Creation or Darwinism?

[Revenant]

I thought this might be a good topic. It seems American schools cant teach one without the other. I'm really currious as to how Talleyrand views this and what the policy is where he teaches.

And what is your own opinion on this? Again, mine is trapped in a hazey shade of winter. I dont believe in an omnipotent being voodooing us into existance, and yet, I find it hard to explain some things that I have seen and felt. In my own life, I can see times when I lived selfishly and worried about none but myself, basically taking my free will to an extreme, and my life and happiness were shit. On the other hand, when I gave my free will up and tried to live by what my own conception of a creator would want me to do, life had a sweet taste.

I believe in evolution, but maybe with an inteligence behind it I geuss.

[Jay Weishaupt]

Until irreducible complexity can be fully explained in Darwinian terms, I believe both have proven their validity.

[Morbid the Unknown]

Darwinism dosnt have a direct start. Theres no explination for the first form of life. Thats why I feel their may be a higher being that just kicked off the process that is known as Darwinism. It's the best of both worlds.

[Element 115]

Darwinism dosnt have a direct start. Theres no explination for the first form of life.

one celled organisms mutated and crawled out of the ocean.

[furst]

I don't believe in a beginning and an end. Why must the universe have a point of origin? I think this mode of thinking just has us boxed in. I fully believe in evolution, but that's all it is to me. Evolution doesn't explain the beginning of all beginnings, it only explains how things evolve over time.

[mindfork]

Until irreducible complexity can be fully explained in Darwinian terms, I believe both have proven their validity.

haha jay busts out of nowhere all philisophical and shit.

i believe in a Creator and i've seen micro-evolution with my own eyes (strains of bacteria in my body evolving and becoming resistant to medication). it may be the limits of my intelligence, but i'm far from convinced of macro-evolution (one species, like ancient apes, evolving into another, like humans, over time). It doesn't seem like there has been enough time and iterations for that many things to go right, even if it took 4 billion years. biological life is unimaginably complex, nameh? Imagine dancing molecules just arranging themselves in patterns over time through trial and error and lo and behold! the universe is now self aware? I really doubt it. secondly, why is it whenever we dig up fossils they never seem to have transitional or incomoplete elements, like partial wings. in order for macro-evolution to have taken place, there would have to be these huge sudden changes, and they would have to happen to multiple organisms, and those changes would have to be adventageous to the survival of the specias. it's just a lot to have to go right, and hundreds of millions of times. however, i could be wrong and macro-evolution could be a reality. however, i don't see why that would preclude my belief in a Creator though.

[Streetie]

Furst is right. Exsistance is a neverending cycle.

There was no real begining and there will be no end. Time is an illusion that each one us "sees" in a certain way.

Evolution makes more sense than creationism. Evolutionism says that evrerything is always changing. That makes sense.

all creationism is a fall back postition for idiot white evangelical christians who are all secret fags. Everyone knows this.

Shout out to jessica

[unknown]

I don't believe in a beginning and an end. Why must the universe have a point of origin? I think this mode of thinking just has us boxed in. I fully believe in evolution, but that's all it is to me. Evolution doesn't explain the beginning of all beginnings, it only explains how things evolve over time.

excactly as i see it...i dont think our perception will allow us to see the REAL truth behind life!

[RM_3000]

Until irreducible complexity can be fully explained in Darwinian terms, I believe both have proven their validity.

Details.

Creationism, more or less, is closed. It's all in the Bible, and that's the limit. There is no more.

Science, on the other hand, is open. Science, as it exists today, is partial knowledge; it is not complete. Theories will be revised and extended in the presence of future evidence. Just because science doesn't understand something today doesn't mean that it won't understand something in the future. Irreducible complexity simply means something that science cannot explain (i.e. how some groups of atoms and molecules do the "life" thing and how some groups don't). That doesn't mean that science will never find the answer.

Darwinism, however, is limited. It explains how species evolve over time. It does not, however, explain how the first species came into existence. Now, just because Darwinism doesn't explain that, however, does not automatically mean that the first species had to be created by "Christian God."

Lastly, God himself/itself is irreducibly complex. If we start with God created life, then who created God? If God was created, then who created God's creator, etc.?

Of course, you can take that exact same statement about God, and say it about the Universe. Who created it? What was there before? Are there more of them out there?

[Talleyrand]

Details.

Creationism, more or less, is closed. It's all in the Bible, and that's the limit. There is no more.

Science, on the other hand, is open. Science, as it exists today, is partial knowledge; it is not complete. Theories will be revised and extended in the presence of future evidence. Just because science doesn't understand something today doesn't mean that it won't understand something in the future. Irreducible complexity simply means something that science cannot explain (i.e. how some groups of atoms and molecules do the "life" thing and how some groups don't). That doesn't mean that science will never find the answer.

Darwinism, however, is limited. It explains how species evolve over time. It does not, however, explain how the first species came into existence. Now, just because Darwinism doesn't explain that, however, does not automatically mean that the first species had to be created by "Christian God."

Lastly, God himself/itself is irreducibly complex. If we start with God created life, then who created God? If God was created, then who created God's creator, etc.?

Of course, you can take that exact same statement about God, and say it about the Universe. Who created it? What was there before? Are there more of them out there?

That is a good post.

No theory explains the creation of the universe or of "man" fully. As you pointed out, RM, science produces "theories" that are refutable if contradictory evidence comes along. Christianity is largely dogmatic, with its precepts taken on faith.

This, however, brings up a further question which is: Which of these ways of looking at creation is more valid? They each serve different purposes for the person that believes in them. The Christian can use Creation to buttress his religious outlook and define a space for us in existence that is meaningful. The secularist can rest assured that he is leaning on hard facts and the conclusions he builds on them can be factually verified. One outlook is for the metaphysical adventurer, the other outlook is for the metaphysical engineer.

On another point, the Catholic Church under John Paul II admitted that a good Catholic can believe in evolution if he considers it "God's work". I only cite this to show that certain religious groups, including conservative ones like the Catholic Church, have elasticized their own doctrines to keep up with changing times. They have done so in the past.

The old adage is that people usually take what they don't know and turn it into a mystical explanation, using mysticism to fill in the blank. I like to think of my view as taking in what I don't know and allowing that feeling to wash over me . That is my mysticism, without the mystical stuff.

My policy in school is to teach Darwinism as scientifically valid and Creationism as a religious belief and distance myself from the debate altogether.

[TELone]

Never in history has any one theory been able to explain an event of such magnitude. The usual case is some of each and as furst stated evolution only represents how things changed. however, in the case of our schools, we should only teach darwinism because it is based on science alone. Intelligent design or creationism just crosses the church/state line and those radical christians who somehow differ just pollute the minds of the american youths.

[Jay Weishaupt]

RM seemed to take my point as if I were advocating Creationism, this is not the case. I was merely stating that somewhat resent discoveries in science have led to a new possibility in which Darwinism is not the finite solution in the debate. And since the standing theory is yet to cover this new idea it has, on some minor level, proven that the entire case for Creationism is not based on blind faith or sycophantic dogma. I'll include a quote for those unfamiliar with this idea.
Evolutionary theory holds that very complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity) biological systems can be reduced to a great deal of successive improvements. Irreducible complexity argues that there are some structures where this is not possible - it claims that the constituent parts of these structures would be useless prior to their current state. An "irreducibly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_%28philosophy%29) complex system" is defined as "one that could not function if it were any simpler", and therefore, intelligent design proponents claim, could not possibly have been formed by successive additions to a precursor system with the same functionality. The most common examples used in argument are the complexity of the eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye), the Blood clotting cascade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_clotting_cascade), or the motor in a cell's flagellum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum).

[indica]

like ive always said,religion is for the peasants.

[RM_3000]

Holy shit. Christopher Lloyd is Ze Pope!

[unknown]

Never in history has any one theory been able to explain an event of such magnitude. The usual case is some of each and as furst stated evolution only represents how things changed. however, in the case of our schools, we should only teach darwinism because it is based on science alone. Intelligent design or creationism just crosses the church/state line and those radical christians who somehow differ just pollute the minds of the american youths.#

yes very true, i for one dont know half as much about darwin as most in this thread but as i have children myself who go to school i now take notice of how they are taught. Because i follow no religious framework i dont want it imposed upon my children. Also the way i see darwins work and his thought processes during said work astounds me and if even part of that process can be taken onboard by my kids then thats the only way we as humans will get more answers.

Technology plays a massive part in this IMO!!!

[Cabalistic]

i believe that in the neverending existence of time every single possible combination of matter will occur and humanity is one of them, no less of an accident than the shape of spilt milk and has no higher meaning than anything else in the universe

[Revenant]

Poh defied everything about the theory of natural selection.
He was a God.

[CHILLY]

Just watch South Park, all the answers are there.