2006-11-12 08:09:13 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Good Question!!!
I can only guess at the individual's replies to this as you and I have already "joined hands" at this site and hope that others will also adhere to your request.
The reason we have not done so up until now of course is that such a site was not available and we, the creationists and the evolutionists (I am BOTH, being a CYBORG), were kept in isolation from one another by the religious leaders on one side and the "scoffs" of the intellectuals from Academia on the other.
The debate has been mostly in the hands of the "experts" as in all other societal disciplines. Health was in the hands of the Medical professionals, Politics in the hands of the professional (used car dealers and lawyers) politicians, and the environment in the hands of Industry and government bureaucrats. It is no wonder we feel "disempowered". We gave away all our power to "experts", we thought. And now we feel "disillusionned" because they were and are no more "experts" than we were and are.
Well now, we will, starting with you and me, join hands and "make decisions" on these important issues and change our minds and realities, one at a time. It's an education process, but it has now begun. Your ideas on the issues are just as important as the "experts" ideas on the issues.
We now have to take this process to the next stage and take (not ask for), legally and politically binding votes on the "issues" in a "DIRECT DEMOCRACY"....We will soon have it. Those debates have also begun.
I would like to see a "parallel election" taking place on-line and see how many participate. The vote would not be for "people" as our "representatives" but on the "issues". We would still need representatives to see that the job gets done but those are called "public servants" and "bureaucrats". The "elected" representative would become a "PR" man and not a "decision-maker". The people would then decide in a "true democracy". That is the "vacuum" that will suck all other societies into the "Age of UNCERTAINTY" and "PROBABILITY" that is the Quantuum REALITY. We don't know where it will lead, but we have no other choice. This is already being done in some countries such as "switzerland" and some states as in Washington, Oregon, California, and many more...And those socieities have not fallen apart but are the most "stable" and "progressive" communities on our planet. Switzerland is the place for everyone to "place" their money and the States that have "binding "initiatives and referenda" can outperform other countries that still use the much slower and inefficient "representative democracy"...
With the "theological" questions, the experts get their info from an "authority" that is "not present" and only communicates with some of "HIS" (MALE), favourites or 'CHOSEN'...Those who are not PRESENT cannot VOTE!!! Those "decrees" from the Divine" would have to be "presented" by the relgious "receivers" of such "channelled" messages but would be voted on by "multi-denominal electorate" that would include "philosophers, atheists, agnostics, etc...to ascertain that the "message from the Divine" is at least not "criminal", hate mongering, and is loftier than the "highest" logic available to us by our "experts" who claim to be "at arms length" from the "so-called" "DIVINE"...In other words, the "atheirsts" and the "agnostics". Numbers would still decide and would not immediately remedy the situation but education sites such as these and the more "one-sided" sites would have a job of "educating" the masses and changing their votes.
With the computer revolution, voting will become "dynamic". An election will not decide on an issue "forever" but will be a 'process" such as the "gross national happiness" process in the small country of Bhutan, the world's only "democratic Monarchy" where the PEOPLE elect the king and the king stay in power with his government until the "gross national happiness" (an on-going process) reaches below 50%. That brings about an election on the KING....So there is "continuity" and "democracy". We could operate all our "government" departments with that model.
The evolutionist stand is much "less rigid" and is debateable. The Creationist stand is "inspired" by God and as such, God would have to Bend or FAll on ITS (NEUTRAL) information or decree. Theists would say that it is arrogant and "egotistical" to go against the "will of God" such as Adam and Eve and that we could be punished with all sorts of "diseases, pestilence, war" etc...if we "disobey" not the GOD but the "messenger" who is a "sinner" and hence as "corrupt" as the general population, in his/her "logic" and beliefs.
It will not solve the problem but at least, the debate and the process will be in the open and "out of the closet". We will not hide anymore. The technology will see to that. "There ain't no hiding place down here", is the old "gospel song".
Maybe "Truth" cannot be "UNIVERSAL" and will always be "RELATIVE" and "SUBJECTIVE" and is really "DYNAMIC". Maybe Creation is a "work in progress". That would certainly explain the "DARK ENERGY" that physicists say is "accelerating" the expansion of the UNIVERSE. Maybe the ONE is not through "CREATING" and the Seventh day "OF REST" has not come for the "DIVINE" and never will....that might be a MYTH also...
Cyril borg, the Cyborg
2006-11-12 08:57:01 · answer #1 · answered by cyril_borg 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They are operating from different beliefs. Both are looking at the past to feel more comfortable about moving forward but creationists want to believe in an intelligent, helpful, source and the evolutionists want to believe in autonomy, that there is nobody out there watching and judging.
Creationist are happy to believe ancient stories, beliefs, of how the world may have come to be. They will do this despite the fact that those stories do not stand up to modern knowledge. Evolutionists want to think the universe just stumbled into existence because in that way we retain power.
The barrier to open communication between the two camps is that there is no proof, the ultimate truth is beyond us, so arguments are extensions of their opposing beliefs. To start to cooperate both camps would have to admit that their chosen position is basically a defense of an underlying wish or hope: "I believe that about the beginnings of the life because I want to believe this about the future of my life." Creationists want to be saved form emptiness and evolutionist want to be free of culpability.
2006-11-12 08:42:28 · answer #2 · answered by fathermartin121 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Once they lose trust that the other side is willing to listen, to share, and to correct misinformation, they give up trying. They hear the other discredit them, so they do the same and deadlock.
However, the ones willing to work together continue to pave the way for the mutual understanding you see is not only possible but inevitable. The human conscience will not stop questioning until these matters are resolved. And the only way to do that is, as you said, to join together in seeking universal truth that all sides support and accept.
The trust must be restored first, and the rest will follow. For notes on multicultural dialogue and mediation, see links at
http://www.houstonprogressive.org/mediator.html
http://www.houstonprogressive.org/CHRguide.html
2006-11-12 08:20:11 · answer #3 · answered by emilynghiem 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Universal truth? The truth is that humans are stupid and we will never come to a consensus!
Its two diametrically opposed ways of looking at the world. The scientist uses logic and reasoning. The religious man uses faith. Arguments between the two are pointless: the scientist always wins the debate, and the religious man believes anyway. The religious man has all the answers he needs, and is happy. The scientist is aware of his own ignorance, and never stops asking more questions.
Don't even ask me about the chimeras like intelligent design, which is either science posing as religion or religion posing as science depending on your perspective. Their methods are neither scientific nor religious and have all the disadvantages of both!
2006-11-12 08:43:52 · answer #4 · answered by Wise1 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What do you mean by universal truth? Evolutionist are evolutionts and creationist are creationist because they think there view is the "universal truth"
2006-11-12 08:16:29 · answer #5 · answered by Crisscross 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Creationist's are just a branch on the tree of evolution, starting 14 billion yrs ago.
2006-11-12 08:28:24 · answer #6 · answered by highlander 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
there is only One Truth in the universe and that is God, all truth flows from His divine will, and we share more or less in this truth depending on our humble submission to Him.
evolutionists allow little or no compromise with the Creator and so Creationists really have nothing in common with them on this subject.
if evolutionists could swallow their almighty pride and admit to ther being an imprint of God`s creative power in our world then we could get together and perhaps go forward, but alas the barrier they have built themselves is now to high to climb over
One day when the scientists and philosophers have climbed the mountain of knowledge which is God and pull themselves up onto the summit they will find the people of God waiting to welcome them after their long long wait.
2006-11-12 08:25:01 · answer #7 · answered by Sentinel 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I like the question. And maybe, in a few centuries, there will be a marriage of these ideas. Scientists look at the natural world and examines what it does. And, of course, the natural world is the miracle of creation.
2006-11-12 08:27:19 · answer #8 · answered by Mr. Bodhisattva 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because they both think their opinion IS the universal truth.
2006-11-12 08:11:20 · answer #9 · answered by Jordan D 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think much of Creationists' brains, so I don't think I want to touch their hands either.
Come on, it's a facile question. They are polar opposites.
2006-11-12 08:13:39 · answer #10 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋