Evolution True or False?

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:15 am

Originally posted by VoodooDali
This is one of the conclusions I've come to on this debate.

I think that Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible want to have their cake and eat it too. I have no problem with believing in something irrational for purely religious reasons. I do have a problem with calling that "science."

The real agenda IMO with Creation "Science" is that they want to be able to teach it in the schools in the USA. Since there is a separation of church and state in the USA, the genesis story cannot be taught in school, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that it is best left to Sunday School. I think that after numerous losses in court, the religious right decided upon another tactic. Let's call the genesis story a "science." Then it's not religious, it's "science," and can be taught in school.

Is the conflict solvable?
The battle between evolution and creation science will not be settled in the foreseeable future:

Essentially all conservative Christians believe in the literal truth of the story of creation found in the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). It implies an earth that is less than ten thousand years old.

The other main influential group are American scientists. Over 95% of scientists generally, and over 99% of scientists in the fields of biology and earth sciences, accept the theory of evolution. These beliefs require the earth to be many billions of years old. That is about 500,000 times older than the creation scientists believe.

General acceptance of creation science would mean that the entire foundational structure and inter-relationships of many sciences (geology, biology, astronomy, nuclear science, etc.) would become meaningless, and would have to be abandoned.

General acceptance of evolution requires people to interpret Genesis symbolically or to reclassify the creation stories as myths. However, the creation stories are closely tied to the fall of man and to original sin. The latter are two key beliefs among most conservative Christians. If Genesis were interpreted as symbolic, as a myth, fable or fantasy, then the entire role of Jesus would have to be reinterpreted. Without original sin, there is no obvious need for a savior. Jews do not have this problem; although they share Genesis with Christians, they never developed the concept of original sin. Liberal Christians also have no problem; most have already concluded that Genesis is a myth. But the rejection of original sin would shake conservative Christianity to its knees.

I believe in the truth of the Bible, that it is inerrant. I do not consider the Bible to be science. Science and the Bible do not disagree in any area, except in evolution. However, I have seen no true evidence that says evolution is true. Even if an experiment can be done to show that evolution can happen, that would still not be proof that it did happen. To assume that just because something can happen means that it did happen is rather ridiculous. It is possible for Bush to get assassinated. Did it happen? No. However, I do have proof that God exists and that the rest of the Bible is true, so what reason do I have to doubt the validity of the Biblical account of Creation? None.

I think you're mistaken about the Jews having never developed a concept of original sin. It is in the Jewish scriptures, the old Testament, that the coming of a Messiah is prophesied. They just have a different interpretation of what the Messiah is and thus do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

I semi-agree with the not teaching Bible in school, but not in the same way. I believe that a World Religions class should be taught, a class that teaches basic beliefs and origins of the various World Religions. One cannot make an educated decision if one is not educated on the topic one is deciding about.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:19 am

Originally posted by C Elegans

What - don't you have telepathic posting service here at SYM

That is a very good idea, CE. I'll look into it.

@all: Good, we have one representative of the creationist view of the life on earth - I hope the others also wish to continue. If I understand SS correctly, she does not believe in a 6-10 000 year old earth, but in a universe, a solar system and an earth that is as old as scientific data indicates? If my understanding of SS is correct, it would also be interesting with someone in this discussion that do believe in an 6-10 000 year old earth, just to have a representative of this view. Sleep? MM? Others?

You understand me correctly, or at least as well as I understand myself.

To say the least, discussing/debating evolution and creationism with me is not quite the same as discussing it with a creationist or an evolutionist, since I'll have a tendancy to end up arguing against both people.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:24 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

You understand me correctly, or at least as well as I understand myself. To say the least, discussing/debating evolution and creationism with me is not quite the same as discussing it with a creationist or an evolutionist, since I'll have a tendancy to end up arguing against both people.

So, would you say you're an Old Earth creationist? (Just curious)

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:31 am

Originally posted by VoodooDali

So, would you say you're an Old Earth creationist? (Just curious)

As I don't know what the term "Old Earth creationist" denotes, I don't know.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:47 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

As I don't know what the term "Old Earth creationist" denotes, I don't know.

New Earth creationists form the majority of creation scientists. They believe that the earth, its current life forms, and the rest of the universe were created by God, less than 10,000 years ago. Only very minor changes within various species have happened since creation; no new species have evolved or been created. This belief system is mainly promoted by people who believe in the inerrant truth of the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament) when interpreted literally.

Old Earth creationists believe that geology, radiometric dating has shown that the world is billions of years old. However, they believe that God created the earth and the rest of the universe.

Theistic evolution: Evolution happened just as supporters of naturalistic evolution believe, but it was a tool created, used, and/or controlled by God.

It almosts sounds as if you are in-between some of these--not criticisizing, just think it's interesting.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:59 am

Originally posted by VoodooDali

New Earth creationists form the majority of creation scientists. They believe that the earth, its current life forms, and the rest of the universe were created by God, less than 10,000 years ago. Only very minor changes within various species have happened since creation; no new species have evolved or been created. This belief system is mainly promoted by people who believe in the inerrant truth of the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament) when interpreted literally.

Old Earth creationists believe that geology, radiometric dating has shown that the world is billions of years old. However, they believe that God created the earth and the rest of the universe.

Theistic evolution: Evolution happened just as supporters of naturalistic evolution believe, but it was a tool created, used, and/or controlled by God.

It almosts sounds as if you are in-between some of these--not criticisizing, just think it's interesting.

I believe in-between would be the best way to describe my beliefs, but outside-of could also fit. I'm not conservative or liberal, but I'm not exactly a moderate either. Easiest way I've found to describe myself is as being both a liberal conservative and a conservative liberal.

I believe that the universe is however old science says it is. "I believe in the Big Bang Theory. God spoke and BANG, it happened."~Bumper Sticker on my car. Actually, I do agree with the Big Bang Theory. There is this about the Big Bang Theory: "In the beginning, there was nothing. Then nothing exploded. What do you get when nothing explodes? Nothing." This leads to the conclusion that there was something before the Big Bang occured. I believe that God existed/exists/will exist prior to the Big Bang and is the one who made it happen.

I believe the Geologic Column to be accurate, minus the basis in Evolution. If you compare the Biblical Account of creation, the times at which different types of creatures were created fits perfectly with the account of when different creatures appeared on Earth that is given by the Geologic Column.

I cannot say one way or the other for sure whether or not evolution can happen. However, I strongly believe that evolution is not how life came to exist as it is today on this planet and that it did not happen. Even if I were not a Christian, I would find it very difficult to accept.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 9:07 pm

Since there was no Isrealite culture before the flood, nor an Isrealite culture until much time after the flood, it can be assumed that it would be quite impossible for Isrealite culture to replace Chinese or Egyptian culture.

The "Israelite" label aside, the point remains. The only surviving culture would have been that of Noah and his family.

300+ years in Egypt preceeded by 200+ years in Canaan. What is the likelihood of Sumerian beliefs surviving through that time? The 200+ years in Canaan, yeah, there isn't much to influence in another direction, besides what sent Abraham to Canaan in the first place. However, most of that 300+ years in Egypt was as slaves, and from what I've seen, there is no indication of much similarity between Sumerian belief and Jewish belief at that time.

It's entirely possible that Sumerian beliefs survived through that time. Popular beliefs survive through all kinds of unlikely things, including repression - I'm surprised that someone who subscribes to a religion that has been around for two millenia finds that so remarkable

Man wrote the words down, but the words came from God.

All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. ~ 2 Timothy 3:16

One can hardly verify the truth or otherwise of a text by quoting from that text. Of course it's going to justify itself by reference to divine authority, but unless you believe in that divinity already, it doesn't mean much.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 10:41 am

It's entirely possible that Sumerian beliefs survived through that time. Popular beliefs survive through all kinds of unlikely things, including repression - I'm surprised that someone who subscribes to a religion that has been around for two millenia finds that so remarkable.

This is a very good point. It's a commonplace of anthropology that many beliefs of a conquered culture (however you think of that--conquered militarily, as in the Dravidians of South India, or forced to undergo religious conversion--as in the Scandanavia, Ireland, Gaul, etc) are absorbed and integrated into the prevailing conquering mindset. In some cases, this happens consciously and deliberately: so that many Christian holidays, worship sites, and emblems were deliberately taken from pagan religions and festivals to "smooth the path" of skeptical new worshippers from one god or group of gods to another. Good examples of these are the placement of Christ's birth atop the Winter Solstice; the inclusion of decorated trees in that Solstice worship; the use of brightly colored eggs at Easter; the spire on churches; the placement of Christian churches on locations that formerly housed temples of worship for other gods, many of which are still standing throughout Europe. (I can post some good books and links on this, if desired.)

Ideas, too, tend to carry over from conquered peoples, first as undercurrents, and then finally shifting into the mainstream. The Marian element of Christian worship, for example, was definitely not in Judaism nor, really, in the Bible, though it can be argued that the seeds of it derive from that book. The "Marian stream" began to manifest on a broad scale roughly a thousand years later, as Christianity spread, encountering and conquering non-Christian cultures. The Popes of the period lacked the military might of later years, and had to rely upon local rulers to enforce religious edicts. Marianism seemed an acceptable price to pay for the pacification and acceptance of a large number of forced converts, provided it didn't get out of hand.

So, in short--yes, popular beliefs survive all the time, as cultures consume and absorb one another.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 7:21 pm

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

You're still not reading correctly. You're ignoring the possibility that God protected aquatic creatures from extinction. To assume that the fish he wanted to survive were on the Ark is ridiculous. The fact is that if you believe the flood in the Bible happened then you believe that God was in control of what happened.

Where is your proof that God was not in control of what happened? Can you show proof that God does not have the power to do these things? If you answer this with just "God doesn't exist" or "the Flood didn't happen," then you are worse than you accuse me of being.

O.K. Sailor point by point.

Not reading what correctly, you or the bible? It is an open book of 'possibilities' including there was no flood, no ark, no Noah and no god, AND god protected aquatic creatures. The bible however, Genisis 6:17, is very explicit about what shall die and it is everything not on the ark. So any creatures god want to survive WERE on the ark, according to the bible.

So if it is you I'm reading incorrectly (And not the bible which I appear to have nailed) then you are saying that the bible is wrong and god did preserve the life of Aquatic animals in some way that avoided (for them) the consequences of the flood. O.K. what makes you think this is the case? It isn't in the bible so please tell me what leads you to believe it. The second 'ridiculous' bit (which is also in the bible) is about the fish which survived being on the ark. O.K. you disagree with the bible, why? what leads you to believe that the bible is specifically wrong about this.

Your 'fact' sentence appears to be what you are using to support your view, which is that the bible says there was a flood so if any of the subsequent biblical details are incorrect no problem Flood=God.

Your second para. I have not accussed you of anything. How can I therefore be worse?

My proof is in the lack of evidence to support the biblical view. If this is not an issue to you then well and good. It can hardly be called the scientific method.

So to precise. Curdis checks bible - yes it does say those things which you say it doesn't

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 7:32 pm

I just wanted to take a moment and direct attention at a rather amusing yet thought-provoking speech-based essay, entitled "Cretinism or Evilution?" by Ed Babinski. The website is http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part1.html

Interestingly, I was looking for several of the same points Mr. Babinski raises as mentioned by Mark Twain, but Twain's material on this subject does not come up on a search; though I suspect it can be found in one of the archives of online books.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:33 pm

Very amusing, Fable

As you say, even though it's a joke, it contains some points worth reflecting at.

The creationist website AnswersInGenesis recently put up a list of arguments and points they think creationists should not use. It should be fairly intersting both for people who believe in young earth creationism, old earth creationism and people who don't believe in creationism at all, since it reflects current creationist thinking and how the debate between the groups is developing.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Ar ... nt_use.asp

Note for instance that the site find it inadvisable to use the "Evolution is just a theory" because the word theory has another meaning in science that it has in the normal language.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 10:47 pm

Originally posted by Curdis
O.K. Sailor point by point.

Not reading what correctly, you or the bible? It is an open book of 'possibilities' including there was no flood, no ark, no Noah and no god, AND god protected aquatic creatures. The bible however, Genisis 6:17, is very explicit about what shall die and it is everything not on the ark. So any creatures god want to survive WERE on the ark, according to the bible.

So if it is you I'm reading incorrectly (And not the bible which I appear to have nailed) then you are saying that the bible is wrong and god did preserve the life of Aquatic animals in some way that avoided (for them) the consequences of the flood. O.K. what makes you think this is the case? It isn't in the bible so please tell me what leads you to believe it. The second 'ridiculous' bit (which is also in the bible) is about the fish which survived being on the ark. O.K. you disagree with the bible, why? what leads you to believe that the bible is specifically wrong about this.

Your 'fact' sentence appears to be what you are using to support your view, which is that the bible says there was a flood so if any of the subsequent biblical details are incorrect no problem Flood=God.

Your second para. I have not accussed you of anything. How can I therefore be worse?

My proof is in the lack of evidence to support the biblical view. If this is not an issue to you then well and good. It can hardly be called the scientific method.

So to precise. Curdis checks bible - yes it does say those things which you say it doesn't

You've twisted my words, not that I'm surprised. However, I won't be responding to this until sometime tomorrow when my brain is at least semi-active. I've had a bad day today and I'm out of Dr. Pepper. So, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go find a topic that doesn't require brain power.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 3:53 pm

I was surprised to find this thread slipped all the way to page 3, even though it seemed to be going strong from proponents on all sides of the issue. Up to you, really, but...@CE, do you want to give a clean, fairly precise definition of the modern theory on evolution, as it is accepted within the general scientific community?

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Wed Apr 03, 2002 6:31 pm

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

You've twisted my words, not that I'm surprised.

How have I twisted your words? Why would you not be surprised?

@C elegans, I second fable's motion. - Curdis !

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Wed Apr 03, 2002 10:40 pm

Originally posted by Curdis
How have I twisted your words? Why would you not be surprised?

@C elegans, I second fable's motion. - Curdis !

Twisting words is a common tool used in debating/arguing, though some people are better at it than others. So, why would I be surprised?

And just so it's known, I currently have no interest in further discussing the topic of evolution. I have two specific reasons for this.

1.)I'm getting rather bored with the topic.

2.)My homework seems to be increasing and I've already been failing to get a lot of it done, thus I really can't afford to waste time coming up with rebuttals to your arguments.

My mood for this may change come summer; I don't know for sure. And don't even bother trying to conclude that the debate is ending in favor of evolution, because it isn't. If you try to, you can expect a big fuss from me over it, and possibly even the destruction of the world.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 2:47 am

posted by Fable:
CE, do you want to give a clean, fairly precise definition of the modern theory on evolution, as it is accepted within the general scientific community?

posted by Curdis
C elegans, I second fable's motion.

@Fable, Curdis and other interested: Somewhere early in this thread I posted a simple representative description of the theory of evolution. It does however not cover the enormous body of evidence that had led to the forming of the theory, it's more like a short definition of what the theory is.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 8:19 pm

Thanks CE, I think fable (and certainly me) wanted to move away from the flood issue. Looks like I can take the bible back to the library now anyway

. - Curdis !

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Apr 05, 2002 8:36 am

I was just hoping to stimulate discussion on a very broad and interesting topic which seems to get mired in one or two smaller points.

...and speaking of Creationism, does anybody know if there is a non-Christian equivalent movement to it in, say, Islam, Judaism or Hinduism? (There are small fringe groups to all three religions that believe in the literal truth of their inspired texts, and that means the literal creation stories as revealed, too. But I'm referring to any significant movement to convince others, rewrite science texts in schools, and force governments to do their bidding.)

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Apr 05, 2002 10:27 pm

@Fable: To my knowledge, there is no equivalent to Creationism in the other world religions. The modern creationism is highly specific to the US, the next largest factions of creationists are in Australia. I wonder why? Sociological studies of people's religious beliefs have shown that American christianity holds unique features, most reminiscending the beliefs in Poland, the Philipines and Ireland but on many central issues quite unlike the rest of the christian world. Christiantiy has obviously had a special development in the US society, for instance more Americans believe that the bible should be interpreted literally word for word, they believe more in miracles, existance of a hell and they are least knowledgeble about evolution among the 21 countries participating in the poll I read. On the other hand, 14% of all Americans did not know who Jesus was, so obviously the variability between individuals are much larger than in Europe.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Fri Apr 05, 2002 10:45 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Fable: To my knowledge, there is no equivalent to Creationism in the other world religions. The modern creationism is highly specific to the US, the next largest factions of creationists are in Australia. I wonder why? Sociological studies of people's religious beliefs have shown that American christianity holds unique features, most reminiscending the beliefs in Poland, the Philipines and Ireland but on many central issues quite unlike the rest of the christian world. Christiantiy has obviously had a special development in the US society, for instance more Americans believe that the bible should be interpreted literally word for word, they believe more in miracles, existance of a hell and they are least knowledgeble about evolution among the 21 countries participating in the poll I read. On the other hand, 14% of all Americans did not know who Jesus was, so obviously the variability between individuals are much larger than in Europe.

In other words, the US is more conservative/fundamental than the rest of the world, at least when it comes to religion.

I would think Judaism would fall into the same category of Creationism since their Bible is the Old Testament portion of the Christian Bible. Would Islam fit in here as well?

According to the Hindu scripture, no one really knows how creation happened, and that no one has the possibility of including the gods.

I'm not sure what the Shinto belief is about the creation of the rest of the world, but IIRC, Shinto believes that Izanagi and Izanami created the Islands of Japan. As far as how insistantly this creation story is taught and believed in Japan, I am not certain.

I don't think Daoism has any specifics on the creation of the world, but I may be wrong there.

I doubt Confuscianism would have anything about the World's creation, but again I could be wrong there.

Seems like Zoroastrianism had something, but I can't remember what...

Not sure about Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.

Did I leave out any world religions?