Creationism Vs. Darwin, Hmmmm... Options

[Black-Wings]

Just a little thing that has been bugging me for a while... I have always believed in the big bang because I am not too religious and then I heard that in some American schools, they were teaching the whole Adam and Eve thing. I wasn't too sure about this because how do you fit in the whole dinosaur and all that really early stuff? So yeah... what do you think?

[gothictheysay]

Evolutionism is scientific and should be taught in schools.

Creationism is all well and good, but is not scientific, and has no place in schools unless the school is private.

Public schools teaching creationism is not church/state separation. Public schools teaching creationism=unconstitutional.

[PsychWardMike]

It goes like this: Everything in the Bible is true and some of it actually happened. Do I think God created everything? Hell yeah. Do I think ancient man was smart enough to comprehend exactly how? No. So God gives us some metaphors and eventually the technology and ideas to figure everything out. There you go. SImple as that. God works on technical levels and lets us figure out the specifics.

[Black-Wings]

But then.. if Adam and Eve came first... what happened to them when the dinosaurs came?

[snooodlysnoosnoo...]

I think that both Creationism and the Big Bang/Evolution theories, as they are, are a load of twaddle.

There is a happy medium.

I don't believe we evolved from primordial goo or even from apes but I do believe that we have evolved from less developed( ?) humans.

I'm not going to go into it all but that is what I believe.

[elphaba2]

Teaching creationism in schools originated because parents objected to the teaching of evolution......so, what about the evolutionist parents? My school is currently not allowed to teach either, although the occasional teacher will tell students who object to leave the room for a few moments while they teach evolution. I like these teachers.

[Witless]

I do believe in evolution quite strongly, but as i've stated a few times over the boards, I am a science geek.. and therefore research and read up on things a lot. To me evolution makes so much sense, and the fact that it still occurs within our life time (albeit on a more subtle level), just makes it impossible for me to not believe.. not even that but to apply it in my mind to so many situations.

I think it's quite a beutiful theory myself.. not technical and cold. I'll explain...
We as people through our own individual life time, grow both mentally and physically, we're born we live our lives, have our impact on everyone else, and then we die. Now regardless of what you believe happens to our mind after our death. We all knows what happens to our body, and we have minimal affect on the physical world from that day on.

Well if you think like I do.. then the same thing can be said for our whole race.. our race grows physically, as in traits which help us survive become more and more prominent through our species... so it's literally like.. your individual strengths are being passed on for everyone to share. The knowledge we learn in life is also passed on. (Although there's the arguement as to whether we've actually learnt anything despite the amount of knowledge we possess.. but that's another topic). All in all it's like some weird form of the keeping our body alive through others.

For me that's a rather nice image.. makes me feel more connected to other people anyhow!

[Calantyr]

Theres holes in both camps, creationists and evolution. The difference is evolution is just a working theory, but one that seems to work on many many levels.
I'm on the side of evolution, but it's still got some way to go.

Check out this site for some good arguments for and against. Warning, it will take ages to look through it all.

[little_bear]

I do believe in evolution quite strongly, but as i've stated a few times over the boards, I am a science geek.. and therefore research and read up on things a lot. To me evolution makes so much sense, and the fact that it still occurs within our life time (albeit on a more subtle level), just makes it impossible for me to not believe.. not even that but to apply it in my mind to so many situations.

I think it's quite a beutiful theory myself.. not technical and cold. I'll explain...
We as people through our own individual life time, grow both mentally and physically, we're born we live our lives, have our impact on everyone else, and then we die. Now regardless of what you believe happens to our mind after our death. We all knows what happens to our body, and we have minimal affect on the physical world from that day on.

Well if you think like I do.. then the same thing can be said for our whole race.. our race grows physically, as in traits which help us survive become more and more prominent through our species... so it's literally like.. your individual strengths are being passed on for everyone to share. The knowledge we learn in life is also passed on. (Although there's the arguement as to whether we've actually learnt anything despite the amount of knowledge we possess.. but that's another topic). All in all it's like some weird form of the keeping our body alive through others.

For me that's a rather nice image.. makes me feel more connected to other people anyhow!

I disagree. Evolution is cold and technical - hence survival of the fittest. If you're too weak to survive, then you are 'deleted' by natural selection. Only the strongest can survive and to paraphrase yourself, pass a little bit of us on. Its the ultimate form of elitism really, and if that isn't cold and harsh, I don't know what is.

[Asenyth]

Well, I certainly wouldn't say that evolutionism is cold and harsh. And survival of the fittest isn't evolutionism, that is Darwinism. In this day and age can we really believe in creationism? I mean, Adam took his rib and then made Eve, she had 7 sons and that's how the world was populated. I mean you can call that a theory all you like, but you make someone out of your rib without any science. It is proven that it cannot happen, end of. It's not like the Church hasn't been wrong before guys, like that whole slavery thing they thought was so cool. Oh, not to mention all women being evil sinners just because they were women and that goddamned Eve eating the apple. Let's raise up people and not just go along what is being told to us by an organization that rules by fear and seeks control (and molests little boys for that matter and tries to cover it up, can you believe the nerve of these people...). "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" if you know what I mean.

[CommieBastard]

Um, whether it's "cold and harsh" or not is kind of irrelevent, neh? I mean, the point of education isn't to teach kids about sunshine and rainbows and flowers and kittens, but about what's true.

[Asenyth]

I agree completely, I really don't care about the warm fuzzies when I'm learning about stuff, I was just responding.

[Polocrunch]

I'm interested to know why people in the United States are so often highly opposed to the introduction of education about religion into State schools. In the UK children are (in theory) taught about a variety of religions and their beliefs, which (again, in theory) gives them a better understanding of all peoples. All the religions are given equal treatment (well, in the way that they are presented; Christianity tends to get a lot more airing-time than any other) and none are presented as being superior to any others. Non-theistic beliefs are taught as well. There's still a lot lacking (the syllabus is limited until GCSE, by which time the subject is entirely optional, so a lot of students don't get a full enough education), but I think the general idea is sound. Would that not work in America?

[porcelainwarrior]

But then.. if Adam and Eve came first... what happened to them when the dinosaurs came?

Just a little note to this question, I've heard vague theories on this one from Christian clergy-men/women who accept both the Bible's version of events AND scientific views. Basically the theory goes that the age of dinosaurs was part of another, earlier age of creation but things didn't work out for the perfect world God had imagined and so he orchestrated the end of the dinosaurs and allowed to (at the time) less important mammalian life-forms take over and evolve into the person-centred world we have today. As far as I can make out these Christian groups believe that the Bibe begins at the point where humanity had reached a certain point of sophistication whereby God could make Himself known and be more or less understood through the accepted metaphor stylee writings in the Bible.

Sorry I can't remember where I've seen these theories written down but both my grandparents minister and my highschool RE teacher have referred me to articles someplace so I'll go have a trawl about and see if I can find the one I'm thinking of.

[little_bear]

If that's what they're saying then thats highly 'convenient' for them.

[CommieBastard]

If that's what they're saying then thats highly 'convenient' for them.

How "convenient" an answer is is utterly irrelevent to its truth.

[mooooooooooopo]

I would say I believe in a happy medium between the two. 'Natural Selection' is perfectly logical, species change a little over time thanks to creatures with minor differences having an advantage and living longer, breeding more etc. Genetics gives plenty of evidence for this and it can be seen in the wild.

Evolution on the other hand makes little sense, the difference between species are too huge for one species to slowly turn into another by natural selection, since mutation rates are low and the chance of a useful change in one step is miniscule.
A creature with a half formed eye has little advantage.
Semi-developed fins? Useless again.

The only way these changes work effectively is minor tweaks or the removal of features that were once useful but now slow us down (human tailbones but lack of a tail for instance, where the tail gradually shortened by natural selection as our changing way of life turned it from a useful balancing tool into something that gets in the way of movement).

[Asenyth]

How can you say evolution makes no sense? Does the Adam and Eve thing make sense to you? Did you know that as humans have been documenting things we have been changing? Most people are born with an appendice for instance. Thousands of years ago we needed this organ to help digest raw/undercooked meat. Today, more and more people are being born without appendices or appendices that are smaller and such. That isn't natural selection, it's evolution. We have also found skeletons of early giraffes, they had short necks. The ones with longer necks were able to eat more vegetation on trees or the ground and thus were able to survive better, so giraffes have long necks. That is pure evolution. Evolution is basically just genetic logic and common sense. The species that don't evolve will die off. Very rarely does genetic mutation cause the change of a species because these are often negative things like you say, but there are positive genetic changes that could happen too. What about the eyes getting bigger of an animal or the animal has more rods and cones (the things that make you see) in the eyes? That would make that animal better at hunting or watching out for predetors or any number of things. That makes this one animal live longer, so then that animal can have more children that might also have the same genetic trait and thus on and on so that eventually ALL the animals in that species have it because it helps them to survive better and longer.

[Black-Wings]

The species that don't evolve will die off.

sooo... survival of the fittest species?

[Asenyth]

Umm... yeah. That's why humans are still around, because we evolved and make tools. We are pretty weak in comparison to anything else.


EDIT: Actually, on second thought. No, not survival of the fittest as was put, but survival of the fittest QUALITY, not species. Survival of everyone, but different rankings. Hmm... I still need to think more on this.

This post has been edited by Asenyth: Jan 3 2005, 09:21 PM

[Overfriendly_Kit...]

...  Evolution is cold and technical - hence survival of the fittest.  If you're too weak to survive, then you are 'deleted' by natural selection.  Only the strongest can survive and to paraphrase yourself, pass a little bit of us on.  Its the ultimate form of elitism really, and if that isn't cold and harsh, I don't know what is.

Evolution is the theory that over the generations individual species evolve from one form into another. There is no issue of survival of the fittest, just evolution. There is no issue of strength or weakness, instead it is down to random genetic changes that work in whatever environment the organism finds itself. If it was about the strongest evolving then there wouldn't be any of the things we evolved from - ie all the single celled organisms, amoeba, fish, monkeys etc... but they are there, so that's all right. True some species have died out whereas others live on, but that isn't evolutionary change, that's just the environment being unkind to some species and not others.

As to the concept - genetic change can be very fast, though almost always unpredictable. Even in it's slower form - we as humans have had several million years to develop from apes (pleanty of time to lose the all over body fur, enlarge our brains and start walkin on two legs), and a few million more from reptiles before that etc... Evolution is usually a slow matter, but that shouldn't preclude the facts as defined within the fossil record and the human genome that quite clearly establish our heritage.

In my opinion - as a Catholic, I feel that the bible is there as a guide and not an absolute truth. The important bits deal with how we should lead our lives (being essentially good people), the whole issue of Genesis is not important, and should be read in the context it was written in. The people of the time were given a neat little story that helped them understtand who and what they are, and where they came from. Great from them, not important - Leviticus was more important, and ultimately just a guide.

The theory of evolution is a good one, which works well with the scientific data that is available. I'm sure that given time and better research our understanding of where we came from will be better explained, but until then - I'm happy with the Big Bang theory.

[CommieBastard]

...  Evolution is cold and technical - hence survival of the fittest.  If you're too weak to survive, then you are 'deleted' by natural selection.  Only the strongest can survive and to paraphrase yourself, pass a little bit of us on.  Its the ultimate form of elitism really, and if that isn't cold and harsh, I don't know what is.

Evolution is the theory that over the generations individual species evolve from one form into another. There is no issue of survival of the fittest, just evolution. There is no issue of strength or weakness, instead it is down to random genetic changes that work in whatever environment the organism finds itself. If it was about the strongest evolving then there wouldn't be any of the things we evolved from - ie all the single celled organisms, amoeba, fish, monkeys etc... but they are there, so that's all right.

"Fittest" in this case doesn't mean "strongest", it means "most appropriate to its surroundings".

[Overfriendly_Kit...]

..."Fittest" in this case doesn't mean "strongest", it means "most appropriate to its surroundings".

As I said earlier:

True some species have died out whereas others live on, but that isn't evolutionary change, that's just the environment being unkind to some species and not others.

Evolution isn't dependent on the altered product being appropriate to its surroundings. This is an issue that is utilised to explain why some speicies have died out, whereas others live on. Evolution is just about change - it is random and genetic, and has nothing to do with older variations surviving or dieing out. The issue of survival is how we come to terms with species that don't survive the environment, not the evolutionary process - unless each and every lifeform of the specie exhibits the same evolutionary change at the same time - which is possible though statistically too remote a chance to ever occur in nature.

Sure, some species evolve mutations that are ultimately harmful and evenutally kill off that specie - though this is extremely rare...

White winged moths and brown winged moths:

Before the industrial revolution there were high numbers of mottled white winged moths in forrests near Manchester. The forrests were predominantly of silver birch which has a mottled white bark. Then came the industrial revolution and the coal burning that fuelled it. Thanks to smog polution the trees went black due to soot deposits. The mottle white winged moths were disadvantaged due to their natural camoflage being rendered useless and were erradicated in that area by their bird predators - except for a few moths that had developed dark brown wings that could hide on the soot covered trees.

These moths did not force the change. It was a simple matter of pure luck. It had happened many times in the past - but these brown winged moths had been unable to hide in the silver birch forrests and were locally eaten into extinction. When (due to human interference) the trees became black they thrived whilst the white wings died out (again this was only a local phenomina). So the brown wings continued (with the occasional white wing mutation poping up and then getting eaten off), until the massive industries switched to clean burning high quality coal, and the trees became white again... then it was a reversal of this tale, and the white winged moths are now the dominant specie in the silver birch forrests.

[mooooooooooopo]

How can you say evolution makes no sense? Does the Adam and Eve thing make sense to you? Did you know that as humans have been documenting things we have been changing? Most people are born with an appendice for instance. Thousands of years ago we needed this organ to help digest raw/undercooked meat. Today, more and more people are being born without appendices or appendices that are smaller and such. That isn't natural selection, it's evolution. We have also found skeletons of early giraffes, they had short necks. The ones with longer necks were able to eat more vegetation on trees or the ground and thus were able to survive better, so giraffes have long necks. That is pure evolution. Evolution is basically just genetic logic and common sense. The species that don't evolve will die off. Very rarely does genetic mutation cause the change of a species because these are often negative things like you say, but there are positive genetic changes that could happen too. What about the eyes getting bigger of an animal or the animal has more rods and cones (the things that make you see) in the eyes? That would make that animal better at hunting or watching out for predetors or any number of things. That makes this one animal live longer, so then that animal can have more children that might also have the same genetic trait and thus on and on so that eventually ALL the animals in that species have it because it helps them to survive better and longer.

Care to read my post again? This time maybe pay attention to the 'or's and don't make so many assumptions.

I stated that I felt evolution (by the definition by which I understand it - one species undergoes major changes and becomes a new species, reproductively isolated from the ancestor species) was illogical. At no point did I say Adam and Eve made sense.

I never said that _only_ removal of features occured, I said it was mainly subtle changes, height, larger eyes etc. _OR_ removal of features. Giraffes growing longer necks (as you said in your post) makes sense, a few tweaks and suddenly the creature is able to reach more leaves and has a competitive advantage. On the otherhand changes such as bacteria suddenly becoming multicellular, blind creatures growing eyes, creatures growing wings are far less likely. The chances of a fully functional eye or wing appearing in one step are miniscule, and even then the creature with the mutation must find a mate with similar mutations or the changes are likely to be lost again due to genetics.

I'm sorry if I've confused people with my definitions, in my understanding natural selection refers to the subtle small changes that have been proven to occur and are clearly obvious in the world whereas evolution refers to the major changes and to species turning into others by natural selection.
By your definition evolution seems to cover both of these, and you even reiterated some of the statements in my post in your own, even while arguing against my point.

[edit]

Umm... yeah. That's why humans are still around, because we evolved and make tools. We are pretty weak in comparison to anything else.

Once again natural selection, we didn't evolve to make tools, the humans with larger brains were merely favoured due to their increased intelligence - including the ability to use tools and the ability to pass knowledge on to our young via language and cave art.

This is a big part of why humans are dominant today and are so advanced in terms of civilisation, once communication comes along the species can pass knowledge down and the offspring no longer have to start from scratch but can build upon the acheivements of their ancestors.
[/edit]

[more editing]
gnah! Should probably highlight my point better, the point being that evolution is not a bad theory but has been extrapolated too far by scientists. It makes sense in the case of minor changes but when it is used to explain that all species evolved from one initial species it falls over in many places.
Therefore I believe that there were many species to begin with, some have died out, many have changed over time due to changes in climate and environment and some have changed enough or been geographically seperated and changed to become different subspecies but few have turned into completely new and different species.
[/editing]

[gothictheysay]

In the UK children are (in theory) taught about a variety of religions and their beliefs, which (again, in theory) gives them a better understanding of all peoples.

Actually, there is a lot of that here. In our History class, as we have come upon a civilization, we have learned a good chunk about their religion - and spent as much time, maybe a little more, on Christianity.

That could just be my experience, though - I am in agreement of education of other religions and more emphasis on other religions in the curriculum. UK children are probably taught more extensively about other religions than those in the U.S.