Evolution Vs Creation
Discussion
One of my arguments that was lost in the fray was about religion being created as mankind gained its consciousness. The far sighted realised ways and means of controlling people were required that were more subtle than simply using force. Times were hard for most people so the idea of a god to look after them if they behaved and the promise of eternal life as reward for living a peaceful and obedient life must have seemed very attractive. The writings produced as "the word of god" were to be obeyed to the letter. The evidence I lay before you is this, the teachings included guidance on eating pork. In ancient arab countries this was a very good idea. Dodgy pork is very bad, we'll stop people eating it by god's word. They were unable to foresee refridgeration. Had they been able to imagine a time when all sorts of perishable foods would be perfectly safe they would have worded the rules differently. Thou shalt not pork until such time as something has been invented to stop it going off. It wouldn't have worked because it would have seemed flimsy. Strong words were needed; direct unambiguous instructions. No one has come along, certainly not god, to rewrite the rules for modern society. That is why I believe the word is the word of man and is one of many reasons I believe in evolution.
rxtx said:
There's been a lot of talk on creation/god and not much on evolution, now's probably a good time to shift focus. I've read a few books on evolution but never Darwin's own, I think when I'm done with my current Alistair Reynolds I'll start On the Origin of Species.
Considering it's 150 yrs old, it's actually a good read. Nice structure etc, it bounces along quite merrily.Of course there are now far better books on evolution, which one would expect given the time that's past. Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" is probably the current definitive work on the matter, for normal folk like me. Top academics and evolutionary biologists may have a different view.
In response to DickyC's suggestion of the origins of religion and its use to control;
Promises of the afterlife and eternal reward, how does that tally with signs of worship seen in the remnants left by early man, would they have understood eternity and the concept of that? What led them to worship?
Science existed way before somebody decided to use it as a form of control (MMGW, carbon levies, carbon footprints) ergo religion existed as a sincere form of worship before anybody started to use it to control others, IMO.
Promises of the afterlife and eternal reward, how does that tally with signs of worship seen in the remnants left by early man, would they have understood eternity and the concept of that? What led them to worship?
Science existed way before somebody decided to use it as a form of control (MMGW, carbon levies, carbon footprints) ergo religion existed as a sincere form of worship before anybody started to use it to control others, IMO.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's always been about fear. Early on, primitive humans worshipped naturalist/animist gods because they were afraid of their power, or wanted to appease them - Worship the rain god or he won't water your crops'Later on it was fear of the authorities. Pay homage to god in the way the Catholic Church requires or they'll accuse your wife of being a witch and burn her to death in the village square. Pay them sufficient bribes or they'll excommunicate you. But if you have sinned and could do with a bit of forgiveness, no problem, just buy one of our handy Papal Indulgences and you can do whatever you fancy.
leglessAlex said:
It's not the same at all. Science gives us data, and then it's up to us what we do with it. No control at all.
Science is the tool. It does not control, we use it to control. We say that science suggests if we do x then y will happen so we should do z.Religion is the tool. It does not control, we use it to control. We say that God suggests if we do x then y will happen so we should do z.
drivin_me_nuts said:
... Science alone should not dictate the outcomes of government policy. We are more than a society of facts and we need a vast battery of other inputs to make effective legislation. Science alone is not enough to decide 'who gets what'.
Yes. I guess it is human nature that an atheist engineer wants to get rid of religion but put science in control.Science should inform scientific decisions. Eg. We should not allow homeopathy on the NHS because science shows us that it's absolute b
ks. Kids should have the MMR jab because it doesn't cause autism. Etc.
But as an atheist, I'd be concerned about using science and no other criteria to form all government policy.
ks. Kids should have the MMR jab because it doesn't cause autism. Etc.But as an atheist, I'd be concerned about using science and no other criteria to form all government policy.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Science should inform scientific decisions. Eg. We should not allow homeopathy on the NHS because science shows us that it's absolute bks. Kids should have the MMR jab because it doesn't cause autism. Etc.
But as an atheist, I'd be concerned about using science and no other criteria to form all government policy.
Couldn't do it because science isn't emotional and emotions play a large part in forming policy, and rightly so. Science also doesn't allow for concepts like equality.ks. Kids should have the MMR jab because it doesn't cause autism. Etc.But as an atheist, I'd be concerned about using science and no other criteria to form all government policy.
That said, I don't think the scientific method is applied enough in policy shaping at the moment.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff