I have spent a decent amount of time trying to understand this argument, and I have
come to some conclusions that I would find it hard for anyone on either side of the
argument to refute.
- Creationists point out what they see as flaws in evolutionary theory.
- Creationists then revert back to a biblical interpretation to account for life on earth.
The logic of creationism is fundamentally flawed:
_____________________________________________________
1. Evolution has problems
2. Therefore, there must be another explanation
3. Conclusion: The explanation is in the Bible
(1) I think is not true and evolution does not have flaws. But, assuming it does, then, creationists go from (1) to (2). This step, even if one does find evolution problematic, is false because a problematic but empirically grounded theory is better than a theory based in mythology.
In going from (2) to (3) in the sequence above, creationists make a big mistake. They assume that the Bible is a valid source of information, or should be included in the realm of
science.
Therefore, their negative argument against evolution has little basis, because it
does nothing to help science endeavor to find the true nature of our origins. Creationists
dismiss the creation stories of other religions, and ignore the fact that
science will have nothing to do with religion because they are separate entities.
Evolution:
_____________
Depending on the definition of transitory we may find problems in the fossil
record where there should be closer transitions from one species to the next. Although,
these gaps between species would be expected in both the punctuated and continuous
theories of evolutionary development.
We can see small changes in organisms, but we can not see large changes. This too would
be expected, because large changes over long periods of time are merely the sum of smaller
changes over shorter periods of time.
There is debate over the validity of radio carbon dating and other radioactive decay
methods of dating fossil evidence. This stems from a few arguments, including the idea
that 'c' or the speed of light has not remained constant.
Without going into too much
detail, I find these arguments to lack substance. There are many ways of testing for
radioactive decay that are accurate, and various methods have been cross-referenced to
show the accuracy of such methods.
Evolution, like the Big Bang theory, or theories about geological processes, can not be
observed in the short time of our lives, or over generations, because we have only been
looking for genetic variations and changes in species for just over 100 years.
Creationism or Creation "Science":
________________________________________
This theory is put forth by those who have strict or liberal interpretations of the
creation story told in Genesis, the first book of the Christian Bible.
Creationists offer many negative arguments
against evolution, but offer no scientifically positive arguments.
By showing what they see to be flaws in evolutionary theory, creationists feel
that they can then revert back to the 'accurate source' of the Bible.
This is not science, nor is it a plausible theory of how we came to
exist in a scientific manner.
Creationism is nothing more than religious fundamentalism.
Comments from 10-22-2010:
_____________________________
Now, as to god creating the universe we must wonder, then, what created god? It is possible that god and the universe were co-created from nothing and that this nothing always sprouts something. Perhaps the computer must be or, in other words, the mind must be because it wants to fill the void.
But, this would presuppose the wanting and this would mean, generally, that there was both a void an a wanting of creation. The void, perhaps, has an emotion of emptiness and wishes to be filled.
It is thus for all life and all existence that is would rather be in reality than just in the mind and, prior to this, just in potentiality or possibility.
What I have written here is not science, but philosophy. Philosophy deals with the infinite nature of possibility, while science deals only with the contingent conditions of existence in this particular place and time in this particular universe.
What the conditions in other places and times and in other universes are like, I can only imagine. But, they must have structure and some order or else there would be nothing around to observe them or itself.
The universe is a self-creating, self-realizing, mind. Ken Wilber is on to something and his writings more intrigue me now because of my deep inward journeys.
