Thursday, October 15th, 2009Evolution vs. Creationism Should there really be a debate? Come on people...
"...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
- Richard Dawkins
Last night we had the pleasure of attending a lecture by Richard Dawkins. Quite an amazing evening and discussion about his new book,
The Greatest Show on Earth. How scary is it that approximately 40% of Americans still believe in Creationism?
You know, when I was in school (elementary on), I don't ever remember any talk about creationism. No one I knew had a problem balancing the theory of evolution (science) and their faith. But I guess I didn't have much contact with people who believed every word in the Bible came from the actual mouth of God rather than being stories passed down over numbers of generations -- man's interpretation of his faith/understanding of God; certainly inspired and containing truth, but subjective.
My question to people over age 50 is: Is this fervor over creationism a new phenomenon or was I raised in a bubble?
I've read a ton of Dawkins and used to think he was "The Man" but now I just think he's arrogant.
Try reading Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel or Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe.
Pegi,
When I learned about evolution in school it was also presented as a theory, so I assume it was a theory when you were first learned about it too, considering you are only a few years older than me. :) That was over 20 years ago for me, a lot has changed and a lot more evidence has been discovered. It's time for people to re-evaluate.
As a side note, my interest in Dawkins is pretty new, so I'm not basing any of these comments on his view/approach taken in his older work, i.e, "The God Dillusion", or any of the like. His recent work on providing evidence in support of evolution is what I find so intriguing. So when you use words like: "beliefs, and pre-defined opinion", I'm a bit lost as to how they apply to evolution.
My outlook on life is very lighthearted. Evolution is right in our face everywhere and science backs it up, but there are also things that happen in life that science can not back up i.e. spirits, miracles, etc...I feel like a higher being created everything we know including the way the world has grown, developed, changed (evolution). I find it very daunting to NOT believe in a religion.
Here's why; If it turns out there IS a God,higher being as a religious person when I die I go to heaven, the next life, wherever. IF I do not believe in God or higher being I go to "not a fun place" or reincarinated as a hosue fly:). If it turns out there is not God and just germs and dna bubbling in mud then lights out when I die. That is not a risk I want to take when no one has the answers. Isn't more fun to think of the possibilities of life after death rather than just going blank??? Better safe than sorry!
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140
I was quite surprised at the claim, but it does seem solid after review...pretty clear on the fact that fossil record is not needed to prove evolution.
Also, animals were not created, they evolved, thus the discussion here; and species evolution takes a bit more time than what we have to hang around for...
And yeah, sorry for my sporadic blogging behavior, I'll work on it.
I'm an apathist.... I don't know and I don't care.
Well, it's not really that I don't care. But I certainly don't know. Although I usually use "atheist" as my descriptor, I am certainly open to the possibility of there being something. It's just that the chances seem awfully slim, and I don't really get "belief".
I've gone through a variety of religions and then just being 'spiritual'. A couple of things irk me, though.
I find more "religious" people who are completely confident that their way is THE way. They are often less open minded to the idea of there not being a god than I am to the possibility of the existence of god.
I find Richard Dawkins annoying, condescending, and not helpful to the "atheist cause" (for lack of a better term). I would so much rather that Carl Sagan were still alive.
I heard Dawkins on 'Charlotte Talks' this morning. I liked the comparison of Human Selection and Natural Selection. If we(humans) can make little designer Picashitz from wolves in a couple hundred years, I know nature can change a lot in selection in a few thousand years.
http://www.humzoo.com/PaulNowlin/blog/5/
http://charlotteblogs.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/friday-o...
...an interview with Bishop John Spong, great talk and interview with one of the most intelligent people I think i've heard from, regarding current state of religion, in a long time.
Genes are constantly mutating. The ones that thrive and survive are the ones that tend to be passed on to the next generation. For example, that is why Giraffes have such long necks. The ones with the short necks died and were not able to pass on their genes to the next generation. That is why females of most species tend to mate with the strongest or most powerful male. They want the next generation to be stronger...etc..
Just to clarify, I misspoke about calling it the theory of evolution, I guess. It's a science - or what? Theories aren't valid enough? I, clearly, have not moved my vocabulary forward with time...
And science is a study of something, right?
The Big Bang was not an explosion of gases - gases (that compose the present observable universe) are a product of this explosion. The early universe contained no atoms, therefore no gases.
IF the Big Bang was the creation of the universe there is no indication of anything carried over into our universe from before the Big Bang. So if something did exist prior to T-0 (time of the Big Bang) there is no evidence that any of it carried over into the present universe. Since science deals in observation and measurement one has to rely on some other discipline to deal with what happened before the Big Bang. There are a lot of hypotheses and ideas circulating about conditions and events prior to the creation of the present universe.
If the Big Bang took place it was not a conventional explosion with which we are familiar, that is, the exploding of bombs or the detonation of a nuclear bomb. The entire universe as we now know it was contained in an almost infinitely small space. "In the beginning, a tiny bubble of spacetime, a billion-trillion-trillionth of a centimeter across, popped spontaneously into existence out of nothing as the result of a random quantum fluctuation." - David Pratt in "Cosmology and the Big Bang"
So, what are your thoughts on the Big Bang or Creationism? Obviously something happened or I may just be a figment of someone else's imagination. Or we all may be like the speck of dust in Horton Hear's a Who.
After having said all of that I will get to the point of what I believe. According to science and the laws of nature they have figured out, a universe like ours can be created out of "nothing" in a big bang without a Supreme Being's assistance. To me that type of universe is a cold and impersonal entity. If one inserts the hand of God into the creation process then the universe becomes so much more beautiful and warm. I believe in a universe that was described in a sermon by a minister (Reverend James Barge) I heard one Sunday morning back in the 1970s: "God created the universe and its up to the scientists to figure out how he did it!" I think their construct of a Big Bang with an Inflationary Universe following is the best idea available. I haven't followed the cosmological thinking and proposals in the last 15 years, but I am sure there are new ideas being put forth by the best scientific human minds that bear consideration.
However we came to be, we're certainly a unique planet in our part of the galaxy. Our species has arguably accomplished more in the last hundred years than any other living organism since the planet's birth (which has probably been a true statement for hundreds of decades).
In the past ten years we have effectively brought together every person on the planet by means of computer networks (excuse me for glossing over the population with no computer access).
We've come so far as a planet and as a species, yet we constantly disagree about almost every topic imaginable. We're all like a great big dysfunctional family on vacation in a station wagon. With wood paneling.
Reminds me of a quote from one of my favorite Movie Trilogies. The Matrix:
Agent Smith: Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?
Neo's response: Because I choose to.