07
01
2006
discussion/debate - creation or evolution?
Posted by: woodchurchscience in biology, discussion, ks3, ks4, pooleyit’s time to get the new year rolling with the first in a series of hot science topics. this first one is really big news currently in the united states. should evolution or creation (or both?) be taught in schools as part of the science curriculum. we want your views on this, so please give us your opinions, make your voice heard, if you haven’t made up your mind yet listen to the arguments then get involved.
here’s a question to whet your appetite: how did all the animals get on noah’s ark? look at some of the arguments at answersingenesis.org
Entries (RSS)
February 19th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
surely science and religion are mutually exclusive. religion requires faith and science requires fact. surely there’s more ‘evidence’ for evolution than there is for the creation idea.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:51 pm
You have made 3 statements
1.science and religion are mutually
exclusive
2.religion requires faith, science
requires fact
3.there is more evidence for evolution
than for creation
I will address each point in turn.
1. There are thousands of highly qualified scientists who have deep religious beliefs, and for whom religion gives a purpose to their work, and a system by which to assess its worth.
2. Science is not neutral, because the data produced by any investigation has to be interpreted by the scientist. There are many examples of scientists ignoring facts which don’t fit their pet theories or actually surpressing facts that prove their ideas to be wrong. The classic example of science involving “faith” rather than fact is evolution itself. The ASSUMPTIONS, not facts, which underly the theory of evolution require belief without supporting evidence, i.e. faith.
3. The evidence for creaton is much stronger than that for evolution. Well-known scientists such as Richard Dawkins or David Attenborough hide or ignore any data which throw doubt on the theory of evolution. They do not make clear the unproven assumptions that underly the theory of evolution, or the statements they make.
There are many scientists working in the areas of biology or genetics who think that evolution by natural selecton(Darwinism)does not stand up to advances in scientific knowledge.
No scientific hypothesis (idea)can claim to be the “final authority” on the origin of life, because the exact conditions at the start of life are unknown and unrepeatable. ASSUMPTIONS can be made to give a theory of what happened, but these assumptions depend upon the outlook of the person giving the theory.
The assumption that there was no God at the moment life started is as unprovable as the assumption that there was a God . It depends on your outlook, on what you believe in, i.e. it depends upon your faith.
March 8th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
This is a debate that doesn’t have any solution, therefore it cannot be a question. Who is there to say that we were created or that humans have evolved? It is only what people believe that can provide the nearest thing to any kind of answer. The only thing that I know is that I am here NOW in the PRESENT. I think that this is one of the main points that surrounds this debate.
March 19th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
The question of origins is important because what you believe about how life started affects “me present now”. Evolution gives no basis for justice nor law and order. If it is the fittest that survive, why shouldn’t someone take from another person just because they can? Evolution has been used to justify racism, where black people were seen as less evolved than white. Darwin believed that the various races were at different evolutionary levels, with blacks lower, and whites at the top. Evolutionary thinking has been used to justify removing (i.e. killing) people with disabillities, as in Nazi Germany, where people with learning disabillities were seen as sub-human. If everyone evolved from a pool of mud, then where do feelings come from, or the sense of fair play?
March 19th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Thankfuly, Phew! there is a solution to knowing who we are and how we got here and while it is available to Scientists it is also available to all of us. The question can partly be answered without the bible, but fully with God’s revelation. “We know” that we are more than just flesh and blood, we see “evidence” of God’s creation at every point (e.g. the genetic code)and “we know” that life is not meaningless so there is a point to my existence in fact to every moment of my days and the place where I live. However, to answer the question fully we need to listen to God’s voice wnich he has recorded for us in His word.
April 23rd, 2006 at 11:55 am
I don’t see how a person can’t believe in both. I’m a Christian but I also believe in evolution. My theory is that the world wasn’t created in seven days, more like seven billion years, and the bible just embelished the story a little. Like most books, the bible was probably passed on by word of mouth before it was ever written down so by the time it was written down, many of the stories would have changed, been made to sound more impressive and so on. A bit like a game of Chinese Whispers.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
The Bible which teaches the Christian about Salvation and the person of Jesus Christ is also the place where we learn who made the world, indeed the entire universe by the power of His Word. It also tells about why God made me and all things. A Christian believes God’s word and not just certain bits. However, it is very reassuring to know that it is entirely trustworthy and reliable. When the dead sea scrolls were found in the last centuary Bible scholars held first centuary manuscripts that were essentially the same as the Greek and Hebrew texts used for our modern translations.My belief in creation is based on the bible and not science, but I find nothing in science to make me doubt. More, it is a privilage to know that I live in God’s world and although it is ruined by sin there is hope and we are not merely products of blind chance but related to the God who made us to know him and serve Him.