Programming Reality

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Aren't you criticizing people who believe in evolution because of their all or nothing approach? And the fact that you believe in the all of the bible seems ludicrous to me. I am a Jew and thus believe in God. However, I view the idea of God as the sum total of the values that I should live my life by. The idea of an omniscient being controlling the universe is akin to believing in Santa Claus. By the way the bible also states that woman during their menstrual cycle should not be allowed to leave the house. Do you believe that too?

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

I have two more things to add. You say that there is not enough proof for you to believe in evolution. So what proof do you have in creationism. Did God himself come and talk to you? Because I'm pretty sure that there is a passage in the bible where God proclaims the prophet Malachi to be the last one and that if anyone claims that God has spoken to them then their crazy. So whats the deal? What kind of proof do you have in creationism that you find lacking in the theory of evolution.

Furthermore you mentioned in between species. In studies of Finchs on the Galapagos Islands it was found that the Finches that survived a drought had children who had harder beaks in order to consume a more varied type of food. That sounds like survival of the fittest to me. Granted its not as dramatic as an actual in-between being, but hey, its still pretty solid evidence.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Oh yea, and the reason that only evolution is taught in science class is because evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory not a religious belief. If there was a religion class in public schools (and there never should be, aside from possibly a survey of ALL major relgions and even that should probably not happen) then that would be the place for creationist theory to be discussed.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

I started to comment here, but moved it to my own blog when it got too long:

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=ac6d630d-8e5c-4ba8-b345-02a4539b9836

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

I'm sorry but I'm taught to believe in an “all or nothing” approach. I either believe the entirety of the bible, or none of it. I either believe in the entirety of creationism, or none of it. I either believe in the entirety of evolution, or none of it. The entirety of evolution is not fact and I think it deserves the sticker so that parents and students can come to their own conclusions on the subject.

<b> Yes but at the same time, Christianity is supposed to be open and loving... Do you think that for one second most Christians would even listen to you talk about evolution and think about it? To most it's an automatic to assume that creationism is the way.</b>

As Christians we're taught not to force our beliefs on others. I'm sorry to say a lot of us (myself included) have done so or are doing so as we speak and for that I can only offer my apologies.

<b> Do you mind if I quote you? I really respect the fact that you can admit this. I know that us who believe in evolution have the same tendancies... there are two sides to the story and I like the fact that you can admit that a lot Christians are pushy evangelists... </b>

Good post and conversation...

If someone is strong enough and smart enough to draw their own conclusions, then they should be respected..

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

I know many Christians that believe that God could use evolution to bring about humanity but I'm not one of those people. I feel it cheapens the experience by saying a God that could do anything "chose" to let things happen through billions of years rather than the seconds it easily could have taken to accomplish the exact same thing. That's just my opinion though and I won't try to quote scripture on it because there really isn't any that speaks about the time it took for everything to be.

Christians can be pushy and I'm not about to try to sugar coat that fact. They mean well in their intentions but as the saying goes: Hell is paved with good intentions.

I learned a while ago that humans are responsible for their own destiny. I can only show you the door, I can't be responsible for you not going through it nor can I be responsible for when you actually do.

It would be worse of me to say nothing about Christ than to simply talk about Jesus Christ. I don't have to convert you but if I were to say nothing then my life on this planet would be in vain. As a Christian it is our job to point towards Christ but we're to take the hint when someone says "No." It's completely their call and there's nothing we can ever do to stop it though having that "No" on your conscience may be what causes Christians to be "pushy." We mean perfectly well but it can sometimes cause way more harm than good.


"All or nothing" is a very tricky approach and I should have phrased that a little better. I believe in the entirety of the Bible but I didn't have to believe 100% of it to have a "pretty good hunch." Most people when they believe in evolution don't have that 100% or even need it. The same holds true for a creationist whether they're Jew, Christian, Muslim, or other. People don't need a 100% to be sold on something.

I think Arthur can be right to a degree though and here's why: science and religion are two very opposite ends of the same spectrum. Science claims to be the search for "truth" by evidence collected and analyzed. The analysis is ALWAYS derived from human logic and therefor has a "possibility" to be flawed (in most cases it is). Religion claims to be the aquiring of "truth" through faith. Faith is derived from human logic and also has a "possibility" of being flawed (in most cases it is).

One area of science I firmly believe in is physics. Physics is one area where we can all come to the same conclusions about the world around us. Gravity can be easily observed and verifying that it is 9.8m/s^2 can easily be done in a lab setting by anyone who gathers the same evidence.

When it comes to the origins of life, one is only given the evidence and one HAS to draw your own conclusions on how it came to be. One scientist can look at rock formations and believe that the earth is billions of years old. One scientist can look at the exact same rock formations and believe the earth is only 5,000 years old (give or take a few hundred years). Faith is present in both scientists even though one can be religious and the other doesn't have to be. Faith isn't a religious word, it simply means belief in things not seen. In the end it's up to one's interpretation and how is that not like religion (or how religion should be)? Most areas of science could be classified as "scientific religion" that is there is a strict collection of evidence but when it comes to the interpretation it's often up to the scientist or the public to figure out what the evidence is really saying.

I think the sticker is valid only because that one area of science can't be easily quantified. You can have all of the evidence in front of you but draw completely different conclusions than I can about that very same evidence. The only thing that classifies the origin of life as a "science" is in how evidence is collected and processed. Everything else about it screams "religion" to me but that's just my opinion.

Honestly I could care less either way because when my children go to school I'll let them make up their own conclusions about the matter. They are to process all of the evidence and after that is done they can either choose to believe, or not. It is ultimately their choice but not to inform them that it's simply a theory and not fact (as every textbook tries to "preach") is just plain wrong in my book. Everyone on this planet has a brain and they deserve the right to form their own conclusions about the world around them. I just wish the people who wrote textbooks believed in this too because many of them simply do not.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Art: I don't put limits on God. If God could form this universe then there's no reason why He can't be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.

In fact I have a theory that we are in fact "within" God. Scriptures talk about us dwelling within Him and as humans it's easy to conceive a universe within ourselves. To think of God as a being that can do this isn't a huge stretch. This is a theory I can't prove until I'm dead though.

I have no way of quantifying menstral cycles in Biblical times to justify whether or not it's valid for women to stay home during it. I firmly believe Jews of that period followed this but I highly doubt many of them do it to this day. I believe it's more of a guideline for health purposes, kind of like how Leviticus speaks of not eating shellfish (since they're the garbage collectors of the sea) yet people still do it anyway. There's enormous health benefits to following Leviticus but no one really has to do that now do they?

When I speak of following the entire Bible I take every passage from start to finish. Parts of the end of the Bible speak to the beginning and parts of the beginning speak to the end. If I were to take one scripture, one context, I could easily build a wall around my beliefs. I could even search scripture for anything that promotes my beliefs and stick to only those so that my fragile little belief system isn't shattered, but I don't like to do that. To objectively understand the Bible one has to look at the sum of the parts, it makes little sense when one tries to peice together a puzzle by looking at each individual peice.

What to me proves creationism? The X-factor. I have an equation for the origin of life and there is an unknown variable. The only thing I can call that unknown variable is God because that is the only thing in all religious text that somehow fits. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is, though it could also be a platypus.

Evolution between species isn't uncommon nor did I ever say I didn't believe in it. Slight evolution like what you mentioned is NOT an "in-between" that I mentioned. While evolution may happen in stages there should be CLEAR EVIDENCE that defines each stage of a species evolution. There is none. There is evidence of evolution within species which could account for small number of animals being on the Ark. It's not difficult for a dog to "evolve" into a wolf. They are of the same species but the subtle changes are within the boundaries.

Basically as it stands I believe there is evolutionary boundaries between species. A monkey can't evolve into a human but a monkey can evolve with different characteristics that keep it within the same species. A monkey can't evolve into a bear so there are definate boundaries but the theory of evolution teaches that there really are none in a practical sense. Evolution says that birds evolved from dinosaurs but that's as hard to believe as a monkey evolving into a bear to me personally.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Creationism is bunk. It's religious dogma, Christian religious dogma presented in scientific terms and has one purpose: to force fundamentalist christian beliefs down the throat of school children. Anyone who thinks other wise is a complete sucker. When scientist speak of theory, they're not merely talking about an opinion. They're talking about something that has been proven by observation and testing by many scientists over a long period of time. The theory of evolution has been around for 150 freaking years! However if new, empirical evidence came along to disprove it, it would be considered. That's how science works. Now can the same be said of Creationism? Of course not. That's the number one reason reasonable persons know that IT IS NOT SCIENCE. Look, it's a free country, and if you want to believe that a myth is science, you can. Just don't ask the rest of us to.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Take Christianity out of the equation for a second - how can any intelligent person think that we just went poof and got here? Look at all of the atheists who've been involved in DNA research and all of a sudden acknowledge there must be a creator - they didn't embrace Christ - but they acknowledge that something made us.

I personally don't think that Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive. I believe that evolution happens but that doesn't mean God didn't put it in place.

-----------------
To Lyn though - your point is absurd. Creationism was around wayyy before there were schools available to the masses - it's hardly an elaborate ploy put in place 2000 years ago in hopes that some country would build a public school system that they could 'cram' it into.

So are you really saying that anyone that doesn't believe Creationism's purpose is the force fundamentalist Christian beliefs down the throats of school children" is a sucker?

Really? I went to Catholic School all of my life until Grad school. I learned both viewpoints and never had either Crammed down my throat.

I don't want to condescend - but I don't think you are all that well versed in Evolution based on your comments. Elements of evolution are pretty much accepted as fact these days - by many Christians and NonChristians alike. However is there anyone that can prove evolution? NO. It's got a few holes in it. So what we do know is that we've evolved from point X - but we don't know or have any reason to believe that we evolved from fish or one celled organisms.
-------------
So could it be that Evolution has some missing critical pieces - SURE DOES. Don't think anyone that's ever studied it would argue that point. “ On the Origin of the Species by Natural Selection” Explains this shortcoming in great detail. Evolution explains how our species evolved but says nothing about how we got here in the first place.
-----------

BTW, If you could actually disprove Creationism - I as a Christian and many others I know would accept it. You don't have to believe every word in the Bible literally to still hold a belief in Christ - it wouldn't bother me one bit.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

I was very much amazed by the fact that we are in 21st centry, and in this country people are still debating if evolution is fact or just theory. From what I read, people who critize evolution do not understand it at all. They supperficially pick up some sports and then attack evolution as whole. For instance, I saw a famous religous scholar appeared on CNN making a speech: "The chance for some living things to be result of evolution is so small. So, they must be designed by GOD". I was surprided by the degree of unknowlegable of that well-dressed scholar. Does he know that evolution has been proven indeed by increditably small chance? Furthermore, if it is by GOD's design then why some human organs, such as eye, is not perfectly designed.
Using exactly the same molecular meterials, one can give a design better than the eye we have now.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

AM Bridge Player and Teacher - in the context of what I wrote - I'm a bit perplexed at your response. what part of the theory of evolution are you speaking of? They have pretty strong evidence that our species has evolved over time - but the part where we got from Ameoba to Us isn't filled in. Hence the whole Missing Link thing?

As far as your CNN thing - there are idiots on both sides making absurd claims - the fact stupid people argue a point doesn't make it wrong. His logic is clearly wrong but that doeesn't prove or disprove anything in relation to how we got here or whether or not there's a God.

Evolution in the sense that We evolved from some other life form has not been Proven - The problem is different people mean different things when they say evolution. To that end, you can believe in Creationism and Evolution simultaneiously (I Do) and be logically consistent. God made us and we've evolved from there. We weren't amoeba's.

How can you comment on the design? It totally depends on what it's intended to do - and assuming God built it to do X - your assuming that you and the Creator are on the same plane as far as the intent. Assuming there's a creator - it's impossible at this time to know what his intent was for us, our eyes etc - for all we know they could have been invented to be the ultimate superfood for some other species - we couldn't know such a thing.

Even assuming that weren't the case - how could you know that the 'better' eye would work in every situation and work without any new side effects - and just be better in every sense? That's a pretty difficult conclusion to draw.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

The problem is that you don't want to accept the evolution. You are asking for proof, but you internally know that there are only indirect proofs. As is the case of most scientific theories.
As one who works a lot with computers, I guess you are not questioning the existence of electricity and electrons. Although we know lot of about electron we don't have direct proof of it. Nobody ever saw it, neither directly measured its diameter or mass. But we know the mass of electron and its diameter (sort of). The existence of an electron and all elementary particles is just a theory. We might be mistaken, but the existing theory well describes observed phenomenons as well as predicts the outcome of experiments. Therefore the theory is accepted. The reason why you are not questioning this theory is just because it doesn't contradict with your religion. Also I guess the electron stuff is much clearer and logical to you than the evolution.
Almost as much as we know about electron we know about genetics and evolution. But still some people don't accept it. They keep asking for more facts and proofs. But I don't think we can ever show them everything that was ever involved in the process of evolution of humans, and I think that even if we could, some people would be still asking for more evidences. For example, human genes are more than 99% identical to those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, but this isn't enough for anyone who believes in creationism. (Interesting is that genetic proof can be acceptable for jury to send someone to death, but not acceptable as a proof of evolution:-)
The evolution is accepted just because there is no other theory better explaining evolving of species with all the facts and evidences we have. Well I know you will disagree with me, giving as a different theory the creationism. But creationism isn't a scientific theory. The science uses something called Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor – explanation can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor). This approach eliminates God from all theories until the existence of God is proven, and all his properties are described. In contrary to science, the existence of God doesn't have to be proven to anyone who believes, therefore the creationism is acceptable theory for him and should be considered. And it can be for him even more logical and acceptable.
One should not deny anything we don't understand either because we know very little about it or because it is just beyond our capacity to understand. I would recommend you getting to know more about genetism.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Hmm, Creationism, and its modern-day version; Intelligent Design represent the beliefs of a tiny but vocal minority of Christians. The reason that creationism and ID mandates get thrown out every time there is a court battle has to do with the fact that they are "establishing" one religion over others.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

I definitely don't throw out evolution- I don't think that Creationsim and Evolution are mutually exclusive. Christians encompass quite a few people and there's hardlyl hegemony amongst all of their beliefs. I'm a devout Christian but I certainly don't buy the whole Genesis story as though it was literal fact - no one was there to see it for one thing. And if it was, then where did the Koreans or Chinese come from (just using an illustration - if I was Korean or Chinese I'd ask where did the Americans come from).

I just think that many folks are taught that Evolution is proven from start to finish in regard to how we got here - that isn't the case. Even if it were it wouldn't disprove God but that's another story.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

"Evolution in the sense that We evolved from some other life form has not been Proven - The problem is different people mean different things when they say evolution. To that end, you can believe in Creationism and Evolution simultaneiously (I Do) and be logically consistent. God made us and we've evolved from there. We weren't amoeba's"

I believe the same thing. Evolution WITHIN species has been proven and is EASILY OBSERVED. Evolution from a Banana to a Monkey HAS NOT been proven and is impossible to observe because of the whole "Missing Link" thing. Also when you speak in the concept of evolution from a single cell organism to what we are today, you are in essence saying that ANY evolution "can be possible" that there are no "boundaries" as to what something can evolve from and eventually end up as. People try to insert order to this chaos but without a "Designer" or a "Design" essentially there are no "rules" to anything. Randomly occuring statistically impossible anomolies do not count as order.

The belief in a Creator, hence Creationism, is NOT only practiced in Christianity. Islam, Judaism, some forms of Native American culture, and some other religions believe in a Creator or creators. That there was something, other than us, that formed the known (and unknown) universe. That this follows a design and pattern. That we are the result of order, not chaos or random statistically impossible events aligning up properly to form life. This is not specific to one religion but if that's apparently what everyone is thinking. If the textbooks on Creationism have a particular slant, then textbooks need to be rewritten because there are so many similarities between the accounts of our creation that one does not have to take a side. One can have their religious beliefs in tact while still studying about the concept of creation.

"The problem is that you don't want to accept the evolution. You are asking for proof, but you internally know that there are only indirect proofs."

Belief without proof is directly related to the term faith. By that definition you're saying that you believe in Evolution by faith. How is that different than believing in Jesus Christ, Buddha, or Mohammed by faith? There's really not much difference.

As far as electrons go, they can be observed, just not directly. It's possible that a molecule is not surrounded by electrons but they are some other purpose that we haven't quite uncovered but the chance for that is slim. Electrons can be manipulated in labs, through chemistry and bonding of molecules. Evolution within species is easily observed but evolution across species boundaries have not nor have they been observed indirectly as the case of electrons. Evolution from a single celled organism to multi-celled ones have no proof outside of speculation and the faith of scientists and the writers of evolution textbooks.

A lot of this is like comparing apples and oranges though, so it's tough to make strong comparisons. Parts of evolution, those that are easily observed can be proven. Claiming the entire theory as fact is something I could not do in school. This was before I really understood the concept of God or Christianity so to say my religious beliefs had something to do with that simply isn't true. Evolution as a whole just didn't add up to me, but the textbooks want so very badly that everyone believe much of it by faith.

We're all entitled to our beliefs but it does us ALL good when we clearly communicate and fully understand that some of what we're saying can't be proven. The disclaimer sticker simply states the facts of the matter so that our children can make an intelligent decision. Leaving it out implies that the entirety of Evolution is fact when in reality only parts of it have ever been proven. I come out and say it when I believe something by faith, I guess wishing others would do the same is an extreme waste of everyone's time.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Bill and Jeremy - What I find so disturbing with your Creationist views is how quickly and thoroughly you dismiss Evolution.
You seem to have gained a great deal of knowledge about Christianity and the Bible and I certainly wouldn't want to argue every point the Bible makes to ascertain the existance of God. Two facts can be noted though: The Bible gives no proofs and there are strong debates within the Christian community over how to read the Bible: litteraly (fundamentalists) or interpretively (progressists). Thus, Creationism is far from standing on firm spiritual and logical grounds. Yet, you embrace this theory while -for the same reasons- you dismiss Evolution.

The current religious revisionist dogma entertained by the US fundamentalist Christian movements (I've even heard calls for a return to the pre-Enlightment era!) appeals to those many who have a scant understanding of science and of the scientific method.
The preferred oneliner -which you use again and again- is that Evolution doesn't prove everything thus it is at least at par with Creationism which the Church has been struggling to defend for the last 200 years because it can offer no proof of the existence of God.
200 years of scientific discoveries, enormous gains in health and wealth took power out of the Churchs' hands. But at last, the rich modern world is tiring of its over abundance and excesses while Man has come no closer to "true" happiness. Plethora of unsatisfied minds void of enriching education are now ready and eager to hear the religious movements' calls for spiritualism. Science has failed us, find your redemption in Christ...
And who is behind science? Secular humanists and evolutionists, the offsprings of the Enlightment era. They are responsible for the breakdown of religious values and ultimately the attempted murder of God. They are communists, liberals, pornographers, sodomites!
The alternative is a life of good conservative Christian values all neatly spelled out in the Bible. Fear God and His representative on earth, the Church and its priests, don't forget to tip and you will find happiness in this life or later, in Heaven.

I apologize for digressing. But I think it is important to follow the premises of your argument to its unstated conclusion. If Evolution and Creationism can't be explained then they must be on the same footage, equal theories. And look at what Evolution has brought you... tss, tss, tss Let us show you another way.

Ironically, science is only a tool, a tool to explain questions (theories) we all have. While at one time you'd have heard that 150,000 people have died in South-East Asia because they brought the wrath of God upon themselves, today science can explain why techtonic plates have moved and created an earthquake which in turn sparked a big ripple effect in the water called a tsunami. God has been removed one level of explanation.

But it is the ever shrinking area science cannot yet explain that Creationists focus on to invalidate Evolution. Who made the clouds? who made the sky? who made the earth? who made the galaxy? who made the universe?
With more answered questions come more complex new questions. Eventually most of us will drop intellectually from exhaustion or lack of comprehension (I do!). The more complex and abstract the answers and the more we need to grab onto something comforting to reassure us.

God is there for that. Is it necessary to dispell God, to force humanity to face its littleness? I thought so once. But as I get a bit older I have come to think that God does serve a spiritual need that intellectual humanism fails to reach for some. However, the last few years' resurgence of religious fundamentalism -from which Creationism comes- in all faiths worries me tremendously.

Forces of the Dark Ages are trying to reclaim power and -foolishly- millions are flocking to their drumbeats. All that because our world's brightest scientific minds haven't yet been able to explain everything and -more importantly- haven't been able to explain in simple terms what they already know. Of course, add a number of corrupt and violent leaders, greed focused economic models and a number of other human ills to the equation...

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Apparently you don't believe in punctuation either.

But think about your points for a second... do you have to be religious to think that we were created? hardly. Religious people do believe in a creator - but so do Raelians, are they religious?

And even though I happen to believe that you can believe both - neither is a PROVEN theory.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

English might be their second language or something, Bill. You are right though, neither is PROVEN yet we're still spinning our wheels here.

I'll respond to the 2 latest comments from bottom to top (sorry for not following order but my thoughts don't usually do that).

blue:
"Now you could say well god made the cells to make the specific creature but also in the same respect if you say that then you would be a loser because god made adam and eve out of i don't rember excatly but i know one of them is sand which is bullshit but seein as how the first christian jesus christ a prophet came from a land that had sand all around it it make sense"

Cells and DNA are pretty fascinating things. What tells your skin cell to be a skin cell? What tells the cell of your eye to grow as an eye cell? Evolution states that these are just random occurances that occured naturally over time. How a single cell can form into a complex system isn't something that can be easily proven but people seem to think so.

God made Adam from the dust according to Genesis. Our bodies have the same basic makeup as clay. We have the exact same elements and even the exact same PIGMENTS. The pigment of our skin matches EXACTLY the types of pigment found in clay. Does it prove God made us from the earth? No but it's a more logical choice than saying something came from nothing.

"Now if you honestly think that by saying, should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered means nothing toward relgion well then you can now admit you are christian cause like all christians they are ignorant to the facts infront of them"

I love gross generalizations. All Christians are ignorant of the facts in front of them? That's like saying all people who practice Islam are terrorists, but you're entitled to that opinion if you choose to have it.

We are all human beings. Christians, true Christians, are taught to accept everyone equally with love and compassion. Without studying other cultures or religions how can we possibly understand someone elses point of view? It's virtually impossible and by studying Islam it does not make me Muslim any more than going to church makes me Christian. To belong to a religion means you accept it's teachings but that does not mean you are forbidden to learn others (well some religions would think so).

"You christian say we(Atheist's) are crazy well atleast we do not belive in a invisiable man in the sky."

I don't believe you're crazy but you are exercising the exact same thing we enact when we believe in the invisible man in the sky: faith. Evolution has yet to be proven unequivocally yet you choose to believe. Belief without proof is one of the most fundamental aspects of faith yet because I use that word you will not accept it, will you?

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Vic:
"The Bible gives no proofs and there are strong debates within the Christian community over how to read the Bible: litteraly (fundamentalists) or interpretively (progressists). Thus, Creationism is far from standing on firm spiritual and logical grounds. Yet, you embrace this theory while -for the same reasons- you dismiss Evolution."

I agree that the Bible gives no proofs. I have a speculation that the Bible specifically cannot be proven, that God has to be reached by faith alone. Science will never fill that gap no matter how hard it tries.

That is not however the theory of Creation. Again it's not a Christian view but one held by many religions throughout time. The theory that we were created does not bring us any closer to the Creator but it does make some sense logically.

The reason I believe in creation over evolution is logic, pure and simple. When I add the equation for creation it makes more sense to me than if I were to use the same equation for evolution. Evolution claims that all life is a statistic anomoly and that we have progressed through billions of years. Creation states that we are designed and that there is a specific purpose to our being here. When I look at how complex my body is, how complex this universe is, it does not make sense that it all is a random occurance. If we have the laws of physics, and certain constants, a completely random event wouldn't make sense because that would mean that everything would have to be random. Order does not come from chaos, on any level or it's not considered random.

"They are responsible for the breakdown of religious values and ultimately the attempted murder of God. They are communists, liberals, pornographers, sodomites!
The alternative is a life of good conservative Christian values all neatly spelled out in the Bible. Fear God and His representative on earth, the Church and its priests, don't forget to tip and you will find happiness in this life or later, in Heaven."

I would not use such strong words at all. There are many Christian doctors, scientists, etc that exist to try to prove both sides of the spectrum. I don't consider science some bastardization hell-bent on "murdering" God. There are many areas of scientific study that have hard facts (Physics being one major one) so it definately has it's place in a God-ful or God-less society.

I will not try to sugar coat the fact that there are many so-called Christians that say things to get more money or to better themselves. True Christians understand that nothing in this life is theirs so when they steal they aren't stealing from a person but God himself. That doesn't stop some people from doing it anyway and a lot of wrong has been carried out over the centuries "in the name of God". It's truly disturbing but further proves the fact that we are human and we sometimes make mistakes (some that are completely pointless and trite).

"If Evolution and Creationism can't be explained then they must be on the same footage, equal theories."

Bingo. Neither can be explained and they are in fact equal theories scientifically.

"While at one time you'd have heard that 150,000 people have died in South-East Asia because they brought the wrath of God upon themselves, today science can explain why techtonic plates have moved and created an earthquake which in turn sparked a big ripple effect in the water called a tsunami. God has been removed one level of explanation."

I'll agree there. At one point people would have probably just been fine with "God killed em cuz they were mean baddies" but thankfully we have more answers than that. Humanity was content with those words 3,000 years ago but today we need a little more than that. When you read the entirety of the Bible, specifically Revelation one could easily come to the conclusion that it could be the earthquakes, "wars and rumors of wars" and other violence taking place on the earth that was spoke of. The earthquake that spawned the tsunami was something like a 9.0 which is pretty large. I'm sure there may have been bigger earthquakes in the history of the planet but I don't think many of them top that one in sheer power.

"Of course, add a number of corrupt and violent leaders, greed focused economic models and a number of other human ills to the equation..."

That's true among anything, not just religion. Humanity has a constant struggle for power that has yet been quenched and I don't think it ever will be. We live in a painful world where nothing but greed and power seem to make sense.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Jeremy - point taken on the second language - the "Ignorant" thing just kind of grated my nerves. Find a devout Pentacostal, A fundamentalist Baptist, a liberal Baptist and a liberal Catholic (both uses of Liberal are in the religious sense)... Tell me that they 'agree' on everything regarding religion. Even though they are all Christians -- you'll find they have quite differing viewpoints on religion. Heck, I worked witha guy that was a "Conservative / Fundamentalist" Baptist and he was staunch in his belief that all Liberal Baptists were heretics - (Same for Catholics). That's the same religion per se - and yet there's tremendous disparity in the viewpoints. The same goes even amongst people with the same label but attending different churches. So how in the h3ll can someone make a statement about what "All Christians" believe or do - other than maybe saying all Christians believe in Jesus. And because I believe in God - I'm some sort of idiot that ignores evidence in front of me?

The whole issue is simply this - if there isn't a God then everything, from my internet enabled mobile phone to F16's all came from nothing. If the Big Bang THEORY explains how we got from Nothing to flying around in F16s and checking our email on or phones, I'm missing something. And I guess it only happened once? Why, if nothing can produce our entire universe, it sure is a good thing that a second bang didn't happen because the second universe is created might collide with our existing one and that would suck.

Assume evolution was a Proven theory for a second. How does that rule out a God? How did that first thing that we evolved from get there? Believing that something or someone created it seems a lot more reasonable than thinking it all just appeared.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

I think you are arguing outside the scope of the debate and building strawmans. Science - and with it the theory of Evolution- doesn't attempt to disprove the existence of God but simply to understand where we come from.

As I have pointed out, the known history of man has evolved from God is everywhere (i.e tsunami is God - by the way, I heard an interview of a poor Indonesian Muslim woman who openly wondered what bad thing she must have done for God to punish her people) to ok, this isn't God's doing but there is a God somewhere.

Isn't it JP II who in the last 3-4 years has had to acknowledge a number of generally accepted scientific advances of the last 50 years which until then where not even recognized by the Church?!!? That religion finds science threatening says a lot more about it than it does about science.

Science challenges itself all the time as it is the basis of its being. The earth is flat? hum...nope, it's pretty round. Next.
Again, and as I have written before, pure science -the one neither you nor I understand because of its complexity- challenges some of our deepest understanding of life's mechanisms with some pretty wild things (i.e quantum physics).

Again, it does NOT try to disprove the existence of God!

On the other hand, Religions -all or most- are very slow to question there fundamentals and often only because pressed by external factors. History is littered with dead human being killed in the name of God. To simply say "we are just humans, we make mistakes" is diabolical! Before the murder we are righteous; after it we made a mistake, repent and off we go again. Protestants have refined this to an art: sin and let's all all be born again...

Sorry, there is soooo much blood on the hands of most religions that I'll do what is in my power to make sure religion and religious groups don't have any say in the way I run my life. If God is what you need to feel whole, then by all means please pray. But don't you force your God down my throat.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Vic:

Regarding your last two paragraphs...

First, when murderous sickos go out to kill lots of people, seldom do they come clean on their real reason. Take Osama for instance, he's got all sorts of 'great' reasons why he hates the US and why he initiated 9/11. But I never heard him say "Yes, I also really get off on the fact that people all over the world fear me and that any time I speak, I can have news coverage world wide". But I suspect that there's got to be at least a little of that in him - wouldn't you agree? Ok, same for just about anyone. Castro kills lots of people in the name of the "Revolution". Hitler killed people because they weren't of the master race. Stalin and Mao starved tons of people and said it was inevitable. So I have two points here. 1) Government has killed more people than religion has any day of the week. 20th Century Socialism alone managed that feat. Governments have power and when sick f*** get in there, they tend to do a lot of damage. Does that in any way make government inherently bad? The fact that a lot of people have been killed by it?
2) Sick people often want to control other folks. They use many tactics but fear is usually one of their favorites. By invoking the name of God and the unknown, you can create fear in a lot of folks. Does the fact that a lot of sickos used religion to foster fear and thereby enact an agenda have any bearing on religion per se? Revolution was used as the 'reason' to kill a lot of people, are revolutions inherently unjust? No. So what I'm really saying is that just because some whack jobs claimed they did what they did in the name of their religion - that doesn't make it true. Look at how many people find religion in prisons only to lose it as soon as they get out. Did they really find it? In most cases no. They used it as a guise to get what they wanted - or get something
---
Next, how does Jeremy's post force God down your throat? Jeremy OPENLY Acknowledges that shoving your views onto others is inappropriate doesn't he? I really don't think that was his intent or that he in any way did that by simply blogging about his opinion. Admittedly your last comment was probably just a general statement moreso than one directed at him - if so -then this paragraph is simply based on my misunderstanding.

However I certainly understand where you're coming from on this. I'm Catholic - and I've had tons of people tell me that I was following a false religion and that I was going to hell and all that tripe (All of which were Christians btw). In one ear and out the other. Yes, it's annoying. But no one can force their religion on me b/c it's something I believe. Either I believe it or I don't. At gun point you could make me act like I believed you - but I still wouldn't.

--------------
Personally, I do see where you're coming from. Your points about Evolution not being about God are all valid and I don't disagree with you. I personally think evolution and God can easily exist right next to each other. I know a lot of Christians with my same viewpoint there, and many that don't. The scarry thing is people with Power. I don't particularly trust any group with power because even if the current group is on the up and up with it, someone will replace the current leader(s) who isn't.

JPII is an idiot - and the Catholic church, until the 20th Century, pretty much had a monopoly on all things really stupid done in the name of religion. No disputing that. They still do in many ways.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Bill,
To clear things up: Yes, my comment was general and not directed at Jeremy in particular.

You seem less opinionated than Jeremy so please don't take my rebuttals and counter arguments personally. I just get really fed up with the growing number of self-righteous Christians of little more education than the one distilled by their religious surroundings.
Devout Christian upbringing, religious high schools and colleges may make one feel educated but the truth of the matter is that education begins with plurality, not indoctrination.

I accept people to think differently from me even if I disagree with them as long as the person doesn't try to force his beliefs on me.

The problem arises when people begin to think they hold some truth to which we should all submit to. As you have pointed out, religion isn't the only guilty party although I disagree that governments are also to blame as there is no such thing as government separated from people.

The real problem is when you mix idealism with power. Idealism -as it implies- is about absolutes. It is about the intellectual and emotional conviction of holding the Truth and as such, it doesn't tolerate dissent. Human history is built on such beliefs and national socialism, fascism or communism are only recent ideologies that have been forced on the masses by believers with power.

Before them, before the advent of these modern politico-economic social models in which religion had a small if any role to play (although much has been debated over the Catholic Church's role during Hitler's rule), there were other totalitarian idealisms to contend with: Royalties and religions. Both claimed direct descent from God, sometimes in unison, sometimes not, but always claiming to hold the Truth to which all must be subjected to.

And don't think the atrocities commited in the 20th century overshadow those commited in the name of God in the previous 19. Crusades, jihads, heretics, infidels, barbarians, lost souls and witches, millions have fallen at the request of religious leaderships.

Today's so called Creationist challenge (believe me, it's only in the US to the puzzlement of the rest of the modern world) to the theories of Evolution is nothing more than Christianity lead by fundamentalist Protestants (such as the Southern Baptist Convention and a few others) attempting to regain long lost power, with quiet approval by the political power in place.

The gentler, kinder side of religion is being lost to the more fanatic foot soldiers/preachers out to evangelize those souls freed from the grips of communism, in Eastern Europe, Africa, Central and South America while the fundamentalist Muslims are also out to convert and reaffirm the power of Allah.

So much for God.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Just had to add my comments in here:

First of all a scientific theories can NEVER be proven fact. Because then they wouldn't be theories anymore and they could never have been theories in the first place. A theory is a system describing how some process works, how it has worked in the past and how it will be found to work in the future. "Past" and "future" also meaning different observations using more sensitive and better instruments. Gravity is a theory, which is generally considered less accurate than evolution.

So using this knowledge we should have stickers on every science book in the class room. This is one reason why I disagree with the sticker - because it is unfairly aimed at evolution, and there are other theories that are less accurate than evolution.

Second, not sure if it has been stated here but evolution deals with the evolution of living beings, not with the origin of life. Natural selection is part of evolution and there is proof all around us that natural selection is going on.

Third, the msnbc article is quite devoid of facts - big surprise there - but here is an article that gives a little more information about the reason why the stickers were first thought to be a good idea http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050114-4525.html

quote: "The impetus for placing the stickers came after three parents reviewed new science books that were going to be adopted by the county in 2002. One parent approved of the books, one had no comment, and another criticized the book for its presentation of evolution to the exclusion of creationism, or Intelligent Design. This latter reviewer, Marjorie Rogers, then launched a campaign against the books and collected approximately 2,300 signatures from residents in the county."

This is why the judge concluded that the sticker was put there based on religion.

BTW - I agree with Bill, why can't there be both? evolution does not disprove the existence of God.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Bill: I'm firmly against denominations of any kind but that's personal opinion since I'm non-denominational. Denominations invoke laws of man that try to "supplement" the laws of God. Will 100 Hail Marys give you forgiveness? That depends on what you believe but in the Bible it specifically speaks against repitition and rituals but I suppose man just can't seem to read that part clearly.

I just hate all of the different factions drawn up "in the name of God". I believe they were done more in the name of man than God but that again is personal opinion. If Islam has no denominations then why on earth do Christians? I just don't get that one nor will I until they all dissolve as I believe they're supposed to (again personal opinion. I could recite scripture but denominations know about this stuff they just love to overlook it).

"Assume evolution was a Proven theory for a second. How does that rule out a God? How did that first thing that we evolved from get there? Believing that something or someone created it seems a lot more reasonable than thinking it all just appeared."

The evolution theory does not rule out God if it were completely true. God could have started the snowball that got it all rolling.

The truth of the matter? No one saw God OR the Big Bang, so everyone is merely SPECULATING on our existence. The Bible was written by man, who was not there during creation, but was told the account by God. Does that mean either God creating it himself or the Big Bang isn't true? No. It just means no one here can tell us whether or not it is and that case is closed. We can discover evidence that points us in one or both directions but that's about as close as we get in this lifetime.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

I'll combine Vic and Bill's response in one post:
Vic:
"Sorry, there is soooo much blood on the hands of most religions that I'll do what is in my power to make sure religion and religious groups don't have any say in the way I run my life. If God is what you need to feel whole, then by all means please pray. But don't you force your God down my throat."

There's so much blood on a lot of things. The reason a lot of bloodshed occured "in the name of God" is simple: Power. The Church has abused it's power over man by trying to be the middle man to God and it's worked for centuries. Until the Bible was mass produced, people had to rely on priests to understand the Bible. Now people can take it in for themselves, the way it was meant to be understood. Does it really change that there are some power-hungry people in this world bent on their own selfish agenda? No.

Bill:
1) Government has killed more people than religion has any day of the week
2) Sick people often want to control other folks

Reason? Power. That's the exact reason governments kill and it's no surprise that it's the very reason religions kill as well.

"Next, how does Jeremy's post force God down your throat? Jeremy OPENLY Acknowledges that shoving your views onto others is inappropriate doesn't he? I really don't think that was his intent or that he in any way did that by simply blogging about his opinion. Admittedly your last comment was probably just a general statement moreso than one directed at him - if so -then this paragraph is simply based on my misunderstanding."

I take that as a general statement, not that I'm forcing anything down anyone's throat, especially on the internet. We live in a wonderful age full of power buttons, on/off switches, channel changers, and popup blockers. If we don't like something we see/read/hear we can turn it off. Hurray for the 21st century, hurray for freedom, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. That's not to say that people have not sat through others bantering on about something they believe and want others to "desperately". We've all been there, believe me on that one.

"I personally think evolution and God can easily exist right next to each other"

I only believe in evolution with boundaries, such as a dog evolving into a wolf. They are within the same species boundaries, they have many of the same characteristics but you don't see a wolf evolving into a man anywhere that I know of.

It's "possible" that God used an extremely old earth and set the "snowball" in motion that is now called life. That is one speculation but I choose to believe in the Bible quite literally. I believe in a God that can create a universe in a split second, let alone 7 days. I believe in a God that had to personally feel the curse that had been placed upon us and the only way he could have was to put on an "earth suit" in the form of Jesus Christ. To create a vaccine God himself had to become infected with the disease and since God himself cannot know sin (only the body can) this was the method from which he could feel first hands the effects of sin.

Does that mean I don't believe this world is screwed up? It's completely corrupt and although I long for a perfect planet I realized long ago that wishing for such a thing is futile. We're rapidly destroying ourselves as quickly as possible and I don't think it has anything to do with God.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Vic:
"Today's so called Creationist challenge (believe me, it's only in the US to the puzzlement of the rest of the modern world) to the theories of Evolution is nothing more than Christianity lead by fundamentalist Protestants (such as the Southern Baptist Convention and a few others) attempting to regain long lost power, with quiet approval by the political power in place."

I don't believe that is the case but that may very well be their agenda. Creation in it's pure form knows no religious or denominational boundaries and I sure hope people are promoting that aspect of it, but I suspect they aren't. I can see how "it's a way for Christianity to get into the door" but I'm not one to use underhanded schemes and trickery. I come right out and say "Hey I'm Christian, this is what I think. You don't have to believe, just indulge my viewpoint while I indugle yours". Sadly many people can't do that, on all sides of the religion fence.

Bill:
"Except when Jesus said "Let he without Sin throw the first stone" That's where you need to add some interpretation in b/c he meant it figuratively (and even though God intervened to make sure the translation is perfect, that slipped through the cracks)."

Matt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I've heard it said about this scripture that it was typical back then for slaves to be slapped across the right cheek. Since the right hand was the hand of power and the only way one could hit you across your right cheek was to be back-handed. If you turn your left cheek to them, and they strike that, it signifies that you are an equal, not a slave.

Since you would then be on equal ground you could then beat the living crap out of them. That was their words but it gives light to the fact that a lot is lost in our translations but it usually has to do with the culture and the way the people thought back then. I think it's fine for us to have many translations of the text but without understanding the people who wrote it, we are missing a very important layer to the meaning those worlds hold. Does it mean we lose the Truth? Not one bit, it's just harder to understand this way.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

skicow: "Gravity is a theory, which is generally considered less accurate than evolution." Gravity is more of a constant than a theory though the direct evidence of it is illusive. One cannot see gravity but it's extremely easy to study and everyone believes it is there. What else could be holding us to this planet yet when we walk on the moon, it's exponentially easier than it is here? Gravity. Gravity may not be the "proven theory" that explains what it really is but almost every single person has a concept of gravity.

I'd also contend that most of Physics is a true science, one that can be easily studied and the results are usually left up to one interpretation. When 2 + 2 = 5 in a lab, scientists usually have to speculate as to why this is happening yet in a Physics lab the equation usually is 2 + 2 = 4. It's extremely difficult to come up with 5 and therefore have to give some wild speculation as to how that number resulted.

"Second, not sure if it has been stated here but evolution deals with the evolution of living beings, not with the origin of life. Natural selection is part of evolution and there is proof all around us that natural selection is going on."

In my Biology textbook it spoke specifically about the Big Bang and the origins of life. This didn't happen in Chemistry class nor in Physics because we dealt with real science with real evidence. While evolution in a pure sense only deals with the evolution of living beings, the Evolution Theory has tacked on a ton of stuff which is exactly what the sticker is aimed at. Throw out the Big Bang, keep evolution to study just the evolutionary boundaries between species (you know, the evolution every single person can readily observe) and you don't NEED a damned sticker. Case closed.

I've wrote up Part 2 of this which talks about the verdict, etc. The post is here: http://geekswithblogs.net/jbrayton/archive/2005/01/17/20215.aspx. I had some other stuff queued up to be published before it but it's time to get this one out.

It's good that this generates a lot of quality discussion, which is what I like. Name calling isn't a good way of getting people to understand your point of view and I'm glad we could finally get away from such childish behavior. Makes me wish I could think of more technical oriented topics that generate this type of discussion but I'll keep to what works for now I guess.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Jeremy - I agree, I love good quality discussions as opposed to slandering and name calling...ok, on with the debate :)

"I'd also contend that most of Physics is a true science, one that can be easily studied and the results are usually left up to one interpretation. When 2 + 2 = 5 in a lab, scientists usually have to speculate as to why this is happening yet in a Physics lab the equation usually is 2 + 2 = 4. It's extremely difficult to come up with 5 and therefore have to give some wild speculation as to how that number resulted."

Read here about gravity and when it is right and when we are still trying to figure out why the theory of gravity does not work everywhere - very small and very large objects do not behave like Newton theorized they should: http://simscience.org/membranes/advanced/essay/quantum_grav1.html

This is why gravity is still a theory, and might change again in the future, as could all theories. So having a sticker saying that evolution is a theory and not a fact flies in the face of what a scientific theory is. When we are taught in schools about science, we are also taught what a scientific theory is, and why it can never be proven fact.

When you come right down to it, evolution has *some* scientific evidence - granted there are holes - but creationism has zero evidence other than the bible which is a collection of stories that were written by man. Scientific theories have 1000's of people poking and prodding them to prove them false or true. Creationism is taken as gospel and not to be questioned - there is no way to disprove creationism, but there is no way to prove it either. Faith is what it comes down too, and it's something that I'm not familiar with I guess, I'm an agnostic, I need to see it to believe it.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Jeremy - yes, I agree totally. context matters greatly in these things. That's why I was so surprised to hear people say that they believe "exactly" what the bible says. I mean, if someone, particularly a Christian wants to tell me that Jesus was Pro Death Penalty, I'm all ears. Since no one today was aroudn when the Bible was written, to claim for sure that interpretation A is the only valid interpretation seems a little nutty. One guy was telling me that only the King James Bible can be believed. I never heard that before but he was pretty serious about it. I found that to be pretty surprising. Definitely something i want to look into a little more..

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

<<Bill: I'm firmly against denominations of any kind but that's personal opinion since I'm non-denominational. Denominations invoke laws of man that try to "supplement" the laws of God. Will 100 Hail Marys give you forgiveness? That depends on what you believe but in the Bible it specifically speaks against repitition and rituals but I suppose man just can't seem to read that part clearly. >>

Excellent point. I always thought that was ridiculous - even though 100 Hail Mary's is pretty hefty - I usually had to do like 20. We even knew that certain priests were a lot easier than others - so we made sure to go to confession on those days - I know - it's ridiculous.

<<I just hate all of the different factions drawn up "in the name of God". I believe they were done more in the name of man than God but that again is personal opinion. If Islam has no denominations then why on earth do Christians? I just don't get that one nor will I until they all dissolve as I believe they're supposed to (again personal opinion. I could recite scripture but denominations know about this stuff they just love to overlook it). >>
Amen!

<<The truth of the matter? No one saw God OR the Big Bang, so everyone is merely SPECULATING on our existence. The Bible was written by man, who was not there during creation, but was told the account by God. Does that mean either God creating it himself or the Big Bang isn't true? No. It just means no one here can tell us whether or not it is and that case is closed. We can discover evidence that points us in one or both directions but that's about as close as we get in this lifetime. >> Yep, I agree. But there's a lot of folks that get really upset by saying otherwise I'm finding out.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Sorry, I don't mean to attack anyone in particular when I express my frustration with the fundamentalist religious revival taking place around the world. As I have said, as long as I don't have to abide by someone's religious doctrine I am quite an open minded person.

I'll just make a couple comments based on the last posts I have read.

All religions have denominations, including Islam (Shiites and Sunnis are the largest ones). Denominations are the result of different interpretations and wishing there were none doesn't leave a lot of room for alternative view points. That's what dictatorships are in the political sphere. I am sure this isn't what you would want in the religious sphere but that is what would result if only one understanding of the Bible was to rule all others.

Interestingly, every time I bring up the blood tinted hands of religions in history I get the same response. In short: misuse by man for power.
I'm sorry, but I am not satisfied with that answer which is brushing dirt under the carpet.
Popes and other religious leaders are not just symbols. They are your religion's highest representatives and in direct line to God. They enforce the Bible's teachings and have the power to throw you out of their faith. So, unless you want to start a new denomination in which faith and access to God is without hiearchy (that's how Protestants came to be), you are in effect subject to the rules of your Church. Suggesting that JPII is crap is heresy and in darker times you would have burned for that (literally!).
Taking an example, when Catholics kings slaughtered Protestants in France or Muslims during the Crusades, they did it at the request of the Pope, supreme Catholic and voice of God. You may choose to say "sick man" but I rather say "sick faith", and that goes for all faiths that try to force their rules on others.
You may think that we have evolved, that we couldn't possibly commit such atrocities again. But the fact is that fundamentalisms are growing again in the modern world after nearly 2 centuries of silence. And if History repeats itself, we are entering a new period of religious intolerance, persecutions and conflicts.
Bin Laden speaks for fundamentalist Islam and has a strong Muslim following. But there are hundreds of less violent but just as overtly fanatical preachers who attract even greater numbers of followers.
The same can be said of powerful fundamentalist protestant groups in America who are calling for the Bible -God's supreme command- to rule over the country's Constitution and government. In effect, they are calling for a Christian theocracy, much like fundamentlist Muslims and Jews.
I don't know how old you are, but I can assure you that 20 years ago anyone suggesting a Christian theocracy in America would have been called a lunatic. Today, it is simply the more conservative vision of the Bible Belt.

In answer to your question Bill, the fact is most religions (Judaism being an exception) engage in proselytization -convert people to their religion. The more people you have, the more money you can gather from your flock and the more powerful you become to influence affairs of the world, politically and economically.
Communism did not allow religions, considered "the opium of the masses". When the Soviet Union fell, communism around the world crumbled and millions of people where left without an ideology to hang on to. In the last 15 years there's been 10's of religious groups, from the large religious organizations (Catholics, Protestants, Islamists) to the smaller sects (7th Day Adventists, Mormons and the dozens of Southern Baptist groups) running around the globe evangelizing and converting these "lost souls" to each's cause.
Talk to people, build a school or a hospital with a church next to it, bring your friends, convert and move on to the next zone.
The communist vacuum of power is being filled by religious groups and the frictions are leading to conflicts, particularly when fragile balances of power are broken. Christians and Muslims fighting in Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, China, Yugoslavia, Chechnya,...There can be so many variables which help ignite these conflicts, but one thing is for sure, there is always one religious denomination against another.

Again, God is very far removed from the equation.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Bill: "One guy was telling me that only the King James Bible can be believed"

The reason I use KJV and swear by it is because it is the most widely used translation (#1) and that King James' scholars spent a lot of time translating the text and revising it as necessary. King James Version has a LOT of quality control based on our knowledge of it but nothing can be said about recent translations. Who translated it? Were they well known scholars of the original texts? These questions are answered in the KJV but you gamble with other translations. Does it make them completely wrong? No.

Granted I don't totally understand all of the thee, thou's, and thine's in the book but it's still pretty easy to grasp the meaning of the text. A lot is lost in all translations simply because we weren't there. It's equally important to study the writers of the book as much as it is to study the contents of it. Many wrote of common sense items that today seem rather foolish but without the correct context many people draw up erroneous conclusions.

Vic: "Sorry, I don't mean to attack anyone in particular when I express my frustration with the fundamentalist religious revival taking place around the world. As I have said, as long as I don't have to abide by someone's religious doctrine I am quite an open minded person."

I don't believe that was an attack. I understand your frustration though as I was once someone who didn't want "religion shoved down my throat". I run into Christians that try to "sell" me all the time and when they realize I'm Christian they proceed to prod and poke my non-denominational stance on the matter. Anyone who is defensive will not be persuaded easily yet many Christians feel "attacking sin through sinners" is somehow the right way to go about things. Other religions can be as pushy at times but I totally understand both sides of the Christian fence (though not always understanding the why behind it).

"Popes and other religious leaders are not just symbols. They are your religion's highest representatives and in direct line to God"

People in power like to remain in power. If you told everyone that they had a direct line to God and didn't need a Pope/priest/whatever that removes all power from that position. It wasn't until the invention of movable type that common folk could both afford and read the Bible for themselves. I'm sure this ticked off a lot of those "in power".

Christ said that all can come before him, not just the Pope or priests so who is correct? The one who said many of the lines in the book or the people interpreting it hundreds of years later?

True Christianity needs no "middle man" in the form of a pope/priest/prophet/pastor/whatever. They have their purpose but it's not to get in the way of a person's connection with God (yet amazingly so many of them do just that). Many have used their leadership roles to aquire power but that does not taint the faith, even if you said every priest in the world was a power-hungry Hitler clone. Bad messengers don't suggest that the message itself is tainted though if there is a 100% success rate one would have to question the validity of the message itself.

The problem with bad messengers is usually they're discovered after the damage is done. Then rather than blame that one con artist they figure it's the religion's fault for letting such a bad apple taint so many good people. Usually people can handle one or two of these but when a handful are shown people would rather generalize than view people as individuals capable of making mistakes. Racism is another form of such generalization but it sometimes takes 1 bad person of another color to taint someone's entire view on that race (which is both equally disturbing and utterly retarded). It's much easier to generalize though and people err on the side of laziness in many things.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

I just found this fantastic place for fellow geeks who do research and spend time just to argue, and I am thrilled. After skiming many of the responses to this question, I am hoping that people will not make any of the arguments such as Arthur Zeda who tried to pull the "Did God himself come and talk to you?" tactic (I thought I was going to cry) Please, I love debating this issue, but please refrain from making yourself look ignorant and and unlearned in debate proceedures.

Since I imagine I will be coming back to this post, I will give a brief description of myself and my view points:
I am a conservative, republican, high school female. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he died on the cross for my sins, as well as the worlds. I believe that God created the world, and also created humans above the rest of the inhabitants, for he created us in his likeness. So basically, I believe the Bible. I have done extensive research on this topic, both on Evolution (Macro) and on Creationism. As far as other theories are concerned, I generally find them less backed up than Evolution. Please do not think that I am going to rule them riddiculous without hearing them, but my experience with debating with people has lead me to believe that the only real theories are Evolution and Creationism

Now since the basics have been gone over and all that really remains is fighting over the wording or people making "gross generalizations", I will throw out another arguement.

For someone to understand exactly why Christians believe that a God created the world and not evolution (or maybe some other random science thing that has not been figured out yet), they need to understand why we believe in God. (That was a run on, but stay with me)

C.S. Lewis wrote a book, Mere Christianity, which is intellegent, understandable, and logical (it is not a device to conspire against the left). He wrote:

"Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?' -- 'That's my seat, I was there first' -- 'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm' -- 'Why should you shove in first?' -- 'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine' -- 'Come on, you promised.' People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.
Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. "

Ask yourselves, now where did this rule come from?

Why do people do what society considers "bad" things such as stealing, lying, being selfish, et cetera. Well, if you notice, these things are all done for the pursuit of something good. What is wrong with being rich? Nothing. What is wrong with stealing...well, you are taking something which isn't yours (whether stealing is wrong or not isn't the issue..don't get caught up in that please!) What is wrong with lying? Well, you hurt people so that you can have good relationships with friends for example. People do wrong things for the pursuit of something good. Now why do people do good things? For example, why do people offer their seat to an old lady or a pregnant woman on the Train? (and don't say it's so you can steal her wallet or be paid). People argue that you do it because your parents taught you to. But who taught them? Where does it end? The point, ladles and jellyspoons, is that people have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Is this because of society? Not really. Society is made up with many people and they all do a lot of bad things. Why do people care that people are of a bad character? This sence of justice is rather universal. In India, people still do the right thing and the wrong thing. Although there are cultural differences between them and Americans, they still have the same sence of right and wrong. Now where did this come from?

Did this Evolve?

That is not logical. A sense of right and wrong has no concept in the theory of random diversification. The other conclusion? That there is a sense of beyond any human terms, a super power then who put this law of right and wrong (which we can choose to ignore, not like laws of nature) into humanity. What can possibly explain this sense of justice which extendes beyond nationality, beyond society, beyond continents besides God?

I hope this provokes intrigue. Now if there is a God which created this sense of right and wrong, which side do you want to be on?

I chose Christ.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

On last thing

Skicow wrote:
"When you come right down to it, evolution has *some* scientific evidence - granted there are holes - but creationism has zero evidence other than the bible which is a collection of stories that were written by man. Scientific theories have 1000's of people poking and prodding them to prove them false or true. Creationism is taken as gospel and not to be questioned - there is no way to disprove creationism, but there is no way to prove it either. Faith is what it comes down too, and it's something that I'm not familiar with I guess, I'm an agnostic, I need to see it to believe it."

Would proving the New Testement to be a reputable and trustworthy source have any value?

If so, I will give you information on a book called "The Case for Christ", which is 350+ pages packed with information from professors and other schoolars who have dedicated their life to studying these matters. It was written with the purpose of destroying the authenticity of the New Testiment by a 30 years reputable journalist (I think his name is) Lee Stroleeband. He was a skeptic, but became a convert by his research.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

"Please do not think that I am going to rule them riddiculous without hearing them, but my experience with debating with people has lead me to believe that the only real theories are Evolution and Creationism"

So you're reiterating the somewhat retarded notion that if you don't believe in Evolution you believe in Creationism and vice versa. Then on top of that the belief that Creationism == Christianity and you're advocating religion if you're saying the evolutionary theory has holes in it.

"Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him"

The reason I feel this happens is simple: communication takes effort. We can communicate our "standard" or impose it on others and get pissed when they somehow don't "read our mind". A lot of people throughout my day expect me to read their mind and I have often chewed them out multiple times because of it, yet wouldn't you know they do the very same thing the very same day. Something about this behavior is ingrained in everyone and I'm mystified by it. I wish I could slap it right out of people 99% of the time because it causes problems. I've had relationship failures over this very thing and thankfully I know now to communicate feelings rather than impose some unwritten standard.

Evolution and Creationism are 2 theories that arose from the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE.

Evolution: The world must have been formed in millions of years because of the time it takes rock sedement to form.
Creationism: A worldwide event such as a MASSIVE FLOOD can deposit sedement at a rate that can happen in the process of days if not sooner.

One thing that always struck me as funny is how does rock "grow"? Is the earth constantly expanding in mass? Is gravity somehow sucking earth molecules into the ground so that every x years a new layer is deposited on top of the old? Or does it make more sense that sedement layers are simply SHIFTED from one position to the next but since it's very difficult one would reason that it took millions of years for this to occur?

Suppose for a minute the Bible was true. The "fountains of the deep" were opened and that a massive flood occured. What seems like a "fountain of the deep"? Lava flowing from an ocean floor looks like a fountain (because of the gas). What if the entire surface of the earth was water and what if the "fountains of the deep" could literally boil an ocean. Would it be difficult to cut through something like the grand canyon in a matter of 40 days? It's very possible if the water was heated. Add to that FAST MOVING water and you have something that can quite easily cut through rock and shift sedement around. (Which can explain why some animal fossils are found on mountain tops when they only dwell on OCEAN FLOORS).

This is how I add things up logically in my head. Creationism and the Bible simply make more sense when I step through issues like this. Am I completely correct? No, I'm merely speculating. Some could argue that my thinking is because I believe the Bible but for someone who has read very little of it, that notion holds very little weight.

The only area of evolution I dispute is the origin of life and the very thing the sticker was put there for. Evolution within species can be readily observed and since no one was physically there to observe the origin of life, believing one theory over the other exercises faith yet they both exercise it equally. The only difference being people believe science is devoid of religion when in fact it could be considered it's own religion because of the way it uses faith to believe in the unknown.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Wow....I don't know where to begin as I am a little distraught by the utter simplistic explanation that both Noel and Jeremy give as the foundation for their belief in God.
Please note, I am not attempting to convince you there is no God, but simply to suggest you spend more time reading and thinking about your ideas. Many people have written about God, science and human behavior and it would be wise to read not only from who you agree with but also from who you may not agree with and also from other fields of research. For example, theology is well complemented by works of philosophy, sociology or history. It's the whole package that makes things interesting and illuminating.
Also, I apologize if I seem patronizing because I really don't mean to be. I don't know your age or your background and I may be expecting too much from younger people who are making the efforts that others don't even bother with.

I am 41 years old and have had the wonderful opportunity to live and travel around the world all my life and see for myself how other people think and behave. If you think Americans in Texas are a little different from Americans in NYC or California, imagine how different people in China, Mozambique or Serbia must be. Yet, we are all not so different from one another.

First, Noel. You write "there is a sense of beyond any human terms, a super power then who put this law of right and wrong (...) into humanity. What can possibly explain this sense of justice which extendes beyond nationality, beyond society, beyond continents besides God?"

Have you heard of Judeo-Christian values? That is what you are talking about. These sets of morals and ethics which you think are universal to explain the existence of God, actually only extend to those nations and people under the influence of Christianity, a predominantly European religion which has spread around the world sometimes at great suffering for those who fought the evangelization.

This doesn't mean other religions don't have similar codes of morals and ethics, but they aren't Judeo-Christian, meaning they are not perceived the same way. For example, sin and guilt are all over the writings of the Bible but don't appear in the Buddhist religion. Thus, right and wrong are perceived differently in Buddhist cultures.

300 years ago French intellectuals wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was meant as a non religious answer to religion's morals. Yet, the document is born out of people who are all products of Christian values and principles.

If you have the opportunity, find 3-4 people of different religions (and who haven't been in the US very longand ask them what they consider right and wrong, sin and guilt, justice and equality. You may be surprised by the result.

Jeremy, I've read several of your posts and you always come back to trying to explain Creationism within biology and logic. Unfortunately, I don't think you understand either too well. Earth science is precise enough to prove your logic wrong and make your argument sound more like conspiracy theory than science.

Finally, to emphasize points that I have made before, I 'd like to point to a recent CNN International interview of poor, uneducated Indonesians to explain why the mosques around the region of the tsunami disaster stood while everything else was destroyed. Of course, they all knew it was God's doing, just like all the deaths were God's punishement for an unknown sin. The local architect's explanation that mosques have rounded columns and no frontal walls to block the flow of water did nothing to change their minds.

That poor, uneducated people know not better is one thing. Their only education comes from the Koran and the local priest. Everything is God much as everything was God a few centuries ago in the now modern world.
What I find unpleasant is that CNN International chose to bring up this subject under this angle, as if to raise even the remote possibility that God was perhaps involved.

I am certain that a large minority of not as poor and a bit more educated Americans would agree.

When supernatural explanations are preferred to logical ones I begin to wonder.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Jeremy wrote that am"
"reiterating the somewhat retarded notion that if you don't believe in Evolution you believe in Creationism and vice versa. Then on top of that the belief that Creationism == Christianity and you're advocating religion if you're saying the evolutionary theory has holes in it."

I would like to clarify my assessment that Evolution and the Christian idea are the primary theories. Of course there are other theories out there and I have come accross them and debated them. I would like to add that I guess other religious ideas of the creation of the world could be grouped into one major catergory. Even so, other minor theories are out there and I do not understand how Jeremy came to the conclusion(prejudice?) that I have assumed that all people believe either of these two ideas.

That clarified, I would now attempt to adress Vic's"much more experienced and therefore better arguement" that the common sense of justice is justice Judio-Christian values. First of all, I think you missed my point. Every person understands these values even though they come from different areas of the world. Major religions have them, atheists too, etc. We all have a common appeal to one's sense of justice. Where did this sense come from? Does a person have to be Jewish or Christian? No. That is the point. More elaboration to come

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

To continue from my last post when I got cut off by the bell, I need to address further the idea that this sense of right and wrong, the appeal to common justice, was (according to Vic) just a thing created by Judo-Christian faiths.

The whole point of the case is that people have a set of rules that they can choose to ignore. When I say rules, I mean that standard of behavior which everybody knows, even if they do not practice such behavior. This is not simply a Judo-Christian based idea. A muslim and an agnostic could still argue about the same standard, they could still try to say why it is ok that he took the other's seat. The point is, people have an inherent feeling that some things are wrong. It would take something miraculous to not only get every person (even in America) to know about the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" or something like it. No there is something else at work. There is a guide to behavior. Not anything mandatory, but still that common sense of Justice.

Vic, you accuse Jeremy of failing to offer any scientific support for Creationism. Now I understand the complaint that 1000+ people are all trying to poke holes in the theory of Evolution. Now if you say that, please understand that Creationism is going through the same thing. We both understand (I believe?) that Evolution and Creationism cannot be proved 100% (that would require seeing the world being made or something to the effect). I am sure you have heared of the riddiculous odds to have one random amino acid chain be created in the right order. It is insane figures. I am sure you have heard of the impossiblitity arguements against Evolution, and you most likely have discredited them because there is all the time and all the chances to let Evolution work. Now please, do not discredit this impossiblitiy arguement against Evolution. It is cold hard facts, just the way you like it. Now I know you cannot "prove" God. It requires faith even if you have all of the evidence. Can you convince someone that the New Testement is completely accurate account? Sure. Will that make them believe in Christ? Maybe. But as far as Scientific fact for Creationism, one of the best methods is to disprove everything else. And please, there is plenty of evidence disproving Evolution. Now what is the alternative? Try coming up with another "scientific" arguement. There are other minor arguements, of course, but few are accepted. Now someone made the arguement that when the world gets more scientific, we could come up with another Theory of how life, how the world was started. Now that requires as much faith (if not more in my mind) if not more than believing that there quite possibly is a God out there who created the world. Now people have made the arguement that when something could not be explained, people pick god. Now although I disagree with other religions, the faith that there is a god, so many faiths embraseing this idea, is everyone wrong? Furthermore, it seems as though science is trying to dismiss the God possiblity by clinging to a very flawed Theory. (How many people disagree with Evolution as opposed to Gravity?)

So the question is can God be proved. If there is a God, then it is a pretty easy to come to the conclusion that he made the world. But is there?

Christians believe that God spoke to the people through the Bible (and Jews, but only the Old Testement etc.) God spoke to people who then wrote it down. Can we prove through expierements with God that, yes he actually can create a world? No. Can science dismiss other ideas? yes

Think of it this way. God created science, created the laws of Nature. Do they apply to their maker?

I know this post is going to be ripped apart based on wording or other petty things. Just please do not dismiss what I have to say just because it is based on faith.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

I know I should let people respond first, but another completely different issue popped into my head.

There are two different ideas concerning the world "evolution". One is the Theory of Evolution, which encompaces to different minds different things but the general idea is that the world was created mabye by the big bang, and that random chemical combinations eventually ended up as life etc..(this could go on). This is Macro Evolution...the whole ameoba to another form of thing etc

Then comes Micro evolution. This is the common change that we see in people and animals and is completely natural. This evolution is just change. There are no new features being created. Everything expressed is in the genes, in the DNA. Nothing new. Somethings are just being expressed more than others, and the reasons can vary. The point is, this type of evolution is not in any way evidence for Macro Evolution. They are two different things.

Just becaue you have A does not mean you have B. It almost seems as if people want a certain conclusion, they will force evidence to match, like forcing puzzle peices together.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Ok, I think we have touched on several subjects and should close a few to stick to this thread's topic.

Noel I don't think you read my post. I quote "people have an inherent feeling that some things are wrong. (...)There is a guide to behavior. Not anything mandatory, but still that common sense of Justice." I'm sorry to burst you conviction, but the fact is people don't have a common sense of justice the way you understand it. The justice you speak of is entirely molded from Judeo-Christian values and it is easy to demonstrate.
Example 1: One of the tenets of Koranic justice is "an eye for an eye" i.e. you committed a crime that caused me to lose an eye so we will take your eye out.
You may find that horrible and a shock to you sense of values and justice but it is their values, their justice.
Example 2: In some Asian cultures, it is entirely acceptable for the wife or daughter of a family to sleep with a travelling foreigner as a gesture of consideration.
You may find that totally unacceptable and against your sense of values, but again it is their values, their justice.
Example 3: In many African nomadic cultures the weak are left behind to die or else the energy and resources needed to assist them could threaten the survival of the entire group.
Christian values are the antithesis of this behavior and I'm am sure you'd find it appalling. But it is their values, their justice.

Need I go on? There are thousands of examples to prove you wrong. Ironically, that is exactly why Bush is in such a mess in Iraq! By thinking that everyone's values are the same he expected Iraqis to rejoice when the country was liberated from the tyranny of Saddam. Wrong. Why? Because the ideas of freedom and justice as understood by Christians (let's leave Bush or America aside for the sake of this discussion) is NOT how Muslims understand them. For them, justice is the Koran and freedom is a result of justice.

The topic, which strives to put Creationism and Evolution on the same footage because "neither can be proven", has been debated ad nauseam and I'll simply refer to my previous posts for my insight.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Noel:
"Even so, other minor theories are out there and I do not understand how Jeremy came to the conclusion(prejudice?) that I have assumed that all people believe either of these two ideas."

I know there are other theories and possible explainations on the origin of life but you seemed to reiterate the very topic of this post: that the majority of people (in America at least, possibly the world) believe in either evolution or creationism and that to believe in one is to deny the other.

The very reason I wrote this is to basically put to light this weird phenomenon and why I think it's completely bunk. (Thus the use of the word retarded which I use to mean "people that obviously know better, but do so anyway"). The judge trying the case seemed to have this exact viewpoint by saying that the sticker that doesn't promote anything except being against evolution somehow is pro creationism. The logic that con-evolution == pro-creationism seems extremely flawed to me but there's evidence that a lot of people believe this.

Vic:
"Wow....I don't know where to begin as I am a little distraught by the utter simplistic explanation that both Noel and Jeremy give as the foundation for their belief in God."

To me, the logic of it is very simplistic. To know God is a completely different subject than to know OF God but the two are very related. Because I know God (i.e. have felt a presence other than mine) much of that experience defines what I know OF God (and thus the reason I don't persuade easily). I could offer a lot of explainations like "maybe it was some alien being other than yourself" or "maybe it was just some untapped portion of you that was 'unlocked' when you were at your lowest point" both of which seem likely but when I compare it to "that was Jesus Christ because I cried out to HIM specifically and something immediately happened unlike the times I pleaded with God, Allah, or other practices I thought would help" seems to make more sense to me. If there was someone other than God or Jesus Christ, why on earth would they use the message of the Bible to "touch" me like that? I'm sure they'd want to correct whatever was wrong if in fact they were someone else.

Noel: Thanks for the macro/micro evolution explaination. It's good to know the technical terms others are aware of and I firmly believe micro evolution because it can be readily observed. DNA is a very fragile thing and the whole basis for macro evolution. Studying genetics can be a slippery slope when it relates to humans but since we are cloning animals couldn't someone do experiments to try and prove macro evolution? Maybe try making some dog-cat hybrid or maybe try to evolve a reptile into a bird. That wouldn't recreate the original conditions but it would at least set the boundaries for how such a thing could occur (if it's even possible). On top of a controlled experiment you would have to then say well the evolution we experienced was completely random so what statistic probablity could be derived from what we just did? In many ways it would seem futile though since you couldn't possibly recreate conditions you never witnessed or have a complete understanding of so even if someone could produce it in a lab it makes it infinately more complicated to produce naturally through time.

Vic: The sense of justice you speak of is more of a cultural exception than a personal belief. Do those that leave others behind greive as they do so? Do they not feel a sense of loss and pain? If not then there is no indicator of a deeper sense of justice but if they do feel remorse and loss then that would suggest that while culture and community give an "excuse" for it, the people's hearts suggest otherwise. Why do feelings like guilt, remorse, or pain exist if religions view of justice were sufficient? You may be able to kill hundreds of people without feeling expressing guilt or remorse but I'd have a hard time believing it didn't affect you in some way. Sure you could find ways to supress it but it still doesn't change the fact that you believe it was wrong. Are you simply reinforcing a culture's view? Possible but if that were the case it would be a little easier to do these types of things without feeling any kind of side effects from it. Why do certain actions haunt us? If I did no wrong in my religion's eyes why would I still feel that way? It illudes to a law that seems to cross religious boundaries.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

First of all, before this issue goes anywhere, the debate over Iraq is such a huge issue in itself that it is not appropriate to bring it into this debate, especially since vic wants to "stick to this thread's topic". Another place it is perfectly acceptable to debate obviously, but in context with evolution vs. anything?

Now, on the note of sense of justice, I do not mean cultural issues such as Vic meantioned. I mean that people have the same idea that some things are right and wrong. The exact boundaries of right and wrong vary for reasons like culture influence, however it is still there.

I imagine that the person whose eye is plucked out feels that it is wrong, but cannot do anything about it. Are there laws in america that people disagree with? yes. Does that mean that this common sense of fair play (which people make excuses for, and do not have to obey) still exists? yes. As for the Asian example, this may be immoral as far as JudeoChristian and many other religions go, but this does not mean that the sense of fair play still does not apply. A daughter or wife sleeping with a guest may be weird, but how does that say that people all have this common idea of fairness. For example, if that same guest has the host over to his home and does not offer his wife or daughter, it would be considered rude most likely. That is the sense of justice which I am refuring to. As far as the African example, well, I imagine that the person left to die would not exactly be happy about being left for dead, but cannot force people to listen to him. In a matter of life and death, many things go aside, and justice is often one of them.. That obvioulsy does not mean that none of the members of the tribe or whatever has a sense of justice. More later

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Jeremy: "The sense of justice you speak of is more of a cultural exception than a personal belief"..."Why do feelings like guilt, remorse, or pain exist if religions view of justice were sufficient?"..."Why do certain actions haunt us? If I did no wrong in my religion's eyes why would I still feel that way? It illudes to a law that seems to cross religious boundaries."

Noel: "on the note of sense of justice, I do not mean cultural issues such as Vic meantioned. I mean that people have the same idea that some things are right and wrong. The exact boundaries of right and wrong vary for reasons like culture influence, however it is still there."

I realize what I say is a bit hard to accept when you are convinced that your paradigm -your fundamental frame of mind- can have no alternative except for acceptable "quirky" exceptions and slight variations. But the fact is you are simply mistaken, unaware of your ethnocentrism.

You must understand that right and wrong (let's stick to these fundamentals) are values born of ideas. They are not genetically coded which is why animals are not able to differenciate the 2.
Not only do these values vary across cultures but they also vary with time. Slavery was right until it was deemed to be wrong. For a relatively short period of time it was right to kill so called witches until is became wrong.

The American judicial system's fundamental principal is that one cannot be judged unless he/she understands the difference between right and wrong. There are plenty of cases of people who, for mental reasons or appalling lack of education, are considered not able to stand trial on that basis.

Ironically, your perception of right and wrong is not only not universal but you are part of the minority! China, with 1.3 billion people, has more people that all Christians put together. Not only did Chinese not come up with a religion (Taoism is more of a philosophy) in their 5 thousand years of history but their last 50 years or so of communist rule prevented much infiltration from "Western" based Christian religions. The result is a people whose values we speak of are far different from yours. Do they fear, feel pain or remorse? Yes, of course. But not necessarily when you do.

More later

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

My thoughts did not flow as cohesive as I would like in this post, so please forgive the scattered way in which I wrote.

Vic:"I realize what I say is a bit hard to accept when you are convinced that your paradigm -your fundamental frame of mind- can have no alternative except for acceptable "quirky" exceptions and slight variations. But the fact is you are simply mistaken, unaware of your ethnocentrism."

Why do you have to make your case by attacking people, not their logic? You assert that all of what Jeremy and I have thought is simply riddiculous, that is is all to be blamed on western values, and it cannot possibly have a slight bit of truth. You could easily assert this while not act condesending, or that you are right for the sole reason that you are older and more "world learned". I know that some people enjoy using condesention in debate, but in this format, to dismiss arguements because you have "superior learning" is being closed minded too! I understand that I am still in high school, and despite the teenage image, I really have thoughts that you should not dismiss as simply a reluctance to find the truth because it will break my "fundamental frame of mind". Your condesention is rather annoying to say the least.

You did not address my attack on your asian, african, and Islamic examples. Why? I am left to assume that you thought "oh it doesn't matter. They don't know what they are talking about" or something like that. That's condesention, but no arguements to support it.

The reason slavery lasted for so long? Because it was the foundation of the complete economic cycle in the south. They had very little industry, very little capital to suppliment the free labor they got from slavery. Does this mean that people weren't fighting against slavery for a while? No. Are people still fighting prejudice today? Yes. Even in the United States? Yes. Does this mean that people do not have a common rule that was not voted on, or proposed to congress or whatever, but instead has that idea of a rule not solely of morals, but a more subtle guide. Absoluely not.

To reiterate C. S. Lewis:

"How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?' -- 'That's my seat, I was there first' -- 'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm' -- 'Why should you shove in first?' -- 'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine' -- 'Come on, you promised.'"

Are these arguements or thoughts confined solely to the western world? Do other people ever think along those lines? I believe so. Whatever cultural or other religious influence that make people not say things outloud, or submit to people older of a different gender, or whatever, these people must still think that somethings aren't fair. As far as Vic goes, my family is very intimate with a family from China (who are Christians), I am best friends with a girl whose family escaped Malawi, and I am not as ignorat of other cultures as you portray in your post. Furthermore, there is a very strong presence of Christianity in China. It is suppressed, but very much in the people. You do not have to explain the history of China to me, I understand it's Daoism and it's isolationist ideas etc. Please, how can you generalize in China Vic? It has as you said 1.3 Billion people! Communist or not, there are many influences on China from outs

Another case came to mind. When your a child, you say "But that isn't fair", and your parent's tell you "Life isn't fair". Why do children have such a passionate sense of what is acceptable, what is just, and as one grows up, that passion is crushed by culture, society, and other effects. Do children from other places feel injustices? Do they feel that things aren't fair? Of course. Are they influenced by cultural rules and by their family to put their sense of fairness to the side? I strongly believe so. (I am thinking of Middle Eastern, Indian, and Chinese culturals which are very different than western societies) . It happens too in Western societies that a childs sense of justice is not always the justice of the courts. As an example, there are state self defense laws that only allow people to defend themselves with equal and opposite force. So if someone breaks into their home, and threatens their family. If you cannot see that they have a gun (only a club of some sort), and you attack them with a gun, then you are not attacking with self defense. I strongly disagree with this law, just like people disagreed with slavery and with witch hunting . The point is not the self defense law, it is the idea that people can have a sense of right and wrong not upheld by their culture's laws.

The same idea goes for witch hunting and slavery. Witch hunting I believe was corruption and hysteria. Did some people think it right? Yes, they believed that witches were to be put to death, that it was of the devil. Now the way they went about it was wrong. It was not fair. If you could actually prove that someone had committed a crime, it is different. The fact that witch hunting existed does that mean that people do not have a sense of justice. In the salem witch hunting, it ended when the govenor thought it was unfair, that it was riddiculous of them to accuse his wife. Slavery was an institution which existed during Jesus's time, but it was different than the other issues. People want to be free, but if they can't they still want fairness, they want freedom. Does slavery, do mistakes made by society, by people mean that people have no sense of fairness that extended beyond country borders? I believe it doesn't.


Now on a completely different note, Jeremy, I want to let you know that I have debated, that I know of other theories, that I understand that the world isn't either Evolutionist or Creationist, and for you to assume what I was talking about said as muchseems like you are putting words in my mouth. That I believe the two most prominant theories in at least the Western world are Evolution and Creationism doesn't mean that I am dismissing all others. If you bring up another theory, I will gladly debate it. I do not know how to make you understand this but I do not believe "the logic that con-evolution == pro-creationism ".

As far as being a "simplistic explanation", I was trying to illustrate just one reason that a superhuman identity, God, can exist. The idea that people have a common sense of fairness, which despite cultural influences, still exists in people, did not evolve. That is just one reason for God, and it is simplistic intentionally. I was trying to give an elemetary reason for God's existance.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Comming back here I realize that my latest response to Noel's latest post (1/22) do not appear... I don't know if I pressed the wrong key or if the discussion has been closed...?

Anyway, I don't want to rewrite what was a pretty long answer. I'll just repeat that I did not mean to be condescending and apologize if it seemed that way.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

The discussion hasn't been closed and with geekswithblogs.net there are no limits or moderation on comments.

As a general rule I try to do all my commenting/posts in something else first (like Word/Notepad) then paste it in. .Text doesn't or possibly can't really store what is typed so if you have to hit the back button or anything, you'll tend to lose everything you worked on.

Sorry about it being lost. It's happened to me a number of times yet stubbornly I usually repost. The second time around usually has better collected thought anyway but that's just me.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

My point was simply that interaction on the internet is a great opportunity to discuss and debate issues with a much greater pool of interested people.
On the other hand, not knowing who the participants are makes things more complicated, simply because experience and education are not always easy to assess.
Noel says she is in HS and I commend her for her intellectual efforts. If I showed a bit of frustration, it is only because I didn't realize "where she was coming from". Now I understand and can give her a lot more credit.

If anything, my failure has been to close her up rather than opening her up to avenues for more research.

While I don't pretend to hold any truths (I don't believe there are any) -and I am sorry if it sounds like I am again being condescending- experience and education come with time and both allow for more thorough analyses. Children don't hold any particular truths, they are simply speaking from or reacting to simple understandings and stimulus. Their inability to understand complexities may sometimes be refreshing (why can't we have peace in the world?) but gladly children don't hold elected office as the world would be in chaos!

more later

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

The Evolution Debate is of course a debate that can go on so many different tangents and most likely will never be done away with. To get back to a topic I mentioned earlier, however, to the present extent of my research, Macro Evolution has not been proved by any stretch, and furthermore, it has so many holes in it that it is hard to believe. Now if anyone would like to defend Macro Evolution (different than micro evolution as I explained in a previous post), that would open up a new avenue which has not been beaten to death as of now.

Macro Evolution tries to claim that speices came from a common anciestor, that through natural selection (which is micro evolution in some circumstances) everything developed et cetera. Now ignoring the probability of how life started and so on, say that there is life and then explain how life developed into everything else. Then I will hopefully have the opportunity for tearing it down.

Vic, as far as your "Children don't hold any particular truths, they are simply speaking from or reacting to simple understandings and stimulus" comment, I disagree with it, if you will see my last post I have comments about what children understand etc. I know that as I get older I will learn more, but since this is the internet, and it is only your arguements against another persons, I just wanted you to stick with arguements instead of suggesting you were more learned because you were older. Thanks for your apology etc, most people would not have done that.
More later of course.

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Hey idoits, evolution is a fake the person who invented or came up with made it up in order to get back at his wife.Because she filed for a devoice. He did this because he knew she was a christain also her father was a preacher. He admitted it but they waited so long to change the science books that everyone accepted it so of course they kept their mouths shut.Come on science is so against the one and only God Jesus Christ, Father, Son and Holy Spirt.Even through they have found evidence that he really exists. Come on people can't you see what is right in front of your face. Think about it if we Christains came up with the THEROY of evolution they would be mocking us forever just like the big bang THEROY!!! THINK ABOUT IT if we Christains came up with this we would be the joke of the century!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

P.S. Look it up if you don't believe me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Hey idoits, evolution is a fake the person who invented or came up with made it up in order to get back at his wife.Because she filed for a devoice. He did this because he knew she was a christain also her father was a preacher. He admitted it but they waited so long to change the science books that everyone accepted it so of course they kept their mouths shut.Come on science is so against the one and only God Jesus Christ, Father, Son and Holy Spirt.Even through they have found evidence that he really exists. Come on people can't you see what is right in front of your face. Think about it if we Christains came up with the THEROY of evolution they would be mocking us forever just like the big bang THEROY!!! THINK ABOUT IT if we Christains came up with this we would be the joke of the century!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

Hey idoits, evolution is a fake the person who invented or came up with made it up in order to get back at his wife.Because she filed for a devoice. He did this because he knew she was a christain also her father was a preacher. He admitted it but they waited so long to change the science books that everyone accepted it so of course they kept their mouths shut.Come on science is so against the one and only God Jesus Christ, Father, Son and Holy Spirt.Even through they have found evidence that he really exists. Come on people can't you see what is right in front of your face. Think about it if we Christains came up with the THEROY of evolution they would be mocking us forever just like the big bang THEROY!!! THINK ABOUT IT if we Christains came up with this we would be the joke of the century!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

# re: The great Debate: Evolution vs. Anything else

I beleive in parts of the various statements above- but I would add more emphatically: that it takes as much faith to believe in Evolution as it does to beleive in Creationist theories.

I like the "Intelligent Design" theory curently "fighting" to be taught in schools.

I know it may seem a "cop out" to many people -having the "best of both worlds"- but it seems more logical and certainly requires more common sense.

However- I am catholic and have trouble taking the Bible "literally". I think most of the bible contains "parables" and some actual historic events which have been proven to take place- but that is far as my common sense can take me.

As far as I am personally concerned -God guided "Evolution" - that would both explain the lack of "transional links" and leaps and jumps in the fossil record which are never explained and make no sense whatsoever -(following- just the tenets of Evolution) as it is taught in most schools today.

The "laws of Physics" are laws that the most brillant men have discovered and still discovering-so I leave with this point-if these "inelligent" people of science are just beginning to understand these- how could this be the result of "random" acts in the Universe????

Certainly-there must be some force or being "More" intelligent to have created these "laws" -and to me- it can only be God.