POLL: The God and/or Evolution Poll!!!

Remove all ads!

By Popular Demand! The God and/or Evolution Poll!!!

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 65 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: The God and/or Evolution Poll!!! (65 votes.)

The God and/or Evolution Poll!!! (Choose 1)
* 1) Mankind evolves; 2) Mankind creates God(s). - 60% (39)
* 1) God creates evolution; 2) Mankind evolves. - 23% (15)
* "Ah do believe, this Scopes fellow is goin' straight to hell..." - 6% (4)
* 1) Don't know/care; 2) XTC is in communion with God. - 11% (7)

 

The only problem I see with the theory of evolution is that it's philosophically vacuous, scientifically unprovable, retroactively self-justifying, definitionally circular, morally empty, void of beauty or purpose, and completely foreign to our day-to-day interaction with nature and human innovation.

But any theory that brings us social darwinism can't be all bad!

 

It's also for guys who can't cut it with the chicks .

 

But, the idea of God creating everything is an even worse scientific theory

There is, however, plenty of evidence for evolution, so if you want to be scientific about things evolution wins hands down

 

@Taluntain- The intent of this poll was merely to provide a forum for the continuation of a discussion begun in the "God- Man or Woman" thread in AoDA, which, as Beren pointed out, strayed from the topic as originally defined in the thread. In moving from the question of whether God is/was male or female to the question of whether God or evolution or some combination of the two is responsible for the human species, a move with which I had nothing to do, the thread began to generate some interesting discussion, and discussion which remains relevant in the US at least, where there continue to be attacks on the teaching of evolution in public schools. While I admit that the poll was written in such a way as to elicit a response, and was written as well with several attempts at humor, each of these little jokes, such as the XTC reference, was tied directly to the discussion on the prior thread, and thus represented an attempt to continue the character of the prior discussion in the new, correctly labelled thread. As to your decision to move this poll to Whatnots from AoDA, presumably on account of its lack of seriousness, I would ask you to explain to me in what way a poll on God's gender is more serious than a poll that attempts to get at a very contemporary conflict between certain religious and scientific worldviews, that plays itself out not only with respect to evolution and creation, but also with respect to stem cell research, etc. And if it is simply a matter of the wording of the questions, please let me know, so that I can rewrite the questions and re-post the poll in AoDA.

 

Huh?

1. Archaeopteryx , Volvox, the black & white variants of a certain English insect (can't recall the name) and many other similar findings and observations, specifically transitional forms.

2. Comparable organic structures, e.g. homologue ones like arms and wings.

3. Comparable behaviours, e.g. dogs and wolves howl.

4. The stages foetuses go through: evolution in fast-forward.

5. Comparable genomes.


These things give indications that hold some weight, to say the least.

Elaborate.

The fact that we are able to discuss it sort of speaks for itself.

WTH do morals have to do with evolution?

Err...beauty? The thing in the eye of the beholder?

As for purpose - beyond giving benefits to certain lucky individuals - there is none, as far as we know. It is random. But how does that disprove it? Try widening your perspective.

On the first point, I'd say the opposite. But human innovation? Again, WTH?

 

I believe you are referring to Biston betularia: the peppered moth.
I quite agree that evolution has provided plenty of evidence. The problem is any devout believer in God can dismiss it by saying that He planted it there. People will always see what they want to, not necessarily what's the truth. That goes for myself. Since I haven't seen a big face in the sky or a burning bush, I don't believe in God. But maybe I'm looking for the wrong things. Evolution is plain to see, if you are prepared to accept it. And belief in God is easy, as long as you are prepared to try.

 

First, belief in God doesn't exclude evolution, and the other way round.

Second, most "theories" on evolution are hypotheses.

Third, those hypotheses typically require as much faith as an organised religion.

Fourth, I want real proof and not speculations. Especially not those looking like "Goes doesn't exist, THEREFORE... THEREFORE God doesn't it".

But there are things I would like to hear from the religious wing, too.

 

OK, I'll elaborate. But I'd rather play ToEE!

philosophically vacuous...

Evolution is fundamentally a question of engineering - HOW does the world work? Philosophy answers the question of WHY. Evolution, as a theory, can't explain a host of whys - why are we here? why is life important? why is entropy being trumped by evolution? why should we care about evolution? etc.

scientifically unprovable...

Comparable organic structures, behaviors, and genomes are not good examples. It assumes that because two objects are similar, they must somehow be connected. But this is ain't a new idea. For thousands of years, people have made superstitious associations based on surface similarities. It was common in the medieval and classical eras, for instance, to prescribe plants that looked similar to the affliction - e.g., liver-colored plants for liver problems, etc. I worry that later centuries will look back at us and wonder how we could have been so "superstitious"!

And it's too easy to pick only some similarities while ignoring others. Dogs and wolves howl, yes - but humans and whales sing, hummingbirds and bees hover, and worms and snakes slither. That doesn't make them connected.

Per genome similarity - all words use the same basic letters, all computer programs are built from the same 1s and 0s, and the BG and IWD games use the same basic engine. But spoken and programmed languages (and BIS games) are examples of conscious design across accumulated innovations.

definitionally circular...

Evolution defines its means as its end. It's a description of a process: Given time plus chance, the strong push out the weak. But how do we measure strength? Sheer breedability? Then viruses are the height of the evolutionary ladder. Survivability? Then cockroaches are the strongest. Complexity? Then the optimum situation would be a lifeless world with an undying supercomputer. Diversity? Maybe - but that's both unmeasurable and contextual. A combination of these factors? Probably - but, then we conclude (logically) that whatever is must be that perfect combination. A better combination, presumably, would (over time and chance) win out over the weaker combination.

Which means: whatever is, at any given moment, is not only the best that evolution has to offer at that moment, but also the best proof that evolution is true. Whatever was before, must have been weaker then its successor; and because it was superceded, it proves that evolution is true. Whatever is to come, must be stronger that its predecessors; and because it succeeds, it proves that evolution is true. So whatever is, is best; whatever was, was best then but is no longer best; and whatever will be, will be best and supercede what is today.

So basically, evolution boils down to the fact that all life is a product of evolution and all life therefore proves the theory by dint of its existence. Which is not much different from the religious claim that life was created by God and that life proves God's existence.

retroactively self-justifying...

Whatever is, is the best that historical evolution has to offer. Since the stronger survive over time, what we have today must be the strongest. But how do we know that it's the strongest? Well...it's here today, so it must be. So we redefine what we mean by "strongest" by whatever traits the survivors happen to exhibit.

Take two animals - the jackal and the poodle. Clearly the jackal has been favored by evolution in certain respects - sharp teeth, pack mentality, fast speed, etc. But the poodle has also been favored - its insipid snuggliness and vulnerability make it ridiculously popular with humans, which protect and breed it. So globally, today there are more poodles than jackals. But whatever is, must be the best for the given place and moment. So we measure strength for one environment as sharp teeth (the Congo), and redefine strength as snuggliness for another environment (urban New York).

In which case, evolution loses most of its explanatory power. What does evolution add to our understanding if all it can do is bless whatever happens to exist at the moment? But it also loses vulnerability to challenge. There's no way to disprove evolution in terms of measuring strength if whatever is must be, definitionally, the strongest.

Nor, incidentally, does evolution answer the question of why - if the whole point of evolution is to reward survivors and breeders - life remains (after billions of years) so short and fragile. Or why we, as humans, should be so concerned about our lives (and the environment) being fragile.

morally empty...

No, you're right, evolution has nothing to do with morals. So evolution has no explanatory power for why human beings have a sense of morality. In that regard, it is quite unrealistic - even unreal.

void of beauty or purpose...

Like you said, with evolution, there is no beauty or purpose. But that doesn't match our perceptions of reality. We instinctively recognize beauty and purpose, and we have to convince ourselves - over many long, caffeinated afternoons at the local Parisian cafe - that life truly is meaningless.

In a sense, evolution is dodging humanity's most critical questions. It claims to explain why dogs are like wolves. But it can't explain why we feel sad when our dog is hit by a car, or why we play pointless games of fetch with them. Evolution sweats the small stuff and then dismisses the real questions with, as you write:

Maybe evolutionists should consider widening their perspective to look at how the theory has such discord with actual human experience. Which brings us to...

completely foreign to our day-to-day interaction with nature and human innovation...

Day-to-day, we interact with design and purpose. Each day I go to work in an office with other co-workers - the company was created by conscious intent, the employees were hired deliberately, and each worker comes in for specific reasons. Every time I load up a CRPG, it's because I'm purposing to play a game which a company has designed. Etc., etc. Now, granted, these may not be good designs or purposes, but they are certainly not random. Those places where we most closely confront the spectre of randomness are in the urban wastelands, where individualized, nihilistic people thrive on destruction and decay - the very opposite of strength and growth.

To sum up: Evolution neither accords with day-to-day human experience, nor with the perception that nature (like human innovation) evidences design. It also cannot be disproved because everything in reality fits the theory. That's not to say that evolution isn't true, but only that it takes a HUGE leap of faith to accept it in the teeth of common experience. That may explain why it's so widespread among scientists and intellectuals, who may be the only ones brave enough to make that leap.

Anyway, that's my take. Not too heated for What-Nots, I hope!

 

You've only got to look at the variety that can seen amongst different breeds of dog to see that genetic variation can be a massively powerful force. All modern dog breeds date back to a common ancestor only a few thousand years ago. And now some breeds are so different that they almost can't mate together. Granted, this variation has been helped by human intervention, but over millions of years, natural forces could have the same impact.

Why does it have to answer the question 'why'? It's just a natural mechanism that people like me believe happens. I don't see what the question 'why' has to do with anything. I believe in the force of gravity but I don't really mind 'why' it exists.

 

"Why" is the area of religion, as there is no satisfactory answer to the "why" question and we as humans find that highly disconcerting we have since the dawn of time made up all manners of answers to "why" to comfort ourselves. Another word for those made up answers is religion. One of my major beefes with religion is that the "why" question is very important for me and that I find the frivoulos and simple answers which have with a 99.99999% probability just been made up by some fella supplied by religion to be insulting to the severity of the question and my own intelligence. Religion for me is like if you ask for directions from someone and that person doesnt know but gives you some directions anyway to make you happy. You might be satisfied in the short run but you might not be as satisfied when you find out that those directions were false and you are driving through a rather unsavory neighbourhood with your new mercedes.

 

hmmm... don't feel like a serious answer so:
definitly XTC !

 

I keep telling myself that arguing with creationists is a complete waste of time, but I just can´t resist answering.

philosophically vacuous...

"Evolution is fundamentally a question of engineering - HOW does the world work? Philosophy answers the question of WHY."

As far as I know, evolution has never intended to be a philosophical question. It does not seem valid to me to attack something for not being something it has never intended to be. You seem to be laboring under the misapprehention that evolution is somehow attempting to compete with religion at its own level. It is not.

scientifically unprovable...

"Comparable organic structures, behaviors, and genomes are not good examples. It assumes that because two objects are similar, they must somehow be connected."

Your attack on the comparison of similarities between organic structures seems overly simplistic and makes me think you don´t actually know how the science of evolution actually treats these comparisons, and their actual relevance. It makes me think you are formulating your criticism from a position of ignorance.

"And it's too easy to pick only some similarities while ignoring others. Dogs and wolves howl, yes - but humans and whales sing, hummingbirds and bees hover, and worms and snakes slither. That doesn't make them connected."

Are you sure whales sing? Do they know that is what they are doing? Has anyone asked them?

Again, this seems overly simplistic.

"Per genome similarity - all words use the same basic letters, all computer programs are built from the same 1s and 0s, and the BG and IWD games use the same basic engine. But spoken and programmed languages (and BIS games) are examples of conscious design across accumulated innovations."

Your point being?

definitionally circular...


"So basically, evolution boils down to the fact that all life is a product of evolution and all life therefore proves the theory by dint of its existence. Which is not much different from the religious claim that life was created by God and that life proves God's existence."

To the best of my knowledge, evolutionists have never claimed that evolution is the origin of the universe. As far as I know, evolution tries to explain the process by which animal species change over time and adapt to the environment. The species that adapt better have better chances of surviving The "how" as you yourself said before. It´s not the same thing. This argument is often used by creationists when they attempt to call evolution a religion (as opposed to when they try to make creationism a science).

retroactively self-justifying...

"Whatever is, is the best that historical evolution has to offer. Since the stronger survive over time, what we have today must be the strongest. But how do we know that it's the strongest? Well...it's here today, so it must be. So we redefine what we mean by "strongest" by whatever traits the survivors happen to exhibit.

Take two animals - the jackal and the poodle. Clearly the jackal has been favored by evolution in certain respects - sharp teeth, pack mentality, fast speed, etc. But the poodle has also been favored - its insipid snuggliness and vulnerability make it ridiculously popular with humans, which protect and breed it. So globally, today there are more poodles than jackals. But whatever is, must be the best for the given place and moment. So we measure strength for one environment as sharp teeth (the Congo), and redefine strength as snuggliness for another environment (urban New York).

In which case, evolution loses most of its explanatory power. What does evolution add to our understanding if all it can do is bless whatever happens to exist at the moment? But it also loses vulnerability to challenge. There's no way to disprove evolution in terms of measuring strength if whatever is must be, definitionally, the strongest."

Not quite. Change is a constant. Whatever is, at the moment, is also changing. Life forms are reacting to factors like environmental changes, constantly, everywhere. Some will adapt better than others.

"Nor, incidentally, does evolution answer the question of why - if the whole point of evolution is to reward survivors and breeders - life remains (after billions of years) so short and fragile. Or why we, as humans, should be so concerned about our lives (and the environment) being fragile."

I´m honestly not sure I understand what you mean by this. If the question is why life is short, well, that´s probably quite complex. You don´t think adaptability should be exponential or anything, do you?

morally empty...

"No, you're right, evolution has nothing to do with morals. So evolution has no explanatory power for why human beings have a sense of morality. In that regard, it is quite unrealistic - even unreal."

I´m sorry, but I just don´t get your point. Why should evolution, a scientific discipline, try to answer philosophical questions? Why do you call evolution "unreal" for not being able to explain human morality, when it has never, in fact, been its purpose to try and explain it? Again, as far as I know, evolution is about biological change and adaptability, not morality. Evolution is not philosophy.

void of beauty or purpose...

"Like you said, with evolution, there is no beauty or purpose. But that doesn't match our perceptions of reality. We instinctively recognize beauty and purpose"

Not quite. Culturally, human beings learn to recognize beauty and purpose, according to the societies and cultures we grow up and live in. Beauty is not the same to an American as it is to an African, and neither is what we understand as purpose the same to a Christian as it is to a Hindu or Muslim. You seem to think that abstract concepts like "beauty" and "purpose" are somehow innate to human beings (that we were created with them, perhaps). I do not think that this is so, but then again, abstract concepts such as these have nothing to do with evolution.

"In a sense, evolution is dodging humanity's most critical questions. It claims to explain why dogs are like wolves. But it can't explain why we feel sad when our dog is hit by a car, or why we play pointless games of fetch with them."

In every sense, it has never been the object of evolution to answer these questions. These are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.

No, we are not, in fact, trying to invade your territory.

"Evolution sweats the small stuff and then dismisses the real questions"

Sure, if you think biology is small stuff.

"Maybe evolutionists should consider widening their perspective to look at how the theory has such discord with actual human experience. Which brings us to..."

Maybe you don´t actually know what evolution is really about.

completely foreign to our day-to-day interaction with nature and human innovation...

"Day-to-day, we interact with design and purpose. Each day I go to work in an office with other co-workers - the company was created by conscious intent, the employees were hired deliberately, and each worker comes in for specific reasons. Every time I load up a CRPG, it's because I'm purposing to play a game which a company has designed. Etc., etc. Now, granted, these may not be good designs or purposes, but they are certainly not random. Those places where we most closely confront the spectre of randomness are in the urban wastelands, where individualized, nihilistic people thrive on destruction and decay - the very opposite of strength and growth."

I´m sorry, but personally, I don´t find that applying what we as humans do, as purposeful creatures, to a universal level, is a valid argument in favor of the design and creation of the universe by an intelligent entity, but that´s just me. I´m not here to try and convince you of anything. My point is that you´re slamming evolution for not doing things it´s not even supposed to do, and I honestly think you don´t really know what it´s about. My impression, and I´m sorry if I´m mistaken, is that your experience with evolution is second-hand. That you know what you´ve been told about it, but have never actually bothered to read about for yourself.

Anyway, that´s my take. You´ll excuse me if I don´t continue this argument, but like I said earlier, I honestly think it´s a waste of time. I have better things to do than argue about evolution on an rpg forum. I should know better than to even read these posts when I come to the site for the news. They get the better of me and I end up answering anyway.

[ April 21, 2004, 18:27: Message edited by: hermit09 ]

 

I'm with Evolution on this one. The Bible has explained nothing about dinosaurs and other fossils of the times before man.

 

The bible may not explain them but I've met a few religeous prople who can. They say that God put the fossils there. Pretty conveniant answer with no thought behind it really.

 

I go to a christian school and after many years I still enjoy contridicting things the teacher teaches us about Creation etc. The more they try to explain it, the more I know it cannot possibly be true. They try to tell me that the 'Big Bang' never occured, nor can they explain why the universe is expanding very rapidly.

The subject of religion is a very touchy one and has been the subject of wars for many years... According the the christians, anyone who doesnt believe in God goes to hell when they die. Does this mean that every single still-born baby goes to hell? That all the Muslims, Sikhs etc will go to hell? How can that many billion people all be completely wrong? And what about all the people before Christ was born? Did they all go to hell too? This seems to me like a very large amount of people and that hell must be able to accomodate lots of people. My religious studies teacher has kicked me out of class on more than one occasion for bringing this up. There is absoloutly no hard proof that Jesus did come to earth and come back to life, but there is at least some evidence that evolution did/does occur. Perhaps it can be contridicted and proven wrong, but there is stuff to go on. The only evidence of Creation is the Bible - a book written many thousands of years ago. It has been re-written and copied countless times and has probably undergone numerous changes to make it seem more interesting and readable.

It saddens me that so many people are intent on defending their beliefs rather than feeding starving children and providing homes for those without them.

 

The best thing about my current religion teacher is: He acknowledges that the Bible is largely full of crap - that there have been numerous mistranslations and it is largely metaphorical. All other RE teachers have tried to tell us that there was this bloke and this chick in this garden with a tree and a snake...

 

i really cant be bothered explaining a heap about evolution and why i think that is the 'better' theory, but i could sit here and argue about it for days and write a 200000 word thesis on it if i really wanted to, but it's not going to get anywhere, so ill make this short and sweet:

i think evolution is the better reason for although the little proof we have, we still have more proof than the god theory. (and also im kind of skeptical and against religion ) but never mind about that

Note: there are plenty of other reasons i could include but my fingers are not up to the typing

 

It gets a lot easier to reconcile religion and evolution if you move away from things like the Christian insistence that the Bible is entirely a factual document, and start looking at it from the perspective that there is some history there, but that much of it is bunch of parables.

Just because there are flaws in basis of all religions doesn't exclude there from being a god, or a central intelligence that has powers (technological or metaphysical) beyond our understanding. Perhaps this entity is able/chooses to nudge evolution in certain directions.

I personally like the belief that there really is no single God, that we are all part of god. When we die our energies diffuse out and rejoin a greater conciseness that is beyond our comprehension. What you do with this life is what you take back to the "god mind".

Of course that flies in the face of the beliefs of heaven and hell, and that the following the word of some divine being the only means by which to ascend to heaven. I have my own theories on these prophets and saviors, which I choose not to share today. I will just leave it at this: I believe that certain historical figures rose to a level of conciseness that the rest of us have not been able to attain. What they were able to do in reality, and what their stories grew into are, to me, 2 separate things that are inexorably intertwined by time and legend.

Boy have I opened myself up to some serious flames.