Evolution versus Creationism

This forum is the place to have more serious discussions about politics and religion, and your opinions thereof. Be courteous!

Moderators: Global Moderators, Forum Administrators

Forum rules
When a registered user insults another person (user or not), nation, political group or religious group, s/he will be deprived of her/his permission to post in the forum. That user has the right to re-register one week after s/he has lost the permission. Further violations will result in longer prohibitions.

By default, you are automatically registered to post in this forum. However, users cannot post in the politics forum during the first week after registration. Users can also not make their very first post in the politics forum.

Evolution versus Creationism

I believe in Evolution
85
79%
I believe in Creationism
7
7%
I believe in Itelligent Design
4
4%
I believe in Theistic Evolutionism
11
10%
 
Total votes: 107

User avatar
IpseDixit
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 9171
Joined: 2013-05-06, 21:06
Gender: male
Location: Bologna / Milan / Florence
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby IpseDixit » 2014-10-16, 8:46

Massimiliano B wrote: Because if there is a limit, there is also space for something different from the simple immanent - or "material" - world.

User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1643
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Massimiliano B » 2014-10-16, 8:53

Even if there are no limits - that is even if science can explain every aspect of our life and any kind of mechanism of our universe - there is still some space left for a metaphysical interpretation of the world, since science tells us what happens and in which way it happens, while metaphysic or religious view try to tell us "why". That's a different kind of thinking.
Last edited by Massimiliano B on 2014-10-16, 9:01, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1643
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Massimiliano B » 2014-10-16, 8:55

IpseDixit wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote: Because if there is a limit, there is also space for something different from the simple immanent - or "material" - world.


That is my sentence. The following is your interpretation of my words:

IpseDixit wrote:
"There are some limits therefore a trascendental dimension exists".



It is different from mine.


Am I not free to think about metaphysical or religious ways of interpreting the reality? Is there a unique and official worldview which I have to adopt?

I repeat that even if there are no limits - that is even if science can explain every aspect of our life and any kind of mechanism of our universe - there is still some space left for a metaphysical interpretation of the world, since science tells us what happens and in which way it happens, while metaphysic or religious view try to tell us "why". That's a different kind of thinking.
Last edited by Massimiliano B on 2014-10-16, 9:00, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
IpseDixit
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 9171
Joined: 2013-05-06, 21:06
Gender: male
Location: Bologna / Milan / Florence
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby IpseDixit » 2014-10-16, 9:08

Am I not free to say that you're making shit up?

Moreover you haven't explained your interpretation of your sentence.

User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1643
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Massimiliano B » 2014-10-16, 9:19

voron wrote:
linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:I want just to say that evolutionary theory has some limits. It says how moral sentiments have evolved, but also how immoral sentiments did evolve - in other words, how good inclinations and bad inclinations have arisen. But the reason why one prefers the 'good' inclinations and hates the 'bad' inclinations is out of the reach of the evolutionary theory.

Actually they're not. Just look at all the work which has been done reconciling evolutionary theory with the existence of altruism (which appears to exist not only in humans but in many animal species as well). When you keep in mind that evolution works over populations rather than individuals, then there are some quite rational explanations for why people behave in ways that we consider "moral".

How morality, altruism and other traits of human nature could have evolved in accordance with the evolutionary theory is the subject of evolutionary psychology.


Evolutionary psychology is not a science in the strict sense and it has generated substantial controversy and criticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... psychology



IpseDixit wrote:Am I not free to say that you're making shit up?


And am I not free to say that what you say (I'm making shit up) is just a claim without any explanation? It is not a scientific assertion. You have no evidence that I'm making shit up.

Moreover, I am not the only one who likes to find metaphysical or religious interpretations of the world.

IpseDixit wrote:Moreover you haven't explained your interpretation of your sentence.


My sentence means that I am free to spend my time trying to find "why" I am here, and not only "that" I am here.

User avatar
IpseDixit
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 9171
Joined: 2013-05-06, 21:06
Gender: male
Location: Bologna / Milan / Florence
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby IpseDixit » 2014-10-16, 9:39

Massimiliano B wrote:You have no evidence that I'm making shit up.


Of course I do, all that you've written in this thread so far is enough evidence.

Moreover, I am not the only one who likes to find metaphysical or religious interpretations of the world.


And this fact should give it more credibility in some way?

IMassimiliano B wrote:My sentence means that I am free to spend my time trying to find "why" I am here, and not only "that" I am here.


Oh, I see, so

Because if there is a limit, there is also space for something different from the simple immanent - or "material" - world.


actually means:

I am free to spend my time trying to find "why" I am here, and not only "that" I am here


Makes an awful lot of sense! Why haven't I thought of that?!

User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1643
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Massimiliano B » 2014-10-16, 9:44

IpseDixit wrote:
Oh, I see, so

Because if there is a limit, there is also space for something different from the simple immanent - or "material" - world.


actually means:

I am free to spend my time trying to find "why" I am here, and not only "that" I am here


Makes an awful lot of sense! Why haven't I thought of that?!


I don't know.

Why do you say "awful"? Is it awful to freely think about why I am here?

User avatar
IpseDixit
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 9171
Joined: 2013-05-06, 21:06
Gender: male
Location: Bologna / Milan / Florence
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby IpseDixit » 2014-10-16, 9:48


User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1643
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Massimiliano B » 2014-10-16, 10:55

It may have no sense to you.

I already know the meaning of "awful lot". I was playing with words :)
Last edited by Massimiliano B on 2014-10-16, 11:59, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1643
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Massimiliano B » 2014-10-16, 11:25

linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:Evolutionary theory has been used in order to discredit any kind of religious worldview.

No, only those religious worldviews which claim that life was created and directed by some specific supernatural entity.

Massimiliano B wrote:Should not the evolutionary theory give an account of any kind of organism we see - including not only the physical structure, but even of the higher capacities of human intellect?

This is exactly the question which gave rise to memetics.

Massimiliano B wrote:If the answer is "no, it should not", there's then some space for different explications, which can even include religious or metaphysical ones.

Sure--but there's a huge difference between saying "there's room for metaphysical explanations" and there's room for my specific metaphysical interpretation. Evolution provides no evidence at all for the Christian worldview, and it disproves particular Christian worldviews which rely on interpreting literally the creation stories given in Genesis.


There is still a place for those Christian worldviews which don't rely on interpreting literally the creation stories give in Genesis and for other religious and metaphysical vorldviews.

User avatar
Saim
Posts: 4461
Joined: 2011-01-22, 5:44
Location: Poznań
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Saim » 2014-10-16, 11:31

Massimiliano B wrote:Am I not free to think about metaphysical or religious ways of interpreting the reality?


[flag=]en[/flag] Of course you are, who's tried to stop you? By the same token, we're absolutely free to think those ways of interpreting reality are rubbish.

[flag=]it[/flag] Chiaro che sì, chi ha provato di fermarti? Dello stesso modo, noi siamo absolutamente liberi di pensare che questi modi d'interpretare la realtà sono ciancia.

User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1643
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Massimiliano B » 2014-10-16, 11:57

Have I ever said you cannot think that those ways of interpreting reality are rubbish?

However, I do not think evolution is rubbish.

User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1643
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Massimiliano B » 2014-10-16, 12:23

Saim wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:Am I not free to think about metaphysical or religious ways of interpreting the reality?


[flag=]en[/flag]]it[/ag] Chiaro Certo che puoi, chi ha provato di a fermarti? Dello Allo stesso modo, noi siamo absolutamente assolutamente liberi di pensare che questi modi d'interpretare la realtà sono ciancia [better: ciance]

User avatar
hreru
Posts: 751
Joined: 2005-10-27, 13:14
Gender: female
Country: CZ Czech Republic (Česká republika)
Contact:

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby hreru » 2014-10-16, 13:26

Massimiliano B wrote:Am I not free to think about metaphysical or religious ways of interpreting the reality? Is there a unique and official worldview which I have to adopt?

I repeat that even if there are no limits - that is even if science can explain every aspect of our life and any kind of mechanism of our universe - there is still some space left for a metaphysical interpretation of the world, since science tells us what happens and in which way it happens, while metaphysic or religious view try to tell us "why". That's a different kind of thinking.

So this is why you keep on highlighting the fact that evolutionary theory is limited? To defend your worldview?, I don’t think anyone’s taking it away from you. :nope: You know, I think it’s obvious it’s limited, both by the topic it describes and by the scientific approach. And I somehow think it’s clear to people who talk to you here – I haven’t mentioned anyone protesting. So I couldn’t have grasped why to tell it over and over. :)

But it seems to me as if you and the others talked about some different evolutionary theories. :P

The theory itself is a part of biology, not philosophy/religion/politics. Its goal is to explain biodiversity as an outcome of natural mechanisms; not to deny God’s existence. It’s not any atheistic pseudoreligion.

How the theory is then interpreted and incorporated into anyone’s worldview as it serves their purposes is a different issue. That’s where the philosophy and so on (perhaps even some atheistic pseudoreligion :) ) comes in, and I think that’s what you talk about when you say „evolutionary theory“? So perhaps that’s the reson you insisted on the limits? But if so, you're mixing two different things together...

User avatar
Varislintu
Posts: 15297
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Varislintu » 2015-04-06, 3:38

I learned something new yesterday.

I've encountered before an argument coming from ID-creationists, that people who claim to belive in the subjectivity of morals, are still in fact behaving as if morals were objective. This, they reason, is the reason subjectivists don't go around doing immoral things. However, the ID-creationists feel that this is intellectually inconsistent/dishonest of subjectivists. Subjectivists should either embrace immorality, or admit they are objectivists, to be consistent. ID-creationists claim that subjectivists are unfairly appropriating their world view without admitting to it.

And now they've applied the structure of this argument to physics. :shock: (NB: I can't actually tell for sure if it's physics or just philosophy. In the thread they happily seem to conflate the two.)

ID-creationists like to call evolution-accepters "materialists" (usually this word means something different to them than to actual self-claimed materialists). When browsing through this thread's discussion, I encountered the claim that under materialism, there is no such thing as an "object", or a "whole" (like an organism, rock or car), because to materialists everything is just (why "just"?) "particles in motion". Being a materialist should, they claim, mean that one cannot talk about wholes. To a materialist, an organised whole of matter is a "fiction". But, they claim, materialists (i.e. evolution-accepters) still do talk about objects and things as wholes (obviously). In doing so, they are unfairly appropriating a theistic world view without admitting to it.

:D :D :D

And do you know why non-materialists/theists (i.e. Christians) can talk about wholes? Because:

But I as a Christian would point out that since both the one and the many are equally ultimate in the triune God and since temporal unity and plurality are the creation of the same God, then logically neither the “particle” nor the “whole” can demand the sacrifice of the other to itself.


Unlike my worldview Materialism holds that particles are ultimate. Therefore it behooves the materialist to explain how given materialism that particles can yield whole things.

Since I don’t hold that particles are ultimate I don’t need to posit an explanation for how the whole arises.

Materialism can’t borrow my worldview’s conclusions when it denies it’s premises.


But ID doesn't require belief in Christianity u gais! :D

(Added:) This is a whole new level of the "God of the gaps" argument. If there's no discernible gap left, make one up.
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

xBlackHeartx
Posts: 56
Joined: 2017-02-23, 22:11
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby xBlackHeartx » 2017-10-07, 7:43

Heh, I just clicked on the 'see results', to find that most of the people on this forum were science cultists. Wow. I guess I should get into the habit of assuming that places overrun by trolls are also overrun by science cultists.

Let me a tell you all a story. I was once a member of the cult of science. I did everything you science cultists did, trolled religious people, acted like a complete dumbass supporting stuff I didn't know the first thing about. I didn't even seriously start to study science until I was an adult. I'm certainly not a member of that cult now. And no, I'm not a creationist. I left, because of what I found out about science: Scienstists LIE. You want an example? I was reading a page on physics, written by an actual physist, and he revealed something that shocked me: The planetary model of the atom, had actually been discredited in the mid 80s. Now (or at the time I read that article at least), physisists believed that atoms were all two dimensional, and electrons didn't 'orbit' atoms, they passed back and forth through them. It wasn't the new idea that shocked me, it was that in school I was taught an outdated theory. And even today, everywhere you go, people, even actual physists, still preach the planetary model, even when the publish papers that show that they know full well its false. That's why I left, it was the revelation that THE CULT OF SCIENCE LIES TO ITS OWN FOLLOWERS.

And its not just them either. Other branches of science lie too. Oh, and Richard Dawkins? He's a liar. He constantly spouts FALSE FACTS about evolution, even other evolutionists call him out on this, but he still does it even today, and people keep giving him ludicrous amounts of money as he preaches about the 'one true faith', which he supports with LIES. In fact, the sole reason scientists don't denounce the guy, is because he has a master's degree in evolution. He knows full well what he's saying is false, but he says it anyway. Besides, its quite useful to their cause. He's proven to be very effective at getting adherents.

And looking through the posts, I've seen a few things about how science cultists claim to be moral nihilists (or 'believe that morality is subjective') yet still support morality. There's a word for that: idiocy.

Let's think about this. Science shows that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Therefore, if you believe in right and wrong, you're just as much of an idiot as a creationist. Well, either that or you're nuts. And if you do accept that, well it means you must be evil. Seriously, no belief in right and wrong = evil. There's no way around that.

Therefore, logically, if you claim to be a member of the cult of science, yet still believe in right and wrong, you're either an idiot or insane. And if you don't believe in right and wrong, you're rational, but pure evil.

Now tell me, how is there a way that a person could have absolute unwavering faith in science, and yet still be a moral person without also being an idiot? Its not possible.

This is why I despise science now. I don't give a shit if its true or false. Honestly, you can't trust what scientists say anyway. I mean, look at the ones that were BRIBED to deny climate change. If they were so easily swayed, then how do we know that the ones that support climate change weren't bribed too? Many many people have pointed out over the years that science isn't truly based in logic, the outcomes of 'experiments' are determined by who funded the research. That's it. Scientists just say whatever is necessary to get themselves money. Sane people btw, call such individuals CULT LEADERS.

And this poll is rather biased. Does creationism include the creation stories of non-abrahamic religions? Also, not all religions deny evolution, contrary to scientific belief. Most religions actually don't have creation stories, so the theory simply fills in a gap in their own mythology. There's also the case of hindusim which has always claimed that their own scriptures support evolution (and its easy to see why). Most hindus do infact support evolution today. No one outright denies it really. 70% accept it, the other 30% see the evidence as 'inconclusive'. And if you think that's nonsense, read up on evolution yourself. Its actually pretty sketchy. I mean, most of the human family tree was determined by a single knucklebone or something stupid like that. All the extinct creatures they talk about, no one's ever found a complete skeleton of ANY OF THEM. And its really bad with dinosaurs. Most species are only known from a single bone, or a small set of bones from one individual. And this is the 'evidence' that the theory is built upon. I've seriously seen CONSPIRACY THEORIES more iron-clad than this. Its really no different from a conspiracy theory, its an unfalsifible theory based purely off of conjectures and daydreams.

And scientists really are idiots. They seem to think the creationism debate is a war over rationality. Its not. Its a war over morality. And what's really stupid is they can't even understand why everyone hates them. Gee, you're outright bigotted, aggressive and insanely hostile and hell-bent on offending every single person you stumble upon, and YOU SERIOUSLY WONDER WHY EVERYONE HATES YOUR STUPID SICKENING CULT??????

You're not 'proving' truth. What you're trying to prove is that there is no point to life, there is nothing wrong with evil, and there is no such thing as hope. Meaning and purpose do not exist in our world and cannot exist. That is what science is truly about. Fuck reason. Its little more than a cult for psychopaths and narcissists. And yes, most scientists are narcissist. Look it up. Being an atheist is also quite detrimental to your health and well-being. Research shows that this is IRREFUTABLE, and its why the 'hard' sciences have started to denounce the 'soft' sciences in recent years: because their own studies clearly show that scientists are completely insane and untrustworthy.

User avatar
Saim
Posts: 4461
Joined: 2011-01-22, 5:44
Location: Poznań
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Saim » 2017-10-07, 8:31

xBlackHeartx wrote:Heh, I just clicked on the 'see results', to find that most of the people on this forum were science cultists. Wow. I guess I should get into the habit of assuming that places overrun by trolls are also overrun by science cultists.


Science is not perfect. It is a tool that allows us to describe the world empirically and is only as good as the people who use it. Scientists are human beings, and so will lie or make mistakes. The good thing about science is that it has self-correcting mechanisms that allow it to reduce the amount of error and scams over time. Of course these mechanisms aren't perfect but they're the best way to deal with empirical issues that we've developed so far.

Atheism or irreligion is not the same thing as accepting the current scientific consensus on evolution. Many religious people do and many atheists don't. I don't see who's claimed otherwise, so I don't know who you're addressing in your argument about Hindus and such. It also directly contradicts your main thesis regarding morality -- there are plenty of people who believe in both objective morality coming from divine revelation (that exists in an essential metaphysical sense rather than being a purely social phenomenon) while also accepting the current scientific consensus regarding evolution. So why do you claim that creationism is an issue of morality when the same Hindus you cite as accepting evolutionary theory may also believe in objective, revealed morality?

Natural science is not fundamentally concerned with morality. It can try to show how morality came about among humans (evolutionary biology), or show what kind of brain activity is associated with things like empathy (neurobiology). It's not the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong, nor does it show that "right and wrong don't exist" (it might not exist in an essential, physical sense separate from all cultural context, but so what?).

Most species are only known from a single bone, or a small set of bones from one individual. And this is the 'evidence' that the theory is built upon.


No it's not. Evolutionary theory is supported by a wide range of evidence beyond just fossils (we also have genetic evidence and morphological evidence). The reason the theory holds up is because it's capable of explaining phenomena in a wide range of fields.

Gee, you're outright bigotted, aggressive and insanely hostile and hell-bent on offending every single person you stumble upon, and YOU SERIOUSLY WONDER WHY EVERYONE HATES YOUR STUPID SICKENING CULT??????


In my experience most people don't hate scientists, nor are most scientists aggressive or hell-bent on "offending every single person [they] stumble upon". I'm not a fan of Richard Dawkins's attitude towards religion either (any public critic of Islam who calls themself a "rationalist" should be fucking ashamed to admit they haven't read the Qur'an and have no interest in doing so), but I don't see why we should take him as representative of the entire scientific community. Most natural scientists seem perfectly content with doing actual science rather than presenting themselves as public commentators on political or social issues they have no expertise on.

I also think it's strange for you to criticise how the aggression and hostility of others while maintaining this sort of tone throughout your post, but you know better than I do who your audience is so I'm not going to tell you to change it.

User avatar
md0
Posts: 7048
Joined: 2010-08-08, 19:56
Country: CY Cyprus (Κύπρος / Kıbrıs)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby md0 » 2017-10-07, 8:43

People like Dawkins are doing a huge disservice to both science and secularism, and New Atheism is a reactionary movement plain and simple.

But xBlackHeartx is so off the mark that I am still not sure the post isn't parody. I mean, that last paragraph appealing to generic and uncited science to demonstrate that scientists are insane must be parody, or serious cognitive dissonance.
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"

User avatar
Lur
Posts: 2684
Joined: 2012-04-15, 23:22
Real Name: Nausicáa
Location: Madrid
Country: ES Spain (España)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Lur » 2017-11-09, 11:21

md0 wrote:People like Dawkins are doing a huge disservice to both science and secularism, and New Atheism is a reactionary movement plain and simple.

I have a huge problem with crypto-Christian atheists. They start suddenly ranting about Christian values and "our Christian culture" and shenanigans about the white race and I'm like "there's the door, over there, please go away".

User avatar
Saim
Posts: 4461
Joined: 2011-01-22, 5:44
Location: Poznań
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Saim » 2017-11-09, 14:07

Lur wrote:
md0 wrote:People like Dawkins are doing a huge disservice to both science and secularism, and New Atheism is a reactionary movement plain and simple.

I have a huge problem with crypto-Christian atheists. They start suddenly ranting about Christian values and "our Christian culture" and shenanigans about the white race and I'm like "there's the door, over there, please go away".


Really all they do is prove is that religion is not the main force behind conservatism and xenophobia, which kind of undermines the social critique aspect of New Atheism.

The part of the God Delusion that most stuck with me was the bit where he talks about a survey of Israeli Jewish children who justified genocide against the Canaanites but took the side of the Canaanites when the names were changed and the conflict was set in China. But then you see these New Atheists engaging in apologetics for Western imperialism, racism and nationalism and you realise that religion isn't the main driving force of all of that.


Return to “Politics and Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest