Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight online at 7pm- http://www.npr.org

[AsburySkinsFan]

Saying all we need to know is in the Bible or from the Bible doesn't get you very far and is not consistent with the beliefs/thoughts of many Christians that existed before what we'd call science today.

John Wesley used to be called "A Man of One Book" meaning the Bible, and the essence of it is true, for Wesley everything eventually came back to scripture, however Wesley was widely read, he read everything he could get his hands on. As a Christian in the Wesleyan tradition I follow what we call the Wesleyan Quadrilateral which is the inter-relationship between scripture, reason, tradition, and experience (tradition being Christian historical). I usually talk about Prima Scriptura meaning scripture first, the problem that we find with most Fundamentalist discussions is that they want to force Martin Luther's Sola Scriptura further than Luther ever insisted, in that they seek to deny any relevance or truth found outside of scripture, whereas a mature theology acjnowledges that truth is not found solely in the Bible.

[robotfire]

What controversy are atheists drumming up in this thread? Are atheists pushing for intelligent design and other equivalent drivel to be taught in science classrooms?

 

Quite frankly, I didn't see the purpose in this debate. Ken Ham to say nicely, is a moron. Bill Nye is not an evolutionary biologist and did not debate like one. In terms of making people reevaluate their belief systems, I don't think either guy accomplished much.

 

BUT where people like Nye and others are coming from is simple; we need to do a better job at promoting scientific theory in the classroom, to encourage students to get involved in hard sciences instead of creating fake controversies. I'm a scientist myself and although not religious, I have peers who happen to be and are themselves highly vocal in this issue. It's not an "atheists" vs. "Christians" debate. There are plenty Christians or people from other religious denominations involved in science who are vocal against Ken Ham's young earth creationists or the intelligent design crowd.

First of all, I like and agree with most of your post.

 

There is definitely an agenda by some to debunk religion entirely.  As such, a lot of religious people feel threatened and attack science.  If a kid on the playground says your backpack is ugly, you say his backpack is ugly, too.  What if both backpacks are just fine, though?

 

The controversy is that there is a controversy at all.  The title of the thread is "Creationism Vs. Evolution", as if the two are mutually exclusive.  If someone says "pick one", a pack of morons starts defending the side they hold to more strongly and denigrates the other.  It's Coke vs Pepsi or Mac vs PC.  Who decided that only one could exist in the first place, and who keeps pushing it?  The ones pushing the controversy are the ones with an agenda.  Most rational people are able to drink Coke AND Pepsi, since all they really care about is a tasty beverage.  Most rational people can enjoy religious AND scientific truths, since both provide enlightenment.

[Corcaigh]

The title of the thread is "Creationism Vs. Evolution", as if the two are mutually exclusive.

This thread is about a debate whether young earth creationism should be taught in science class. Ken Hamm and his followers are arguing that. He is arguing the evolution of species is false. He is arguing that the earth is physically a few thousand years old. He is arguing that very significant parts of well established science which underpins engineering and technology in our modern society is incorrect.

Evolution as science is mutually exclusive from young earth creationism.

[Dan T.]

Nevermind....

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

First of all, I like and agree with most of your post.

There is definitely an agenda by some to debunk religion entirely. As such, a lot of religious people feel threatened and attack science. If a kid on the playground says your backpack is ugly, you say his backpack is ugly, too. What if both backpacks are just fine, though?

The controversy is that there is a controversy at all. The title of the thread is "Creationism Vs. Evolution", as if the two are mutually exclusive. If someone says "pick one", a pack of morons starts defending the side they hold to more strongly and denigrates the other. It's Coke vs Pepsi or Mac vs PC. Who decided that only one could exist in the first place, and who keeps pushing it? The ones pushing the controversy are the ones with an agenda. Most rational people are able to drink Coke AND Pepsi, since all they really care about is a tasty beverage. Most rational people can enjoy religious AND scientific truths, since both provide enlightenment.

So I'm a moron with an agenda because I'm not a fan if religion? Give me a friggin' break, save me the insults. I'm not taking the advice of a guy that says religion and science are like Coke and Pepsi. That's absurd, quite frankly. They are nothing alike. I'm not praying and going through ceremonies to appease one of the supposed ghosts looking at every step of my life. I'm reading up on what a bunch of insanely smart people have studied, that's it.

Everyone from every belief system can be annoying as Florida mosquitos. Can't tell you how many times I've been stopped by brainwashed people with pamphlets, or seen some crazy dude preaching God at the top of his lungs on campus. Doesn't mean I think all Christians are wackjobs. The majority of Athiests and religious people are cool.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

So...did anyone change their minds?

[mcsluggo]

I don't understand why ANYBODY cares what this boob thinks about evolution.  

 

I imagine most Christians also don't give a rats ass about what this boob thinks about evolution, and what this boob thinks about evolution is an idiotic benchmark for representing what christians think about evolution, because most don't agree with it.

 

its the equivelent of using Michelle Bachman's or Joseph Stalin's perspective to frame the begining of a debate....  It creates  foolish discussions.

[Zguy28]

Great quote from the late John R.W. Stott, one of my faith heroes, on this matter.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/2009/01/13/quote-to-ponder-john-stott-on-creation-and-evolution/

[Corcaigh]

I don't understand why ANYBODY cares what this boob thinks about evolution.

I don't care what he thinks, but I care deeply about what he is trying to accomplish. As I quoted earlier in the thread:

"Tennessee has a law based off Louisiana's that allows creationism to be snuck into the classroom, and each year we see dozens of copycat bills introduced across the country to attack the teaching of evolution. Already in 2014, there have been five bills that promote creationism or attack evolution in four different states (Virginia, Oklahoma, Missouri, and South Dakota). "

These backward initiatives are a direct result of a modern movement of which Ken Hamm is a prominent leader. It is financially well supported, and actively working with others to inflict his particular religious views on school science programs.

It is possible that your kids education will be impacted by this; as noted in the rest of the article I linked earlier:

"In schools across America, creationism remains a problem. According toa report in Science magazine (pdf), 13% of public school biology teachers are teaching creationism instead of evolution and another 60% are avoiding endorsing either."

[Thekyle1591]

I consider myself a pastafarian.

[Corcaigh]

I consider myself a pastafarian.

 

What is your position on teaching children about Chef Boyardee?

[techboy]

What is your position on teaching children about Chef Boyardee?

There are those who say he's not a real chef, and shouldn't be included in Gourmet Foods electives. I say we should just teach the controversy and let students make up their own minds.

[Thekyle1591]

What is your position on teaching children about Chef Boyardee?

All I know is that since 1800 the amount of pirates has gone down and global warming has gone up. Coincidence? I think not.

[Thekyle1591]

If creationist and evolution theories get time then why shouldn't the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster too? Is it any less plausible than the idea of god?

[Corcaigh]

If creationist and evolution theories get time then why shouldn't the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster too? 

 

I'm in full support of FSM getting exactly the same amount of time in science class as creationism.

[alexey]

Spaghetti monsters don't fly, that's ridiculous.

[Captain James]

Why would God create a Universe that appears to be billions of years old?

 

Why would He create stars whose light shouldn't be here yet, and then create the light in route so that we see them when we shouldn't based on how fast light travels?

 

Why would He create isotopes that we know decay at certain rates that suggest that the Earth and Universe was a certain age when it wasn't?

 

Why would He create trees as if they were already hundreds and even thousands of years old if they weren't?

 

We know that changes in the DNA of an organism changes its phenotype.  That is evolution.  We can observe that happening today, and we see it in things like antibiotic resistant bacteria.

 

Why would a God create a system in which that can happen, but at the same time create some magical wall that requires organisms to remain the same kind?

 

How does that magical wall work/function?  What is the mechanism?

 

Do you believe in a God that actively creates false information?  That "lies" to the human race?

As humans we like to think we know everything at that we're figuring things out at a rapid pace. There is such a thing as micro evolution but it's the macro-type that we disagree on. We can argue "facts" back and forth but none of us are actually scientists studying these things first hand. Secular science has its flaws (in my opinion) and makes a lot of assumptions (in my opinion). I am reminded of 1 Corinthians 3:19 "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight"

[techboy]

 We can argue "facts" back and forth but none of us are actually scientists studying these things first hand.

 

I hate to tell you this, but PeterMP IS a scientist studying these things first hand.

[Captain James]

 

This is incorrect. The discussion between Nye & Hamm is is not a argument between secular and religious. It is an argument between one particular interpretation of Christianity (Young Earth Creationism) and the rest of the scientific world (comprised of secular, Christians and everything else). Most Christians do not approve of teaching that the Earth is 4500 years old in public science class. To do so is a disservice to the children.

And many religious scientists agree with you. But they recognize that biology doesn't make sense without evolution, and they are not demanding that young earth creationism is taught in science class.

I admit that I myself am no scientist. I can't say that the earth was made in 6 literal days or that the age is millions of years old. I agree with Ken Ham that it has to be a much younger life due to Biblical implications (such as sin) but I don't necessarily think it HAS to be 6 literal. I have no idea but I also feel strongly that millions of years is also incorrect. NO ONE knows.

I hate to tell you this, but PeterMP IS a scientist studying these things first hand.

Awesome! Still, in science, we often see what we want to see. This is a battle of interpretations of science, not science vs everything/everybody else.

[techboy]

This is a battle of interpretations of science, not science vs everything/everybody else.

 

No, it really isn't. The science is settled that the earth is billions of years old. There is one narrow interpretation of the Bible that indicates it's much younger, and there are a few people out there trying to twist existing data to match that interpretation, but if you ask pretty much any scientist or science teacher how old the Earth is, you'll get the same answer, and it isn't Ken Ham's.

 

If you don't believe me, go ahead. Ask me.

 

I can understand the theological reasoning that leads to a young earth interpretation of scripture, and I can even understand a philisophical approach that places revealed knowledge above scientific findings, but I can't accept people like Ken Ham trying to cloak their religious viewpoints in junk science.

[PeterMP]

As humans we like to think we know everything at that we're figuring things out at a rapid pace. There is such a thing as micro evolution but it's the macro-type that we disagree on. We can argue "facts" back and forth but none of us are actually scientists studying these things first hand. Secular science has its flaws (in my opinion) and makes a lot of assumptions (in my opinion). I am reminded of 1 Corinthians 3:19 "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight"

 

I actually have a PhD biochemistry and my last peer reviewed paper dealt with synonomous mutation rates in genes that encode for enzymes involved in small molecule metabolism so I actually am pretty close to being a scientist that studies these things first hand.

 

The problem with the idea of micro vs. macro evolution is there is no evidence that it exist.  Changes in the DNA content of an organism can change the phenotype of the organism.  You get enough changes and you will have a new species.

 

There is no known magic wall that says only X number of changes in the DNA content can happen.

 

And I don't think humans know everything (and if you do a search for the threads I've been heavily involved in you won't have a hard time finding threads were I discuss the extent to which I don't think we know things).

 

But I think most importantly, you didn't really address the point.

 

Whether you like it or not, we all live our lives based on making certain assumptions.  You don't get up every morning and worry about falling through the floor when you stand up.  That's the nature of our exsistence.

 

So do we make the assumption that God created things in a way that intentionally be deceptive to people trying to study certian processes, including living organisms, the speed of light, etc.

 

Or do we not make that assumption?

 

If we are going to make the assumption that He did, why would you make that assumption?

 

Why would He do that?

[Captain James]

No, it really isn't. The science is settled that the earth is billions of years old. There is one narrow interpretation of the Bible that indicates it's much younger, and there are a few people out there trying to twist existing data to match that interpretation, but if you ask pretty much any scientist or science teacher how old the Earth is, you'll get the same answer, and it isn't Ken Ham's.

 

If you don't believe me, go ahead. Ask me.

 

I can understand the theological reasoning that leads to a young earth interpretation of scripture, and I can even understand a philisophical approach that places revealed knowledge above scientific findings, but I can't accept people like Ken Ham trying to cloak their religious viewpoints in junk science.

Do you know how difficult it is to believe/accept "mainstream" science? It cannot be denied that one of the reasons the "majority" of scientists sway one way is due to the fear of implications and punishments. So many scholars/professors/scientists are being suppressed to keep quiet or simply forced to "believe" a certain way. The implications of there actually being a "god" and especially the God of the Bible are HUGE. Our world will do anything and everything it can to never let God be truly mainstream.

 

Agree to disagree, when in Rome.

I actually have a PhD biochemistry and my last peer reviewed paper dealt with synonomous mutation rates in genes that encode for enzymes involved in small molecule metabolism so I actually am pretty close to being a scientist that studies these things first hand.

 

The problem with the idea of micro vs. macro evolution is there is no evidence that it exist.  Changes in the DNA content of an organism can change the phenotype of the organism.  You get enough changes and you will have a new species.

 

There is no known magic wall that says only X number of changes in the DNA content can happen.

 

And I don't think humans know everything (and if you do a search for the threads I've been heavily involved in you won't have a hard time finding threads were I discuss the extent to which I don't think we know things).

 

But I think most importantly, you didn't really address the point.

 

Whether you like it or not, we all live our lives based on making certain assumptions.  You don't get up every morning and worry about falling through the floor when you stand up.  That's the nature of our exsistence.

 

So do we make the assumption that God created things in a way that intentionally be deceptive to people trying to study certian processes, including living organisms, the speed of light, etc.

 

Or do we not make that assumption?

 

If we are going to make the assumption that He did, why would you make that assumption?

 

Why would He do that?

I think it still most certainly DOES come down to interpretation. We are blessed with free will and He (God) allows people's hearts to be hardened. If someone truly wants to find their Creator He can be found all around. 

Just because something looks a certain way or appears to be a certain way doesn't mean it has to be a certain way. Just as Ken Ham asserted, it's fine and dandy that certain things appear to be millions of years old doesn't mean they are. No one was there in the beginning and no one will ever know.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ken Ham's young earth creation theology (not science) accepts plate tectonics, if we accept his belief (not science) that creation is only 6,000 years old then given that the closest point between Africa and South America is about 2,900 kilometers that means that the continents are dividing at a rate of nearly .5 kilometers per year. That would be observable.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_distance_between_Africa_and_South_America

I think it still most certainly DOES come down to interpretation. We are blessed with free will and He (God) allows people's hearts to be hardened. If someone truly wants to find their Creator He can be found all around. 

Just because something looks a certain way or appears to be a certain way doesn't mean it has to be a certain way. Just as Ken Ham asserted, it's fine and dandy that certain things appear to be millions of years old doesn't mean they are. No one was there in the beginning and no one will ever know.

You've just given an argument for God to be a deceiver and then blamed the scientists for pointing it out.

[Jumbo]

I've been at this a long time, and humility aside, no one is better or smarter at it than I.

 

For all the real answers to these concerns, send $25 in bitcoin to techboy on his Facespace or Mybook page, or whatever the hell it's called, and he'll see I get it. You of course, will agree to keep the answers to yourself. Or else.

 

And while it shouldn't need to be said, I remind purchasers that I am far more than just a scientist or a PhD. I am a supremely deadly dance instructor with unparalleled knowledge of squirrel breeding.

[techboy]

It cannot be denied that one of the reasons the "majority" of scientists sway one way is due to the fear of implications and punishments.

Yes, it can.

Also, note that I didn't use the word "majority". I said it was virtually everyone. The only people who don't fit are a few, usually working outside their field, who come to the data with theological pre-commitments to what they're going to find.

So many scholars/professors/scientists are being suppressed to keep quiet or simply forced to "believe" a certain way.

I have to tell you, this makes you sound like a tin-foil hatted lunatic. I say this because as an evangelical Christian, I prefer that other Christians not sound like tin-foil hatted lunatics.

My suggestion would be that if you want to believe in a young earth because of a particular narrow reading of the Bible, that you keep it to yourself. It's not a central tenet of Christianity, it's not essential to salvation, and pushing it simply furthers the idea that Christianity is at war with science.

Most everybody trusts science, for obvious reasons, and if you foster that view you're basically harming your (my) cause.

There's a reason that the other group that pushes this interpretation of the Bible hard is fundamentalist atheists. They benefit from that viewpoint too. Fundie Christians get to feel persecuted by "mainstream scientists" and fundie atheists get to portray religion as a backwards, out of date viewpoint that hurts humanity.

The implications of there actually being a "god" and especially the God of the Bible are HUGE. Our world will do anything and everything it can to never let God be truly mainstream.

The thing that really often puzzles me about this is that if you do a little reading in the serious philosophical literature, where the highest level thinking about this happens, you'll find that some of the strongest and most debated arguments for the existence of God rely upon actual, not junk, science to support their framework.

Google "teleological argument" or "Kalam Cosmological argument" if you don't know what I mean.