Comments on The issues of creationism versus evolution

Go to Religion in the Modern WorldAdd a commentGo to The issues of creationism versus evolution

Re: Gome & Bhaskar...
Thank you so much Ash. You show us the light, we forgot. Your observation is well taken. I admire Gome's knowledge on Vishnu's exhalation and his asking for an explanation, only that if he were to leave his cantankerous nature and instead be filled with awe and wonder, he would be much superior to me and you in terms of evolution.

posted by Bhaskar.ing on May 25, 2009 at 11:47 AM | link to this | reply

Gome & Bhaskar...

Thank you for the following educational dialogue. But please refrain from "personal credibility attacks", and keep the interest of the readers in mind. Both of you are making valid arguments based on research & thought, which most readers are trying to digest, so please spare us the above. On that note, I offer the following simple comments for whatever they are worth:

In the Scientific world, any "intelligent design" by nature involves trial & error, and adaptive / optimization of some sort.

Good to read that the distinction between "spiritual" and "religious" is clear now, it didn't appear that way earlier, hence my explanation. I am no scholar on this subject, and most of my examples that you seek come from English translations, and there exist many, of the Hindu scriptures the Vedas and the Bhagwad Gita. Bhaskar is a far better authority on that subject than I...I just hope that you two will engage in meaningful, rational, intelligent dialogue that the rest of us can understand and benfit from, rather than getting side-tracked into ego-battles, we've had too many of those lately, which is leading some rational folks to leave this otherwise educational and fun site...that part I consider a loss to us all, and hope that I don't follow suit. Best wishes to you both highly learned gentlemen,   

posted by ash_pradhan on May 25, 2009 at 11:27 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Gome, Re: exposing my lack of a scientific background

Bhaskar.ing - I did read the post you linked to but I have to ask: what is it that you are attempting to contend now? This post was about creationism versus evolution, where you made a comment that so far, you are unable to substantiate.

One of the number of intriguing coincidences found in one of the world's sacred texts does not substantiate statements you have made here about creationism now having "empirical evidence". Nor have I ever argued that these types of things do not exist. I'll even add a couple more for consideration; from the Bible: Acts 27:38-41 and from the Koran: Surah 55:19- 28 (both supposedly deal with ocean density) . . . there are many other similar "scientific" revelations found throughout any number of ancient manuscripts if one is looking for them.

Where this may possibly have some relevance to a comment by ash_pradhan earlier, in that it could be tenuously viewed as an example of spiritual teachings complimenting scientific discovery, it still has nothing to do with the subject of this post. At best, examples such as these are exceptions where any inaccuracies they contain must be ignored. They must also be taken out of their original context and viewed with a desire to make them fit.

Now correct me if I am wrong because I am working from memory; but is not a year of Brahma also supposed to correspond to Vishnu exhaling? Has science also corroborated the length of time it takes Vishnu to exhale?

That context is a tricky thing but I guess not so tricky when only using the parts that work.  

posted by gomedome on May 25, 2009 at 9:18 AM | link to this | reply

Gome, Re: exposing my lack of a scientific background
 I think you probably did not read here. If you haven't, then please do and then argue.

posted by Bhaskar.ing on May 25, 2009 at 8:04 AM | link to this | reply

Bhaskar.ing - the problem with your attempt to clarify is that it digs a

deeper hole exposing your lack of a scientific background.

These words, "‘Intelligent design’, ‘Unseen Power’, ‘Free Will’, ‘Conscious Intelligence’," . . . are still alien to scientific enquiry. It is nothing more than the wishful thinking of the creationist that attempts to insert them as meaningful to modern science.

Irreducible complexity is the hypothesis you are attempting to outline, a position that has very little support within the scientific community. But the following is where you really expose yourself:

"Among the staunch Evolutionists, followers of Darwinism that is, there is a growing school of thought, particularly in the US, which seem to be convinced that the universe was possibly created not only by random mutation and natural selection, as Darwin suggested, but by Intelligent Design of an Unseen Power as well (the spiritual is suggested here). "

What is a staunch evolutionist? Darwin now has followers that have re-written the theory of evolution to include the creation of the universe? . . . and "by random mutation and natural selection" no less. The reality is that there is no "evolutionist shift" to ideas that incorporate an intelligent designer, that is again the wishful thinking of the creationist camp.

Where you probably feel that you have provided much to digest and a number of solid arguments, the complete opposite is actually true. I have considered all of these things before. ID and other similar arguments are compelling when first examined but eventually give way to intellectual integrity once subjected to scrutiny. For example, without religious bias clouding one's perspective, there is a much stronger argument for NSID (not so intelligent design) by multiple designers, incorporating much trial and error (i.e. extinction), as well as utilizing evolution. But that is only a stronger argument, it too fails under the weight of scrutiny.

 

posted by gomedome on May 25, 2009 at 6:51 AM | link to this | reply

Creation vs. Evolution - No parroting here, and I take up your challenge

"I expect that you will not be able to substantiate that statement as no one ever has". 

Firstly, hope you understand, not the literal but the metaphorical usage of "ironic twist", I used in my comment to which you unexpectedly react with a lesser degree of understanding than I imagined. You say that my closing line, " it's the creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith is utter bunk" ...  Agreed, in a literal sense it is, quite the reverse should have been true. But why the clarification? Any studious fool should understand this. Now to Evolutionist/Creationist debate ...

Among the staunch Evolutionists, followers of Darwinism that is, there is a growing school of thought, particularly in the US, which seem to be convinced that the universe was possibly created not only by random mutation and natural selection, as Darwin suggested, but by Intelligent Design of an Unseen Power as well (the spiritual is suggested here). These words, ‘Intelligent design’, ‘Unseen Power’, ‘Free Will’, ‘Conscious Intelligence’, alien to science until recently, have had to become an essential part of modern scientific enquiry if it were to study those phenomena that they relegate to the realm of “The unexplained.” Tell me why this evolutionist's shift, what to talk then of solid empirical basis ?

Creationists, those who argue in favour of Intelligent Design say that even the single cell is too complex to be created by natural selection alone. Thirty proteins are arranged in a single cell in a specific order of sequence and quantity, and the removal of a single protein makes the cell dysfunctional. For thirty proteins to fall into a particular pattern is too much of a coincidence. A human body comprises 60 trillion cells. Imagine, what fantastic 'coincidences!' . And, if it does not make one wonder, then the portals of his brains are forever closed, it can be concluded. And I do not know whether you'll understand this, that if we are to progress then all enquiries of the unexplained, of the beyond, will have to take its stand, dare to seek, and succeed in finding something higher than reason, as the almost-lost age old system of Hindu enquiry, did. It may interest you if you are sincerely into intellectual debate to read one of my earlier posts here. More substantiations, if required.

posted by Bhaskar.ing on May 25, 2009 at 12:36 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Bhaskar.ing - Re: Reason vs. Religion - Creation vs. Evolution
I'll be back on this issue later, to substantiate. Did you fail to notice that I said "ironic twist?" These are too subtle, and I should have known where or where not to, use? My mistake.

posted by Bhaskar.ing on May 24, 2009 at 11:25 PM | link to this | reply

Bhaskar.ing - Re: Reason vs. Religion - Creation vs. Evolution
The debate will not end here, I don't parrot, but I do expect civility in language, and however much you may think so, can you claim that your understanding is absolute? I can challenge anyone on that.

posted by Bhaskar.ing on May 24, 2009 at 11:20 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Gome/ash pradhan

Your question: "How have; spiritual & intellectual findings corroborated each other many times over history? One example is all that it would take". Here is one, check it out.

 Science is a study of the external; religion, that of the internal. If the two studies do not in the end, arrive at the same conclusion, then one, or either, or both, are to be shunned. But it is common and understandably so, that religion is taken as a study in the unscientific, if it can be called a study at all in the first place. But is it really so, is the question. The ancient seers of the Vedic period, stretching from 7000 BC – 2500 BC, should we say ‘stumbled upon’ or discovered, wonderful truths that are in keeping with the latest findings of science are distant echoes. For example, if you were to examine a day of Brahma, you will find many sites on the topic, is actually a metaphorical reference to the age of the sun which is 4.32 billion years, an astronomical calculation modern science is in almost full concurrence with, the difference being a mere 32 million years. Should it not make one wonder as to how those seers of the yore could have been so uncannily accurate? Then was that not science? Only it may not be so in the ordinary sense of the science we know today. There are examples galore, but the one was to impress the validity of methods employed in those ancient times unknown to us, thus unbelievable and to be shunned. Illumination, wherever it comes from, whatever be the source, it is to be given its due, respected.

I'd be interested if you can give an intelligent rebuttal, reference only Vedic

posted by Bhaskar.ing on May 24, 2009 at 11:10 PM | link to this | reply

ash_pradhan - the distinction between spirituality and religious beliefs

was not what I was asking clarification of.

I asked for clarification in what you meant when you said the following: "Over history, spiritual & intellectual findings have corroborated each other many times. Who's to say which one is the right one? " How so? How have; spiritual & intellectual findings corroborated each other many times over history? One example is all that it would take.

posted by gomedome on May 24, 2009 at 10:30 PM | link to this | reply

Gome, good points, so let me try to explain :....
For millions of people in the world, and me a life-time scientist is one of them, spirituality is not synonymous with religious. We believe that every person / being (regardless of his/her belief/non-belief) is a "soul/spirit", not the body, mind, intellect, that is an integral part of the omniscient, Omnipresence. Over history, various religions have been formed / evolved through the work of man-kind, that promote the use of words / concepts such as God, Bhagavan, Allah, etc., all aptly representing in word the existence of the Omnipresence. However, "Spiritual not Religious" is an all-inclusive term, that millions like me use to describe their belief, with ever increasing "believers" in both the religious & non-religious communities, that includes all religions as well as those non-religious, and thus emphasizes the common spiritual bond that we all have with each other and with the Omnipresence. Hope this helps some.

posted by ash_pradhan on May 24, 2009 at 2:13 PM | link to this | reply

mysteria - Re: I expect to see a post from you everyday
It's simply too nice of a weekend to be inside blogging.

posted by gomedome on May 24, 2009 at 1:19 PM | link to this | reply

I expect to see a post from you everyday
Where art thou oh lord gomedome, visiting with the flying spaghetti monster?

posted by mysteria on May 24, 2009 at 11:41 AM | link to this | reply

Jack_Flash - you inadvertantly raise a good point

The creationist argument relies on a predetermined definition of just one version of God. Where this becomes an issue is in the fact that creationists or ID proponents; are insistent on calling their religious beliefs a theory. With some going as far as demanding equal air time in science classes with the scientific theory of evolution.

The problem with this, aside from creationist beliefs not coming close to meeting the requirements of being called a scientific theory, is that ultimately it erodes the foundation of their religious beliefs. In that those beliefs are premised upon the existence of one creator being. If creationism is now a science, no conclusions can be fixed or rigid as it is exposed to scientific methodology. The possibility of their being multiple creators, or a creator of a completely different definition as examples, must be considered.    

      

posted by gomedome on May 24, 2009 at 11:35 AM | link to this | reply

Bhaskar.ing - Re: Reason vs. Religion - Creation vs. Evolution

I cannot remember being more disappointed with a comment from someone. Your closing line is utter bunk . . . " it's the creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith."

There is no point in arguing such a statement, I will instead ask you to substantiate those words. What astounding coincidences? What solid empirical evidence? It is at this point where the debate usually ends, simply because those who are willing to make such a statement are merely parroting words that appeal to their beliefs.

When it is time to show us the evidence they speak of, they finally realize that they are proliferating what is effectively nothing more than urban legend. A popularized perspective that is continuously proliferated by those outside of scientific disciplines but means little to anyone other than creation proponents.

I expect that you will not be able to substantiate that statement as no one ever has. 

posted by gomedome on May 24, 2009 at 11:16 AM | link to this | reply

Gome,

When I find a person who can give me a clear-cut, concise definition of God, the supposed creator, I will then consider discussing the matter of Evolution/Creationism with that person.  My search has been going on for many years, and I have not found that person.

In the meantime, all discussions of Evolution/Creationism that I have witnessed have been nothing more than hyperverbose babble based on emotionally originated pre-conclusions.

posted by Jack_Flash on May 24, 2009 at 2:53 AM | link to this | reply

Reason vs. Religion - Creation vs. Evolution

Creation, to my way of thinking is spiritual - the material form coming into being from the abyss of nothing, not necessarily of  God's, but as a metaphoric significance of the idea conveyed by God - the Energy of creation. When the energy is in equilibrium, there is no creation. When kinetic, we see all manifestation. Evoution, until now thought to be scientific is now passing through certain doubts in view of the astounding coincidences not possible from a scientific eye. In an ironic twist, it's the creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith.

posted by Bhaskar.ing on May 23, 2009 at 10:22 PM | link to this | reply

Re: My cursory observation is that...

ash_pradhan - you've lost me with your last comment. When you say this: "Over history, spiritual & intellectual findings have corroborated each other many times." or this: "Who's to say which one is the right one?" 

In terms of scientific study, religious beliefs have traditionally been an adversary, at least more often than not. I see that you did not mention religious beliefs but instead used the term "spiritual" so my question is how so? How have spiritual beliefs corroborated intellectual findings over history?

Maybe you could clarify.

posted by gomedome on May 23, 2009 at 12:19 PM | link to this | reply

calia14 - There is really nothing wrong with believing in creation

The problem arises when ancient mythologies describing creation become firmly entrenched as so called eternal truths and believers of these things begin denying or resisting the real truth. In the simplest of terms; life forms on this planet have changed dramatically over the history of the earth. Massive natural extinctions have taken place, our existing fossil record, though admittedly not complete, demonstrates for us how lifeforms have changed and adapted over time. The first major problem with the creationist viewpoint is that these undeniable facts are all that is needed to validate evolution, it is about change, it is not about beginnings.

For all anyone knows, an omnipotent being could have willed everything into existence. The only thing we do know for certain is that the Genesis timeline is impossible.

As for the recently discovered missing link; that is covered in a recent post.  

posted by gomedome on May 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM | link to this | reply

My cursory observation is that...
"Creationism" seems to be a spiritual (not necessarily religious) line of thought, and evolution to be "intellectual" (to include scientific) line of thought. Over history, spiritual & intellectual findings have corroborated each other many times. Who's to say which one is the right one? What / Why does it matter? Can they converge? If the ultimate goal is "self-"enlightenment", it seems to me that both are necessary. Btw Gome, please do not construe any of these questions as attacks, but only an attempt to learn through rational dialogue. I appreciate your taking the trouble & time to engage.

posted by ash_pradhan on May 22, 2009 at 4:27 PM | link to this | reply

Thanks for this post, Gome !

posted by ash_pradhan on May 22, 2009 at 3:52 PM | link to this | reply

Hey Gome!  Good post, I don't know many people that disbelieve evolution, but it seems obvious to me that there is such a process.  After all, we are still evolving.  Not to say that I completely disbelieve in the Christian creation theory, though.  I think that the two can work together.  Who's to say that God didn't start the process off, and let the ball roll out?  Wham, bam, seven "days" later and here we are?  I read that one of the "missing links" was recently dicovered.  Not THE missing link, but one that pinpoints when mammals split off between chimps and lemurs.  They're calling them "hobbits".  Anyway, I wondered if you had heard about a Rev. Broun trying to name 2010 the "Year of the Bible" in the USA?  I just read it in yahoo news and I honestly had come to see what you had to say about that, but it seems you chose a different topic.  Perhaps tomorrow's subject...

posted by calia14 on May 22, 2009 at 2:14 PM | link to this | reply

Re: creationism is the most damaging myth you can think of
Xeno-x - the part that bothers me about the current agenda by creationist proponents is that they are insistent on "either or" versus evolution. A great portion of their arguments are premised on a false definition of evolution that they have constructed themselves.

posted by gomedome on May 22, 2009 at 10:54 AM | link to this | reply

creationism is the most damaging myth you can think of

posted by Xeno-x on May 22, 2009 at 9:59 AM | link to this | reply