Academics fight rise of creationism at universities, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 02:23 PM by ipsedixit
I'm just a casual observer of the creationism versus darwinism debate but I can't help thinking that it is being conducted in a very restricted way.

The creationist side seems to be limited to criticisms, some of them quite intriguing, of the process of "natural selection" said to be responsible for evolution, while putting forward no alternative with which science can grapple.

Evolutionists on the other hand, seem unable to take valid criticisms seriously and also unable to conceive of alternate forms of creationism beside the classic one furnished by the book of Genesis.

This gives a very bad impression to someone observing the debate from a religious vantage point innocent of the Bible.

Personally, I think that some form of creationism must be a part of the evolution of species. In fact I think that it must be the most important part, although I think that natural selection is the major factor in species extinction.

Even in modern darwinism, the real impetus for evolution is not natural selection, but genetic mutation. Strictly speaking, genetic mutation gives us new species while natural selection simply determines which of the new species will survive.

As near as I can tell this is where the rubber truly meets the road in the debate we are discussing. Creationism's most interesting criticism of the so-called "theory of evolution" is that genetic mutation is not a sufficient mechanism to explain the evidence that the fossil record gives us.

I'm only an observer of this debate, as I said, not a scientist with a vested interest or an adherent of any religion that takes the book of Genesis seriously, but I suspect what we might realize as we move forward in the study of genetics is that we ourselves are the creators of new species.

What I mean by that is that I think we will find that our genes change according to our life experience, including our desires, and in fact, every member of every species participates in the creation of the future of the species. Thus creationism, I believe, will win out in the end, but not the version that most "creationists" currently espouse.


reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 02:49 PM by nophun
reply to post by Sirius20


Hi Sirius20,
I will start off by saying you will get I much more valid reply from me, for taking the time to bring up something much more legit then "my bible" told me so or God did it.

That said, the Cambrian explosion of life does not disprove Darwin's theory. There is good explanations. This argument is a pretty bad one from the creationists.

First off 530 million years ago fossils would be much more rare, you know the whole lack of bones or a shell thing.


You cannot change the dates of the beginning of time so you cannot argue these points anyways. no matter if you believe that the bible is the word of God or written by some divine humans ... surely they would not screw up the start date of the world by hundreds of millions of years ?

You are trying to sound logical but ignore the fact there is nothing (zero) backing the Bible (any of them) as a factual history book.

There is no argument in the science world, Just because a few crazy "scientist" believe in god so much they refuse evolution. Does not disprove evolution. QUIT trying to disprove evolution with one question. We are the ones with scientific proof of our claims.

I have decided to give short answers to question with the purpose of disproving evolution and prove god in one swing. ( I think there is a better chance of them understanding a short answer)


reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 04:24 PM by fatdad
Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
Originally posted by fatdad
Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by alienesque


if everything needs a creator then so does the creator

Not if the creator is beyond time.


the creator is beyond time..

that has to be the lamest excuse for not answering a question.... i worship the god who created god -who created god =infinate..


God is beyond time, because he created time. There are many things that we don't know and never will while on this Earth. God has hidden many, many mysteries from us.
so god created everything including himself?.....
god was created by men who where afraid of the dark ..
be-leaving in god is a sign of weakness..we don't need an invisible man to tell us whats good or bad.....


reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 05:06 PM by Monts
Anybody who takes the bible literally... or anybody who uses it as a literal reference to discredit creationism are totally missing the entire point, and are making the same pointless arguments that have been around since darwin wrote his book.

First, the bible was written thousands of years ago before people even knew the earth was round, or before they even knew what their own heart did. It was their only way of trying to explain the same questions of existence we still ask ourselves today.

Second, the bible is only 1 of dozens of other holy scriptures- it is a part of christian doctrine to take all holy scriptures into mind, because they believe truth can be found in all scriptures. So why is it always the bible that gets all the flame? What about the Koran? Buddhist scriptures? Hindu scriptures? Confucius doctrine?

Darwin's theory of evolution remains a theory, because it is just that- a theory. There is no irrefutable evidence that ALL of his rules and ideas apply to all forms of life and evolution.

There are many holes and discrepancies in his theories, ones that no academics or science driven minds want to look at because they fear doing so would be accepting defeat from creationists. This doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong or doesn't exist- anybody who claims that these prove evolution is wrong is just as bad as the evolutionists.

For heaven's sake! Stop using the "oh... so your claiming the universe was made in 7 days and is 6000 years old argument"; the only people on the face of the earth who believe that are extreme fundamentalists who believe that Satan placed all the "scientific evidence" as a way of deceiving.

As for the actual topic...

I think that the students writing these exams should not be expelled simply because they put "God" as an answer- If doing so makes them fail because of their marked answer sheets- fine.
If they prove they understand the material, understand the science being taught to them, and prove they can use it in the field, there is no reason to fail them.

Academia needs to stop basing their marking systems on the beliefs and faith of people, and rather focus it on the analysis and application of the material presented in class.

Same thing goes for the students- stick to the course outline- if you don't like it, go to a religious university.


reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 10:59 PM by ipsedixit
reply to post by factbeforefiction

I think a lot of the so called crises in this world and the heated arguments about this and that are really about control, that is, who is going to hold the "decision stick" on any given issue. In the case of the debate on evolution one sees a very worrisome example of the polarity between science and the so called "humanities", among them, religion.

For centuries religion held the stick and could smite all who dared contradict its edicts and dogmas. Now science is in the ascendant, does damn near what it pleases in whatever jurisdiction is available and with an arrogant disdain for any objections received from non-scientific quarters. The Church of Science is every bit as intolerant of challenges to dogma as any other church and has the history to prove it.

I think both sides have got to grow up a little. If God really created the universe, he certainly didn't explain the details in the Bible. Scientific curiosity is sussing those out. Science, however should cultivate a little humility and perhaps a sense of humour about themselves (considering the checkered history of science) and perhaps not be quite so doctrinaire about a lot of things, and so dismissive of things that are not understood by science.


reply posted on 31-1-2010 @ 12:54 AM by Copperflower
reply to post by ipsedixit


I agree, and well said.

My faith is just that, mine, and I treasure it for a reason.

But the right to respectful debate?

That belongs to all of us.





reply posted on 31-1-2010 @ 01:42 AM by Sirius20
Originally posted by nophun
reply to post by Sirius20


That said, the Cambrian explosion of life does not disprove Darwin's theory. There is good explanations. This argument is a pretty bad one from the creationists.

First off 530 million years ago fossils would be much more rare, you know the whole lack of bones or a shell thing.

Actually, there have been plenty of fossils of Ediacara biota of disk and tube shaped organisms that thrived during the era before the Cambrian explosion 542 million years ago. The thing is, they don't fit at all into the tree of life. Based on Darwin's theory, everything comes from something previously before it by getting rid of the useless traits and keeping the strong ones to adapt to nature. If these organisms can't be classified in any of our current species that are thriving on Earth today, that creates a fallacy in Darwin's theory.


You cannot change the dates of the beginning of time so you cannot argue these points anyways. no matter if you believe that the bible is the word of God or written by some divine humans ... surely they would not screw up the start date of the world by hundreds of millions of years ?

I never mentioned the beginning of time or anything about who wrote the bible or the start date mentioned in there. That has nothing to do with what I asked.

You are trying to sound logical but ignore the fact there is nothing (zero) backing the Bible (any of them) as a factual history book.

You assume that I'm a creationist because I'm asking you a question that is a big red flag in your theory? That's being quick to judge there. I never mentioned anything about me even believing in the bible or any religion at all, just that I wouldn't use it as a reference. I have no religious beliefs. I have a sort of spirituality, but no religious beliefs. You're just trying to dodge the question. There were fossil records and they don't relate at all to what the Cambrian explosion created so you're first answer to my question still doesn't answer it.

There is no argument in the science world, Just because a few crazy "scientist" believe in god so much they refuse evolution. Does not disprove evolution. QUIT trying to disprove evolution with one question. We are the ones with scientific proof of our claims.

Well your scientific proof doesn't explain a big flaw in your theory so one question can disprove evolution and it's sounding more like you're blindly defending a believe that you don't know is 100% factual. This is called faith as well. Take a second and look at your point of view from a neutral standpoint. You don't know as a fact that Darwin's theory is correct. If there is something that disproves something as being false or that needs an update, why wouldn't you pursue that answer and try and figure it out? Why is it so important for you to defend this belief? Are you afraid of being wrong? Would it hurt your ego? And those few crazy "scientists" are thinking outside of the box. I am not saying they are correct in bringing religion into science, but I admire them for thinking outside of the box and sticking by their beliefs, just as I admire you for you sticking by your belief. I assume you want to know the truth as I do right so why stick to any belief. Sure you can use beliefs as stepping stones in a way, but why do we have to get attached to them and viciously defend them? It seems almost counter-productive. Like we disprove something in our past to replace it with the now, only to have it be replaced again in the future. And yet here we are still defending belief systems that could very well be proven false in the future. I'm sure you've probably heard this quote before, but I think it fits well with what I just said. "Insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results."

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Sirius20]


reply posted on 31-1-2010 @ 02:31 AM by Edrick
reply to post by factbeforefiction


But evolution, Darwinism, is pure theory - no facts whatsoever


No... Absolutely NOT, we are NOT playing this game.


Seriously, you need to understand the words that you chose, and make sure you understand what they MEAN before you so carelessly banter them about.


A "Theory" is a Field of Study.


Like the Theory of Gravity.

Allow this video to demonstrate:





The "Theory" of Evolution (It is not called DARWINISM... PERIOD) is MADE OF FACTS.


STOP DOING THIS!

-Edrick


reply posted on 31-1-2010 @ 03:24 AM by undo
reply to post by nophun


well there is a remote possibility the text is either being interpreted wrong or is taught to mean one thing when it means something else. allow me to give you an example:

if as theoretical physicists are starting to believe, the galaxies were formed from active blackholes/wormholes, it is theoretically possible that the time passage required to spit out enough matter to form planets, might be calculable by local concepts such as a "day". the issue at hand is that we don't have enough information to verify what actually happened or if a day was still measured in the same fashion then, as it is now. various things could effect that, such as proximity to the sun, span of time between one event and another, and various assumptions made about when the references in genesis may have actually occured and if there's any time lapse between events.

i had already discovered textual evidence that the ancient texts of the far and middle east, had examples of deified things because they were in some way associated with the god or gods of their time. during this study i noticed a reference that i thought originally was an example of a wormhole in the process of materializing matter, which lead to a great deal of esoteric references such as tiamat , abzu, the egyptian nun, the bottomless pit and so on.

so at the moment, from an ancient text perspective, i'm currently going with the idea that the earth is incredibly old, that we were not here before 4000 BC, but other races of bipedal, upright, sentient beings, were. that the original creation of the earth, happened a very long time ago and we were brought here by the same mechanism that created the galaxies : a wormhole, just on a much smaller scale, and potentially controllable. this creative, deified object, may have been misconstrued by teachers and translators to be god, because it is associated with god, and is the mechanism that created the universe's galaxies.

that's not to say that i don' t believe that god ultimately created all this, but that we may need to get a bit more precise in our definitions.




[edit on 31-1-2010 by undo]


reply posted on 31-1-2010 @ 03:54 AM by rnaa
reply to post by ipsedixit




I'm just a casual observer of the creationism versus darwinism debate but I can't help thinking that it is being conducted in a very restricted way.

The creationist side seems to be limited to criticisms, some of them quite intriguing, of the process of "natural selection" said to be responsible for evolution, while putting forward no alternative with which science can grapple.

Evolutionists on the other hand, seem unable to take valid criticisms seriously and also unable to conceive of alternate forms of creationism beside the classic one furnished by the book of Genesis.


I think you answered your own question here. How can Evolutionists take 'valid criticisms seriously' if Creationists are 'putting forward no alternative with which science can grapple'?


This gives a very bad impression to someone observing the debate from a religious vantage point innocent of the Bible.


'religious vantage point innocent of the Bible'? Are you coming from a Hindu or Buddist background? My understanding is that your creation myths are understood to be allegorical, unlike fundamental Christianity and Islam.


Personally, I think that some form of creationism must be a part of the evolution of species. In fact I think that it must be the most important part, although I think that natural selection is the major factor in species extinction.


Oh, Intelligent Design then. Not a problem. But out of curiosity, who or what is the Designer? Simple question. It is not strictly relevant to a discussion on evolution because evolution doesn't discuss creation of course. But it is important that if ID wants to maintain it is not religion, then it needs to be self consistent and explain what it is.


Even in modern darwinism, the real impetus for evolution is not natural selection, but genetic mutation. Strictly speaking, genetic mutation gives us new species while natural selection simply determines which of the new species will survive.


Strictly speaking, this is incorrect. The real impetus for evolution is survival and propagation of DNA. Mutation gives us options. Natural Selection decides which options work best at the current time.


As near as I can tell this is where the rubber truly meets the road in the debate we are discussing. Creationism's most interesting criticism of the so-called "theory of evolution" is that genetic mutation is not a sufficient mechanism to explain the evidence that the fossil record gives us.


Yes, this is where the rubber hits the road, because it demonstrates the central point that critics of evolution don't understand evolution. The fact is that it is only interesting to you because you don't understand why the criticism is not correct, and creationists (or ID'ers) in general refuse to accept that.

Your misunderstanding the fundamental impetus of evolution is evidence of this cognitive disconnect.


I'm only an observer of this debate, as I said, not a scientist with a vested interest or an adherent of any religion that takes the book of Genesis seriously, but I suspect what we might realize as we move forward in the study of genetics is that we ourselves are the creators of new species.

What I mean by that is that I think we will find that our genes change according to our life experience, including our desires, and in fact, every member of every species participates in the creation of the future of the species. Thus creationism, I believe, will win out in the end, but not the version that most "creationists" currently espouse.


That isn't such a bad hypothesis, as long as we clarify the bounds of what we mean by changing DNA according to our life's experience.

It is obvious that if we are exposed to radiation as part of our life's experience, that that radiation has a good chance to affect our genes and those effects can be passed on to our children. This doesn't mean we have to work in a nuclear plant cleaning up spills. Mining releases radiation, XRAY technicians, airline pilots, lots of people are exposed to 'above normal' radiation for extended periods of their lives. And of course 'normal' radiation is responsible for DNA replication errors as well. As are various drugs that we ingest for what ever reason, tobacco smoke, alcohol. As is just random chance error, not caused by anything in particular. Living a life that kills us before we have children affects the gene pool too.

So yeah, life happens, and how and where it is lived can influence our DNA and how it is passed on to our children.

That is exactly the evolutionary mechanism. So in that sense we are creating ourselves.

But if you want to say that, for example, learning to play music is going to change our DNA in such a way that our children are going to be musical prodigies, well we are going to get into the nature versus nurture debate.

Is it possible that there is a 'music genius gene'? Sure, maybe even likely. But is Arlo Guthrie a good musician because his dad, Woody, was a genius and passed the gene on to him, or because he grew up in a musical family with musical geniuses for friends?

[edit on 31/1/2010 by rnaa]


reply posted on 31-1-2010 @ 04:09 AM by Kandinsky
reply to post by Selahobed


Before I went to university I was a staunch darwinist and took it as fact that we evolved from monkeys over millions of years... But after 8 years of study (Geophysics), I found that the whole theory did not hold water (irreducable complexity etc) and that quite a lot of the so-called evidences that supported the theory were in fact falsified (e.g. Lucy)...


Are you sure you went to Uni? Just a couple of points up there made me wonder

'Evolved from monkeys?' 'Darwinist?' Geophysics is a 'hard science,' and doesn't need any input from religion. In fact, I'm at a total loss to think of a single point that would benefit geophys.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 10 days ago with 2 member flags