Heh. When you think about it, if FR had a patron god...
ZOT!
Posted on 02/25/2006 9:06:18 AM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
Okay, seeing as how a lot of people debate - and, quite often I'm sad to say, with a bit of anger and malice - in the Creation/Evolution threads, I think it's finally time to just bring it to the table.
What do you believe in? Creation? Evolution? Intelligent Design? Be specific; what aspects of each do you believe (such as a Christian who believes in evolution, etcetera...)?
Remember, be nice.
I'm a Christian who believes that God created everything. I do not know how He created it, but I know He did. He might have used evolution...but there are some things in life that just seem so complex and intricately designed (after all, a car is designed, yet it is far less efficient than a human body in terms of converting energy into a usable form without wasting any...and yet the human body came by 'chance'? I don't buy it.) that it couldn't have been by chance. There had to be a higher hand involved.
And that's me.
What do you all believe?
Ping.
Just a thread for people to state what belief they have in the CrEvo debates. This way, we'll all know who we'll debate.
Agnostic that accepts Evolution.
I believe that God created the Universe, it really has little to do with any religious belief I may have, just as I do not oppose abortion because of religious belief. Even if the entire universe started from some little speck (Big Bang), who or what put that little speck there?
As a Christian, I believe that God created everything.
As a medical student, I've had to study enough science to realize that He did it without using evolution as a mechanism.
Namely, that Marduk fashioned the world out of the carcass of Tiamat.
I see the hand of God in evolution. He works His wonders in mysterious ways. I think that natural selection and evolutionary theory does not challenge God -- it challenges men.
Look, you can be an evolution fan without worshipping it, which too many of them don't understand. As far as the Creationists are concerned, I think they leave out entirely too many steps, particularly the first 4.5 billion years (or maybe even 14 billion years, or more).
I believe that life is too complex to have macro-evolved. The eye would have been useless for millions of years with partial evolution, how would that have made the evolving species more capable of surviving during the transition?
Entropy is hard to overcome if all things wind down over time, macro-evolution goes against this and winds up. Infinite amounts of time cannot overcome this.
I believe that ID, creation and macro-evolutionary theories are all for want of more information. This is a good thing. All parties involved should be working together for the answers. Instead, the scientific establishment resorts to name-calling and the ID/creation establishment attempts to box-in the "secular establishment." This is unfortunate.
I believe that the evolution scientists should continue their pursuits of macro-evolutionary possibilities and that the ID/creation establishment should continue their pursuit of an outside influence.
I believe that the bridge to one side working with the other will probably not be reached until both sides are willing to allow the possibility that the other could be correct.
I believe that the answer to this mystery is not a multiple choice question with only one potential answer and no "answer key" to know if it is correct.
I believe that knee-jerk responses to observations, ideas or lines of thought put out by either side against the other, is detrimental to the betterment of the argument.
I believe that posts by PartickHenry and other (sorry to the others that I can't recall off the top of my head, I just know that PH posts a lot and I enjoy his contributions, they are logical and he puts a lot of time into the advancement of his studies and I respect that) evolutionists are interesting, even thought I may not agree with them. I read them all for better understanding of the entire scope of what we are looking at.
I believe this it is my right to pursue either train of thought regardless of what other think, post back to me or attempt to convert me to.
I believe that if one is easily convinced into a way of belief based on one line, or entire dissertations posted of FR without outside due diligence their foundations are weak.
I believe that there will be plenty of responses to this post, and I look forward to reading them all. There will be interesting ones, one liners, probably name calling and some seriously logical ones. I know that I will read them all and reply to a few. But, the most important thing about them is that they will be posted and shared.
I believe that I have typed way too much now, and that I should begin my Saturday.
Lastly, I believe that Ultra Sonic 007 deserves a thank you for making this thread.
FReepgards,
K4
As for me, I was pleased to find a post by someone who, although they may hold different views than me, shares the view that rational discourse is the best hope for advancing knowledge in this area.
I am an evolutionist (both micro- and macro-) who concedes that evolution does not explain the origins of life, it doesn't attempt to. People who are much more educated than me, both Theologically and Scientifically, are working on that question now and will be for a long time.
I hold the view that if there is a non-deity who is the Intelligent Designer, then we will find him in due course. If the Intelligent Designer is a Deity, then how can we scientifically know anything about Him? If one holds to the belief that God created the universe and all life within it, either discretely or by starting the evolutionary ball rolling, then science won't be able to prove or disprove it.
As for the teaching of Intelligent Design in secondary school science classrooms, I am opposed. The sciences are clearly defined disciplines that attempt to explain our universe via clear, reproducible observations. While the leaders of the Discovery Institute have gone on record in the past as proposing that ID be the "wedge" in getting creationism taught in schools, that alone isn't the reason why ID shouldn't be taught. ID proponents have also portrayed it as an "alternative" to the things that evolution can't, (or has yet to), explain. That also isn't the biggest reason that I am opposed to it, but it does strike me as a weak argument when in principle, all they are doing is trying to tear evolution down, not proposing something to better explain the evidence.
The biggest reason that I am opposed to ID in science class is that ID has yet to propose a theory worthy of scientific study. That isn't to say that they are ultimately wrong or right about the origins of life, it is just to say that they haven't proposed a way for science to find out. In short, ID isn't science, it is philosophy. And if the day comes when ID proposes a coherent theory that can be explored scientifically, I will gladly write to my school board, legislators and newspapers to argue for the inclusion of ID in the curriculum.
Again, thanks for the opportunity to vent a little.
It's a matter of faith and I imagine everyone has a different take. We'll all find out soon enough.
You posted a few thoughts that interested me to hear more.
explain our universe via clear, reproducible observations. This one gets me every time, I wont yell SHOW ME THE MONKEY, but how is macro-evolution reproducible? Every time I ask it, I get toasted, but would love to see a coherent outline, so I keep asking. :o)
As for the teaching of Intelligent Design in secondary school science classrooms, I am opposed. I am starting to lean that way also but not for the same reason. I realize that the bias against any ID topic is strong and the narrow gate to publishing in peer reviewable journals is tightly controlled. I think that ID needs to do it's homework for another few years (evolution payed its dues before it was accepted to be taught even though my opinion is that it shouldn't be taught either (macro only).
ID should get stronger within its ranks, but the possibility of getting serious consideration and publication in the peer reviewed works will continue to go the way of some of our threads. Science say it's theology and theology saying its science.
ID isn't science, it is philosophy. My feelings are the same in regards to macro-evolution. I see we stand diametrically opposed, and that is fine with me. If I only talked to ID'ers I wouldn't learn anything new.
Thank you for your time, response(s), thoughts and comments. I will defend your right to believe anything you want, anytime, anywhere. It is refreshing to see reciprocation.
K4
how is macro-evolution reproducible?
While I believe in evolution, I cannot claim to be as well-versed in the science as PH or others, so the short answer is "I don't know". But I will offer two observations.
1) Evolutionary Theory proposes a hypothesis which can be pursued scientifically. In other words, while it may not yet have been observed, it is something that could be observed, along with a discipline to get to that point. The Theory of Evolution, as it exists today, may yet be disproved, but it is science that will do so, not Theology.
2) Has anyone ever observed an Ice Age? What about the giant crater in Arizona? What caused it? How do we know that aliens didn't go out into the desert with bulldozers and create it? Did anyone see it formed? These comments aren't meant as an attack upon you, just an (admittedly ridiculous) example of how lack of proof doesn't equate to proof of falsehood. Evolution continues to be studied for this very reason, and questions such as yours should continue to be asked. But if someone purports to disprove a theory based on lack of evidence, then the argument is lost before it begins.
I'd like to add one thing, a little off-topic. I honestly believe that the biggest problem facing our country today is the complete breakdown of communication between people who share opposing views. I lament the fact that too often political disagreements become screaming matches. It has always existed to some extent, but it seems that in the last few years, it has risen to a level such that people can't even talk any more. I was having an interesting debate with a new poster the other day regarding the concept of Hate Crimes. While it was obvious that he didn't share traditionally conservative viewpoints in this area, he wasn't disruptive or rude and even politely asked to be allowed to continue the discussion in peace. However, there were a few posters so threatened by his mere existence that they pinged a mod and got him banned. If one is so threatened by someone who argues against him, is it perhaps because of the weakness of his own argument? Food for thought...
Well, have to go do some chores. Hopefully we can continue this. Have a great day.
Atheist. Evolutionary theory is the best model that we have for explaining how species transformed from simpler to more complex forms over time.
*pish* The ignorance. It's obvious to any thinking person that the Earth is a flat disc situated in the branches of Yggdrasil the World Tree and bounded on all sides by Jörmungandr the sea-serpent.
So it seems that Zeus is a mere myth then? PREPOSTEROUS! How else do you explain all the lightning?!
Creation. And I believe God is still in the business of creating stuff.
Heh. When you think about it, if FR had a patron god...
ZOT!
A ZOT means viking kitties...Norse kittens...
GASP. That must mean Norse mythology and Greek mythology are linked! BRILLIANT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.