Creationism Vs Evolution - where do we come from?

[SoggyFox]

NDY
i take it your not much for religion then.

i didn't know that about deer, appreciated. Maybe i should of said knowingly destroying their environment.

[Gizmo]

Originally Posted by SoggyFox

Not Dead Yet,

I totally agree with the fact we shouldn't think of ourselves as special.

I think that is a shame.

My two pennies worth, I voted Creationism as it seems that the poll has developed to be if you believe in God then vote Special, if you don't vote Apes!!. Personally I don't think the Blair way is any way at all but I sure that is a completely different poll all together

Anyway, A lot of the ills of the humanity could be sorted in my opinion if the human race as a whole did believe that they were special and hailed for a more divine source than just the pure genetics of it.
I believe that God, a supreme being or whatever people wish to refer to him as, is a scientist with a knowledge that we are no where near comprehending and that we as a human race are only scratching at the surface. Therefore I think Rooster hit on a very interesting point that believing the concept of the creation doesn't neccessaryily mean that the whole evolution debate is false. I just believe mankind doesn't understand it all fully. I would love to though and I believe that time will come, but then I believe that this life on this world is not all that we are about and that there is a lot more to all of our lifes than just living here.

Not having all the answers does not make us weak it just means we do need to have a modicum of faith, but I certainly don't believe that means ignorant or blind faith.

Brens comment

Judge him by his true worth (his values and actions) and you begin to see how you might make your life a little more peaceful and tolerable.

has a lot of value, and applies to someone religious or not.

The only thing I have found objectionable on this thread is the need to laugh at creationism or those that believe in it or a form thereof. Equally from the other side I would not expect anyone who does profess to believe in God to want to force their view or belittle another for not believing. I tend to see that as a contridiction of their belief in God and supports Bren's statement that I've quoted.

Anyway that's my 2p worth.

Thanks for the interesting read at Lunch. Top thread!

[SoggyFox]

Gizmo.
I'm from the live and let live camp. Your beliefs are all your own and no one should dictate to another what they are.

I just can't believe that if someone/thing/being created us. Why did he create us with such a propensity for violence and self harm. If you were to create a species such as humanity with all our abilties and the wonders we can create why give us the ability to be so bad. It just doesn't add up to me.

[Garf]

I do hate to burst someone's bubble, but even in the ancient past when I did my clinical psyhcology degree there were serious doubts as to whether we were the only self-aware species on the planet.

Self-awareness has a classification which I'm not going to paste in here as its pages and pages of "can it stand on its head" etc. However, All the criteria for self-awareness has been empirically proven in a number of species, including botle-nosed dolphins, chimps and a number of other high-order primates. So that's that one then.

As for the books you quoted rooster, I have indeed read one of them and part of the other. Edward Wilson is not a climatologist or a physicist, but a biologist, and his book is 4 years old. A lot has happened in 4 years. Leakey is also neither a physicist or a climatologist, but a paleoantropologist, and his book is eight years old!. Curent beliefs are that there has been far more than 5 mass extinctions. In fact, currentl belief is that there have been so many, that if you compressed the age of the earth into 1 day, a big-ass rock would hit it and cause a mass exitinction every twenty minutes or so.

The same scientists (such as Hansen who first coined the term) that claimed for the existence of man-caused global warming, are now changing their arguments and stating that they believe it is all part of a natural cycle that we could do nothign about if we tried. Many scientists even ebelieve the world is cooling down, not warming up, and its going to be year-round ice diving throughout the northern hemisphere any day now. The cause, if not man, is still beign hotly debated. Stanford believe it is the sun. Others believe it is a natural cycle of the earth. Who knows, who cares. My money's still on the big-ass rock.

[Ali_Mc]

7 to 47? Thats nice. Creationism all the way.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by chrisch

Yup - spot on. (The basis of most religion, esp. creationist twaddle.)

Chris

My,my, Chris,

more cornflake-packet-cod-psychology spread over way too large a bombing area.

The key aspect of religion, certainly Christianity, is to love and help one another, not be selfish and realise that we are not special; indeed quiet the opposite - we are all equal in every respect and, to God at least, equally as valuable to him. No one gets 74 virgins (obviously no one asked the virgins for their opinion on the subject) on reaching the Pearly Gates - you have to stand and/or fall before Da Man based on how you've lived your life.

I see an all too heathly smattering of pseuds and axe-to-grind scientists in this thread and nowhere near enough philosophers. Heigh-ho

PS: The 'Blair's 'Third Way'' poll option was put in there by me to highlight the object polarity in the available of options - and cynical reflection of the lack of granularity here, as NOT found in life.

[rooster]

Garf

The scientific evidence for global warming is, in a sense, irrelevant to me. If the cooling/ heating of the Earth is a natural phenomenon it is outside my circle of influence as there is nothing I can do about it.

My post refers to the general agreement in the scientific community that we have responsibility to stewardship or indeed that good management of the environment has benefits. That refers to habitat destruction, protecting biodiversity and other areas where we can extert influence.

Incidentally what part of Wilson's book has become outdated or disproven in the last 4 years?

Regarding Leakey's book, I am not sure why discovery of more natural disasters in the Earth's history means we should invite a man made one? His conclusion agrees with you - evolution has been broadly fuelled by these disasters. He doesn't propose laissez-faire about environmental management as a solution though.

If you believe that three of the 20th century's greatest thinkers are wrong fair enough. That's what opinions are for right?

Your argument is that we shouldn't behave in manner to mitigate man-made environmental disaster because a natural disaster may occur anyway.

Sounds like when I was at school and the smokers said 'why not smoke? I could get hit by a bus tomorrow'.

My bubble isn't burst about self-awareness. When a dolphin is proved to discuss the purpose of it's life or the meaning of it's existence I will credit it with the same privileges and benefits that we enjoy. Social structure and benevolence definitely exist in other species, but none have the combination or complexity that can be exhibited by humans. There is a higher purpose that only humans can enjoy, it's just that many choose not to enjoy it. I mentioned Frankl earlier in the thread.

Science has 'proven' a lot but I am with Popper on this one - nothing is ever truly proven and there is a lot more that we can't explain. This thread wouldn't exist if it could.

I'll reserve my right of self-determination and disagree with your assertion that whatever you were taught on your course closes off my point about self-awareness.

[ahar]

Hmm, the thread does seem to have moved towards the religion or not, rather than creationism or evolution - remember the two are not mutually exclusive.

Buuuuuuuut, debate is healthy, and no one has got nasty, which I suspect is a good indicator of the general friendlyness that is around in this forum - I'm sure that we would have have been staring at another proof of Godwins Law if this was Handbag.net

Anyway, back to the matter at hand

Originally Posted by Mr T.

axe-to-grind scientists in this thread

not that I'm suggesting you were tarring all with the same brush Bren, but there are many scientists who have religious beliefs, and find no clash between the two. Growing up in South Oxfordshire which mush have the highest concentration of Phd people for any local area (MRC, NRPB, CCLRC, JET, National Hydrography lab etc all within 10 miles of each other) will show you that.

Garf - although it's a little off topic, have a look at where the sources of funding are coming from for research into climate change. What what I've seen, the majority of studies that have thrown doubt on Humans as the source of climate change have their funding (one way or another) with vested interests. It's true that the same can be said for some research supporting humans as the actors in climate change, but there is far more truly independant evidence towards humans as the source than against.

Back to the topic at hand (nearly) - humans are special compared to all other species on the planet. Random technical definitions of sentience aside, there is something extra in humans that is not present in animal - a self awareness linked to imagination not present anywhere else. Have dolphins created complex societal structures that are not linked to reporduction or survival as we have ? Have primates moved past anything but the most basic representation art ? No. Humans are special on this world, and to think anything else leads to a dangerous path of indifference towards the rest of mankind. If humans are no different to cats, then why do we not have the same penalties for animal cruelty as we do for cruelty to humans. Why do we eat animals but not humans? Why, when a natural disaster kills thousands of humans do we rush to their aid but in nowhere near the same numbers to help animals affected by the disaster. We don't think much about the chickens fo food, so why should we care about genocide in Darfour?

Humans are different and special - think anything else and the train of logic leads to some dark places

[Janos]

Originally Posted by Mr T.

I see an all too heathly smattering of pseuds and axe-to-grind scientists in this thread and nowhere near enough philosophers. Heigh-ho

Nnnnggng. I've been resisting getting involved in this thread, but [cracks fingers] after that comment I can resist no longer Well it beats the old PADI / BSAC debates!

Originally Posted by Bren

The key aspect of religion, certainly Christianity, is to love and help one another, not be selfish and realise that we are not special....

Bren, I think the point that Chris was making was that religions assume that the human race is special, not that individuals are special.

Originally Posted by Bren

I see an all too heathly smattering of pseuds and axe-to-grind scientists in this thread and nowhere near enough philosophers.

Well as someone who studied both while at University (although to be honest I didn't finish the Philosophy part - Physics was more interesting) I guess in your eyes I'm uniquely qualified to give a view Plus I'm ordained and everything So here it is:

IMHOTEP

All events can be explained equally by both science and magic (or religion)

One cannot disprove the the existence of gods or magic.

However, believing in the existance of a god or magic always requires an extra assumption (the existance of a god) and as such I believe that the simpler solution (lack of god) is more likely. (Occam's razor)

I have not yet seen any credible evidence that gods or magic exist (although I would like to - the world is easier if you have faith).

Laters,
Janos

[Gavin Smith]

Originally Posted by rooster

You only need to look at the source of about 65-70% of modern medicines to understand why habitat destruction and reduction in biodiversity in places like rainforests is a bad thing.

again it's bad for us...