Evolution v Creationism

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Evolution and Creationism both seek to explain a set of phenomena and both have assumptions that undergird their efforts.

That said, Creationism's central assumption -- an omnipuissant creator -- is the bigger "given." Evolution, by contrast, only takes on the central assumptions common to science -- that their is an explanation for all phenomena and that evidence and testing are central to determining the validity of an assertion regarding some phenomenon.

The Theory of Evolution has, to date, "passed" all such evidentiary and logical tests.

I, personally, can accept the flow of evolution running back to the "Big Bang." Whereupon we arrive at a conundrum: from whence came that impossibly dense singularity?

For me, the answer is simple: "Let there be light."

[Reenk Roink]

Evolution and Creationism both seek to explain a set of phenomena and both have assumptions that undergird their efforts.

That said, Creationism's central assumption -- an omnipuissant creator -- is the bigger "given." Evolution, by contrast, only takes on the central assumptions common to science -- that their is an explanation for all phenomena and that evidence and testing are central to determining the validity of an assertion regarding some phenomenon.

Great insights as always Seamus you got what I was getting at in one sentence, though I would disagree that creationism's metaphysical assumptions are "bigger" the reason being that there is really no value neutral way to distinguish between metaphysical assumptions.

[Tribesman]

Che Roriniho thanksfor that link
Oh dear do you see the flaw here the creationists have tried to use numbers
cretinist maths is funny

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ironically, there is a lot of unpleasant sneering by some anti-religionists in this thread, which smacks of an "holier-than-thou" attitude.

You might advance your opinions more effectively with a little more humility and a lot more respect.

Thank you kindly.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ironically, there is a lot of unpleasant sneering by some anti-religionists in this thread, which smacks of an "holier-than-thou" attitude.

MUCH agreed.

Look; I am not a religious person and I know better than to just write off those that have faith as being some sort of morons. Non-religious people do NOT have all the answers and cannot explain WHY the Big Bang happened. There is orderliness and logic in the universe, and morality does exist. Did it all happen spontaneously? Maybe. But the more I look at the universe through the eyes of a philosopher and a scientist, rather than a theologian, I see the possibility of a designer or a creator of it all.

I don't think He intervenes in everyday affairs nor sends prophets down or whatnot, nor do I think we have a single thing correct about him that we claim to "know". However, dismissing creationism as being stupid is also the height of arrogance when you don't have all the answers yourself. I don't know if there's a God, and neither does anyone else truly know, one way or the other.

[Tribesman]

Non-religious people do NOT have all the answers

The problem there is that they don't make that claim in the first place do they .
Whereas certain people do claim to have all the answers and that all the answers are available in one handy little book .

[Askthepizzaguy]

The problem there is that they don't make that claim in the first place do they .
Whereas certain people do claim to have all the answers and that all the answers are available in one handy little book .

Yes, and I've taken them to task on that point, repeatedly, and at length. However, I do draw the line at insinuating that they are stupid for believing in something that isn't proven and saying they know it is proven, because I get that same rolling eyes reflex whenever I hear theoretical physicists talk about how wormholes are real and they can take you to other dimensions, and they think they can prove it using math.

Of course, since our understanding of the universe changes every day, and math has been based on false premises before, claiming to KNOW there are other universes that we can interact with, in spite of the fact that if matter and energy are flowing from one reality to another, that makes them part of the same overall reality.... and we don't know much about theoretical physics because it's theoretical to the extreme. The dirt under your feet is much less theoretical, and I can buy claims that we know it is there. But forgive my skepticism when scientists claim to KNOW some pretty bizarre and unprovable things. They used math to "prove" how massive the universe was... and then later had to refine their math because it was wrong.

That kind of over-reaching is what we need to avoid, both in science and in theology. People need to admit there isn't much we can be reasonably sure about when we can't prove certain things.

[Incongruous]

The problem there is that they don't make that claim in the first place do they .
Whereas certain people do claim to have all the answers and that all the answers are available in one handy little book .

No, alot of them don't, but some of them are mighty sure that certain other explanations are absolutely wrong, when in fact they are at the moment niether provable or otherwise.