Creationish Vs Evolutionism? BE POLITE!

[Coad]

Raymond 1000 Hitchens said organized religion poisoned everything. The organized descriptive is very important.

 

[elkins45]

I'm not about to read the responses in this thread because I'm afraid I would feel obligated to respond to them all.

I'm a science educator, and I think your poll is broken from the very start because it creates an artificial conflict between science and religion that simply does not exist. Biological evolution isn't somehow mutually exclusive with religious faith.

I quite frequently have some sort of conversation about this topic with someone and most of them involve someone saying words to the effect of "evolution is just a theory." Almost none of the people I have this repetitive and frustrating dialogue with understand the meaning of the word 'theory' when used in scientific discourse, and explanations almost invariably fall on deaf ears.

Science and religion don't have to be enemies. Ask yourself why so many people seem determined to make them appear to be. There must be some reason people continue to throw them in the ring together, but I can't see what anyone has to gain from it.

 

[Raymond1000]

Raymond 1000 Hitchens said organized religion poisoned everything. The organized descriptive is very important.

I’m sure he did. On the other hand…

Since he published a book named: God Is Not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything, I feel comfortable with my quote.

 

[Coad]

Elkins first off the thread is a question about if you believe we were created or if we evolved. Second you started your post, Im not about to read this, Im an edjucator, thats pretty scary. I know, I know, you used a disclamer that you wouldd feel obligated to respond but come on. Lastly your exact point has been hashed out in great detail. I took the time to read your post, opinion. I also started at page 1 before posting mine.

 

[Coad]

Raymond 1000, I understand your point. Watching his debates I come away with the view that his problem isnt with individual religion, faith, what have you. But the large groups like the catholic church.

 

[Raymond1000]

I'm not about to read the responses in this thread because I'm afraid I would feel obligated to respond to them all.

I'm a science educator, and I think your poll is broken from the very start because it creates an artificial conflict between science and religion that simply does not exist. Biological evolution isn't somehow mutually exclusive with religious faith.

I wonder what people thought they were voting for when they picked: Christian Science, (please explain). The last I heard, Christian Science is itself the name of a religious sect.

I quite frequently have some sort of conversation about this topic with someone and most of them involve someone saying words to the effect of "evolution is just a theory." Almost none of the people I have this repetitive and frustrating dialogue with understand the meaning of the word 'theory' when used in scientific discourse, and explanations almost invariably fall on deaf ears.

Science and religion don't have to be enemies. Ask yourself why so many people seem determined to make them appear to be. There must be some reason people continue to throw them in the ring together, but I can't see what anyone has to gain from it.

You’re not the first here to make that point. Since you haven’t read the thread, I’ll repeat one of my earlier posts:

Speaking historically there is no conflict between science and religion.

I use science in the old sense of “knowledge.” Our foraging ancestors understood the world pragmatically. How to hunt, what to gather, good materials to make shelters and tools. Their religious and spiritual worlds were rooted in the same science. The Inuit propitiated the Great Mother of the Sea Creatures. The Mongols never did due to a shortage of sea creatures. Not to mention seas. Throughout historical times we see the same thing. Religion and science were rooted in the same world. When Odysseus called Tiresias from the shades for a consult, it was from a normal, real cave.

We only got a conflict with the invention of modern empirical science. As a benchmark, in 1600 the church burned Gordiano Bruno at the stake for teaching heliocentric astronomy. Over the centuries science has given us a new world. Literally, if you examine the results of the industrial revolution. Intellectually if you think about our understanding of the universe.

As far as I can tell this is a historically unprecedented split. But there is a solution. The same solution that happened every time humans migrated to new territory. The former Mongols learn about sea creatures. Pastoral nomadic deities evolve into marine hunter deities.

As we move into a science-created world, this fight between Darwin and Genesis is a part of that reconciliation process.

 

[elkins45]

Elkins first off the thread is a question about if you believe we were created or if we evolved. Second you started your post, Im not about to read this, Im an edjucator, thats pretty scary. I know, I know, you used a disclamer that you wouldd feel obligated to respond but come on. Lastly your exact point has been hashed out in great detail. I took the time to read your post, opinion. I also started at page 1 before posting mine.

25 out of your 70 total posts on BladeForums (36%) are in this thread. Clearly you are more invested in it than I am, since I have spent merely 0.05% of my total BFC posting time here. I didn't read it all because I didn't have to: when you're seen 1000 episodes of Gilligan's Island you don't need to watch #1001 to predict they won't get rescued.

I fully understand what the question was, which was why I specifically commented on the fact it is a flawed question. I will confess that I didn't read all 24 of your other posts in this thread. Were they all your same answer to the OP's question repeated 23 times? Or did you perhaps share some of your opinions? I ask because you seem so concerned that I didn't answer the question but shared an opinion instead.

 

[Coad]

Please explain how post count is relevant.

 

[Coad]

Also go into detail about what you meant by, obligated to respond to them all. If you are interested in my 23 other posts read them.

 

[elkins45]

Please explain how post count is relevant.

It's relevant in the sense that this is a knife forum but you have made a very high percent of your posts in this one single thread that has nothing to do with knives. Clearly you must feel strongly about the topic. I would guess that most new members to a knife forum make most of their posts about knives.

I guess my Gilligan's Island analogy didn't work for you? Here's why I have no intention of reading the whole thread: I have been involved in this conversation professionally for 20+ years. I can assure you there is no point of discussion that hasn't been made before. I would also wager that nobody changed their position even one tiny little bit as a result of the conversation. And I will predict this thread won't put the matter to rest.

My experience is that creationism is a topic fundamentally like abortion and gun control in that people make a lot of noise but opinions rarely change.

 

[Codger_64]

You really should have watched all the episodes of Gilligan's Island. They did get rescued.

 

[RetiredGuns]

Wrong & right have gone back & forth over the years. We'll likely die to get answers.

 

[willseeyalater]

You really should have watched all the episodes of Gilligan's Island. They did get rescued.

Yeah, but then they all got tired of how the world had changed so they all went back to the island. I think they show up in one of the episodes of LOST. (just kidding)

 

[Coad]

Elkins 45, im confused. You are a middle aged K _ 12 science teacher with 20 plus years experiance in evolutionary science? You are an expert.? And for the record im not attacking your opinion. I am however attacking your arrogant start. How about you answer 1000 responce then my second question. Or do you only respond off topic. And for the record if your experiance in this debate is 20 years debating twelve year olds, you might want to stop claiming you are an expert. Its my experiance when someone comes into a room claiming they are an expert 9 times out of ten, they are frauds.

 

[Codger_64]

Gentlemen. Let's be gentlemen or this thread, as interesting as it has been, will be closed.

 

[elkins45]

Elkins 45, im confused. You are a middle aged K _ 12 science teacher with 20 plus years experiance in evolutionary science? You are an expert.? And for the record im not attacking your opinion. I am however attacking your arrogant start.

Not arrogant, just tired. As I have stated in several different ways now, this artificial debate is just noise. Both 'sides' will just declare themselves winners at the end. Nothing will be done except waste time. At your prompting I went back and skimmed the whole thread. I was impressed by the civility of the discussion, but there wasn't a single new point from any of the participants that hasn't been made in at least one of the multitudes of evolution/creation debates that have preceded this one.

How about you answer 1000 responce then my second question. Or do you only respond off topic.

I don't understand the first part of this sentence, and I'm not sure what your second question was.

And for the record if your experiance in this debate is 20 years debating twelve year olds, you might want to stop claiming you are an expert. Its my experiance when someone comes into a room claiming they are an expert 9 times out of ten, they are frauds.

It is not, but I do not recall having claimed to be an "expert". I don't actually know all that much about evolutionary biology, but I do have a lot of experience with the educational debate regarding evolution and creationism.

From reading your posts it is clear you accept the evidence supporting the theory of biological evolution. Have any of your posts in support of evolution managed to convince another member to post that he/she has decided to reject creationism? I didn't see one. I will also hazard a guess that none of the pro-evolution posters have suddenly embraced young earth creationism either. And that's my point--the first post posits a question where science and faith must battle it out until only one remains standing. I've seen this particular movie too many times before and I don't really feel like watching it again.

 

[elkins45]

Gentlemen. Let's be gentlemen or this thread, as interesting as it has been, will be closed.

I hope I am being one. But I made a mistake even getting involved. It seems a little hypocritical for me to say I'm tired of the noise while simultaneously taking part in it.

 

[Knifein]

I don't believe in none of this crap, I believe in Scientology.

All hail the Lord Xenu!

 

[Coad]

No, Elkins I dont think I have ever changed anyones mind. But Most debates arent held to change the mind of the opposing side, but to edjucate those new to the debate. My second question was would you please explain what you meant by you would feel obligated to respond to them all. Could you please clairify that. If I was incorrect in how I understood that I would be the first to apologise.

 

[shunsui]

Theology doesn't have much of a problem with evolution. Theology pretty much is an evolving thing in it's own right, adapting to whatever it needs to. Here's a great example, "submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication":

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

As for atheists, I think Dawkins puts it nicely here:

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion