Intelligent Design ruling

[Tomorrow]

Someone should tell our current president this since he seems to love to espouse his faith and beliefs, by his labeling of countries as "evil" and which he has claimed his faith, in more than one instance, guides his politcal decisions.

This president is little different from the multitude of others who have their hands in our pockets, hold their own prejudices over our heads, seek eminent power over us, and sometimes even put cigars where they don't belong. We have a long and distinguished list of miscreants for "leaders".

 

[Audioholics]

Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion

Honestly, the very clear (to me at least) interpretation of that letter is that it was Jefferson's desire that Congress is not allowed to say ANYTHING or pass ANY ruling on religion. His fear was that the states would start dictating religious beliefs or worse.

His concern seems to have been valid as, years later, in my opinion the national religion seems to be leaning towards athiesm - or freedom from religion.

He even signs it with "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem." Jefferson, at least, believed in God and wasn't trying to convince anyone that God should not be a part of the constitution (since He was already in there to begin with). I think he was just scared they'd overstep someday.

But that's not really the topic, so I'll let us get back to the evolution issue.

I'd encourage everyone to check out Irreducible Complexity. It certainly has its critics (doesn't everything), but it makes a heck of a lot of sense nonetheless. Most of the criticisms I have seen don't really address his points, tear apart a particular illustrative example and ignore 10 others, or refute his contentions with supposed proof texts that are based on microevolutionary changes (which no one argues) - not irreducibly complex ones. The author of the concept is Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University.

The basic idea is that the generally accepted scientific theory that life evolved through biological evolution by natural selection alone is incomplete and flawed and that some additional mechanism is required to explain the origins of life. An irreducibly complex system is one which could not possibly have been formed by successive, slight modifications to a functional precursor system because without all of the elements, the system isn't beneficial. (partially quoted from Wikipedia)

This, plus the widely accepted age of the earth (4.5 billion years) - to me - doesn't allow for evolution to be possible. There's simply not enough time when you take into account the amount of mutations and complex systems.

This is obviously up for debate - but that's pretty much where I lean and why.

 

[Tomorrow]

An irreducibly complex system is one which could not possibly have been formed by successive, slight modifications to a functional precursor system because without all of the elements, the system isn't beneficial. (partially quoted from Wikipedia)

This, plus the widely accepted age of the earth (4.5 billion years) - to me - doesn't allow for evolution to be possible. There's simply not enough time when you take into account the amount of mutations and complex systems.

This is obviously up for debate - but that's pretty much where I lean and why.

I'm not sure what an "irreducibly complex system" is. There is really no such thing.

But you're right. This is open for debate. There are a myriad of descriptive, adaptive, scientific, philosophical, mythical, religious theoretical systems used to describe the events of nature. By definition, they are lacking proof (otherwise they'd be facts). Further screwing up the works is the fact that no universal thing/event/system, which I think you are trying to invoke here, can be proven. (e.g. Prove to me that all blackbirds are black).

I strongly suggest the reading of Order Out of Chaos, by Ilya Prigogine. Beware, as it can get detailed, and is filled with scientific history. But it's a wonderful read. Essentially, it looks at this notion of complexity through the lens of Chaos Theory and details self-organizing and self-dissipating systems (organic and non-organic).

Let's take a fact....the universe is in the process of expansion. It has been carefully measured that galaxies are moving away from each other. We even have a name for the ultimate expansion...entropy. (All matter tends to DISorganization and returns to energy, which in turn will be evenly distributed around the entire universe.) Let's assume that a "Big Bang" or "God" caused this shift or entropy. You say it (the organization that's going to disorganize) was God's doing, because the organization necessary to build our incredibly complex universe/galaxy/solar system/living phylogenesis can't happen in such a short time given your understanding of nature and it's organizational properties.

First, that's a negative 'proof' and won't prove anything about God's existence and causal nature. All it means is that you don't have an understanding of what CAN cause it. Second, there really is a set of principles that completely explain complex organization...Chaos Theory. Back to the example of the universe...how to explain scientifically the organization of galaxies, of star systems and solar systems (and any attendant life forms) amidst all that disorganization for the Big Bang? It has been proven beyond shadow of doubt that these systems MUST form because of random events...the very random events you say cannot possibly explain the complexity. Colliding random events instill geometric change into a system. On a stellar scale...think of colliding star systems. Two galaxies that accidentally bump into each other, end up forming a completely unrecognizable new and quite complex system...not at all resembling the original two. And further, there is nothing you can know of the original organizations or how the galaxy came to be that way.

You want to talk living organism? One gene (sorry Gene) can be the cause of great upheaval in an organism. Think of the change that occurs in a body that had but one gene mutate to "out produce" its rivals. Instant cancer now overwhelms a system with change.

And this 'collision' of circumstances, matter, or energy is much beyond Marx's dialectical materialism. Think of a game of pool/billiards. Look at a pool table after someone breaks the racked set with the cue ball. You can say much about the motion and physics of the balls, but not how they got that way, unless you know the original orientation and forces acting upon the balls. Guess what. It turns out we can never (NEVER) know that. (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.) It's basically this...you can know a thing's position or you can know its motion (relatively speaking). But you can't know both, simultaneously.

Chaos Theory and quantum mechanics provide real 'solutions' to many of these minute, and the large cosmological questions. There are some others, but I think I've bored everyone enough, already.

Good cheer.

Edited for spelling..."Organizm"? LOL. It must be the German version.

 

[Audioholics]

I don't want this to turn into a "me vs. you" thing so I think I'll bow out for now, but one of the 'non-arguments' (my opinion) to irreducible complexity is to simply say it doesn't exist. But the problem is, that it really does - and it's not as difficult to understand as chaos theory and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (which really is a different topic altogether and not particularly relevant to this discussion).

It's simply the principle that there are (particularly in biology) systems which are composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Examples include: blood clotting, aspects of protein transport, bacterial flagellum, photosynthesis, and the eye. There are arguments and exceptions, but I have found them to be weak at best and more distraction than refutive.

Remember it all relates to principles of natural selection - which cease to work on these many examples. Take a ridiculous scenario - a blind worm is born with a fully developed set of eyeballs. Can it see? No. Why? Because he lacks ocular muscles and an optical nerve... Are these fully developed eyeballs beneficial in any way? Probably not. Do they stick around for the next generation? I don't think so.

Take all of the required simultaneous compound evolutionary mutations that have to take place to get where we are now and you have (in the limited 4.5 billion years available to us) [edit: and more like 1 billion years if you take the earth-span since water was around for complex organisms to mutate] a statistical impossibility for natural selection as a tenet of evolution. A billion years is barely enough time for anything to happen if there were no irreducibly complex systems.

I just think intelligent design should be discussed since it proposes a solution - or at least a probable cause. It also fits the fossil record. It's simply the sane thing to do when you're alternative is to push a theory that doesn't seem to be even remotely possible (in my opinion). The abundant fossil record, not to mention common sense, makes this apparent.

Remember, when Darwin came up with this theory ALL of the mechanisms of biology were pretty much unknown - as far as the driving forces behind everything that was observed at the time... Now, 200 years later, scientists still cling to his theory despite the mountain of evidence that has been uncovered which makes it (again, my opinion) statistically impossible. Theories have to be tested and revised - and that's good, but we also have to know when to admit that the earth isn't flat. Hiding behind a bunch of technical jargon and additional untestable theories doesn't really help (or add more time to the age of the earth or universe). The argument can be made both ways - so I say let there be discussion - not censorship - especially in schools.

Ok, I'll beg out now... Thanks for chatting - this is a favorite topic of mine and I promise not to interject any quips about evolution into my reviews... lol.

 

[furrycute]

4.5 billion years is a LONG time. Mere mortals like us really have no concept of time on such a vast scale. 4.5 billion years is time enough for a lot of things to happen.

Why is it so inconceivable that the basic tenet of evolutionary theory, to pass on as much of your genes as possible, can give rise to human beings, over such a vast span of time?

The basic tenet is to survive and to reproduce. And genetic mutations give us the building blocks for change, and changes in the environment provide the selection pressure for the right combinations of genes. That's the beauty of evolution. You start with such simple premises, and given sufficient time, you will end up with something extraordinary.

Why do people have to insist on the hand of God in this process? Where in each of these steps is the intervention of God necessary?





Throughout Earth's history, there have been several spetacular extinction events, the latest being the extinction of the dinasours. It is true that if the dinasours did not go extinct, it is highly unlikely that mammals would have come to dominate the earth. Did the dinasours have the capacity for sentience? Perhaps, or perhaps not. Maybe they eventually would have, had they survived. Or maybe their genetic makeup did not allow for the development of sentience, and had they survived, Earth would eventually become a prized galatic hunting ground for some future intelligent alien species.

The only place where I could possibly see the hand of "God" at work is in the cause of these mass extinction events. These mass extinction events fundamentally altered the course of Earth's biological makeup, wiping out old life forms and paving way for new ones. It's like an ongoing science experiment being wiped clean and started all over again. And these mass extinction events have occured repeatedly with remarkable periodicity throughout Earth's history. Right now we are overdue for the next mass extinction event.

Why? What is the reason for these mass extinctions? Maybe there is no reason. Maybe this is just the way the cosmos works. Every few hundred million years or so, a meteor passing through the Solar system has a chance of hitting Earth, and in the process the impact wipes out most of Earth's life forms, making way for new life forms to thrive. Or maybe Earth really is a biological lab experiment of some highly advanced alien species. Who knows.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I think you misunderstand the idea of "irreducible complexity"- the context you use it is mostly a politicized invention of creationists trying to foist off "intelligent design" as a theory instead of thinly disguised old-school creationism.

Still, even if you don't subscribe to evolution, understand that unlike "intelligent design" it is a theory. It was developed from an observation of the natural world and from studying the fossile record, as well as the physiological and genetic makeup of animals, living and dead. It attempts to apply the Scientific Method to a problem, experimenting, researching, and adjusting the theory as evidence dictates. And while scientists are human, and therefore succeptible to hubris or error, a theory is not dogmatic.

But "intelligent design" is dogmatic. It starts with a conclusion and works it's way backwards. It doesn't require nor utilize any evidence. And the heart of it, it possesses the main hallmark of all good dogma- it's not falsifiable. You may believe whatever you like, that's a freedom recognized by the Constitution. But "intelligent design" is not a theory, it's religion masquerading as science, attempting an end run around that Constitution.

I think you're laboring under another illusion- Jefferson was in all likelihood an atheist. He almost certainly did not intend to protect religion from government without that protection going the other way, too. His concession to religious imagery was probably just conventional speech of the day. What would you make of the following quote?

The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter... But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Lastly, what if he did indeed subscribe to your point of view? Jefferson was one of the framers, but not the only one. The US wasn't built upon the superstitions and whims of any one man but an ideal. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I often disagree with the High Court's interpretation of the Constitution, but unless you specialize in Constitutional law in addition to engineering ( ) I don't think you can claim to authoritatively state that the modern concept of the seperation of church and state isn't what the founders had in mind.

In summary, discount evolution if you want. But don't substitute pretend science in its place.

 

[T2T]

I'm glad that sanity still exists in the good old U.S. of A. For a while I really thought we have lost it with all those religious/political conservatives.

Well, we needed a President who would keep his pants on while in the White House. At the time, it just happened to be a religious/political conservative that was running, so he was voted in to save the U.S. from further embarassment.

 

[Revelator]

Genesis or Revelation

This is indeed a very interesting thread. Most replies here are lengthy and well conceived. On that, I'd like to throw in my 2 cents.

There seems to be an entire separation between logic, thought and philosophies here. It's almost as if I'm looking at the Fundamentalist vs. the Scientist and each are thinking in absolutes.

The Fundamentalists seem to believe that Genesis is a detailed map of how God created the Universe, but unfortunately they are missing the actual reason for the Bible; which is WHY He created it. The Bible was never intended to be a detailed step by step approach to how but it does an amazing job of why. Everything in the Universe glorifies God including science, physics, chemistry, mathematics, oceanography, the environment, biology, nanoscience......

For the moment, let's leave the absolutes from both sides and think outside the box. The atom is not explained in the Bible, nor is the Electron, the Quark, the Amoeba, the chemistry behind water (H20), mathematics, chemistry.... So since it's not mentioned, does that mean it doesn't exist? The Bible doesn't mention nanotechnology, gravity, landing on the moon, dinosaurs, and so on, so does that too mean it doesn't exist or it can't be done? God is everywhere and everything. So, is God not a mathematician? If He isn't how did He create math? Is God not an environmentalist and a physicist? If He isn't how does the environment and gravity exist? Is God not a biologist? If not, how do you explain medical doctors and the human body. The Bible only tells us that woman was made from Adam’s rib so does that mean we should not study how the human body works so doctor’s can help save lives? Should doctors save lives or should we leave it to God’s will?

Scientist in many ways also thinks in absolutes such as evolution for example. There are indeed variations in the theory but there seems to be a general consensus regarding this topic. But evolution does not explain many things about humanity and its origin and there are indeed missing links.

Each side seems to be missing some fundamental points. Can Science and Creationism cohabitate with each other or is it one or the other?

I tend to believe they do and for some sound reasoning.

Without getting into a topical study on Genesis it is indeed important to keep in mind the following. There are faith based facts in Genesis. The story of Genesis was written by Moses in an effort to help convince the Jews into leaving the slavery of Egypt. While there are truths in it, there are also truths applied in metaphors and they were used as examples to help motivate a very undereducated society using terminology, story boards and language tailored to their culture. Creationism can be determined truthful but it's not an empirical description about the how of creation. It's a topical description with a summary explanation. If not, it would have gone on to explain the atomic level of the Universe including all the elements, dark mater, gravity, time..... and Israel would not be here today since this detailed of a story would not have served its original purpose. It would have not served its purpose even today because it would then have explained down to the nanowire how, why, when and we would not have free will or reason to apply logic. We'd be mimes following a detailed guide in absolute form and would therefore live in the old testament never once requiring a savior.

Also note that there is a direct cross reference in Genesis creationism's 7-days that was used again in the Bible metaphorically but in a sort of reversal where each day's purpose in Genesis was undone during the plague of Egypt. This explanation is another topic for another website.

My point here is that the 7-days in creationism is used in other forms throughout the Bible and once again, it does not provide a detailed guide of each day nor was it ever intended to. The Fundamentalists are the ones who take it in such absolute terms that they can only go word by word. These same people study the Bible and have no problem applying their interpretations to everyday life and yet doing the same with Creationism and science is taboo.

So on to the topic of evolution. Well, much like Astronomy for example, God created the Universe and all the stars, galaxies, planets and so on. It does indeed clearly state this in the Bible. But it does NOT explain the process nor does it explain the composition of a star. But if God did indeed create everything, which I fully believe He did keep in mind that He also provided us free will, science, intelligence and the necessary equipment to help us figure out how? God is all things making him a scientist too. God created everything to share His Glory so don't you think it was more involved than just a puff over 7-days? Perhaps He made it so complicated that each time we make another discovery about the Universe it makes some of us glorify God for his complex creation and thank Him for helping us to find out how He did it. Perhaps it’s so complicated that every time we think we’ve found the answer, we learn something else and it’s down the drain, once again allowing some of us to glorify God for His creation and complex design. But does that mean there isn’t science behind Creationism? Remember, the Bible is for why, not how.

If all these things are true, then why is it that the same logic can’t be applied to the difference between evolution and creationism? Why is it that this story in the Bible is what the Fundamentalists hop so heavily on that they can't open their minds to other possibilities that enhance, not destroy creationism? They have no problem looking at other galaxies through a telescope or via pictures from the Hubble telescope and listening to and studying the theory of physics. But when you try to apply science to the creation of man, their world is turned completely upside down. What if, like other topics in the Bible, God did create the earth and mankind as prescribed however he left the blanks purposely for us to figure out so that the solution, should we ever find it, or the path of which we attempt to find it is all used to glorify Him, not discredit Him? After all, even Einstein declared that there must be a God and his discoveries where outside of the Bible.

If that can be the case, then perhaps God's Creationism isn't wrong, nor is evolution, nor is the creation of the Universe, nor is physics. Perhaps, just maybe, God gave us an outline for us to fill in the blanks. If instead He only provided us a detailed map as the Fundamentalists believe about creationism, then boy how boring our lives would be. No reason for an education, science, logic, just an absolute map with only one way of explaining it, 7-days.

As a Christian, I totally believe that creationism and evolution can cohabitate much like physics, astronomy and the creation of the Universe. It was never God's will to provide us absolutes, religion (religion is only man’s quest for God) or all the answers. Instead it was His intent to provide us free will, intelligence and a source for education so that every discovery we make could be turned toward Him in glory, not in discredit. Who is there to say that God's 7-days of creation were our absolute 24-hour solar day times 7? Who is there to say that if God is infinite and time does not apply in an infinite universe that His 7-days did not happen over 4.5-billion years in our finite thought? What a mindless world we'd live in if God gave us all the answers and did not leave room for us to wonder, debate and research. It is shameful to me that there are fundamentalists who can't think outside the bun. What a shame to me that there are scientists who can't have science and faith because of how they were made to believe it's one or the other.

My faith in God is solid as is my appreciation and quest for science. I long for the day where we find God's ultimate design yet I know it will never happen. But I do know there are sound, intelligent people both of faith and without who are all out there trying. The shame of it are the ones who sitting behind and applying words to logic are.

In closing, creationism should not be in science classes in schools. This country was founded on freedom of religion regardless of the Fundamentalist’s belief. If creationism should be taught in school, then it best be taught as an elective and it better include all faiths including Indian, Hindu, Muslim and others or this country has truly lost our purpose and the Fundamentalist’s have indeed taken over more than the white house, congress, the senate and the media.

Chow

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Everyone, take a look through some stuff on this site. I find it interesting that no one has yet claimed the prize. Regardless, there is some good information contained on this site. Just read through with an open mind is all I ask.

http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/index.html

 

[gene]

I think you misunderstand the idea of "irreducible complexity"- the context you use it is mostly a politicized invention of creationists trying to foist off "intelligent design" as a theory instead of thinly disguised old-school creationism.

Agreed and the argument is severly flawed too. It assumes that the step in evolution must be a complex process, such as forming a new eye, etc. The reality is, much of evolution is about improving upon an existing design. Like man being able to walk upright, or his brain cavity increasing in size to support a bigger brain and higher intelligence. Nobody claims evolution has to make huge developmental changes in one instance.

This theory also negates the fact that evolution happens in steps and in fact one step can be completely uneeded at the time but the trait can carry on until a mutation occurs again where the two can be brought together (ie. optical nerves, followed by and eye).


To say there isn't enough time for evolution is silly and the sign of a closed mind.

Thankfully we have science otherwise people would actually believe earth was created in 7 days, dinosours never existed, and humanity began with Adam, Eve and an Apple tree

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Thankfully we have science otherwise people would actually believe earth was created in 7 days, dinosours never existed, and humanity began with Adam, Eve and an Apple tree

No intelligent Christian believes that either Gene, those are the people who get all Christians labeled as kooks and who have not even understood what they have read in their own bible.. The bible says no such things.

 

[gene]

Well, we needed a President who would keep his pants on while in the White House. At the time, it just happened to be a religious/political conservative that was running, so he was voted in to save the U.S. from further embarassment.

I am not too sure the current president accomplished this. Personally, I am embarrased for our country each time he speaks publicly

 

[gene]

Information about Irreducible Complexity

Here is some good information that discusses the issues behind this theory.

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

Here is another article that discusses the flaws in this theory.

Irreducible Complexity UnSpun

Darwins Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility

Natural History Report

 

[The Dukester]

Personally, I think that Buckeye is trying to one-up Sheep on the long, controversial thread.

 

[miklorsmith]

Well, we needed a President who would keep his pants on while in the White House. At the time, it just happened to be a religious/political conservative that was running, so he was voted in to save the U.S. from further embarassment.

So. . .you're thinking this guy's keeping his pants on? I'll take that flavor over this Any Day. Another topic, another day.

Thanks for bringing this up, Buck and allowing it to live, Gene. Your ability to argue "the other side" is impressive. And, thanks to everyone else that has contributed thus far. Pages of text and no personal attacks! This is the most interesting of all threads I've read on this, or any, audio board. Most would not tolerate it for its potentially explosive content. Interestingly, other boards will tolerate obscenities. It's funny where we draw our personal boundaries.

Why isn't this discussed openly? Why isn't the population as a whole ready to have societal dialog on something which should interest us all?

People move on. By early adulthood, people have generally decided what ticket they're punching in the election and how the universe was created.

We are intellectually lazy. Hey, didn't we cover this already? We spend far more time contemplating our stereo systems than matters of worldwide or universal importance. But, we can control those systems - not so much with the national debt or where we Really came from. Part of it is probably conditioned where endless pursuit of maddeningly elusive questions becomes tiresome.

Plus, once we settle on a perspective it becomes comfortable. Reopening the doors can shake one's foundations deeply.

Ultimately, subscribers to ID were probably on that side of the fence anyway. Area 51 stalwarts might be a good .1% too. People like me that write it off on its face side with that status quo. Reading the great responses made me actually think about it instead of my cursory "PROPAGANDA" spin.

The biggest trouble I see with the topic-at-large is the impossibly wide variety of aspects to cover. The thought of God-as-environmentalist makes me chuckle a bit. It seems our species didn't get the memo on that one.

What if the theory of intelligent design was written by a Hindu? What happens if we're following the wrong God? What if intelligent design ultimately points to the ant-farm analogy and aliens are directing our growth/development?

Ignorance IS bliss, fellas, I'm tellin' ya.

 

[Tomorrow]

I think you misunderstand the idea of "irreducible complexity"- the context you use it is mostly a politicized invention of creationists trying to foist off "intelligent design" as a theory instead of thinly disguised old-school creationism.

Still, even if you don't subscribe to evolution, understand that unlike "intelligent design" it is a theory. It was developed from an observation of the natural world and from studying the fossile record, as well as the physiological and genetic makeup of animals, living and dead. It attempts to apply the Scientific Method to a problem, experimenting, researching, and adjusting the theory as evidence dictates. And while scientists are human, and therefore succeptible to hubris or error, a theory is not dogmatic.

But "intelligent design" is dogmatic. It starts with a conclusion and works it's way backwards. It doesn't require nor utilize any evidence. And the heart of it, it possesses the main hallmark of all good dogma- it's not falsifiable. You may believe whatever you like, that's a freedom recognized by the Constitution. But "intelligent design" is not a theory, it's religion masquerading as science, attempting an end run around that Constitution.

I think you're laboring under another illusion- Jefferson was in all likelihood an atheist. He almost certainly did not intend to protect religion from government without that protection going the other way, too. His concession to religious imagery was probably just conventional speech of the day. What would you make of the following quote?

The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter... But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Lastly, what if he did indeed subscribe to your point of view? Jefferson was one of the framers, but not the only one. The US wasn't built upon the superstitions and whims of any one man but an ideal. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I often disagree with the High Court's interpretation of the Constitution, but unless you specialize in Constitutional law in addition to engineering ( ) I don't think you can claim to authoritatively state that the modern concept of the seperation of church and state isn't what the founders had in mind.

In summary, discount evolution if you want. But don't substitute pretend science in its place.

VERY well articulated!

 

[furrycute]

Well, we needed "someone" who would keep his pants on

Well said. But I don't suppose the families of our dead/injured servicemen would agree. And I don't suppose the families of the 30,000 dead Iraqis would agree.

 

[MacManNM]

Well said. But I don't suppose the families of our dead/injured servicemen would agree. And I don't suppose the families of the 30,000 dead Iraqis would agree.

I beg to differ. No lives have been wasted in this pursuit of freedom, they will though, if we don't finish the job.

 

[Tomorrow]

This is indeed a very interesting thread. Most replies here are lengthy and well conceived. On that, I'd like to throw in my 2 cents.

There seems to be an entire separation between logic, thought and philosophies here. It's almost as if I'm looking at the Fundamentalist vs. the Scientist and each are thinking in absolutes.

The Fundamentalists seem to believe that Genesis is a detailed map of how God created the Universe, but unfortunately they are missing the actual reason for the Bible; which is WHY He created it. The Bible was never intended to be a detailed step by step approach to how but it does an amazing job of why. Everything in the Universe glorifies God including science, physics, chemistry, mathematics, oceanography, the environment, biology, nanoscience......

For the moment, let's leave the absolutes from both sides and think outside the box. The atom is not explained in the Bible, nor is the Electron, the Quark, the Amoeba, the chemistry behind water (H20), mathematics, chemistry.... So since it's not mentioned, does that mean it doesn't exist? The Bible doesn't mention nanotechnology, gravity, landing on the moon, dinosaurs, and so on, so does that too mean it doesn't exist or it can't be done? God is everywhere and everything. So, is God not a mathematician? If He isn't how did He create math? Is God not an environmentalist and a physicist? If He isn't how does the environment and gravity exist? Is God not a biologist? If not, how do you explain medical doctors and the human body. The Bible only tells us that woman was made from Adam’s rib so does that mean we should not study how the human body works so doctor’s can help save lives? Should doctors save lives or should we leave it to God’s will?

Scientist in many ways also thinks in absolutes such as evolution for example. There are indeed variations in the theory but there seems to be a general consensus regarding this topic. But evolution does not explain many things about humanity and its origin and there are indeed missing links.

Each side seems to be missing some fundamental points. Can Science and Creationism cohabitate with each other or is it one or the other?

I tend to believe they do and for some sound reasoning.

Without getting into a topical study on Genesis it is indeed important to keep in mind the following. There are faith based facts in Genesis. The story of Genesis was written by Moses in an effort to help convince the Jews into leaving the slavery of Egypt. While there are truths in it, there are also truths applied in metaphors and they were used as examples to help motivate a very undereducated society using terminology, story boards and language tailored to their culture. Creationism can be determined truthful but it's not an empirical description about the how of creation. It's a topical description with a summary explanation. If not, it would have gone on to explain the atomic level of the Universe including all the elements, dark mater, gravity, time..... and Israel would not be here today since this detailed of a story would not have served its original purpose. It would have not served its purpose even today because it would then have explained down to the nanowire how, why, when and we would not have free will or reason to apply logic. We'd be mimes following a detailed guide in absolute form and would therefore live in the old testament never once requiring a savior.

Also note that there is a direct cross reference in Genesis creationism's 7-days that was used again in the Bible metaphorically but in a sort of reversal where each day's purpose in Genesis was undone during the plague of Egypt. This explanation is another topic for another website.

My point here is that the 7-days in creationism is used in other forms throughout the Bible and once again, it does not provide a detailed guide of each day nor was it ever intended to. The Fundamentalists are the ones who take it in such absolute terms that they can only go word by word. These same people study the Bible and have no problem applying their interpretations to everyday life and yet doing the same with Creationism and science is taboo.

So on to the topic of evolution. Well, much like Astronomy for example, God created the Universe and all the stars, galaxies, planets and so on. It does indeed clearly state this in the Bible. But it does NOT explain the process nor does it explain the composition of a star. But if God did indeed create everything, which I fully believe He did keep in mind that He also provided us free will, science, intelligence and the necessary equipment to help us figure out how? God is all things making him a scientist too. God created everything to share His Glory so don't you think it was more involved than just a puff over 7-days? Perhaps He made it so complicated that each time we make another discovery about the Universe it makes some of us glorify God for his complex creation and thank Him for helping us to find out how He did it. Perhaps it’s so complicated that every time we think we’ve found the answer, we learn something else and it’s down the drain, once again allowing some of us to glorify God for His creation and complex design. But does that mean there isn’t science behind Creationism? Remember, the Bible is for why, not how.

If all these things are true, then why is it that the same logic can’t be applied to the difference between evolution and creationism? Why is it that this story in the Bible is what the Fundamentalists hop so heavily on that they can't open their minds to other possibilities that enhance, not destroy creationism? They have no problem looking at other galaxies through a telescope or via pictures from the Hubble telescope and listening to and studying the theory of physics. But when you try to apply science to the creation of man, their world is turned completely upside down. What if, like other topics in the Bible, God did create the earth and mankind as prescribed however he left the blanks purposely for us to figure out so that the solution, should we ever find it, or the path of which we attempt to find it is all used to glorify Him, not discredit Him? After all, even Einstein declared that there must be a God and his discoveries where outside of the Bible.

If that can be the case, then perhaps God's Creationism isn't wrong, nor is evolution, nor is the creation of the Universe, nor is physics. Perhaps, just maybe, God gave us an outline for us to fill in the blanks. If instead He only provided us a detailed map as the Fundamentalists believe about creationism, then boy how boring our lives would be. No reason for an education, science, logic, just an absolute map with only one way of explaining it, 7-days.

As a Christian, I totally believe that creationism and evolution can cohabitate much like physics, astronomy and the creation of the Universe. It was never God's will to provide us absolutes, religion (religion is only man’s quest for God) or all the answers. Instead it was His intent to provide us free will, intelligence and a source for education so that every discovery we make could be turned toward Him in glory, not in discredit. Who is there to say that God's 7-days of creation were our absolute 24-hour solar day times 7? Who is there to say that if God is infinite and time does not apply in an infinite universe that His 7-days did not happen over 4.5-billion years in our finite thought? What a mindless world we'd live in if God gave us all the answers and did not leave room for us to wonder, debate and research. It is shameful to me that there are fundamentalists who can't think outside the bun. What a shame to me that there are scientists who can't have science and faith because of how they were made to believe it's one or the other.

My faith in God is solid as is my appreciation and quest for science. I long for the day where we find God's ultimate design yet I know it will never happen. But I do know there are sound, intelligent people both of faith and without who are all out there trying. The shame of it are the ones who sitting behind and applying words to logic are.

In closing, creationism should not be in science classes in schools. This country was founded on freedom of religion regardless of the Fundamentalist’s belief. If creationism should be taught in school, then it best be taught as an elective and it better include all faiths including Indian, Hindu, Muslim and others or this country has truly lost our purpose and the Fundamentalist’s have indeed taken over more than the white house, congress, the senate and the media.

Chow

It may help to make a fundamental statement as to what science and religion are (or aren't). Science is the study of how. Religion is the study of why. Sure they can coexist...even within one's sense of the order of things. But don't attempt to mask one as the other, as with Creationism or Intelligent Design.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I beg to differ. No lives have been wasted in this pursuit of freedom, they will though, if we don't finish the job.

Bravo, well said.