Creationism & Evolution--Parallel Worlds?

from JoeUser Forums

The clamor for Creationism to be taught in public schools alongside evolution is absurd. Evolution is a theory concerning species as they were and have become by virtue of cell production; it is not a theory on how the universe came to be. Creationism, on the other hand, is a mythical or religious treatise of cosmology and the miraculous, instant bursting forth of species.

For Creationism to be offered in a curricula, it should be one of many comparative religions, which, of course, will open a can of worms for the Christian right maintaining that only the Judea-Christian view is acceptable.

I would suggest that the Christian Coalition would be better served to leave well enough alone.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: December 13, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

religion
1,251 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Totally a agree. I prefer Pink elephants myself. It has the same evidence as Creationism.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

steven,


Yes. Douglas Adams has a few "creation theories" himself...maybe those oughtta be taught along with!


LONG LIVE THE GREAT ARKLESEIZURE!

Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
To me, people get all confused in the whole "Creationism vs. Evolutionism" thing because they are expecting both to be something that they were never meant to be.

"Creationism" is the buzzword assigned to the Old Testament's description of the creation of Life, The Universe and Everything. Unfortunately (or fortunately, however you want to look at it), the Old Testament has never claimed itself to be an exhaustive history of anything, much less such all important questions as the answer to the ultimate question.

All the Old Testament claims to be is a record (and an incomplete one at that) of God's interactions with the prophets and people from "let there be light" to the days of Malachi. There is a brief abstract of the creation of Life, The Universe and Everything, but the information seems more as a reminder that it was God's work, He did it in a series of steps, He saw it was good, and he rested. Anyone who reads Genesis to learn the meager details of how it all happened is not going to get that far.

"Evolution" is the buzzword assigned to the concept that Life, The Universe and Everything started out as a complete and total lack of either. A singularity figured that it had been alone long enough, and without much fanfare, but one heck of a BANG, things began to matter. In the exansion of the expanse, life occured, and everything went on from there.

To me, science is nothing more or less than man trying to figure out how God did it (even if the scientist doesn't believe God did it in the first place). Too many believers are offended because, if we learn "how" then we might try to "do", and we'll be "playing god". Too many atheists are under the impression that if we can learn "how" then God must not have "done" it in the first place.

Either way, there is a whole lot of assumptions going on here. How do we know that God didn't make sure we had keen enough minds to figure out how He did it, so we could better appreciate the fact that it was done at all? And, how do we know that the stages of creation mentioned in Genesis stopped at Genesis?

If you ask me, the only reason there isn't more unity between "creationists" and "evolutionists" is because we are assuming if it can't be quantified now, it doesn't exist.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
And, how do we know that the stages of creation mentioned in Genesis stopped at Genesis?
Or didn't exist before.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Evolution is a theory concerning species as they were and have become by virtue of cell production; it is not a theory on how the universe came to be. Creationism, on the other hand, is a mythical or religious treatise of cosmology and the miraculous, instant bursting forth of species.


From a human point of view, it is apparent that life evolved through a series of steps, taking billions of years. Yet from a ‘God’s-eye’ perspective of life, (i.e. from beyond the cosmos where space and time don’t exist), it is apparent that life arose spontaneously, in the blink of an eye – just as our creationists have said.

So from an enlightened point of view, both are right. It just depends on our perspective. They are "Parallel Worlds" indeed.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wish people would stop mising up the Theory of Evolution with the Theory of Life.

They are seperate issues. The theory of evolution describes a process by which species can adapt and change over time forming new species. it says nothing abotu what adaptations and changes will occur, just that the surroundings will influence the process and the most fit adaptation will dominate. This is a proven theory.

The Theory of life uses evolution to argue that man initially evolves from single cell organisms (evolution) and that these organisms came into being in the early chemical soup on the planet (creation). Complete evolution from single cell to man is plausable but not proven. Many of the steps in the chain are proven, but to prove the chain we would need a complete gene map at all stages. The creation of single cell organisms from a primal soup is not proven. many of the required stages have been shown but the full process has still not been shown.

So a creationist arguing against evolution is like arguing against gravity. it exists.

The only open arguement is against the Theory of Life, or in particular the unproven creation aspect of the theory.

Paul.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The creation of single cell organisms from a primal soup is not proven. many of the required stages have been shown but the full process has still not been shown


Solitair, I understand your point about the theory of evolution and the theory of life. But what are you saying about the gaps in the theory of life? Are you implying that these gaps make belief in God more plausible?