What makes Creationism so hard to believe in, and evolution so easy?

[Biochemist]

...Actually among theists, including members of mainstream sects, there is NOT agreement on these points!

Sure. But I think it is disingenuous to pick on the weakest argument as if it represents the field. Even allowing for a discussion that contends "Evolution vs Creationism" is a valid comparative paradigm is bothersome. It would be like discussing "European history vs Marxism". One is a field, and one is a specific worldview.

...{I get trired of} people who hurl epithets like "godless humanist" at anyone who says they believe in Evolution or that the law of the land shouldn't be the Ten Commandments.

Sure. But I have not seen those posts here. I don't think the fact that others routinely misrepresent positions gives us license to do so.

The question was specific to Creationism, and there are discussions in other threads about ID. The thing I love about ID is that in spite of the fact that the strict interpretation folks are pushing it heavily, it in fact it almost completely undermines Creationism ...

Of course it does. Most academically trained evangelicals have never given Creationism (in the classic sense- 4000 year old earth, flood geology,. etc) ANY creedence. Why in the world would anyone be surprised that academic Christians would offer a position that refutes a theory they never supported??????

[bumab]

Like the crusades, kill the man to save his soul.

 

I assume you were being a little facetious, that's not a common view now a days! :Alien:

 

I simply meant that many people do believe that evolution as a belief is mutually exclusive to salvation, and therefore, they are (rightfully) concerned, and thus tell you that you are wrong and need to change. I would do the same thing to somebody that thought they could drink nothing but anti-freeze and lose weight. So, it's a healthy concern to many, and I, for one, am not offended by it at all.

 

It would be much more concerning if they just said "screw you, believe what you want" and left it at that.

[eMTee]

Forget the Bible or any religouse book or beliefs ...I just want to know your reason you choose to believe evolution rather than inteligent design, or vise versa.

[Biochemist]

...I know lots of people who do believe in both God and subscribe to Evolution, and they go to Church, Temple, Mosque regularly, and yet they are told they can't be religious if "they believe in that stuff."

No one has EVER told me that. Ever. Nearly 30 years of conservative churches of various flavors.

[Buffy]

Sure. But I think it is disingenuous to pick on the weakest argument as if it represents the field. Even allowing for a discussion that contends "Evolution vs Creationism" is a valid comparative paradigm is bothersome. It would be like discussing "European history vs Marxism". One is a field, and one is a specific worldview. ... Most academically trained evangelicals have never given Creationism (in the classic sense- 4000 year old earth, flood geology,. etc) ANY creedence. Why in the world would anyone be surprised that academic Christians would offer a position that refutes a theory they never supported??????

I think we're in violent agreement here. I've just had more experience with the extremists, although most of my friends fall into the category of strong theists with a scientific view of the world that strongly refutes Creationism and ID. I apologize for my Swiftian prose, although I'd ask for some creative license on it, because in fact there is an audience (which is represented here) who do take the more extremist view points.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

No one has EVER told me that. Ever. Nearly 30 years of conservative churches of various flavors.

You're fortunate. I've had it said to my face dozens of times....Again, I think its a minority and its extremist, but its there (and it has a big following in the Republican party...listen to Tom DeLay...).

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[lindagarrette]

I know lots of people who do believe in both God and subscribe to Evolution...

Buffy

Just to pick up on one statement for clarification. People have two thought paths (duality) when they can turn from one set of thinking (rationality) to another (superstition) without letting them confuse each other. I know many people who can do this or think they can. It's like they have two personalities that aren't even aware of each other.

[paultrr]

I disagree (what?). If you learned science first and then someone introduced you to Creationism, you would have to be nuts to believe it. For one thing, evolution is intersubjectively verifyable, which means no matter what culture you are from, where you are, or when, it is still evident and the story is the same. Second, Creationism would seem right away to be very fanciful, with the talking snakes, the ark full of animals, etc...

 

But that's the point of belief, as least as its typlified in religion. It does not take intelect, per say, to believe. Its simply an active acceptance of something that at times runs contrary to what logic may or may not tell one. Not to play devils advocate here for christians, but Christ himself down played all the miracles and sign giving and simply asked for people to believe in him. He did not look to intelligence to lead one to himself(God). He looked to belief alone.

 

For once I'd actually partially agree with Lindagarrette in that if one learned science first then Creationism seems rather illogical. Science requires, shall we say evidence for its support. Belief only requires one to accept what the Bible says and perhaps also what some preacher tells you. Though I think the intent of the Bible's own message on this would be trust God above all else. I know Christians would argue that there is evidence out there. But the type of evidence science requires is vastly different than say the type of evidence Josh Macdowell presents for the resurrection, or the often raised evidence for design that the ID camp tends to present. Its got to be intersubjectively verifyable and consistantly so before science would consider such as evidence.

[paultrr]

Just to pick up on one statement for clarification. People have two thought paths (duality) when they can turn from one set of thinking (rationality) to another (superstition) without letting them confuse each other. I know many people who can do this or think they can. It's like they have two personalities that aren't even aware of each other.

 

Linda, what you have is an strict athiest point of view on everything. The rest of us out here that are agnostic do not see people as operating that way at all. What some have learned over time is to not be so literal when it comes to say their interpretations of say the Bible. At one time the Fundamentalists had a big debate with the "Bible contains the word of God" camp. This was back in the 70's and early 80's. Some of the Christians for example out there come from that camp and see no problem at all with evolution. They also have no problem with science not proving or disproving God because they realize that science is not designed that way at all.

 

These people are not split personalities at all. They simply accept what science does and is capable of addressing and at the same time accept there is some Creator who created everything via in this case evolutionary meansall the way back to the BB. In fact, judging from some of the statements you've made I have begun to see why some call strict athiesm its own brand of dogma. I do find it rather dull and narrow when it comes to life in general and to holding decent conversations. Given that you are not the only athiest here and judging from other comments out there it seems this narrow strict view is something you hold and not all other athiest hold those same views.

 

If athiest had shall we say a church of sorts or meeting place and that was the dogma they presented I'd be willing to bet that the average non-believer out there whould find such a view of life boring. It makes me wonder how anyone with that type of view on life could ever manage to make even one friend, better on say fall in love, etc. Unless of course thelove thing was just a means to propagation of the species and nothing more since we have no choice in life to begin with. Perhaps I am wrong. But that is the general attitude when it comes to emotions, the human intelect, etc I get out of the message you present. Its negative,and I understand the negative attitude toward the "God"subject". But is life that devoid of anything interesting to you? Personally, I'd hate to live life that way with so much anger. I've never met an athiest that hell bent on down playing everything to do with life in general. Most here on this forum don't come across that way either and are willing to at least discuss subjects with all the negative overtones. You'd probably find this a complement but you make a certain women who founded the American movement of such look like a tame kitty. Even she laughed and enjoyed life.

[eMTee]

I know that there are a lot of former evolutionists that turned to creation, because they saw too many flaws for it to be even remotly true. There are so many creationists that have a scientific view of their beliefs on creation.

 

I'm not talking strickly about people who believe the Bible.

 

I read all about the evolution of the universe, and many of the theories change every so often(which may not be widely advertised do to some reason or other)...I read about the theories of this, the theories of that, those theories these theories. it seems that what facts you find, don't realy partain to a 'million year evolution'.

 

Have any of you ever been to a creation science seminar?

[infamous]

Forget the Bible or any religouse book or beliefs ...I just want to know your reason you choose to believe evolution rather than inteligent design, or vise versa.

 

What about those of us that beleve in both intellignet design and evolution. Consider human research in the medical field. These drugs could not have sprung up by themselves. It took our manipulation in chemistry to create these compounds. Likewise, natural selection is the evolutionary process by which the natural world evolves but a higher intelligence could step in to accelerate and or modify these events to create a chosen outcome. If our earth was seeded by a higher intelligence, one could rightfully conclude that both evolution and intelligent design were correct interpertations.

[niviene]

Forget the Bible or any religouse book or beliefs ...I just want to know your reason you choose to believe evolution rather than inteligent design, or vise versa.

 

While I tend towards evolution, I am not closed minded to the possibility of intelligent design, or even that intelligent design began.. well, in the beginning... like solving an equation backwards, an omniscient being would be able to essentially plan out how things would go and put the right things into effect at the right time. However, there is so much scientific evidence from so many different sources that show the stages of evolution (minus missing links) that I simply can't accept the Creationism theory as it is today.

[eMTee]

How long does it take to create a fossil? say petrified tree, or an indentatoin of a leef on a stone.

[infamous]

How long does it take to create a fossil? say petrified tree, or an indentatoin of a leef on a stone.

 

This can vary, fossilization is enviormentaly dependent. I have read articles where it has been claimed that fossilization can take place in very short amounts of time. General consensus is however thought to be in the millions of years. Fossilization can also be sped up through artificial means if one chooses to push the envelope.

[Biochemist]

I think we're in violent agreement here....I'd ask for some creative license on it, because in fact there is an audience (which is represented here) who do take the more extremist view points.

License granted. Are there really true classic Creationists on this site?

[Biochemist]

...I think its a minority and its extremist, but its there (and it has a big following in the Republican party..).

I really think it weakens your argument to associate this with the Republican party. I think the "traditional values" vote is split something like 54/46 toward Republicans. I suspect the "Biblical" vote is similar. This just is not really a party line issue.

[eMTee]

This can vary, fossilization is enviormentaly dependent.

What environments can this be, that sometimes fossilation takes affect in a shorter amount of time? what is in the environment to lets it do this?