Evolution or Creationism ... whats your slant?

[H:O:R:A:C:E]

Darnit Neville, that article was LONG. (And I didn't know who to root for.)
I'm certain that many societies of the past were much smarter than what
we have today. We don't seem able to live "in harmony" with our planet.
We have 'evolved' into a species which seeks DOMINANCE; we want more,
more, more. There is no wisdom in our push to produce 'more energy',
we're destroying our home -- and for what? There is no wisdom in producing
more and better weaponry -- in the name of PEACE!

Well I agree completely H;O;R;A;C;E, Humanity has I think hit the self destruct button. Thankfully,,and because I do very much look to the past, there are usually, normally a few survivors, and mankind's history is thus perpetuated.

Major disasters, Wars and generally speaking Population reducers are a part of the heritage.And a part of our story on Earth.

A very learned, common sense and down to earth exponent of our history is a chap called Edmund Marriage,

Here is just one of his well researched lectures.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...85287998589429

[theophilus]

The word evolution has more than one meaning so the first step in discussing the subject should be to decide which definition we are using.

The term is often used to describe the theory populatized by Charles Darwin, that the first life developed spontaneously from nonliving matter and all life that exists today is descended from that original lifeform. But some people who speak of evolution simply use the word to mean changes that occur in organisms over many generations.

If it is used in the second sense there is no doubt as to whether it is true; we can actually observe it going on. It doesn't contradict the belief that the Biblical account of creation is true. God created a small number of basic kinds of life and each was genetically programmed so it could produce descendants with a wide variety of characteristics. You can see a more detailed explanation of this here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-created-kinds

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...gers-wholphins

The real controversy isn't about evolution but about abiogenesis, how the first life developed from nonliving matter: was it created by God or did it come into existence as a result of natural processes without any divine intervention. Sometimes proponents of the second belief use a logical fallacy called equivocation: they point to evidence of evolution in the sense of change and claim that this proves the truth of evolution in the sense of all life being derived from a common ancestor.

You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are constantly changing and adapting to their environment.” But, of course, the fact that animals change does not demonstrate that they share a common ancestor.

I cannot overstate how common this fallacy is in evolutionary arguments. Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, speciation events, changes in the size and shape of finch beaks, the development of new breeds of dog, and changes in allele frequency are all examples of change, but none of them demonstrate that the basic kinds of organisms share a common ancestor. When you hear evolutionists cite these as examples of “evolution in action,” you need to politely point out that they have committed the fallacy of equivocation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/10/logical-fallacies-equivocation

Evolution in the sense of all life being descended from a common ancestor cannot be proven because scientific evidence must be based on observation or experiments that can be repeated. We cannot observe how life began and we can't test it experimentally. Here is an interesting article that discusses this lack of evidence:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v16i12f.htm

My slant is both. Life itself bears a sense of intelligence, ordered chaos, and it does evolve and change actively before one's eyes. Life is a clockwork spirit, a ghost in the machine, a musical mathematician.

I wouldn't say evolution is always moving upward, of course - there is such a thing as DEvolution; I'd just say it's life changing in response to things, to patterns of behavior. Humans devolve because we get lazy, brains get stupid because we don't consistently use them - that's simply a response, it makes sense that if you cease to use a certain part your brain then it will not evolve for being used.

Intelligent design in some form does seem like a good answer to me - perhaps the universe itself being a life form the scope of which we could not imagine (I imagine blood cells could not possibly know the scope of the human body which they are a part of, for example), or perhaps some greater being or force spun it into existence - who knows. It seems like a nice theory to me overall; it feels right. There is a sense of sentience lying beneath it all, it seems.