Darwinism vs. Creationism *Poll*

[R.Q.]

I would just like to make this post a poll - to record wether all of you are creationists, or Darwinists (or something else) - not a debate room, etc... Which means I would like it to be confined to statements of your beliefs only - save the quarrelling and arguing (there's a big difference, that would make another interesting discussion, esp. since both have been admirably demonstrated in the "religious debate rooms.") for the other posts. I think it would just be interesting to see which side of this question is most popularly believed. Thank-you.

~ Robert Quiller

[liszmaninopin]

I am not a creationist, nor a Darwinist.  I believe evolution is true, but there are many theories of evolution other than Darwinism, punctuated equillibrium for example.

[BoliverAllmon]

theist

[littlegrass]

creationist-ly skewed

[Wired]

As if anyone couldn't tell from my other posts, theist

[eddie92099]

I think you all know what I think,
Ed

[chopiabin]

On the epistemological scale, I would be an extreme materialist.
Chop

[trunks]

I am for divine creation.

[Daevren]

All theories of evolution concerning how life was created and how life evolved are called Darwinism.

I always had questions about evolution, I though it was incomplete. So, unlike most people, I started to read some books on the topic. And guess what, if you really know the theories, and not just some crude basics, you wonder why all the other people are whining about.

So I am a Darwinist, just like all scientists(all 100.00% of them).

[ThePhoenixEffect]

I believe that God created the world, but Evolution seems like a good explanation on how he created us.  

[MzrtMusic]

I believe in Creation. I believe that God created the world, and mankind, and all the plants and animals. It wasn't some random matter that mysteriosly appeared out of the middle of nowhere, and BOOM! We have a universe. God has a plan for each of us, and He created us specifically for that plan.

Love,

Sarah

[janice]

I totally agree with you, Sarah.  If we did indeed evolve, that would mean that we are an "accident" and that we "came from nowhere and are going nowhere".  Sort of a "life sucks and then you die" mentality.  Because if we DID evolve, then that would mean that there is no God.  But we know there is!!  So we are not just a "quirk of nature" or whatever.  If indeed we have no purpose and are going nowhere, and there is no afterlife, then THIS IS DEPRESSING!!  what point is there to life, if this is all there is?  But don't despair, ther IS a God and there IS a plan for your life (yes, you!)

[trunks]

There was this anecdote on Isaac Newton (the scientist) and a certain atheist friend of his which follows:

Isaac once made a model of the solar system with the 'planets' revolving about the 'sun' at the centre. He invited this atheist friend of his to come and watch his model work.

Totally amazed the atheist asked: "Wonderful thing! How long did it take you to make it?"

"No I didn't make it. Nobody made it." Isaac replied.

"No joking. Of course somebody must have made it!" protested the atheist.

"It just came into existence all of a sudden."

"Impossible! Somebody must've created it . . ."

"But I thougt you believed that the entire universe, including the solar system, all began suddenly out of nowhere, and you never believed that there was a creator behind all this. Yet you insist that my miniature solar system model must have a creator. Aren't you contradicting yourself?"

[faulty_damper]

Darwin's theory isn't theory b/c it's true.

---
The poll is flawed.  Darwinism vs. Creationism are not two peas of the same pod.  They're two seeds of different fruits.

Creationism vs. Non-Creationism would be logical.

Left vs. Right would be logical.  However, Left vs. Up is not.

[Daevren]

Theories are still theories even if they are 'true', whatever that means.

[faulty_damper]

Ever read his books?  It's not theory, its fact.  Evolution is fact.  Evolution simply means that life forms change from time to time because certain environmental factors favor certain traits more than others.

If an apple tree grows with less water than other apple trees and there is a drought, that apple tree that can grow with less water is more likely to survive than the others.

If a person is immune to HIV, he is more likely to survive and propagate when everyone else drops dead because they are not immune.

If a dog has longer legs than other dogs and are being chased by a predator, the dog with the longer legs would be able to out run the other dogs who would be eaten.

The Poll is asking for two different things:  Comparing apples to oranges.  One can be observed, the other cannot.

[andigone]

have you ever wonder why einstein believed in god?
the more you know the less you can't explain with theories like darwinism.

[Locky]

I love life! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!  

[donjuan]

I believe Darwin is absolutely correct in his ideas- variation, speciation, overproduction, and my favorite- natural selection.  We see evidence of all ideas- I dont see any evidence for creationism-just long stories based on gossip.
donjuan

[trunks]

Even then there must be an origin. Nothing can ever evolve out of void. Any product of evolution, if any at all, has to be evolved from something.

And how does the theory of evolution account for that original something?

[xvimbi]

Those of you who say that comparing Darwinism and Creationism is like comparing apples and oranges are completely correct! Darwinism is a scientific theory, Creationism is a (religious) belief. One cannot compare those two.

In addition, Darwinism attempts to explain how live EVOLVES, not where it came from.

For those who believe that Darwinism supports the notion that there is (are) no god(s), you are completely mistaken! Same thing about quantum physics, which is the theory that can explain an awful lot that's going on in the universe. Many people who believe in god(s) are scared by science, because they are afraid that science would in the end explain everything and - puff - there goes their god(s). This fear is unfounded. Many quantum physicists believe in god and have no problem with their science. All scientists assume Darwin's theory is in general true, yet many still believe in God, and some even in Creationism. Those scientists say that God laid down the basic rules, e.g. for life (by creating it), and now it is taking it's course goverened by rules that She defined as well and that we call "Darwinism".

However you feel, get past the notion that God and Science are mutually exclusive!

[trunks]

Hi xvimbi,
That is exactly the point. Which is why I believe that if there were evolution, then it has to be based on creation.

[Derek]

Its also very important to keep in mind that Science is purely descriptive. It does not explain anything.

Someone explain to me WHAT gravity is and WHY it works. A mathematical equation cannot tell me that. Nor can a mathematical equation, or theory, really explain to me what subatomic particles are or why they are here. Science can only describe behavior of the physical universe...it has not ever explained anything.  Those who believe it does, are engaging in faith just as much as religious people do.

[xvimbi]

Its also very important to keep in mind that Science is purely descriptive. It does not explain anything.

Someone explain to me WHAT gravity is and WHY it works. A mathematical equation cannot tell me that. Nor can a mathematical equation, or theory, really explain to me what subatomic particles are or why they are here. Science can only describe behavior of the physical universe...it has not ever explained anything.  Those who believe it does, are engaging in faith just as much as religious people do.

Until now, I thought there was at least a little bit of sense in this discussion, but this takes the cake! It is scary how people argue about things without in fact knowing anything about them, or making wrong statements and pass them on as facts.

It is utter nonsense to say that science is purely descriptive. Science is also predictive. That is what equations are for. And this is what makes it so powerful. Only if you understand the underlying causes of an effect (that is if you can explain the effect) can you come up with an equation that describes the phenomenon and that makes predictions. If you test those predictions and they hold true, the model explains the phenomenon. Of course, you can always ask "why" ad nauseum, and ultimately one runs out of answers. And even then I have the right answer for you: "This is how God intended it to be!". See, everything explained. Long live science!

[Derek]

Until now, I thought there was at least a little bit of sense in this discussion, but this takes the cake! It is scary how people argue about things without in fact knowing anything about them, or making wrong statements and pass them on as facts.

It is utter nonsense to say that science is purely descriptive. Science is also predictive. That is what equations are for. And this is what makes it so powerful. Only if you understand the underlying causes of an effect (that is if you can explain the effect) can you come up with an equation that describes the phenomenon and that makes predictions. If you test those predictions and they hold true, the model explains the phenomenon. Of course, you can always ask "why" ad nauseum, and ultimately one runs out of answers. And even then I have the right answer for you: "This is how God intended it to be!". See, everything explained. Long live science!

all ad hominems aside,  the term "describes behavior" implies prediction, but apparently that wasn't obvious.

I'm not satisfied, I don't find the universe any less mysterious now.

I must also add we should use words with caution, as words do indeed mean things. I think perhaps the word "explain" has, almost religiously, been raised to the level of faith, so that it satisfies certain people as much as believing in God.  F = MA  doesn't make the universe any less mysterious to me, no matter how many times I might use it in engineering projects to predict the behavior of my invention.

[janice]

I would just like to make this post a poll - to record wether all of you are creationists, or Darwinists (or something else) .

I think it would just be interesting to see which side of this question is most popularly believed. Thank-you.

~ Robert Quiller

Ummm...I think that we have gotten off on a tangent here.  The guy is just taking a survey and wants a one or two word answer.

[xvimbi]

all ad hominems aside,  the term "describes behavior" implies prediction, but apparently that wasn't obvious.

I'm not satisfied, I don't find the universe any less mysterious now.

I must also add we should use words with caution, as words do indeed mean things. I think perhaps the word "explain" has, almost religiously, been raised to the level of faith, so that it satisfies certain people as much as believing in God.  F = MA  doesn't make the universe any less mysterious to me, no matter how many times I might use it in engineering projects to predict the behavior of my invention.

I think the fundamental problem is somewhere else. I think, the problem is that religious people tend to believe that science is in competition with religion and start to react defensively (just like you did). I am trying to convince religious people that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. f=ma does not try to do away with religion. There were times where science was perceived to be the enemy of religion, and scores of well-meaning people were killed because of that (I don't remember when scientists went out to hunt religious people). In science, one argues objectively, whereas religion does not allow that. This is very obvious from this thread. People who believe in science do not put science above religion, and one can argue with them in a constructive, helpful way. On the other hand, religious people are most obdurate, dogmatic and elitist in their views. Many wars have been started because of this. How many have been started because of different scientific opinions?