Who created God?

[Sarkus]

What??? I'll forgive your forwardness. Have you read the discourse between Raithere and I??? That is no more an argument from fear than Raithere's "assumption through necessity". It is not due to fear Sarkus, dear, it is necessary for an absolute foundation for purpose, meaning and thus thought.

Apologies if what I took was out of context of the resto of your discourse with Raithere - but to me it did seem to be the root of the matter.
And God is NOT necessary. You are assuming that we have or need an absolute foundation for purpose and meaning. Why this assumption?

We live by the information available to us. If we are going to begin to find out what God may be like, we look at ourselves and our surroundings, that which God created. The creation will provide us with some clue as to the nature of the Creator, thus positions such as deism.

But you begin each discourse from the position that God exists. I know that may sound dumb of me to say it - but as an atheist I start each discourse from a very different assumption. And I do not accept your assumptions, nor can I argue from them as my starting point.
Maybe the title of this thread, and subsequent threads, should be "If God exists, who created God?" Maybe it's just my desire to spend time on this forum and not do any meaningful paid work.

i.e. infinity (though very useful) has not yet been proven to exist in the real world. Similarly, while there might hypothetically be an infinite number of views on God, observation of our surroundings imposes limits - we have yet to observe an infinite number of universes (or a "white bearded guy in the sky" as some atheists percieve).

Unfortunately the real world limitations pertaining to a view of infinity is irrelevant when discussing probability.

The mathematical probability may be minimal, however we can be sure that many if not all of the coneptualisations are mutually exclusive - thus if we look at physical reality we can be sure that the potential exists for it all to be reduced to one certainty as we discover, learn and elliminate.

As I have said either on this or another thread, there is ONE certainty - that something (and I use the term loosely) that is beyond conceptualisation, beyond description, beyond assignation of emotion, purpose and EVERYTHING else that people assign to deities (theistic or otherwise) is outside our Universe. That is a mathematical certainty.
It doesn't matter how many religions or concepts of God are whittled down, there will always be an infinite number of possibilities external to our Universe. And thus the probability of any of them being correct is NIL / ZERO / ZIP / NADA.

And what do you mean by "if we look at physical reality"? God is not to be found internal to our Universe.
If he is solely within our Universe (but external to us) then he is nothing but an alien race - and if so are you saying we should worship an alien race?
If he is solely to be found within us then he is nothing but a by-product of a person's psyche - i.e. man made to help man through his life.
As soon as he can go external to our Universe then he is in the realms of one of an infinite possibility - and thus zero possibility.

If your idea / definition of God is merely "that which created the Universe" then okay, you are no longer assigning anything to it. But as soon as you believe that "that which created the Universe" also gives you meaning and purpose, you are creating just another one of the infinite possibilities.

 

[jayleew]

Nothing is ever 100% true in science. The most evinced laws of science are only presumed true until there is a finding that contradicts them.

Any rational man will have serious doubts about religion. I have doubts about Christianity. I have trouble with my belief in God. The reason is because that there is no scientific evidence for God that I have found or heard about yet. There is only evidence saying Evolution is not 100% proven and the odds of it are slim, but it is the only belief that has odds and that is what the DI, it seems, is trying to do. I, choose to put aside my doubts and have faith because I don't like the alternative and I don't like the degradation of morals that we see today. Nobody knows what is right or wrong anymore. Controversy is rampant about many morality issues.

I don't like the alternative, so I look for morals that never change and promised everlasting life in a book that is historically accurate, by many hands, but yet consistent. Why Christianity and not another religion? Because Christianity is the most logical choice for the same reason Evolution is more logical than religion.

The change in people makes the accounts of scripture valid TO US that want to believe. It wipes away our rational doubts. The unexplainable is the only evidence for God that I know about (although scientists claim to have evidence, it remains to be seen to me).

The problem is, that science does not believe something if it cannot be explained. i.e. It does not believe the world is round until it is proven, it leaves the door open for evidence of a round world, so I don't know why it doesn't leave evidence for a creator of the world just because it hasn't any evidence yet. I do not discredit science for this reasoning either.

The rational mind naturally cannot believe in God. It will take a choice for the rational mind.

If there is no evidence for God, DI need to start looking, instead of trying to discredit evolutionary theories. We shall see what happens.

 

[MarcAC]

No...

Fine - though I still maintain the atheist (lack of) belief system is a non-sequitur . Then what about the "...similarly..." don't you get such that you would apply the term non-sequitur to the statement?

Lack of belief: Dude (a) doesn't believe.

So a lack of belief means you do not believe or you disbelieve, while a lack of disbelief means you believe? So what is it for the newborn? What do they lack, both? Or do they have both? :bugeye:

Well it would then seem that the atheists conceptualise some picture of God in their mind and then reject that picture now wouldn't it? How? Simple communication exercise; I assert something, you must form some mental concept as to what it may be and decide on its likelyhood - accept or reject.

The simple corollary being you do no think the assertion is true, else you would believe (unless it is some emotional rejection - i.e. you don't think). This means you do not believe it is true - i.e. you believe it is untrue (or false) - hence my use of the term belief, belief system, and non sequitur when "lack of" comes in - a botched up atheist patch.

Am I wrong?

 

[jayleew]

Those of the Faith in this thread:

Stop trying to convice the scientific rational minds that there is a God, it is futile. You may as well say the sky is purple, because (scientifically) it has the same probability as there being a God. We need to seek evidence of a God if we expect a rational, scientific mind is to believe. Or, we need to convince them by showing them what having faith is all about by acting according to God's will.

We can discredit evolution until we are blue in the face and that does absolutely nothing for our cause, because science is pointing to a naturalistic creation. It should! If it didn't, it would cease to be science to stop searching for answers of the unknown. The fact is that there is a chance that Darwin's theory is correct, and that there is no chance that God exists, but you have to think of that from a scientific point of view to understand that. The logic is undeniable. We, of the Faith, know otherwise because we have and experience a real relationship with the creator and that is irrational.

The problem is (although some say they have it), I am not sure you can prove that the universe was created by God even if he exists, because science has explained away his creation (wrong or right). So, the original question of "Who created God" is only relevant to those who first believe in God. This thread should have been one for those who first believe in God.

 

[jayleew]

Well it would then seem that the atheists conceptualise some picture of God in their mind and then reject that picture now wouldn't it? How? Simple communication exercise; I assert something, you must form some mental concept as to what it may be and decide on its likelyhood - accept or reject.

MarcAC, atheists think scientifically, so they do not believe in something that has no evidence. That is a major roadblock. Sure, it doesn't help they already have misconceptions of the Faith because of "Chrisitians," but still their conclusion is a rational one. Possibly if they didn't have the misconceptions, they would choose to be irrational concerning their belief in God, as I do, and as do many scientists. We have a dilema on our hands, and Christians need to become a true scientist to understand and hope to move on and seek evidence.

From our point of view, there is evidence (but we have no scientific proof that I have yet seen, so it would appear that we are idiots or have some mental problems because science can explain that), but from the scientific point of view there is none, so the probability of the existence of God is zero.

Our only hope to win them is to either provide evidence of a God, or win them through being an authentic example and calling God to work on them.

 

[MarcAC]

I wouldn't apply it to the Universe at large, no.

I use the term evolution as a general principle, change through time. There are quasars, spirals, irregulars, ellipticals... maybe even dark (galaxies)... current hypotheses assume a general "change over eons" such that a spiral me a be a quasar of the past. Thermodynamical principles - another example. I apply the term to the universe, not just life (I'm Christian, not Darwinist).

I've no idea what your getting at here.

Man is culpable when considering the present state of society as much as if not more than God for simply allowing it to be that way. I would assume we would prefer our free will which leads to our conscious freedom of choice (through awareness - inextricabely linked IMO) than say, a mindless star. You can't blame God alone - you said you'd "Thank him for your life." Would you have a life if you weren't even aware of it (no free will)?

They are assumptions. It's a supposition of truth, not verified. That is what assumption means.

And at that level may be regarded as equivalent to any such. Once you attempt to move further it is just "which assumption is better than the other" which you assume (correlation of "evidence" with reality).

Show me God. Then we can debate whether God has the attributes necessary to be first cause. Otherwise God is merely an unnecessary assumption.

I show you The First Cause or it's necessity; I show you God. The First Cause is God.

What I am saying is that the only thing necessary for meaning is that we have more than one thing. There is no requisite, unless you'd like to provide an argument, which states that an absolute is necessary for meaning to exist. [] Where's your argument? All we have so far is you assertion that this is true. You just want me to take your word for it? Sorry. No. [] Again, where is your argument?

I do not use one single argument to conclude God. I look at the whole construct; absolute meaning and purpose are a part of that - when I use the terms that is what I mean - absolute. I thought that would've been clear from my previous posts... and naturally, yes, meaning must include reference to an absolute - I view it similar to a mathematical real function y=x as opposed to y="root(x)" (what is y?).

Are you talking about an emotional or intellectual inability? Or do you mean there is a logical necessity? Thus far you haven't demonstrated anything. You're just ranting about God.

At times it is hard to differentiate between emotion and intellect. It is clear that a First Cause is necessary, and it is clear that there must be some firm base on which our morality stands and conscience stands if they are to have any true meaning. It is clear that we must put our faith in something (be it the Devil, myself, the usefulness of assumptions in determining anything, or God). I put my faith in God.

But you're arbitrarily assigning all sorts of attributes to the First Cause and making it into God. Why? How do you know that the first cause isn't simply a background energy fluctuation without personality, will, intelligence, or purpose?

Because, by default, the First Cause has a purpose. It is reasonable to assume the creation must mirror in part the attributes of the creator (or they must be traceable); the ultimate expression of this universe appears to be life and us as the most complex (sentient) form so far evidenced. I and many others before me believe we have experienced God, communicated with God - persons communicate most effectively, intelligent persons with a will to communicate. It depends on how you view complexity, personality and will - are they a "universal downgrade" or a "universal upgrade"? Information Theory asserts that the input into a system must be at least equivalent to the output - if the universe is directed by a first cause then we may reasonably assume that the first cause must be at least as complex as us putting the rest of the observable universe aside for a second. But of course you will state "it doesn't have to be that way" right?

I've already stated that I operate under certain assumptions. I've no problem with you operating under different assumptions. But if you're going to try to argue God existence logically, you cannot simply opt out at some point by saying that logic doesn't apply to God. You might as well just start off saying that your belief is illogical and leave it at that. I have no argument there.

What I state is simply that logic itself is based on unverifiied (and possibly unverifiable assumptions) which renders any lable of "illogical" applied to an "assumption" suspect such that logic would be built on illogic. Faith is what we have, we use it how we will.

 

[SkinWalker]

Our only hope to win them is to either provide evidence of a God, or win them through being an authentic example and calling God to work on them.

The former would "win" me; the latter would only win you my respect.

The main problem I have with "God" is that we're discussing the Christian deity and ignoring the other deities of other religions of the world. These religions have equal chance of being real. I think Christians often ignore this fact about atheists: that it isn't simply the "christian god" that they reject, it is all gods. In this respect, Christians and atheists have common ground.

Think about the reasons why you reject other gods, and this might be related to why atheists reject all gods, including the christian. We don't see them as valid. The only reason why most Christians see their god as valid is because of being raised in a christian lifestyle. They are raised to be skeptical of all religions except their own.

Many other people of the world are raised to respect and even accept that other religions can be right, along with their own. Admittedly, these religions aren't as common as those that reject, as with Abrahamic religions.

 

[MarcAC]

We need to seek evidence of a God if we expect a rational, scientific mind is to believe. Or, we need to convince them by showing them what having faith is all about by acting according to God's will.

In both I do my best - that is all I can say, and...

... because science is pointing to a naturalistic creation. It should! If it didn't, it would cease to be science to stop searching for answers of the unknown....

I placed a link to an article on some previous page by an atheist. I cannot count how many times he and many like him refernce "nature" and "evolution" as if they had personalities, as if they were characters; "mother nature", as if they had... purpose, will direction. They see God working but are blind.

Science seeks to discover the work of God. There are many scientific Reasons To Believe.

... I am not sure you can prove that the universe was created by God even if he exists,...

Agreed, yet I'm almost certain it cannot be scientifically proven. Faith is very stressed in God's Word - its necessity is crucial. However, everyone has faith, but not everyone has faith in God.

...because science has explained away his creation (wrong or right)...

I'd say the scientific method is an attempt to explain away existence. Science may never explain away creation - nowhere has that occured as yet. Truly, I find the phrase even funny WRONG! Kind humour.

So, the original question of "Who created God" is only relevant to those who first believe in God. This thread should have been one for those who first believe in God.

No argument there - but many claim they did, then stopped believing... others just want to "look smart" and "proclaim the truth" of God's non-existence!

 

[MarcAC]

The only reason why most Christians see their god as valid is because of being raised in a christian lifestyle. They are raised to be skeptical of all religions except their own.

I have doubted from day 1. I must admit that I've always seen the necessity for a Creator and it has never escaped my conclusions. Many Christians I confir with are rational such that they think, they question, and they act accordingly.

I have taught children at church, and I have known teachers and I can say we have encouraged the children to ask the "difficult questions" and one of the first ones which come up are; "Who created God?" Very childish question you see... anyway... I give no answer simpler than the "First Cause" answer in their language... though it is quite difficult to communicate other than "God has always existed", but at least it encourages thought.

One other thing is that I find such arguments practically pointless. An atheist raised in an atheist environment will most likely adhere to atheist principles - thus the reason why most atheists see their position as valid is because they were raised as such.

Many an atheist have been the final result of the children of piously orthodox fundamentalist religious people... or so they have claimed.

Many other people of the world are raised to respect and even accept that other religions can be right, along with their own. Admittedly, these religions aren't as common as those that reject, as with Abrahamic religions.

"Accept" is a vague word here - if you accept the religion does that mean you adhere to it? If you adhere to it then you may call yourself some "New Age" "all are from one" religious person. It is not very difficult to accept a religion, in fact true tolerance may be a position deserving more respect than simple acceptance. I know of Christian and Jew societies and also those which incorporate Islam into the name. They encourage sharing, tolerance, and respect.

We, however, have to accept that this is the battle of ideas (per se) and the battle for a true destiny. The battle of ideas occur everywhere. Why not accept Hitlers ideas? Because they would lead to the total disregard of innocent human lives i.e. human death? Why do Christians plead so much? Because they believe, they know that the path taken is one to destruction and they care enough to say "don't kill yourself". Me, really, I see no hope for some - I just present my views such that any innocent mind which may stumble upon these sites will not be subject to an unfair bias.

 

[Godless]

The main problem I have with "God" is that we're discussing the Christian deity and ignoring the other deities of other religions of the world.

True! the Christians just assume theirs is the only god. But if one were to look at a list of Gods of ancient past, who's to say that they aren't the real god?

List of Gods

Fine - though I still maintain the atheist (lack of) belief system is a non-sequitur

I notice that even you put the smiley face after that statement. Could it be that you recongnise the stupidity that statement represents?

(Many other types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies. In everyday speech and reasoning, an example might be: "If my hair looks nice, all people will love me." However, there is no real connection between your hair and the love of all people.)wikipedia

Thus your assertion: That you feel that god must be a first cause, or that there must be a first cause and that cause is god! Is BTW NON SEQUITURS.

Because it's a fail logic. There's no emperical evidence of cause of the universe, and there's no evidence in your assumptions, and assertions that a god is!. Non sequirturs.

Stop trying to convice the scientific rational minds that there is a God, it is futile.

Oh! no really it's fun looking at rhetorical argument.

Godless

 

[Raithere]

I, choose to put aside my doubts and have faith because I don't like the alternative and I don't like the degradation of morals that we see today. Nobody knows what is right or wrong anymore. Controversy is rampant about many morality issues.

This may be fine on a personal level but it does not constitute a valid argument. It is an appeal to consequence, a logical fallacy. A consequence, I might add, which has yet to be proven.

I don't like the alternative, so I look for morals that never change and promised everlasting life in a book that is historically accurate, by many hands, but yet consistent.

But it isn't unchanging. Even God cannot seem to maintain a consistent ethical position. At least not by what is described in the Bible.

The change in people makes the accounts of scripture valid TO US that want to believe. It wipes away our rational doubts. The unexplainable is the only evidence for God that I know about (although scientists claim to have evidence, it remains to be seen to me).

It doesn't wipe away your doubts, you just said that. You're simply choosing to ignore those doubts in favor of what you see as an ethically preferable position.

The problem is, that science does not believe something if it cannot be explained.

Science doesn't "believe" anything. Science is a methodology for gaining knowledge. But this methodology is empirical in nature. If it cannot be evinced empirically it is not part of science. The unknown is an intrinsic part of science, but it must be left "unknown" until we find some way of measuring it. Speculating, rationally or otherwise, upon the unknown falls to philosophy, not science.

I don't know why it doesn't leave evidence for a creator of the world just because it hasn't any evidence yet. I do not discredit science for this reasoning either.

The door is wide open for evidence of a creator. But until such evidence is provided it must remain purely speculative from a scientific POV.

If there is no evidence for God, DI need to start looking, instead of trying to discredit evolutionary theories. We shall see what happens.

This is absolutely correct.

~Raithere

 

[jayleew]

But it isn't unchanging. Even God cannot seem to maintain a consistent ethical position. At least not by what is described in the Bible.

You presume to know the scriptures. I know you said you have read it five times cover to cover, but obviously, you didn't get it. If you got it, you would be a theist.

Let me try to explain the inconsistencies you see in the Bible. Give some examples.

It doesn't wipe away your doubts, you just said that. You're simply choosing to ignore those doubts in favor of what you see as an ethically preferable position.

In other words, I am simply choosing to ignore those doubts in favor of what I see as an ethically preferable position. Correct.

Science doesn't "believe" anything. Science is a methodology for gaining knowledge. But this methodology is empirical in nature. If it cannot be evinced empirically it is not part of science. The unknown is an intrinsic part of science, but it must be left "unknown" until we find some way of measuring it. Speculating, rationally or otherwise, upon the unknown falls to philosophy, not science.

You missed the point. I agree science doesn't believe anything, but scientists believe what evidence that science produces, and they should!

The door is wide open for evidence of a creator. But until such evidence is provided it must remain purely speculative from a scientific POV.

This is absolutely correct.

Yes. With the help of Case for a Creator and you all, I now understand your purely scientific point of view and I respect it. I also understand a Christian's dilema of irrational thought concerning the existence of God.

 

[tablariddim]

I believe god was created by Alphonse Gaultier, a relatively unknown genius and designer who lived in prehistoric times. To him, god wasn't just a god, it was an expression of his soul.

 

[cato]

Speculating, rationally or otherwise, upon the unknown falls to philosophy, not science.

My friend makes t-shirts and I was thinking of making a sciforums t-shirt, if I decide to make a t-shirt, I think I might use that quote. (with your permission)

tablariddim makes a good point. How can you choose only one religion? What makes Christianity so special? People are given "signs from god" in all religions. I am a rational person, if I believed in god (being rational and believing in god may be two things that can never coexist in one person) it would have to be a general god, I don't think I could ever choose one over another.

 

[wesmorris]

So god, Alphonse is your daddy. Fo reel.

 

[SkinWalker]

You presume to know the scriptures. I know you said you have read it five times cover to cover, but obviously, you didn't get it. If you got it, you would be a theist.

Now that is a "non-sequitor." It certainly doesn't follow that an understanding of biblical mythology equates to believing in it. I've read and quite understand biblical mythology. I've also read and quite understand the Popol Vuh, much of the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, some Buddhist texts, the Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, etc.

I think, for me, it is the understanding of many of the world's religions that confirms my atheism. I'm atheist as to the anthropogenic concept of a god. I'm agnostic to the idea that a god may actually exist. Even still, I don't see the possibility as being likely. MarcAC denotes it as being a "childish question," but I still hold that the notion of a creator implies an infinite chain of creators. It seems more likely to me that the universe is infinite -in both directions of time. It was Feynman that said people have no problem with conceptualizing infinity when dealing with the future, but for some reason, they don't consider the past to be infinite. There need not be a point at which "stuff" was "created." All the matter and energy of the universe may just as easily have existed for all time.

I'm quite content with living with the fact that a god probably doesn't exist and the true nature of the universe is probably unknowable. There are, after all, only about 10^11 neurons in the human brain with perhaps a thousand or so denrites per neuron. The sum total of what an individual can "know" is limited to around 10^14 "things." Just one grain of sand has 10^19 atoms. If not for the patterns that each of these atoms would adhere to, the human brain wouldn't even be able to know one grain of sand!

 

[jayleew]

My friend makes t-shirts and I was thinking of making a sciforums t-shirt, if I decide to make a t-shirt, I think I might use that quote. (with your permission)

tablariddim makes a good point. How can you choose only one religion? What makes Christianity so special? People are given "signs from god" in all religions. I am a rational person, if I believed in god (being rational and believing in god may be two concepts that can never coexist in one person) it would have to be a general god, I don't think I could very choose one over another.

For the same reason that you believe in Darwinism, because it is the only religion with any odds of being true and there is mountain of evidence confirming it (once you get past science which proves there is no god). One of our best Icons is the Bible which is historically accurate, including genealogies that point to the beginnings. Logically there are an infinite number of possibilites, which makes the chances of any other religion zero.

Once you step into the realm of the irrational, Christianity holds the most evidence of all the religions. Some, in fact, are quite absurd (spritually speaking). And still others, are just a way of living.

 

[jayleew]

Now that is a "non-sequitor." It certainly doesn't follow that an understanding of biblical mythology equates to believing in it.

Thanks for catching that, I slipped. I saw it, I thought about editing it, then I thought you all would get the point without me being accurate.

Subtitute the word "may be" instead of "would be". I should be more careful. Careful isn't fun though.

 

[Raithere]

I use the term evolution as a general principle, change through time. There are quasars, spirals, irregulars, ellipticals... maybe even dark (galaxies)... current hypotheses assume a general "change over eons" such that a spiral me a be a quasar of the past. Thermodynamical principles - another example. I apply the term to the universe, not just life (I'm Christian, not Darwinist).

Then you're mixing terms which is going to create a lot of confusion. I'd like to see you argue against a general principle of change through time though... that might be interesting.

Man is culpable when considering the present state of society as much as if not more than God for simply allowing it to be that way.

Man is limited. Reputedly, God is not. Man is fallible and prone to error. God is not. Man is limited in intelligence, imagination, and capacity for understanding. God is not. Man has limited time and resource. God does not. It would be an infinitesimally small effort on God's part to "fix" everything. It is an unbelievably large effort for man, perhaps even beyond his capacity. To borrow from Spider Man, "With great power comes great responsibility."

We can only be held responsible for that which we have the ability to change. Therefore the onus is on God. He has the understanding and ability to fix things. Apparently all he lacks is the will.

I would assume we would prefer our free will which leads to our conscious freedom of choice (through awareness - inextricabely linked IMO) than say, a mindless star. You can't blame God alone - you said you'd "Thank him for your life." Would you have a life if you weren't even aware of it (no free will)?

Yeah, okay. As a conscious, free-willed being I prefer my current state to that of non-awareness. If I lacked consciousness, I'd be incapable of an opinion on the matter. So what? Where's the relevant point?

And at that level may be regarded as equivalent to any such. Once you attempt to move further it is just "which assumption is better than the other" which you assume (correlation of "evidence" with reality).[/color]No, all assumptions are not equivalent. But they do remain assumptions. It also brings us back to Occam's Razor. One should try to minimize the number of assumptions, or at least not needlessly multiply them.

The First Cause is God.
...
and it is clear that there must be some firm base on which our morality stands and conscience stands if they are to have any true meaning.
...
It is clear that we must put our faith in something
...
by default, the First Cause has a purpose

All you keep doing here is adding more and more assumptions but you have yet to give any argument for them. I don't recognize that any of these suppositions are true and you're not going to convince me by adding more. Either argue for them or admit that your entire basis for concluding that God exists is groundless.

It is reasonable to assume the creation must mirror in part the attributes of the creator.

And I contest that everything we see in the Universe is simple a consequence of the Fundamental Forces and energy. There is nothing 'special' about life, intelligence, or consciousness they are just patterns of energy.

I and many others before me believe we have experienced God, communicated with God

Some people believe that they have been abducted by aliens, others believe they have the ability to predict the future, yet others believe they have telekinetic powers. People believe all kinds of things so how do we determine which claims are true? Or are just yours true and everyone else is wrong?

Information Theory asserts that the input into a system must be at least equivalent to the output - if the universe is directed by a first cause then we may reasonably assume that the first cause must be at least as complex as us putting the rest of the observable universe aside for a second.

And where did the complexity for God come from? These are non-arguments. All you are stating is that complexity always existed. And????

~Raithere

 

[SkinWalker]

For the same reason that you believe in Darwinism, because it is the only religion with any odds of being true and there is mountain of evidence confirming it

Simply attaching "ism" to the end of a noun or proper name doesn't imply a religion.Darwinism is not a religion, but the idea that evolution is the result of forces which include fitness to the environment which are naturally selected to survive.

A "religion," according to the Oxford English Dictionary is, "action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this."

Darwnism only implies a school of thought with regard to the mechanisms of evolution. In spite of some of Darwin's early assumptions being wrong or since improved upon, the concepts he wrote of based on the observations he had as well as many of the predictions he made have been born out to be true.

To quote Sagan, "evolution is a fact. It really happened. What is theoretical are the mechanisms that are involved."

It seems to me that the "great evolution-creation" debate is the result of organized Christianity attempting to maintain their status quo, which is understandably threatened by a scientific and naturalistic perspective of the world (its history, its present, and its future). Should science successfully falsify creation in the eyes of the followers of religion, then the game is up.

The irony is, that science has, indeed, falsified creation and many of the myths associated with the bible. Only through its propaganda mill (fundamentalism) has Christianity been able to dilute the information produced by science to a degree that has introduced doubt to those that want to believe in fundamental christian beliefs.

It is a shame that there are those that won't let the wisdom and beauty of the Judeo-Christian texts speak for themselves and stand on their own virtues. I don't need to believe that the Genesis accounts of creation and flood are historically accurate to understand the underlying messages that their authors were attempting to impart. I do not need to believe that Adam and Eve were the very first humans ever in order to understand that we are all descended from common ancestors and appreciate what the Genesis authors were saying.

The creationist position and their new pseudoscience, "intelligent design," may very well contribute to the downfall of Christianity. Advances in genetics are occurring at a significant rate and it won't be long before we have anthropological understandings of the origins of cultures and populations on a global scale that will show spatially and temporally the history of humanity. The evolutionary splits of entire species will be understood to a degree that we might even know the very year that mice and men shared a common ancestor.

And these advances will be punctuated and reinforced by the ability to cure and prevent diseases and afflictions.

Once all this comes to pass, Christianity will be judged on its intrinsic value as an organization: does it reflect superstitions and ignorance or is it concerned with the teachings of Christ (peace, love, human kindness)?

If the latter, it will undoubtedly succeed. If the former...