Darwinism Vs. Creationism

[Mitch]

Both theories are still theoretical. Darwinism is what Darwin theorized as evolution, and how living things adapt as the world changes around them.
Creationism is the belief that a higher being such as god created everything like they are spontaneously.

I believe in Darwin's theory as there is still much more proof of evolution and adaptation. Though it's hard to see evolution through our short recorded history, maybe us human adapt and evolve in how we manipulate technology and our environment. How we wear clothes to keep warm. I think it's quite perposturous that the world was spontaneously created. But that's all IMHO.

What do you think? I know most here believe in the Darwinist theory, but what are your thoughts.

[Locke]

Darwinism, in logistics, makes more sense than creationism, if not completely perfect. People (mainly fundamental Christians) defending creationism almost always commit logical fallacies in defending their beliefs. Evidence for either one is sparse, but Darwinism has pure logic and scientific theory defending it's head.
In external social effects each theory will entail, I believe Darwinism is more beneficial. It sways people towards logic (or, in the case of fundies, further repulses them. But whatever.)

[Cattraknoff]

Darwinism, in logistics, makes more sense than creationism, if not completely perfect. People (mainly fundamental Christians) defending creationism almost always commit logical fallacies in defending their beliefs. Evidence for either one is sparse, but Darwinism has pure logic and scientific theory defending it's head.
In external social effects each theory will entail, I believe Darwinism is more beneficial. It sways people towards logic (or, in the case of fundies, further repulses them. But whatever.)

"All cells come from preexisting cells"
-The cell theory.

What created the first? How did this first piece of life know how to live, grow, reproduce, and evolve?

Welcome to the main flaw in Darwinism alone.

Why do people think creationism can only mean god suddenly snapped his fingers and life appeared as it is? It could have been a gradual process, set in motion, given the initial spark as it were. I see it as illogical that human life sprung out of rocks in the ground, that the human genome happened by chance, that life knew how to live by chance. A freak reaction would not create life, as life in its simplest form is still incredibly complex, too complex for us to even start given all the technology available to us. How then did it happen randomly in nature?

[Locke]

I'm not pronouncing the absoluteness of science. I only prefer Darwinism to the "creationism" that many people champion.
freak reaction would not create life
Your source?

[Cattraknoff]

I'm not pronouncing the absoluteness of science. I only prefer Darwinism to the "creationism" that many people champion.

Your source?

It's your job to prove that it does, if you want to disprove creationism. My source is that humans have been unable to cause such a chemical reaction, so the chances of it happening in nature are slim. The complexity of life makes it impossible for a random reaction to cause.

I don't believe that god simply snapped his fingers and life appeared. However, evolution has many serious flaws, it is far from perfect. This question and others give credence to the idea of a creator of sorts, not necessarily an omnipotent god.

Why must evolution and creationism be mutually exclusive? They aren't. Unless you're taking the biblical and other similar versions of it, which are the poorest examples of creationism available.

[Locke]

But there is a large difference between a freak reaction in nature and a prepared experiment! Here you show your view of science as a polymathic entity which has already discovered everything worth knowing. While we cannot currently discredit one theory or the other, to decide on one at this point is foolish as science, the means which will either disprove of prove the theories, hasn't progressed as far as we would like to think.
I understand your issues with the dichotomy that has been performed on the issue by the "opposing" sides of religion and science, but we will never shed our doubt as to which theory is correct if we decide to stop right here and declare that "evolution is true, yes, but God created evolution."

[Gwendl]

I agree with Cattraknoff. To me, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive either. All I know is that you have what seems like a well planned system. Every creature has it's own infrastructure, purpose, food source, etc. This could not happen in nature randomly. However, we also know that animals do evolve to adapt to their environmental changes over centuries. It's possible then that evolution is part of the plan as well.

And no, I'm about as far from a religious person as can be, but even I see the logic in creationism. I don't believe in the snap his fingers and there is a universe. It seems like a long experiment.

Perhaps we are just a science experiment for a kid's class? Isn't that scary. :)

[Locke]

I agree with Cattraknoff. To me, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive either. All I know is that you have what seems like a well planned system. Every creature has it's own infrastructure, purpose, food source, etc. This could not happen in nature randomly. However, we also know that animals do evolve to adapt to their environmental changes over centuries. It's possible then that evolution is part of the plan as well.

And no, I'm about as far from a religious person as can be, but even I see the logic in creationism. I don't believe in the snap his fingers and there is a universe. It seems like a long experiment.

Perhaps we are just a science experiment for a kid's class? Isn't that scary. :)

I believe the entire theory of Darwinism is that our survival complexes did spring into being spontaneously, naturally adapting to our environment. The only way the creationism theory would fit into the schemes of Earth is to believe that life was created (if Creationism, then by deity) somewhere else in the universe. I think the concensus is that there wasn't a magical hand involved in the assembly of the atoms within the first single-cell organisms. The currently accepted scientific theory leads me to believe that it is technically impossible for there not to be other life in the universe (unless we are created by a God - in which case that argument is a blow to myself.)
I guess we (and those pushing to have creationism taught in school as a credible scientific theory) forget to often that it is entirely faith based, and should not infringe on other people's beliefs.


On a side note, my science teacher did acknowledge a gap in the theory, and explicitly acknowledged the possibility of a God.

[PaitChow]

If you think of how incredibly complex your own body functions are then how can you not believe in a God, I'm not talking about the God from all those books that contradict each other, maybe God is just a scientist who coughed up some phlegm and gave it the power to adapt somehow and spit on a rock that was the primordial ooze......creavelutionism.......woah.

[brookes]

I really wont define Darwinism as "theoretical". It has been proved time and again with fossils. I do agree it has some drawbacks. But Creationism is toooo religious belief and lacks scientific support. Leave alone Darwin's theory. Take energy principles. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed into another shape. This is a proven scientific law. This is enough to raise doubts on theory of Creationism.

[Coll]

Unless R'hollor began as a huge mass of energy then diverted his energy into the creation of the world/planets/life/etc.

[Cattraknoff]

I really wont define Darwinism as "theoretical". It has been proved time and again with fossils. I do agree it has some drawbacks. But Creationism is toooo religious belief and lacks scientific support. Leave alone Darwin's theory. Take energy principles. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed into another shape. This is a proven scientific law. This is enough to raise doubts on theory of Creationism.

Okay then, where did the original energy come from?

[Locke]

Okay then, where did the original energy come from?
The eternal question. What if God is energy itself?

[Coll]

That's what I said two posts ago.

[Locke]

That's also what I said approximately 2 months ago.
To speak in purely theological terms (I'm mortified, but here goes):
If such an entitity, or energy, or matter that would fit the role that we have subscribed to "God" existed, it would not be something that we could adequately comprehend, and therefore not some supernormal man who regularly interferes on Earth (and then suddenly ceases to do so at the genesis of science), contradicts himself many times over and kills thousands of people at whim.
If, as our minds would lead us to believe, there is an entity of that sort, then why do we believe that it is a cognitive being who resides in real-time and occupies some never-'forseen alter-world?
My own spirituality resides on the belief that God is Energy.

(Click on the double-arrow beside my name in the quote if you are not convinced.)

[Coll]

And the person discussing this obviously didn't read it, and was therefore only needing to be restated once.

[Locke]

We may as well drop this.