Which is a more likely explanation for creation?

Which is a more likely explanation for the creation of the universe, earth and humanity?

  • The universe was created by an omniscient, all powerful God. He designed the universe, including th

    Votes: 20 48.8%

  • The universe sprang from a point of singularity which expanded greatly. Conditions were just right

    Votes: 23 56.1%
  • Total voters
    41
Haven't read the article and I don't believe in God, at least not organized religion God, but the lead into the article is exactly why I won't read it.

Accusing people of faith as being afraid of the dark is anything but "rational, scientific talk."

I'm actually a little surprised Hawkins would communicate in those terms, but admittedly I've only read a brief history of time. I haven't heard much of his off the cuff comments.

 
I haven't read the article either, but it's not really an accusation, cm. The United States has second highest percentage of the populace that straight up does not believe in evolutionary theory, just ahead of Turkey, and only 1% of people who report attending church weekly believe in "Evolution without God", while 24% believe in "God-guided evolution", compared to 69% believing in young earth creationism.

 
It's a derogatory and dismissive accusation.

And conflating a belief in an afterlife with a disbelief in evolution is wrongheaded, imo.

I don't care who is right, particularly. It's a meaningless debate. But derogatory and dismissive accusations are not scientific on their face.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But the assertion that people of faith, or in this case, American Christians, are unwilling to believe in consensus, verified, falsifiable scientific theory isn't an accusation. It's a true recollection of the data.

 
But of course that's not the assertion made in the statement we are referring to.

Which is my point.

By the way, can you lay out the evidence that disproves an afterlife?

Because if not, you're overstating the counter case when you say it's verifiable and falsifiable. Let alone consensus, which it still isn't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What does the evidence that would disprove afterlife have to do with believing in evolutionary theory?

No, I can't, by the way. I'm a Christian that very much believes there is more than 'this'.

 
Ah, I read your post as applying to the afterlife "fairy tale" assertion the author attributed to hawking.

I agree there is evidence of evolution and i find it convincing, if not dispositive.

 
Nothing about 'evolution' disproves the existence of God or that God created the heavens and the Earth. The two ideas are not inconsistent or contradictory really.

Evolution seems like a very logical way for a supreme being (God) to establish things.

What is not logical and defies explanation to me is the 'everything from nothing' theory of the God disbelievers. Scientific theories, whether accepted by a great majority of fellow scientists or not, are just that - theories. So many have been proposed, adopted and hailed as 'gospel' so to speak, then a generation or so later, completely debunked by a subsequent theory. I am confident in saying that there is a lot more science doesn't know about the universe and all things in it that it does know. At this point, the entire knowledge of mankind is most likely a drop in the bucket of all things yet to be learned or discovered. We could easily find that even many basic 'facts' commonly accepted by virtually all of the scientific world, will be dismissed or reconsidered in radical new ways in the coming centuries. But until the atheists can offer a clear explanation for the most basic things of how and why the universe is the way it is, then I think we need to keep our minds open to the spiritual and religious explanations. Many brilliant minds, far sharper than any on this board I dare admit, were and are true believers.

 
84HuskerLaw said:
Nothing about 'evolution' disproves the existence of God or that God created the heavens and the Earth. The two ideas are not inconsistent or contradictory really.

Evolution seems like a very logical way for a supreme being (God) to establish things.

What is not logical and defies explanation to me is the 'everything from nothing' theory of the God disbelievers. Scientific theories, whether accepted by a great majority of fellow scientists or not, are just that - theories. So many have been proposed, adopted and hailed as 'gospel' so to speak, then a generation or so later, completely debunked by a subsequent theory. I am confident in saying that there is a lot more science doesn't know about the universe and all things in it that it does know. At this point, the entire knowledge of mankind is most likely a drop in the bucket of all things yet to be learned or discovered. We could easily find that even many basic 'facts' commonly accepted by virtually all of the scientific world, will be dismissed or reconsidered in radical new ways in the coming centuries. But until the atheists can offer a clear explanation for the most basic things of how and why the universe is the way it is, then I think we need to keep our minds open to the spiritual and religious explanations. Many brilliant minds, far sharper than any on this board I dare admit, were and are true believers.
Click to expand...
I agree with the first 2 sentences but I've never liked the "it's a theory" argument.

"Theory of Gravity"

 
84HuskerLaw said:
What is not logical and defies explanation to me is the 'everything from nothing' theory of the God disbelievers. Scientific theories, whether accepted by a great majority of fellow scientists or not, are just that - theories.
Click to expand...

A) That's apparently because you don't have much knowledge of how quantum mechanics work, and don't realize that "something from nothing" is way way wayyyyy too simplistic of a representation of what we're talking about with the beginning of the universe.

B) You also apparently don't understand that the scientific use of the word theory is different than the layman use. Scientific theory is a model that is credible and accepted and works at describing reality. Theory in the sense that you're using the term is essentially just a guess, which is not what evolution, or gravity, or germ theory, or any of those are.

 
LOMS explanation of a theory is pretty good. I do a slightly different one in my chemistry class that stresses explanation and change. So 84 is correct in that as more experiments give better evidence, theories can and do change. But they change for a reason.

What really gets my goat is at the beginning of the school year when I ask the class what an theory is and they answer "An educated guess" or worse "Something that is proven true". This is the greatest disservice that elementary and middle school teachers do to the students. I spend most of the rest of the year trying to correct this misconception.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cm husker said:
Weird; I recall learning that "educated guess" was a rough definition fo hypothesis.

I wonder when that line of education changed.
Click to expand...
Well its just wrong. There is no guessing - its an explanation based on multiple and repeated observation/experiments by independent researchers that try to disprove it. But its easier to say and memorize "educated guess" - just two words.

Also you cannot prove something true. There might be an exception that hasn't been found. You can prove something false. Much of science is trying to disprove some idea. The idea gets stronger with the number of failed attempts to disprove it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huKSer said:
cm husker said:
Weird; I recall learning that "educated guess" was a rough definition fo hypothesis.

I wonder when that line of education changed.
Click to expand...
Well its just wrong. There is no guessing - its an explanation based on multiple and repeated observation/experiments by independent researchers that try to disprove it. But its easier to say and memorize "educated guess" - just two words.
Click to expand...
A hypothesis is actually an educated guess.

I agree that a theory is not.

 
https://pjmedia.com/faith/2016/09/08/proxima-b-is-not-a-new-earth-evidence-for-intelligent-design/

Here is an astronomer's view on the subject.

An interview with astronomer Hugh Ross

Hugh Norman Ross is a Canadian astrophysicist, Christian apologist, and old earth creationist. Ross has a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Toronto and an undergraduate degree in physics from the University of British Columbia. Wikipedia
Some quotes from the article:

Ross spoke about his new book Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home, which details the nine "habitable zones" around a star which a planet must be in for life to be possible

Now that we're studying these planets outside of our solar system, we realize that all eight planets play a role in making life possible on earth," the astronomer said. He noted that astronomers have been looking for twins of our solar system planets, and they have been unable to discover any. "Everything must be exactly the way it is."

In his recent article explaining the NINTH habitable zone a planet must be in for life to exist, Ross concluded with an explicit statement of intelligent design: "It seems nothing less than the supernatural handiwork of God will suffice to explain how a planet could meet all these known conditions for habitability."

But the discover of Proxima b also provides an opportunity to talk about how closely related faith and science can be. Ross argued that Romans 1 tells Christians that the majority will reject what they know to be true, and he interpreted the text to mean that the majority of the scientific community will never see the hand of God in nature, but he predicted that as much as a third of scientists will be able to understand Intelligent Design.

With Reasons to Believe, Ross said, he is "already seeing a huge impact. We found nobel laureates in chemistry come to faith in Christ after being exposed to our books." Specifically, he mentioned Rick Smalley, who one the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996.



Nevertheless, he said he has to explain that faith and science are compatible. "I'm typically addressing audiences who think that science and the Christian faith contradict one another," and "often it has to do with people's misconceptions about what the Bible teaches."

When asked about the danger of uniting faith with a changing understanding of science, Ross responded that while there is a danger there, Intelligent Design is a successful theory. He said that over the past 30 years, the anomalies in the theory have been getting "smaller and less problematic." The test of science is not if a theory solves every problem, but if it answers the big problems. Sometimes the answers create new problems, but if these are smaller that the original problem, the theory is solid.

"Anomalies will always exist, but it's what happens to those gaps that determines whether your model is true," the astronomer said. As astronomers continue to unveil more evidence for the fine-tuning of the earth, the solar system, and the universe at large, that demonstrates the scientific power of Intelligent Design. He quoted an 2013 article from the scientific journal Nature, which candidly admitted that recent discoveries involving fine-tuning of the moon were "causing philosophical disquiet."

Intelligent Design is not a "God of the gaps" argument, it is a "God behind the evidence" argument that blends science and scripture. While faith should not be dependent upon science, it has long been a central Christian tenet that the book of nature and the book of scripture should both tell God's truth. If we misunderstand them, the fault lies with our interpretation, not the Bible or the evidence. Let us always be humble in finding the truth, and confident that it is there for us to find.

 
Back
Top