Ivellious wrote:Also, it might interest you to know that practically every research lab in the country dedicated to biology or medicine uses evolution as the backbone of its research. Modern biology is either derived or completely integrated with evolution so that if you take away evolution, much of our understanding of life no longer makes sense.
I don't understand how or why evolution aids medicine, I only remember that medicine has been hindered quite a few times because of evolutionary presuppositions. Look at "vestigial organs", for instance - some older generations frequently had their tonsils removed because it was believed they were just an evolutionary leftover, a belief that turned out to be false. About 200 other human organs were also considered useless, just because we weren't aware of their purpose at the time (the so-called Evolution-of-the-gaps
argument, but fortunately research and reason overcame the presuppositions).
Furthermore, I believe that your statement about our understanding of life being integral with evolution, is greatly exaggerated. Whether the living species on Earth came about by common ancestry or a common designer, doesn't affect the function of those organisms, or their genetic similarity/difference, or whatever else. To put it similarly, it's not essential to know how cars are made, in order to be able to fix one. Besides, most of big breakthroughs in medicine, such as vaccination or penicillin, were made without referring to evolution, rather observation and experiment, in a proper scientific manner.
Ivellious wrote:Creationism is a Christian design, which is religion. End of story. I disagree that evolution is religion, and the only reason one could make a claim like that is not knowing anything about evolution in the first place. Religion is faith-based, as in without concrete evidence to suggest that the belief is true, but rather it is more primal and personal. Science utilizes observation and experimentation to support hypotheses, and evolution is no exception.
So, we should reject creationism just because it implies that a religion is true? Should we rephrase it into "worldview" then? Would you agree that evolution implies a worldview? I sure think you would - if life came to be by accident, and evolved by random mutations, that would pretty much mean that there is no God, and that atheism is true. What makes atheism different from other religions? It has its own "creation myth", certainly no less vivid than others, in fact, while religions generally point to a purpose and intention, atheism teaches that everything is an accident, which is kind of surprising, since we observe a very orderly universe, and very complex life in existence.
Regarding "faith"... You can't deny that evolution is often faith-based. I've already mentioned the example of "vestigial" organs, or "junk DNA"... or transitional fossils, none of which have been found after 150 years, however, evolutionists still have faith
that they will be found in the future. As for religion, I don't defend other religions, but I have to point out that Christianity is primarily based on reason
, and only partially on faith. If you know about Christianity as much as we supposedly know about evolution, than I understand why you think this way. The main site, which this forum is a part of, has many answers for nonbelievers:
By the way, as for "concrete evidence", the question is how we define evidence. If philosophy counts as evidence (and it should, as it provides a framework for science and thinking in general), then Christianity is (still) way ahead of atheism, because its foundations can justify knowledge in a much better and more logical way than atheism/naturalism.
Ivellious wrote:Old-Earth creationism is an interesting concept but I find it too close to Intelligent Design to be acceptable for my tastes.
Ivellious wrote:I mean, I have no issue with someone believing in it. But I do question the logic behind trying to teach creationism/Id in our public schools, and that's where I draw the line. Science class is not for non-scientific topics based in religion and without scientific merit. Evolution is accepted as widely as practically any scientific concept out there among the scientific community, and it provides us with a confident explanation as to how life developed without religious or supernatural input. On that basis alone, our children have no reason to be exposed to anything but evolution in the public classrooms, because our public taxes are not supposed to fund the teaching of religion except in social studies context.
I wouldn't worry about evolution being widely accepted - a few centuries ago a flat Earth was "widely accepted", while the proponents of a round Earth were a minority, yet turned out to be right. If we rule out a Creator, then we indeed are left with evolution as the only possible theory of creation. But if your argument for evolution (and against creationism) is that it doesn't involve a "supernatural" input, I don't think it holds much credibility, as we still don't know how
life arises at all. Since we can't experimentally create life at the moment, all possibilities should be kept open, so that we don't go down the wrong path in history again. That's why I believe we should teach both ID and evolution, and I don't see anything controversial about that.