Creationism not valid when put against scientific thought

By on February 13, 2012 12:10 AM CST
Share

As science progresses, humanity loses the need to use imagination to answer life’s basic questions; we know that cigarettes cause cancer, lead is not a good product to put into paint and appendixes have lost their luster. However, for Creationists, the idea of the imagination being the central processing unit is still strong, giving the public school system a real run for its money.

When thinking of evolution, Charles Darwin and his ideas of the survival of the fittest are the first things that come to mind. However, the process of evolution is described as different living organisms being developed and diversified from common ancestors previously on Earth.

Evolutionary beliefs have stood alone since before the 19th century. They don’t need creation science in order to exist. Evolution is science-based and derived solely from the scientific method.

The dictionary describes creation science as the interpretation of scientific knowledge in accord with belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially in regarding the creation of matter, life and humankind in six days.

This specific interpretation of science is not just another theory that’s out on the Internet, but one that is to be planted in the minds of fourth graders all over the country alongside the teachings of evolution. That’s a grown-up presenting an atlas and globe at the front of a classroom and saying: globe believers to the left, but if you for some reason believe the world is flat and you can fall off, it’s okay, come to the right.

The fight between creationism and evolution in the school system has been a long and just one, from the Scopes “monkey” trial in Tennessee in 1925 to the six new bills hitting New Hampshire, Missouri, Indiana and Oklahoma this year alone.

The State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes was a landmark case against a lone Tennessee teacher who tried to brainwash students with the facts of evolution. Although Scopes was found guilty he was able to go free.

A later case, Edwards vs. Aguillard in 1987, went to the Supreme Court where it ruled the Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught alongside evolution in public schools was unconstitutional; this, because the law was specifically intended on advancing one particular religion: Christianity.

The support for Aguillard’s case on evolution consisted of 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists who all described this creation science as being composed of religious precepts. As I recall, we are a nation with the separation of church and state.

Now, the public officials moving these bills today blame evolution for Nazism and the events of the Columbine shootings. Jerry Bergevin, a Republican sponsor for a New Hampshire bill, says, “it’s a worldview and it’s godless.”

All of the legislators say the same thing. They relate evolution to ungodly and unholy acts around the nation. To them, creationism is not a science that stands alone, but one that can only stand with the downfall of evolution.

One can only wonder why such bills continue to blemish the legislative system day after day and question what they are really after. The Oklahoma bill isn’t just “anti-evolution,” but also speaks on offense to the “theory” of global warming. This Oklahoma bill, along with a Tennessee bill, aims its vengeance at “scientific controversies.”

Adding fuel to the fire, all of the funding for these permissive bills seems to be coming from the recent public school funding cuts bills. Conservatives are fighting for school voucher systems in the name of “choice,” which diverts money from public to private schools.

For example, the sponsor of Indiana’s anti-scientific controversies bill is Dennis Kruse, also the chairman of the Senate education committee.

It seems if you can’t beat science, deny, deny, deny science, and then just stop teaching it to the public altogether.

 

Sophia Fazal is a junior majoring in anthropology. Her column runs on Mondays.

  • Charles Norrie

    Very sensible, Ms Fazal.  In my day evolution wasn’t on the curriculum for fourth graders, whatever they are, and you learnt biology – largely about techniques, so my learning of evolution started when O became a disbelieving adolescent and the God and fairy stories of childhood didn’t work any more.

    From a reasoanble understanding of Darwin – I read the Origin from cover to cover, and the Dawkins, Gould, Browne, Keynes, Dennett and the rest, and well as self-education in religious relativism, I came to my position I have for over 40 years – of a hard-agnostic (I won’t do into the differences) Darwinian who has accepted all the reasonable development of the theory – genetics, DNA and the rest to the modern synthesis today.
     
    And when you’ve done that you will have no need to return to the dogmatic nostrums of the schoolroom, church and nursery.

    Drawin’s vision is very grand, it would be well if all would learn to see it.

  • Anonymous

    Of course, you are right. Sustain your courage with reason at all times. 

    “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward Truth.” —MLK, Jr.

  • Robert Landbeck

    If creationism is not valid, is any religious thought unable to demonstrate it’s own efficacy anything other than institutional wishful thinking? We may be about to find out as the greatest of all historical bubble looks set to burst any time soon. 

    The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined and predictable experience and called ‘the first Resurrection’ in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods’ willingness to real Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine transcendence.

    Thus ‘faith’ is the path, the search and discovery of this direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, Law, command and covenant,  “correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries.” So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at http://www.energon.org.uk
    http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final-freedoms/

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JPJUSWUKLZRVMUKT5LAZUTO4Z4 general box

      wow…what a confused web of thought.  If Faith is all it took, people who believe in idols may be as True as you. 

    • Chris Weiss

      This is known as “word salad.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1211010177 Tim Lightningassassin Keele

        Word salad.  Synonyms:  Alphabet soup, dictionary roulette, buzzword barrage, metaphor melange.  

        Word Salad Recipe:
         
        One head of locution lettuce, washed clean of context. Shred.
        Take two raw opposing philosophies, mince, and mix thoroughly.
            -Opposing tastes will combine in the palate to produce a soothing, ideological mouthfeel.
        Cut two fresh leaves from a thesaurus, for color.
        Open and drain a can of diced allusions.  
            -Poetic allusions preferred, but Biblical allusions will do in a pinch.
            
        Now take all ingredients, and toss in a bowl until sufficiently jumbled.  Proofread until remotely legible.

        For garnish, sprinkle with grated wish fulfillment.  Add crazy sauce to taste.  
        Makes as many servings as you can copy and paste on internet forums.

  • Anonymous

    Current creationism is not valid, but the truth of Genesis (Observations of Moses) supersedes the false conclusions of science.  Atheists and evolutionists run every time I make an offer for them to present their evidence for evolution, and I then present the “Observations of Moses”.  It is the ONLY presentation that correctly conveys the truth of Genesis chapter one.

    Stop your idle talk, and meet me on Main street and Broadway, for all the people to see and hear.
    Both current Creationism and the evolution theory are false.  Yet the truth of God’s Word (Genesis) correctly tells of our origins and history of life for the past 4+ billion years.

    Put your money where your mouth is, or just shut up.  You are just running away from reality.

    Herman Cummings
    ephraim7@aol.com

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JPJUSWUKLZRVMUKT5LAZUTO4Z4 general box

      do you have any evidence for Moses and the other stories other than Bible thumping ??  If you need evidence of Darwin’s theory, visit the Smithsonian.   The day you dig out Goliaths’ fossil, give us a call.

      • http://profiles.google.com/aelbein Asher Elbein

        Actually, please do give us a call if you find that. A giant fossilized man sounds pretty cool. 

        Also, there’s no point in debating someone who makes up facts to go along with their arguments. Just a thought. 

    • Chris Weiss

      People start running as they will when insane people begin spewing unsupportable nonsense.

      No one is going to waste anymore time listening to your ranting.  Other people have responded and shot you down, yet you persist.

      The definition of stupidity (or insanity, take your pick) is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

      No one shares your views Herman, and no rational person will be converted by you.  Please go away

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JPJUSWUKLZRVMUKT5LAZUTO4Z4 general box

    How did this whole idea of comparing Creationism with Evolution even start.   Its apples and oranges to begin with.   Its like comparing magic with logic.   One is trickery of a subtle kind and the other requires critical thought.  The two does not and will not mix.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Herron/657206017 Michael Herron

      Magic can be “understood” in a fraction of a minute, science takes study. People take the easy way.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JPJUSWUKLZRVMUKT5LAZUTO4Z4 general box

    Unbelievable..a country that sent Man to the Moon still believes in Magic.

  • Anonymous

    Another “enlightened” liberal(assumedly). Tell me oh enlightened one, how does science explain the existence of the first piece of matter? How does matter just appear out of nothing? How did simple transform into living organisms?

    • http://twitter.com/miss_smashley Ashley Oles

      Your name here is misleading. You’re not dropping facts; you’re asking ridiculous questions. Also, I’ll give you a hint. Matter did not (and cannot) appear out of nothing! And scientists certainly don’t posit this. They also don’t claim to have all the answers. You know who does claim to have all the answers? Religious folk!
      Maybe your name should be “Dropping_Strawmen,” instead!

      • Anonymous

        Atheist argument on this subject: “I dont know if im right but I know you are wrong.”
        Guess you cant argue with that logic…

        • Jeb

          Religious argument on this subject: “I don’t have facts supporting what I’m saying, but life had to come from somewhere so the supernatural being I believe in must have done it, and everybody that believes otherwise will burn for eternity.”

          • Anonymous

            You have no “facts” either. Your belief requires more faith than mine

          • http://www.facebook.com/brad.erthal Brad Erthal

            Don’t you think that faith is a virtue? I certainly don’t, but I thought that was typically what Christians believed. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Grimes/100001668000952 John Grimes

            Even if it turns out that science is completely wrong about cosmological theory, that would still not mean “goddidit.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1211010177 Tim Lightningassassin Keele

        Actually, matter kind of can appear out of nothing, and does all the time, thanks to quantum mechanics.  It’s complicated.  Suffice to say that physicists do have theories that can explain the origin of the first chunk of matter now, if matter did indeed come in a first chunk.  And Stephen Hawking has indeed addressed the issue in his most recent book.  We now have theories explaining the ex nihilo universe.  Cool, huh?

        • Anonymous

          So with no catalyst or reactants something just appears huh? You think that is more believable than a Creator? More power to you but at least I have an answer.

          • Jeb

            If your intellectual curiosity only goes so far as what sounds reasonable according to a random post online, then that speaks volumes about the belief system you have. Have you researched this theory and studied quantum mechanics? Have you read Stephen Hawking’s book? I’m guessing not… so you are essentially rejecting an idea because it sounds complicated. If you would be interested in providing counter-evidence to oppose this theory that doesn’t involve stories written thousands of years ago and collected into book form by an organization that throughout history has suffered from corruption, deceit, and the refusal to acknowledge scientific advancements, then I would love to discuss the various quantum mechanic theories wit you some more.

            To to contrary, we are rejecting your theory because there is absolutely no supporting evidence, no data gather during experimentation, and relies solely on an individual’s ability to believe extraordinary things despite all logic.

            I personally respect religion and do not feel the need to disprove it as many atheists seem to get obsessed with. However when you attack science and try to replace it with voodoo magic, I get defensive. The church has done this throughout history and every time, has been made a fool. There is not a single scientific advancement that the church opposed or which resulted in the burning of scientists as heretics in which they have been judged by history to be correct.

          • Anonymous

            Something appearing out of nothing is not just complicated. It is voodoo magic to believe that something can appear out of oblivion without some sort of catalyst or reactant. Just because Stephen Hawking is super intelligent doesnt make him not delusional on this subject, which he is. The whole theory that matter can just randomly appear was built around the fact that matter had to appear for the first time somewhere. Theories had to be built around that pillar of fact which cant be unproven.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Grimes/100001668000952 John Grimes

            Matter appeared for the first time after the Big Bang. We don’t yet – and may never – know where the Big Bang singularity came from.

            If it came from anywhere.

            But “we don’t know” is not equal to “goddidit.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1005120906 AK Rockwell

            It’s not more believable, but we have experimental evidence of it happening. That’s where science and religion differ. We can SEE what’s happening (for the most part). There is evidence everywhere in the form of scientific data and experiments. I’m going to post a wikipedia article, but if you want a “better” source, look for published papers on virtual particles. This will explain the “coming from nothing” issue we seem to be having. 

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Virtual_particles_in_vacuums 

            http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html 

            Just try and look at the facts and read about the evidence before spouting that it is wrong. Just because you don’t yet understand something does not mean that it is incorrect.

    • Jacob Crossfield

      Mathematically, it has been proven that you can get something from nothing when you look at neutrino physics.. subatomic particles can and will spontaneously appear. Stephen Hawking wrote a whole book on it.Just saying..

    • http://www.facebook.com/brad.erthal Brad Erthal

      There are a lot of hypotheses about abiogenesis and the origin of the universe. We don’t necessarily know which is correct, but unlike “Yahweh did it,” or “Allah did it,” or “Ehecatl did it,” they are falsifiable, so at least we can weed out some of the incorrect ones. 

  • Anonymous

    Has anyone ever thought of the possibility of creationism and evolution as being side by side? It’s not really apples and oranges. I like to call it God-guided evolution. The Bible says that God created the world in 6 days- but why is this taken literally? God has been in existence longer than we can comprehend, and will continue to be in existence longer than we can comprehend- whose to say the six days the bible talks about is in the same time frame that we know as six 24 hour days? Those six days could really be thousands of years… I don’t understand why it has to be one or the other or why people get upset over evolution being taught in schools. You learn science at school, and religion in church.

    Having said that, science changes every single day. Let’s not forget that.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Grimes/100001668000952 John Grimes

      “Having said that, science changes every single day. Let’s not forget that.”

      Your point being?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Herron/657206017 Michael Herron

        His point is that religion never corrects mistakes?

      • Anonymous

        My point being that many people will never argue with science because it is “fact”, but it’s important to remember that it always changes.

        Some people find it hard to believe in God because there is no evidence, but they follow science blindly even though we learn more every day, and what we used to think was fact might now be different, or entirely wrong. I understand how people find it hard to believe in something there is no evidence for, but is it really any more comforting believing in something that changes every day? I think we should be open to every possibility. I believe in God, but that doesn’t mean I reject science. Why does science reject God? They don’t have to flat out accept, but why the rejection? You can’t prove

        • http://www.facebook.com/brad.erthal Brad Erthal

          Evaluating beliefs isn’t about being “comfortable”. It’s about looking for truth. And of course science doesn’t give absolutely correct answers. But it gives good tentative answers. The reason that a belief in God doesn’t belong in the science classroom, or in a journal, or anywhere near the scientific method, is that religious claims, insofar as they aren’t outright falsified (the Israelite flight from Egypt, geocentrism, the physical and psychological importance of a “soul”, and many more), are not falsifiable. If a claim isn’t falsifiable, it can’t be a hypothesis. If it can’t be a hypothesis, it isn’t subject to scientific claims. Do your faith a favor and keep it a long way from science. The track record of religious claims in science is abysmal. 

        • Jeb

          Science rejects religion because science relies on facts. Do you really want science to accept stories handed down through thousands of years as fact? Keep in mind, if we are going to accept your idea we won’t limit it solely to Christianity because after all, what makes your religion more true than somebody else’s other than the fact that it seems that way because it is the most widely accepted religion in your geographical area? That means that Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, and Scientology are true too.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Grimes/100001668000952 John Grimes

          “My point being that many people will never argue with science because it
          is “fact”…but
          they follow science blindly even though we learn more every day, and
          what we used to think was fact might now be different, or entirely
          wrong.”

          You seem to be saying that learning is a *bad* thing, or at least somehow scary, and that believing in a god is better.

          I really don’t see any validity whatsoever to your position. Of course we learn more, and as we do, scientific knowledge advances; our understanding of nature improves. Don’t you find that exciting? How can that not be comforting, to know that we now know more than we did yesterday?

          What you are describing is minds that are fearful of change, of knowledge, of uncertainty, and minds like that don’t do too well, as a rule.

          “I believe in God, but that doesn’t mean I reject science.”

          I’m sure you believe that, but think about it; you are rejecting the fundamental principle of science: that old beliefs must be swept away in the light of new knowledge, that the goal is always to learn more and better.

          How can you reject that and still claim you’re not rejecting science?

          “Why does science reject God?”

          I read that a lot, but in fact, science doesn’t reject god; science ignores god. God has nothing to offer science – nothing at all. I mean, think about it: how does invoking gods further knowledge? It doesn’t.

          The great French mathematical and astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827) is supposed to have replied to a question from Napoleon about why he left god out of his book about the universe by saying, “I had no need of that hypothesis.”

          True story or not, science still has no need of that hypothesis, and never will.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/TSNXXGG6HY52S4A7IWIO73S46U Misanthropasaur

          People argue with science every day. The dichotomy is this: religious fanatics argue with logical fallacies; scientists argue with facts.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Herron/657206017 Michael Herron

      Yeah people have discussed that endlessly.  There are no gods, no angels, no leprechauns, no demons.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/YLIJM2BCSHBXDRJIEASH2CPNPM Red261

      This is what I came up with around age 7 or so. I remember people saying evolution was evil or something stupid like that and thinking it is science and can’t be good or evil. It seemed so clear to me that it was a tool god used to create life and the days simply symbols of vast periods of time. It works and kept me happy until I thought about it more carefully. Once I realized the problems of the six days being symbolic and finally came to the conclusion that genesis’ creation account must be disregarded completely, it is only a few small steps to disregarding the rest of it. The tool idea of evolution as I like to call it is only a short term fix that lasts until you look at it closely. Most are happy to leave it be and ignore it, but those who look more closely must either disregard the entire bible or evolution.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve challenged the Pope, Ken Ham, the ICR, Dr. Michael Zimmerman, Dr. Eugenie Scott, Creation Moments, Dr. Hugh Ross, the Arch Bishops of Canterbury and York, and they ALL run. Their answer is “no response”. No one has “shot me down”, because they fail to both examine and compare what I have with their beliefs.  I especially want any creationist to compare thier doctrine with mine, in a public forum, but I get no takers.  Why?  Because they know that what they teach is false, and can not stand up to scietific reality and biblical truth.

    So if I’m such a “nut”, why is it that no one has been able to prove it?   The Sanhedrin in Israel coudn’t, and they were “stunned” by the literal application of scripture.

    Herman
    ephraim7@aol.com

  • Anonymous

    I don’t debate.  I present evidence for my position, after any creationist or evolutionist presents their evidence.  When and where can we set this up, for the public and
    news media to attend?
     
    Herm
    ephraim7@aol.com

  • Anonymous

    It, but you can’t prove that it doesn’t exist either

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Grimes/100001668000952 John Grimes

      Oh no you di’n't!

      You didn’t really go there. Tell me you did not, just now (ok, a day ago) really and truly go to “you can’t prove that it doesn’t exist either” land.

      No thinking person has even the smallest shred of respect for that position.

  • Jacob Crossfield

    “Having said that, science changes every single day. Let’s not forget that.” That is a good point, however that does not discredit its validity. The fact that science is constantly open to criticism and skepticism allows for untruths to be discovered and disproved. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY WE SHOULD BELIEVE IT. Unlike religion (any religion), science does not claim to know the whole truth about anything. It only champions what has withstood vigorous experimentation and dissection by the scientific method. There is a lot (I mean, A LOT) of money in disproving science. If someone were to discover a way to disprove the theory of gravity, they would be set for the rest of their lives. But here is the kicker, no one has been able to do it yet. The reason being is that, due to experimentation, we have discovered many of the laws and relations that govern our universe, many of which have been tweaked to a point of near perfection. Many of these laws span back centuries and have yet to be disproven. 
    The point of me writing this is to say that just because it is open to criticism does not mean that it is any less sound or valid. 

    Another point – Evolutionary biology is a course offered at practically every university that has a biology program, due to its underlying conceptual importance to biology as a whole. How many universities (excluding seminaries, of course) offer creationism biology? 
    As a theology course, yes, creationism could be a valid subject. As a science, I would have to say no.
    —also, saying you cannot prove that it didn’t happen isn’t a valid argument. Negative arguments do not advance the question at all, only deters it. This applies to both sides of this scenario.

  • Anonymous

    Bible interpretation?  Challenge yourself.  Google First Scandal.

  • Anonymous

    To Robin Barrett, and whomever:

    Hi.  I found the article we were commenting on, and I’ll continue with you.
     
    I live in GA.  Assuming that you don’t live in this state, I’d like to have a public forum in
    Washington DC, this month if possible.  Maybe a church would host it, free of charge.

    Attached is a sample of what I would present, the “Observations of Moses”, sinceschools only teach the “observations of Darwin”.  If you can, put this in the commentson the article we first spoke on.  I’m game.  Or you?  Maybe you geta well known “hot shot” to challenge me. Hermanephraim7@aol.com

  • KRAIG PIWEK

    Mabey you need to read some more as darwins theory has holes you can drive a bus thru.It seems funny to me that we can trace the “evolutionary’ line of most other species but not our own.Mabey the oral traditions of our forefathers should be looked into more closely as they have been correct about a great many things,you know like “the world is not flat”.What do they teach you in school anyway?Besides how not to think for yourselves?

    • http://www.facebook.com/brad.erthal Brad Erthal

      Wait, what? Our forefathers had stories saying that the world wasn’t flat? Certainly you’re not referring to the Bible with that one. Science works. Your computer is proof of that. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Grimes/100001668000952 John Grimes

      “…our forefathers should be looked into more closely as they have been correct about a great many things…”

      Of course they have, they weren’t stupid, but they were also incorrect about a great many things, and completely ignorant about the existence of even more things, so they had no opportunity to be correct or incorrect about those.

      And in the future, people will say we were wrong or ignorant about a lot of things because they will have learned still more, but they probably won’t suggest that they should throw away what they’ve learned because we “have been correct about a great many things.”

  • Anonymous

    Can’t we theorize that creation and evolution are one and the same by stating that there could be a higher power (God) as the driving force behind all life evolving and accepting that perhaps the six days of creation in the Bible weren’t literal 24 hour days? 

    • Jeb

      We can theorize about it all day long. We can also theorize that the human species started on Earth after the seeds of life were planted from an alien species millions of years ago. The moment you start trying to “prove” these beliefs though, they falls apart. It would be like a child trying to prove Santa is real. He exists because they were told he exists and they “believe” it. The only evidence you can provide is a collection of stories written thousands of years ago that have been passed down and assembled by a church that everybody admits has been corrupt through the ages. I’m sorry, but that does not pass as evidence any more than the Lord of the Rings books would if they were passed down by a group of fans for thousands of years.

      Evolution is a scientific theory with lots of supporting evidence. Creationism is a religious theory that attempts to rectify scientific evidence with religious beliefs so that the church does not find itself denying that the Earth is round again. My question is, why does the church feel the need to throw science out the window and come up with their own theory without any supporting evidence to explain why God may still exist? I think God could exist AND evolution be true. The church feels the need to deny everything we know about science in order to explain their theory.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Grimes/100001668000952 John Grimes

      We can theorize – but not scientifically – that the universe actually came into existence last Thursday with all of us having false memories implanted in us of a non-existent history, and on a planet with the appearance of age.

      But like your suggestion, what would be the point? Or the benefit?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=584063224 Drew Riley

    appendixes? sp.. appendices

  • http://tylercrompton.blogspot.com/ Tyler Crompton

    The idea of order coming from disorder (life from the Big Bang) is just as objectionable as a god creating life.

    • Jeb

      …except that there are scientific reasons demonstrated by tests, research, analysis and supported by data for the belief in the Big Bang while the idea of God creating life is based on faith in stories handed down for thousands of years. But yeah, aside from all the science, logic, and intellectual work that goes into understanding the universe… they are exactly the same.

      The difference between an atheist and a religious person is that religion promotes ignorance when it comes to understanding the universe and origins of life (e.g., don’t question Genesis) while an atheist wants to truly understand how things work and will use the powerful brain that God/Allah/Spaghetti Monster gave us to answer those questions.

      Have you ever asked yourself why God gave us brains capable of understanding such complex things as quantum physics and allowing us the ability to question the logic of believing in thousand year old stories about a supernatural being controlling the universe and then burn us in Hell for eternity for asking those questions and not simply being satisfied with the answer, “because the Bible says so”?

      • http://tylercrompton.com/ Tyler Crompton

        How do you create order from disorder? How does something (or nothing, whichever way you want to look at it) explode without a catalyst? Everyday, I cause explosions (my car) and never does life come from it. Never does the explosion infinitely expand creating matter out of nothing. It’s impossible to prove something that supposedly happened 16.7 billion years ago. It’s just as absurd as crediting it to “magic”.

        I’m pretty sure the Holy Bible does not say that we all burn in Hell, especially by questioning Christianity or any other religion with the same roots.

        • Jeb

          I never claimed we knew the answer to a 100% certainty. We learn more every day and as we learn, our theories evolve and we begin to understand more and more. Can religion say that? Have you used your intellect to better understand how God created the universe? Why does the Big Bang invalidate your God anyway? Why can’t that be how God created it? How weak is your God that for the universe to have been created by the Big Bang, he can’t exist?

          “I’m pretty sure the Holy Bible does not say that we all burn in Hell, especially by questioning Christianity or any other religion with the same roots.”

          So I must have had it wrong all those years I was in church when I was told that being a good person isn’t enough… that we must accept Christ as the son of God in order to make it to Heaven. 
          “I am the Way the Truth and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.”  John 14:6

          You know… you might question how much you really believe in your religion when an atheist knows more about it than you.

          • billyswifty

            ​The only scientific evidence that could disprove God 100% is an infinite universe. The Big Bang theory, as accepted by modern scientists, says that time and space came into existence at a precise point in history. This is exactly what the Bible says. The Hebrew word for “day” used in Genesis 1 applies not only to a literal 24 hour day, but can also be an undefined span of time. So the “six days” of creation could also refer to billions of years of evolution. And according to modern science, the order in which life evolved matches the order God created life on Earth. These are not two opposing theories. We just have different ways of looking at them.
            As for “sending people to hell,” the Bible does not say God sends people to hell but that he saves people who were going there anyway. Ezekiel 18:32, John 3:17.

          • Jeb

            I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you that these are not two opposing theories. They are very different. Just because you are performing intellectual gymnastics to get Genesis to fit with scientific theory does not mean they are the same. In my opinion, what you are doing is no different than what a person does when they go see a fortune teller or read their horoscope. They are told something will be true so they look for signs that it is and then try to fit ordinary daily occurrences of their lives to what they were told, regardless if it makes sense or not.

            I’m not saying that God can’t be the reason for the Big Bang but I am saying that the theory of the Big Bang is NOT the same as your religion’s idea of how life began. Maybe its just a matter of semantics, but I don’t like when people try to force-fit religion and science or tell me that a religious theory is the same thing as a scientific theory.

            Not to start a whole other thread, but I’d be interested if any religious person can tell me why their religion is more true than any other world religion when they are all based on faith. This isn’t an attack on religion… I’m just genuinely curious if anybody has a good answer because that has always been a stumbling block for me when it comes to understanding why people believe what they believe.

          • http://twitter.com/jtmayo Justin T Mayo

            “I’d be interested if any religious person can tell me why their religion is more true than any other world religion when they are all based on faith.”
            Jeb – I don’t want to debate creation/evolution, nor Christianity vs. Other beliefs. I do want to point out, however, that 1) all beliefs (including scientific ones) are based upon faith and 2) religious “faith,” if it has any validity, will be based upon evidence.  

            To the first point: The scientific method requires “faith” that there are rules intrinsic to nature, and that these rules don’t change. For example, “Faith” is required to believe that radio carbon dating is a reliable method of testing fossils over long periods of time. No one has lived millions of years to KNOW if it is true. Faith is often seen as a dirty word by some, but those same people rely upon it every day.

            To the second point: Faith of a religious nature can be tested to some extent. Some faiths are more rational than others. Jesus and Gautama Buddha were historical figures. Their lives and teachings can be examined. Likewise, some faiths explain the experience of humanity better than others. 

          • Jeb

            “The scientific method requires “faith” that there are rules intrinsic to nature, and that these rules don’t change.”

            Partially correct. It does rely on our understanding of rules intrinsic to nature, but with science, our understanding evolves as we learn more. With religion, it is what they say it is in spite of evidence to the contrary. I’ve thought for some time that today’s scientists could benefit from some outside-the-box thinking when it comes to the current laws of physics. We are learning so much about the universe and physics right now with the experiments happening at CERN and elsewhere that it is becoming obvious that our current models do not fit anymore. As a result, we must evolve our theories and come up with a hypothesis that makes more sense. To be fair, I can see why you would call this faith, but I believe it is simply an attempt to better understand the origins of life, matter, etc. Religion cannot make that same claim. It encourages ignorance when it comes to matters tangential to the origins of life.

            “Faith of a religious nature can be tested to some extent. Some faiths are more rational than others. Jesus and Gautama Buddha were historical figures. Their lives and teachings can be examined.”

            I totally agree that these were historical figures. But you have to admit that you are taking a big leap to go from “Jesus was a real person because historical texts back it up” to “Jesus is the son of God and God created the universe according to the Bible”.

            Since the CW’s commenting tool sucks, I’d recommend posting a new comment if you want to continue this discussion so that our text doesn’t get squished.  :)

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/TSNXXGG6HY52S4A7IWIO73S46U Misanthropasaur

            “According to modern science, the order in which life evolved…” Where is your source?

            The Bible’s Genesis does not align with the theory of evolution. Your saying that “‘six days’ of creation could also refer to billions of years of evolution” is not only an apologist’s retort but invalid because it specifically says “six days” and it (the Bible) cannot be used as evidence for the creation of life because it is so vague. If everyone is allowed to take whatever idea he wants from the Bible, then there isn’t much of a policy for guidance nor a clear idea of what Christ was talking about, is there?

            And as for “God…saves people who were going [to hell] anyway”–what’s the point of there being an ultimate doom if one can always be saved from it?

          • http://tylercrompton.com/ Tyler Crompton

            Here, at The Crimson White, we expect users to respect each other. For one, you don’t know what I know. Secondly, you don’t know what my religious beliefs are. Because of that, you cannot claim intellectual supremacy on this particular topic. And the same goes for me. I think it’s given that neither of us will change each others’ opinions. However, we still encourage constructive discussion. Please be courteous to other users. Thank you.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/TSNXXGG6HY52S4A7IWIO73S46U Misanthropasaur

          The reason why your car doesn’t create a universe when its engine combusts is because it doesn’t include all the essential elements needed to create a universe.It is definitely possible to prove something that happened 16.7 billion years ago. We’re getting closer and closer every day.

          Open up your eyes and read something other than horseshit.

  • Coleman (Cole) Dillon

    I want to pose a few questions. Has anyone reading this seen anything evolve? Did anyone reading this see God create the universe? So then, according to the scientific school of thought, since none of you have seen,heard,felt,smelt, or tasted anything evolving, and none of you have seen,heard,felt,smelt, or tasted God creating the universe, then they are both disqualified by the scientific school of thought, correct? So how is believing in one require any more blind faith than believing in the other. I’m not discrediting either point, just curious as to how one believing in evolution if one has not seen it is any different than one believing in a higher being when one has not seen it?

    • Jeb

      So are you saying that “survival of the fittest” is not real? An organism/animal/mammal with a particularly beneficial quality (e.g., legs to walk on, brain to think with, horns for protection) does not have a better chance at survival than one with lesser qualities?

      If you admit that, then do you deny that mutations happen? If I went to a hospital, I would not see any children born with mutations simply because their DNA got screwed up somewhere between conception and birth?

      If you admit that, then do you deny that sometimes a mutation might be a beneficial thing if it resulted in one of those beneficial qualities that I mentioned earlier?

      If you admit that, then do you deny that given hundreds of millions of years on a planet that used to look a lot more complicated (chemically/biologically speaking), the right mutations could not occur to result in an organism “evolving”?

      You’re right though… that sounds hard. It makes more sense that it was the magical bearded man that lives in the clouds who sends us all to Hell for questioning the logic of believing such a story that created all of this.

      • Coleman (Cole) Dillon

        Like I said, I never stated whether I believe in either point or deny either point. I am simply stating that it seems both sides use arguments that cannot be 100% proven without some blind faith, correct?

        • Jeb

          I’m not sure where I see blind faith playing a part in what I just described. We see everything I described in our daily lives if we look close enough. The only part that takes some “faith” (if you stretch and abuse the definition of the word) is the use of statistical analysis to determine the possibility of the right mutations occurring given millions of years. The results of these analyses are not numbers that we wish upon a star to generate. They aren’t something we go to bed at night and hope extra hard are true. It is mathematics.

          You can’t, however, use statistics to show the probability of God. You simply have to believe it is true in spite of everything you know about how the world works around us.

          • Coleman (Cole) Dillon

            Well, then if science is 100% correct about everything, why then, is there not simply one answer all scientists agree upon to answer how the universe began? And how did the science of mathematics begin? And why is a religion automatically wrong? Science doesn’t prove that there isn’t a higher being, merely that it is improbable. Vice versa, for religious people, The Bible, Torah, etc. do not disprove a possibility of evolution. In fact, in the Old Testament, which multiple religions follow, it states that God cursed the serpent, making it forever to slither along the ground. This indicates that the serpent previously had legs. If God destroyed things in the Old Testament, why is it such a hard concept for religious people to believe that the God of these religions changed things he had already created, or created things with the ability to evolve? What I am asking is why does only one school of thought have to be correct? Light was proven to be both a particle and a wave. So too then, evolution could be scienitific and religious, right?

          • Coleman (Cole) Dillon

            The main arguement evolution and creationism have is how the Earth began, which neither can prove.

          • Jeb

            As pointed out in another post, evolution does not seek to explain how life began, just how it came to be what it is today.

          • Coleman (Cole) Dillon

            Well, as I pointed out, according this article that says evolution discredits creationism completely, that there is no higher being or creation as proved by evolution, then this article is saying that evolution explains how life began.

          • http://www.facebook.com/brad.erthal Brad Erthal

            The article doesn’t say that science disproves creationism. It says that creationism isn’t science. And technically, one wouldn’t necessarily have to prove how life began to disprove a different hypothesis. Fortunately for religion, it tends not to make falsifiable hypotheses (at least not in the West anymore), which, again, is why it shouldn’t be taught as science. 

          • Jeb

            I never said science is 100% correct about everything. You speak in ultimatums. It doesn’t have to be one or the other, which you later seem to grasp in your post. All I’m saying is that there is a reason to believe the scientific theories (e.g., facts, data, understanding of physics and astronomy). Creationism and religion relies on faith that what was written thousands of years ago is true despite no evidence.

            Science does not claim that there is no God. Atheists believe that, but science does not claim that. Religious proponents like to use the straw-man argument that a belief in science or evolution is equal to a non-belief in religion. I’m sorry to people that think that way, but if believing in evolution means that your God can’t exist, then your God doesn’t seem as all-powerful as you claim. Why can’t God be the one that created evolution? On this, we agree.

            Religion isn’t automatically wrong but if there is no reason to believe it beyond, “trust me because it was written in a stories thousands of years ago and picked through and assembled by a corrupt church whose best interest was served in ensuring the citizenry believed their claims” then that definitely doesn’t make it right. All I’ve done through my posts is defend the theory of evolution from people that believe it must be false in order for God to exist. I may have highlighted the fact that it seems a tad absurd to believe in religion simply because it is counter-intuitive to claim one religion is more true than all the other world religions when all of them are based on faith in the words of our ancestors from thousands of years ago with no supporting evidence… but I never said science disproves it. I’m not a hardline atheist. I believe religion serves a purpose in our society. I just don’t believe it.

          • Coleman (Cole) Dillon

            I think we have reached a consensus. You see that I have been attempting to merely point out that the possibility exists for both to be true. I was never trying to shut you or anyone down, simply to ask questions. Of course I realize you didn’t say that science disproves religion, because you never did. If I suggested that, I am sorry, for I was referring to the article itself and not your intellectualy stimulating comments. When I was speaking about the ultimatums, again, I was referring to the article. It is clear to me that you don’t agree with the author completely because you do not state that one disproves the other, which is what the article does. You simply choose no religious affiliation, which is completely respectable, and you shouldn’t be condemmed by anyone for it, especially since you acknowledge that there is a possibility of a creator and that science doesn’t claim to have the answer to everything. You made some intriguing points, and thanks for the responses.

          • Jeb

            Agreed. To be honest, not a single post of mine on this entire thread was in response to the original article. I just skimmed it anyway because the comments were more interesting. We’ve been on the same page for awhile but didn’t realize it. Threads like this tend to get hijacked by fanaticals on one side or the other!

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Grimes/100001668000952 John Grimes

            “You see that I have been attempting to merely point out that the possibility exists for both to be true.”

            True, but that said, while it is possible for either to be true, that does not mean that the probability is equal. In the absence of evidence for the existence of a being that could create a universe, the default position is that it was some sort of natural process that we do not yet completely understand.

            We know that there are natural processes, and have made good progress in explaining some of the processes that likely caused us to be here today having this discussion; we know no such thing about gods.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1007100006 John Elder

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

      Richard Lenski at Michigan State University has been growing lines of E. coli since 1988.  In that time, what were genetically identical strains have evolved numerous adaptions.  Samples have been taken frequently and frozen to form a sort of “fossil record” of the ~50,000 generations of bacteria.
      Professor Lenski has indeed seen evolution happen, and you can read his published accounts for more details.

      • Coleman (Cole) Dillon

        This is an intriguing link, though not one to give enough evidence that all aspects of the theory of evolution are correct.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1007100006 John Elder

     Evolution has nothing to do with how life began or how the Earth began.  Evolution (primarily by natural selection) says what happens once life exists, varies, and can pass along its variability.

    • Coleman (Cole) Dillon

      But it does in this article, since according to the article, evolution disproves creationism. If there was no creation, and only evolution, then life had to start at one central point, just as the different Ecoli strands started from one central strand. As the article mentions, “evolution is described as different living organisms being developed and diversified from common ancestors previously on Earth.” So, according to evolution and this article, those ancestors would have developed from previous organisms, etc, etc. until there was one common ancestor for all life.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Grimes/100001668000952 John Grimes

        No it doesn’t, not even in this article.

        Creationism lumps a great many things together under the unhelpful heading, “goddidit.” Evolutionary theory explains part of what Creationism fails to: how life became diverse. It does not explain where or how life originated, only how it got to where it is today.

        Of course, since Creationism is supposedly an explanation for everything, once part of it is falsified it really doesn’t help the validity of the rest, especially since the rest is also largely explained by other science, and is therefore irrelevant.

        So it would be more correct to say that, on addition to other scientific fields, evolutionary theory *helps* to show that Creationism is probably false, and is of no use to science in any case.

  • shawnmcarter

    Religious people don’t bother me. Atheists don’t bother me. People searching out their spirituality don’t bother me. What bothers me is the constant preaching and proselytizing from both atheists and religious factions. Atheists…did the religious convert you? No. What makes you think you can win them over.

    This is nothing but a straw man of an argument to ignite the vitriol of a minority of people. Aren’t there more important topics making it to the editors desk?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=20703981 David DeMedicis

       I think you misinterpreted the purpose of the article. The article was not about “atheism” versus “Christianity.” The article as about “science” versus its detractors. You don’t have to be an atheist to accept science. Science is science.

  • Jeb

    I saw this article today summarizing a recent speaking engagement between Richard Dawkins and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams and thought it was an appropriate addition to this discussion. Of course the author misses the point and thinks it is ground-breaking that Richard Dawkins admits he can’t be 100% positive that there is no God. Why would he claim that anyway, though? Afterall, he is only claiming that there is no scientific basis for religion so he can’t very well claim proof of something he can’t also disprove without science. He, and the rest of like-minded individuals, simply believe the probability of such a thing is so astronomically small and that there is no reason to believe such a thing.

    “During a wide-ranging discussion the Archbishop also said that he believed
    that human beings had evolved from non-human ancestors but were nevertheless
    “in the image of God”.

    He also said that the explanation for the creation of the world in the Book of
    Genesis could not be taken literally.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

    So for all of those out there that want to continue to pile on the evolution-is-bad argument, even the Archbishop of Canterbury agrees with it.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/SS43YXOD47XEUE5VDTIEZZV7BM Melissa

    Would you still love “God” if you found out he was not a he, but a they and a they who were once called Gods, that we now call aliens??? Also, why is it ghosts, aliens things in that nature, that have more proof than anything else one believes in, are “unbelievable” to most religious people, but a talking snake and someone who has never (really) been seen is the gospel….Please, explain that….

Share this on Facebook