Scientific and Religious Perspectives on Creationism / Evolution

[qedx]

Originally Posted by luke

I wrote "all creatures" didn't I? When did I set aside humanity as special? Don't lump me together with extremist creationists as I believe in both evolution and creation as combined factors in existence of creatures.

I'm not saying that you specifically hold such an opinion. If it came through as such I apologize. It's just that that is the usual evolution+creationist musher I encounter online. But I guess that is irrelevant to this discussion atm. Apologies, again.

[youngyew]

Originally Posted by luke

That's precisely evolutionist thinking. These people are so vehement about natural selection that they totally reject the slightest idea of scientifically-unprovable power to take part in the process. Again, I would ask, why such a strong rejection?

Beware of the umbrella term "evolutionist" - not everyone who accepts evolution thinks the same way. This is treading perilously close to calling all Muslims "terrorists" after observing just the fundamentalists. There are many people who accept evolution who subscribe to theistic, or "god-guided" evolution.

Originally Posted by luke

Sometimes it makes me wonder if all this evolution aka darwinism theory is a stealthy conspiracy to reject all divinity-based religions. They specifically assert "no, no God in this. it's all natural". And the gullible religious people took the bait and started the creationism faction which totally rejects the idea of creatures evolving from one form to another. All the while, the region in between the two extremes is so deserted as if the idea is not hot enough for debates. Call it "a coward way out" or "an illusion" or whatever, but the path I'm taking is at least one step further away from this endless fruitless disputes. Sure, creationists and evolutionists alike, debate all the way as much as you want, for I am supporting both of your beliefs, well, at least some portion of each.

I can see that you are frustrated by the most vocal of the proponents in this debate. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory (and a fact), inherently it has nothing to do with belief. Adding an "-ism" suffix is what IDist/creationists have done to degenerate the whole scientific theory to the status of personal belief, and to fall to this trap would be unwise. With a scientific theory, you either accept it or reject it - in which case you improve upon it. The whole process of acceptance or rejection is entirely based on the ability of theory to fully expound on a natural phenomenon; whether one is comfortable with it or not and whether there is an afterlife is totally irrelevant in the scientific endeavour. Therefore, to label one as an evolutionist is as ridiculous as the notion of a "maxwellist", "newtonist", or "einsteinist".

Having said that, over years I have observed overzealous evolution proponents who have indeed transformed themselves into sorts of "Darwinists". They take great pride in the ability of evolution to explain biodiversity (not the origin of life, for those who have the inclination to lump together evolution and abiogenesis) so much so that they use it as a weapon directed towards theists who have always harped on the "origin of life" as an evidence of the creator's existence. The way "Darwinists" engage in the religious debates makes them appear as though evolution is a new brand of belief or faith (lack of faith, to be precise) in direct confrontation of all theistic beliefs. But if we break down the whole issue into its parts, it's obvious that it shouldn't be like this. Evolution was not a belief to begin with, and it will never be.

The way I see it, evolution indeed makes a strong case of "God does not have to exist", and all honest people engaging in this discourse should concur as much. However, to further extrapolate this theory to make the case of "therefore a supernatural being / creator does not exist" would be excessively affronting and is not logically water-tight.

While I maintain that there is no "mandatory" place for a creator in the evolutionary process; I would have no problem with people who reconcile their belief with this process by having God play a role in it. Having said that (before you yell at me, Shoblast), it is obvious that current evidence totally contradicts the literal account of creation of life in Old Testaments and al-Quran; and taking everything together, we come to an inevitable conclusion: either the literal creation in these scriptures were wrong; or God pulled a cosmic prank on us by actually doing what He said he did in the scriptures but planting artificial clues to lead us astray. As for subscribing to theistic evolution, I reckon that's entirely up to personal choice, but I am sure some factions in various beliefs would be quick to point out that this is no longer the genuine belief in the religion.

And hence the internal war perpetuates.

[vikraman]

There are some who contend that "oh, maybe it wasn't all natural. God played a part in it see. Or else we wouldn't end as humans would we? Hell we could have all ended up as small tree shrews!". Well the fact of the matter is that we easily could have. It's a game of chance. Celullar mutation is non-guidable. Nobody can predict the course it takes. It is random. The joy about things that are random is that ANYTHING can happen. We are one of that anything. Just because we were considerably luckier (and it is a game of chance remember) than say ostriches because we have brains large enough and complex enough to contemplate question for a nature higher than "I must find dinner." all the time doesn't mean that some "higher power" graciously granted us these "magical powers of thought". It could've been the fish who evolved into some advanced shark who got all the brains and we could've taken another path from tree shrew and become some unknown freak of evolution. That's what evolution does. It throws up freaks. Freaks that "Intelligent Design" can't account for because it's hardly intelligent to "design" a bird that can't fly (simply because it lived on land too much) or a salamander with no eyes (simply because it lived in the dark too long) or single cell organisms which can survive purely on methane and are poisoned by oxygen (simply because they lived in undersea volcanoes). Creation/ID is hocus-pocus bogus rubbish which rightfully belongs in the trashbin of history. Debate on it is a waste of time for biologists and us alike.

[azlanhussain]

The best answers so far that I found:

http://www.bible-quotes-science-info...n-timeline.htm
http://www.parvez-video.com/insight/...uran/index.asp
http://www.truevolution.net/

* Please read it with an open mind..

The evolution process is already been mentioned in God books that was given to us thousands of years before we could even know the meaning of science. Isn't that enough for us to believe the existence of God, who creates us all. I don't think we should push 'him' aside just because we don't know (yet) how he did things.

[vikraman]

All the verses quoted in the above sites (And I only read the verses, people's interpretation is exactly that, someone elses interpretation. I prefer to read the verses and make up my own decision as to what they allude to) could have easily been written by someone residing in that era of time based on knowledge available at that point in time. One of sites says that God's writing is metaphorical and never talks about chromosomes and DNA and the such because in the era at which it was written, people took god's word as absolute and nobody disputed it. Everybody believed, as such the transcribers didn't clear the metaphors and write clearly for no one would have understood if God decided to use terms such as cytokinesis or cellular mutation or deoxyribonucleic acid. Well now that we know all this things exist and how they work, this "god" still hasn't dropped by with the latest interpretation of His works for the 21st century. In fact god hasn't clarified his message since the 6th century (although some Mormons would like to refute this claim) which leaves us still with the question, if god did guide evolution or start evolution or played any part in evolution or the creation of the earth or anything of that sort, he hasn't told us about it.

[chongkeat]

I can't really comment on this right now as I don't know much about these things, but I'll keep on reading.....

Ok, I've read the first webpage: http://www.bible-quotes-science-info...n-timeline.htm

I don't think we should push 'him' aside just because we don't know (yet) how he did things.

Science is logical. Everyone will accept the existence of god, completely and without any doubt, once we find incontrovertible evidence(s) that he (or they, as we must be open to the beliefs of other religions too) exists. One passage in the entire bible is not enough, I'm afraid.

[azlanhussain]

Originally Posted by vikraman

All the verses quoted in the above sites (And I only read the verses, people's interpretation is exactly that, someone elses interpretation. I prefer to read the verses and make up my own decision as to what they allude to) could have easily been written by someone residing in that era of time based on knowledge available at that point in time. One of sites says that God's writing is metaphorical and never talks about chromosomes and DNA and the such because in the era at which it was written, people took god's word as absolute and nobody disputed it. Everybody believed, as such the transcribers didn't clear the metaphors and write clearly for no one would have understood if God decided to use terms such as cytokinesis or cellular mutation or deoxyribonucleic acid. Well now that we know all this things exist and how they work, this "god" still hasn't dropped by with the latest interpretation of His works for the 21st century. In fact god hasn't clarified his message since the 6th century (although some Mormons would like to refute this claim) which leaves us still with the question, if god did guide evolution or start evolution or played any part in evolution or the creation of the earth or anything of that sort, he hasn't told us about it.

Well that's your own personal interpretation. You have your rights to voice it. If I would agree with you, that makes majority of people in this world are wrong.. pity them huh.. ;)

However do remember that God gives us brain to think and not to expect to be spoon fed for the rest of our life.. or else we will be no different than animal..

God's book is here as a guide for human kind. Unfortunately most of us only recognize the name of the book and not the content, yet pretending to know more than 'him'.. If we can pay thousands of dollars & sacrisfy years of our life for our degrees, why are we reluctant to put the same effort to study his book..

[vikraman]

We shall agree to disagree then.

btw. Mod, why don't you change the title to something more reflective of the content and perhaps merge it with other ongoing atheism vs theism topics.

[chongkeat]

Yeah, the current title is just so..... ridiculous.


UPDATE:
Ah, the title is changed. Good.

[azlanhussain]

Well I guess I needed to create its own uniqueness in order to get more quality posters (like you guys) to hop in..

cheers,