- James Zediana
- Haverhill, MA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why is there such heated debate over Creationism vs. Evolution?
Recently Fox News and Gallup posted some poll results:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/07/fox-news-poll-creationism/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/07/fox-news-poll-most-believe-prayer-heals-45-believe-in-creationism/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx
I found them interesting and wondered why they cause so much discussion. Two theories both sides unwilling to budge. So I devised an experiment and on a Christian blog I posed that evolution was true and on Ted as you may know I posed a debate on evolution and sided against it.
In both cases the arguements were fierce and hence my final question on the subject in TED. I appoligize for those who got heated and there were a few. I thank those who tried to answer.
So for this question I am wondering about why this topic is so heated? Your answers will help my report for school.
Robert Winner 50+
There are those that have exploited religion and many of us remember the hucksters that roamed the Bible Belt for years. Now we have the TV brand who again have been proven unworthy.
I have been accosted in airports and in my home by door to door christians who mean well but do little good. They have little respect for those who also believe because they do not believe as they do.
For some religion is big money .... for others it is hope for eternity.
Good luck with your paper.
Al;l the best. Bob.
Danger Lampost 10+
If you believe in creationism, you also usually (in my experience) believe a number of other things that go along with that, all mostly having to do with your religion, and that religion is usually Christianity. Why would you want your own tax dollars to go towards educating your own children about evolution when that is something you fundamentally disagree with? This violates people's sense of religious freedom.
As evolution is the prevailing official view (at least as taught in most Western schools), this would put the creationists in the position of having to fight for their rights, as they understand them. Such fights naturally lead to heated debates, and there you have it.
From the evolutionists perspective, the creationists are backwards thinking, antediluvian, religious zealots who are interfering with the progress of science, and they do not want their tax dollars going towards teaching their children someone else's religion.
Vincenzo Sergi
Congratulations James and good luck on your report. You have definitely stirred the wasp nest.... oops, sorry, that was an analogy. :)
Cheers
Roy Bourque 20+
I find several reasons for the heat; first, one does not want to be wrong, so they defend their belief on personal grounds. It's a matter of pride, and sometimes conceit.
Second, the heat is between what will be taught in schools. Evolutionists see science as the holy grail of knowledge. Creationism is built on faith. The current definition of "faith" is unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence. Science is dependent on evidence leading to proof, so creationism is seen as repressive against science, and therefore, repressive against knowledge.
Third, the timeline issue is a hot topic; was it thousands or billions of years. Some say it doesn't matter because both are long past, but the HOW comes into the mix. Did we evolve, which is a process that has led us on a path that has unlocked great secrets in trying to figure it out. Or was it God, which keeps the secrets all to himself. Since it can't be both (thousands verses billions), many are challenged to choose sides.
But the forth is the one I find generates the most heat; the proclaimed wrath of God against the unbeliever. The atheist is appalled at the proposed torment that a "loving and merciful" God would condemn a lost soul to. The believer is appalled that someone would lead another to hell by convincing them that God does not exist. When those issues get pulled into the debate, and they often are even if they are not stated (people subconsciously think about it), then the emotional content leads to anger on both sides. It's no longer an issue of who is right, it becomes an issue in which one sees the other as a threat against the well being of the masses.
elizabeth muncey 10+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Are you familiar with the book Ishmael?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_%28novel%29
Absolutely great book and it discusses something similar to what you may be searching for...
Taking from the book as well as what I can a test to:
As human beings we have a drive to want to know how the metaphysical works. How this drive was/is formed, well, that is slowly being illuminated today in cognitive studies. Yet, I do insist this drive exist.
With the anticipation this drive exist, we can assume easily why anyone would want to know how the universe began, and shall end (as well as other meta-questions). Now the debate at hand questions "why does one need to answer how life began?"
I argue aesthetics. It is pleasing to the psyche to imagine how we began to answer the rest of life's great questions. The Big Bang theory is incomplete, but said theory solidifies an image to those whom desire no higher power than humanity - life is random with deterministic natures. Creationism is pure theory, but the opposite occurs, those who hold faith in said theory desire a higher power to watch over humanity - life is determined with seemingly random natures.
Personally, I do not care. I only care because others seem to care so much about the need to know how life (or the universe) began. What cannot be mistaken is the fact we have evolved. Even if the argue becomes macro v. micro evolution - no one can deny we have evolved (and if they do, they are extremist and dangerous). So whether or not we are created to evolve by a creator, or are purely a random happening - how we began does not dictate where we are going and what we must do to continue our survival on this planet.
This aesthetic debate blinds us from what really matters - due to how pleasing it is.
Being fundamental here is selfish to me; as I know we are not the only life on this planet and in the universe, and if we were created; our creator(s) seem to care nothing about what we do.
Stress the future
Justin Elkin
People get heated over this topic, I feel, in most cases in the way beliefs are passed down. If you don't believe like your community leaders then it almost always gets taken as a disrespectful gesture which often leads to excommunication from the church or family. Look at the Dad's who forsake their own sons after they discover that they are homosexual. World views are taken very seriously by most no matter how self serving and unwilling to change they may be. It is possible to believe in God and the Sciences as well, I do. But then again I may be just choosing what I like.
Ken brown 30+
Mitch SMith 50+
Well, it's because belief is exactly the same as perception.
It's just a sortation system that converts the data from our senses into information.
We use this information as a basis to decide which is the most optimal way forward.
The optimal way forward is determined by how our actions will affect our comfort.
Our comfort is benchmarked by optimal levels of physical states .. things like blood pressure, core temperature etc.
Anything that makes our core body deviate away from the optimal is called "discomfort".
Anything that converges our core body with optimum is called "comfort".
One's beliefs, no matter how delusional, make-up a world view.
Any world view that results in perpetual comfort will remain static. If anything challenges this world view, our causal systems will predict a threat to comfort.
Problem with humans is that our prediction systems are connected with body regulation - so we see threats to world view as physical threats. This kicks-in the fight/flight response and causes discomfort.
So try this - threaten someone's world view at the point of a gun and they will recant - no matter how devout.
Or - challenge the world view of someone who is already uncomfortable, and they will be inclined to open their closed mind.
Your heat is being generated by the gas that emits from comfortable people.
It's fun to watch the shenanigans - as you well know.
I salute you ;)
Peter Law 30+
""So try this - threaten someone's world view at the point of a gun and they will recant - no matter how devout.""
Hasn't worked too well with Christians over the years. Remember the lions?
http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/library/foxes_book_of_martyrs.pdf
:-)
Mitch SMith 50+
Mind you - this is all heresay. The story of martyres is always written second-hand.
I don't remember any lions outside of a zoo - do you?
This is why i recommend trying something before you believe in it.
(Edit: Damnit, I'm sounding a little too comfortable! :)
Peter Law 30+
OK for you to be comfortable; you're not a Christian.
:-)
Mitch SMith 50+
Who said I wasn't a Christian?
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Mitch SMith 50+
I placed my life into god's hand when i was 10 years old.
Ask and you will be given, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened.
So I asked for wisdom.
Part of the wisdom given me was the word of Christ.
Another part was a vision of the creation of the universe.
Let me tell you, time is not what we take it to be.
Jesus came to fulfill the commandments - to move forward from the old ways that had become captured by the scribes and the pharasees - and bent to their personal agendas.
This debate about creationism Vs. evolution is a battle between the modern day scribes(orthadox science) and pharsees(orthadox religion).
God is not concerned with any of this.
If you want to become closer to god, look up from confusion and conflict - move into him - he is not in a book, he is at hand.
Ask. Then accept the answer as it unfolds.
Mind you - I am very curious to see what insights the fosil anomalies reveal!
This is the absolute joy of God.
Peter Law 30+
I was 35 before I heard about Christ in any meaningful way. Always knew we were living in a miracle. Studied evolution for years, but couldn't get the dots to join scientifically. When I encountered creation everything just fell into place.
I agree on your reading of the Scribes & Pharisees, it is a bit of a sideshow. However I believe the evolution issue is important as it conflicts with the Word of God. If death is part of the natural process; ie. not the result of sin; then the death of Christ is made of no effect. It is my thing because of the route I took to Christ, but there are others out there seeking in the same way; so I plough on.
You say He is not in a book. Don't you believe He is the author of the bible?
The fossils thing is really interesting. Nobody will acknowledge that rapid deposition is a possibility as the main cause. They do acknowledge that is necessary in many places at various times, but refuse to acknowledge that it may have been worldwide. Yet the fossils are worldwide. It is frustrating, but I guess it can't be otherwise.
I love to see God's handiwork in nature, so beautiful & so so complex that we are really without excuse.
:-)
Mitch SMith 50+
The bible was written by men.
It is extremely difficult to work out the messages of teh prophets through that much noise and translation error.
But it is there in a patchy kind of way. Specially when you cross reference between all the prophets in all the writings from all the religions.
Like I said - time is not like anything people understand. The truth is that no one - not the bible, not the scientists know what is going on with historical records such as fossils.
If the orthodoxy in science was not so politically polluted, the anomolies could be examined in the light of new hypotheses.
Rapid deposition is not denied by science - the large fosil deposits of teh northern tundra demonstrate clear evidence of it - something big happened there, scientists know it, buit no one has offered a hypothesis that can be verified under peer review. Paul LaViolette had a go, but he's underfunded to complete his work.
As for the very old human remains anomolies - well, these timescales put them back before the global ice-sheet which ground everything to a pulp for a few millenia.
I am sure the explaination for this stuff will surprise everyone, and it will probably have to do with the true nature of time - independant of being disgourged whole from a cosmic turtle or being layed down in orderly evolution.
The vision i was granted is a lot more interesting than these primative explainations. It allows my god to exceed anything that has or can be written and calls us all into him. I cannot fully write what I saw .. I've been trying to for about 40 years .. but I think quantum physics is a reasonable start .. teh dimensional density of it is impressive, and yet the creation itself was so simple that using words for it polutes its purity. Yes, it is something like a big bang, but it is not on any timeline - the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Death is necessary - only the unenlightened fear it. Sin is a word that arises in childhood abuse. Neural theory confirms it.
Mitch SMith 50+
Part of the eternal big-bang that we call creation is encapsulated in the only true word of god written in the old testament "I am that I am".
My vision showed that the (unsayable in words) that is imbedded in "I am that I am" is creation itself.
In what we take for time, it is going on all the time - it did not happen at any point in the past .. time itself is part of it. This is why Jesus said "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" because it is.
My vision also showed me more than one time - infinite dimensions radiating from (the unsayable word).
My path has since showm me the essential role of self - that exists in every particle, molecule, rock, water, germs, worrms and men and the singing of stars. Each self a part of the (unspeakable word) which is the only self that requires no not-self for definition.
When you do sacrifice to gods, they bless you.
When you deny gods, they bless you.
When you do the work of gods, they do not bless you, you enter them and become a part of them - you no longer have a self to bless. This is how they bless themselves.
After becoming God, death loses its meaning.
in terms of common human happiness, it is more fruitful to read Damasio than the bible. At least Damasio has a clue about what self really means in humans.
Peter Law 30+
The trouble with going outside the bible is that you are left to be your own judge & jury. How can you trust that your revelations are not just misfiring neurons? What makes you doubt that God is capable of preserving His message in a book? There are hundreds of people who have had revelations of one type or another, but if we have no way of checking them, then what ?
Jesus often references the Old Testament, & careful reading of it reveals Christ himself all the way through it, including many prophecies which are fulfilled in the New Testament. So, for my part, I will continue to trust it.
As for fossils etc. I agree, no-one really knows. Looks like a big flood to me; but what do I know? No doubt the heated debate will continue. Interesting to hear your viewpoint although I can't go along with it. I guess we can agree that mainstream science & mainstream religion both leave much to be desired. Keep on diggin'.
:-)
Vincenzo Sergi
John Smith 30+
There isn't in the civilized world.
It's not an issue in Europe, Russia, China, Japan, Australia, Canada, Latin America, Japan, parts of India and the more developed parts of the United States.
Unfortunately their remain some pockets of religious extremists who keep making it an issue (because the truth scares them) in Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, some other parts of India and the less developed parts of the United States.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Until this happens NDE remains speculative and suspect. Alexander's book may as well be fiction or the discussion of a personal dream. I've not seen him address the neurological aspect of my question.
You ignored it as well.
Ken brown 30+
Have you come across many people who have had NDE's? If so, have any of them had similar type experiences or are they singular with each individual that has had one? Just curious as there are a few Tedsters that have been through one.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
It does sound like a TED conversation that needs to be started.
Ken brown 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
FYI - there is a ton of information available regarding research that has been done for years. Google NDE research for starters:>)
Ken brown 30+
Linda Taylor 50+
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless."
~Leo Tolstoy
Salim Solaiman 50+
Belief vs Logic/ Reasoning/ Evidence can't go on as debate.....
However you are right about the HEAT ...
natasha nikulina 50+
Peter Law 30+
Obey (below) & I have clashed on many occassions, & most of his points have been answered. However there is an inability on both sides to take on board the viewpoint of the other. This is frustrating for all, but creationists seem to be considered as some sort of lesser being. Christian etiquette demands that we love our enemies, so I try to take it on the chin. Not always successfully.
The fossils that are so persuasive to the evolutionists, are also, for a different reason, persuasive to me.
In order to become a fossil a creature must be buried rapidly. The various layers of rock seem to be liberally scattered with fossils; some even penetrate several layers. The joints between layers are typically clean & smooth. It seems obvious to me that this feature could not have been formed gradually over millions of years.
Now I freely admit I may be wrong. I await a reasonable alternative mechanism; but I fail to see how the rapid formation argument is dismissed out of hand. Is it not a viable alternative ? Typically I am told to read a geology book.
From my perspective this is frustrating, notwithstanding loving my neighbour.
:-)
Entropy Driven
I venture that the problem of explaining things to you start with trying to figure out where to start. Example, your claim about fossils and geological layers is wrong almost at every word, sprinkled with a few truths. It is even worse, I have to guess what kinds of mistaken concepts lie below the surface of your already patently wrong claims. I guess that's the reason people tell you to go and read a good book on geology (add thermodynamics to the list, please).
The first sentence sounds, intuitively, right. An organism should be buried somewhat rapidly to be fossilized. However, when looked more closely, this is false (the wikipedia article on fossils might give you a clue of the many kinds of fossils, and thus how not all of them had to be buried rapidly). So, supposing that some organisms were buried rapidly by some flood is all right. Jumping from that to the conclusion that therefore the whole of geological layers were deposited rapidly is plainly silly.
The joints between layers are rarely smooth. I am appalled that you would say the contrary to what geologists say, and to what I have witnessed myself. We can actually separate layers and see the evidence for erosion. Lots of layers, lots of erosion events. Often the eroded layers can be slanted with respect to other layers. It's obvious that such layers were formed over quite long periods of time.
Rocks are not steaming with fossils. Some places are, some places aren't. There's nothing surprising about fossils penetrating several layers. Interesting cases, of course, but nothing contradictory to any results in geology and geophysics.
That's but a flavour. But, obviously, a full course in geology would be better for you. That is why it is frustrating. There's too much to rectify in your understanding of the sciences, and these are just comments in an internet forum. Science is not a one sentence deal. It's hard work.
:-)
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Entropy Driven
It is not a matter of assumptions, but a matter of study. A matter of knowledge against the badly deformed information that creationists are fed by their charlatans.
:-)
Peter Law 30+
1) I have not studied this.
2) I am gullible.
3) The experts who believe as I do are charlatans.
4) You are infallible.
This is why the debate gets heated. A total lack of respect for the informed opinions of others. The fact is that neither of us was there, & consequently cannot be sure.
:-)
Entropy Driven
:-(
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I might just add another atheist perspective.
I guess the thing I find odd is creationists pick and choose the science that that fits their religious beliefs. They are generally okay with electricity, optics, chemistry etc until it clashes with their beliefs e.g. for yound earthers - the rejection of radiometric dating. Or that the light from some galaxies has taken billions of years to reach us.
But evolution, the foundation of modern biology, comes under special attention. Even though the Anglican and Catholic church are accepted the science to some extent. other groups, particularly evangelicals just completely deny this part of science.
They accept our DNA is similar to other primates. They can see the shared traits with all vertebrae, but because it does not happen on a human time scale, and their assumption is the bible is correct this block of science is not accepted.
So I guess for some creationists, evolution is a deal breaker. Others though can still find a way to believe in gods that are compatible with evolution.
But for me I guess it is kind of annoying that people who refute evolution are happy to take the benefits of science anyway, even things like testing on animals that works because we have similar physiologies, which science expains via evolution.
The other thing for me is how people can imagine a god created the entire universe with us the focus on this little speck. That all animals survive by eating other living things. The rutting to make babies. Growing old and dying. It is just so earthy and brutal and natural. Nothing divine whatsoever.
And then we see the tree of life mapped out, the fossils, evolution just makes sense. So it is kind of frustrating when it seems so obvious now we have the answer.
Finally, evolution is well established science. Not the origin of life, but evolution. Its like people saying pluto does not orbit the sun.
chen xin
Don Wesley 50+
The argument that proves your statement false has been presented world-wide to university audiences of scholars by John Lennox. Review all his debates and interviews and see the overwhelming support for his arguments based upon sound logic and and knowledge of science. Don’t just pick out one as you say to prove the opposite. Your word alone is not weight enough to discount John Lennox.
Entropy Driven
Don Wesley 50+
You reveal none at all.
And you are discrediting John Lennox
You are dreaming if you think so.
You sound too arrogant to be a scholar, mathematician, scientist, philosopher, professor and world renowned debater.
You have no profile revealed at all.
What are you hiding Sir or Madam
And you are discrediting John Lennox
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Don Wesley 50+
Fair is fair; give us the facts not fiction.
Entropy Driven
So, it is not a matter of my credentials (which are in biology, which is much closer to the problem of evolution than anything Lennox can offer). It is much more a matter of distinguishing between evidence and proper knowledge on one side, rhetorical imagery on Lennox's side. I find science much more reliable. Therefore you can keep your rhetorics for the sake of rhetorics, thank you very much.
(Curious that you would not tell Lennox to give you the facts, not fiction. Maybe because you like his fiction then it's ok.)
Don Wesley 50+
You must have been given an .
I know who you are biology
Your manner of replying hasn't changed
Lennox keeps getting better with more debates.
And you are more and more angry that Dawkins isn't winning.
Tell the discussion why and you will have answered the question.
Entropy Driven
Gold Medal on debating? I didn't know that debating mastery was conducive to truth. That science and evidence, if careful and reliable, are to be ignored. Would you illuminate my poor scientific mind? How would a medal on debating help me know that gods are true and evolution is false? The medal might pronounce me fit to convince people of whatever I wanted, that's what debating is about, but would it help me know something about gods and science? Please help me out. Thanks in advance.
Don Wesley 50+
I see no reason to add more to your comments.
You seem to have a need to to continue.
That's OK. I won't reply!
Peace be with you.
Entropy Driven
I learned a lot.
Peace be with you too.
James Zediana
God made adam a full adult so he can make anything any age he wants. He created light so he can make it everywhere.
They accept our DNA is similar to other primates. They can see the shared traits with all vertebrae, but because it does not happen on a human time scale, and their assumption is the bible is correct this block of science is not accepted.
Similar DNA but as a true researcher in subject would agree the smallest difference can be a drastic difference. One single marker in the junk DNA has been proven to be the difference in different diseases and not so much junk anymore. I don't doubt the science just the assumptions.
And then we see the tree of life mapped out, the fossils, evolution just makes sense. So it is kind of frustrating when it seems so obvious now we have the answer.
The tree of life has multiple missing links, hence the term, and the fossile record still doesn't support many changes. So it is kind of frustrating when it seems so obvious we already had the answer.
22 hours ago: I agree with a lot of the comments below - core beliefs, identity, ego etc.
I might just add another atheist perspective.
I guess the thing I find odd is creationists pick and choose the science that that fits their religious beliefs. They are generally okay with electricity, optics, chemistry etc until it clashes with their beliefs e.g. for yound earthers - the rejection of radiometric dating. Or that the light from some galaxies has taken billions of years to reach us.
Ken brown 30+
I always found this interesting, in the book as well as in statements made in conversations. Adam was an adult, perfect, with a non entropic body, so why make him a male with male genitalia? of course god had plans but he trialled Adam, he made Adam name all the animals in Eden and then god felt that Adam shouldn't be alone which can be assumed that Adam passed god's trial period. What if Adam had no male genitalia but had a rudimentary system resembling the female genitalia without the reproductive system or skeletal structure. God caused him to lay down in a deep sleep and took from him a bone and created Eve. What if God restructured Adam from the ground up, deleting the perfection of the singularity and split the model in half literally. Any holes in this suggestion?
Don Wesley 50+
I enter this conversation because your question is clear,
And the topics of religion and society are relevant;
Setting up set boundaries for us to limit our replies.
I feel safe to assume that you know
Where to find truly excellent answers
From well known scholars who have researched this question before.
Here you can probe a little to see
What this small sample might reveal.
One Ego at a time or one ego many times.
I toss in a little veiled story to reveal a possible answer.
Wherever I go, there He is and then Lucifer shows up.
One has the truth and Lucifer adds confusion.
It is a one Act Play without a conclusion.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Philip Zimbardo: The psychology of evil
http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html
James Zediana
Don Wesley 50+
I thank you for another opportunity to probe into this very important question.
I truly hope to get a better understanding from all who come aboard to share their view from where they stand.
I have yet to view the polls you have pointed to.
Until soon, Don
Andres Aullet 10+
Well, it is clear that there is heated debate because those two explanations are mutually exclusive. Either animals/plants/etc were created in their present form by god and can only vary within a limited range as a single species, or their present form actually is the result of very different ancestors who, over time, accumulated a good deal of variances that resulted in multiple different species. And these are clearly two different mechanisms.
And since religion is the source of the first explanation and the scientific method is the source of the second, this is pitched as a typical religion vs. science argument
When we talk about planets orbiting a star, i rarely hear anyone give the explanation that god is the source of that movement. Yes, it could be argued that god created the physical laws that define how planets should move, but once these laws are understood, any orbit of any celestial object can be predicted to a great degree of accuracy.
So going back to the question at hand, it could be argued that god created the biological rules by which dna is used to encode the information that makes up a living organism. But in the case of these rules, the understanding of science of these rules as to use them in prediction is far less than it is the case of gravity
The counter argument to the explanation of fixed species, would be an experiment that shows how out of a single species, change, over time can give birth to two separate species (each fertile, but no longer capable of interbreeding).
Would you agree with the last paragraph?
James Zediana
As for your last paragraph you are speaking about Speciation. The Three-spine stickleback and Hawthorn fly are examples due to isolation and compitition for resources. The observations discovered 3 distinct speciec from one based on DNA. However they are still just fish. They still breath water and have the same attributes and have not left the water. This is not evolution as you are trying to imply.
Andres Aullet 10+
I was talking about speciation in my paragraph. I concur with you, i think that is absolutely nonsense to think that one random mutation can convert a fish into a bird.
But if you find two fish that look somewhat similar, how do you go about determining if they are the result of speciation? i would do it by 1) checking their morphology and 2) checking their dna for similarities/differences
When would 1) and 2) tell me that inded this was the result of speciation?, when i find similarities in their morphology, and their dna shows an almost perfect match, with the exception of the few areas that make it now impossible for them to interbreed
is my understanding of speciation correct?
Jerry Whidby
James Zediana
Read a book as a boy of a man shrinking and atoms turned into solar systems and my brain was blown away. The MIB refference brought that back.
As for your fondest wish that is part of the whole debate for heat as well and up till now has not been brought up and man has tried for a long time to prove and in some cases faked, which also rubs people wrong.
Thank you for your comment.
Jerry Whidby
Right now there are many physicist debating on whether or not all of reality is a 3D projection. They call it the holographic principle. Perhaps God is the projectionist. Although that makes me feel a bit like a character in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I just try to enjoy all of the wonder laid out before me. I think that is something any creator enjoys, watching others find joy in what they created.
Frans Kellner 100+
For most of the world evolution is accepted and obvious nowadays. This wasn't always that way as like some American citizens now it was then a common believe that the Bible had to be taken literally. If you loosen that stance it is easy to reconcile evolution with the book Genesis.
The heat of debate is explained by the fact that religious people tend to identify with their form of religion and any attack on the validity of that religion is felt as an personal attack.
Gordon Barker 10+
What darwin brought to the mix was the concept of a simple mechanism of natural selection as the driving force in nature that could, through minute changes, move species diversificaiton forward.
It does seem that those areas of the US that require a literal belief in the bible are the place where creationism clashes with evolution being taught in schools.
All we can do is wait for our frontal lobes to get larger which if the creationis are correct will never happen.
That would be too bad.
edward long 100+
Random Chance 30+
Vincenzo Sergi
Krisztián Pintér 200+
i have never met anyone that would argue about such a thing
James Zediana
Let the analogies die. They don't seem to work in here.
Vincenzo Sergi
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Vincenzo Sergi
Cheers
Vincenzo Sergi
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Jedrek Stepien 10+
James Zediana
Gordon Barker 10+
Allan Macdougall 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
cut one apple, one banana, one orange and one kiwi to pieces. you can add some pineapple too. freshly grind some green cardamom seeds, to taste, add to the fruits. add two teaspoons of honey and 50-100ml coconut milk. mix. chill in fridge for at least an hour. serve cool. enjoy.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Gerald O'brian 50+
Or perhaps they're reaching for education...
In any case, the heat comes from the fact that there is no debate of content in these discussions.
If at least one of the parties hasn't changed views during a debate, then it's not over. Nothing bothers me more than lazy Tedsters who chicken out of an argument right when the fun starts.
James Zediana
Gerald O'brian 50+
From an Evolutionist's point of view, the debate is not legitimate because Evolution is not a belief. It's a theory that's a work in progress, that's being criticized and improved constantly. But mostly, it's an explanation about what life is and where it comes from. So for the Evolutionist, Intelligent Design is not an option worth considering since it's not even pretending to be an explanation about life and its origins.
The heat in the debate comes from that difference in viewpoints. Creationists don't understand why Evolutionists are not open-minded to what they believe to be decent alternative theories. Evolutionists don't understand why Creationists believe in explanations that don't explain anything.
James Zediana
Gordon Barker 10+
In your "about me" it states that you are a Nuclear Power plant operator.
You have a vast number of safety measures and procedures in place around the operation of this nuclear plant.
If a group of neo-astrologers begins to lobby the government and the education system that astrology is a viable alternative to predicting future events like earthquakes, tsunamis and nuclear accidents and it is superior to your safety procedures because you can't predict when something will go wrong, only react to it when it’s too late.
They further demand that it be taught in schools as an equivalent safety mechanism to your procedures and that it should be put in place in the entire nation’s nuclear reactor plant to better protect us from misadventure. They draw their authority from Genesis, statements by Mathew and the magi interpreting planetary position to portent the birth of Jesus.
The pro-astrology group forms organizations to slip "predictive astrology" into the schools and want to debate you at every possible time on the predictive ability of their science and the lack of it in yours.
You know they are idiots but every time you destroy one of their arguments, they simply rephrase it and state it again as if it’s something new. They begin to attack you in the courts.
You are forced to fight back, knowing that you are correctly keeping the country safe but at the same time appearing belligerent to this group when you debate and when you write books on proper safety procedures.
Do the deserve respect. No because they are morons and their belief system is absurd.
Can there be any real debate between the two groups. No, because there is no common ground. One is science and one is a delusion. How do you convince a deluded person that they are deluded.
James Zediana
Jesus said, "I AM the Way the Truth and The Life" - John 14:6
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Gordon Barker 10+
What truth. The truth about how we became to be on this planet? I don't think so.
I have a life that does not revolve around adoration of mythical beings.
Your's was one of the most ridiculous comments I have seen on Ted for some time.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
However there is much more evidence both of these men existed than Jesus. In fact there are no records dating back to when he was alive of the existence of Jesus. And as far as we know the gospels were recorded decades after his death. Must be good memories, or magic right, to get even the less fantastic details correct.
And then you have to decide whether you accept the magical aspects, virgin birth, water walking, ressurections, and claims etc with no compelling evidence.
Jerry Whidby
Gordon Barker 10+
We seem to have a mental block about creationism that I thought could be addressed by looking at it a different way.
We may be a young species with a small amount of knowledge, but that doesn't mean that we know nothing nor that when confronted by a concept that we find uncomfortable to a pre-existing belief system that we should retreat from it to the supernatural.
You should get comfortable with the notion that the debate between creationism and evolution will never go anywhere because they are opposites. There is an abundance of evidence for evolution and none for creationism yet the argument that both should be taught for a 'balanced' view is repeatedly made.
They are also rooted in vastly different frameworks. Evolution is based on science that does not allow for an authority and demands only explainations that are falsifiable.
Creationism is based on an framework that relies on authoritation points of view and explainations that must be taken on belief with no evidence.
If you can have a debate within that framework you know something I don't.
I have no comments on string theory, I find the math too convoluted for me to follow.
Peter Law 30+
I have been following this "Creationism in Schools" thing from the UK.
There is a lot of talk about "religion by the back door" & such like. When I listen to the counter argument it seems that they merely want science in school to be honest. They want evolution to be taught honestly, instead of it being stated as fact. There is a lot of opinion involved with evolution. A evolved from B, B evolved wings etc. & we've got the artists impression to prove it.
Creationists have no interest in "Creation'ism'" being taught by folks who don't believe it; that would be totally counter-productive. All they are asking is that science, & only science, without personal prejudice, be taught to our youngsters. That seems very reasonable to me.
:-)
Gordon Barker 10+
There is no debate in the scientific community that evolution exists, there never has been since before Darwin.
Science is now exploring the causes and mechanisms.
Your statement that creationist have no interest in ID being taught by non-believers is unimaginably uninformed. They want it taught instead of evolution but will accept the current thin edge of the wedge as being taught as an equivalent theory.
My own point of view is that these people are insane or at least massively delusional.
Science is not a democracy and does not care about anyones opinion. It requires and relies on only evidence. All theories must be supported by evidence or they are rejected (or downgraded). For example, Newtonian gravity theory was disproven, however at low gravities and low velocities, it still works good so it has been downgraded. However, without Einstein's calculations, your GPS would not work correctly.
I require only that schools teach the truth as we know today regardless as to how much it disagrees with my own personal world view. Or your personal world view for that matter.
Peter Law 30+
""My own point of view is that these people are insane or at least massively delusional. ""
Where does one begin with someone who thinks I'm insane ? Enjoy your belief; bye!
Krisztián Pintér 200+
i also found misleading and dissatisfying that you attached the heat to the topic in general. like everyone becomes fierce and hostile, and no actual debate takes place. it is necessary to analyze the hostility or elevated emotions in depth. who commits that, in reaction to what, what is the nature of it and so on. namecalling is not the same as calling someone a scientific illiterate after illustrating he actually is a scientific illiterate.
we can only hope that your report will be more in depth and less flamboyant.
James Zediana
That was my intent in the first place. As for the argument-to-heat ratio that was what I hoped for and was well rewarded. I may have stirred the pot from time to time. True that not everyone became hot but I wasn't truely concered about the debate more the social responses.
Gail . 50+
The anti-intellectualism of the evangelical christians is a frightening thing to watch. I see it as a danger, not only to children, but to the country itself. America has already entered the dangerous realm of a christian theocracy. Those of us who are non-christians are forced to violate our consciousnesses in the name of this theocracy with its hateful god.
If christians were less intolerant, vengeful, pro-violence, and ignorant, I wouldn't give a hoot what they believe. When they force me to honor their God (whom they have shown me does not deserve my respect, let alone my honor), my basic human right to my most important freedom is erased, and I am forced into slavery.
Slavery is horrible thing to endure.
PS: Evolution is not a theory, and anyone who believes that it is is dangerously uninformed - a threat to all. Ignorance is not strength. It's a weakness.
Faith = belief in spite of lack of evidence.
Evidence does not involve faith. It stands alone.
There is ZERO evidence in favor of creationism. There is abundant evidence in favor of evolution, a theory, in spite of the fact that it may not be complete. Evolution would not be a theory if all of the facts were in. If all facts were known, it would be a LAW. It is a theory because not all the facts are in. ZERO facts are in favoring creationism, therefore it is not a theory.
Creationism isn't even a hypothesis because a hypothesis requires a propsed test, which Christianity hasn't yet presented..
James Zediana
But you are right you are a slave of a master. And so am I, but it is a different master. I know you won't understand that but I hope some day you do.
Gail . 50+
edward long 100+
Entropy Driven
Jerry Whidby
Entropy Driven