Creation vs. Evolution

[TankAss95]

Indeed, and children say that something that is good is "sick".

The origin of the word is quite specific. "A-" is the Greek prefix meaning "absence of". "Theos" means "Deity", but "theism" specifically is a philosophy which deals with the belief in deities. "A"theism is an absence of belief in deities, not an active belief in no deities - which is "nontheism".

Okay thanks for the clarification. It's Thomas Henry Huxley's fault why everyone is so confused.

Evolutionary theory is covered in years 6, 8 and 9 in science in English schools. If you attended one, you were taught evolutionary theory.

I got a tiny lesson about evolution in biology class up here in Scotland. Then again though it was Darwin's 200th birthday.

It's a justification for the allegorical, non-literal nature of the Old Testament and it's a justification for distrusting any group that promotes the Garden of Eden part of the Creation myth as factual. This includes the Catholic Church.

As a Christian who holds the doctrine of a biblical inerrancy, I still don't see any incompatibility or inconsistency with Genesis and science. I believe all that the Bible affirms, teaches or asserts is infallible. Clearly this does not mean that whatever the Bible specifically says is actually literally true. For example when Jesus was talking about the mustard seed being the smallest of all seeds in one of his parables he wasn't wrong. Sure, the mustard seed isn't the smallest of all seeds, but Jesus wasn't teaching Botany - he was teaching about the kingdom of God. The mustard seed is tiny, and one grain of the Palestinian mustard plant will grow up to a height of 10-12 ft (3.5-4.2 m)! Jesus used this as a way of explaining that the church could grow from such a small beginning.

So the point being is that yes, I do believe that Genesis is factual, but that does not mean that specific points need to be taken literally. Genesis explains the beginning of creation, mankind, sin, civilisation and the nations and I don't see why it's such a big topic of controversy.

 

[Famine]

I got a tiny lesson about evolution in biology class up here in Scotland. Then again though it was Darwin's 200th birthday.

Umm... everything you do about biology in year 9 starts with evolutionary theory as a base. If you have any kind of school qualification in science or biology, you'll have been taught it.

Maybe badly. From the misconceptions about it, probably very badly.

As a Christian who holds the doctrine of a biblical inerrancy, I still don't see any incompatibility or inconsistency with Genesis and science. I believe all that the Bible affirms, teaches or asserts is infallible. Clearly this does not mean that whatever the Bible specifically says is actually literally true. For example when Jesus was talking about the mustard seed being the smallest of all seeds in one of his parables he wasn't wrong. Sure, the mustard seed isn't the smallest of all seeds, but Jesus wasn't teaching Botany - he was teaching about the kingdom of God. The mustard seed is tiny, and one grain of the Palestinian mustard plant will grow up to a height of 10-12 ft (3.5-4.2 m)! Jesus used this as a way of explaining that the church could grow from such a small beginning.

So the point being is that yes, I do believe that Genesis is factual, but that does not mean that specific points need to be taken literally. Genesis explains the beginning of creation, mankind, sin, civilisation and the nations and I don't see why it's such a big topic of controversy.

It's because it's largely bollocks.

Though I'm sure God wasn't being literal when he invented the planet before its parent star and the light that comes from that parent star quite some time before it. Or something.


There is no part of the Genesis account that is factual. There's quite a lot of it that is a good story - like the tiny mustard seed growing into the huge shrub.

 

[Exorcet]

So the point being is that yes, I do believe that Genesis is factual, but that does not mean that specific points need to be taken literally. Genesis explains the beginning of creation, mankind, sin, civilisation and the nations and I don't see why it's such a big topic of controversy.

What are the facts in Genesis? If it was written today, what would it be like to read? Hopefully, it would only contain facts and be written in clear language and not like a poem. How long would it be?

If the message in it is "people sinned and had to go to Earth" it doesn't sound very helpful, and it doesn't have much supporting evidence. If 95% of it is metaphors, then this is exactly what Genesis sounds like. If it's literal, it's clearly wrong.

Anyone can take what they want from it and the rest of the Bible because what is written doesn't really mean much. It has gone from being literal to being a metaphor as a result of increased human knowledge and understanding, and if what the book is is constantly changing, it's hard to take it seriously.

 

[PeterJB]

So, what you're saying is that a lot of what's written in the bible is nothing but metaphors, but someone's decided that Jesus isn't. And that's what you're basing your christianity on - the deliberate decision that Noah's ark was a metaphor, but Jesus's ministry wasn't.

And that is why I couldn't ever be part of a religion that bases itself on something it partially dismisses itself.

My point is that the account of Noah's Ark would have sounded accurate at the time it was written because their whole world was the middle east. They were completely oblivious to the existence of Australia or the Americas, and these unknown regions contained millions of unknown species. My point is that, in most cases, it's doesn't make much difference to one's everyday life if these stories are completely factually correct or not (except for the Jesus's existence), but the morals and meanings of the stories do.

Jesus is central to Christianity because we believe he is the Messiah prophecised about throughout the Old Testament. In terms of what he did, interestingly enough, there is nothing in science which outlaws miracles. We often think that science creates laws which miracles cannot violate, such as the speed of light in a vacuum being 3x10e8 m/s. You would say, how do we know that? Well you would measure it once, twice, ten times, one thousand times, one million times. But I can submit that we still don't know that light everywhere travels always and everywhere at that speed. For a star on the other side of the Galaxy, how do you know the light travels at the same speed? You can't know, you simply assume that because it does here, it must do there, which is conjecture.

These are not laws in the sense of having a legislature passing them, they're observations which we have made generalisations from. A famous example has to do with white Swans. Throughout western history the phrase 'as white as a Swan' has become a stable of poetry and literature, because every Swan seen by western men in western civilisation was white. It was only when they first travelled to Australia that they discovered black Swans. It only takes one black Swan to overthrow this 'law', confirmed by millions of observations, that all Swans are white. The point I'm making is that Jesus' miracles can be seen as the single case that throw certain scientific laws which claim that there is a universal principal art stake into question. We often tend to be prejudiced in favour of our own moment in space and time. For example, if tomorrow doctors find a way to revive a dead guy, he's clinically dead, his brain has stopped, but we can give him treatments to bring him back, suddenly we would say that yes it is now possible to resurrected dead people. But if it's possible that the dead could come back to 100 years from now, then it's possible that they could come back to life in Jesus' time, because possibility cannot be confined to the future. If it was possible then, it was possible before.

 

[TankAss95]

Umm... everything you do about biology in year 9 starts with evolutionary theory as a base. If you have any kind of school qualification in science or biology, you'll have been taught it.

Maybe badly. From the misconceptions about it, probably very badly.

All I can really remember studying in biology was stuff like the digestive system. We did have qualified biologists but we didn't get biology as a particular subject. It's general science until the end of year nine I think; then you get to choose between physics, chemistry and biology.

From what I can recall we basically got told that plants grew tall so only the giraffes with the long necks survived. Not much was said about stuff like common descent.

It's because it's largely bollocks...

There is no part of the Genesis account that is factual.

What account are you talking about? Genesis as a whole? Creation?

And do you think the same about the new testament?

 

[Famine]

[A gross misunderstanding of the specific scientific term "law"]

Seen that sort of thing before. I'm still amazed every time it occurs though.

What account are you talking about? Genesis as a whole? Creation?

Yes.

And do you think the same about the new testament?

The New Testament is a series of stories (from two-to-four different points of view) about a bloke who thought it'd be cool to be nice to people for a change and ended up being stapled to a tree.

Not sure what the relevance is.

 

[PeterJB]

Seen that sort of thing before. I'm still amazed every time it occurs though.

But you must wonder, how can we be sure that our limited observations of a tiny part of the universe and the laws we create from that must apply everywhere else? We cannot be certain that they do, we just assume that they do.

 

[Exorcet]

But you must wonder, how can we be sure that our limited observations of a tiny part of the universe and the laws we create from that must apply everywhere else? We cannot be certain that they do, we just assume that they do.

We can just go with it until we have a reason to change the rules. If not, then anything can be in a science text book, and that doesn't make much sense.

Scientists are well aware that models are imperfect, and that's why they try to prove them wrong all the time.

Also, there isn't really much stopping us from actually examining places really far away. There is no need to land on a star to measure its properties.

 

[Touring Mars]

But you must wonder, how can we be sure that our limited observations of a tiny part of the universe and the laws we create from that must apply everywhere else? We cannot be certain that they do, we just assume that they do.

We can't, but all the more reason to adopt a system of observation, experiment, hypothesis testing, validation through evidence and, perhaps most of all, rejection of incorrect hypotheses (e.g. ideas) in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. Many aspects of modern day evolution theory will be rewritten (or even rejected) in the face of new evidence as it comes to light - but being susceptible to correction is ultimately what makes true scientific theories so meaningful and powerful... being impervious to any (or even all) evidence and scrutiny, on the other hand, makes a hypothesis virtually worthless.

The New Testament is a series of stories (from two-to-four different points of view) about a bloke who thought it'd be cool to be nice to people for a change and ended up being stapled to a tree.

 

[PeterJB]

We can just go with it until we have a reason to change the rules. If not, then anything can be in a science text book, and that doesn't make much sense.

That's the point I was making in my example that it only takes one black swan to disprove the law that all swans are white.

Scientists are well aware that models are perfect, and that's why they try to prove them wrong all the time.

I'm guessing that's supposed to say aren't.

Also, there isn't really much stopping us from actually examining places really far away. There is no need to land on a star to measure its properties.

The observable universe is tiny in comparison the estimated size of the entire universe, so there is still plenty of space out there that we'll never be able to make observations of.

 

[Exorcet]

That's the point I was making in my example that it only takes one black swan to disprove the law that all swans are white.

OK, but the white swan law (if there had ever been one) wouldn't be wrong until evidence said so. You can't leave room for every possibility because if you do, none of your rules actually mean anything.

I'm guessing that's supposed to say aren't.

That or perfect was supposed to be preceded by "im" lol.

The observable universe is tiny in comparison the estimated size of the entire universe, so there is still plenty of space out there that we'll never be able to make observations of.

True, but as long as that space doesn't come over here and mess with our laws of physics, there isn't much reason to care.

It's certainly possible that Jesus simply used Godlike levels of physics to do what he did and all of his miracles were true, but if you think that is a valid conclusion without evidence then any explanation is equally valid. Anything from Jesus was a normal guy, to Jesus was the pioneer of mind altering substances, to Jesus being a robot from the year 9102.

 

[PeterJB]

OK, but the white swan law (if there had ever been one) wouldn't be wrong until evidence said so. You can't leave room for every possibility because if you do, none of your rules actually mean anything.

Obviously it isn't a real scientific law, but it's just an example of observations which seemed conclusive, but could have been made moot by observing only one black swan, but they happened to observe many.

True, but as long as that space doesn't come over here and mess with our laws of physics, there isn't much reason to care.

It's certainly possible that Jesus simply used Godlike levels of physics to do what he did and all of his miracles were true, but if you think that is a valid conclusion without evidence then any explanation is equally valid. Anything from Jesus was a normal guy, to Jesus was the pioneer of mind altering substances, to Jesus being a robot from the year 9102.

I made a response to a similar question to this in the God thread recently, so for conveniences sake I shall quote it here:

Interesting isn't it. These days there (probably) isn't a philosopher alive who would deny the exist of say, Socrates, and yet we only have two sources of his existence, Plato and Xenephon, they were admirers of Socrates, so they were in the same position about the person they were writing about as the disciples. But people get very sceptical about Jesus, even though we have the Four Gospels, and Jewish, Greek and Roman sources, among others. Plus also his miracles were witnessed by hundreds of people, and said to have happened in specific locations with have since been discovered or have always remained present.

Most people would agree that there was a man named Jesus, he lived, he annoyed the authorities, he was crucified, and he was put in a tomb. After which it is said that his disciples discovered the tomb empty, told everyone of the good news, began converting, and manage to convert more than 1/3 of Europe to Christianity even before Emperor Constantine did.

For the first 200 years of Christian history, the Jews had a theory that the body had been stolen by the disciples, the Romans would have been guarding the tomb with the seemingly infinite resources, so it seems a bit far fetched to think that the disciples, mainly a group of women, could have stopped them. The Jews claimed the body was stolen because neither them nor the Romans had the body. The disciples were preaching immediately after the resurrection, so it would have been pretty easy for the Jews and Romans to stop it all, by simply producing the body, which they nor anyone else had.

People will often say that Jesus' appearances towards the disciples were simply hallucinations. But never in the history of hallucinations have many people all the seen the same hallucination on different occasions. If I came up to you is had this funny dream last night, you'd say it was just a dream. But if a few hundred other people came up and said they had the same dream, that would be pretty creepy. It could be a hallucination but hallucinations aren't public, so how would we have all had the same hallucination?

 

[TankAss95]

Yes.

The Old Testament does have accurate descriptions of the geography - even back to genesis. Look at the Ebla tablets.

The New Testament is a series of stories (from two-to-four different points of view) about a bloke who thought it'd be cool to be nice to people for a change and ended up being stapled to a tree.

Not sure what the relevance is.

Your attitude towards the records of Jesus of Nazareth have relevance to your appreciation of the Old Testament (including Genesis). Simply put, Jesus in The New Testament referred to what we now have as The Old Testament as truthful. If you think that there is evidence that the Gospels are historically reliable texts and represent what the historical Jesus said/claimed then this will likely influence your opinion of the Old Testament, based on your view towards Jesus of Nazareth.

If you are interested in continuing this discussion (as it kinda is on topic) then I would like to know what your views are on historical knowledge (is history objective in discipline like science?), and wether the Gospels are historically reliable text and represent the character of the historical Jesus accurately (and to what degree).

 

[homeforsummer]

But you must wonder, how can we be sure that our limited observations of a tiny part of the universe and the laws we create from that must apply everywhere else? We cannot be certain that they do, we just assume that they do.

Those laws still seem to apply (i.e. our observations are consistent) across the 14 billion light years of universe we can see through telescopes, as well as the bit of the universe we can walk around on each day. There are a handful of areas of the universe that our laws cannot yet explain, but then that just gives us a challenge to find out how it actually works.

 

[Exorcet]

The swan law wasn't real of course, but more important than that, it wasn't a real law because there was never anything to support it as such. This makes using it as an example for/against other laws difficult.

Socrates doesn't violate physics, Jesus did (maybe? or had good PR). And Jesus isn't unique. Supposedly, lots of gods and important figures have sightings associated with them, but most of them aren't given special treatment like Jesus. Historians are as skeptical about some non religious figures as they are with myths. It's a matter of evidence and plausibility. The crowds of people seeing Jesus after his death are as reliable as those who have seen aliens that are all remarkably similar.

 

[Famine]

Your attitude towards the records of Jesus of Nazareth have relevance to your appreciation of the Old Testament (including Genesis). Simply put, Jesus in The New Testament referred to what we now have as The Old Testament as truthful.

Let's hope you steer clear of prawns then.

 

[PeterJB]

The swan law wasn't real of course, but more important than that, it wasn't a real law because there was never anything to support it as such. This makes using it as an example for/against other laws difficult.

Socrates doesn't violate physics, Jesus did (maybe? or had good PR). And Jesus isn't unique. Supposedly, lots of gods and important figures have sightings associated with them, but most of them aren't given special treatment like Jesus. Historians are as skeptical about some non religious figures as they are with myths. It's a matter of evidence and plausibility. The crowds of people seeing Jesus after his death are as reliable as those who have seen aliens that are all remarkably similar.

It's because of the scepticism around Jesus that realise is largely absent around Socrates that I wrote that response about the ressurection and the history surrounding it. The swan example wasn't necessarily an official law, but for a long time it was assumed and concluded that all swans were white, and it was assumed that all swans in uncharted territory would be too, until they actually went there.

 

[Touring Mars]

Obviously it isn't a real scientific law, but it's just an example of observations which seemed conclusive, but could have been made moot by observing only one black swan, but they happened to observe many.

Science is as much about knowing what is incorrect as it is about knowing (or hypothesising) what is correct. The discovery of black swans proved 'white swan theory' wrong - thus, the claim that all swans are white is wrong forever. Are all swans black or white? Will there ever be a pink swan? Who knows - but the statement 'not all swans are white' is correct, and the statement 'all swans are white' is definitely wrong.

Evolution theory doesn't pretend to have all the answers to where life came from, or how it happened, but the evidence does say that the hypothesis "all species were created separately" (AKA the Special Creation hypothesis) is wrong - and it will forever be wrong, because the evidence that proved it wrong isn't ever going to change. As I said in my earlier post, there are aspects of evolution theory that will be proved wrong too, no doubt - but that will not change the basic facts upon which the theory is built, most notably that, ultimately, all species are biologically related to one another - and hence the idea that different species that live on the planet today were all created exactly 'as is' and bear no relation to each other is provably incorrect, and that will never change.

As the others have said, evolution theory will stand until it is refuted by evidence - until such a time, it retains its explanatory power.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

The only issue I have with Evolution is when in text books it concludes by saying something along the lines of 'This is therefore conclusive evidence that there is no God'. Seeing as how Evolution does absolutely nothing to explain the origins of life. We shouldn't put the Christianity into the theory, we should take the Atheism out.

The only issue I have with evolution is all of it's fail predictions. Homology is suppose to be evidence of common descent as evolution,( unlike God they say) can only modify what already exists.Yet genetics doesn't always match these predictions. They have found many examples of homology structures using different genes and similar genes make up total different features. Even the fact there is more than one genetic code doesn't cause evolutionist to doubt their faith in the Darwin's tree.

No.

If you want to learn about science, read a book written by scientists.

Not only is Kenneth Miller qualified to author such a book (he's a scientist), he also happens to be a Christian - not that that is especially relevant, even though you and many others seem convinced that a proper understanding of evolution is the sole preserve of atheists.

As for 'ignoring the problem', you couldn't be more wrong. Ken Miller has devoted much of his valuable time dealing directly with the issues of teaching evolution and creationism - he's even written a book on the subject. Other scientists have similarly devoted much time and effort in addressing the issue - far from ignoring it, many have done out of their way to deal with it. But, there does come a point where you have to delineate what should and what shouldn't be in a science textbook - if you want to learn about the creationist "controversy", read a book specifically written about it (like Ken Miller's "Only A Theory", or "God, The Devil and Darwin" by Niall Shanks), but do not expect to find the subject covered in a book called "Biology". If, on the other hand, you wish to learn something about evolution, read a biology textbook written by a biologist. Simple.

If Ken Miller never said he was a Christian I would never have guess it. In a lot of ways he thinks just like an atheist.
I remember Ken Miiler denial when scientist learn that creationist were right about the human eyes. This is good reason it's wired backward and the fact there are cells that acts just like fiber optic cable. Darwinist like Ken claim no engineer would design such a thing then afterwards engineers was trying to learn from the eye to build better digital cameras.
I think Ken Miller is just as wrong about the Christianity as he is about evolution. He claims God didn't know man would arrive as the intelligent life on the planet.

 

[Famine]

The only issue I have with evolution is all of it's fail predictions. Homology is suppose to be evidence of common descent as evolution,( unlike God they say) can only modify what already exists.Yet genetics doesn't always match these predictions. They have found many examples of homology structures using different genes and similar genes make up total different features. Even the fact there is more than one genetic code doesn't cause evolutionist to doubt their faith in the Darwin's tree.

This is, in essence, gibberish.

I remember Ken Miiler denial when scientist learn that creationist were right about the human eyes. This is good reason it's wired backward and the fact there are cells that acts just like fiber optic cable.

And this is, in essence, a fabrication and gibberish.

 

[niky]

That's the point I was making in my example that it only takes one black swan to disprove the law that all swans are white.

In which case, the scientific observation is changed from: "All swans are white" to: "Swans are typically white, with the exception of..."

Which is how most science texts above the pre-school level are written... too hard to explain albinism to little children.

But you must wonder, how can we be sure that our limited observations of a tiny part of the universe and the laws we create from that must apply everywhere else? We cannot be certain that they do, we just assume that they do.

There is no guarantee that the laws that we've observed locally (not created... equations describing these are just that... descriptive) are completely universal, but thankfully, none of the equations used to describe the Universe are set in stone. We already know that Newtonian Gravity is inaccurate. We already know that Einstein's equations are likewise limited. Every extension of our powers of observation leads to new data that shifts the field this way or that.

The equations keep changing, but our confidence in the validity of what we have now is enough for us to say that if you drop that bowling ball on your foot, according to Newton's calculations, it's really, really, really going to hurt. The tiny degree of inaccuracy is not really going to matter all that much to your broken toe.

Let's hope you steer clear of prawns then.

And pork. And bloody steaks.

 

[homeforsummer]

And bloody steaks.

Alright, alright, no need to swear

I remember Ken Miiler denial when scientist learn that creationist were right about the human eyes. This is good reason it's wired backward and the fact there are cells that acts just like fiber optic cable. Darwinist like Ken claim no engineer would design such a thing then afterwards engineers was trying to learn from the eye to build better digital cameras.

What on earth are you blathering on about? No part of any of that is either a) true or b) makes any sense.

 

[niky]

Who's swearing? Them steaks really are bloody!

 

[BobK]

So the point being is that yes, I do believe that Genesis is factual, but that does not mean that specific points need to be taken literally.

So you're saying, then, that Genesis is factual, except for the parts where it isn't factual. Okay.

 

[homeforsummer]

Who's swearing? Them steaks really are bloody!

Just make sure you don't eat any 'effing burgers or sodding sausages

 

[GTP_Ingram]

I remember Ken Miiler denial when scientist learn that creationist were right about the human eyes.

Well, that's more than enough evidence to consider myself converted. Hallelujah!

 

[Sureboss]

Ooh, Irreducible Complexity.

*gets popcorn and waits for Famine and/or Touring Mars.

 

[Touring Mars]

If Ken Miller never said he was a Christian I would never have guess it. In a lot of ways he thinks just like an atheist.

He thinks like a scientist, and he also believes in God.

 

[Scaff]

I remember Ken Miiler denial when scientist learn that creationist were right about the human eyes. This is good reason it's wired backward and the fact there are cells that acts just like fiber optic cable. Darwinist like Ken claim no engineer would design such a thing then afterwards engineers was trying to learn from the eye to build better digital cameras.
I think Ken Miller is just as wrong about the Christianity as he is about evolution. He claims God didn't know man would arrive as the intelligent life on the planet.

Stop spouting utter nonsense please, Ken Miller didn't say anything of the sort....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/index.html

...as such it would be much better for the discussion as a whole if you didn't (as so many opposed to Evolution have done) take a tiny fragment of what he said.....

"After all, how could evolution, acting on one gene at a time, start with a sightless organism and produce an eye with so many independent parts, such as a retina, which would itself be useless without a lens, or a lens, which would be useless without a retina"

...an use it totally out of context. Not the first time I've come across this and I doubt it will be the last.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

It's interesting before the discovery of Muller cells time after time I read how our eyes were a bad design because it was wired backwards and how this is evidence of evolution. Now we know different still doesn't cost evolution anything. I didn't remember Miller exact quote but he still try to use damage control from another thing Darwinist got wrong. It's makes no difference what we discovery people like Miller will try to spin it to make it fit Darwinism.