• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

creation Vs evolution

sodium20

Student
S
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
25
this was in my local rag has anyone heard of these kooks

discussion 2:30 pm sunday 9th may
potteries museum and art galler furom theatre
hanley
stoke-on-trent
staffordshire
england

held in conjunction with united christian broadcasters , key speaker dr victor pearce anthropologist ,
dr victor pearce is going to argue that we are all made up of cells which work together like the running of a factory , with all parts needing to be present for the operation to function . he said " as all creatures are composed of cells , to account for their existence without a creator atheists clung to the theory that the cell was just a simple jelly like blob . but when more powerful microscopes made amazing discoveries these people had to rethink their beliefs and many famous atheists embraced religion ..........."
there is more but it is making me retch
it was in my local rag has anyone heard of these kooks
 
Welcome Sodium20, this is the Intelligent Design argument. basicaly they say that life is too complex to have evolved from just molecules. They don't believe in the power of time and random chance.

The current theories of abiogenesis have what are called "collectives of self catalyzing molecules" that start to associate with each other.

The problem with intelligent designs is that it isn't. Otherwise cells would not malfuction and create cancer.
 
sodium20 said:
this was in my local rag has anyone heard of these kooks

discussion 2:30 pm sunday 9th may
potteries museum and art galler furom theatre
hanley
stoke-on-trent
staffordshire
england

held in conjunction with united christian broadcasters , key speaker dr victor pearce anthropologist ,
dr victor pearce is going to argue that we are all made up of cells which work together like the running of a factory , with all parts needing to be present for the operation to function . he said " as all creatures are composed of cells , to account for their existence without a creator atheists clung to the theory that the cell was just a simple jelly like blob . but when more powerful microscopes made amazing discoveries these people had to rethink their beliefs and many famous atheists embraced religion ..........."
there is more but it is making me retch
it was in my local rag has anyone heard of these kooks
Click to expand...

Na20,

Stop them before they spread. This nonsense is a U.S. export that is making headway in the U.K. Eugenie Scott's organization here in the U.S. is, I believe, keeping tabs on these exports. She has good ideas on how to stem this tide of repulsive slime.

I wish you luck and welcome to the forum.
 
The other problem, of course, being that the entire thing is an argument from ignorance.


"I can't imagine how x would evolve, therefore an intelligent designer must have created it."
 
Here's a decent summary of 'Intelligent Design', as far as what they're trying to sell:

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/evolution.html

The crux of it is this (in my opinion). Creationists fought and lost. So they decided to change tactics, if religion wasn't allowed, then they'd pretend it was scientific. When people point out that it's really RELIGION (because it's creationism per the bible) they scream that their "belief" is just a valid as evolution "belief" and try to portray them as equal in that their both just "beliefs".

This of course ignores all scientific data, except the bits and pieces they attempt to use to bolster their argument. Unfortunately...it works. People see them talking in 'scientific terms' about God. Many people believe (regardless of what you believe scientifically) that there is 'something' behind it all.

That's all well and good. But whether or not one believes that, and if so WHAT is behind it...is a matter of religion. Which we don't teach in our schools in the United States.

Well...mostly. In Cobb Country Georgia, they are going to teach intelligent design if they can. There are a number of lawsuits going on, the school board voted that "intelligent design" must be presented with creationism, both as valid scientific theories. I know the ACLU is involved, I'd imagine some other organizations are as well.

The other problem (again just personal opinion) is that some people who are for intelligent design that I've seen (not here on the JREF boards, I'm new here) play what I can only call the 'Socrates for Dummies' method. They pretend to be stupid about science, and you're forced to basically educate them, because what they're saying doesn't make sense. (Such as a "theory" isn't EVER true...they believe it's just a blind guess, or act like they do :P). So you can get bogged down into being forced to deal with science basics just to level the playing field so everyone understands wtf the terms MEAN.

Then whammo, they'll start slamming things. Suddenly they are well versed in science, and they'll attempt to show that various things aren't necessarily so. And there are grey areas in science where we're still learning more. But...they will hold ONE contradiction up as the holy grail (even when it's not a contradiction) and act as though because one thing doesn't fit perfectly ALL OF IT must go. Which isn't the way reality works.

I'm running across more and more of them too, in the oddest places, so it's spreading pretty fast. I wasn't aware that it had exported to the UK, but it doesn't surprise me.

I'm not an expert in most things, most people aren't. However when I want opinions on something...when it counts, I rely on people who are experts, and I ask more than one. Intelligent Design...just isn't a scientific debate. It's not like evolution is under attack in the realm of science! It's under attack by religious groups...who are NOT experts in science. I'll allow that they may be experts in their various religious beliefs, but it doesn't carry over into the realm of science.

I'm probably preaching to the choir here (all puns always intended ;)) but whether someone wants to believe in 6th day creationism, or that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle...have fun. Just don't expect others to treat your beliefs with the seriousness a true believer puts into it...and don't expect others to have to learn it. If you want religion taught in schools, home school your kids, or put them in a private school.

Sorry, started ranting a little there. It just irks me.
 
sodium20 said:
held in conjunction with united christian broadcasters , key speaker dr victor pearce anthropologist ,
dr victor pearce is going to argue that we are all made up of cells which work together like the running of a factory , with all parts needing to be present for the operation to function . he said " as all creatures are composed of cells , to account for their existence without a creator atheists clung to the theory that the cell was just a simple jelly like blob . but when more powerful microscopes made amazing discoveries these people had to rethink their beliefs and many famous atheists embraced religion ..........."
there is more but it is making me retch
it was in my local rag has anyone heard of these kooks
Click to expand...
What that amounts to is the silly "Irreducibly Complex" argument. IC arguments are amongst the most persuasive to the the uneducated. Some folks believe the misconception that IC systems implies "cannot have evolved", far far from the truth.

I'd be more than willing to bet those "famouse atheists who had embraced religion" is a fabrication.
 
The crux of it is this (in my opinion). Creationists fought and lost. So they decided to change tactics, if religion wasn't allowed, then they'd pretend it was scientific. When people point out that it's really RELIGION (because it's creationism per the bible) they scream that their "belief" is just a valid as evolution "belief" and try to portray them as equal in that their both just "beliefs".
Click to expand...
It all depends on their audience and what they're after at the moment. At one time, they may claim that excluding Intelligent Design Creationism from discussion is a violation of the separation of church and state, & they have a right to be heard (as well as a lot of other religious preaching to themselves). The next moment they may claim that Intelligent Design Creationism should be presented because, after all, it is science. And these contradictions can come out of the mouth of the same person!
But you really have to dig into the background of "The Wedge", as the Intelligent Design Creationism movement is called--they want to replace modern science with a "theological science" such as was such a success during Medieval times. Check out Robert Pennock's books, "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics" & "The Tower of Babel", as well as "Creationism's Trojan Horse" by Forrest & Gross. Then hop over to talkorigins.org and talkdesign.org, among other places.

These arguments from ignorance, er, complexity, remind me of the many times I have seen an announcement of the discovery of a new design for a perpetual-motion machine--same old, with just the label "NEW!" added.
 
the whole evolution vs creation has been debated on the letters page in my local paper (the sentinel , stoke-on-trent ) , this meeting has been set up to let people put thier side , but only the religious side has a speaker and they are backing it ..........
 
Re: Re: creation Vs evolution

BillHoyt said:


Na20,

Stop them before they spread. This nonsense is a U.S. export that is making headway in the U.K. Eugenie Scott's organization here in the U.S. is, I believe, keeping tabs on these exports. She has good ideas on how to stem this tide of repulsive slime.

I wish you luck and welcome to the forum.
Click to expand...

I was about to say, I always though that ID/Creationism was a primarily N. American phenomena (as far as the push to get it recognized in public schools and such).

Has any IDer ever even heard of the scientific method? That's what always gets me...
 
(pardon my english, im a bit drunk right now)

I cant understand those creationists. Why do they need all these "scientific" explanations for their belief? I mean, if I would believe in the bible by the detail, I would just assume that God created the world in 6 days, as it is, whith all the traces of evolution etc in place. Maybe just to chalenge our faith, which seems so inportant for him to do in some parts of the bible.
Can anyone explain this?

Why do the "believers" feel they have to proove anything, when blind faith and humble obediance is the prefered attitude anyway?
 
Scratchy, I think Marian summarized it well.

"We want to teach creationism!"
"It's not science, you can't teach it."

"We want to teach scientific creationism"
"Don't try to slide that BS past us, it's still not science."

"We want to teach ... um.... Intelligent Design!"
"Well, it at least looks more like science....."




They want to teach their religious dogma in schools, but aren't allowed to bring it in through the front door, so they are trying to bring it in through the back.

Simple as that.
 
scratchy said:
(pardon my english, im a bit drunk right now)

I cant understand those creationists. Why do they need all these "scientific" explanations for their belief? I mean, if I would believe in the bible by the detail, I would just assume that God created the world in 6 days, as it is, whith all the traces of evolution etc in place. Maybe just to chalenge our faith, which seems so inportant for him to do in some parts of the bible.
Can anyone explain this?

Why do the "believers" feel they have to proove anything, when blind faith and humble obediance is the prefered attitude anyway?
Click to expand...
Because in the US, we have separation of church and state, whereas in other countries, it's accepted that the church and state are one, or at least, closely tied together (certainly moreso than here). Here, we've run by the idea that the government cannot dictate a state religion. The creationists are trying to get around that rule by stating their goals are not religious in nature, but scientific, and therefore should be taught in public schools. The fight comes from people who recognize creationism for what it is, that is, religion, and oppose it in public schools.

That's it in a nutshell.
 
scratchy said:
(pardon my english, im a bit drunk right now)

I cant understand those creationists. Why do they need all these "scientific" explanations for their belief? I mean, if I would believe in the bible by the detail, I would just assume that God created the world in 6 days, as it is, whith all the traces of evolution etc in place. Maybe just to chalenge our faith, which seems so inportant for him to do in some parts of the bible.
Can anyone explain this?

Why do the "believers" feel they have to proove anything, when blind faith and humble obediance is the prefered attitude anyway?
Click to expand...
I don't think you can simply frame the question in belief terms. It is a question of power and influence. The fundamentalist Christians and, now, Muslims, have painted themselves into a logical corner: the Bible (Koran) is literally true. As our knowledge increases, the facts no longer add up. Religions either abandon literal interpretations of their holy works or must fight to prove the literal reality of those works. Most religions abandon literal interpretations. The fundamentalists feel they must fight.

So they frame the fight along at least two major fronts: 1) Science is against God and therefore Satanic and 2) Science is just another belief system with no more to support it than any other belief system. Front 1 works for very few. Front 2 unites them with PostModernists (believe it or not), and these very strange bedfellows have a common interest in tearing down science by putting forth pseudoscience and nonsense in an effort to delude the populace into believing their claims have equal merit.

In the case of the fundies, it is about regaining the minds and hearts of the populace and its government, and therefore the power of numbers and money and influence. In the case of the PostModernists, it is about regaining the minds and hearts of academia and its management, and therefore the power of numbers and research funds and influence.
 
Nigel said:

Because in the US, we have separation of church and state, whereas in other countries, it's accepted that the church and state are one, or at least, closely tied together (certainly moreso than here). Here, we've run by the idea that the government cannot dictate a state religion. The creationists are trying to get around that rule by stating their goals are not religious in nature, but scientific, and therefore should be taught in public schools. The fight comes from people who recognize creationism for what it is, that is, religion, and oppose it in public schools.

That's it in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearifying answers, all three of them so far.

About state and church: in the scandinavian countries -and Sweden where I live- the church has since long been tightly linked to state and gouvernement, and still is to a great part. About 80% of the inhabitants in Sweden are members of the Swedish evangelical-lutheran church, but less than 10% state that they have a christian belief. I would say that "the market" for creationistic ideas is -yet- non existing over here, except whithin quite marginal "free" churches of different sorts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom