Creation vs. Evolution

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Ahmabeliever

And one I've always pondered

If the tower of Babel was a threat to God he must have run for the hills when he saw us on the moon.

Any God who finds solidarity and ambition among humans, including building tall buildings, to be a threat...

Is really not worth fearing. And is also a complete hypocrite - love one another - speak different languages and spread out you're scaring me!

If you read these stories as mythological metaphors they do have meaning.
If someone tells you they are historical events they are missing the point of the story.
The tower is a metaphor for ego, and control. I do think the attitude that man has control over nature with technology is a modern day tower of Babel.
I love studying mythological metaphors in different religions they are a gold mine of the collective ethos. Its kind of ironic that the very best ones come from the native American Indian tribes and they know they are stories of myth.

[Ahmabeliever]

We make plenty of mistakes with nature, yes.

But we are also capable of ecological change for the good, my point.

Metaphors are great when they are not taught as literal truths.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by snydley

Ok. Lets start off with probability. What is the probability that something as complex as the earth could have just formed out of nothing? ....

Come on! This is just lame!

The Earth didn't just form out of nothing.
No one is claiming the Earth formed out of nothing.
The creation of the Earth has absolutely nothing to do with "evolution".
And the whole act of calculating a probability is without merit or sense.

You're walking on thin ice here. If you want to talk about evolution from a scientific perspective, then do so. You're off to a really bad start.

Pyro / MODERATOR

[Turtle]

Here's a new comprehensive examination on the topic from New Scientist.

Originally Posted by Michael Le Page

If you think you understand it, you don't know nearly enough about it.

It will soon be 200 years since the birth of Charles Darwin and 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species, arguably the most important book ever written. In it, Darwin outlined an idea that many still find shocking – that all life on Earth, including human life, evolved through natural selection. ...

Each topic of myth & misconception is clickable to an expansive discussion. >>
Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Each topic of myth & misconception is clickable to an expansive discussion. >>
Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

What a great find Turtle. It is very succinct in examining the misunderstandings of evolution. I even recognize some of my own.

But in my opinion, the issue for Creationists and the perveyors of ID isn't really about misconceptions with regard to the science of evolution, even though that is the playing field where they always like to keep the discussion. It is not about being skeptical or ignorant of the facts surrounding evolution. The goal in this instance is to undermine the credibility of science by always attempting to create doubt about the information it produces, and by keeping the debate about fallacies and misconceptions in the science, they can avoid dealing with the critical questions they cannot answer that force them into their reliance on faith, and protect the belief system for which they are so emotionally connected.

I am not convinced that even if Evolution were to arrive at an undeniable factual certainty (as many have already concluded), Biblical Creationists would continue to deny it in perpetuity. The reason is, Evolution represents Godlessness in their minds. And they cannot visualize a natural universe devoid of God, nor are they willing to. ID is at least a bit of a concession. But ID is always mistakenly pitted against Evolution when the two are actually addressing different aspects of life development. To me the reason is because anything that can be used to create doubt and undermine the science of evolution is protecting belief in God, if not God himself in their minds.

Science must continue to stay focused on the scientific method and maintain that theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design must undergo the same scientific scrutiny and peer review as any other hypothesis or theory, and earn a place in the science curriculum. Otherwise, the point is moot, and the theory should be relegated to the private institution or church environment.

Let us reject the God of the Gaps and the inference that an inconsistency or a lack of understanding is evidence in favor of a higher power. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Let the evidence lead us to a better understanding, and those who fear the implications surrounding the evidence in support of Evolution are free to stand with their faith.

But let the rest of us decide for ourselves as well.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by REASON

But in my opinion, the issue for Creationists and the perveyors of ID isn't really about misconceptions with regard to the science of evolution, even though that is the playing field where they always like to keep the discussion. It is not about being skeptical or ignorant of the facts surrounding evolution. The goal in this instance is to undermine the credibility of science by always attempting to create doubt about the information it produces, and by keeping the debate about fallacies and misconceptions in the science, they can avoid dealing with the critical questions they cannot answer that force them into their reliance on faith, and protect the belief system for which they are so emotionally connected.

This is all true but it also goes much further. They want to argue about evolution ad nauseum when proving or disproving evolution would have absolutely no bearing on the validity of creation. I don't know if they do this out of total ignorance or as an intentional diversion from the fact that they bring absolutely zero evidence to the argument to support their belief, a belief that proven would not support or refute evolution. IMO, this apparent ignorance does much more harm to their credibility as a debater on the topic than any credibility they might earn by successfully arguing some supporting points for their belief.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by C1ay

This is all true but it also goes much further. They want to argue about evolution ad nauseum when proving or disproving evolution would have absolutely no bearing on the validity of creation. I don't know if they do this out of total ignorance or as an intentional diversion from the fact that they bring absolutely zero evidence to the argument to support their belief, a belief that proven would not support or refute evolution. IMO, this apparent ignorance does much more harm to their credibility as a debater on the topic than any credibility they might earn by successfully arguing some supporting points for their belief.

Yes, absolutely C1ay. I totally agree with your point.....a point that has been the theme of your rebuttal to Creationist's rejection of evolution.

Of course, I don't believe their argument can ever earn any credibility once subjected to peer review. It never has thus far, and never will. It can't for the reasons that have been thoroughly stated here. There is no evidence in support of Creationism.

But they are not really interested in proving Creationism. They are interested in controlling belief. This is why it is important for them to infiltrate the science classroom with ID or to argue against evolution ad nauseum. Belief is what sustains the church. Keeping the numbers of believers high not only pads the coffers, but serves the greater purpose of providing reinforcement to the belief in God and his promises. It's a form of safety in numbers. The more people believe in God, the more legitimate that belief becomes in their minds. It doesn't matter what the evidence shows. It's group think.

Evolution has been deemed an attack on the belief in God by atheistic science, and so they have chosen to fight it. And as you have said, they can argue until the cows come home and it won't change the apparent reality that life has come about and progressed in this natural world through a natural process, the details of which will continue to be refined and understood in time.

Hopefully, in this ridiculous Creation vs. Evolution battle, rationality will prevail over delusion. But the discussion will have to be properly framed in order for that to happen, and the scientific community will have to place a greater importance on finding ways to share the information in laymen's terms so that ignorance can be replaced with knowledge and understanding. With knowledge and understanding will come belief.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Here's a new comprehensive examination on the topic from New Scientist.




Each topic of myth & misconception is clickable to an expansive discussion. >>
Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

Yes, that is a good link. I shared one just like it from the same source (more "frontpage" than yours) a few days earlier here, and it's a nice single source summary of some of the key issues.

http://hypography.com/forums/biology...tml#post215638