Evolution vs Creationism

[herodotus]

Yep, I was a bit quick off the mark there. One of those days. I shall take a few deep breaths before my next post:-)

QUOTE=lucy chambers;317900]Come on H, it was a joke. NGAN really doesn't like comments about Darwin either, thats all. Gosh, have you had a bad sunday?[/QUOTE]

[Apollo1]

I suppose the problem with creationism is the idea of something greater then any one person,something ethereal/celestial i.e god being the explanation for why everything exists as in its an easier explanation for something thats so complex i.e life as we know it,why we are here etc.So in its simplicity its detrimental to society, a sort of ecumenical boulder blocking the path of true enlightenment through science and understanding.

[herodotus]

I am not sure that science and understanding fit together too well.

Scientists are always sure that they are right until someone proves that their theory is wrong and then they moveon to the next theory and 'believe' in that until it is disproved.


Normally in the humanities and liberal arts students are thought that there is no such thing as a right answer or a wrong answer. You need to look at the evidence and make up your own mind.

Obviously, on something like evolution that is not really possible for everyone or even for most people so it is difficult to have an informed opinion on the subject.

But, I dont understand why scientists are so obsessed with discrediting those who advocate intelligent design/ creationism.

If you listen to or read someof the works of Richard Dawkins, the most vocal of the pro-evolution/ anti-religion zealots, you will see that he has some very strange ideas. For example, he suggests that any answer to questions about where we i.e. humans come from etc are worthless prior to Darwin, so no place for Aristotle, for example, in his little world. If that is the path to understanding then I dont want to understand.

However, someone like David Athenborough also believes in evolution and makes it very understandable for the layman and I find him convicning but he does not spend evey other sentence going on about God.

I suppose the problem with creationism is the idea of something greater then any one person,something ethereal/celestial i.e god being the explanation for why everything exists as in its an easier explanation for something thats so complex i.e life as we know it,why we are here etc.So in its simplicity its detrimental to society, a sort of ecumenical boulder blocking the path of true enlightenment through science and understanding.

[monster_monster]

we are all plugged into the Matrix, it's whatever you want it to be, just don't rock the boat and upset our robot overlords

[El Gordo]

Scientists are always sure that they are right until someone proves that their theory is wrong and then they moveon to the next theory and 'believe' in that until it is disproved.


Normally in the humanities and liberal arts students are thought that there is no such thing as a right answer or a wrong answer. You need to look at the evidence and make up your own mind.

No. You're right that Dawkins is annoying, but wrong in thinking that he is a typical scientist. In general scientist are acutely aware of what they don't know. More so than most people, I would say.

[Apollo1]

..and i guess the more they discover the more they find out what they dont know which gives cause to wanting to find out more.But this could lead to the question is knowledge finite?Will there come a time in the future where someone or something learns everything or that couldnt be possible either because they would need to know what occurs beyond the present as in the future so i suppose they wouldnt know everything unless they discover time travel this could also be possible if they know everything..i think im after straying off topic apologies and talking bs while im at it lol

[herodotus]

I agree with you on this Gordo. The problem is how you define a scientist.

I mean Socrates was obsessed with questioning people in order to demostrate the fact that they did not know anything but I am not sure that he would be classified as a scientist.

But it is important to ask questions, especially if we do not know the answer.

No. You're right that Dawkins is annoying, but wrong in thinking that he is a typical scientist. In general scientist are acutely aware of what they don't know. More so than most people, I would say.

[Apollo1]

When scientists carry out experiments based on theories to either prove or disprove said theories and come up with a hypothesis they are doing so using actual physical materials rather then just assuming some devine being is responsible for everything thus advancing civilisation rather then hindering it through devotion and superstition so it is definitely important to ask questions because if we dont society stagnates.I guess Socrates could be classed as a scientist even though he was a philosopher because he did question people and made them use logic so perhaps he contributed to science in the way people thought about the world around them

[herodotus]

In that respect the first real scientist would ahve to be Aristotle who introdced the method which is nomally used by scientists today. He used the same methods when examining poetry or biology. Examine the evidence and formualte a theory on the basis of the evidence.

And despite having a very scientific mind he still positied the existence of the unmoved mover. Now, of course, there is not reason why you could not argue that the Big Bang = the unmoved mover. But there was obviously something before the Big Bang.

Sorry I am straying off topic slightly but sometimes I think that the question of creationism v evolution sets up the question in such a way as to nobble those who have some religious faith. I dont see why you can not have both. The world was created and then it began to evolve. Even the Big Bang could be seen as the beginning in that respect.

When scientists carry out experiments based on theories to either prove or disprove said theories and come up with a hypothesis they are doing so using actual physical materials rather then just assuming some devine being is responsible for everything thus advancing civilisation rather then hindering it through devotion and superstition so it is definitely important to ask questions because if we dont society stagnates.I guess Socrates could be classed as a scientist even though he was a philosopher because he did question people and made them use logic so perhaps he contributed to science in the way people thought about the world around them