Creation v. Evolution?

Evolution is the concept that results from objectively seeking truth while Creation is a desperate attempt to preserve god

Sorry, but scientific theory is not dogmatic.

Something accepted as fact by the larger informed scientific community (this may be considered an argument to authority, but not really) that is rejected by a dogmatic group who come to a conclusion first and then find support for it is not that interesting.

I mean, it is kind of interesting that these same people once opposed the notion that the earth was round, or that it wasn't the center of the universe, etc etc. And now they repeat their compaign against a new science. They perceive it as an attack when it is just an attempt to document the truth. Any counter arguments are considered within the scientific community, but they eventually become so stale and redundent, it's almost exhausting.

EDIT:

Okay, well now you've convuluted your question with your additional details. First you seem to be asking about the debate between the two, but then you are stating we aren't justifying our point of view.

So which is it? Is your question expecting me to analyze the debate, or to defend my point of view?

I have studied evolution in a college biology class. But how does one ever learn about a subject without learning from others? True, I have never done evolution experiments myself. So I'm committing an appeal to authority because I read up on experiments done by others? That is not practical for every person to do these studies themselves.

Also, do not consider disagreement an attack. That is foolish.

"Most religions and most secular ideologies seem capable of accommodating either theory."

A secular ideology which rejected empirical evidence would not be a secular ideology (not within any sense of 'secular' which I can imagine).

Either truth comes from Authority (in which case Faith, and Creation are possible - though not necessary); or else it must be discovered by some kind of a forensic process (and subject to an objective epistemology)L- in which case Faith loses most of its value and Creation cannot be taken seriously at all.

The truth is not a matter of choice. Unless you have faith. In which case, the truth is not a matter of truth.

If something is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, as in the case of evolution, then it is not dogmatic to say so.

If you needed to have your appendix out, you would presumably rely upon the expert knowledge of an "authority figure," such as a surgeon, rather than the local taxi driver.

Of course that also applies when something like the historicity of Jesus is concerned. Historians and New Testament scholars can reasonably be expected to be better informed about the subject than an atheist with an axe to grind.

The process of arriving at Darwinism is anything but scientific for most enthusiasts, and the evidence is in the manner in which Darwinism is advanced--not by evidence, but by politics. Those who question the dogmas of Darwinism are shut out of teaching, university professorships, museum curatorships, and any other enterprise. This exclusion is not by scientific consensus, but by raw Machiavellianism, achieved through dominance of professional organizations and compliant judges.

Nonetheless, it is hard to suppress the truth. It is like trying to submerge a number of corks at once; some of them keep popping to the surface: the impossibility of biogenesis, the massive improbability of useful mutations, the practical impossibility of sustaining new species that cannot mate with previous species from a single mutation, the brief time period of the Cambrian explosion, the complete lack of transitional species.

Cheers,

Bruce

It's the same as geo-centrism.

Galileo was imprisoned for saying the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Evolution is indifferent to creationism, just as astronomy is indifferent to geo-centrism. Science does not have an agenda against religion, but religion has an agenda against science.

Mystical thinking threatens to throw us into another dark age, and this inspires panic in some people, hence vitriol.

We can not use YEC models to find natural resources and advance and better our society. There is only one reality, and the prosperity of our species indicates science is the best tool for investigating it. Creationism is incompatible with secular ideologies and many religions, as it is a discreet concept. Evolution is an algorithm: Self Replication+Heredity+Natural Selection=Evolution. This is applicable to non-living self replicators such as memes, temes, and other phenomenon.

There is no "belief" involved with evolution -- it's an observed fact.

"...why do both sides seem so dependent on authority figures and an array of societal credibility structures?"

Ignoring your overly-flowery language, the theory of evolution by natural selection stands on the evidence for it, not on any authority or "social credibility structure."

Finally, "creation" is not a "theory." There aren't even testable hypotheses in it, let alone a "theory."

You seem to not have a very good idea of science or the scientific process. Some education will cure that.

In the meantime, you can not worry about criticizing those of us interested in facts, evidence, accuracy, and honesty.

Peace.

Creationism is not a theory. Theories are based on facts and provide an explanation of how those facts relate to one another. Theories also provide a basis for making predictions about what should be found in further lines of investigation. Evolution fulfills that definition.

Creationism is not based on facts. It is based on the Bible.

@knarf: "As God’s creatures, we do not subject the Bible to science; we subject “science” to the Bible."

Added:

And you are pulling a bait and switch. You begin with evolution versus creationism, then switch to "secular ideology."

You are like Jello. Hard to pin down.

I do not accept evolution because of authority figures. I accept evolution because I can see the enormous amount of evidence for it.

That is in contrast to creationism, which does not have one single piece of scientific evidence for it whatsoever. If it did, @Knarf would not have to judge science by the Bible. He could let the science speak for itself.

I think you will find that literal translation of an ancient document written by a man describing his interpretation of how it all came into existence less scientific than data and evidence which supports evolution.

While both are "theories" on is a "Belief" which requires no verification or proof.

Sciences need for data and verification will not allow it to just accept something without such verification and data.

Some of us believe that they are one and the same even if we do not believe in "divine intervention".

Creationism is not a scientific theory. I've just spent the past 3 months researching just about every single court case and argument I could find on the topic for a presentation in American Federal Government. I can say, with the evidence completely in my favor, that creationism is a religious and political agenda bent on tearing down the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution in an effort to establish a christian theocracy.

Just to say that the Bible does NOT teach:

1. that the creative periods were 6 literal days.

2. that the sun was created after vegetation.

3. anything similar to Evolution.

Thorough research will show, that modern science is only about 450 years old. As recent as the 1930's to 40's persons who were diagnosed as having high blood pressure were NOT treated to lower their blood pressure [BP], because at the time, this was strongly advised against.

We all know better today, that early treatment of BP, helps to reduce the risks of end organ disease, strokes, and death.

Similarly, 3500 years ago, the Bible said that the hare/ rabbit, is a chewer of the cud. This was disputed for years, it wasn't until in the 18th century, the rabbit's cud chewing was finally observed by Englishman William Cowper. The unusual way in which it is done was described in 1940 in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, Vol. 110, Series A, pp. 159-163.

Recent terms such as ruminant and refection, can in no way invalidate, the simple

but true statement, made by the Bible, over 3500 years ago.

Sadly, fundamentalist so-called Christians go against the Bible, when they claim

that the creative periods mentioned in Genesis, are literal 24 hour days.

More than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7,8,11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.” The Thousand Year of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great Sabbath, God’s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God’s rest day to its end.

The Bible, in reality, although not a science book, has proven to be way ahead of man in key concepts such as:

1. The earth is supported by unseen gravitational forces [Job 26:7]

2. Earth is oval/ spherical and gives an idea of the geometry of the universe [Isaiah 40:22]

3. Energy creates matter, and cannot be destroyed [Isaiah 40:26]

4. The universe had a beginning [Genesis 1:1].

Both Micro and Macro-Evolution have blaring inconsistencies after a hundred years of 'engineered'

mutation studies, observation of species such as the Finch, and an honest appraisal of all fossil findings.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Bible-Disputes-Settled