in light of recent events, wanted to point out again that the existence of God and evolution

[Lerkfish]

are NOT mutually exclusive arguments.

Many people mistakenly believe that evolution is the litmus test for whether there is a God. However, the existence of God and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive.

as I've pointed out in the past, here is why:

Each of the following could be TRUE:

God exists, and Evolution occurred
God does not exist, and Evolution occurred
God exists, and Evolution did not occur in the way we think it did
God does not exist, and Evolution did not occur in the way we think it did

therefore, evolution does not disprove the existence of a supreme being, anymore than merely believing in a supreme being can disprove evolution.

I think anyone, from any side, that tries to use this false dichotomy cheapens the debate into babbling nonsense.

If you believe in science, then you should know better than to do this. In fact, a true scientist would have to admit that the existence of a supreme being is as yet unproven -- because the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

now for what its worth, I personally believe there IS a supreme being and evolution DID occur as science suggests. These are not opposing thought, but rather complementary thoughts.

anyways, not trying to stick anyone in the eye here, but I just think it should be clarified how this debated gets incorrectly framed, time and again.


and also for the record, I DISAGREE with the judge's ruling against the teacher. I think the teacher was a bit assholish about the way they stated their opinion, but nonetheless, there is NO crime there.


(jeebus, had to reedit for leaving out a "not", which changed the whole meaning of the last sentence d'oh!)

[Psychic Consortium]

1. You are correct.

The truth is in the middle, not black or white.

Evolution and God are both true.

[Lerkfish]

2. well, I guess I"m saying they should not even be on the same spectrum

I'm not trying to say I have proof God exists, that is a belief ... But I'm saying using these are two concepts that don't disprove each other at all.

[Psychic Consortium]

3. You are correct. The concepts can co-exist and they do.

Both are correct.

[rd_kent]

14. No they are not both correct.

see my previous post

[Psychic Consortium]

16. PC stands by its statements.

[rd_kent]

19. So you talk about yourself in the third person?

Its okay to stand by your statements, but unless you back them up and support them with facts, you are just another blowhard who knows not of which he/she speaks.

[rd_kent]

13. Uh, WRONG!

There are provable facts supporting Evolution.
There are NO provable facts supporting the existence of a god.

Please don't cheapen the Theory of Evolution (and its not "just a theory", look up "Scientific Theory" in a dictionary) by comparing it it to something that people THINK exists without proof.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. yes.

might want to edit "debated" for the word "debate"

"... how this debated gets incorrectly framed...

[Towlie]

5. Actually, evolution deniers generally cling to the position that they ARE mutually exclusive.

And no matter how they argue, that's their real reason for opposing evolution - it contradicts their religious beliefs.

In a debate about evolution I tend to agree with both sides. I agree with the denier's position that belief in evolution is incompatible with religion, but I also agree with the supporter's position that evolution is real.

[Lerkfish]

29. right, and as I clearly stated, they are also wrong

I said that anyone from any side that uses these two concepts against each other cheapens the debate.

I'm not sure but what some people (thread in general) are reading into my OP things that aren't there or ignoring things that are in order to make their own points.

[Towlie]

34. Yes, you can accept evolution and cling to a belief in god as long as you stay vague about your god.

But the real debate is not between scientists and "deists" like yourself, who maintain belief in a vaguely defined creator while not necessarily vouching for the Bible. The debate is between scientists and theists, who argue for their specific religious beliefs even though they are generally incompatible with reality.

[Lerkfish]

36. "accept" "cling" "vaguely defined""generally incompatible with reality"

LOL, interesting word choices.

but at any rate, I haven't defined my deity at all, yet you assume I'm vague about God. You also assume I'm not vouching for the Bible. On what do you base those assumptions?

[Towlie]

39. You admit you haven't defined your deity, therefore I OBSERVE, not assume, you're vague about God.

[Lerkfish]

42. I'm not vague about God simply because I don't fully explain my POV in this thread

I hope you're not using the scientific method here, or I'd have to give you a failing grade

(kidding)

[daninthemoon]

6. God, whatever name one chooses to apply to a supreme creator,

created everything. Cosmology and evolution are our current best human ways of understanding the processes that God used. The men who wrote and later the men who edited the Bible, had absolutely no knowledge or experience of any kind of science, so could not write from a scientist's perspective.

[rd_kent]

20. You nailed it!

Now, can you back up your statement with facts?

[Towlie]

22. "Could not write from a scientist's perspective"? But they supposedly wrote from God's perspective!

[rd_kent]

25. I was being sarcastic!

Guess I need to put the "sarcasm" icon in that post. I thought it was clear.

[Towlie]

33. No, you need to pay attention to who I was replying to. It wasn't addressed to you.

[rd_kent]

37. Huh?

It seems that when I responded to you, my term "nailed it" was in your post. You have edited it and its no longer there, then you tell me I need to pay attention? What gives?

[Redbear]

7. Yes. Very true.

I happen to believe in both.

The only incompatibility is between a strict literal reading of Genesis and evolution.

[Psychic Consortium]

8. Science and spirituality go together like hand and glove.

We are meant to be both rational and intuitive.
Use both right and left brain to find the truth.

All human genius is a combination of both.

[rd_kent]

17. What part of religion is "rational and intuitive"?

[Towlie]

23. It's more instinctive than intuitive. Bertrand Russell called it "the cruel thirst for worship".

[rd_kent]

21. Typical fundie you are PC.

You spray your opinion all over the place then fail to back it up and go silent when confronted and asked to support your point of view.

Buh-Bye! It was nice not having a debate.

[Psychic Consortium]

24. PC debates those who are emotionally mature and intellectually curious.

Name calling and refusal to listen does not make for a good debate.

[rd_kent]

26. When you start actually having the debate, I will listen

but until you decide to jump in and support your point of view, you are a blowhard. Thats not name calling, that a description of what I see from you. Still making me laugh with the reference to yourself in the 3rd person. Reminds me of that Seinfeld episode.....

[rd_kent]

41. So I guess thats it? You get called on your BS and your disappear?

Just goes to show how empty your argument was to begin with.

[Lerkfish]

44. there are other possible answers.

1. they put you on ignore immediately, and therefore didn't see or don't care about your offer to debate.
2. They aren't on the web or this thread at the same times you are posting.

I'm finding those two possibilities more credible than jumping to the conclusion that their argument was empty.

I don't agree with the other poster's conclusions totally, but if you wish to debate it I can give it a shot.

what part do you wish to debate?

[rd_kent]

45. well, Im not looking for debate for debates sake

This PC character posted some things I took exception too and replied. He/she responded a few times with nonsense and when I asked him/her to support his/her opinion, he mocked me and disappeared. Now, maybe he/she put me on ignore, and if he/she did, then it just goes to show he/she must be unable to defend their position.
I appreciate your willingness to debate me but I'm kinda done for the day. If I see you post something I feel is contrary to my opinion, rest assured I will hit you up for that debate.
Cheers!

[Lerkfish]

46. cheers to you as well!

[rrneck]

52. Watch it there.

Considering both aspects of the human condition in an even handed and courteous way might get you in trouble around here.

[Psychic Consortium]

53. Yes so I notice. A Religion Forum where religion is not allowed to be discussed?

Seems odd.

Perhaps the DU version of the Taliban?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

65. Who has made the claim the religion is not allowed

to be discussed in the religion and theology forum? Have you read the rules for this forum? Do they state that discussion of religion is not allowed? Is it a specific poster or group of posters making this statement? Actual proof would be appreciated before you start labeling the non-religious as the "DU Taliban".

[Psychic Consortium]

71. The proof is in the pudding. Posters making legitimate comments

are insulted and bullied.

This is wrong.

Especially on a religious forum.
Very bad karma for the guilty.

[PassingFair]

9. But CREATION myths and evolution theory ARE mutually exclusive.

[Buzz Clik]

10. Fine, but that's not the argument in the OP.

[redqueen]

11. The OP is vague... "in light of recent events" can be interpreted

as referring to the scam artist who sued his history teacher.

He didn't sue him over God vs. evolution... the suit directly related to the kid's claim re: creation.

So... it fair to point this out IMO... "in light of recent events".

[PassingFair]

12. No, but it is the reason for the OP

"the judge's ruling against the teacher" ...

[Lerkfish]

28. no, not really.

recent events merely brought up this false comparison in other threads, so I wanted to just make the statement that they are not on the same spectrum, as I thought I had clearly stated.

[Psychic Consortium]

15. They will get it right when the theory joins the two concepts. nt

[EvolveOrConvolve]

50. Is that the royal "they"?

I'm confused - who does "they" refer to?

[Psychic Consortium]

55. The scientific community.

Quantum physics is moving in that direction.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

61. Quantum Physics is moving towards Creationism?

Dude, I don't get it... :shrug:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

64. Please show me how

Quantum physics is moving towards including creationism in its discipline. You made the statement, and I really want some proof of that.

[uberllama42]

66. I've heard similar claims to that for a long time

No one's ever explained it to me. I hope you get an answer on this one, but I'm not optimistic.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

67. I'm not optimistic either

Posters like Physic Consortium post these hit-and-run ideas without the foggiest idea of how to back up any of their claims. It's frustrating because there might be people who visit these forums to learn something new, and ideas like those espoused by PC may actually be de-educating these people. We're not doing society any favors by allowing the propagation of unquestioned nonsense. Contrary to what creationists may say, two viewpoints are NOT equally valid simply because their proponents say so.

:mad:

[Psychic Consortium]

72. If a poster only posts once on this forum, look to yourselves for the explanation. nt

[EvolveOrConvolve]

74. Are you saying that you're a troll?

Or is that your way of sidetracking my actual question?

[Why Syzygy]

73. Oh my.

Your post has to be the R/T DUzzy for all time!

there might be people who visit these forums to learn something new, and ideas like those espoused by PC may actually be de-educating these people.

:spray:

Weren't too worried about any Christians being "de-educated" around Easter at the old learnin' hole, R/T, were you?
Your understanding of the education process is lacking.

Thanks for the imagery of dozens of atheists reading your post and nodding in agreement as they sip coffee.

:spray:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

69. Please answer my question

This hit-and-run bullshit is getting old. Either put up or shut up.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

56. What does that mean?

Science will get it right when it embraces myth? What does that even mean?

[JerseygirlCT]

48. Absolutely, when those myths are taken literally

instead of as literature!

As stories, as myth, as allegory - they're rich in meaning, and perhaps meaning that helps shed some light for some people on our origins.

But as some sort of stand-in for scientific fact? As a point by point, literal description of creation? They fail miserably.

But then again, I don't think they were EVER meant to be read literally at all.

[uberllama42]

70. It's a shame that so many people in this country do take that stuff literally

Most polls put the proportion of people who believe in the bible literally at about half. I saw a poll a few weeks ago in which 33% of American Catholics said they believe the bible is true word for word, which is a pretty sorry showing since that's not even what the Vatican teaches.

I agree that the earliest scribes who wrote the Old Testament did not intend the stories to be read literally, primarily because the two stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other so blatantly. Whoever first put those oral-tradition stories down on parchment would have had a hard time juxtaposing those two without noticing the contradictions.

[Psychic Consortium]

54. Consider this for a moment.

When humans have endless black and white arguments,
the truth often times is in the middle.

Consider the possibility that some sort of superior being created the earth in a very primitive form for the purpose of evolution.

The universe is never stagnant, it is always moving, growing, evolving. What if this is by God's design?

Humans create a baby which evolves. What if some sort of God like figure did that as well with the earth?

PC does not pretend to have any answers, just many questions. And tries to approach a topic with rationality as well as intuition and inspiration.

Thank you for listening.

[PassingFair]

57. What if, what if, what if....

is QUITE different to "I believe".

What if means..."I don't know."

You can ponder all you want, but
all we KNOW is reality.

You can ponder the event of an
Egyptian god casting his masturbatory
seed onto the earth to "create life",
but it won't really get you anywhere.

I am better served mentally by biting
off provable chunks and accepting that
I am "here"...for the moment, and that
others depend upon me.

[Tikki]

18. The forces of nature...create and then alter, alter to create...infinité...

Most human babies understand this at it's most basic level...
It is what they wrap their brains around as they grow along.

Tikki

[gcomeau]

27. Ugh....

You were correct about evolution not being a litmus test for the existence of God... but only because there is no such thing as a litmus test for the existence of God since the concept of an inscrutable omnipotent supernatural being is untestable by definition. So on that particular point... correct, but meaningless.

As for this:

If you believe in science, then you should know better than to do this. In fact, a true scientist would have to admit that the existence of a supreme being is as yet unproven -- because the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

The non-existence of God is not "unproven". It's unprovable. And that is a very different thing if you want to have this discussion in the context of a scientific viewpoint. The claim of the existence of God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis... which any "true scientist" knows has no practical value. It has absolutely ZERO explanatory or predictive power.

Every time someone pulls out that "it hasn't been proven yet!" line in a manner that implies like that means looking at it from a scientific viewpoint should lead to a shoulder shrug and a "Well, it could be true" conclusion it drives me nuts. That is not the case.

[Lerkfish]

30. I"m not sure I understand your belief that is unprovable.

what prevents it from being proven?

otherwise, I understand your points.

[gcomeau]

31. "It" being the *non*-existence of God...

...since that may have been less than clear when I wrote that.

If that's how you understood it and you still don't understand how it's impossible to prove God doesn't exist... try to think of any possible test where ANY possible outcome of that test couldn't be explained away by God's claimed limitless magical powers. There is no such thing as a test result that could ever prove God doesn't exist because ALL test results can be hand waved away by appeal to supernatural forces.

[Lerkfish]

32. oh, sorry, I thought you meant the opposite

that the existence of god is not provable.
Now I get you.

[rd_kent]

38. Self delete

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. I agree with everything you said

:thumbsup:

The student was thin-skinned, and the teacher's First Amendment rights were absolutely violated.

[Evoman]

40. They may not be mutually exclusive, but I don't get how people can think they are "complimentary".

Oh yeah...and while a deist god may not be such a big deal, the bible is absolutely contradictory to evolution. The things that happened in the bible are not possible if you have a scientific frame of mind.

Also...where do you think God himself fits in the evolution scheme? Is he outside the influence of evolution? Did god evolve from a proto-god?

[Lerkfish]

43. In what way is the bible "absolutely contradictory to evolution"?

I"m curious where in the bible it discounts evolution.

To your second point, many things that happened in the bible are possible ... can you be more specific?


Not sure what you're getting at about your last question, so instead I'll just tell you what I believe.


I believe that God created "everything" . since Evolution is part of "everything", then God created the building blocks that allowed that to occur.
I believe that God is a great fan of LIFE, in all its many forms. How life progresses, a la evolution, is another facet of life.

I believe The bible itself is inspired, but often translataion or interpretation is flawed. Since that is my "belief" I cannot prove that to you empirically, but then again, I'm not making any claims against science whatsoever. In other words, science and the universe are contained in the "everything" God created, so all the laws of physics and science are just other facets of creation.

and before you start down the "first cause" argument, I would warn you that science and religion stumble on the paradox of first cause. Either the universe always existed or it suddenly existed from nothing. If you believe in the big bang, that paradox is still not addressed -- matter that exploded in the big bang had to come from SOMEWHERE.
Likewise, religion has the same paradox: either God always existed or suddenly existed from nothing. Both science and religion fail to address this paradox. (or probably better labeled as a conundrum)

[Evoman]

58. Anything involving healing by touching, living more than a hundred years, talking snakes,

or creating things out of clay is discounting evolution.

When I have more time (I'm at work), I'll go into it more.

[uberllama42]

68. Do you seriously not understand how the bible contradicts evolution?

The first two chapters of Genesis present two slightly different stories about how God created human beings. The first one presents plants being created simultaneously, on a single day, followed by animals two days later and human beings the day after that. We've learned from scientific observation that this is accurate only in the vaguest possible sense--plants appeared first, but they evolved over hundreds of millions of years, and new forms continued to appear even after animals began to appear. Genesis 1 has grasses and fruit-bearing trees appearing at the same time, for instance. This is not what the evidence tells us.

Then again, Genesis 1 also has plants appearing before the sun and moon, and that's spectacularly wrong. Strictly speaking, the origin of the sun is not within the purview of evolution, but the story the bible tells us about it is decidedly unscientific.

We know that humans appeared later than other animals, but the actual process by which animals, including humans, evolved is not at all similar to the way creation is described in Genesis 1. Note for instance that humans were created, presumably ex nihilo from what chapter 1 tells us, rather than evolving from other primates.

Genesis 2 is even more inaccurate. It has Adam created before the plants and animals, which is absolutely not the way things happened. Humans were not created "of the dust of the ground." We evolved from earlier animals. The first woman was not created out of a rib taken from the first man. Males and females existed in the animals that preceded humans. For that matter, animals did not appear simultaneously some time after the first man but before the first woman.

These two different stories presented in the bible are not compatible with the account of our origins given us by evolutionary theory. Any literal reading of the bible is flatly contradictory of the evidence. Furthermore, I don't think it is at all reasonable to say that false interpretations and mistranslations have distorted something that was essentially compatible with what science tells us. If that was the case, the original would have been so far from what we have today that the bible in its currently form would be useless to us.

[JerseygirlCT]

49. But once again

that's true only if you read the creation stories as literal fact. There may very well be much "truth" there, but there isn't "fact". And I don't think the writers ever intended "fact".

God is outside of evolution, IMO.

[Evoman]

59. How can any living thing be outside of evolution?

It's hard to imagine.

[JerseygirlCT]

63. Of course it's hard to imagine!

God is not an easily digested concept, or one that humans CAN fully encompass. Something that far outside of us absolutely is a mystery. That's why it's a "belief", why it's "faith".

But as long as human beings attempt to put that God idea into a neat little human box, they miss. Those of us who believe often fall into this - and we miss the mark when we do so. We simply have to accept that God is bigger than what our imaginations can hold.

[Evoman]

75. Ha....attempting to put god into a neat little human box.

God doesn't fit into this human concept I have called existence.

[trotsky]

47. Only for certain definitions of "god."

You use the term as if there were a universally understood and accepted definition. There is not.

[rrneck]

51. God can

always be found in an infinite regression. That's neither good or bad - it's just human.

[Ready4Change]

60. Imo, evolution would be a smart technique for a creator to use.

Just because a diety is imnipotent doesn't mean it would be wasteful of effort. Evolution is a powerful method of creating complex systems with little ongoing effort. In fact, establishing conditions where a particular path of evolution can have effect, then (perhaps) nudging that path in the desired direction not only requires less effort on the deity's part, but also implies a much more intelligent deity than one which simplistically creates a 'shake'n'bake' world. (Not that I believe in any deity, nor that it may or may not influence evolution.)

What I find frustrating is how deists fixate on their documents as 'final and perfect.' If they would instead view those documents as 'current understandings' then they could improve them to take into account current knowledge. They could say that science gives us insight into the natural world, and thus greater insight into the workings of the world created by '

That's why I don't believe in religions. (I'm still on the fence regarding deities.)

[stopbush]

62. While the "concepts" of god and evolution both exist,

hard evidence for only one of those concepts exists, and it ain't for god.

And, no, scientists shouldn't be any more dismissive of the idea of god than they are of the idea of werewolves and fairies. In fact, scientists should give just as much weight to a belief in god as they do to beliefs in werewolves and fairies.