Aimee Weber

As an evolutionist I see it a little differently. We are interested exclusively in the evidence and the conclusions we can draw from the evidence. That's it. There is no desire or interest to "disprove" creationism, only a desire to examine those ideas for which evidence exists (which, necessarily, means neglect for those ideas where no evidence exists.)

So what is creationism to do? Well as best I can tell, you have these options:

1. Focus on ways to marry science and creationism. Sooz believes that Evolution is a scientific fact of our natural history ... but she goes on to assert that Evolution is the method by which God created humanity. This is not scientific because it lacks evidence and it's unfalsifiable. But the advantage of being unfalsifiable is that it cannot be disproven. By crediting God for every facet of the natural world that science uncovers, from the big bang to a wonderful sunset, you will never be at risk of running afoul of evidence.

2. Renounce science as a valid or complete method of arriving at any sort of understanding about our natural world. After all, if one evokes "divine intervention" why would the laws of physics apply in any way? The mantra for this one is "There is more to life than your precious evidence." Maybe "evidence" points to Evolution ... but that doesn't have to mean anything important at all.

This idea is internally consistent and impossible to disprove. Like God placing the light from distant galaxies that are light years away from the earth so they are already in transit to reach our eyes within the supposed 10,000 year lifespan of the universe ... the evidence means nothing at all.

This option makes me very uncomfortable, and when it comes to matters of immediate and personal impact, few people of religious faith actually buy into this. If brought up on murder charges in court, even the most religious defender would insist you "prove it" rather than call upon religious leaders, oracles, mysticism, or faith to determine your guilt. The evidence that you were out of state when the crime was committed is not unimportant, nor should it be in science.

3. Use science to prove creationism. If scientists find evidence to prove evolution, then you can find evidence to prove creationism. The problem is, right from the start we are departing from the scientific method. While science starts with the evidence and then draws the only inevitable conclusion that can be drawn from it, the creationist option starts with the conclusion, then tries very hard to prove it.

This backwards method makes the efforts prone to confirmation bias (cherry picking only the evidence that supports your conclusion while ignoring the rest) and a host of fallacy. Eventually, when evidence fails to materialize, the effort turns to more fallacy by trying to "disprove" or discredit evolution (again, not how science works.)


Options 2 and 3 have been tried. Extensively. They don't work out. The CoE is going with option #1. Given the evidence, it's the most comfortable option.

Eboni Khan

This is basically how it was explained to me when I was growing up. I grew up Episcopal/Catholic and nothing was ever pushed down my throat about Creation.

I have never been very interested in Evolution or Creation. I prefer other sciences.

__________________

Aodhan McDunnough

Evolution I find fascinating primarily because of genetics especially in traits I can observe among myself, relatives, friends, and friends' relatives.

But other than that I am most in love with the physical sciences (physics, astronomy, materials, etc).

detrius

Easy: if you focus on the aspects of Christianity that tell you how to interact with other human beings and how to be a contributing member of society, you gain some leeway regarding the historical validity of Christian mythology.
Just as evolution-denying Creationists often give me the impression that their obsession with the Book of Genesis enables them to ignore other aspects of Christianity, such as paying taxes or telling the truth.


What exactly do you mean when you talk about "creationists"? If you're talking about people who believe in the existence of a higher being that has somehow influenced the development of life on this planet, then you're wrong simply because most evolutionists not only do not reject the concept of such a being, but in fact are religious people - Christians, Muslims, Jews... whatever - who embrace this idea in their personal beliefs. Like Professor Ken Miller, who is a devout Christian and widely known for his opposition to creationism.
When I talk about creationists, I'm thinking of people who propagate the idea that religion and science cannot coexist and who are not only rejecting the theory of evolution, but rational thought itself.

Here's an example:
This isn't just a random guy propagating a stupid argument, this is Ray Comfort, a celebrity of the creationist movement and one of their intellectual leaders. And the thing he's holding in his hand is the result of several millennia of cultivation, wild bananas actually look like this btw:


And that's just the tip of the iceberg, if you really want to find out why people laugh at creationists, I suggest watching this series of YouTube videos:
Playlist: Why do people laugh at creationists?

__________________

Mukatsuku

I agree with Detrius, apart from "most people who believe in evolution are religious".
Religious people of any denomination are in the minority now, in the UK, so where I live most people who believe in evolution are atheists.
I know that doesn't apply to the US, so I shall forgive this sin.

__________________
--

My Sims Exchange - http://www.thesims3.com/mypage/Mukatsuku

My Photography/Graphics Design - http://www.zedpeejay.com

Meet-me wiki - http://meetme-english.wetpaint.com

Mukatsuku

PS. Kirk Cameron is a knob, so is Ray Comfort

Mukatsuku

Here are those two idiots in a full debate

Tyche Shepherd

In the UK they are not in the minority - The 2001 census figures show 77.2% claim to have a religion (71.4% claiming to be Christian). Also the 22.8% who have no religion are not automatically Atheists - this also included Agnostics and those who refused to answer.

Actual organised worship may be in serious decline but the majority of the population still claim to be religious.

__________________

detrius

Well, I actually live in Germany (*points at "Location"-entry in the profile*), so feel free to hack me apart.

But yeah, I should have limited that statement to the USA. I'll try to find some statistics for that claim.

Mukatsuku

Here are newer stats, putting them 33-44%, but the latest ones I heard were that now 55% are atheists.

The 50 Countries with the Highest Percentage of Atheists

Vivianne Draper

yer not holding your breath are you? If you are, do you look good in blue?

__________________

Tyche Shepherd

In 2005 40% of Americans believed in Evolution, 21% were not sure and and 39% reject it (Why doesn't America believe in evolution? - being-human - 20 August 2006 - New Scientist)

The main survey of religious affiliation in the US is the 2001 ARIS survey (http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris.pdf ) which identified 15 % of adults has having no religion - So even if all those believe in evolution, there are at least 25% the population who are both religious and believe in evolution - so your statement seems to hold up

Vivianne Draper

Well they are bible thumping idiots. I mean, sorry, but they are. Creationism is form on a myth. You ARE aware that there are other religions that have their own form of creation myths right? CREATIONISM IS MYTHOLOGY.

This is a slippery slope you walk down. Because once you assert that God made the world in 7 days, someone else can assert that Odin and Thor made the world from a lightning bolt, and yet others that the Titans made the world, and the fucking spaghetti monster mythology is JUST as valid. Because its all mythology. So yes its completely ridiculous and the people that believe it are bible thumping idiots.

Mukatsuku

44% here too

detrius

Vivianne Draper

people laugh at creationists cause they are funny yo

Beau Perkins

I am not a Science Major. So when it comes to evolution I just accept the facts as they are presented. My statements below have nothing to do with creationism. I am just addressing a point creationist have made.

It seems that the science world has tons of holes in the Evolution theories. There are huge holes and missing links. I worry that science itself now has an agenda.

I do not believe we have life figured out. Yet the science world seems to only look at information that now supports current theories. They do not seem to want to figure out the history of ife anymore. They now have an agenda to prove our current theories as correct. Is that really science?

Just a thought I had last night while in my quiet time of the day.

__________________

Vivianne Draper

No. There are no missing links in evolutionary theory. None.

Tyche Shepherd

Sorry those figures for the UK are not the number of Atheists - They come from the Annual British Social Attitudes Survey (BSAS) and are based on the answer to the question "Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?" - The latest figure I have access to is the 2006 figure where 44.77% say they don't belong to a particular religion - This is not the same as being an Atheist and doesn't preclude belief in God, Gods or other higher powers.

The BSAS did ask a question about this in 2000 , where 12.27% said they had no belief in God or a higher power, with another 14.65% who didn't know . The No religious affiliation figure for 2000 was 39.5% .

These figures are in line with the Census figures from the following year which I posted earlier

Beau Perkins

What parts of evolution are you refering to? The facts that show evolution happened, I believe is solid.

This “Tree Of Life” has huge holes.

Edit -

Furthermore Vivianne, when we get the mentality of your statement. Science can no longer exist. Then the future research risks becoming as whacky as Creationism.

Vivianne Draper

there are no holes

Jessica Robertson

And the religious don't?
I think the stated agenda, is to convert (they use the word save) everyone.
I'd certainly say that was an agenda.

Mukatsuku

Beau Perkins

This has nothing to do with religion. I do not accept creationism as science. My statement was not a defense for creationism.

Mukatsuku

If science had given up trying to find out the origins of life, maybe we should shut of the LHC before it discovers something

Remember, the people who have made it have said that the most exciting outcome is that they fail, because it means they have a whole new area to go down and research, and scientists love new theories.

I agree with most things Beau says about creationists though