Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[lumberjim]

Creationism is yet another topic that pushes my "asshole button"

I'm so aghast that anyone with in IQ over 80 would buy that fairy tale type explanation for how things became how they are now that I lose a little hope for the human race each time I encounter it. In fact, that's it. I've had enough. Stop the world. I wanna get off!

[lumberjim]

pagans:

is there a specific "creator god"? Could creationism coincide with paganism?

I have said before that i am a pickandchoosist. One of the things I like about paganism is that they see god in the many aspects of nature. They choose to identify them individually and worship them to suit. I also firmly believe in evolution.

Of the individual Pagan Gods, which of them is responsible for the beings that christianity subjugates to man? ... the flowers, birds, crickets, sheep, etc? Gaia? do pagans believe that gaia's womb produced all living things whole in their current state? What do the other religions say? Is creationism a mainly Christian belief? Judaism too, I guess? and is Islam a derivitave of those two? does it have the same stance on this? How about Hinduism and Bhuddism?

[wolf]

There are as many answers to that question as there are pagans.

Some paths honor a single creator god, and consider other gods and goddess as aspects of that One.

Others follow a goddess and a god, recognizing the duality of creation. Some assign different names, faces, and duties to a variety of goddess and gods.

Some see the inherent divinity in all things, beings, creatures, plants, landforms, rocks, etc.

Some make things up as they go along and don't give these kinds of questions all that much thought.

[Torrere]

That is, what we are witnessing is the fact that physicochemical manipulation of the developing embryo can cause a developmental pathway, which would normally result in scales, to result in feathers instead. But the information required to construct/assemble the structure of the feather is already there, and is simply being expressed at a different site. Genetically, there has been no evolutionary change — no information has been added to the organism’s ‘blueprint’ which was not already there.

So what has been achieved is that feathers have been induced to form in birds — although in locations at which they would not usually form. Equally, interference with the developmental machinery in fruit flies can cause a leg to grow where there would normally be an antenna. Such homoerotic mutations, as they are called, are not strictly analogous to the chicken example, but the point is the same, in that the genetic information for forming a leg was already in the embryo. Growing ectopic, or out of place, fur on mammals, or extra legs on flies or cows, demonstrates nothing about the origin of the information coding for fur or legs.

Thus, growing feathers on chickens cannot possibly have any value for the idea of evolution.

We've proven that the blueprints for creating scales and for creating feathers are very similar. We've demonstrated a plausible way to make simple changes in life forms. However, we have not seen an experiment in which a process which takes millions of year can be seen to occur from beginning to end before our very eyes.

No, evolution is not provable in the way that "diamond is harder than charcoal" is provable. Neither are: the dinosaurs, the Flood, the existence of black holes, the existance of subatomic particles, the existance of God, the composition of stars, or the age of the Earth.

Would the histories of wheat, strawberries and antibiotics or the work of Gregor Mendel be enough to satisfy your demands for evidence of evolution? Upon which facet of evolution do you focus your vitriol?

[DanaC]

I think the main problem Onyx Cougar had was my out of hand dismissal of the creationist "science" on that site. ....In that she wa sfair enough....I did dismiss it out of hand and without more than a cursory glance at the site and its contents.

I have now had a chance to read a little more thoroughly and I stand by my original opinion, to whit, Creatinist science is pseudo science masqeurading as the real deal. Just because someone uses scientific sounding phraseology and tone doesnt make them a scientist. I have heard equally "scientific" sounding "scholars" give their evidence for Flat Earth Theory and the Bible code. As soon as you examine any of the data in detail their theories do not stand up to scrutiny.

Man invented creationism to answer the questions which scientists weren ot yet able to answer. The need for such fanciful explanations has now been superceded by scientific endeavour.

[Catwoman]

Originally posted by lumberjim
I don't know much about a scientific argument FOR creationism. Its kind of an oxymoron isn;t it?

I think that just about sums it up. The two perspectives are so disparate that one cannot prove or disprove the other via application of the other's fundamental building blocks to validate the hypothesis. You wouldn't attempt to verify evolution by quoting the bible, would you?

[DanaC]

......wouldnt put it past some folks
I have heard some very strange attempts to rationalise scientific theories of evolution with the creation myth as found in Genesis...

[Catwoman]

Takes all sorts... leave 'em to their fantasies I say, ignorance is bliss - and they wouldn't understand the truth if it hit them in the face anyway.

[Yelof]

leave 'em to their fantasies I say, ignorance is bliss

On a personal level I agree, I hate getting into arguments about such things as they get no where, however DanaC brought up the issue of what to teach in schools.

Not many creationists will believe this but good science is without an agenda, it is amoral, it is process. Scientific progress should be made with out supposition to the result, many advancements have been made where the originator of the hypothesis himself disagreed or disliked the conclusion, Darwin himself sat on evolution for 14 years before publishing because he was very uncomfortable about his own conclusions. As such evolution fits soundly in the mainstream of scientic process, it is required teaching for anyone who wishes to study biology, it has many uses outside biology, e.g computional science. Learning of the process of evolution is important to understand our modern world and should be required of all high school level students.

Creationist science starts with a conclusion, hides a religious agenda in scientific language that is attractive to those with little scientific knowledge and should be considered religious instruction. Whether religious instruction should be thought in state funded schools is another matter, I attended a school run by a religious order and as such believe all religion should be kept out of all schools, save the mental indoctrination to after school hours, schools should stick to the facts and to moral codes that all society agrees on.

[DanaC]

The problem comes ( imo) when mythos is taught as fact in schools. As I understand it there are many schools in the western world ( particularly in the US) which teach the two theories as equally valid.

[Catwoman]

While children are undoubtedly highly impressionable and susceptible to religious instruction (the main argument for not teaching some of the more obscure, contraversial religions in schools), it is important also not to underestimate their decision making capabilities and power to filter in and out things and theories they may or may not agree with. My schooling had a religious element that I have subsequently (and indeed at the time) rejected. On this basis I think it is essential children are taught as wide a variety of religions and philosophies as time and cognitive ability allows.


Yelof "save the mental indoctrination to after school hours"

It is a sad thing that it should happen at any hour.

[Troubleshooter]

Creation Science isn't.

It's wrong on two differing levels.

1) it doesn't follow the scientific method,
2) why try to prove something you have faith in? Contradictory, paradoxical.

[Catwoman]

and,

3) it's a load of bollocks.

[Radar]

Creationism is yet another topic that pushes my "asshole button"

I'm so aghast that anyone with in IQ over 80 would buy that fairy tale type explanation for how things became how they are now that I lose a little hope for the human race each time I encounter it. In fact, that's it. I've had enough. Stop the world. I wanna get off!

Here Here!!!

[Pete]

I just think it needs to be made clear in school that evolutionism is an unproven theory. It makes a lot of sense but we need to be open to other ideas.