Evolution or Creation

As I view the Creationism vs Evolution debate I see only one major disconnect between the two arguments.

Evolutionists maintain that life on this planet evolved over millions, or billions, of years.

Creationists maintain that the first chapter of Gensis is absolute, literal truth. That the universe, as we know it, was formed within 144 hours, 24 hrs/day times 6 days. They do base more argument on assumed life spans and the geneology provided in the Old Testament to justify that the world is no more than 6000 years old.

To me this is the complete and total definition of the difference between the two ideas.

I do have a problem with most creationists in that they are unwilling to discuss where all the neat things we find buried in the Earth came from. I have never read a discussion suggesting a source for the fossils.

Now, I offer my argument on the subject. I don't have any problem with either arguement as long as folks will explain what we're looking at. Here's my argument.

Evolution is a theory. It is a man made concept to try to explain where all the fossils come from. It is very much like some artificial Christmas trees with various size hoops around a central stem. On the hoops the scientists hang what they have found and try to hang them in a way that makes sense. If you prefer, they have a jigsaw puzzle they are trying to assemble without knowing what the finished puzzle will look like, and they know they don't have all the pieces, but their idea (theory) of what it might look like helps come up with more ideas on where to look for the other pieces.

Evolution has lots of questions and not that many solid answers. It can be brought down like a house of cards in a gale if some folks find some "things" that just don't fit the current idea of what the picture looks like. I don't know what those things would be, other than maybe aliens in a space craft.

I can reconcile evolution and creationism in either of two ways.

First, the Bible is not the literal description of the creation of the universe. It is written that God created man in His own image, and man in his infinite wisdom returned the favor. In returning the favor I suggest that God created the world, a really long time ago. Then he played around, like children with clay and sticks. He made all sorts of things; some he kept around and some he just dropped like a kid done playing with a toy. Those dropped toys are what humans are digging up today. Fossils, evidence of multiple glacial periods, evidence of past floods and huge rivers, etc.

Second, grant that God did create the universe in exactly 144 hours, and took the Sabbath/Sunday off. But He knows what He is up to, and where humans are going to go as they mature and venture out from their home planet. The humans are going to need to be able to put pieces of strange puzzles together in order to survive in space and on other planets. So God left all sorts of things laying around for humans to find and puzzle over, like a young child with a new and strange toy. The purpose being to teach humans how to find things, how to put puzzles together, and come up with reasonable, working ideas so they can survive someplace other than Earth. Not unlike some parents who buy the most creative toys for their young children to play with in order to stretch their minds and hopefully make them smarter, or better able to survive and thrive when they grow up.

It's that last paragraph that I find a lack of among creationists, or something like it explaining the things we have found.

Or, perhaps, along with the confusion God introduced at the Tower of Babel he put all that stuff in the Earth to get humans back together and working on solving the problem of communication and interpersonal relationships so we can get along with each other on long space flights. In which case I think we have demonstrated the last few years that we have a loooooooong way to go.

Now, please allow me to get up on my soapbox.

I really don't think, based upon my reading of the Bible, that God cares whether we believe that the Bible is literal or not. To me the message in the Bible is that we are supposed to love God with everything we've got, and treat others as we want to be treated; with courtesy, respect, civility, and kindness. I find these same basic ideas in every religion, except one, which I have looked at. Some things are phrased differently, but the sense of the message is still strikingly and strongly the same.

So I ask the question: Why is there so much heat and anger and discussion about Creationism vs Evolution? It doesn't seem to even be mentioned in the Bible, or any other religion.

Another question: Do we have the debate because people have still not learned to listen to each other and consider what the other has to say and participate politely and civiliy in the discussion?

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Kelly
Who will politely decline any invitations to a heritic roast where I'm to be the guest of honor.

I've heard it's only a problem for those fundamentalists (ie, Christians who take the bible for the truth literally.). I think it's also because there are people (probably the fundamentalists) who want scientists and others to consider creationism as a theory, when the scientists look at it and say, no, it can't be a scientific theory. Of course, they can explain why, perhaps it's because fundamentalists don't understand why or because they're in denial. I know most of the time, these fundamentalists will go and try to make scientists understand their idea of creationism, and of course, the scientists will go, armed with logic and the scientific method and consider it objectively. but when the fundamentalists see that the scientists can't agree (because of perspective; one is subjective, the other is objective), they freak out and go all anal retentive. I can see, from all these ideas on the existence of god, that Christianity is not so clear cut. In fact, it's quite subjective, seeing that all the people that tried to explain creationism had their own points of view, whereas people referring to evolution provided the same information about it, one way or another (ie, more objective). It really depends on whether you want to see it backed up with evidence and observations or if you just want to believe something. I believe it's because our perspectives differ. One says we have to believe, the other says we have to observe.

One group says you have to believe whether or not it is rational to believe--the literalists fall into this category I think. (I draw a distinction between literalists and fundamentalists as all fundamentalists do not consider the seven-day creation story as more than metaphorical.)

One group says you have to observe and logic requires one to draw the conclusions tjat the majority of scientists have drawn from those observations.

And there is a third group of the majority of Christians who see no conflict between faith and science and think both can be rational. The proof to them of science is that it is logical based on evidence. And the proof of their faith to them is their own experience. If I can see the color red and you are colorblind to that one color, I have the certainty of the color red and you have to either accept the fact of the color red on faith or reject it as being part of the color spectrum. If you choose to reject it, however, it does not follow that the color red does not exist. All who have experienced the color red know it is rational to believe it exists.

And you can put a red object before a person colorblind to red and they will tell you it's not red, even though you and I (assuming we're not colorblind) know perfectly well that it's red. However, I don't see how you can put "god" in front of an atheist and have him tell you god doesn't exist, when every other Christian in the room says he's there.

The color red is perhaps a more tangible example than God, but the analogy is the same. My husband is colorblind to various shades of various colors and he can neither explain what his world looks like to him nor can I more than vaguely imagine it. I suspect it is the same for those who have not experienced God though I think it might be even easier to describe an experience of God than it is to explain a color that another cannot see.

Nevertheless, a person who has never seen the color red will either disbelieve such a color exists or he will accept the witness of the many others who testify that it exists. If a person should be in the company of many others who also cannot see the color red, I suspect it would be easier to believe there is no such color.

Yes, the analogy is correct, but what I'm implying is that one is testable and the other isn't. You can place a red object in front of a colorblind person, but you can't really place "god" in front of an atheist. Unless you're asking the atheist to believe that empty space in front of him is god. Do Christians even see god in a physical form? At least with the red object, we know something is there because even a colorblind person can see the object, even if it's not red.

I am blue-green colorblind, and i can tell you simply that i see one color, bluegreen, in situations in which others see different colors. I can distinguish depth of color, just not a difference in hue.

Pretty much applies to my view of egregious superstitions--they all look the same to me . . .

Set, when the little green men finally land, you are definitely not going to be in the welcoming delegation.

Lucifer writes


But the object is not the color. You have to tell the color blind person to take your word for it that the object is red and even if he believes you, he will have no true understanding of what that is.

The one who has experienced God has experienced something tangible to him/her, but it is not something that can be understood by one who has not experienced it. As far as God experience being testable, maybe in a sense it is. Much of science involves observation of behaviors and it can be predicted fairly accurately that certain species (ants, gorillas, honey bees, etc.) will behave in a certain way.

It is a fairly safe bet that soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless. orphanages, thrift shops, treatment centers, private schools, food banks, etc. are going to be founded and operated mostly by people who have experienced God. This could be measured scientifically I suppose.

Ever work in the "charity industry?" I have . . . to the extent that it employs just as many people as can be justified, paying as high salaries as they can get away with, its just as much about greed as any other industry. The religiously devout troop to volunteer, for which they are to be commended. The management of nationally-based charitable organizations readily exploit this free labor, for which they ought justifiably to be condemned.

The charities I mentioned, however, are generally not nationally based charities but are founded and operated by people who genuinely see a need and want to help. I do not disagree that many national charities are operated with people who might have less than altruistic motives, and yes I have worked for or with some of those.

The issue here, however, is whether God can be scientifically tested and it is my opinion that no, He cannot be scientifically tested even as the colorblind person has no way to scientifically test the color red and must rely on less than scientific means in order to believe in a color red. The fact that the God experience does seem to motivate more people differently--you don't see all that many athiests opening and manning the local soup kitchen or the corner thrift shop for instance--is about as close to scientific testing as we can get.

It is beyond my ken how there can be a conflict between spirituality and science. Spiritualality is totally subjective and encompasses everything. This unity is only achieved through personal experience, and not through belief based on the intellect. Myths attempt to explain through metaphor these subjective experiences and feelings. The problem arises when the metaphor is taken literally. Then it comes in conflict with nature. When religion becomes supernatural, above nature and separate from its laws, then the conflict with science arises.

To take the metaphor literally is to belittle religion and pose a problem for the neophyte. The child growing up can either accept the myth literally and reject science, reject the myth totally and become an athiest, or dig down into the myth for the personal understanding and gist of the religion.

The last alternative is generally anathema to the church. I believe that our society lacks an accepted method for a young person to have a religious experience within the church, and other methods, i.e., drugs etc., are illegal. What happens to the society is whatf we have now: unbridled egoism, greed and shysterism in business and government untimately leading to wars fought over ideas.

I suspect that many religious people, and most of the leaders of these religions would tell you that their God is a literally existing being and not a myth at all. It seems to me that the idea that the stories of Gods and the creation of the universe are only metaphors is not the majority viewpoint. If I asked most Christians, "Do you believe that God could speak to you out loud, using sound, the way humans do if he wanted to?" and could get them to stop evading the question, the answer would be "Yes."

It is not strictly true that a colorblind person unable to distinguish red cannot scientifically measure for it. It would be a very simple matter to create an apparatus to measure the wave length of the light absorbed, and demonstrate "red" without being able to visually distinguish the color oneself. "Red" is scientifically demonstrable . . . which happens to significantly distinguish Red from God.

Setanta's scientific device would not show a colorblind person what the color red looks like or even that it exists. It could only demonstrate that some wave lengths of light differ from the wave lengths of light that the person can see.

I agree wholeheartedly with Brandon that those who have experienced God know with absolute certainty that He is no myth. I disagree that the majority of Christians think the creation stories of the Bible are not myth. I think the vast majority of Christians view them as mythical in the sense that they are metaphorical explanations that however it all was done - big bang, evolution, or whatever - God was the intelligence and force behind it and caused it to be.

So what the hell is that supposed to mean about the existence of your fairy-tale god, Fox? The point is that wave lengths of light are demonstrably real, and can be measured.

You big easter bunny up in the sky admits of no such demonstration.

so why do we have to start bashing one's religion?

It's okay Seed. It was a good discussion up to then wasn't it? Ya'll take care now.

this is true Fox... im just surprised it took this long to show up....

I'm not so much bashing religion, as the attempt to put it on the same footing as imperical investigation of our cosmos, and doing so with extremely lame analogies which don't add up. But as far as that goes, i do consider religion of any description to have been, and to continue to be, the most pervasive threat of destruction to a just and well-ordered society.