Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?

[emmy27sf]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

[AV1611]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

I believe in Creationism because that is what the Holy Bible says happened.

[bernee51]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

I believe in Creationism because that is what the Holy Bible says happened.

But why is the "Holy Scripture" true? Why can it not be a series of myths?

[seventil]

I agree with many of the posts here.

I believe in a Creation, but I also believe that evolutionary theory is a respectable and sometimes factual theory.

It's when people include their personal philosophies (like believing in God or neo-Darwinism) that science and pursuit of truth gets skewed.

[seventil]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

I believe in Creationism because that is what the Holy Bible says happened.

But why is the "Holy Scripture" true? Why can it not be a series of myths?

I think we're getting down to the quesiton of whether you can prove the Bible to be empirically correct. I do not believe that is possible at this time.

Believing in Creation or Evolution both required faith. It's when you start trying to disprove Creation with evolution - stated as empirical fact - that's when there is a problem.

[Lotan]

seventil wrote:

I think we're getting down to the quesiton of whether you can prove the Bible to be empirically correct. I do not believe that is possible at this time.

What do you think would be required to prove the bible empirically incorrect? Would you be able to accept such proof?

[harmonium]

I would think that it would behove creationists to encourage more and more scientific research into evolution.

If they are so certain in their beliefs then they must believe that eventually science will prove them correct.

Why are they so down on the scientiific?

Where did you get the idea that creationists are not into science, nor into researching evolution? It's not to say that there aren't some fringe creationist groups that may hold such a view. However, if you actually did some research I think you would find that such groups are definitely the exception, and not representative of the creationist world-view. The fact that many leading and respected scientists in major universities adhere to an "intelligent design" or creationist view attests to this.

In actuality, creationism is very much pro-science and pro scientific research. It is simply providing an alternative to evolution as the answer to the question of origins.

[ENIGMA]

Where did you get the idea that creationists are not into science, nor into researching evolution? It's not to say that there aren't some fringe creationist groups that may hold such a view. However, if you actually did some research I think you would find that such groups are definitely the exception, and not representative of the creationist world-view. The fact that many leading and respected scientists in major universities adhere to an "intelligent design" or creationist view attests to this.

Many? Have a number in mind or just spouting off rhetoric?

Also, judging from a few of the articles I have read on the subject, I must inquire:

How many of the universities in question happen to be larger than a post office box? (Okay, a house if you count the administrative building)

In actuality, creationism is very much pro-science and pro scientific research. It is simply providing an alternative to evolution as the answer to the question of origins.

Name one experiment or iota of original on-topic research (Namely something that does not merely quote-mine someone else or that doesn't just offer "proof" by mere assertion of Creationism's validity) that has been done by said creationists on the topic of creationism.

Methinks they want the title and the lab coat but don't care for the standards that come with them.

[harmonium]

Many? Have a number in mind or just spouting off rhetoric?

It's funny that you speak of rhetoric, because isn't that what you were spouting off when you made your claims in the original posting that I responded to? In my reponse I asked you for some evidence of your claims and yet you don't provide any. Instead of answering my questions you just respond with questions. Generally this is a sign that you don't have any evidence.

Since I actually do have evidence to support what I'm saying, I will respond to your questions.

Also, judging from a few of the articles I have read on the subject, I must inquire:

How many of the universities in question happen to be larger than a post office box? (Okay, a house if you count the administrative building)

You really need to research things before you make any more claims. Based on what you say you claim you've got your information from some articles, don't you actually do research on your own or do you always just trust other people's opinions?

Here is a link to the discovery institute which has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts. You can check their bios (which list all their affilliations with universities) and examples of their research work:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/

Additionally is here a list of creation scientists, along with many online bios, which include references to education, research projects, and publications - among other things:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... efault.asp

A few individuals that stand out to me are Michael Denton (http://www.designinference.com/) who has taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas.

Also Michael Behe (http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm) who teaches at Lehigh University.

There is David Berlinski (http://www.anova.org/bio/berlinski.html) who has taught at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris.

That is just the tip of the iceberg, if you just do a little research on your own you will begin to find many very credible scientists who adhere to an intelligent design/creationist theory.

Name one experiment or iota of original on-topic research (Namely something that does not merely quote-mine someone else or that doesn't just offer "proof" by mere assertion of Creationism's validity) that has been done by said creationists on the topic of creationism.

For this just go and check out the above pages of those scientists and you will find dozens of examples of publications and research projects.

To meet your criteria for one experiment or original research project I point you to the the following article on the work of Michael Behe:
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html

Methinks they want the title and the lab coat but don't care for the standards that come with them.

You can think something all you want, but it doesn't make it true. If you want to be taken seriously you've got to provide some evidence for your statements.

[ENIGMA]

Here is a link to the discovery institute which has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts. You can check their bios (which list all their affilliations with universities) and examples of their research work:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/

Additionally is here a list of creation scientists, along with many online bios, which include references to education, research projects, and publications - among other things:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... efault.asp

A few individuals that stand out to me are Michael Denton (http://www.designinference.com/) who has taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas.

Also Michael Behe (http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm) who teaches at Lehigh University.

There is David Berlinski (http://www.anova.org/bio/berlinski.html) who has taught at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris.

That is just the tip of the iceberg, if you just do a little research on your own you will begin to find many very credible scientists who adhere to an intelligent design/creationist theory.

You and your lists, how funny.

Apparently the National Center for Scientific Education thought so anyway.

So they decided that although the number of people on each side doesn't really matter, they decided to play ball and have a nice little bit of fun with Project Steve, which includes names of various scientists who think that evolution is generally correct, who happened to be named some permutation of Steve.

Name one experiment or iota of original on-topic research (Namely something that does not merely quote-mine someone else or that doesn't just offer "proof" by mere assertion of Creationism's validity) that has been done by said creationists on the topic of creationism.

For this just go and check out the above pages of those scientists and you will find dozens of examples of publications and research projects.

To meet your criteria for one experiment or original research project I point you to the the following article on the work of Michael Behe:
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html

Fails the criteria. It makes no determinations over any critical aspects of Creationism.

Just because a creationist does an experiment doesn't mean that it is determining the validity of some aspect of creationism. People have an amazing ability to compartmentalize.

Methinks they want the title and the lab coat but don't care for the standards that come with them.

You can think something all you want, but it doesn't make it true. If you want to be taken seriously you've got to provide some evidence for your statements.

I find it rather difficult to provide a lack of peer-reviewed experiments on the given topic. I can, however, say I find it rather interesting how much of discovery.org/csc was dedicated to complaining about some conspiracy of scientists trying to keep creationism from getting published, or how "300+ scientists sign a piece of paper saying that they agree with Creationism" as if that were supposed to mean anything. It's almost as if they think of science as something that one decides by fiat based on an old book rather than what one discovers when looking at the universe.

[harmonium]

It's different because there is no need for a disbelief in God. Creationism presupposes a belief in God. Evolution presupposes nothing, not even that there is or is not a God. There are many Christians who regard evolution as a viable theory. I know many Christians -- and at least one Jew -- who think that evolution was set in motion by God. Evolution does not deny God, it denies Young-Earth Creationism.

I disagree. The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past. Just because some Christians and Jews have found common ground doesn't take away from the fact that the original intention of evolutionary theory was to explain the origin of life in a completely naturalistic way. That is a bias as evidenced by a quote from D.M.S. Watson, a leading biologist in his day:

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

You are correct in stating that we will never have direct and personal knowledge of exactly how life started or became so diverse up to now. The difference here is that the faith that requires belief in God requires the belief of other people to tell you. And it's not just that they tell you that there is a God, but they tell you here's how he works. And this story they tell you originally was told to them from other people; and finally you get back to the original story, and it came from a single source. So you have an entire world of believing people relying on a single source.

A single source? Ideas and thoughts about God come from all different cultures all throughout the earth and spans thousands of years. Where is the single source in that? The bible itself is not a single source but 66 books written by about 40 different authors over about 1500 years.

However, with evolution, or with any other scientific theory, the stories you hear told aren't just from a single source. They are from replicable experimentation and examination. And they come from all over the globe. The scientific process says that theories cannot exist without viable supportable evidence. This doesn't mean that as soon as someone writes down the result of an experiment it is taken as truth. When someone publishes a scientific paper, it is seen as a challenge to the rest of the scientific community to obtain similar results and come to the same conclusions using the same methods. If they are confirmable, they can be accepted. If not, into the dumper.

If only this were true. Science has a history of bad ideas and theories sticking around long after they were dis-proven. The thing that you are forgetting is the pride that people have in their own ideas, sometimes it is so great that it blinds people to facts that would discredit them. Science can never be completely objective because people are never completely objective and science is a very human effort.

And I still say that faith does not apply to science. The only faith involved is that which drives us to actually perform science in the first place, i.e., the faith is not that our questions will yield answers, but that the answers will have made our questions worthwhile. We can have expectations, we can have suspicions, we can have dreams; but faith requires an acceptance of the unknowable, which is unacceptable.

And I still disagree with you. The fact is that until you get a time machine you will never be able to prove that evolution is responsible for all life. You weren't there, and thus you will never know. You can think you know because all the evidence makes it look like that probably happened that way. However, ultimately it does come down to a question of faith. You need to take a step of faith to believe in anything that you are not able to experience directly. And none of us will be able to experience it directly because it apparently takes millions of years to happen.

Here is a quote from an evolutionist that that seems quite relevant to the debate (Boyce Rensberger):

"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."