It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ffx6554
If we defined Evolution as a completely natural and random process, then at this point, Evolution looks more like a myth than Creationism. Evolution has two problems to overcome, and that is the Transitional Fossil Problem, and now what I'd call the Dispersion Problem. Quite frankly, at this point, genetic manipulation(which is Creationism in spirit) is as good a theory as any, and explains away both of these problems.
This is a strawman.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theantediluvian
I think this may have a bit to do with that as well.
Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined Forces
All across the country—most recently, in the state of Texas—local battles over the teaching of evolution are taking on a new complexion. More and more, it isn't just evolution under attack, it's also the teaching of climate science. The National Center for Science Education, the leading group defending the teaching of evolution across the country, has even broadened its portfolio: Now, it protects climate education too.
There is the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory. In other words, anti-evolutionists and climate deniers were both getting dumped on so much by the scientific community that they sort of naturally joined forces. And that makes sense: We know that in general, people gather their issue stances in bunches, because those stances travel together in a group (often under the aegis of a political party).
But there's also the "declining trust in science" theory, according to which political conservatives have, in general, become distrustful of the scientific community (we have data showing this is the case), and this has infected how they think about several different politicized scientific issues. And who knows: Perhaps the distrust started with the evolution issue. It is easy to imagine how a Christian conservative who thinks liberal scientists are full of it on evolution would naturally distrust said scientists on other issues as well.
originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
Can you be more condescending? I have repeatedly stated my position as opinion, and you proceed by questioning my intelligence as to scientific terminology? See my post to Ghost as it explains my poorly worded original post, and a summation of my stance as it applies to the topic discussed.
originally posted by: glend
Science and religion have the same goal and that is to find truth, Science might be considered more left-brained whilst religion right-brained. I have no problem seeing classes separated but feel that if both hemisphere's aren't joined we will fail to find the ultimate truth. So perhaps there should be an optional third class to try amalgamate the truth from both.
originally posted by: darkbake
Very interesting, I wasn't aware that it was called creationism to believe that God works through evolution. This is the closest to my belief. I never realized that there were different types of creationists.
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147
I wonder if Beer, or any of the other science minded
members of ATS would agree that " The Origin of Species"
is evolutions eureka moment?
I ask Beer because I've found him to be fair in the past.
originally posted by: Achilles92x
1. Abiogenesis. I understand there is a difference between evolution and abiogenesis, but evolution, from the non-deistic/non-theistic perspective that you would argue relies on abiogenesis.
2. The addition of information onto DNA.
You keep saying evolution as a natural phenomenon is fact. Micro-evolution is fact... Not macro-evolution. Please be more specific. Evolution producing new species is not a factual natural phenomenon.
4. Multi-verse and fine tuning of the universe for life on Earth.
Once again, I understand that this is not part of the theory of evolution, but it is still an assumption that non-deistic/non-theistic evolution must rely on.
Why do you care if they teach creationism in school? I get your arguments. You don't feel like it is science--I don't disagree with you. If it's so overwhelmingly the proven, realistic answer, then people will see that and accept it,
Accepting evolution requires faith in its gaps. Or faith that "in time, science will be able to explain that gap."
For all we know, we could, with science, only grasp 0.001% of all things that we could know. I'll be generous instead and say we know 1%. Knowing that little and continuing to know each little minuscule, negligible addition bit by bit does not qualify as evidence that we will eventually understand and explain the unknown.
That's some serious opinion right there. I disagree. The crazy thing about evidence is... It can be used and spun in different ways! Evidence can be used for confirmation bias! Evidence can be interpreted as cause and effect, when in reality it may simply be correlation! What's the overarching theme here? Belief. Belief has an effect on everything. Evidence is altered by human perspective
It wasn't really a single moment, it was just when the evidence became so overwhelming that denial became silly.
originally posted by: Jukiodone
Just checked and Talkorigins is still live on the web.
There's 15 years worth of moderated discussion between intelligent people on both sides of the various arguments there- and they are still no further along.
Kids should be taught that if our existence were a crime, Creationists are the people who refuse to look at the evidence whilst Evolutionists cant bring themselves to consider motive.
originally posted by: Megatronus
originally posted by: Achilles92x
I will start with abiogenesis which really has nothing to do with evolution. It's a completely different kettle of fish. That is also just a hypothesis. That does require a cetain amount of faith to believe as it's not backed up by the evidence yet. Notice I said yet, there are currently plenty of experiments ongoing testing this hypothesis. I don't see any experiments tying to prove the biblical account mainly because 'God did it' is not testable or repeatable.
When I used the term evidence I was referring to it in terms of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has mounds of evidence to support it and I believe there is not a shred of evidence tha disputes it. So she it comes to Evolution, a theory with such a wide base of supporting evidence, faith is not needed to believe
This not evidence, That is opinion. Evidence can be tested and repeated. What you stated of evidence is your opinion and personal experience, nothing more.
I'm not here to rain on your parade and tell you god isn't real. I wouldn't, there is no evidence for or against his existence. So, the jury is out on that as far as I'm concerned. All Im saying is Evolution has enough evidence it requires no faith and that personal experience and opinion is not evidence of anything.
I've stated several times that I fully understand abiogenesis and evolution are two entirely different things, BUT that that a non-theistic view of evolution DEPENDS on abiogenesis. Are you going to refute that?
If not abiogenesis as it is conceived, then what, was life created?
I believe in God, but I accept evolution. I have no qualms with any accepted scientific hypotheses and theories, I freaking love science, I just think it's missing a major compenent. I do not think theism and science are mutually exclusive. I've also said several times that my care about the HOW question of the origins of the universe and development of life is limited only to curiosity. I don't get why creationists care if Genesis was literal, I don't think that Christianity depends on it.
As to evidence of God being opinion... Sure, my personal experiences are opinion, but they have been strangely testable for me. Whether you believe in God or not, evolution or not, we are beings that ended up logical and emotional. It is foolish and naive us to abandon one spectrum of ourselves--the emotional--and deem it useless for understanding the universe.
As for the logic, Logic pointing toward God is just as valid as atheist logic against Him. An individual's logic isn't a universal law, and when dealing with the questions of all questions, I dare say it is partially--just partially, not entirely--useless.
The fine-tuning of the universe, and other scientific evidence that many vastly more educated and intelligent than I in their scientific field have pointed to as signs of a creator, on the other hand, isn't very much opinion. The evidence could be used for a creator, and it could also be used for a multiverse. To that extent, it is an opinion, a perspective of the evidence dependent on beliefs like I've described above.
However, I would argue the idea of a multiverse containing infinite, infinite universes not only still fails to address just how that whole absurd thing got started (where a creator outside space and time does not), but also seems more outrageous than the idea of a creator itself. It blows my mind that people are so readily accepting of such a speculation and that, to me, suggests they might moreso just be interested in denying God.
Faith is still required in science. Faith does not suddenly make something a religion.. That is an outrageous argument to make. I have a boatload of evidence to suggest that my girlfriend would never cheat on me, but I still have faith that she will not. Of course, this evidence is not the same as empirical evidence. a huge issue is that atheists have a negative connotation of faith, and that atheists and theists have a DIFFERENT definition of faith. It's weird, too, you claim to have no belief without evidence for scientific shortcomings, because there is evidence elsewhere, so "faith is not required." Yet I and many see that a strikingly strange claim. Simultaneously, you would claim we have a bunch of faith without evidence.
My other point, believing in creationism doesn't seem to prevent intelligence and critical thinking, and belief in evolution doesn't seem to promote them. There are still geniuses in every camp. Teaching both views (and yes, they could certainly come up with a quick overview of creationists views and collaborate perceived evidence for fine tuning and creation of the universe) and prompting children to assess the views based on their evidence COULD benefit critical thinking. Teaching one view, even if it's the vastly more empirically evidenced view, mostly only teaches how to memorize and accept what you are taught... Seeing as one's views of the origins of the universe and progression of life have zero impact on their occupation--unless you're studying disease or any other field dependent on a thorough understanding of evolution--then I vote for critical thinking over being conditioned to accept solely what is taught.
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Krazy man, why didn't you just answer heading in four
Because theology isn't science.
You could even elaborate quickly that evolution is science.
And therefor theological discussions do not belong in science
class. But electives on theology should be offered. That would
seem more than fair enough to me.