Why do people reject evolution?

[Asita]

Now for the concept thing,christians have a different concept than many other religions.A subjective opinion on the matter would be incorrect from any particular religion.
Some one would have to explain their concept of Kim Jong-un being a god.What you have there is an opinion,not a concept.
The word god can mean many things to many people-but that is the problem.It stops becoming a definition-a truth of the thing.Christians,muslims,hindus,pagans,and etc are not important here.

A consistent,specific definition of a god would be something that:
A.Creates,
B.Was never created.

At no point does this god have to be sentient.
What I am saying is that the "truth" in most descriptions of a god are in the bullets above.
Everything else most people relate to a god is personification.
The word has been given far too much ground and is otherwise meaning-less.

That is not a consistently applied definition though. One can find flaw with it quite easily by simply looking at polytheistic faiths. While such faiths often have a creator deity, they also have deities for many other aspects of life and more than a few of them have a definitive origin. Take the Greek Pantheon as a case in point: The eldest of the Olympians were born to the Titans Cronus and Rhea, who themselves were born to Uranus and Gaia, who themselves sprang from Chaos. And of course among the olympians we have the god of the sky (Zeus), god of the Sea (Poseidon), god of the Underworld (Hades), goddess of marriage (Hera), goddess of fertility and agriculture (Demeter), god of wine and ecstacy (Dionysus) goddess of love (Aphrodite), god of war (Ares), messenger of the gods/psychopomp (Hermes), etc. There are similar geneologies and diversity in the Norse, Egyptian and Babylonian pantheons. Truthfully, I'm not certain it's valid to limit the definition of 'god(s)' to Creator Deities.

Honestly,I didn't consider those gods to be relevant anymore.I think those 2 things(and maybe more?)are what would make an actual god.But why isn't it valid to limit it?What would you add or subtract?

I cited those because I felt they were the most recognizable. More people have heard of Zeus than they have Yemoja, a Yoruban orisha from whom 16 other orisha sprang, for instance. I might also have cited Shinto (which still has 4 million adherents), in which some of the more famous deities (Tsukoyomi, Amaterasu and Susanoo) were born from Izanagi's purification ceremony after trying to retrieve Izanami from the underworld. And then of course there's Hinduism (The third or fourth most populous religion in the modern world, depending on whether you count 'no religion' in the count), which holds Ganesha to be the son of Shiva and Parvati, as is Muraga.

My objection to your definition is - if you'll forgive my saying - that it has the hallmarks of one with little exposure to the various religions of the world, defining the term through the standards of a particular faith rather than true familiarity with the core concept itself. By limiting the concept of a god to creator gods, you limit the definition in such a way that it not only disqualifies the bulk of virtually all pantheons, but also effectively limits it to a monotheistic concept. Truth be told, both of those should set off alarm bells, the latter especially so given that 'theism' itself is quite literally 'belief in god(s)'. By your definition, a polytheistic faith would be a near impossibility, and certainly puts itself at odds with many polytheistic faiths throughout history.

 

[aattss]

Evolution is science. That's why it's taught in schools, because schools have a science class. Creationism is only taught in bible schools. Creationism is about as valid as any other religious belief.

 

[Olrod]

So with one sentence you're saying that creationism was scientific, and the next you're saying it was wrong after all?

Make up your mind.

"Scientific" doesn't mean "correct". And if you don't know what "scientific" means, how can you possibly know what is and is not a scientific theory?

Are you for real?

That's like asking for evidence that Flat-Earthism was never a scientific theory.

So you don't have any evidence to support your claims, and you can't refute the evidence Dinwatr offered to support the opposite claim, yet you still think you're correct. You seem to have some things in common with the modern Creationist movement.

You're the one asking for proof that creationism is false. It's logically impossible to prove a negative. Why don't you prove that's it's true, since you're the one making the claim.

The instant they made a baseless assumption that there was an intelligent entity responsible for "creation" was when they lost any and all rights to the qualifier of "scientific" to their crackpot theory.

Perhaps they should have called it "the scientific theory of the creation of the Universe by an invisble pink unicorn who lives in a chocolate teapot that orbits around Mars" instead?

 

[BrassButtons]

You're the one asking for proof that creationism is false.

No, I'm not. I'm asking for evidence supporting your claim that Creationism was never a scientific theory and has always been a God of the Gaps argument. It helps when you actually read what people write.

It's logically impossible to prove a negative.

This is a myth. Some negatives are unprovable, but the notion that all negatives are unprovable is silly (every positive claim has a negative inverse, so every time we refute a positive claim we prove it's inverse).

Why don't you prove that's it's true, since you're the one making the claim.

If you would read what people write, you would see that the evidence has already been presented. Though you may need to actually understand the topic in order to follow the evidence (for instance, you will need to know what "science" is, and you demonstrably don't).

 

[Dinwatr]

Why don't you prove that's it's true, since you're the one making the claim.

Gould, S. J. 1993. A Tale of Three Pictures. in Gould, S. J. Eight Little Piggies. Penguin Books Ltd. pp. 427-438.

I'll leave an exploration of the literature Gould cited as an exercise for the reader. You'll find the specific papers published in serious and respected peer-reviewed journals (and books; some of these get rather old) therein.

 

[Lieju]

That's true.I might be arrogant.But that doesn't make what I said any less closer to an actual definition.

Words do not have 'actual' definitions. Some groups, like scientists, have their definitions for words, but even in the scientific community, the same words can mean different things, not to mention different languages have different terminology altogether.

Words can change,but the abstract thought of the thing we observe would stay the same.Dogs by any other name would still act as a dog would.

The concept can exist, but what word is applied to it, and how its grouped, will differ.
Take dogs, for example.
What is a 'dog'? Are wolves dogs? What if we crossbreed a wolf and a dog? And then breed it with a dog? How many times we have to do this before it's a 'dog'? At what point in history we have the first 'dog'? It's not simple, and this is with something we can see with our own eyes, and can agree that they exist.

Some words change some don't.

All words change. Can you tell me an example of a word that has always stayed the same and means the same thing to everyone in the world, regardless of their language?

The definition of a god has not been agreed upon when comparing other religions or secular opinion.And I don't think "my" definition is personal.It seems to me that the above description was easily understood in the past but was then given human traits.

Based on what? In many religions and traditions, how the world came to be wasn't all that important, and the gods and spirits worshipped might not have been the ones involved in the creation.

Also,truth's are not exclusive or original to any one person.No one "owns" geometry and maths.

A 'truth'? What you are talking about are concepts and words certain groups of people have decided mean certain things. The scientific community, for example, has agreed upon what certain words mean, so that they can communicate with each other easily about them.

I fail to see the arrogance of trying to create an actual definition out of an inflated word.

I don't think you understand how language works. The words do not have 'actual' definitions. 'God' would not mean anything to someone who doesn't speak English. (Or it might mean something different in a different language)
If you took a group of people and agreed that 'god' mean 'dog', and used that word like so, then that word would mean the four-legged animal. Words do not have any inherent meanings, they are given meaning by humans.

What is your definition of a god?
Are there any problems with my definition so-far?
Help would be appreciated!

My definition:
1) Has sentience
2) Has powers that are supernatural, magical or at least impossible for a human to understand or replicate
3) Is worshipped

I don't believe any such creatures exist, but I would call something like Zeus a 'god'. A word can be used even about things that you don't believe exist, after all, we can talk about dragons or witches and define those words, even while not believing they exist.

But when I talk about god with people, I always ask them to define what their god is like.

The biggest problem I see with your definition is that not all gods in religions are creators.

 

[FriedRicer]

Now for the concept thing,christians have a different concept than many other religions.A subjective opinion on the matter would be incorrect from any particular religion.
Some one would have to explain their concept of Kim Jong-un being a god.What you have there is an opinion,not a concept.
The word god can mean many things to many people-but that is the problem.It stops becoming a definition-a truth of the thing.Christians,muslims,hindus,pagans,and etc are not important here.

A consistent,specific definition of a god would be something that:
A.Creates,
B.Was never created.

At no point does this god have to be sentient.
What I am saying is that the "truth" in most descriptions of a god are in the bullets above.
Everything else most people relate to a god is personification.
The word has been given far too much ground and is otherwise meaning-less.

That is not a consistently applied definition though. One can find flaw with it quite easily by simply looking at polytheistic faiths. While such faiths often have a creator deity, they also have deities for many other aspects of life and more than a few of them have a definitive origin. Take the Greek Pantheon as a case in point: The eldest of the Olympians were born to the Titans Cronus and Rhea, who themselves were born to Uranus and Gaia, who themselves sprang from Chaos. And of course among the olympians we have the god of the sky (Zeus), god of the Sea (Poseidon), god of the Underworld (Hades), goddess of marriage (Hera), goddess of fertility and agriculture (Demeter), god of wine and ecstacy (Dionysus) goddess of love (Aphrodite), god of war (Ares), messenger of the gods/psychopomp (Hermes), etc. There are similar geneologies and diversity in the Norse, Egyptian and Babylonian pantheons. Truthfully, I'm not certain it's valid to limit the definition of 'god(s)' to Creator Deities.

Honestly,I didn't consider those gods to be relevant anymore.I think those 2 things(and maybe more?)are what would make an actual god.But why isn't it valid to limit it?What would you add or subtract?

I cited those because I felt they were the most recognizable. More people have heard of Zeus than they have Yemoja, a Yoruban orisha from whom 16 other orisha sprang, for instance. I might also have cited Shinto (which still has 4 million adherents), in which some of the more famous deities (Tsukoyomi, Amaterasu and Susanoo) were born from Izanagi's purification ceremony after trying to retrieve Izanami from the underworld. And then of course there's Hinduism (The third or fourth most populous religion in the modern world, depending on whether you count 'no religion' in the count), which holds Ganesha to be the son of Shiva and Parvati, as is Muraga.

My objection to your definition is - if you'll forgive my saying - that it has the hallmarks of one with little exposure to the various religions of the world, defining the term through the standards of a particular faith rather than true familiarity with the core concept itself. By limiting the concept of a god to creator gods, you limit the definition in such a way that it not only disqualifies the bulk of virtually all pantheons, but also effectively limits it to a monotheistic concept. Truth be told, both of those should set off alarm bells, the latter especially so given that 'theism' itself is quite literally 'belief in god(s)'. By your definition, a polytheistic faith would be a near impossibility, and certainly puts itself at odds with many polytheistic faiths throughout history.

Wait,the definition doesn't exclude multiple gods.But I maybe wrong.What part of A/B implies that the definition works only once?Or is describing only one thing?
It was actually written with multiple gods as a possible outcome.
And I am not using gods based on faith/mythology.
I was using some of the attributes from them to talk about an object in our reality that might actually exist.
Something that creates and was not created.If that describes only a creation god-a piece of a definition,then what is a god?
What is the definition that all of them (creator or non creator,living/non sentient) can be noted with?It can't just be the word,or we really could make anything a god.

 

[FriedRicer]

Now for the concept thing,christians have a different concept than many other religions.A subjective opinion on the matter would be incorrect from any particular religion.
Some one would have to explain their concept of Kim Jong-un being a god.What you have there is an opinion,not a concept.
The word god can mean many things to many people-but that is the problem.It stops becoming a definition-a truth of the thing.Christians,muslims,hindus,pagans,and etc are not important here.

A consistent,specific definition of a god would be something that:
A.Creates,
B.Was never created.

At no point does this god have to be sentient.
What I am saying is that the "truth" in most descriptions of a god are in the bullets above.
Everything else most people relate to a god is personification.
The word has been given far too much ground and is otherwise meaning-less.

That is not a consistently applied definition though. One can find flaw with it quite easily by simply looking at polytheistic faiths. While such faiths often have a creator deity, they also have deities for many other aspects of life and more than a few of them have a definitive origin. Take the Greek Pantheon as a case in point: The eldest of the Olympians were born to the Titans Cronus and Rhea, who themselves were born to Uranus and Gaia, who themselves sprang from Chaos. And of course among the olympians we have the god of the sky (Zeus), god of the Sea (Poseidon), god of the Underworld (Hades), goddess of marriage (Hera), goddess of fertility and agriculture (Demeter), god of wine and ecstacy (Dionysus) goddess of love (Aphrodite), god of war (Ares), messenger of the gods/psychopomp (Hermes), etc. There are similar geneologies and diversity in the Norse, Egyptian and Babylonian pantheons. Truthfully, I'm not certain it's valid to limit the definition of 'god(s)' to Creator Deities.

Honestly,I didn't consider those gods to be relevant anymore. I think those 2 things(and maybe more?)are what would make an actual god. But why isn't it valid to limit it? What would you add or subtract?

Hinduism, Shintoism and Taoism beg to differ.

Just because they beg to differ,doesn't mean they are closer to an actual definition than any of us here now.But now that you are helping me derail this topicp),What would you add or subtract?Would you make another category?For a thing you would say is a god?That doesn't exist on faith?I would like to see where I might be a bit too narrow in mt scope.

 

[FriedRicer]

That's true.I might be arrogant.But that doesn't make what I said any less closer to an actual definition.

Words do not have 'actual' definitions. Some groups, like scientists, have their definitions for words, but even in the scientific community, the same words can mean different things, not to mention different languages have different terminology altogether.

Words can change,but the abstract thought of the thing we observe would stay the same.Dogs by any other name would still act as a dog would.

The concept can exist, but what word is applied to it, and how its grouped, will differ.
Take dogs, for example.
What is a 'dog'? Are wolves dogs? What if we crossbreed a wolf and a dog? And then breed it with a dog? How many times we have to do this before it's a 'dog'? At what point in history we have the first 'dog'? It's not simple, and this is with something we can see with our own eyes, and can agree that they exist.

Some words change some don't.

All words change. Can you tell me an example of a word that has always stayed the same and means the same thing to everyone in the world, regardless of their language?

The definition of a god has not been agreed upon when comparing other religions or secular opinion.And I don't think "my" definition is personal.It seems to me that the above description was easily understood in the past but was then given human traits.

Based on what? In many religions and traditions, how the world came to be wasn't all that important, and the gods and spirits worshipped might not have been the ones involved in the creation.

Also,truth's are not exclusive or original to any one person.No one "owns" geometry and maths.

A 'truth'? What you are talking about are concepts and words certain groups of people have decided mean certain things. The scientific community, for example, has agreed upon what certain words mean, so that they can communicate with each other easily about them.

I fail to see the arrogance of trying to create an actual definition out of an inflated word.

I don't think you understand how language works. The words do not have 'actual' definitions. 'God' would not mean anything to someone who doesn't speak English. (Or it might mean something different in a different language)
If you took a group of people and agreed that 'god' mean 'dog', and used that word like so, then that word would mean the four-legged animal. Words do not have any inherent meanings, they are given meaning by humans.

What is your definition of a god?
Are there any problems with my definition so-far?
Help would be appreciated!

My definition:
1) Has sentience
2) Has powers that are supernatural, magical or at least impossible for a human to understand or replicate
3) Is worshipped

I don't believe any such creatures exist, but I would call something like Zeus a 'god'. A word can be used even about things that you don't believe exist, after all, we can talk about dragons or witches and define those words, even while not believing they exist.

But when I talk about god with people, I always ask them to define what their god is like.

The biggest problem I see with your definition is that not all gods in religions are creators.

I think your definition is spot on actually.
Mine was simply describing a thing that could exist that isn't supernatural.I don't think they are "creatures".
That's the reason why I stress the creation aspect though.It seems to be the one that is actually plausible without having to involve the supernatural.When I say "actual god" that is what I meant.

The language part of you post:
What part of basic maths have we agreed upon?Can 1 objectively be 2?Even if you called them by different names, the objects grouped in those values would be distinct to anyone speaking any language. This same example for the circle and the square.True,the words can change,but the abstract thing you are thinking of remains the same.

Now,could my definition actually exist?Why or why not?

Off-topic of the off topic.
Also,Street Fighter.....Do you play it?What do you play?

 

[Lieju]

I think your definition is spot on actually.
Mine was simply describing a thing that could exist that isn't supernatural.I don't think they are "creatures".
That's the reason why I stress the creation aspect though.It seems to be the one that is actually plausible without having to involve the supernatural.When I say "actual god" that is what I meant.

'Supernatural is kinda a non-sensical word, but it's something I use to describe things that don't exist or are not understood at all. Since if there was a god, it would be a part of the natural world, and could be studied with science. Like ghosts, dragons, fairies, or dogs.)

But if we found out there was an alien that had so advanced technology we couldn't understand it at all, and it wanted people to worship it, I'd accept it's a god. (Doesn't mean I would worship it, though)

Even if you called them by different names, the objects grouped in those values would be distinct to anyone speaking any language. This same example for the circle and the square.True,the words can change,but the abstract thing you are thinking of remains the same.

Yes, and even if you classified my dog a wolf, she'd still be the same.
But different people coming from different cultures think of the abstract things differently. Even individuals do, and if we get to different species, the ways of thinking are even more different.

For example, what is a 'square'? Two people can look at the same thing, and one can say 'this is a square', while other can say 'This is not a square because it's corners are too round.' Or in some culture geometric shapes might not be considered important, something like a square is not something you see in nature a lot. For a hunter-gatherer, it might not be a concept. That kind of person could just call all drawings of geometric objects the same.

Now,could my definition actually exist?Why or why not?

A something where the universe started from? Could exist. (I don't know much about that subject, though) It could even be sentient and all-powerful. But there is no reason to suppose it's true.

Dragons COULD exist, on some other planet or something, but if one makes such a claim, they need to provide evidence.
If someone claims their god exists, it's their job to explain what their god is, and what evidence supports it.

Off-topic of the off topic.
Also,Street Fighter.....Do you play it?What do you play?

That's random. I'm a very casual player of fighting games, I haven't really played Street fighter.

I mostly play my DS when I'm on the bus.

I also like platformers, adventure-games and RPG's. Currently I'm replaying Dragon Age Origins and Phoenix Wright.

 

[FriedRicer]

I think your definition is spot on actually.
Mine was simply describing a thing that could exist that isn't supernatural.I don't think they are "creatures".
That's the reason why I stress the creation aspect though.It seems to be the one that is actually plausible without having to involve the supernatural.When I say "actual god" that is what I meant.

'Supernatural is kinda a non-sensical word, but it's something I use to describe things that don't exist or are not understood at all. Since if there was a god, it would be a part of the natural world, and could be studied with science. Like ghosts, dragons, fairies, or dogs.)

But if we found out there was an alien that had so advanced technology we couldn't understand it at all, and it wanted people to worship it, I'd accept it's a god. (Doesn't mean I would worship it, though)

Even if you called them by different names, the objects grouped in those values would be distinct to anyone speaking any language. This same example for the circle and the square.True,the words can change,but the abstract thing you are thinking of remains the same.

Yes, and even if you classified my dog a wolf, she'd still be the same.
But different people coming from different cultures think of the abstract things differently. Even individuals do, and if we get to different species, the ways of thinking are even more different.

For example, what is a 'square'? Two people can look at the same thing, and one can say 'this is a square', while other can say 'This is not a square because it's corners are too round.' Or in some culture geometric shapes might not be considered important, something like a square is not something you see in nature a lot. For a hunter-gatherer, it might not be a concept. That kind of person could just call all drawings of geometric objects the same.

Now,could my definition actually exist?Why or why not?

A something where the universe started from? Could exist. (I don't know much about that subject, though) It could even be sentient and all-powerful. But there is no reason to suppose it's true.

Dragons COULD exist, on some other planet or something, but if one makes such a claim, they need to provide evidence.
If someone claims their god exists, it's their job to explain what their god is, and what evidence supports it.

Off-topic of the off topic.
Also,Street Fighter.....Do you play it?What do you play?

That's random. I'm a very casual player of fighting games, I haven't really played Street fighter.

I mostly play my DS when I'm on the bus.

I also like platformers, adventure-games and RPG's. Currently I'm replaying Dragon Age Origins and Phoenix Wright.

Yea,I felt like getting to know a good poster while derailing the thread-Love Origins btw. Not random actually,uniform to what I have been doing.

I don't think someones importance/lack there-of on things actually changes what the thing is.
At some point,things are not subjective.Otherwise everything is meaningless if we can take every value of anything and change them.Could be wrong though.

 

[Lieju]

I don't think someones importance/lack there-of on things actually changes what the thing is.
At some point,things are not subjective.Otherwise everything is meaningless if we can take every value of anything and change them.Could be wrong though.

Things and what we call them are two different things. Words are merely a tool we use to try to communicate our thoughts.
Concepts are merely something we agree on.
In theory it would be possible to have a society where all animals were considered to be the same thing, and there was only one word to describe them.

But that society would have to be one where making that distinction didn't matter.
Similary, people who don't care about video-games will look at all of them and just call them 'video-games', while people who are into them make distinctions between different genres, how old they are and their quality.

 

[medv4380]

snip

You're the one asking for proof that creationism is false. It's logically impossible to prove a negative. Why don't you prove that's it's true, since you're the one making the claim.

snip

It is actually possible to prove or disprove a negative.

"It is not raining." is a negative that is easy to prove or disprove.
"There isn't a penny on the Moon" is possible to prove or disprove, but would require more effort then you are willing to put in, or capable of, to do it.

What you're really saying is you cannot easily Prove Absolutes.
Prior to Relativity Newtons Theory of Gravity can be proven to be True in many cases, but you couldn't prove it to be Absolutely true. Newton thought he did so he labeled his Theory as Law, but he was wrong.

Creationism is provable or disprovable depending on which one you're trying to prove or disprove.
Young Earth Creationism is easily disprovable given the speed of light, and many other things.

Intelligent Design is disprovable in some context, but you're going to run into problems trying to do it.

The problem actually comes down to Creationists actually do believe in evolution, just on steroids.

YEC and ID both use what they call Micro Evolution. What they claim is that God Created "Kinds". From "Kinds" you get what everyone else calls species. To them their is a "Kind" of Canine. From that "Kind" micro-evolution creates Dogs, Wolfs, Cottees, and so on. This is all to answer the Noahs ark problem, which doesn't apply to non-Abrahamic religions, like Korean Creationism. It's on steroids because all of this "Micro" Evolution takes place in 1 Year to them, and no Evolutionist would ever have it running that quickly. To really disprove ID all you have to do is prove that there is only 1 Kind that everything descends from, and then you're just left with ID and Evolution as the same.

Once you get to that point you're stuck because you have to prove or disprove a past no one observed except for God. It's not impossible, but it is impractical.

ID has another problem being disprove since many people mistake it for Evolutionary Theism. On its surface it sounds like Evolutionary Theism, aka God Guided Evolution, but it's not.

The real problem is the X Club nonsense that Religion and Science are incompatible.

Darwin's response to excommunication of religion from science can be summed up thusly
"It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist."
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041

Instead we're left with the X Clubs legacy and Dawkin's saying
"Theistic Evolutionists are Deluded"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA

And each time they tried to kick out the head of the Human Genome Project, Director of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, because he's a Christian they make the case that this isn't an argument about Creationism vs Evolution.
http://firefranciscollins.com/
Rather, it's an argument about Atheism excommunicating Theism from science. By attempting to force out Theists from Science you've convinced them that they cannot believe in Evolution. So they end up adopting the crazy ID, and YEC.

The X Club only is winning because they marketed their Anti-Religion as Anti-Catholisism, and, at the time, there is nothing more that Protestants accept, without facts, more than reasons to hate the Pope. Just as now X Club nonsense uses Muslumafobia to continue marketing Religious hatred.

We want to believe that the Pope was forcing Europe to believe that the world was flat, but that never happened. The argument with Columbus was over his stupid use of an Italian Mile for an Arabic Mile. The fool thought that the distance between Japan and Spain was manageable and all the scholars at the time had a good idea that doing so was suicide with the Boats they had. Prior to Columbus there is historical record of Jesuit Priests going to China to teach them that the world was in-fact Round. Europe never completely lost the knowledge that the world was round after Ancient Greece Proved it, but people bought into the X Club propaganda.

We want to believe that Islam destroyed Science in Arabia. The Truth is that Islam is what made the Arabian Peninsula a beacon for Science. People who say otherwise neglect the invasion of the Mongols that wiped out their irrigation system, and destroyed their capability to allow people to sit around all day thinking. Can't very well send your kid to school when you're more worried about growing enough food to survive. One of the little problems with living in a desert where establishing irrigation took centuries to build and a few years to destroy.

If you want a Sound Argument the proves God then that's not impossible ether.

Kalam is a good place to start.
The only problem with the Kalam argument is that it only proves a Creating Entity for the Universe. It does not exclude that creating entity from being an Absurd Law of Nature, or an Absurd God. But what is God if not an Absurd Law of Nature. Any good argument countering Kalam usually requires you change the definition of Time, but there is an equally valid argument when you change how you define Time which is the Leibniz argument.

 

[aattss]

There is a lack of scientific proof of creationism, while the theory of evolution is a widely accepted Scientific Theory.

I don't care what your religion says (to a vague extent), but please try to understand that religion is not science.

This science is true.

 

[medv4380]

snip

After reading your last 3 posts on this thread, I believe you're confused.

You're writing as if you're addressing someone, but in reality you're addressing an abstract "they" in each one. If you're attempting to address a particular person on the thread you'd be better served addressing them rather than writing in generalities.

The point this thread attempted to make has nothing to do with Creationism being taught in schools. The point is to address why do people not believe in Evolution, and rather believe in the various forms of Creationism. The OP was a bit deluded, and was more likely just trying to get on his soap box to make fun of people, but it is what it is.

If you wish to counter some actual points feel free to puck away at my post right above yours. None of what I've presented is based on any personal Religious belief. Rather, I've based mine on Historical Facts, and a bit on Philosophy which is the First Science mankind ever created. If you genuinely feel that Religion has no Scientific basis then feel free to present a counter argument to the Kalam, or Leibniz arguments.

My primary point is that you cannot convince Theists that Evolution is true as long as people like Dawkins insist that Evolution proves God does not exit, and the lies used to convince people it does are the true cause of the hostility towards Evolution.

 

[Maze1125]

My primary point is that you cannot convince Theists that Evolution is true as long as people like Dawkins insist that Evolution proves God does not exit, and the lies used to convince people it does are the true cause of the hostility towards Evolution.

Lolwut?
When has he ever done that?
The only atheists I ever see that claim that are angsty teenagers. Everyone else, at most, says that Evolution (and other scientific theories) remove the need for a god, not that it out right disproves God.

Theists are the ones I always see claiming that Evolution is opposed to God and their religion and that's why they need to deny it, and that's been the case since it was first discovered. Certainly the few atheists that do claim Evolution is a proof against God don't help the situation, but they're hardly the cause.

 

[medv4380]

When has he ever done that?

You should watch the YouTube clip of him then. Here it is again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA

He says it just about every time he gets the chance to, but you'll have to watch the clip or read his writings to believe it. He actually agrees with the Theists you're more accustomed to. I assume by Theist you're actually referencing Evangelical Christians.

The Evangelical view though wasn't originally because they took the Bible as literal. It was because they were opposing the Eugenics Laws that some states were using to justify sterilizing people.

If you want proof that they weren't as crazy about the 6 days nonsense you just have to go to the Scopes Trial. "Inherit the Wind" is a poor version of it, and is biased. However, the actual transcript is publicly available so you can see unedited remarks in it. If you can't find a link to it here is one http://faculty.smu.edu/jclam/science_religion/trial_transcripts.html

In it you'll find this little statement
"A--No. But I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in 6,000,000 years or in 600,000,000 years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other. "
The movie edited it so it sounded like he was insisting on a 6 day creation and only 10k years of history.

Dawkins and others have done their best to keep Evolutionary Theists out of Science, and because of that it is exceedingly difficult to convince a Theist that Evolutionary Theism is a valid alternative to YEC and ID.

 

[Maze1125]

When has he ever done that?

You should watch the YouTube clip of him then. Here it is again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA

He says it just about every time he gets the chance to, but you'll have to watch the clip or read his writings to believe it.

There he stated that "there's a deep incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity" which, while admittedly is a stronger statement than I've heard from him before, is not the same as saying that Evolution disproves God.

He actually agrees with the Theists you're more accustomed to. I assume by Theist you're actually referencing Evangelical Christians.

No, I was grouping the entirety of humanity into "theists" and "atheist" and, while both groups have people willing to make any kind of statement you could imagine, I've found that there tend to be more people in the former group who are willing to claim that Evolution is contrary to God than in the latter group.

The Evangelical view though wasn't originally because they took the Bible as literal. It was because they were opposing the Eugenics Laws that some states were using to justify sterilizing people.

That's not true at all, Darwin was personally debating against Bishops about evolution in 1860, which is far more original than America's early 20th century issues.

 

[Asita]

Dawkins and others have done their best to keep Evolutionary Theists out of Science, and because of that it is exceedingly difficult to convince a Theist that Evolutionary Theism is a valid alternative to YEC and ID.

Well, in fairness Evolutionary Theism isn't a scientific principle as much as it is a philosophical one, and as much as science and philosophy were effectively interchangable concepts early on, by modern definitions much of what is convered by Philosophy is not Scientific in nature, especially when the supernatural is in any way invoked. Point of fact, the invocation of the supernatural actually disqualifies a concept as [modern] science by virtue of the latter being defined through its use of methodological naturalism. So, stictly speaking, they are right that Evolutionary Theism has no place in Science, as it invokes concepts that Science by nature can not use. Mind you, that is distinct from actively discouraging such an idea.