The Creation Debate: What have you read?

[Banquo's Ghost]

The assorted threads on the subject of evolution and creationism have provoked me to consider what sources of information people are using to form their viewpoints. Most importantly, I wonder to myself whether either side has taken the trouble to actually read the primary source of their opponents.

Thus, as my last act before I take the oath to avoid posting in any thread containing this most frustrating of discussions, I give you my entirely unscientific survey.

(For Bible, before anyone splits hairs, I mean any authorised English translation current. If you've read it in Greek and Aramaic, good for you).

[rory_20_uk]

I've got something of an interst in theology, and so I've read a fair bit of the Bible - admittedly to see how it was put together and what was not put in rather than to see God's will. I started on the King James, but as that's inaccurate I moved onto the New International Version.

I'm also trying to read other texts that were peri-bible such as the apocrypha and other books that were either removed from the Bible or never made it.

I've never read the Origin of species, but I have done Biology to A level standard, and I was a good student if I do say so myself and so I did more reading than required of the course. Unlike the Bible, work on evolution has progressed and so I think that reading other works is as useful.

[Tribesman]

The assorted threads on the subject of evolution and creationism have provoked me to consider what sources of information people are using to form their viewpoints.
Well the best place to to get information on creationism is the multitude of creationist websites , definately worth a read purely for the comedy value .
So much bullshit , so many contradictions , and whenever they get stuck with something that cannot be explained or that cannot be possible , they say ....."but God did it" .
I particularly like the idea of God putting the dinosaurs on the ark into hibernation so that the hard worked noah wouldn't have to cope with the huge amounts offood and the great piles of excrement that active dinosaurs would have produced

[Banquo's Ghost]

I've never read the Origin of species, but I have done Biology to A level standard, and I was a good student if I do say so myself and so I did more reading than required of the course. Unlike the Bible, work on evolution has progressed and so I think that reading other works is as useful.

You are right, of course. On the Origin of Species is by no means the last word on evolution by natural selection. But since Chuck gets it in the neck from creationists as the agent of the devil (they even have a word for it; 'Darwinism' ) I thought it might be the best suggestion to start with.

If someone posts that they don't agree with evolution but have read Maynard Smith, I'll be just as informed.

[doc_bean]

I've read Genesis at some point although I wouldn't know which one anymore. I've read parts of the Bible (even though I consider myself an agnost and get called an atheist by several religious people I know, they occasionally ask if I know a particular thing from the bible, apparently my knowledge of it is quite extensive for today's standards ) I've read quite a bit of Creationist propaganda, but it's pretty much always the same, although sometimes they do come up with creative ways to explain things (Jesus binds protons together !).

I didn't read on the origin of species, it's pretty outdated isn't it ? I've read some books on Neo-Darwinism and some interviews with /articles by neo darwinists. I have a degree in agricultural engineering so I'm supposed to know quite a bit about biology (both plant and animal), it's been several years since my last biology course though, so not everything is still fresh in my mind

[rory_20_uk]

I too find that my knowledge of the Bible is more extensive than many Christians. Saying "God is love" isn't enough. Many Christians for some reason aren't keen to discuss the origins of the Bible...

[Keba]

I support evolution even though I read neither. I do have a good idea of it through the compulsory four year Biology class in High School.

While I am curious and would like to read the books, I simply do not have the time for them, College is sapping too much time, and I have little patience for reading afterward.

I have a number of Christian friends and have oft discussed the Bible with them, and also had a very interesting debate with my teacher of Legal History during his lecture on canonical law, but I have only a vague idea of creation, although the .org has provided some information.

I'm personally atheist, so the whole creationism/evolution debate is somewhat alien to me.

[Kralizec]

I support evolution and have read only the bible, but...

(For Bible, before anyone splits hairs, I mean any authorised English translation current. If you've read it in Greek and Aramaic, good for you).

I read a Dutch translation, so I guess I should have voted differently

[Banquo's Ghost]

I read a Dutch translation, so I guess I should have voted differently

Damn, I knew I was gonna get killed on that one!

[Redleg]

Read them both - creationism is for religous teachings, if one takes them for the metaphorical information that it contains one will learn much more then attempting a literal. Literal interpations of the bible leads one to miss the point of the metaphorical lesson that is contained in scripture.

Now I found The Origin of Species to be a very good read toward he theory of evolution based upon natural selection. A theory that Darwin proved based upon the observations of artifical selection.

None of your poll selections defines how I view both. Darwin never publicily stated his religous views while pursueing the course of his study of natural selection and evolution. So claims that he was a devote christian or not are not valid.

Contrary to what some modern creationists claim, Darwin had no deathbed conversion to Christianity, he issued no last-minute retraction of his theory. But although his theory of natural selection posed perhaps the greatest challenge to a literal belief in scripture, he was buried in Westminster Abbey, in recognition of his remarkable achievements. Darwin refused to discuss his own beliefs about a supreme being in public, once writing to his friend Asa Gray, "I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton." Yet he closed The Origin of Species on a more inspirational note:


There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

http://www.strangescience.net/darwin.htm

[doc_bean]

None of your poll selections defines how I view both.

Err..there's another fairly big thread about that...

[solypsist]

Science is responsible for me not being dead by age 25, not being disfigured or made insane by disease, and saved me from a life of agrarian slavery. Can't say Religion has done much help for me, other than some subjective (and somewhat selective) moral codes for society aka crowd control.

Gotta put my chips behind Science for teh win on this whole "debate"

[Reenk Roink]

Science is responsible for me not being dead by age 25, not being disfigured or made insane by disease, and saved me from a life of agrarian slavery. Can't say Religion has done much help for me, other than some subjective (and somewhat selective) moral codes for society aka crowd control.

Gotta put my chips behind Science for teh win on this whole "debate"

Religion saved my sister from an existential crisis awhile back, gave her meaning and purpose in life, and made her very happy...

But I still don't see a science vs. religion "debate".

[AntiochusIII]

But I still don't see a science vs. religion "debate".

Maybe because it is logically impossible, and only idiots actually believe that they are, somehow, by God and your local mathematician, diametrically opposed?

Gah! is my decision. Having read neither in full; most of the Bible, though, in several translations of the good ol' King James', which is, of course, quite more than a millenia after the supposed death of the poor Jew. Of evolution apart from the Biology course I've read quite a few secondary sources on Darwin himself.

Of course, the theory of evolution makes sense, is plausible, and well supported, whereas gah! is more intellectual than this latest wave of Evangelical fervour that comes once in a while in American history and gives the common man, the Middle Class man, and the activist Woman something to sing and dance about.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Not all of either, but much of both.

As it is, my position is like the Vatican's: darwinian evolution (dawkins aside) does not mean that God did not create the universe or spark life. Nor does it mean we evolved by chance.

Crazed Rabbit

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I support Evolution and have read about a quarter to half of the bible for school. Unfortunately I haven't gotten around to reading Origin of Species.

[Reenk Roink]

Maybe because it is logically impossible, and only idiots actually believe that they are, somehow, by God and your local mathematician, diametrically opposed?

Gah! is my decision.

[Hurin_Rules]

There's a debate?

A debate usually implies a rational discourse. Most creationists rely on Faith for their belief; one cannot change their mind through reason, just as one cannot change an evolutionist's mind through faith. Debates thus tend to be sterile, if they can even be called such.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I've read about half of Darwin's Origin of Species. Out of sheer curiousty, and because I heard he writes really well. It was very interesting.
For scientific purposes, a modern biology textbook would be better suited. Evolutionary thinking has progressed a lot since the days of Darwin. (One doesn't read Newton for the last word in physics either)

I've read most of the bible too. Didn't finish the new testament. Some guy in church spoiled it for me - he revealed the hero dies in the end.

[Papewaio]

I debate more to refine my understanding and to understand why someone else has theirs. That aside it is using two different ideas that have different burdens of proof. Science is a series of theories that try and provide a best fit to the data and remains open to be debated and modified as better techiques, data and understanding come about. Creationism is a literal translation of two different (conflicting) allegorical tales which does not require any proof but is a faith based execise.

Creationist "Evolution is only a theory."
Scientist "Damn straight it is, just like gravity is just a theory."

[AntiochusIII]

I've read most of the bible too. Didn't finish the new testament. Some guy in church spoiled it for me - he revealed the hero dies in the end.

Into the Sig!

[doc_bean]

About science vs evolution: science is trying to answer the question: how ? Religion should only concern itself with the question: why ?

So asking how the different species come to be is the domain of science. Why there is creation in the first place, why the laws of physics allow live etc. is the domain of religion.

I've read most of the bible too. Didn't finish the new testament. Some guy in church spoiled it for me - he revealed the hero dies in the end.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

He comes back from the dead !

[English assassin]

Darwin refused to discuss his own beliefs about a supreme being in public, once writing to his friend Asa Gray, "I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton."

Wow. Not only does Charlie formulate the theory of evolution, in 2 lines he totally pwns the bishops on their home ground. Is this guy God or what?

[Kralizec]

I've read about half of Darwin's Origin of Species. Out of sheer curiousty, and because I heard he writes really well. It was very interesting.
For scientific purposes, a modern biology textbook would be better suited. Evolutionary thinking has progressed a lot since the days of Darwin. (One doesn't read Newton for the last word in physics either)

I've read most of the bible too. Didn't finish the new testament. Some guy in church spoiled it for me - he revealed the hero dies in the end.

You missed the part where he ressurects!
"Jesus is back...and this time, it's biblical"

[Louis VI the Fat]

Meh, I hate it when authors ressurect dead heroes in the sequel to cash in on the succes. Such a cliché. Let me guess, next you'll tell me that there's also a Darth Vader act where the two main protagonists turn out to be father and son, right? And that only the father knew all this time?

[AntiochusIII]

Meh, I hate it when authors ressurect dead heroes in the sequel to cash in on the succes. Such a cliché. Let me guess, next you'll tell me that there's also a Darth Vader act where the two main protagonists turn out to be father and son, right? And that only the father knew all this time?

Well, the father has been talked about throughout the book. This guy sees him, that guy meets him, they heard this, they say that, and not once does the book actually comes out to say who he is. I think the sequel would reveal who the Father actually is. My bet is on the 261th beggar. And I'm sure the authors will make it dramatic this time. Something along the lines of, "I...am your Father!" and "Noooooooooo!!!"

[Ianofsmeg16]

I support Evolution, to a degree. It's like I said in the other thread, Creationism and Evolutionism are not Mutually Exclusive. I believe in God but i also believe that animals and plants evolve, I can't see why others cannot believe the same thing.

BTW ive read both, not a light achievment for a 16 year old, but evolution is my passion

[English assassin]

Meh, I hate it when authors ressurect dead heroes in the sequel to cash in on the succes. Such a cliché. Let me guess, next you'll tell me that there's also a Darth Vader act where the two main protagonists turn out to be father and son, right? And that only the father knew all this time?

Couple that with a deus ex machina ending and you've just about got it.

Oh, and did we tell you about all the prequels?

[macsen rufus]

Most of the bible; not Darwin but more recent writers on evolution (E O Wilson).

I'm afraid when it comes to Creationism, I can't help recalling that all serious creationists come from that part of the world that tried to legislate that pi=4. Nuff said, really....

[doc_bean]

Most of the bible; not Darwin but more recent writers on evolution (E O Wilson).

I'm afraid when it comes to Creationism, I can't help recalling that all serious creationists come from that part of the world that tried to legislate that pi=4. Nuff said, really....

Surely, they must have gone for pi=3 ??? Otherwise it would be total madness !!!