Creationism VS Atheism
by CountNovember 28th, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Filed under: Other Discursive Dialogue, Philosophy & Religion, Science & Technology
 |
|
Creationism VS Atheism: Which view do you subscribe to (and why)? This is an issue that tends to polarize a great deal of people. People can be friends and agree on a multitude of issues and still hold different beliefs on the origins of the universe. I'll do my best to present both sides of the issue and hopefully open the window for the expression of new ideas on both sides. If theres anything important I missed (which will be 100% guaranteed), please add it in your comments below. But I'd like to hear not just what you believe, but why as well. Creationism Creationists can vary widely in their beliefs but most share some fundamental views. They believe that God created the earth as well as the universe. One of their main arguments is that of first cause. They argue that everything as we know it had an original cause, and that if you trace everything back to it's original cause, the big bang (yes, some creationists believe in the big bang), the big bang itself had to be caused by a first cause. Since nothing can cause the first cause, this first cause is God. Another argument is the perfection of our world and the unlikelihood of all of the conditions that make life possible to be found together in the exact amounts necessary. For example, water: without it, life would not be possible. It has the unique ability of having a high boiling point and a low freezing point. It is perfect for its job of regulating the internal temperature of organisms, and is the reason it comprises the largest percentage of matter in an organism. If our solar system had more than one sun, the mass of our sun, its distance from the center of our galaxy, or the earth's distance from the sun were any different, life would not be possible. If the sun were too far away, earth would be buried under ice. If it were too close, it would be far too hot to sustain life. In addition, if the earth's gravity, magnetic field, and amount of hydrogen in our atmosphere varied greatly, life would not be possible. There are more factors, and they all have to be right for life to be sustainable. Obviously, the likelihood of ALL of these factors coexisting independently, and in the right amounts is ridiculously unlikely. Another argument is the complexity of our brains. Why would evolution select for such a complicated brain? No other organism comes close to the intelligence we possess. What purpose does it serve? We are capable of inventing rocket science and nuclear fission, why would a hominid roaming the plains of Africa need such a luxurious brain? Yet another creationist argument is the religious experience. Some people claim to have experienced the presence of God beyond the shadow of doubt. Obviously, this claim isn't falsifiable, and therefore unscientific, but should we not consider anecdotal evidence simply because it doesn't fit the stringent criteria of science? There are more arguments, and I will leave the argument of faith out of this discussion, but these are some of the more compelling arguments for creationism. Atheism Atheism isn't technically a set of beliefs, it's defined as the absence of belief. Like creationists, they vary considerably on what they hold to be true, but most atheists accept the theory of evolution. A quick note here. Belief in evolution, be it macro or micro does not mean you have a disbelief in creationism. That being said, a quick note about science and theories. Science does not answer a yes or no to the question of God. Science only deals with theories that are falsifiable. God cannot be falsified (proven to not exist). Theories, in scientific terms are ideas that are widely accepted to be true and have a great deal of evidence backing them up. A scientific theory does not have the same meaning as a theory in the general sense. They are much closer to 'fact' than they are to the common definition of the word 'theory', which is why scientists use the term the 'fact of evolution'. By and large, the scientific community overwhelmingly believes in evolution, but that is not part of the argument itself. So what is? Evolution has not been falsified. All the scientific evidence of the last 150 years has corroborated the theory of evolution. One of the strongest arguments for it are fossil records. A succession of animals can be seen by looking at fossils, and dating them to their respective time period. This is done by radiocarbon dating, which is beyond the scope of this article. A progression of complexity (and in few cases a digression) can be seen from earlier to later fossils. For some organisms, the record is incomplete, for others (such as whales, and, arguably, apes) there are a great amount. Another argument for evolution is that of genetic records. Comparison of the DNA sequences of organisms allows them to be grouped by the similarity of their sequences (how genetically related they are). Humans and chimpanzees are 99% identical genetically. This grouping from sequencing places humans as a successor of common ancestors that included other forms of apes. In other words, the sequences show humans gradually evolved from ape-like animals (who in turn evolved from other ape-like animals). This "branch" on the genetic "tree" can be traced all the way back to single-celled bacteria. A much clearer example of this is that of chromosome #2. We have two fewer chromosomes than the great apes; we have 46 and they all have 48. We get 23 each parent, adding up to 23 pairs in total. Apes have 24 from each parent, totaling 24 pairs. So, if humans and the other apes evolved from the same common ancestor, all humans are "missing" one pair of chromosomes. What happened to it? If the whole chromosome (which comprises a whopping 8% of our total DNA) were lost, the humans body (the remaining 92%) could not possibly function, let alone sustain life. So if humans share a common ancestor, it either had 48 chromosomes or 46. If it had 48 pairs, one pair had to have gotten fused. If that's the case, we should be able to examine our genome and see evidence for one of our chromosomes resulting from the fusion of two primate chromosomes. Centromeres are markers in DNA sequences used to separate them. They have telomeres on the end of them. Fusion would place telomeres in center of chromosome (where they aren't found). The resulting fused chromosome should have two centromeres. Upon examination of chromosome two, we find two centromeres that are the result of fusion between two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. There are literally dozens of other pieces of evidence for evolution, including continental distribution, comparative anatomy, etc. Evolution has also been observed in the form of resistance to antibiotics, resistance to disease, and the chemical spraying of crops becoming ineffective due to pest mutation and resistance. All of this evidence is independently testable and falsifiable and has never been proven wrong. The overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution is why most scientists and virtually all scientists involved in the biological sciences refer to the theory of evolution as a fact, and why atheists do not believe in the existence of God. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I hope I have presented both sides fairly, objectively, and accurately. I'd like to hear from some of the members here what side they are on and why. If it seems like I am favoring one side over another, I'm not. As for my own beliefs, I'll say what I personally believe after this has gotten a few responses. I look forward to your opinions. |
 |
Rate this Article
Submit a Critique
Critiques
Show Newest First
"Creationists can vary widely in their beliefs but most share some fundamental views. They believe that God created the earth as well as the universe. One of their main arguments is that of first cause. They argue that everything as we know it had an original cause, and that if you trace everything back to it's original cause, the big bang (yes, some creationists believe in the big bang), the big bang itself had to be caused by a first cause. Since nothing can cause the first cause, this first cause is God."
Well since we don't know what caused the Big Bang, I suppose that's proof that God did it.
"Another argument is the perfection of our world and the unlikelihood of all of the conditions that make life possible to be found together in the exact amounts necessary. For example, water: without it, life would not be possible. It has the unique ability of having a high boiling point and a low freezing point. It is perfect for its job of regulating the internal temperature of organisms, and is the reason it comprises the largest percentage of matter in an organism."
Sure he got water right, it's a shame he didn't do as well designing the human eye. Maybe that was on the sixth day, and he was getting tired...
"If our solar system had more than one sun, the mass of our sun, its distance from the center of our galaxy, or the earth's distance from the sun were any different, life would not be possible. If the sun were too far away, earth would be buried under ice. If it were too close, it would be far too hot to sustain life. In addition, if the earth's gravity, magnetic field, and amount of hydrogen in our atmosphere varied greatly, life would not be possible. There are more factors, and they all have to be right for life to be sustainable. Obviously, the likelihood of ALL of these factors coexisting independently, and in the right amounts is ridiculously unlikely."
Right, I guess if you have, at minimum, hundred of billions of galaxies in the universe the chances of one single planet containing all of these factors is "ridiculously unlikely". Try again.
"Another argument is the complexity of our brains. Why would evolution select for such a complicated brain? No other organism comes close to the intelligence we possess. What purpose does it serve? We are capable of inventing rocket science and nuclear fission, why would a hominid roaming the plains of Africa need such a luxurious brain?"
If intelligence increases fitness it will be selected for and will catalyze the evolution of a more complex brain.
"Yet another creationist argument is the religious experience. Some people claim to have experienced the presence of God beyond the shadow of doubt. Obviously, this claim isn't falsifiable, and therefore unscientific, but should we not consider anecdotal evidence simply because it doesn't fit the stringent criteria of science?"
No. It isn't evidence. I could claim that I saw Jesus riding with Rick James up the street on a flying unicorn. It has been shown that people can hallucinate, rendering "religious experiences" an untrustworthy source of data. Atheism 2 creationism 0.
You're acting like everything done by God has to be explained by science. When something happens that science can't explain, they call it a miracle. It's like saying Jesus walked on water because he turned to ice first. That's retarded. God isn't bound by nature, he can do anything he wants.
Science always gets rewritten anyway. 500 years ago we believed the earth was flat. "Scientists" can't make up their damn minds. In another hundred years, evolution might be exposed as false.
When you look around, you'll see that everything on earth works in perfect harmony. Thinking that all of this came about "randomly" by accident is just stupid.
Bottom line: atheists only reason for not believing in God is a scientist telling them that science disproves religion.
"Bottom line: atheists only reason for not believing in God is a scientist telling them that science disproves religion."
Bottom line: we don't believe in god because of a lack of EVIDENCE.
Overall the article is good, however I think your title should be "Creationism vs. Evolution," because you discussed evolution in great detail, and just barely mentioned Atheism, and though the ideas are similar, they are separate. Also, you gave considerably more support for the "atheism" side, however, I assume that is because there is so much more evidence for evolution.
My personal belief on this topic is that God made evolution happen. You stated: "Belief in evolution, be it macro or micro does not mean you have a disbelief in creationism," and this is the category in which I fall. To explain, I believe in God because of certain life experiences I've had, and believing in something is important to me. I also believe in evolution because of all the overwhelming evidence. It does not have to be one or the other.
"Overall the article is good, however I think your title should be "Creationism vs. Evolution," because you discussed evolution in great detail, and just barely mentioned Atheism, and though the ideas are similar, they are separate. Also, you gave considerably more support for the "atheism" side, however, I assume that is because there is so much more evidence for evolution."
The problem with having a creation vs evolution debate is that many Christians agree with evolution, or at least, parts of it. The reason atheism isn't expanded upon much is that atheists do not follow a set of guidelines. Atheism is defined by a lack of belief all together. I don't agree that I gave more "support" for either side, as I wasn't endorsing either view. The evolution part is longer partly because of all the evidence, but mainly becaus parts of it are complicated and take a lot of space to describe.
Feel like talking about this subject anymore?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/27/texas.education.evolution/index.html
This is an issue that tends to polarize a great deal of people. ... But I'd like to hear not just what you believe, but why as well. --- Count
Your idea to have an open discourse on "Creationism VS Atheism" was doomed to fail and promote anger with no real free exchange of ideas. Even before I read the critiques I knew it was going to receive responses like I see here. My opinion is almost expressed in the first critique. After the quotes I will give you my reason for my belief. I will tell you if I am a Christian. I will tell you why I am what I am.
... these types of threads always result in the same thing. Atheists asking Xtians for evidence for their beliefs, and Xtians telling atheists their lack of faith will send them straight to a fiery inferno after they die. Should be fun tho :). --XboxNerd on November 29th, 2007 at 5:28 AM
No. It isn't evidence. I could claim that I saw Jesus riding with Rick James up the street on a flying unicorn. It has been shown that people can hallucinate, rendering "religious experiences" an untrustworthy source of data. Atheism 2 creationism 0. -- AngryDuchess on November 29th, 2007 at 6:31 AM
Bottom line: atheists only reason for not believing in God is a scientist telling them that science disproves religion. -- Desert_Rebel on November 29th, 2007 at 8:23 AM
Bottom line: we don't believe in god because of a lack of EVIDENCE. -- AngryDuchess on November 29th, 2007 at 8:34 AM
... I believe in God because of certain life experiences I've had, and believing in something is important to me. I also believe in evolution because of all the overwhelming evidence. It does not have to be one or the other. -- Anonymous on December 4th, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Over the last few years I have seen a move, a push, a head long drive to demonize all Christians. It does not matter how good the Christian is. It does not matter what fine works a Christian does. It does not matter if that Christian does not promote their religion openly. All that matters is that a Christian is to be shunned and castigated in one way or another. And above all 'There Is No God' must be established.
I have my opinion as to why this is taking place.
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The rights that are given by God, cannot be taken away by men. God must die so that our rights can be taken away. My opinion.
I was born and raised in a Christian home. My Grandmother was the daughter of a Baptist Minister. We went to Church 3 times a week, Wednesday night, Sunday morning and Sunday night. My Grandmother was not a fair weather Christian. We had very little while I was growing up; but, my Grandmother would share our food with any one that came to our door. We lived next to a large train yard and men who 'road the rails' would show up at all hours of the day and night. These men never went away hungry. My Grandmother was more Christ-like then any one I have ever known. She never saw a persons color, or faults. My Grandmother married my Grandfather who was 32 years her senior. My Grandfather was born in 1861, at the beginning of the Civil War and died in 1944, the end of World War II. My Grandmother never remarried or dated. She believed in one man and one woman. Would her life and actions make me a Christian? Maybe I become a Christian because of my being lam and was given the ability to walk or was it because I was blind and now I can see. Two miracles, or maybe I just "hallucinate", (and) render "religious experiences"?
I am not a very Christ-like Christian, but I am a Christian.
What I find funny a real coincidence is this line:
... it's a shame he didn't do as well designing the human eye. ... -- AngryDuchess on November 29th, 2007 at 6:31 AM
I can see so I think the design is pretty good.
Over the last few years I have seen a move, a push, a head long drive to demonize all Christians...All that matters is that a Christian is to be shunned and castigated in one way or another. And above all 'There Is No God' must be established. I have my opinion as to why this is taking place.
I was waiting to hear your opinion about why this movement is taking place.
Understandably, the media talks only about evolution, it seems, and more and more about genetics instead of creationism. Another point that I feel may incline people to discard religion is the fact that religion can easily be seen as something that causes violence, especially during this generation as we are in the midst of a holy war, so to speak. Something I've always wondered is what makes one religion more creditable than another in such a vast world of religions, subscribed to by millions (e.g., Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism)?
Good morning everybody. Good talk Count. It is beautiful this planet isn't it? I was with a group "Atheism vs Christianity" I got pounded of course! It is the hardest thing to declare one's religion and proceed to tell of your beliefs. When I finally said what faith I was the roof cracked open. I enjoyed myself there and there was two reasons I joined and that is, I had to hear and know what everyone's about. Religion and politics is not always talked about when hanging out with friends and I discovered why. Atheists are good people to. They actually gave me heads up and to be careful. I appreciated that. It was in the news last night that "Atheism is on the rise". Thanks
The obvious explanation is that God put those fossils there to test our faith in him...
Lol these types of threads always result in the same thing. Atheists asking Xtians for evidence for their beliefs, and Xtians telling atheists their lack of faith will send them straight to a fiery inferno after they die. Should be fun tho :)