Difference between revisions of "Creation"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Links: ARN FAQ)
(saving work; not done reorganizing)
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{stub}}
+
<hide>
−
[[Category:Issues]]
+
[[page type::article]]
−
In the strictest interpretation of the core doctrine of many religions, there is apparently no room for the predominant scientific view, often referred to as the Theory of Evolution or [[Wikipedia:Darwinism|Darwinism]], that the life presently on Earth evolved over hundreds of millions of years without intervention by a conscious entity or entities.
+
[[thing type::definition]]
−
==A Biased Analysis==
+
[[category:terminology]]
−
* The evolutionists do need to admit that evolution is just a theory, because it is.
+
[[category:teach the controversy]]
−
* The Intelligent Design (ID) folks need to admit that while evolution may be just a theory, it fits the facts very well, and while ID may be a theory in the most general sense ("a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action" [http://m-w.com/dictionary/theory], "An unproven conjecture" [[wiktionary:theory|wiktionary]]), it is not a ''scientific'' theory ("A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena, which has testable implications, and which is well tested and widely accepted as true." [[wiktionary:theory|wiktionary]]), which is (where any doubt exists) generally a requirement for including such ideas in academic curricula.
+
</hide>
−
* The evolutionists need to admit that just because something doesn't have a lot of supporting data doesn't mean it isn't (or couldn't be) true, although it may well mean that it is highly unlikely. They also need to admit that we don't yet know enough about the universe to say that it couldn't have been (or wasn't) designed by an intelligent being.
+
==About==
−
* The ID folks need to admit that until they have a specific theoretical argument with some testable conclusions, postulating an intelligent entity (which itself would need to be explained) when there are other simpler explanations is, as they say, making things unnecessarily complicated*.{{sidebar|*'''complicated''': see [[Wikipedia:Occam's Razor|Occam's Razor]], a principle attributed to a 14th-century Franciscan friar who apparently agreed that it made proving the existence of God rather iffy [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm]}}
+
"[[Creation]]" can either be a poetic way of referring to "everything that exists right now [or ever has existed]", or it may refer to any of the following events:
−
* The evolutionists need to stop worrying that Intelligent Design will, all by itself, turn schoolchildren into Bible-thumping science-haters, and focus on making sure that the scientific method and logical thinking are taught well &ndash; so that those children will be immune from B.S. of any persuasion, which is really the greater battle* (regardless of which side of the Creation debate you're on).
+
* the [[origin of the universe]]
−
{{quoteon}}*'''greater battle''': "Human [[Wikiquote:History|history]] becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." -- H. G. Wells{{quoteoff}}
+
* the [[origin of the Earth]] (see {{wikipedia|History of the Earth}})
−
That said, the Intelligent Designers need to get much more specific about this theory of theirs, which seems (as far as I can determine, although as of this writing I have not found a concise statement of basic Intelligent Design theory; see Sources) a pretty weak theory. To look at a few obvious points: if a supreme being (often referred to as "God") did create the universe...
+
* the [[origin of life]] (on Earth)
−
* Where did He come from?
+
* the [[origin of species]] (on Earth)
−
* Did He mess with it any further after creating it, and if so did he ever stop?
+
* the [[origin of humans]] (see {{wikipedia|Anthropogeny}})
−
* If he is still tinkering with it, then why so?
 
−
* Why couldn't it be that all the fossil and geological evidence we see is truly what happened, and part of His creation?
 
  
−
The evolutionists also need to recognize that just because a casual theory hasn't yet been formulated into something more scientifically rigorous doesn't mean that it's not worth following up. For instance: what evidence could we look for which might indicate the involvement of an extra-universal being (i.e. a being based outside the universe-as-we-understand-it)? More specifically: Would this require a clear violation of the laws of physics as we understand them, or could something be consistent with those laws and yet indicate interference from outside? What would be the difference between interference from outside and interference from beings within the universe but having more knowledge than we do?
+
When used as a synonym for "origin", it is making subtle use of [[interpretive framing]] to imply that these were deliberate acts rather than natural events. Despite the existence of [[scientific theories]] to account each of these events, generally supported by vast amounts of evidence, [[religious fundamentalists]] continue to advocate for various flavors of [[creationism]] -- a non-theory which basically answers every question with "[[God did it]]".
  
−
The Intelligent Design folks should be asking themselves these questions too. They also need to admit (or understand) that, as far as scientific investigation goes, unless some of these questions get answered, postulating outside interference '''as the whole explanation''' is basically admitting defeat; it's the scientific equivalent of saying "well, it was done by magic", which goes completely against the [[Wikipedia:Philosophy of science|scientific philosophy]]...
+
==Science==
 +
There are [[scientific theories]] for each of these events, supported by varying amounts of evidence.
 +
* There is strong evidence that all matter in the univers originated in an event referred to as [[the Big Bang]]; there are a number of speculations regarding the cause of this.
 +
* There is substantial evidence that solar systems arise from the coagulation of dust-clouds surrounding a new star.
 +
* Theories of [[abiogenesis]] generally involve simple self-replicating molecules gradually [[evolving]] into single-celled organisms.
 +
* The theory of [[evolution by natural selection]] is one of the most solidly-proven theories in the history of humankind.
 +
* Evidence that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, and that we are part of the same family of species as apes, is almost as solid as that for the theory of [[evolution by natural selection]] itself.
 +
==Creationism==
 +
It is only relatively recently -- since approximately the 1800s -- that [[science]] has begun providing [[scientific theory|plausible explanations]] for these events. Since most currently-popular religions predate these explanations, there has been considerable resistance to them from within the religious community, especially among those that hold to a literal interpretation of [[scripture]].
 +
 
 +
The most common [[religious]] [[hypothesize|hypothesis]] involves a [[mythological]] creator of the universe, most commonly known as "[[God]]", playing some role in all of these events. Despite the utter lack of any evidence or rational arguments for such a creator, much less evidence for its involvement in creating anything, many [[monotheist]]s nonetheless [[believe]] these hypotheses to be true; this belief, where it flatly contradicts scientific findings, is generally referred to as [[creationism]].
 +
 
 +
==Related Articles==
 +
* [[Intelligent Design]]
 +
* [[evolution vs. direct creation]]
 +
** [[evolution vs. Intelligent Design]]
  
−
...which is, perhaps, back to square one. Is this what the discussion is really about &ndash; [[Wikipedia:Empiricism|Empiricism]] versus other ways of discovering reality? If so, what is Intelligent Design truly based on? (Empiricism is often seen as being in opposition to [[Wikipedia:continental rationalism|continental rationalism]]; does the reasoning behind Intelligent Design arise out of something like continental rationalism, or some other school of thought?)
 
 
==Reference==
 
==Reference==
−
*Faith-based concepts:
+
===Faith-based===
−
**[[Wikipedia:Creationism]]
+
* '''concepts''':
−
**[[Wikipedia:Intelligent design]]
+
** Wikipedia: [[wikipedia:Creationism|Creationism]] [[wikipedia:Young Earth creationism|Young Earth creationism]] [[wikipedia:Old Earth creationism|Old Earth creationism]]
−
*Science-based concepts:
+
** [[Intelligent Design]]: {{Wikipedia|Intelligent design}}
−
**[[Wikipedia:Darwinism]]
+
* '''organizations''':
−
**[[Wikipedia:Evolution]]
+
** The Institute for Creation Research (young earth): {{wikipedia|Institute for Creation Research}}
−
**[[Wikipedia:Natural selection]]
+
** Answers In Creation (young earth / Bible literalist): {{wikipedia|Answers In Creation}}
 +
===Science-based===
 +
* '''concepts''':
 +
** '''origins of Earth'''
 +
*** Wikipedia: [[wikipedia:History of Earth|History of Earth]]
 +
** '''origins of life'''
 +
*** Darwinism: {{Wikipedia|Darwinism}}
 +
*** Evolution: [http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]; {{Wikipedia|Evolution}}
 +
*** Natural selection: {{Wikipedia|Natural selection}}
 +
===Faith/Science compromises===
 +
* Wikipedia: [[wikipedia:Theistic evolution|Theistic evolution]] [[wikipedia:Gap Creationism|Gap Creationism]]
  
−
==Links==
+
==Events==
−
* [http://www.creationdigest.com/ Creation Digest]: promotes the "intelligent design" theory, although "not affiliated with, nor sponsored or controlled by any religious organization or non-profit association"
+
* '''2005-12-20''' [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-12/aaft-ddi122005.php Dover decision is good for long-term economic and scientific strength]: statement from the AAAS
−
* Entries from the [http://www.arn.org/ Access Research Network] [http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm Intelligent Design FAQ]:
+
* '''2005-07-18''' [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Utah_bill_requiring_divine_design_education_withdrawn_by_Senator_Chris_Buttars Utah bill withdrawn]: "...assured him that Utah public school curriculum does not teach that man descended from apes."
−
** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm What is Intelligent Design?]: defines but does not give details
 
−
** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20can%20you%20tell%20if%20something%20is%20designed.htm How Can You Tell if Something is Designed?]: presents an argument based on the presumption that non-randomness implies intelligence (need to write a bit about why this is wrong --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 21:14, 24 Dec 2005 (CST))
 
−
** Further entries in the FAQ either start out by asserting the conclusion ("The more we learn about living organisms, the more they look like products of design..." [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20does%20intelligent%20design%20apply%20to%20biology.htm]) and reassert the "order can only come from intelligence" argument ([http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Haven%27t%20scientists%20shown%20that%20biological%20systems%20evolved%20naturalistically.htm]) and that's all the time I've had to read through the FAQ, which may ultimately include everything I need to know about ID but certainly is not concise. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 21:14, 24 Dec 2005 (CST)
 
  
−
==Events==
+
==News==
−
*[http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Utah_bill_requiring_divine_design_education_withdrawn_by_Senator_Chris_Buttars Utah bill withdrawn]: "...assured him that Utah public school curriculum does not teach that man descended from apes."
+
* [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-12/ps-snt121605.php Scientists narrow the time limits for the human and chimpanzee split]
 
==Satire==
 
==Satire==
 
*[http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20051218 Doonesbury, 2005-12-18]
 
*[http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20051218 Doonesbury, 2005-12-18]
 
*[http://www.venganza.org/index.htm The Flying Spaghetti Monster]
 
*[http://www.venganza.org/index.htm The Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Latest revision as of 01:58, 12 November 2014

About

"Creation" can either be a poetic way of referring to "everything that exists right now [or ever has existed]", or it may refer to any of the following events:

When used as a synonym for "origin", it is making subtle use of interpretive framing to imply that these were deliberate acts rather than natural events. Despite the existence of scientific theories to account each of these events, generally supported by vast amounts of evidence, religious fundamentalists continue to advocate for various flavors of creationism -- a non-theory which basically answers every question with "God did it".

Science

There are scientific theories for each of these events, supported by varying amounts of evidence.

  • There is strong evidence that all matter in the univers originated in an event referred to as the Big Bang; there are a number of speculations regarding the cause of this.
  • There is substantial evidence that solar systems arise from the coagulation of dust-clouds surrounding a new star.
  • Theories of abiogenesis generally involve simple self-replicating molecules gradually evolving into single-celled organisms.
  • The theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the most solidly-proven theories in the history of humankind.
  • Evidence that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, and that we are part of the same family of species as apes, is almost as solid as that for the theory of evolution by natural selection itself.

Creationism

It is only relatively recently -- since approximately the 1800s -- that science has begun providing plausible explanations for these events. Since most currently-popular religions predate these explanations, there has been considerable resistance to them from within the religious community, especially among those that hold to a literal interpretation of scripture.

The most common religious hypothesis involves a mythological creator of the universe, most commonly known as "God", playing some role in all of these events. Despite the utter lack of any evidence or rational arguments for such a creator, much less evidence for its involvement in creating anything, many monotheists nonetheless believe these hypotheses to be true; this belief, where it flatly contradicts scientific findings, is generally referred to as creationism.

Related Articles

Reference

Faith-based

Science-based

Faith/Science compromises

Events

News

Satire

Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Creation&oldid=36722"