Monday, September 8, 2008

Illogical beliefs dealing with the beginning of time

So there is a debate that is highly illogical. The creationism versus evolutionism debate contains arguments that are not within the realms of logic. Creationism teaches that there is a God who created the world in six days using the power of His voice. He creates land and sea, animals, birds and fish and ends with creating man. He breathes into his nostrils the breath of life and man is given a living soul. It takes a lot of faith to believe that all could happen.
Evolution takes much faith too. First of all, there is nothing but some sort of mass and it explodes and there is a universe with a bunch of stars and earth. But there is no life for a long time until all of a sudden, lightning strikes a mud puddle and boom, life is formed. Millions of years pass by and we all of a sudden have hundreds of species of animals that evolved from the first living organism. One species cannot make another species according to science, yet that is how we have so many different animals. Anyway, I could go on and on, but I think the point is made that there is not much logic involved in this argument. Both evolution and creation take much faith. Personally, I believe in creationism, but I do understand that it takes much faith to believe in it.

5 comments:

Seda said...

Hey, David,
I actually blogged on that quite a while back. Ultimately, I think it's one of those arguments that are basically missing the point, but I do agree there's an element of faith either way. On the other hand, physical evidence supports evolution over creation, so there's less faith involved.

What gets me is, why does it have to be one or the other? Evolution happens - reason, logic, physics, biology, and the fossil record all agree. That doesn't mean there isn't a guiding hand behind it. And the Bible speaks in allegory anyway. "God said, let there be light - and there was light." Sounds a lot like a Big Bang to me.

David Carrel said...

Well, this debate would last a long time and probably would not get any farther than our other discussions. haha. Of course you already know I disagree with the evidence support for evolution, but I was mainly writing that blog as a statement as to why Creationism is not allowed to be taught in public schools. That is why I had the point of needing faith for both.
Equal rights I cry, equal rights. haha.

Seda said...

Ya, equal rights, I'm all over that! Problem is, where do you stop? Creationism comes straight from the Judeo-Christian religious text. So if that's the only religious creation story taught in school, there are a lot of religions not represented, and the state has taken on responsibilities forbidden to it in the 1st Amendment. So you have to include the rest of the creation stories, too: Hindu, Buddist, Confucian, Animast, Pagan, Wiccan, etc., etc. I'm okay with that.

Evolution, on the other hand, can be presented (and, as far as I know, is) based on physical evidence - the fossil record and observations of nature, along with the inferences drawn from them; and the inferences change regularly, and are expected to change regularly, as new evidence comes to light. So of course you're going to teach it in schools.

I'm gonna link to your blog, David. Unless you ask me not to.

David Carrel said...

I say teach them all! Even if you spent more time on the main ones, that is fine. But to not even address them? Big debate. I think that there is a documentary on intelligent design by Ben Stein that I want to see. He tackles the issue.
And I won't argue my point anymore, knowing that it is another point to agree to disagree on. With all these points we agree to disagree on, we seem to agree on quite a bit! haha

Jewda said...

You're in my reader now...and you cannot escape.