by VorJack
Via The Dispersal of Darwin, who found it on the Facebook group “We can find 1,000,000 people who DO believe in Evolution before June“. Which is a response to a Facebook page making the same claim about Creationism.
I’m not on Facebook, but if you are, give ‘em a look. Bear in mind that it’s a pro-science page, not an anti-religion page.
Cute though this may be, I can’t help but think that it’ll only reinforce the misconception that believing evolution is true is, in itself, a religion.
Insomuch as the hard-core creationist has no discernible sense of humor, I’d have to agree.
Still, one has to appreciate the humor anyway. =^_^=
rAmen, my friend.
Pro-science = anti-religion
True, True……….unles you count Newton, Mendel, Kelvin, Linnaues, Boyle, Bacon, Polkinghorne, K. Miller, Collins, etc.
I didn’t say “scientists” = anti-religion. Our level of scientific knowledge today is incompatible with the “big 3″ religions, if not all religions. That a particular practitioner chooses to ignore this incompatibility for one reason or another doesn’t change this.
Depends on how specific and literal you are in your religion.
That’s actually one of the first things I bring up to people who question me for being an atheist. The bible claims to be the literal word of god, it is not up for interpretation or for one to pick and choose the passages/commandments one wants follow; and it specifically states as so throughout. Today anyone who believes in the literal interpretation of the bible (that the Earth is ~6k years old, for example) is seen as crazy. I submit that those are the only real christians.
So when you say that it depends on the level of literal meaning one gives to your religion, I respond that that in itself is what makes it incompatible with science. If you have two “truths” that contradict one another, one must be false. In science, when part of one statement is proven false the entire thing is false.
So, if the question is, say, creationism vs. evolution as theories. It is clear that creationism must be false. Now, it is possible for a new revelation (no pun intended) to show that the current theory of evolution is flawed, in which case its back to the drawing board to modify this theory. The breakdown occurs when you try to take this approach with creationism, you can’t go “back to the drawing board” because an essential part of the theory is that is the word of an all-knowing god. You can’t modify the bible, and picking-and-choosing the parts which you want to purport as gospel and the parts you want to ignore is the same as skipping the pages of Darwin’s Origin of the Species that have been proven incorrect and claiming that the theory is still intact.
By and large I agree with you, but the potential for conflict is only present when there are specific religious claims that juxtapose scientific claims.
In the case of a creationist it is obvious that his claims conflict with science. And as you say, creationists take a dogmatic approach to the Bible (or Quran or whatever) that is antithetical to science. In this case religion is clearly anti-science.
At the other extreme we have the deist who recognizes that the Bible isn’t the word of God; that in fact it contains a lot of factual errors and myths. The deist’s religious claims may be limited to something like “God created the Universe” and “When we die there’s an afterlife” or various other fluffy claims. Such claims are not testable in any way and are sufficiently lacking in specifics that they don’t actually oppose any scientific claims. In this case religion and science coexist without any problems. There’s no conflict because the two areas never overlap.
As for whether the dogmatic creationist or the cherrypicking deist is the certified True Christian is a matter for another debate.
Agreed! Though I still think that keeping your beliefs so “fluffy” that they are untestable is itself unscientific, you’d think the Creator would have some concrete, measurable effect on reality. There’s also the question of how fluffy these claims can be while still qualifying as “religion.”
The deist you describe is most certainly not a Christian. If there is any core belief to Christianity, it is that Jesus was God’s son and he died for our sins. That’s incompatible with deism.
I agree with your assessment of conflict between religion and science, though.
Well, you don’t have to be a Christian to be religious.
Still, I’d argue that the claims that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for our sins are sufficiently inconsequential science-wise that they don’t oppose science in any way. You may argue that the claims are highly dubious, but as long as they don’t lead to any secondary, testable claims they don’t conflict with science.
But anyway, I think we more or less agree. If there’s any disagreement it stems from our perceptions of what constitutes a religion.
I think it sounds more like a christian than a deist…
If you don’t mind, could you possibly explain why you think creationism is false? I’ve heard many different debates either way, but I’m really interested in what you think? Why do you think it is false?
Let’s see, there’s the idea that light (1st day) and plants (that require light to live; 3rd day) were created before any light sources (fourth day); birds (5th day) were created before reptiles (6th day).
Then there’s the idea that all of existence, not just the Earth, is a mere 6 thousand years old.
Because creationism purports that all life on Earth was created during one week and has always existed as it does today, it ignores creatures like dinosaurs and early hominids which are extinct today (and were unknown to man at the time some dude made the creation myth up). Also, because Noah’s flood was a literal flood, he would have had to fit 2-7 of every non-aquatic animal onto a boat smaller than the average cruise ship, which is clearly impossible.
Speaking of the flood, the entire creation myth is based on the premise that space is literally made of water. The sky is only a void created in that water, and the ground we stand on sits on the bottom of that void. When the stars are finally created, they are only created as decoration for the top of that void, with the Sun and Moon existing only to mark day and night. Any modern human knows this model of the universe is flawed, certainly an omniscient being would have known better. I think most would not include this as part of “creationism,” but I think it is important because it is the only explanation for Noah’s flood, in which god opened the sky and let the space-water flow in. There is obviously not enough water on Earth for a flood to cover the whole of it up above the highest peak.
Finally, there’s the outright crazy creatures mentioned in the bible, like dragons, giants, and unicorns.
The only bit of factual evidence I can find in your response is about the premise that space is literally made of water. This theory is one of several that fits into the realm of Cosmogony. However, “attempts to create a naturalistic cosmogony are subject to two separate limitations. One is based in the philosophy of science and the epistemological constraints of science itself, especially with regards to whether scientific inquiry can ask questions of “why” the universe exists. Another more pragmatic problem is that there is no physical model that can explain the earliest moments of the universe’s existence (Planck time) because of a lack of a consistent theory of quantum gravity.” (Source: Wikipedia)
Again, if science can’t explain it, then how do you know? As for where I stand based on the information I know, either is a possibility because neither can be “naturalistically” proven. (That is why I asked the question. I wanted to know if you have uncovered any hard evidence one way or the other. Based on your response, I’m assuming the answer is ‘No’.)
This is getting a bit confusing now that you’re responding in different places. The simplest response here is this: I don’t need to know the absolute truth of the Universe’s origins to know your explanation is way off.
There are plenty of claims made by creationism that can and have been proven incorrect. Now, if you wanna posit some theory where God sparked the big bang and everything thereafter obeyed the laws of science as we know them because it was God’s will that they do so, then yes, that theory can never be proven incorrect. But this is not “creationism” as the term is commonly defined. Please go back to that wikipedia tab and search for “Russell’s Teapot.”
I know about “Russell’s Teapot”, and I’m not trying to define something that cannot be proven. However, when I research this, both sides are adamant about what they believe, but when you really get down to the details, there is always something that can’t be proven. Because of this (unless you decide to choose sides), the only option you have is to figure out which possibility answers the most questions.
To show you what I mean, let me ask you a question that I’ve been pondering for a while now. Everyone is trying to figure out how everything got created. I really don’t care whose right, but I do know that all possibilities are trying to answer the same question–how did the physical get created? (You could move on to the “Why?” and “By Whom?”, but I’m not even going to go there.)
Now I consider “time” to be a physical element. In short, that means it can be measured/studied. In fact, science even depends on this element in order to define the make-up of the universe, etc. As a result, I know this is something that everyone can agree upon. Because “time” is a physical element, then it has certain characteristics that cannot be denied. For example, no matter what point in time you choose, there will always be a past, present, and a future. It is sort of like the number system (which is another very important element in science). No matter what number you choose, there is always a number less than that number and a number greater than that number. Another characteristic of both time and numbers is that they are infinite elements. In other words, they cannot be defined in a finite manner. (I think we can all agree on these elements/characteristics.)
Now, let’s take that a step further. Since these things are physical elements, then that means they are also part of the creation question. What that means (from my understanding) is that no matter what the solution is to how the physical came to be (i.e., was created), it also has to explain how such physical things like time and numbers came to be as well. I have taken science’s approach to this, but it always seems to have a problem with this. The reason is that science actually tries to use things like time and numbers to form a solution. It’s very hard to use the very same thing that must be created to answer the question. Do you see my point?
For example, how ever time was created, at that point it has to have come into existence completely. What that means is that it must exist with all its characteristics intact. That means that right from the start, time would have to have a past, present, and future and be infinite. I know this because those are the characteristics of time. However, most people spend a lot of time trying to define “the beginning of it all”. In short, what they are looking for is a starting place. But they are never going to find it because time has no starting point. Based on its characteristics, it can never start with a present and then move into the future. A past must always exist. (It’s sort of like saying that numbers started with zero, but never went less than that.)
(I know this post is getting long-winded now so I’ll try to wrap it up.) What I’m trying to say is when it comes to which possibility–science or “creationism”–best answers (or at least addresses) this question, then in my mind I’d have to give the nod to creationism because it at least has a plausible solution. Again, since that solution still can’t be physically proven, I wouldn’t go as far as stating it’s the absolute truth. But I haven’t been able to see where science has been able to answer this question yet. Now, I don’t claim to know everything there is about science, so if any of you can show how science does address this question, then I would very much like to hear your thoughts.
Again, thanks for this dialogue. I think it has been very constructive and positive in nature. I hope it will continue…
“… then in my mind I’d have to give the nod to creationism because it at least has a plausible solution.”
I think you’re find that “magic man did it” 6,000 – 10,000 years ago is not a particularly plausible solution. Why on earth do you think it is?
@quadj
About the “why” question, you have an answer here: http://www.apenotmonkey.com/2010/03/29/purpose-of-life/
to look for an answer the question must have some sense, and we cannot prove it has. In fact, it would have sense only if a “creator” (or the universe) had some sort of willing.
About time, I don’t agree that “For example, no matter what point in time you choose, there will always be a past, present, and a future”. Some hypotheses say that there was no time before the big bang. It is not like numbers, but more like the temperature. There is always something cooler and something hoter. Unless you are talking about 0ºK.
“Another characteristic of both time and numbers is that they are infinite elements. In other words, they cannot be defined in a finite manner” Chech that sentence, please. Numbers are infinite but they are defined in a finite manner, you can’t define anything in a non-finite manner.
You can consider a creator of the universe if that creator doesn’t have any known characteristic. I mean, let’s take the real creationism. 6k years ago? “Proven” false. Water all around us? Proven false. Separation of light and darkness? Proven that our allknwoing creator didn’t know which was the nature of light.
Of course you can put a god in the beginning of the universe. But unless you choose the FSM -touched be us by his appendages- you are wrong about him. You can’t know anything about him. It is a plausible solution? No.
Why not?
- It doesn’t explain anything. So a god created the universe? How was that god created?
- It is not supported by any observation. We don’t know about any god, we don’t have any realistic reason to believe something like “a god” existed ever.
- It is not a naturalistic explanation. It is magic. A god can do whatever he wants. For example: our universe was created a minute ago by that god. Can you disprove that? Can you disprove that we are inside the matrix?
…and as you said it cannot be proven false.
So creation is not a scientific hypothese because it doesn’t fit the rules. It doesn’t matter that christian creation has been proved false.
BUT… I know the FSM created us when he was drunk and I’m going to spend the eternity near the beer volcanoe. Because it cannot be proven that magic doesn’t exist.
@francesc
I don’t think the answer you provided for the “why” question was quite what I was looking for. ;-)
(BTW: Thank you for clarifying my infinite/finite definition for time/numbers. You are correct. I used the wrong words. What I was trying to point out is that in both cases no matter which way you go, the direction is infinite.)
Now, as for the rest of your comment, what I find interesting is how seemingly easy it is for you to discard the possibility of “a god” just because it can’t be supported by any observation and/or doesn’t have any naturalistic explanation. To me, just because it can’t be explained doesn’t mean it can be immediately discarded. If that were true, then the entire concept of quantum physics would be thrown out the window. In quantum physics, as I’m sure you know, there are so many “unknowns” and things left unproven that you could easily through that out the window because again “it can’t be observed and there isn’t any naturalistic explanation”. Yet, scientists still consider this “unknown” real. Therefore, that is why I consider “both” a possibility until more information/evidence becomes available that can disprove either one.
What I’m trying to point out is this: just because something cannot be observed and/or explained doesn’t immediately invalidate the idea. Science doesn’t take that stance, so why should we? If we did, we would never discover anything new because isn’t that the whole definition of discovery anyway–making known something that was previously unknown?
Lastly, I have heard the hypothesis about no time. And while it is a possibility (after all, isn’t that what a hypothesis is?), I tend to lean more on the side that the characteristics of “time” are too solid and constant to believe that those characteristics could have been different at some other time. (Oops, see what I mean. I just tried to explain another variation of time using itself as a variable.) Now, I do think that there could have been a point where time didn’t exist; however, based on what I know (which isn’t a lot) that would also mean that the physical wouldn’t have existed either. I do not believe that you could have one without the other.
quadj, there are some basic flaws in your premises.
1) “Now I consider “time” to be a physical element.”
The jury is still out on that one. Is time a property of our universe or does it exist outside of it (it such a thing can even be imagined)? We don’t know, and part of the reason may be that we don’t even know what time really is. So you may be right on this one, or you may be wrong.
2) “no matter what point in time you choose, there will always be a past, present, and a future.” … “right from the start, time would have to have a past, present, and future and be infinite.”
No. If time was created with our universe it had a beginning. And it may even have an end. You have no basis for assigning infinity to time.
3) “Another characteristic of both time and numbers is that they are infinite elements. In other words, they cannot be defined in a finite manner.”
Numbers can be defined in a finite manner. Pi has an infinite number of non-repeating decimals, yet I can easily define it as the relation between a circle’s diameter and circumference, and I can furthermore represent it using a finite symbol.
What’s more, numbers are definitely not physical. They’re a purely intellectual abstraction.
As for what these flaws, as well as your general ontological approach, mean for your conclusion, I think Francesc has already summed it up nicely.
@francesc
One last thing…
You made the following comment:
“For example: our universe was created a minute ago by that god. Can you disprove that?”
Yes, I can because I was there 1 hour ago and everything still existed.
(Now I realize that this comment was only used to sarcastically make a point, but it is a good example of what can and cannot be proven.)
Yes, I can because I was there 1 hour ago and everything still existed.
But if there is a entity with the sorts of power required to make a universe, isn’t it conceivable for that being to create the universe in such a way that it appears to have existed one hour ago? Could not that being have create false memories for you? Could not that entity position each particle as if it had 14,5 billion years of previous existence, when in reality each had only existed for an hour?
With a God, every conclusion is provisional, subject to change on the whims of the deity.
No, that doesn’t hold up. You can’t possibly prove that the universe wasn’t created one minute ago in the state it had one minute ago. That you remember what happened an hour earlier may only be because you were created with a false memory of it.
Some Young Earth creationist use this argument to “explain” how we can see light from stars that are billions of light years away even though the Universe is supposedly only 6000 years old. The light we see was simply created as being in transit – the same as your memory of an hour ago.
I see Francesc’s point in bringing this up as an illustration of how you can take an argument to far, which I think is what you do when you choose a divine creation just because it can’t possibly be disproven.
“I find interesting is how seemingly easy it is for you to discard the possibility of “a god” just because it can’t be supported by any observation and/or doesn’t have any naturalistic explanation”
@quadj – If you were to honestly study the geologic history of the planet (and by honestly I mean do not just read apologetics and creation material) you find the evidence that the earth is roughly 4 billion years old. It is through the realization that the evidence shows a 4 billion old earth that you then must discard the theory of a 6,000 year old earth as found in the interpretation of the bible. Once you dismiss that part of the bible, you then move onto other scientific areas, that through an honest study will disprove other aspects of the creation story. Talksorigin is a good website to start at (link is on the Reading List page here). Each part of the creation story that has been disproved by actual scientific eveidence, is just another layer of the onion that gets peeled away. When you have peeld away so many layers, you then have to question what part of the bible is accurate.
So while you may think we are dismissing the possibility of a god because of a lack of evidence for that god, it is actually the evidence for everything else around us that pretty much disproves the possibility that god created the universe as described in the bible.
@trj
Your comment:
“If time was created with our universe it had a beginning. And it may even have an end. You have no basis for assigning infinity to time.”
The basis for assigning infinity to time is because time is a known constant and one of its characteristics is that it goes on forever (i.e., infinity). Your own statement actually conflicts with itself when you state “…had a beginning”. The term “beginning” is a time reference. You can’t define something by using itself. Instead think of time as a linear plane. It’s no different than the linear planes of X, Y, and Z. (In fact, many think time is the “4th dimension”.) When thought about it in that way, a linear plane is a physical element. Once defined, it can be measured and that measurement is infinite in any direction. The same can be said for the X, Y, and Z planes. (This is what I was trying to point out before about my comment on numbers, but I did a poor job of doing.) Which means once the plane is defined/created, the entire plane exists.
For example, when the Big Bang theory was defined, it answered a lot of questions about the origins of the universe, but it was entirely based on the fact that time has a “beginning”. This caused some problems because it went against the constant of time. Then sometime later another theory was presented that depicted not one “Big Bang”, but several. In other words, the universe had a moment like a Big Bang that caused it to expand, but then after some time it would start to condense itself again to a point where it would all happen again. In short, the universe would “pulsate”. There were several reasons why they thought this was true, but one of them was because you didn’t have a problem with time anymore. In essense, this “pulsating” behavior could go on forever.
I’m just pointing this out to get you to think a little deeper. I’m still working on it as well. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but this is where I’m at now.
@vorjack, trj, yahweh
Your latest comments are a little confusing. I’m going to try and repeat what I’m hearing just to make sure I understand. At first, I thought your beliefs stood firmly with science (or at least with what could be experienced), but now you seem to be using “a creator” theory to prove why I can’t prove that everything was created an hour ago. Granted I totally understand what you are referring to, but that line of thought has no basis in science. My statement was based on the previous discussions about time. When you can “experience” a time event, then I would say with utmost certainty that I can make that statement. The only thing that could cause that statement to be false is the examples you guys gave, but then that starts to support the “creator” theory (which I didn’t get the impression you favored).
Now, where the “unproven” examples come into play is if you go back let’s say a million years and try to prove that everything existed then. What’s missing is the “experience” factor. In other words, each one of us can prove that everything didn’t get created while we were alive because we were there to witness it. From there, we could go back further because of what our parents/grandparents experienced. From there you can go back farther based on historical documents, and so on. However, sooner or later you will come to a point where you can’t prove it anymore (or the proof could be considered “a little shaky”).
So the question comes down to what you choose to believe. If you think the “creator” theory is possible, then your are right–I don’t know for sure what may have happened an hour ago. However, if you don’t think the “creator” theory is possible, then how can I be wrong?
@quadj, re. your post at 1:12 pm:
I agree that describing time using a time reference (assigning a beginning to time) is paradoxical and confusing. I think this paradox also contributes significantly to why science has such a hard time finding an explanation for how the universe came into being. I think we have a constrained view of time which causes us to search for the answer in a wrong way. It might even be that the question itself is nonsensical.
I usually compare it to asking “What is north of the North Pole?”. As anyone can tell, this question is nonsense. The reason somebody would phrase such a nonsense question is that they have a preconceived idea regarding the nature of the answer. They expect the answer to be describable by lattitudes and longitudes, because this is how we usually describe geographical locations. However, the earth is a 3D sphere, which is not actually describable in a 2D reference frame (north/south, east/west).
Similarly, I expect that we’re pushing our own preconceived idea of what time is when we ask the question “How did the universe begin?” We probably should phrase the question in an entirely different way than we do right now. Until we do, we’re only confusing ourselves.
Apart from this, you’re still incorrect in describing time as infinite. Time, like space, is a frame of reference. This frame of reference can be envisioned as a coordinate system. A coordinate system is theoretically infinite. If you think of the x-, y-, and z-axes of a 3D coordinate system, they stretch into (positive and negative) infinity. However, this coordinate system is a purely abstract invention. It does not actually exist. The fact that the axes are infinite doesn’t mean that the data points we put into it have the same properties.
Example: Two particles in space are separated by distance. They’re separated in three dimensions, length, width, and height (let’s disregard that we really only need length to describe their mutual positions). The axes – l, w, h – are theoretically infinite, but the actual distance between the points are not. In fact, it is quite impossible for the distance between them to be infinite. The same applies to two actual points in time: they’re separated by a finite timespan.
What you’re mistakenly doing is claiming that the coordinate system which you use to measure events in time (or points in space) is the same thing as these events or points. It is not. Your frame of reference doesn’t exist except as an idea; it is not part of the physical universe. Position and distance are not physical properties, as any quantum physicist will tell you.
What I’m trying to say by this is that your idea of time being infinite is wrong. Time – as a frame of reference – stretches to infinity, but this frame of reference is not the universe, but merely a tool to describe it. That this frame of reference is theoretically infinite doesn’t mean that what it describes is infinite in actuality.
@trj
I do agree with your explanation of the difference between a coordinate system and the actual points. That makes perfect sense. However, you still would have to take into account the “pool” you are pulling your points from. For example, if you are trying to find the distance from anywhere in the US to anywhere else in the world, then the “pool” you have to choose from is finite. (The same goes for time as well. For example, if you are trying to study the history of the US, then there is a finite “pool” of points that can be used.)
However, when you are talking about the universe (or something larger like the concept of “for all time”), then wouldn’t your “pool” be infinite? As far as I know, scientists have not discovered an “end” to the universe yet (just a limitation based on what we can see with our technology at this time). Also, without framing time to a particular period, then the “pool” that is available would include just about anything because, again, no one has been able to identify when the “beginning” is (or if there even is one).
Anyway, I realize this is getting really complex (and theoretical) at this point, but I think we are both correct in the concepts we are describing. (Even though I seem to have some trouble using the right words to express my thoughts.)
I do want to thank you for your time and the dialogue we have had. It’s been refreshing and informative.
@quadj
Hello again.
Because of a total lack of supporting evidences, I am not dismissing the idea of god, I am saying that I have not any reason to believe that idea, wich is pretty much the same on a daily basis but not on a theoretical level.
Again, as I can’t dismiss the idea that we are living in Matrix, but I don’t believe it and I don’t act as if it might be possible. Octopusses are the real supeior species on the earth, but they have a so superior technology that we are not able to notice. It is “possible”, but not likely.
BUT I must add that god is not, in any way, allowed by the scientific method. Because it is outside the rules. The scientific method has his boundaries, and any magical idea is beyond them. I can’t disprove the existence of magic in general (that would be the equivalent of god), though I can disprove the existence of a particular magic (that would be the christian god as it is in the bible) if his rules are incoherent with themselves.
Magic can’t fit into science. That doesn’t make magic irreal, only not likely.
In the particular case of an all-knowing and almighty god, you can’t know anything about reality (for example, that world was created as it was a minute ago). Of course that kind of god could have created you with all your memories. Your wife could be deleted from existence tomorrow without you remembering it, or maybe next monday you will have two grown-up kids more than today and you will remember their childhood. Why it is not possible?
That prankster god may have put those seemingly old fossils in his place. Gravity may affect only our solar system and next month may dissapear, so i wouldn’t fly, just in case.
Do you notice why we should choose?
Troll alert?
quadj – If you have heard many debates and you are not convinced that creationism is a myth then me thinks you are a xtian. Any debate you have heard was heard with your mind already made up.
Actually, I was asking for some background as to why Kam thought Creationism was false. No evidence was given; just a statement that it was false. If it makes you feel more comfortable, I can ask the same question in reverse–Why do you think evolution is true? (No evidence was given for that conclusion either.)
However, since you responsed and obviously are on the side of evolution, then let me ask you a question. The theory of evolution is based on the concept of continuous time. In other words, for evolution to occur, time has to continue. At no point can time stop. If it did, then evolution cannot occur. (Are you with me so far?) The problem I have with evolution is when people try to use it to explain how everything was “created”. Evolution, by definition, requires changes over time. In other words, time has to elapse for anything to change. So how can something that requires continuous time be used to support something that happens in a “moment in time”?
I do want to point out that I understand and agree with evolution. Evolution has been scientifically proven. What hasn’t been proven yet is how it answers the question of “creation”? (Sorry, it was the only word I could think of that fit.)
I would like to know your thoughts on this question.
Creationism purports to explain the creation of matter and time as well as all life. Evolutionary theory is not the scientific parallel to creationism. No one has ever suggested that evolution explains how the universe, the Earth, of life in the first instance came to be. The “creation” of the universe is a question of physics, astrophysics for the birth the solar system/galaxy, and though I’m not particularly knowledgeable on the topic, I’d say the leading opinion is that the “genesis” of life a question of chemistry.
As far as the support I failed to provide in my previous comment, you are well within your right to ask me to provide it. That said, I don’t think it is productive for every commenter to explain every flaw they see in creationism before they be allowed to state that it is flawed. I did cite the allegation that the Earth is merely 6 thousand years old as an example of a flaw in creationism, on that I feel can on its own support my argument.
I think you’re conflating two different theories: the big bang and evolution. The two don’t really have much to do with one another.
You’re correct that evolution requires time, and the concept of time becomes inoperable as you try to proceed back before the inflation of the universe. But evolution doesn’t try to explain how the universe came to take on its present form. It can only hope to explain the present diversity of life we see around us (and in us, and us.)
So asking the theory of evolution to explain the creation of the universe is nonsensical. Creationism – at least the young-earth variety – tries to explain away both the big bang and evolution, but otherwise the two are not linked.
@vorjack,
Thank you for that clarification. Kam’s original post was positioning creationism vs. evolution, and you just can’t do that. That was what I was trying to get at. You just seemed to do a better job of it.
quadj, vorjack summed up what I was going to say.
To add – Evolution does not answer the question how the universe came to be. Evolution is a theory that itself has evolved as the theory has been tested and new evidence found.
Creationism says the universe was created in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. And to creationists, that’s all that is needed to explain the universe and life. No additional information can be added based on new findings, ignoring evidence that contradicts the creation story.
Kam’s original post was positioning creationism vs. evolution, and you just can’t do that.
In theory, no. In practice, you absolutely have to.
As I said, Young-earth creationism – probably the most popular kind – argues against both the current model of the origins of the universe and the theory of evolution. However, only a handful of the most philosophically inclined Creationists attempt to take on the high-level physics and cosmology involved in the big bang. The vast majority content themselves with arguing about evolution.
Given the fact that the majority of creationist arguments revolve around evolution, you pretty much have to focus on that part of the debate.
The Theory of Evolution: Started by a really smart guy (Charles Darwin) who kept great documentation, and released his ideas to public. Since that time, thousands of brilliant scientists have set to work testing those ideas and refining them, changing them where they were wrong, and discovering new things. Predictions from the begining (ie: we will find a mechanism for inheritance) have been proved (ie: DNA). The Theory is robust, well documented, and open to scrutiny and new ideas.
Creationism: A bunch of bronze-age goat herders proposed several competing creation ideas. The final narrative was nailed down a few years later by scholars who’d only heard the ideas via word-of-mouth or rudimentary tribal writings. They combined the contradictory accounts into something that resembles a linear narrative but is fraught with contradictions and plot-holes. This codified story is then preserved virtually unchanged for millennium. Any predictions it’s made concerning the nature of biology or cosmology have been showed to be false.
It’s quite simple really.
Win!
It’s amazing we have so much debate about bible factuality. If it really had all the answers, and told us about nuclear physics and atomic structure; the table of elements and atomic structure; the structure of the solar system and galaxy; string theory; the processing of pure metals and alloys and their properties; microbiolgy, bacteria, viruses and disease; neurobiology; technology, psychology and how we culturally program people and how that differs from what is innate and natural; *then* we might have something worth discussing and defending.
If some mighty sky-god made it all and could dictate a book in spoken language (which is a human invention), then it would have the knowledge to tell us about what, after all, it had created. Duh.
Kam, there is but one problem with your statements,specifically the one about picking and choosing whats in the bible, the problem being that is exactly what christianity DID…and it was done by a council of bishops. Thus historically speaking at least the bible that we have today could not possibly be anything but the work of man(not that I think it was anything but a work of man). Since there have always been,and still are many different versions of this book how anyone could with a straight face consider it the unchangeable,and inerrant word of any god is beyond me. Then again logic and actual history seem to work poorly when talking to believers in just about anything.
I don’t see how that is a problem. That’s exactly why christian dogma does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Any purportedly true statement is subject to falsification, if any part of the statement is proven to be false, the whole thing comes crashing down.
The difference is that the bible is premised on the notion that the it is the word of an omniscient, infallible god. Meaning that while it is perfectly acceptable to replace a disproven theory of gravity with a new one that overcomes the former’s error, an error in the bible disproves the infallibility of god and therefore (to a reasonable person) disproves god.
Choosing to exclude or re-interpret parts of the bible which shed an unfavorable light on christianity in terms of its moral or scientific authority is only an admission that the whole thing is a lie.
“… except for the trilobites, who succumbed to temptation and were denied eternal life.”
Verily I say unto you, laugh out loud.
of xian willful ignorance (and lies) there is no end
• ‘On the origin of species’ marks the beginning (not an end) to modern biology
There is no Darwinism. Attacking Darwin the person or his views on natural selection marks the attacker as a member of America’s ignorati. (And, dammit, you willfully ignorant xians, stop polluting the Internet with your lying obfuscations — you’re so tiresome.)
Darwin is no longer a proxy for evolutionary biology. Those who criticize Darwin deliberately overlook 150 years of subsequent scientific development. You might as well criticize Newton for not coming up with the “correct” theories of special and general relativity.
Darwin had no clear understanding of genetics. He hadn’t the faintest clue that DNA existed. The fruitful union of natural selection and genetics since 1953 brought forth Modern Evolutionary Theory.
Darwin was a scientist of the highest rank, but he was no god. No scientist ‘believed in’ Darwinism (or in MET today) as if they were infallible articles of creed. To talk about ‘belief in’ a scientific theory is to drag an empirical theory down to the miserable level of xian belief (faith=trust=πιτις).
‘On the Origin of Species’ is not miscellany of mythical-magical fictional texts cobbled together 450 years after the alleged death of Jesus, its fictional fable character. ‘On the Origin of Species’ is a classic scientific work long superseded which now belongs solely to history.
Darwin’s achievement is the grandest of beginnings in modern biological science. But, no text is sacred. Science is not done by the book.
the anti_supernaturalist
the game’s afoot: quest of the historical Holmes
• Holmes. “My dear Watson, some statements about something clearly refer to nothing.”
On average how many hours of sleep did Sherlock Holmes get per night? Perhaps Dr Watson tells us. Alas, Watson is fictional. But, Holmes too is fictional.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would surely have known. While Sir Arthur is not fictional, he is dead. Sir Arthur’s corpus lives on, metaphorically. And, which of his thousands of statements about Holmes or Watson is true or false? Why none at all.
Exactly the same reasoning applies to the so-called compatibility of scientific statements and religious statements. Truths cannot contradict. Right? The proffered compatibility thesis begs the question that any statement about Jesus, Christ, or God belongs to non-fiction.
Even if the stage set is historically appropriate, Holmes’s London and Jesus’ Jerusalem are fictionalized. Holmes and Jesus “themselves” are fictional characters who have also taken on a life of their own outside the canon fixed by publication. These characters have devoted followings. At least the well-known by-invitation-only fan club, Baker Street Irregulars, knows that their object of adoration is a fiction.
There is no incompatibility between The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes or the so-called gospels and the latest professional understanding of modern evolutionary theory.This is so not because both contain true statements. Rather (fictional) Holmes and Watson are not of this world…ditto (fictional) Jesus (alleged) Christ (purported) Son of (fictional) God and (unnecessary) Savior of the World.
And that’s the “gospel truth” about a hysterical historical fiction, the not very “Good News.”
the anti_supernaturalist
it’s all in the Greek — there is no xian “knowledge”
Apologies for my poor Greek: faith=trust=πὶστις (pr. pistis)
For the ever-skeptical Greek thinkers, pisits was the lowest degree of knowledge. Essentially it means: to believe that some statement is true based on hearsay or because it appeared in some text.
• “belief in” is shorthand for many hearsay “beliefs that”
Belief in amounts to belief that statements uttered or written by some (alleged) authority can be trusted to be true simply because the (alleged) authority (purportedly) uttered or wrote them. As a modern example, xians are fond of misconstruing Einstein’s many quotes about “God”.
But, no one not even Einstein the scientist can say anything meaningful about some god. He was a theoretical physicist whose theories neither depended on there being a god nor implied the existence of one, let alone the moral monster portrayed in xian comix.
“Belief in Jesus Christ” for anyone born after the (alleged) death of the (fictional fable) character ‘Jesus’ believes that…any number of statements is true. Because of multiple problems within historical xianity, it took more than 400 years for the now politically powerful sect to reach agreement on its core beliefs which appear in its various sanctioned creeds. They are found in texts ancillary to the canon — “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth…” one starts out.
It would be fun, in another context, to demonstrate how each credal statement solves some problem with understanding how to express the concept of God, the son-ship of Jesus as the Christ…. And, not to confess out loud these words would amount to heresy — a mortal sin and a capital crime, punishable by death. Hence, the fine art of hypocrisy practiced by almost all western thinkers, even those deists as radical as Jefferson, James Madison, and Tom Paine. (An open atheist, then as now, would never be elected to public office.)
Not even fundies can do without these extra-canonical compilations of “beliefs that” — for they too must stigmatize unbelievers and try to establish political domination for their disgusting retributive and repression inducing vision of god’s holy government. (Tried before by the ancestors of today’s fundies in colonial America and in Britain, this experiment in theocracy failed noticeably in 17th century puritan England and in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.)
So…you may counter any fundie claim that you must “believe in Jesus” as if “Jesus” were some authority whose ridiculous claims and claims about him were trustworthy. They are not. The claims reduce to number of statements that you must accept as true based on traditional hearsay and on texts whose “authority” has no basis other than tradition and whatever force xians may bring to convert you.
The need to lie about authenticity and trustworthiness is as true for all the Big-3 monster theisms as it for xianity alone — which shows how inconsistent the Big-3 are. (YHVH≠God≠Allah as any true believer in any of these cancerous sects will cheerfully affirm.)
the anti_supernaturalist
‘Because of multiple problems within historical xianity’
No such thing as ‘historical Christianity’ Anti. Your head (that unrenewed, adult, carnal, reason-worshiping mind that is hostile to Love Himself that you inherited in the adamic and are content to ‘live in’, are currently ‘rich’ with and bound to) is a sort of insidious self-opposition albeit entirely unknown to you at this hour. Your haughty, intensely fervent Anti-Christ drive-by rants are imperiously on display before all the heavenly host, and so your glory your shame. You’re just like your father, marching in lock-step, stride for (prideful) stride. He is (particularly) proud of you, pride being the commonality, the bond.
The gates of bronze, the bars of iron…
You are caught friend, fiendishly trapped in the lower state and mind of the Self though for now it masquerades as a great liberty and has ever since the deathly ingestion of independence, that rotten through and through but glorious in appearance ‘fruit’, but alas, is only a mirage, a detestable, deceitful dining sleight of hand indeed. Spit it out, it’s hideous, how can you ‘think’ otherwise?
Religion? Yes, despise that without end.
Do you speak this way in your daily life, or does this philosophical-sounding shtick merely serve as a disguise for your completely insane declarations about what’s “really” inside the minds of others?
I merely speak the (glorious) truth, that truth that sets one free.
I do not think parenthetical statements do what you think they do…
One could imagine what a nightmare John C must be at the drive-thru window:
Poor Drive-Thru Attendant: Welcome to McDonald’s, may I take your order?
John C: You can only take what is given freely to you through the (glorious) gift of Jesus.
Poor Drive-Thru Attendant: Sir? I don’t think that was an order.
John C: No such thing as an order. Merely the free flowing waters of life in abundance given to us through Christ our lord.
Poor Drive-Thru Attendant: Um, sir, are you going to order some food?
John C: The only food I have need of is the bread of life.
Manager: Sir, you’re going to have to order some food or leave.
Ok, I laughed.