Evolution vs Creationism (be nice)

[Halichoeres]

Details aside, though, I find it hard to write off my repulsion of the unpleasant, amoral bits as my own comparatively progressed values.  Why do homosexuals deserve proper human rights, and why is it so important to us to build a society where they aren't stoned or burnt at the stake? These feelings have to come from somewhere, and in my opinion if they evolved naturally, then that's all they are, feelings. We can follow them or ignore them as we see fit, because they're essentially arbitrary, simply a tool to better ensure our species' survival. If our morals arose from natural selection, then once they've served their purpose they are essentially vestigial. I believe that our feelings of right and wrong come from some other source, and that the reason we feel so strongly that these issues matter is that they do matter. Our ingrained values are some of the most important parts of our human nature. They push us to have compassion for the man in the street. They caused nations to unite in order to beat back the Nazis. I don't see how this can be chalked up to simple, material evolution.

You posted this while I was writing my previous reply, so forgive the double post. I'm not convinced that our moral sentiments require an external source to have validity. I think it is enough that we recognize that beings outside of ourselves--other humans, other animals--experience joy, suffering, and dread. That alone is enough of a basis on which to organize ethical thought, on the recognition that your actions impinge on others, and that their actions impinge on you, and it is therefore in our shared common interest to erect rules to guide our conduct.

[danmalcolm]

No worries. Can I ask you to expand on "common interest"? Are you speaking of an enjoyable existence, longevity, or something else? This is where I become confused, is in this definition.

I would also wonder what should be done when the interests of another individual (or species!) are contrary to our own. Do we care about the joy, suffering, dread of cows only until we want a burger? Why do we admire a person who gives to another at their own expense?

The fact that what people consider moral varies so much by time, place, and context suggests that if humans are deriving their morality from a higher power, they're doing so extremely badly. Just 40 years ago, in the United States, as many people thought homosexual behavior should be illegal as legal (http://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx). Now it's more than 3-1 in favor of "legal". Where does this change in attitudes come from? It didn't come from a divine revelation, but from straight people meeting gay and bisexual people and listening to them and recognizing their humanity. It came from reason and compassion. Of course, you can claim that reason and compassion are divine gifts, but why then were so many allowed to suffer from our failure to exercise it?

In saying that, though, you're at least implying that our current stance is better than the one in the past, but what standard is this based on? Is the current stance better because it's newer/more advanced? The fact that we can point to one society and say its morals are better or worse than another's points to a right/wrong standard outside of human society.

Yes you're completely right that many people suck at reasoning and being compassionate. This is what causes most of our problems

[danmalcolm]

As for the dilemma ("Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?") I would say both. If a good God created the world, He would be the source of goodness and everything else. You could almost say that what's morally good is morally good because it is God. We see beauty in fairness and love because those are traits of the ultimate source of goodness. That's what I believe, at least.

[DinoToyForum]

Please stay on topic: evolution vs creationism. Thanks.

[stargatedalek]

*edit*

Uh-oh, I got ninja'd.

I'll try to add something more constructive if it comes to mind, sorry.

*edit*



I had a similar discussion fairly recently while discussing of all things comic books.

My argument was that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act from a biological perspective since everything we do is done to bring ourselves enjoyment in some way. Even the act of helping others isn't technically selfless because the reason we help others is that helping others makes us feel good.

For example; someone might donate money to a charity because protecting baby sea turtles makes them feel good, it's a source of pride and happiness. The fact that they did it because one knew they would receive self-gratification doesn't make that pride any less genuine or any less deserved, it's real, even if it doesn't seem real if you over-analyze it.

But if selflessness can't technically exist than does good or evil person exist? Yes, the answer is actually right there the whole time. Because we each receive enjoyment from a different selection of things and some of those things have good or evil applications. Someone who enjoys doing nice things, and someone who enjoys doing mean things, are both doing what they enjoy but the ways that it impacts others are what defines those actions.

The reason that bigotry is bad is because it hurts people, even if sometimes indirectly, and the reason that giving is good is because it helps people, again even if indirectly.

Doing nice things because we enjoy doing nice things doesn't change the fact that those are nice things.

Our brains are designed to quantify things in terms of how it will effect us, even if it's often subconscious and not always logical. But that doesn't make any of it any less genuine, that's just our natural way of thinking. Morality is based on how our actions affect others, so why does it matter where our morality originated?

As for should we judge animals on their morality, I think that's besides the point. The fact that they judge each other based on their morality proves that at least some animals understand the concept. I wasn't saying we should apply our understandings to animals or vice versa, but rather that animals are capable of achieving an understanding of morality, even if not all of them display this.

I would argue that eating meat doesn't immediately make someone apathetic towards the animals they eat. I love meat but I also believe that farming methods should always be experimenting with new techniques and technology to constantly improve their facilities, both for the animals living there and potential environmental impacts. Choosing whether or not one considers killing animals for food (or which animals for food) is ethical or not is a personal decision, and so long as the process is done as humanely as current technological and economic restraints allow we shouldn't need to feel guilty about it.

[Halichoeres]

I wrote up a post but in deference to Dr. Admin's warning I'll send it via pm. Anybody who is interested in my answer to danmalcolm's queries please feel free to get in touch.

[danmalcolm]

Please stay on topic: evolution vs creationism. Thanks.

well, shoot.
Interesting comments, guys. Always neat to see others' perspectives. At least we all agree that caring about others is good.

It's difficult to discuss evolution vs. creationism without bringing up God. For me (and honestly I'm undecided at the moment) the difficulty is trying to reconcile a ruthless, death-fueled means of developing life for which the current evidence is undeniable with my conviction that everything was at least set in motion by a good Creator.

Thanks for the discussion up to this point, folks.

[PaleoMatt]

I don't want to stick my feet into the water but I have always felt that a lot of creationists can't defend themselves against evolution because they are too attached to their 'god' or some form of deity. As an evolutionist and athiest, I have not seen any creationist convince me yet so I would really like to see why they believe in creationism instead of evolutionism. I went to a christian primary school and I honestly never even thought the school was trying to tell me god was real. I genuinley thought they were just telling us fictional stories until a teacher told me and I got told off for not believing them...

[tyrantqueen]

I don't want to stick my feet into the water but I have always felt that a lot of creationists can't defend themselves against evolution because they are too attached to their 'god' or some form of deity. As an evolutionist and athiest, I have not seen any creationist convince me yet so I would really like to see why they believe in creationism instead of evolutionism. I went to a christian primary school and I honestly never even thought the school was trying to tell me god was real. I genuinley thought they were just telling us fictional stories until a teacher told me and I got told off for not believing them...

I don't see why you feel the need to write God in quotation marks. Fair enough if you don't believe, but it seems to me like you're going the extra length to be mocking. I don't write Santa Claus in quotation marks, and I don't believe in him.

[stargatedalek]

I don't want to stick my feet into the water but I have always felt that a lot of creationists can't defend themselves against evolution because they are too attached to their 'god' or some form of deity. As an evolutionist and athiest, I have not seen any creationist convince me yet so I would really like to see why they believe in creationism instead of evolutionism. I went to a christian primary school and I honestly never even thought the school was trying to tell me god was real. I genuinley thought they were just telling us fictional stories until a teacher told me and I got told off for not believing them...

I don't see why you feel the need to write God in quotation marks. Fair enough if you don't believe, but it seems to me like you're going the extra length to be mocking. I don't write Santa Claus in quotation marks, and I don't believe in him.

"God" has multiple meanings, the quotation marks are used to denote that it's being used in the literary sense and not in reference to "the god" since some religions refer to their deity as god.

[PaleoMatt]

I don't want to stick my feet into the water but I have always felt that a lot of creationists can't defend themselves against evolution because they are too attached to their 'god' or some form of deity. As an evolutionist and athiest, I have not seen any creationist convince me yet so I would really like to see why they believe in creationism instead of evolutionism. I went to a christian primary school and I honestly never even thought the school was trying to tell me god was real. I genuinley thought they were just telling us fictional stories until a teacher told me and I got told off for not believing them...

I don't see why you feel the need to write God in quotation marks. Fair enough if you don't believe, but it seems to me like you're going the extra length to be mocking. I don't write Santa Claus in quotation marks, and I don't believe in him.

I didn't put it in quotation marks because of that. It's because I know it isn't always called 'god' so I just sort of used it as an example phrase.

[tanystropheus]

I don't want to stick my feet into the water but I have always felt that a lot of creationists can't defend themselves against evolution because they are too attached to their 'god' or some form of deity. As an evolutionist and athiest, I have not seen any creationist convince me yet so I would really like to see why they believe in creationism instead of evolutionism. I went to a christian primary school and I honestly never even thought the school was trying to tell me god was real. I genuinley thought they were just telling us fictional stories until a teacher told me and I got told off for not believing them...

I don't see why you feel the need to write God in quotation marks. Fair enough if you don't believe, but it seems to me like you're going the extra length to be mocking. I don't write Santa Claus in quotation marks, and I don't believe in him.

I didn't put it in quotation marks because of that. It's because I know it isn't always called 'god' so I just sort of used it as an example phrase.

What if God is the emergent/culminant phenomena ("the all-hearing, the all-seeing") that involves the interlocking of ALL consciousness (animate or otherwise) as implicated by Bobby Azarian's article? It's also an idea that is endorsed by Perennialist Scholar Seyyed Nasr (refer to "In the Beginning was Consciousness")

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobby-azarian/post_10079_b_8160914.html

[DinoToyForum]

I don't want to stick my feet into the water but I have always felt that a lot of creationists can't defend themselves against evolution because they are too attached to their 'god' or some form of deity. As an evolutionist and athiest, I have not seen any creationist convince me yet so I would really like to see why they believe in creationism instead of evolutionism. I went to a christian primary school and I honestly never even thought the school was trying to tell me god was real. I genuinley thought they were just telling us fictional stories until a teacher told me and I got told off for not believing them...

Well, the members who don't accept evolution have been very quiet on the topic of creationism/intelligent design since the topic was left open. I was hoping for some engaging debates, and wonder why nobody has stepped forward to answer Suspsy's question (irrespective of how it was worded) to give everyone something to chew on. Even if the answer is "nothing", that would help both sides to understand each other. Some members who accept evolution answered the same question, showing that they are willing to change their mind if faced with new evidence.

By the way, please stay on topic. This isn't about God, or the nature of God, or the definition of God. That is irrelevant, since God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Unless someone thinks they are, in which case, that is up for discussion, since this topic is about evolution vs creationism.

[JohannesB]

There are so many biases and personal opinions on either side (and the issue is so riddled with differences in interpretation, especially on the side of creationism, if I have been informed correctly) that (almost) no one is able to really convince the other, I think. In the end, it is just what you think fits best in your view of how the universe works, I guess. But even so, I assume Wallace and Darwin were right about evolution guiding the development of life, and the bible cannot, and should not, be taken as a literal guide for how all lifeforms were made. But to quote Darwin, in the spirit of reconcilliation: «I do not attack Moses, and I think Moses can take care of himself». In other words, I can 'state my case' as well as I can, but the other person will have to make up his own mind (even if the scientific method clearly shows us, through experiment and observation, that the development of different species happens mainly through natural and sexual selection).

[danmalcolm]

I never used to buy into evolution at all, but the past couple years I've been seeing it as... a possibility. If I can trust the current scientific community, then the evidence is certainly undeniable. I'm reluctant, though, to fully accept it as undoubtable fact. I guess in order to be certain that it's what happened (as opposed to "agnostic" or whatever category I fall into at the moment) I would need to study the fossil record myself and come to my own conclusion that evolution is the knly explanation. Some things I can believe on authority, others... I know it's inconsistent to trust paleontologists wholeheartedly with regard to something like the length of a tyrannosaurus, but I do sometimes think that we humans get too big for our britches when we study the world around us. How can we be so confident in our own knowledge that we think we know for certain what happened millions of lifetimes ago? Others no doubt have an easier time accepting the words and ideas of experts. I'm not there yet in this area. Hope this gives a little explanation to some who don't understand why others don't just accept evolution as simple fact.

[Loon]

@Danmalcolm Interesting post, I can't say I agree with you on a lot of things, but I do agree that it is good to study subjects to get a better understanding of things. I would not just go with the fossil record, it's important but not the only thing used as evidence; comparative anatomy, genetics are also important and relevant. I don't know, but it seems to me you are unnecessarily skeptical (or cynical) towards the scientific community? I do agree that we are illogical animals, trying to understand to world logically, so there is always room for error, but if we do not trust our own minds to some extent, then we have nothing. Also, I do agree that just because an expert says something doesn't mean it's a "fact", however more credence should be given to their thoughts, I would say. Kind of like doctors, I wouldn't necessarily trust myself with diagnosing an illness, I could use the internet, etc., to understand what's going on, but at the end of the day, I'm still a novice, so I would check with a doctor.

Also I believe your terminology is off, as evolution is not an undoubtable "fact", it is a theory, which contains many facts within. Read this to understand more: https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

[CityRaptor]

Well, I rather trust in experts than in a bunch of goat herders from a few thousand years ago, who also plagiarized older creation myths. Besides, if evolution were not true, why do humans and the other great apes share so much of their DNA?

Oh, and happy aniversary, "On the Origin of Species"!

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[Gwangi]

I never used to buy into evolution at all, but the past couple years I've been seeing it as... a possibility. If I can trust the current scientific community, then the evidence is certainly undeniable. I'm reluctant, though, to fully accept it as undoubtable fact. I guess in order to be certain that it's what happened (as opposed to "agnostic" or whatever category I fall into at the moment) I would need to study the fossil record myself and come to my own conclusion that evolution is the knly explanation. Some things I can believe on authority, others... I know it's inconsistent to trust paleontologists wholeheartedly with regard to something like the length of a tyrannosaurus, but I do sometimes think that we humans get too big for our britches when we study the world around us. How can we be so confident in our own knowledge that we think we know for certain what happened millions of lifetimes ago? Others no doubt have an easier time accepting the words and ideas of experts. I'm not there yet in this area. Hope this gives a little explanation to some who don't understand why others don't just accept evolution as simple fact.

Because it's what the evidence tells us, until new evidence tells us otherwise. But we find that evidence through the use of the scientific method. The scientific method is the same method that gave us agriculture, medicine, cars, the internet, and a trip to the moon. Whether people know it or not science is responsible for all of the greatest achievements in human society. The subjects may differ; paleontology, agricultural science, engineering, computer programming. But the trial and error method that advances us is the same method in all of these. So when the same science that cured polio, put a man on the moon, and gave us the power of flight, also tells us we evolved from other beings, or that we're changing the planet's climate, it's best to listen to that science. Carl Sagan often expressed dismay over the fact that we use science to advance ourselves with very few people actually understanding it, they only reap its rewards. People view science as cold, and indifferent...and it is. But science is only a tool (method) that helps us figure out how the world works. It's ironic that people dismiss so many fundamental ideas in science, like evolution, while simultaneously reaping the benefits of science. The scientific method brings us to evolution as the answer. It's the same method that gave us a computer to type on. I don't think a lot of keyboard creationists even consider that level of irony.

[laticauda]

I guess in order to be certain that it's what happened (as opposed to "agnostic" or whatever category I fall into at the moment) I would need to study the fossil record myself and come to my own conclusion that evolution is the knly explanation.

That´s the problem though, isn´t it? Evolution can never be the only explanation, if you believe in some sort of deity. How do you prove that an omnipotent, omniscient being was not involved in creation?

Evolution is fact base and logical.  The evidence only scares people because they are afraid it will take away the world that they were taught to believe in. Evolution does not kill spirituality or religion, it just gives you more evidence of the what's happening in the world around you.  Every human being is trying to figure out why they are here, and what is their purpose.  Fact, the world is always changing.  Fact, evolution is still not fully understood but there is a underlying mechanic that makes it work. Fact, we as humans do not know everything, but we are curious and always trying to learn all that we can. As a doubting Thomas I understand the idea that you want to come to your own conclusion.  I see no problem in belief in a deity.  Are you that deity?  Well if you are not then how can you know what the plan is or was.  So do your homework, keep an open mind, and see where it takes you.