The Separation of Creationism and Religion

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Merkava_4, Jul 23, 2011.

  1. Merkava_4 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #1
    Since nobody has talked about it, I'm starting this thread. Just because you believe in creationism, doesn't necessarily make you religious. Some other intelligent being besides God could have started everything. An alien from outer space could have created the Earth and created all the iguana lizards; not necessarily God that's in the bible. I suspect that some of you people are afraid to except creationism out of fear that it might label you religious.

    And another thing: who's to say that creationism and evolution can't coexist side by side? If I was a God, and I first designed the iguana lizard, I might set natural selection in place after I made the first lizard so that I don't have to do all the updates manually. I might have natural selection put forward to take care of any camouflage changes the lizard might need. I don't have time to do all these updates to all the thousands of creatures I created. I'm gonna have natural selection take care of that for me. ;)
     
  2. sporadicMotion macrumors 65816

    sporadicMotion

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Location:
    Your girlfriends place
    #2
    Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

    Where's Dawkins when you need him.
     
  3. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #3
    Was the Space alien created or did it evolve?

    Oh, go on then...



    Question... why is the politician embarrassed to say what he knows to be true? He seems to suddenly feel foolish...
     
  4. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #4
    What you've here is a couple of hypotheses. And quite extraordinary ones that require extraordinary evidence. If you believe them to be true and label yourself a creationist without such evidence then that is irrational and on par with religion.

    Not all hypotheses are equal. But there's never any problem with brainstormng.
     
  5. Merkava_4 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #5
    That all depends on whether he was the one that created the Earth or not. If he was the one that created the Earth and all its contents, then he'd be the master copy and just appeared out of nowhere. If he was a regular alien that was created by the master alien, then he would evolve to be whatever was necessary. If he needed six fingers instead of five, then he would evolve to have six fingers. Meanwhile, the master alien doesn't need the six fingers because he's not actually on Earth doing all the work; he's just supervising.
     
  6. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #6
    What do you think Occam would have to say about this?

    Ugh thats Steve Fielding. A comical excuse for a politician who was elected on preferences from a very conservative (and terrible) party called Family First (a complete misnomer it was really just christians for power). Thankfully he got his marching orders quick smart.
     
  7. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #7
    Perhaps his noodliness the FSM is in fact an extra glutenous terrestrial?
     
  8. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #8
    Oh no, not Steven Fielding. Anyone but him.

    Whilst I am VERY glad we seem to have a far more secular political landscape here in Australia (our PM is an atheist) I can't stand that guy. He represents almost nobody, gets into the senate by the skin of his teeth and then goes about making decisions based on his whack-a-doo ideas rather than what's actually best for the people.
     
  9. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #9
    ^^^^haha thought we might hear from you chundles :)^^^^

    I am actually eating singapore noodles right now. They are delicious although sadly shed little light on the origin of the universe. She moves in mysterious ways.....
     
  10. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #10
    Yeah, couldn't quite decide between "whack-a-doo" and "doolally" but went with whack-a-doo just in case.

    I needed a nonsense word that was nonsensical enough to carry the full impression behind just how loco-bananas (there's another) his ideas are and how governing the country based on these cuckoo-crazypants beliefs is dangerous.
     
  11. Merkava_4 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #11
    Just so you guys know where I stand:

    I do believe in intelligent design, but I don't consider myself a religious person. I don't go to church every Sunday and I'm still undecided about the Bible. I believe in spirits and that we leave our bodies after we die. Our spirits go someplace to meet up with our family and friends who have already passed on; whether that's in heaven I don't know for sure. There you have it. ;)
     
  12. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #12
    Locobananas is perfect for Fielding. You nailed it :D

    There is no evidence to do so. You have accepted your own hypothesis/hypotheses as true without even the mildest scrutiny. You'd demand more evidence of legitimacy when buying a $5 item from eBay.
     
  13. Typswif2fingers macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    #13
    Mate, it has nothing to do with being afraid of being labelled religious... I was...

    The problem is not issue of being labelled.. I really don't give a flying f%#^ about what anyone is going to label anyone or anything.

    Labels are how stupid people break down the complexity of life into simple terms so they can deal with it.

    The issue here, Merkava, is your unwillingness (and I am using that term as I don't think its inability) to understand the randomness of nature, the 4 dimensions into which we are immersed.

    To put it simply, no creator, whatever you wish to call it, imagine it, portray it, depict it etc. is required.

    None, zilch, zero, null...

    Be it as it is, good luck.. One day... who knows..
     
  14. Merkava_4 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #14
    The point I'm trying to make is that not everything is so cut and dry; things can blend together. Intelligent design can blend in with evolution. Why people think that it has to be one way or the other is beyond me. :shrugs:
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    Why you think that something MUST have created us is beyond me. Look-we're born and make what we will of our lives, then we die and feed more life. Your loved ones who have passed are gone forever. That should be OK- it makes life even more precious. Use that knowledge to love people and do good as much as you can, because this is probably all we get. We can wish to believe there's more, but there is no evidence of anything more after this life. Live every day as if it's your last.
     
  16. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #16
    It's pretty easy. ID has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up whilst evolution is a tried, tested and rubber stamped theory backed by mountains upon mountains of evidence.

    ID has no business being in the same universe as evolution, let alone the same argument.
     
  17. iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #17
    This is the argument for me. Evolution is a scientific fact, it just cannot be denied. ID is just a fantasy invented to keep some sort of creator in the mix so religious people could be happy. There is simply no evidence for a creator, moreover the examples traditionally put forward by IDists of irreducible complexity (the flagellum, the eye etc) just show their own ignorance of evolution and biology as a whole.

    ID isn't just saying God (or whatever) could be involved, but rather that he must. There's no evidence to support that.
     
  18. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #18
    Because evolution with a guiding hand, is no longer evolution. It's doesn't need anything else bolted on. Especially an improbable, hypothetical lifeform or lifeforms for which there is no evidence.

    When/if evidence is acquired to the contrary then you may have a case. But as it stands, belief for the sake of belief, is not logical. What you believe might seem like a reasonable compromise, but unfortunately it lacks rationality.
     
  19. Merkava_4 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #19
    There are scientists out there that believe that some things in nature are too complex to have happened by chance; that some things had to have been purposely built all at once. The bacterial flagellum is the prime example. Many of those same scientists are not religious; but rather they have exhausted themselves in trying to figure out how the bacterial flagellum came about from evolution. For them, the only logical explanation is intelligent design.
     
  20. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #20
    No, there aren't.
     
  21. iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #21
    This is why there is peer review in the scientific community. Using the word "scientists" means a community of huge numbers. They are not all going to agree! So we must look at the consensus, and just because a handful of 'scientists' turn to ID doesn't make it true. If you look at the vast majority of research, and stick to reputable peer reviewed journals, you won't find belief in ID.

    Incidentally, I mentioned the bacterial flagellum a few posts ago. If you go and look at some actual primary research on that example you'll see turning to ID is simply a lack of understanding.
     
  22. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #22
    Complexity is not an argument for ID. Complexity is a demonstration of the unimaginable length of time the evolutionary process has taken.

    ID is a rubbish hypothesis backed by nothing. It's not worth the paper it's printed on.
     
  23. Typswif2fingers macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    #23

    Merkava, mate, why do you talk about flagellum?

    It was proven before the court that idea of ID proponents in relation to irreducible complexity (in particular use of flagellum for that purpose) is fraud, a mindless idea, stupid concept, erroneous thinking, moronic hypothesis etc.. but most of all - NOT SCIENCE.
     
  24. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #24
    If a scientist evokes the supernatural to explain something they are most certainy not being scientific. Evoking the supernatural is a non-explanation. The correct statement for a phenomenon that can't be explained is "I don't know". Not "a supernatural creator did it". It's noted that your "scientists out there" didn't ge themselves a reference link.

    The bacterial flagellum most certainly does not fit in this category as Don't Panic and iStudentUK eloquently put it.
     
  25. Daffodil macrumors 6502

    Daffodil

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Location:
    In a sunny state of mind
    #25
    If you're going to talk about religion and creationism, I'd find it far more credible to talk about religion without intelligent design, than the other way around...

    Most of the people who have spoken up are right; intelligent design and evolution have nothing in common to warrant that they should be grouped together, and doing so is either ingenuous or directly misleading.
     

Share This Page