Alternative Creations

The major supporters of teaching the TOE are Christian, Jewish and related Churches. The primary opposition to teaching Creationism are Christian Curches. Your supposition stated above is simply wrong.You will be hard pressed to find a civilization that does not have a creation myth. Man is a curious critter, he asks questions. And he makes up answers. Those answers can be no more accurate than the data available to the storyteller.In the case of Jews, Christians and Muslims, there is not one Creation story but two. These two stories date from different eras and different cultures. They are myth, campfire tales.Other creation myths are equally valid. Whether it is the story of the Raven and the old Woman or the Dagda, they are no more than early attempts to explain nature.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How can a sense of morality arise from a perspective? The sense of morality is the perspective.You say that, "People generally agree that there are evil people in the world (Dahlmer for example) and we agree to this because they take actions with no regard to the harm they cause others. They act without putting themselves in the others shoes."Why do people generally agree? Why does evil exist? Why does goodness exist? I contend that there is something in our being that transcends the physical. It is obvious that the Darwinian notion of survival of the fittest prevails in this world but as humans we have this strange idea of good and evil that is a part of our thinking that is distinct from our instinct for survival.I believe that sense of right and wrong comes from a metaphysical God. It is not a scientific issue. It is a faith issue.I agree that we look at things that you mentioned like the crusades, the inquisition etc and make moral judgements about them and don't necessarily come to the same answer.That only makes sense from a Christian point of view because although we have been given the a sense of good and evil, we also have been given free will to choose either one as well as all of the greyer areas in between.Moral decisions in the end are choices between self-interest and the interest of others.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Wow are we off topic but...I would suggest that because we are social animals depending on the group for our survival, our sense of morality has arrisen as things that do not upset the group. So sharing food is reinforced, while randomly murdering people is shunned.Do we really need an external force inserting a moral code in our heads?

If we are created beings then yes. If we aren't then no. It is a matter of what is truth.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

That's odd, because it seems plain to me. What lessons can we take from the flood...1. If you obedient to God's laws, you may be spared in what is otherwise a worldwide disaster.2. The big flood happened once, but God promised it will never happen again.There's two reasons. This is clear proof that you don't know what constitutes evidence. All the writings you refer to do not constitute evidence. They do corroborate each other in any real manner. The evidences for evolution are physical, studied in great detail by highly trained professionals. Simply, there is evidence for evolution. There is none for creation or a flood. Your lack of understanding of what evidence is, which I suspect will continue unabated, is what keeps you from seeing this very simple fact. The science of evolution is neither disturbing or comforting. It simply is. You should also beware of equating atheist with those who use reason rather then faith in their approach to this question, which you seem to be doing. The two are not the same. Also, atheists are hardly espousing their ideas as a way of rationalizing their sin. "Sin" is a religious concept and of no value, and atheists realize that.All this is interesting, but off topic. Again, Steve8, why do you believe in the fancies of Christianity instead of the fancies of the Norsemen, for instance?

Well, sure, evolutionists will get skittish about anyone challenging them as to 'how things came to be'. Creationists are the same in that regard. That's why we have these discussions.
Re. evolution and beginnings, it is true that not all evolutionists are atheists, I have mentioned that before. I guess it boils down to this, as far as religious folks go -
Did God create everything in the beginning where death, pain etc. were not part of the creation until after the Fall of man? Or did he create it with that stuff already intact? How you answer that question determines alot about what kind of God you are going to worship or reject. And, thereby, how you are going to look at the world and live your life. That's why this issue is so important.

A nice turn of phrase, but hardly accurate. The social behaviors that you for some reason choose to believe came from on high are the result of an adaptable species living in groups and doing what works best in that situation.Also, the idea that something written requires a writer is nothing more than a simple restatement of the long discredited watchmaker argument.

I am not against the teaching of ToE, only against it being taught exclusively without the historical facts of how it came to be, as well as other views.
According to you, it seems that man is always 'making things up' about creation. It's obvious to me that applies to ToE too. So why be so dogmatic about it?? Why not allow other views to be taught?

If you'll check what I have written you'll find that I am not opposed to seeing other things taught. ID for example is a great way to show how leaarning can be missused. Creationism is great as long as we recognize that each myth is equally valid including the two mutually exclusive Christian myths.But neither ID or Creationism are Science. They are, and rightly so, mythology. And they need to be taught as mythology.For a glimpse at what I personally think should be taught see Message 1

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I've read a number of people over the years that don't view the things of this Earth as 'old' in the evolutionary sense. At the end of the day, it's all about your assumptions. But of course, you never read about alternative theories on regular TV or was taught them in schools or saw books about them on the best-sellers lists, so how can you say what you are saying with any certainty?? If I want to find this stuff out I have to go on the Net (knowing what I'm looking for to begin with), or find a mag to subscribe to to get any alternative info.When I was looking into Christianity as an atheist, I thought it would be a good idea to give evidence from both sides a 50/50 chance...I would read something about evolution, then something about creation...it really is amazing how weak evolution looks when you do that...but if you only read stuff from one perspective all the time, it's really easy to go with the flow...but that's not the best way to find out about anything.
When you start viewing things from other sides of the story, things definitely don't look quite as obvious at all. But if you don't do that, it's the old Hitlerian approach..if you tell the same lies/half-truths for long enough to a group of people, without them having equal access to opposing ideas, the majority will eventually believe what they are being told. But fortunately, Americans are not so easily fooled, hence all the debate re. schools in the last 5-10 years in particular.

There is a difference between rallying together and living by a code of social norms for the common good as opposed to sensing that something is actually wrong or evil. For example a person could argue that the best thing to do with the homeless is to execute them because they are a net drain on the society. We know intuitively, (I would argue spiritually) that is wrong and in fact evil. Who says that the watchmaker argument is discredited? Dawkins seems to be the primary spokesperson for that position. He presents a case for how the metaphorical watch could have evolved without any metaphysical initiation or subsequent intervention. He cannot make the case that it did. He can only try and make the case that it could have happened that way. It is one position, but that doesn't mean that the argument is discredited. My belief is that the case that there is a designer is far more compelling. JMHO

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Right, but how you answer that question has very little to do with what actually happened in reality.As a foundation of a religion it's just fine. No one disputes that. Most of us ToErs will say this, "I don't think that one side of the descision has any more access to the truth than the other side." In otherwords, Catholics can be right and Hindus can be right, at the same time.It's just that what we consider "right" for a religion, is not necessarily what we consider "right" for reality.The problem comes when the followers of one particular religion what to replace objective reality with their personal version of reality.

Can you expand on this?What historical facts would you like them to teach which aren't being taught currently?What other views would you like the teach?What are the foundations for these other views?What other views would you not want them to teach? (ie "I want them to teach Great Flood, but they better not teach Heaven's Gate Spaceship inside the Comet)

What is that difference? Evolution also affects behavior. How else would an evolved behavior feel? Again, adding a deity is unneeded. Why do so? Anyone who has read it and knows logic. There are several reasons.1. It implicitly requires design for complexity in it's premise and then asserts the opposite in it's conclusion.2. Another is the the metaphor is a very poor one. I have seen watches, I can go somewhere and see other watches very like the one I found being manufactured while this is not possible with life. Also, watches have no mechanism for reproducing themselves, as can be ascertained from a brief examination, while life forms do (and more importantly pass on traits to their progeny).Those are just the easy ones.

Because I believe it is the truth.In regards to the watchmaker argument I'm not taking from the point of view of debating points or even a dissection of logic. My view point is that this world is gives the appearance of design and I believe that the belief that there is a designe makes more sense that that it just happened.Gotta run or I'd have tried to give a more comprehensive reply.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.