the word for word crap but what its meaning is. When I was little and was asked to quote scripture I would just tell the sunday school teacher what I thought it ment, and when she/he asked me to read an actual quote I would just simply ask "Which version is God's true word." Would usually shut em up I've always believed that even though certain words might have been changed, the meaning of the story has stayed the same. So for the whole creationism and evolutionism thing I just combine em both and look at God creating the world in a "cause and effect" type of way. He would create something, then wait a bit for the desired effect to take place, then add a little something else and repeat. But then again, I have always compared to trying to think about what God is thinking about is like a dog trying to understand what a human is thinking about. I mean God is considered a higher being (that is if you believe in him) so I guess the way He made things or whatnot will always lead us to another question.... Oh no I have gone cross-eyed.... :-\

05-01-2005, 12:21 PM	#66
StrangeWill Run! Elite Poster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hixson, TN. USA Posts: 13,815	I have a problem with teaching Creationism in schools... and why you might ask? Because I KNOW not every religion will be represented, the majority will probably be the native religion to the reigon therefore you're forcing views instead of teaching them (I like learning about all religions, but I see this as a tool to force religion on young impressionable kids) I say if they make it so you must teach all viewpoints and it works I'm 100% for it, but I am NOT for brainwashing and converting in our schools.... I want kids to make their own choices based on what they learned about all religions and which one matches their personal beliefs better, not what some teacher shoved down their thoat....

07-13-2005, 04:10 PM	#68
redxavier Registered User Forum Fanatic Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 349	Why not? I'm mean when you think about it despite the opposition between the two, science and religion, couldn't it be said that they are searching for almost the same thing: truth? Religion searches for truth? You're having a laugh. For all we know Eden existed and when we fucked up God erased it created the big bang or whatever and started the human species a new This really isn't a valid argument to use. For all we know the planet is moved by an enormous invisible pink elephant that's whipped along by a horde of gremlins. This logical fallacy is known as the argument from ignorance.

07-14-2005, 06:51 PM	#70
redxavier Registered User Forum Fanatic Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 349	Well I don't think Science is interested in the truth either, as it is more of a philosophical concept. And who are you to say that the invisible elephant cannot be pink? I mean occasionally, it might reveal itself... to special people. Well that's what I've been told.

07-16-2005, 05:00 AM	#72
redxavier Registered User Forum Fanatic Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 349	But if it was visible, it would be pink. The elephant wears a stealth suit that bends the light around his form, only people with special glasses can see it, and they can see it is pink.. For those who don't want to see the elephant, they see nothing - hence it's invisible.

07-18-2005, 10:45 AM	#73
ThumperLM Registered User Forum Fledgling Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 128	So... God/Elephant has the means to remain invisible to people in general, occasionally revealing him/her/itself to selected individuals. We however, with our vast knowledge of God/Elephant, have determined that God/Elephant MUST BE pink. Further, only an individual that truly believes in God/Elephant, and has some sort of tool/symbology (e.g.: crucifix, holy item, lucky charm, Ouija board, etc.) could be in contact/see him/her/it. Of course, if we just don't believe in God/Elephant, than obviously they must not exist. (Of course, this means I could walk/drive to Hawaii, as I no longer believe in the ocean). My point was that it is more likely that God/Elephant would use "natural" means of achieving God's/Elephant's goals, rather than just using magical powers that would violate the laws of a universe that he/she/it created. It he/she/it was NOT the creator, it would be even more likely that he/she/it would be bound to affecting change through available means within the universe. HOWEVER, since this is ALL philosophical speculation, it should still be taught as such, and not taught as science.