Part of the problem I see in the Evolution vs Creation debate is the confusion between Facts and Truth. Something can be True without necessarily being a Fact. Think of it this way--Newspapers deal in Facts--Who, What, When, Where, Why or How, whereas Novelists and poets deal in the meaning behind or beyond the facts. The same can be said about the difference between science and religion. Science can tell us the five Ws of life on Earth but is the province of philosophy and religion to give life on Earth meaning. On the other hand sacred texts like the Bible can give us the meaning behind life on Earth but give no real insight into how it came to be. "And god said..." just isn't a very good how.
This message has been edited by MexicanHotChocolate, 06-20-2004 01:51 AM
Our loyalties are to the species and the planet. We speak for Earth. Our obligation to survive is owed not just to ourselves but also to that Cosmos, ancient and vast, from which we spring. --Carl Sagan, 1934-1996
I suppose the bible isn't a science book. So yes, it deals with the "why". But if we are creationist, and keep it to ourselves, would that be okay? How do our beliefs about what happened in the past, effect the truth of what happened anyway? It's just an alternative to believing evolution.
Science makes it so that things like the bible cannot be involved. I think I understand why. It deals with the "how", and if it included what it sees as "religious texts", then what's to stop every text being included?
So, the debate is because creationists still think creationism is what actually happened. If it is what happened, then you can see why they have "tried" to spread it. It's a bit like belief. You might say you have no reason to believe, but what if it is the truth anyway? I guess science is a useless way to convince people of God, in a way anyway.
It's like the mechanics on a motorcycle, either you are interested in how it works, or you are interested in why it works. I suppose there are two groups, the "hows" and the "whys". I would want to ride the bike, whereas someone else might want to know how it works. Telling them, "It works because I like riding it" might be useless to that person.
I would want to ride the bike, whereas someone else might want to know how it works. Telling them, "It works because I like riding it" might be useless to that person.
I agree with your analogy - but to take it a bit of step further:
There are also a small subset of people who like the why of the bike (riding it), don't know how it works, but stubbornly try to argue the physics of internal combustion having only read the motorcycle's owner's manual.
This can be most frustrating to both the "just riders" and the physicists.
quote:There are also a small subset of people who like the why of the bike (riding it), don't know how it works, but stubbornly try to argue the physics of internal combustion having only read the motorcycle's owner's manual.
I agree partially. Yet I know creationists who do there homework aswell.
Though, yes. There are lots of creationists who are guilty of this. Others admitt their inner-layman before debate commences. Lots have admitted that they are no experts. I'm pretty sure that not every evolutionist here is an expert on the how either.
I agree that their are creationists that have done their homework - that's why I used "small subset" in my analogy.
And I agree that most on both sides of the argument are not 'experts'.
Certain (by no means all) creationists are specifically frustrating when the Bible is the only source they acknowledge, to the point that they don't know the basic ideas of the theories they claim to support and disprove. Discussion is rendered pointless.
Facts are concrete objective concepts like: dogs have four legs, the sky is blue, grass is green, chlorine gas is toxic to humans...these sorts of things can be proven through observation and testing.
Truths are more general, abstract, broad ideas like Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Peace, Freedom, Justice and Injustice...
Or a truth can be a subjective insight into human nature. Those kinds of insights are the basis of art, theater, fiction, and mythology...Truths are things that can not be proven scientifically they must be demonstrated metaphorically...