The old evolution debate

[Andara Bledin]

I'll make my point clearer.

The christian holy text states that the world was brought into being by their divinity. The birds and beasts etc were all brought into being by said divinity. If you believe otherwise, you're not following christianity.

Wow, with one hand you claim that there is no such being, and then with the other you make a statement about how that being had to have done something.

As the saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Sure, it says he created everything. It doesn't say how. Seems to me if he made evolution happen, then it'd be kind of stupid for him not to make use of it.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Wow, with one hand you claim that there is no such being, and then with the other you make a statement about how that being had to have done something.

Incorrect.

I pointed out that the christian faith requires such beliefs and the incompatibility of being a christian while denying some of the beliefs put forward. I didn't say that they had any basis in truth.

Rapscallion

[Ghel]

Sure, it says he created everything. It doesn't say how. Seems to me if he made evolution happen, then it'd be kind of stupid for him not to make use of it.

It does, however, say the order in which he made everything, and how long it took. All of which is objectively wrong. And if the Bible is incorrect about the creation story, which we can verify, how can we trust it about things that we can't verify?

But, yes, it is possible for Christians to accept evolution and still believe in the Christian God. I don't understand how they can reconcile the two, but I take them at their word that they do.

[Kelmon]

Denying the theory of evolution in favor of creationism is comparable with denying the theory of gravity in favor of the "we're-attached-to-the-planet-by-invisible-rubber-bands"-hypothesis

I feel sorry for all the americans that due to such a large number of people supporting creationism in their country are forced to tiptoe around the issue and even acknowledge creationism as being a "valid opinion" one can have, when the more sensible thing to do would be to point and laugh...


With regards to the original posting: I would suggest to tell your friend to not attend the course so her spot in the course can be put to good use, given to a student that can actually appreciate what is taught instead of let go to waste.

[muses_nightmare]

Denying the theory of evolution in favor of creationism is comparable with denying the theory of gravity in favor of the "we're-attached-to-the-planet-by-invisible-rubber-bands"-hypothesis

I feel sorry for all the americans that due to such a large number of people supporting creationism in their country are forced to tiptoe around the issue and even acknowledge creationism as being a "valid opinion" one can have, when the more sensible thing to do would be to point and laugh...


With regards to the original posting: I would suggest to tell your friend to not attend the course so her spot in the course can be put to good use, given to a student that can actually appreciate what is taught instead of let go to waste.

I agree with your first point. Though I'd like to point out that my friend and I are Canadian, not American. So the issue isn't quite the same here, this was just a personal thing with her.

I wouldn't go so far as to say she shouldn't take the course, she has to take a few biology courses in order to pursue her current career choice. I think it would be better for someone who doesn't understand the theory of evolution to take a course that teaches it, maybe she'll gain some more understanding of it.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

I don't understand how they can reconcile the two, but I take them at their word that they do.

The simple answer is that God is the why and Science is the how.

I build a shed. I am the creator. I am the reason that the shed is built. That shed is built in such a way that is satisfies the building coded of where I live. I use the proper tools and the correct materials to build the shed, there are certain techniques that need to be employed to create the shed and to do it properly.

The Building codes, the tools, the techniques, the materials...none of these things are the "why" the shed was built in the first place. They are the "How" it was built.

I as the creator of the shed...I am the "why"

[Ghel]

The simple answer is that God is the why and Science is the how.

That still doesn't make sense if we're talking about an omnipotent God. If God is omnipotent, it didn't have to take as long as the Bible describes to create the universe. He could have poofed everything into existence, in its current configuration, yesterday. What use does an omnipotent God have for the tools of nature?

It would be much more impressive if the universe (or the Earth) didn't have the properties we would expect in order to be able to support life, and yet there was life anyway.

[SkullKing]

Just because god could theoretically "poof" everything into existence, doesn´t mean he has, or wants to.

I never found in the bible the reason why he created everything, perhaps to him is a kind of game, and using some specific rules makes it more interesting.

Perhaps he derives pleasure from creating, like I do when I create something.

even though I can Cheat on a computer game to make it easier to complete(or even just turn the difficulty to "very easy") doesn´t mean it would be as satisfying .

so even if it didn´t have to take as long, he could WANT it to take that long.

[mikoyan29]

My take on the whole 6 days thing is that the Bible has been translated from its original language to some intermediate languages and then to it's modern form. Even in its modern form it is still in a state of flux. When it originally said 6 days, it might have really meant six periods of time that aren't necessarily a day. Heck, even if God were dictating, there are still errors in intepretation. I mean what's a day to an infiinite being?

[Ghel]

Right, because "six periods of time that aren't necessarily a day" have evenings and mornings. And that still doesn't account for the Biblical description being out of order from the way it really happened.

SkullKing, your definition of God must not include "perfect," since a perfect being wouldn't need or want anything.

[Ipecac Drano]

There is zero proof for them, just like there is zero proof for evoulution.

Rapscallion just explained how there is.

Just let others belive in what they want. Does it hurt you in anyway if another belives how they were created differ from yours?

It depends on who that person is. For example if they're someone who is trying to either practice medicine without knowledge of biology or if they tell people something other than what is real, then, yes, it does hurt others.

Why can't they go hand in hand?

They can't because in order for any godlike being to be a part of science, it has to be tested. Godlike beings fail testing.

Nice generalization, there.

I think he was referring to the unexplainable gaps to which some devoutly religious people are quick to plug with "God did it!".

It does, however, say the order in which he made everything, and how long it took. All of which is objectively wrong.

Even to each other! According to Genesis 1:25-27, humans were created after the other animals:

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Later, in Genesis 2:18-19, it says that humans were made before the other animals:

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

But, yes, it is possible for Christians to accept evolution and still believe in the Christian God.

Francis Collins, who heads the National Institutes of Health, is a great example of this. He is an evangelical Christian.

[SkullKing]

SkullKing, your definition of God must not include "perfect," since a perfect being wouldn't need or want anything.

It isn´t so much that it doesn´t include perfect, rather that the definition of perfect is still open.

Suppose for example that I think of "perfect" as "having the ability to do whatever it wants" (i.e. Omnipotence)

Or "Never making a Mistake"

Or "having no defect"

Those definitions allow for a being that wants something while still being perfect.

[Ipecac Drano]

It isn´t so much that it doesn´t include perfect, rather that the definition of perfect is still open.

Suppose for example that I think of "perfect" as "having the ability to do whatever it wants" (i.e. Omnipotence)

Or "Never making a Mistake"

Or "having no defect"

Those definitions allow for a being that wants something while still being perfect.

I have yet to meet someone who worships Yahweh and fails to admit the god they worship is imperfect in any way; especially when that god is guilty of some of the things it forbids its flock to do.

[Ghel]

Or "Never making a Mistake"

Then you must not believe in the Christian God, since (according to his biographers) he admits to making mistakes multiple times. There would have been no need for Jesus to be sacrificed if God had never made mistakes.

Nor would he have need of evolution if his creations were mistake-free to begin with.

[Ipecac Drano]

Nor would he have need of evolution if his creations were mistake-free to begin with.

And even the current stages of these "creations" show no sign of being "intelligently designed"; there are a lot of deficits if we were designed by a higher being.