Just a disclaimer – This isn’t really a ‘current events’ thing, more to do with personal interest but as it involves religious beliefs I felt it best to post it here. Please have respect for the views and opinions of other members when posting.

So, this is my first real contribution to the site in a while...and it’s completely SBG, LOTR and hobby unrelated

A little background. The whole ‘Creation/Evolution debate’ is something that I’ve had an interest in for a while; not because I see there being an issue as to which is correct, but because I come from a deeply conservative, evangelical Christian background. For a long while I myself strongly believed that evolution was false, to the extent that I would regularly confront my atheist peers in discussions over the topic. However, a year or two ago I began revising what I believed about evolution (and about religion in general - but that’s an entirely different story) and in due course came to discard the views that had been repeated to me from an early age and that I myself had come to accept. Evolution/Creation is a topic that particularly interests me because while my views on the subject have changed significantly in recent years, those of my wider family (including four younger siblings) remain stubbornly rooted in what now I see as a profoundly ignorant and ultimately damaging belief.

While I was brought up in this tradition, I am of course aware that this is not the norm in England or Europe at large; although as the Creation movement strengthens in America we will doubtless see its popularity rise over here as well. As it is something that interests me, and I currently doing a lot of research into the controversy, I’d like to hear how aware you guys are of the controversy surrounding the issue, how (if at all) you feel it affects you and what your opinions on the discussion are. So, if you’ve got an opinion, please let’s hear it

Thanks
AW

As an atheist, I do not believe in Creationism. That said, I don't mind it being taught in a suitable setting. I don't know if it's still going on, but a year or two ago there was a big fuss about whther or not Creationism should be taught in school science classes - my view is a staunch 'No'. Maybe I'm old fasioned, but when I was in school, there was this class called 'R.E.' which stood for Religious Education; as I see it, Creationism is a religous belief, not a scientific belief, and as such should be restricted to the R.E. lessons, and conversely, I expect Elvolution to be restricted to Science lessons. The only possible overlap I can concieve is in History classes (and even then you'd be studying the social impact of Evolution when Darwin published Origin of Spiecies rather than going in depth into either belief).

oh no D. It's called "Inteligant Desine" to show that the people who came up with the dame have none.

I am an Athisist too(I keep meating more and more of them and i thoguht we where a minoratoy) i i have always belived that Religion should be kept out of Politics and schools. By all means teach people about the religons but don't say that it's 100% true jsut becuase evolution is only 99% sure that it's right.

The main fact is that when Darwin first published "The origin of Spiecies" the church didn't bat an eye lid and actually went out and supported it too but now every one has there nickers in a twist. A well known Douche bag by the name of kirk cameron says that if evolution where true then we would have the "Crocoduck" a lauchable joke that he thinks makes his argument ligit. a 5 year old will tell you that cna't happen.


Also while on the topic have a look at these Athisits on Youtube that i'm friends with. they do great vids and the first(Thunderfoot) was resposable for the "Draw Mohammid Day" that send an entire county running to censor the internet!!!

Thunderfoot
Patcondell
FactVsReligion
King Heathan

As a former practicing Catholic, I personally think the subject of Creationism AS A MYTH is fine, just as the story of Illuvatar creating the world from the Sil is a good story.

However, as a fact, I think it's a load of steamy malarkey.

There is solid scientific evidence saying the Earth's been around for billions of years, but Creationism claims it's only been around for less than 3,000. This wouldn't bother me if they had kept it in church, but around the same time I completely stopped practicing Catholicism, there was a movement in the States to try to get this creationism bullshit taught in high school science classes.

To explain this logic...

Now, science is a pretty nifty thing I think. It explains why things work the way they do..."Holy amazing shit Batman! This acid seems to be melting this orphan's face into a puddle of gross, why does that happen?" "Well let's use science to figure it out."

Now some whacknut comes up and says "It's CHEESE! CHEESE is making that happen!!!!! The only thing that could cause that is CHEESE!!!!!!" And you say "But I don't see any cheese," and they say "That's because it's INVISIBLE CHEESE!! You can't SEE the CHEESE unless you BELIEVE in the CHEESE!!!!" So you say "But that's completely preposterous" and he says "You can't prove it's not CHEESE, so that means it's CHEESE!!!!"

Personally I find the concept of the Big Bang infinitely more believably than the universe being blown out of some Middle Eastern deity's ass.

Science works by developing new ideas, while religion only survives by rejecting new ideas...science says the Earth is billions of years old, religion rejects it. Science says homosexuality is genetic, religion rejects that too. Science says "HEY! You can't come back from the dead!", religion says "HEY! REJECTED!"

The endpoint is; you can't stick the word "theory" on the end of a belief and presto it into science...by saying religio is scientific enough to teach in school, you also say that science is spiritual enough to teach in church. Think about that.

Cheers,
Your CHEESE loving Lord Fenrir

I knew knew you like chesse Fen?

The one problem is that some people say "But Evolution is a theroy and there for isn't fact yet so lets teach every possbile way". And i say "Really. Then please explain to me how the tHEROY of Gravity can be wrong?"

LordFenrir wrote:

Science works by developing new ideas, while religion only survives by rejecting new ideas...science says the Earth is billions of years old, religion rejects it. Science says homosexuality is genetic, religion rejects that too. Science says "HEY! You can't come back from the dead!", religion says "HEY! REJECTED!"

From my experience, that's generally how religous debates on internet forums go. The vocal Christians state something they think as true. The vocal Atheists look at the claim and start poking holes in it. the vocal Christians then reject the Athiests' counter arguements. Generally, I think that Atheists wouldn't mind being proven wrong about the existence of gods (stress on the word 'poven' mind you) whereas most Christians would have their worlds destroyed by being proven wrong, and hance they ignore flaws in their theories.

Although, on a side note, I think we should point out that not all religions reject science to survive. I'm not an expert, but unless I'm mistaken, religions like Buddism work well with science as they don't teach myths as fact and are about self-enlightenment/betterment/etc. Actually, in my expereince, online religous debates seem to consist exclusively of Christians on the 'pro-religion' side of things

you obviosly haven't seen much of the islam side of things have you but i will leave it there as arguning Christan matters on a gaming website has a few pot hole them desussing islam would have alot...and they would have land mines in them......and dog crap.

I have no problem with Buddishs etc as they keep them selfs to them selfs. It's only Chrisianty, Islam and *cough*Scintolagy*cough* tho how anyone can all it a relgion i don't know.

I don’t really see the issue here being between atheism and theism, or even religion in general; it’s important to note that many religious believers find there to be no contradiction between modern science and their beliefs. Evolution says nothing about the existence of God, or the value of religious beliefs and practices. While many people, myself included, find evolution and other scientific theories to hold an explanatory power which does not necessitate the existence of a deity, many theists combine both ideas without qualm. It is only a small minority of religious followers (at least in the Western World) who are so grounded in their dogmatic beliefs that they must refuse to accept the evidence. The issue is therefore between the inflexibility of outdated doctrine and the progressive advances of science.

Evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. It is supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community (and practically unanimously by those in the relevant fields), it is backed by vast amounts of evidence gathered over the last 150 years, it is entirely consistent with the findings of every other field of science and its application has brought with it significant advances in areas such as our understanding and treatment of diseases. So, when Creationists go about criticising it they do so not in a scrutinising, methodical, empirical way that would immediately cast light on their unsubstantiated position; they instead use misrepresentation, quote mining, rebutted evidence and repeatedly falsified claims to support their position. The one argument they had that held any scientific weight was ‘Irreducible Complexity’ which was subsequently shown to be invalid. And yet, despite this, the widely scientifically-illiterate supporters of Creationism continue to adhere to their untenable claims and debunked myths.

Precisely how intelligent, thinking human beings can somehow ignore the mountains of evidence which supports evolution is unclear to me, but the fact that I once did and that my family continues to do so shows that it is indeed possible. For me, it took a relatively short amount of time to go from being fundamentally opposed to evolution to being completely convinced by it, simply by doing some genuine, un-bias research into the matter. Arguments that I had repeatedly used and thought untouchable were quickly shown to be either based upon confused terms and definitions, founded upon misrepresented evidence or data or just plain wrong. One only has to take a quick glance around YouTube to see how often the same refuted arguments are given again and again and shown to be ridiculous again and again, to the extent that you have to ask whether for Creationists it is simply a matter of believing what you want to believe regardless.

Now, fundamentally I agree that an individual is entitled to their own set of beliefs and this should be the same here; if someone wants to believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old then no one has the right to interfere. However, the problem is that these particular beliefs lead to a blatant disregard for years of compiled evidence and scientific knowledge. This does not just affect an individual’s view of evolution, but also their view of scientific methodology and the credibility of science in general. When this happens, every advance science has made in human history and every benefit, momentous or trivial, it has brought us is taken entirely for granted. It is bad enough when an individual chooses to think like this, and worse when they try to convince others, but when children are targeted – at their most impressionable and at an age when their developing beliefs will impact upon the way they think and live for the rest of their lives – this to me becomes entirely unacceptable.

This is why I see this issue as so profoundly important. The misinformation and plain-faced lies masquerading as science need to be combated and as crucial as it is, we cannot simply be content with keeping it out of our schools. Creationism needs to be shown for what it is, an Iron Age myth taken by a literalist minority to be infallible truth in the face of all evidence to the contrary, and it needs to be decried as such.

Quote :

but when children are targeted – at their most impressionable and at an age when their developing beliefs will impact upon the way they think and live for the rest of their lives

The funny thing is that alot of creations and other religios people use a turm similar to this
"If you learn a child in the ways of god they will belive for all etenity"
I have to lauch at it as almost all the Athisits i know used to be Christian(And most of them where Cathlic). I was lucky in what my mum and dad agred to raise me to be religos nutral and that i could chose which to fallow if any and would not hammer home stuff when i was young. However even then many other people tryed to. My dads side of the family tho they didn't force me that much at all are all Cathloic tho i think the my 1st cosin is probbaly no longer but not telling them.
Also i had my first 2 schools. They had me join a club called "The Crusaders" ignoring that fact that a Crusader was probally 1 gun away from being Hitler and my secondry school was sponcered by a church. By brother who is more nutral than Athisit but still a fem beliver in sciance shouted out when aske dto bow his head to pray saying "But i don't do god" and then told of for speaking his mind.
Just so many people have hammered into there heads that they need to get the children into religon quickly and all of this is the Churches doing.
I go on and on about the Christian church but it is the same with alot of others too the most note worthy is Islam which the penalty for leaving is being stoned to death.

ArtificialWinter wrote:

I don’t really see the issue here being between atheism and theism, or even religion in general; it’s important to note that many religious believers find there to be no contradiction between modern science and their beliefs.

True - correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Stephen Hawkin, one of the foremost scientific mind's of humanity, a devout Christian?

Quote :

It is only a small minority of religious followers (at least in the Western World) who are so grounded in their dogmatic beliefs that they must refuse to accept the evidence. The issue is therefore between the inflexibility of outdated doctrine and the progressive advances of science.

True again - however, it is greatly unfortunate that those people are also the most vocal. In the religous debates I've seen, the 'religous' side has always been the vocal Christians with a literalist view on the Bible. I don't recall ever seeing a moderate participate in a debate.

Quote :

Precisely how intelligent, thinking human beings can somehow ignore the mountains of evidence which supports evolution is unclear to me, but the fact that I once did and that my family continues to do so shows that it is indeed possible.

Unfortunately this is, I think, one of the bad things about religion - instead of being presented as a way of belief and allowing people to choose, people are indoctrined into believing that their minister's way is the correct way.

Quote :

When this happens, every advance science has made in human history and every benefit, momentous or trivial, it has brought us is taken entirely for granted.

Ironically, a lot of scientific advances have been made by men of the cloth, especially after the downfall of Rome, when a lot of knowledge was only preserved via monestaries. So if you think about it, belittling science is also belitilling the Church in a sense

Quote :

I have to lauch at it as almost all the Athisits i know used to be Christian(And most of them where Cathlic)

I myself used to be Christian when I was a little kid. I genuinely did believe in God and I even went to Christian run summer clubs for a few years. But as I grew up, I lost that faith, and as I grew up some more I came to the conclusion that there was no such thing as God.

jaws900 wrote:

The funny thing is that alot of creations and other religios people use a turm similar to this
"If you learn a child in the ways of god they will belive for all etenity"

I think you've hit the nail on the head there jaws. Particularly in conservative, evangelical circles I've heard that line spoken from the pulpit almost word for word and yet, for some obscure reason, they will not accept that this constitutes indoctrination in any way. This is what Dawkins means when he speaks equates religious upbringing with child abuse; when a child, who does not and cannot know any better, is instructed in 'truths', the very questioning of which is frowned upon or even forbidden, and who's upbringing denies them any honest portrayal of views to the contrary - how can anyone say this is not damaging to a child. It would be true of any set of beliefs, religious or otherwise, in any setting in any culture.

Dînadan wrote:

True - correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Stephen Hawkin, one of the foremost scientific mind's of humanity, a devout Christian?

I really couldn't say. It's certainly possible although I personally find it unlikely that he is devoutly Christian in the traditional sense.

Quote :

True again - however, it is greatly unfortunate that those people are also the most vocal. In the religous debates I've seen, the 'religous' side has always been the vocal Christians with a literalist view on the Bible. I don't recall ever seeing a moderate participate in a debate.

I too find the fact that moderates are, almost inevitably, less vocal than their more radical counterparts disappointing to say the least. This has been the subject of much debate in light of the most recent round of Islamic threats, directed this time at the creators of 'South Park', and the ensuing 'Draw Muhammad Day'. While there are intelligent, vocal moderates out there, they are often drowned out by more fundamentalist voices, or end up being attacked from both sides of the argument and falling into silence. I find that on the issue of creation and evolution specifically, there are too many people who simply have no idea at all so while they might take sides against creationism, they are in no position to defend that view effectively. It is, after all, a complex scientific matter that most people can only be expected to have a rudimentary understanding of at best – but such people, with their limited understanding, are also the most vulnerable to pseudo-scientific beliefs like Creationism.

Quote :

Unfortunately this is, I think, one of the bad things about religion - instead of being presented as a way of belief and allowing people to choose, people are indoctrined into believing that their minister's way is the correct way.

I agree. Even outside of fundamentalist circles, religion in general encourages the individual not to think critically for themselves but to blindly accept what they are told. Cleverly, this applies only to matters of religion, it need not (although it often can, particularly toward the more evangelical end of the spectrum) affect other parts of life. Of course, people will always have questions but where these cannot be met with satisfactory answers the believer must simply accept that God cannot always be understood, or that he works in mysterious ways, or that our human minds cannot comprehend the answers etc. My perpetual uncomfort with this concept is what ultimately led me away from my beliefs.

Quote :

Ironically, a lot of scientific advances have been made by men of the cloth, especially after the downfall of Rome, when a lot of knowledge was only preserved via monestaries. So if you think about it, belittling science is also belitilling the Church in a sense

The fact that many early scientists and intellectuals were Christians is often an argument used by creationists to add credibility to their claims. They fail to acknowledge that many of these men also believed in alchemy, witches, foul vapours, bloodletting, geocentricity...not that I'd put any of these passed your average Creationist.

Quote :

I myself used to be Christian when I was a little kid. I genuinely did believe in God and I even went to Christian run summer clubs for a few years. But as I grew up, I lost that faith, and as I grew up some more I came to the conclusion that there was no such thing as God.

Just out of interest, what were the things that convinced you?

Well, there seems to be a fair bit of anti-Christian sentiment going on here, so I'll chime in. I am a Christadelphian and while a few of us tend to be conservative and traditionalists, I'm probably more of a moderate. We're a fair bit different from other branches like Catholics (yes I share some of your sentiments on them) with our some of our views (angels/demons, heaven/hell, the trinity). You probably haven't heard of us. We're fairly small in comparison to other churches. But enough background.

Everyone claims that Creatonism is forcing its way into schools and upon children, but from my experience in Australia, it's the opposite. RE was pretty average and only lasted for a couple of years. The teaching also wasn't that great (ignoring some of the belief clashes). Now in science (which I'm studying), it's purely evolution. Which is fine. I agree with evolution. The evidence is there and it makes sense. I don't understand why it's either Creationism or evolution. Surely God could have used evolution as a means of creation (you've probably gathered that I don't take the 6 days of creation as literal, given the fact that the sun wasn't even created instantly and therefore there weren't days existing to time by). But what annoys me is the evolutionist teachers. They seem compelled to challenge God's existence at every possible point. I mean, is this hypocrisy or what? People complain about their children being taught creationism, yet we're being taught aethism at the same time. Can't we just stick to science without people's religious beliefs being forced upon us as fact? I just want to go to a lecture without snide comments about how this disproves the existence of a God or how this is a lie because it's impossible with God.
I think what I'm saying is allow others to hear points of view but don't force yours on them, let them make up their own mind. At least that's what I think, I kinda lost where I was going and I'm a bit short for time.

could have put it better my self. We are by no meansragging on Christianty Cal. We are more ragging of the extreamists and the people trying to undermine other people rights becuase they need to stroke there Ego by "saveing us"

I very much see you point in turms of the school too. Scine should be kept in science and religion kept in RE. Simple really but sometime the 2 clash. I have hurd many times of 1 teacher bending a science lesson so to manipulate the kids into thinking that Evolution isn't 100% and should be belived and he just has to teach it not belive it.....f#ck him. You don't see any Athisit RE teachers, namly becuase they can't stand teaching Tollrance for Islam or teaching kids about creationsum.

Cal585 wrote:

Everyone claims that Creatonism is forcing its way into schools and upon children, but from my experience in Australia, it's the opposite. RE was pretty average and only lasted for a couple of years.

I think this mainly stems from a couple of years ago when there was a big push (in Britain at least) for Creationism to be taught in Science classes. I for one can't see a problem with creationism being taught in schools - it's just where in school it's taught that I'd make a complaint about. I'm perfectly fine with there being RE lessons, it's just the idea that Creationism should be taught in a science class I object to. I'd also be against Evolution being taught in RE as it's not relavent to that lesson (unless you were studying a religion that took it a scripture, but even then it shouldn't be a big focus of the lesson).

Quote :

I don't understand why it's either Creationism or evolution. Surely God could have used evolution as a means of creation (you've probably gathered that I don't take the 6 days of creation as literal, given the fact that the sun wasn't even created instantly and therefore there weren't days existing to time by).

That's fair enough, but personally, I think thats up to a person to decide for themselves, or for a minsiter/parent/etc when asked about evolution to use it to marry science with his belief system. When you're taught about evolution, it should be in a scientific setting, not a religious one, and therefore, God should be left out of the equation. Evolution itself does not disprove God's existance, just disproves the literalist reading of various creation myths.

Quote :

Can't we just stick to science without people's religious beliefs being forced upon us as fact? I just want to go to a lecture without snide comments about how this disproves the existence of a God or how this is a lie because it's impossible with God.
I think what I'm saying is allow others to hear points of view but don't force yours on them, let them make up their own mind.

This is a fair point. Science isn't about God (or at least, until someone devises a way to scientifically proove or disproove God's existence), and as such, he should be irrelavent to a scientific discussion. Perhaps the problem comes from atheism being so connected with science? I'm willing to bet that most atheists, in the absence of belief in a higher power, turn to science to explain the universe. As such, for some, science itself becomes a religious belief (remember that religion is not neccessarily defined as belief in gods). Perhaps another problem is that, in context, the opposing view of God does exist doesn't have the chance of being brought up? I agree that it would be best for your lecturerers not to bring up that Corrollary from what they're teaching as it's irrelevant to what is being taught, and is best left for a religous debate.

ArtificialWinter wrote:

Just out of interest, what were the things that convinced you?

To be honest I can't remember I think it could have been that as I grew up, I just couldn't see any evidence for God. By now, I'd say it's almost faith - to me it's just something that I 'know'.

Oh, I'm not saying you're ragging on Christianity. Sorry if I camew across all defensive, I was more trying to get words down rather than phrasing it properly.

I agree that a lot of Christians are frustratingly blind and stubborn, very narrow minded. So I understand your comments about them forcing their opinion and refusing to listen to reason. I don't disagree with creationism being taught in science though. Obviously teachers can't help but put their own personal views in. I'm not saying teaching creationism instead of evolution, but when you're discussing the origin of life, and having professors strongly advocating evolution, maybe it would make sense to mention other theories. I mean, surely it's not a hard concept to explain. Spend 5 minutes going over the concepts and focus the rest on evolution and everyone's happy. Creationism isn't ignored, but neither is it forced upon others.

But I think the point is that you can't regulate these things. Everyone will put emphasis on their opinions regardless of whether they're supposed to or not. It's human. I think my point is that one shouldn't try and force their view onto others, but I wholeheartedly support informing others of both sides of the story.

I'm not really sure what I'm trying to argue though, so maybe I'll just shut up before I look like a complete idiot. Out of interest, how long does RE last in other parts of the world?

[quote="Cal585"] I don't disagree with creationism being taught in science though. Obviously teachers can't help but put their own personal views in. I'm not saying teaching creationism instead of evolution, but when you're discussing the origin of life, and having professors strongly advocating evolution, maybe it would make sense to mention other theories. I mean, surely it's not a hard concept to explain. Spend 5 minutes going over the concepts and focus the rest on evolution and everyone's happy. Creationism isn't ignored, but neither is it forced upon others.
/quote]

That the problem. The Scientific evidence which you NEED to stand in any science class(Biolagoy, Chemisty and Physics to name but a few) have many types of evidence and evolution wasn't the same it wouldn't be taught. Creationisum only has 2 things. The bibal which has so many holes it's lauchable and so called evidence which most scientists can debunk in 5 - 15 mins in detail.
If i wrote a book sayiong that Hamsters where fish and gave various reasons why i know this to be true doesn't make it so. Evidence is take from any sorcses as many other subjects such as History. I mean thats how there exams are formated, taking various parts of evidence and putting them together. you needed to at the very least out weaigh the obosing views or equal them in the field of science and Creationsum doesn't even come close. Saying that "Evolution is a therory and there for isn't 100% true" just gets the reply "What about the Therory of Gravity? Is that just pigs with a conspiracy trying to keep us on the planet so that when the planet is gong to be destroyed the dolfins can shoot of into space and say slo long and thank for all the fish?" It's ludricus but it's the same exact thing but people treat it with kid gloves becuas eof the tag line "Religion".

My brother just found this and it was rahter relivant so i felt i should give you the link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7028639.stm

Cal585 wrote:

Out of interest, how long does RE last in other parts of the world?

If I recall correctly, I was taught RE right from when I started school at 4/5 all the way up to when I finished my 'main' education with GCSEs (age 16), and if I recall, it was at least 30mins a week. (And that's not counting the occassional time it was in Assembly, or [during the time I was in Secondary school] the occassional times Assembly was held at a nearby church).

Now, now, let's not have a dig at other's beliefs. You claim the bible is full with holes, I think it makes sense when you look at it properly (and understand that some of it can be metaphorical - e.g. Revelation). I think that the theory of evolution is full of holes without a deity. Such as where did the matter come from that started the Big Bang? How did these elements form into cells in the first place?

I'm probably not one to comment on the whole debate really though, having come from a completely different environment, where RE was an occasional story/activity in primary school. I just get annoyed at everyone claiming to use evolution to debunk creationism without any evidence and would like a bit of neutrality on these subjects in teaching environments. Sure you're not going to get examined on creationism, but neither will you get examined on the disproval of it. But that's probably just me, coming from a background of good high school teachers, particularly history, who let us see all sides of the story, made it clear that none of them were correct and allowed us to form our own opinions and conclusions.

Cal585 wrote:

Now, now, let's not have a dig at other's beliefs. You claim the bible is full with holes, I think it makes sense when you look at it properly (and understand that some of it can be metaphorical - e.g. Revelation). I think that the theory of evolution is full of holes without a deity. Such as where did the matter come from that started the Big Bang? How did these elements form into cells in the first place?

The big bang has NOTHING to do with evolution. It's a completly diffrent field of study(Cosmology i think). And even then we are not 100% sure on that that is what heppened but at the veidence we have at this time it is our best guess. And even then science changes over time so when we find a more logical answer etc that may take it's place. No Science is ever set in stone.
Once agian Elements have NOTHING to do with evolution.
Yes it's closer than the big bang was but it still has nothign to do with it.
Most atoms has a natural attraction to each other as hydrogen does to oxygen(aka Water) and verious other combinations. It is belived that they was always Hydrogen but we have yet to find a way that got there so again the sciene is still on going but we belive that they Hydrogen formed most of the elements that we see in todays world. Amino Acids came about after millions of years of effectivly trial and error until the first amino chain was formed by chance. This resulted in mor ebeing created as it's hard to invent say a car but easy to make tons more once the first on is built.

I don't really have stike out at most religios people. Only extramists who insist that the word do what they want(Teach Creatiomisum in Scince, Gay's being put in prison and verious other things as well as some parts of the "Holy" texts that are down right stupid even for the time they where printed.

Cal585 wrote:

I think that the theory of evolution is full of holes without a deity. .

But evolution itself doesn't disproove the existence of god(s). What it does disproove is 'God magiced eveything into existence in a few days'. Unless I'm mistaken, Creationism is about taking Genisis literally, and that is disprooved by Evolution.

Quote :

Such as where did the matter come from that started the Big Bang? How did these elements form into cells in the first place?

1) The Big Bang is a different Theory to that of Evolution
2) We know nothing about what haapened prior to the Big Bang. One of the leading theorys of of the fate of the Universe is the Big Crunch, where the universe collapses in on itself, so its plausable that this happened to a previous universe, which then Big Banged to create this universe. Also, if you're taking the stance that nothing could exist prior to the Big Bang, then how could a deity influence it since they themselves would not exist?

The same problems happen with a diety(god)
"Nothing could have been there before the big bang so how did it happen?"
Well we don't know.
So your wrong
Well then can you tell me where your god came from?
He's always been there
But he had to come into existance at some point
............... Hay lets sow a little respect for religion here.

It's so funny to here them back up to that sort of argument.

Calm jaws
I thinkt he Big Bang is related to the discussion. When discussing the creation of species, through evolution or creationism, it is directly related to the creation of life, which is only one step further back. Yes there are several theories about the universe, the Closed version (bang, expand, contracts, bang...) and Open (continual expansion) being the main. Both of them are under the influence of time as we determine it. If a deity was to create the bang and therefore existance of time, then its impossible to understand what happened beforehand if it was timeless. The absence of time makes more sense to me than a never ending repetition of change that never truly began.

But that's not really what we've been discussing.

I like/agree with Dinadan's statement that evolution does not prove/disprove God. What I dislike is that everyone seems to think it does. People bunch creationism with fundamentalist beliefs that follow the literal timeframe of the bible. Creationism can still exist alongside evolution. Or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it. In science classes, people actually assume the existence of these undiscovered evolutionary links just because they aren't prepared to consider creationism at all (and scientists aren't usually ones to assume).

Hmm, I think i've derailed this whole topic with meaningless debates. Sorry.