Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate - Nye Vs Ham

[19Yzerman19]

That last debate... damn, that Carrol guy is a heavyweight. It would have been nice if the process was more socratic rather than counter-speeches delivered in large chunks. If they just went back and forth explaining their positions I suspect not only would it be pretty clear that Carrol has a better sense of what he's talking about, but the whole discussion would be more enlightening for the layman.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What do you see as the huge flaws in evolution?

It creates a dichotomy and is now a mongrelized term associated with its counterpoint creationism. The idea of evolution makes sense, there is sense and research to back it up but the argument loses ground when it excludes the possibility of anything other than deterministic physical law.

The debate between the two creates a polarity of philosophy that is unnecessary. Its foolish to claim one knows everything about spirituality when the debate becomes defined by deism vs atheism. The flaw is not in the ideas or evidence supporting it but in the close minded view of many of its professors much like Catholicism. Its followers misrepresent the complexity of reality and define it with rigid absolutes. No room for esotericism, spirituality or intuition; only deism or atheism. Its like the boundaries are defined before the conversation/debate begins. There shouldn't be debate, the moment you start to believe in something you stop thinking. If someone tells you you're wrong ask why instead of asserting you are not.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by AcGold

It creates a dichotomy and is now a mongrelized term associated with its counterpoint creationism. The idea of evolution makes sense, there is sense and research to back it up but the argument loses ground when it excludes the possibility of anything other than deterministic physical law. The debate between the two creates a polarity of philosophy that is unnecessary. Its foolish to claim one knows everything about spirituality when the debate becomes defined by deism vs atheism. The flaw is not in the ideas or evidence supporting it but in the close minded view of many of its professors much like Catholicism. Its followers misrepresent the complexity of reality and define it with rigid absolutes. No room for esotericism, spirituality or intuition; only deism or atheism.

Nothing you posted has anything to do with a flaw in the evolutionary theory itself. Secondly, to the bolded section, the theory of evolution makes no claim whatsoever about spirituality.

As for the evolution vs. creationism dichotomy you lament, who created it? As has been stated several times in this thread previously, believing in a supernatural god or gods and accepting the scientific validity of the theory of evolution are not mutually-exclusive concepts to anyone other than extremist young earth creationists and Biblical literalists.

[AcGold]

Well I never challenged evolutionary theory, only it's supporters whom are often guilty of the same logical errors of their opposition. I am aware what the theory states, also aware of the viewpoints of many of the most prominent evolutionists that consistently create the dichotomy asserting themselves as atheists

[19Yzerman19]

Wait, your argument is that the flaw in evolution is that some of the people who argue for it make logical errors sometimes? That seems pretty obvious and irrelevant.

[photon]

Originally Posted by AcGold

It creates a dichotomy and is now a mongrelized term associated with its counterpoint creationism.

Not by science, only by those who try to undermine the science of evolution with faith.

Originally Posted by AcGold

The idea of evolution makes sense, there is sense and research to back it up but the argument loses ground when it excludes the possibility of anything other than deterministic physical law.

It doesn't lose ground in terms of explanatory power at all. Science in general and evolution in particular doesn't exclude the possibility of anything other than physical processes (deterministic physical law is a bit of a canard since lots of physics isn't deterministic, but I don't think you meant it that way), science just speaks to what it can detect. If the process is detectable then science can examine it. If it isn't detectable, then it can't and there's no reason to include it in a scientific description. The universe might have been created last Tuesday complete with memories and everything, but science can't tell.

If it looses ground in terms of culture wars or whatever, then that's not the fault of the scientific process.

Originally Posted by AcGold

The debate between the two creates a polarity of philosophy that is unnecessary.

Totally agree, science describes the universe as best as it can, disagreeing with it based on an ideology of a literal interpretation of a creation myth of some religion is an unnecessary polarity.

Originally Posted by AcGold

Its foolish to claim one knows everything about spirituality when the debate becomes defined by deism vs atheism.

It's creationists though that try to frame the debate that way, they try to equivocate evolution with atheism in order to manipulate their flock. Evolution says nothing about the existence of god(s).

Originally Posted by AcGold

Its like the boundaries are defined before the conversation/debate begins.

Well some boundaries are, reality is what it is regardless of what we'd like, that's a boundary.

[photon]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Well I never challenged evolutionary theory, only it's supporters whom are often guilty of the same logical errors of their opposition.

So you're saying that people are people? Ok?

Originally Posted by AcGold

I am aware what the theory states, also aware of the viewpoints of many of the most prominent evolutionists that consistently create the dichotomy asserting themselves as atheists

What? So anyone who accepts evolution can't have a position on the existence of god(s) for the fear that someone might equivocate the two things??

What about guys like Ken Miller who is a prominent evolutionist that has declared himself as a theist, is he also creating the dichotomy?

Vocal atheists will always have to talk about evolution at some point, but that's only because people are rejecting evolution for bad reasons.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by photon

It's creationists though that try to frame the debate that way, they try to equivocate evolution with atheism in order to manipulate their flock. Evolution says nothing about the existence of god(s).

Though physics, and particularly cosmology, does.

And as we've seen in this thread, unfortunately some people, be they religious zealots or ardent atheists, seem to conflate the two areas of enquiry (i.e. the notion that the "big bang" is somehow connected to evolutionary theory), or alternatively conflate all "science" as a monolithic entity standing in defiance of the opposing monolith of "religion".

If that's what he's getting at, then... okay man, yeah, some people are dumb, or ignorant, or haven't thought about this enough to understand it. That isn't really relevant to the discussion, though.

[photon]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Though physics, and particularly cosmology, does.

Does it though? No matter what we find out in the future, there will always be space for a god. At best science constrains the definition of god, either moving god further back up the chain of knowledge, or limiting god's actions to looking exactly like physical laws. "If the universe is a result of collisions of branes in a multiverse, who created the multiverse" or "Planets are pushed around by invisible angels in a way that just looks like gravity. But it's really angels".

[19Yzerman19]

I didn't say there's no space for a God, or even that it's inconceivable that the science will alter to the point that it confirms the existence of a deity. I just said that physics has something to say about the presence of God - i.e., it's not necessary for there to be a creator or cause or beginning in order for me to be typing this post right now. Obviously, the whole field of enquiry does encroach on the "God" question, both the existence of a deity and its role in reality.

And obviously you're not serious about those two supposed explanations but even tongue-in-cheek they're basically like asking why the colour blue is parallel - misapplication of language.

[GGG]

I think the better framing of these debates is Should young earth creationism or any other creationist theories be taught in science classes or in oppisition to science classes.

The answer is obviously NO.

But this is where the battle is in some schools. So I don't think it matters what people choose to believe in. Where it becomes a problem is when they want these beliefs taught as theories or as science. In this area it is not possible to be a Creationist and and Evolutionist.

I think the evolution side of the debate should quit debating around the facts of evolution or the flaws in evolutionary theory and instead focus on the key of what is science and what would it take to change evolutionary theory.

Every arguement should focus on is there any observalbe evidence or testable evidence that supports Young Earch Creationism. And are there any predictions made by young earth creationism. If the answer is no it isn't science. Even if it did happen to be true and the world was created in 7 days and God created all of the scientific laws were set up by God it doesn't matter. Science is still better because under the current enviroment that God created science still allows predictions to be made. Young earth creationism is still useless as science even if it is proved as fact.

Science wins no matter what the real facts are.

[AcGold]

That's a lot of logical fallacies in a row, if empirical testing proved the young Earth theory it would be valid but it doesn't so its not.

And to those of you educating me on science I'm well versed in the empirical methods and the process of theoretical testing, that's not the issue. The issue is a dichotomy of philosophy that is erroneous, whichever side is creating it. I encourage people not to choose a side, don't join the debate. Search for knowledge everywhere because there are truths in the founding philosophies of some religions that get perverted by human influence, we should be thinking together instead of drawing a line in the sand

[19Yzerman19]

And to those of you educating me on science I'm well versed in the empiric methods and the process of theoretical testing, that's not the issue

You're not articulating the issue very well, in that case.

As far as young earth theory or whatever you want to call it, the ship's sailed. At this point there shouldn't even be anyone willing to engage in that discussion with you, any more than they should be interested in a serious debate about whether Santa Claus is real.

Originally Posted by GGG

But this is where the battle is in some schools. So I don't think it matters what people choose to believe in. Where it becomes a problem is when they want these beliefs taught as theories or as science. In this area it is not possible to be a Creationist and and Evolutionist.

1. I disagree with your admittedly nice-sounding view that it doesn't matter what people choose to believe in, because Foucault. The accepted truths of society determine how society functions. The fact that "creationism in schools" is an issue at all is pretty obvious evidence of that, but if you need a more glaring example, see Phrenology.

2. I disagree that these issues should not be discussed in classrooms and would be 100% behind a couple of philosophy classes being taught in high school. That would be a perfect environment in which to discuss these issues in the context of metaphysics and morality.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

You're not articulating the issue very well, in that case.

As far as young earth theory or whatever you want to call it, the ship's sailed. At this point there shouldn't even be anyone willing to engage in that discussion with you, any more than they should be interested in a serious debate about whether Santa Claus is real.
hysics and morality.

I elucidated my ideas fairly clearly, the fact that you think I'm discussing young Earth theory is slightly depressing as I never gave any indication whatsoever that I think its true, in fact I said the exact opposite. This is the problem I'm speaking of. You drew the line, put me in the creationist camp and started making assumptions.

[photon]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

I didn't say there's no space for a God, or even that it's inconceivable that the science will alter to the point that it confirms the existence of a deity. I just said that physics has something to say about the presence of God - i.e., it's not necessary for there to be a creator or cause or beginning in order for me to be typing this post right now. Obviously, the whole field of enquiry does encroach on the "God" question, both the existence of a deity and its role in reality.

Ok makes sense and I agree.

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

And obviously you're not serious about those two supposed explanations but even tongue-in-cheek they're basically like asking why the colour blue is parallel - misapplication of language.

Of course, but I have seen such things posted

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I elucidated my ideas fairly clearly, the fact that you think I'm discussing young Earth theory is slightly depressing as I never gave any indication whatsoever that I think its true, in fact I said the exact opposite. This is the problem I'm speaking of. You drew the line, put me in the creationist camp and started making assumptions.

Well, before you edited your earlier post, it directly referenced "young Earth theory". So if explicitly discussing a set of views doesn't allow for them to be inserted into the conversation - however briefly, since I immediately said there's no point in talking about them - I don't know what to tell you.

In any event you seem to be talking about something completely different from what the rest of us are talking about, which should provide a pretty obvious explanation for why people are having a hard time pinning down your allegedly clearly-elucidated opinions. You seem to be saying that both sides tend towards an "us vs. them" way of looking at the issue, which is less fruitful than an open exchange of ideas would be.

Now, that's a whole other debate, because I would argue that the scientific community is totally open to any ideas offered from any source, religious or otherwise, provided there's some evidence to support it. But in any event, it doesn't represent a "flaw" in evolutionary theory or the reasoning of those supporting it. So in spite of your claim that you're being totally clear about everything, the whole misunderstanding of what you were talking about seems to have been sourced from you expressing your thoughts in a confusing way.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by photon

Hah I wish it was only when I was 12, not sure when I started to not buy the literal stories, but it was deep into my 20's at least. The only thing being smarter does is let you come up with much better reasons to justify your beliefs.

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons"
-Micheal Shermer

[Burninator]

Evolution doesn't prove or disprove god, it just doesn't require a god for evolution to work.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by photon

Does it though? No matter what we find out in the future, there will always be space for a god. At best science constrains the definition of god, either moving god further back up the chain of knowledge, or limiting god's actions to looking exactly like physical laws. "If the universe is a result of collisions of branes in a multiverse, who created the multiverse" or "Planets are pushed around by invisible angels in a way that just looks like gravity. But it's really angels".

It depends. Belief in god will always be logical, but not necessarily reasonable or probable. Ultimately cosmology and physics probably can't address the existence of god(s) unless we can achieve something resembling a Theory of Everything. If such a theory indicates that the Universe is infinite, part of an infinite chain of universes, or part of an infinite multiverse, then it makes it much less reasonable to believe in a creator god. That doesn't mean that a god or gods cannot exist, just that there's no reason to believe they manifest themselves in the creation of the material universe. On the other hand, if such a theory indicates a absolute singularity, it would make believing in a creator god more reasonable. Of course,that doesn't say which god, or whether that god is personal, etc.

Ultimately, our improving understanding of the mind and brain will probably have greater implications on belief in a personal god than cosmology. As science progresses and demonstrates the source of religious experiences are natural rather than supernatural, belief in a personal god will be massively challenged. I wouldn't expect religion to go anywhere though as organized religion has proven adept at adapting to new realities.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Burninator

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons"
-Micheal Shermer

Exactly.

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Ultimately, our improving understanding of the mind and brain will probably have greater implications on belief in a personal god than cosmology. As science progresses and demonstrates the source of religious experiences are natural rather than supernatural, belief in a personal god will be massively challenged. I wouldn't expect religion to go anywhere though as organized religion has proven adept at adapting to new realities.

Good point, think people go crazy when you try and explain the universe's existence without god(s), imagine when you tell them that there's no such thing as free will