Creationism questions. What's the divide

[Lonyo]

http://www.news.com.au/dailyte...345772-5016574,00.html

THE Church of England will make an official apology to naturalist Charles Darwin for criticising his famous theory of evolution
[...]
"So it is important to think again about Darwin's impact on religious thinking, then and now.''

Dr Brown said there was nothing incompatible between Darwin's scientific theories and Christian teaching.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie...hael.reiss.creationism

Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design

So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time.

I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution, while still introducing them to it. While it is unlikely that this will help students who have a conflict between science and their religious beliefs to resolve the conflict, good science teaching can help students to manage it ? and to learn more science.

Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught.

The religious position of some groups in the UK seems to be that evolution is compatible with Christianity and acceptable for Christians to follow.
Some also believe that Creationist ideas should be used in science lessons to highlight how they are NOT scientific at all.

Now sure, the headlines in the US are made by the people who are vocal creationists, but how widespread is creationism? I understand the US and UK have developed differently in terms of the importance of religion, but if one of the major sects of Christianity can put forward in public the view that evolution and Christianity are compatible, and religious people can suggest creationism be shown in science lessons alongside evolution as being unscientific, how can creationists in the US be so unable to accept or compromise?

Are they just trying to appeal to hardcore religious fanatics, do they just lack education and understanding, or are they really brainwashed and confused about what creationism/ID are and don't understand the concept of what science is in comparison?

There is no requirement to say that evolution is right and creationism is wrong, or vice versa, but the obvious thing (from an atheist and apparently in the UK religious POV) is to teach both in their own spheres, and only use them as tools in the sphere of the other (science/religion) to illustrate points and differing world views.

I honestly cannot understand how or why there could even be a debate about creationism being taught in science classes alongside evolution as a scientific theory.
Religious leaders in the UK seem to be able to understand and accept this fact, but why does it appear to be comparatively more difficult in the US?

 

[nageov3t]

it's basically between those christians who read the bible as a literal, historical document and those who do not.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's basically between those christians who read the bible as a literal, historical document and those who do not.

and most do not. Lets not make the usual some do it so we;ll lump them altogether crap.

 

[Atreus21]

Sensible christians know that evolution is not disproof of a creator. I don't understand why they take it as such an attack.

 

[GTKeeper]

Thats basically it. People who think the earth poofed into existence 4000 or 10000 years ago are looonies.

If you look at great scientific minds of the past, you will see that people like Albert Einstein was very religious and believed in God through and through, yet I think he would laugh at people who believe people rode dinosaurs back in the day.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Sensible christians know that evolution is not disproof of a creator. I don't understand why they take it as such an attack.

Fear.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Thats basically it. People who think the earth poofed into existence 4000 or 10000 years ago are looonies.

If you look at great scientific minds of the past, you will see that people like Albert Einstein was very religious and believed in God through and through, yet I think he would laugh at people who believe people rode dinosaurs back in the day.

^^ Co-signed, and one of these loonies wants to be VP.

 

[imported_gardener]

Creationists believe in a literal translation of the the Bible, which includes the 6 day creation story.

Non-creationist Christians value their reason over a literal translation of the Bible. Essentially, they are modern humans, they just aren't so good at math.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: gardener
Creationists believe in a literal translation of the the Bible, which includes the 6 day creation story.

Non-creationist Christians value their reason over a literal translation of the Bible. Essentially, they are modern humans, they just aren't so good at math.

Most good Christians that I know do not take a literal view of the Bible, instead they view the book as a guide in how to be a better person and all of the good things it usually entails, in order to get to heaven. They view it as a book of poetry and prose and divine wisdom. Almost everybody I am friends with or work with is a Christian, and not one of them is a Creationist.

When asking my Christian friends about the creation story, they state it's not meant to be viewed literally. The funny part though is that I have spoken with Creationists and to be honest they frighten me. Take for example Weed Legislation: I can bring up Genesis 1:12: "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good." To me that would indicate that to a true creationist, any plants are for you to use, yet the creationists I have spoken to disagree because smoking weed sends you to hell.

Basically the majority of Christian people I know are for the most part good people and I am glad to have known them; I may not agree with their ideology but they are sensible enough to not read the Bible as a literal translation, because basically if you did, it contradicts itself too many times to make sense. The fact that someone that is a creationist has the chance of being the president of the country scares me.

The reason so many people look at Palin as opposed to looking at Biden is this: McCain's health records are 1000+ pages. Obama's is one page. Think about it. Based upon odds, if McCain becomes president, there is a very high risk that something could happen to him physically speaking, in which case Sarah Palin would take over. Are people really ok with someone leading the country that believes Dinosaurs walked amongst early humans, and that the world was created 6000 years ago? I mean seriously - just think about that, put aside your party ideals and just think about someone with that mindset leading the country. Scary.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Thats basically it. People who think the earth poofed into existence 4000 or 10000 years ago are looonies.

If you look at great scientific minds of the past, you will see that people like Albert Einstein was very religious and believed in God through and through, yet I think he would laugh at people who believe people rode dinosaurs back in the day.

I guess Einstein's beliefs in god depend on how you define god and who you ask:

An abridgement of the letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind from Princeton in January 1954, translated from German by Joan Stambaugh. It will be sold at Bloomsbury auctions on Thursday

... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. With friendly thanks and best wishes

Yours, A. Einstein

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Juddog

^^ Co-signed, and one of these loonies wants to be VP.

And one of those loonies called religious wingnuts of the nation, including Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson on the right and Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, ?agents of intolerance.? Now, he's pimping and pandering to that same extreme right wing group of loonies in his run for President.

John McCain couldn't keep his Double Talk Express on track if it had training wheels. :thumbsdown:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Thats basically it. People who think the earth poofed into existence 4000 or 10000 years ago are looonies.

As are those who believe there is no higher creator Thankfully they are such a minority they really are irrelevant.

 

[Alkaline5]

Originally posted by: Juddog
The reason so many people look at Palin as opposed to looking at Biden is this: McCain's health records are 1000+ pages. Obama's is one page. Think about it. Based upon odds, if McCain becomes president, there is a very high risk that something could happen to him physically speaking, in which case Sarah Palin would take over. Are people really ok with someone leading the country that believes Dinosaurs walked amongst early humans, and that the world was created 6000 years ago? I mean seriously - just think about that, put aside your party ideals and just think about someone with that mindset leading the country. Scary.

If evolution has no bearing on belief in God, then what possible correlation is there between evolution and political beliefs?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Thats basically it. People who think the earth poofed into existence 4000 or 10000 years ago are looonies.

As are those who believe there is no higher creator Thankfully they are such a minority they really are irrelevant.

We're loony because we don't believe in the magic man in the sky?:roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

If one word of the Bible is wrong, the whole thing is a pile of shit.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Sensible christians know that evolution is not disproof of a creator. I don't understand why they take it as such an attack.

It's because it undermines their authority structure, to control God and salvation over their followers. Purely hypothetical, but even in the (impossible) event that science proved God to exist, many religious groups would be angry about it because science would then have the authority to God and not the churches or texts.
Read your Ephesians 2:8-10 again. Paul was talking to these churches.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If one word of the Bible is wrong, the whole thing is a pile of shit.

Only if one believes in a book, and not in God, Moonie.

 

[Farang]

I don't care what other people think the only reason this is an issue is because they try to force it into science classrooms. It is a philosophical question and belongs in a philosophy or religion course.

 

[GoPackGo]

These scientists who make life from nothing are that lifes "god"

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
If you look at great scientific minds of the past, you will see that people like Albert Einstein was very religious and believed in God through and through

Gross and unholy distortion. Maybe this is what someone told you and you're just repeating it, but it's flat, dead, and completely wrong.

ED: I see RiW took care of this already above.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Thats basically it. People who think the earth poofed into existence 4000 or 10000 years ago are looonies.

If you look at great scientific minds of the past, you will see that people like Albert Einstein was very religious and believed in God through and through, yet I think he would laugh at people who believe people rode dinosaurs back in the day.

I guess Einstein's beliefs in god depend on how you define god and who you ask:

An abridgement of the letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind from Princeton in January 1954, translated from German by Joan Stambaugh. It will be sold at Bloomsbury auctions on Thursday

... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. With friendly thanks and best wishes

Yours, A. Einstein

Yup, my understanding was that he believed in a supreme being of some kind, but that does not make him religious. He definitely didn't put any stock in the idea of a "personal god" (i.e. one that listens to your thoughts/prayers and answers them), which is the crux of about every major religion on this planet.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Thats basically it. People who think the earth poofed into existence 4000 or 10000 years ago are looonies.

As are those who believe there is no higher creator Thankfully they are such a minority they really are irrelevant.

~10% of the population isn't irrelevant, that's almost as much as the black or hispanic vote in this country.

Amazingly politicians never pander to the unseen atheists/agnostics who do exist in our society, do pay taxes, and do vote.

I don't know if this is true, but I think Bill Maher said on his show this week that 60% of Americans believe literally, in the story of Noah. Lived hundreds of years, got every animal on the boat, spoke to a burning bush, etc.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If one word of the Bible is wrong, the whole thing is a pile of shit.

That seems to be the position of fundamentalists.

I know you meant it sarcastically, but you have to be fair. When most non-theists criticize the bible by pointing out errors, we just want to prove a point to those who read it in an ignorant way. I don't want to try to pretend to understand the universe entirely or know exactly how things happened. My trust goes in the scientific methods of discovery. My brother was struck with brain cancer at the age of 3. He had a very little chance to survive. Through hard work and learning, one of the best brain surgeons in the world managed to keep him alive. This was through scientific inquiry and not through prayer. I certainly would not insult a man for praying in the situation of a looming death in his family, however, I would insult him if he tried to substitute prayer for real treatment of said loved one. Prayer is a coping mechanism. It is not a cure for someone with a disease. You have to understand that in the same way a theist feels threatened by someone who does not share religion, I am threatened by those who's reason is derived from a literal interpretation of the bible. The reason that I am threatened is because of the irrationality of other human beings to give power to those who refuse to accept that religion and science should not be enemies at all.

Religion is for peace of mind and to promote(it is not the point of origination of morality) ethical consideration within a community. If it is left at this, I am fine with it and might even be able to feel some respect for those who use it to uplift themselves in this way. When an entire group of individuals refuses to read between the lines and look for the real meanings of the stories, substituting a delusional and egotistical interpretation that is only meant to give them power, I have a great hostility for it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Sensible christians know that evolution is not disproof of a creator. I don't understand why they take it as such an attack.

They take it as an attack because for those who believe that "all creation" is the work of the divine hand, any evidence that this or that part of creation is NOT the work of the divine hand diminishes the role of God and makes God less relevant in our daily lives.

To me, this "Evolution isn't incompatible with Christianity" line is kind of PC. Let's face it: By definition, nothing in the natural world can explain anything in the so-called spiritual realm, so the existence of God cannot possibly be disproved. But to the extent that natural processes can explain more and more of what humanity formerly found incomprehensible, the "God of the gaps" gets pushed further and further to the fringes. True believers don't like that.

Most of humanity needs God to exist because confronting the void is so terrifying. Some may call that "faith." I call it denying reality.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Sensible christians know that evolution is not disproof of a creator. I don't understand why they take it as such an attack.

I think the reason they do is that, for example, they see a contradiction between man being evolved from 'apes', and the bible saying God created animals and man separately.

Also because evolution is the belief of athiests who they disagree with, and so they assume they need to disagree with evolution.

Frankly, I don't see a lot of them spend a lot of time analysing the point.