Evolution vs Creationism

[Pituophis_]

Curious to see what the general herp communities belief is when it comes to creationism and evolution.

 

[Fangthane]

belief

Given my own particular inclinations, I object to the possible implications behind the choice to use that word. I'd word my thoughts like this: Until presented with compelling evidence that disproves evolution, I accept it as the most plausible explanation available.

 

[Robert Walker]

I'll try to keep my answer as simply put as I can. (I'll try)

My observations and belief:
Most of my life, I have seen a classic divide between science & religion, a false battle that you have to choose one side or the other. I think this false choice of black vs. white was created by both sides, both the scientific community and religious community mostly out of financial gain, fear, ignorance, etc. This divide has led many people to think/believe that they have to make a choice between the two, it's only one or the other.

I disagree that there is only one choice or the other.

In my observations, many in the religious community shame evolution as impossible, a form of denouncing God that only sinners condemned to hell would consider. On the flip side, in my observations, many in the scientific community shame any belief in God, and denounce those who do believe as uneducated, fairy tale seeking idiots.

So... for many of the folks I know, they have allowed themselves to be trapped/baited into a choice between two poorly constructed explanations:
Option 1: Random evolution is real, the origin of existence and therefore God does not exist.
Option 2: God is real, the creator of all and therefore evolution never took place.

How about Option 3 instead?
I personally believe 100% in a Father in Heaven (God) and 100% believe in scientific truths. These do not need to be, should not be exclusive one from another. I believe God to be the master of all fields in science and that he uses the elements, scientific principles, laws of nature to do his work/job. God is not independent of the sciences, rather he uses them to fulfill his purposes.

Despite all of man's achievements and advances in science, we are still infants in understanding it and in its application when compared to God. I believe that at some point, some version of Evolution may have been used by God to bring our particular world into existence. A controlled, intended version of evolution may have been one of several scientific "tools" used in this process. I don't limit it as the only tool.

In the end, while I don't understand everything (nor do I feel the need to know everything before I decide to "believe") I am of the firm belief that all actual truths* from religion and all actual truths from science will eventually seamlessly and effortlessly merge and be shown to be all part of the master design, forming a perfect picture vs. two opposing sides.

I really enjoy this 4 minute video. Video heading, "Dr. Lewis is a renowned scientist who advises the European and NASA space programs. He believes in God."



* actual truths, not referring to every utterance of the religious or scientific community as truth. At some point God will help us understand all actual truths versus the philosophies / theories of man both from religion and science.

 

[Lucille]

I am horrified that there are committees that choose what books children should read in some schools based on the presence or absence of religious/scientific content.
To decide what you want to believe or accept as plausible is one thing, to arrange the world so that others don't even know that there are different thoughts on the subject is to me unacceptable.

 

[Fangthane]

Evolution vs. Creationism isn't even really a valid apples-to-apples discussion. The former pertains to what likely happened after self-replicating life appeared; the latter focuses on the very appearance of life. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive propositions. If one chooses to believe in some sentient prime mover, it would be simple enough to simply say that entity willed primordial life into existence and set further evolution in motion. I think a goodly number of theists have adopted just such a stance to reconcile belief with evidence. I think abiogenesis vs. creationism is probably the more interesting (heated) discussion to be had.

 

[Robert Walker]

I think a goodly number of theists have adopted just such a stance to reconcile belief with evidence.

There are also different groups who can see the exact same "evidence" without having to reconcile anything. One may see a set of circumstances and view it as "evidence" against a God, while others simply see it as yet another confirmation that God does in fact exist. One person's damming evidence can be another person's foundational block of belief.

One may see white, while the other sees black, yet they are both looking at the same thing.

abiogenesis

This question is valid for any group.
Where did any of it all begin? The matter? The gas? The atoms? God?
If you don't simply default to a "God is God, always was, always will be" type answer, then I would guess, most thinking people will eventually wonder as the origin of God himself at some point or another.

 

[snowgyre]

I'm with Dan here. I don't believe in evolution, I understand it. The word belief implies an absence of evidence, when evolution has been studied for over 150 years now with heaps of evidence supporting it. We can make amino acids relatively easily in a laboratory (the building blocks of life), it's not a stretch that these organic compounds could also occur randomly in nature. We also have things like viruses, prions, and rogue proteins that are not living yet behave as such.

 

[Fangthane]

"evidence" against a God

My opinion is that a "thinking person" probably wouldn't waste time trying to disprove an assertion for which the claimant's burden of proof hasn't been met. Doubt many rational people are actively trying to disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There are plenty of gaps into which any given god can be inserted, which suggests to me that there's some rampant fear of simply accepting " I don't know" as a valid answer to the mysteries of this universe.

Where did any of it all begin? The matter? The gas? The atoms? God?

This is a subject I find much more interesting. Here's a fascinating discussion relating to the subject, especially for physics fans.

 

[Robert Walker]

burden of proof hasn't been met.

Burden of proof is relative. It is relative to whomever is setting the bar, or defining the terms of what constitutes sufficient or necessary proof/evidence. One person's threshold or definition very well could differ from that of another individuals. It is opinion at best set by the person choosing to accept or receive the evidence as sufficient or not.

Doubt many rational people are actively trying to disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I won't pretend to know anything about the FSM. I do however personally know many individuals who cite the world's calamities, violence, hunger, war, rape or their own personal trials and burdens as evidence that no God exists. They say if he did exist such tragedies would not occur, and since they do, their burden of proof has been met. They choose the bar by which they define the existence of God, which is their prerogative. I choose a different standard.

 

[Helenthereef]

I agree with all of the opinions stated here so far. As a scientist I understand evolution, and accept is as a true explanation for the development of species, but I have no issue if people think of it as the mechanism which a creator uses. Many scientists do just that.

One thing I can't get my head around is how people who breed reptiles for certain traits, are very educated about genetics, and see for themselves the development of changes in a species (albeit accelerated by deliberate human intervention) could still insist that every species is created as a finished product.

 

[Robert Walker]

and see for themselves the development of changes in a species (albeit accelerated by deliberate human intervention) could still insist that every species is created as a finished product.

I enjoy this thought process Helen. Just tossing this out there for anyone:
Assuming that humankind has randomly evolved to where we are now over "X" millions/billions of years, what will we evolve into given yet another "X" millions/billions of years as our evolutionary progression continues, assuming we ourselves must not be finished products either?

What would stop man, if given enough time, from evolving into a super version, a version far more advanced then we are now?

 

[Lucille]

What would stop man, if given enough time, from evolving into a super version, a version far more advanced then we are now?

Himself.

A hastily sent nuclear weapon that started a war where the not-quite-evolved-enough decided that return volleys of their nuclear weapons would be just the answer.

Hopefully, for the sake of our world and our children and grandchildren, that will not happen and further evolution will have a chance.

 

[Helenthereef]

There are 4 interesting potential options discussed at

https://futurism.com/the-next-stage-of-evolution-how-will-the-human-species-evolve/ and at https://www.quora.com/How-will-humans-look-10-000-100-000-years-from-now

And more scientifically (but rather less fun) at
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1787.abstract

"We found that natural selection is acting to cause slow, gradual evolutionary change. The descendants of these women are predicted to be on average slightly shorter and stouter, to have lower total cholesterol levels and systolic blood pressure, to have their first child earlier, and to reach menopause later than they would in the absence of evolution. Selection is tending to lengthen the reproductive period at both ends."

 

[Robert Walker]

Himself.

Lets hope that humankind can avoid such a scenario.

There are 4 interesting potential options discussed at

Thanks for the links, I looked them all over.

Barring the potential that mankind annihilates itself and we take human cyborgs out of the running for the moment, if evolution is a constant occurrence then the humans of today will not be like those of the distant future.

If we are the drastically more complex, better, smarter version of what came from primordial life... then given yet another 50 million years those in the future may have an equal opportunity to be that more far advanced than we currently are.

As an example, if:
50 million years turned sludge into a human...
50 million more years turns a human into a super human...
50 million additional years turns a super human into a super, super human...
so on a so forth

Couldn't evolution produce an individual(s) that in their super x10 form, 500 million years from now, would be considered a God(s) to those of younger generations less evolved?

Evolution relies heavily on enormous amounts of time being key to making such changes. So, if left alone and barring self destruction, couldn't evolution produce a God? If not, why not? Would primordial sludge look at the possibility of evolving into a human and call it bogus, impossible or crazy? What is the difference then?

 

[Beyond GenetiX]

Given my own particular inclinations, I object to the possible implications behind the choice to use that word. I'd word my thoughts like this: Until presented with compelling evidence that disproves evolution, I accept it as the most plausible explanation available.

Dan, I'll start by saying, I've agreed with a lot of things you've posted over the short period of time I've been here, but I knew this day would come.

What proof did Darwin have that disproved creation? Simply coming up with another idea, doesn't disprove the original one. My human nature is, if I don't like the way something is done, find a way I can do it. That doesn't necessarily mean the other way was wrong, does it?

I would fall into the "Creationist" category, with a slight skew.

I did not grow up in church, I was taught evolution (big bang). I was sort of a hellion in my younger years, up into my 20's. In fact, your first impression (looks) of me, you wouldn't think I was a "church goer". So I have spent half my life in both worlds (creationist/evolutionist) and I understand that science and God go together. I do understand the human race is changing but is it for the better or worse? I don't merely believe in a Creator, I know my Creator. I have seen His works, in creation and in my life.

For just as many "religious" scientists that have went over to evolutionary thinking, there have been evolutionist to come over to the creationist side. There is just as much evidence that points to a Creator and creation, as there is that points towards evolution.

This is really hard to stay on topic without going too deep. This is a battle that will go on after we are gone or until...

 

[Beyond GenetiX]

I don't want to ever come across as a closed minded, in your face, type of person. So as you read my replies/responses just understand that these are done so, with respect and regard to your understandings (I come from the same). I've gone back and forth trying to sort out all the mysteries of life, there are just some things we will never understand, in this lifetime.

For your reading pleasure

https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/darwin-unwittingly-a-creationist/

https://answersingenesis.org/missing-links/the-only-missing-link-its-spiritual/

 

[Fangthane]

What proof did Darwin have that disproved creation? Simply coming up with another idea, doesn't disprove the original one. My human nature is, if I don't like the way something is done, find a way I can do it. That doesn't necessarily mean the other way was wrong, does it?

Had you actually read and comprehended what I've previously written, you may have noticed that I did concede that creationism and evolution aren't really mutually exclusive ideas; in and of itself, evolution doesn't directly attack the idea of a sentient creator.

I just don't really perceive any pressing need to disprove that for which, contrary to what you later say, there appears to be nothing more than faith-based "evidence." Also, given the likelihood that Darwin had a certain degree of religiosity early in life, I have doubts that he even had any such intentions when he boarded The Beagle. His time spent in the Galapagos Islands simply led to observations that were eventually fleshed out into the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I do understand the human race is changing but is it for the better or worse? I don't merely believe in a Creator, I know my Creator. I have seen His works, in creation and in my life.

Any move toward secularity is a move in the right direction, I'd say. Since you're claiming to have seen works that can apparently be tied directly to a god, let's hear what your evidence is.

For just as many "religious" scientists that have went over to evolutionary thinking, there have been evolutionist to come over to the creationist side.

I have my doubts about the veracity of your claimed ratio, but it's not even vaguely relevant. While it may be a glimpse into the numbers-game mentality prevalent in so many theists, it really means absolutely zero. There are people who, after reading any given collection of BOI bad guy threads, will still do business with said bad guys. There's often a disconnect between what someone knows and how one chooses to apply it.

There is just as much evidence that points to a Creator and creation, as there is that points towards evolution.

SERIOUS citations needed here. Let's hear your case for that statement. I suspect it amounts to nothing more than that old watchmaker analogy, or maybe Kalam's Cosmological Argument. Perhaps it's some golden plates that can conveniently only be read by someone with some sort of magical device? A book written by numerous authors, many of them anonymous, penned decades/centuries after events supposedly happened, based on stories related by word of mouth? At any rate, you've chosen to make an affirmative statement that really needs to be backed up - hopefully, by something much more compelling than the aforementioned plates, book, etc.

If only people were willing to give their chosen religion the same degree of scrutiny seen in even the most typical BOI thread. I don't think much of it stands up to even the smallest amount of critical thinking. The idea of blind faith is the true genius to religion. Where faith begins, actual thought seems to end. I'm someone who's always open to being presented evidence that runs contrary to my current thoughts, but after 40 years, living in a society where one can't go more than 10 minutes without having religion shoved down their throats, I've yet to see anything even slightly convincing.

 

[Robert Walker]

If only people were willing to give their chosen religion the same degree of scrutiny seen in even the most typical BOI thread.

"SERIOUS citations needed here" - that they don't. Where is your proof?

I don't think much of it stands up to even the smallest amount of critical thinking. The idea of blind faith

When it really honestly comes down to it, any pretend claim of being "open" instantly evaporates once someone's position has to deteriorate to "oh yah, you religious types are simply blind sheep who lack critical thinking skills". Clearly, very open minded...

 

[Beyond GenetiX]

The whole post wasn't directed towards you Dan, the first paragraph was.

Had you actually read and comprehended what I've previously written, you may have noticed that I did concede that creationism and evolution aren't really mutually exclusive ideas; in and of itself, evolution doesn't directly attack the idea of a sentient creator.

I did read and I comprehend (thanks for the vote of confidence) pretty well, I was actually asking the question in general. What made Darwin (or anyone) try to disprove creation?

Any move toward secularity is a move in the right direction, I'd say. Since you're claiming to have seen works that can apparently be tied directly to a god, let's hear what your evidence is.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, did we all evolve with a moral code?
Unfortunately I've been here before, there is absolutely nothing I can say that will change anyone's mind.

I have my doubts about the veracity of your claimed ratio, but it's not even vaguely relevant. While it may be a glimpse into the numbers-game mentality prevalent in so many theists, it really means absolutely zero.

That was sort of my point of this statement, I wasn't try to use this as proof of anything.

SERIOUS citations needed here. Let's hear your case for that statement. I suspect it amounts to nothing more than that old watchmaker analogy, or maybe Kalam's Cosmological Argument. Perhaps it's some golden plates that can conveniently only be read by someone with some sort of magical device? A book written by numerous authors, many of them anonymous, penned decades/centuries after events supposedly happened, based on stories related by word of mouth? At any rate, you've chosen to make an affirmative statement that really needs to be backed up - hopefully, by something much more compelling than the aforementioned plates, book, etc.

Mitochondrial dna, the world is all related. The book of Genesis stated that long before any scientists did.

If only people were willing to give their chosen religion the same degree of scrutiny seen in even the most typical BOI thread.

I don't think of it as "religion", it's more of a way of life.

I'm someone who's always open to being presented evidence that runs contrary to my current thoughts, but after 40 years, living in a society where one can't go more than 10 minutes without having religion shoved down their throats, I've yet to see anything even slightly convincing.

I will never try to shove my way of life down your throat, unfortunately we have never had any dealings before now, or you would know that. I have several Atheist friends and plan to continue doing business with them.

Moving on

OK, so let's say that we are evolving (to make better?) from primates. I'd like to ask a few questions, why do primates still exist if they weren't good enough for this time that we live in? Why did we get rid of our fur that keeps us warm, just to have to make a substitute (clothes)? It seems (speculation, I'd need to research) that the human race has more immune (viruses, disease) issues than your typical primate.? Humans have a harder time with hiv than primates do. Siv or hiv originated with primates but were transferred to humans, some primates seem to live with it better than humans. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080916143900.htm

 

[Helenthereef]

Dammit, I'm going away for the next 3 weeks and can't take part in this very interesting discussion. Please keep the topic warm (but not TOO HOT!) until I get back!