Creationism Vs Evolutionism: The Great Religious Debate

I can't understand how someone could be religious and believe in evolution. If you don't believe in that part of the bible, why believe in the rest?

Well then you haven't met many religious people and you can't know much about modern christianity.

Agnostic evolutionist with a sideline in spirituality.

Of course you can be religious and a scientist.

Just to point out, I never actually said anything to the contrary of this.

However:

Religion is no obstacle to science today. Not at all.

That is not true. It would be awfully difficult to be an evolutionary scientist and to also be a devout literal bible believing Christian.

The point I was making was limited to the areas that science and religion come into conflict- all that I am saying is that where science and religion offer completely incompatible explanations of something, it is impossible to believe both. You cannot believe that the earth is billions of years old, and that the earth is 5000 years old.

However, if you want to believe that everything science says is true, but that the axiomatic principles, i.e. the laws of nature, were created by the great god hoodoo, you can still be a scientist.

As a whole, religion blocks scientific progress because by and large every single religion has such conflicting explanations as I have referred to. That is what I mean when I say religion blocks scientific progress. I don\'t mean that any and all kinds of spiritual belief do.

So you\'re quite right to distinguish between personal and organised religion, because I am sure many, if not most, personal beliefs make way for much of science.

I hope that clears up my position a bit? (I wasn\'t really sure that you were responding specifically to me, just thought I\'d chip in anyhoo).

edit: And for Martin- Agnostic Evolutionist.

( Edited 02.08.2008 14:51 by GR781 )

Agnostic - Neither or both...I don't doubt evolution just how we evolved.

Religion doesn't say that the Earth is five thousand years old, it doesn't say how old the Earth is at all so how can there be a conflict of interest? You seem to be confusing Creationism, which is a personal belief, with organised religion. And as I said earlier scientists are just as bad as religious people for stopping progress. Look at climate change, the research has no religious involvement but progression is being stopped because Scientists aren't accepting data that shows we aren't responsible

I\'m not confusing anything, I don\'t really see why you\'re objecting to what I\'m saying.

There are some people who believe that the earth is however many years old as *part of their religion*. Religion doesn\'t = organised religion, otherwise there would be no point in putting \"organised\" in there, would there? Most creationists in the USA believe what they believe because of their interpretation of the bible, because of their religion.

Even if you don\'t accept this in the case of the age of the earth/creationism, surely you can see it elsewhere? There are, without the slightest doubt, cases where religion and science have different, incompatible answers. Ancient Egyptians believed, as part of their religion, that the sun was the god Ra in his chariot. Science is incompatible with that answer to the question \"what is the sun\".

Literally all I have said is that in many cases religions provide alternative, incompatible answers to those provided by science. Are you denying that?

If you aren\'t, then you have to accept that religion can be an obstacle to science, because it is impossible to believe two contradictory things. You cannot believe that the sun is a ball of gases and also believe that it is the god ra in his chariot.

Equally, you cannot believe that the earth was created by god 5,000 years ago, and that humans have evolved on the earth in a process over the last several billion years.

I really don\'t understand why there is any controversy over what I\'m saying?

( Edited 02.08.2008 18:05 by GR781 )

knighty said:
Creationism and Evolution are opposite ideas. It seems pretty much religion vs science to me. I can't understand how someone could be religious and believe in evolution. If you don't believe in that part of the bible, why believe in the rest?

It seems to me you don't know religious people at all. Let me show you something the Pope said about evolution:

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." (John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution)

And later one he also said this:

"Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." (Pope John Paul II, October 3, 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

The current pope said this about Creationism and Evolutionism:

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.

� Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58)

Ultralordsmow said:

Watch this movie- Expelled

The Bible teaches that God is the center of the Uniserse and no where in the bible does it say that the earth is the center. lol go a head and spend hours looking you might learn somthing

Not read the thread but holy lol what the fuck is this? Why the hell has CNN let these two retards talk so much shit on air? Also nice selective editting on Richard Dawkins there that's classy.

GR781 said:

Equally, you cannot believe that the earth was created by god 5,000 years ago, and that humans have evolved on the earth in a process over the last several billion years.

I really don't understand why there is any controversy over what I'm saying?

Let me try to explain. Catholics dont believe the Earth was created about 5,000 years ago. We believe faith was established in Earth about 5,000 years ago. The bible doesnt say when "adam and Eve" were created and let me tell you Adam and Eve are names Christians and Jews have chosen to give to the first humans, which there has to have been some first humans. I believe you would respond to that by saying that the bible kinda gives the descendants of those then it goes to Abraham. The time period between Adam and Eve and Abraham is unknown, but the bible tries to give ideas of what happened in between those two. If those people that wrote the bible knew the earth was billions of years old, they would have written that. But did anything really important happen, and if it did...are we sure it happened? To Catholics, many things happened in between such as the creation of war and many things. But we prefer not to write about that in a book that explains our faith - The Bible.

So, to sum it all up, the Earth was not created 5,000 years ago, but rather Faith, or the Abraham religions as we know them were established.

That's wonderful, but not all religious people are Catholics.

Really, I don't get all the fuss here- it seems fairly clear to me that a lot of creationists, in fact the vast majority, believe what they believe because of their religion.
You're all quibbling over minor details, but you have nothing to say to my very simple point which is:

Religion can be, and is, an obstacle to scientific progress, because it has contradictory answers to many of those given by science.

I'm not talking about any specific religion, I'm not necessarily talking about organized religion, I'm just saying that you can't believe two contradictory things.

What can possibly be wrong with that?

Well it depends on the Religion, the religions I know about are mostly Christian. But I believe the biggest obstacles for science are many organisations, some can be religions, but there are organisations like PETA that dont want testing on animals. If many things aren't tested on animals, what are they going to be tested on?
There are of course many other organisations and religions that interfere with science, I just can't think of any at the moment.

The_cackling_idiot said:

Ultralordsmow said:

Watch this movie- Expelled

The Bible teaches that God is the center of the Uniserse and no where in the bible does it say that the earth is the center. lol go a head and spend hours looking you might learn somthing

Not read the thread but holy lol what the fuck is this? Why the hell has CNN let these two retards talk so much shit on air? Also nice selective editting on Richard Dawkins there that's classy.

I looked it up and apparantly Ben Stein made a film about christians being unfairly dismissed becausre their employer found outthey were creationists. Only they were all dismissed for legitimate reasons, mostly because they were bad at their job.

BTW Martin sorry, I didnt read your post.
Well I am religious, Catholic obviously. I believe in creation, meaning I believe God created. I also know evolution is a fact so i do believe in it.

For those that dont understand, i will say this: I believe God created and everything has been evolving ever since.

So that is:

Are you:

d) Religious (if so, what religion)
(Catholic)

Do you agree with:

a) Creationism
b) Evolutionism
c) Neither
d) both you should have this as well.

I think Creationism, despite the name, is more than just "god created the world", it's also anti-evolution, isn't it? Still, I guess a fourth "religious evolutionist" option would work?

Theo, the whole point is that you singled Religion out as an obstacle to science when its not. PEOPLE are an obstacle to science. The majority of religions either set themselves apart from science (religion deals with the WHY and science deals with the HOW) or they will promote it.

Creationism isn\'t a religion, its just an interpretation made by people, the same way that Hitler interpretated science, not religion, to prove that Jewish people were genetically inferior and that Aryians (white skin, blonde hair, blue eyes) were the \"Master Race\". I\'ve been in conversations with some Italians and they talked about scientific evidene which showed that Black Africans had smaller brains and were thus inferior to other ethnicities.

I could argue that Music is blocking scientific research because of Bono and Coldplay\'s involvement with climate change and therefore we\'d be far more scientifically advanced if we didn\'t have music. I won\'t because its not Music blocking progress its specific people within the music industry who are blocking it and in the same way its not religion blocking scientific progress its specific \"religious\" people blocking it and nothing to do with religion itself.

( Edited 02.08.2008 23:57 by MGE )

I\'m sorry, are we all talking about the same bible? This is the bible that says the world as we know it was created in SEVEN DAYS!? How exactly is that not an obstacle to Science? It isn\'t an obstacle to scientific research, but it definitely is an obstacle to convincing people that scientific evidence and logic are more likely to be true. I know people say \'well that\'s just a metaphor\' or whatever, but then how do you know what is a metaphor and what isn\'t? It isn\'t a metaphor as long as the idea isn\'t a bit ridiculous? Seems a bit of a bonkers way of going about things to me.

As for the \'what am I?\' thingy, I would say that I believe evolution is almost certainly correct but I would be open to any new ideas that have more evidence behind them. I don\'t believe there is any \'God\' watching over us and guiding us, but that doesn\'t necessarily mean I discount a higher being as a means of creation.

PS: I don\'t understand what Bono or Coldplay have to do with science? The basic stumbling block to scientific research is surely lack of funds? Probably followed by lack of interest (and if someone was interested they wouldn\'t be able to get funds...) I don\'t think religion is \'holding scientific research back\' any more then music is. As for changing an average mans opinion of basic science, I think both do it to a certain extent, but religion is a much more potent force.

( Edited 03.08.2008 00:52 by The cheese. )

I know people say 'well that's just a metaphor' or whatever, but then how do you know what is a metaphor and what isn't? It isn't a metaphor as long as the idea isn't a bit ridiculous? Seems a bit of a bonkers way of going about things to me.

Yeah that way anything in any text could make sense no matter how ridiculous, if it contradicting something we all clearly know is true (like the world not being 5000 years old), they just pull out the metaphor card. As if that sounds like a metaphor.

As for the 'what am I?'

I don't understand why people need to religion to tell them 'who they are' and why they are here on Earth. I don't understand how worshiping some deity gives meaning to life. Surely one of life's great challenges is to find meaning for yourself, and not someone give it to you. I still to don't understand why religious people reckon that just because you don't believe in God or any mystical existence of any sorts, makes life meaningless or dull. Surely the complex world we live in governed by so many small intricate laws is more interesting and beautiful than simply "it was created by some guy in 7 days."

Atheist, Evolutionist.

And to answer Demoni and GR, you can believe in creation and evolution. I think that kind of creationism that doesn't immediately contradict with evolution is called 'old-earth' creationism. It's creation then evolution. Creation is used to give life a certain level of complexity then evolution takes over.

Also nice selective editting on Richard Dawkins there that's classy.

It's not selective editing. There's a timeline link below, and the video quite clearly shows the whole thing, from asking the question to not answering it. Wow, because there's so much room for selective editing in that several minute uncut clip where he doesn't answer a fundamental question.

Shock Horror!

And yes GR, it is people that are obstacles to Science in general, not religion.

http://www.badscience.net/

http://www.quackometer.net/

It is people, with lack of true understanding and information, it is people who twist data and findings, it is people who take up agendas and grudges and use what they have to make blanket statements about other groups for the sake of dismissing them. It is people.

I've already provided videos that quite clearly show religious influence at some of the most basic and important fundamentals of our modern understanding of the world, and that's even amongst organised religion. You can't exactly beat quotes from the bloody Pope can you.

Cheese, you have completely missed MGE's point, which is the above, being people like Bono and Coldplay perpetuating global warming as certified fact without enough evidence for it, and in fact evidence that could show global warming is not happening, therefore are obstacles to modern science because they perpetuate non-truths or vague findings of incredibly dubious data as fact. Also has been completely ignored is evidence I previously provided, with showed Religion actually driving people to look at and discover the world, not blinker themselves to it. It was this very drive that lead to modern science.

Ergo, it is much easier to find, via scientific process of looking at the evidence everywhere, from bad reporting, to people perpetuating findings and data to their own ends and pushing it as their own fact, that it is people in general and todays modern shitty media with its half arsed reporting and focus on half arsed analysis that's already based on said half arsed reporting who stand in the way of science. It is people in general, and anyone is incredibly naive to push blanket statements like "we'd be better off without religion" and think that would solve problems, an incredible amount of naivety in people, a naivety in history, a naivety in religion and a naivety in todays current state.

And yes GR, it is people that are obstacles to Science in general, not religion.

Of course it does, religion asks for blind faith. Fine you can't disprove it (unless it directly contradicts something), but you can't prove it either. A fundamental principal of science is the ability to disprove a theory, there must be a way to either prove and disprove an idea. The scientific method is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. How can you disprove god when there is no proof that god exists.

And to answer Demoni and GR, you can believe in creation and evolution. I think that kind of creationism that doesn't immediately contradict with evolution is called 'old-earth' creationism. It's creation then evolution. Creation is used to give life a certain level of complexity then evolution takes over.

I wasn't saying you can't believe in creation then evolution, I just wasn't sure of the exact definition of creationism, that's all.

And yes GR, it is people that are obstacles to Science in general, not religion.

I don't really see the point you are making. Religion is a human phenomenon, so of course it is "people" that do all that you have said.

It's not like I have anthropomorphised religion into a ten foot tall monster that jumps on people when they try to research science.

That doesn't mean that religion can't be an obstacle to science.

Really, this is such a basic thing- yes, maybe religion was key to our early development, fine. Why does that preclude religion from being a block on scientific development?

I'm not really going to bother carrying on with this until I get a response to the following:

I am saying that religion is a block on science because:

1. It is impossible to believe two inconsistent things simultaeneously.
2. Religions and science often provide inconsistent answers to the same questions.
3. Throughout history vast swathes of humanity have believed in the religious answers.
4. People not believing in science, treating science as witchcraft, refusing to accept the findings of science, and indeed not getting involved with scientific research themselves is a block on scientific progress.
5. Religion has resulted in everything mentionned in point four.
Therefore, religion is a block on scientific progress.

Are you honestly saying that if people as a whole had abandonned all superstition and embraced scientific research at the earliest possible points, science would have progressed no further than it has now?

Are you honestly saying that the dark ages did not hold back human progress?

Just look at creationism! Millions of kids in schools across the USA are being taught religious mumbo-jumbo as science. How can you look at that and not see religion obstructing scientific progress? Thousands of scientists who might have worked in genetics, might have become involved in life saving research, are instead being taught religion as science.

I really don't have much else to say, I'll just end up repeating myself, so unless something new comes up I'm done for the moment.

I'm confused about the situation in America. Like GR781 just said I thought it was that creationism was taught as science, but someone mentioned how teaching creationism was frowned upon. Does it vary wildly between states?

Demoni Rakkausenkeli said:
d) Religious (if so, what religion)
(Catholic)

Do you agree with:

a) Creationism
b) Evolutionism
c) Neither
d) both you should have this as well.

Excellent, thanks for answering. As for your last point, to keep it simple, it\'s just going to be Creationist, Evolutionist, or Neither. You can\'t be both, by definition. If you agree with a little from column A, and a little from column B, you are neither. It\'s not a bad thing to answer \"Neither\", so don\'t feel your answer was inadequate or anything. Just feel that your beliefs defy definition

Also, thanks to Matt, Theo, KingDom and Duffman. Can more people answer? It\'ll only take a moment. I\'ll quote the question below, for simplicity:

Martin_ said:
Are you:

a) Agnostic
b) Atheist
c) Humanist
d) Religious (if so, what religion)
e) Other (specify)

Do you agree with:

a) Creationism
b) Evolutionism
c) Neither

( Edited 03.08.2008 15:01 by Martin_ )

Atheist, Eveolutionism. I don't really care where we come from though, I came from my mother and father, that's really enough information.

In regards to it being people rather than religions: there is no commandment that says science is bad. Religion was science till recently. Religious scholars invented, defined it and layed the faoundations of research.

They weren\'t your average subsistance farmers thats for sure.

This idea that religion persecuted scientists is not entirely true. Scientists, astrologers, physicians, poets and philosophers were monks. Religious scholars practically knew more about maths than computers do today.

They could do logarithms in their heads without calculatores ffs.

We wouldn\'t have science without religion.

In regards to 5000 years thats what they believed when they wrote the bible.

Few religious people take the bible literally. That is not the point of the bible even when it was written.

You wouldn\'t take a parable literally? Then don\'t think think christians take eve\'s loss of innocence literally.

Disregarding full on creationists for a second...

If you find that hard to take: \"Why would you not believe it literally.\". It\'s because they, like christianity itself, believe in science and have done since they invented it.

( Edited 03.08.2008 15:26 by KingDom )

Cheese, you have completely missed MGE's point, which is the above, being people like Bono and Coldplay perpetuating global warming as certified fact without enough evidence for it, and in fact evidence that could show global warming is not happening, therefore are obstacles to modern science because they perpetuate non-truths or vague findings of incredibly dubious data as fact.

As far as I can see this has nothing to do with science or religion in any way. It's psychology surely? (Although I suppose psychology is technically 'science'.) It's people with authority telling you what is right and wrong, even if they don't fully know themselves. That can happen no matter what the subject at hand is, but I believe it occurs in religion much more then science.

Religious scholars practically knew more about maths than computers do today.

In regards to 5000 years thats what they believed when they wrote the bible.

How can you disprove god when there is no proof that god exists.

Atheist
Evolutionism