Toxicfume Veteran Posted July 13, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2005 Both creationism and evolution aren't fully proven. But you tell me which of them is more logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 13, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2005 well, that wasn't my point. i made up the example of the curves because i wanted to point out how ad hoc evolutionary psychology could be. 586203381[/snapback] I'm not sure it was a great example though, it is amazing how many cultures value the female hourglass figure with the hips and bust being 50% larger than the waist. It may very well be a evolutionary-inspired instinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_kane81 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Both creationism and evolution aren't fully proven. But you tell me which of them is more logical. 586204250[/snapback] Hmm which one is.... that is a good question. To be honest I dont really know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 13, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2005 Both creationism and evolution aren't fully proven. But you tell me which of them is more logical. 586204250[/snapback] Evolution is widely accepted in the scientific and educational communities and is being more and more accepted by mainstream religions (i.e. Catholicism) since it is becoming harder and harder to reject. I think most scholars see this as a world being round vs world being flat debate. Religions can only hold on for so long before they too will accept it. Once upon a time it was blasphemous to say that the earth revolved around the sun. Find me a priest/paster/minister/cleric/rabbi that rejects that notion these days, it is rather hard. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has no problems with evolution as long as you agree that God added a soul to us humans once we evolved from apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 An excerpt from an article by British historian Paul Johnson: "Few people today doubt the concept of evolution as such. What seems mistaken is Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, whereby species evolve by infinitesimally small stages. Neither Darwin nor any of his followers--nor his noisy champions today--was a historian. None of them thought of time historically or made their calculations chronologically. Had they done so, they'd have seen that natural selection works much too slowly to fit into the time line allowed by the ages of the universe and our own planet. The process must somehow have been accelerated in jumps or by catastrophes or outside intervention. There are five other weaknesses the Darwinians cannot explain away either. The best summary of these can be found in Richard J. Bird's Chaos and Life (Columbia University Press), page 53. Warning: This book is tough going but will reward the persistent. If the theory of natural selection is incorrect, then the Darwinians' view that there is no need or place for God in the universe is itself weakened, though not necessarily overthrown. Physics, however, increasingly tends to suggest that there is a God role, particularly with regard to the origin of the universe. We now know this occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and our knowledge of what happened immediately afterward is becoming increasingly detailed, down to the last microsecond." (cont.) http://www.forbes.com/columnists/free_forb...tml?partner=rss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 13, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2005 I would contend that evolution is NOT "science". As a lowly A level student i'd point you to Karl Poppers theary of falsification; if a theory can't be "proved" then it isnt science, its just (perhaps granted a logical) idea. that is blatantly incorrect. popper's breakthrough was realizing that it isn't verifiability (i.e. the provability) of a theory that makes it scientific, but its falsifiability. in other words, if theory abc cannot be proven, it does not mean that it is false or unscientific. technically, it could be true or false (for instance, we might be testing it wrong). popper proposed falsifiability (which was later expanded upon by imre lakatos) as the criterion. at least we can figure out which theories are valid and not. Evolution cannot be proved, why? Firstly there are, obviously no first hand records, you *can't* use the present day conditions to contemplate what happened in the past. When one researches into history you don't look at circumstantial evidence and portray it as a "hard fact" (yes, its called a "theory", but its treated along the same lines as the "thoery" of gravity (which you can test) - which in my opinion it shouldn't be). ok, this too is wrong. evolution isn't in question. the theory about how evolution occurs is debatable. and "gravity" isn't a theory, but an effect, a phenomenon. newton's "action at a distance" or einstein's space-time curvature are examples of theories. to get a better understanding of the philosophy of science, read kuhn, russell, popper, lakatos, shermer, sagan, etc. (Y) until then, i won't comment. how can you brand someone as having high Emotional Intelligence? EI is broken up into different intelligences, having a high kinesics intelligence could mean you could be a good PE teacher, but a poor social worker.same as above, how can you brand EI as high and low? you need to split it up into areas of concern. iq is broken up in the same way (see gardner, etc.). you haven't given any argument in favor of eq. I beg to differ on the "isn't the most promising one" part! at least qualify your statement. i don't have enough to argue with here (although i'm already theorizing on points about multiple intelligences, adaptability, ai, etc.). yes it is, but my point was that you can never blindly follow science and say it is the truth (ie... as you put it provisional). there is no real "truth" only a belief/theory.586204210[/snapback] there is a truth. it's just a matter of finding it. and no one ever says that their scientific theories are THE TRUTH. they merely say that these are the best theories at hand. I'm not sure it was a great example though, it is amazing how many cultures value the female hourglass figure with the hips and bust being 50% larger than the waist. It may very well be a evolutionary-inspired instinct. 586204306[/snapback] i suppose, but inspiration notwithstanding, the problem with evolution psychology is that the reasons are ad hoc based on our perspective of logical strategies, which may not be true. I think most scholars see this as a world being round vs world being flat debate. Religions can only hold on for so long before they too will accept it.586204374[/snapback] one can only hope. 586204387[/snapback] there's a lot there. people nowadays don't doubt evolution, but simply the processes that effect it. in fact, most people don't realize that darwin was a staunch creationist on his famous excursion. it was not until he returned and began poring over his data that he became uncomfortable with the standard explanations and became an evolutionist. he later lamented that he did not record enough data. and metaphysics isn't the same as religion. there can be scientific and philosophical theories that do not invoke religious explanations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_kane81 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has no problems with evolution as you as you agree that God added a soul to us humans once we evolved from apes. 586204374[/snapback] Wow, Roman Catholic Church accepts Evolution view that we came from Apes??? Either way, the catholics still believe in creation. can creation theory and natural selection theory co-exist - yes I think they can. creation and Evolution - no as evolution doesnt consider creation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 13, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2005 Wow, Roman Catholic Church accepts Evolution view that we came from Apes??? that is correct. can creation theory and natural selection theory co-exist - yes I think they can.creation and Evolution - no as evolution doesnt consider creation 586204455[/snapback] technically, you are speaking of first creation, which evolution does not consider. it must still be refuted, however, based on the scientific criteria for validity. evolution's lack of consideration does not make creationism true. but if you mean creationism as in the current organisms are exactly as they always were, then no, creationism and evolution are incommensurable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 13, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2005 but if you mean creationism as in the current organisms are exactly as they always were, then no, creationism and evolution are incommensurable. 586204463[/snapback] The bridge between evolution and creationism is Intelligent Design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_kane81 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 from me: how can you brand someone as having high Emotional Intelligence? EI is broken up into different intelligences, having a high kinesics intelligence could mean you could be a good PE teacher, but a poor social worker. same as above, how can you brand EI as high and low? you need to split it up into areas of concern. iq is broken up in the same way (see gardner, etc.). you haven't given any argument in favor of eq. :pinch: sorry dreamz and fred666, I dont know what I was typing..... Emotional Intelligence. I meant Multiple Intelligences where EI is a part of MI man me stupid.... should go back into cave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 13, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2005 The bridge between evolution and creationism is Intelligent Design. 586204480[/snapback] ahh yes, id for our modern era, nothing but creationism in disguise. it's no more scientific (in the philosophical sense) than creationism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted July 13, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2005 I think I might beleive in Intelligent Design. I beleive that some god/spirit/force started the whole shebang and let it fly from there. (if that is what intelligent design is) It may be the cop out answer but I am kind of spiritual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palin Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 (edited) The bridge between evolution and creationism is Intelligent Design. 586204480[/snapback] No, actually Intelligent Design was conceived of in an attempt to refute evolution. Its whole purpose is to serve certain religious movements in swaying public opinion against evolution and natural selection. It's interesting ? while ID is analogous to the Geocentric model of our time, it's going about it the opposite way. While in Copernicus' time Ptolemaic cosmology (Geocentrism) was accepted, and the heliocentric model was often violently opposed by religions, here we have a religious movement (ID) attempting to attack an established scientific model (Evolution.) So not only is their theory backwards, but their methodology as well. I think I might beleive in Intelligent Design. I beleive that some god/spirit/force started the whole shebang and let it fly from there. (if that is what intelligent design is) It may be the cop out answer but I am kind of spiritual. Please remember that Evolution does not exclude the possibility of divine influence, or of a Creator. That's just what advocates of ID would like people to think. Many religions, including Catholicism, have incorporated evolution into their official doctrine. Personally, I'd rather believe in a God who created an infinitely complex system of physical and mathematical laws, stringing together a symphony of creation that has eventually brought about the existence of life as we know it ? rather than a God who simply twitched his nose like Samantha on Bewitched, and "pop!" there we were. Much more impressive, I think. Edited July 13, 2005 by Palin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted July 13, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2005 No, actually Intelligent Design was conceived of in an attempt to refute evolution. Its whole purpose is to serve certain religious movements in swaying public opinion against evolution and natural selection.It's interesting ? while ID is analogous to the Geocentric model of our time, it's going about it the opposite way. While in Copernicus' time Ptolemaic cosmology (Geocentrism) was accepted, and the heliocentric model was often violently opposed by religions, here we have a religious movement (ID) attempting to attack an established scientific model (Evolution.) So not only is their theory backwards, but their methodology as well. Please remember that Evolution does not exclude the possibility of divine influence, or of a Creator. That's just what advocates of ID would like people to think. Many religions, including Catholicism, have incorporated evolution into their official doctrine. Personally, I'd rather believe in a God who created an infinitely complex system of physical and mathematical laws, stringing together a symphony of creation that has eventually brought about the existence of life as we know it ? rather than a God who simply twitched his nose like Samantha on Bewitched, and "pop!" there we were. Much more impressive, I think. 586205320[/snapback] ooo, I better check up on ID then. Yeah I completely beleive in evolution, but like you said I beleive that a creator started it with the laws and a huuuuuge timeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimius Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 science isn't about proving things. proofs are left to the domain of mathematics. science is about finding certain patterns and explaining them with falsifiable evidence, theories, etc. if you think about it, the word "proof" has no meaning in science. 586195459[/snapback] Then by that definition alone, creationism is a science. People have found certain patterns and have explained them with (just as evolutionsim) falsifiable evidence and theories. Both are theories, and I really can't seem to find a reason to discount one, as both (to me) seem equally fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_kane81 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Wow, Roman Catholic Church accepts Evolution view that we came from Apes??? that is correct. err google says otherwise. Although the church accepts evolution as more than a hypothesis, it does not teach that evolution was driven by purely natural forces. The church is more open to the idea, but not necissarily accepting. Evolution does not talk about a devine force driving change. But yes the Roman Catholic Church does seem to be more open to evaluating the theorys of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 13, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2005 err google says otherwise. 586205859[/snapback] Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man?s body developed from previous biological formsb>, under God?s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter?[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp Previous biological forms = apes The Catholics are only concerned that the human soul did not evolve and that it is not inherited. They are prepared to say that the human body evolved from apes. To those that say, ID is creationism in disguise, I'm sure that some forms of ID are such but the Catholic view of evolution could also be described as Intelligent Design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 13, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2005 So not only is their theory backwards, but their methodology as well. how right you are. ooo, I better check up on ID then. Yeah I completely beleive in evolution, but like you said I beleive that a creator started it with the laws and a huuuuuge timeline. 586205515[/snapback] id is just that there is an intelligent designer. see a watch and infer a watchmaker. Then by that definition alone, creationism is a science. People have found certain patterns and have explained them with (just as evolutionsim) falsifiable evidence and theories. Both are theories, and I really can't seem to find a reason to discount one, as both (to me) seem equally fantastic. 586205743[/snapback] but it isn't. patterns notwithstanding, there is no error-correcting mechanism (of which sagan speaks often), no progress, no new and competing theories, no scientific debate. creationism simply says, "this is true" without 1) validating it, and 2) offering alternative viewpoints, or 3) leaving anything to the testable domain (creationism is, by definition, untestable. how do we test metaphysical work?). there is no scientific methodology here. if creationists could at least use the method, maybe they would be more credible. michael shermer has written extensively on this area. that might be something of interest. id makes no sense. just because we see the world does not mean that there is an intelligent designer. 1) fallacy of the false analogy (hume wrote on this). 2) saying god did it solves nothing. heck, god could have created my doughnut this morning, but does that make it true? it could, if you believe it and ignore everything else. but if science just stopped at, "god did it" we'd be left in the dark forever. it's simply a label for a) what we don't understand, b) our lack of motivation. 3) moreover, there is no logical basis for the transition from the world to a creator. that is, the implication is not necesarily true. 4) furthermore, there is no logical basis for the transition from a creator to a god. as i've said elsewhere, it could be a giant duck, outside of the domain of our conscious activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted July 13, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2005 Yeah fred, most Americans (and perhaps Canadians I wouldn't really be able to speak on that) don't realize that alot of modern catholic dogma is pretty progressive (well as progressive as a two thousand year old religion can be). Catholic teachings currently accept the "Big Bang" and many other scientific theories that people assume are incapitable with Christianity as a whole. The assumption that Catholism is kind of backward, must be a byproduct of the US's origins as a colony of Great Britian and being on a particular side of the Reformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 13, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2005 Yeah fred, most Americans (and perhaps Canadians I wouldn't really be able to speak on that) don't realize that alot of modern catholic dogma is pretty progressive (well as progressive as a two thousand year old religion can be).Catholic teachings currently accept the "Big Bang" and many other scientific theories that people assume are incapitable with Christianity as a whole. The assumption that Catholism is kind of backward, must be a byproduct of the US's origins as a colony of Great Britian and being on a particular side of the Reformation. 586206980[/snapback] We don't really have Methodists and we have few Baptists here in Canada although I gather that they are a serious religion in the United States. The major religions here is (Roman) Catholicism, (English) Anglicanism and (Scottish/Korean) Presbyterianism. Many of the progressive Presbyterian churches mixed with other protestant religions to form the United Church of Canada (which is second only to Catholicism in Canada). IMO, Catholicism and Anglicanism are nearly identical. Roman Catholics tend to make a bigger deal about the Virgin Mary but that can depend on the parish. Both are otherwise hierarchical. Needless to say, I've ignored all the other non-Christian religions that I know relatively less about. Muslims are about 5% of Toronto's population and Jews would be at least that. Hindus and Buddists would be nothing to sneeze at either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Thanks for saving me some time there dreamz. I was about to get really upset at the perversion of it all. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 14, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 14, 2005 Needless to say, I've ignored all the other non-Christian religions that I know relatively less about. Muslims are about 5% of Toronto's population and Jews would be at least that. Hindus and Buddists would be nothing to sneeze at either. 586207591[/snapback] buddhism doesn't say much, if anything, about evolution, i believe, and its ideology of inherent impermanence could probably be reconciled with evolution. Thanks for saving me some time there dreamz. I was about to get really upset at the perversion of it all. ;) 586211086[/snapback] i just had to make it clear. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts