jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (6 posts)

Evolution VS Science. Is there an amicable solution here?

  1. Ruth Angel profile image83
    Ruth Angelposted 13 months ago

    Okay. So I've been watching the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate in evolution and creationism. Essentially what Ken Ham is insinuating, is that it is OK, to accept the biblical account of creation derived from  literature that has been rewritten numerous times, but that it is ludicrous to assume our account of evolution is accurate even though it is based on fossil record evidence and countless methods of dating that tell us with out a doubt, we are at least 4 billion years old. We can confidently postulate that our account of evolution is correct because we have these copious amounts of evidence. We can provide mathematical theory that coincides with observable evidence that our universe IS expanding. There IS billions of stars. It is likely every star has a planetary body orbiting around it. There is absolutely no way that this all took place in a mere 4,000 years.  As I have said before and will stand by today, the biblical account of creation is relevant to it's own time, when people had no more than an rudimentary understanding of things and often composed of these events in attempt to answer questions they had no answers too. It is no longer relevant. 

    What is your take?

    1. Larry Fields profile image90
      Larry Fieldsposted 13 months ago in reply to this

      Few of the ideologues on either 'side' are very bright. I'll write a hub about this one of these days. And it will probably anger some of the extremists on both sides. The crux of the issue is tautology., and its ramifications.

      1. Ruth Angel profile image83
        Ruth Angelposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        I look forward to it. I am actually publishing one today as well regarding the subject. I hope you get a chance to check it out.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    I wonder why the debate is usually not amicable?

    1. Ruth Angel profile image83
      Ruth Angelposted 13 months ago in reply to this

      Well, it's funny actually. I believe in God. I believe that implementing the idea of a creator helps to make sense of how things began. But I will continue to pursue my answer through science regardless of the eventual outcome, whether my assumption is right or wrong.

      The problem I have with creationism, is that it is adamant on the biblical account of creation and intentionally oblivious to the evidence we have that contradicts it. For instance we have many methods of proving the Earths actual age. If I were to ask the question, what evidence aside from biblical literature do you have to support your theory, the typical response would be to first avoid the question with a redundancy and eventually produce an answer that is diluted and still not supported by actual evidence.

      I respect that other people will have an entirely different opinion than my own, this is just my own bias.

  3. janesix profile image72
    janesixposted 13 months ago

    Did you really mean Evolution VS Science? Because I think you're really onto something there.