Evolution or Creation

If we were created by a creator, who created the creator?

A fully formed being with the knowledge and power to create a universe has existed forever. - Is that more or less likely than the huge complexity of life and the symbiosis of the ecosphere that exists on our planet arising purely by chance?

And before you ask, no I don't know either.

 

I think I was having a religious conversion in that biology class! How funny is that?

Funny, but I think true for a lot of people. Science is an awe-inspiring thing.

I wonder if we could digress for a minute and talk about Creation not as something that's up against science/evolution, but as something in its own right. Someone (sorry, I forget who) said that it might not have any place in the world... on that matter, I disagree strongly. I think that the notion of creation (however it was accomplished) serves a purpose in the way we view the world and one another (eg, the old Jewish statement that we were all created from Adam so that no man can say "My ancestors were greater than yours"). I'm concerned about the "debunking" of myths, because myths (whether factually true or not, and it's possible for them to be) have a function in the human mind and human society -- I belive it was Orson Scott Card who said that "There has never been a human society without a powerful story at the center of it" (or something like that, and I doubt he's the only one who's said it). I think the Creation story has a lot speaking for it in that way that evolutionary theory can't duplicate.

Evolutionary theory as story, btw, also has some value, if anyone wants to comment on that. I have to get ready for work.

 

Good thoughts, JediGaladriel!

"No, I understand perfectly that people who don't trust science are naive." --Demodex

Scientific theories are never set in stone. They are constantly updated and clarified. Therefore, it is unwise to blindly accept the latest theories as undisputable fact. In another twenty years, it's entirely possible that those theories will be abandoned for new ones.

"If creationism is true, why do we have appendices? (Not to mention a bunch of other things that make no sense.)" --Jeff 42

They undoubtedly have purposes. Just because we can't measure what they do at this point in time doesn't mean that they don't do anything.

"It's unfortunate the people don't realize that evolution does not contradict the Bible and other religious texts." --Demodex

Genesis clearly states that the earth, plants, and animals were created in six days ("evening and morning" implies that a "day" is indeed a 24-hour period). That looks like a contradiction to me.

 

So we are to take a text that has undergone many translations through numerous generations absolutely literally? What is "six days" to an omnipotent being?
Just a rhetorical question.

Wonderful post about Einstein, Ender. I would have written a longer response, but people already know how I feel about this subject, and I think it would be redundant.

 

To the literalists, the contradiction is clear. I don't envy the struggle scientific reality causes for them, but I don't have much sympathy for it, either. More than anything I resent their frantic intrusions into a study they poorly understand, and thus only clumsily debate. They squawk with outrage when we turn our guns on their pet theories, accusing us of conspiring against faith, when in fact it is our way to assault every theory with fierce skepticism. Evolutionary theory in particular has been under a withering barrage for a century and a half, yet no alternatives have gained any footing against it. Even punctuated equilibrium is little more than a subspecies of traditional gradualism. They must understand that once they enter a scientific discussion, their right to have any opinion at all is based solely on how much evidence they can present and how well their arguments hold up under scrutiny. Creationism has fared very poorly in this regard, so in a scientific context they will never be treated as any more than second class citizens. That may be upsetting to some, but unless they present solid evidence, they've got to accept it's never going to change.

 

"Genesis clearly states that the earth, plants, and animals were created in six days ("evening and morning" implies that a "day" is indeed a 24-hour period). That looks like a contradiction to me."

Well, if you want to believe that... then Genesis is clearly wrong. Unless God is trying to trick us into not believing in his word?

 

you cant take that part of the old testament literally! god explained the creation briefly and in the understanding of the people AT THE TIME. for god's sake they probably didn't even know planets existed out there!!! it says six days and nights because you have to understand that "100 billion years" probably would have been incomrehendable to them! did you know god made 2,000 promises in the bible? TWO-THOUSAND. and he kept every single one of them. god doesnt want us to misunderstand, but to understand. the terms he uses in the bible simply made it easier for humans to understand at the time. god has all the answers, he's just not gonna give em all to us. we have to figure it out for ourselves.
also, in astronomy magazine, i read an interesting article about the beginnings of the universe. it says in the bible that god appeared and there was total darkness. in astronomy magazine it says that at the beginning of the universe, a thck, dark cloud of gas and dust settled over everything.
then in the bible god says he made light. in the magazine it says a few hundred million years later, stars began to form. and it "lit up the universe". then god goes onto explain how he made earth and the SUN and moon, and animals, etc. does it say how? no. then all it says is he created man, and rested, etc. etc. etc.
but my point is, god would not say in the bible he sat around for 300billion years and then he formed stars out of dust and blah blah blah. no one would have any clue what he was talking about.

 

I still can't respect someone that actually believes the earth is only 6,000 years old.

 

I believe that the concepts of evolution and creation can co-exsist quite happily.

 

Hmmm, I wasn't going to post in this thread, but I decided to step out and speak my opinion. I believe in Fundamental Creationism, that the Earth was created in 6 days by the God of the Bible, and that the account in Genesis is accurate and correct. For me, this is a matter of faith. If you can show me concrete evidence that clearly refutes the idea, I am open to reconsideration. On the other hand, I believe that most "creation scientists" are some of the most illogical people I've ever heard, and don't make creation look very credible in the public eye. Much of what they say seems to me like just making up excuses to justify what they believe. While I don't give much credibility to these "scientists", my faith is still intact, and I believe that rational and concrete arguments can be made for creation.

 

"I believe that rational and concrete arguments can be made for creation."

So you're a creation scientist that hates other creation scientists??
?

And you're wrong. There are no concrete arguments for creation. Just some out-dated book.

 

I'm not a creation scientist, by far. I'm a senior in highschool, who happens to believe in Creation, who has heard the arguments of many creation scientists. I just happen to believe that they could have much better ways of arguing Creation than they are currently using.

 

There are no scientific ways to argue creationism though. It's not science. Even the Supreme Court ruled that in the 1980's.

 

Indeed, if rational and concrete arguments for scientific creationism are ever made, I'll welcome them. However, it's never happened, at least in the scientific arena. To be honest, I don't mind creationists who acknowledge their beliefs are totally derived from faith. It's not in my capacity to understand them, but at least they're not making fools of themselves by trying to shoehorn dogma into scientific theory.

 

There is simply way too much evidence to prove evolution, and way too much evidence to disprove creationism.

 

It is ignorant to assume you can prove what has happened in the past. Evolutionism is as much faith as is Creationism.

I have yet to say any credible reasons why Creationism is illogical or unreasonable.

Some of the main ideas of creationism:

-There is too much order in the universe to be the result of chance.

-The Second Law of thermodynamics contradicts some of the ideas of evolutionism.

-There has never been an example of an animal producing a different animal.

The main arguments i see used against creationism, besides the cop-off "religious people are losers" argument, is that fossil records and theories contradict this.

Fossil record? The fossil record sure has a lot of holes in it, like an amazing lack of links between species.

Please explain these theories that prove creationism is false.

 

Actually, there is no evidence to disprove creationism. There is no scientific evidence for it. Many people assume all creationists think the world was created in 6, 24 hr days, that all was placed as it was and not evolution has occured.

That is not the case. As I posted earlier, I am an evolutionary creationist, believing God used evolution to create the world, to spur on change and fine tune The Creation.

 

Elfstar, I know for a fact we've explained the second law of thermodynamics to you numerous times. Why do you keep on bringing it up?

 

Evolution! It is a proven fact! Whats funny is that... when this argument was going on, the Creationists hbelieved that God created all life. Once it was proven that all things evolved, the Creationists changed their argument and said that God created evolution!!

 

We don't know the complexity that is our reality. We come up with fancy theories and say math is the religion of the universe, that it can explain everything and if it can't, in comes science with a new theory.

Evolution is an idea to explain why certain things have shifted from what they once were to what they are now. I didn't know about evolution in full untill junior high. Oh sure, I knew what it was, but I hadn't given it or my theology much thought. The older and wiser you get, the more you see the complexity, the hidden mysteries of the universe, the greater the notion that something is out there pushing all the buttons increases.

Hm. Maybe not for everyone. We all have our own ideas.

 

Fossills are creationists worst nightmares. They'd like to believe that the past can't be proven, because that is a required philosophy to suspend your belief that evolution is not as a solid and proven as it is.

 

Very few scientists have proof.
Many scientists have heavily supported theories, though.

Bear in mind that things that were stated to be true not 20 years ago are now known to be false.

I myself think that it is not how the universe came to be, but why.
It matters more to me to know (or believe) that the world was created and that therefore there is a meaning to it, than if it was a Big Bang or a "Big Voice" that made the world emerge.

 

If the second law of thermodynamics is correct, everything in the univers as a whole had to have been more complex at the beginning then it is now. I don't see how a "big bang" fits this requirement.

 

"..-There has never been an example of an animal producing a different animal. "

That's because they don't. Please, try to research evolution a bit before you try and feebly refute it.

 

One more "watch the tone" before I close the thread. I'm hearing a lot of disrespect here -- argue with the ideas, not the people who hold them, and don't insult the texts as "some out-dated book." If you don't consider the source a worthy source, rather than denigrating it, produce a reference to a more relevant source and explain it. Don't insult folks who disagree.

End of rant.