I thought this was a great quote from one of our commenters:
A scientist brings evidence, a priest brings cool stories.
I fear this is often the case. It is also the main difference between an evolutionist and a creationist: one believes because of overwhelming scientific evidence and expert consensus; the other believes because of a “cool story” in a holy book that they were probably taught as a child — in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence and expert consensus.
All the evidence in the world could be against creationism (and, what do you know, it is), and yet many would still believe.
You are not doing science when you refuse to seriously consider the other side’s evidence. Nor are not doing science when nothing could possibly convince you that you are wrong. You are doing religion.
And that is why creationism is religion, not science.
I hesitate to be argumentative, but…
I’m certain that this is not true of most creationists. Having been a creationist for a long time, and having most of my acquaintances still deluded, I think you’ll find that the majority do not simply ignore evidence and experts…
They just do not know what evolution is and have their own experts who show them plenty of evidence against a straw-man of evolution.
The proof of this is how many creationists will say something like, “I can’t believe that all this just happened by chance.” Which indicates that they are open to evidence outside of Genesis but that they simply have not had natural selection explained to them.
I don’t know if I know any creationists who even know what talkorigins.org is.
I think this is an important distinction to keep in mind. Because you will not convince a creationist by saying all the evidence supports evolution. You’ll convince one by explaining how evolution really works, and why their claims against it are not valid. Still the real hurdle is that they *do* respect their experts.
To convince a creationist of the error, you have to convince them of one of two things: 1) That they are capable of understanding something that their experts do not understand or 2) that their experts do understand but intentionally mislead them.
@Warren: Of course they think they have evidence. I was a YEC for many, many years. But the key is, as you said, “They just do not know what evolution is and have their own experts.”
Exactly. They aren’t willing to actually research evolution, and when evolutionists give them evidence and arguments, they dismiss it because they believe it CAN’T be true.
My opinion is you can’t convince a creationist without giving them alternative exegesis options for Genesis. Otherwise, they view embracing evolution as rejecting their religion, which would be fine with me, but not a good way to make headway for evolution in YEC groups.
Yes, true. Very true.
Also true. I would like to add, “… and point out that most evolutionists are not atheists.” This was a big eye-opener for me.
I love this blog, by the way.
Sigh–the science stories always turned out to be sooo much cooler than the Woo.
The problem is also that scientists aren’t trained in rhetoric and public speaking. Priests are.
We need more like Neil Degrasse Tyson, more like Phil Plait, more like Richard Dawkins and more like Carl Sagan.
What I love about science is that it is just as true no matter what religion or philosophy you hold. 2+2=4 whether you are a Hindu, a Muslim or a Christian.
Seriously consider creationism?
Earth is 6000 years old?
Worldwide Flood?
Tower of Babel?
Inerrant book?
Different Bibles?
Different beliefs from same book?
Kill in the name of God, Jesus, Allah, etc?
Torture as above?
Many, many, many discrepancies?
OT God was practicing genocide?
Just a few problems…no I don’t think there’s any science there to take a look at.
I’m a “priest” (protestant minister) and a scientist. I’ve never had a problem integrating science and theology. One of my spiritual highs came about 3:00 AM when I was peering into a microscope in a lab doing honors research as an undergraduate biology major. Suddenly I realized I was seeing something (and later photographed) that no other human had seen before. It was a very sacred moment. That’s the only way I could describe the feeling. How wonderful it was to be ushered into part of God’s incredible creation. I’ll always continue to wonder the “how” with all the scientists. I already know and experience the “who.”
I’ve continued this integrative experience in my work as a pastoral counselor, exploring the spiritual as well as the psychological, biological, cognitive, and relational dimensions of illnesses like clinical depression. If you want an example of how I do it, check out my new book: “A Relentless Hope: Surviving the Storm of Teen Depression.”
Peace,
Gary
I think people get confused about God creating. God created us. It doesn’t matter when or how much we evolved since.
The problem is lucifer used creation and created aliens, UFOs, etc. He also damned us to see with our eyes closed. So, God’s creations have become reflections of lucifer and perversions. Evolution might be the answer for a luciferian, but the reality is we have gone insane and become perversions because lucifer was in creation.
The goal is obvious. To cease all God’s creations because they have become perversions. The end of all things will be done by Satan, doing God a favor. Humans can’t be recovered.
“the other believes because of a “cool story” in a holy book that they were probably taught as a child”
Thats a dangerous assumption to make. Yes some people have been raised in the faith, and learned what they know as a child. A given portion of those people also have not gone and done their own study of what they were taught.
I did go2 church as forced by my father and step-mother as a young child. I didn’t however pay much(if any) attention to what I was being taught. I didn’t become a Christian until two years ago. Since then I have done research on evolution, and the “proof” as to that being how we got here. I gave evolution the benefit of the doubt, and seriously considered that it was indeed how we came to be. After doing my research I have come to my own conclusion that macro-evolution is nothing but an unproven theory. That isn’t religion, but would be what is called science.
Woah… is that guy actually advocating genocide?
ulp…
OK, Zachary… I’d like to know why you dismiss “macroevolution” as an unproven theory.
By the way, all theories, including gravity, are unproven. They have a lot of evidence in their favour but we always try to disprove them, hoping to find something even more comprehensive and powerful. That we can’t find anything more comprehensive and powerful than evolution or relativity means they’re what we accept for now. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, cannot be tested, has very few predictions and all of them provably false, and in no way fits the facts we can see.
At least, that’s what I understand based on the evidence. Now you can try to convince me otherwise.
@Zachary: It’s not a “dangerous” assumption — how is it dangerous? Anyway, you didn’t notice there was a “probably” in there which leaves room for people like yourself.
I’d be interested in the books you read when you gave evolution a fair chance. If that was your conclusion, it sounds like you must have been reading pretty terrible sources, or creationist strawmen.
“After doing my research I have come to my own conclusion that macro-evolution is nothing but an unproven theory.”
*sigh*
There is no such thing as macro and micro evolution. There is only evolution.
Perhaps you can tell me how you can avoid walking a mile by taking one step at a time?
Perhaps you question the formation of stalactites as well? I mean, sure, we’ve seen small ones form over a few years. But there’s no way that dripping water and sediment can explain those gigantic stalactites. I mean, it’s not like they had thousands and millions of years to form or something…
…wait a minute…yes they did!
The most prevalent thing I see in most of these comments is hasty generalizations. It is unfortunate that creationists and non-creationists are all placed in convenient little boxes and categories. There are believing and unbelieving scientists and philosophers. All have something worthwhile to contribute to the discussion.
Truth is truth. When we find it, speculation ceases. Those who will not (or, maybe, cannot) deal with truth place themselves in positions reason cannot penetrate. There are many unsolved dilemmas for both viewpoints and it accomplishes nothing for one side to disparage the other. When that happens, both sides become defensive and viewpoints are polarized.
That’s one mighty impressive example #9 displays of being stuck in a loop:
1) Anything bad is created by Satan
2) Any arguments to the contrary are the product of Satan
Dualism carried to the extreme. And sprinkled with a yearning for complete annihilation of the human race. Nice. Sounds like something a follower of Satan would say, actually.
I think you are a Luciferian, #9.
In fact, your comment is 666 chars long including your user name. You probably thought we wouldn’t notice.
Speaking of unproven theories … how’s the gathering of evidence for the existence of god coming along?
I could write for a very, very long time about evolution vs. creationism. As an engineer, I depend on facts and figures to do my work. I have looked at the evidence for both evolution and creationism, but both seem to me to require a lot of faith to believe in. As you can see by the comments above, science and God have both drawn in a crowd of believers who believe so strongly it might as well be a religion.
And evolution is not science. It is taught in school as science and fact, but it is neither. It uses scientific fact (fossils, natural selection) to postulate a theory, but those exact same facts can be used to postulate the theory of creation/intelligent design. Two ‘truths’ from the same basis? Sounds like religion to me!
@morsecode: Yes, it is suggested that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution. By the way, micro-evolution is generally considered to be the same as natural selection which does indeed lead to evolution as suggested by Darwin. I am driven to argue against the possibility of macro-evolution suggests that one can get a horse out of a bird, and that eventually everything should evolve into a human (assuming a human is the height of the evolutionary chain), somehow, thanks to survival of the fittest and genetic drift.
“I am driven to argue against the possibility of macro-evolution suggests that one can get a horse out of a bird, and that eventually everything should evolve into a human (assuming a human is the height of the evolutionary chain), somehow, thanks to survival of the fittest and genetic drift.”
Thank you for demonstrating to everyone that you have absolutely no idea how evolution works.
I second morsec0de here, there’s some confusion in your reply. For example, “(assuming a human is the height of the evolutionary chain)”
Ignoring the garbled metaphor, the major problem is that there is no “height” of the chain. There is no higher or lower in evolution, no up or down. Species are not evolving towards anything. Those ideas died with Lamark, now Darwin rules the day.
Horses did not evolve from birds, nor vise versa. The closest shared ancestor they would have would be a small saurian. Really, do you have to create a caricature of evolutionary thinking to debate it?
Graysoul: Gravity’s not science, if using the facts to define a theory which best explains them isn’t science. There’s a parody going around about Intelligent Falling. There’s actually more support in the evidence for the idea that gravity is caused by God pushing on our heads than there is for the idea that he created all life. Life looks evolved, not created. The molecular evidence shows that our genome is a muddle of deleted and altered genes that are related to what is found in our relatives amongst the animal kingdom.
The evidence just doesn’t support ID. It does support evolution. Evolution can be modelled and tested in a way that ID can’t. It can even be done in the lab. Whole new species – by one definition – have been created in the lab by natural selection. ID has never shown one example of a species being created by divine power in any circumstance.
No, thank you, morsecOde, for helping me concede that I don’t know anything about evolution past the ideas taught to me in high school and for in absolutely no fashion enlightening me as to how evolution really works. I’m sure indirectly calling people stupid has won debates the world over.
I do agree with speciation, genetic drift, mutation, natural selection, etc. In Genesis 1:24, 25 it speaks about God creating the animals, each according to its kind i.e. species. A dog is related to a wolf, a cat to a lion, etc. In that sense life does look evolved. But if there is no progression to increasing complexity, as Lamarck theorized, then how did we get animals out of the primordial soup? I’m willing to stretch my mind to accept that lizards developed hooves and hair to evolve into horses, but then I have to ask how molecules came together and were better than the other molecules.
Darwin wrote On The Origin of Species where as Moses wrote about the origin of life. As Daniel Florien stated in #2, “you can’t convince a creationist without giving them alternative exegesis options for Genesis”. Please, for the sake of my mind, point me in the direction of non-biblical fact regarding the origin of life.
If evolution is true, then eventually all mankind will become more hairy. The fur that will someday cover us will protect us from those nasty UV rays which is killing off many of our species. ONLY THE HAIRY WILL SURVIVE!
basically, you start with RNA
RNA forms any time you get four reasonably common chemicals (at least one of them has been detected in interstellar gas clouds) and sugar. Moreover, one strand of RNA can create another strand of RNA by having the same chemicals stick to it. So RNA, in a sense, can breed. RNA also folds up into shapes. Some of these shapes can do things. Also, RNA can transcript into DNA, which is like RNA but with different sugar and one of the four chemicals swapped for another, similar one. And DNA can transcribe RNA, too. So you have a reproducing system, which can be (indeed, will almost certainly be) variable, processing energy and creating more of the same… and that’s enough to allow natural selection to work. Once you have that, it’s only a matter of time before these floating molecules get a lipid bilayer membrane to protect them, interact with other molecules to produce basic proteins…
Life happens, through fairly basic chemistry.
Of course, these are just incredibly basic cells. And that’s all we had for about a billion years, slowly evolving cells. But gradually, mutations built up complexity (by doubling the number of copies of a gene, then modifying one copy into something new) and we developed multicellular organisms, and from there, the Cambrian Explosion was just a few small steps away.
The problem with what you are saying, as with most rants about Christianity, is that it doesn’t really understand Christianity. Evangelicals came along 1800 years into the game, and they tossed out much of what had been Christianity up to that point. The bible alone and must be taken literally mentality is not part of traditional Christian belief. St. Augustine in the 4th century, along with others, said plainly the much of the bible was not meant to be literal.
At the top of this web page you have the tag line “A scientist brings evidence, a priest brings cool stories.” but many scientist were priests, and many priests, monks, and devout lay Christians were–and are–scientists. Mendel, Copernicus, Georges Lemaître, Rev. Michael Heller and others were (or are) priests and scientists. Galileo was a devout Catholic, and the church, in the person of his bishop, was a major driving force behind Galileo Galilei. When placed under house arrest, loosely watched, he spent much of it in the home of his benefactor; the bishop.
It is a false dichotomy that puts science in opposition to religion in general; although, this could be true of some religions and even some Christian denominations. However, it is not true in Catholicism. Yes, you can find Catholics that were antiscience, and yes there were times when catholic authorities treated some scientists badly; but that does not mean Catholicism in general is antiscience. Should I point to the scientists of the Nazi Third Reich and claim that all science is thus evil? Of course not.
Suffice it to say that those people who try to pit science against religion don’t understand either one or the other, or perhaps they don’t understand either one.