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.

[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.

[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

[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"

[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

[DukeofSerbia]

I voted for I support creationism and have read only the Bible.

I learned in high school evolution theory in biology classes.

[Duke of Gloucester]

I've read the Bible and it seems to me like a hybrid between the Mesopotamian mythology ( Enki, Gilgamesh,etc......)

Genesis 1 probably is based on the Gilgamesh myth, but that's only chapter 1 of the first book. There is a lot more to the bible than Genesis, but you know that, you have read it all.

....christian propaganda and hypocricy....

I think it is a little harsh to call Christian sacred texts propaganda because they promote Christianity. They are Christian texts after all. Please explain the hypocracy bit.

It is nothing than a well-built monotheistic fantasy novel, with a few historical figures ( Ramses the Great, Nero) but also a couple of turns from the real events.

Hold on. It contains 5 books claiming to be history but probably myths, 13 books of more reliable history, but probably only as reliable as other ancient "histories", a parable, a song book, 4 books of wise sayings, an erotic poem (possibly an allegory for God's love) 17 books of prohesy (in the widest sense of the word), 4 biographies of an historical figure, one historical account, 13 letters written by Paul, 1 letter of unkown authorship, 1 letter written by James, 2 letters written by Peter, 3 letters written by John and an account of a very strange dream, so it has to be more than monetheistic fantasy, can't be merely a novel and some parts are not well built. (Feel free to correct my counting if I have missed or double counted but you get the point)

The Bible is wrong because it encourages sacrifices ( lambs) and views the natural world as an accesory for humanity. The Origin of Species however makes us respect the natural world and the marvel of evolution which increases enviromental awareness.

It depends on how you read the bible. I have never sacrificed a lamb but I hope this doesn't make me a bad Christian. Man (male and female) is created at the end of the Genesis 1 account which I read to mean that man is the most important part of creation, but the fact that God looks on his work at the end of each day and sees that it is good puts responsibility on us to care for it. Nevertheless I aplaud your approach to the bible - not "Is it true?" but "What does it mean?". As far as evolution is concerned, because it is a scientific idea, you shoud be asking "Is it true?", not "What does it mean?" I don't think it tells us anything about how we should respond to the natural world, just where it came from. If I was that daft, I could read in to it that extinction was natural and should just be allowed to happen.

To answer the question, I have read the bible and although I haven't read origin of the species I have read a number of books about evolution.

[Cronos Impera]

I think it is a little harsh to call Christian sacred texts propaganda because they promote Christianity. They are Christian texts after all. Please explain the hypocracy bit.
Sorry, for being a little overenthusiastic.Thanks for your politeness.

Well, have you read the Exodus + The Ten Commandments.
God says to Moses
1) You shall not kill ( The Ten Commandments)
God also says to Moses
2) Don't let the wizards live.
And God kills every newborn in the lands of Egypt, from the son of Ramses the Great to the child of the last servant.Isn't that hypocritical falsehood. Have you read the story of Abraham, the caldeean? Abraham prostitutes his wife with God's aproval and complicity, than extorts his wealthy victims ( The Pharaoh and The Caanite Ruler). It's too arbitrary and promotes discrimination.
I could continue but I would go off-topic then. Regarding the technical aspects of the Bible you're 100% right.
The Bible( and Torah) have so many contradictions, that you can hardly distinguish a moral patterm. That is why there are so many interpretations and religious groups. All Bible is about sacrifice ( Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Noah), pain ( all ) and "shut the f**k up if you don't want to upset Jesus and go to Hell"
The problem with the Bible is that it states "God created Earth for mankind, which resembles God. Mankind is a priviliged mammal above all else." Not very enviromental friendly.
Evolution states " Man appeared on Earth accidentaly and it's just another stupid passing specie that would likely go extinct." It is less optimistic but after all " Optimism is the privilage of liers and rulers". Less optimism lets you enjoy life.

[Papewaio]

Read the Bible, haven't read Orgin of the Species.

I have been reading popular science books (Life on Earth... asked for the book for my 7th birthday and enjoyed it very much) on biology and then astronomy as a child. Went on to do a BSc with majors in Physics and Geophysics, have also done first year core units in Chemistry, Astrophysics and Geology and a few electives such as Marine Science.

I would put my level at informed spectator.

[Kommodus]

Well, have you read the Exodus + The Ten Commandments.
God says to Moses
1) You shall not kill ( The Ten Commandments)
God also says to Moses
2) Don't let the wizards live.
And God kills every newborn in the lands of Egypt, from the son of Ramses the Great to the child of the last servant.Isn't that hypocritical falsehood. Have you read the story of Abraham, the caldeean? Abraham prostitutes his wife with God's aproval and complicity, than extorts his wealthy victims ( The Pharaoh and The Caanite Ruler). It's too arbitrary and promotes discrimination.
I could continue but I would go off-topic then. Regarding the technical aspects of the Bible you're 100% right.
The Bible( and Torah) have so many contradictions, that you can hardly distinguish a moral patterm. That is why there are so many interpretations and religious groups. All Bible is about sacrifice ( Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Noah), pain ( all ) and "shut the f**k up if you don't want to upset Jesus and go to Hell"
The problem with the Bible is that it states "God created Earth for mankind, which resembles God. Mankind is a priviliged mammal above all else." Not very enviromental friendly.

Wow. It truly boggles the mind where you got these interpretations from. Certainly not from the text itself - it must be from the most deliberately cynical reading of the text possible. Where to begin:

1. Environmentalism

The Bible does indeed state that man, being created in God's image, was given the right to rule the other creatures. However, the Biblical idea of rulership has never been despotism, but rather stewardship. The difference couldn't be more clear - a despot does as he pleases with impunity, regardless of who or what he destroys, while a steward has been given a responsibility to take care of what is not his. Mankind may be the steward of the earth, but he does not own it, and is not free to destroy it - Biblically or by any other reasonable standard.

2. Morality

Unlike most heroic narratives, the Bible reports the negative characteristics and actions of its main characters along with the good. How you have taken this bit of honesty and turned it into so-called contradictions is beyond me. Do you really think that just because Abraham's foolish, faithless actions are reported in the text, that they are "approved" of? Go back and read the text - you'll see that those actions are clearly portrayed as wrong. As you go through the Bible, you'll find the people of God making missteps left and right - that's part of being human.

Regarding the example from the Ten Commandments you mentioned, I'm truly tired of hearing the ubiquitous misquote "you shall not kill." Never is this said - rather it says "you shall not murder", a significant difference since to murder means to kill unjustly. Make whatever arguments you want for or against capital punishment, but don't claim the Bible is contradictory because God supposedly breaks a commandment he never issued.

3. Sacrifice

You're only about 2000 years behind the times on this one. Animal sacrifices were indeed performed (and ordered) according to Jewish ceremonial law in the Old Testament. (By the way, if you're tempted to protest this barbaric practice and proclaim the moral superiority of modern times because of our kindness to animals, don't - most of those sacrifices were eaten, and we eat far more meat than they ever did in those times.) Regardless, animal sacrifices were decisively ended by Christ in the New Testament. (I'm not saying they were never performed again, but rather that the need for them was a thing of the past.)

I'm done here; these posts are well off topic. But just as I'd expect to be corrected if I stated that evolution claims man evolved from monkeys, I offer this correction to a gross misenterpretation of scripture that no one knowledgable about the Bible would hold.