Ambrosia Software Web Board: Hey look, it's JC and the BnB - Ambrosia Software Web Board

There has recently been a large number of evolution/creationism debate topics plagueing the BnB and Just Chat. As the other general discussion forum, what do we think? (not in terms of which we believe in (that would be far too serious for this forum), but what we think of the debate itself, if that makes sense. we can discuss the angry squirrel, though.)


In case you don't know what's going on, it started out with champion's thread about the creation museum. Then came the weird bible crap plagueing the BnB. Then we turn again to JC, with TwoADay bringing politics into the scene. Lobster has created a pledge to not discuss it further, and presently a squirrel has gone on a killing spree.

I think it's best if we just stay out of it.

So... How 'bout them Jews?

I feel like evolution vs. creation debates do little more than alienate spirituality and faith from science and rationality, thus making one seem in absolute opposition from the other.

3vil L337, on Jun 14 2007, 11:55 PM, said:

Which, unfortunately, isn't true.

This can only end in tears unless it's taken off-topic in a good direction.

Soon.

Pufer's here.

-Pufer

3vil L337, on Jun 14 2007, 07:55 PM, said:

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Although, I do feel that they can coexist.

Sig'd.

moonunit4eva, on Jun 15 2007, 01:36 AM, said:

They can, its just a shame that so many insist that they can't.

I think it's obvious that proponents of evolution are godless heathens who will eternally suffer for their foolish, scientifically-minded views in the afterlife.

But according to the theory of evolution there is no afterlife, all you get after you die is a hole in the ground.

3vil L337, on Jun 14 2007, 09:55 PM, said:

While I have nothing against the idea that spirituality/faith and science/rationality can and do coexist (I'm also of the opinion that a huge part of what is considered to be in the latter category is also located firmly in the first), the evolution vs. creation debates easily slip into areas where the two sides are actually opposed if strict doctrine is held to. For instance, scientific doctrine is absolutely opposed to the view that the Earth is 10,000 years old and Xian doctrine is absolutely opposed to the idea that it is any older. Both faith and rationality necessarily oppose the view that the Earth both is and is not exactly 10K years old.

While the two camps can certainly coexist, there are issues upon which there is demonstrated the reason why there are, in fact, two camps and the evo v. creation debate is one area where the split is necessarily apparent.

-Pufer

Ooops!

This post has been edited by Lobster: 15 June 2007 - 01:04 PM

JacaByte, on Jun 15 2007, 11:27 AM, said:

Actually, evolution takes no stance whatsoever on the afterlife.

Pufer, on Jun 15 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

A day in heaven is different than a day on Earth, and the old testament is full of abstraction and enlightening stories. It's only the people who take it all literally (and in my opinion, miss out on a lot as a result) that have any issues with science. Blind faith is not good faith. You need to make it your own, challenge your beliefs, and religion will hold up to it... once you realize that the Bible isn't literal.

One thing I believe is that logic can always be relied on. So far my logic has allowed me a belief in the scientific principles (along with a healthy dose of skepticism) as well as a belief that a series of documents that has survived many thousands of years is based in actual events and divinely inspired. Logic tells me that if there was not truth to be found in the Bible it would not exist, and that if God were to tell early humans of their creation He would not explain it using incomprehensible quantum physics and genetics. I can reasonably suspect that the system of physical properties and constants in our universe today were the same ones used to create us, and I know that the Roman Catholic Church, despite some history of scientific rejection or ignorance, has largely supported science so that their followers know the difference between superstition and true belief. While heathens think that lightning was some divine act, we know better than to think every act of nature is a personal divine intervention.

Because I'm willing to see symbology, not a historical account, my faith is stronger. Because I question my beliefs on an daily basis, be it belief in religion or a belief in science, my beliefs are stronger. Science is about not accepting things on blind faith, investigation, and careful logical analysis and skepticism. Why should my religious beliefs not undergo the same treatment?

I signed the pledge.

This thread almost started the very thing it was meant to prevent.

I was gonna say something about someone being a Windows user, but I decided to keep my mouth shut

JacaByte, on Jun 15 2007, 11:27 AM, said:

A hole in the ground that keeps getting more advanced as time goes on!

Rickton, on Jun 15 2007, 10:33 PM, said:

Advanced?!

mrxak, on Jun 15 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

I think that's absolutely a fine way of looking at it. However, almost by definition, the folks involved in the evolution vs creation debate are not undertaking such a critical attitude towards their beliefs. Those who stick to the straight company line on church doctrine, taking either what they read in the Bible as being unquestionably true as written or blindly accepting whatever their religious leader is telling them, and the absolute rejection of a middle ground by the pure science crowd are not going to budge on their beliefs and, thus, create the issue.

Personally, I too believe in the power of logic, however I won't go quite as far as saying that it can always be relied on. Insofar as science can say anything about the world as-it-is, I logically hold its perception of the world to be accurate, however imperfect and/or unrepresentative of the real world it may be. I cannot, however, logically justify a belief that any religious text contains any more validity than any other, or, indeed, that any of them hold any particular truth about the current state of affairs at all. Whatever can be used to justify any particular text's validity can be demonstrated to be true of any number of other texts, thus I cannot logically hold that any one gives truth. Now none of this is to say that I flatly reject that any particular text could contain a true description of things as they are, but only that I cannot know if any of them do. As such, I do not ascribe to the rules in any text as it is not possible to know enough to satisfy the conditions for overcoming skepticism about all of them.

Coming from this position, I generally act as a foil on both sides of the aisle, pointing out how strict doctrine holders aren't actually strictly holding to their respective doctrines whether they be religious or scientific (basically making the case for critical thought). My whole bit on Satan in the Book of Job in the B&B religion topic could easily be countered by making the (correct) claim that the Hebrew Bible has always clearly stated that it is not "Satan" who is talking to God, but rather that it is "the satan" (not a proper name) which is better translated as "the accuser/prosecutor." However this is not the line held my any major Christian sect as far as I know and, thus, while any level of critical thought could certainly get you around my objection, someone who is sticking to the straight company line on it cannot have a valid counterpoint without also calling all other doctrine into question. Essentially, critical thought is good, blind obedience is not.

-Pufer

Lobster, on Jun 15 2007, 11:19 PM, said:

Lobster, on Jun 15 2007, 09:19 PM, said:

Alright smarty pants, how's complex?

JacaByte, on Jun 16 2007, 12:01 PM, said:

That's not necessarily true either, as not all species evolve to higher complexity. It's a somewhat human-centric, and perhaps animalia-centric, way of looking at evolution. Evolution isn't a teleology; it does not work for complexity or "advancement," it's a phenomenon that results from natural selection in a population, and selection pressures do not force a particular long-term approach to adaptation. An adaptation that works today may not work tomorrow, and the amount of genetic/phenotypic variation (perhaps another take on "complexity") in a population is a result of many factors, none of which are necessarily working towards greater variation. If it doesn't help you survive, it's junk.

As humans, we like to think ourselves both complex and perfectly adapted to our environment, but the evidence shows that there have been times in history in which having a big brain has been a disadvantage. It's metabolically expensive, it requires training, and therefore it requires a long adolescence. Obviously in the long run it has been a great advantage, but in evolutionary terms, we have been around for a miniscule amount of time. In the future, our incredibly expensive and slow-to-train brains might put us at a disadvantage. We are at the mercy of nature, more than we know.

As a footnote, I am just discussing evolution here, this is not a launchpad for a discussion into creationism vs. evolution, so please do not structure a response as such.

This post has been edited by Lobster: 17 June 2007 - 10:52 PM