The Creation vs Evolution debate thread...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Well said!! It all comes down to what one believes in.

List me under the evolution column. And I see no reason why God could not have created the world and that's the process he employed. That's what I believe.

A scientific theory - different to popular assumption - does not claim to hold the ultimate truth (maybe some irresponsble scientists do that, but the serious ones do not object to that a scientific theory is no absolute, but a relative, a tempoarry, always chnaging thing), but claims to be the best explanation for obervations made that we so far can come up with. It gets checked constantly and gets verified or abandoned or changed. In this meaning, there is no believing in scientific theories. they are no beliefes, but logical conclusions on the basis of documented observations. They differ where the data basis on observations differ. Just claims being made - are no valid observations.

religious claims are not object of examination, they never have been, they do not want to be, and they even cannot be. They are just this: claims. And just claiming you can whatever you want. You either believe these claims, or you don't.

Scientific theories describe a relative perspective of temporary validity.
Religious claims pretend to be absolute.

Science is a constant process.
Religion is a frozen (pretended) end-status.

Science asks questions.
Religion claims to know all answers without ever needing to ask questions. It even declares asking questions a sin and heresy. You should not want to know, you should just beolieve - the dogma of the religion, that is.

Just believing you can whatever you want, nobody must care as long as you keep it private. In religion, if you blindly believe the right things you are virtuous. In science, you have to work for evidence. If you do not, you are not serious.

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Scientific theories describe a relative perspective of temporary validity.
Religious claims pretend to be absolute.

Science is a constant process.
Religion is a frozen (pretended) end-status.

Science asks questions.
Religion claims to know all answers without ever needing to ask questions. It even declares asking questions a sin and heresy. You should not want to know, you should just beolieve - the dogma of the religion, that is.

Just believing you can whatever you want, nobody must care as long as you keep it private. In religion, if you blindly believe the right things you are virtuous. In science, you have to work for evidence. If you do not, you are not serious.

Sounds very much like a religious dogma to me. You put your faith into science and count or rather hope they are correct. Other put their faith in a book, in a scroll or verbal transmitted legends, or history. Button line is, it makes no difference. It is all about faith or believe in one system or construct or another.

Oh, and just for the record: You might want to fact check your first sentence. It is the popular believe that it is in constant motion and non rigid. Unfortunately that is not always true. Especially heavy contested theories can be extremely rigid and outright hostile towards opponents, see Global Warming debate, or rather non debate for examples. The theory of creationism is another example of outright hostility and close mindedness, the same attributes that are slapped on religious believers, by the way.
Nice hypocrisy you got there..

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Thomen

Sounds very much like a religious dogma to me. You put your faith into science and count or rather hope they are correct. Other put their faith in a book, in a scroll or verbal transmitted legends, or history. Button line is, it makes no difference. It is all about faith or believe in one system or construct or another.

no that is not true - you just claim this to minimise the value of the scientific method. The way UI describe it is not just taken out of the blue or by refrering to some fictional writing, but is basing on conclusions based on observation, it is based on my knowledge about science' own descritpion of it'S methodlogy and it'S inherent criterias. I do not need to just believe these things.

When I stand on a mass that revolves around itself, and I let fall an apple in my hand, then I even must not see it faling to the ground, but I know it falls to the ground. Believing has nothing to do with it. I know there is an (uncomplete) theory of that gravitation, that bases on earlier observations and calculations, and that the strength of gravitation has something to do with how fast the apple falls. I can possibly even calculate the speed in advance, and where the apple will hit the ground.

Oh, and just for the record: You might want to fact check your first sentence. It is the popular believe that it is in constant motion and non rigid. Unfortunately that is not always true. Especially heavy contested theories can be extremely rigid and outright hostile towards opponents, see Global Warming debate, or rather non debate for examples. The theory of creationism is another example of outright hostility and close mindedness, the same attributes that are slapped on religious believers, by the way.
Nice hypocrisy you got there..

that is bollocks, and you better should check your own understanding of facts first. Your error is that you do not differ between science and methodology, and paradigm. Paradigms are long-lasting influential "meta-theories", so to speak, that serve as a praemisse for all subordinate scientific work being done, they also can influence the way an object of interest is being approached in method and observation design. But even paradigms do change over time. And never are their valdity that total that some rebels do not work in violation of them, sometimes proving them wrong, while often a poaradigm slowls fades out due to contradictions in the results it produces in observation and prediction. The relativisation of the Newton physics and Cartesian way to see and interprete the world may serve as examples.

That you think you must especially name Global Warming Scepticism and Creationism as examples defending your point, tells me something about how close-minded you are yourself. Becasue these express what you want to see taken as serious, but you do not check whether or not the claims of these do qualify for being seen as scientific argument. In case of creationism, it is no scientific qualification whatever, it even does not base on any basis of objective observation, but just narration and imgination, reilgious dogmatism and hear-say. In case of Global Warming Scepoticism, there has been so many, many systematic attempts by the interest economy elites to ridicule the statements of global waming research and every year a very influential lobby channels hundreds of millions in support for ridiciulous "alternative" scnearios who all just have two points in common: these constztructions are propagadanda efforts who heavily distort both existing scientific data or distort the scientific methodlogy to present their own"conclusions" or quote existing data out of context. From the "theory" of the more CO" the greener the pklanet to generally increasing ice levels at the poles, from sun activity being the deciding factor behind warming to fake petitions of thousands of scinetisits who either does not exist or were brought to sign by raising fake institutions and fake projects and showing them fake documents to sign, but then claimning they signed something different - the one that is presented to the public.

That all is no scientific methodology, and what it results in therefore rightfully should be rejected to be compared to scinece - as if it could meet science on same eye level.

It cannot.

Nevertheless to achieve this result is the purpose of your post.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by goldorak

I always wonder why is it that the rest of the civilised world has no problem with the scientific theory of Evolution, whereas it is a gigantic problem in the US.

Isn't the answer obvious...? Religion plays a greater role in the US and has a stronger influence on wider parts of the society, than in Europe. In parts of the old world where relgion is stronger than in european mean, you also see a stronger symoathy for creationism (Poland, and the slvic-orthodox- sphere in general). Even in the islamic society, an islamised version of creationism is spreading rapidly, for example in turkey, and now also in Syria. especially the religious conservatives with quite a good ammount of education fall for it. creationism is more of what relgious conservatives are used to. That's why it is welcomed the more the more fundamentalist it's audience is. And that is true for Christian AND Muhammedan countries.


Damn, first I point out how pointless this thread will be, and then I stay here and even participate in the pointless effort. I better should listen to myself.

I'm out here. Can't believe i even spend time arguing in here.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Isn't the answer obvious...? Religion plays a greater role in the US and has a stronger influence on wider parts of the society, than in Europe. In parts of the old world where relgion is stronger than in european mean, you also see a stronger symoathy for creationism (Poland, and the slvic-orthodox- sphere in general). Even in the islamic society, an islamised version of creationism is spreading rapidly, for example in turkey, and now also in Syria. especially the religious conservatives with quite a good ammount of education fall for it. creationism is more of what relgious conservatives are used to. That's why it is welcomed the more the more fundamentalist it's audience is. And that is true for Christian AND Muhammedan countries.

No, the answer is not obvious at all. If it were as you say Italy should declare Evolution as being banned from schools. Hey we have the Vatican and all it represents. If there is one country on earth were Religion has a political voice and influences a laic society it is Italy. But even here you don't hear the Pope or ArchBishops, or other eclisiasts touting that Darwin's Theory is nonsense and that Creationism is the answer.
No the problem is much much deeper. I think it has to do with a failing of understanding of what science is all about. Ignorance, this is about ignorance or as I say obscurantism.
In the US religion is more open, but it has much less influence in the public sphere than the Vatican has in Italy. And nontheless the Creationist debate is over there, not here. It makes you think about what an entire generation of americans is learning or not learning actually about the methods of science.

[Skybird]

I disagree, Goldorak. Remember that old debate we had about the drastic increase of evangelical'S influence in the US armed forces, namely the Air Force? The public routs in some places in the Us wehre Creatijists and orthodox tried to install relgious pseudo-science parallel to science lessons in curruculums of public schools? Bush defending this?

Creationism is creeping forward in almost all of europe, just with varying speeds. strongest it is in - extremely conservative - Poland. Spain also gets mentioned, and it too is quite a conservative catholic country, although the socialist government drives splits and trenches into the population by confronting the churche's influence. The fastest creationism grows in the Eastern european (slavic) regions, and Russia.

Italy I just don't know. Thge role of the church I see there as comparable to the role of the church in Poland.

creationism's spread is slowest in France, Germany, and the Nordic countries. They have in common to be amongst the most "areligious" countries in Europe, if ignoring their Islamic parallel societies for a moment.

In the Muslim world, creationism grows fast in Turkey I know for sure, as well as in Syria, but also fast in Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, I read.

[Morts]