Creationalism

[Englishbird]

I am getting increasingly annoyed and frustrated at all the reporting on creationalism. I concede that I may just be a bi-product of an over enthusiastic press, but how can any intelligent human being look me in the eye and tell me they genuinely believe that 'god' created the world in 7 days and created Adam and Eve (which, btw, makes us all inbreds). I not only find it incredulous, it's basically just p*ssing me off !!! Is this still a ridiculous minority or is it a growing concern?

[Clanad]

It's almost supernatural, El D... haven't seen a post of your for several months, but as soon as this subject is broached... voila! At any rate wellcome back! You do seem to have tempered though. Flew's concept of Designer is obviously in its formative, seminal state. But, considering he is near 90 years old and a professing, practising atheist all of his life, even you would have to concede something remarkable has occurred here.
I've previously stated that those on the Creationist side that adhere to a young earth belief have caused as much damage to reaching a logically thought out, dare I say, researched position as any attack from atheism or agnosticism. I think they fear that if they concede a universe 13.7 billions of years old and an earth 4.5 billions of years old that perhaps... just perhaps evolution could actually work. Nothing could be farther from the truth, in my opinion. Remarkably, none of the scientific facts are at odds with a reasoned study of Scripture... but that's another story in itsefl.The most troubling fact to many scientists is that no amount of time, even infinity, could produce life as explained by evolutionary theory. But, having said that those of this school are no more missunderstanding of the state of scientific investigation than those who allow nothing other than naturalistic explanation.

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

There are those creationists (I really don't like that tag, but since it is readily recognized by most, I'll grudgingly accept it) who believe the evidence is measurable. By that I mean, we can measure the size of the universe, we can measure how old it is, we can measure the startling, revolutionary fact that the universe had a defined beginning and a precise time and place relative to our galaxy and solar system I don't think the casual inquirer has an appreciation at the quantum (pun only partially intended) sea change that has occurred since 1991 with the discovery of the Big Bang, as it's called. Understand, please, I don't count myself among any of the truly credentialed scientists, far from it. But, I think anyone can read and understand the current state of inquiry by those scientists, at least in part.
Justsia comes as close as any one on this site to my position...Thanks!

[parkesquay]

Ward-Minter you really are a one dimentional man. Who are you to call somebody a heathen just because they don't have the same beliefs as you. For all your pratting on the fact is the trial involving the Dover School and the teaching of intelligent design as a proven science proved conclusively that intelligent was based on a wrong assumption.

Why also are you surprised that Darwin was shaken by his findings. After all he was brought up in a dogmatic faith and to reach the conclusions he did and then publish them just goes to show what a remakable man he was. It has taken me many years to realise that there is no such thing as GOD but I personally accept that you have a right to believe in one if it makes you happy.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Did you see the news today? Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury has stated he doesn't believe creationalism should be taught in schools.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html

[Englishbird]

I saw that briefly on a news programme last night, I like Rowan Williams anyway, and this just proves a massive point to me.

Clanad, I'll admit a lot of your answers go over my head, I'm not a scholar and I'm about as likely to study the scriptures as I am to read Proust, but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. You use the phrase 'a reasoned study of Scripture' and I'm afraid I think that's where a lot of religions let themselves down.

Darwins theory of Evolution, is exactly that, a theory, he never pretended he knew it all, and I've never heard one atheist say they know how the world began, basically because they don't.

Why isn't it the 'theory of creationism' and why won't religions admit they don't know.

[WaldoMcFroog]

The word 'theory' when used in conjuction with 'evolution/ary' is often siezed upon by pro-Creationalists and implied to mean something along the lines of 'well, we've had some woolly ideas about this, but we can't prove them'. In fact, the word 'theory' when applied to science has a very different meaning and is certainly not any indicator that there's no proof to back up what's being said.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science

[Englishbird]

I understand that with my vague recollections of A level chemistry, but it works to the same end really, stating that Scientific theory's are never proven to be true. There is also the allowance within science that there are exceptions to the rule. This flexibility and logical reasoning are desperately lacking in religion.

Although I will concede that 'we' (the heathens) give religion little chance to be vague and demand conclusive answers. Although again I argue that they put themselves up for this by having conclusive answers when it suits them.

I'm getting dizzy, it's not as easy as it looks arguing with yourself.

[Clanad]

I understand your point, Englishbird.. but, further re: Waldo's point... most evolutionists simply state that a theory involving Intelligent Design and it's corollary Creation by Design is not falsifiable. Actually, it (they?)
are, but that's another thread. The problem for the evolutionists is they have found the same accusation applies to their position. However, when cofronted with the conundrum's inherent, they simply change the fundamental tenets of their faith. That is precisely why I ask if the true believers have actually read Darwin and if so which Edition, since it has changed and changed dramatically. Additionally, the more modern priests of the evolutionitst's faith find it's easier to change the theory to try to fit facts rather than the time honored falsification process. That's inherently (pun intended) unfair, unprofessional and misleading to the public...

[WaldoMcFroog]

I realise you always bring it up, so presumably you think there's some point we're missing, but why do you keep banging on about which version of The Origin of Species one might have read?

We all know that there are changes in different editions. And?

Any one who says they have a belief in evolution may be expousing a view that has developed from those in Darwin's works, but modern evolutionary theory is patently not The Origin of Species. It's er... evolved... in light of the work of subsequent scientists. And will continue to do so - a fact neither hidden nor in dispute, despite your apparent conviction that it is, on both counts.

That's how science works, and to my knowledge, none of the pro-evolutionary fans on here have ever contended otherwise. If I may act as unelected spokesperson for everyone else in the evolution camp, I think we all understand the point you're making, we just don't know how that's supposed to be a revelation, or how you think it's supposed to improve the Creation camp's position.

[Clanad]

It's puzzling, Waldo, that since I (and others) have pointed out the constantly changing explanation of how evolution works and how it produced what is observed today and how many scientists disagree, sometimes violently, as to the mechanics of the theory, that you still refuse to see the point. That being, what is it you actually believe about evolution? Once that's stated then it's fair to ask for the evidence. When some sort of evidence is produced and challenged, usually by the scientific community, the theory is changed, and often quite dramatically. Does the phrase "Punctuated Equilibrium" ring a bell? That's just one of the many permutations under which the theory has gone over the years. Yet, it's tatters are still clung to, almost in desperation, because to abandon it leaves its adherents with nothing in which to believe. It's as much a religion and belief system as Creationists are accused if being, yet its true believers maintain that its illegal and blasphemous to speak of that other possibility. Additionally, most scientists of the Darwinian camp would challenge you to a duel at sunrise over your statement that... "modern evolutionary theory is patently not the Origin of the Species"... at least from the journals I read...

[WaldoMcFroog]

If you actually managed to produce 'another possibility' then maybe it would be considered but all that has happened is that you go 'Er... we don't know how this can have happened.... er... so... um... oh, I know; it must have been God.'

As you well know, evolution can be proved; micro and macroevolution, including speciation have all been seen countless times under laboratory and field conditions. What you probably don't accept is that this rate of change could conceivably have produced the current diversity of life from a single ancestor, but if you're claiming that evolution itself has not been observed, you really need to tell the scientists who've actually seen it happening. I expect they'll be upset.

Evolution remains the single most credible explanation for the development life that we have come up with so far and durr, yes, its hypothesis being modified in light of new evidence and no we don't have all the answers (it being science, n' all, and like um, that being how science works). But that's okay.

[WaldoMcFroog]

I'm not sure how you manage to come to the conclusion that Evolution's is in tatters and it's ironic that you claim 'to abandon it leaves its adherents with nothing in which to believe' given that's actually your position on Creationalism! If someone disproved evolution tomorrow, I'd go with the replacement theory quite happily, as long as it was based in science. I'm just not going with some quack notion that has no grounding in anything other than 'this old book of dubious provenance and contradictory stories says this is how it happened, and we can't actually think of any way to disprove it, er... therefore it's true.'

I certainly have no problems with notions such as Punctuated Equlibrium being postulated as possible mechanisms for evolution. This and other mechanisms will continue to be observed and the theory will be adjusted in light of the findings. Again, that being how science works.

I'm sorry evolution seems to you to be constantly changing its mind yet dogmatic at the same time. I suspect that the dogmatic aspect probably comes from continually and rigidly rejecting one particular line of inquiry on the basis that it's palpably unscientific. It's just a shame that happens to be your belief system...

[Clanad]

As I'm sure you're aware, Waldo, there exists not one uncontested example in the fossil record of speciation... in fact biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich report, "The production of a new animal species in nature has yet to be documented. In the vast majority of cases, the rate of change is so slow that it has not even been possible to detect an increase in the amount of differentiation."

At the same time, as the Ehrlichs also point out, we are witnessing an extinction rate of about one species per hour. Even if the human activity factors are removed, one is still left with an extinction rate of at least one species every year. New species arrive in the record full blown and complete with no intermediate forms. The Cambrian Explosion is the ne plus ultra of this phenomena. The Cambrian �Explosion� is a dramatic event in life�s history taking place around 540 million years ago. Over the course of perhaps less than 2-3 million years, nearly every animal phylum (over 70) ever to exist on earth appeared. Since that time no new animal phyla have been introduced. Phyla are the categories in the biological classification hierarchy that refer to an organism�s body plan, or architectural design. (Source: The Community Structure of the Middle Cambrian Phyllopod Bed ). Simply stated, if evolution is at work, it's doing a terrible job, no?

Even the self-proclaimed atheist Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at New York University, proclaims that no natural explanation for the origin of life exists. Interested readers may want to check out his book, Origins: A Skeptic�s Guide to the Origin of Life on Planet Earth.

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

I'm also sure you're aware that the theory within a theory du jour; Punctuated Equilibrium has been totally abandoned once someone asked the penetrating question "How did the 'hopeful monster' manage to reproduce?"
Additionally, you know, of course, evolution dictates that chance governs the evolutionary process at its most fundamental level. Because of this, it is expected that repeated evolutionary events will result in dramatically different outcomes. The concept of Historical Contingency embodies this idea and is the theme of Stephen J. Gould�s Wonderful Life:

��No finale can be specified at the start, none would ever occur a second time in the same way, because any pathway proceeds through thousands of improbable stages. Alter any early event, ever so slightly, and without apparent importance at the time, and evolution cascades into a radically different channel.� (Source: Stephen J. Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History )

Gould�s metaphor of �replaying life�s tape� asserts that if one were to push the rewind button, erase life�s history, and let the tape run again, the results would be completely different. At its most distilled, the evolutionary process renders evolutionary outcomes as nonreproducible (or nonrepeatable). Therefore, �repeatable� evolution is inconsistent with the mechanism available to bring about biological change. Yet, during the last six years numerous examples of �repeatable� evolution have come to light as molecular data has been increasingly used in biological systematics. These findings demonstrate that the evolutionary paradigm fails the test of contingency. The discovery of morphologically identical, yet genetically unrelated organisms is actually fairly widespread.
Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

So, here we are yet again at total loggerheads filling Englishbird's e-mail in-box with notifications of yet another broadside. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. Last thread on this subject ran for several hundred posts and finally died of sheer exhaustion...