Scientific and Religious Perspectives on Creationism / Evolution

[wwhong]

hi everyone,

i happened to come through a book which discuss about creationism and evolution. it just amazed me how life originate. i m just wondering which one do u guys believe in? creationism or evolution? i dunno if this sounds like a crap topic to discuss about but i think somehow everyone does think about how lifes came from, right? would love to hear what u guys think.

I believe the world change according to Tao...
a very natural process

things change with its cycle... this includes the forms of the living being on this earth...

things change c\according to its needs...

it things can't change with the situation..
sooner or later it will die out...

that's what I think..

anyone here is a fan of Julian Huxley?

[wwhong]

oh well somehow i realized that this is just gonna end up to be the question, "which one comes first? chicken or egg?" there's really no solid scientific proof behind both theories but just curious what do most people believe in?

maybe we can integrate both theories togather.. known as creative evolution...

the Angels moderate the evolution process in this world...

I choose to believe this one...

[Thirdshifter]

I do not find the concepts of Creation and Evolution to be mutually exclusive.

Like the mind/body inverted-dichotomy, simutaneity within time dictates that Creation and Evolution logically must coexist both theoretically and in re.

And exactly like the mind/body simutaneous dialectic it is frequently misunderstood in concept and reality/execution for logically, in both examples the one [sic] cannot exist without the other [sic].

Excerpt from my undergrad Senior Honors Thesis in Philosophy:Inspired by Descartes, this Conversation is being written as Conversation, rather than a logical dissemination of postulates and derivations of dialectic semantics. It is the genetic hybrid of form and substance, mind and body, logic and method. The reason for this is simple: I have found no convincing argument for the bifurcation of the world…Now is the time for true philosophy to begin—not tabla rasa (the blank slate) as Aristotle would have it, but wei wu wei (action without action) in the Chinese tradition (Buddhist and Taoist). The substance and form flow naturally from moment to moment, ensuring sincerity (if not Truth) according to the Present. “Sincerity” is what I consider to be “truth” enfleshed. When figured temporally in the world, this rational ideal becomes a familiar notion not only to our brains, but to our bodies as well. Not surprisingly, our present Conversation closely resembles Derrida’s assemblage, Carse’s infinite game, Whitehead’s wonderment, Whitman’s witnessing, Buber’s I-Thou relation, Hartshorne’s shared creative experience, Thoreau’s love, Nietzsche’s will to power, Pirsig’s quality, Lao Tzu’s tao…

When I associate these different “concepts” in such a list, I say that they “closely resemble” one another. This resemblance is similar to Nietzsche’s assertion regarding re-presentation of the non-re-presentable. For the purposes of communication (and cognitive processes are also communicative—between knower and known) we mistranslate the similar into the same. Each individual “leaf” closely resembles the mass population, but never exactly. Our concept of same-ness is the artificial melding generality at the cost of individual differences. This does not effect any Kantian alteration except in the realm of discourse. In communicative contexts, in other words, in Conversation, the transmogrification is as “real” as anything can be. And that transports our present Conversation from the realm of concept, semantics, logic, epistemology and linguistics—to metaphysics. The Philosophy of Conversation as The Real</BLOCKQUOTE>Many philosophers over the centuries have (whether intentionally or not) delved into the area of simultaneity, inverted-dichotomy, similarity, sincerity, relationship, and Conversation as either modes of epistemology, logic, mathetmatics (Whitehead and Bertrand Russell not only wrote the book on Mathematics in their day, but also...)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...22559?v=glance - Bertrand Russell and A.N. Whitehead (The World of Philosophy)

Metaphysics literally as a mode of mathematical understanding, almost viz. old-school "Geometry Style" proofs from Baruch Spinoza...

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/spinoza.htm - Spinoza's Philosophy

This relates to Creation and Evolution because as both "concepts" and "modes of reality" they can be best understood using methodologies developed and strengthened over centuries by philosophers.

Not politicians. Not theologians. Not partisan laymen.

As a philosopher my re-evaluation of the "concepts" of Creation and Evolution are as follows (in shorthand):

1. "The World" is what it is, and was what it was

2. All we know about it is what we've found out about it

3. Precisely where it came from (in terms of scientific method) is unknowable

4. Educated guesses can be made from masses of data collected by astrophysicists from galactic telescopic observations, combined with laws of physics and theoretical constructs (i.e. the "formation" of the planet, gravitation collecting many meteorites into a mass, etc.), but CERTAINTY eludes them...

5. Another point of speculation from scientific evidence gathered and educated guesses made is from archaeologists and very old samples from bones and earth and layers etc., connecting with very high likelihood the "evolution" of certain species one to another and painting a very nice big picture, but again CERTAINTY eludes them...

6. On the other side of the coin, the Book of Genesis is a sacred text dictated directly from God (or coming directly from Heaven, depending on which theological strand you are following), and specifically states not only the Creation of Humankind, but also the Creation of all the creatures of the earth.

7. More compelling than the pure Creationism from the Book of Genesis "argument", however, is one that people almost never use in their own defense of Creationism: in the Sacred text it does not simply state the fact of the Creation of the world and of Humankind and of all the creatures of the earth.

It also expressly tells us how God asks Adam to exercise one of the most POWERFUL acts ever executed by Man over Nature:

HE who is Not to be Named asks Adam to Name them all.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-265.htm - COULD ADAM REALLY NAME ALL THOSE ANIMALS?

8. Philosophically, as a concept, in reality, naming something is in itself an act of "creation", an act of Identification, of Classification, of gaining Power, of becoming Lord and Master in one sense over all the world.

Before Adam named them "bunnies" -- in one very significant conceptual sense -- there were no bunnies.

Because without a Name, without an identity, without an Object-Concept, they were just "hoppy thingys out there". As "bunnies" they gained value, they gained identity, and what is more important, we as humans gained a way to communicate about them conceptually.

Multiply that by "every" creature in the world, and Adam literally "created" all the animals, all the fish, all the birds...

In our minds. In our discourse. In our perception.

BUT THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS AN ARTICLE BASED ON BELIEF...And like the scientists, CERTAINTY also eludes them...

(Pragmatism and belief are two "concepts" at the core of one of America's greatest philosophers, William James, whose philosophy I have adapted to fit this situation as a part of my thesis [see below].)

8. Conclusion: I am in agreement with William James in some sense on this issue (not that he addressed it directly, that I am aware).

In pragmatic terms the product of belief is as much evidence of its "truth" as any other leading indicator.

This does not mean that what The Book of Genesis says is necessarily "literally" True.

What it means is that: people who believe it, behave and act and argue and vote and bring up issues in certain ways, so that the world is impacted by the Book of Genesis in a very real way.

So whether or not it is "true" is moot, according to James' Pragmatism: its results are real.

On the flip side: those who "believe" (and yes, belief in the Religion of Modern Science is indeed a true religion of Faith) in Evolution also produce results in the world in much the same way.

My thesis is that Creation and Evolution are in fact, an inverted-dichotomy both conceptually and in the real world, which cannot exist one without the other, and are not in fact mutually exclusive.

Thank you.

[Liney]

Konsep evolusi atau kejadian?? Yang mana satu perlu dipilih atau mungkin tidak memilih antara kedua duanya......sebenarnya bergantung kepada seseorang individu itu sendiri, kepercayaan dan pegangan beliau dalam menyiakan atau menidakkan dua dua konsep tersebut atau salah satunya.

Sekiranya kita mengimbau kembali asalnya Teori evolusi ini. Rasanya semua orang tahu....teori ini muncul hasil kreatif Darwin, kerana itulah teori evolusi ini juga dikenali darwinisme....

Pada saya, saya amat bersetuju dengan pendapat yang dikemukakan oleh Harun Yahya atau nama sebenarnya Adnan Oktar. Adnan Oktar dilahirkan pada tahun 1956, merupakan seorang ilmuwan dan intelektual terkemuka berbangsa Turki. Menyanjung tinggi nilai-nilai murni akhlak dan mengabdikan hidupnya dengan berdakwah kepada golongan masyarakat. Hasil karya beliau banyak berkaitan dengan kepercayaan mengesahkan kewujudan Maha Suci Tuhan yang Esa dan Tunggal ditulis dengan tujuan mendekatkan islam kepada golongan awam, dan mendamaikan hati-hati mereka kepada hakikat kebenaran. Bagi orang islam, ianya adalah sebagai nasihat dan peringatan. Penulis menyiarkan hasil tulisan yang berteraskan asas-asas Al-Quran yang ditujukan khusus sebagai renungan kaum muslimin.


Di dalam buku beliau bertajuk "Evolution Deceit" yang telah diterjemahkan dalam pelbagai bahasa, beliau menekanan bahawa sebahagian masyarakat yang pernah mendengar tentang "Teori Evolusi" atau "Darwinisme", mungkin menyangka ia hanyalah sebuah konsep biologi sahaja dan tidak mempunyai apa-apa kepentingan di dalam kehidupan mereka. Suatu kesilapan yang besar, kerana ia tidak hanya berkisar dengan kepentingan biologi sahaja, malah teori evolusi adalah suatu penyelewengan falsafah yang telah mempengaruhi ramai orang.

Falsafah ini adalah "materialisme", yang mengandungi kepalsuan tentang bagaimana kita datang (asal kejadian). Matlamat utama materialisme tiada yang lain melainkan kebendaan dan kebendaan itu adalah intipati segalanya. Bermula dari persoalan pokok inilah ia telah menolak kewujudan seorang Al-Khaled (Pencipta), iaitu Allah. Meletakkan segalanya pada status benda, anggapan ini menjadikan manusia satu makhluk yang hanya mengambil berat tentang kebendaan dan mengetepikan segala jenis nilai-nilai moral. Ini adalah permulaan sebuah tragedi yang akan menimpa kehidupan manusia.

Beliau juga menyatakan Karl Marx sendiri menjelaskan bahawa teori evolusi menghasilkan dasar penuh materialisme dan juga komunisme. Beliau juga menunjukkan rasa simpatinya terhadap Darwin dengan menyebut di dalam bukunya yang dikira sebagai yang terbaik, Das Kapital. Di dalam edisi Jerman, beliau menulis; "Daripada peminat setia Charles Darwin".

Berbalik kepada hakikat kejadian pula, banyak bukti bukti kejadian yang kita boleh lihat. Al Quran juga banyak menjelaskan akan konsep kejadian ini. Dan kita tidak memerlukan makmal makmal sains untuk menbuktikan konsep ini kerana faktanya telah tersedia ada dan terbukti. Contohnya, dari Surah An-Nahl 68-69;

Dan Tuhanmu memberi ilham kepada lebah: "Hendaklah engkau membuat sarangmu di gunung-ganang dan di pokok-pokok kayu, dan juga di bangunan-bangunan yang didirikan oleh manusia. Kemudian makanlah dari segala jenis bunga-bungaan dan buah-buahan (yang engkau sukai), serta turutlah jalan-jalan peraturan Tuhanmu yang diilhamkan dan dimudahkannya kepadamu". (Dengan itu) akan keluarlah dari dalam badannya minuman (madu) yang berlainan warnanya, yang mengandungi penawar bagi manusia (dari berbagai-bagai penyakit). Sesungguhnya pada yang demikian itu, ada tanda (yang membuktikan kemurahan Allah) bagi orang-orang yang mahu berfikir. .

Dan banyak lagi bukti bukti yang boleh kita perolehi sekiranya kita rajin menyelidik dan cuba mengopak isi kandungan hakikat kejadian dari sekecil kecil zarah kepada sebesar besar alam semesta. Realitinya telah jelas dan terbukti. Semua hidupan adalah hasil sebuah rekaan sempurna dan sebuah ciptaan unggul. Ini menunjukkan bukti yang kukuh kepada kewujudan seorang pencipta, Empunya kekuasaan yang luar biasa, ilmu pengetahuan dan kebijaksanaan.

Pencipta itu ialah Allah, Tuhan langit dan bumi, dan segala yang berada di antara keduanya


Di atas merupakan pendapat saya dan juga hasil pembacaan saya tentang evolusi dan kejadian. Banyak lagi perlu diperkatakan tentang topik ini tapi saya rasa setakat ini sahaja perlu saya uraikan. Maaf sekiranya tersilap kata tersalah bahasa.....

Wallahu 'alam.....

-Liney-

^bump

[hunliang]

too much to read, please summarize those post pls.....LOL

anyway, i believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. I sort of think that all life on earth originates from a cell, and the cell is 'made' from a random process of interaction between molecules when the earth was young, and ultimately, from gaziliions of combinations tried out, a molecule that has the ability toi self-replicate ie. the RNA was created and evolution , influenced by enviromental pressure begins.

so it went from a strand of RNA, to a more stable DNA, to a single prokaryote cell, to the more complex unicellular eukaryotes, to multicellular and the story goes....until the complex animals and plants we see today.

There are many debatable points to the idea, but i think it makes sense to me and to me is the best explanation of life on earth.

[Shoblast]

I can't believe this silly argument would ever reach ReCom.

Anyway, to those who do not believe in Evollution, how are you going to stop it anyway? declaring that there is no such thing as mutations?

People have this misconception that life came from a single cell. Wrong. Life probably came from a whole species of cells, billions of them, and when we are talking about cells that can swap genetic info like we swap emails, this "species" is quite huge indeed.

[lyzzy]

I'm more *sensitive* about this topic then I am about religion, Malaysia politics or women's rights

If everyone ACTUALLY learned what evolution is about, and all the technical details that it involves, they will realize that evolution is the best scientific theory and the only scientific theory out there.

But alas, the Malaysian schools don't teach it and that's why we are having this argument.

Most scientists have given up trying to defend evolution with creationists, because spouting misbeliefs about evolution is much easier than explaining it. To explain, a scientist needs to talk about concepts like genetic drift and phylogenetic trees and how selection actually works and synonymous and nonsynonymous subsitiutions - all of which, a creationist don't care to understand.

Creationism is a personal belief, not a scientific one. Evolution is consistent with the other scientific fields such as physics, chemistry and geology, creationism isn't.

... and that's all I am going to say.
________
vaporizers