Just say No to ignorance

[weaktwos]

scarcrest brought this to my attention.

Evolution happens before our eyes, people. And as for taking the Bible literally...wow, what an adventure that will be. The folks who wrote the Bible were not in it for the consistency.

Comments

[darness.livejournal.com]

Well, one could argue that microevolution occurs before our eyes and have little to debate. But in terms of macroevolution - there's a whole lot more there to talk about. Those who believe in it's premise usually also believe that it is so long-term as to go unnoticed by any one generation. The kind that takes millions of years to be observable.

Also, from the looks of the poll it appears as though we have a somewhat balanced scale. One third of folks believe the theory of evolution is scientific and well-supported. At the other end of the spectrum, a third of folks believe that the Bible is the literal word of God (and thusly are likely not fans of the evolutionary theory). Probably not going to see much movement from either end.

Gallup conducts the most interesting polls, aye ?

[moxiesocks.livejournal.com]

In both the Old and New Testament, there are passages that state that, to God, a thousand years is a day and a day is like a thousand years. I do not know why people think that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. they are not. I have no problem believing in evolution, but I believe that God created the world. People are arguing over a process.

[darness.livejournal.com]

"I do not know why people think that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive."

I would make an educated guess that a majority of people who believe the two are mutually exclusive do so because they believe that God created Man (=creationism). This belief does not comfortably co-exist with the belief that Man evolved from another non-human species (=evolution).

Or, it could be that people just love to argue =)

[moxiesocks.livejournal.com]

But, couldn't God create man in an evolutionary way since the Bible states that our idea of time is not the same as God's time??

[darness.livejournal.com]

That's absolutely plausible.

I just don't think it's a part of the debate most people have when they discuss the fundamentals of creationism vs. evolution. The issue wants to be black or white and always hot-button, whereas you recognize shades of grey.

I think both ideas can comfortably co-exist together - i.e. God can have created Man and Man -- as well as other species -- has potential to evolve.

[moxiesocks.livejournal.com]

exactly :) I've always found this debate pretty interesting. My father, who is a minister, went to Willam Jennings Bryan for undergrad school. He presented a paper on that very possibility, stating that the two did not have to be mutually exclusive. Needless to say, it was not a well received paper in that community!

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

The thing is, this is a dance between science and religion. Religion is very good about making claims that are not falsifiable; they cannot be tested. We can't get God to repeat the experiment. However, there is a lot of evidence to support evolution, and we can test that. There's the research that has taken place on the Galapagos Islands with the finches, for example, where evolutionary change actually happens at a pace we can see within our lifetime. Granted there will be some bugs, but we can continue to get data.

How do we test creationism?

[darness.livejournal.com]

Aye, there's the rub.

There's a lot to be said for the notion that creationism is simply not testable because it relies on the supernatural rather than the natural.

Of course, many who believe in that supernatural power would say that something doesn't have to be empirically proven in order to believe in it. That's the other dance - believing in something that may not be scientifically proven. Believing because you subscribe to the authenticity of other sources that help to explain the belief - sources that Christians find reliable, such as Scripture, Biblical scholars, and the like.

"God"

[misterweasel.livejournal.com]

"God" is science... or rather, our understanding of "God" comes through the scientific method... thus it is that we understand that "God" is "Love". The ineffable, yet sublime love that is described in the equations that attempt to unify the basic forces that hold all matter and energy together in the whirling, shifting dance on the edge of entropic collapse, the intricate and inexorable way that systems converge into equilibrium, then diverge into chaos as conditions change, the way that those changing conditions are themselves changed by the elements that influence them in return, the eternal self-referential handshake between observer and observed, where both are neither and both at the same time.

If it helps some people to visualize all that as an old white guy with a long beard wearing flowing robes, I see it as a failure in imagination on their part, but oh well, what can you do.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes. There's believing in something without proof, and then there's driving social policy on beliefs that lack proof.

I'm okay with people believing whatever they want up to the point where they want to limit society as a whole based on their unsubstantiated beliefs.

The dialogue between you and nitewind was an interesting one. They do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive, really, unless some folks are taking the bible way too literally. And that's too dangerous, especially since Leviticus(in some translations) says that some people should be "vomited from the earth" for their transgressions. First of all, we have to find the Earth's gag reflex...

Re: "God"

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Well, the problem is, some folks are supporting constrictive social policy for all folks based on that vision.