Forums → WEPR → Evolutionism or creationism
| 1486 | 247805 |
im just opening this topic so that people can have a NICE, FREINDLY place to talk about their beliefs, i Myself believe in evolutionism
- 1,486 Replies
I agree with you Demonarian, there are people that believe that God started life, but he mostly sat back and let it form on its own. Maybe he had a hand in us, but let others develop on his own.
I respect that theory, though it is not what I believe.
Evolution is the scientific study of how organisms adapt to their environment over time.
Creationism is a philosophical discussion concerning whether or not humanity was created by a supernatural being, or not.
Is there anyone here who really sees how either of these concepts actually have anything to do with one another?
In response to Demonarian and Venderman:
While it is at least somewhat consistent to say that some higher being created the universe and then let evolution take over, it's much harder to put Christianity and Evolutionism* together. Doing such would require extreme compromise and plenty of tricky exegetical maneuvering. A straightforward reading of the Bible with grammatical-historical context would certainly imply that the universe was made in six days, and with a little bit of calculation, about 6,000 years ago. I'm wondering, is there already a thread that deals with whether or not evolution and Christianity go together? I think that would be an interesting conversation.
In response to Tanstaaf:
It depends what definition you're using for evolution. A lot of the time evolutionists play loosely with the term to try to give it more credibility than it has. If by evolution you mean merely change among kinds of animals to help them survive, adaptation and natural selection, which seems to be the definition you're using, then creationists agree with you all the way. However, if you mean evolution as in the speculation** that all life descended from single-celled organisms, then this is a belief based off of the philosophical assumptions of naturalism, comparable to creationism, which is an alternative speculation that God created original kinds of animals which then branched into more specific groups through loss of information and the switching of genes***, based off of biblical assumptions. Both are beliefs based off of philosophical assumptions, though it's easier to see creationism's assumptions than evolutionism's. They relate to each other in the sense that they're generally opposing an alternative beliefs with many contradictory conclusions and assumptions.
*I use the term 'evolutionism' to emphasize that evolution is a religious, philosophical belief just like creationism. If the person who made this thread had named it 'evolution vs. creationism' they would have committed the fallacy of question-begging epithet. Attaching 'ism' to creation but not evolution gives the impression that one is scientific and the other is religious, when in fact they both have religious and scientific aspects.
**I use the term 'speculation' in place of 'theory' to avoid equating evolution to the level of other theories that are rather objective dealing with operational science as opposed to historical.
***While both creationism and evolutionism cover or at least touch on more areas than biology, I merely gave the origin of life/species aspect of both sides.
P.S. As much as I would like to read the first 75 pages of this thread, some urges must be resisted. Some of what I've said may have been mentioned before by others.
@ProGenesis
You don't appear to have much if any understanding of evolution. Based on what you have said in your post I would assume that what information you have gathered on evolution has come from religious websites or other similar sources.
Yeah genesis, But magegraywolf is kinda right.
Evolution has no philosophical or religious points about it.
In response to deserteagle:
Evolution in and of itself may or may not constitute a religion, but it is a belief based off of religious assumptions (naturalism, uniformitarianism, etc.). All historical/origins science (science that deals with the past rather than the present) theories/speculations are biased by scientists' assumptions. In addition to that, I would say that evolution does make a few claims that could be considered religious. According to evolution, death has been a natural part of life as long as life has existed. This cannot be proven, and contradicts other religions. Normally an unprovable claim about something like death is considered religious. Evolution also implies that humans are not the final creation, contrary to the Bible. According to evolution, humans are merely another step in the advancement of life, but according to the Bible, humans are the center of God's creation. Neither can be proven, so why should one be a religious belief and the other not?
Evolution also has some implications regarding morality and our perception of reality. First of all, if our brains are the result of millions of years of mutation and random chemical processes somewhat filtered by natural selection, why should we trust our minds? How do we know that our brains are wired right? What if the electrochemical reactions occurring in our brains at the very moment aren't giving us accurate depictions of reality? And, in regard to morality, if survival of the fittest is really what drives evolution, then aren't charities fighting evolution? Isn't helping weak humans survive contrary to one of the main principles of evolution? According to evolution, might makes right. If you're strong enough, do it. You deserve to have whatever you have because you're stronger, take advantage of the weak specimens.
Also, though evolution doesn't directly involve how life began or how the universe began, evolution, however indirectly, relies on a Big Bang cosmological view of astronomy (which is reached by the same philosophical assumptions as evolution) to come up with some dates, such as when the some of the most simple life forms evolved. For the most part, evolution sticks with the view that earth is about 4.6 billion years old when deciding how old a species is, when a species died out, or similar things.
In response to MageGrayWolf:
How do you come to this conclusion? I only made one claim regarding evolution, and gave two definitions for it. If you mean I don't have much of an understanding in evolution because I don't accept that it's a fact, then you have reached the question at hand.
How do you come to this conclusion? I only made one claim regarding evolution, and gave two definitions for it. If you mean I don't have much of an understanding in evolution because I don't accept that it's a fact, then you have reached the question at hand.
You definitions are wrong and what you said looks very much like what I have found on creationist websites that are built on almost nothing but quote mines, straw men arguments, and flat out lies.
Evolution in and of itself may or may not constitute a religion, but it is a belief based off of religious assumptions (naturalism, uniformitarianism, etc.).
No it's a scientific theory based off physical evidence and observation.
All historical/origins science (science that deals with the past rather than the present) theories/speculations are biased by scientists' assumptions.
You don't seem to have much of an understanding on how scientific field works. A theory only holds up so long as the evidence points to it. I the evidence we have suggests otherwise the theory is reworked or thrown out.
According to evolution, death has been a natural part of life as long as life has existed. This cannot be proven, and contradicts other religions.
Based on the evidence we have been able to gather all life dies. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think otherwise. If you can find evidence that at one point things did not die please do present it. Also, no the Bible or any other religious text is not evidence.
Evolution also implies that humans are not the final creation, contrary to the Bible.
Oh well if it's contrary to the Bible it must be wrong.
so why should one be a religious belief and the other not?
One is based on observable physical evidence and the other is based solely on faith.
First of all, if our brains are the result of millions of years of mutation and random chemical processes somewhat filtered by natural selection, why should we trust our minds? How do we know that our brains are wired right? What if the electrochemical reactions occurring in our brains at the very moment aren't giving us accurate depictions of reality?
This is a good example of one of those straw men arguments. While it is true we ultimately can't be 100% certain what we see is accurate it's the best and really only thing we have to work with.
if survival of the fittest is really what drives evolution, then aren't charities fighting evolution? Isn't helping weak humans survive contrary to one of the main principles of evolution? According to evolution, might makes right. If you're strong enough, do it. You deserve to have whatever you have because you're stronger, take advantage of the weak specimens.
You seem to misunderstand the term survival of the fittest. It doesn't mean "might makes right" it mean the ones best suited for the environment there in stand a better chance of passing there genetic traits on to the next generation. As for the argument on charities I don't see how a desire to preserve members of ones own species goes against evolution.
Also, though evolution doesn't directly involve how life began or how the universe began, evolution, however indirectly, relies on a Big Bang cosmological view of astronomy (which is reached by the same philosophical assumptions as evolution) to come up with some dates, such as when the some of the most simple life forms evolved. For the most part, evolution sticks with the view that earth is about 4.6 billion years old when deciding how old a species is, when a species died out, or similar things.
I'm not really sure what your argument here is other then "it contradicts the Bible so it must be wrong" Scientists don't just pull this stuff out of no where and claim it to be fact, unlike religion. The actually observe what's going on then come up with a theory based on that. If someone can come up with evidence that contradicts what the theory says the theory is reevaluated, unlike religion. If the new evidence doesn't hold up the original theory will stand but if the new evidence does hold up the theory is revised or thrown out, but I'm repeating myself here.
According to evolution, death has been a natural part of life as long as life has existed. This cannot be proven
On the contrary, its proven everyday. We know there are no species that live eternally, at least not on this planet, on which most of our laws and ideas are based. We see species dying all around us. If you mean to say that natural causes of death haven't always been around, that's extremely unlikely. Hypothetically, if something somehow managed to maintain perfect health it would be possible, but nothing can do that, and everything dies eventually, whether by "Natural" or not
Neither can be proven, so why should one be a religious belief and the other not?
Religion, in almost every case, requires some belief in an almost supernatural portion of it. Even so, you can't call something a religion if it doesn't want to be labeled one. Christianity is a religion because it has followers, gods, and [/i]acts like a religion, acknowledging they are one. Its a religious belief because its a part of an organized religion, while evolution is not.
why should we trust our minds? How do we know that our brains are wired right?
There's a problem with our minds right there. We believe we can define what is right and wrong, based upon our own perceptions. Our brains could by the most screwed up thing you will ever find, but to us that's normal, and therefor, right. We can't really say that our brains are wired right, but we can say they are wired to function.
What if the electrochemical reactions occurring in our brains at the very moment aren't giving us accurate depictions of reality
This is something I think about a lot, but in the end, isn't it still reality? If that's how everything seems to be, its some form of reality. Its not wrong if someone sees it differently, its just a different perception, and still reality. Would you say someone who is colorblind doesn't see reality? Reality is incredibly difficult to define if you think about it.
And, in regard to morality, if survival of the fittest is really what drives evolution, then aren't charities fighting evolution? Isn't helping weak humans survive contrary to one of the main principles of evolution? According to evolution, might makes right. If you're strong enough, do it.
Humans [i]have destroyed evolution for our species. Medicine and life support both counteract evolution and natural selection, making our species weaker all the while. We're strong enough to do things now, and we set whats right, but we rely more and more upon technology to survive and thrive. Unless you would include machines as part of Humans evolution, we have come to a standstill, possibly even a reversal.
Humans [i]have destroyed evolution for our species. Medicine and life support both counteract evolution and natural selection, making our species weaker all the while. We're strong enough to do things now, and we set whats right, but we rely more and more upon technology to survive and thrive. Unless you would include machines as part of Humans evolution, we have come to a standstill, possibly even a reversal.
Um no we haven't destroyed evolution for our species. We as a species will continue to adapt to what ever environment we are in. We have just become better at control what that environment is. If we don't need to be as strong as we once were then we will become physically weaker. Evolution makes species that are best suited for there environment. That doesn't always mean they get stronger and stronger.
ok i will go with Evolutionism becase things cant pop up like a pop up on a computer out of nowhar(that was a terable example lol) if you look at one speaces like a lion and find one day (this rilly hapend natualy in wiled) you find that there was a change in the lion pack theres a whight lion cub so basic ly evilution is a small change that will be come a huge change at a long period of time so the pack might end up in like 100 years or less being all whight lions, then that will grow and become a new speaces whitch tada an great exaple of evolution but we havent found out whut we desnded from (cant be monkeys because you chould be seeling almost hairles monkeys by now.....wow that will not be a prity sight sense monkeys dont were cloths and....ahhhh..... im gana leave it at that lol.
ok i will go with Evolutionism becase things cant pop up like a pop up on a computer out of nowhar
Isn't that exactly what evolution is? Sure it is over a much longer period but where did the first stuff come from? huh?
you find that there was a change in the lion pack theres a whight lion cub so basic ly evilution is a small change that will be come a huge change at a long period of time so the pack might end up in like 100 years or less being all whight lions, then that will grow and become a new speaces whitch tada an great exaple of evolution
We see a change like this happen in bears, thus the polar bear.
but we havent found out whut we desnded from (cant be monkeys because you chould be seeling almost hairles monkeys by now.....wow that will not be a prity sight sense monkeys dont were cloths and....ahhhh..... im gana leave it at that lol.
No of course we didn't evolve from monkeys and I doubt you would find a reputable scientist who deals with evolution that would make this claim. Like chimps we did at one point have a common ancestor though.
Isn't that exactly what evolution is? Sure it is over a much longer period but where did the first stuff come from? huh?
Evolution doesn't deal with that question. Look up abiogenesis for more information on that question.
Not sure if I posted this up here yet or not but if I did it must have gotten buried.
Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism
Evolution doesn't deal with that question. Look up abiogenesis for more information on that question.
Exactly my point. So evolution can not explain how things came about as to where the bible can...
Exactly my point. So evolution can not explain how things came about as to where the bible can..
please reread what I posted abiogenesis deals with the question of how life began. Evolution deals with what happened after that.
I assume what your trying to get at is because evolution doesn't deal with how life began then it's wrong and the bible is right. If that's the case this is completely ridiculous. It's like saying the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't answer the question of how the universe began.
please reread what I posted abiogenesis deals with the question of how life began. Evolution deals with what happened after that.
I did have read it. And it doesn't explain it either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis it does not explain how stuff FIRST got there from nothing....
Thread is locked!