Evolution and Creationism

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

I figured that this would come up eventually, so I've got some ground rules, because this is touchy subject. Pretty much, all the normal rules apply, but DOUBLE. Be respectful, make your posts matter, and keep a cool head. No bashing. Period.

The topic:
arrow What are your thoughts on the Evolution versus Creationism debate? Should both or neither be taught in schools? Are the two trains of thought exclusive from each other? Etc, etc.

My thoughts:

I've been studying evolution and planetary science in general for pretty much all of my life. Currently, I'm majoring in Environmental Sciences at my university (if you really want to know where I go PM me, but otherwise I don't want it to affect the discussion). Basically, the biggest misconception about evolution is that it's "Just a Theory." Theories, by the scientific definition, are not just guesses or hunches. A theory is a "logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence." Basically, that means it's just short of becoming scientific LAW. You know gravity? That also is a scientific theory. E=mc^2? Another theory. These are models which have been tested time and time again, and always with the same results. That is the process of the scientific method.

What's wrong with Creationism? It is NOT science. It believes that "humans, life, the Earth, and the universe have a miraculous origin in a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention." In order for it to be science, we would have to determine what is supernaturally created, and what is naturally created, then devise and perform experiments in order to test any hypotheses we might have. As the nature of "supernatural intervention," it is IMPOSSIBLE to perform this type of experiment, and thus forth CANNOT BE PROVEN. The same goes for "intelligent design," which basically Creationism under a different name. We would have to find some way to separate what has been intelligently and un-intelligently designed, then find a way to experiment between the two. Since this cannot be done in any matter involving the experimentation of the existence of supernatural phenomena, it cannot be considered science. You might as well try to prove or disprove the existence of a "supreme being," aka a god/goddess/flying spaghetti monster.

I am not against teaching creationism in schools. I learned the Native American myths of creation in elementary school, along with Norse, Greek, and other archaic societies. Do you know why nobody raises a stink about those? Because nobody cares about them! There are many, many other religions in the world who nobody hears because they are fringe groups that are marginalized by the mainstream population. How many of us know the Hindu creation beliefs? Buddhist? Aborigine? But because Christians make up such a large majority of the populous in the Western world, they push for their agenda. To be honest, I'm not against it. If you want to teach religious beliefs, that's fine as long as it's not taught as truth or science. Teach it in a social studies class, or a religious discussion, and alongside other religions and belief systems. If someone wants to learn more than that, they can ask their local practitioner or do the research themselves.

In summary, religious beliefs are not, and can never be, science and should never be taught as such. Religious beliefs should be taught to students, but as cultural studies and alongside other beliefs.  

[Dilettante]

First off, I'm somewhere in the middle (this should surprise no one who knows me). I'd call myself a believer in Intelligent Design, but that label has been taken by people who use it very differently than I do. stare

I tend to believe that something this complex couldn't possibly be the work of random chance. God had to be involved somehow, whether it was setting the natural laws of the universe that led inexorably to our current setup or whether it was directly creating, or something in between.

I am a Christian, but I don't believe the world was created 4,004 years before Christ. The bible has a lot of metaphors in it; the Jews loved metaphors. Much of the Old Testament is based on Jewish culture, and errors have crept in over the millennia. One example is that Genesis has two, separate creation stories, where a few details are different. Very odd.

But that doesn't mean we should discount it entirely. Science and religion aren't opposites, as much as many people wish they were. I know quite a few scientists who have told me that the more they learn about the universe, history, or biology, the more they believe in God. Western culture has a lot to do with religion, and a lot to do with science, and it would be cruel to detach either from the education system (note: I am aware you weren't suggesting this).

Personally, I figure that if God really was speaking to the Israelis (or Adam and Eve, or whomever), he probably had a hard time making them understand how things worked.

God: "LO, I HAVE CREATED ALL THAT IS AROUND YOU."
Adam: "What, God? The hill?"
God: "THE HILL, THE TREES, THE AIR YOU BREATHE, AND BEYOND."
Eve: "Beyond the hill? Like...that other hill?"
God: "AND BEYOND EVEN THAT. THE STARS THEMSELVES...AND OTHER GALAXIES."
Adam: "Gal-whats? Is that like the moon?"
God: "IT IS TO THE MOON AS THE MOON IS TO A SPECK OF DUST."
Adam: "So...it's...yellow? Dusty? Big?"
God: "SUFFICE IT TO SAY IT IS IMMENSE."
Adam: "Right. So when did you create the universe, God?"
God: "IT HAS TAKEN SIX BILLION YEARS TO REACH ITS CURRENT FORM."
Eve: "What's a billion?"
God: "A THOUSAND MILLIONS."
Eve: "What's a--"
God: "A THOUSAND THOUSANDS. MORE BLADES OF GRASS THAN ARE ON THIS HILL."
Eve: "Right, right, and what's a year again?"
God: "OH, FOR *MY* SAKE!"

Anyway, I find it interesting that when you read Genesis, the order of the days is very similar to the order in which scientists claim Evolution to have taken place. This to me suggests that both have their points.

I remember a joke once where a fellow prayed to God, saying "Lord, to you a million years is a second...and a million miles is an inch, right? Well, can I have a penny?" and God replied: "SURE. IN A SECOND."

Well - what if the days in Genesis were not literal days, but 'the length of time needed'? Then the two theories would have very few differences.

Now, as to whether or not evolution should be taught alongside creationism, or whether creationism should be left in social studies class (a class, might I add, not available when I went to high school): I think it would be doing a disservice if we taught them in separate classes.

When I studied psychology in university, we often dealt with competing theories by presenting both (all) of them at once, presenting both proofs and criticisms, and letting students make up their own minds. In fact, on exams, students were forced to choose a theory and defend it against the others!

To me, this would be far more educational to the students than simply presenting one (or the other) as truth, and the other as a 'theory'.

Since both secularists and creationists are certain of their theories, I suggest that neither should be worried about letting people make up their own minds: they should be willing to let students judge each theory on their own right, knowing the criticisms and proofs others have suggested, and making an informed decision on their own.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Be still my beating heart. Good post, you win a gold star.

I'm afraid, however, that you're giving people a lot of credit. Maybe it's just the cynism talking, but teaching non-science as equal to science in a science course would be incredibly foolish. If the Creationist theory was an actual scientific criticism and had experimentation and research to support its argument, then yes, by all means, teach it in science class.

But due to the nature of it being a reactionary argument against an established theory, and it not having any actual data to support itself, I don't see how it could possibly have a place in that sort of environment. I came across an interesting analogy some time ago, and I hope to do it justice.

Let's say that we're in a math class, and one person says that Function A won't work on the number "1000" because it's not feasible for some odd reason. Lo and behold, the teacher uses Function A on 1000, and everything works. The person then says that it may work on 1000, but won't work on 1000000, because it's so much bigger.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Creationist arguements don't actually assert anything, just negate evolution because they claim that it is impossible, or improbable to such a degree that it's neglible. That's my biggest beef with the move to teach them equally, that one is an actual science that has been tested and researched for pretty much 200 years now, and the other, while older, has no testing or research behind it.

Maybe it's just my opinon as a science guy, but I'd like some actual data in my hands before I believe something. Heck, even just a logical argument of the physical phenomena that occured would probably tide me over. But Creationism, and Intelligent Design, don't do that. They have no explanation of HOW things happen.

I'm an agnostic, personally, and I'll be ready to believe in the big G when I've got some proof of his existence. But I'm fine with people who have faith, no matter what it is. Heck, one of my favorite writers worships the Snake God (a gold star if you can guess who). But in the words of someone who I can't remember, "Science explains the how, religion explains the why."

I guess I took a lot of space to say that I more or less agree with you, and I hope I've clarified my position.  

[Midnight Blue Phoenix]

In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded. Then it became the universe. Then rocks got wet, the water got shocked, and life came into existence. The life grew. The life happened to find a similar life of an opposite gender that had also conveniently come into existence at the same time frame and in the same area. Both lifeforms happened to have perfectly compatible reproductive systems, and both inherently, through the result of random jolts of electricity, knew exactly how to make use of those systems. Then life mutated, gaining and losing qualities depending on its mood.

This is supposed to be science?  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

I'm sorry, but what was the point of that post?

Please clarify and form a coherent argument.

EDIT: Okay, I spent some time browsing your posts, and I think I've figured out what you were trying to say.

Assuming that your argument is that the science behind the Big Bang theory and the origin of life is fantastic and unbelievable, I will respond.

What you have, is a gross simplification of the physical phenomena involved. I suggest that you study the scientific research and data behind your assumptions before bashing its credibility. The Big Bang theory itself is still being contested, as is te nature of most current scientific theories. What the theory is based on, however, is that the galaxies and other celestial objects are currently expanding at an exponential rate, as measured by advanced space monitering telescopes and other sensetive equipment. While I'm afraid that I cannot fully explain how the equipment works personally, I can assure you that it is working, and I can put you in touch with some very credible sources if you are curious.

Basically, my point is that while the whole process seems a bit difficult to comprehend at the moment, that's no reason to say that it isn't credible. Science has centuries of research and volumes of data. Unless you plan on going as far as to dispute the credibility of millions of scientists throughout history, there's still something tangible to go off of. If you do plan on doing that, then you might as well send us back to the time of Galileo, who was imprisoned by the Church because they didn't believe in science that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of our system. Or back to Copernicus, who Galileo got his idea from.

Religion has no tangible arguments, only what is stated in the Bible, which can only be considered a source secondary to actually observing the physical world around us.

Some sources you might find useful:

A basic overview of the Big Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html

On the origin of life and a bit on evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/index.shtml
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/07/0709_sexorigin.html

Actually, I just found this particular site that you might like:
http://www.godandscience.org/  

[Nadian]

Best short summary of Intelligent Design (and why it's not science): somewhere, somehow, something is wrong with evolution.

Best counter-example of why Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory: Relativity specifically said what was wrong with Newtonian Mechanics (no speed limit in formulas), specifically explained why Newtonian Mechanics seemed correct (slow-enough speeds collapse into simpler equations), and Relativity introduced new tests that would be false under Newtonian Mechanics but true under Relativity. One can't help but notice that Intelligent Design (with respect to Evolution) fails to do any of these.

Funniest Intelligent Design blunder: it is well recognized that Intelligent Design is the same old Scientific Creationism with blatant attempts to hide the religious purposes by removing religious references (including removing references to God) in order to sound more scientific, yet Intelligent Design's greatest weakness is that in order for it to actually be more scientific it needs to make assumptions about the designer in order to explain specifically why something that we claim is designed actually is so. Oops.

Greatest parody of this Intelligent Design blunder: Flying Spaghetti Monster, bless his noodly appendages. Ramen!


Payne-sempai: The scenario you've typed out sounds like it could be either making fun of creationism or trolling using a terrible terrible terrible understanding of what science actually says. Ambiguity does not a good argument make. Please seek more coherent and better worded posts, no matter which position you're arguing for or against.

If it's supposed to be suggesting problems with Evolution there are two things to note:

1) Cosmology, Geology, and Abiogenesis are not a part of Evolution and trying to lump them in with Evolution would demonstrate that the arguer really has malicious intentions towards ALL of science. (Evolution only deals with the origin of species, not the origins of life, the planet, or the universe.)

2) Like dboyzero has said, it demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of all these aspects of science.

(However, if your post wasn't trying to make a point about science then these don't really apply to you but they're good things to know anyways.)

Edit: Darn it! This post ended up much longer than I intended... >.<  

[wonderdummy]

Neither is a proven theory what the neutrals have said sums it up

There is no evidence that God exists and none that he doesn't

Evolution could mean that ^HE just got bored, or decided that he needed to change something

Don't yell at me because you think he's perfect
once again there is no evidence



God might even decid he needs a long talk with me after this

oh well xp  

[Nadian]

In science nothing can be "proven" ... only made much more likely by further evidence. The Theory of Evolution has been around for, what, 150 years? Although the details have been refined and changed the core ideas are more or less the same. It is one of the better established scientific theories around. In other words, it's one of the stronger scientific theories around and probably more true than Newtonian Mechanics (which was a very good approximation but fails many common cases.)

Neither is a proven "theory" but only creationism/Intelligent Design sits in the same pot as "last thursdayism", IE while there's mountains of PHYSICAL evidence for evolution, creationism by its very nature could be true but is as likely to be true as saying "the world was created last thursday and your memories and the evidence around you was also created at that time but the world was really created then."

In other words, your post does betray some ignorance of science, but the good news is that you were definitely better (by far) than the most retarded anti-evolution argument ever: It is only a THEORY (hint: it's the most retarded because it demonstrates that the arguer doesn't know what a theory really is)  

[manilow]

I agree with all of the evolutino supporters. Evolution is a scientifically proven theory. Creationism/Intelligent Design is not science, it is religion. It is beliefs. Religion was created many years ago, by people who claimed they saw God, and wrote books to tell their story.

I saw something on the History Channel a while ago, about how the churches had to remove some books of the Bible to make a Standard Bible. Many of those books had conflicting theories about important stories in the Bible, from God creating the Hevanes and the Earth, to the end of the world in Revelations.

And, like another poster here said, there are still conflicting stories in chapters of the Bible.

And, the Old Testament was written for the Torah, the Jewish Bible. So that is not the Christian's work, they just stole the Jewish Bible for the first five books of their Bible.

I have two points, that I quote constantly:

1. Why is God loving and forgiving in the New Testament, but angry and vengeful in the Old Testament?

2. Teach science in a science class, and study religion in church, or in a social studies class. Do not teach theories about religion in a science class. That's why it's called SCIENCE. Science can be proven. Religion cannot be proven either way (We can't prove there is a God, but wee can't prove God doesn't exist either.) Because the only time you would see him if he did exist, is when you die.  

[psyq]

Payne-sempai

In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded. Then it became the universe. Then rocks got wet, the water got shocked, and life came into existence. The life grew. The life happened to find a similar life of an opposite gender that had also conveniently come into existence at the same time frame and in the same area. Both lifeforms happened to have perfectly compatible reproductive systems, and both inherently, through the result of random jolts of electricity, knew exactly how to make use of those systems. Then life mutated, gaining and losing qualities depending on its mood.

This is supposed to be science?

It is clear that your intention here was to distort (and in a very crude way) dboyzero's argument for the simple reason that you disagree with it. Your religiously provoked disgust is not a reason valid enough to put words in his mouth. This mock, this fictional tale to which you have resorted in order to discredit science (for the mere fact that you find it heretical), can only be considered an insult. If your idea of civilized discussion is to post a fanatical provocation and then disguise it as an argument, then you're completely wrong. Perhaps you should seek more believable arguments before posting. Next time be sure that your intention is to defend your argument without having the need to alter something to your convenience. You don't have to base yourself on facts or scientific explanations, it will suffice to hear your personal opinion and the opinion of those whom you highly respect. I may sound rough, but I'm just saying the same thing that you said in a more direct way, without the need of a mocking and humiliating disguise.

Side note- Sorry for reviving this dead topic, but I was unable to control myself. Once again, I'm sorry.  

[Martian Princess]

Payne-sempai

In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded. Then it became the universe. Then rocks got wet, the water got shocked, and life came into existence. The life grew. The life happened to find a similar life of an opposite gender that had also conveniently come into existence at the same time frame and in the same area. Both lifeforms happened to have perfectly compatible reproductive systems, and both inherently, through the result of random jolts of electricity, knew exactly how to make use of those systems. Then life mutated, gaining and losing qualities depending on its mood.

This is supposed to be science?

Actually, no! The good news is that almost none of what you described above is part of current scientific theories. Your statements are not only grossly oversimplified, they are also wildly inaccurate.

Other people have done a pretty good job debunking your other arguments, so just for example I will point out that gender is a relatively recent invention on the evolutionary time scale. For the first organisms, asexual reproduction was the way to go. They didn't need to have "perfectly compatible reproductive systems" because they just divided. Nor did they "gain and lose qualities depending on their mood." They gained and lost qualities based on random mutations, selected for by external pressures.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Guys, I hate to break it to you, but I very much doubt that he still visits this guild, much less this forum, as he hasn't made a post in quite some time. There's no need to bring back back dead threads with repetitive arguments.  

[Martian Princess]

Whoops, sorry. I saw that it was at the top of the page and didn't notice when the first post was made, just the last one.  

[bfdhshsgvjggh]

I see no fault in teaching evolution in schools. In a way I think it might cause some form of unity among youngsters who learn it. It may stave off racism and ethnic stereotyping because they may look and say to each other "we all came from the same apes, so why are we fighting?" The problem with creation stories is that it says "our race was created this way, and the other races were created differently. Because they weren't created the same as us, we have to treat them as lower life forms."

This is why the Japanese are (speaking generally, mind) very nationalistic and stuck-up, for example. The creation story of shintoism states that the island of Nippon came from a part of the gods themselves, and that it was the first island to emerge. Everything else came later.


I'm a pantheist agnostic. I find truth and fault in every belief system, and that by understanding every religion and anti-religion's point of view, rather than just writing it off as naivity or "wrong", we learn more about ourselves and our world. This way of thinking applies to pretty much every faith. Sikhism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Islam, hell even beliefs that would not be considered religions like atheism and agnosticism.

SIDE NOTE: I heard a scientist once say "you don't have to be either a creationist or an evolutionist. Evolutionists are not always atheists. Some hold onto their belief systems strongly yet believe in evolution." I found that nice.


If we teach the Christian creation story in schools, I say we have to teach OTHER creation stories in schools as well. We have to teach what the Hindus, Aboriginals, and other races/cultures believe. It presents us with options, yes, but also it presents people with the other views of those people so they don't seem entirely alien to us.  

[HereThereAndBackAgain]

Just a couple of days ago I bought for the first time a magazine called ‘Skeptic’. And oddly enough Intelligent Design is one of the forms in it.

As I’m not religious or scientific, I’m going on limited knowledge and my own belief system.

I do think it’s odd that our world wound up in a ‘perfect position’ to support life and not be utterly destroyed by anything. But I also believe this is a big universe and we may just be a small percentage of ‘lucky’ planets.

As many people said before, Intelligent Design or Creationism simply has not evidence to back it up.

Basically before Intelligent Design can be taught as a science they should plot out the timeline of evolution and show what was ‘design’ and was ‘chance’. Unfortunately this leaves people needing to figure out what was done by evolution and what was done by design. And then how it was done instead of, as one person in the magazine pointed out, ‘a miracle occurred here’.

Maybe it is a good idea in at least one class to teach Intelligent Design, or the idea of it. To point out that evolution doesn’t account for everything, that there is a possibility that ‘something out there’ had a hand in our working. Or maybe we were just very lucky. To maybe encourage students to find out what accounts for the things science at it’s current point can’t account for, supernatural or not.