How do you feel now? EVOLUTION OR CREATION??

by chuckyy 81 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Awakened07

  I used to be a creationist (obviously, as a JW), and used to sometimes argue the creationist side on internet forums.

  I think religious people expect an all encompassing, dogmatically True answer from science - or, nothing at all. Because that's how it works in religion. Without the evidence. Just like some JWs who think about leaving try to find some other religion that have all the answers, because that's what they're used to. But science isn't complete, and will never be; there's always something new to discover. And that's not a bad thing. That said, there are quite a few things we can say with some confidence that we know about the universe. Like the universe not being somewhere between 6000 and 50.000 years old. Or that humans and animals have only existed within a similar time frame. The alternative is that we are deliberately deceived by some deity, but at least the biblical God supposedly "cannot lie".

  It's important IMO not to make it an 'either or' question, because evolution theory simply ties together all the facts about life we see in nature. It's up to religious people to update their "map" to fit with the new information about the "terrain". Evolution theory is not "an atheist belief".

  Evolution theory does not start with the beginning of life from lifeless matter, and definitely not with anything else not related to biology (like the big bang, planet formation etc.); it describes changes seen in the inherited traits of populations of living beings over (a huge amount of) time.

  Evolution theory doesn't have all the answers (but more than many think), but overall it is what best describes what we find in nature. It is still under development as we find more facts, and DNA research and more fossil finds add to the stack of facts that point in evolution's direction.

  I'm fresh out of reading Dawkins and Behe... and Behe makes some points that seem irrefutable about ID... while Dawkins just bashes everyone who doesn't agree with Darwinism...

  Behe is a "poster child" for ID, and is also often used by other creationists, but he does in fact accept common descent; that we share a common ancestor with apes. As for his points (irreducible complexity for instance), I have seen most of them been refuted or at least explained by other scientists. Richard Dawkins has become more of a "poster child" for atheism, but to me he's more important as a biologist. I don't agree with everything he says in his books, but I do overall.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Evolution has been proven

  Nothing in science is ever proven.
• 

  mind my own

  Elements of both with a stronger leaning towards evolution.

  MMO
• 

  Mandette

  Creationism with evolution mixed in. It all didn't happen in just 6000 yrs of man's existence. I've not quite decided how much of each figured in.

  I know I love the natural world and I consider it's beauty a blessing..wherever it came from!

  Mandette
• 

  Seeker4

  "Creationism with evolution mixed in. It all didn't happen in just 6000 yrs of man's existence. I've not quite decided how much of each figured in."

  That's kind of funny - as though it's your decision! Sorry, that's not how it works, Unfortunately, a lot of people believe it does!

  S4
• 

  Mandette

  S4

  Let me rephase that to mean "my opinion". AND since I've not researched it fully I can't make an EDUCATED decision!

  And like someone said before....the whys and hows aren't really that important at this time.....

  Mandette
• 

  Galileo

  Behe makes some points that seem irrefutable about ID

  I wish I had seen this earlier. "Seem" is the operative word here. Behe's arguments have been thoroughly refuted in the scientific literature. I recommend reading the transcripts of the Kitzmiller trial, in which Behe is shown to be a total fraud. Here are some highlights from Wikipedia:

  Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". [31] During this testimony Behe conceded that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well. [32] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible. [33] [34]

  John E. Jones III, the judge of the case, in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense in his judgment for the plaintiffs, citing:

  • "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God." [5]
  • "As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition." [5]
  • "First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces." [6]
  • "What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community." [7]
  • "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." [8]
  • "ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich." [35]
  • "Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system." [36]
  • "Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterialflagellum; (2) the blood-clottingcascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." [37]
  • "...proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ...

  A good summary of the trial and the absolute obliteration of Behe's arguments can also be found in the Nova "Judgment Day" episode I referenced earlier.
• 

  sweetstuff

  Evolution. I'm open to the possibility that perhaps intelligent life planted the seeds of existence on this planet, PERHAPS. Aliens anyone? I used to consider myself agnostic, but the more research I've done lead me the conclusion that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in a "supreme being" who is the father/mother/founder to all life on earth. Period.
• 

  jaguarbass

  I have read a lot of creationist litterature and a lot of evolutionary, atheistic literature.

  It depends how you define evolution.

  Living organisms deffintley adapt and evolutionist call that evolution and creationist call it adaption.

  Its a whole other story as to wheather life started out as an amoeba and eventually turned into man.

  I think Evolution/ atheism is a religion just like Christianity, Budhism, Islam.

  And they are all about equally scientific.

  That means none of them are scientific or use the scientific method.

  My jury is about 60/40 in favor of creation.

  Richard Dawkins is only 75% certain of his beliefs in evolution.

  I enjoy reading about both sides of the issue and wish one side or the other would do a better job of presenting their case.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Science doesn't have all the answers, but they certainly know that dinosaurs lived millions of
  years ago. If you want to be picky, fine- they could be off by thousands or even hundreds of
  thousands of years, but they still know about when the dinosaurs lived.

  Scientists know that the tectonic plates of the planet move and cause the earthquakes and
  they cause the mountainous region of Tibet to form as the plate of India and the plate of
  Asia push against each other. They are pretty sure that the entire land mass of the
  continents was all in one group in the past. You can argue about it, but they pretty much
  KNOW this stuff.

  As well, they know that the native Americans have more in common genetically with Asians
  than any other group from the "old" world. They know the genetics of people today enough
  to trace back their ancestory. They know that mankind had a common mother so far back
  in history, and they know it was further back than 6000 or 7000 years ago.

  I know that the Bible is flawed. I know that the books of Moses, especially Genesis are full
  of things that clash with what Science knows. At a JW point in my life, I assumed that
  Science was just bold but wrong, and that the Bible was correct in everything. Well, it ain't
  correct on hardly anything. I won't spell it all out, but it's pretty clear to me. It's just that I was
  in that mind-control cult for 20 years, so I don't insist on my being right all the time now.
  Still, I will take what Science knows over what religion knows anyday of the week.

  I know I haven't really studied religion outside of Christianity. Maybe they have the answers.
  Certainly, the Bible doesn't. But if there is a God who doesn't make himself clear to mankind,
  who lets all this crap on earth take place- children born with deformities, people dying for petty
  differences of governments, worshippers of that God being responsible for the majority of
  killings and wars, etc. etc.- if that God is out there, He doesn't deserve (nor want) our worship.

  I will take evolution over creation. But Science will keep adjusting as they discover more of
  the truth. I know religion will just take it on faith and not adjust. But hey, I was in a mind-control
  cult for 20 years, what do I know?