Evolution or creationism? Which do you believe?

[Clintonista2]

[baldguy]

1. I believe God set the process of evolution in motion.

[Justyce]

2. Ditto. I believe both.

[bryant69]

3. It'll be interesting to see if that is an acceptable answer

That's more or less what I believe as well though.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[tridim]

5. Do you believe "God" created DNA?

If so do you believe he/she created all DNA, or just human DNA?

[bryant69]

15. Well the assumption would be all DNA wouldn't it?

This seems like an esoteric question. God created proteins, enzymes, and hormones as well.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[tridim]

30. I'm not sure what kind of question I was asking..

It's just that if "God" created DNA that means he/she had to create everything, including every mutated DNA strand in the Universe since the beginning of time. That doesn't seem very efficient or practical. In fact it defeats the entire purpose of DNA, which is to adapt and evolve.

[bryant69]

33. I don't know if that necessarily follows

God could have created the mechanism or the language of DNA and then set it loose to multiply and mutate as needed, I suppose.

Bryant

[tridim]

34. In that case evolution is a fact.

That's exactly what evolution is.

Creationism is defined as "God created man in his own image".

[comradebillyboy]

38. Of course evolution is a fact

evolutionary theory constantly adjusts as more facts about evolution emerge.

[bryant69]

39. OK - fair enough - can I ask you a question?

Does accepting evolution as a fact imply that God, if he or she exists, isn't a creator?

I think that question is near the heart of this debate.

Bryant

[wtmusic]

46. The trend

is to push God farther and farther back to what is not currently understood. Doesn't it follow that when whatever you mean by a "creator" is eventually understood, God will be relegated to a more distant role?

Is God synonymous with ignorance?

[bryant69]

50. That's only if you see God as simply the answer to questions you don't know the answer too

Like "Why is there thunder? Zeus!" Many believers have a bit more rounded view of God than that.


Bryant

[tridim]

61. Taken in the context of the entire Universe..

and using the biblical definition of "creator", no, God isn't a creator. He's just something humans invented when we thought the Earth was the center of everything.

Is life the ultimate purpose of the Universe, or is it something much greater?

They say religion and science are both a quest for truth. Problem is, religion doesn't want to know the answer to that question, they don't even want to hear it asked.

[comradebillyboy]

65. evolutionary theory nor any other scienntific theory does not

addresses the existence or non-existence god or any other supernatural beings. Science seeks natural explanations for observable reality using the philosophy of methodological naturalism.

[bryant69]

66. Hmmm - maybe you should tell Tridim that. n/t

[tridim]

87. That's true, but physisists invoke the lower-case "god" all the time.

Einstein, Hawking and Kaku all speak/spoke of god in their studies.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." - Einstein

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

93. Not in their scientific work they don't.

[cyborg_jim]

81. Doesn't that depend on what it is you want that god to have created?

If the answer is "absolutely everything," you're rejecting evolution.

If the answer is "just the rules," then you're evolution compatible.

If the answer is "some the of the stuff, just when he feels like it," then you're being inconsistent.

[John Gauger]

106. Did God create all lipids or just hormones?

[Lerkfish]

9. my view as well. I don't find them mutually exclusive

so its hard to answer the poll with the responses available.

[TZ]

41. I'd like to know how you find the theory of evolution

compatible with thebelief that Earth is 6000 years old. Because thats what Creationism is.
Poorly worded poll really.
Possibly your belief is more compatible with the ORIGINAL Intelligent Design theory which before it got hijacked by fundies stated pretty much your believe...Evolution happens but has a designer. I personally think both are untrue
Evolution happens and is random.

[Clark2008]

63. That simply is not true.

Most Christians - NOT the fundies - do not believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. That's not in the Bible. That "theory" was coined by a pseudo-religious kook and stuck with some of the followers.

Creationism can mean, for example, that we believe God created the Big Bang - or whatever preceded the creation of the universe.

[TZ]

77. If thats true

Than how does Adam and Eve fit in with the evolution of man? I'm not trying to be snarky here. I really want to know.

[BurtWorm]

100. What you're saying is not true.

The young earth theory is the result of taking the Bible as literally true to its logical conclusion. In the 17th century, when Bishop James Ussher calculated the age of the earth to 4004 BC using Biblical genealogies and the Hebrew calendar, he was very much in the mainstream of Christian thought. It's only since the Enlightenment set the Bible aside and actually inquired of nature how old the earth was that its actual age was discovered (although I've heard that some pagans before the Christian era were on a similar trail). And it's only since then that most Christians (in the world--probably not in the ever-backward US) have been forced by reality to accept the scientific, rather than the Biblical, age of the earth.

[Realityhack]

141. Wrong

Unfortunately almost half of Americans believe the earth is around 1,000 years old. Far more than believe that god guided evolution. I do not think that jives with your view that Most 'Christians'(tm) don't believe in a so called 'young earth'.

[Jim__]

145. I'm not sure if that is a typo, but the statement ...

... Unfortunately almost half of Americans believe the earth is around 1,000 years old is definitely not true. About 80% of Americans are Christians who believe that Christ lived on the earth about 2,000 years ago.

[wtmusic]

22. God has traditionally been naught but an explanation

for the unexplainable. As more pragmatic explanations are discovered, the divine version is cast aside as "interpretative".

Re: what set the process of evolution in motion, there's no reason to believe that trend wouldn't continue.

[TahitiNut]

23. Ahhh... the paradigm of God at the Bowling Alley.

I find it fascinating that folks present an omnipotent God as SUBJECT to Time .. and not as the Creator of Time itself. How can God be Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End ... and then somehow be dependent on Time? Is not all of Creation, from Big Bang to Big Crunch, all of ONE PIECE to an omnipotent, all-transcendent God??

Hmmmm? :eyes:

[bryant69]

29. Well yes - but we don't have his perspective - we only have our own

And obviously time exists in our perspective. Thus we talk about God doing things before or after or here and there in time, things that from his perspective may seem very different.

But then it's hard for me to conceptualize existence without time.

Bryant

[cyborg_jim]

83. That god doesn't sound very helpful in explaining anything.

[BurtWorm]

101. That's the beauty of the Trinity, isn't it?

One part can be outside of all creation, and that leaves the other two parts to muck about inside it. Throws up a nice big obfuscating cloud of nonsensical mystery, doesn't it, squire?

[John Gauger]

105. Shh!

You're not supposed to think about it!

[Evoman]

24. Evolution is independant of god. If there is a god, he evolved too.

[TahitiNut]

25. So ... God did not create Time itself?? God ages? God gets 'old'? Fascinating.

:rofl:

[wtmusic]

27. God begat his/herself

but before that, begat time. :crazy:

[Evoman]

84. I don't actually believe in god.

I'm just saying that I have no idea how something so complex (and god would have to be orders of magnitude more complex than the universe, right?) could just be alive. That's why I find God so damn improbable. God literally doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[John Gauger]

107. Absolutely.

I heard an interview with Dawkins on NPR where he said that God logically must also be the product of evolution because ordered complexity cannot come about any other way.

ETA: Note that he did not say that god exists. This was purely a hypothetical, and one that he himself said was extremely unlikely.

[Dorian Gray]

32. Me too...

I in no way believe in creationism in the 6000 years ago way, but I do believe that God created the universe and that he set in motion the evolutionary system.

[GreenPartyVoter]

52. Yes, theisitc evolution

[Hoof Hearted]

55. That's where I fit in too. Both. I chose "other" since both isn't an option.

[tammywammy]

57. Me too

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. God of the Gaps, eh?

Seems lacking, theologically.

[John Gauger]

109. No worse than any other theology.

Though I agree that the god of the gaps is a logically untenable position, I find it humorous to point out that any proposition is theologically weak, seeing as theology is a totally bullshit field.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

123. Oh I agree it's all bullshit.

But some of it's more bullshit than others.

[emilyg]

91. Yes.

[Maat]

95. I agree, Baldguy.

Spirit set the process of evolution in motion.

[Realityhack]

142. On what basis?

Aside from an intellectually bankrupt presupposition that there must be a god hiding in some gap somewhere is there any reason to believe that there was any 'god' involved?

[cmkramer]

159. I agree too n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Observable facts are not a matter of belief

Your poll is fundamentaly flawed: one does not "believe" evolution, one look at facts and draws a logical conclusion.

[A HERETIC I AM]

8. Agreed. Poorly worded poll. n/t

[wtmusic]

12. And the creationist response to that is

"Look at the wonder of the human eye...can there be any logical conclusion but that it was created by a higher being?"

Arguing with these people is like herding cats.

[gaspee]

16. worse

much, much worse. I can't believe that anyone actually believes such stupid arguments.

[progressoid]

18. I'd rather herd cats.

[bryant69]

17. Would it be better worded

"Does our knowledge of evolution disprove the existence of a creating God?"

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TechBear_Seattle]

40. The problem with that question is...

That Creationists strive hard to remain deliberately ignorant of any knowledge of evolution.

[bryant69]

44. OK. But obviously the world doesn't consist entirely of atheists and creationists does it?

I mean there must be some believers who accept evolution?

Bryant

[comradebillyboy]

47. Scientific inquiry normally does not

examine the supernatural, thus evolutionary theory says nothing about the existence or non-existence of god.

[John Gauger]

108. I disagree.

The idea of evolution has come as the result of inquiry and observation. Although those conducting the inquiry were not asking any questions about the existence of god, their observations have had some implications for the idea of god, that is an omnipotent being that created the universe. There is no place for god in this theory - the idea of god has become unnecessary, antiquated. There is no part of the theory of evolution that requires an omnipotent creator.

[Imperialism Inc.]

103. Seems to me that depends what you mean by create.

Usually when we talk about a being creating something it means they are altering the natural course or state of things. Altering how things would be without that being doing anything. So it seems to me that what we know of evolution does indeed imply that God did not create creatures in that sense.

On the other hand you could take a step back and claim (sans any evidence of course) that God created the process of evolution itself. Is this logically possible. Well we are on a little bit shakier grounds here but I still say no. There is reasonably strong evidence to suggest that the emergence of life from non-life occurs without any interference from external beings being necessary. So it doesn't seem reasonable to say that God created evolution or that he created the initial organism that allowed evolution to proceed.

So what if we go even one more step back and claim (again sans any evidence) that God created the "rules" that would eventually lead to an initial organism and then evolution. That is really the best the theist can do. They can't even say that God did this because he wanted living organisms. Maybe such things are just a side effect. Lee Smolin has suggested that the universe seems to have ideal parameters for creating lots of black holes. Maybe those are what God was trying to create.

So does it rule it out? Well not really. If you push it far enough back you can still keep those notions. As long as you are comfortable believing in things there is no evidence or even convincing abstract logic for.

[truth2power]

19. Thank you. I was gonna say that. n/t

[comradebillyboy]

35. correct, the best theory is the one that

best explains observable facts and makes the best predictions about future discoveries. I don't believe in evolution, I believe evolutionary theory best explains observable reality aka facts (evolution itself being an observable fact).

[TechBear_Seattle]

43. Also, theories are flexible in that they will change to accomodate new facts

Whereas belief tends to be inflexible and will either discredit or flat-out ignore facts which do not fit.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

90. Yes one does, unless one's trying to abuse language to score points.

The word "believe" just means "think is true".

However, for political reasons, a lot of DUers try to interpret is as meaning "think to be true without sufficient evidence" or "think to be true for reasons of faith".

This usage is silly, bordering on incorrect, and should be avoided.

I believe that 2+2=4.

That doesn't mean that any faith or uncertainty is involved, it just means that I think that 2+2=4.

[smoogatz]

128. Well, the first definition in the Merriam Webster online dictionary is:

1 a: to have a firm religious faith

The word has more than one meaning, but acceptance through faith is obviously at or near the top of the list. Unless you're just talking out of your ass, that is.

[smoogatz]

127. Yep. "Belief" implies a non-rational acceptance and insistence

that what one believes is the absolute truth. Most rational people don't "believe" in evolution so much as agree, based on the available evidence, that it's the best current explanation for a particular set of questions (origins, species diversity, etc.). If a better explanation comes along (pretty unlikely at this point), we'd drop evolution like a hot rock. There's no emotional attachment.

[blondeatlast]

6. I think there is far more scientific evidence to support evolution but evolution doesn't answer

an awful lot of things, either.

I DON'T believe in creationism, but there is no way whatsoever to know how that first little speck of DNA came to be. I do believe in some sort of spiritual presence, --but again, that presence doesn't explain everything either.

[tridim]

10. Chemistry, biology and the process of evolution explain how DNA came to be.

However, it is impossible to prove that our DNA was or wasn't seeded.

[awoke_in_2003]

76. "but evolution doesn't answer and awful lot of things, either"

this just proves the limited intelligence of man at this point, not the existence of some great sky daddy.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

147. Quantum physics also doesn't answer and awful lot of things

And yet, semiconductors work. Or else you wouldn't be reading this.

[Random_Australian]

104. For instance, evolution doesn't tell us why dropped objects fall downwards.

Therefore there is something more than evolution. I'm guessing either spirit particles or an Intelligent Falling Thing.

[meegbear]

7. FSM!

FSM! FSM! FSM! FSM! FSM! FSM! FSM! FSM!

[Javaman]

26. Ahoy there matie! nt

[GCP]

11. Please read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

He very effectively demolishes all the arguments for creationism.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

48. Yes. Of course. Richard Dawkins knows all.

:eyes:

One cannot prove or disprove faith belief. (And creationism is a faith belief.) That is something that both the fundamentalists and the "active" atheists like Dawkins fail to grasp. Fools to the left of me, jokers to the right.

[GCP]

102. At least he doesn't operate out of superstition

And belief in some fairy in the sky :eyes:

[John Gauger]

110. Emphatically, egregiously, and enormously incorrect.

Creationism is very much a scientific proposition that can be examined utilizing factual observation and logical inquiry. Just because some people belief it without evidence does not mean that evidence cannot be brought to bare against a proposition. Specifically, when we have sound evidence for a mutually exclusively explanation of events, (evolution) we can very safely say that we have scientifically disproved creationism.

[Realityhack]

164. well said n/t

[comradebillyboy]

49. Excellent Book nt

[crawfish]

116. Creationism, yes. Religion, or Christianity, no.

[RethugAssKicker]

13. I find it hard to believe that in 2008....and on DU

we are actually voting on this...

[AlCzervik]

20. the scopes monkey trial is being done over here next week.

don't miss it!

[gaspee]

14. wow

Interesting that there's even one person on DU who believes in creationism. Just goes to show me how far out of the mainstream I really am, even here on DU.

[TZ]

21. sadly in the mainstream

I think the latest polls show that only about 45% of Americans overall think evolution is real.

[Gman]

28. It's interesting how high the intelligence level here at DU is

compared to somewhere like FR. This poll at FR would probably be 50-50 at best.

Someone said it above about looking at facts and then drawing logical conclusions. Being able to draw the logical conclusions even when there is some "gray" area is one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives. We don't need a set of iron-clad, pre-written rules within which to place everything that happens in the universe in order for it to make sense. We can look at something, analyze it and draw conclusions. If the conclusions fall outside the accepted framework, then we feel we've discovered something.

[wtmusic]

31. Merely accepting the unknown

seems to be beyond the ability of most at FR.

[frogmarch]

36. Evolution. No god or gods exist. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Does it matter?

It seems to me, as an agnostic, that any self respecting "God" would be entirely unconcerned with doings of a minor species, on an insignificant planet, circling a mundane star among billions of other stars, in an unremarkable galaxy, among billions of other galaxies, in what is probably just one universe among trillions of other universes.

And, if there isn't some sort of divinity, the cosmos certainly doesn't give a rip about what we believe or don't believe.

We only think we're important because we tell ourselves we are.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

42. It depends on the meaning of the word "creationism"

I believe in a God-created world. That is my religious belief. I cannot prove it scientifically but I hold it to be true in what I believe. Frankly, I think there are some things beyond science which cannot be proven, but that does not necessarily make them a fiction.

Does that make me a "creationist"? I don't know. I don't believe God created this world in 7 days, or that he created it 4,000 years ago. I'm not a literalist. But on the other hand, I do see a divine hand in this universe.

Note I have no problem whatsoever with people believing God created this world in 7 days and 4,000 years ago, so long as it isn't taught as scientific fact in publicly funded schools. People will believe what they believe and I'm not going to ridicule them for that.

I also subscribe to evolutionary theory as a part of this creation by God. I do believe that God works through ways that may be explained by science. This is really the idea behind "intelligent design" which is actually an interesting concept and something that could be debated at a college-level philosophy of science course. The problem is, "intelligent design" has become something of a euphemism for "literalist creationism" (i.e. 7 day creation, 4,000 years ago) by both its supporters and detractors, so the whole merits behind the idea too often gets lost.

[sinkingfeeling]

62. The Robert Boyle watchmaker! It was designed and then runs by itself?

[Orsino]

45. Creationism explains nothing. Evolution explains most of the fossil record.

Creationism makes no predictions and is unfalsifiable, and therefore useless as a theory of anything.

[The2ndWheel]

51. We went from one to the other, because we didn't like the first

Whatever the process is that we call evolution happens. We know it, but we don't much like it. To leave things to evolution is to leave it to chance, and that's too diverse. Whatever it is that we're building requires that everything be standardized. That's why we want to modify the DNA of any species we wish, plant/animal/whatever, to only benefit us. Since evolution works in 360 degrees, and not in a straight line forward and upward, to make this whole thing work, we have to control every aspect of life.

Evolution is always fighting back against us though. That's why anytime we cure something, another something comes along. That's why the more energy we use, the more we alter the planet.

It doesn't really matter which anyone believes in, because both are happening. Neither one will stop. No matter how much we want to control all of life, it will evolve, causing us to need more control of it. That cycle will just continue. Whether it's from the religious perspective, or the scientific perspective. Both forms of organization require standardization. Neither one likes diversity.

[Ghost in the Machine]

53. Earth was discovered, then populated, by beings from another planet.

Much like our space exploration today, our ancestors were exploring space, seeking another planet suitable for life. They found Earth, traveled here, studied it, did experiments, etc. and created what we have today.

They started out by coming back and bringing plants, which they monitored, to see how they did in this atmosphere and environment. Once they saw Earth would sustain plant life, they brought insects. They monitored these also, and when they saw that the insects survived, they brought smaller mammals such as mice, birds, reptiles, etc.

Once they were certain that these survived, they brought larger animals, such as dogs, cats, horses, monkeys, etc. to see how they would grow, change and adapt to their surroundings.

Once they saw that the larger animals could survive, they then began experimenting with humans. I think the cavemen were an experiment with cross breeding apes with genes from the ancients, but they never evolved in the way the wanted them to, so they then "made" man through cloning or "snowflake" (test tube) babies.

Now here we are...

[cali]

56. you forgot the sarcasm thingy. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

68. No need for the "sarcasm thingy"... n/t

[Lone_Star_Dem]

60. Perhaps they traveled here and left behind bacteria

Which then evolved to become what we are today?

We could all be nothing more than the product of some space travelers poop.

[tridim]

67. So, God = Poop?

:)

I actually think the asteroid/seed method is quite possible, but I don't consider that creationism at all. It's just standard biology on a cosmic scale.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

72. Oops. I really should think before I post.

That wasn't my intention.

My apologies to all those of Faith, my intention was not to be hurtful.


I suppose to be safe I should also apologize to any space travelers who may be lurking on DU who don't wish to have their poop associated with humans (Don't laugh, have you never seen Men in Black?).

[tridim]

73. Don't think. I thought it was funny :)

And my response was tongue in cheek, not a jab. Sorry about that.

[awoke_in_2003]

79. "So, God = Poop?"

no, poop actually exists.

[John Gauger]

111. Oh, snap! n/t

[Orrex]

85. What about chemosynthetic organisms at the Mid-Atlantic rift?

Did our progenitors deposit them there directly, or did they just dump a barrel of them into the primordial sea and hope for the best?

[Neoma]

54. Evolution of course.

:)

[snooper2]

58. If there is a god...

doesn't anyone wonder where his house is?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

64. If there is a god...

Would you blame her/him for not wanting to live in the same neighborhood as us?

[snooper2]

69. That's Upsilon Andromedae

It's about 46.3 light years away :)

[tridim]

70. I'd live here if I were God.

Well, actually I'd live a few thousand light years away so I could observe it from a distance.

[Clark2008]

59. Both.

Why do people make it an either/or situation?

Most Christians I know, FWIW, don't think the Earth is only 6,000 years old and know that evolution takes place. We take the Bible as a series of allegories and not as plain, white fact.

[murray hill farm]

71. And another pressing question!

Just how many angels can sit on the head of a pin??????????

[troubleinwinter]

74. Regarding the 6,000 year old world thing:

It is NOT so stated in the Bible (as my crazy neighbor insists).

It was 'calculated' in the 17th century by an Anglican Archbishop, James Ussher, who published a chronology that purported to time and date Creation to the night preceding October 23, 4004 BC.

He arrived at this by counting the number of "begats" in the Bible!

This excerpt from Wiki is interesting:

Ussher's work is sometimes, and often mockingly, associated with Young Earth Creationism, which holds that the universe was created several millennia ago. But while calculating the date of the Creation may seem an eccentric activity today, given the knowledge produced by modern geology and palaeontology and the fact that the Earth is now being dated by the scientific community at about 4.6 billion years old -- with the universe nine billion years older than that — in Ussher's time such a calculation was still regarded as an important task, one previously attempted by many Renaissance scholars, such as Joseph Justus Scaliger.

Ussher's chronology actually represented a considerable feat of literary scholarship if not science. It required the Bible to be firmly anchored in history, which demanded great depth of learning in what was then known of ancient history, including the rise of the Persians, Greeks and Romans. Constructing a biblical chronology also required expertise in biblical languages and in-depth knowledge of the Bible itself. Ussher's account of historical events for which he had multiple sources other than the Bible is usually in close agreement with modern accounts; for example, he placed the death of Alexander in 323 BC and that of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. On the other hand, the period of time between the Creation and the Flood depended on the version of the Old Testament that was used: Hebrew (1656 years); Samaritan Pentateuch (1307 years); or the Ethiopic text (2262 years). Ussher favoured the Hebrew version.

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

Seems to me one cannot fault the lack of scientific knowledge in 1650, ya sure do gotta wonder about people who believe it today.

[baldguy]

78. The Bible is not a history book.

Its an owners manual for a human soul.

[troubleinwinter]

82. Not a histoy book, and not a scientific textbook.

[trotsky]

88. How very Christian-centric of you. n/t

[baldguy]

89. I saud it was AN owners manual - I didn't say it was THE owners manual.

Don't be obtuse.

[trotsky]

92. The implication is clear.

Toyota makes "AN" owner's manual for the Camry. Does anyone else?

Besides, anyone who claims that all life's answers are in a book - ANY book - is a fraud.

[baldguy]

94. You insist on creating conflict where none exists.

A Camry is a car - many companies make cars. And for the most part, those companies are pretty good about including owners' manuals. But, as I'm sure you're aware there are many people who have no want or need for them.

I never said all of life's answers can only be found in the Bible - history & science for example.

I never implied that not having faith in God was a failing, nor should failure be implied when one finds comfort & strength in that faith. Failure comes when one imposes those beliefs on another. That's why the Establishment Clause exists, and why biblical creation myths have no business being taught as fact in our science classes.

[John Gauger]

112. If the bible is wrong about science and history

what makes you think it's right about the human soul?

[crawfish]

115. Because it's not writing about science and history?

[cyborg_jim]

117. From a position of hindsight that is very easy to say

From the perspective of the authors - not so much.

[John Gauger]

118. But the bible does make scientific and historical claims.

The bible several times says that the sky is enclosed in a large dome; elsewhere it claims that the Earth is flat. These are scientific claims that are demonstrably false. The whole pageant of the Exodus is likewise demonstrably false. These are historical and scientific claims.

[crawfish]

120. I'll answer both of the replies here...

The words weren't written to make scientific or historical claims. They were written, using the understanding of the times, to present a spiritual lesson. It uses terms like the firmament or the foundations of the earth because those terms would be familiar to their contemporaries, and it would be easy for them to grasp the point of what was being said. No scientific claims were made to differentiate themselves from the non-Hebrew world; only cultural and religious ones.

Creationists are guilty of reading 1000-2000BC literature with a 21st century viewpoint. That is absolutely the wrong way to read it.

[cyborg_jim]

150. How do you know?

They were written, using the understanding of the times, to present a spiritual lesson. It uses terms like the firmament or the foundations of the earth because those terms would be familiar to their contemporaries, and it would be easy for them to grasp the point of what was being said. No scientific claims were made to differentiate themselves from the non-Hebrew world; only cultural and religious ones.

The ancients didn't have a modern concept of what it means to be scientific - so claims that, "obviously they didn't mean that any of this actually talked about the way the world actually is in a physical sense" is dubious at best.

And also does this apply to all cultures throughout all time when they make a claim about the mechanism of the world which is, to modern eyes, ludicrous?

[crawfish]

152. It doesn't matter...

If the ancients thought they were the truth or not. The point is, that the message did not depend on their absolute truth.

[cyborg_jim]

153. How exactly are you supposed to know what the message is...

...if you don't know what truth it is supposed to be conveying?

[crawfish]

154. The message...

is not too difficult. We tend to overanalyze it by trying to read science and history into it. The more literal reading actually eschews those considerations, in fact.

[cyborg_jim]

155. I'm not reading science and history into it

I'm pointing out that the people of the time likely didn't make any differentiation between science, history and spirituality in the way we do.

So saying something like, "oh, this obviously isn't meant scientifically or historically to be true," rings hollow.

[crawfish]

156. If you need a disclaimer,

Then add "isn't meant scientifically or historically accurate in a 21st century understanding of the terms".

The point is, the authors used current understandings to explain principles. For instance - when God created the firmament in Genesis 1 : 7, what the reader is meant to take from that is that God created the area in question. "Firmament" is how they viewed it at the time. It doesn't matter whether the author really believed that the firmament was a literal place or if it just explained what the author saw better than anything else he could think of; the gist is still the same.

[cyborg_jim]

157. So we return to the original point.

You say it's not writing about science and history but spirituality. Since the people of the time almost certainly conflated all these things such a statement is hardly warranted is it?

[crawfish]

158. I believe we are at an impasse...

The modern notions of science and history did not exist at the time most of the OT was written. Thus, to say that the ancient writers combined science and history with spirituality as a single entity does not mean that the ancient authors intended their works to answer questions about science and history.

For instance: if I was to say today, "God was the bang in the big bang", and in 100 years scientific discovery proves that there was, in fact, no big bang, my point would still be valid. This is because I was not attempting to imply that the big bang existed by my statement, only that God was responsible for initiating creation. The OT - and, in particular, the creation story - works much the same way, but in a much subtler and more artistic form than my statement.

[cyborg_jim]

160. I think you're missing the point

Thus, to say that the ancient writers combined science and history with spirituality as a single entity does not mean that the ancient authors intended their works to answer questions about science and history.

They could hardly intend to purposefully address such epistemological constructs they didn't have a formalism for could they?

That's not the same as saying they never intended anything to be meant in a way that could be understood to be "scientific", as in describing the way the world works or "historic", as in describing the way the world was.

For instance: if I was to say today, "God was the bang in the big bang", and in 100 years scientific discovery proves that there was, in fact, no big bang, my point would still be valid. This is because I was not attempting to imply that the big bang existed by my statement, only that God was responsible for initiating creation.

That doesn't make your point valid - it makes your point irrelevant.

The OT - and, in particular, the creation story - works much the same way, but in a much subtler and more artistic form than my statement.

So we should conclude that at no point does anything in the OT pertain to any sort of historical or scientific fact just because.

[crawfish]

161. You're splitting hairs, and thus missing the point.

Scientific/historical data does exist, but only as an incidental element. Note that I'm referring to the older texts (the Pentateuch) and not so much the later books, which were written at or around the time at which they occurred.

[cyborg_jim]

162. Spirtual data does exist, but only as an incidental element

From an anthropological viewpoint of course.

It's just uppity monkeys reproducing texts otherwise.

[immoderate]

148. A volume of mythology.

Every culture has its mythology.

--IMM

[troubleinwinter]

75. My father is an astronomer and a physicist, very religious, and absolutely accepts evolution.

I accept evolution. I vascillate on God (but mostly don't think about it much).

[Popol Vuh]

86. Other

I believe, though documentation of ancient text replete throughout the world and through archaeological evidence of ancient advanced cultures, that visitors from another world genetically manipulated early hominids. Sounds crazy on the surface of it, but, before you pass judgment I challenge you to view the evidence which much of it can be viewed in the below video links.


Sons Of God

The Origins Of Evil

Destruction Of Atlantis

2012 Future Of Mankind

Jordan Maxwell

[knitter4democracy]

96. I believe that, when I get to Heaven and if I still care, I'll ask.

The evidence supports evolution. After reading The Panda's Thumb in high school, though, evolution's a bit squishy to me. I was raised by a scientist and an evangelical, so I tend to think both are right. The evidence is for evolution, we are to use the brains we were born with to figure out Creation, and God will show His home movies on Saturday nights in Heaven. :)

[TZ]

97. A Stephan J. Gould fan are you?

I studied under a rival theorist to Mr. Gould in college..Not impressed with his evolutionary theory but its legit science at least...If you are really interested in evolutionary biology I would highly recommend the Blind Watchmaker and the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. They are well written and understandable to non-biologists...

[knitter4democracy]

98. Gould is a terrible writer.

He sums up each chapter in the last paragraph, and then you wonder why you read the whole chapter up to that point. Ugh. I think I will check out those books instead.

Hubby's loaned me some of his texts from college and all, so it's not like I don't understand evolution and such. I just find that they seem to have a hard time explaining everything yet, which is part of why science is so fascinating. :)

[and-justice-for-all]

99. Evolution does not requier belief...

creationism can only be taken on 'faith'since it does not have ANY evidence to support it's hypothesis, in order to do so they must first demonstrat that their 'creator' exist. With out proof of a 'creator', creationism goes no where fast.

The Law Of Evolution is just that, like the Law Of Relativity, the evidence clearly shows Evolution to have happened and continues to happen, no watchmaker needed.

[UndertheOcean]

113. Evolution , ofcourse

[crawfish]

114. The bible was written as a spiritual text...

using the knowledge and understanding of the contemporary author as a method of communicating a universal, timeless message.

Creationists are guilty of adding to their bible because they are using it to infer scientific or historical facts instead of reading them for their intended purpose. For instance, the story of Jonah, originally meant as a satirical story illustrating the forgiving nature of God versus the bullheadedness of man, gets turned into an argument over what kind of fish could a man live in for day. Likewise, the first creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:3) is meant to illustrate the place of God and man in creation, while denying the supernatural elements of the creation stories of their contemporaries (Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Canaanites). When seen in this light, it becomes a remarkable story that is very differentiated from every other creation story of the time in key ways that allow it to hold meaning today. The attempt to literalize the story not only makes the reader miss out on those elements, but actually flatly deny them since it means that the story would have had to be influenced by them.

So no, I don't hold to the creationist dogma. Science will find what science does; evolution, common ancestry, natural selection are all very well supported and contain elements that we can regard as fact. I see no need for any of it to affect my faith.

[John Gauger]

119. What is the universal, timeless message of the bible?

How do you know that the story of Jonah was not meant to be taken literally?

So you're claiming that the Sumerian, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Canaanites all believed their creation myths, but the Hebrews did not? What is your evidence for that claim? In what way is it different from the other creation myths of its time? What relevance does the story hold for those living in the era of science?

[crawfish]

121. To answer,

"History" and "science are concepts that would not have had any meaning to the ancient Hebrews, or any of the ancient cultures. The modern concept of history began with Herodotus in the fifth century BC; modern science didn't emerge until far later.

"Literal" is also a modern concept as well. Civilizations throughout history have shown a propensity to take stories from elsewhere and adapt them to their culture. As to how they took it...I'm sure the original author knew that it was not the truth, but I have no doubt that later cultures viewed the stories as true. It really doesn't matter - what we are to get out of the stories is not a peek into the mysteries of the universe or a blow-by-blow list of historical events, but a religious meaning. We can derive that same meaning no matter how literal we view the events.

I can quickly list a few ways that the Hebrew creation myth is different from any of its neighbors. Note that I'm only discussing Genesis 1:1-2:3, as the next few chapters are a separate story (and would require a bit more time to explain):

1) It "de-mythologizes" the account. Outside of God's hand, intermediate agents such as the sea, land and animals are seen as non-divine instruments for accomplishing parts of creation. Other cultures made divinity out of all elements of nature - sun, moon, wind, seas, etc.

2) It refers to creation as "good". This is in direct contrast to the other stories which view the creation of the heavens and earth as a cosmic mistake, a result of warring between gods.

3) It sets man apart as a purposefully created, freely gifted being, given special importance because he is set above all else in creation and below only God. Most other cultures view man's creation as a mistake, or created to be a slave race to the gods. (Man's placement here is, IMO, the key to the rise and expansion of western civilization, and, quite honestly, the rise of science itself. We feel we have been given a divine edict to grow, prosper and discover.)

The key is that the original authors used the understanding of how the world was at the time from their neighbors - the Babylonians, Sumerians, Egyptians and Caananites - pulled the pagan elements out and placed God as the agent. You cannot derive 21st century science from these documents.

[genie_weenie]

122. The word "belief" is a difficult thing for me. I don’t believe.

I must have a reason for a certain hypothesis. Either I know a thing, and then I know it -- I don’t need to believe it.-Carl Jung

[Stevepol]

124. Why does this question always have to be formulated as an either/or?

If creationism is defined as a once and for all creation at one point in time, then of course it didn't happen.

But if creationism is defined as a setting in motion at one point in time of a process whereby the system works, the OK.

The process of evolution is inherent in the system and the system is part of God, a part of God's laws.

The "spiritual" is also a part of God's laws, however you interpret that term. I think of it as encompassing a lot of laws we don't fully understand as yet, something like the higher vibrations of matter. At that level, things can happen (always in accordance with "law") that are not materially explicable in terms of our present understanding of law. The higher spiritual laws are probably very close to mathematical requirements that all processes have to reflect.

But God is not something separate from His/Her creation. God IS His creation, but there are laws that are always true wherever they are expressed. In our particular material dimension in this solar system and galaxy or whatever, evolution is a natural consequence for a planet with earth's characteristics.

So in other words both creation and evolution are true. And the soul level or spiritual level also exists, that is, a higher level whose laws have not yet been fully understood and probably can never be "fully" understood in this dimension.

[Turbineguy]

125. Since the Bible

was written by, of and for, people who thought the Earth was flat and had little knowledge of physics, there is no conflict between the Bible and Evolution.

That's my view anyway.

If the writers of the Bible had written it differently, it would have been ridiculed and consigned to obscurity (which some may very well think would be no bad thing!).

[varkam]

126. I believe in evidence.

More specifically, I believe in the methods of science and that through those methods, we can arrive at ideas and conceptions that most closely approximate reality. If, tomorrow, evidence is uncovered and can be scientifically verified that turns the idea of evolution on it's head then I will go with that. Today, however, evolution is the idea that best describes the data, and so that is what I believe only because of my belief in the appropriateness of the scientific method as an epistemological tool.

[Marrah_G]

129. Evolution- I am open to the possibility there was some guidance involved

I do not believe in the Garden of eden or any of that- But there may well be factors we have no clue about....yet.

[Silent3]

130. Ellipsis YET

We have no clue about....YET. BUH BUM BUHHHHHHH!

I wish remarks like this were more often a true admission of the limitations of our knowledge, and not a veiled, "And then you'll see my deep religious/spiritual insights were right!"

[Marrah_G]

131. I hope you don't misunderstand my view

I don't have any sort of creation view. But I am also not so arrogant as to believe I know everything.

For all I know Sci-fi channel's "Stargate" is right and all gods are really aliens pretending to be gods.

What we know to be fact now was science fiction long ago. In 500 years, what fiction will have become fact?

[Silent3]

132. Most fiction remains fiction

The fact that some bits of fiction upon occasion turn into reality (especially when giving a very generous allowance for being sorta, kinda right) doesn't add any stature to fiction as a whole, or to beliefs in gods and aliens and fairies and sprites and purple-violet spiritual energies, as possible explanatory agents for things not fully explained by science.

Once you reach the end point of that which can be explained by the sciences of evolution and cosmology in their current state, how does speculating about deities help? Isn't a deity in this case merely "that which magically does everything which I can't yet explain", a uselessly personified way of saying "I don't know", which carries excess baggage that tends to go along for the ride (like the existence of human souls and immortality and God's Plan for Us and rules about "sin" and all of that), baggage that has nothing to do with simply extending our understanding of how life and the universe came to be, which is supposedly the motivation for speculating about deities as an "answer" to these questions in the first place?

[Marrah_G]

133. Just chalk me up as a believer in fiction then

:hi:

[Silent3]

134. How about I also chalk you up for a cop-out response?

:evilgrin:

[Marrah_G]

136. Do whatever you like

I stopped justifying my beliefs to others a very long time ago.

[Silent3]

138. But you didn't stop mischaracterizing...

...firmly stated disbelief of your beliefs as somehow, someway an arrogant position of claiming "know everything".

Which, by contrast, would tend to mean you see yourself as more humble than any detractor you might face.

But I am also not so arrogant as to believe I know everything.

Or am I being unfair, and there's absolutely no one in these forums you're referring to by contrast to your more humble self?

[Marrah_G]

139. You are mistaken, I was not comparing myself to anyone, period

My views and beliefs are my own. Your beliefs and views are your own. I am not sure why this is difficult.

One can be an athiest, thiest, or polythiest and still be able to quite easily say "I do not know everything".

I could be completely wrong about everything I believe. I am not so set in my own beliefs that I cannot consider that.

I doesn't effect me in any way if someone doesn't believe what I believe. It just doesn't effect my life.

I really am not sure why you are so irritated.

[cyborg_jim]

143. Why is it the people saying, "we don't know everything" are the ones proposing unknowable entities?

[Marrah_G]

144. I don't speak for anyone but myself

I really can't answer your question. I just say what I feel. Yes I am a polytheist and yes, I don't know everything. I allow for the possibility that I am wrong. I allow for the possibility that you are right. If you are absolutely sure that you are right it doesn't effect me. I'm not sure why my not being sure irritates some people so much.

[madhu108]

135. evolution

you can "believe" anything you want to, doesn't make it true. what is true though, is something cannot come from nothing. order cannot come from chaos, no matter what....

[cyborg_jim]

137. You neither understand order nor chaos then.

In chaos there must be order.

[trotsky]

146. "something cannot come from nothing. order cannot come from chaos, no matter what...."

I love this one. Make a universal pronouncement, but then of course declare your god immune from it. "Something cannot come from nothing", except god of course. "Order cannot come from chaos", except god of course. :rofl:

[immoderate]

149. Hi madhu, welcome to DU -- you came to the right place...

You have a lot to learn.

So -- where did god come from? Does he/she/it have parents, or is it a non-sexual creation?

--IMM

[Jim__]

151. Can you support your statements?

Specifically, can you support:

- something cannot come from nothing
- order cannot come from chaos

[Coyote_Bandit]

140. They need not be mutually exclusive eom

[New Dawn]

163. My vote: evolution

I went to a fundamentalist school (K-12) where, after reading about evolution at age nine, I was the only person there who knew that the Earth is older than 6,000 years. I definitely judge religious groups based upon whether or not they acknowledge the fossil record. Creation myths are just that, myths. They have no place being taught as fact in the 21st century and that should include "private" fundamentalist schools!