Creation Vs. Evolutin..what do you believe in and why?

I believe in Creation. Peter Kreeft http://www.peterkreeft.com/ makes a really good reasons of why.

I "believe" in the theory of evolution because it has loads of evidence to back it. Creationism can't say the same.

Arguments for God's Existence

* Can You Prove God Exists?

* Argument from Design

* Argument from First Cause

* Argument from Conscience

* Argument from History

* Argument from Pascal's Wager

* Argument from Desire

* The Divinity of Christ

All of these are unsound arguments.

No professor or scientist from a credible university believes in Creationism. But this video is convinced me that it is true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfls6JdLuZE

I believe in Darwinian theory of evolution.

The reason is because of the evidence Vs faith argument.

quote:Originally posted by Saphi:

Creation Vs. Evolutin..what do you believe in and why?

I believe in Creation. Peter Kreeft http://www.peterkreeft.com/ makes a really good reasons of why.

What are Peter Kreefts good reasons then?

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

What are Peter Kreefts good reasons then?

I too would like to know, I found nothing on his web site.

creation vs. evolution

religion vs. science

faith vs. evidence

Ya I choose to believe things that have facts to back it up.

quote:Originally posted by shitty wok:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfls6JdLuZE

I lol'd.

quote:Originally posted by shitty wok:

No professor or scientist from a credible university believes in Creationism. But this video is convinced me that it is true:

ht tp://www.y outube.com /watch?v=T fls6JdLuZE (http: //www.yout ube.com/wa tch?v=Tfls 6JdLuZE)

The video says that spontaneous generation was proven wrong over 120 years ago through science. Assuming that science has advanced since then (anyone with common sense would agree), don't you think it's a bit shaky to include that in the video...? Just a thought. Oh and I'm inclined much more towards evolution but do not believe in it 100%. Sorry if this is kinda hijacking the thread.

^^^^^^^

Uhhh that video was a joke. hopefully.

How can you only believe in some parts? Its a simple theory backed up by millions of facts.

If you believe in creation, you don't agree with science, and its your religion. Anybody who ses there is science behind creationism should be banished to live in jeruselam or some shit. Every argument against evolution has been shown to be false and retarded, and there is not a single fact that supports creation.



[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 02-15-2007).]

Creationism is simply retarded.

I think evolution may not be 100% correct, but for the truth to be something as polarized as creationism is ridiculous.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

^^^^^^^

Uhhh that video was a joke. hopefully.

How can you only believe in some parts? Its a simple theory backed up by millions of facts.

If you believe in creation, you don't agree with science, and its your religion. Anybody who ses there is science behind creationism should be banished to live in jeruselam or some shit. Every argument against evolution has been shown to be false and retarded, and there is not a single fact that supports creation.







I was thinking along the lines of that video being a joke anyways, I apologize if I came off as a dumbass by making it seem like I took it completely seriously. And as for the "believing in evolution but not 100%" part I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that I only believed in some parts of evolution completely, rather, as a whole I nearly believe in all of it but need a bit more evidence (I admit I'm not always looking for it) to "confirm" that belief. Hope that clears things up.

quote:Originally posted by continuum:



rather, as a whole I nearly believe in all of it but need a bit more evidence (I admit I'm not always looking for it) to "confirm" that belief.

This you tube user has a bunch of nice short essay to understand video with evidence of evolution http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=cdk007

Or if you want to spend more time on the subject this seminar by Ken Miller and its 2 hours long and filled with lots of good information. http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

[This message has been edited by Q777 (edited 02-15-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Q777:

This you tube user has a bunch of nice short essay to understand video with evidence of evolution ht tp://www.y outube.com /profile?u ser=cdk007 (http: //www.yout ube.com/pr ofile?user =cdk007)

Or if you want to spend more time on the subject this seminar by Ken Miller and its 2 hours long and filled with lots of good information. http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg





Awesome man, thanks.

Yeah, Ken Miller is the shit. Funny thing is, the guy is Catholic.

Nothing at all supports creationism, so I'm big on evolution.

quote:Originally posted by shitty wok:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfls6JdLuZE



That was chuckle worthy http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

[This message has been edited by flatplat (edited 02-15-2007).]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jmvlZQZzFts

^ Best explanation ever ^

I put my faith in evolution, and usually in science.

Not 100% though, for I do still have faith in concepts such as free will as well. (Which goes against science, as much as it does God.)

I'm pretty sure time hasn't been a constant since Einstein. String theory hasn't proven anything, and, while I think it has fantastic mathematical merit, it's going to be a long time before it's proven. If at all.

quote:Originally posted by Beaver186:

I'm pretty sure time hasn't been a constant since Einstein. String theory hasn't proven anything, and, while I think it has fantastic mathematical merit, it's going to be a long time before it's proven. If at all.

Right, but look around you and see how much you've gotten from science. Medicine, computers, transport, etc. etc.

Now what has religion gotten us? War and division.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-15-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Right, but look around you and see how much you've gotten from science. Medicine, computers, transport, etc. etc.

Now what has religion gotten us? War and division.



Eh... hold up though.

It could easily be said that religion has had a HUGE positive part in our history and upbringing. I think I've read enough of your posts on here to say that we probly hold a lot of the same beliefs and values... but as much as I'm opposed to religion in the modern world, I tend to think it was a sort of "necessary evil" in a lot of the past. Christianity made a lot of changes in world, and changed a lot of the ways people think. I think it DID unite most of at least Europe to sort of come together and see each other's similarities, even though I do agree it has caused countless wars and rivalries. At the same time, I'm not sure the West would have made it without SOME sort of moral code, enforced to last through the ages.

In my eyes religion was something that we grew out of in the last few hundred years, and it's our lack of ability to overcome the marks it left on us which aggravate me so much. For example, that same moral code that might have pushed us forward... is now in this age holding us back.

I don't deny the horrors of organized religion... but I do believe that they did hold a place in our development as a human race.

And like I stated in your other thread... although science is without a doubt useful in our world, it is also so dependent on faith. Causality is not real... and blaming decisions on science or reason is no more different than blaming decisions on some sort of God.

quote:And like I stated in your other thread... although science is without a doubt useful in our world, it is also so dependent on faith. Causality is not real... and blaming decisions on science or reason is no more different than blaming decisions on some sort of God.

Well, I personally don't know if I would call it faith, even though I like Shestov (sometimes I do feel like he was playing a semantical, sophist game in an attempt to justify his own faith).

This is really how I see science(from an old post of mine):

quote:I don’t think you understand science. It is not dogmatic. It takes into account all empirical evidence we’re currently in possession of, makes a hypothesis based off of the evidence, and then tests and retests it. If it passes the tests and continues to pass the tests, then it’s a theory and a fact. It continues to be a fact until new empirical evidence comes along, IF new empirical evidence comes along, that either contradicts it or adds to it. Then it is refined or thrown off as wrong.

A good scientist admits we never know for sure, but it’s the closest we can get to understanding the natural world in a useful manner with all current evidence.

True, thanks to science we have bombs, but we also have many great things too, some of which I have already listed. I don’t think there’s anything we shouldn’t know, which is where the science of how to build a bomb comes in, but I think there are things we shouldn’t do, such as actually building a nuclear bomb.

Science is seeing that a ball drops to the ground whenever you let go of it and then saying “a ball drops to the ground whenever I let go of it and this is true unless evidence comes along and contradicts it.” If a ball is let go and goes upwards instead of down, the theory is altered.

Religion is not bothering to let go of the ball and saying “the ball will always fall upwards”. Then, when someone shows you it falls down, denying it ever doing so and shooting the person who dropped the ball.

That’s the difference between science and dogmatism.

It's the most useful thing we currently have, although we shouldn't let it spread to all parts of our lives. But it's certainly given more results, imo, than religion has and isn't holding us back, like you said Christianity is.



[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-15-2007).]

Also, I think this quote sums up what Hume was saying in better words than me:

quote:David Hume asserted that it was impossible to know that certain laws of cause and effect always apply - no matter how many times one observes them occurring. Just because the sun has risen every day since the beginning of the Earth does not mean that it will rise again tomorrow. However; it is impossible to go about one's life without assuming such connections, and the best that we can do is to maintain an open mind and never presume that we know any laws of causality for certain. This analysis was used as an argument against metaphysics, ideology and attempts to find theories for everything. A.J. Ayer and Karl Popper both claimed that their respective principles of verification and falsifiability fitted Hume's ideas on causality.

I think the problem is that people won't accept there is no such thing as certainty and either drop into a faith in religion, science or nothingness instead of accepting a world of beautiful probabilities.

^Exactly.

I agree with what you said about Shestov... haha. Being so influenced by Nietzsche, and buying into a lot of what he says, I think Shestov often feels the need to defend his religion... and actually does so in a very clever way, that really CAN change at least your notion of science and reason. Nothing is certain... not even (especially not?) science.

I also agree with your definition of science. It's never true... but more and more close to truth. Your comparison of science and religion to holding the ball hits the nail on the head... and the Hume quote is pretty much what I said in your faith thread regarding the brick hitting the window. A priori? Whatever.

quote:Originally posted by shitty wok:

No professor or scientist from a credible university believes in Creationism.

Actually, Francis Collins has been one of I.D.'s greatest champions. He walks a fine line between I.D. and evolution. Dogmatic beliefs aside, he IS the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. Here's his take on it, taken from a snippet of the debate between him and Dawkins here on a fairly recent TIME archive:

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

Dawkin's retort makes entirely more sense. Read it here:

http://tinyurl.com/ymbzq2

http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/antibible/

Some pretty sound arguments, many of them. But it would take alot of time to check them all, so even now Im inclined to believe more in evolution than creationism, although not entirely.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:



COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

Dawkin's retort makes entirely more sense. Read it here:

http://tinyurl.com/ymbzq2



ya thats a belief that has nothing to do with creationism and intelligent design as the evangelical's are trying to say. With the literal interpretation of the bible. And one day science might be able to prove them wrong aswell, only time will tell.

quote:Originally posted by Beaver186:

I'm pretty sure time hasn't been a constant since Einstein. String theory hasn't proven anything, and, while I think it has fantastic mathematical merit, it's going to be a long time before it's proven. If at all.

uhhhh, Einstein proved time isnt a contant retard. And what are you expecting string theory to do?

quote:Originally posted by Kazz:

Eh... hold up though.

It could easily be said that religion has had a HUGE positive part in our history and upbringing.

Right before Christianity rose to power around 100 of the greatest scientists from all different religions, race's, countries, genders were studying and discovering new things about the world everyday. With no hate towards anybody for anything, just the quest for knowledge. The only problam was they never discussed politics and religion. Once christianity rose to power they burned the palce to the ground and killed the people who didnt escape. 1000 years of the "dark ages" followed, that had no science in it. I for one would of rathered that 1000 years went to science.

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 02-15-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by continuum:

The video says that spontaneous generation was proven wrong over 120 years ago through science. Assuming that science has advanced since then (anyone with common sense would agree), don't you think it's a bit shaky to include that in the video...?

Spontaneous generation has been proven wrong, but not in the way that abiogenesis would be impossible; piles of rags do not spawn rats, and spoiled meat does not produce maggots. Spontaneous generation is a very different thing from abiogenesis.

quote:Originally posted by Kazz:

I also agree with your definition of science. It's never true... but more and more close to truth.

I don't think anyone above actually made that claim. Nothing can ever be proven absolutely, but that doesn't necessarily mean that nothing is ever true. It may be absolutely true that the Earth revolves around the Sun, although it can never be proven absolutely.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Actually, Francis Collins has been one of I.D.'s greatest champions. He walks a fine line between I.D. and evolution.

I.D. proponents may twist his words, but Collins is definitely not a proponent of I.D. and none of his beliefs walk a fine line between I.D. and evolution.

While he does seem to go off the deep end with his beliefs that having universal morals makes the existence of a god highly likely, he doesn't buy into any of the beliefs of I.D.'s nonsense.

quote:Collins is concerned about the ID movement for a number of reasons: First, it falsely insists that evolution is wrong. Collins instead predicts that ID will be discredited within a fairly short time, as scientists come up with more and more evolutionary mechanisms to explain the existence of “irreducibly complex” structures. In that event, Christianity, not science, is what will look stupid. Second, ID strikes him as a “defense” of God from Darwin’s theory, something Collins doesn’t think God needs.

quote: But Collins said critics are setting up false arguments against one of the most reliable theories in science. Rejecting evolution means rejecting the fundamental tenets of biology and other scientific disciplines, he said.

“The idea that the theory of evolution is perhaps subject to collapse is simply not the case,” he said. “You will not find today a mainstream biologist or human geneticist who is not absolutely convinced that Darwin’s theory is correct.” http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/francis_collins.html





quote: Francis Collins is a leading geneticist, a renown researcher into genetic causes of such diseases as cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease, and he is the head of the Human Genome Project, so one is not surprised with the solidity of the science that he uses. In fact, it is the science he employs in defense of evolution that is one of the stronger points in his book. This, of course, runs counter to the creationists and Intelligent Design crowd, and Dr. Collins confronts them head-on. With science heavily reliant on his Human Genome work, Dr. Collins demonstrates how evolution provides an explanation for such things as the structure of DNA, and it is the only theory that can do so.

Collins also turns to other natural sciences to illustrate that not only does science make better sense about the origin and development of our universe, our planet, and its biological life, but that the claims of a recent creation of the universe neither matches what is scientifically found nor, more importantly, is it good theology. If one believes in God, Collins contends, the creator of the universe as revealed by science is one that is far superior to that which is espoused by the Young Earth Creationists. This part of the book makes for enjoyable reading. Collins defends science convincingly. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-10-03.html

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

While he does seem to go off the deep end with his beliefs that having universal morals makes the existence of a god highly likely, he doesn't buy into any of the beliefs of I.D.'s nonsense.



Um. I think he does:

COLLINS: I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it.

TIME: When would this have occurred?

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

DAWKINS: I think that's a tremendous cop-out. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshipping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.

COLLINS: Who are we to say that that was an odd way to do it? I don't think that it is God's purpose to make his intention absolutely obvious to us. If it suits him to be a deity that we must seek without being forced to, would it not have been sensible for him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal his role in creation?

And then he goes on and on, talking about gravitational constants, the God plan vs. the multiverse theory, yadda yadda.

I would have paraphrased this, but felt it important to show that it was in his own words. The link to this interview has already been posted above.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Um. I think he does:

The fact that he believes there may be a god does not mean that he believes in any of the nonsense of the I.D. movement (unless you're going to claim that belief in a god who set things in motion is close enough, which would be disingenuous on your part). His idea of God is much like the one a deist believes in and I fail to see what in the portion of the interview that you cited "walks a fine line between I.D. and evolution." His ideas about human beginnings and biology aren't any different than Dawkins' or other mainstream biologists. Belief in a deist type of god is not anywhere close to buying into the I.D. movement. As you can see in the quotes I cited in my first post, he is specifically against it.



quote:Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God, based on the premise that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life

quote:Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for the development of life. It stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observable processes such as mutation and natural selection. However, intelligent design has no scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or similar to support it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I think anybody who believes in creation should be refused flew shots. The fact you need flew shots every year is because the fucken virus is evolving.

I'd be willing to let them have medical help from all the things that comes from modern biological science, the flew shots a good start though.

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 02-16-2007).]

I belive that w/o religion or "faith in creationism" our world wouldnt be so "held back"

I belive that blindly believing Creationism somewhat narrows your mind, and overall keeps you "inside the box", being satisfied with one answer.

Really, nobody knows, but from what I think, I would say Creationism is bullshit.

Sure... "something" had to develop for us to have all that we do, but if you are to say something created us, then what created that?

It's stupid to think there is some high intelligence that created all this, when you consider that our Sun is really just a star, and there are thousands of stars out there. All possibly having small planets revolving around them.... exactly like our solar system is.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

The fact that he believes there may be a god does not mean that he believes in any of the nonsense of the I.D. movement (unless you're going to claim that belief in a god who set things in motion is close enough, which would be disingenuous on your part).

I should have chosen my words differently, or at the very least, taken the time to define why I personally feel that he “walks a fine line” and is a “champion” of the I.D. movement. Backlash on my part was deserved for not clarifying my opinion, but I’ve read The Language of God and countless articles of him very carefully NOT defending the I.D. movement, yet I still feel as though he champions their cause, just in a very discreet, don’t-get-your-hands-dirty-or-your-credentials-smeared kind of sneaky way.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

While he does seem to go off the deep end with his beliefs that having universal morals makes the existence of a god highly likely, he doesn't buy into any of the beliefs of I.D.'s nonsense.

Let’s not forget here that Collins does not believe God is “highly likely”. He doesn’t believe that there might be a God. He is a self-professed born-again Christian who believes his Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for his sins, then resurrected. He writes about it in his book, The Language of God .

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

His idea of God is much like the one a deist believes in

Actually, it’s much more like Theistic Evolution. Right alongside the good Reverand Billy Graham and other Biblical literalists.

(This paragraph follows his having established in an earlier chapter of his book why our moral sensitivities must be God-given: )

quote:And if that were so, what kind of God would this be? Would this be a deist God, who invented physics and mathematics and started the universe in motion about 14 billion years ago, then wandered off to deal with other, more important matters, as Einstein thought? No, this God, if I was perceiving him at all, must be a theist God, who desires some kind of relationship with those special creatures called human beings, and has therefore instilled this special glimpse of Himself into each one of us.

- From his book, The Language of God



quote: If God chose to create you and me as natural and spiritual beings, and decided to use the mechanism of evolution to accomplish that goal, I think that's incredibly elegant. And because God is outside of space and time, He knew what the outcome was going to be right at the beginning. It's not as if there was a chance it wouldn't work. So where, then, is the discordancy that causes so many people to see these views of science and of spirit as being incompatible? In me, they both exist. They both exist at the same moment in the day. They're not compartmentalized. They are entirely compatible. And they're part of who I am.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/collins.html

As a scientist and Director of the Human Genome project, of course he has not backed up his more evangelical peers with the "nonsense of the I.D. movement". His scientific peers would tear it apart, easily, for reasons he himself could not begin to dispute. He'd like to keep his job and be taken seriously by the general truth-seeking public, no doubt. It’s glaringly obvious that he very carefully chooses his words so as not to be disenfranchised by his scientific peers.

And perhaps I appear disingenuous for having the opinion that he *champions* their cause ... but I can't apologize for that, because I feel like Mr. Collins is more dangerous than most other believers in the supernatural, BECAUSE he is so highly educated and respected, yet he conveniently ignores items like kin selection (just one example) to explain the supernatural origin of morality, just because it interferes with his faith!! Is this not dangerously clumsy, as a scientist?

He sidesteps being lumped into the stew of I.D. proponents and evangelical creationist nutjobs by loudly stating that evolution is not incompatible with God designing it, quietlyreiterating the typical theological self-deceiving attitude of not accepting the *woman from a rib* or a global flood, yet all the while admittedly accepting that a fatherless man brought people back from the dead and came back to life!!! Back him into a corner with evidence against a non-divine Creator (whether of the cosmos OR of human beings), and he pulls the "God is outside of space and time" tactic. He contradicts himself so much that it is dizzying. Yet opinions tend to carry much weight when your title begins with "National Director" and you are dubbed a “brilliant scientist”.

People like Collins - the educated, shoulda-known-better-but-GOLLYDARN-MIRACLES DO HAPPEN! scientists are always the ace in the hole for believers in the supernatural to latch onto. They get to jump up and down and point at the accredited scientist and Director of the Human Genome Project and claim them as their own.

Francis Collins, as you correctly stated, is not a major proponent of I.D. He just gives the new strain of former I.D. Champs-but-now-they-know-better peers another leg to stand on when it comes to incorporating some kind of God into the natural universe. His position is nearly indistinguishable from people like Michael Behe and Ted Haggard, in my eyes - regardless of how brilliant he may be at mapping the human genome or peeling apart the seqeunce of DNA’s double helix.





[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 02-16-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Um. I think he does:

COLLINS: I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it.

TIME: When would this have occurred?

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

DAWKINS: I think that's a tremendous cop-out. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshipping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.

COLLINS: Who are we to say that that was an odd way to do it? I don't think that it is God's purpose to make his intention absolutely obvious to us. If it suits him to be a deity that we must seek without being forced to, would it not have been sensible for him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal his role in creation?

And then he goes on and on, talking about gravitational constants, the God plan vs. the multiverse theory, yadda yadda.

I would have paraphrased this, but felt it important to show that it was in his own words. The link to this interview has already been posted above.



If God really does exist outside of space and time, how is it that He created space and time? How is it that He (supposedly) is constantly influencing our lives (which seem to exist inside space and time)? In order to influence a system, one has to exert some influence on it, which makes one a part of that system.



Entheogenic

quote:Originally posted by Entheogenic:

If God really does exist outside of space and time, how is it that He created space and time? How is it that He (supposedly) is constantly influencing our lives (which seem to exist inside space and time)? In order to influence a system, one has to exert some influence on it, which makes one a part of that system.



Entheogenic

Excellent questions - but don't give me the line! I take a 100% materialist view of our Universe.

I'd love to hear more religious viewpoints and explanations, but really and truly, where this board is concerned, we'd just be brutally re-kicking the same old dead horse.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

How has a debate in Creationism Vs Evolution turned into what a certain scientist thinks happened?

I.D is Religion trying to masquerade as a scientific theory to get it into school science lessons....this was played out in the US and it was clearly found to be so.

The satirical cartoon by i *think* Dennet shows how the ID concept is far from scientific

http://www.webamused.com/blogosophy/archives/miraclel.jpg

if you understand this, it blows the ID concept out of the water.

Where as a miracle occurring is step one in scientific theory it is actually the last step in religion and ID

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:



http:// www.webamu (http: //www.weba mused.com/ blogosophy /archives/ miraclel.j pg) sed.com/blogosophy/archives/miraclel.jpg



I get forbidened error.

I got Forbidden Error too ... and I want to see it if Dan Dennett made the cartoon!

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

It’s glaringly obvious that he very carefully chooses his words so as not to be disenfranchised by his scientific peers.

How is that glaringly obvious? What about his beliefs do you believe he's not being up front about and why?

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I’ve read The Language of God and countless articles of him very carefully NOT defending the I.D. movement, yet I still feel as though he champions their cause, just in a very discreet, don’t-get-your-hands-dirty-or-your-credentials-smeared kind of sneaky way.

I have not read The Language of God, but how can you feel he champions the cause of I.D., which is that evolution is just a theory, natural selection is bunk, let's teach creationism in science class, etc., when he vehemently opposes all of the causes the I.D. movement fight for?

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

His position is nearly indistinguishable from people like Michael Behe and Ted Haggard, in my eyes - regardless of how brilliant he may be at mapping the human genome or peeling apart the seqeunce of DNA’s double helix.

C'mon now! Collins is a man who has standard beliefs about biology and evolution and why I.D. is nonsense, and you find 'his position' nearly indistinguishable from idiots who don't believe in evolution and want warning labels on Science books?

I have clearly, unequivocally misconstrued the point I am trying to get across. I will try to fix that.

- I feel it is glaringly obvious that he carefully chooses his words. I never claimed that he’s not being upfront about his beliefs. I just feel that due to the inconsistencies and disparities in the many texts of his that I’ve read, that he’s attempting to play to both arenas and gain as much support from both (the Christian and scientific) sides. Here are a few examples:

quote: Francis Collins, with a Christian slant: “God did have an interest in the appearance, somewhere in the universe, of creatures with intelligence, with free will, with the Moral Law, with the desire to seek Him."

quote: Francis Collins, with a Scientific slant: "Faced with incomplete understanding of the natural world, believers should be cautious about invoking the divine in areas of current mystery, lest they build an unnecessary theological argument that is doomed to later destruction."

- Again, to reiterate: I know, from reading his texts, that he does not support I.D. I know, from reading his texts, that he has more of a biological bent to his theories on God & the universe … but I’m trying to point out that it’s prominent scientists like him who lend, in my opinion, nothing constructive to the public masses who are confused about what to believe, and why they should believe it – especially when they look to leaders in certain scientific fields to help shape their views.

Even though it seems to me that he is trying to stake out middle ground between fundamentalist Christians and Darwinian atheists, he isn’t being true to either his own professed religious beliefs NOR to his “logical reasoning” where science is concerned. But if you read interviews of his, articles of his, texts of his, you’ll find that he more often than not sides with the creationists, or “Evolutionary Theists”, as he prefers to call it.

He gives hope and a bit of smug certainty to those who have ditched I.D.(due to overwhelming evidence against it), but are looking for other loopholes to make the God Certainty more plausible. If he were forced by gunpoint to “Pick a side! Any side!” … would you care to wager which group of individuals he’d likely be sleeping with on that matter? I’d bet the farm on which side he’d choose, and it’s not the scientific one. (I don’t give a damn how much they’re paying him to Direct the genome project. The fear associated with losing his grace with God would probably far outweigh that fat paycheck, or his love of science.) Do I think he would EVER become a spokesperson for I.D.? No. Ridicule would follow, he’d lose credibility. But I do think he is trying to gain leverage with middle-of-the-roaders who haven’t made their minds up yet by offering his view.



quote: Originally posted by Martini:

I have not read The Language of God, but how can you feel he champions the cause of I.D., which is that evolution is just a theory, natural selection is bunk, let's teach creationism in science class, etc., when he vehemently opposes all of the causes the I.D. movement fight for?

I would like to retract the phrase I chose initially, “Champions”, because I did not intend to debate that Francis Collins is a dyed-in-the-wool I.D. proponent. I just hate seeing an individual win over scientific respect while still having pie-in-the-sky beliefs about Universal Morals, miracles and dead people coming back to life in order to save countless other “souls”.

You say he “vehemently” opposes all of the causes the I.D. movement fights for. I argue that point simply because those who come from the I.D. school of thought have much more to debate about than just a young earth and an omniscient creator of life. While he may disagree about the age of the earth and the fact that God may or may not be the “initial cause” of all life, sentient or not – he DOES NOT help his scientific, rationally thinking peers by recanting his “born again” ideology and his “amazement” at how life’s purpose is aimed towards the good Lord Almighty, exclusively.

And yes, I’ve fully realized my own bias towards Mr. Collins due to my own personal beliefs. It just irks me when leaders of the science community tend to sugarcoat their “hard science” by evoking that godforsaken SKYHOOK that always leads to the vague and obscure “but God is outside of nature” argument.

quote: Originally posted by Martini:

C'mon now! Collins is a man who has standard beliefs about biology and evolution and why I.D. is nonsense, and you find 'his position' nearly indistinguishable from idiots who don't believe in evolution and want warning labels on Science books?

What about the idiots who DO believe in evolution, and DO have a Yale-educated background, who STILL use their scientific credentials to confuse people into believing that – Lo and behold! Miracles do happen! There truly IS life after death!

Yes, I feel those three are nearly (and I stress nearly) indistinguishable. In fact, it would be easier pointing out their few differences than it would be to compile a list of how much they agreed that ultimately, there is a God-force that has a VERY large part in why we’re here, HOW we got here, and where we are headed as far as humanity goes.

They are all three dangerous men, in my opinion. Behe champions I.D., Haggard champions fire and brimstone, and Collins champions the “Reason To Believe” era that so many otherwise-intellectual people are blindly stumbling into just because (gasp!) the director of the Human Genome project says it is so!

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Actually, Francis Collins has been one of I.D.'s greatest champions. He walks a fine line between I.D. and evolution. Dogmatic beliefs aside, he IS the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. Here's his take on it, taken from a snippet of the debate between him and Dawkins here on a fairly recent TIME archive:



Actually, Collins does not support ID. His main reason is this: ID presents itself as a scientific theory when it is in fact a faith-based explanation. It also applies a "God of the gaps" in which God only plugs the holes that science is currently unable to fill. When science does fill these holes, believers in ID are in for a shock.

If you read his new book, The Language of God (which you should, it's a brilliant read), he discusses the coexistence of creationism and evolution. Collins' stance is basically that God created the universe, knowing that it would eventually lead to the rise of life and then mankind. God's tool for doing this is evolution.

An interesting point that Collins makes is that when scientists refer to an unproven theory, it is generally known as a hypotheses. The word "theory" can also be used to describe a factual law.



After reading the rest of the thread, I see you've misinterpreted his stance. Allow me to clear things up: "So, scientifically, ID fails to hold up, providing neither an opportunity for experimental validation nor a robust foundation for its primary claim of irreducible complexity. More than that, however, ID also fails in a way that should be more of a concern to the believer than the hard-nosed scientist. ID is a "God of the gaps" theory, inserting a supposition of the need for supernatural intervention in places that its proponents claim science cannot explain." -page 193, The Language of God



[This message has been edited by King_Cotton (edited 02-16-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

but I’m trying to point out that it’s prominent scientists like him who lend, in my opinion, nothing constructive to the public masses who are confused about what to believe, and why they should believe it – especially when they look to leaders in certain scientific fields to help shape their views.

Nothing? He is a scientist who believes in God and because of that may be able to get through to other theists that evolution is real and I.D. is nonsense. Baby steps.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Even though it seems to me that he is trying to stake out middle ground between fundamentalist Christians and Darwinian atheists

None of his beliefs are anything like that of a fundamentalist Christian and ‘Darwinian atheist’ seems like a non-word to me. His beliefs about Darwinian evolution on the other hand don’t even begin to veer towards any middle ground.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

he isn’t being true to either his own professed religious beliefs NOR to his “logical reasoning” where science is concerned.

While I tend to agree with you that his “logical reasoning” for the existence of a god isn’t very logical, I see no reason to believe that his religious beliefs aren’t exactly as he states them or that he isn’t being true to them.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

But if you read interviews of his, articles of his, texts of his, you’ll find that he more often than not sides with the creationists, or “Evolutionary Theists”, as he prefers to call it.

Going by the standard definition of a ‘creationist’, he doesn’t side with them whatsoever. ‘Evolutionary Theists’ on the other hand…

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:



[QUOTE]Originally posted by AngryFemme:

(I don’t give a damn how much they’re paying him to Direct the genome project. The fear associated with losing his grace with God would probably far outweigh that fat paycheck, or his love of science.) Do I think he would EVER become a spokesperson for I.D.? No. Ridicule would follow, he’d lose credibility.

You seem to be implying that he’s really an I.D. proponent in disguise out of occupational necessity. I don’t see why you feel this way. I see no reason to think that he doesn’t believe exactly what he says he does

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

They are all three dangerous men, in my opinion. Behe champions I.D., Haggard champions fire and brimstone, and Collins champions the “Reason To Believe” era that so many otherwise-intellectual people are blindly stumbling into just because (gasp!) the director of the Human Genome project says it is so!

While I’m basically on the same side of the fence with you regarding supernatural beliefs, I’d rather have another thousand Coliins’ in place of one more Behe or Haggard.

in my opinion, religious types who believe in a book written thousands of years ago should rethink their ideas. This idea of following what a list of people say happened is crazy. people fervently follow the preachings of people who SAY something happened such as a man walked on water or healed a blind person. putting belief in hope...i mean faith...is a terrible position. keep in mind this is even before the government put people under arrest for vocalizing their ideas that the world was round. religious fanatics critisized the ability for scientists such as galileo to make rational decisions. christians have embraced the idea of the world being round. it is only a matter of time before one of our sides is proven. if god is up there and has something planned for all of us and we cannot choose what happens to us then you are making a statement against your own religion when you look both ways before you cross the street.

quote:Originally posted by panther90:

if god is up there and has something planned for all of us and we cannot choose what happens to us then you are making a statement against your own religion when you look both ways before you cross the street.

Is correlation synonymous with causalty in this case? My brother knows I will be getting up Monday morning for school, but does that mean he forced me to go to class?

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

Is correlation synonymous with causalty in this case? My brother knows I will be getting up Monday morning for school, but does that mean he forced me to go to class?

If God knows everything, then he knows every possible alternative for the future and which one is going to happen. That's not saying he's controlling you, however, but it proves you're on a set course that cannot be changed. But in fact, there are passages in both the OT and Koran which explicitly state God has decided your future before you're born. The Koran passage is in the book "The Cow", as for the OT, I've read it but that book is so big, I cannot find it no matter how hard I look.

But seriously, if it is known what you will do before you do it, then you cannot change that course of action and therefore have no freewill, since it was set in stone before you did it.

quote: Originally posted by King_Cotton:

Actually, Collins does not support ID.

I’ve conceded that point more than once in my posts here. To risk sounding like a broken record, I will say it again: I am fully aware that Collins does not support Intelligent Design.

quote: Originally posted by King_Cotton:

It also applies a "God of the gaps" in which God only plugs the holes that science is currently unable to fill. When science does fill these holes, believers in ID are in for a shock.

This is my point! Collins is offering an additional God-theory for these *shocked* I.D.’ers, who will be grappling for another skyhook to utilize a supernatural force when science fails to provide answers. Why further delude the disillusioned? Why can’t Collins be a real scientist and proclaim “We just don’t know yet” rather than offer more supernatural mumbo-jumbo?

quote: Originally posted by King_Cotton:

If you read his new book, The Language of God (which you should, it's a brilliant read),

If you read this thread, you’d see that I have read his book. He is a brilliant writer, and a brilliant orator, and clearly a brilliant geneticist. But I refuse to call his hypothesis on God “brilliant”, when he himself is utilizing the “God of the Gaps” when he claims that God created the Universe, and only THEN did evolution create mankind. It’s disgusting to see a scientist of his acclaim submit to this pre-Renaissance-era way of thinking, where superstition overrides rational thought.

First question to ask Collins to consider is: If God created the Universe, who created God? And if it’s rational to believe that God has just “always existed”, why isn’t it just as equally rational (more rational, in my opinion) to believe that the Universe ITSELF has just always existed?

This sums much of Collin’s message from “The Language of God” up nicely:

quote:Collins, a Christian himself, made the case that God used evolution, and more specifically, Darwinian evolution, to produce the plant and animal life we see today. Collins ascribed to himself a position he titled “Theistic Evolution.” By this, Collins clarified, he means that “God used the mechanism of evolution” and that God “designed the plan.” But this ultimately begs the question: How can God "guide" an "unguided, unplanned" process?

Collins argued that those who claim that God couldn’t have guided Darwinian evolution have “put God in a box.” But would Collins say the same thing for those who claim that God can’t make square circles? What about someone who claims that God couldn’t make himself cease to exist?

If Darwinian evolution--by definition--is "unguided" and "unplanned," then Collins's view seems logically incoherent. How can a process be both "guided" and "unguided" (or "planned" and "unplanned") at the same time? Either evolution is "unguided" as the Darwinists contend, or it is guided in some way—which means that the Darwinian view of evolution must be false. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/11/francis_collins_on_square_circ.html

quote: Originally posted by Martini: He is a scientist who believes in God and because of that may be able to get through to other theists that evolution is real and I.D. is nonsense. Baby steps.

He is a scientist who believes in Creationism, who calls himself a “Theistic Evolutionist”, and who refuses to get rid of his OWN “God of the Gaps” syndrome when explaining how the Universe came into being initially. He is essentially telling the fundamental theists this: Evolution is real, but God created evolution, so by all means … let your children study science, but let’s keep on track here and not forget that GOD created evolution, and we still owe our lives to this process, so worship is both necessary and beneficial to human beings!

quote: Francis Collins in an interview:

I'm what's called a theistic evolutionist. I believe god had a purpose that involved you and me as individuals, people that he wished to have fellowship with. I believe that the way he decided to do that creative step utilized the mechanism of evolution.. I think god is basically the mind that is behind it.

http://faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/tucker_carlson_.htm

Plllbbbttt! I don’t care who agrees with me on this or not, but I stand by my position:

Francis Collins is a dangerous scientist, and is using his acclaim not to help the deluded Intelligent Design proponents see the error in their thinking, but to bring Creationism to a whole new level of academia, guised under the term “Theistic Evolutionist”.

I can't take creationism seriously, because once you begin to understand the universe you see that we're all such an insignificant part of it. When you're ten years old and going to church - you see there's nice little earth, heaven, hell, the sun and you know there's a few planets that god made for us to look at...or something. You believe everything that is has only been around for some 4-6k years and everything that is history, time and space is encapsulated in this nice little, tidy box. Then middle school enters and you realize that ....maybe there's a LOT more to it than our solar system, that earth is a grungy, unforgiving planet and that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago...wait, WHAT?!? Now everything is fucked up and it seems the universe is seemingly infinite(though not actually, just too large to possibly comprehend at this point). It simply doesn't make sense that some god created us into this universe which has possibly existed for some 14b years and one in which we only take up < .00000001% of the universe's space.

http://socsci2.ucsd.edu/~aronatas/project/cartoon.math.miracle.3.12.htm

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

I believe in Darwinian theory of evolution.

The reason is because of the evidence Vs faith argument.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Do I think he would EVER become a spokesperson for I.D.? No. Ridicule would follow, he’d lose credibility.

What are you talking about? He wouldn't become a spokesperson for I.D. because he is a geneticist who absolutely understands that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that we all share common ancestors and that the diversity of life on Earth did not happen in a few thousand years. This is at least the second time in this thread that you suggested that he isn't being honest about his beliefs and you gave nothing to back that up.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Plllbbbttt! I don’t care who agrees with me on this or not, but I stand by my position:

Francis Collins is a dangerous scientist, and is using his acclaim not to help the deluded Intelligent Design proponents see the error in their thinking, but to bring Creationism to a whole new level of academia, guised under the term “Theistic Evolutionist”.

If that is true- who cares? I'm as much of a skeptic, atheist, etc. that you're ever gonna find, and if Collins can get people who are going to believe in God anyway to also believe that evolutionary theory is real and that science should be embraced, he's exactly the type of theist we should be happy about.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

I’d rather have another thousand Coliins’ in place of one more Behe or Haggard.

Exactly! It's the beliefs and goals that Behe and Haggard have that are dangerous and to say that Collins is nearly indistinguishable from those two is ridiculous.

There is no dispute between creationism and evolution. The two viewpoints are entirely compatable, the dispute exists between so called "young earth creationists" or other dangerous right wing religious nutters and the theory of evolution. Even Abiogenesis could be compatable with a belief in God if you think about it.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

There is no dispute between creationism and evolution. The two viewpoints are entirely compatable, the dispute exists between so called "young earth creationists" or other dangerous right wing religious nutters and the theory of evolution. Even Abiogenesis could be compatable with a belief in God if you think about it.

Wrong. Even the order of creation in genesis doesn't fit evolution. Unless you don't believe the bible is the word of god.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Wrong. Even the order of creation in genesis doesn't fit evolution. Unless you don't believe the bible is the word of god.

Why are you talking about the order of Genesis? Do you not get what jb_mcbean is saying? Not all people who believe in a god who created everything take the Bible stories literally or are even Christians.

What he's saying is that if one believes in a god that created and set the universe and it laws in motion (as Collins does), that belief is not incompatible with evolution. Is there any logical reason to believe such a god exists? No. But such a belief is light years ahead of that of YECs and I.D. proponents.

quote:Originally posted by Saphi:

Creation Vs. Evolutin..what do you believe in and why?

I believe in Creation. Peter Kreeft http://www.peterkreeft.com/ makes a really good reasons of why.

BAM POP WIZ <--- For some reason i don't think that is how the world was made. But for you creationist people, well im sure you can make cartoons about it right?

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Wrong. Even the order of creation in genesis doesn't fit evolution. Unless you don't believe the bible is the word of god.

But could a Christian not believe that creation as described in the Bible was an early attempt to describe the universe, and it's true meaning was that God created the universe?

As I said, it's only religious nutters and fundamentalists that believe that the Bible is the actual word of God.

The real Christians, the ones who are out there trying to help and preach tolerance realise that everything must progress, and they look for the lessons which are still relevant.

Don't get me wrong you americans are great but the main problem with some of your peoples way of thinking is this black and white mentality.

Christianity is not technically meant to be about creation, or about what sins will send you straight to the furnace, it's supposedly about Jesus, and his message of peace and love and forgiveness.

Now you can sit there and say religion is evil and extorts the basic beliefs of humanity to cause wars and whatever, and you know what, I'll agree with you, a lot of wars and genocides and atrocities are lead by religion, not all, but a lot.

But the fact of the matter is religion does not extort humanity, humanity extorts religion.

There will always be some person somewhere who thinks he is an idealist, and who sees what he/she wants to see in some book somewhere, they will try and milk it for their own poisonous purposes, they will twist it around until the original idea which may have been good is lost to messages of hatred and intolerance.

These people exist on all spectrums of belief and non-belief. And the fact that you americans are allowing these intolerant bigots to effectively govern your country, that's the bit that gets me.

You allow yourself to get drawn into this "Believe this or burn in hell!!!"

and this "If you don't believe in science then your a threat to progress and must be wiped out!!" nonsense.

Do you see where I am going with this? There is no middle ground, you're either one or the other.

Well personally I am an atheist (verging on agnostic) and I'm proud to admit I am.

But I recognise what's wrong, both sides are as bigotted as each other!

How hard can it be for an Atheist to talk to a Christian and when the subject comes up to just say;

"Well, that's your choice, I respect it, and it obviously works for you."?

And how hard is it for the Christian to say "Well, everyones entitled to their own choice."?

The fact is that everyone sucks, and until you all realise that, you're just as screwed as the rest of them.

[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 02-18-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Christianity is not technically meant to be about creation, or about what sins will send you straight to the furnace, it's supposedly about Jesus, and his message of peace and love and forgiveness.

You can't say with a straight face that Christianity is just about the warm fuzzy stuff you cherry-pick. Christianity is also about being sent to the furnace if you don't believe that Jesus was sent by God to die on the cross for everyones sins, etc.



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

You allow yourself to get drawn into this "Believe this or burn in hell!!!"

Of course. If one believes in the Bible, then that's exactly the way it is- believe this or burn in hell. That's what the Bible says regardless of what country you're reading it in.



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

How hard can it be for an Atheist to talk to a Christian and when the subject comes up to just say;

"Well, that's your choice, I respect it, and it obviously works for you."?

Why should we respect others beliefs? I can respect the person and respect the right to have whacky beliefs, but I see no reason whatsoever to respect the actual beliefs. Am I expected to respect the beliefs of Christians that believe they are worthy of Heaven merely because they believe something without evidence, while I am worthy of Hell for suspending belief until sufficient evidence is brought forth? Am I expected to respect the beliefs of Muslims who believe that killing non-believers is a good thing because that's what their holy book says? I see no reason to respect beliefs merely because people hold such beliefs.

^^^i agree with what martini just said

picking what parts still work in the bible(that havent been disproven) is completly retarded. How come you havent thrown out thigns that science still cant prove wrong.

Why isnt the fact about good and evil, and sin thrown out. That could just be a metaphor talking about doing good things. And the list goes on.

quote: Originally posted by xray:

If that is true- who cares? I'm as much of a skeptic, atheist, etc. that you're ever gonna find, and if Collins can get people who are going to believe in God anyway to also believe that evolutionary theory is real and that science should be embraced, he's exactly the type of theist we should be happy about.

Kudos to him for being “the type of theist we should be happy about”. But as a skeptic, an atheist, a believer in examining the natural universe with tested scientific methods of reasoning, wouldn’t you prefer him, as an accredited scientist, to not adapt such a contradictory perception of the beginning of the Universe? And if he does accept it, because he feels in his heart that there is a force out there that had a hand in CREATING the Universe, couldn’t he leave those thoughts to be reconciled within the confines of his own personal beliefs, and not try to deceitfully plug it into his own brand of academia? It just seems to leave more room for inserting the supernatural into the history of the Universe, something that theists do time and again when attempting to justify why God is – and this is important – necessary to explain the origins of mankind.

It’s just typical of what’s happening as science progresses and new technologies and discoveries point to the fact that divine intervention just isn’t necessary. Those who, as you described, teach people to “embrace science”, yet remain on the fringe when the scripture doesn’t match modern day’s understanding of the Universe … they are guilty of either 1) distorting or entirely dismissing ENTIRE DOCTRINES of the Bible, or – even worse – distorting or reinterpreting science in a manner that best fits the dogma they are clinging to for emotional, egotistical reasons.

quote: Originally posted by xray:

This is at least the second time in this thread that you suggested that he isn't being honest about his beliefs and you gave nothing to back that up.

He is being honest about his beliefs. He is just being dishonest as a self-proclaimed Bible-believing Christian. He is basically denouncing parts of the Bible, yet compassionately clinging to other parts that help soothe his need for having a Divine Force In Charge of All Things. As a Scientist, when it comes to espousing these beliefs, it should be done so in a manner that does not prep future generations to rely on his superstitious methods of discourse when it comes to using science as a tool to explore the natural universe and it’s origins.

He admits “as a Bible-believing Christian”, that tracing back DNA to common ancestors is at odds with his beliefs, yet he lets science trump his religious notions in this instance. On the flip-side - He believes, “as a disciplined scientist”, that many parts of the Bible just simply aren't accurate, but he allows his religious notions to trump what must be Slap-in-the-forehead obvious to him – that God just isn’t necessary to explain how the Universe came into being, and most importantly, that a God with those kinds of special, supernatural influences would be at all concerned with lifeforms (such as you & I) hundreds of millions of years later.

quote: Originally posted by xray:

Why are you talking about the order of Genesis? Do you not get what jb_mcbean is saying? Not all people who believe in a god who created everything take the Bible stories literally or are even Christians.

Unless, of course, they PROCLAIM to be Bible-believing Christians, as Collins does. Sure, he admits that parts of the bible don’t jive with what he’s discovered as a scientist, but can he also be truthful to himself and to his reading public that the Bible is not the *word* of this all-powerful God, instead of giving these middle-of-the-road agnostics another reason to cling to a superstitious faith? He seemingly cannot. And that’s what irks me. And that’s what I find dangerous about him, no matter how much better and more *evolved* he is than YEC’s and Christian Literalists.

quote: Originally posted by xray:

What he's saying is that if one believes in a god that created and set the universe and it laws in motion (as Collins does), that belief is not incompatible with evolution. Is there any logical reason to believe such a god exists? No.

Then why abandon logic at such a critical time? Because it helps soothe the emotional and egotistical side of him that desires to have a God that hears his prayers and bestows upon all of us free will and moral character.

He doesn’t believe the Bible’s chronological history of events, and doesn’t take the passages regarding the origins of mankind LITERALLY. Yet all the same, he takes a LITERAL interpretation of the account of Jesus being born from a virgin and the resurrection of a dead man who comes back for the sole purpose of washing away our sins.

It’s this duality that he will have to contend with one day. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

quote: Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

As I said, it's only religious nutters and fundamentalists that believe that the Bible is the actual word of God.

The real Christians, the ones who are out there trying to help and preach tolerance realise that everything must progress, and they look for the lessons which are still relevant.

If these so-called “Real Christians” realize that everything must progress, and are willing to give up the notion that the Bible is NOT the definitive “word of God”, or for that matter, anything more than just a book of tales harvested by superstitious scribes who were, at that time, trying to rule the masses through fear, guilt, and perverting ancient texts… then why can’t they go that extra, HONEST step and denounce the Bible as a whole?

Why not even take it even one step further, and admit that they are eager to find a way to spread love, tolerance and peace worldwide, and then look for ways to accomplish that without having to go back and rely on a centuries-old book of tales that more often than not reminds us that we are “shallow, weak individuals” unable to find peace, love and morality on our own without this fabled “Holy Ghost” at our sides to steer us?

quote: Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

But the fact of the matter is religion does not extort humanity, humanity extorts religion.

And the fact of the matter is, while people like Francis Collins are extorting religious beliefs to go along with science, and extorting scientific beliefs to go along with his religion, then how is humanity ever going to find a way to promote love, kindness and peace in a world that is now largely skeptic about both because they’re so fucking confused when both sides bend to fit the other?! It’s a vicious circle. Either religion bending to science, or science bending to religion.

Since science has offered so much to humanity, and religion has offered so little - It seems like a no-brainer when it comes to deciding which one to drop altogether.

quote: Originally posted by Martini:

Why should we respect others beliefs? I can respect the person and respect the right to have whacky beliefs, but I see no reason whatsoever to respect the actual beliefs. Am I expected to respect the beliefs of Christians that believe they are worthy of Heaven merely because they believe something without evidence, while I am worthy of Hell for suspending belief until sufficient evidence is brought forth? Am I expected to respect the beliefs of Muslims who believe that killing non-believers is a good thing because that's what their holy book says? I see no reason to respect beliefs merely because people hold such beliefs.

QF absolute T!!! “World Harmony” might be a pipe dream, but until thinking individuals can grasp this concept of accepting religion for what it is – superstitious beliefs that soothe their personal emotions (which WILL vary from individual to individual, country to country) – there will never be anything resembling peace, tolerance and understanding in our generation.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

QF absolute T!!! “World Harmony” might be a pipe dream, but until thinking individuals can grasp this concept of accepting religion for what it is – superstitious beliefs that soothe their personal emotions (which WILL vary from individual to individual, country to country) – there will never be anything resembling peace, tolerance and understanding in our generation.

I read through your entire post, and you are a preacher of hate.

You might not realise it but you are, what you are suggesting is the forcible conversion and removal of people's most deep-seated beliefs. It disgusts me that you can sit there and denounce religion as being extorted for evil purposes and extort science for your own. Here's news for you, there are a lot of things science does not currently know, now if some people take comfort in the fact that there may be a God watching over them, then who are you, who is anyone to suggest that this is wrong, that this should be taken away.

And to Martini, I'd like to point out that in the New Testament all references to hell actually came from revelations or as footnotes from those who wrote it, which could have been the original people, the Romans and Greeks who translated it from Hebrew, scholars from the catholic church, or people who translated the Greek and Roman into English. The point is Jesus never preached about hell, so go and peddle your poison to some other bigots.

So what if he was not the son of god? So what if there is no God? If you believe anyone elses opinion should be discarded and oppressed you are a fucking intolerant bigot plain and simple. Now I suggest you grow out of it, because intolerance is probably the most childish trait you can carry through life.

If you don't believe in God that's fine, I don't either, just don't try and force your beliefs on others for fucks sake. It's annoying enough when Christians try to do that.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

I read through your entire post, and you are a preacher of hate.

You might not realise it but you are, what you are suggesting is the forcible conversion and removal of people's most deep-seated beliefs. It disgusts me that you can sit there and denounce religion as being extorted for evil purposes and extort science for your own.

Just...wow. I've been called alot of things on this board, but never a "preacher of hate". Where did I try to forcibly convert and remove his religious beliefs? I'm fine with the fact that Collins claims that he's a Christian. I am uncomfortable with the fact that he is inserting it into academia, which he is, as an acclaimed and respected scientist. In fact, I'm happy for him if believing in God helps him get out of bed each morning, or if his belief in God gives him the inspiration to be such a brilliant geneticist. I just believe that there are boundaries that have to be drawn where religion/science is concerned - when it relates to a scientist speaking of it academically.

quote: now if some people take comfort in the fact that there may be a God watching over them, then who are you, who is anyone to suggest that this is wrong, that this should be taken away.

My father is a Christian. I love him and respect his beliefs, because it comforts him. We rarely, if ever, speak of why I don't choose to believe in God, or why he does. Members of my extended family ... all religious in some way or another. My boyfriend believes in a strain of Shamanism. At least 95% of my friends are Christian. I have respect for them, and do not try to "convert" their spirituality.

This, however - is a message board which encourages debate, a forum aptly titled for it's argumentative style, and a thread specifically on Creation Vs. Evolution.

My opinions might disgust you, but I'm afraid you don't know me well enough to call me a "disgusting preacher of hate". I am more tolerant than you'd think, and I'd bet you my entire annual salary that if you met me in the streets, you'd think I was a practicing Christian by my demeanor. If you met me in an arena where the topic of interest is "Creation Vs. Evolution" ... then you'd have no trouble mistaking me as a materialist with little tolerance for seeing scripture inserted into science literature.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

And to Martini, I'd like to point out that in the New Testament all references to hell actually came from revelations or as footnotes from those who wrote it, which could have been the original people, the Romans and Greeks who translated it from Hebrew, scholars from the catholic church, or people who translated the Greek and Roman into English. The point is Jesus never preached about hell, so go and peddle your poison to some other bigots.

My poison? I never claimed to know what Jesus said. I mentioned what's in the bible and what millions of Christians believe to be divine scripture. I don't peddle any of the poison in the bible; I leave that up to the Christians. You mention a bunch of reasons the Bible's account can't be known to be accurate but go on to positively affirm that Jesus never preached about hell. How did you come to that conclusion?



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

If you believe anyone elses opinion should be discarded and oppressed you are a fucking intolerant bigot plain and simple.

No one said that anyone should be oppressed, so knock off the bullshit straw man arguments. Of course opinions should be discarded; you've shown in this thread that you believe this yourself. Most of us listen to opinions and discard idiotic opinions and ponder over and possibly adopt the opinions that seem to make sense. That's the rational thing to do.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Now I suggest you grow out of it, because intolerance is probably the most childish trait you can carry through life.

If someone here was calling for a banning of religion, then you're charge of intolerance would be justified. No one here has gone that far. AngryFemme has expressed her views on why she believes that we'd be better off if beliefs without evidence were dropped and science were better embraced. For some reason when it comes to religion, people like you believe that it should get a free pass and any criticism is 'intolerant'. If she were to express similar views on Socialism, I doubt you'd be labeling her 'intolerant'.



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

just don't try and force your beliefs on others for fucks sake. It's annoying enough when Christians try to do that.

Where in this thread has anyone mentioned that beliefs should be forced, as if that's even possible?

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

How hard can it be for an Atheist to talk to a Christian and when the subject comes up to just say;

"Well, that's your choice, I respect it, and it obviously works for you."?

You see, this is what I practice in my day-to-day living. EXCEPT IN ARENAS LIKE THIS, I avoid the conflict like the plague. I love my friends and family too much to harangue them about it, or to bore them with my scientific beliefs.

That said -

How hard is it for you, an atheist-verging-on-agnosticism, to say to an atheist who feels strongly about NOT seeing Christianity merged with science: "Well, that's your choice. I respect it. And it obviously works for you." ?? ...instead of calling me a "preacher of hate"?

quote: Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

The fact is that everyone sucks, and until you all realise that, you're just as screwed as the rest of them.

Not to group you in with that loathesome "american black & white mentality", but you are now the pot, calling the kettle black.



[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 02-19-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

AngryFemme has expressed her views on why she believes that we'd be better off if beliefs without evidence were dropped and science were better embraced.

I appreciate you for clarifying (more than you know), but just for the record:

AngryFemme believes that ACADEMIA would be better off if beliefs without evidence were dropped and science was embraced.

Individuals, on the other hand - what they believe is of no concern to me. I say believe in whatever helps you get out of bed each morning and helps you become a better human being - but whatever you do, please don't force it into academia so that my future children are not deluded when reading about it in school, in a science magazine, or any other strain of educational literature.

quote:Originally posted by Kazz:

Eh... hold up though.

I think it DID unite most of at least Europe to sort of come together and see each other's similarities, even though I do agree it has caused countless wars and rivalries.

One only needs to randomly open a history book to see that this is bullshit. Religion has been nothing but divisive. The 30 years war, England from Henry VIII onward, and Northern Ireland. If anything brought Europe was a weariness of war because of the World Wars and the Cold War.

The Creationism Debate is no different than the church refusing that the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a heretic at his time. The fact that half of America has been misinformed is very embarrassing and I am ashamed to be an American for the mere fact that I am grouped in the same category as these people.

There have been successful abiogenisis experiments that have produced organic compounds such as amino acids.

Evolution is an undeniable fact. Things change all the time and it is viewable easily on a small scale with things such as viruses and bacteria. Part of Darwin's work that is controversial is the power he gave females. Natural selection gave too much power to the females. This power is evident in mating practices of peacocks and many other animals.

Please you poorly informed people. Before your preacher so kindly dictates your opinions and beliefs, please take a remedial Biology class.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I appreciate you for clarifying (more than you know), but just for the record:

AngryFemme believes that ACADEMIA would be better off if beliefs without evidence were dropped and science was embraced.

Individuals, on the other hand - what they believe is of no concern to me. I say believe in whatever helps you get out of bed each morning and helps you become a better human being - but whatever you do, please don't force it into academia so that my future children are not deluded when reading about it in school, in a science magazine, or any other strain of educational literature.



You know what, that's fair enough, I apologise, but all religious viewpoints should be taught within a religious education classroom, including disbelief. And also religious education should only be taught at an age when most have mentally matured, so as to not cloud judgement.

No apology necessary, but thanks, nonetheless. We're all passionate about our views here.

You can believe what you like, but if you're a true scientist and have looked at all the evidence, then it would be intellectually dishonest of you to deny evolution as fact and advocate creationism in its place. I think this is self-evident, based on the sneaky games creationists play.

However, to accept evolution is not to reject God. The only people of faith complaining about evolution, are Literalist Christians who take everything the Bible says at face value. I don't understand why you can't believe in God and simply say evolution is how God made living beings, not why.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

I don't understand why you can't believe in God and simply say evolution is how God made living beings, not why.

Because the buck stops there, that's why. Accepting that evolution is merely a tool that God used in his grand scheme of things makes further investigation of natural processes unnecessary. If they continue to attach the God factor to every single random, natural process - then their "true scientific" inquiry will forever be stumped. They will always be backpeddling to attach God's significance to natural processes, irregardless of the evidence presented in front of them.

I don't understand why people can't just believe in God to tend to their private, emotional, egotistical matters - and leave it there, where it doesn't require extraordinary claims to refute what is now pretty much considered a *closed debate* due to our growing understanding of the natural world.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Because the buck stops there, that's why. Accepting that evolution is merely a tool that God used in his grand scheme of things makes further investigation of natural processes unnecessary. If they continue to attach the God factor to every single random, natural process - then their "true scientific" inquiry will forever be stumped. They will always be backpeddling to attach God's significance to natural processes, irregardless of the evidence presented in front of them.

I wasn't talking for scientists. I was talking about "laymen".

I wasn't talking about just scientists, either. I was talking about "laymen", or more specifically: Christian Moderates.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Um. I think he does:

COLLINS: I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it.

TIME: When would this have occurred?

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

DAWKINS: I think that's a tremendous cop-out. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshipping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.

COLLINS: Who are we to say that that was an odd way to do it? I don't think that it is God's purpose to make his intention absolutely obvious to us. If it suits him to be a deity that we must seek without being forced to, would it not have been sensible for him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal his role in creation?

And then he goes on and on, talking about gravitational constants, the God plan vs. the multiverse theory, yadda yadda.

I would have paraphrased this, but felt it important to show that it was in his own words. The link to this interview has already been posted above.



This is the only person I have seen go on record saying that the two ideas are not incompatible. A higher being could have created the circumstances for the big bang to occur, setting in motion evolution and every other mechanism that has been going since then. The fact that we cannot know what happened before the big bang allows for a lot of things to be possible, and saying that a divine creator is responsible is as plausible as any description I have heard yet.

quote:Originally posted by dead_people_killer:

A higher being could have created the circumstances for the big bang to occur

What created the circumstances for the higher being to occur? It's unnecessary to evoke a "higher being" just because we don't have all the answers yet. If you say that the higher being could have just always existed, why not just assume that mass-energy just always existed?

quote:Originally posted by dead_people_killer:

The fact that we cannot know what happened before the big bang allows for a lot of things to be possible, and saying that a divine creator is responsible is as plausible as any description I have heard yet.

Invoking a complex being who can do anything and has always existed is not plausible explanation for things in which we aren't able to explain yet. Highly complex beings that haven't evolved from simple beginnings are totally implausible.

Humanity has been able to explain plenty of mysteries, and so far it's always been the case that things happen through natural processes and a need for gods of the sun, thunder, etc. are no longer necessary. What's plausible is that this pattern will always be followed and that the supernatural doesn't exist.

www.sciencevsfaith.ytmnd.com (http://www.sciencevsfaith.ytmnd.com)

With both concepts you're stuck with the same concept of having to accept that something's just simply "always been".

With creationlism you must assume the creator, or the "highest being" has always been, or else where would they have come from?

And with evolution, you assume that the first life form was always here.

But then who created that? It's all so paradoxical that I've came to the conclusion that's it's just simly over our heads.

*shrug*

quote:And with evolution, you assume that the first life form was always here.

Evolution doesn't deal with where the first living being came from, it deals with the creation of species after the first being came into existence. Therefore evolution does not have to answer that question.

The best science has for dealing with the creation of the first living being is abiogenesis.