Creationism Vs Evolutionism: The Great Religious Debate

August 3rd Edit: I\'m polling everyone on \"who is what\". The poll itself is as follows-

Martin_ said:
Are you:

a) Agnostic
b) Atheist
c) Humanist
d) Religious (if so, what religion)
e) Other (specify)

Do you agree with:

a) Creationism
b) Evolutionism
c) Neither

So far, these are the results:

Aza.M: Religious (Hindu/Sikh), Evolutionism.
Bart: Atheist, Evolutionist.
Birdo Is A Tranny: Atheist, Evolutionist.
Captain America: Religious (Catholic), Cretionist.
Demoni Rakkausenkeli: Religious (Catholic), Neither.
GR781: Agnostic, Evolutionist.
iCAME: Atheist, Evolutionist.
Ikana: Atheist, Evolutionist.
KingDom: Agnostic, Evolutionist.
Martin_: Agnostic, Evolutionist.
MGE: Agnostic, Neither.
oroblram: Agnostic, Evolutionist.
Stulaw: Agnostic, Evolutionist.
The cheese.: Agnostic, Evolutionist.
theduffman: Atheist, Evolutionist.

Original post:

Maybe this has been done before, maybe not. I think it\'s probably been discussed in passing, but there has been no thread on this specific subject (the search bar certainly doesn\'t seem to think so). So, what I don\'t want is this; \"Boooring we\'ve had these discussions before\". If you aren\'t interested in the thread, then just fuck off and don\'t post. It\'s only taking up one slot in the recent posts list, and is hardly effecting your ability to enjoy C3.

So, which theory/belief, if either, is \'the one\' (so to speak)? As some of you will know, I\'m vehemently opposed to religion. I think it is the opiate of the masses, and is merely a crutch for weak people to lean on. I think it\'s utter bollocks. Fabricated nonsense to give one a sense of happiness. That said- I\'m not a devout Atheist, either. The topic is creationism versus evolutionism, which is generally the big thing which divides the religious from the non-religious. We\'ll inevitably stray onto other things, but let\'s try not to stray too far.

I feel a sort of summation/definition of creationism and evolutionism is in order. Here are the opening paragraphs from Wikipedia\'s entries for both philosophies (the entries themselves can be found here, and here):

Creationism:

Creationism is a belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.[2]

Evolutionism:

In the creation-evolution controversy, those who accept the scientific theory of biological evolution by natural selection or genetic drift are often called \"evolutionists\", and the theory of evolution itself is referred to as \"evolutionism\" by creationists. This term is used to suggest that evolution is an ideology such as creationism and other \"-isms\". In this way, creationists support their claim that the scientific theory of evolution is in its basics a belief, dogma, ideology or even a religion, rather than a scientific theory. The basis of this argument is to establish that the creation-evolution controversy is essentially one of interpretation of evidence, without any overwhelming proof (beyond current scientific theories) on either side. The terms \"evolutionism\" and \"evolutionist\" are rarely used in the scientific community as self-descriptive terms.

Read the full entries for general further-reading, within which there are many links to related pages and sites, and you could literally spend days improving your knowledge on the subject.

It\'s often a very headache-inducing thing to debate. Not only because there are strong opinions on both sides, but because the matter itself is at once extremely complex, and extremely simple. An evolutionist who I\'ve personally just discovered is Richard Dawkins. He is utterly despised by the creationist sect. Probably because he makes them appear silly. Anyway, he has a knack of explaining his many and mangled opinions. Here is one of his talks:

Richard Dawkins and Militant Atheism - Part 1 of 3

Richard Dawkins and Militant Atheism - Part 2 of 3

Richard Dawkins and Militant Atheism - Part 3 of 3

Summery of key points:

- The vast majority of the world\'s most intelligent people are non-religious.

- Religion avoids the critique levelled at it because it is deemed somehow \'untouchable\', as if you\'re \'not allowed\' to criticise a religion.

- Evolutionism is based upon researched fact, whereas Creationism is based upon strongly held belief (his \"asteroid killed the dinosaurs\" example).

- The religious lobby are funded by a vast array of religious bodies, whereas the Atheist lobby is comparatively under-funded.

- Non-religious people are seen as some sort of scum in America.

That\'s about it, from what I can remember (watched it hours ago). In my mind, I don\'t see how you could be religious. Conforming to a religion. The fact that there are so many, definitely means for a fact that they\'re all nonsense. They can\'t all be right.

Discuss.

( Edited 06.08.2008 02:26 by Martin_ )

Religion is based on faith so there can be no proof either way. That is the argument some use. It basically makes sure religion can never be proved wrong, but also means that it has a hard time "overthrowing" other mainstream ideas.

Personally I think it's crazy that people still believe Creationism over Evolution when it's been proven in so many ways. Most theists tend to take Evolution in their stride and adapt things around new discoveries. For example, a lot of theists now prefer to take Genesis in a symbolic sense rather than a literal sense. God didn't actually create the world in 7 days, the 7 days stand for a huge period of time in which everything grew.

Not arguing for creationism or theists, but just presenting a commonly thought theory getting around evolutio being a problem for them.

I\'m pretty against religion...nothing more than a form of crowd control. And most religious beliefs just come across as ridiculous to me. So yeah, evolution ftw.

Wow, that Richard Dawkins talk was awesome, thanks for posting that Martin. Have a star.

( Edited 28.07.2008 15:11 by Ikana )

Sticky? This could be C3\'s official religious debate topic.

Edit: It might be cool if there was an actual \'Debate\' forum as well, to separate these more \'furrowed brow\' sort of threads from the normal ones in General Discussion.

( Edited 28.07.2008 15:15 by Martin_ )

Richard Dawkins is a bit of a legend. Though sometimes he seems TOO fundamentalist Atheist, and can be even more ignorant than a lots of religious ones.

He wrote a book called "The God Dellusion" but someone else (Who I think was an atheist too) wrote a book called "The Dawkins Dellusion" because Dawkins can be so narrow minded about some things.

Yeah he's not perfect. That particular talk is very good though, and he makes so many great points.

I think it is the opiate of the masses, and is merely a crutch for weak people to lean on.

That pretty much sums up religion for me too.
Religion is like a trend that will never end, the more people in one religion the better it is.

( Edited 28.07.2008 15:42 by Birdo Is A Tranny )

I'm sorry but dawkins is a wank.

But yeah I'm not religious.

Martin what about non-creationism intelligent design? The problem with these discussions is that you are forced into one of two camps. Do you believe in a higher power? Then you are a creationist. Do you not believe in a higher power? The you are an evolutionist.

Also Dawkins is wrong, a lot of the greatest minds are agnostic or professional which means they don't let their personal belief affect or colour their findings. Can we say the same about Dawkins who's made it his mission to prove all religions are bad the same way Jack Thompson tries to prove that all computer games are bad.

We are constantly drawn into these arguments of religion vs science and my only answer to that is to quote one of the best scientific minds we've had this century, Albert Einstein - �Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.�

^ Good post

I am firmly in the agnostic camp. If I can doubt science then I can sure as hell doubt religion too...wait a second...

Religion holds as much truth as science and politics it is millenia old afterall. Some of it is interesting some of it is bollocks. All of what I see, hear and feel is true. Unless it\'s second hand.

I\'ve been overcomplicating my views and getting into a world of overanalyticalness for some time. From now on I\'m keeping it real.

In short I am undeciced about spirituality because quantum physics, chemistry, biology, string theory, particle physics, astrophysics or whatever else kind of doesn\'t really clear all that much up or we\'d (due to the nature of science) have a definitive answer by now.

Science kind of throws a spanner in the works (that of disproving religion that is) which is kind of ironic.

( Edited 28.07.2008 18:14 by KingDom )

I\'m a devout atheist. I agree with everything Dawkins said in the videos Martin posted. Religion is all ridiculous fairy tales, created so that people in power could easily control the ignorant masses. IMO, that\'s all there is to it.

Want your little kid to behave? Tell him Santa won\'t come this year if he doesn\'t. Want the masses to behave? Tell them they\'ll go to hell if they don\'t. It\'s the same thing.

( Edited 28.07.2008 18:38 by Ikana )

I used to be agnostic but I didn\'t want to lie to myself. I like the thought of spiritual things and I prefer not to dismiss the supernatural right away, because sometimes I find it fascinating, but I\'m atheist and don\'t believe in a greater power at all, other than potentially super-powerful alien-life out there somewhere.

Although I still think that I would end up praying at the end of the world.

EDIT: Agree with Ikana. Religion is the perfect way to get masses of people to follow teachings. It\'s used in a lot of video games and fiction to spread corruption to naive civilians :3

( Edited 28.07.2008 18:47 by SuperLink )

People just cannot accept that they don't know where we came from

Our brains are big enough to go about our daily lives, but then sometimes you'll stop and think "hang on, wtf are we here for anyway?"

Makes you wish religion was true. The idea of re-encarnation or living forever etc is awesome. Afterall if you die, whats the point?

I believe neither religion or science.

I believe in reincarnation but not in a way laid down by any holy book riddled with riddles.

Yeah, Dawkins is a wank, I have heard this crap before -

\"The vast majority of the world\'s most intelligent people are non-religious.-\"

That\'s complete utter BS, where the fuck does he get insight into that?, nowhere, because it\'s impossible to find out.

Oh look, I see everyone in the western scientific community are without religion. (or choose not to disclose their religion on paper). I think they must all be atheists.

There is also the presumption on his part that the worlds most intelligent people are only to be found in such professions.

The quote tries suggests that those that believe in religion, or have religious beliefs lack intelligence and are in effect stupid

Religion is built on the foundation of faith, not the language of god that we try to dicipher through our increasing knowledge of the natural world.

- Religion avoids the critique levelled at it because it is deemed somehow \'untouchable\', as if you\'re \'not allowed\' to criticize a religion.

This is very true of these times but all the major religions have faced critique throughout the ages. Picking at beliefs others choose to hold just because they are not akin to your own causes more problems than good as history has shown.

It\'s only now that we have greater understanding of the universe via science do we now have more reason to naturally question certain aspects of all religions. However, given what is happening around the world right now and the many conflicts related to religion, it\'s hardly a good time to pick at and question any such system of belief.

The human race has a very long way to go before it can look back retrospectively and say we were all wrong or right. To get that far it will take respect and understanding of other peoples beliefs, now.

- Evolutionism is based upon researched fact, whereas Creationism is based upon strongly held belief (his \"asteroid killed the dinosaurs\" example).

It\'s hard to tell whether these are your words or his. There are no facts here, facts are set in stone, and I do not mean like the ten commandments. Scientific theories go through constant revisions all the time. Even the theory of evolution may also have to revised some day, even if not fundamentally. Even still, it does not dismiss the theory of Creationism. If God is all powerful it is fully capable of creating anything it likes in any time frame and by any means. It is a grand understatement to say much still remains unknown to us, the fact is everything still remains unknown to us. We have not even scratched the surface of what is possible within this known universe.

- The religious lobby are funded by a vast array of religious bodies, whereas the Atheist lobby is comparatively under-funded.

This sounds like he is trying to round up some investment for his cause, but why?, is it to knock all that he does not believe in?. If so for what purpose?.

I personally think he sees himself as some sort of Messianic figure that will free the world from religion in one fell swoop, with nonsense claims.

We all have to live with religion for a long while yet, we still have so much to learn of it\'s positives and negative influences. Religion more now than ever is becoming more important to people around the world with the very advent of globalization. Genuine culture is evaporating from many of the oldest cultures around the world, and so people naturally wish to hold onto all the things where there culture is most embodied. For the vast majority of people in the world it\'s religion and food.

- Non-religious people are seen as some sort of scum in America.

Another nonsense claim. It\'s probably just him. I imagine there are a far more people in America really being victimized for having particular religious beliefs, than those that do not have any at all.

On the subject of the Question. I do not think there is \"one\" that can be chosen at this stage. Evolutionism and science still gives fuck all insight into our own existence and origins, even if it may give insight into how we developed here on this planet. While I believe in Evolutionism myself that does not mean I dismiss all that is believed by Creationists. Everything is within the power of God I believe. The creator of the universe not being able to accelerate evolution or manipulate any other such mechanic that is under it\'s helm, is not something I believe in. We humans have feeble understanding of the natural world and arrogance in abundance, where we are today is the very proof of that.

I just don\'t like the fact Creationist try to disprove what science has taught us about the world we live in, they seem not to give their children the full clear picture as it stands in the open world. These types of Christians try to make out the science is the work of the devil and is not to be trusted with the same faith as they have for their god. Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus discovery that the earth revolved around the sun of course. The Pope at the time tried to cover that all up. Since those times Christians have always been in battle with science and the knowledge it brings, some think because it disproves much of what they believe in. There is also the impact it has on the way people choose to live their lives, sometimes freer and with greater understanding away from what the Church has taught. On the other hand, there are some examples where religion has promoted scientific endeavor. Early Muslims embraced science in contrast, their cultures saw many breakthroughs in Astronomy and Mathematics during this same period of time. The same applies to many ancient cultures all over the world also, including my own.. Religion can directly force scientific understanding of the natural world as history has shown.

( Edited 28.07.2008 20:35 by Linkyshinks )

I think the point of life is to persuit happiness and content. That's how I see it anyway. Makes it all worthwhile. Makes dying seem more painless if you've had a great life.

I know I shouldn\'t even start into this but I can\'t help myself. For now I have 3 big points....

1st. If their is no God there can\'t be a right or wrong, their is NO standard. The only standard is the standard of government and what is forced on us, or broken down further whatever you think is right your own eyes. Ok got that far now... What is wrong with killing people or with Nazism? Nazism is about killing off the \"weaker\" race, isn\'t this Evolution at its finest?

2nd. I don\'t believe that people still think its its even possible for a Super Complex Cell to come into existence by simple chance. If we can\'t do it in labs with a lot of equipment and super controlled environments, how can we expect a decaying earth to come together with random gasses and energy to make life. PLEASE!!!!

3rd. Where are the Millions of missing links? We find not one my friends. And when was the last time you saw a mutation do good? Mutations do only bad and not once has 1 done any good to perfectly fine organisms.

and 4th because I cant help myself. The Sun. Every year the Earth moves away from the sun and the sun gets smaller. Don\'t you people see, and old earth is impossible on this 1 fact alone. Consider my friends, If the earth is 4.5 Billion years old the Sun would have to be so Big to be the size it is now. And the earth would have to be soooo close for the drift rate. Its just Impossible my friends. You have bought the lie of evolution!!!

I can go on for hours and hours on end if i had the time, Plz feel free to comment.

( Edited 28.07.2008 20:28 by Ultralordsmow )

Missing links? Mutation is what causes evolution, but if there is such a \"tiny\" chance that we came to be what we are (also lets not forget becoming naturally adapted to the environment we live in) then what are the chances of a being who in omnipotent and can create entire universes? Where did HE/SHE come from? Surely not from nowhere. But what are the chances of something like that coming to existence? Compared to humans evolving, such a powerful being seems impossible.

Also, the Sun shrinking is incredibly slow. The Sun has likely existed FAR longer than the Earth, or WILL exist longer than the earth. Stars huge HUGE life cycles, and the Earth was at one point uninhabitable, but then the Sun\'s heat and the volcanic activity created an atmosphere and Carbon for life to be possible on the planet, and plants eventually began to thrive etc etc.

It\'s all about adaption to the changing environment. People who live in colder places become more adapted to that.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and as for \"standards\" that\'s where moral capacity comes in. Unlike most if not all animals, humans can feel a great amount of emotion. They become naturally connected to other humans, and become sad when they die, especially for unjust reasons. People have their own morality. I am 100% Atheist, but I don\'t hurt people because I hate what it feels like to be hurt myself. You don\'t need religion to know what pain is and why you wouldn\'t want it to happen to you.

Anyone who is nice is simply trying to avoid any kind of pain, religious or not.

( Edited 28.07.2008 20:42 by SuperLink )

God never came into \"existance\" he was allways their and always will be, no beginning no end.

Edit: Cant Explain all your comment now but give me time.

( Edited 28.07.2008 21:19 by Ultralordsmow )

'k same with the Universe then. That means there's been plenty of time for stuff to evolve.

I'll address what Superlink is saying here, but I'll ignore the rest of the debate for now. Generally the only thing I get out of these things is a good debate from GR, but then a few obnoxious people around the fringes going "creationism lulzol!1!!!"

Anyhow, to address God just being 'there'. If we take that God created the entire universe, then he also created the laws of nature and our perceptions of what is proper, logical, and orderly. It makes sense to us that everything has to come from something because that is the nature of the world we live in. God created this for us, and exists outside of it. The laws of this universe don't apply to him. Therefore, yes, he can simply 'be' without having to have a mommy or, supposedly, a few billion years to somehow evolve into what he is.

God dosent need the Universe to exist.

Ultralordsmow said:
I know I shouldn\'t even start into this but I can\'t help myself. For now I have 3 big points....

1st. If their is no God there can\'t be a right or wrong, their is NO standard. The only standard is the standard of government and what is forced on us, or broken down further whatever you think is right your own eyes. Ok got that far now... What is wrong with killing people or with Nazism? Nazism is about killing off the \"weaker\" race, isn\'t this Evolution at its finest?

2nd. I don\'t believe that people still think its its even possible for a Super Complex Cell to come into existence by simple chance. If we can\'t do it in labs with a lot of equipment and super controlled environments, how can we expect a decaying earth to come together with random gasses and energy to make life. PLEASE!!!!

3rd. Where are the Millions of missing links? We find not one my friends. And when was the last time you saw a mutation do good? Mutations do only bad and not once has 1 done any good to perfectly fine organisms.

and 4th because I cant help myself. The Sun. Every year the Earth moves away from the sun and the sun gets smaller. Don\'t you people see, and old earth is impossible on this 1 fact alone. Consider my friends, If the earth is 4.5 Billion years old the Sun would have to be so Big to be the size it is now. And the earth would have to be soooo close for the drift rate. Its just Impossible my friends. You have bought the lie of evolution!!!

I can go on for hours and hours on end if i had the time, Plz feel free to comment.

1. That\'s just morals, and I assure you, religion isn\'t as moral as it\'s cracked up to be.

2. I still don\'t believe that people think a magical all-powerful being created people and cows as if he was playing with clay. And also, early life was incredibly simple, it didn\'t start off as \'super complex\'. That\'s the whole evolution thing, remember?
Also we\'re not actually far from being able to recreate that in a lab. I apologise for not being able to source this, but I was told during a lecture of an experiment where a current was run though some constituents of genetic material...and lo and behold, DNA was formed. Feel free to correct me there, my memory of it is fuzzy, it was a dull lecture.

3. Of course we haven\'t found missing links. They wouldn\'t be called missing links if we found them, would they?
But seriously, we HAVE found lots of missing links. The developments of many species can be followed through the fossil records.

4. Yeah, what SL said. Though I wasn\'t actually aware that the Sun was shrinking.

( Edited 28.07.2008 21:37 by Ikana )

What makes him so special? Where does this special category come from? Why is he/she the only one external to the universe? A category like this just avoiding the rules just makes him/her seem even moe fictional. He/She is like a Mary-sue or something.

I\'ve heard that argument before but I didn\'t address or awknowledge this in my previous post because it just seems like a \"I win end of argument\" response. We don\'t even know that there IS an external to the universe, though there probably is someway or another. Hell the authors of the bible thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

I refuse to accept that this God has a special made-up category as an external entity. If he\'s so special then he should have shown it by not messing up so badly when \"creating\" us.

EDIT: I\'m awfully tempted to bring up the problem of evil right now. Maybe when it\'s more appropriate.

( Edited 28.07.2008 21:43 by SuperLink )

What makes him so special? Where does this special category come from? Why is he/she the only one external to the universe? A category like this just avoiding the rules just makes him/her seem even moe fictional. He/She is like a Mary-sue or something.

I don't know the answers to those questions. I can only tell you what makes sense. God created our reality, and therefore exists outside of it. Whether there are other 'gods' controlling other 'universes' I can't say.

I've heard that argument before but I didn't address or awknowledge this in my previous post because it just seems like a "I win end of argument" response.

Its a response that makes perfect sense in the context of an omnipotent creator though. God created our reality, and therefore exists outside of it. Whether its a response you don't like or not I can't control.

Hell the authors of the bible thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

Where does it say that? I'm not saying it doesn't say that, I just like sources to go with claims.

Watch this movie- Expelled

The Bible teaches that God is the center of the Uniserse and no where in the bible does it say that the earth is the center. lol go a head and spend hours looking you might learn somthing

( Edited 28.07.2008 21:59 by Ultralordsmow )