login
Evolution and Creationism
-
No new posts
|
 2010-10-12 2:35 PM |
Champion  15211   Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL |  Subject: Evolution and CreationismSo as not to hijack the "Life on other planet's" thread. Are Evolution and Creationism mutually exclusive? And to throw in a side debate, should Intelligent Design be taught as part of the scientific curriculum?
I'll start. 1. Yes. 1 is belief, the other is theory. 2. No. I can't see ID being tested, scientifically. It is not a theory that can be tested. It is a belief.
|
| 2010-10-12 2:38 PM in reply to: #3147876 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism crowny2 - 2010-10-12 3:35 PM 1. Yes. 1 is belief, the other is theory. Why does that, in and of itself, make them mutually exclusive? It would seem that would support the idea that they are not mutually exclusive. Maybe I don't fully understand what makes someone a creationist. Can a creationist view the creation story as an allegory? Edited by Goosedog 2010-10-12 2:39 PM |
| 2010-10-12 2:43 PM in reply to: #3147885 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Goosedog - 2010-10-12 2:38 PM crowny2 - 2010-10-12 3:35 PM 1. Yes. 1 is belief, the other is theory. Why does that, in and of itself, make them mutually exclusive? It would seem that would support the idea that they are not mutually exclusive. Maybe I don't fully understand what makes someone a creationist. Can a creationist view the creation story as an allegory? Most often, or at least, stereotypically, creationists view creation not as an allegory, but as a fact. |
| 2010-10-12 2:49 PM in reply to: #3147908 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism crowny2 - 2010-10-12 3:43 PM Goosedog - 2010-10-12 2:38 PM crowny2 - 2010-10-12 3:35 PM 1. Yes. 1 is belief, the other is theory. Why does that, in and of itself, make them mutually exclusive? It would seem that would support the idea that they are not mutually exclusive. Maybe I don't fully understand what makes someone a creationist. Can a creationist view the creation story as an allegory? Most often, or at least, stereotypically, creationists view creation not as an allegory, but as a fact. But ah, see that was my point in the other thread. I am able to rationalize both life on other planets (and evolution) and creation theory. I have both faith and am a scientist. I view the creation theory as an allegory, a story that explain something that human minds would not normally be able to understand. I also find nothing in the bible that specifically contradicts evolution. I think there are more who share this opinion that many believe. Too often "creationists" and "evolutionists" are put at opposite ends of the spectrum with no possibility of the two theories coexisting. |
| 2010-10-12 2:52 PM in reply to: #3147876 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism I never read the book, but I remember some of the summaries of Francis Collins' "The Language of God." Collins directed the Human Genome Project and essentially made the argument that the two are not mutually exclusive. I liked that argument, but he may not be stereotypical. Here is a short interview with Collins on the topic: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/january/32.62.html |
| 2010-10-12 2:53 PM in reply to: #3147920 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 2:49 PM crowny2 - 2010-10-12 3:43 PM Goosedog - 2010-10-12 2:38 PM crowny2 - 2010-10-12 3:35 PM 1. Yes. 1 is belief, the other is theory. Why does that, in and of itself, make them mutually exclusive? It would seem that would support the idea that they are not mutually exclusive. Maybe I don't fully understand what makes someone a creationist. Can a creationist view the creation story as an allegory? Most often, or at least, stereotypically, creationists view creation not as an allegory, but as a fact. But ah, see that was my point in the other thread. I am able to rationalize both life on other planets (and evolution) and creation theory. I have both faith and am a scientist. I view the creation theory as an allegory, a story that explain something that human minds would not normally be able to understand. I also find nothing in the bible that specifically contradicts evolution. I think there are more who share this opinion that many believe. Too often "creationists" and "evolutionists" are put at opposite ends of the spectrum with no possibility of the two theories coexisting. Problem is, there is no way of testing the creationist ID hypothesis. And you have to admit, as a scientist, that at this point, it is a hypothesis and not a theory. |
| 2010-10-12 2:54 PM in reply to: #3147876 |
Champion 4942 Richmond, VA | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism err, a co-worker of mine has the following "side project" http://www.scienceministries.org/ she is a PhD (so of course signs everything with "Dr.") and has a "ministry" that attempts to merge science and the bible. i don't know much about it (or her for that matter) as she works in a different office, but it makes for some interesting stories... |
| 2010-10-12 2:55 PM in reply to: #3147936 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism crowny2 - 2010-10-12 3:53 PM Problem is, there is no way of testing the creationist ID hypothesis. And you have to admit, as a scientist, that at this point, it is a hypothesis and not a theory. But, understanding creationism necessarily involves faith, this doesn't mean the two are mutually exclusive. |
| 2010-10-12 2:55 PM in reply to: #3147920 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 3:49 PM crowny2 - 2010-10-12 3:43 PM Goosedog - 2010-10-12 2:38 PM crowny2 - 2010-10-12 3:35 PM 1. Yes. 1 is belief, the other is theory. Why does that, in and of itself, make them mutually exclusive? It would seem that would support the idea that they are not mutually exclusive. Maybe I don't fully understand what makes someone a creationist. Can a creationist view the creation story as an allegory? Most often, or at least, stereotypically, creationists view creation not as an allegory, but as a fact. But ah, see that was my point in the other thread. I am able to rationalize both life on other planets (and evolution) and creation theory. I have both faith and am a scientist. I thought you were an engineer.  |
| 2010-10-12 2:57 PM in reply to: #3147876 |
Extreme Veteran 756 Mexico! | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism |
 2010-10-12 2:59 PM in reply to: #3147876 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. Edited by AcesFull 2010-10-12 2:59 PM |
| 2010-10-12 3:00 PM in reply to: #3147943 |
| Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Goosedog - 2010-10-12 2:55 PM crowny2 - 2010-10-12 3:53 PM Problem is, there is no way of testing the creationist ID hypothesis. And you have to admit, as a scientist, that at this point, it is a hypothesis and not a theory. But, understanding creationism necessarily involves faith, this doesn't mean the two are mutually exclusive. I'm looking at it from a purly scientific side, but I can tell you some strict fundamentalists also state that they see them as mutually exclusive. |
| 2010-10-12 3:00 PM in reply to: #3147876 |
| Champion 10668 Tacoma, Washington | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism I don't for a minute think that they are mutually exclusive, nor do I think either one is entirely right. Intelligent design (directed evolution) is more my thoughts. Should it be taught in schools? I think yes. I think ALL of the theories/"facts" should be taught, and then let the student deign which is right FOR THEM based on whatever criteria they choose. What I find amusing is how adamant either "side" gets that they are right and the other is wrong. The only real fact is that we don't know, may never know, and it's all just opinion and arm waving. |
| 2010-10-12 3:01 PM in reply to: #3147953 |
| Extreme Veteran 756 Mexico! | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism AcesFull - 2010-10-12 2:59 PM The problem here is with the premise. Evolution is NOT a theory. It is well-proven fact. Referring to evolution as "theory" would be like referring to the "theory" of water boiling at 100C. really? are you sure? |
| 2010-10-12 3:01 PM in reply to: #3147876 |
| Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Some people sure put a lot of faith in unproven stuff on both sides of this fence. |
| 2010-10-12 3:03 PM in reply to: #3147944 |
| Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism trinnas - 2010-10-12 3:55 PM I thought you were an engineer. I am.. engineers are scientists who actually do things |
| 2010-10-12 3:05 PM in reply to: #3147953 |
| Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism AcesFull - 2010-10-12 3:59 PM Evolution is NOT a theory. It is well-proven fact. I am not much of a creationist and certainly NOT a scientist, but I have a hard time agreeing with this statement unless it's followed by a qualifier such as "based on current information available." I would assume, but can't name, that there have been plenty of "well-proven facts" that later were shown to be incorrect. |
| 2010-10-12 3:06 PM in reply to: #3147970 |
| Champion 14571 the alamo city, Texas | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Goosedog - 2010-10-12 4:05 PM AcesFull - 2010-10-12 3:59 PM Evolution is NOT a theory. It is well-proven fact. I am not much of a creationist and certainly NOT a scientist, but I have a hard time agreeing with this statement unless it's followed by a qualifier such as "based on current information available." I would assume, but can't name, that there have been plenty of "well-proven facts" that later were shown to be incorrect. Pluto? |
| 2010-10-12 3:07 PM in reply to: #3147953 |
| Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism AcesFull - 2010-10-12 3:59 PM The problem here is with the premise. Evolution is NOT a theory. It is well-proven fact. Referring to evolution as "theory" would be like referring to the "theory" of water boiling at 100C. The primary problem with Creationism being taught is that it is inherently anti-scientific, in that it starts with truth, and works backward to find "proof" of this "truth." Science operates in the opposite manner. It starts with not knowing and seeks, wherever possible, to disprove what is believed to be true. Aces you are incorrect. The scientific method has the following steps 1. Create hypothesis 2. Test hypothesis 3. Determine if data supports the hypothesis 4. Repeat experiment making sure the outcome is the same So far this has not been accomplished with evolution. There is strong evidence that evolution is a mechanism that is happening in our world however the origin of the creation of life on our planet (in any format) has never been proven. Therefore it is a theory Edited by TriRSquared 2010-10-12 3:08 PM |
| 2010-10-12 3:09 PM in reply to: #3147964 |
| Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 4:03 PM trinnas - 2010-10-12 3:55 PM I thought you were an engineer. I am.. engineers are scientists who actually do things Ha!! Engineers only know how to do things Scientists know why they are done. |
| 2010-10-12 3:10 PM in reply to: #3147958 |
| Pro 4311 Texas | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Prince of Denmar - 2010-10-12 3:01 PM AcesFull - 2010-10-12 2:59 PM The problem here is with the premise. Evolution is NOT a theory. It is well-proven fact. Referring to evolution as "theory" would be like referring to the "theory" of water boiling at 100C. really? are you sure? He may think he is, but that would be wrong. Evolution is absolutely a theory. It seems to me he doesn't grasp the difference between theory in science & theory in every day vernacular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory This doesn't mean Evolution is wrong by any means, but stating it as a fact is technically incorrect. ETA: Back on the subject, yes. Creationism & Evolution are mutually exclusive. Edited by JBrashear 2010-10-12 3:11 PM |
| 2010-10-12 3:10 PM in reply to: #3147970 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2010-10-12 3:12 PM in reply to: #3147987 |
| Expert 1111 Katy, TX | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism trinnas - 2010-10-12 3:09 PM TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 4:03 PM trinnas - 2010-10-12 3:55 PM I thought you were an engineer. I am.. engineers are scientists who actually do things Ha!! Engineers only know how to do things Scientists know why they are done. NERD ALERT!!!!  |
| 2010-10-12 3:13 PM in reply to: #3147993 |
| Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism AcesFull - 2010-10-12 4:10 PM Again, that is the primary issue with Creationism, it does NOT include the qualifier "based on current information available." Of course not. It is based on faith. Why would that be an issue, in the context of whether or not the two are mutually exclusive? |
| 2010-10-12 3:13 PM in reply to: #3147876 |
| Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Evolution is hardly a well-proven "fact". Scientists can still not remotely explain the "divine spark" (i.e. the HUGE jump from inanimate chemicals and elements to animate life.) That said, I have no problem buying that constant, ongoing evolution is part of a Divine Creator's plan. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK