Homework Help

What do you think of the always popular debate of CREATIONISM .VS. EVOLUTION?The...

user profile pic

marlon07 | Student, College Freshman | (Level 1) Honors

Posted November 20, 2008 at 5:00 PM via web

dislike 3 like
What do you think of the always popular debate of CREATIONISM .VS. EVOLUTION?

The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereotype, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview. The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution). Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith. And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise - it's based upon empirical observation and logic.

55 Answers | Add Yours

user profile pic

dtv | Student | (Level 1) Honors

Posted November 22, 2008 at 12:18 PM (Answer #2)

dislike 0 like

Yes, neither is a proven theory, but almost all scientific information agrees with the theory of evolution, and much of modern biology depends on the predictions made by the theory of evolution.  Isn't that a lot of evidence? 

-DTV

Please visit my blog at www.dtvons.blogspot.com.

user profile pic

lynn30k | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted November 22, 2008 at 7:33 PM (Answer #3)

dislike 0 like

There is a major difference in the way the word "theory" is used when you look at the two. Anyone can have a theory about anything; the difference is in the level of support in evidence. A scientific theory has to account for all known facts in that area. If something new is discovered that is in conflict with an accepted scientific theory, the theory either is modified, or the "fact" may turn out to be not really a fact. Creationism doesn't do this--it picks and chooses from available information that happens to not disprove creationism, and ignores the rest. I could have a theory that everything in the world is green, and if I only look at plant leaves and Granny Smith apples, I have proved my theory with the same level of rigor as creationism. And THAT is why religion should be left to churches to teach, and science to the schools.

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted November 24, 2008 at 5:53 AM (Answer #4)

dislike 0 like

I believe in Intelligent Design, which allows for evolution but also recognizes that some higher power directed the evolutionary changes. For me, that higher power is God.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted November 24, 2008 at 6:57 AM (Answer #6)

dislike 0 like

From Post1 ... "The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution)."

Sorry, but you're simply parading your ignorance. The 'Theory' of evolution is similar to the 'Theory' of Gravity or the Theory of electro-magnetism.

You are confusing 'theoretical' ideas and practical science. The factual evidence of evolution has been observed in the fossil record over and over again. And the abstract theory has been succesfully used to predict the existence of 'theorectical' species which have later been discovered in the practical fossil record.

Go to your local natural history museum and look in the display cases at all the fossil. Do those fossils look 'theorectical' to you? Are they in some way 'not real'???

You have been the victim of Creationist propaganda. Evolution is not 'theoretical'. It is demonstrably practical. ALL creditable scientists (and most intelligent religous leaders) fully endorse the 'theory' that we evolved.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted November 24, 2008 at 6:58 AM (Answer #5)

dislike 0 like

'Intelligent Design' is not a scientific theory. Evolution does not display any evidence of 'a guiding hand'. Evolution is full of pointless evolutionary changes as well as beneficial ones. In fact nearly all evolutionary changes to DNA are negative and the animal in question quickly dies. There is no 'higher power' steering evolution. Evolution stumbles blindly upon happy accidents.

All the attempts by the Creationists to shoe-horn their 2000 year old bronze age 'Genesis' story into a scientific theory have failed. Intelligent Design is religious propaganda, is it not science.

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted November 24, 2008 at 7:01 AM (Answer #7)

dislike 0 like
user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted November 24, 2008 at 7:16 AM (Answer #8)

dislike 0 like

The problem is Creationists can't allow their explanation to be wrong. You can't convince them of what is true because they refuse to listen. They enter the 'argument' already permanently dedicated to their bible story. So it is not debate. It is just talking at a brick wall.

If this really were an open, scientific debate then the Creationists would very quickly concede. But they can't, so they have to try to explain the unexplainable. Take for example their attempts to use the story of Noah's Ark and The Flood as a scientific explanation for the fossil record. It is so pitiful that only the unscientific could give them credence. And that is the real truth about creationism; it is put forward by the scientifically illiterate. Creationists are not scientists.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted November 24, 2008 at 8:09 AM (Answer #9)

dislike 0 like

Hi Linda. :-) In response to you offering a link to the Discovery Institute....

"In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions" and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

You are spreading propaganda. The Discovery Institue has been repeatedly shown to be intellectually dishonest and has no scientific credibility.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_institute

 

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted November 24, 2008 at 2:28 PM (Answer #10)

dislike 0 like

Hi Linda. :-) In response to you offering a link to the Discovery Institute....

"In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions" and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

You are spreading propaganda. The Discovery Institue has been repeatedly shown to be intellectually dishonest and has no scientific credibility.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_institute

 

And you're not spreading propaganda? Until someone can prove that there is no God, I'll have to stick with my team.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted November 25, 2008 at 1:15 AM (Answer #11)

dislike 0 like

@10

No Linda, having an opinion is very different from propaganda. The Supreme Court, not me, has judged the Discovery Institute and found them repeatedly guilty of 'intellectual dishonesty'. They have systematically attempted to knowingly spread mis-information about various scientific subjects related to evolution. They are propagandists. Basically, they have been proved to be systematic liars.

Me highlighting their propanganda is notsimply 'propaganda from the other side of the fence'. And, considering I am merely quoting the Supreme Court, are you accusing the Supreme Court of spreading propaganda?

The truth is (irrelevant from God or religion) The Discovery Institute are a bunch of liars. They deliberately try to mislead the American people. If this is 'the team' you wish to stick with, you should at least know who they are.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted November 25, 2008 at 2:55 AM (Answer #12)

dislike 0 like

And futher more...

This debate is 150 years old! It is appalling it still isn't settled. The facts are simple. The facts are observable. The facts are repeatedly provable. They are credible.

However, God is incredible, unobservable, unmeasureable. If you want to include God in a scientific experiment you must show repeatable, measurable proof of his influence on that experiment. Until then, respect the gap between theology and science. Respect the fact The Bible is not a valid scientific text.

Creationists 'window dress' Genesis as science when it is clearly not.  Think of this...

The Earth is about 4,500,000,000 old

Creationists insist it is about 4000 years old

Creationtist's scientific estimate is wrong by a factor of ONE MILLION!!! As a comparison, if I asked, "How many cents are in one dollar, Would you say, "There are 100,000,000 cents in a dollar." and THEN demand Wall Street gives your opinion respect!!!

All the measurable facts contradict Genesis. You can't make the facts fit the 'Creation Myth'. Genesis is provably wrong.

If Science proves The Bible contains errors, then Christians fundamentalists must deal with that. Because science has proved the Bible is wrong. It wasn't an 'attack' on Christianity, it was merely a discovery of the truth. Can you handle the truth that the Bible is wrong?

user profile pic

enotechris | College Teacher | (Level 2) Senior Educator

Posted November 25, 2008 at 3:16 AM (Answer #13)

dislike 0 like
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

More at http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted November 25, 2008 at 6:32 AM (Answer #14)

dislike 0 like

And futher more...

This debate is 150 years old! It is appalling it still isn't settled. The facts are simple. The facts are observable. The facts are repeatedly provable. They are credible.

However, God is incredible, unobservable, unmeasureable. If you want to include God in a scientific experiment you must show repeatable, measurable proof of his influence on that experiment. Until then, respect the gap between theology and science. Respect the fact The Bible is not a valid scientific text.

Creationists 'window dress' Genesis as science when it is clearly not.  Think of this...

The Earth is about 4,500,000,000 old

Creationists insist it is about 4000 years old

Creationtist's scientific estimate is wrong by a factor of ONE MILLION!!! As a comparison, if I asked, "How many cents are in one dollar, Would you say, "There are 100,000,000 cents in a dollar." and THEN demand Wall Street gives your opinion respect!!!

All the measurable facts contradict Genesis. You can't make the facts fit the 'Creation Myth'. Genesis is provably wrong.

If Science proves The Bible contains errors, then Christians fundamentalists must deal with that. Because science has proved the Bible is wrong. It wasn't an 'attack' on Christianity, it was merely a discovery of the truth. Can you handle the truth that the Bible is wrong?

So your thoughts are opinion, but mine are propaganda. Hmmm. As I said before, it's very difficult to take you seriously.

user profile pic

amy-lepore | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted November 25, 2008 at 6:58 AM (Answer #15)

dislike 0 like

Frizzyperm,   Gracious!  I respectfully disagree your posts.  If by "creationists" you mean "Christians," how do you explain all the stories of how the world came to be from all over the world--both Christian and non-Christian groups?  There are so many unrelated examples, one can not assert that it is mere coincidence.  They don't all come from "Genesis".  The Eskimos, Native Americans, Central Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans all have similar creation stories.

How also, do you explain the existence of scientists who are also Christians?  I doubt that they would subscribe to your idea of propaganda-spreading.  Indeed, one of the most famous atheists of all-time, C. S. Lewis, saught to disprove a belief in God and Creationism, only to be convinced himself of the opposite opinion.  Read his book, Mere Christianity, for his argument.  Isaac Newton was a Christian.  There are many out there...check out the link below for Harvard scientists. Belief in God does not disregard science, nor vice versa.  I love science--it's fun and amazing.  It only reinforces my belief in God.

In response to your "proof" statement, what do you need? Something you can see, feel, or touch? You can't "see" love, honor, justice, and liberty, either.  However, I would bet that you don't argue they exist.  Faith is something you feel.  Either you have it or you don't.  Do you put your faith in science? Something else?  It is the same with love, jealousy, grief, happiness.  You can't see them.  You just know they are there or they are not.

As far as a higher power in our midst, the evidence is all around us.  I often wonder at those who can exist in the midst of the beauty of nature and deny the hand of a higher power.  It's too perfect to have just happened.  There is no luck or "happy accidents".  The math is too exact.  Every leaf, blade of grass, every single element of the ecosystems that we study and are in awe of work too well. Take the human body, for instance.  What an amazing creation!  How can you possibly disbelieve in the creator? 

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6562/

http://www.hereamisendme.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=1

http://www.grisda.org/origins/01052.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/faithnaturalism.htm

http://anchorstone.com/  This site will give you "proof" of biblical archeology in a scientific medium.

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted November 25, 2008 at 7:23 AM (Answer #16)

dislike 0 like
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

More at http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Just the right note of comic relief for a conversation that was getting too heated. Thanks!!

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted November 25, 2008 at 8:00 AM (Answer #17)

dislike 0 like

@Amy. I don't understand your first point. Before science, all tribes invented colorful creation stories to explain 'life, the universe and everything'. Those stories are interesting, but totally unfactual.

I didn't say science disproved Christianity. I said it disproved the infallibility of the Bible. This is only a problem for Fundamentalists. God may still be there, but the Bible is not his 'uncontestable word', that's all I said.  

Your opening line is, "If by "creationists" you mean "Christians..." I don't. By "creationists" I mean "creationists"

You said, "You can't "see" love, honor, justice, and liberty, either.  However, I would bet that you don't argue they exist." This thread is about the scientific value of creationism. Scientifically speaking love honor justice and liberty have not been proved to 'exist' in any meaningful scientific sense. They're in the same category as 'God', an abstract idea. Such things have no relevance to science. I would argue they don't exist.

Your final paragraph is not logic, it is romance. You said, "every single element of the ecosystems we study... work too well." Does that include lung cancer? Or parasites laying eggs in the eye of a new-born gazelle? Or drought etc. The universe is truly beautiful, but it's not 'good' and there is absolutely no reason to conclude a creator. That is just wishful thinking.

Sorry Amy.

user profile pic

amy-lepore | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted November 25, 2008 at 8:25 AM (Answer #18)

dislike 0 like

Don't be sorry for me.  I am perfectly grounded and enlightened. And, yes, cancer works wonderfully.  The rapidity with which cancer cells grow and devour healthy ones is fascinating while at the same time disturbing.  I should know--our family has been personally touched by cancer.  Perhaps yours has, too.  If so, I offer my condolences.   The workings of the world in which we live don't have to be a positive to work well.  Remember Darwin's Survival of the Fittest?  The weak are extinguished to make room for the strong to thrive.  However, don't let those words fool you.  What you might deem "weak" may not be at all.  Your new-born gazelle may survive or it may not.  Drought might occur, or it might not.  Things are not always "good" by our definition, but they teach us to appreciate what we have and not long for what we don't.  It is not wishful thinking.  It is reality.  We humans are full of avarice and hubris.  This is and will always be our downfall.  The creator sends us lessons from which to learn--take Katrina, for instance.  That hurricane killed many and displaced millions of people.  The monetary loss from that storm is staggering.  Through the hardship, we evolve and learn about humanity--both positive and negative things in our nature--as well as about levys and building codes, emergency response systems, and what to do differently next time.  The universe is balanced with good and bad, but it is not hinged upon one or the other. 

The same is true for attitude.  We may not be able to control what happens to us, but we can control our responses to it.  If you lose someone you love from cancer or some other terminal illness, you can choose to be bitter and angry until that kills you, or you can choose to find some silver lining in the message. That is part of what having a highly-developed brain allows us to do--make rational choices rather than act on instinct.  I choose to be happy even in the midst of illness, natural disasters, and the present weakened state of the worldwide economy.  That is what faith in a creator gives to me.  I will pray He gives you what you need as well.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted November 25, 2008 at 8:31 AM (Answer #20)

dislike 0 like

You think the 'good' architect of the world sends lethal melanomas to test man's ability to discover positive meaning in these oncological 'messages'? Despite the fact that God is supposedly the omnipotent creator of humans and the universe, and therefore already knows the answer to his own test?

He sends huge destructive hurricanes that cause untold hardship and misery to teach us about ourselves. Why didn't he just send a study guide?

'Cancer works wonderfully' - Oh, right. Hallelujah! How negative of me to think it was a bad thing. Thank God for cancer.

 

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted November 25, 2008 at 8:32 AM (Answer #19)

dislike 0 like

Don't be sorry for me.  I am perfectly grounded and enlightened. And, yes, cancer works wonderfully.  The rapidity with which cancer cells grow and devour healthy ones is fascinating while at the same time disturbing.  I should know--our family has been personally touched by cancer.  Perhaps yours has, too.  If so, I offer my condolences.   The workings of the world in which we live don't have to be a positive to work well.  Remember Darwin's Survival of the Fittest?  The weak are extinguished to make room for the strong to thrive.  However, don't let those words fool you.  What you might deem "weak" may not be at all.  Your new-born gazelle may survive or it may not.  Drought might occur, or it might not.  Things are not always "good" by our definition, but they teach us to appreciate what we have and not long for what we don't.  It is not wishful thinking.  It is reality.  We humans are full of avarice and hubris.  This is and will always be our downfall.  The creator sends us lessons from which to learn--take Katrina, for instance.  That hurricane killed many and displaced millions of people.  The monetary loss from that storm is staggering.  Through the hardship, we evolve and learn about humanity--both positive and negative things in our nature--as well as about levys and building codes, emergency response systems, and what to do differently next time.  The universe is balanced with good and bad, but it is not hinged upon one or the other. 

The same is true for attitude.  We may not be able to control what happens to us, but we can control our responses to it.  If you lose someone you love from cancer or some other terminal illness, you can choose to be bitter and angry until that kills you, or you can choose to find some silver lining in the message. That is part of what having a highly-developed brain allows us to do--make rational choices rather than act on instinct.  I choose to be happy even in the midst of illness, natural disasters, and the present weakened state of the worldwide economy.  That is what faith in a creator gives to me.  I will pray He gives you what you need as well.

Well said, Amy.

user profile pic

amy-lepore | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted November 25, 2008 at 8:53 AM (Answer #21)

dislike 0 like

There is a simple explanation.  God has to send powerful lessons through powerful and yes, sometimes destructive means, because we humans don't pay attention to the study guide.  We completely and utterly disregard the "easy" way because we think we know better.  Re-read your Adam and Eve.

I thank God for everything.  How many families have learned to appreciate one another more and not take each other for granted because of a cancer survivor...or perhaps a void in their lives by a cancer victim?  It take so little effort to be more postive and share a smile and love than it does to spread dissention and bitterness.  Scientifically, it takes fewer muscles to smile than frown. 

Three years ago my mother lost her job.  We all thought it was a horrible thing that she went an entire year without income or insurance.  However, when I spoke with her, her take was that she got to spend every minute of every day with my dad that year instead of leaving him daily to go to work and other menial tasks.  They did everything together.  That was the last year my father had on this earth.  Instead of looking at that year as one of hardship, she saw it as a gift.  A blessing of time and memories created that otherwise wouldn't have been. 

I thank God for our conversation...through this thread, many more people than we have been touched.  More will be led to God and His love, patience, and grace, or at least be intrigued enough to go in search of what's right for them. 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted November 25, 2008 at 9:10 AM (Answer #22)

dislike 0 like

Thank me for this conversation, there is no God. His 'evidence' is nowhere to be seen. It is not 'all around us'. He doesn't know our name, listen to prayers or care if we live or die. There is no God, there is only the desparate, delusional desire for one. There is not one tiny piece of evidence of God.

Every society invents a 'God' character (including, according to some controversial current research, chimpanzees) It is a natural insecure reaction to the dangerous chaos of the universe to attempt to layer it with order and meaning. There is none. We are alone.

The universe is neither perfect nor good so it is a complete logical fallacy to posit a good and perfect creator.

user profile pic

amy-lepore | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted November 25, 2008 at 9:16 AM (Answer #23)

dislike 0 like

I do thank you for this conversation.  I thank you for allowing others to see your anger and how lost you are.  Come into the light, Frizzyperm.  Did you check out www.anchorstone.com?  You will find your proof there.  There is a God.  He does care for us.  Even you, who deny Him.  Don't wait too late...join others like C.S. Lewis before you. 

user profile pic

mwestwood | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted November 25, 2008 at 9:34 AM (Answer #24)

dislike 0 like

Was not Darwin--who only published his theory of evolution when he learned that someone else who came up with it after he did was going to--a very religious man?  Remember that he planned to become a minister before he sailed to the Galapagos Islands.

Why, then, do people insist upon reading atheism into evolution?  I understand the Fundamentalists's point of view/Creationsim will not work, but what about other Christians's views?

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted November 25, 2008 at 9:37 AM (Answer #25)

dislike 0 like

"God has to send powerful lessons through powerful and yes, sometimes destructive means, because we humans don't pay attention to the study guide.  We completely and utterly disregard the "easy" way because we think we know better."

Oh... so it's man's fault God kills man with hurricanes.

He made us. He is perfect. We behave according to the behaviour which he perfectly designed. Then he gets angry at the behaviour of his own design and send death and destruction.

Because we behave in a human way, he kills us to teach us a lesson?! And you think this is good and you thank him???

I cannot even begin to describe how angry your weak logic makes me.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted November 25, 2008 at 9:39 AM (Answer #26)

dislike 0 like

"I thank you for allowing others to see your anger and how lost you are. Come into the light, Frizzyperm."

Come into the brain removal center more like. Yes! I'm lost. It is human nature to be scared and worried and uncertain. The world is a dangerous cold place full of terrible things. You're lost too. But you've taken on a 100% delusion in order to feel safe, loved and 'special'. You're still lost. And more so than me. 

I refuse to hypnotise myself with a load of mumbo-jumbo just so I can slap a half-dazed smile on my face. I'm emotionally mature enough to recognise my own desire to foist responsibilities onto a Eternal Celestial Mommy. AND YET I DON'T.

Hurricanes and cancer are not good. It is you who should 'come into the light' because you are clearly having problems seeing what is obvious.

user profile pic

alexb2 | eNotes Employee

Posted November 25, 2008 at 10:21 AM (Answer #28)

dislike 0 like

Let's just make sure to keep all conversations civil on eNotes. People have different opinions but most of all we're here to learn and to teach. Our conversations are read by students and let's keep them informative. Thanks guys.

user profile pic

parkerlee | Teacher | (Level 2) Educator

Posted November 25, 2008 at 10:34 AM (Answer #29)

dislike 0 like

"I thank you for allowing others to see your anger and how lost you are. Come into the light, Frizzyperm."

Come into the brain removal center more like. Yes! I'm lost. It is human nature to be scared and worried and uncertain. The world is a dangerous cold place full of terrible things. You're lost too. But you've taken on a 100% delusion in order to feel safe, loved and 'special'. You're still lost. And more so than me. 

I refuse to hypnotise myself with a load of mumbo-jumbo just so I can slap a half-dazed smile on my face. I'm emotionally mature enough to recognise my own desire to foist responsibilities onto a Eternal Celestial Mommy. AND YET I DON'T.

Hurricanes and cancer are not good. It is you who should 'come into the light' because you are clearly having problems seeing what is obvious.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. If you don't believe in it, why does it make you so angry? Amy wrote to you in a calm, reasonable manner. Why do you have to attack her?

I too thank God that "I am fearfully and wonderfully made." Christ's "entry" (no, not a Starman!) to the Planet and his historical existence, isn't that a good example of God's intervention into the affairs of man?

But I see your reasoning  process "(no.26)and  that you lack and want empirical evidence. Why not read Evidence Demands a Verdict written by another non-compromising truth-seeker out for proof He is really there?

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted November 25, 2008 at 10:40 AM (Answer #27)

dislike 0 like

"I thank you for allowing others to see your anger and how lost you are. Come into the light, Frizzyperm."

Come into the brain removal center more like. Yes! I'm lost. It is human nature to be scared and worried and uncertain. The world is a dangerous cold place full of terrible things. You're lost too. But you've taken on a 100% delusion in order to feel safe, loved and 'special'. You're still lost. And more so than me. 

I refuse to hypnotise myself with a load of mumbo-jumbo just so I can slap a half-dazed smile on my face. I'm emotionally mature enough to recognise my own desire to foist responsibilities onto a Eternal Celestial Mommy. AND YET I DON'T.

Hurricanes and cancer are not good. It is you who should 'come into the light' because you are clearly having problems seeing what is obvious.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. If you don't believe in it, why does it make you so angry? Amy wrote to you in a calm, reasonable manner. Why do you have to attack her?

user profile pic

parkerlee | Teacher | (Level 2) Educator

Posted November 25, 2008 at 10:48 AM (Answer #30)

dislike 0 like

 The author of the above-mentioned book is Josh McDowell.

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted November 25, 2008 at 11:28 AM (Answer #31)

dislike 0 like

Was not Darwin--who only published his theory of evolution when he learned that someone else who came up with it after he did was going to--a very religious man?  Remember that he planned to become a minister before he sailed to the Galapagos Islands.

Why, then, do people insist upon reading atheism into evolution?  I understand the Fundamentalists's point of view/Creationsim will not work, but what about other Christians's views?

Exactly! That is what Intelligent Design is all about.

user profile pic

enotechris | College Teacher | (Level 2) Senior Educator

Posted November 25, 2008 at 11:48 AM (Answer #32)

dislike 0 like

 In reply to #16 replying to #13:

 You're Welcome! 

 lotsa good it did........:|  As they say in debate school, let's agree to disagree and not be disagreeable.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted November 26, 2008 at 2:22 AM (Answer #33)

dislike 0 like

If my tone appears angry it's because I find being told to 'come in to the light'  utterly disagreeable. It implies I live in the dark. It is perfectly clear that because I am not a Christian, a Christian on this thread has judged me as failing or somehow in need.

I also feel that being told fatal hurricanes are a good God's lesson to a wayward humanity is sick and genuine evidence of brain-washing.

Christianity, like all religions, insists on being respected and tolerated. Religious people demand their beliefs are not molested, but they seem perfectly happy to trample all over someone else's beliefs. My Atheism was a personal struggle involving a great deal of 'soul' searching and contemplation. But Christians think it has no value and feel at liberty to demean it and change it. Fine. But don't expect your beliefs to be 'untouchable', if our beliefs aren't.

I don't believe in your stone-age God. Nor do I particularly respect your belief in it. In a few centuries time, when religion is thankfully behind us, psychologists will diagnose religious belief as a mental imbalance and treat it accordingly. Yes, I truly believe that. And I believe going to church every Sunday to praise your localised, humourless diety, while we drift through the utter vastness of a near-infinite universe is perverse.

Pray for me. It'll make you feel better about yourself.

user profile pic

alohaspirit | Middle School Teacher | (Level 2) Assistant Educator

Posted November 26, 2008 at 5:13 PM (Answer #34)

dislike 0 like

I think that schools should be able to teach different theories and let the students make up their own mind, but when there is solid evidence of one of theories, that should be taught.  I am sorry, evidence will always rule over belief.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted November 27, 2008 at 3:08 AM (Answer #35)

dislike 0 like

@34

There is already solid evidence. Evolution is perfectly provable. Creationists say, 'teach the controversy' but this is a smokescreen. There is no controversy. Go to any science department in any non-religious university in the world and you will find all the scientists for the last 100 years have studied evolution, not creation. No genuine scientist is interested in studying 'Creation' scientifically. And the more they study evolution, the more refined their knowledge becomes and the more it works as a tool for studying the historic record. It is a working breathing living theory of the development of life. It is a provable scientific theory. 'Creation' is not a scientific theory. 'Creation' is easily disprovable. Creation wouldn't last five minutes of genuinely rigorous scientific enquiry. There is no need or justification to mention it in a science lesson. There is no controversy. Evolution exists. Creationism doesn't. There is no controversy.

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted November 27, 2008 at 9:49 AM (Answer #36)

dislike 0 like

No, evolution is still speculation. There is no solid evidence that one creature turned into another creature.

Again, given your cynicism about your own biography, how can anyone take you seriously?

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted November 28, 2008 at 1:58 AM (Answer #37)

dislike 0 like

@36 My my my... you really don't like jokes, do you Linda? And repeatedly saying, "I can't take the naughty man seriously cos he made a funny on his bio" is rather tiresome. Just for the record Linda, I'm not really a baboon, honest. (I share 98% genetic similarity with a baboon though)

Evolution is not speculation. Your 'Discovery Institute' may say it is, but they are fooling you. Along with stuff about boats on mountains and middle eastern archaeology. The psuedo-scientific sources you quote are shunned by the scientific community as charlatans whose aim is to prove the Bible is correct. Unfortunately for these websites, they can't do that, it's impossible, so they distort the scientific facts (up to and including changing the speed of light, the most fundamental constant of universal physics, they just give it a quick tinker and Hey Presto! You can prove the earth is 4000 years old.) This IMMEDIATELY excludes them from serious scientific discussion. If you took the time to read some independent publications, you would quickly find out you are being misled. There is solid evidence for evolution. There is (literally) mountains of it. I swear to you, you have been tricked by people who know you are not very good at science and take advantage of that.

(Just for fun Linda... which came first, the chicken or the egg? and, yes, there is an answer, evolution has even answered this parlour-game paradox.)

user profile pic

marlon07 | Student, College Freshman | (Level 1) Honors

Posted November 30, 2008 at 5:30 PM (Answer #39)

dislike 0 like

no matter what the point of view of anyone is i just want to thank you all for answering my question.......

                                                            - Marlon07

user profile pic

plfoster | High School Teacher | eNotes Newbie

Posted November 30, 2008 at 5:41 PM (Answer #38)

dislike 0 like

I believe both hold valid evidence, but neither can be proven. Unfortunately none of us was there at the beginning of the universe. I believe that both should be explored because there is validity to both sides. I believe in acknowledging one and ignoring the other you only look at half the picture. I believe personally that there are holes in both views because a theory obviously by definition cannot be proven. Creationism or intelligent design is not strictly a religious viewpoint, I know many secular scholars that acknowledge the validity of intelligent design, in turn I also know religious professionals who acknowledge that the evolutionary theory has some valid points as well. There are two parts to the evolutionary-macro and micro evolution. Macro being the species to species evolution and micro being defined as adaptation. I personally hold to a viewpoint that meshes the evolutionary theories with creationism. There are also many facets to the creationism theories....day/age, old earth, new earth, etc. As I deepen my understandings in studying the origins of the universe I lean toward a combination of micro evolution and day/age creationism. Before you make an opinion of which is better, or if you feel one should be taught in schools or not, research and dig in to find out what they are truly about. There is a lot more than the superficial textbook teachings of the public school system. 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted December 1, 2008 at 2:58 AM (Answer #40)

dislike 0 like

@38

Sorry, you're wrong. You say

"I personally hold to a viewpoint that meshes the evolutionary theories with creationism. There are also many facets to the creationism theories....day/age, old earth, new earth, etc."

I have no idea how you 'mesh' evolution with creationism, but either way it ain't science. It is scary how many teachers on this site (from a country that is supposed to be the most advanced in the world) are unable to separate logically concluded facts based on observed evidence, from pseudo-science that is substantially flawed.

Creationism is NOT a science. They have never submitted their work for peer review and 'creation scientists' refuse to discuss their theories in public with genuine scientists. Creationists must allow free discussion of their work if they wish to be respected. But they know their work is just window dressing so they do not interact with other scientists and shout 'it's a miracle' whenever their theory hits a snag.

The Supreme Court has sat on this issue and concluded that creationism and intelligent design do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. It is NOT science. They concluded that as science, creation and ID were 'deliberately misleading' and 'intellectually dishonest'. They belong in church where the constitution can defend them. This is the finding of the highest court in the land.

Creationism and Intelligent Design have no scientific merit. That is the simple and easily provable truth.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted December 1, 2008 at 5:02 AM (Answer #41)

dislike 0 like

The starting temperature (T) and starting rotational speed (S) of the earth are known.

The current temperature (T1) and current rotational speed (S1) of the earth are also known.

If the earth is 4,000 years old, then it must cool from T to T1 and slow from S to S1 in 4,000 years. This rapid braking and heat-dissipation is so violent that the earth would vaporize. This is provable with thermo-dynamics equations. It's basic physics.

To fix this 'problem', the head-quarters for creationist research (The Discovery Institute) proposed that the speed of light has changed. Any physicist knows you can't change the speed of light without upsetting every other area of science. The speed of light is a fixed constant used in many vital equations. Change light-speed and you collapse 100s of other scientific assumptions. But the Discovery Institute claims that c (the famous 'c' from E = mc2) has changed. However, they don't let normal scientists question them about it. Why? Because they know it's an outrageous, unsupportable claim. And they FAKED the evidence for it. These Christian scientists knowingly lied about an obscure Russian experiment and CHANGED THE DATA to give the desired result.

The Supreme Court described the Discovery Institute as 'intellectually dishonest'. In other words... a bunch of charlatans.

Intelligent Design is spear-headed by The Discovery Institute.

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted December 1, 2008 at 7:30 AM (Answer #42)

dislike 0 like

@36 My my my... you really don't like jokes, do you Linda? And repeatedly saying, "I can't take the naughty man seriously cos he made a funny on his bio" is rather tiresome. Just for the record Linda, I'm not really a baboon, honest. (I share 98% genetic similarity with a baboon though)

Evolution is not speculation. Your 'Discovery Institute' may say it is, but they are fooling you. Along with stuff about boats on mountains and middle eastern archaeology. The psuedo-scientific sources you quote are shunned by the scientific community as charlatans whose aim is to prove the Bible is correct. Unfortunately for these websites, they can't do that, it's impossible, so they distort the scientific facts (up to and including changing the speed of light, the most fundamental constant of universal physics, they just give it a quick tinker and Hey Presto! You can prove the earth is 4000 years old.) This IMMEDIATELY excludes them from serious scientific discussion. If you took the time to read some independent publications, you would quickly find out you are being misled. There is solid evidence for evolution. There is (literally) mountains of it. I swear to you, you have been tricked by people who know you are not very good at science and take advantage of that.

(Just for fun Linda... which came first, the chicken or the egg? and, yes, there is an answer, evolution has even answered this parlour-game paradox.)

I'm tired of jousting with you. Sure, I like jokes as much as anybody else. What I don't like is a pseudointellectual who can't stand the fact that lots of people disagree with him.

As for the chicken and the egg, why don't you tell me? You seem to think you know everything.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted December 1, 2008 at 7:44 AM (Answer #43)

dislike 0 like

@42... You're right, I don't like it that lots of people disagree with me, cos it confirms that most people are poorly educated and incapable or telling science facts from stone age fantasy. I find this extremely worrying. Thankfully however, all the intelligent and genuinely educated people agree with me that religion has no place in science and must be very firmly opposed.

As for 'jousting', well, you avoided every single point that I made, so, while I waited with my visor down and my lance held steady, you singularly failed to take to the saddle. The lists remained quiet, the ground untrod, and the relative merits of your arguments remained sheathed.

Oh... except for your crushing riposte that my joking bio meant I'd lost before I started. That really threatened to unhorse me Linda. (That was English sarcasm, in case you missed it)

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted December 1, 2008 at 7:55 AM (Answer #44)

dislike 0 like

Re The Chicken and Egg... This at first seems a baffling cyclical philosophical paradox, especially to the prescientific mind, because you need a chicken to make an egg and an egg to make a chicken etc etc etc

But in a nutshell... The hard-shelled egg did not evolve with birds. It evolved much much earlier with reptiles. It was an extremely successful solution to the problem of birthing on dry-land (for a life-line that ultimately strated in water) so the egg continued unchanged through the various evolutionary changes of reptiles until the birds evoled from them.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

The egg, by approx 150,000,000 years. In ultra-simplistic terms... a lizard laid an egg and a chicken came out of it.

user profile pic

engtchr5 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted December 1, 2008 at 8:36 AM (Answer #45)

dislike 0 like

So, here's a question included with my answer: Is it scientifically possible to believe in adaptation without believing in academically-described evolution? In other words, can one (as I do) believe that we as mortal beings alter to suit our surroundings while still believing that the idea of evolution is horribly misguided?

Here's my reasoning: In my lifetime, I have seen physical evidence of human adaptation just observing living, breathing, humans. I do not need a book or "expert" to interpret my own personal observations. However, I have no reason to believe that a biogenetic puddle suddenly sprang minute cellular structures into evental life, as evolution would have us believe. Such an assertion begs the question -- where did the "puddle" come from in the first place? Who or what made it? I have seen no concrete evidence for the verification of biogenesis, but I have seen miraculous, scientifically inexplicable works in nature itself. Such first-hand knowledge tends to make me favor creationism over evolutionism as it stands today.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted December 1, 2008 at 9:04 AM (Answer #46)

dislike 0 like

" I have seen miraculous, scientifically inexplicable works in nature itself."

whatever you experienced was inside the laws of science, however 'miraculous' it seemed, it was explicable scientifically, eventually. The laws of science don't just stand aside so the very unreliable human mind can glimpse 'the beyond'. (Not unless you've got a large hadron collider!) What is much more common is the human mind's ability to delude itself. A religiously ecstastic experience can be recreated in a lab by stimulating certain areas of a subject's brain with electricity or certain chemicals. The subject 'sees God' at the flick of a switch.

'very early life forms' are simply chemicals that have the ability to make a separate copy of themselves from the chemicals they find around them. They do not display 'life'. A DNA molecule is not, out of context, a living thing. And early life most definitely did not 'suddenly spring minute cellular structures'. You have not given this enough thought or imagination. The process was gradual and very very slow.

You say you're inclined to believe Creationism, that is your perogative, but all open-minded, highly-educated people who have looked into this subject are forced to conclude that the theory of evolution provides an extremely convincing argument for the origin of life on this planet. And after more than a century of rigourous testing, it grows more undeniable with every passing year.

user profile pic

engtchr5 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted December 1, 2008 at 10:55 AM (Answer #47)

dislike 0 like

In reponse to #46: So, which is more believable, in the grand scheme of things: A.) Pre-existing chemicals with no known source randomly began copying themselves and produced all creation as we know it, or B.) A grand omnipotent being created the heavens and the earth, period?

Even the most logical of minds cannot argue against the fact that all things must have a point of origin, and in the case of evolution, we have no real source to speak of. We are simply asked to assume that chemicals were already in place by some unknown happenstance.  

 "You have not given this enough thought or imagination."

Um, we are still talking about science, right? Here's an oxymoron for you: "Imaginative science." That might make a great slogan for some company out there, but in all truth, the two concepts are polar opposites of one another. Imagination and creativity are part and parcel of each other, but science prides itself in dealing with what is concrete and absolutely black-and-white factual.  

And yet, we still have this "theory" hanging out there, wagging its hypothetical nature in our faces. Granted, both creationism and evolution are theories, but by allowing ourselves the humanity to imagine, we are no longer engaging in science, but creative speculation (in both evolutionary and creationist cases).

"...but all open-minded, highly-educated people who have looked into this subject are forced to conclude...."

Subtle condescension makes poor and petty arguments. Please limit your responses to valid addresses of the topic at hand. Personal attacks serve only to discredit your stance. 

user profile pic

dtv | Student | (Level 1) Honors

Posted December 1, 2008 at 1:13 PM (Answer #48)

dislike 0 like

Evolution does not attempt to explain how life emerged.  It only attempts to explain how life changed from the first early single-celled organisms to modern humans.  

But there are very few flaws with evolution, while ID/creationsim is highly flawed.  Until creationists come out with solid evidence, I will stick by my beliefs.  

-DTV

Please visit my blog at www.dtvons.blogspot.com.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted December 1, 2008 at 1:56 PM (Answer #49)

dislike 0 like

@47  It wasn't a personal attack. Niether you or I are 'great thinkers'. There are those recongnised by society as 'geniuses'. These people favour evolution. (Equally, no non-christian scientist uses the bible to look for the origins of life, they could if they wanted, but they don't. Why... because it doesn't work as a science book.) I apologise if you thought I was implying you are not intelligent. I wasn't.

But... Science is all about imagination. To visualise science we must imagine how the world works. It takes great imagination coupled with scientific rigour. We must visualise the abstract, turn thought experiments in our mind, look for weaknesses in arguments and answers to problems. The unimaginative scientists is merely a laboratory technician. Didn't Einstein say, "I knew it was right, because it was beautiful"

You asked, "Which is more believable, A) Pre-existing chemicals with no known source randomly began copying themselves and produced all creation as we know it, or B) A grand omnipotent being created the heavens and the earth, period?"

The answer is "A". We may not have all the pieces of the jigsaw, but we've got a lot and we'll find more. We can recreate a lot of this early bio-chemistry in the lab. It is becoming more evident. "A" has possibilities. "B" is a short dead-end street. God, by definition, lies outside of scientific usefulness. As a scientist, "B" is of no use to me.

user profile pic

engtchr5 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted December 3, 2008 at 7:50 AM (Answer #50)

dislike 0 like

For the sake of discussion, let's completely take the idea of God out of creationism. At first, it may seem impossible, but really, now, what if all creation was initiated, not by a grand omnipotent being, but instead, let's stretch our minds and say that aliens are responsible. Creatures from other galaxies visited the Milky Way eons ago, and initiated life as we know it. Even then, there remains a source of creation. There has to be a first domino in order for a domino effect to take place; moreover, there has to be a "push" in order to initiate that effect. In evolution, we seem to have a first domino (in the form of the aforementioned chemicals), but no real way of knowing who set up and "pushed" it. Pardon the extended analogy.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted December 3, 2008 at 9:33 AM (Answer #51)

dislike 0 like

@50 why does a chemical need 'a push' from an outside higher source??? A long-chain protein exists that has the ability to attract and attach atoms to itself like doing up a zip. One side of the zip is the original molecule, which bonds the other side to itself from identical chemicals in its environment. It's chemical make up is such that once the zip is 'done up' the two sides separate. In this way the protein has an ability to create exact copies of itself (copies which, of course, can also copy themselves). This is the starting point for a lot of very boring very complicated chemical developments that ultimately becasme the biulding blocks of life.

Why does there have to be 'something to push the first domino over'??? In the context of early organic chemistry, I'm not sure what you mean. It's just organic chemistry. You don't need Dr Frankenstein to 'fire it into life'. It's just long-chain molecules interacting. In fact, early life wasn't 'alive'.

(There are life-forms around today that are on the border of living and inanimate. Some viruses are barely complicated enough to be considered 'life'.)

user profile pic

dtv | Student | (Level 1) Honors

Posted December 3, 2008 at 1:52 PM (Answer #52)

dislike 0 like

Even if there was a "push", then it could have come from any number of sources.  A coincidental asteroid impact, a lightning bolt, cosmic dust hitting the exact right spot, etc.  As I have stated, evolution does not attempt to explain how life started-only how it attained its present condition.  

-DTV

Please visit my blog at www.dtvons.blogspot.com.  

user profile pic

cburr | Middle School Teacher | (Level 2) Associate Educator

Posted December 5, 2008 at 4:55 PM (Answer #53)

dislike 0 like

It's sad that this topic always leads to such divisive commentary. 

For those who have a literal belief in the biblical story of creation, it's really pretty irrelevant what theories scientists come up with.  Religious devotion is, by definition, a matter of faith and therefore has little to do with proof.  The whole point of faith is that it doesn't require proof.

For those of a more secular bent, scientific theories hold more sway.  Therefore, the substantial mass of scientific evidence in favor of the theory of evolution is likely to be compelling.

Neither of these positions is wrong -- they just need to be understood for what they are.  

When it comes to what is taught in schools, my own feeling is that schools must present the theory of evolution in the context of science.  Families whose faith supports the creationist approach shouldn't actually be concerned about this -- rather, they should explain to their children that their belief is a matter of faith.

Of course, there are those who try to find a middle ground.  This is fine for those who are trying to resolve their own confusion, but it doesn't change the fact that faith and science are fundamentally different. 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted December 8, 2008 at 5:52 AM (Answer #54)

dislike 0 like

@ 53. I concur with all you say. For me, when religious people try to include their religious faith 'answer' into scientific subjects then Science has every right to defend itself by analysing the scientific flaws in that answer.

I find the recent American expansion of Christians' areas of involvement as very very threatening to American freedom. The Constitution protects us 'from' religion every bit as much as offering protection 'to' religion.

And, ultimately, this thread was grouped under 'Science'. If it had been grouped under 'Religion', I would not have been so critical.

user profile pic

rlendensky | Student, College Freshman | (Level 2) Adjunct Educator

Posted December 8, 2008 at 3:26 PM (Answer #55)

dislike 0 like

As much as I would love to believe that a higher power created the earth, I can't possibly agree with something so horribly unproven. Though neither is concretely proven or disproven, many events previously regarded as divinely created (such as the creation of the earth) have been conteracted by a more than possible scientific explanation. Though evolution has been highly contested by religious officials, I have to believe that it holds true, until the "Creator" is proven I feel that there is a scientific explanation for everything.

user profile pic

Wiggin42 | Student, Grade 11 | (Level 2) Valedictorian

Posted July 10, 2014 at 1:05 AM (Answer #56)

dislike 0 like

There is nothing to debate. Creationism has its base in faith and religion. Faith and religion require belief without physical proof. Intrinsically, there is is nothing to debate with. Creationism does not need human observations. It only requires faith.

Evolution is based on human observation and inquiry. Various methods of evolution and smaller details within evolution can be debated. (ie: When did the first seafaring mammal evolve?)

I personally believe the two do not need to be entwined. I am a person of faith. I believe in Creationism BUT understand and hold Evolution to the epitome of human understanding. I believe humans cannot understand Creationism; we can only believe. We can study the natural sciences to come with a human understanding of the world around us; that is Evolution. We must understand the limits of both.

For example, when I form opinions about climate change policy, I rely on science. When I form opinions on morality and my own personal ethics, I rely on faith.

Join to answer this question

Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.

Join eNotes