Creationism/Intelligent Design

[susfubb]

Oh, whew - it DID post. sorry I got alarmed. from now on I will copy all before clicking "post reply" - just in case, heh ~jill

[susfubb]

NOT going to try correcting "anthropoly" to "anthropology" again, lol

[susfubb]

Oh, and not correcting "will 'BE' happy to discuss. Probably many more such, because I type with 2 fingers and don't review as much as I should (spell check sucks in that regard - as long as a word seems to be spelled correctly, doesn't matter how it is used).

I simply wanted to mention here that I am listed as "offline" when I am not, and hope others will reply to me regardless of the erroneous listing until I can fix it.

[Boozy]

susfubb: You can edit your posts by clicking "Edit" at the bottom. That way you can add extra information to a post if you've forgotten something instead of putting another post into the thread. I don't think anyone cares much here, especially because we don't do the post count thing, but I just thought I'd let you know.

[Spiffy McMoron]

NOT going to try correcting "anthropoly" to "anthropology" again, lol

Fixed. It's all good, and welcome to the board!

EDIT TO ADD: I'm looking forward to one of my classes tomorrow. In it, (It's a religious class) we're having a guest speaker come in and talk to us about creationism, evolution, and the Bible.

[Spiffy McMoron]

I had my creationism/evolution lecture today, and I've no shame in admitting that it was probably the most interesting single class I have taken in a LONG time.

First off, the most important thing to remember is that religion and science can co-exist; that an evolutionary biologist can be religious and a religious person can believe in the theory of evolution. Some of the other important things to remember is that:
1) There is tons of evidence to prove evolution happened just the way scientists say it did. None of it can be ignored.
2) All it takes is for one piece of evidence to blow evolution out of the water. That has yet to happen, though. (I'm talking about a 200 million year old human skull; something OBVIOUSLY dramatic)
3) One thing to remember: As we know it, humans did not evolve from monkeys. We shared a common ancestor, but we diverged into different species.

Second thing, some definitions:
-Teleology--> the belief that the world has a plan and a purpose
-Dyteleology--> the belief that the world has NO plan or purpose
-Evolution--> scientific theory that natural processes over a vast time space produced all living organisms, including humans
-Creation--> the belief that the world is the product of the Creator

Lastly, there are different types of evolutionists and creationists. The lecturer listed 5 different types of evolutionists/creationists, but it's really more of a continuum--people believe some things, but not others, etc. This is admitted quite condensed, and I welcome people to look into this further. The ones listed are:

Young Earth Creationists: ("Creationist" position) These are the people who think that the universe is 6000 years old, everything was created in 6 literal days, and they believe in the original sin and in Adam and Eve. There is no evolution, but instead God created all.

Progressive Creationists: (Day-Age Theory) This group shares many similarities to the Young Earth Creationists, except they don't believe in the literal six days. They do think that the Earth was created 10-15 billion years ago, but point to similarities in the geologic record and the creation story in Genesis. God had a direct role in the creation of life forms, and an indirect role in the creation of inanimate objects (rocks, rivers, etc.)

Evolutionary Creationists: (Theistic Evulotionists) This is the first of these groups to accept evolution. They also believe that the world is 10-15 billion years old, but they believe that God "jump-started" the process of evolution and have constantly been tinkering and adjusting since then. They see Genesis as the ancients understanding of science at that time, and they believe (just as the other two do) that humans are made in Gods image, and they accept "sin" as the Bible states it.

Deistic Evolution: ("Theistic" Evolution) These people still believe in God, they believe that God did help to start evolution, and they believe in teleology. However, the help He may have provided was indirect, and He has not involved himself since then. (This is classically know as the "Great Watchmaker" analogy.) They believe that humans are the source of ethics, and that the Biblical creation story is a largely irrelevant origins myth.

Dyteleological Evolution: (Athestic Evolution) This group (which apparently make up only 4% of the population in the States) fully reject God and the Bible. They believe that evolution started by blind chance and natural processes, and dismiss anything related to religion as superstitions.

[I8DaCookie]

Here is a link for a photographic tour of the Creation Museum. There are many amusing comments to the pictures. Takes forever to get through the whole thing though but highly worth it.

http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=121

[AFPheonix]

You don't see as many young-earthers any more, although any sect that reads the bible literally are young-earthers.
This is the only group you can pretty much blow out of the water with science, because out of that entire group, they are the only ones who attempt to use religion to explain the natural world.

The other three groups are smart enough to keep religion on its side of the line, and science on its side.

[Seshat]

I have no objection to people who find their own way to connect science and religion, only to the people who try to overwrite science with religion.

As long as people teach their children science in science class, and religion in religion (or some sort of 'social sciences') class, I'm happy.

[AFPheonix]

Agreed, Seshat. I also have a problem who try to use science to explain the supernatural. It's usually younger males who've decided they're athiests and now have to evangelize everyone with the message that God is dead. I don't know if they realize how big of pricks they come off as when they do that.

[Jadedcarguy]

Dyteleological Evolution: (Athestic Evolution) This group (which apparently make up only 4% of the population in the States) fully reject God and the Bible. They believe that evolution started by blind chance and natural processes, and dismiss anything related to religion as superstitions.

That's me right there. I'm honestly surprised it's only 4%.

[Jadedcarguy]

A It's usually younger males who've decided they're athiests and now have to evangelize everyone with the message that God is dead. I don't know if they realize how big of pricks they come off as when they do that.

Being an atheist myself, I have to say that those little pukes are just looking for attention, or trying to piss off their parents.

[Seshat]

That's me right there. I'm honestly surprised it's only 4%.

My father and I had a big debate about evolution and creation. I told him that as far as I was concerned, the truth could be anything from 'God had no involvement' to 'God made everything a second ago, including the fossil record, the echoes of the Big Bang, and all of our memories'. I don't know, I have no way of knowing, and that's fine with me.

He couldn't understand that - kept trying to tell me that the only way to get Life is to start with Life, and that God absolutely had to be involved.

Eventually I think he gave up trying to convince me. The best he could get from me is 'I have no way of knowing, and that's fine with me'. I accepted that I couldn't convince him that it was possible that God wasn't involved at all.

I think there are probably a lot of people like my Dad - clinging to something that proves (to them) that God had to be involved.

Agreed, Seshat. I also have a problem [with people] who try to use science to explain the supernatural.

I don't - since it wasn't that long ago that the Earth was the centre of the universe and God had placed it there.

However, I have a problem with people who try to use bad science to explain away the supernatural. Rigorous peer-reviewed science with carefully devised experiments and honest reporting of the results is one thing. Go ahead and figure out that thunder isn't caused by Ninepin, the God of Bowling! Fine with me!

But don't try to explain a haunted house with some handwavey mumbling about microclimates. If you think ghosts are microclimates causing tiny fog banks, there are meteorological tools you can use to definitively find out whether there are fog banks present and at what times of day/night. Get them, use them, publish, and expect to have others challenge your findings.

[Boozy]

It's usually younger males who've decided they're athiests and now have to evangelize everyone with the message that God is dead. I don't know if they realize how big of pricks they come off as when they do that.

Its because young people are at the age where they shake off many of the teachings of their parents. Its basic rebellion and a necessary step in becoming self-sufficient. Since many Americans come from religious homes, it makes sense that many young people become atheists, and that they become vehement about it.

Of course, young people also have not developed any real sense of impending mortality. They know intellectually that they won't live forever, but the thought hasn't really hit home. As they age, and they start thinking in terms of their own mortality, the thought of God and the afterlife becomes more appealing to them. They may not return to their family's religious roots, but they may reconcile their new beliefs with their old, and come to some new form of spiritual philosophy. And some remain atheists; apparently around 4%.

It also takes a more developed and mature mind to accept the possibility that something may always remain beyond the realm of understanding, and that is okay. Young people think they know everything. I sure did when I was young.

As far as science being used for religious purposes: What's always bothered me is quantum physics being used to back up New Age spiritual philosophies. The people who do this show a remarkable ignorance of quantum physics. The new physics is stunning and weird...just not in the way they think.

[AFPheonix]

I don't - since it wasn't that long ago that the Earth was the centre of the universe and God had placed it there.

However, I have a problem with people who try to use bad science to explain away the supernatural. Rigorous peer-reviewed science with carefully devised experiments and honest reporting of the results is one thing. Go ahead and figure out that thunder isn't caused by Ninepin, the God of Bowling! Fine with me!

But don't try to explain a haunted house with some handwavey mumbling about microclimates. If you think ghosts are microclimates causing tiny fog banks, there are meteorological tools you can use to definitively find out whether there are fog banks present and at what times of day/night. Get them, use them, publish, and expect to have others challenge your findings.

I mean people why try to prove that God or heaven don't exist through physics or some other such thing. God, if he exists really can't be measured through the tools we use to measure the natural world. Those are the kinds of people I'm talking about. Those types of people are just as bad as Creationists who try to make data fit their preconcieved ideas instead of scrapping their ideas when data shows them to be false.
Your first examples were people who used science correctly: measuring and observing natural phenomina instead of using the supernatural to explain the natural.