Evolution vs Creationism: Are We Beating A Dead Horse, Here?

For as long as ATS has had this forum, people have been debating the flaws & merits of Darwinian evolution and creationism. Many, many threads about this topic exist on ATS and it's clear that the debate will continue for as long as society remains divided over religion and science. Scientists refuse to accept anything that cannot be empirically tested (religion) just as vehemently as believers shun anything that can be tested and reproduced in a predictable fashion.

I'm inclined to think that this forum isn't about evolution vs creationism as it is about religion vs science. I have yet to see any representatives from one side win over people from the other and I have to wonder whether there will ever be any headway gained by other camp where this topic is concerned.

Is there anything to be gained from discussing this anymore or are we just beating a dead horse? Opinions, please!

P.S.- I decided to start this discussion after the issue of redundant threads was raised in another forum earlier today (now closed).

Yes, you are beating a dead horse.

Most people are locked into a box that they refuse to peek out of.

They refuse to look at the outside intervention theory.

outside intermention

reply to post by X-tal_Phusion

---

Not only has the topic been beat to death, but those who are doing the beating are hoping that the horse's corpse will evolve into something new.

reply to post by X-tal_Phusion

---

"Is there anything to be gained from discussing this anymore or are we just beating a dead horse? Opinions, please! "

For every person that posts, there are X persons that lurk and read. Some of those people are fence-sitting, undecided on the topic. When I respond to some creationism tripe I'm not addressing the poster, I'm speaking to the people who are looking for information on the subject.

It's not really about debating it to death, it's about people's inability to accept that we WILL NEVER KNOW if Darwin or Creationists were right until you die and go to that big doggy park in the sky.

We can't possibly understand this concept of why were here and who put us here, were simply not equipped.

Massive fail on humanity's part to even think of the matter. We've spent far too much time contemplating our deaths when we should have been enjoying our lives and thinking of future generations.

~Keeper

Both science and religion (more the people rather than the religion) have a misunderstanding of God. Some religious people profess that things have to be a certain way and they are inflexible in that thought, which is wrong. Both sides really are stupid frankly, in order to come to truth you need to a little from both sides. Spiritual people that study indepth don't find a problem with science, the ignorant religious people are those that have trouble.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

---

"Massive fail on humanity's part to even think of the matter. We've spent far too much time contemplating our deaths when we should have been enjoying our lives and thinking of future generations"

If creationists wereN'T trying to invade science classroom, and the school system in general, with their dogma I would walk big circles around them and let them continue their cult without hindrance. However, while they continue to try to force religion on the public in places it doesn't belong, they have a problem. Me.

(I'm one of those negative-droppers, sorry.)

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Gawdzilla]

reply to post by Gawdzilla

---

Gawdzilla, that sums it up pretty well, kinda sorta is why I feel compelled.

Not only on the subject of science v. religion.

There are a myriad of bogus 'peudoscience' crackpot ideas out there that if not challenged will gain traction among the gullible or ill-informed.

Here's what I sometimes believe (oh no! there's that word!) to be at the heart of the problem: A 'creationist' sees a person who disagrees with his/her view as somehow 'godless'. Thus, the fireworks let loose.

More moderate thinkers can reconcile the 'possiblity' of a god of some sort, without falling prey to the short-sightedness of dogmatic 'belief' systems.

Beating a dead horse?

Yep. Outside of the USA, there really isn't much of a debate. Might have something to do with the talking point: "it's just a theory" not translating very well. Maybe it's the lack of American style fundamentalism in other countries.

I don't know why it is. But I do know that when I've had a chance to explain this "debate" to my Japanese colleagues, they look at me as though I'm setting up a joke. Waiting for the punchline. I'm sure most of them figure I was having them on, or it was some kind of Canadian humour that they just can't grasp. Surely no one in the world, lest of all an educated American in 2009, would be suggesting that one of the cornerstones of modern science should be supplanted by medieval superstition....

This argument is rather futile. God as the creationists see god, is outside of science - i.e. god has abilities which do not conform to the laws of physics. Where once it was heresy to suggest that the earth orbited the sun, now it is accepted. At some point in the future science will explain everything. Finally god will have no more territory and be shown to be little more than fallacy.

reply to post by vox2442

---

"Yep. Outside of the USA, there really isn't much of a debate. "

Creationists are making a move on Europe. They recently open "Noah's Ark" parks in England and The Netherlands. The infection is spreading.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

---

Well, I suppose that's good news for me in the long term. Europe was getting a bit of lead in biotech, if this trend takes hold it'll be a purely Asian market, because there will be no science graduates left capable of handling the science. My dividends will increase for certain, and that'll seal my retirement fund up nicely. Maybe...

Hang on... er.. God Did it! Everything! Don't let anyone tell you different! You aint no monkey! Pull your kids out of school and teach them yourselves! Attica!

*runs off to research retirement real estate in Okinawa*

"This argument is rather futile. God as the creationists see god, is outside of science - i.e. god has abilities which do not conform to the laws of physics. Where once it was heresy to suggest that the earth orbited the sun, now it is accepted. At some point in the future science will explain everything. Finally god will have no more territory and be shown to be little more than fallacy." - mithrawept

I do not fall under the laws of physics, I have the ability to manipulate any object I touch and make it move to my wim.

And as for Creationism I am a true believer that the SU.ME.rian's have genetically altered you THR33 eyed MONKEYS. My friend Eugene-Stephen Colbert seems to believe me aswell.


[edit on 19-4-2009 by JonilyNobily33D]

reply to post by vox2442

---

"Well, I suppose that's good news for me in the long term. Europe was getting a bit of lead in biotech, if this trend takes hold it'll be a purely Asian market, because there will be no science graduates left capable of handling the science. My dividends will increase for certain, and that'll seal my retirement fund up nicely. Maybe..."

Don't get too happy, vox2442 san. Some of my fundy relatives are on their way to Sasebo as missionaries for a creationist sect. Good luck with that.

Virtually everything that we accept as scientific fact today will be overturned by new discoveries within the next 500 years or so.

Can't travel faster than light? Not so fast there.

Can't travel in time? Oops! There it goes.

Basic building blocks of matter? Atoms? Neutrons? Quarks? Neutrinos? What's next?

Alien life? Earth life? Connections between the two?

Aurthur C. Clarke wrote that, "Any technology sufficiently advanced looks like magic to those who are less advanced."

So when it comes to the idea of a superior being or beings. We just don't know. Anyone who claims to know is deluding themselves.

Any Class I civilization would look like gods to our ancestors.

Any Class II civilization would look like gods to us.

Any Class III civilization would be gods for all intents and purposes.

What I have always thought the difference between God and man is, is the ability to travel in time and an unlimited lifespan.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by lunarminer]

Boy, there are a lot of boxes filled with multiple ATSER'S on here! Yet...most cannot see the box they are in!

We know so little of the universe and possible multiple universe's that it is the height of ignorance to say we know for sure. It takes faith on both the believers and non to maintain a dogmatic stance.


I believe in both! Wow! What a concept! Imagine the possibilities.

Only those who are boxed in their thinking limit themselves, God, and science - in their own minds - not in reality. Denial will not stop, or alter reality.

Instead of limiting ones thinking because it rocks our beliefs, why not imagine ALL possibilities? Most scientists follow this idea as most believe in a higher power of some sort. Unlike the layman who is more dogmatic.

reply to post by MatrixProphet

---

"It takes faith on both the believers and non to maintain a dogmatic stance. "

Should I again point out that no response to creationist dogma would be needed if they were trying to hijack our schools?

I don't think either side will ever win the argument because the truth is somewhere in the middle. I believe we were created and then we evolved. The thing I have issue with is that we were created by God as he is portrayed in major religions. I think it is more likely we were created by a much more advanced galatic race or races.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

---

More missionaries? When are they going to learn? the Mormons have been going around here for decades, and at this point there's a ratio of about 1:1, missionaries to converts. Including expats, there's about a million Christians total in Japan, of all flavours. Less than one percent of the population.

Best of luck to your relatives. Tell 'em to try the oysters, that area has some of the best in Japan.

like a few others have said,

I am open to both or open to all possibilities perhaps even some we have not heard yet.

The discussion may start as a discussion but usually ends in a fight/spat and eventually name calling. This usually happens when there is nothing "new" to discuss. I don't see any value in insulting anyone for their belief in either evolution or creationism. Yet it happens in almost every thread.

Time will eventually chip away the unknown and leave us with the known.