A question about evolution?

Question

Right, now that you're sucked in...

This is a little one for the creationists who frequent this board, my question is basically "why creationism?"

When ever someone asks a question about evolution I have noticed that there is always a creationist popping in with a "Evolution is all rubbish" comment and I want to understand how this works in their head...

I have had a think about it and I can see a few reasons why you might subscribe to the creationist argument:
1. You just believe in the Bible, Qu'ran, etc and this says that evolution didn't happen
2. You have weighed up the evidence in support of evolution and decided that it is irredeemably flawed
3. You have weighed up the evidence in favour of creationism and decided that it explains everything flawlessly
4. A mixture of the above

If the answer is anything but 1 you are partially basing your opinions on science (or perceived science) and I wanted to try and understand some of the main scientific ideas that creationists have.

OK, perhaps I should clarify. I am a firm believer in evolution, and I have never found any plausible scientific evidence for creationism.

So what I want is for people to say "I am a creationist I think creationism is correct and evolution is wrong because..."

What I don't want is people to tell me about evolutionism (read my profile, I'm a biology masters student) or to tell me that Jesus loves me...

Oh dear, I didn't phrase this well at all did I? One more try...

Point 3 should read "near flawlessly" rather than just "flawlessly" (because I think that evolution has been demonstrated to be nearly flawless)

I want people who embrace creationism from a partially (or entirely) scientific point of view to explain why so I can better understand the reasoning behind creationism.

Answer 1

If I understand correctly the reasons I have heard for not believing in evolution, they don’t really fall into the categories you have suggested. (Some may, but not the ones I have heard.)

It is a matter of trying to make sure that the chosen answer is applicable in all frames of reference. If this sounds familiar to you, it is because the phrase has been used so much in connection with relativity, that for a physical law to be true, it must be true under all conditions and not just under some conditions.

The frame of reference criteria is applied in the areas of meaning and justice, and under the conditions that are supposed to have prevailed prior to the existence of human beings and the conditions that are likely to prevail when all humans finally cease to exist. Meaning is a philosophical area, and justice is a moral area.

There are many things that lend meaning to our lives. Some are minor, temporary and shallow, while others are not. A child may find meaning in a sports hobby, such as baseball. Unless he grows to become a professional baseball player, sportscaster or franchise owner, it is not likely to be a significant source of meaning in his adult life.

When we try to name the most important, most significant source of meaning in our lives, we typically think of our careers and our relationships. Since our careers did not exist prior to the existence of human beings, and they will not exist after human beings no longer exist, we may leave those aside from the rest of the discussion. Some scientists also add the satisfaction gained from intellectual discovery, of gaining knowledge. However, for the vast majority of people, our relationships are most important.

Next, we must challenge this assumption. Is there really any value or worth to our relationships, or are we simply deceiving ourselves…? As Dr. Manhattan (of Watchmen) stated “A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there’s no discernable difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned…?” He was trying to be consistent within his view that life arose ultimately from matter and energy alone and that life (including human life) and its behavior (including human relationships) was therefore less significant than the behavior of unliving matter and energy.

It is a question of which one makes us feel more comfortable. If we would prefer not to struggle with questions of moral responsibility, we will choose to believe in an immoral universe, one in which we will not be called upon to account for ourselves. This can be believed if we first believe that all we are is matter and energy and of course it is impossible for matter and energy to hold moral responsibility.

If we would prefer not to think that we are insignificantly meaningless, we will choose to believe in a universe where we are more than heavy elements emitted by a long-dead supernova, temporarily interacting in odd ways while we are on our way to being sucked into the central black hole in the galaxy, never to be seen again.

Which one a person decided will depend on how he feels late at night after he has spent too much time looking into his microscope, or telescope, or ink blot, or beer glass. It is a question of which one makes a man feel less uncomfortable.

The other issue, of justice and morality, also has deep roots in ourselves. We all protest when we are victims of injustice or cruelty, without stopping to consider whether the universe cares. (Naturally, if there is no meaning, it is much less likely that there is any injustice, either.)

We may as well examine the clearest moral examples we have, such as Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin and Pol Pot. According to all the laws of physics and chemistry, they did nothing wrong. There simply is no moral dimension to what they did—for that matter, to what anybody ever did, or will do, or can do.

And yet we cannot live consistently with that. I have not yet heard of a case in which the accused in any kind of serious legal matter simply said, “It doesn’t matter if everybody is unanimous in disagreeing with me, everybody is mistaken: there is no such thing as right or wrong.” We call such people, who refuse or are unable to recognize the distinction between right and wrong, evil or insane.

There have certainly been those who have tried to live as the so-called ‘one-eyed king in the city of the blind’ but even they protest against injustice—sometimes with unintended comical results—when they are mistreated. They expect to live against the law, taking advantage of all those who obey they law, and yet expect the protection of the law when they themselves are mistreated.

In a universe in which we as human beings came into existence through the action of evolution alone, that is, by the action of chance upon matter and energy, such concepts as ‘justice’ should not be regarded as of any meaning other than what we might imagine after looking too long into our microscope, or telescope, or ink blot, or beer glass.

If justice meant nothing before humans came into existence, or if justice will mean nothing after the human race has ceased to exist, why should it mean anything now…?

A transcendent God (one that is not in any way a part or product of the universe, including our imagination) could provide a basis for believing that wrongs done to us were really and truly wrong, and not simply meaningless. Similarly, a personal God (and, more particularly, a multi-personal God, such as the Christian Trinity) could provide a basis for believing that (if God is capable of relationships) our own relationships may be of some value.

None of this has stated that a belief in evolution is absolutely and inherently incompatible with a belief that our lives have meaning and that justice means something. But the tendency of intellectually lazy human beings is to assume, once evolution is permitted, that God simply doesn’t ‘really‘ matter, and it is just something that is allowed for the sake of the weak minded. Yet, in fact, many have struggled with questions such as those I have outlined and found themselves forced to conclude that the simplest solution is that there is a God and that he has certain characteristics.

As I said earlier, it is a matter of what makes a person feel more comfortable, or less uncomfortable. Many simply have never dealt with the type of questions I have outlined, and many others have given up and refuse to admit the validity of the questions, abandoning intellectual consistency for the ease of a very plausible and reasonable sounding explanation.

It is a mater of indifference to me whether evolution, beginning with unliving particles, time and chance alone could result in manlike beings. As a theory, it does not go far enough to cover the related questions of meaning and justice, it does not work under the frame of reference of philosophy and morality, and so it cannot be regarded as the theory of everything.

20 DEC 06, 0137 hrs, GMT

Answer 2

If creationists have to explain everything flawlessly, why not scientists? Do you have a flawless explanation for the creation of the first cell? or perhaps an atom without using two opposing theories (wave/particle), or light? or time? . Please share your flawless information so that I can be convinced too.

Allow me to elaborate:
The greatest trumps of physics must surely be the theory of relativity and the quantum theory, yet they are flawed because thy contradict each other.
I do not discredit the theory of evolution. I only think that it is guided by an intelligence. If you receives radio waves from outer space a theory of relativity that explains the time-space fabric in great detail and explain all events in that field, will you then try and explain the creation of that theory as purely by chance> (surely the waves could have been influenced by natural events? how small the chances may be)
Or, will you perhaps think that there is some intelligent being at the source.? Well, only looking at the perfection of the DNA code makes me think that perhaps there is some intelligence behind this all.

Answer 3

one million) According to evolutionists, Humans developed from apes? Humans are apes by means of definition. Linnaeus categorised us as such and he was once a creationist. two) There are many confirmed information in technology, however evolution is only a idea. False as a result of a false impression of the phrase idea. A reality, in technology, is a discrete factor of expertise. Theories attach information and give an explanation for them. There isn't any larger class than idea. three) A transitional style is a fossil of an animal that's facet one species and facet yet another. False. All organisms are transitional. four) The age of the earth is observed by means of scientists completely by way of the radioactive courting of fossils ? The age of the Earth was once observed by means of courting a meteor at the assumption that the Solar System was once the entire equal age. All different calculations are compatible the age observed. five) The medical system starts with a prediction after which appears for proof to aid that prediction? It starts with statement. Then a speculation is shaped from that statement. After the speculation is shaped, scientists appear for proof to aid or falsify the speculation. 6) The idea of evolution involves the Big Bang? False. 7) To feel in evolution is to feel that lifestyles and subject got here from not anything? False.

Answer 4

I'm not sure what is your question. But in my opinion, I think each person has a different point of view. In the past, for those who believe in the Bible, they always questions and have a doubt about evolution. But for scientists they believe in evolution. Thus, I guess the word EVOUTION is used in science field.

I'm not sure what you mean though. Is there a way you can make your question more clear?

Answer 5

What was your question? I cant seem to find it. I am a creationist. Well, I actually just believe God Created the heavens and the earth and all that goes with it. Not sure I have a title, well maybe christian.

Answer 6

Creationist is a word to disguise mythology. Evolution is science. Your point?

Answer 7

You should check out this movie:
http://www.flockofdodos.com/