HoboAssassin

The problem with that "letting bad things happen" is that it's plain disgusting. He allows thousands upon thousands of innocent children to die and be slaughtered, he allows planes to be flown into the WTC, he allowed every vile act to happen for what!? To test our faith!? That is plain disgusting, letting innocent people die to see a result that he would already know. Not a god I would want to worship.

Onto the evolution matter, if there is a god why would evolution take place in the first place? Wouldn't he was unable to make a prime being in the first place and nature had to do its work to "fix" it.
Onto another question if you are a christian who believes in evolution, what were Adam and Eve be then? Were they the first species of man?

DarkAztek

I didn't want this thread turning into a "does God exist" discussion... Because that can prattle on forever. The original purpose of this thread was to discuss Intelligent Design being taught in schools versus the Theory of Evolution being taught instead. Please stick to that debate.

__________________
[CENTER]
Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō[/CENTER]
[CENTER]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/HookerBodyShots/shark.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[center][b]Filler content[/b][/center]

Hiraku

Evolution is a proven scientific theroy. Physical change can be seen in animals all around the world. Evolution is an on going process that can not be stoped. Creatianism is a way of thought that hinders the idea of evolution as a secular creation. But evoulution explains most of the questions of were everything originated and came from. That is why creatianism was created to stop the spread of evoution as scientific fact.

HoboAssassin

Intelligent Design does not belong in the class of science. If it is a private christian school, sure teach w/e crap you want. But if it is a public school ID should definitely not be taught. There is no evidence supporting it, and it is definitely not accepted in the scientific community.

Hiraku

creatianism is stupid how can it be proben by the word of some guy that just made it up. For the truth may be that evolution was god creation in the begining. Creatianism is a ploy to get the future generations of america become dumb racist ignoraimaces. That is why there pushing for creasianism to be taught in public schools along side evoulution. The power of law suits may make that a posibility.

HoboAssassin

No, a law suit cannot make that possible. Thats putting religion into public schools, which it cannot be in. Evolution is part of science, creationism isn't. So I don't see where creationism would be taught in a public school, or why it should.

Vanity

This is just bleh, no need to read it really.



Creationism isn’t a part of ‘science’ to you because people no longer look at it as a ‘theory’ anymore. Of course people don’t find scientific ‘facts’ on it because you don’t go out of your way to search for them, now do you? And if you DO stumble upon them it’s from evolution point of view, using it to some how ‘prove’ their own theory by pointing out ‘fallacies’ in ID’s theory.

Science > noun > 1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
The theory of creationism can be studied just as much as evolution can if one keeps an open mind. This also being the case for people who believe in ID.

IMO since we live in such a liberalistic world if Evolution and such is to be taught as a theory, so should ID meaning: Both should be looked into thoroughly and carefully so people have the option to believe in what they chose, and not just because one or the other is the only one taught.

__________________
My nerves are bad to-night.
Yes, bad.

Stay with me.

Speak to me.
Why do you never speak?

Speak.
What are you thinking of?

What thinking?
What?

I never know what you are thinking.

Think.

DarkAztek

Vanity: ...I'm, um, sorry I called you on your bullshit? My bad, I guess.



Here's a few facts: Evolution is science. Intelligent Design is not, it's just creationism under another guise. ID does not even seek understanding of the universe, it just claims that we must have been created because everything is complex, then it tries to poke holes in evolutionary theory. If you want to learn unscientific theory, then that's fine. You want to talk philosophy? That's fine too. Just don't do it in a SCIENCE CLASS.

Here's the kicker: You can HAVE evolutionary theory and STILL believe in creationism. You are being tested on SCIENCE, so you just need to study it. I can't walk into a religion class and just say that "You need to teach both sides!" and expect to walk away unscathed. Why should a science class be any different?

__________________
[CENTER]
Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō[/CENTER]
[CENTER]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/HookerBodyShots/shark.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[center][b]Filler content[/b][/center]

Ninja48

@Vanity,

If you're going to be picky and define religion as "a belief followed with devotion," then sure, atheism can be religion, in some awkward way. It would have to depend on the individuals level of devotion. Some people can not believe in God (ie be an atheist) and not be considerably devoted to their belief. And hell, if that's really the definition of religion, then I follow many religions. I believe devoutly that a certain anime that I'm going to watch will be incredibly awesome in future episodes. Am I the founder of the believing-that-Gurren-Lagann-will-be-fuck-epic religion?

I see a religion as this:
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
Read it please.

Now, being atheist only means one thing, "to not believe in god." Whether or not that they are religious is irrelevant to the definition of being an athiest. But it is said that most atheists are irreligious.

Therefore, saying atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Why? Well, lets analyze these statements. "I collect stamps, therefore collecting stamps is my hobby. I do not collect stamps, therefore not collecting stamps is my hobby." Does that make any sense? Now, rephrase the statements to make sense of atheism and religion. "I follow religious traditions, therefore the religion that these traditions follow is my religion. I do not follow religious traditions, therefore not following this certain religions tradition is my religion."



Okay, now back on topic.

I really don't like it when people say "oh, well science created evolution just to have their own thing separate from religion and creation," because that's simply not the case. Science is completely separate from religion, yeah, but it's not like they're TRYING to go against religion. Science just tries to describe the world in a way where we can use our descriptions to better control and understand the world around us. It's not like we go "man those Christians and their beliefs really piss me off... let's make up some theory that goes against their beliefs, and then get some evidence, just to mess with them."

And Vanity, it's not a matter of whether the scientific community is "open minded" or not to "accept" creationism. It's just that we have found evidence in the things around us, and now use that evidence to conjecture a theory to explain what the evidence points us towards. We can't "look for evidence that supports creationism" because, well, we've already been looking for evidence that will explain what creationism explains, and that is our origins. The evidence we found just happens to go against the idea that we were created in seven days, so that's what we use to explain our origin.

If the scientific community found evidence that supported the idea that the earth is only a few thousand years old, then we'd probably start telling Christians to interpret in the story of genesis literally. But that isn't the case, and now we believe in evolution, and suggest Christians to interpret the story of genesis as some sort of metaphor. Did we want it this way? Personally, I find that the former situation would have been far more comforting to have, and would make things WAY more simple than they are in the latter situation, which is how things really are.

As for whether or not creationism is a science, see DarkAztek's first paragraph there. Science is more than just "something that is used to explain something," in the same way religion is much more than just a belief.

__________________

flareofdragon

I find these "Evolution" debates simply idiotic because no one has really explored what the issue is. If the two sides are two opposing armies, then one has charged into the plains while the other charges into the mountains. When a battleground has not been set, then the battle cannot occur.

Similarly, Evolution is an understanding based on Natural clues without the influence of the self into it. There is nothing except the material. Creationism is an understanding that partakes the self. The Creationists believe that evolution has ripped this "spiritual soul" out of the Bible, while the evolutionists are trying their hardest to maintain materiality.

There is actually nothing prohibiting a Christian from believing the Theory of Evolution, its just that one can get lost in the maze of misunderstandings... Which is why some creationists would argue that Evolution has no scientific basis. The self is always superior to the minds of others, so they must figure it out by themselves. Why argue? If you teach someone something, they will never learn. If they were really after the truth, then they would have understood already from unbiased sources.

__________________
freerice.com

flareofdragon.deviantart.com

Ninja48

I think the main misunderstanding lies in the idea that the Bible can be used to explain things absolutely literally. The science of evolution and the idea of creationism are two separate things, just as science and philosophy do not conflict with each other.

But once you take the Bible literally, the Bible enters the realm of science, and evolution conflicts with the idea of creation. Evolutionists are angry because the Bible uses faith instead of evidence to support it's theories, while creationists are angry that evolution goes against their faith based beliefs. Since you cannot change faith with evidence, evolutionists are at a loss, while the creationists cannot change the science of evolution with faith.

__________________

Miburo

None of the above, actually. As I've already stated, the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory for a reason. You would have to supply some pretty compelling evidence against it if you're going to disregard it without looking silly.

Creationism (and ID, they're the same thing) is completely different. It doesn't have any credible evidence to support it. And there isn't much to not understand, it really does boil down to saying "God did it." Sure, ID goes into some (Horribly illogical) reasonings to support this statement, but there really isn't much more too it than that. That's fine if you want to believe in that stuff, but don't pretend it holds a candle to the paleontological, geological, and biological evidence that the Theory of Evolution brings to the table.

They're not equally credible beliefs, what kind of crazy logic would make anyone come to the conclusion that they should be both considered equally? Keep credible scientific theories in science class, and cram the non-credible religious beliefs in some religion elective. What's the problem?

flareofdragon

But why do they believe that the bible should be taken literally? Its not because they want to take the bible literally, it is because they feel that to maintain their belief they have to believe the bible cannot lie. If the bible lies, then their whole understanding they have between the self and God would be a lie. Thus, their understanding of the bible must not be changed, otherwise they have went to become the disbeliever.

This is their understanding of the world. Although you and I may believe something different, we cannot make them understand Theory of Evolution without focusing on this core issue. To extend my previous analogy, this is the war that both sides want to win. And this issue is mostly a problem of self-understanding and how we view the problem. Its not really an issue that is dictated by facts.

__________________
freerice.com

flareofdragon.deviantart.com

HoboAssassin

A good point. You can teach a religious person all you want about evolution, but if they aren't willing to accept it, they're not. Because deep down they believe they are 100% right. There is no doubt in their mind. They have to have truly a life-changing experience that would shatter that certainty, which
rarely happens.

Miburo

Why not? Sure, in a political situation governed by votes and popular opinion I could see how changing a person's perspective could become an issue. But from a strictly logical or philosophical standpoint, is it really that important? Isn't it better to present a factual, logically sound, valid argument and have a bunch of stupid people disagree with it instead of trying to compromise to make people happy? Because, really, a valid argument or belief isn't suddenly invalid just because a bunch of stupid people don't believe in it.

I see where you're coming from on this one, honestly I do. And I think it's wise to 'agree to disagree' when two or more equally valid point of views are established. However, in this scenario there really is one logically superior belief and I don't see the error in arguing for it even if there's a bunch of unreasonable people that will disagree no matter what. Besides, there'd be a lot less to debate about if no one bothered arguing with unreasonable people, and that'd be boring as hell. ; )