I have been doing a great deal of research lately on atheist/theist theorys and arguments. One of the arguments that never fails to get my attention is the whole creation/evolution debate.
There are two significant points that I would like to lay out for discussion.
First, the creationists have a single "theory" that covers their argument. God did it. All of it. He spoke it all into existence and there it was, fully and perfectly formed. Meanwhile, the atheists cover various specific arguments with one of three different theories: big bang, abiogenesis and evolution (BBAE). These three theories comprise the base of the scientific arguments aimed at knocking a little sense into the creationist "proofs" and "evidences" for their origins beliefs.
Second, it occurred to me that there is a fundamental flaw in the entire argument of creation/evolution. What is the flaw? Glad you asked....
Creation is an argument based on "why". Big bang, abiogenesis and evolution are arguments based on "how". The Christian theory of creation has no mechanism for its creation. It's argument is simply that gos spoke and it was done, without any explanation of how it came about. On the other side, BBAE has no explanation of "why", primarily because "why" is an irrelevant question regarding these theories.
It seems to me that the creationist should embrace scientific research into the origins of our existence because it would "increase their understanding of god."
Isn't that what they really want?
I would like to hear arguments from both atheists and creationists. Sometimes it is difficult to evaluate an idea within ones own framework. Bias creeps in in the form of preconcieved notions and presuppositions. Tell me what your thoughts are. Help me flesh out this idea.
My thoughts go something like this: if creation is the "why" and BBAE Is the "how", then everybody is happy and the argument ends. As an atheist, I am perfectly happy to let the theist tack god onto BBAE if it makes them feel better. I can continue to accept the scientific theories without having to continually argue that creation is a load of crap.
If the creationist wish to say that it was divinely inspired, "designed" or whatever, they are welcome to do so. Perhaps then they could accept teaching BBAE without crying about only teaching one side of the argument. Of course, that would require them to acknowledge that we BBAE believers had it right the whole time...
There are two significant points that I would like to lay out for discussion.
First, the creationists have a single "theory" that covers their argument. God did it. All of it. He spoke it all into existence and there it was, fully and perfectly formed. Meanwhile, the atheists cover various specific arguments with one of three different theories: big bang, abiogenesis and evolution (BBAE). These three theories comprise the base of the scientific arguments aimed at knocking a little sense into the creationist "proofs" and "evidences" for their origins beliefs.
Second, it occurred to me that there is a fundamental flaw in the entire argument of creation/evolution. What is the flaw? Glad you asked....
Creation is an argument based on "why". Big bang, abiogenesis and evolution are arguments based on "how". The Christian theory of creation has no mechanism for its creation. It's argument is simply that gos spoke and it was done, without any explanation of how it came about. On the other side, BBAE has no explanation of "why", primarily because "why" is an irrelevant question regarding these theories.
It seems to me that the creationist should embrace scientific research into the origins of our existence because it would "increase their understanding of god."
Isn't that what they really want?
I would like to hear arguments from both atheists and creationists. Sometimes it is difficult to evaluate an idea within ones own framework. Bias creeps in in the form of preconcieved notions and presuppositions. Tell me what your thoughts are. Help me flesh out this idea.
My thoughts go something like this: if creation is the "why" and BBAE Is the "how", then everybody is happy and the argument ends. As an atheist, I am perfectly happy to let the theist tack god onto BBAE if it makes them feel better. I can continue to accept the scientific theories without having to continually argue that creation is a load of crap.
If the creationist wish to say that it was divinely inspired, "designed" or whatever, they are welcome to do so. Perhaps then they could accept teaching BBAE without crying about only teaching one side of the argument. Of course, that would require them to acknowledge that we BBAE believers had it right the whole time...
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -Einstein
