Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Creationists have it easy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
TXlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:24 PM
Original message
Creationists have it easy
Edited on Tue Jul-08-03 01:41 PM by TXlib
I just had a discussion with a creationist coworker.

Boy, it's easy for them. Anything they don't understand, it's because God did it.

And when they ask a question for which a scientist doesn't (yet) have an answer, they say, "Aha! That's because God did it!"

I ask them to imagine the conversation 1000 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 10, and compare to what we know now. Science has pushed back the boundaries of the unknown. It will keep doing so.

I have decided merely to shrug, and consider their "God" to be merely a metaphor for all we currently do not understand.

(Edited for better word choice...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
anti_shrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thats how I look at it
I firmly believe the concept of God stems from early humans trying to make sense of the world around them and where it came from.

Easier to believe an invisible cloud being snapped his fingers and made it so like an omnipotent Jean-Luc Picard than to put some actual thought into the scientific process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sirshack Donating Member (680 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. As a creationist myself....
...I wouldn't say we have it all that easy. We have to deal with "Oh, some imaginary dude in the sky made it????...Right :D"

I don't agree with the "God did it" thing you illustrated, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anti_shrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I don't get it....
Isn't creationism basically "God did it" made into an established belief system?

I don't want to come off sounding like an ass but I was raised in a semi-strict religious household and thats how creationism was taught to me in my CCD classes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sirshack Donating Member (680 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. My view of creationism over the years
Edited on Tue Jul-08-03 01:43 PM by sirshack
has evolved (no pun intended). My own, purely subjective opinion is that the universe, Earth, etc etc etc were created by a higher being. He didn't necessarily create everything, but He endowed us with the ability, intelligence, and ingenuity to better our lives through science, etc. I think of it as giving a child a set of building blocks, and letting their imagination do the rest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TXlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. So...
You view God as the architect of the laws of physics, and let everything else proceed afterwards without interference?

The one unknown it would take science the longest to figure out would probably be, "Why are the laws of physics what they are?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sirshack Donating Member (680 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. In a nutshell, yes
My belief is that God is a mostly hands-off entity in a lot of ways...but I don't believe it's merely a coincidence that things managed to come together the way they did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TXlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. So, you're a creationist in the broadest sense
In that, a supernatural entity created the universe?

More often than not, when somebody tells me they're a creationist, it means they believe all the species on earth today just popped into existence because some God blinked and nodded its head like Jeannie. A very narrow interpretation, and one that is antithetical to the scientific process; yours, OTOH, does not seem to be.

I wouldn't call you a creationist, in that case. The term is too loaded with meaning that I don't think you intend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sirshack Donating Member (680 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Thanks...
...I have played around with the "deist" label here and there, but when it gets down to it, I'm pretty comfortable with calling myself a creationist.

I think God's role in the creation of the universe, when it gets down to it, will never be fully understood. I don't think it's intended to be. God, in a lot of ways, is beyond our understanding....OK, I'm going to stop before I get to sounding to preachy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
displacedtexan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. the vonnegut theory?
sounds like you support vonnegut's fictional religion: "the church of god of the utterly indifferent."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sirshack Donating Member (680 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. I've never heard of such...
...though I did just crack open a copy of "Galapagos" I found in the storage room at work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. The Laws of Physics
The one unknown it would take science the longest to figure out would probably be, "Why are the laws of physics what they are?"

The obvious answer is, "Because if they were different, we wouldn't exist!" :)

But there's a lot of truth to that statement. One little difference here in the gravitational constant, and either hydrogen wouldn't lump together to make stars, or would compress too much to sustain the fusion process. It begs the question in a way, aren't we lucky to live in a universe that is conducive to life?

There are theories about parallel universes, or the universe expanding/contracting, creating a new universe with its own laws each time. Could be that life will only arise in a tiny few of those, and we happen to be in it. From our perspective, we seem lucky, but from a cosmological perspective, the universe just is what it is. We'll never know about universes with other laws - maybe life in a vastly different form can nearly always arise.

Now I'm blabbing. I'll shut up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TXlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Yes
That is the most compelling argument I've heard as to why there must be a multiverse, in which the laws of physics are not necessarily constant.

Is your academic background physics, or is it a hobby?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. Undergraduate degree
B.A. in Physics. I am now in computers but remain very interested in physics and science in general. If you only subscribe to one non-political magazine (like I do), make it Scientific American.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
umcwb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
51. That is "Intelligent Design" theory right? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TXlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. OK...
I don't agree with the "God did it" thing you illustrated, though.

That's been my overwhelming experience. If you have a different viewpoint, I'd like to hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sirshack Donating Member (680 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. see above....n/t
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. someone put it as "the incredible shrinking God of the gaps"
the legend of Narasimha is interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dwckabal Donating Member (854 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. No problem with Creationists except...
when they try to get their RELIGIOUS beliefs taught as SCIENCE in public schools. Science involves testing, peer review and adaptation. Creationism involves absolutes, no questioning, and final authority. There is absolutely NO WAY creationism should be taught in schools, period. Sure, science can't explain everything, but to then teach our children that simply because science doesn't yet understand certain phenomena implies the existence of a HIGHER POWER (GOD), is not only wrong, but dangerous. I believe this slippery slope argument is the very reason why so many people today "believe" in ghosts, ESP, "talking" to the dead a la John Edwards, and other pseudo-science nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sirshack Donating Member (680 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I don't think teaching creationism is so bad....
...just as long as it's not taught as the only theory out there. In high school, we got both sides of it, and both were presented as theories and nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TXlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Religious education belongs either at home, or in church
I think public schools should be restricted to teaching the scientific theory only. I would not be averse to a teacher noting that religions offer views differing from the scientific one, but I'd leave it at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sirshack Donating Member (680 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. My only problem is then...
...if you decide that creationism is overwhelmingly religious, do you stop teaching anything that could have religion remotely associated with it? There was a World Religion class in my public high school....technically, discussing creationism wouldn't be out of place in such a class....would you get rid of that class in such a case?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirius_on Donating Member (478 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. If the class isnt a required course
If the class isnt required, then where would the problem be. Hiding children for other peoples religions of the world would be kind of narrow thinking dont ya think? We have social studies classes to learn about other countries and people of the world, but why forget one of the largest influences in there lives?

If the class was required ciriculem then I as a christian would also have a problem with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sirshack Donating Member (680 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. See, theres the catch....
How much of religion do you keep out of the lesson plan? I think having a strict regimen against religion in schools, especially when religion is arguably a pretty powerful force in society, is detrimental to an education.

I'm not for preaching in classrooms or engaging in religious ceremony or asking anyone to bear witness to God or any other Divine being. But I'm for taking critical looks at any and all things religious, crerationism included.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. Here's my story
Edited on Tue Jul-08-03 03:02 PM by bicentennial_baby
I went to a boarding school that was originally founded by a Christian Evangelist/Missionary in 18??. By the time I got there in 1991, the curriculum was set up in a way that you were required to take so many Religious Studies credits, but the classes covered a wide range of religions and topics.

For instance, I took Asian Religions & Philosophy, Middle Eastern Religions & Culture, Women in the Bible, and Art,Music, and Lit. in the Bible for my classes. I learned a great deal about religion, but never had it "forced" on me in a way that left me without options.

If that school were going to teach Creationism, I imagine it would be given it's own class, so that students would have the option of learning about it, and their parents could have some control over their children's education. Creationism isn't a scientific subject, imho, and should'nt be taught in the context of a science class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sirshack Donating Member (680 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. my experience...
..was basically this: Biology class, public high school. We basically went 1 class on scientific theory and 1 class on divine creation (a chaplain had to come in to teach it because of rules against teachers tackling such subjects). We weren't tested on either topic, and it was basically presented as "Here it is, deal with it as you wish".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #27
49. You can't have a complete eduation if you don't look at religion.
How can you possibly study and understand the history of humanity if you are not allowed to discuss the cause/effect relationships between religion and historical events?

Of course religion should not be "taught" or promoted in a public school classroom. Of course, religion shouldn't be used to refute science. But how can you possibly do history justice without it? And how can you possibly develop an informed voting populace without history???

Comparative religion can't be relegated to an elective only. It has to be integrated throughout the social studies curriculum for history to make any sense.

I realize that the gist of this thread is the science issue, but if you're going to decide what's allowed in the classroom, you have to consider the whole curriculum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TXlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. As long as the world religions class is truly that
Edited on Tue Jul-08-03 02:32 PM by TXlib
A comparitive religions class, giving weight roughly in proportion to the worldwide following of those religions, and not just a class of christianity.

Also, it should be an elective class.

I object to religion masquerading as science. If creationism were apporached in a world religions class, I would have no problem with it, provided it wasn't pushed as the correct view, but merely a view, on contrasted with the creation stories of other religions.

Put it in a science class, however, and you'll make an enemy of me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dwckabal Donating Member (854 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #18
41. There's a difference
between learning the tenets and dogma of a religion, and being taught that a religion's dogma is in fact, a scientific theorum. What if you were taught in your biology class that the Chinese story of creation was a viable theory?

-----
The first living thing was P'an Ku. He evolved inside a gigantic cosmic egg, which contained all the elements of the universe totally intermixed together. P'an Ku grew by about 10 feet each day. As he grew he separated the earth and the Sky within the egg. At the same time he gradually separated the many opposites in nature male and female, wet and dry, light and dark, wet and dry, Yin and Yang. These were all originally totally commingled in the egg. While he grew he also created the first humans. After 18,000 years the egg hatched and P'an Ku died from the effort of creation. From his eyes the sun and moon appeared, from his sweat, rain and dew, from his voice, thunder, and from his body all the natural features of the earth arose.
-----

Of course, there is no way to test this "theory", so it is as viable as the creation story in the Bible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPICYHOT Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Yes!
it's too much for a child to go to the school and deal with the unexplicable religion, then back home and keep the same to finish on sunday on the church! that kind of attack doesn't help to develope criteria and insert fears to the people.
I think the religious people must keep their believes for themself and respect others's choices keeping quiet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. I agree
And I'm sure lots of parents would as well. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nuxvomica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Any time you mix religion and science it's bad
The have different agendas, goals and domains. That's the problem with Creationism. It seeks to validate religious beliefs through the methods of science. Can't be done and shouldn't be tried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
31. Its not science
Thats the problem. The religious right has been up in arms ever since religion got booted out of school. They continuously try to find ways back into the school room either through prayer or the new creationist science.

The trouble is its a science class and not a religion class. Creationism is not valid science no matter how loud they scream. Lets take a look at what science is.

Science mandates that ones claims must be open for testing. If you do not leave your claims open for testing then it is not science. You can believe in creationism all you want but it does not place its claims before peer review to be tested. In fact major claimants such as the Institute for Creation Research have their researchers sign a waver stating that if they find any evidence the refutes the bible they will discard it as false evidence. Folks... this is not science.

You can teach creationism in a humanities class along side other religious explanations for the creation of the universe. But in a science class they teach .... well they teach science. And the current best solution for the way we got here from the moment of abiogenesis is detailed to the best of our ability in the theory of evolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
36. I do, even as a Christian. It is too wrapped up in Christian dogma.
My hubby was raised Hindu, he hears an entirely different creation story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dwckabal Donating Member (854 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
38. That's the problem
Creationism IS NOT a theory. It has no testable hypotheses. You either believe that God "created" life, or your not a creationist. Then there's the fact that most people confuse evolution with genesis, i.e the development of life on Earth vs. the origin of life on Earth. Belief in creationism does not imply non-belief in evolution. But to teach creationism as alternative "theory" to evolution is absurd and an insult to the scientific principle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazarus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
44. Here's the easy way to do it
Very nice and even. Spend the entire year teaching all the complexities of evolution, and all the various mechanisms being debated. In the last minute of the last day, you can add: "Of course, some people believe God triggered the Big Bang. And some people believe God created everything."

Pretty much covers it, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirius_on Donating Member (478 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. Thats a very slim minority
Edited on Tue Jul-08-03 02:14 PM by Sirius_on
There arent many people really pushing for religion in private schools. Its a very loud minority. Most Christians go to church and thats the extent of there religious lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
26. The tactics of creationism
The religion itself would rather you simply read the bible and accept its statements without question. Thus the plea to faith. Unfortunately the human mind strains to understand things. Sometimes it discovers things that refutes claims made by religions. There are a number of recourses the religion has to deal with such events.

They can die (history is full of failed religions). When faced with the fallacies of ones claims a religion sometimes simply grinds to a halt. Religions that make a practice of predicting events in a way that can be verified are often victims of this fate.

They can adopt the discovery. This can be difficult. Particularly depending on the importance placed on the existing text and doctrine. If they are too much at odds with the discoveries however stress builds. Leading either to the death of the religion or one of the following.

They can deny the discovery. This can be problematic over time as science and discoveries tend to accumulate. Eventually the religion may have to deal with the issue.

They can destroy the institutions that brought about the discovery and dismantle the knowledge gained from it. This has been a historical favorite. The burning of the Library of Alexandria set off the darkages which require 1500 years to recover from. Scientists have enjoyed the attention of the clergy for thousands of years as well as the attention of executioners as well.

They can dismantle the education system leaving only religious texts as guides for learning. This was the predominant means of suppression during the darkages. Even access to the bible was considered taboo due to the notion that power may be usurped should the people gain access to the tome that the clergy were using to rule them with.

Religions and Science can coexist. The trouble is that Science simply seeks to increase our understanding of the universe. Religions claim to know the nature of the universe. When the two collide there is going to be trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TXlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Religions and Science can coexist
Interesting tidbit:

The Catholic Church officially apologised to the descendants of Galileo and admitted he was correct in 1998.

Better late than never...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nuxvomica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. The Church was right to apologize for persecuting Galileo
But wrong to say that he was correct. It's none of the Church's business whether a scientific theory is correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Actually
The Pope did acknowledge evolution as a real factor in life and the development of animals. But he reserved a special condition for humans. Read that evolution is a fact for all things except humans who god created specifically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #33
48. Catholics are more willing to believe evolution than fundies in my experie
I talked to some other Catholics who are very conservative friends of mine. I asked them what they think of evolution well they said I believe in evolution with god I was like ok then they told with a grin of a fundy preacher talking about how the earth was only 4500 years old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. Ah but now you are talking about Catholics and not the Pope
And against what one would expect from the notion of papal authority not all Catholics agree with the Pope. As an unknown Catholic once said, "Well the Pope has his opinion and I have mine".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. Pause here. Is Creationism a religion? I was not aware of this at all.
nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. It's turtles all the way down
There is an old story about a researcher talking to an old native about creation stories. The legend goes that the particular group believed that the world rested on the back of a great turtle (not atuin). When asked what the turtle was standing on the old native replied "Thought you'd catch me there didn't you, well it's turtles all the way down".

This story itself is not a religion. But it is part of a religion. As such teaching it would constitute either teaching humanities or religion. The same applies to creationism. It's turtles all the way down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Chill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
30. To me both science and creationism sound like fiction
Edited on Tue Jul-08-03 02:38 PM by Blue_Chill
One group thinks God came down and made us but told us to stay the hell away from a certain tree. This proved to be far to difficult a command to obey and we pickled that frickin tree bare. God got pissed and put up "stay off the grass" signs all over his garden. Flash forward and we found ourselves slaves building pyramids until a NRA spokesman saved us by parting a river and shouting rules at us from a mountain top. Later God sent his son to us to preach peace, for his trouble we nailed him to a cross. Not surprisingly God has refused to send us another son. Flash forward to today and we are told God wants us to be rich, greedy, hateful, and demands we bomb poor people in the middle east.

The other thinks something existed before things existed, then this thing blew up and made everything exist. Once things actually existed a perfect situation formed in one area and created the first life form. Then that little living thing armed with incredible biological ambition formed dinosaurs. The universe had other things in mind and blew the dinosaurs to hell. The little mammels that survived grew into us, and we now wait for when the universe will send us the way of the dinosaur.

both seem like wonderful tales of fiction to me. I'm sure one day we'll figure it out......right before the machines take over and nuke us. What? If the shit I wrote above can happen so can this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #30
40. Over-simplifications
It takes a firm grasp of quantum mechanics to understand why scientists can say there was no "before" the universe existed. The big bang is believed to have arisen from a quantum singularity, meaning we can not ever know what was "before" the universe. Indeed, time itself was created with the big bang, so even the concept of "before" the universe is meaningless.

The first "life form" was merely a self-replicating molecule - the first DNA. Such a molecule needn't have been overly complex, just grabbing amino acids in the proverbial "primordal soup" to replicate. But once it did, the pressures of natural selection began. Some copies of the molecule that had random "errors" may have been able to replicate more successfully. Once that process is in motion, evolution just happens. You've got to remember, not only did this have a billion years to occur in (way beyond our comprehension) but it only had to happen ONCE in a practically infinite supply of molecules.

It may seem easy to just call creationism and evolution competing theories, but you would be doing a great injustice to human knowledge and experience to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. RNA
RNA was believed by most scientists to have evolved long before DNA. Not that creationists actually like to debate the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Correct
I thought about making that differentiation but not many laypeople are as familiar with RNA as they are with DNA, even just as an abbreviation.

RNA most certainly came first, since it was "free" to grab those molecules to assemble itself, and didn't have to unzip first like DNA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOteric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
42. I was educated by Jesuits
rather than in American public schools. We were taught both Creationsim and science. Im not even sure where to begin responding to this post. Nothing Im reading here describes what we were taught, with the possible limited exception of some brief statements by sirshack.

I dont know any Christian Creationists who believe that God just snapped his fingers and poof there was everything. If there are such people, theyre woefully under-educated. The biblical texts tell us that God created the heavens and the earth in 7 days. There is fierce debate amoung biblical scholars about whether the term day is to be interpreted as the 24-hour period we currently know, or whether it was a mis-translation of a similar Aramaic word meaning age (a lengthy but vaguely defined period of time) or whether the term is allegory and not meant to be taken literally at all.

If we examine the creation passages in Genesis substituting the term age it doesnt seem unreasonable to blend science and religion into a unified theory.

"In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth."And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

If we imagine it took him the good long time suggested by an age, this doesnt substantially differ from The Big Bang theory, it merely presumes a supreme being is the author of the original cataclysm. Earth is a gaseous cloud, its not yet caught in the suns gravitational pull. Indeed the sun itself may at this point be naught more than a gaseous whirl. Day and night and stars in the sky did not begin until the second age.

In the third age, the gaseous cloud seems to be firming up, waters form, and dry land, and grasses and trees and fruits develop on the land.

Much like what we presume to be true of evolution, Genesis tells us God first put animate life in the seas, it was an age later before he brought life to dry land, and fowl to fly the skies.

My instruction was not limited to religion, nor limited to science and perhaps that is the explanation for why so much of science and religion seems intertwined to me.

Examine theoretical physics and it the question of the coexistence of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. They would seem to rule each other out, but in some limited mathematical and scientific ways we have proof that each is true. Thus it is for me in interpreting religion and science. My unifying theories are the result of an energetic intellect and an excellent education.

Ultimately, I was never taught to think of religion and science (or much of anything) in terms of black and white. Its not an either/or proposition, like most of life, spirituality and thought, there are a lot of grey areas.

I suspect what most rail against or describe as easy with regard to Creationism has less to do with Creationism and more to do with a lazy intellect. Most people, I venture a guess, choose between science or religion as a default position. Its either one or the other. I assert people who just assume what theyre told and ask no questions are intellectually lazy.

Its just as easy to be intellectually lazy about science as it is about religion. I suspect wed be bitterly disappointed to find out just how many whove received a public education on evolution cannot present more than the most rudimentary (and often mistaken at that) description of its theories. Much less could they advance any lists of additional scientific theories on the progress of life on earth. Ditto Creationsim. A disappointing number of alleged Christians and alleged Creationists have pooly formed concepts of what these two things mean. They either accepted what theyve been told outright and without question, or theyve allowed their friends and family to tell them what the bible really means.

I disapprove of teaching Creationism or any religion-based theories in public, taxpayer funded schools. That said, I think people who do teach Creationism quite honestly could be doing a better of job of it, but then so too could we be doing better by the sciences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TXlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Very well-said
Perhaps if more of my religious acquaintences had had your attitudes, my attitudes on this (and related) topics would be different.

Yes, I will agree that the root problem is intellectual laziness. I have no problem with those who view the book of Genesis as you do, reconciling it with what we understand physically to be the origins of the universe, and of life.

When I say 'creationists', I am typically referring to the more narrow definition: those who doggedly insist that the universe was created 6000 years ago, etc...

Perhaps that crowd is more prone to intellectual laziness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dwckabal Donating Member (854 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. I agree-very well put
The problem arises in that there are many different factions of the "Creationist" camp.

From http://www.trueorigin.org/creationism.asp

1. Old universe, old earth, old life: This view is commonly held by theistic evolutionists, or those who claim Christian beliefs regarding Jesus Christ but do not accept Genesis as a straightforward account of the beginning of all things. This model accepts ancient ages based on mans knowledge of science and the laws science is aware of today. This is the compromise position, basically, between creation and evolution. When there is seeming opposition between the Bible and current science, science wins and the Bible is considered either incorrectly translated or incorrectly understood. Although God is acknowledged in this model, He is generally relegated to the position of clockmaker in an almost deistic fashion; He set up the universe and life and established the laws by which it has run ever since.

2. Old universe, old earth, recent life: This position is held by those who subscribe to what is often referred to as the Gap Theory of Genesis, wherein it is believed that the universe and the earth are quite old, but that, at one point or another, and for one reason or another, the early earth was either destroyed and re-created or simply held in abeyance until the creation of recent life. This is the official, or semi-official doctrine of some churches.

3. Old universe, young earth, recent life: This position, not as commonly held, considers the universe to be old, but earth itself, and, subsequently life, to be young. This is also the position of some parts of Christianity.

4. Young universe, young earth, recent life: This is the classic Christian model which is so widely disputed by those of the evolution camp. In this model the entire universe, including, of course, the earth and all life, is less than 10,000 years old. This is in keeping with the most straightforward reading of the Genesis account in combination with the lists of generations in Genesis 5, 10 and 11.

It is the fourth model, which is the commonly considered definition of creation as it is discussed today. This is the model, along withto a lesser degreemodels 2 and 3 which is ridiculed and fought against by many in professional education, science, and communications. Within the last three models there are several sub-groups as well.

----------

Probably the most dangerous (from a scientific point of view) are those promoting "Intelligent Design". To a fault they claim to be non-religious, but their ideas have a very religious undercurrent, and the conservative right-wing have embraced them to help get religion back into school, because of the "science-y" nature of ID. But ID is still pseudo-science because of their notion of "irreducible complexity"--that at the cellular level (and even some organs-such as the eye) if you remove one component, it would no longer function as intended; an indication of intelligent design.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
50. Unencumbered by the thought process.
Basicly they believe that God is lying to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 28th 2014, 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC