So the main reason I joined this site was to rebuke someone's ignorant views of evolution. But I have noticed that the people engaging in the Creationism vs. Evolution arguments seem to be on either extreme of the religious spectrum: zealot (Creationism) or atheist (Evolution). That's where I'd like to come in.
Some background on me: I'm a Reformed Jew. It's how I was raised (I'm 100% Jewish) and while I do not attend services, not even for the High Holidays, anymore, I still fully associate myself with this religion, culture, and ethnicity. I also happen to believe in G-d. But I also like to think I have a decent grasp on scientific theories. I scored high enough on my AP and IB exams to get college credit TWICE for Biology, and have written a 4000-word paper on Ground-Level Ozone. I have always succeeded in science classes. I believe in the scientific method.
That being said, I would like to address Creationism and Evolution. First, Creationism. I'm sorry for the religious ones who thought I would "take their side" but the plethora of evidence supporting evolution severely outweighs that supporting creationism (for sources, go to any blog about evolution and you'll see what I mean). I think you are kidding yourselves. Not every detail may be known about the process, but the methods used to date findings are credible and reliable. As a bonus, in my religion, you can still be a good Reformed Jew and not believe in Creationism. Heck, you can still be a good Reformed Jew and be an atheist. It's more of a follow the laws and do good kinda thing. So I don't see the conflict.
Conversely, I must point out that Evolution is not nearly as well understood as it's made out to be, but I think most well-informed partisans of this side know that and acknowledge that fact (bonus points to you!). But even so, how the world has evolved is nothing short of a miracle (pardon this trite idiom, but it's for lack of a better way to state my idea). I definitely believe a higher power had a hand in molding our world. Maybe that sounds ignorant and myopic of me, but you also cannot prove G-d doesn't exist. I'm not saying I think someone's constantly controlling the world (we can look at the Holocaust for this point), but maybe a little help came about our way.
So I basically just wanted to get my point out there that I don't think either side of this battle knows the Truth. I think the side of Evolution is much closer, but that does not mean religion does not take a part or has become moot, it just has a different purpose. It's hard to get by in today's world without a little faith in something more. However, looking to old books written by men should not be the informing source of knowledge about our surroundings and history.
And, as a side note, I should probably point out that one doesn't have to be an atheist or religious zealot to believe in Evolution and Creationism, respectively, or vice versa (I do realize that that's how i presented my argument).
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Your qualifications indicate that you stopped taking biology classes in high school, and the understanding displayed here don't say anything else. You assert that evolution "isn't as well-understood as it's made out to be." On what do you base that, other than your own ignorance of it, then?
You offer no evidence of anything in particular and indulge in the usual fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantum.
I never meant to say I was any sort of expert, I just wanted to give some background on where I get my information from, so I'm confused as to your first statements about my "lack of expertise." If you would like, I can refer you to sources about evolution, but from what I know and have learned, there are major gaps in the timeline concerning evolution, most likely due to sources of evidence. A lot of information must also be inferred due to these gaps. I was particularly looking at what Darwinian Beagle said about this in this post (http://www.progressiveu.org/163038-attention-all-atheists-maybe-i-was-wr...) about the different skulls and bones found (such as the Peking Man, Lucy, etc), and I believe most reputable science sources agree with him. Scientists do not have all the answers regarding evolution, and I think many acknowledge that, and that's perhaps why it's still called a THEORY.
I would also like you to remember that I am simply putting my opinion out as I see it, not trying to argue for either side. I'm just showing a perspective not many have, not trying to get you to "come to my point of view," although I can see why you may think that. However, I did enjoy you're exceedingly rude post. Feel free to keep it up!
Oh, and here are some evidence sources. You may infer what you like:
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
b-money
"A cactus is the opposite of a chair. In my house you can sit anywhere but there."
i don't know if you're familiar with AP/IB coursework, which by your condescending attitude, i can see that you're not, but they are courses taught in a similar way, with the same material, as COLLEGE level courses. that's why they're accepted by most major universities for COLLEGE credit. just because it happened to be taught in high school doesn't make it worth any less.
--stacie
That is what brought me here initially as well. Welcome.
Here is a blog I wrote outlining my thoughts on Theistic Evolutionists like you:
http://www.progressiveu.org/150615-theistic-evolutionists-and-why-i-dont...
OK, so you believe in modern evolutionary theory. And a reformed Jew can even be an atheist. So of course there isn't going to be a conflict. UNLESS yo happen to be a reformed Jew whose religious beliefs DO conflct with a naturalistic view of the universe.
(1) Er ... I think that modern evolutionary theory IS fairly well understood. Modern evolutionary theory encompasses a wide range of biological knowledge so there are areas that are controversial. But the core of the theory is well understood and not doubted by any credible scientist.. Perhaps you could tell us what you find about modern evolutionary theory you think is not well understood.
(2) While you cannot disprove the existence of all types of possibe gods, you can certainly rule out the existence of a whole lot of specific gods. Here is a blog I did that presents an argument against an omnimax type of God:
http://www.progressiveu.org/000335-responding-to-ignorance-very-long-pos...
Ah, yes! "the Truth" ... with a capital "T". In science we never claim to know that. There is always the possibility that future data will contradict some aspect of what we think we know. But so what? That doesn't mean that there isn't enough data out there to be VERY CONFIDENT that we are correct, and one area in which there is enough evidence to meet this criterion is modern evolutionary theory.
and that would be??
Not for me. It is my contention that you are not justified to believe anything without considering the evidence at hand. Faith .... belief in something in the absence of evidence .... is a surefire way to ensure you fool yourself into believing that which is not true
Then when it comes to religion .... what should be?
Agreed.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Ok, now I understand what needs to be addressed further, so let me try to do that.
Firstly, my wording is off when I say that evolutionary theory is misunderstood (sorry, I am aware of having a word choice problem in my writing). What I'm trying to say is that there is still evidence missing, such as in my other comment about finding all the ancestors. I'm not trying to disprove evolution, but more so trying to say that there's some evidence missing, and that perhaps it's crucial (hopefully this addresses your comments about "Truth" as well--I'm confident, but nowehere mear omniscent).
As for the G-d(s) argment, I'm not going to touch that because: a. I don't know anything about disproving its/their existence (although I will certainly check out your blog), and b. I feel like belief in God, because it is faith-based, is just too subjective to argue about. People do or they don't, no matter the evidence.
Faith and evidence. Also a major battle...Perhaps my faith would be better understood by this statement: I do not let my belief in G-d inform anything else in my life (except morals), and if there was evidence to disprove His existence, then by all means I will become an atheist. But I think in our world today, it's so easy to become depressed by violence. criminality, hatred, and imminent threat of nuclear war (ok, maybe not so imminent, but if everyone's got 'em, I'm nervous). Not everyone stands as steadfast in science as you do, and I think faith in G-d helps many people to get through the week, and terrible times. Do I think this faith should be relied upon solely and mainly? Not in any way. But if it can help others, I say let them keep their faith.
Mostly, I think religion, in the end, should help to guide morals (loosely--if I have to hear about how abortions and gay marriage are wrong anymore, I'm going to stab someone--although, maybe I should re-evaluate my morals then...) and organize people to help others. Commonly, the people should share a set of widely-held values (Here, I think of "mitzvot," which means "laws" but many see them as more of a guideline for doing good deeds) and act as a support system for one another. Of course, calling it religion becomes moot with my definition. It's really just community. If they want to believe in G-d, then that's how it is and you may have noticed, it's very hard to change minds about these beliefs...
Also, if you're very interested in religion, there's a new theory in social psychology called Terror-Management Theory, which basically says the reason to have religion and ideas about the afterlife is to give one's self distance from the knowledge of his ever-imminent death. Here's a link: http://web.uccs.edu/kgeddes/introduction.htm
Ok, hopefully I've addressed all your comments.
b-money
"A cactus is the opposite of a chair. In my house you can sit anywhere but there."