Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

Questions for the creationists (and I really would like to know, I´m not just asking to keep arguing):

I'm not going to argue creation and the origines of the world point by point but I can take a stab at some of these.

-If nothing can come from nothing, ie life couldn´t have evolved on its own with the result of our "perfect" selves!, then where did the creator come from?

-If you find the idea that god "has always been around" easy to accept, how can you find the idea that "life" has always been around hard to believe?

First of all, even the scientists tell us that life hasn't always been around so that's not even a question. Is it? Mans understanding of God comes from mans history with God and what we have in Gods word. From that, a few attributes of God that we have are that God has always existed, He knows everything, is in control of everything and His wisdom and justice are perfect. What's the exact nature of God beyond that? I think we're too small to understand. The next time you're out in your yard BBQin and you see an ant come crawling accross the padio, try to explain to it where the padio, picnic table and you yourself came from. Once you have the ant squared away on the origin of all he sees you can start explaing to him your long term plans for the whole yard and how you plan to make it happen.

Of course, the ant thing is a little silly but it's also silly to think that we can use our finite minds, knowledge and wisdom to completely understand the exact nature an infinate God.

Then there are the old ones:
-If god created all mankind in his image, how come there are so many "bad people"? (seems god isn´t all that good)

God did create people in His image but also gave them free will. Man promptly went off and got himself into trouble. The Christian view is that people are sinful by nature and born spiritually dead in that sin. That sort of makes "bad" the default condition and it doesn't change until something happens to change that condition.

-If all the "bad things" is a "test", is god really a benign deity? (seems more like an experiment with labrats than with "people" you care for)

Who says all the "bad things" are tests? Death and decay came about as a result of sin. Before that, it was just a walk in the park. Maybe "Bad things" also serve to instruct or rebuke. People are not quick or easy learners and they never learn anything when they have everything the way they want it.

God doesn't promise an easy life. In fact, scripture tells us that if we follow Christ we will be persecuted. What is promised is the hope of eternal life with Him.

Those are just quick answers off the top of my head and I didn't provde references as I should have so check it out for yourself. Aside from the Bible, of course, a book called "A Case For Faith" specifically addresses some of your questions. I don't see my copy around at the moment so I can't tell you right off who wrote it but I'm sure you could google it.

 

[Daylonious]

Like Bill Hicks said:

"Okay.. creationism. You believe that the bible is historically accurate and depicts 7000 years of history?"

"Yeah"

One word... 'Dinosaurs'

You'd think that would have been mentioned at some point in the Bible, no?

Oh... and if that offends you as a christian... well then... forgive me.

lol!

D.

Like George Carlin said.. "All religious arguments are just a question of 'my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend..'"

 

[MikeFerrara]

Like Bill Hicks said:

"Okay.. creationism. You believe that the bible is historically accurate and depicts 7000 years of history?"

"Yeah"

One word... 'Dinosaurs'

You'd think that would have been mentioned at some point in the Bible, no?

Yes. They are mentioned, though they certainly aren't a central subject.

Oh... and if that offends you as a christian... well then... forgive me.

lol!

As a christian, I'm used to being offended.

 

[Kevrumbo]

Such then is the Problem of Evil: a God all good, all powerful, all knowing appears to be inconsistent with the fact that evil exists --a potent argument for atheism.

A Theodicy to attack this result is to argue that evil is necessary in order to have free will and to challenge & forge the disciplined soul ("For what is evil but the self seeking to fulfill its own secret needs. All that is necessary is that we face it and choose . . . for we have no capacity for good without an equal capacity for evil.'"). Such is the Yin & Yang nature of our reality and present theology --obviously we're not anywhere near Heaven or Nirvana yet (or Stevie Wonder's "Higher Ground" & "Heaven is Ten-Zillion Light Years Away" ).

"Before we wake, we cannot know that what we dreamed does not exist. Before we die, we cannot know that death is not the greatest joy" --Keep the Faith, Keep Hope Alive People. . .

 

[Rick Murchison]

Rick, you need to take that up with the Nobel prize winners that worked on this stuff a few generations back

but assuming you are serious (which i belive you are not), this organism was probalby a single-cell lump of RNA (or perhaps DNA) that was able to split itself into itself and a copy of itself, and then kept doing it

You missed my point. That's ok. My point is that whatever happened - and we are at the height of arrogance to start assuming we've figured out what happened down to deciding a single replicating molecule began all life on earth billions of years before the first quadruped set foot on dry land - it had a guiding hand. I'm certain of that; many others are not. Who's right and who's wrong doesn't change the facts one way or the other, whatever they are.
Remember, time is part of creation. Time doesn't happen until the mass of the universe gets distributed in small enough chunks for gravity's pull to allow it to start ticking... but you see, we are unable to get our brains around that - we always have to use words like "until" or "then" or "happened" - words whose meaning is gone without time itself.
By the way, "a single cell lump of RNA" makes absolutely no sense at all to a biologist. Look up "prion" and you'll get a little better understanding of something similar to (but not quite) the pure evolutionist's "Adam."
The biggest problem with leaving God out of the equation is that if one truly believes that things just happen, then they also believe that they happen in accordance with a set of physical laws (as yet not fully understood) that control their occurence, and that ultimately, ultimately all things can therefore be explained as reaction to existing conditions, and things like "free will" and "chance" and even "chaos theory" fall by the wayside. Even our thoughts are slaves to chemistry (you claim that as an explanation for my near-death experience but would deny it for your own reasoning. I don't think you've thoroughly thought this out ) and therefore, ultimately, predetermined. You must become sort of a "Presbyterian without God!"
As for me, I know God's there more surely than I know the Sun will still be shining tomorrow. That knowledge makes me very lucky, I suppose, and frees me from worrying about whether "a pillar of salt" is a pile of sodium chloride or a bitter old crone, or whether "six days" is 144 hours or 26 billion years.
And it does nothing to staunch my curiosity or my desire to see all I can and learn all I can in the time left to me here on earth; the vast wonder of what's available here is but a glimpse of the eternal and infinite wonder yet to come. Trust me on this one
Rick

 

[wardric]

Yes. They are mentioned, though they certainly aren't a central subject.

where?
(I have the full version but didn't read it all )

and btw, my islamic collegue laughed at me when I mentionned him the dinosaurs. Like with the cavemen, he said: what makes you think they are real? That they are not fakes?

 

[adurso]

I also would like to know where the dinos are mentioned in the Bible....

 

[Thalassamania]

Indeed... I understand what you are saying, and on the surface it is true.

That "intelligent design" is not science is true at the surface; and equally true as deep as any of use can dive. <G>

What scientific truth has gone without revision in the last century? Newtonian physicists were even more certain of the efficacy of their methods and their "facts" than today's proponents of ... take your pick ...
My money's on continued refinements of today's facts as we delve deeper into things. Matter of fact it won't surprise me to see some changes as fundamental to today's "scientific fact" as Einstein brought to Newton

Scientific "truth" has been revised by scientific method: hypothesis followed by test. “Intelligent design" is not testable and therefore can not revise science; it must remain in the realm of the supernatural and thus outside of the science classroom.

"As for the intelligent design deal, I'm dealing from an unfair advantage. I was run over by a drunk back in '68 and killed. Had the out-of-body experience and all that; had a glimpse of the "Grand Plan." I'm satisfied of the reality of the experience and I'm satisfied there's guidance afoot.

I mean you and your experiences no disrespect. You are, of course, entitled to interpret your experiences in the manner that choose, but there are well accepted explanations for "out of body" experiences that focus on the conscious mind's attempt to make sense of the alterations in sensory input that result from a very low oxygen level.

 

[Rick Murchison]

&#8220;Intelligent design" is not testable and therefore can not revise science; it must remain in the realm of the supernatural and thus outside of the science classroom.

This is the conclusion that just floors me, that because the idea of intelligent design isn't science then it ought to be excluded from the science classroom. There are many ideas that aren't science that have a home in the science classroom and are useful there as motivators or as "grease" for human/human interaction. One of Einstein's principle motivators was the desire to "know the mind of God." It is mine, too. Remove that and science becomes sterile and boring to me and to many, and you end up excluding contributors to the effort.
It isn't the rejection of the idea of intelligent design that I have a hard time understanding - I went through that period in my youth myself - but rather the seemingly paranoid attitude that if you let intelligent design into the classroom it will somehow be detrimental to the goal of science. As you say, intelligent design isn't science. Neither is "good manners." But both have a useful role in the science (or any other) classroom.
If I say "Wow! Ain't God Great!" or "Wow! Look at that!" when I make a new discovery what difference does it make, really? In fact, looking through the window of intelligent design often makes it easier to accept new truths than if one's only faith is in the "scientific method." There's little in this world harder than trying to convince scientists that new data blows a hole in their body of work - especially when it does.
---
It just dawned on me that there may be a key issue missing from the discussion.
Intelligent design also assumes that the design is ultimately beyond our comprehension; that all we can do is get closer to understanding the "Grand Plan" - so it always, always not only leaves room for, but demands new discovery, new thought, new conclusions. Why would you want to exclude that from the classroom or the lab?
Rick

 

[wardric]

Rick,

because science is the same for all, but religion is not. Creationism being related to faith, it is in the religion area. With all the immigration, it has to be considered now. If you want to separate christians from, muslims and jews and hindus and raëlians, etc., it's fine but if you want a melting pot, then you might have more difficulties. Then, you might have to separate catholics and protestants and so on. That is what I think the reason behind that. Now should we do that? I dont know. Maybe. Maybe not. Why not teach it at church or "insert appropriate temple here" then.