Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Valandil]

Thanks for the intro to Thomism, Guillaume...

When GreyMouser first mentioned it, I thought it was a light-hearted reference to Thomas the Apostle... as in "doubting Thomas"

[Rían]

I picked up a book by GK Chesterton on Thomas Aquinas a few weeks ago, and am looking forward to reading it. Have you read it, Guillaume? (or anyone else)

Any thoughts on my last post?

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Rian, I did, but it was a long time ago. Also, check out Copleston's Aquinas; An Introduction to the Life and Work of the Great Medieval Thinker, 1955, reprinted by Penguin Books, 1991. Aquinas isn't exactly leisure reading, but Robert Goodwin translated a collection of some selected writings by Saint Thomas, published by MacMillan, 1965, reprinted 1988.

--Dave

[brownjenkins]

one of my favorite discussions... i'll have to spend a few days reading ... wanted to drop a thought in though (yes, i'm on the science side of the argument... but I also appreciate a good debate )

my main reason for supporting evolutionism is because it is a theory and *most* people accept it as such... the goal of science is to discover to the best of our knowledge what happened in the past, yet at the same time admit that our assumptions may be wrong (and btw, to this point the existance of creationists is a good thing... because it further inspires scientists to test their theories)... for instance, while current evolutionary theory basically sees life as developing by itself on the earth, if evidence came forward that pointed to the original microbes coming from a comet or other outside source, scientists would modify their theory

creationism, while also a theory, is rarely, if ever seen as a theory by those who believe in it... very few creationists are willing to debate when creation happened for instance... was it the big bang god created and then just let things happen? was it adam and eve?... most creationists stick with one of these two and are not willing to entertain the other thought

while i'm 99% in the evolutionary camp i'm willing to accept a small possibility that god may exist... i have not met many creationists who are willing to give evolution even a 1% chance

in terms of what is taught in school... most textbooks mention that some people believe god created the world, while other people take the evolutionary point of view (mine textbook did)... after that, all time is spent on evolutionary theory... this is because there is really not much more to say about creationism, either you believe it or you don't... evolutionary theory however, is open to debate at many different levels, and as such is condusive to an educational environment

as Galileo said,

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
as Galileo said,

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Ah! My hero!

That's Galileo, not you, brownjenkins, though that is a very thoughtful post.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by brownjenkins

creationism, while also a theory, is rarely, if ever seen as a theory by those who believe in it... very few creationists are willing to debate when creation happened for instance... was it the big bang god created and then just let things happen? was it adam and eve?... most creationists stick with one of these two and are not willing to entertain the other thought

I think the consensus among creationists is that life was CREATED here on earth in the form we know it. That there was no evolution or natural process by which life came to be as it is now. so god creating the big bang then letting it run out from there wouldnt really be creationism in its truest form from everything Ive heard. They are very rigid about it really. Those people who are more rational and believe god had something to do with it but that that certainly doesnt preclude science usually dont call themselves creationists.

[Rían]

by brownjenkins
one of my favorite discussions... i'll have to spend a few days reading ... wanted to drop a thought in though (yes, i'm on the science side of the argument... but I also appreciate a good debate )

by Irex
Those people who are more rational and believe god had something to do with it but that that certainly doesnt preclude science usually dont call themselves creationists.

IF God had something to do with creating the world, He certainly would not have anything against true science, since true science is analyzing what is seen in the real world

If I had to label myself, I suppose I would say I'm a creationist that's all for true science, but objects when extrapolation is thought to be fact.

[brownjenkins]

IF God had something to do with creating the world, He certainly would not have anything against true science, since true science is analyzing what is seen in the real world

and trying to understand as best as possible how all things came to be as they currently are today

i agree 100% that scientific theories are not fact... there are many theories - i.e. the big bang - that are practically accepted as fact, but in my opinion are theories based on theories... this does not make the theories wrong, it just limits the openmindedness of the people who believe them without question, and thus their ability to discover more about the world around us

that said, the existance of god is man's oldest theory... not a fact... and in the same way, i think that those who cannot question their belief on a regular basis are missing a big part of this thing we call life

moral of the story - question everything all the time!

[Lief Erikson]

Right, well I've got something for you to question.

I watched a Craig Blomberg debate with an Atheist this night. It's rather late, but I finally collected my notes.

There are 5 points that he makes in this debate, which I brought up before, for the existence of God.

1) Origin of the Universe
2) The odds against life's coming to being
3) Objective Moral Values
4) Historical facts of Jesus
5) Experience of God

The one of these arguments that was objected to and I promised to bring back evidence for was number 2. I stated that the numerical odds against the formation of intelligent life were nigh infinite, and that requires a creator with a purpose to make intelligent life.



According to the calculations of Stephen Hawking, if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller in one part, the odds would have been 1 in a hundred thousand million million the universe would have recollapsed into a hot fireball.

P.C.W. Davies has calculated that the odds against initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (which leads to planets) were 1 followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes at least.

Frank Hippler and John Barrow estimate that a change in the strength of gravity or the weak force in even one part in 10 to the 100th power would have prevented a life permitting universe.

There are around fifty other such quantities and constants present in the Big Bang that must be fine tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life.

Yet that is not all. Their ratios to each other must also be fine tuned, until "our minds are reeling in incomprehensible and incalculable numbers."



Note from Lief: Much of the above is direct quotation from Craig Blomberg.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
and trying to understand as best as possible how all things came to be as they currently are today

A noble goal.

i agree 100% that scientific theories are not fact... there are many theories - i.e. the big bang - that are practically accepted as fact, but in my opinion are theories based on theories... this does not make the theories wrong, it just limits the openmindedness of the people who believe them without question, and thus their ability to discover more about the world around us

(agrees)

that said, the existance of god is man's oldest theory... not a fact... and in the same way, i think that those who cannot question their belief on a regular basis are missing a big part of this thing we call life

I actually believe the opposite. If you question your belief in God on a regular basis, you actually will miss a big part of life. I'll continue in answer to your moral.

moral of the story - question everything all the time!

Yet I'm sure you must realize not everything is the same as a scientific theory. In science, you should be ready to question things. That is good for that area.

Is it reasonable to question whether or not you'd be arrested if you publicly started throwing rocks through windows?

Is it reasonable to question whether or not your Grandma is going to give you cookies for dessert, when she tells you she will?

. Sure, some Grandmas might do that, but the majority probably wouldn't . In any case, there is clearly an area for scientific theory, in which you should be open to question much, and there is a realm which shouldn't as readily be questioned.



The Christian belief is that it is through faith that you are saved. Faith includes trust, also. You have to trust your Grandma to give you the dessert, but you can have confidence that she will. Where are the cookies? They're not here at the lunch table. They're a pie in the sky .

You're losing for yourself then, by your own hastiness and distrust, your chance of getting any dessert. It would be rather better to have faith and trust, and thereby earn the reward.

So faith can be important in some cases in the real world. You can't question everything.

HOWEVER, even with this said, you do not have to abandon all rationality in order to gain the reward. In the instance I mentioned, you might consider the character of the Grandma. If you know that she is in the habit of giving you sour tasting cookies, or that there'd be a huge wait for a small result, then you might rationally not consider it worth your while to have the faith.

I am equating this Grandma in this example to the Atheistic view of a nonexistant God, or with a lesser God(s) than the Christian one.

If you know your Grandma is different from this, though, it can be completely rational as well as having faith to believe that she will provide you with cookies.


Christians can have the same kind of rational faith in the existence of God. Yes, we have faith. Even if we see evidence that the Grandma didn't make cookies, knowing her character, we're inclined to believe she made them anyway.

Now let us take this to God. We have faith in him, and occasionally that makes us disagree with current evidence, or we disbelieve that it makes the case, at any rate. This faith in God is not irrational though, because of what we know of him.

There are historical evidences about Christ in numerous quantities that I could get into. The personal experiences of Christians, today and ever since the Incarnation, are numerous and compelling.

Also of course there are evidences for the existence of God that don't necessitate the God we believe in, but simply show the existence of a God(s), with certain things needed for their characters.

[brownjenkins]

2) The odds against life's coming to being

there is a very simple flip-side to this argument... we do exist, and thus those odds were met, however unlikely... maybe we are one of a billion big bangs that just happened to develop intelligent life... strange things happen all the time that are extremely unlikely if one looks at them from a probability perspective (and as i said... even the big bang itself is at question)

plus, if you buy the creationist point of view... it is just as likely that the universe was created yesterday, with all it contains, as it was created thirteen thousand or thirteen billion years ago... in the final analysis, i can never prove that this is not true, but to me it seems to be a dead end argument, so i look to the alternatives

another point to ponder... what if there is a god and he is all-powerful, but not necessarily all-knowing?... he brought about the world we live in, but does not necessarily know what the endgame will be?... if i was to believe in god i would be more likely to accept this point of view, since to me, the world seems a little bit too messy to be the work of an all-knowing creator (the vast number of religious beliefs just being one example of this)

on faith... don't mistake a lack of faith for mistrust, you can trust someone and yet still question their actions... you trust that they will do what they feel is best, however, you always keep in mind that what one feels is best from their perspective may not always be so

a recent personal example... we had a huge snowstorm here and there were a few things we needed at the supermarket, so being the typical, "i'll take care of that" guy... i told my wife i'd just go to the store... she told me i was nuts (the road didn't look much better than the front yard)... she trusted me and my intentions, but she was not clouded by my hormones (for lack of a better word)... i didn't go, only to find out later from a neighbor who plows that it wasn't even open... personally, i'm glad the "faith" my wife has in me has its limits

catholic faith has too many examples throughout history where faith in the will of the pope, and thus god, caused normally moral people to do things that would later be seen as evil, when looked back upon with eyes not clouded by this faith

this does not mean that faith is a bad thing, just blind faith... fundamentally, i believe the individual should make all moral decisions, irregardless of what others have told them... they can take advice and guidance, but they should never do something they perceive as wrong, no matter who is the source of the request

A noble goal.

i assume this is a sincere comment and i thank you... in the end i try my best to respect and understand that there are many different ways to achieve a happy life

[HOBBIT]

We have started the unit on EVOLUTION!
woo finally something I might enjoy and understand in bio

Our teacher gave us this introduction yesterday - basically dismissed creation with the wave of her hands like all it was was mythology.

What do you expect? She is a biologist.

She did not say that creation was false - but it was obvious that she thought it was completely not plausible and we would not go into it.

Part of my teachers introduction was something like "Well no one was there with a video camera and no one knows how the world started - but it did start somehow. I'm not saying that either is wrong.....but [paraphrased: evolution is much more believable and accepted by scienetists and creation is silly"

From what she said, she definitely supports creation or at least god creating the world then starting creation - she believes that evolution is a fact - well being a biologist she would.


Just thought I'd let you all know.... intersting unit and no outcrys from religious students (maybe only a couple students, but they remained silent). There would be HUGE outcrys from students and parents if teachers started preaching creation.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
paraphrased: evolution is much more believable and accepted by scienetists and creation is silly

harrah for real education. why waste time in science classes with ancient creation stories meant for religious classes?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Part of my teachers introduction was something like "Well no one was there with a video camera and no one knows how the world started - but it did start somehow. I'm not saying that either is wrong.....but [paraphrased: evolution is much more believable and accepted by scienetists and creation is silly"

I think that the Creation theory and the Evolution theory are just that: theories. Though there is evidence to support both, but neither are proven as fact or law. I give them pretty much equal weight, because I have a new theory:

Creator-Guided Evolutionism. (I've come to realize that a few of my theories are diametric opposites melded together.) Anyone from any religion and/or scientific belief (who gives Creationism and Darwinism a little lee-way) can believe in my theory.

A Creator began all life and substance in the Universe, and guided the hand of Evolution. In fact, Evolution was the Creator's idea, put into motion. Now that life exists, I believe that the Creator allows it to take its course. The Creator does not need to continually interfere, because evolution, free-will, and other tools allow life to be sustained on its own. The Creator sometimes nudges events on Earth and other places in the Universe where there is life (intelligent and other).

Earth is one small blip in an amazing, inconceivably huge, complex creation. How ever terrible the suffering may seem on Earth, it is not very much relative to the entire creation. We were given the tools to sort out our own problems, it is now up to us to use them. Therefore, due to our relative unimportance, the Creator is not to be blamed for not fixing our problems for us. Hopefully belief in the Creator will act as a unifying force.

[Insidious Rex]

point 1: this is still supporting evolution not creationISM. whether or not a creator created evolution is irrelevant. creationists believe evolution simply doesnt exist.

point 2: you anthropomorphosize and limit your creator (by saying well how can he possibly keep up with all that he created). Is this an inconsistency or purposeful irony?

[Nurvingiel]

Comment on point 1: Well, then it's a Darwinian theory with religious/spiritual leanings. Its validity is not lost.

Comment on point 2: I don't know what "anthropomorphize" means (definition appreciated), but I don't think I'm doing that.

Why is the Creator having limits a negative thing? I acknowledge that I'm applying human concepts to something infinitely greater than humanity. I didn't actually say there was a limit, though I did imply one.

Perhaps seeing what intelligent life does to solve its problems is part of the Creator's plan, and therefore not due to a limitation. I'm going to add that to my theory, thanks IR.

[Insidious Rex]

Im glad I could be the environmental factor to cause this new adaptation. you theory is evolving well.

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Our teacher gave us this introduction yesterday - basically dismissed creation with the wave of her hands like all it was was mythology.

LOL! A stellar example of scientific curiosity and openmindedness

Oh, I have to go clean my kitchen now - but at least I'll be laughing while I do it!

BTW, I'm not surprised that the students holding another view remained quiet - after all, the people that cry out "tolerance" the loudest can be pretty mean to people with differing viewpoints, if the viewpoint is "religious" - ironic, but very often true .

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Im glad I could be the environmental factor to cause this new adaptation. you theory is evolving well.

Perhaps guided by the Creator's hand.

Anyway, what does anthropomorphize mean? I'm curious to know, and whether or not I really did this thing.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Perhaps guided by the Creator's hand.

Anyway, what does anthropomorphize mean? I'm curious to know, and whether or not I really did this thing.

oh yeah sorry forgot about this. basically you figured it out in the same post when you said:

I acknowledge that I'm applying human concepts to something infinitely greater than humanity. I didn't actually say there was a limit, though I did imply one.

Im not sure if i had the spelling correct (can you really have that many o's in one word?) but it basically means applying a human point of view to something not human. Like saying oh that fly is out to get me! it keeps bothering me! its evil!! or something like that. to say oh god made so many worlds and so much life how could he be bothered to keep up with us smacks of the same thing. anyway i found it ironic and I think your adjustment because of that observation was a wise one. otherwise having an "overworked god" would have made your theory weaker.