Human evolution vs Creationism

[ruu]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
I think that's part of it. I think another part is that evolution directly contradicts the Biblical story of creation in Genesis, the garden of Eden, etc. Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the direct word of God handed down to the men who penned it. Why would God lie about creating the world in 6 days, or about creating woman from a rib? If you take the Bible as the direct testimony of an infallible God, you have to view everything in it as literal, and that precludes any assertions that the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of the evidence in support of it. The problem here is that no one takes the entirety of the Bible literally; you don't see people calling for the public stoning of people who eat meat on the sabbath. So, at best, it's kind of subjective which parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally and which are open to interpretation. Logically, evolution could fit within that framework. But for some reason, the idea that we may have come from monkies and not been molded from dirt is highly offensive. I don't understand it personally.

The various flavors of revealed Christianity emphasize that God puts a unique and personal interest in one's life. There is a sense that God imparted something to oneself that God didn't impart to anyone else. The God-has-a-plan aspect.

God didn't make a plan for monkeys. Equating/associating humans with monkeys means either 1) monkeys are special or 2) humans are NOT special.

I think that religious AND non-religious people would agree that there's nothing more special about monkeys that wouldn't be "special" about any other species. Thus the logical conclusion would be that humans are NOT special. Everything that applies to monkeys applies to us.

If your entire worldview is founded on the idea that you are intensely and spiritually unique in the context of the entire universe, the idea that you're just another animal is pretty horrifying.

 

[ruu]

Originally posted by: Vic
Good points here. However, if a God did create the universe, then he necessarily created all the life therein, active involvement or not. Like if one lays out a pattern of dominoes on their sides, and then tips the first one which knocks down all the others in turn.

Yeah, that's a pretty intense quibble-point as far as Deism and revealed Christianity is concerned. I say "quibble" because it's just a matter of how one defines one's terms. Granted, in a religious context, how a term is defined is really, really important. See gay marriage.

...actually, in a legal context, definition of terms is quite important, as well.

Originally posted by: Vic
Time is a space. Spacetime. Time does not pass. We pass.

Damn our brains for not evolving a sense of the passing of eons and the movement of sub-atomic particles! All of this would be so clear if we could track the behavior of amino acids with our eyes!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
I think that's part of it. I think another part is that evolution directly contradicts the Biblical story of creation in Genesis, the garden of Eden, etc. Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the direct word of God handed down to the men who penned it. Why would God lie about creating the world in 6 days, or about creating woman from a rib? If you take the Bible as the direct testimony of an infallible God, you have to view everything in it as literal, and that precludes any assertions that the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of the evidence in support of it. The problem here is that no one takes the entirety of the Bible literally; you don't see people calling for the public stoning of people who eat meat on the sabbath. So, at best, it's kind of subjective which parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally and which are open to interpretation. Logically, evolution could fit within that framework. But for some reason, the idea that we may have come from monkies and not been molded from dirt is highly offensive. I don't understand it personally.

The various flavors of revealed Christianity emphasize that God puts a unique and personal interest in one's life. There is a sense that God imparted something to oneself that God didn't impart to anyone else. The God-has-a-plan aspect.

God didn't make a plan for monkeys. Equating/associating humans with monkeys means either 1) monkeys are special or 2) humans are NOT special.

I think that religious AND non-religious people would agree that there's nothing more special about monkeys that wouldn't be "special" about any other species. Thus the logical conclusion would be that humans are NOT special. Everything that applies to monkeys applies to us.

If your entire worldview is founded on the idea that you are intensely and spiritually unique in the context of the entire universe, the idea that you're just another animal is pretty horrifying.

"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father."
- Matthew 10:29

 

[ruu]

Originally posted by: Vic
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father."
- Matthew 10:29

But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Emphasis mine, obviously.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I thought we had a decent thread going until it got side tracked by the religious nut.

Yeah, because who would want a creationist in a creationism vs evolution thread anyway?

Creationists have no place in ANY intelligent discussion. Its quite simple. If you are a creationist you are ignorant, period.

I wouldn't say that. There are some Creationists out there that are actually very informed in evolution or other sciences, yet still provide, at the least, interesting theories about Creationism. They don't attack others about it, respond to criticisms in their arguments and theories, and keep an open mind. What's unintelligent or ignorant about that?

However, I will agree that you'll definitely find an ignorant creationist easier than an ignorant evolutionist.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: ruu
God didn't make a plan for monkeys. Equating/associating humans with monkeys means either 1) monkeys are special or 2) humans are NOT special.

But God didn't make a plan for dirt either. Why is it better that man was molded from dirt than evolved from a different animal? If the soul is the spark of the divine, then religion can easily claim that God was directly involved in the creation of man (as the Vatican has begun doing since publicly accepting evolution), and now we no longer have to be mud golems.

 

[ruu]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: ruu
God didn't make a plan for monkeys. Equating/associating humans with monkeys means either 1) monkeys are special or 2) humans are NOT special.

But God didn't make a plan for dirt either. Why is it better that man was molded from dirt than evolved from a different animal? If the soul is the spark of the divine, then religion can easily claim that God was directly involved in the creation of man (as the Vatican has begun doing since publicly accepting evolution), and now we no longer have to be mud golems.

I have no idea why dirt > evolution. But the phrase "mud golems" made me smile.

Maybe it has something to do with the feeling that God doesn't need rough drafts and that monkeys are somehow rough drafts of people? Evolution being as imprecise and cobbled together as it is ("intelligent" design, my ass), belief in evolution leads to a belief in God being clumsy.

Also, evolution is ongoing. If it's ongoing, that means that homo sapiens is not the end-all-be-all of God's creation. The idea that humans are not the end of the road, as far as existence is concerned, is kind of scary. If a creationist sees himself as the goal, the evolutionist saying that the creationist is just a cog in a process can be disconcerting. The concept of "total insignificance" is pretty freaky to a creature that is self-aware.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ruu
Maybe it has something to do with the feeling that God doesn't need rough drafts and that monkeys are somehow rough drafts of people? Evolution being as imprecise and cobbled together as it is ("intelligent" design, my ass), belief in evolution leads to a belief in God being clumsy.

Clumsy isn't really a problem in my book. I mean we have earthquakes and monsoons which regularly kill tens of thousands of people. And that's all part of god's earth. Could he not make a stable planet? I think there's more problems with believing god actually did design us all as is. Because that would include all the disgusting animals out there. The ones that lay eggs in the eyeballs of starving children in africa which then hatch and eat their way out of the kid. Nice creature. Good job god. Or did satan do that one?

 

[ruu]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: ruu
Maybe it has something to do with the feeling that God doesn't need rough drafts and that monkeys are somehow rough drafts of people? Evolution being as imprecise and cobbled together as it is ("intelligent" design, my ass), belief in evolution leads to a belief in God being clumsy.

Clumsy isn't really a problem in my book. I mean we have earthquakes and monsoons which regularly kill tens of thousands of people. And that's all part of god's earth. Could he not make a stable planet? I think there's more problems with believing god actually did design us all as is. Because that would include all the disgusting animals out there. The ones that lay eggs in the eyeballs of starving children in africa which then hatch and eat their way out of the kid. Nice creature. Good job god. Or did satan do that one?

Satan did that one, definitely.

...or... wait... God did that one, but He's just testing you.

Anyway, the only reason Africa is afflicted with suffering is because we let gays marry.

...wait, what?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Early Creation tales said that the plants and animals in the world were made the way they are - perfect, by God. End of story.

Then evolutionary theory stepped onto the scene, and said that life forms are always changing. That flew in the face of the Creation stories. Suddenly God had no longer created perfect life forms; there was the implication that life needed to adapt to a harsh environment.

So the Creation story needed to evolve: God made early lifeforms, and everything evolved from there, with God guiding the process. Again, a god of the unseen. The "guiding force" is simply that life forms more suitable to survive their environments are going to be the ones passing on those genes.

I can play god to a petri dish of bacteria: Give them slowly-increasing doses of a toxin. Those which happen to be able to survive the low doses pass their immunity on to the next generation. And the process continues until those which remain are entirely immune to the toxin. No divine guiding force was needed, only random chemical or genetic anomalies which benefited the life form in question. We see it on a regular basis; if we didn't, a lot of biologists and biochemists would be out of a job, since infectious organisms would never be capable of developing resistances to drugs.

You have no control, nor understanding, of what goes on in that petri dish once said conditions are set. You cannot predict which bacteria die, and which will live, and which will make it to the end of your trial. You, therefore, arent playing god at all. You have ZERO say so what happens after you introduce such conditions. In other words, you have zero say-so in what happens inside the petri. You just manipulate. Hardly (G)god.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ruu
Yeah, that's a pretty intense quibble-point as far as Deism and revealed Christianity is concerned. I say "quibble" because it's just a matter of how one defines one's terms. Granted, in a religious context, how a term is defined is really, really important. See gay marriage.

...actually, in a legal context, definition of terms is quite important, as well.

A bit more than a mere quibble IMO. If one lights a firework, then one also created the resulting bang, no?

Damn our brains for not evolving a sense of the passing of eons and the movement of sub-atomic particles! All of this would be so clear if we could track the behavior of amino acids with our eyes!

Like humans once thought the sun moved around the earth, we still think that it is time that passes.

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Vic
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father."
- Matthew 10:29

But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Emphasis mine, obviously.

Touche`. That God values humans much more than sparrows does not change the fact that God values sparrows as well.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: ruu
Maybe it has something to do with the feeling that God doesn't need rough drafts and that monkeys are somehow rough drafts of people? Evolution being as imprecise and cobbled together as it is ("intelligent" design, my ass), belief in evolution leads to a belief in God being clumsy.

Clumsy isn't really a problem in my book. I mean we have earthquakes and monsoons which regularly kill tens of thousands of people. And that's all part of god's earth. Could he not make a stable planet? I think there's more problems with believing god actually did design us all as is. Because that would include all the disgusting animals out there. The ones that lay eggs in the eyeballs of starving children in africa which then hatch and eat their way out of the kid. Nice creature. Good job god. Or did satan do that one?

Beauty is in the play.

IOW, if there were no evil in the world, it would not be beautiful.

 

[ruu]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ruu
Yeah, that's a pretty intense quibble-point as far as Deism and revealed Christianity is concerned. I say "quibble" because it's just a matter of how one defines one's terms. Granted, in a religious context, how a term is defined is really, really important. See gay marriage.

...actually, in a legal context, definition of terms is quite important, as well.

A bit more than a mere quibble IMO. If one lights a firework, then one also created the resulting bang, no?

I think it really depends on who you ask. Did I create oxidation? No. Am I responsible for the structure of certain atoms such that electrons can transfer re oxidation? No. Am I therefore directly responsible for the resulting bang? If the question is framed in a way with emphasis on the chemical process and not on agency, then no, I am not responsible for the resulting bang.

It really depends on how specific the argument gets and how one wishes to frame the argument. Maybe I shouldn't call it a quibble; lawyers and lawmakers base their entire career on such fine points of distinction. Personally, I lose patience after a while.

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Vic
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father."
- Matthew 10:29

But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Emphasis mine, obviously.

Touche`. That God values humans much more than sparrows does not change the fact that God values sparrows as well.

True. But, all things being equal, God still values humans the most. Humans have a leg up on the rest of creation. This "spiritual advantage" informs much of the rest of revealed Christianity's attitude toward human life.

Edit for messing up nested quotes.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
You have no control, nor understanding, of what goes on in that petri dish once said conditions are set. You cannot predict which bacteria die, and which will live, and which will make it to the end of your trial. You, therefore, arent playing god at all. You have ZERO say so what happens after you introduce such conditions. In other words, you have zero say-so in what happens inside the petri. You just manipulate. Hardly (G)god.

I can use a microscope to observe. I can build tools to find out what's going on. I can pinpoint individual bacteria with a laser if I wanted to, and vaporize them. I can change their environment. What's exactly is the difference between changing "what happens in the petri" and "manipulating"?

Originally posted by: Vic
Beauty is in the play.

IOW, if there were no evil in the world, it would not be beautiful.

Merely a presumption made to justify the existence of evil in the face of a deity which could eliminate it in an instant.

Is there evil in Heaven? Without it, is Heaven without beauty and good?
Must God do evil, lest he not appear good?

If evil and beauty are a matter of context and point of view, why must evil exist in this reality? Confine evil to Hell, and be done with it.


"Alright son, I'm going to shoot you in the leg, just to show you how absolutely wonderful it is not to get shot in the face."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Vic
Beauty is in the play.

IOW, if there were no evil in the world, it would not be beautiful.

Merely a presumption made to justify the existence of evil in the face of a deity which could eliminate it in an instant.

Is there evil in Heaven? Without it, is Heaven without beauty and good?
Must God do evil, lest he not appear good?

If evil and beauty are a matter of context and point of view, why must evil exist in this reality? Confine evil to Hell, and be done with it.


"Alright son, I'm going to shoot you in the leg, just to show you how absolutely wonderful it is not to get shot in the face."

Because evil and beauty are a matter of context and point of view. You're letting your emotions cloud your judgment and objectivity. Heaven and Hell exist in the here-and-now and of your own making.

 

[Vic]

Back and forth, I sway with the wind
Resolution slips away again
Right through my fingers, back into my heart
Where it's out of reach and it's in the dark
Sometimes I think I'm blind
Or I may be just paralyzed
Because the plot thickens every day
And the pieces of my puzzle keep crumblin' away
But I know, there's a picture beneath
Indecision clouds my vision
No one listens...
Because I'm somewhere in between
My love and my agony
You see, I'm somewhere in between
My life is falling to pieces
Somebody put me together
Layin' face down on the ground
My fingers in my ears to block the sound
My eyes shut tight to avoid the sight
Anticipating the end, losing the will to fight
Droplets of "yes" and "no"
In an ocean of "maybe"
From the bottom, it looks like a steep incline
From the top, another downhill slope of mine
But I know, the equilibrium's there
Indecision clouds my vision
No one listens
Because I'm somewhere in between
My love and my agony
You see, I'm somewhere in between
My life is falling to pieces
Somebody put me together
Back and forth, I sway with the wind
Resolution slips away again
Right through my fingers, back into my heart
Where it's out of reach and it's in the dark
Sometimes I think I'm blind
Or I may be just paralyzed
Because the plot thickens every day
And the pieces of my puzzle keep crumblin' away
But I know, there's a picture beneath
Indecision clouds my vision
No one listens...
Because I'm somewhere in between
My love and my agony
You see, I'm somewhere in between
My life is falling to pieces
Somebody put me together