What is the core of this issue? Does it all come down to first cause? What is your opinion? Generalizing of people/prejudice statements aside please...be respectful.
2006-12-15 04:54:54 · 16 answers · asked by Jeff- <3 God <3 people 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If you are not respectful I will slap you! jk.
2006-12-15 04:55:23 · update #1
Edit 1
Michael-the Bible was written 2k years ago? You also need to catch up...I suggest studying the other side too.
2006-12-15 05:04:53 · update #2
That we've got two groups who are absolutely convinced that their position is right and are having parallel monologues rather than a conversation.
2006-12-15 04:58:26 · answer #1 · answered by lcraesharbor 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The problem with the first cause arguments against evolution is two-fold as I see. First, evolution really isin't about explaining how life got here, it merely interprets the data we have of how life has changed "evolved" since its been here. It is possible that some supernatural force seeded primitive life or the building blocks thereof and then evolution did the rest. This is not what creationists believe however, they believe life did not evolve and first cause doesn't speak directly to that at all.
Second, first cause arguments are nonscientific. Science is about posing hypotheses which can be tested. First cause says we don't know and it looks impossible so it must be God. This is God in the Gaps, not science. The same is true for the Intelligent Design proponents strongest argument, Irreducible Complexity, which says there are structures (particularly molecular) that we don't understand how evolve and look now too complex to have evolved thus it must be the hand of a designer or creator. This is not science since it just says we don't know so it must be God. In reality there are many evolutionary processes that we understand today that in the past we did not. It is reasonable to think we will continue to further our understanding. The first cause argument leads to a dead end because the other side will say if God created it because we don't have another explanation than who created God. It is a philosophical question with no satisfying result. Religious people will say God needs no creator but it is based on their faith/belief and certainly not a testable/provable assertion.
2006-12-15 05:09:16 · answer #2 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There is no scientific debate on evolution and creationism. Evolution was forged with the scientific method and is backed by mountains of evidence from many different fields of science. Creationism was written down into the Bible by Bronze-age farmers and shepherds 2000 years ago and has no evidence at all.
The crux of the issue is simply that uninformed religious people continue to feel their beliefs threatened by evolution and will do anything to speak out against it.
There is no credible evidence supporting any part of the Creation story.
Please spend some time catching up the whole matter before positing your opinion on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_vs_evolution_debate
EDIT: 2000 years ago was an estimate. It's hard to say when the Bible was officially 'written', considering we have discovered such things as stories, identical to ones from the New Testament, written before the time of Jesus. Add to that the fact that there were different writers for each book, and the fact that those books had been passed down through many generations without a printing press, being transcribed word for word by monks (Ever heard the joke that they forgot to write the 'r' in celebrate?). In conclusion, I'd say it's pretty hard to put an accurate date on the Bible's writing, but I attempted to estimate. The point was that the Bible was written a long time ago, by humans much more ignorant of the world than us, and is now claimed to be perfect truth by it's followers.
If we're talking about only Genesis though, the oldest records we have date to about 4000 years ago. So, we have a group of people (fundamentalists/bible literalists) who think that the mythological story of creation, written 4000 years ago, is the perfect truth.
I was raised a Christian. I have studied the other side probably more than you have.
2006-12-15 05:00:43 · answer #3 · answered by Michael 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I assume you're talking about the debate in popular culture, rather than in the scientific world. It's been long over in the scientific world.
It's a problem of people taking things too literally. It's really the biblical literalists that have all the troubles with the whole evolution idea because the bible specifically says that Adam was just "formed". We know better - we have fossils.
Of course, the problem with moving to an active interpretation of the bible, everything becomes a problem of relatives. Did god *really* mean to say what he supposedly did? Did Jesus *really* say that parable? Everything comes into question. Something that the fundamentalists apparently can't defend.
2006-12-15 05:02:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
First, there really is no debate among scientists about wheather evolution happened or not (it did/does).
The debate is mostly among some Christians.
The "first cause" issue does not solve anything here... it would necessitate a first cause for God and is really an argument from ignorance.
Recon, I don't think I've ever encountered a Creationists that is as interested in exploring the truth as you are. It is for that reason, you should be very interested in what scientists have to say.
I HIGHLY recommend a book to you by a Christian (Catholic) named Kenneth Miller called "Finding Darwin's God."
As an atheist, I do not really agree with his theological position, but I can't really argue against it either. Either way, he is a cellular biologist who CLEARLY understands and explains both positions.
2006-12-16 09:19:15 · answer #5 · answered by skeptic 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The crux of the issue is the beleif in the literal truth of Genesis. If you believe that the text of Genesis is literally true, then you cannot believe in Evolution. On the other hand, if you do not believe that the text of Genesis is literally true, then there is no problem in beleiving, as I do, in both the Theory of Evolution and in a Creator. Check out the link below for a more in-depth discussion of this.
Peace,
Byron
2006-12-15 05:05:18 · answer #6 · answered by Byron A 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is not really a debate, it is just an outdated explanation (creationism) trying to be forced into modern day reason (science) by some fundamentalist idiots (creationists) in place of a reasonable theory (evolution) that is the mainstream theory in science and has tons of evidence as compared to zero for the creationism idea (bible).
Cheers!
2006-12-15 04:58:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
It comes down to a few people who think that the 1769 English translation of the Bible is the true word of God, and can't face the fact that the book is not consistent with reality. It's not a debate. The Creationists don't provide any evidence, just empty rhetoric.
2006-12-15 05:36:20 · answer #8 · answered by novangelis 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The problem I see with it is that Evolution isn't trying to determine WHAT caused it all to be here. Evolution is set up to determine how life came to be as it is today. I have not read anything by a scientist that shows Evolution is used to determine if there is a Deity or not. If it was all created or if it was just here. Seems to me, Evolution is looking at life AFTER it already began... not what caused life to begin or what put the material used here. So, in my lowly opinion, this isn't a debate at all. It's just two sides trying to use these points to claim there is or isn't a God.
2006-12-15 05:13:15 · answer #9 · answered by Kithy 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The most critical issue is not what mechanism caused humans to come into existence, but what the means morally, spiritually, and to society.
If man is nothing but a happenchance of evolution, does he then have moral obligations to others? Or is he instead obligated to "survival of fittest"? Should be helping the poor, needy, sick and crippled, or extermination them to improve the breed? (I'm not trying to be insulting. There are serious questions if Darwinian Evolution is true)
Or is man a unique "creation" (whether step by step from a one celled whatever - or a handful of dust breathed on by God)? Does he have moral obligations? Is he responsible for his actions? Or is he driven to them by the forces of animal background? Does he have free will?
They are important questions that need to be answered. An honest debate on them should be welcomed by anyone.
There is also a question on how to reconcile the poetry in the first chapter of the Bible book of Genesis with current theories on the origin of man. Is the first chapter to be taken as "scientific fact" on how man was made? Is it a poem designed to show God as the force behind the universe, but not as literal fact? Is it ignorant rantings of uneducated cavemen? Again, because of the implications on the acceptance of the rest of the Bible, this is a serious question that needs to be discussed.
Is most of the discussion about it on this site serious? Nope. It is usually just one side calling the other dumb. But once you have made your mind up on the subject (and that is what "faith" is in it's simplest form), its easy to see the "facts" that support your point of view and dismisses the evidence for the other side.
2006-12-15 05:12:55 · answer #10 · answered by dewcoons 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The crux of the debate is: Do you believe in what is indicated by the physical facts of reality - which are unchanging and identical no matter who or where you are, not created by man, and consistent with other factual observations? Or do you believe in the 'received wisdom' of a story created by man, altered to fit shifting social factors over the years, and particular to the preconceived beliefs of a small self-selected cultural minority?
And here's the tricky part: Which theory do you associate with which description?
2006-12-15 05:05:12 · answer #11 · answered by dukefenton 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋