Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Science vs. Creationism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Science vs. Creationism

    I would like to get some feedback on this subject

    If one were to ask an evolutionist why the earth is shaped the way it is, or where our true ancestors came from, there will be generally an answer that most have heard already. Why do we need to study evolution? In a sense it will pave the way for most of our curious minds. It should aid in our search for the truth of some discussions today. How does stem cell research benefit our future? We could use the pluripotent cells that regenerate tissues; we could artificially make a clone of ourselves. Furthermore, this is not a simple process with a democracy and its people. . .

  • #2
    Re: Science vs. Creationism

    This guy is about the best evo-devo biologist blogging right now, I think. He's got lots of knowledge and he shares it. Plus pictures of squid.
    http://www.linkmeister.com/wordpress/

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Science vs. Creationism

      I'd like to offer you feedback, but I don't know what it is you want feedback on. Are you suggesting answers to the two questions you pose in italics? Or are you asking the questions in italics and offering the following sentences as possible answers?

      In other words, are you asking for responses to the questions in italics, or are you asking for responses to the declarative sentences that seem to answer them?
      But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
      GrouchyTeacher.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Science vs. Creationism

        Originally posted by scrivener
        but I don't know what it is you want feedback on.
        the subject line..

        SCIENCE VS. CREATIONISM...

        my argument was the paragraph I showed..I would like to see what others think about science vs creationism..

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Science vs. Creationism

          Science and creationism are not mutually exclusive, so I don't think there needs to be a "vs." between the terms. In fact, a very good friend of mine teaches a high-school course called Creation Science. He is both a scientist and a creationist.

          I believe in evolution, if not necessarily the Darwinic model of the origin of species, and I believe in creation, if not necessarily the literal interpretation of the events explained in Genesis. A person of faith does not need to remove his or her brain in order to reconcile seeming inconsistencies and contradictions in the two worldviews. The Biblical creation story does not rule out evolution; nor does Darwin's Theory rule out creation. I like that episode of Friends where Ross is driven crazy by Phoebe's refusal to believe in evolution. Phoebe quite neatly points out that evolutionists are the ones choosing the easy explanation. It is unfair that many people characterize people of faith as accepting the easy answers.

          Faith is not easy. Ask Indiana Jones.

          I find that hardline evolutionists are as cobweb-headed as hardline creationists. Both groups of people refuse to acknowledge the possibility that there are right things and wrong things on both sides; both insist that they've got all the proof they need, when real evidence that will convince the opposing side to switch teams is an impossibility.

          How we got here is a great question to ponder, but in the long run, it's not that important. What we're going to do with ourselves and each other now that we're here is everything.
          Last edited by scrivener; April 30, 2006, 10:07 PM. Reason: "I want Charles in charge of me..."
          But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
          GrouchyTeacher.com

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Science vs. Creationism

            WOW! Scrivener. Very well spoke.

            For myself, I believe in evoution within a species and a creator that started it all.

            You all know the question... Which came first the chicken or the egg?

            Come on think it through...
            Life is either an adventure... or you're not doing it right!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Science vs. Creationism

              Does it really matter how we got here? To some it does, to me we didn't just appear out of the thin of smoke on this planet. We came from somewhere. Was it Adam and Eve? Or did we start off as one cell organisms from the water turning into land animals and thereby evolving into Apes and into men?
              I don't know, and I will never really know, and I could think about this all day long, and waiste my time on pointless conclusions. How we came about is a mystery, but why I am here and as to what my purpose in this life and what I want to do with the time that is given me matters to me the most.
              A Warrior does not give up on what he loves he finds the love in what he does.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Science vs. Creationism

                For practical purposes, the principles of evolution wins hands down. I cannot see how creationism is applicable (the whole concept of vaccines, for example, or examining the bacterium known as the "nylon bug" which feeds on/breaks down nylon--a material that didn't exist before 1935).

                When it comes to ethereal purposes, I see little point in dissecting the ancient writings/chants/wisdom to quantify the "how" and "when" (e.g. the bible, the kumulipo, proving God exists, etc). I read them with a different lense, and the sense of purpose is different.

                pax

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Science vs. Creationism

                  Creationism without a doubt... what makes earth different from all the other planets? what makes earth able to create life all by itself , while mars or pluto cant. how could all the perfect circumstances come together coincedentaly.. that would be almost like a blind guy crossing the main highway without getting hit.. the only way the universe could create all this by itself.. would be through divine intervention


                  sorry i typed so much.. i just love chatting with you guys
                  Ebb And Flow

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Science vs. Creationism

                    I saw this bumper sticker in Louisville, KY of all places:

                    "If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church"

                    Although slightly off-subject, it points out that there are proper forums for any genre of discussion, and a science class is not the one for religion.

                    If the only argument for 'intelligent design' is that some people think life is too complex to have evolved without a 'guiding hand' then it is equally valid to say that those same people (Christians) should not be allowed to teach, because they can't comprehend basic concepts.

                    It is very easy for me to understand how life could evolve from inorganic molecules, and how complex life forms could evolve from simpler ones, given millions of years. Oh, but I forgot: the Earth was created 6,000 years ago!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Science vs. Creationism

                      Originally posted by Mahi Waina
                      If the only argument for 'intelligent design' is that some people think life is too complex to have evolved without a 'guiding hand' then it is equally valid to say that those same people (Christians) should not be allowed to teach, because they can't comprehend basic concepts.
                      The argument from design is one argument for the existence of a creator. I learned it in a philosophy course in college, not a science course, as one way of looking at the world. I'm sure you've heard Paley's Watchmaker analogy. It merely suggests that if you were walking through a field and happened to find a pocket-watch, you wouldn't assume it was the product of a natural process. It is unfair to suggest that Christians who embrace this idea can't comprehend basic concepts. Of course we can understand how it might have happened, but remember Occam's Razor: All things being equal, the simplest explanation is likely the best.

                      It is very easy for me to understand how life could evolve from inorganic molecules, and how complex life forms could evolve from simpler ones, given millions of years. Oh, but I forgot: the Earth was created 6,000 years ago!
                      I'm pleased that you come to your beliefs so easily, but there's as much proof for spontaneous generation as there is for the existence of a creator; you have taken a leap of faith as broad as the one I've taken. I hope you realize that. Mocking others' beliefs is the sort of thing that keeps this issue as divisive as it is. I suggested in a previous post that this is maybe not the best approach, if we are ever to reach some kind of peace about it. 6,000 years is one number some people have arrived at, but there is no serious Biblical reason to be utterly convinced of its accuracy.

                      I respect your opinions; it would be nice if you'd make an effort to respect mine -- otherwise, these discussions will always evolve (ha!) into exchanges of mockery.
                      But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
                      GrouchyTeacher.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Science vs. Creationism

                        Originally posted by scrivener
                        there's as much proof for spontaneous generation as there is for the existence of a creator; you have taken a leap of faith as broad as the one I've taken. I hope you realize that.

                        I realize nothing of the sort. Personally, I lean towards the Hindu model of birth and rebirth going back to infinity, rather than spontaneous generation, but I don't let it impinge on the scientific method.

                        Evolution is not a theory, it is an observable phenomenon. Just ask one of the Neocons' biggest supporters: Monsanto.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Science vs. Creationism

                          Mythology has its place. We should not confuse it with science. Science best describes the world around us. It makes no attempt to answer why we are here. Sorry if mythology sounds harsh.
                          Last edited by sinjin; May 1, 2006, 07:19 AM.
                          “First we fought the preliminary round for the k***s and now we’re gonna fight the main event for the n*****s."
                          http://hollywoodbitchslap.com/review...=416&printer=1

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Science vs. Creationism

                            Originally posted by newroots
                            Creationism without a doubt... what makes earth different from all the other planets? what makes earth able to create life all by itself , while mars or pluto cant. how could all the perfect circumstances come together coincedentaly.. that would be almost like a blind guy crossing the main highway without getting hit.. the only way the universe could create all this by itself.. would be through divine intervention
                            Plato another great thinker who was a student of Socrates was enlightened by the pure models of every idea or object to be found in the world.
                            “The search for the truth is a search for these archetypes in their ideal and pure state and for the Good” This brought up my thoughts about searching for what is ethical and to utilize the truth.

                            Now you are comparing Earth with Pluto and Mars. Science and technology has proved that there once was water on Mars. We know from satellite photos and rovers which explore Mars. What we don't know yet is why the water evaporated, or maybe it did't evaporate?

                            Which also brings me to the CAUSE AND EFFECT theory..(which I have no time to discuss at this moment)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Science vs. Creationism

                              See The Talk.Origins Archive for reference. Most arguments that you might make about creationism have already been hashed over there in fine-toothed detail.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X