Why is it VERSUS?

It's shorthand. Evolution these days broadly means 'change', and noone disputes things change.In the context of the forum it refers to biological evolution - as you have deduced.This position is contrasted with special creation which holds that while there is variety within a baramin the main forms of animals were specially created (usually in the recent past).That was the original focus of this forum - though we also discuss many other things including theistic evolution (the position that it mostly happens naturally, but an intervening godish being helps nature overcome some boundaries (to 'higher species' as some might say). Or Intelligent design which has largely become the same as theistic evolution these days, only they stress it wasn't a godish being but could be any generic 'intelligent agent' with sufficient power/resources etc.

Because there is only one way to find out which one is better...

Because a small but vocal minority of religious sects insist that it be so. The vast majority of religions have no conflict whatsoever with the fact that the evidence overwhelming demonstrates that life evolved from a common ancestor through the processes of random mutation and natural selection. However, certain fundamentalist branches of the Abrahamic religions cannot cope with the fact that the bible as they read it is not 100% accurate, and they have concluded that the ToE would render part of their bible in error. This they cannot have, so they fight tooth and nail to discredit the ToE at every turn.By contrast, the vast majority of scientists are completely content to let people hold whatever religious views they wish to, so long as they don't try to dictate to the rest of us what we can believe, or impose their twisted bastardizations of science on anyone else.That's why it's "versus."

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

To repeat what others have said in a slightly different way: It's a matter of self-defense.If you don't want to fight but somebody else wants to pick a fight with you, you can defend yourself or you can take a beating. Creationists want to force their ideas into the schools. (Think of it as a kind of rape.) Evolutionists want to defend the education system and their children from that.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

I contend that it isn't that the Bible is in error but that the so-called fundamentalists are trying to understand it in a way that was never intended.I believe that has occurred for a combination of reasons, but that these are the two main ones.1/ During the reformation there was an incredibly costly struggle to bring the Bible to the common people and as a result when it finally happened the Bible in some cases became virtually deified.2/ In general as humans we like to have boundaries and so it is easy to turn the Bible into a set of rules and laws that if followed will keep you God's side, or more precisely to keep Him on your side. This of course flies in the face of what Jesus found wanting in the Pharisees.I have used this quote on the forum before but it is worth repeating.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

The problem with using terms such as "agnostic" is that people have attached several different meanings to them. For example, on radio I once heard creationist Duane Gish retort to his co-guest Fred Edwords' use of the term with, "Everybody knows that's just a polite word for 'atheist'." And to really illustrate the problem, you should check out an old thread here in which forum atheists hotly disagreed with each other about what atheism is and should mean. We know what we mean when we apply such terms to describe our own position, but others don't necessarily share in that knowledge.I am myself agnostic and also an atheist and, no, I do not consider both to be the same thing. For example, I believe that one can be both agnostic and a theist, even a devout Christian. For decades, I have applied the meaning of "agnostic" that just happens to coincide with Wikipedia's:

quote:

---

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claimsespecially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claimsis unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

---

In fact, I could even be considered a militant agnostic, as expressed by a bumper sticker:

quote:

---

I don't know ... and neither do you!

---

In my view, agnosticism is the only honest position to hold regarding the supernatural: we cannot know anything about it. From there, we each then need to decide how to deal with claims of the supernatural (which includes religious claims), whether to accept certain claims on faith (ie, adopt some form of theism) or to be skeptical of most or all such claims and lean more towards atheism.In my own case, since nobody can actually know anything about the supernatural -- and most certainly not the detailed accounts of the gods that we are given -- then that means that the gods are all human inventions, even though many of them might have been earnest attempts to deal with the unknown. Even if something were to exist that would have the properties of what we could call "God", the probability that it could actually be described by one of our invented gods is vanishingly small (ie, rapidly approaching zero) and that it could be one specific god even less probable. I cannot put my faith in our gods, especially not on a fallible and unknowing human's say-so. They don't and they aren't, at least not creation per se and evolution. The entire "controversy" is almost purely created by a specific form of creationism, one which believes science to be incompatible with their religious beliefs. And they are kind of correct in that assessment, because while evolution does not conflict at all with the idea of a supernatural Creator, it and the rest of science do conflict with theologies which make specific contrary-to-fact claims about the universe (eg, young earth, Noah's Flood, specially created kinds). Non-creationists and creationists of other stripes then get involved mainly in reaction to those creationists' determined attacks against science and science education, or just plain because those creationists are spreading lies. And other non-creationists get involved indirectly by taking seriously those creationists' claims that science contradicts and disproves religion and even the existence of God, so since those creationists' claims are obviously bogus, then they choose "the only alternative" (another creationist false claim) and want to have nothing to do with religion or "God".If some "God" were to actually exist, then He would be Sovereign over Nature, not the creationists' and IDists' puny "God of the Gaps" having to hide in terror of Nature. All of Nature would be at this true God's disposal, including evolution. The analogy that I tend to think of is topiaries or bonzai trees. Any old hack could forcefully create a final product by trimming or cutting a bush into an arbitrary animal shape or an arbitrary bonzai shape. But it takes an artist to snip and subtly prune a growing plant and let it grow into the final shape he's seeking. A true supernatural Creator, Sovereign over Nature, would be an artist using Nature to produce the desired results, not some lousy no-talent Schlockmeister.

Spot on and thank you.The source of conflict is the insistence by creationists that non-evidentially based, and even easily refuted concepts (like ID) be brought into the curriculum. If this happens, schools will no longer be bastions of teaching and learning... but rather dens of indoctrination.

This seems wrong in terms of theology, physics, and biology.A theologian would tell you that God does not know the future by accurately extrapolating from the present, but rather by seeing it happen from the perspective of eternity.A physicist would tell you that Bell's inequality only shows that a theory of local hidden variables can't account for quantum mechanics. There'd be nothing to stop an omniscient God from observing Bohm's quantum potential.As for biology, there is no need whatsoever for the mutations to be random in the sense of genuinely non-deterministic. They could be as deterministic as a coin toss in classical mechanics; it makes no difference. (Note that everyone who simulates evolution on a computer uses a completely deterministic pseudorandom number generator rather than some elaborate quantum device.) So even if some theist was fussed by the idea of non-determinism, he'd need to deny, not evolution in general, nor random mutation in particular, but rather the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Hi Andrew.For me, although evolution and biblical history are technically not mutually exclusive, the technicality bares no relevance to the war played out between certain groups with certain ideologies.I am a person that believes in Christ, believes in biblical history.The only reason to accept evolution would be to basically be accepted by fellow-thinkers.If you are creationist, and you believe in creation RATHER than evolution then you are ridiculed.But for me, I am born again as Christ says, and when that happens, and when you see what God can do, has done, and that personal confirmation of this belief is truly there, then why should I believe God evolved us instead of simply creating us as He said He did?That would be like saying; "I must believe in evolution because it it stupid to believe God actually can do powerful miracles, when science says that evolution happened."For me, that is a laughable position because if you believe in God, and put Him first in your life, He is willing to show you how He created the world so that it then becomes irrelevant as to how unbelieving men have blinded their hearts.It seems from your point of view, as an agnostic, that two groups of people should just get along, by compromising.
That is an admirable and kind gesture in that you see that there could be an agreement. But it is much, much more complicated that that.
Romans says that we are without excuse because the things that are visible are clearly created by that which is not visible.It is very clear and simple to understand design intellectually. I am guessing you have not read about design by scientists that believe in design rather than evolution?If you really are honest, you will admitt that when you see a bird fly, with such grace and ability, or when you move with autonomy, with complete ease, then you can see that these animals are not just a matter of atoms, but that they are wonderfully designed.No argument or theory can convince me that my eyes are not telling me the truth.Now the evolutionist can insult the creationist until the end of time but I personally will not be convinced that black is white, that the sky isn't blue that the trees are related to me, etc......call me what you want. Now I have 4000 odd posts. And probably about 3000 insults in response to my posts. And I don't need to ask why - it is simple, it is because if evolution is not true, then the atheists have no credence for their position and they will be held responsible for their sins. I can understand that, especially these days when people want to do what is right in their own hearts rather than some far-off God says.But the bible says the heart is desperately wicked above all things.If you actually look to the roots of evolution, you will see that the likes of Darwin and Lyell had ticker-problems when it came to God. Understanding W H Y the evolution theory came along is as important as realizing why it is accepted.You need to hear the other side of the story so that you can apreciate the possibity of design, rather than simply being scared by forum know-it-all bullies that only have an appearance of wisdom.Make your own path, don't let them decid for you. You are a special creation, a masterpiece, made in the image of God, and have eternal worth. I don't think you are far from God. You seem like an honest and decent person to me that is searching for truth. It is good that you are honest.All the best, od bless, kind regards, mike.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Because of the evidence. Despite your self-delusions to the contrary, it was the evidence that convinced the scientists.The question you need to ask yourself is, if your god indeed created life as you think he said he did, why did he create it all to look like it evolved? Sounds like he's deliberately trying to deceive you. What kind of god is that?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This is why versus. People with certain religious beliefs have come to their conclusions based on the bible, and no amount of evidence will convince them of anything else. And, they insist that their religious beliefs be equated to scientific theories based on objective observations that anyone else can repeat and verify.That's why versus.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

It's not the "design" part that is disputed. It is fine to say animals are designed to function as they do.The issue comes up when the design(er) is said to be something other than natural mechanisms working within the framework of reality. Nature designs magnificant things; invisible agents are not needed. Especially one particular brand of agent from the religion you happen to believe in.- Oni

If creationists were trying to get ID taught in Intellectual class I don't think there would be that heated of an argument. If creationists were marketing ID as an intellecutal pursuit I don't think any of us would have serious objections.The problem is that ID can not be understood or applied scientifically. This a common problem with many philosophical pursuits so by itself it is not a bad thing. However, creationists want ID taught in science class, or lacking that a removal of evolution from science class. This causes friction for very apparent reasons. ID is not scientific. Evolution is. ID is not used by scientists to do research. Evolution is. The appropriateness of each for science class is very apparent, and yet creationists continue to try and force ID into the science classroom, and in public schools nonetheless.After awhile the motivation of creationists becomes apparent. They are promoting evangelism, not science. They want their religious beliefs taught to students with public money. That's a big no-no. To get around this problem they have tried to dress up ID with the clothes of science, but it only makes their motivations more obvious.All of this is occuring against the backdrop of history where dominant religions have not been kind to scientific heresies (e.g., Galileo). IOW, we have seen this before.

It does not look like we evolved to me. If you have only ever accepted the evolution-paradigm and a strictly naturalistic worldview, then it looks that way. If you had never heard of evolution and dug up the fossils, you would say, "Hey - frogs have become frogs, hey look at this cambrian epoch, it's full of the major phyla we see today, hey, the same insects are found in amber, hey, we find all sorts of fossils of creatures that live today."And this is "evidence" it looks like we evolved? Nope, I am sorry but that is just not the case. I am afraid the rocks and fossils do not come with evolutionary name-tags, I am afraid those tags are put there by evolutionists. Perhaps generally, honestly, but it does not matter.Now It can only look like we evolved if you line up certain species and say it looks like we evolved. Sure it does, because you think that those similarities means that we evolved because you classified them that way, because afterall, we evolved. I'm afraid it's circular. I'm afraid proof-by ranking is tenuous, and bad logic. I am afraid the paradigm of evolution makes it seem RATIONAL that we evolved. You can certainly IMAGINE we did, if you look at the artwork of an ape slowly standing up and turning into a man, but the actual evidence? Sorry, it just doesn't look that way wether I am Christian, Budhist or Hindu. Sorry, just doesn't.Dawkins says it looks like we are designed. No - we are clearly designed, and a designer follows. I am afraid that there is only an imaginitive appearance of evolution because of the facts of adaptation, because God made organisms with contingencies in place, like a designer should do. The evidence-confirmations are tenuous. The evidence for stasus in fossils, a general fixity of forms, is more persuasive and general. Sure - they might be persuaded by that because of a focus on confirmation evidence, but confirmation evidence is astoundingly weak for very good logical reasons. Not my fault that you don't know why, I am not explaining it anymore on this forum.I do not claim that scientists were connvinced because of their beliefs, because scientists can be honest and sincere A N D wrong. But a look at the foundations will show you people that did not believe in the bible.Why is this such a big deal if scientific values do not dictate that I treat one theory as an absolute, anyway? Shouldn't you be happy I am being extremely cautious, and super-tentative, by not concluding evolution happened? Shouldn't evidence such as the Cambrian explosion have any weight as falsification evidence?The question has to be asked - why it is such a big deal if we chose a different interpretation of history that we believe shows a more accurate model?I feel I have divulged my opinions in this thread enough now, there is no reason why I should be singled out when the topic concerns reconciling evolution with creation. I am not addressing the same old people that have had chances to debate me in the past and couldn't handle it.All the best.

I agree there is design. Logically, a designer will follow where there is design.Sure - believe that designer is something natural, like an alien, that would atleast be a designer. I love the way nature designed those beautiful ferraris.Onifre, if nature can't create a knife and fork, or if you would not believe three rocks stacked on eachother happened because of nature, why on earth would you believe nature could create the rotary motor in the bacteria flagellum, or the chamber on the bombardier beetle or the aerodynamic brilliance of birds, with lungs that inhale/exhale simultaneously.You are asking me to believe that nature can win the world cup when it cannot even kick a football.Sorry - it is highly unconvincing reasoning, to me.Kind regards.