Subscribe to Listverse
Creationism is a hotly debated topic in the United States and, indeed, the world. There are many forms of creationism – the belief that God sparked the big bang leading to the eventual formation of the universe as we know it, to the belief that God literally created everything in 7 days. Opposing this view is that of Science which excludes a prime mover. Remember, be fair in the debate and no ad hominem attacks!
Should Creationism Be Taught In Schools?
My answer: I think that there is a sufficiently high percentage of people who believe in some form of special creation that the belief system could be explained to students. I don’t advocate it being taught as “truth” against the scientific theories of creation, but there is no reason that only one idea must be taught. So I think it certainly could be taught in social studies class, or religious education class (in religious schools), but definitely not in Science class. [Image above: Adam and Eve, by Enrico Baj - 1986]
September 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Jamie!!!! What are you doing????
September 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
NO
September 14th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Yeah. I agree. We should say FUCK YOU to 6 billion people and only go with the atheistic idea of evolution and darwin and such forth.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
astraya: it’s a hot topic!
logar: why? Is it any different to teaching children about the caste system of India in Social Studies class? I am not proposing it be taught as a fact, but as a module on belief systems.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
The children of America need to be taught Creationism like they need a hole in their heads. If the religious types want to teach their children this garbage, let them do it at church, Sunday School, or in the home. Teachers have a hard enough time making the basics stick- why waste time with bullshit?
September 14th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
logar: okay – thanks for expanding on your first answer
September 14th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Also, I don’t think all that many people in the US believe in creationism- just the fundamentalists. The problem is, they are a very vocal minority (perhaps majority in some areas in the south.)
Perhaps I should have prefaced my comments by saying I was raised Roman Catholic, educated in Catholic/Jesuit institutions. Once I hit high school (go Marauders!) they stopped feeding us creationism, and tried to incorporate God into scientific theories such as evolution and the big bang, etc., which is much better than trying to pass Genesis off as fact, IMHO.
Just because 90% of the world believes the world is flat, doesn’t mean the people who know better should teach what they know is false.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
logar: because we know the world is not flat, would it be wrong for schools to teach children that people used to believe it (and some still do in fact)? As I said above, I am not suggesting it be taught as a fact, but as an aspect of social studies.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Teaching creationism is like teaching that Santa really does exist & you must believe or you get no presents.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
NO! It’s a Religious theory that has no business in a public school.
OBAMA IN ‘08!!!
September 14th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
NO. Repeat, NO.
Belief systems. Where to stop? Do we end up trying to explain how a young moslem can ecstatically blow himself and a few dozen other people to smithereens because a mullah promised him he would have 60 virgins to lay for eternity in Paradise?
Such outlandish mindsets and their consequences are surely worth considering and trying to come to terms with, even within some specialised area of the educational system, but not as part of the standard curriculum, please.
Besides, those who subscribe to extremist views will regard any airing of them other than out and out criticism as a form of endorsement.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Think of it this way:
Creationism is explained in the Bible.
The Bible is nothing but a book of fables and tales chronicling the adventures of Jesus and Christians.
These fables and tales may or may not be true.
But probably aren’t.
But some people believe they are.
So:
Why should we be teaching our children something that comes from a source that isn’t credible and is only supported by a certain religion? Should we also teach our children in school that aliens exist, JFK was killed by the CIA, and Mountain Dew lowers your sperm count? Of course not.
Catholicism has spent most of history trying to spread their sphere of influence in anyway possible to maintain power, and this is the same strategy.
Prove it to me, and teach it all you want. If you can’t, keep it in the pews.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
You gotta love how people will be all about teaching the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, but then demand strict proof of Creationism before it can be taught.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
@ Anon: I heard that it was a miss-translation (spelling?) that they would get 60 virgins, and that it only meant 60 pearls
@ Topic: I personally dont believe that the 7 days creationism should be taught in school because untill they have scientifically proven fact that those events happened. If not, it would be unjust to all the scientists who have spent many years of their lives to prove a point.
As for god starting the big bang I think that should just be taught in Religious Schools, Churches, Youth Groups and the like.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
In my school we were taught all the theories of human origins. In science classes we were taught Darwinism and in Social classes we learned about creationism. Not only in the Christian view, we learned about all the influent religions. I think that it is important for everyone to know. As a catholic, it gives me a wider view on other religions. But if you’re an atheist, at least you can learn what you’re against.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I think it should be taught in schools, not as fact, but as a belief held by some people. In fact, I don’t believe that any subjects should be avoided in schools, I don’t believe in there being bad knowledge, nor should schools discriminate as to what should and should not be taught. Having said that, there is a practical limit, but that aside I see no reason why it should not be taught.
Frodydude (No.14) If that is your test of what should and should not be taught, then you might consider the fact that there is nothing scientifically proven about how life began either. Some theories and ideas simply have more evidence to support them than others.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I don’t think it would be wrong to teach in schools since children should be given the option to choose what they would like to believe – whether it is fact or not.
Teaching them about things that other people believe doesn’t mean that it is fact.
Should we stop storytime since some books aren’t based on fact?
September 14th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I also think that separation of church and state is misinterpreted. We use it to mean that religion should never be mentioned in schools, workplaces, etc. However, this is clearly not what our forefathers meant, as many of them were religious men themselves. They only meant that religion had no place in the law.
I’m neither Christian, nor particularly religious myself, however, I have no object to learning Christian ideas of creation, as long as they are taught as such.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
@ Me: God is a theory. Gravity is a theory too. Jump off a roof and see which theory trumps which.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Guys – remember – I am not advocating that it be taught as FACT – I am saying we should teach it just as we teach the history of the flat earth theories, etc.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I was born into a christian family, and from what I saw around me, read and watched, I slowly started believing that there isnt a god, some how my family found out that Im an athiest, and now my dad hates me, my mom is okay with me, but my brothers ignore me, I dont believe I have done anything to deserve this, but the only thing that has changed was my point of view on religion. Personally I credit religion for giving hope in peoples times of need, but I dont like it because of the many problems it has caused, such as violence, ignorance, and lack of progress throughout history.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I think that if it is to be taught in schools, that it should be in a course akin to philosophy. Not only is there the fact that there are many different religions that have their own beliefs about creationism, but each person also has their own beliefs within their religion. Because of this, a course on creationism cannot be properly taught based on fact; rather, an elective course offered to college students and upperclassmen in high schools that compares and contrasts the leading ideas of creationism from a variety of religions with that of science much more appropriate than teaching creationism as an alternative to science. By that time in a student’s career, they would be mature enough to be able to make their own decisions about the big bang/creationism.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Mortal Light: nicely put!
September 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
NO!
There are religious schools to send your children to if you want them to learn creationism (God knows I’m aware of them, having survived 13 years of parochial school!).
If you want your child to learn creationism and can’t afford a religious school, send them to Sunday school.
Public schools, at least in the U.S., are state funded. Since the Founding Fathers, wisely, provided for a total separation of Church and State, teaching any form of religious belief system in a public school would be unconstitutional and, thus, against federal law.
Sure, there are always the fundamentalists who loudly proclaim that “Creation Science” (note the cute name they’ve given it to try to give it a more scientific sound), should be taught along side evolution.
Now, I grant that every country has it’s own set of laws, world views, religious views, social views and so on. I can’t speak for societies about which I know nothing. I can speak for the basic Judeo-Christian modern culture, the one I inhabit.
Public schools exist to teach language, reading, maths, sciences, literature, history, social studies. If you’re very lucky, you’ll get taught music and art.
These are the things most parents send their children to school to learn.
I chose to teach my children morals, morality. I didn’t think they needed a story about how things came into existence, only to have to tell them later, “whoops! That wasn’t quite right, guys, it really happened like this.”
I don’t think lying to your children is a good way to gain their trust.
I don’t think letting their school lie to them is a good way to keep their trust.
Creationism was a story for people in much less sophisticated times. They needed a simple way to understand the “beginning” of things, and the creation story provided that simplicity.
We don’t need that now. We have so many more pieces of the puzzle, we’re so much closer to the answer.
NO!
No fairystories. Give them the facts.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Where I teach, you need special classes to be certified to teach sex ed. If you want creationism taught in schools, who decides who is “qualified” or “certified” to do so? People need to take classes in their area to be certified for reading or math, etc. What does one take to be certified in Creationism? No. It should not be taught.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
No, not only because I don’t believe in it, but whose side of creationism will you teach? The Hindu? Pagan? Greek? Or just the Judeo-Christian side, which has a million different substories as well.
I think that science class (like all classes should) should be sensitive to religious people, but claiming a guy with a white beard waved a magic wand and said “voila” doesn’t cut it with the whole scientific method.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
@me: You seem to be confusing theory with hypothesis. In science a theory has a much more stronger meaning than the meaning given to it in everyday life. In science very few things are consider laws, that the earth goes round the sun is also a theory, theories must, among other things, be falsifiable and testable, not false, untestable, and unquestionable like ID (aka ID).
@topic: I believe religion should be studied and be part of the curriculum of education because it is necessary to understand much of history, literature, and art just as other myths are necessary to study to understand the history, literature, and art of other cultures and times.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
meant creationism aka ID
September 14th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I think it’s very important that children learn of the origin of man as the whittlings of Odin and his brothers (or aspects) Vili and Ve. Or were you revering to the creation myths of the Sumerians? Or any of the numerous North or South American myths? What about African creation myths? What of the Hindi myths? And of course, Western civilization owes most of its culture to Greek and Roman antecedents, so lets include the myth of the gods of Olympus.
Now, I would not be adverse to a comparative religions class being taught as part of the anthropology curriculum, with all these myths and the Christian myth included, but the minute you contend that myths that are unverifiable and contradictory both internally and among themselves, are the equivalent of scientific inquiry into the origin of life, you have lost all pretenses at intellectual rigor.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I agree, Creationism isn’t something that makes any sense being in a science class. But how can you make any sense of history and current events if you don’t understand what drives people to do the things they do. I think Creationism is just the battleground of the larger war about the Bible, namely is it Divinely inspired or just an ancient compilation of short stories. Fundamentalists wouldn’t want to open that can of worms. The debate over Creationism is a very emotional topic in the western world. But it needs to be confronted.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I see no problem with teaching the idea of creationism in Social Studies class, but along with all the other schools of thought. I’m assuming as part of a study in religion.
Isn’t this already done? I’m pretty sure I learned all about different religions in school and their basic ideals.
Other than that, Creationism taught in a science class is a strict no.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I see no problem with teaching the theory of creationism, and yeah, I’m an atheist. I don’t take it as forcing kids to believe in it, it’s just explaining to them another perspective. I wouldn’t see any problem with it being taught alongside the theory of evolution.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
But it would make way more sense in a Social Studies class over a science class.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I don’t see why not. I think it’d be interesting to learn about other civilizations views on how things came to be. Like Incas or Egyptians. I’d like to learn about their creationism views. I don’t think it(the class) would only look at the Christian side of creationism. People are acting like it’d be teaching them to believe the bible, instead of what supposedly happen in the bible. Seriously, no big deal at all. Just make it an elective, or choice…
-Kase
September 14th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I agree pretty much with Jfrater, I understand that it should be taught as a THEORY. Think of it this way. How can you prove the Bible? it’s a book, a very popular one, so it makes sense to educate kids on it, but it’s ridiculous to tell them it’s right. Let them figure it out on their own. It is the responsibility of the educational system to provide opportunities for children. That means that they should be provided with more than one option to choose from (as giving them one option would be ridiculous)and then allowed to decide for themselves. Telling a kid he came from some almighty being who wished him to life and POOF! there he was is ludacris. Religion is not a vital part of every body’s life, so teaching it to everybody if they aren’t willing to accept it is also a bad idea. Religion and education should not mix. That being said, teaching creationism as a theory isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it gives kids a good imagination. All in all, the Bible is one big metaphor, most of it is made up to illustrate a point generated by men who were living in a terrible time period.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
It should be taught as science in schools…. in IRAN!
Separation of church and state means nothing in the US?
The problem (stated clearly) is the pressure to teach creationism in parallel with science classes that teach evolution. That’s the debate. The religious right wants science teachers to add a “proviso” that creationism is just a theory and creationism is an equal alternative and competing theory. That’s just plain wrong. Creation belongs no where else than in classes for religious studies. Any reference, no matter how oblique, in the context of science class is not just crossing the line, but completely obliterating the line. There is no more line. It’s a religious state. It’s the state of Iran.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
To quote the commenter “Me”-
“You gotta love how people will be all about teaching the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, but then demand strict proof of Creationism before it can be taught.”
People defending creationism say that evolution is just a theory, but they do not understand what a theory really is in scientific terms. Many people get the terms “theory” and “hypothesis” mixed up. A theory is as close to a fact as you can get in scientific terms. Gravity is also just a theory.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
No. Absolutely positively not.
Here’s why: Creationism is a scientific theory proposed by a mass of believers that REQUIRES the belief in God in order to be taken seriously. It cannot be taught as a science because you cannot actually test Creationism, thereby making it not a science by scientific standards. Creationism makes claims that evolution is a lie, that man lived with dinosaurs, that the Earth is not some billions of years old, etc. It makes claims based on no evidence whatsoever. Science makes claims based upon observation and evidence. Evolution didn’t become a theory because we magically said “oh, yeah, that happened”. It’s been changing and adapting with new knowledge of decades now.
As for any form of belief system being taught in public schools: no. Here’s why.
Not all of us are Christians, not all of us are Atheists. Unless you are willing to have taught, alongside Christianity, every other major religion in history, with the same seriousness as Christianity, you cannot teach one religion. Sorry. You can’t. If we’re going to include religion into school curriculums beyond historical things (like you know the Crusades or whatever, which are historical events that don’t require you to have a firm grounding in the religion itself to understand) you have to include all of them, at the same level. Just because we have a lot of Christians in this country doesn’t mean we’re all Christian or that we should allow ONLY Christian views to be put into our public schools. Not to mention its a violation of the separation of church and state.
Look, I don’t know what these people are bitching about. You have church. You have the option to go to church and take your kids there to learn about your religion. You can get a Bible. There’s no reason why you should require everyone to learn about your religion in a school setting. This is, at its most simplist, an attempt to convert the masses, to turn people who otherwise would not be Christians into Christians, which might sound find and dandy for some, but is a violation of a lot of things that should be left to parents. Schools cannot tell us what we can and cannot believe and allowing religion to become entrenched in state funded school systems is the same as endorsing that religion.
Leave it at home. Don’t bring it to school. School is for learning things they’ll need for college or the real world.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
SMD:
Creationism is not a scientific theory. It could be described as a “hypothesis” at best. In order for it to be a “theory”, it would need to be repeatedly tested and accepted as a scientific fact.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I went to a Catholic elementary school in Canada, and in Social Studies/Religion we were taught SEVERAL creations stories (Hinduism, etc -to be honest I don’t really remember), as well as parables and traditions from various cultures.
I don’t recall being taught that the 7-day genesis story was actual fact. I never REALLY believed in it the way I never REALLY believed in Santa Claus. I specifically recall having long conversations with my Grade 5 teacher about religious theory, ie – IF we’re not supposed to hate anyone… what about the devil? If the world was created in 7 days why are fossils that we learned about in science class millions of years older than humans? That teacher thought I was a genius, heh.
Honestly, I believed that being exposed to lots of ideas at a young age really opened my mind. Just because something isnt factual, it doesnt mean it doesnt have merit. Has anyone here read Dickens’ Hard Times? The book specifically warns against shit like this. If you’re going to axe topics like creationism just because it’s “unprovable,” then you might as well send every other liberal art to the guillotine.
I think creationism (Judeo-Christian-Islamic), IF FOR NO OTHER REASON than that it is a popular and influencial belief, should be classes like social studies, AND TO BE FAIR, Hindu, Buddhist, and other influencial world beliefs (perhaps according to region – IE native American) should be taught too. I agree that it should stay out of science class, but I doubt that was where it was planned to be taught anyways.
Creationism and other matters of belief are SOCIAL INFLUENCES, that you see in EVERYDAY LIFE, whether you believe in the myths or not.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
edit: … add a “proviso” that evolution is just a theory and creationism ….
September 14th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I agree. personally, I think creationisms is somewhat stupid. I do believe in evolution. And I think that evolution be taught in Science classrooms, since, it is science. But creationism should NOT be taught in science classrooms and ONLY discussed in social studies/history/humanities courses.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Well, if we teach Creationism (by that I mean the Judeo-Christian version) why should we stop there? In History class we can discuss how Moses parted the Red Sea to allow for the Exodus of the Jews. In Meterology, we can just attribute everything to a vengeful God (do your homework or God will strike thee down with lightning!). Ethics/Philosophy would be totally different…
I get that, at least in America, the majority of the people are some form of Christian. But it’s only fair to include everything/one if we’re going to include one. They now display menorahs and Kwanzaa candles alongside Christmas trees in public places. I think the best solution (it won’t work, though) is to hand out permission slips like with sex-ed.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
oops, anyways is not a word
EAL: things that are tested and proven infallible are no longer THEORIES.
SMD: Taught things that they need for college and the real world? I think what you are saying is a grave insult to the theology majors, sociology majors, humanities majors, and not to mention priests of the world. Yes, some people do this sort of thing in their daily lives and DO go to college/university for it.
I forgot to mention – when I got to high school my religion teacher was an irritating fundamentalist. After witnessing his mad ravings, did I become an atheist? No, actually, I stopped believing in the sticky dogma of the church and instead focused on the real values – Respect your mother and father. Love your enemies… Do unto others… you know, the REAL good stuff that while it doesnt make perfect sense, makes me happy.
Did everyone I grew up with walk away from the experience in the way that I did? No. I have friends from my youth who are atheist, agnostic, changed religions, worship the flying spaghetti monster, the works. And yet, people who didnt have the Catholic school experience have the same amount of diversity in their beliefs.
Believe it or not, children are not machines. When they learn something, they do have enough mental faculty to analyze it. Some might accept it, and some might reject it. I was taught that even teachers make mistakes. I hope every Even teachers make mistakes, and trust me, children know that.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Oh, and BOOBIES.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
i know my last sentence didnt make sense – just cut out the “I hope every” in the beginning
September 14th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I think so, I agree with you jfrater. As long as it’s taught as a theory i cant see why it shouldn’t be taught.. give children options and facts about all the arguments and let them make up their own minds rather then telling them what to believe.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Of course not. Creationism is religious dogma, not science. The only time the issue should even come up outside of a comparative religion course in high school, is during the holiday season. I remember learning about Passover, Ramadan and various other important holy days during the Christmas/New Year season. For the express purpose of teaching the predominantly white, christian students that our beliefs are not shared by the rest of the world. Differences were celebrated not berated. A big difference between that and offering creationism as science and as an alternative to biology/evolution.
I frankly am dumbfounded at the fact that this is even an issue in the 21st century. ‘Tis a pity, that.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
To add to the seeming concensus of the group.
No, creationism is religion, not science, and as such as no place in a science room. (Just as wicca paganism has no place in a horticulture course). It’s more than welcome in study of religion or even philosophy.
The problem with evolution is that it is heresy. Galileo had a theory about the earth revolving around the sun, but it was just a theory until the church officially backs down.
If the religion you choose, and choose for your children, does not allow a certain activity – then it is up to you to leave the science room.
Schools are a preparation for higher learning and future careers. Learning creationism in high school is going to be very limiting for any children intending to grow up to be biologists.
How are they going to get their doctorate when they don’t understand the basic principles of biological adaptation?
September 14th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
It is unlawful in this country to teach Creationism as a hypothesis of the origin of life in public schools. The Supreme Court decided this in the mid-80s, I think. ID is just more of the same, and a federal court in Pennsylvania has held as much. I doubt ID would make it to the Supreme Court, but it would almost certainly meet the same fate.
As for teaching it in Social Studies, as a kind of cultural awareness, I don’t see the point. Many students learn about it in Sunday School, many others know about it anyway, and it’s not going to make anyone happy.
Let sleeping dogs lie, and let religious theories be taught by religious authorities in religious schools–exclusively.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
jackit-
gravity is still a “theory”, but I bet you’d consider it infallible.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
# 50 ndat said “As for teaching it in Social Studies, as a kind of cultural awareness, I don’t see the point. Many students learn about it in Sunday School, many others know about it anyway, and it’s not going to make anyone happy”
Ndat how do you know this? Do you know what every student is aware of when they come to school?
What jfrater is suggesting is really the more open minded and liberal view of things.
He is just suggesting all beliefs be mentioned and not taught in science class or as a fact.
It just seems to me that some of the same people that call creationist narrow-minded are the same people that are not open-minded about any hint of creationism being mentioned in schools. What’s the big deal evrybody?
September 14th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Jfrater were on the same page. I just gave a speech last semester advocating the same idea, that it shouldn’t be taught as fact or against evolution or in a science class room, be taught along w/ other religions and beliefs as a World Religion class. People still hated me for that idea, when all i did was glorify it by putting it in its own class than a 4 minute speech alongside evolution.
Regardless, even doing that would be a sign of good faith.
I don’t go storming into churches demanding evolution be taught along side of creationism. If you want your child to be taught about that go to church. Last time i checked, you can sit there for an hour several times a week if you like and learn about it, not to mention sunday school.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Science has nothing to do with God. Since creationism (especially the literal interpretation of genesis brand) is not science in any way shape or form, It should not be part of science studies. If it’s going to be taught in school, it needs to be part of optional religious studies.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Absolutely yes. I think many people are missing jfrater’s argument. To teach it as fact is ludicrous, as is teaching it as an ‘alternative’ to evolution. However, to educate children about the extremely weak arguments creationists employ is to do them a great service. In no way should it be taught in a science class room, however to deny educating children about a subject that a sizable minority of people believe in stems their understanding about how weak the creationist argument is.
In regards to people who keep saying ‘evolution is a theory’; yes and no. Evolution is a fact, just as gravity is. However, a theory is not a ‘guess’; it is a series of arguments intended to interpret facts! Evolution is the fact, natural selection is the theory. Gravity is the fact, the geometric bending of space-time is the theory. Get the point? In no way is evolution a ‘guess’; it is a process of mutation that occurs throughout life, explained and contextualized by the theory of natural selection.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I agree that the idea of creationism should be taught in a social studies class, but at upper levels. At early stages of grade school, children are impressionable enough to take anything taught as fact. I support evolutionary fact, but I wholeheartedly agree with the right for parents to have/not have their children learn certain controversial items. Evolution is a fact, and so it should always be taught, but parents should be given advance notice and be allowed the opportunity to excuse their student from class.
Creationism should be taught as a view point in a social studies class only at the high school level, as by that point students are mature enough to sort fact from opinion.
Do not get me wrong, I respect all religions, but I believe the root of many conflicts is the teaching of personal views to young children, I see it as a form of brainwashing.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Most of these comments I glanced over are unreadable to me because they are ignorant and pathetically misinformed. Some completely jumped to the falacy(sp) that creationism should be taught as fact in schools. This is not what the author intended the topic to be about; what he said was that creationism should be taught in schools as the belief system of groups of people. Just like we were taught that ancient Egyptians had a polytheistic religion.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Most of these comments I glanced over are unreadable to me because they are ignorant and pathetically misinformed. Some completely jumped to the falacy(sp) that creationism should be taught as fact in schools. This is not what the author intended the topic to be about; what he said was that creationism should be taught in schools as the belief system of groups of people. Just like we were taught that ancient Egyptians had a polytheistic religion. All of that being said, I agree in a general sense that creationism should be taught in public schools to give kids at least a perspective of the belief structure or their own parents’ beliefs.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Christianity: in the beginning there was an ultimate being that created everything.
Atheism: in the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded.
Take this how you like. To me the first seems more believable, but take it how you like.
I’m a christian, but i don’t think of it as a religion. I think it is a relationship with my creator.
Maybe it shouldn’t be taught in schools, to stop people forming opinions of each other’s religious beliefs, and if a teacher conveys the subject incorrectly, they could put across the wrong idea, and potentially cause offence.
My opinion is that the theory of Evolution should not be taught as fact.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Genesis 19. Read it, and you’ll see why the bible shouldn’t be taught as fact (atleast not the crazy parts).
September 14th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
yes we should…evolution is only a theory…while i know that creatures evolve…i also know that humans did not come from monkeys..we came from God who created us in His own image! i know that for a fact
September 14th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
I think it should ABSOLUTELY be taught in schools. I don’t think creatioonism does any harm for a child to learn. Apparently, many people debating here grew up in certain religious backgrounds and still (according to themselves) are right by rejecting what they’ve learned in favor of what they truly believe. Therefore, that in itself suggests that teaching it doesn’t bind the children in any way, nor force them to accept into their belief system an idea or truth. It’s merely presented to them, they’ll take away from it what they want. There are also many on here that try to take the vantage point that because they don’t believe in creationism, teaching it would be lying to children and they wouldn’t be able to trust you etc.. To them I say, why do you allow your children to believe in Santa Clause for any reason at all. Allowing them (espeacilly when they are young) to believe such an imaginary thing as truth is already setting them up to reject or suspect your ideas, or facts. The purpose of a school is to educate, therefore, no topic should be off limits for children to be available to learn. Church (which is funded by those who attend it, not the government) is for those that believe a certain thing to gather together in the name of what they believe in. School is meant to educate, no matter what. If you’re hung up over scientific fact or whatever, and saying that’s why it shouldn’t be taught, then meet in a science lab funded privately by those that share your beliefs (as those who attend a church would) and revel in scientic theories only and bash creationism all you want. However, institutions funded by the public should by all means expose the children to multiple truths thoughts and ideas to educate. If you must get into specifics, perhaps science classes should teach ONLY about scientific laws and proven things instead of theories… sounds rediculous doesn’t it? If the purpose of teaching evolutionary theories and others not proven as fact (and I mean proven, not “accepted as fact by the majority of the scientific community”…. that still means NOT PROVEN) is to educate the children of what the scientific community has gathered so far, Than other theories (like creationism.. which, like evolution isn’t scientifically proven) that has been gathered and believed by a majority of people (aka Christians, a majority of American society) should also be taught. If not anything else it’s educational in that it provides children with outlooks by those who trust only what comes in the name of science and those who are more numerous in society that actively question what is not proven fact by science.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Not in the school. In the church.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:03 am
I’m not an American, so this discussion isn’t mine, but I want to point just one thing out – The US is almost the only country in the World that such an idea is even being considered. The only country in the Western World. To an outsider, it’s almost absurd to witness it.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:05 am
When I went to school we had a class once a week called “religion”. It taught the bases and mythologies of all major religion, and as extra credit you could dive into any number of the smaller ones.
In such a setting they should teach creationism together with all the other religious mythology.
What they should NOT do is teach it in science class, or any other forum where the kids might get the impression that this is a theory accepted as truth in general society.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:09 am
There are two things I NEED to point out to those who don’t like evolution:
1) Evolutionism is NOT atheism. After all MOST EVOLUTIONISTS ARE CHRISTIAN AND VICE VERCA
2) Evolution doesn’t say that we evolved from apes or monkeys. Rather that chimps and gorillas share a common ancestor. (The lessor known fact is that man is ape by definition)
September 15th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Jackit, (44),
“EAL: things that are tested and proven infallible are no longer THEORIES.”
Infallible is a religious, not a scientific concept. Everything in science remains perpetually open to challenge, to be proven wrong and changed, particularly in detail. Without that basis science would be in danger of stagnating.
As it happens in practice though, human nature understandably tends to rise to the surface in scientists themselves. After all, imagine your entire life and all your pretige and qualifications had been based on and bound up with assuming and teaching a flat earth. It’s pretty tough to accept some jumped-up, Johnny-come-lately heretic destroying that by insisting on a load of nonsense about the earth being round. That’s your life down the tube, mate.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Thing to point out:
Evolution is NOT atheism!
Most Christians are evolutionists and most evolutionist are christians. In fact most scientists are theists.
Second, man did not evolve from monkeys or apes, they shared a common ancestor.
MAN IS APE BY DEFINITION definitely and definitively.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Yoav- if you don’t mind me asking, where are you from?
September 15th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Most christians are evolutionists and vice versa:
http://www.locolobo.org/majority.html
September 15th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Tink, before you say it is not accepted as fact, prehaps you should learn abit more before you go shooting your mouth off.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:35 am
I certainly don’t believe it should be presented as an alternate idea on how the universe was created. I’m not so sure I think it belongs in a social studies class, either. It almost seems like we’re ridiculing the belief if we teach about it there, which does no one any good. It would sort of be like putting it in the same category as believing the Earth is flat. If the school offers classes on world religions, then you can teach religious points of view.
I don’t care what Ben Stein says. (By the way, Ben Stein did a great job of twisting up Michael Schermer’s words.)
September 15th, 2008 at 1:39 am
DoppHopper: I suspect that is because the Catholic Church (which contains the vast majority of Christians in the world) has never taught that evolution is wrong. Furthermore, it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the idea of the big bang.
You may find this list interesting: Top 15 misconceptions about evolution.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:55 am
There are many different creation beliefs depending on the religion… if you put creationism in school there will be problems considering, if the students are very multicultural, every single religion will want to be taught and you’ll probably end up having more creationist classes than anything else.
I believe religion should stay out of the public domain, and remain a private thing.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:06 am
I have to say, absolutely not, I was trying to read up (on other comments posted here) but it seems that everyone is already tied up in some argument. The single basic problem is that when we let this in at any level we will have a snowball affect. To say, a lot of people believe in creationism then lets teach it is like saying, a lot of people used to believe the earth was flat, so people were justified to teach it. The single goal of education is to teach things with evidence, things with history, things with generally accepted ideas of proof. Not opinion, these things can be taught at church, at Sunday school, Public school says “this is the situation with the most evidence”. Why when we say, no to teaching it public school do people feel like it’s an attack on their beliefs? If you want to take into account opinion take it in! but not in a forced public forum. We don’t convict someone of a crime by saying, “well he looks like hes guilty, thats enough for me” NO! it’s a process, it has checks and balances, it’s fair and even and there is one outcome. The next step will be that some pharmacies won’t carry birth control, or condoms. There is a lot at stake here that I don’t think people see, and it’s a serious problem.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Even Though there are a great number of people who don’t believe, i think it should still be taught at school.
When i went to school, we had the choice to either learn it or not, and if you didn’t want to, or your parents didn’t want you to, you were given alternative work.
i think this system was most effective and because it wasn’t being shoved down our throats there never was any complaint.
we also had a specific religious teacher, (usually a representative of a church) to come teach us.
i think it would be wrong to leave this out of school altogether, and should be an option to the student to learn it
September 15th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Tink
I am in shock at what you wrote, part of me deeply hopes that you are trolling. To simply reject science outright is what I can only consider to by legitimately damaging to society. please understand I am not trying to make an attack on you but if you throw out science, rational, and reason in school then what in the world are you teaching? You might as well teach that the moon is in fact made of cheese, hey science rejected it but you don’t know for sure, have you been? Classes on Alien life forms. How bout a Scientology class? hey we don’t even really need literature anymore since the validity of that is argued. Hey every 8 year old argues about the usefulness of math, why don’t we just get rid of that two, math isn’t an exact science, it has openly imaginary numbers in it! Can you see? can you see how you are very directly and very literally hurting education with this thought process?
September 15th, 2008 at 2:43 am
jfrater:
The creationist movement is an almost exclusively American thing inside of Christianity. Considering that most intellectual christians are anti-creationism, I don’t know why creationism has become so popular in the first place.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:44 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
September 15th, 2008 at 3:22 am
I’m a religious education teacher in Scotland. We teach creationism in the RE department – where it belongs. We describes it as a ‘RELIGIOUS’ view and differentiate it against scientific view points.
Creationism has no place in a science classroom. It’s wrong and it discriminates against other religious view points.
We should discuss religion in schools. However, it should be comparative, open to debate and in the appropropriate classroom!
FJ
September 15th, 2008 at 3:30 am
Yes, it should. It is important to look at both sides of such profound theorem.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:37 am
Simple answer:
NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
If creationism is going to be taught in school then all other religion’s theories should be taught too.
You can’t push belief onto people
they can make their own desicions
This is why people hate Christians…
September 15th, 2008 at 3:51 am
You can tell children that some people believe in Creationism if you like, but you shouldn’t pretend it’s the same sort of thing as Evolution. Darwin’s Theory is based on logic and -proof- and Creationsim is based on blind faith.
Education is and should be about teaching children things base don logic and proof, and Church is about faith. The two should not overlap.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Yes, as part of a philosophy course.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Ash:
So creationism shouldn’t be taught in schools because it ‘pushes beliefs onto people’? What about all the christian kids that go to school and have the belief in atheism pushed on them? I don’t know about the whole world but the majority of Americans, at least, are Christians! Atheists are the minority so teaching creationism would be pushing beliefs on a lot less people then what is currently being taught. I think both sides should be taught in schools. However the scientific view of creation should be taught as a THEORY ONLY…because that’s what it is. Creationism should ALSO be taught as a theory albeit in an additional class that is optional. BOTH should weigh the pros and cons, though. Neither theory is scientifically proven or disproven, and both have evidence to support them over the other.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:46 am
Both sides are kind of an extreme of a median view, though. Who’s to say that the 2 ‘theories’ don’t intermingle? The ‘big bang’ could have been God’s way of creating the universe. If you believe in God then you believe that he created everything including the smallest atoms sooo…
September 15th, 2008 at 4:48 am
This is ridiculous. There is already an argument about this ON A GAMING WEBSITE. http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=926714&topic=45424536
I linked to two of this site’s lists. Guess which
September 15th, 2008 at 5:06 am
@ Courtney
PLEASE don’t label evolution as a ‘theory’ in a derogatory way. As explained before, evolution happened. There are not only masses of evidence in the fossil record that evolution happened, but cases of actual observed evolution happening during our life time (the moth case during the industrial revolution). Evolution is NOT only a theory. Evolution is the fact. The theory that explains how evolution occurred is natural selection, the ‘un-random’ selection of species based on their fitness due to random mutation.
Also, to clear up what a ‘theory’ is. It is NOT one step up from a guess. A theory does not exist in a hierarchy like;
1. lie
2. guess
3. theory
4. fact
A theory seeks to explain and interpret the worlds data i.e. scientific evidence. Please stop confusing theory and guess.
Thanks
September 15th, 2008 at 5:08 am
I say NO to creationism, and further suggest that diplomas held religious school nuts should not hold the same water as public/private schools UNLESS they meet all state curriculum requirements on atop what they try to brainwash their kids with.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:10 am
When I went to school we were taught the Roman, Greek and Egyptian myths about how the world was created, science had nothing to do with these teachings. It did me, and countless others, no harm whatsoever to be taught these beginnings but they were taught as myths and fables not fact. The difference with Creationism is that there are people alive who believe it to be true which is fair enough if they keep it within their own circles.
@ courtney 59 Christianity: in the beginning there was an ultimate being that created everything.
You find this more believable than the big bang theory where everything came from nothing, yet the God had to have been created first, he had to come from nothing unless he had a God that created him etc.etc.
And as Einstein said regarding theories “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right but just one experiment can prove me wrong” that is why in science theories remain as theories.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:20 am
Thanks, Tom, for touching on Popper’s falsification theory. One of the aspects that defines a true science is the possibility it can be falsified. As with creationism/intelligent design, no possible way of falsifying it can be proposed. Just one aspect that relegates it to psuedo-science.
It is also true about the infinite regression that belief in a creator entails. Who made God, who made that God and the God before it, so on and so forth. I think that is more ludicrous than the Big Bang ‘theory’. Also, the current age of the universe than is accepted by the vast majority of science (13.7 billion years), has been mathematically calculated to the best of our ability, and more or less proven. Just another piece of evidence to support the big bang. And that’s not even mentioning the background microwave radiation left over from it.
Cheers
September 15th, 2008 at 5:21 am
Yes, why not?
start with this, then tell childs about the Flying Spaggety Monster, then about the Holow Earth, the Hartmann Lines, Feng Shui, psicomagic, astrology and go on…
All of this in natural science lessons, of course. Creationism doesn’t have any more scientist value than those pseudosciences, so ¿why don’t teach them also?
You’ll get one of this:
1: a herd of fool followers that will make whatever you want
2: Childs that won believe in anything told in school and hence a massive school failures.
@85. fishing4monkeys:
atheism is to a believe as bald is a hair color.
Nobody is telling your childs in what to believe but teaching how to use their brain. If you don’t want them to learn that don’t bring them to school.
@86. Yes, of course. But that’s a believe so must be learned in philosophy or religion lessons not in natural sciences.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:41 am
I know some people find “harmless” to tell child when learning evolution that some people believe in creationism.
But there’s a good one.
Mahmud Ahmadineyad and some authoritist govertments denies the holcaust. So by the same way in history lessons shall also be told that “some people believe that holocaust didn’t happen”. Is that also a harmless lesson?
Don’t be so fool to say I’m comparing creationism with holocaust.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Here’s an idea, from a European perspective: here in Romania, Religious Education classes are mandatory in school for 12 years. The students who are not Orthodox are not compelled to attend. I belong to a small Catholic minority and we were offered RE classes by our local church. I do not know what the case is for other religious groups, but they also have the opportunity to study their own faith if they want to.
For students who do not have this possibility (out of logistic reasons: lack of teachers or places of reunion) or for those who declare they are not interested in any form of religious education (they must bring a statement from their parents or legal guardians for this), schools offer other types of classes on civil education, the environment, etc.
I enjoyed RE at my Church very much because we had a very patient and understanding teacher and because we were free to discuss anything on the topic and ask all the questions we wanted. One of our lessons was precisely on Creationism/ Evolutionism/ Fixism. The Catholic Church does not support fixist theories (that the world was created in exactly 6 days, and animals and humans just popped up with no link between them). It is only logical to think that the Book of Genesis was written 5000 years ago and Moses (it is said that the Genesis was revealed to him) would have had no idea about the Big Bang. The Catholic Church does not reject any scientific theories with regard to the creation of the Universe. God could’ve made it any way He wanted.
Now, leaving my classes aside, I believe it is very important for students to be encouraged to explore their spirituality. However, they should be made aware of other religious view points and, when presented with a theory that is supported by the religious group they belong to, thei teacher should bring logical and rational arguments to support it. Also, it is crucial for schools to offer at least some basic knowledge of the history of religions and to point out how fanaticism and fundamentalism are a dangerous part of EVERY religion and what their consequences were.
I do not agree with school prayer. Your conversations with God are personal and should stay that way.
I do not agree with dictatorial approaches such as “because I said so” or “it’s in the Bible”. Everything in the Bible has a reason for being there, so explain why!
I do not agree with removing religious symbols from schools, as long as all religious faiths are respected.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:47 am
BTW, if you read the Genesis closely, you will see that the animals are created in the exact order of evolution Darwin suggested. And to begin with, Darwin did not come to contradict religion in any way and he was not an atheist.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:53 am
I think it’s funny how many of the posters think them self intelligent because the accept the theory of evolution over creationism, yet they don’t quite understand the concept that they are commenting about. What the author of this article is proposing is that creationism, like Greek mythology, should be taught as social studies. He is not saying that it should be taught as a science alongside evolution or that it should get preferential treatment over other religions; he is merely saying that it should be taught to offer perspective to children, just as Shakespeare is taught in schools now. I think the majority of the commenters above saw evolution and creationism in the same paragraph and flew off into a rant before actually reading the view that was presented to them.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:55 am
regardless of what’s right and what’s wrong, they both should be taught in school, but only in a fashion of letting the children pick which they’d like to learn
September 15th, 2008 at 5:56 am
As Matt says about the age and background radiation they help to strengthen the theory, theories make predictions about how things work, everytime a prediction is proved correct it reinforces the theory but never proves it. The LHC is hoping to find a Higgs Boson particle, these have never been seen but are predicted to have been present in the billionths of a second after the Big Bang, if they are found it confirms part of the theory but doesn’t prove it or disprove it.
With creationism the facts are changed to fit the theory. The dinosaur bones were artificially aged by God to test our faith etc. That way a theory can never be proved wrong so it should never be taught as a subject. Religion teaches faith so that is where it should stay.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
Isn’t that how many people view creationism?
Particles-to-people evolution uses the big bang and millions of years as a starting point for interpreting the evidence found in the universe, within a scientific framework.
Creationism uses the Word of God as the starting point for interpreting the evidence found in the universe, within a scientific framework.
With this in mind, can either truly be taught as FACT?
Both seem to be matters of faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.
Could they not be taught for what they are, taking all evidence into account and giving both sides a chance to present their case rather than one being taught over the other. People are smart enough to come to their own conclusions
September 15th, 2008 at 6:01 am
@Mortal Light
the thing is that creationism is taught as science in certain parts of the USA (I believe) and evolution can’t be taught.
I’m sure I’ll be told if I’m wrong
September 15th, 2008 at 6:02 am
“With creationism the facts are changed to fit the theory. The dinosaur bones were artificially aged by God to test our faith etc. That way a theory can never be proved wrong so it should never be taught as a subject. Religion teaches faith so that is where it should stay.”
It could be said that many times evoltionary fact has been changed to fit a new hypothesis or new evidence. I don’t know of any serious, credible creationist who believers God artificially aged dinosaur bones.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:04 am
@Tom
That is true, and it is also wrong. Like you said, creationism cannot be substantiated with scientific evidence, so it is completely wrong to teach it as science. Even if there is some scientific proof, only the leading theories, i.e. those that have the most evidence, are taught in the science the majority of lab-based science classes. Because the biggest piece of evidence supporting the Christian belief of creationism is a book that may or may not be a primary source, it cannot be taught as science. It should be taught as a philosophy course or alongside western history, as the Bible had a large influence on the culture and govenments in Europe.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Creationism is pure nonsense. Religion is not acceptable in school under any condition. I was in school, and no christian kid had atheism pushed on them. Furthermore, if christian parents truly believe that they are raising their children right, and that they follow the “one true god”, then they should not be worried about what their kids learn in life. Sheltering children is just a cop out. They call it good parenting to deny their child any viewpoint but their own. Teach your children EVERYTHING, then show them the right way. Don’t expect my children to believe your nonsense, and I won’t expect yours to believe mine. But your children should be educated. Evolution is a viable theory that is backed up by non-religious reasoning. I’m sure Christians would have a heart attack if someone proposed Zoroastrianism in school. Your religion is no better than the others, nor it is any more “right.” You can keep Jesus, but shut up to the rest of us. Quite frankly, if your God is real, and is actually like you say he is, I think I’ll skip it thanks.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Stizzy, Evolution tries to stick to the observed facts. Creationists change facts to reinforce their theories. one should be taught one shouldn’t until they accept observable facts
September 15th, 2008 at 6:05 am
@ Foxy:
“And to begin with, Darwin did not come to contradict religion in any way and he was not an atheist.”
Though he did become one.
———————————————————–
@ lott79:
“they both should be taught in school, but only in a fashion of letting the children pick which they’d like to learn”
Are you kidding? Kids wouldn’t know what to pick. Evolution isn’t even taught till highschool level, neither should religious studies wich would mean creationism. If it’s taught in the context of religion that’s fine but it should be strongly differentiated from evolution.
Also if creationism is to be taught, the dark side should also be taught, which is the attack on science by deception.
Check these vids out: http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY
There’s 13 in all, so set aside some time.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:08 am
“Stizzy, Evolution tries to stick to the observed facts. Creationists change facts to reinforce their theories. one should be taught one shouldn’t until they accept observable facts”
Is it the facts being changed or the interpretation of the facts? Many times an interpretation of observable facts is changed to suit new evidence. Evolution is a growing theory right? Therefore it is liable to change some things when new evidence arises.
Can Creationists be criticised for doing the same?
Pilt Down Man was viewed as evidence that man evolved from an ape like ancestor and for 40 years it was believed as fact. New evidence showed it was a hoax, hence interpretations had to be changed.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:08 am
It could be said that many times evoltionary fact has been changed to fit a new hypothesis or new evidence
a scientific theory will evolve as the evidence builds, a creationist theory will already have all the answers to begin with as they are in the Bible and can’t be changed
September 15th, 2008 at 6:10 am
“a scientific theory will evolve as the evidence builds, a creationist theory will already have all the answers to begin with as they are in the Bible and can’t be changed”
It will not have all the answers, it will have a starting assumption which is that the Word of God is true and evidence should be interpreted in light of that.
Just like modern evolutionary theory has the big bang, millions of years and chance processes as the starting assumption with all evidence interpreted in light of that.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:12 am
@ stizzy (104):
The pilt down man has been known to be a hoax for a long time.
But many more finds have proven to be genuine, in fact originally all the bones of pre-human species would only fit on a pool table, but now you need a whole pool.
And creationists don’t change their “facts” because the bible doesn’t change.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Also what I should’ve added is that what’s being interpreted is the scientific evidence. Whether its fossils, geological strata etc etc, these things that can be seen and tested are interpreted through the means i stated above. So to say that creationism can’t be substantiated by any scientific evidence doesn’t really fly.
If the bible is the starting point, there is archeological, historical and scientific evidence that can be used. It just depends on what assumptions you’re bringing to the evidence.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:13 am
@ MortalLight
At the beginning of my first post I actually commented that a lot of people missed the point of jfrater’s argument, then went on to discuss why creationism should be taught in school based solely on the controversy surrounding the ‘theory’. When discussing creationism, however, the need to discuss evolution and how it differs in both philosophy and scientific rigour is imperative. Why so? Simply because creationists are trying to elevate creationism to the level of evolution with the express goal of having it taught alongside evolution as an equal theory. Hence, it becomes necessary to state the argument for evolution as to why it is a genuine science, and why creationism is NOT.
@ Stizzy
I disagree with your statement that evolution has been changed to fit a new hypothesis. I agree that theories about natural selection/inherited traits/gene development have been changed, and rightly so, in order to accommodate new discoveries or new ways of finding out how evolution occurs. However, the fundamental evolutionary fact of random mutation directly influencing ‘un-random’ natural selection has always remained the same.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:16 am
“The pilt down man has been known to be a hoax for a long time.
But many more finds have proven to be genuine, in fact originally all the bones of pre-human species would only fit on a pool table, but now you need a whole pool.”
What fossils have been proven to be genuine? And like I said, for 40 years scientists believed pilt down man wasn’t a hoax.
The fossils found are either fully ape or fully human, no transitionals have been found. And even when a fossil has been found of an ape like creature that appears to be bipedal, it is only for short distances and they have curled fingers for swinging through trees (i.e Lucy)
September 15th, 2008 at 6:16 am
If the bible is the starting point, there is archeological, historical and scientific evidence that can be used. It just depends on what assumptions you’re bringing to the evidence.
what about the Koran and all the other religious books they don’t agree with the biblical account of creation yet scientists the world over favour evolution.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Trouble is that any new thinking on any theory in science goes through the “Peer Review” process which is absolutely brutal and eventualy the scientific community accepts it or drops it on the scientific method standard.
Creationism goes through no peer review.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:17 am
“And creationists don’t change their “facts” because the bible doesn’t change.”
Evolutionary scientists dont change their “facts” because the “fact” that a Big Bang and evolution occured doesn’t change.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:19 am
“Evolutionary scientists dont change their “facts” because the “fact” that a Big Bang and evolution occured doesn’t change.”
it is the best model that fits the facts, when it is proved wrong it will be accepted as being wrong. The facts won’t be changed to keep it going
September 15th, 2008 at 6:19 am
@ stizzy:
“Evolutionary scientists dont change their “facts” because the “fact” that a Big Bang and evolution occured doesn’t change.”
Yea, because new discoveries don’t point contrast or challenge those theories.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:21 am
“what about the Koran and all the other religious books they don’t agree with the biblical account of creation yet scientists the world over favour evolution.”
Many scientists do favour creationism.
The Quran agrees with the biblical account on many cases, but the Quranic account of creation is vary vague and in some cases it doesn’t agree.
As for other religious books, not all religions can be true but all can be wrong.
“Creationism goes through no peer review.”
How do you know creationism goes through no peer review? And if a creationist tried to put his thesis through the normal scientific peer review, they would dismiss it not on the grounds of its scientific evidence but simply because its creationist. There is a strict bias here. I’m aware of creationist bodies that do indeed put their work through a peer review process.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Since aspects of evolution have been demonstrably proven both in the lab and in the field, those aspects of evolution are as solid as the theory of gravity.
Note that gravity is still a theory, but I can’t imagine anyone thinking that gravity doesn’t exist, nor should one deny the profound signs (finds/evidence) of evolution.
Creationism is based on blind faith, is unscientific and should not be taught in school as anything but religious studies.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:24 am
“Yea, because new discoveries don’t point contrast or challenge those theories.”
Many discoveries do contrast and challenge these theories but they are either swept under the rug, the experiments themselves are criticised as being “flawed” or the new evidence is reinterpreted in a way that fits the evolutionary model.
For example, the RATE group did radiometric dating studies on rocks produced from the mt saint helens eruption, knowing how old the rocks should be (as radiometric dating “clocks” begin once the rock has cooled) yet the results gave figures of millions of years for rocks that were only a few decades old. And these results were presented alongside tests done on other rocks that were already meant to be millions of years.
Also theres the soft tissue reportedly found in a t-rex bone. Evolutionary theory is at a loss to explain this so will instead challenge that the tissue is what it appears to be.
“it is the best model that fits the facts, when it is proved wrong it will be accepted as being wrong. The facts won’t be changed to keep it going”
Is it truly the BEST model that fits the facts? Or is that an assumption that many people make without actually checking for themselves whether it appears to be the best model.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:27 am
“As for other religious books, not all religions can be true but all can be wrong.” Hallelujah
September 15th, 2008 at 6:30 am
“For example, the RATE group did radiometric dating studies on rocks produced from the mt saint helens eruption, knowing how old the rocks should be (as radiometric dating “clocks” begin once the rock has cooled) yet the results gave figures of millions of years for rocks that were only a few decades old. ”
Can you give any sources for rocks that are a few decades old
September 15th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Another issue is the Copernican Principle, that no where in space is any more different or special than another. Space is defined like the surface of an inflating balloon with the galaxys on the surface. You can never truly find the centre. This can’t be proved but it’s assumed to be fact because no one wants to believe that the Earth and our solar system is in any way special but who can really challenge that it is?
“Since aspects of evolution have been demonstrably proven both in the lab and in the field, those aspects of evolution are as solid as the theory of gravity.
Note that gravity is still a theory, but I can’t imagine anyone thinking that gravity doesn’t exist, nor should one deny the profound signs (finds/evidence) of evolution.
Creationism is based on blind faith, is unscientific and should not be taught in school as anything but religious studies.”
What aspects of evolution have been proven in a lab? If you’re talking about macro-evolution, it is a process that takes millions of years and therefore can’t be observed in a lab.
Micro-evolution or natural selection can be observed, but natural selection doesn’t prove particles-to-person evolution. That is about adaptation and Creationists don’t deny adaptation.
Many evolutionary hypothesese are too based on blind faith, because its based on things that can’t actually be observed. Wouldn’t that too be blind faith?
September 15th, 2008 at 6:31 am
I found the article and will read it now http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm
September 15th, 2008 at 6:35 am
JB:
What? So what would you call it? Take this sentence for example:
“I believe there is no God”
What word would you substitute for ‘believe’? Seems like it fits to me…
You say that if you don’t want your child to learn something then don’t take them to school…what!? So Math, Science, Language, etc. should just be thrown out the window because one theory is accepted over another? Great logic there.
BOTH are theories because they BOTH have evidence to support them. However the Bible isn’t considered a good source in the scientific community because it is often misinterpreted. Keep in mind that it was written before anyone knew what atoms or molecules were so not everything can be taken literally.
As for evolution well…how is it any more reliable from a scientific standpoint? Archeologists have found metal tools fit for use by modern human hands and obviously made by an intelligent mind (ie. not an ape) that are found to be dated to time when intelligent humans didn’t exist yet…
September 15th, 2008 at 6:39 am
“What aspects of evolution have been proven in a lab? If you’re talking about macro-evolution, it is a process that takes millions of years and therefore can’t be observed in a lab.”
I’m going to have to find the examples in that book, i’ll have to get back to you.
“Many evolutionary hypothesese are too based on blind faith, because its based on things that can’t actually be observed. Wouldn’t that too be blind faith?”
You can’t call it blind faith, you can’t call it faith at all, science doesn’t permit faith. The fossil record and genetics are substantial evidence for many evolutionary hypotheses.
Remembering that absolute truth is unattainable by humans, science is a self correcting process. As more evidence is found the theories change to fit. The refinement of theories are about becoming ever accurate.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:44 am
“You can’t call it blind faith, you can’t call it faith at all, science doesn’t permit faith. The fossil record and genetics are substantial evidence for many evolutionary hypotheses.
Remembering that absolute truth is unattainable by humans, science is a self correcting process. As more evidence is found the theories change to fit. The refinement of theories are about becoming ever accurate”
The Big Bang and macro evolution are things that can’t be observed, and many scientific hypothesese are formed around the idea that those things have occured, and they believe this through faith. Because faith is based on what you can’t see with your own eyes. Like I can honestly say that many people accept what they are taught, whether religious or scientific, based on faith and not on their own research. We put our faith in scientists who are meant to know better because other scientists say so.
The fossil record shows that many creatures were buried by strata and water, preserved in the rock. Whether this is evolution or creationism depends on how you interpret the evidence. You don’t find transitional creatures in the fossil record and therefore where is the substantial evidence?
Not to mention fossil formation doesn’t have to take millions of years anyway.
And you have to question any concept of “truth” in an evolutionary world. How can you define truth?
September 15th, 2008 at 6:56 am
All religions are the conglomeration of theories that have developed beyond their moralistic content to the point that cognitive dissonance has deprived the majority of the world’s poulation of their ability to tell mythology from history. All mythologies were religions at one point; what makes the ones in vogue today any different?
September 15th, 2008 at 7:06 am
“All religions are the conglomeration of theories that have developed beyond their moralistic content to the point that cognitive dissonance has deprived the majority of the world’s poulation of their ability to tell mythology from history. All mythologies were religions at one point; what makes the ones in vogue today any different?”
Pretty bold statement to make isn’t it? That ALL religions are the conglomeration of theories? And is it really fair to say that people who are religious can’t tell the difference between myth and history?
I can’t speak for other people but its not blind faith that holds me to my beliefs, and its not a case of not being able to tell the difference. For me, the evidence stands but no evidence can prove the existance of a God, because if there were an omnipotent God, any evidence that “proved” his existence would be to say that the evidence has more power than that God. Therefore a measure of faith is required.
Were all mythologies truly religious at one point? And even if they were, that doesn’t prove that all religions were once myths. Take for example todays comic books, in several 1000 years, people could look back at these and believe that they were based on religions even though we know they weren’t.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:08 am
This is an extremely volatile issue. And one which is strewn with misconceptions, and bags of heat with very little light. I am a Lutheran. I was taught that there are two kingdoms. The kingdom of Heaven, and the kingdom of the world. The Bible teaches about the Kingdom of God, while science teaches about the kingdom of the world. The two kingdoms do meet, but we have insufficient knowledge on both sides to tell exactly where that happens. The Bible is not a science text, and science is not a religious text. I have no trouble merging both, so long as they maintain honesty when they overreach outside of their base. When religious folks try to impress their beliefs on the scientific community, they are as wrong as the scientists who claim there is no God because science proves it. I say a pox on both of their houses when they try to exclude the other.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Well said dlcuervo,
I believe to oust evolution in favor of creationism or vice versa would be wrong.
Shared dialogue is the best way forward. Both should be allowed to equally present their viewpoints.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:28 am
NO, Creationism should NOT be taught in schools.
Let’s all be honest about this and cut the bullshit. Extremist Christians KNOW they are peddling nothing but a falsehood in this… it is quite simply a backdoor way of getting THEIR belief system back into the mainstream, in order to overthrow science. And why? Because in their fundamentalist moronic heads, they cannot STAND the idea that the words of the Bible could be wrong, and thus their idiotic LITERAL interpretation of it could be wrong. Unable to loose themselves from this literalism, they see science as a challenge to their notion of reality, and so they will do ANYTHING to undermine it and dispose of it. It isn’t about gaining “fairness” or having “equal time.” All that malarkey (invalid anyway) is simply cover so they can gain the victory they feel they need, and start us on the rollback away from rationalism and logical reasoning.
We should never take this lightly. They have poured a lot of energy and money into pushing this agenda, and into framing REAL science itself as a “biased system.” It’s just like the game Cryptozoologists play with *their* belief system, painting skeptics as so-called “scoftics” — i.e., turning the argument around to make the skeptic look like the irrational, unreasonable one with an axe to grind and an agenda to promote. The very same tactic is used by Creationists, only in their case it’s more serious. It’s no great challenge to civilization if a few devotees who believe strongly in Bigfoot want to go around trying to undermine the scientific credentials of skepticism in regards to their cherished belief. The argument is really small potatoes, and will never have a huge impact on the culture overall. But Creationism is a far more broad, sweeping issue. It is simply the resurgence of Christian mysticism and dogma that not only challenged science, but repressed and stifled it for centuries.
It’s easy for us to sit here with our technology and modern cities and whatnot and think we can’t possibly be teetering on some brink of barbarism, but in fact we damn well could be. The mistake is in thinking that “barbarism” means people living in wigwams and tents, filthy and degraded, going around killing and plundering. That may be what we think of as the ultimate picture of barbarism, but it’s simply the end-result. The real and pressing danger to civilization is when it starts to collapse over into rigidity, ignorance, enervation, and general lack of confidence in itself.
Our civilization is based on this innate confidence in the grouping of factors that makes us “western” in the broad historical and cultural sense. Individuality, freedom, belief in certain rights, an innate faith in the rational and the knowable, and a confidence in the capabilities of science, as a tool, to illustrate and unmask the universe for us. Extremist Christian dogma goes against almost ALL of these, but it particularly assails rationality and reason, and the fundamental basis of science. And the reason, of course, is because extremist Christianity cannot co-exist with science. Ordinary Christianity can, because the two are divorced from one another. But when one’s base sense of reality is grounded ENTIRELY in a mystical, untouchable, and non-empirical view, then what the rest of us call scientific fact becomes an enemy factor to that view, totally in opposition to it. How can a view that holds as fact that the world is only 6000 years old be in ANY WAY squared with the *scientific* fact that the world is actually 4.5 billion years old?
Creationism isn’t simply somebody else’s “equally valid” worldview that “should be respected.” It is, in fact, in total opposition to the base tenets of what makes us civilized. It is dogma over rationality.
These things happen slowly… so we don’t necessarily see it. And with our ever-increasing and sophisticated technology, we have this strange faith, it seems, that things CAN’T POSSIBLY roll back. Put these two factors together and we’re *blind* to the danger. But in fact the danger is right here and it’s real. It’s foolish to take small steps down the path to barbarism and ignorance just because we think it can’t do any harm. The harm happens in aggregate and sometimes is slow to manifest itself. But historically we’ve seen it before.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:30 am
“You gotta love how people will be all about teaching the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, but then demand strict proof of Creationism before it can be taught.”
I’m a retard here.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Bit of an aggressive reponse Randall. Seems a bit more hate filled than rational. Why is that? And to be fair, many of your objections against Creationism having a say could be easily lobied against evolutionary theory.
“Creationism isn’t simply somebody else’s “equally valid” worldview that “should be respected.” It is, in fact, in total opposition to the base tenets of what makes us civilized. It is dogma over rationality.”
And what are the base tenets that make us civilized? I would’ve thought morality and ethics as well as the desire to learn is what makes us civilized. And the vast majority of our morals and ethics are based on what would be called “religious” foundations. The desire to learn is ingrained in our very being as part of our nature.
Where is there a basis for morals in an evolutionary world? In a world like that, everything becomes subjective and a matter of perspective. There are no absolutes and anything will go. That doesn’t seem to encourage civilization but chaos.
Can chaos, if left alone for a long enough period, eventually turn to order? Without a guide, how can chaos know when it becomes order? And where would the intelligence from this guide come from? Surely not from more chaos.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:36 am
“How can a view that holds as fact that the world is only 6000 years old be in ANY WAY squared with the *scientific* fact that the world is actually 4.5 billion years old? ”
The 4.5 billion year old age is based on radiometric dating, which in and of itself is a flawed method. It’s based on uniformitarionism, the belief that the rate of processes that would have “aged” the rock have always been the same and constant. This is as assumption because the simple fact is scientists don’t know. So how can it be FACT?
September 15th, 2008 at 7:38 am
“Did anyone order the retard? We got a whole plateful of retard here, but I don’t think any of us ordered it.”
What exactly is the basis for calling this person a retard? And what is the plateful of retard you’re talking about?
September 15th, 2008 at 7:39 am
The BBC have an article on this today as well as well as a discussion http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7613403.stm
not trying to pull people away jamie but i think it will expand the comments and get some different viewpoints.
feel free to remove
September 15th, 2008 at 7:41 am
By Coincidence the BBC are having a discussion about this today as well and have an article from a British point of view http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7613403.stm
September 15th, 2008 at 7:43 am
“That was my knee-jerk reaction to the ignorance that person demonstrated by using the “just a theory” argument. I don’t like to use the word ‘retard’, but that person clearly knew very little about the subject.”
True, that it isn’t sufficient to use the “just a theory” arguement. Because the scientific meaning for “theory” isn’t necessarily what most people think of.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:49 am
big magic man did it!!
September 15th, 2008 at 7:50 am
“I would’ve thought morality and ethics as well as the desire to learn is what makes us civilized. And the vast majority of our morals and ethics are based on what would be called “religious” foundations.”
If that is true then there is no basis for the science of Psychology, is there? Morals and ethics are built from personal experience and empathy, not from the historical beliefs of our ancestors.
“The desire to learn is ingrained in our very being as part of our nature.”
That desire should not mean learning for learning’s sake in a civilised world. It should mean learning for the sake of truth.
“Where is there a basis for morals in an evolutionary world? In a world like that, everything becomes subjective and a matter of perspective. There are no absolutes and anything will go. That doesn’t seem to encourage civilization but chaos.”
Do you honestly believe that Atheism results in anarchy?
September 15th, 2008 at 7:55 am
I will use my amazing skills of perdiction to perdict that this will get rough.
My view: No, not as science! I live in Norway and here we learn about the major five religions (and others) so we now about creation. Most Norwegian people don’t believe in creation so I think we’ve got a pretty good system
September 15th, 2008 at 7:55 am
whoo hoo hoo HOO MAN!!!!! JF you are insane but thank you for providing the interesting reading!!!
I dont necessarily believe that it should be taught but I also dont think that the the big bang THEORY or the THEORY of evolution should be taught either. But something has to fill the gap. i mean, we cant just say i dont know instead of possibly lieing to millions of students every year (sarcasm)
I went to a school where my science teacher was a die hard evolutionist supporter and believer. Good for him, he is a good guy. We just didnt agree on that particular subject. I refused to do the work or did it and made sure to sufficiently imply that it was a theory and not fact. And that is fine. Its as soon as you start teaching theory as fact is where shit hits the fan and i think thats the huge problem. Not with teaching creationism, but withthe current methods for teaching the THEORY of evolution and the big bang THEORY.
I better answer is to not make it a mandatory part of studies but rather have both THEORYS be taught in a seperate elective course. Then all the people who want to learn about the other or express there personal beliefs can do so in a seperate forum instead of mixing church and state by forcing the religion of evolutionism (illegal) on people and by causing (for lack of a better term i will herein refer to all religious creationist theorys as creationism) creationism to receive so much more attention by so pointedly ignoring it. I want to know how the touchy subject is being taught in other countries, where i am from, in America, Oregon, USA to be exact, we were taught the evolution and the big bang theory were only theorys but the only theorys that fit, therefore fact. But like i said, my teacher was a nut. LOL
Be a little more openminded you f***ks before you start being rude and calling people retards. Ignorance is bliss…
September 15th, 2008 at 7:56 am
“If that is true then there is no basis for the science of Psychology, is there? Morals and ethics are built from personal experience and empathy, not from the historical beliefs of our ancestors.”
Or are morals and ethics built into our very nature as a result of being designed to be that way? Ingrained with a conscience that can tell the difference between right and wrong. I’m not saying that it is based on historical beliefs of our ancestors.
“That desire should not mean learning for learning’s sake in a civilised world. It should mean learning for the sake of truth.”
Obviously, you learn in a persuit of truth, but ALSO out of a sense of wonder.
“Do you honestly believe that Atheism results in anarchy?”
I wasn’t saying Atheism results in anarchy. If you believe that morals and ethics are both ingrained in our very nature and guided by the word of an all powerful, all knowing creator, then we have the capacity to know whats right and wrong. The question is “why?” evolution can’t answer that question.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:00 am
and as for the whole world being preoved to be billions of years old….God (any religios figurehead) created a muture world. LOL
there is always an argument, always a reason why one is better than the other….
I like my idea, dont teach either, rather, have them both as an elective. It isnt a neccessary subject, vital to our success as humans or in life. Its just a curiosity. And all totally theoretical. There is no way to prove either is right or wrong unless God(any religios figurehead) himself shows up or we all start growing tails and a new hospitable planet appears. Both unlikely.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:04 am
we know what’s right or wrong because we get taught it at an early age. some heed the lesson others do not, certain priests for example
September 15th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Stizzy:
“Bit of an aggressive reponse Randall.”
Concerted, well-schemed and threatening challenges to rationality and our civilization as an extension demand an aggressive response “Stizzy.” You don’t like it, too bad for you.
“Seems a bit more hate filled than rational.”
I see little “hate” in what I wrote. What I have, however, is no patience for ignorance and those who want to replace the rationalistic way of viewing the universe with out and out dogma.
“Why is that? And to be fair, many of your objections against Creationism having a say could be easily lobied against evolutionary theory.”
In what way? In what possible way is evolution anti-rationalistic?
“And what are the base tenets that make us civilized?”
I outlined those, clear and simple, for all to see. Do I need to repeat myself?
I QUOTE:
“Our civilization is based on this innate confidence in the grouping of factors that makes us “western” in the broad historical and cultural sense. Individuality, freedom, belief in certain rights, an innate faith in the rational and the knowable, and a confidence in the capabilities of science, as a tool, to illustrate and unmask the universe for us.”
“I would’ve thought morality and ethics as well as the desire to learn is what makes us civilized. And the vast majority of our morals and ethics are based on what would be called “religious” foundations.”
And where does this contradict what I said? You can, if you like, place morality and ethics in connection to what is rational. But be careful to DEFINE what you mean by “morality,” because it’s a word that has a tendency to get us into trouble, since so many of us (presumably types like YOU) prefer to define it by their own rigid lines which are NOT, in fact, in keeping with what is “civilized” in a broad, historical context.
“The desire to learn is ingrained in our very being as part of our nature.”
AND SO IS the tendency in ourselves towards fear, alienation, and the desire to stay back from what challenges us. Learning requires an active heroism, in the willingness to face the abyss, to face the unknowable.
Your argument isn’t getting anywhere Stizzy.
“Where is there a basis for morals in an evolutionary world?”
I see nothing in the two that makes them mutually exclusive. Apparently you do. Again, it sounds to me like you are taking the very tack I was speaking against–extremist Christianity always feels it can’t co-exist with science. When in fact science does NOT address the existence of god nor any system of morality we derive from our religious beliefs. BUT, a belief system that grounds itself MAINLY or STRICTLY in dogmatic mysticism DOES end up having to deny science, for the very reasons I spoke of earlier. THAT is irrational.
“In a world like that, everything becomes subjective and a matter of perspective. There are no absolutes and anything will go. That doesn’t seem to encourage civilization but chaos.”
Bullshit. NO SCIENTIFIC FACT has ever led to the degradation of a civilization, unless that civlization had first degraded and debased ITSELF by allowing mysticism and dogma to command and dominate it. AGAIN, ethical rationality has nothing whatsoever to DO with science. Evolution ONLY illustrates the biological facts of how life progresses and adapts. What has this to DO with the tenets of morality and ethics? God is still god, the spirit is still the spirit.
ONLY THOSE who ground their belief system in the DOGMA that we MUST have been created pristine into our human form are challenged by evolution. LOSE that ridiculous and childish notion, and you will see that there is ABSOLUTELY no contradiction and no problem.
“The 4.5 billion year old age is based on radiometric dating, which in and of itself is a flawed method.”
This is simply more creationist lying. I’m fed up with it. There is NO WAY FOR A FLAW TO EXIST which could blunder a date SO INCOMPREHENSIBLY large. The world is 4.5 billion years old, NOT 6000 years. This is not a “degree” of difference, but a DOGMATIC difference.
You are simply illustrating my point for me, that extremist Christians will lie and invent lies in order to further their agenda.
Why not stop with the BS, Stizzy? Why not just come out and SAY the truth? That you can’t abide the idea of science being right on these questions, and you want to END it as a system and instead replace it with your own beliefs?
Because of course it’s no way to get your way through the door. You know that doors that are shut, if they can’t be broken down or coaxed open, must be chipped away at so you can remove the hinges and pull it down yourself—surreptiously so the owners don’t know what you’re doing.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Ouch, I just read some comments. People are not going to be civil
September 15th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Yes, creationism s/be taught. I’m sick of these “evolutionists” and their fascism. Just like I’m sick of the “round earthers.” A flat earth theory s/also be taught and let the students make up their own minds. While we’re at it, who started all this nonsense about parents putting presents under the X-Mas tree? We need to teach the reality of the real Santa Claus. We also need to dispense with all the “sexual reproduction” theories. THE STORK BRINGS THE BABY, DEAL WITH IT YOU… “SCIENTISTS!”
September 15th, 2008 at 8:30 am
“we know what’s right or wrong because we get taught it at an early age. some heed the lesson others do not, certain priests for example”
And my point is our parents had to learn from somewhere
September 15th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Yes, of course.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Before anyone here gets fooled by the nonsense peddled by people like Stizzy, and has to engage in arguments with him/her, I strongly suggest everyone go here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
Let’s all keep our heads and remember that creationists will say anything to sneak in their little (or large) distortions of the scientific facts. Which is simply more proof that Creationism is a dogma, not a science.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Sure, it should be taught. The idea of intelligent design has been greatly influential on past generations, especially in music and art. Whether Creationism is a science or not, it can’t help us by arguing over it forever. Toleration is key. Contraversy will exist forever until we, as a human race, learn that each and every person is truly different. We all believe what we believe. Whether you are correct or not doesn’t matter much if you’re damaging the well-being of this planet in any way. Creationism is a part of our history (much like “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance), and should therefore be taught as a possibibility. As long as there are still Christians believing it, teach it. All you can do as evolutionists is try to explain your beliefs. Done.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:49 am
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
A rebuttal to most Creationist claims.
In answer to the question, yes Creationism should be taught in a religion class, but not in a science class.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:49 am
44. jackit, read my #24. segue.
After 13 years of Catholic school, K-12, I can pretty much recite the catechisms and can recite the various creeds by heart. But when it comes to teaching creationism, any religion’s creation story, in public schools, I have to disagree strongly for a number of reasons.
In the U.S. it’s a Constitutional issue, it can’t legally be done. So, let’s pretend the separation of Church and State is a non-issue for a moment, which religion’s creation story will the schools be teaching?
To make it fair, they’ll have to teach the creation stories of the religions of all of the students in the entire district. Imagine the confusion that will create! Not to mention the amount of time better used on other subjects; maths, sciences, English, literature…
Teaching a child creationism (any religion’s creationism) doesn’t improve the child.
Teaching the child morals improves *does* improve the child.
Teaching the child morality is the job of the parents.
I had three children in thirty-three months. I began teaching them, morals, ABC’s, counting, etc. almost immediately in a very natural way.
All three lessons took equally well. My children were all reading fluently before they were four, and knew right from wrong with the same ease.
That’s what’s important. Not how we came to be, but how we conduct ourselves while we’re here.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:50 am
What were they teaching in school 100 years ago….or even 50 years ago? What will they be teach 50-100 years from now(not just about our origins but about anything)? I like the idea of how much we simply don’t know. Things are changing so fast and we are discovering more and more everyday. I do believe evidence that really doesn’t fit evolution is covered up. There would be A LOT of people who would face severe embarrassment if something that brought evolution under intense scrutiny was brought to the worlds attention; so the motivation to keep that theory relevant, no matter what, is very real. I don’t really like the bias on either side. I would like to think that any scientist who makes a discovery would think “what dose this discovery point to” and not ” how does this fit into the evolutionary theory/creationist theory”. Don’t go ape-shit on me I’m saying that there is evidence of creationism being covered up and stored in a bunker somewhere but I have doubts about the integrity of the average human being. I love science and in my mind it is in a state that makes me question evolution as it is presented today as well as creationism as it was taught to me growing up. I’m really waiting on unanswered questions, the many many unanswered questions and despite questionable discoveries, flawed methods, corrupt scientists, crazed “creation scientists” with backyard country scientific degrees, anti-religious atheist, and scientifically illiterate christians, the truth will eventually find it’s way to the surface as technology slowly but surely advances..
Overall I think the scientific community, for the most part, cannot handle the idea that there could be a being or beings that have power and intelligence beyond our understanding or capabilities. Whether they be a “god”, or alien life-forms. And I don’t blame them for not putting much focus on such things as it seems we aren’t close to “scientifically proving” their existence. But enough happens that is unexplained and enough things discovered that are appear out of place or complete anomalies that I don’t see the belief or idea of their existence going away.
So to put it plainly I don’t think that creationism has a place in science class at this time but I have no problem with and have seen it with in philosophy classes and similar classes.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:50 am
No, abso-friggin’-lutely not. Not in a scientific sense, at least. In fact, I think children should be taught of the history of religion itself, and realise the mind-bending similarities between ancient Egyptian/Greek/Indian religions, worshipping and anthropomorphosizing celestial bodies, and Christianity. I have no problem with schools teaching Creationism in a non-preaching manner, letting students know that this is a belief and they can choose whether or not to believe it themselves, but certainly not in a way that leads students to believe that this is fact when, despite what your beliefs may be, it is not.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Randall:
“Extremist Christians KNOW they are peddling nothing but a falsehood in this… it is quite simply a backdoor way of getting THEIR belief system back into the mainstream, in order to overthrow science. And why? Because in their fundamentalist moronic heads, they cannot STAND the idea that the words of the Bible could be wrong, and thus their idiotic LITERAL interpretation of it could be wrong. Unable to loose themselves from this literalism, they see science as a challenge to their notion of reality, and so they will do ANYTHING to undermine it and dispose of it. It isn’t about gaining “fairness” or having “equal time.” All that malarkey (invalid anyway) is simply cover so they can gain the victory they feel they need, and start us on the rollback away from rationalism and logical reasoning.”
The irony of that is amazing…one could also say that atheists simply can’t accept that science might not be able to explain everything.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Sedulous:
Very well put
September 15th, 2008 at 8:56 am
You forgot to mention as *what* it should be taught. In Biology, of course not since it’s not scientifically proven. In Religion, just *maybe*, but even then only with the important information that scientifically, there’s the fact (not theory!) of Evolution that disproves Creationism. Also, there are so many more important and widespread beliefs – i.e. Catholicism, Protestanism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. which should be mentioned first before you start polluting innocent children with Creationism.
Don’t do the Galileo, or we’re back to the dark ages (when religion was king). It’s not called Age of Enlightenment for nothing…
September 15th, 2008 at 8:58 am
fishing4monkeys:
“The irony of that is amazing…one could also say that atheists simply can’t accept that science might not be able to explain everything.”
And where is the relevancy of this? I said nothing of the kind. I myself am, in fact, not an atheist.
Simply because someone doesn’t hold a dogmatic view as their basis for reality does NOT make them an atheist.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I don’t get what all the naysayers are afraid of. No one is saying it should be taught as fact, so why not let them learn it? A child’s head isn’t going to explode because you put God into it one period a day. Remember when it was a big deal to say “under god” during the pledge?
No reason to get all riled up. In 20,30,40 years maybe we’ll be teaching something other than the big bang- science disproves itself all the time.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Sedulous:
“Overall I think the scientific community, for the most part, cannot handle the idea that there could be a being or beings that have power and intelligence beyond our understanding or capabilities.”
On what do you base this on?
In fact your statement there is nonsense. Do you *know* any scientists? I know and have known many. They in fact don’t care about the question, because it is *irrelevant* to science, insofar as you are talking about god, since they aren’t in the business of proving or disproving god. Of course your statement could also be interpreted to refer to beings that are merely “beyond” us, and such things ARE interesting to science–scientists would be thrilled, for instance, to find out that a vastly superior (to us) intelligent life form existed somewhere in the universe. So to say that they “can’t handle” the idea is only further proven to be nonsensical. They’d jump at the chance to study it and know more, if it were possible.
I have never known a scientist in ANY field who was hostile to the idea of god. They simply consider him to be outside of their field of study.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Callie:
It is harmful because we are not dealing, here, simply with competing scientific ideas. Creationists want you to *think* that, but it is not in fact the case. It isn’t like the difference between Big Bang Theory and the (now discredited) Steady State Theory, nor is it like the difference between String Theory or M Theory and more traditional ideas of particle physics.
Creationism, rather, is a dogmatic challenge to science in general, and at heart it says that science is irrelevant and wrong, and that truth only exists in a single, literalist interpretation of the Christian Bible.
So the more correct analogy would be to say that it’s like the difference between teaching science, on the one hand, and magic, on the other, to explain the world. There is no way to test, prove, or disprove magic, because at it’s very nature it is not scientific. Therefore it would mean to usurp and supplant science, not simply co-exist with it. Imagine, therefore, a college Engineering course that, instead of simply teaching the engineering principles of what makes a building stand up, ALSO were to teach that you could make buildings stand by sacrificing a goat and saying certain incantations and mixing certain potions, and the unseen spirits would then take care of the rest.
I’d prefer to have my high-rise apartment building built by engineers who practiced scientific principles rather than such mumbo-jumbo.
But that’s the same thing creationists are saying–that science can be supplanted and replaced by a mystical, dogmatic version (their version) of reality. The building that a magician would try to build using his bizarre methods would quickly crumble. So would a civilization that allows dogmatism and mystical nonsense to replace science, rationality, and reason.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I’m a very religious person, but creationism is pure CRAP. Teaching kids what it is will just confuse them. People are starting to think creationism is a religion in and of itself. This is a total waste of time for everyone. It should never be taught in school. When kids learn about religions, that alone will educate them that different people have different belief systems that ease their minds of complex questions. With science, we have very good proof on how things work, and that is more concrete than any religion – including my own. Religion is subjective, science gets to be worked on every day by thousands of people. If I’m going to be educated, I want it to be with science.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Ironically, many of the “15 answers to creationists” are the same arguements a CREATIONIST website says shouldn’t or are unwise to use.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
September 15th, 2008 at 9:30 am
I don’t live in the US so I don’t know exactly what it is the author is asking, does he mean creationism should be taught in a science class, or in a separate class like Religion or social studies? If it is the former, then of course no, and I can’t imagine anyone thinking otherwise. If it is the latter, then I think it’s ok. In my school we had a Religion class where we discussed our faith and the bible.
I’m a Catholic but not religious at all, I don’t know how to label myself (all these American names like atheist, liberal etc. don’t really exist elsewhere) but I’m open. If it was up to me, though, I wouldn’t keep those religion classes in school. It’s no harm, but that time could be better spent. I’d rather have another computer class, sport class, philosophy class or even cooking class. I believe those would be a better hour spent.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I think there are a lot of people missing the point. School is a place for facts. It’s not Sunday School. We all know creationism isn’t factual. It’s a soft approach to forcing kids to pick a religion by cramming it down their throats every day of the week. If you teach it in school then they have to write books on it, give them homework on it, start creating webpages about it, make kids write papers on it, have questions on tests about it, etc. I do not want future generations wasting time on a compilation of that fact that religion exists. We already teach kids about religions specifically, and that is factual. Kids need to spend much more time on math, history, language(s), etc. Religions should be taught as an overview b/c it’s an important aspect of the human race, but not creationism.
I think common sense needs to become a class. This world has completely lost touch with it.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:36 am
But no one learns in public schools anymore anyway. It’s all about money and test scores. Further elaboration: Creationism should be taught in religion class or church.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:37 am
The problem is people are getting the Facts and Hypothesese mixed up.
Fact: There are millions of fossilized creature and plant remains buried in several miles worth of sediments in the earth.
Hypothesis (Evolution): These layers were laid down over millions of years and show a progression of creature evolution.
Hypothesis (Creationism): These layers were laid down in a catestrophic global flood. Seeming progression is a result of sorting and not millions of years of evolution
September 15th, 2008 at 9:42 am
“It’s a soft approach to forcing kids to pick a religion by cramming it down their throats every day of the week.”
Do schools even make an effort to address problems with evolutionary theory of give children the chance to think for themselves and form their own opinion by giving them a complete overview rather than one side?
Take for example that many parts of the world have constrasting views on history. The west sees 9/11 as a terrorist attack on freedom. The middle east sees it as a cry against what they see as neo-colonialism. It depends on what perspective you’re bringing to the table.
Creationism is offering another perspective and if evolution is irrefutable, than it has nothing to fear.
But would teaching Creationism be cramming religion down peoples throats? The public has sex, violance, scandal and evolution “crammed” down its throat every day so why not at least try and balance it out?
September 15th, 2008 at 9:52 am
For starters, to call me a moron is uncalled for.
Secondly, I said we have an inbuilt ability to know right from wrong i.e a conscience, but that doesn’t mean we always listen to it and eventually we can completely stifle it. At which point, pretty much anything goes.
And the fact that people have strayed from a biblical morality is not a fault of God but the fault of people.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am
“the belief that the rate of processes that would have “aged” the rock have always been the same and constant”
Right well stizy now for GCSE physics. Radioactive dating/Radiometric dating has many different forms. 18 infact.
argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
fission track dating
helium (He-He)
iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
optically stimulated luminescence dating
potassium-argon (K-Ar)
radiocarbon dating
rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
uranium-lead (U-Pb)
uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
uranium-thorium (U-Th)
uranium-uranium (U-U)
stolen from wikipedia couse i cant be arsed
And not a single method falls short because of the theory of uniformitarianism*. They rely on a radioactive substance decaying at different rates. The ‘half-life’ of a radio active substance, the time it takes for the quantity to be half of its original value, is not in anyway effected by wether the uniformitarianism theory holds up or not. 14 year olds in England learn this stuff.
“Or are morals and ethics built into our very nature as a result of being designed to be that way? Ingrained with a conscience that can tell the difference between right and wrong. I’m not saying that it is based on historical beliefs of our ancestors.”
How do you explain cultural diversity then? How would you explain that a tribe in indonesia thinks that it is perfectly acceptable for canabalism to occur, or female circumcision? If you belive that we have an inate ability to tell right from wrong you really are a moron. What is right and wrong? They are so subjective it would be impossible to have a set moral or ethical code as situation changes so frequently. However the laws of the bible do make for a subdued society dont they. Could ‘Morality’ have developed alongside civilisation perhaps? Rules came about due to a need for rules. These Rules have been ingrained in society, not the individual, and they change from one generation to the next. The help us survive, they evolve.
Now you say that subjective morals are not a step in the right direction for civilisation. Well actually if you observe different societies throughout history you will find that everytime there is a big leap there is also a change in the laws and such which are, if nothing else, a reflection of the current morality. CURRENT morality, becuase it is in constant flux. No two situations are the same so why have one ruling? Because it is dogmatic and ignorant to do so? or because you want to follow the teachings of a book written between 1400 BCE and 95 CE and then fiddled with more than a catholic choir boy. In 325 CE the first council of nicea was held, and constantine I and his cronies decided upon the divinity of jesus and the relationship he should have with god. And you still belive every word it has to say. The authors of the gospels are entirely annonymous. A touch off subject.
“I would’ve thought morality and ethics as well as the desire to learn is what makes us civilized. And the vast majority of our morals and ethics are based on what would be called “religious” foundations.”
Just because they were based upon religious foundations does not mean they were originally religious. In fact the fact that some of the morals from the bible have faded out goes against the idea of objective morality. If the bible was the word of god, inspired by god… yadda yadda yadda winge winge winge…Then surely either he was wrong i.e. not omniscient, or shall we all meet up and go to a good stoning?
September 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Teaching any creation myth, including the intelligent design creation myth, is child abuse. It shouldn’t be taught anywhere except to say only uneducated hicks believe in it.
This is all students need to understand: Creationism = Magic = Breathtaking Stupidity.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Oh and on the actual question not just rebutle. It’s not science and it’s not fact. So teach it in Religious education or perhaps history but NEVER TEACH IT AS FACT!
September 15th, 2008 at 10:00 am
“Oh and on the actual question not just rebutle. It’s not science and it’s not fact. So teach it in Religious education or perhaps history but NEVER TEACH IT AS FACT!”
So Creationism Science isn’t science because?
And who is saying to teach it as fact? If there is a scientific discipline in Creationism, why can it not be taught as a form of science? It isn’t based purely on phylosophical or religion.
“Teaching any creation myth, including the intelligent design creation myth, is child abuse. It shouldn’t be taught anywhere except to say only uneducated hicks believe in it.”
How anyone can compare teaching their kid another point of view to child abuse is beyond me.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t form part of religious studies or related topics. Within a science lesson I think it could be useful to show how science and critical thinking are used to discount the idea of Creationism as a factual concept. Just today I was reading about a resurgence of Creationism in Britain – they use very persuasive rhetoric to turn people to their cause. I think it’s right to arm children with the tools to understand how to consider such diametrically opposed views and to evaluate the evidence (or lack thereof) for each properly. Such discussion is important in my view as I believe not enough emphasis on the use of critical thought is employed in the curriculum these days. Such a current and contentious issue is a perfect platform on which to base such teaching.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:11 am
@123. fishing4monkeys
You can’t force a child to use reason in mathematics but not in science.
So you think that atheism, as the denying of any kind of dogma, is a dogma itself…so atheists must deny atheism itself and then have no reason to deny himself…
THEN GOD EXIST and I have to adore a terrorist that became a zombie and a sign that represent a torture tool. Ah! of course, then I must believe in a book that says women were made to serve men, world is flat and is the center of the Universe, and was made in seven (actually six) days.
And I must force all the offspring in my country to know what I believe because I’m very important and I represent all what’s good in the world and other people that have other absurd ideas (but they’re wrong because I MUST be true) doesn’t have the right to do the same.
@166. Stizzy:
“Hypothesis (Creationism): These layers were laid down in a catestrophic global flood. Seeming progression is a result of sorting and not millions of years of evolution”
try another one. This one was long ago debunked, but I think creationism have better hypothesis. Try with intelligent design maybe.
Intelligence is a senseless quality for a being isolated from any kind of environment. So if God was at first alone. ¿ Why must He be intelligent? He could be a dumb, and that can explain better the world how it is than believing Him intelligent. Why not?
September 15th, 2008 at 10:14 am
“Intelligence is a senseless quality for a being isolated from any kind of environment. So if God was at first alone. ¿ Why must He be intelligent? He could be a dumb, and that can explain better the world how it is than believing Him intelligent. Why not?”
Why would God being dumb explain the world better?
And how was the hypothesis I put debunked long ago?
I think the idea that mankinds disobedience leading to a curse on all creation explains the messed up world today better than a stupid god. Your assumption is that things have always been as messed up as they are now.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:16 am
What Randall Said “They in fact don’t care about the question, because it is *irrelevant* to science, insofar as you are talking about god, since they aren’t in the business of proving or disproving god.”
What I said “And I don’t blame them for not putting much focus on such things as it seems we aren’t close to “scientifically proving” their existence.”
I think i agree with you Randall(surprisingly). There isn’t any solid evidence pointing to the existence of god or intelligent alien lifeforms so I don’t blame them for not putting any scientific focus on it.
And I do agree, if alien beings with intelligence and technology landed on earth tomorrow, they would be clamoring to study them.
“I have never known a scientist in ANY field who was hostile to the idea of god. They simply consider him to be outside of their field of study.”
I have known a few scientists who were very hostile to the idea of god. As far as they were concerned science was god the very idea of the existence of a being beyond there power and understanding was something they almost took offense too.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
lol
I’m really starting to believe that God exist and is a dumb.
Look in the black holes for example.
It was the sixth with lot of work to do and God got tired after doing the neutron star. He though “I’ve done a degenerated gas of electrons, then another of neutrons, ¿what come next?”
And then He decided to make a body that none would be able to look inside. And he invented the speed of light and light itself ¿why not?
And if we manage to get inside a Black Hole we’ll find a sign saying “under construction” or Error 404…
…I’ll force Doctors in Theorical Physics to teach that in their relativity lessons
September 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Could someone in here provide me with solid proof the evolution is the way it happened?
Science isn’t always the answer, you very foolish set of people. Scientists once said that there were no such things as giant squids, or humans would never be able to fly. Why should I believe all the things they have to say now.
It’s very simple, you see. People choose to believe in evolution no matter how faulty and foolish it is, simply because they choose not to believe in God.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:01 am
No because it has nothing to do with school and there is supposed to be seperation of church and state. If you taught Creationism in social studies then you would have to teach every religions views on it, not just that God created the world. That would take too much time to teach every religion ever made. It also doesn’t make any sence that you would want to teach only Creationism. There are lots of other religious things so why just that. I think it would be okay to have an elective in high school for people interested in learning about religion, but it definately shouldn’t be taught in a normal class that everyone has to take even if they disagree.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:01 am
So..I was taught mythology in high school (we studied these in English class, actually, and the response was so overwhelming a seperate elective class was added) Several different tales from several different cultures. I learned Native American creationism stories, I learned about greek gods, roman gods, and we touched on Asian creationist tales as well. None of this screwed me up, I still believe in the science of the world. What would be so wrong with teaching Christian creationism right along with the rest of these?
Randall, it doesn’t demean or cut down science if it’s not presented as such. Present it as just another tale and where’s the issue?
September 15th, 2008 at 11:19 am
At my school learn about Greek and Roman Mythology in my Latin class. It is okay to learn about religion if it has to do with what you are studying. Like if you are learning about events in history that were infuenced by religion then it would be okay to teach a little bit about that religion so that the student knows what they beleived. It should definately be taught as fact though.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Stizzy:
I read the article you linked to, as well as many others on that site, and must say that it’s a bit disturbing to think that obviously intelligent people subscribe to such nonsense.
From what I see, Creationists make a living at trying to poke holes in the Theory of Evolution, which is exactly what Evolutionists try to do: test, test, test. Make observations, and reconcile that with the theory. Unfortunately, what sets Creationism aside from science, and into the realm of dogma, is that they do not and cannot scientifically test their own theory- they simply point the bible as their proof, and claim that any hole in the Evolutionary Theory is proof that their theory is correct. This is not science, and creationism is not testable, which means it cannot be a theory- it’s a belief.
What evidence do Creationists have to support their beliefs? The bible? Let’s not forget that there are many other current scientific theories that contradict the bible, including the Big Bang theory, that are supported with extensive experimental and observational evidence. The more tests run ,the more questions are exposed. This is not to say that the theories are not correct, but that they are works in progress.
The only progress Creationists make is when they must reshape their arguments to conform with nearly incontrovertible evidence that contradicts them.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I think Creationism should not be taught in schools as a scientific method for the origins of the universe. I don’t object to it being taught, as Jamie said, in a social studies class, or a religion class if such classes are offered. We are taught Greek and Roman mythology, among others, and I really see the Christian story of creation as something along those lines. I strongly object to Creationism being peddled to young children as FACT. Evolution is not a perfect theory, there are still questions being asked with every new answer scientists reveal. However, much of the information we have about evolution is factual, and that is what should be taught to students in science classes. Not God and “let there be light” or whatever.
Just because you believe in evolution does not mean you don’t believe in God, FYI. The two aren’t one in the same.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am
100 responses from when I last wrote 8 hours ago.
I still have to say, I am horrified at some of the comments here. Mostly Stizzy, and fishing4monkeys, just very loosely turning the words around of what other people are saying to fit their mentality. I honestly believe these people actually feel justified in what they are saying and that is downright horrifying to me. These people will fight tooth and nail to prove that they aren’t wrong, even though their arguements are paper thin.
When I see things like this I want to leave the U.S., you’re and embarrassment to this entire country that has promoted growth, intelligence and education.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Sedulous:
We’ve clearly had vastly different experiences with the scientists we’ve known. I’ve had friends who were physicists, geologists, cell biologists, astronomers…. an ex-girlfriend who was a molecular biologist and mathematician… I’ve known top-flight engineers, specialists in aerospace, computer scientists… I could go on and on… and never met a single one of them who professed any hostility to the idea of god.
jerky: Your “argument” such as it is is completely without sense. A) no principle as fundamental as evolution has ever been proven, later, to have been wrong. Ideas are occasionally tweaked through time–science is, after all, self-correcting. But whole notions of reality have not yet been proven to be wrong. Evolution is a principle first documented and studied by the ancient Ionian Greeks for god’s sake. It’s as basic to biology as our understanding of the mechanics of gravity–i.e. that any object dropped will fall–is to physics. B) if you don’t want to believe in any science, be my guest–but pretty funny that you’re writing this on the INTERNET in front of a COMPUTER, and probably drive a CAR and own a TELEPHONE and other marvels of the science which you so blithely dismiss.
Callie:
The argument isn’t about presenting it in a mythology class or something of the kind. I would have thought that was rather obvious. Creationists don’t WANT creationism relegated to mythology. That’s the whole point.
Stizzy:
YOU may believe in the myth of mankind’s disobedience to god. OTHER religions and faiths do NOT. I would assume you’d therefore next point out that those other religions are “wrong” then. But why should YOUR view of reality trump all others? What gives YOU the insight that others (so you would claim) lack?
Also, I note, Stizzy, that I answered you a while back and, like all who argue for creationism and other such nonsense, you then proceeded to ignore my answers. Telling.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Hey Crew! Nice Can of worms!
First: I’d like to apologize to anyone who has been hurt by “Religion” or a well(or not so well)intentioned “Religeous” person. SORRY!!! Poor teaching of the Bible has and is doing a lot of damage. It’s about God’s Love for us and his Desire to Help and be Friends with us. The Bible is not a science book, however- when it conveys a scientific fact- it does so accurately. Remember: “It was by FAITH that Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
Second: I believe it should be PRESENTED. Even if the view SOUNDS CRAZY- I Really try to keep an open mind. Do I know the secrets of the universe(s) or the Mystery of Life? I have seen some CRAZY things in my years on earth, and I am reluctant to belittle or mock anyone. Be slow to speak, and quick to listen. REMEMBER: If GOD is involved- All bets are off! And then you’ll have to explain YOUR theories of Creation to HIM!
Third: The scientific community has a history of being just a dogmatic as the church. And God help those who come against it’s hallowed gates! Remember Velikovsky? I’m not saying he was right(and he might be!) but he was lambasted by people who had never even read his book. Look- I’ve got text books from 40 years ago LOADED with bad info that was accepted as fact then.
Finally: Are you willing to open your mind and heart? Jesus said “You must come to me like a little child.” Why? Because this is a Trust and Faith issue. Have you gone to God and SINCERELY asked for an answer? I have! He’s AMAZING! The answers are ALL there! AND- they will be backed by science.
Thanks!
Peace!
September 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Sorry but there is no science involved in creationism, I don’t care what any of you people say. If a scientist is trying to prove creationism, then he/she already has an outcome that they are looking for, leading there studies to be biased, this is NOT SCIENCE!!! 2nd of all the scientist and doctors trying to say that creationism is science, went to a Christian University, need I say more. The issue here is that these christain fanatics are trying to change the whole definition of science just so some STORY, NOT THEORY, could be taught in science class. We might as well teach the kids about The Force and the Dark Side in Star Wars!
September 15th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Ooh.. this is getting good! My thought, I think that Creationism should not be taught in public schools. I think that it is the parents’ responsibility to teach those things to their children, if those are their beliefs. Evolution, on the other hand, has much evidence to back it up, and should be considered fact, not theory. I don’t understand why so many people think that Creationism and Evolution are so different. I am a Christian myself, and I think the Genesis story of Creation goes along very well with the theory of evolution, it’s just condensed. Even though I think God has a hand in the evolution of our universe, I do not think that all school children should be subjected to it, that should be a parent’s job.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
@175. Stizzy
“Why would God being dumb explain the world better?”
It’s a more plausible hypothesis than the inteligent design. If He’s not that much intelligent that can explain all the contradictions in creationism. The answer is just: “He didn’t know what He was doing”
So to earn credability creationists must follow my “Dumb Design” theory.
“And how was the hypothesis I put debunked long ago?”
:-O
over and over. Cranks lie everywhere…
Search it for yourself if you want.
But don’t you really find this idea crazy? Where did that water came from? where have gone now? What happen with carbon dating?. To start building the begining of a “proto”-pseudoscientific hypothesis you must answer at least those questions. And if you still want to teach that in school, knowing it has nothing to do with science, please read back comment #91.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
NO.
Creationists don’t even know their own bible well. Seven is an ancient Hebrew number for infinity. The 7 days of creation isn’t the only example of seven being used as a metaphor for that. In another part of the bible Jesus said that you must forgive your enemies 7 x 7 x 7^7777 or something like that (I just remember it involved a lot of sevens). Did he mean to do the math? NO! He means you ALWAYS have to forgive.
Being religious is no excuse for being retarded. There’s no reason to teach religion in a science class, especially not MISINTERPRETED religion.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Both theories should be taught.
Following the rules of natural selection the superior theory will be the one most people believe and consequently the weaker argument will die away.
The other option is that the only one of the theories is taught.
This however will require someone to design an appropriate curriculum. I would suggest that they are given about six days to put this into action.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Surfboy, your facts are anything but:
“The Bible is not a science book, however- when it conveys a scientific fact- it does so accurately.” ***Absolutely ridiculous. Have you even read the bible? Do I really need to list the numerous erroneous “scientific facts” found in the bible? The flood story alone contains about 100 of them.
“Third: The scientific community has a history of being just a dogmatic as the church.” ***More nonsense. By definition, science cannot be dogmatic. Blaming a few nutty scientists for their disregard of the scientific method is akin to blaming all of christianity for the crusades. Do you want to go down that road?
“Look- I’ve got text books from 40 years ago LOADED with bad info that was accepted as fact then.” ***And as more information is gathered, and more knowledge gained, theories get altered based on further understanding of the truth. However, while science has repeatedly found natural answers to questions that used to be thought of as supernatural, they have never, not once, found anything that would lend any credence to a supernatural theory for anything. In fact, even defining what is supernatural is factually impossible. The religious simply ignore any evidence to the contrary of any folk tale found in the compilation of bedtime stories written by people who lived in caves and thought illness was the result of demonic possession.
“Finally: Are you willing to open your mind and heart?” ***My mind is open to the current results of painstaking research performed over years and years by experts, and alter what I believe is factual based on said findings. You believe in the stories found in a 2000 year old book, and alter the meaning of any scientific discovery to fit the conclusions drawn by your interpretation of said book. Whose mind needs opening here?
“Jesus said “You must come to me like a little child.” Why? Because this is a Trust and Faith issue. Have you gone to God and SINCERELY asked for an answer? I have! He’s AMAZING! The answers are ALL there! AND- they will be backed by science.” ***Faith is the security blanket of the willfully ignorant.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Yes, as well as evolution. Its important that children know all of the major religion and views, not just one way. Personally, I don’t believe in creationism but that doesn’t mean I don’t think it shouldn’t be taught. (And when I say creationism I don’t just mean god! I mean the ancient religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.)
September 15th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Of course children should know that there is people whom believe in creationism. Hiding something from someone is the best way to drive him to it!
I think, however, that it should be stated clearly that Creationsm and Evolutionism do NOT share the same chance of being correct! School is for science and certainly creationism does not pertain it.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
In Private Schools: yes. Catholic and other private schools have the right to teach whatever religious beliefs they want to the children.
in Public Schools: HELL NO! The next thing you know our tax money will be going towards teaching kids about stoning gays and enslaving other nations (both are said to be okay in the old testement.)
Besides, I’m catholic myself and I don’t believe in it. I don’t know anyone that does. In high school my religion teacher always talked about the symbolism in these stories and how they shouldn’t be taken literally.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
When I look at Adam, Eve and what not, I see it as a story of morals. I really don’t see how it’s suggesting Gman created everything with a snap of his fingers.
Yet, I really don’t care what others think, so that’s why I’m basically neutral on this topic. It maybe me, but I’ve never seen what the whole huge controversy about this is. I think they should teach both and let you decide what you want to believe in.
I can already see the next commenter ripping this whole post apart.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“So Creationism Science isn’t science because?
And who is saying to teach it as fact? If there is a scientific discipline in Creationism, why can it not be taught as a form of science? It isn’t based purely on phylosophical or religion”
Where in creationist ’science’ is there any form of science. How is it not based purely on the biblical account. If it is not based purely on the biblical account then it is not creationism.
“Science isn’t always the answer, you very foolish set of people. Scientists once said that there were no such things as giant squids, or humans would never be able to fly. Why should I believe all the things they have to say now?”
Science is constantly progressive and thats why you should belive in it because even though they belived at the time there was no such thing as a giant squid they never stopped looking. and as for the whole humans would never achive flight thing i think you have either taken a quote out of context, a common mistake, or are just ramming it in there and saying ‘yea scientists said that.’
“So you think that atheism, as the denying of any kind of dogma, is a dogma itself…so atheists must deny atheism itself and then have no reason to deny himself…”
Atheism is not beliving in any god or supernatural entity. Dogmatacism has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Moron.
“And how was the hypothesis I put debunked long ago”
If a global flood caused the layers of the earths surface they would not be as distinguished as they are. Water would seperate density. nothing more nothing less. And if you are going for a divine intervention track then it is not a scientific theory as you have to rely on a divine intervener.
“So..I was taught mythology in high school (we studied these in English class, actually, and the response was so overwhelming a seperate elective class was added) Several different tales from several different cultures. I learned Native American creationism stories, I learned about greek gods, roman gods, and we touched on Asian creationist tales as well. None of this screwed me up, I still believe in the science of the world. What would be so wrong with teaching Christian creationism right along with the rest of these”
You studied it in English, not in science. I to studied mythology for a while and found it fascinating, on an anthropological level, but you, as i, studied dead religious beliefs. Thats all ‘mythology’ is, dead religious beliefs. And if you have this knowledge that nobody seriouly belives it any more then it is facinating but if i were 12 and had someone teaching me creationism as science and telling me that alot of people belive this then i might just take it seriously as science and become dogmatic and ignorant. Science is science because it is progressive. I was taught from the age of 5 till i was about 11 or 12 that God was a supreme being who created the universe…blah di blah di bullshit… and it did me no favours. I had a hard time understanding the evidence against religion and then one day, when i was 15, a protestant priest said to me ‘read the bible and all will become clear child,’ and it bloody well did. The nonsense in there is astounding.
“The scientific community has a history of being just a dogmatic as the church”
Nice amount of evidence you put foward for that lil’ tidbit. Science, by definition, can’t be dogmatic. Moron. And the fact that ou have textbooks form 40 years ago loaded with shite is sort of proving that science is not dogmatic and is progressive wouldn’t you say…hmmm?
“And when I say creationism I don’t just mean god! I mean the ancient religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc”
What is the point? Ancient theories are for archeologists and anthropologists not children. Why teach theories that have no evidence in a science class. In religious studies, go for it, i think RE is a very important subject, but it has it’s limits and should know and respect them.
Also on the topic of respect, there was a preacher in town the other day and he was ranting and raving and condeming people to hell and what not and i was eating in a cafe nearby and found it a nuiscence. So i walked over there and said could you please be quite and the argument progressed and he began shouting and so i shouted louder and so on and so forth and then a two police officers who were walking by came over, there was alot of shouting by this point, and said right calm down and so i explained what was going on. They told me that i should not be so disrespectful of this man as he was just preaching his religion and told me to cease and desist or i would be arrested and held over night. I was just having lunch with my fience and some mad man was shouting and i get in trouble. he wasn’t respecting me was he. There is an absurd amount of respect for peoples religious beliefs. And an absurd lack of it for atheists beliefs.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
how about teaching creativolutism
September 15th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Sorry, we cannot teach utter falsehoods in school as fact.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
ahhh, religion vs science: the most controversial subject of all time
(maybe only surpassed by Spongebob and the Teletubbies being gay controversy)
September 15th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
absolutely not, theres no proof backing up creationism, just a crazy book that says it happened. Evolution has -
Fossil Evidence
DNA Evidence
Carbon Dating
Fecal Growth Cycle
Vestigal Structures
Homologous Structures
September 15th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
“What is the point? Ancient theories are for archeologists and anthropologists not children. Why teach theories that have no evidence in a science class. In religious studies, go for it, i think RE is a very important subject, but it has it’s limits and should know and respect them.”
Greek Mythology? All that? Yeah, that’s kinda important. you need to know the history of religion.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
If we were to teach creationism in schools which version would we teach? Would it be Genesis or the Hindu belief, or maybe Babylonian? Zoroastrian? Pick one? Oh, that’s right, there’s only one acceptable creation mythology and that’s the one we’d have to teach. Simply put one religion feels that its fiction is better than everyone else’s
September 15th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
i donno actually…
September 15th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I think that we should have the kids take a form home to their parents, asking the parents if they want to have the child to be taught the idea of evolution, or creationism. Then, when the child brings back the form, the administration brings the child into a different class where a teacher specializes in teaching that idea.
Personally, I don’t care one way or the other if people learn creationism or not. They can believe whatever.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
@ dave4248 : Comment 150.
HAHA! Brilliant! Funniest post I’ve read yet!
@ Stizzy
I was willing to debate with you, until I realized how deceptive and ill-informed your debates were. A global flood causing the build up of fossil layers due to ’sorting’? This should be enough to make everyone ignore you.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
i just finished reading a fascinating book that i would recommend highly.
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Tim Keller
i think it would shed all sorts of light on this topic. someone look into it and comment.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Look, this is SCIENCE class, not theology, social studies or philosophy. The ook of genesis has no scientific theory behind it; it says a all powerful god poofed a man who made a woman out of a rib. Sorry, science will tell you that spontainious generation and making people from ribs is not factual. Plus, the concept of intelligent design in it’s most general form is already taught, it’s the book of genesis they advocate for. Less than half of the world believes in Adam and Eve (though it is very close mto half). If people want to learn this, then school, government run, seperated from the church, free to go to, all religions welcome SCIENCE classes should not teach it, end of story.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I think it’s worth teaching students ABOUT creationism, but not as a truth, just as part of their humanities class or something. And they shouldn’t just stick to teaching about one religion either, if they’re going to learn about other people’s belief systems, they should learn about a large range of them.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Randall:
“The argument isn’t about presenting it in a mythology class or something of the kind. I would have thought that was rather obvious. Creationists don’t WANT creationism relegated to mythology. That’s the whole point.”
The argument is “should creationism be taught in schools?” My answer is yes, presented along with mythology/fables/english class, not in science. I’m answering the argument exactly as I’m supposed to. Leave it to you to mince words though. Let me ask you this:
A child is raised in a loving, non religious home. He has morals and strong principles, but is never directly (i.e. Sunday school, religious service, church) taught about religion/creationism, and it is never presented to him in school alongside mythology and other fables.
He grows up and goes to college. In Philosophy 101, a creationism vs. science argument breaks out. He sits in a corner, asking asinine questions and generally making an ass out of himself because he was never taught something as harmless as the theories of geometry.
Too detailed? Nope, cause it happened to a kid in my class in college. I and most of my classmates were versed in creationism and other stories of that ilk, and this kid just sat around and sulked without contributing.
I’m surprised someone in the teaching field would think to rob schoolchildren of any course of knowledge that could help them later on. Shame on you.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
And we’re back with the Stizzy, DoppHopper, and Randall show…
Again, I say “no” and will treat you all to a scenario that bothers me. Say I’m not Christian (if you did, you’d be correct). Say I’m raising my children to be…I don’t know…Asatruan. I have raised them with the beliefs around that religion. One day my child comes home and says, “In class today we learned that the world is very old and we evolved from monkeys. That differs from what you said about Yggdrasil, and Odin, etc. etc.” I would answer something back about how science has it’s working theory and that what I taught him/her was what our religion says, which bases it’s “proof” upon faith, not facts, and that s/he could choose to believe in what I said, in Evolutionism, or a smattering of both. It would be a challenge for my child to think about this and would be fine with me.
Now, the next week my child comes home and says, “In class today we learned that the world is actually young and we were created from clay by someone named ‘God’”. I would be upset, unless in the very near future, the school followed up with every other creation story it could find. I’m NOT paying tax dollars to the school to promote Christianity. Teaching only the Christian version of Creationsim is creating a monopoly on creation theories.
It would confuse children to teach one thing, then an opposing theory, at least at that point in their lives. You don’t go into third grade and tell a child, “2 + 2 = 4″, then the next week follow up with “2 + 2 = 5 when the 2s are actually 2.5″. They would go, “Wait…that’s not what you said last week” and the teacher would follow up with “Well, that’s a different branch of mathematics, we just wanted you to know both”.
I think any respecting Christian family would have taught the theory at home or had it taught in Sunday school/church or else they didn’t want their child to know.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Callie: When the issue arises that the school budget is cut (yet again) and I’m presented with the choice of having religion taught or art, I’m gunna go with the latter. Just my opinion.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I am so glad that where I live this is a non-issue. My goodness there are people here advocating not teaching about the origin of life at all. It is unnecessary? One of the first things we learned about in school was the age of the dinosaurs. What kid doesn’t get all fired up to learn by dinosaurs? Our grade one class had that famous poster (the one that shows the different skeletons, early hominid to human)in a prominent position. What the hell would you teach, and how could you inspire children to learn by not answering the big questions – Where did the dinosaurs go? How long did they live here? Where did I come from and how did I get here?
Just try instituting creationism or diluting our science classes for religious reasons. You’d be laughed out of the room. It really is pathetic that this argument is even necessary. You guys wrote the line about freedom of religion; teaching creationist dogma as a scientific theory does just that. To every religion out there except one very stupid narrow interpretation of Christianity.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
so, for the guys getting riled up about the possibility of teaching “creationism”, where is the harm in teaching this as a theory?
September 15th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Teach creationism in a class called “The History of Human Stupidity”.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Right on Callie! How could you Science only people think it’s ok to rob children of being educated… especially in a subject that surrounds a majority of people in society. Who needs the exclusiveness of a science class to teach it? just so long as it’s presented in public schools in some shape or form…
@@@@@@DoppHopper- Most christians are NOT evolutionsts…. its pointless to suggest every website you read is fact. Mind you in your comment on 71, I would think someone with a Masters degree in Biology would have some idea as to what is proven fact and what isn’t.
@@@@@@Tj- who said I reject science? I most certainly don’t. I merely believe Scientific things that are not 100% conclusive should have the same rights as creationists thoughts. Both being not 100% proveable yet both are regarded highly in the major population of America.
Callie’s been getting it right people. Teaching about God isn’t going to hurt children. I’m a fan of anything being taught to our children as long as it has strong relevence in our society. Because Science dis-proves itself and revises it’s books doesn’t mean the science classes of days past should be thought of as learned in vain. We teach what we’ve gathered so that our children can use that knowledge to go further… that’s the point of education. Just because the creationists don’t continually change and revise their book doesn’t make it any less valid or truthful.
You can say Chritians are crazy and believe some crazy book of tales, but also realize some peoplpe think the same of us in the scientific community and think all that we study for and spend our lives learning and documenting are in vain. They think our Science books and findings are ludicris based on their understandings of the world… If niehter side can PROVE beyond the shadow of a doubt that the other is wrong, both are valid in my book to be taught so our children can find resolutions to the fights we ourselves cannot prove.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
No. In the United States there is a separation of Church and State so it would be unconstitutional (for state funded schools) to teach a creationism because it is based around the belief that there is a (christian)God.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Sorry, I’m up to my eyebrows. Not got time to read everything, so hope this is not answering the same point twice. I’m reacting to a comment from a fair bit earlier about: Facts and theories (from a scientific viewpoint).
A fact is an observable phenomenon. It does not explain anything or stand for anything but itself. It just is.
Broadly speaking theories (and also hypotheses) attempt to explain the existence, significance and relationships of observable phenomena. A hypothesis is a kind of proto-theory, a *temporary* or deductive explanation of facts where there is not enough evidence to support a theory. A theory is a much more confident explanation, usually backed by a great deal of careful evidence, and likely to be generally accepted by science. If a hypothesis proves to be sound and stands the test of evidence, it will probably become a fully-fledged theory. Both hypothesis and theory will stand for as long as they cannot be disproved or superseded by a better, and no longer.
Example:
A man produces a strange skull he found and claims it is a missing link between man and ape (an unsupported claim).
An anthropologist examines it quickly, asks a few relevant questions and supports the claim subject to more careful investigation (a hypothesis relating to evolution).
Detailed forensic and other studies support the hypothesis (the skull is therefore accepted as key evidence in primate evolutionary theory).
More sophisticated testing methods are developed with time. The skull is later discovered to be a cunning fake made of part human, part chimpanzee bones. Piltdown Man. The *theory* has broken down in the face of rigorous scientific testing.
The skull itself was and is a simple, unchanging fact. However analysis first interpreted it as a genuine evolutionary link, then later revealed it as a fraud.
Later finds in Africa will provide the hominid sequence that Piltdown Man promised but failed to deliver.
Footnote: Creationists triumphantly claimed Piltdown Man as proving evolution to be a falsehood. Which of course is itself sheer nonsense. That is as logical as saying that because someone builds a rotten aeroplane which cannot leave the ground, no aeroplane will ever be able to fly!
September 15th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Creationism, whether it’s called creation science or intelligent design, is nothing more than an idiotic childish belief in abracadabra magic. Only uneducated brain-dead hicks believe in it. Before the creationist retards renamed ‘creation science’ to ‘intelligent design’ (neither is science), Gould explained why biology teachers would never agree to teach it.
“Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage — good teaching — than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?”
– Stephen Jay Gould
September 15th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Creationism should not be taught anywhere, not even in Sunday school, because it’s child abuse to lie to children, and nothing could be more dishonest than telling a child a magic sky fairy created people.
To any creationist retards reading this, grow up morons. This is the 21st century, not the Dark Ages. Educate yourselves or expect the ridicule and contempt you deserve.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Tink and Callie: You’re good with the “all” rather than the “none”? Can I start a curriculum teaching about ALL theories of creationism, then? I mean, what harm can it do, right? Teaching kids about Vishnu and Zeus and Satan and Ba’al and the religions behind them. I mean, it would take weeks, perhaps months away from curriculum about other subjects, but it’s info, and the more information we tell the kids, the better. While we’re at it, let’s teach them what suicide is and the best ways to kill yourself. How about crackin’ open the old Anarchist Cookbook? Knowledge is power, people, and we want our kids to be extra knowledgable!
Yeah, I took the slippery slope with that one. I still think, as a non-Christian, it is a slap in the face for people to think it’s a great idea for me to pay people to teach my children a different religious base without offering all other religions. I’d have no problems with it and every other religious creation story being taught in classrooms (if it can be done briefly), but that’s not what we’re talking about. Creationists, with a capital C, mean Christians, and they only want that version taught (and they get uppity about it being referred to as a “theory”).
I think the best place creation stories to be taught, if they must be, would be the English classroom: use it as a learning opportunity to get students to do some creative writing assignment on their religion’s creation story or Evolutionism. I had a spectacular English class in eighth grade where all we did was read and creatively write. And we presented them in front of the class (working on our public speaking, too).
Anon (footnote): Yeah, and when they hold that up as “fact against fact”, it holds scientists accountable for a goof. But when we hold up “faith against faith”, in the countless times that faith does not work, they write it off as “God works in mysterious ways”. So, it’s okay for faith to be without proof, but not for scientists to be duped once.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Cedestra- you know what, I like that English class idea as well. It is well thought out, educates, and does a service for public speaking. i understand the view where you’re coming from and respect it. Thank you for making your arguement well thought out and not pointlessly lashing at things you particularly don’t believe in. I like that.
For everyone else, I don’t see this as an issue to get angry over. If you feel your tax-paying investments aren’t teaching what you want for your children, teach them yourself.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Teach it. It will be a short course, One word: “Goddidit” What else is there to teach? You teach evolution first, then at then end say “And the competing “theory” is, god made it all. 6000 years ago, but to look millions, nay, billions of years old. Just to trick us. Oh no, sorry, to test our faith in the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”
September 15th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I have youth group tonight so i think i will ask about this… i think my opinions may have been changed
September 16th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Hi Anon: Comment 223.
I think your pushing the proverbial uphill by trying to explain the difference between fact, theory and guess to creationists. It has already been explained about 10 times in this thread alone, and the only conclusion is that creationists DON’T want to differentiate between theory and guess. It is unbelievably frustrating.
If I read someone arguing one more time that ‘evolution is only a theory’ I am going to burst! It is a simplistic, stupid and extremely ignorant argument so stop saying it!!!
PLEASE, creationists, stop confusing theory, fact and guessing. It is getting extremely old.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:16 am
To the people who say evolution is just a “theory”…
Gravity is also just a “theory,” does science have it wrong there too?
Let me guess, evertime I throw a baseball in the air it doesn’t “fall,” your god is really just throwing it back at me, right?
September 16th, 2008 at 1:19 am
@219. dischuker:
I know is hard to read all the comments. I already answered that in #92 and #93
September 16th, 2008 at 3:02 am
Hi sdggrant,
Sorry to be picky but lets get this straight. Gravity isn’t a theory. Gravity is a fact. The geometric bending of space-time caused by objects with mass is the theory. Just as evolution is the fact and natural selection is the theory.
Anyway to get back to the original point, I also want to add that why is it that creationists only target the biology classroom? They argue that it should be taught alongside evolution as they are both ‘theories’. Well if that is the case why aren’t creationists pushing for holocaust denial to be taught alongside holocaust studies? They are both ‘theories’ according to their loose definition. Why aren’t celebrity diets being taught alongside nutritional information classes as well? Just goes to show…
September 16th, 2008 at 3:06 am
It isn’t bad to know about creationism, we all do, but until it can be studied and tested and have plausible assertions made about it scientifically then it should be taught as myth. Most people here seem to be ok with it being taught as fables and myths but the dangerous part is the creationists want it taught as fact and until they do the science and leave the faith out of it it never should be.
I used to go to Sunday school from about the age of 4, mainly to get us out of the house for an hour or so, and even at that age I used to sit there and wonder how so many people could be so gullible. I believed in Santa (he bought me presents) but could not believe these ridiculous stories they told, absolutely pathetic.
Religion of any specific kind should not be taught at school, an overview of all religions is ok then even the churchgoers learn tolerance for other religions and not just the stupid stories of their own leaders.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:12 am
@Matt
“Sorry to be picky but lets get this straight. Gravity isn’t a theory. Gravity is a fact. The geometric bending of space-time caused by objects with mass is the theory. Just as evolution is the fact and natural selection is the theory.”
Sorry Matt but they are theories, IO admit they are getting harder to debunk but that doesn’t mean they never will be.
I will rewrite a quote I put earlier in this thread, attributeds to Einstein “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but one experiment could prove me wrong”
This is why sceintific theories remain as theories they are works in progress and something could always come along and change the accepted ideas. Religion is wrong because it doesnt allow this to happen whatever IS has always BEEN and always wll BE no changes allowed.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:24 am
Hi Tom,
Again, the arguments that explain HOW these things occur are theories, that is true. But gravity IS a fact. An object will fall towards another object of greater mass, this is what gravity is. The THEORY, is the argument that explains WHY this occurs. I could keep listing examples, for example the Sun is hot. This is the fact. But the theory is that the heat is caused by the fusion of hydrogen into helium due to the pressures involved, which in turn radiates energy (heat).
I touched on that quote by Einstein, it relates directly to Popper’s falsification theory i.e. a theory isn’t ’scientific’ unless it can be proved wrong.
I agree that Religion is not science due to it taking a rigid, accepted and untestable truth (God existing) and basing all arguments around that.
Gravity is not a theory. Evolution is not a theory. They are facts; they are the worlds data. How we explain how these things occur are theories.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Come on, we’re all starting to get pinciketty about terminology. The big bang, evolution, gravity all derive from science. Yes, they are theories but they do have the benefit of overwhelming evidence. Religions, of all types, are fundemently beliefs. Religion should absolutley not be taught as a science. It can, in my veiw, be taught in relgious eduction classes. It was to me. However, we were also taught the fundementals of many other religions at the same time. Frankly it was all very interesting and I think I came out with a more respectly view of the religious than I went in with.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:33 am
Matt,
I agree with what you say, I think I just read the first comment too quickly.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:35 am
And I repeated the Einstein quote for the people that missed it to try and give some understanding to how a theory works
September 16th, 2008 at 3:37 am
Lol anyways this will be my last post, I’ve contributed my opinion, if people want to go on constantly mixing up theory, fact and guesses that’s their choice, but it does lead to confusion and frustration.
I support creationism being taught in school, based solely on the fact that the evolution vs creationist debate is not only a national (in the U.S) conflict, but the outcome will have a massive effect on how science classic in the U.S are conducted. This debate between creationism and evolution should therefore be taught, as it is an extremely important political and social development. In NO WAY should creationism be let near any science class. Just because creationism is classed as a theory doesn’t mean it is the strongest theory to explain the abundance and diversity of life on Earth. Might as well teach the kids about Thor and Zeus as well. Anyway, I think this has been a great topic, so thanks jfrater!!
September 16th, 2008 at 3:40 am
Oh yeah one more thing…Dinosaurs are friggin awesome
September 16th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Callie:
Educators are not in the business of presenting every single competing idea, however asinine and untenable (as Creationism is) to children. If they were to do so, you’d never get out of school.
The example you give, of a student who had never heard of creationism, is just silly. What manner of rock was that kid living under that he reached college-age maturity and had never heard of this highly controversial and divisive subject, which goes back at least as far as the Scopes Monkey Trial? (Why hadn’t he ever heard of THAT?) Teachers cannot be faulted for the *total* ignorance of those people who fail to ALSO educate THEMSELVES outside of school by reading or simply watching TV news now and then.
No, again… there is no argument that validates why creationism should be taught in any school.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:57 am
randall: “no argument that creationism should be taught in any school”. isn’t that a little dramatic?
what if it is presented in the current forum? what if it is a private or home school? what if it is taught just to show what people might believe in the face of commonly accepted conclusions?
alot of the arguments against teaching creationism presented in this thread sound alot like the arguments that are constantly pummeled as naive/timid concerning whether or not sex ed should be taught. i.e., “it just isn’t right”, “they will find out on their own”, “i don’t want my kids exposed to that”, etc.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:57 am
I think that the criteria itself that determines what is taught where should determine the solution to this argument.
It’s important to mention that evolution isn’t taught in schools because it is the end all, be all, universally accepted answer. Even within the scientific community, there are people who argue (and argue well, let’s not stereotype people!) for and against evolution.
Do we teach evolution because we think it’s the most viable approach? If that is the case, I think that our concern shouldn’t be to choose a scientific perspective and prove our claims; our concern should be examining the scientific validity of claims to creation, which shouldn’t be limited to simply evolution.
Do we teach evolution because we feel it’s the only end-all, be all answer? Then we need to give equal ground to opponents of evolution, because as long as there are respectable members of the scientific community in opposition, we cannot make this claim.
However, if it’s being taught simply because the nature and scope of our teaching system has selected evolution as a topic of focus for scientific study, then I don’t see a reason to force in any other viewpoint. Consider courses such as history or law; each one will take a particular viewpoint – either being a general survey, or focusing on a specific topic like property rights or history of America – simply because that is the stated scope of the course. However, I would argue that sufficient justification both to the students and public at large needs to be made as to the reason why evolution, as opposed to some other system, was selected.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Creationism is a theory, a faith-based theory yes, but still a theory, no more or less accurate than the Big Bang, and possibly even less analytical. Students should not have to be taught one theory when excluding hundreds of others just like it. Conventional wisdom has ignited a war of words that can never be extinguished, and the conflagration can only become more severe with each debate exhibited in the name of its cause. In other words, argument is futile.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:08 am
As long as history is accurate, I believe it should be taught. But not theory, especially not theological theory. Faith is not a bad thing until it’s organized into a rigid system of morals and myths.
As for all myths not being religions, mea culpa. What I should have said was, all historically proven mythologies known to have been enacted as religious ceremonial constructs. So far, I haven’t ascertained any that can be excluded from the criteria.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:16 am
I think that all belief systems should be introduced. However, not influenced upon. Let the individual make his/ her own decision.
Enough damage is already done by parents even before kids reach school.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:23 am
isn’t it pretty obvious that, apart from the scientific arguments, that this is a war against christianity?
nobody says boo when we teach that the ancient egyptians mummified their leaders with their body parts, money and maps for the next world believing it would do some good. this is teaching of a religious belief and what it led people to do. we look at that and say “interesting”. it isn’t put through the same set of criteria that this current debate is.
in social studies class we watched “clash of the titans” (where were the screams about child abuse then? i had to look at harry hamlin in a loin cloth!
. this movie told us all about greek gods and their influence over mortals and, behold, THE CRACKEN!!! (emphasis added) i don’t remember there being an uproar or needing my parents to sign a permission slip.
why? because nobody was threatened by these teachings. so then the question comes, why are people threatened by the teaching of this particular creation account?
to me the answer seems that to accept this account would mean all sorts of other things. if there was an all powerful God who personally created each one of us and everything other thing, there is a level of submission that needs to take place to his desires. aye, theres the rub.
if an impersonal force of nature is the governing process i have no obligation.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:53 am
It should be taught in catechism
It shouldn’t be taught publicly. Remember, in public schools you’ve got kids from all sorts of religions (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), not just Christianity. A lot of it would be way over their heads, and they might not believe any of it simply because it’s not what their religion teaches. This one gets filed in the NO column for me.
September 16th, 2008 at 7:15 am
“nobody says boo when we teach that the ancient egyptians mummified their leaders with their body parts, money and maps for the next world believing it would do some good. this is teaching of a religious belief and what it led people to do. we look at that and say “interesting”. it isn’t put through the same set of criteria that this current debate is.”
Thats a good point and I totally agree with you.
“why? because nobody was threatened by these teachings. so then the question comes, why are people threatened by the teaching of this particular creation account?
to me the answer seems that to accept this account would mean all sorts of other things. if there was an all powerful God who personally created each one of us and everything other thing, there is a level of submission that needs to take place to his desires. aye, theres the rub.”
This, however, is completely incorrect. To imply that atheists – what? Secretly believe in God? – is offensive in the extreme. Here’s the point – we do not comsider Christian creationism to be a threat to our eternal souls. We consider it to be a threat to human and intellectual progress.
September 16th, 2008 at 7:16 am
A point against it being taught at all – why should the Christian creation myth get taught over and above that of Islam, Hinduism or of the Ancient Egyptians? Discuss.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I belive that this swing toward creatioism is symtomtic of a general dumming down in our world culture, it is easier not to ask the hard questions, the last time this kind of aceptance of folk lore was adopted it lead to a 500 year dark ages where people were being burnt at the stake for their ideas and I would not have to rely on our uninformed youth to ignite a new renaisance
September 16th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Dischuker:
“isn’t that a little dramatic?”
Not at all. Creationism is the product of ONE ultra-dogmatic view of ONE religion. Schools are in the business of teaching our children the NECESSARY skills which they require to become intelligent, productive citizens and to form a basis, should they desire to do so, to pursue further education in adulthood. For this reason we teach them maths, pertinent histories, introduce them to basic sciences which are vital to our understanding of the world we inhabit and life in general, and we make them study their own languages and other languages, and various other sundry subjects.
Now… where, in this, do you see ANY valid argument for teaching creationism? It’s not a scientifically valid theory–certainly the GREAT consensus of scientists in the various fields it’s “relevant” to says that it is not valid. It’s nothing more than an extremist Christianity in disguise, trying to hone in on the education system. Why should we lend IT any more validity than we would lend the idea of teaching children magic and wizardry, or divination, or tarot card reading? It’s no less mystically based than these. All it does is attempt to *masquerade* as an “alternative” science, in order to further an agenda that lies behind it.
“what if it is presented in the current forum? what if it is a private or home school? what if it is taught just to show what people might believe in the face of commonly accepted conclusions?”
WHY waste time on it? WHY waste time the way you’re suggesting?
Dischuker, do you have ANY idea how much stuff kids have to learn? Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to be a teacher? Do you have ANY idea how long it takes to get ideas through to kids, to make sure that they’re just meeting the mandated minimums? Clearly you don’t.
NO. Teachers have ENOUGH goddamn work to do without introducing some ridiculous, irrelevant bullshit like creationism just because some tyrannical idiots who want to interpret the Bible literally can get their own way. You wanna teach your kids that shit? Teach it to them at home, or in your church. But no, it does NOT belong in publics schools or in secular private schools.
“alot of the arguments against teaching creationism presented in this thread sound alot like the arguments that are constantly pummeled as naive/timid concerning whether or not sex ed should be taught. i.e., “it just isn’t right”, “they will find out on their own”, “i don’t want my kids exposed to that”, etc.”
Bullshit. Sexuality is a REAL thing. It EXISTS. We don’t even need scientific validation to tell us that. We all know the trappings of sexuality, and there’s a damn good argument that educating kids about it helps them to keep from getting into trouble with it in various ways.
But creationism is NOT real. It is an IDEA, and in fact an invalid one, propagated by a few people with fundamentalist, literalist notions of how the Bible should be interpreted, and their intent is to force it into the mainstream where it does not, patently, belong.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:18 am
F Mclure:
“Creationism is a theory, a faith-based theory yes, but still a theory, no more or less accurate than the Big Bang”
WRONG. There is HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for the Big Bang. It is FAR more accurate than creationism, which is nothing more than an attack on established science using distortion and lies. It *masquerades* as science when it is, in fact, NOTHING OF THE KIND. There is not ONE valid point made by creationism which stands the test of science, not one valid challenge that it makes against established science. It’s challenges are nothing more than distortions, half-truths or out-and-out lies.
The Big Bang theory is based on hard empirical data, gathered from multiple sources over the last 60+ years.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:32 am
No, no and no. Creationism is a theory based on some person’s fantasy much like other pseudo-religions (Scientology). Evolution on the other hand is based on hard facts and studies.
It would be very interesting to ask creationists what they think of human evolution.
Unfortunately in the US, the roots of creationism have already taken hold and are meandering their way to positions of power.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Dischuker:
“isn’t it pretty obvious that, apart from the scientific arguments, that this is a war against christianity?”
Oh yes, boo hoo hoo, the tired old refrain we hear from fundamentalist christians every time they find their way to controlling the rest of us blocked by sense and rationality. It’s an “attack” on christianity.
Sorry, Disc, but that’s just bullshit. As I’ve already illustrated earlier, creationism is, in fact, an attack on science. But a rejection of it is not a rejection or attack on christianity—it is simply a recognition of the FACT that a religious dogma is NOT equivalent to an established science and should not therefore be taught alongside it as an alternative view. Science and religion are SEPARATE and should be kept separate because they have not ONE thing to do with one another. Every argument against creationism is based on this and has nothing to do with anyone “hating” or “attacking” christianity.
But what I DO have no patience for, myself, is when ONE group with an agenda to undermine science tries to force itself into the mainstream and onto the rest of us. Your freedom of religion is not impinged if you’re forced to keep your belief system at home because it is not relevant to the question being addressed at school.
“nobody says boo when we teach that the ancient egyptians mummified their leaders with their body parts, money and maps for the next world believing it would do some good. this is teaching of a religious belief and what it led people to do. we look at that and say “interesting”. it isn’t put through the same set of criteria that this current debate is.”
Do you REALLY think the two are equivalent? I don’t believe you do for a moment.
The practices of the ancient Egyptians, for one thing, were ubiquitous in their culture. They represented the belief system held by the vast majority of Egyptians and were an underpinning of their entire culture. Creationism is none of this. It is an idea held by a single minority group.
Moreover, the practices of the ancient Egyptians are NOT taught as an “alternative truth” to students. They are taught as HISTORY and nothing more. They are presented factually… “the Egyptians did this.” Creationism, on the other hand, is presented as a CHALLENGE to an established SCIENCE, not history.
“why? because nobody was threatened by these teachings. so then the question comes, why are people threatened by the teaching of this particular creation account?”
It isn’t a question of being THREATENED by anything, Dischuker—it’s a question, rather, as I said earlier, of validity. Creationism has none, and time should not be wasted on it.
But if you want to talk about threats, PLEASE. Egyptian history and Greek mythology are, again, NOT equivalent to creationism. AGAIN, yes, trying to force an agenda-driven “alternative truth” against science IS a threat in a very real way… a threat to rationality and reason.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:38 am
randall: why should we waste time on it? because it is obviously a big deal in american culture and you know that when evoultion is taught, it leads to discussions such as these in classrooms because the schools are populated with people, possibly a great majority who believe creation to be a true account. to say that it is a waste of time gives no creedance to the reality of the fight that WILL happen everytime either of these is taught in american public schools for the foreseeable future. to simply dismiss one, either one, will cause problems that can be avoided by discussing them openly.
i wasn’t saying that sexuality wasn’t real. i was saying that the arguments from fear of what might happen if creationism is taught are reminiscent of the same fear saying that sex ed shouldn’t be taught.
“But creationism is NOT real. It is an IDEA, and in fact an invalid one, propagated by a few people with fundamentalist, literalist notions of how the Bible should be interpreted, and their intent is to force it into the mainstream where it does not, patently, belong.”
to qualify those people that believe in creationism as “few” is just not accurate. secondly, i would say that the creationism side isn’t trying to “force it into the mainstream” they are trying to “keep” it where it has been until the last 100-150 years.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:10 am
No! Why should it be thought? It’s wrong, with evidence to say so, no, no, no!
September 16th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I’m cutting in again with a further thought or two that occurred to me, and hoping they haven’t been covered already. I’ve just got too much on right now to read everything AND post! Sorry.
The problem here is surely the titular word *teach* (or *should be taught*). If it had been written as *referred to*, or *included in* certain subjects of curricula (and perhaps always informally), fine. For example, it seems to me it would be almost impossible to teach evolution without curious, intelligent kids raising the differences between the religious (based on belief) and strictly scientific view (based on factual evidence, hypothesis and theory) of the subject. The teacher could of course tell them to shut up and stick to the pure science, but that would hardly signify a *good* teacher.
Higher up these postings, someone made the gross (grotesque) simplification that there are two possibilities: God created us and everything. Or the scientific view: there was nothing and out of that came a cosmic accident which resulted in us and everything. We regularly discussed this sort of discord in upper school, regardless of whether we studied science or humanities. Of course, out of that comes the awareness that the religious are left with as much or more explaining to do, and as many questions to answer as the scientists. Neither *side* has an explanation, so we might as well fall back on Douglas Adams!
All the following are old chestnuts, of course, but schoolkid fodder none the less. It usually begins with: Who made God? So if God is eternal, without beginning or end, what was He doing throughout the infinite period *before* the present few billion years from the Big Bang onwards (accepting science)? Hibernating? Dreaming? Twiddling His thumbs? And if God is eternal, why not the Universe too? If a relationship with Man’s immortal soul is God’s focus, how does that account for the vastness of space-time and the fact that we’ve only been around for a few million years (accepting science!), and have only been made aware of Him directly for a couple of thousand or so? That is scarcely a temporal-spatial blink, even in the context of our present minute knowledge.
As for science, evolution isn’t an answer to the mysteries of the Universe, or even the Mystery of Life. It is just an extremely logical and convincing explanation to make sense of observed facts in hand. The scientific process is to ask what lies sequentially behind any given phenomenon. To a degree that happens with religion, but when no further answers are possible, the stop point there is God. That is the full and satisfying answer or a cop out, depending on your perception.
I understand mathematicians have now claimed that it is theoretically possible for something to be created out of nothing. If so, that is the sole basis for supposing there might have been *nothing* one moment and *everything* the next. It is scarcely a hypothesis, let alone a theory, and still further from a generally held scientific tenet. We do not even know (yet)whether life itself is accidential or obligatory, whether it is limited solely to our planet or widespread in space, and whether it originated here or arrived as *space seed*. A present broad consensus would probably suppose it was obligatory, widespread and our own version arose on Earth (hypotheses).
Finally, evolution cannot be taught outside its historical context. That means Darwin, Hooker, Wallace et al. and their constant clashes with the creationists of the time, as well as the prevailing social religious current. The apogee was the famous ‘Monkey Debate’ with Bishop ‘Soapy Sam’ Wilberforce!
September 16th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Perhaps I should have added that I personally have no vision of a personal deity with a particular interest in me. Sorry, but I find that quite absurd. On the other hand I don’t discount the possibility of an integrated cosmic *intelligence*. Call that intelligence God, or not, as you will.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:28 am
yes a theory is a theory it is not fact. all things should be taught and let people make up their own minds. why should one be able to teach one thing and not another. i for one will not tell you what to believe i will show both sides of an arguement then let some one decide for themselves. we do people a great disservice when we only teach one thing/idea. people still believe Christopher columbus founded america. well we know for a fact that isn’t true but does any body know for sure who came first to america.??? there where people here as early as 1088, 400 years before columbus. but we still have a columbus day here in the united states in october. the truth will be known one day.
evolution is taught in some christian schools that i know of they let the children choose for themselves.
history repeats itself because each generation gets caught up in its own self and what is important to them at the time instead of teaching great principles to our children and how we should treat one another.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:16 am
This entire argument hinges on whether you understand what science is. This sounds blindingly obvious, but you would be suprised at how many people have an incorrect impression of what it actually is and does.
Science aims to increase knowledge. However, more importantly than that; it aims to increase knowledge in a very specific way. Using ‘the scientific method’.
There are many different ways of increasing our knowledge. Philosophers experiment and work problems out in their mind for example, not a test tube in sight. For matters of morality or existence, this is an appropriate way of obtaining such knowledge.
The scientific method is very different and very specific. It is a very regulated way of doing things. Nothing can be assumed. Anything you claim has to have empirical evidence behind it. Empirical, by definition, is something that is based on “experimental data, NOT a theory”.
Even then, once you have your data, it is subject to thousands of other scientist’s scrutiny. Each scientist equally determined to make sure that you’ve made no mistakes in your calculations and everything was done in a proper, step-by-step, way.
Once you understand this, you can understand why Creationism is not a science. Sure, it has an opinion on how life came to be as it is, the same as evolution does – but that is where the similarity stops.
Since the ideas behind Creationism come from one single source – The Bible, not for empirical data, it isn’t a science. By defintion.
To repeat, even if you assume that Creationism is correct. Even if you assume that every scientific idea is wrong. Since Creationism doesn’t involve the scientific method, it isn’t science. No more than it is a type of music, or a type of engineering.
If you want to teach it in schools, be my guest.. but keep it in religious education lessons. Where, by definition, it belongs.
If you start putting things in categories where they don’t belong, you might as well start teaching politics in maths lessons.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:17 am
how do you explain thousands of marine fossils found above sea level throughout the world in places like the Himalayas? World wide flood or……? Please don’t insult me or be a dick in general. Just give me your thoughts….I’m not saying I believe it but I just asking about stuff that I have heard and want to know what people think. A lot of people say there is no evidence but then I hear about evidence and I just want to know how these same people would explain the same facts.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Courtney,
I apologize for my late reply. Ironically enough, I’m from The Holy Land
September 16th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Dischuker:
“why should we waste time on it? because it is obviously a big deal in american culture”
So are a LOT of things that are NOT taught in schools, Disc. Come on. This argument of yours is entirely specious. The point is, why should we waste valuable SCIENCE TEACHING time and resource on an utterly UNSCIENTIFIC piece of religious dogma. Again–talk about it at home or in your church. School is not the place for it.
“and you know that when evoultion is taught, it leads to discussions such as these in classrooms”
Not where I went to school; I recall no such discussions. But of course, I grew up in New York, not some Lil’Abner state populated with Jesus freaks. Thank god.
“because the schools are populated with people, possibly a great majority who believe creation to be a true account.”
And your point? There are teachers right now dealing with this very issue, in places like Florida and elsewhere, where creationism is not taught in schools, but they have to deal with numbers of students who have been taught it at home. How do the teachers cope with the issue and the discussions? NOT by teaching creationism. They cope with it by educating the students on evolution—as they should be and as is appropriate—and by trying to show them that evolution does NOT negate their faith and belief system. Period. There’s no need to “teach” creationism as some kind of alternative. It would be a *waste* of time to do so, and would be *wrong.*
The problem here is not evolutionary biology and the teaching of it. The problem is with narrow-minded, foolish people who have no real understanding of evolution, but simply react to it. And the problem is that such people believe–wrongly–that evolutionary biology and science in general somehow negate and/or challenge their faith. It’s absurd. The way to educate these people is NOT to give an “equal voice” to the idiocy of creationism, but to EDUCATE them (the job of teachers) in evolutionary biology so that they learn that is poses no threat to their faith.
It’s up to them if they want to adapt their belief system so that it stops denying evolution. But if you want to talk about FEAR, Dischuker–that is the real motivator here. It is FEAR of science that is the root issue here. Narrow-minded people fearing science because they stupidly believe it negates their god and faith… so they try to undermine it and assail it. That is REALLY what’s going on here.
The funny thing is, I was brought up believing in the SAME EXACT CHRISTIAN GOD as they, but *I* was NEVER taught that science negated him. RATHER, I was taught that science is a way to UNDERSTAND him and his plan.
“i wasn’t saying that sexuality wasn’t real. i was saying that the arguments from fear of what might happen if creationism is taught are reminiscent of the same fear saying that sex ed shouldn’t be taught.”
And again, my point still stands. The two are NOT equivalent and your argument in this regard does NOT hold water. The fear of sex education is wrong, (if one so believes, as I do) because sexuality is a real fact of biological life that must be faced and understood if one is to exercise proper use of it and exercise proper, well-managed restraint as well.
Creationism, however, is NOT a fact or reality. And the exclusion of it from science teaching, therefore, is NOT “fear-based” but is rather based in a proper understanding of what IS science and what ISN’T. But the opposition of it is also based in the understanding that creationism is an underhanded attempt by some to influence unduly the progress of civilization generally; to retard it and even roll it back.
“to qualify those people that believe in creationism as “few” is just not accurate.”
Bullshit it isn’t. They are in the minority in this country despite all their harping and pushing. Were they not, they’d have their way from coast to coast.
“secondly, i would say that the creationism side isn’t trying to “force it into the mainstream” they are trying to “keep” it where it has been until the last 100-150 years.”
MORE bullshit. So… by your logic (your argument here isn’t even valid) because electricity was unknown until about 200 years ago, we should still teach an alternative science where electricity doesn’t exist? Because we didn’t know the nature of the atom until only 100 years ago or so, we should still teach an alternative physics which doesn’t include the atom?
But no, Dischuker–creationism is a NEW phenomenon.. it did not “exist” prior to 150 years ago. Rather, science had not yet developed fully the empirical data and theories of evolutionary biology—but that did NOT mean that up until Darwin creationism was taught in schools. RATHER, the genesis of life and its progressions were simply not taught systematically in the sciences, or taught only peripherally, because until Darwin such questions were only marginally addressed and understood. You’re trying to ascribe to the pre-Darwin period of time a state of affairs that did not, in fact, exist. What people believed and were told in church or at home is another matter. But when SCIENCE learned new facts and had data to fully support it’s ideas, then those ideas WERE taught. That is the way it has always been.
Creationism is simply an attempt to subvert and undermine that system, to roll us back NOT to the pre-Darwin 1800s, but rather to the pre-rational dark ages.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:40 am
dischuker: Not where I live has any sort of religious teaching been mainstream. You want religious teaching; you go to a religious school. Not one funded by my tax dollars thank you very much. And not for at least 60 years.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Yes…Darwinism is a “theory.” The question I have is that if we are in a constant state of evolution, where are the tens of thousands of partially-evolved humans that should be evident everywhere ? Perhaps in the Democratic Party, but, in reality, apple trees produce apples, gorillas reproduce gorillas, apes give birth to apes, and humans bear humans. It’s so simple it defies description how people try to complicate it.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:28 am
I say yes, it should be taught. Learning how other people view the world is a good thing; it can expand your mind and our world view. It helps us understand each other, it may help us become more tolerant of each other. When I was in high school (I graduated in 99), we learned about Islam in Sociology. Having a basis of that knowledge has been valuable, and I am glad to have learned it.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Natural history was mainly in the hands of the religious at the time of Darwin and for a long while prior to that (monks, including herbalists, and the like). It is interesting to read how they struggled to accomodate the ever-increasing accumulation of marine fossils and chunks of giant *monsters* being dug out of mines within their particular religious concepts. Of course they disagreed amongst themselves, just as modern religionists do, about the time the world was created, etc. But the most useful *peg* for them to hang these phenomena on for a long while was Noah’s Flood. It was, in fact, geologists who finally torpedoed that as a worldwide catastrophic event.
Even so, until very recently otherwise extremely intelligent people have been looking for (and finding!) the ark on Ararat. That despite certain blindingly obvious facts. (1) there isn’t enough water on the entire planet to reach the foot of Ararat. (2) Any tsunami massive enough to deposit a wooden vessel high on the volcano would have smashed it to atoms. And (3) Ararat did not *become* a giant volcano, let alone an extinct one, during the period that man had developed the capacity to build boats. And even if it had, the remains of an ancient wooden artifact could not possibly have withstood being lifted intact on its outer slopes for some several thousand metres of altitude during its formation.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:32 am
“Peter” writes: “I belive that this swing toward creatioism is symtomtic of a general dumming down in our world culture, it is easier not to ask the hard questions, the last time this kind of aceptance of folk lore was adopted it lead to a 500 year dark ages where people were being burnt at the stake for their ideas and I would not have to rely on our uninformed youth to ignite a new renaisance.” Peter, perhaps we should organize a telethon for your benefit. This is a joke, right ?
September 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
MDWhite, (267),
“It’s so simple it defies description how people try to complicate it.”
So, you gorillas were just plonked on the earth ready-made. That’s it? Good well, if that satisfies you …
Seriously, read ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ and come back with your question again later if you haven’t understood how Dawkins has carefully answered your objection there.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
What about the RATE research project? This was conducted by 7 Scientists all with PHD’s. They spent eight years researching the dating methods used to date the earth at 4.7 billion years and supposedly showed it to be flawed and not true as well as finding evidence for a young earth. Again, I’m not saying I believe it. I haven’t read about there finding which are published and available to read online and download but the fact that 7 heavily credentialed scientists believe in creationism really makes me wonder if you guys know what you are talking about when you say “there is no evidence”. Wouldn’t you conclude that they know something you don’t. I’m confused about this!!
These are the 7 scientists and there credentials. There were 8 total, the last was an expert in Biblical Hebrew.
Steven Austin, Ph.D. Geology (ICR) He has the B.S. from the University of Washington, M.S. from San Jose State University and Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University, all in geology
Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science (ICR) He has a B.S. in Physics from the U. of Missouri at Rolla, a B.S. in Meteorology from St. Louis University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University.
John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics
He has a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Texas Tech University, a M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLA.
Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics (ICR) He has a B.S. in Physics from Duke University and a Ph.D. in Physics from Louisiana State University.
Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology (ICR) He has a B.Sc. with first class honours in Applied Geology from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Sydney.
Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D. Theoretical Nuclear Physics
(Adjunct Faculty for ICR) He has a B.S. and M.S. in Physics and a Ph.D. in Theoretical Nuclear Physics from Oklahoma State University.
Don DeYoung, Ph.D. Physics
(Adjunct Faculty for ICR) He has a B.S. and M.S. in Physics from Michigan Technological University and a Ph.D. in Physics from Iowa State University.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Oh dear, some typo. I’d better get that corrected to *your gorillas* or I’ll have the whole ad hominem thing down on my head with a vengeance!!!
September 16th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Alfie:
Have you ever heard anything about plate tectonics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
Is always a plesure to teach those how have miss an education thanks to religious blind faith. Ask whatever you want, I understand your situation (is not that different from the rest how deffend creationism).
September 16th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Alfie, (272),
And not a biologist, let alone an evolutionary biologist, among the lot of them.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:53 am
“The RATE project (a joint research initiative between the Institute for Creation Research, and the Creation Research Society)”
nothing else to say. It will be also a plesure to read it. I think I will laugh so much XD
September 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
i’m not going so far to say that evolution as the means by which God created couldn’t be true. what i reject about evolution is the all-encompassing Theory that takes a philosophical naturalism approach to the world.
some balance must be sought. the other side can’t all be naive/simple/blind folks.
to quote stephen gould the noted harvard evoltionist and atheist, “either half my colleagures are enormously stupid or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional relgiious beliefs-and equally compatible with atheism.”
pure physical science cannot do full justice to the reality of the human experience.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
JB at #276 so if it said “the RATE project (a joint research initiative between the Institute of Evoltion Research and the Evolution Research Society)” you would trust it more?
September 16th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
dischuker, (277),
The ancient Greeks had a belief system which nobody subscribes to today. That does not negate their magnificent intellectual achievements in so many other areas. A Catholic has written in our newspaper that equally intelligent people may believe in God or be atheists. One of them has got to be completely wrong, despite their intellectual equality elsewhere. I would add they might even both be completely wrong.
Conan Doyle believed in the fake photographs of fairies he was shown by two ladies. Does that make him too stupid to be a fine author?
This thread of intellectual and conceptual inconsistency in human beings goes on and on.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Alfie:
The RATE project was sponsored by and populated with (to my understanding) committed creationists, and is therefore biased and invalid. Go to this site here, Alfie:
http://www.answersincreation.org/rate_index.htm
RATE was a house of cards and the ideas around it have been debunked. It produced no useful data that even remotely challenged established science.
Period.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Dischuker:
“i’m not going so far to say that evolution as the means by which God created couldn’t be true. what i reject about evolution is the all-encompassing Theory that takes a philosophical naturalism approach to the world.”
Dischuker, I’ve got news for you. YOU ARE NOT A FREAKIN’ BIOLOGIST. What you accept and do not accept, then, in regards to the science, is irrelevant. And in fact, if I were you, I’d be asking myself who the hell I think I am to say that I “reject” a piece of well-established science such as this.
“some balance must be sought. the other side can’t all be naive/simple/blind folks.”
YES IT CAN, and in fact it almost entirely IS.
I don’t know what your problem with this is. The TRUTH is that creationism is the work of and propounded by almost exclusively people who are NOT themselves biologists–and in fact mostly are uneducated, rigid-minded fundamentalist twits.
“pure physical science cannot do full justice to the reality of the human experience.”
NOBODY SAYS IT CAN, Dischuker. But that ISN’T the point here.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Individuals such as Alfie must not be misled by the fact that just because a few vocal scientists with credentials even give creationism a thought, it does not mean it is mainstream. Afterall, just because a few Catholic priests molest children does not mean all Catholic priests molest children.
On websites such as the Discovery Insititute they boast a list of 700 scientists who endorse wholesale or the investigation of creationism. In response, the National Science Foundation began a “steve list” where they invited scientists with PhDs named “steve” to sign a petition that creationism is bull. Now they have over 1300 names.
Similarly, still a few religious people believe the earth is flat. Same sort of thing,
September 16th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
OK.
Some of you seem to think that Christians are sheep following some shepard, not letting them speak for themselves. I assure you this is not true. I go to a very conservative church, but I am more liberal than anything. I am allowed to have my own oppinion, and so are kids in school. Personally, whay cant we teach creation AND evolution, plus any other theory about how our world was created. Then let the kids CHOOSE what they want to beleive in.
Is that so bad?
September 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Because, Bananas, creationism is not a science. End of story.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Dischuker makes me laugh. His fascinatingly imbecilic and simplistic arguments are at once inane, horrifying that anyone could approach such a level of stupidity, and highly entertaining. It would be akin to me giving an opinion on how best to build a skyscraper that is 200 stories high (as I am a scientist, and not an architect). Exactly, I should have no opinion and listen to the experts (the real architects).
What’s more, Dischuker insists that though he knows nothing his opinion should be taught to the future generations of America. Now, that is not laughable but criminal.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
randall: what do you currently accept that will be laughed at 100 years from now? what do you denounce as foolish that was the mainstream 100 years ago?
so, if the other side is full of fools, what do you say to someone like gould?
why such vitriol? i am not asking you to accept anything promulgated by creationists. i am asking you to entertain the possibility that what you currently believe as unassailable might have holes.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
278. dischuker:
No. Of course it would be the same, but is not the case.
This kind of institutions only exist for those pseudosciences unable to find scientists supporting their believes.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
anne: (cute name btw) i don’t know if you have noticed yet but this is an internet discussion board. if we are to retreat and only speak to the things that we are specifically schooled in, this would be quite the dull board. i couldn’t address music, movies, literature, shakespearean misquotes, fascinating twins or ways that the internet has changed the upcoming election.
surely you don’t suggest that we all need higher schooling in order to speak.
if you do, i guess send the authorities so that i can be incarcerated for my criminal behavior, as you suggest.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
JB: so if a scientist is trying to run the creation hypothesis through the scientific method is he wading the waters of pseudoscience? i have no idea what that research team believes or supports. but you must concede that they are searching for scientific support, as that is all their opponents would accept.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Dischuker:
“i am asking you to entertain the possibility that what you currently believe as unassailable might have holes.”
How about you do that about your religion, Disc?
September 16th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Yes I know about plate tectonics and I didn’t “miss an education thanks to religious blind faith”. I received a normal, evolution centered education and I’m not religious but I don’t just accept things because I’m told too, I question everything. I have just always heard people say there is absolutely no evidence for creationism but then when I go and look for myself just to see if it’s true then I start finding things. I don’t want you JUST tell me it’s not true or that they are idiots or that it’s biased…tell me why, if you don’t know that’s fine, I’m sure there’s a reason I missed and that it’s all baloney. I’m not blindly accepting evolution just like I’m not blindly accepting some religious myth. I just want to know for myself? Obviously there is a lot of evidence for evolution, right? And if there is NO evidence for creationism why is it discussed? There isn’t a debate for including any other creation myths in science class in any other part of the world so why the Christian one? That’s why I’m confused, if it’s so clear cut and obvious than why would 7 guys who spent millions of dollars on an education waste that education and 8 years of there life on something that is completely mythical? Am I an idiot for asking questions like this?
September 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
absolutely, the Bible gives such a ground. the apostle Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:19 “If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.”
when speaking about the resurrection of Christ he lays it down as the foundational belief. if Christ did not bodily raise from the dead, he wasn’t God, did not conquer death, offers no hope for his followers and was an outright liar.
are you open to falsifiability as well?
September 16th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
@289. dischuker:
“if a scientist is trying to run the creation hypothesis through the scientific method is he wading the waters of pseudoscience?”
FAIL
They aren’t using the scientific method. They want you to believe they’re doing so, but they can’t deceive the scientific community. That’s why they doesn’t find any scientific support. It’s not any kind of conspiracy against creationism but a needed control to not make wrongful use of the name of the Science (what actually christianity have been unable to do with God).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
you’ll find here the tricks creatinism is using and how well it fits to the definition of pseudoscience.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
wow, I thought you liberals were suppose to be sooo open minded. I don’t think evolution should be taught in public school. It is a THEORY and does not represent alot of peoples beliefs. I don’t think creationism should be taught in public schools either, leave it to the parents.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Evolution=SCIENTIFIC FACT
Creationism=FAIRY TALE
September 16th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
there has to be some middle ground. to many creationism is not sufficient to explain the science of the origin of the species. to many evolution is not sufficient to explain the realities of the rest of life.
we can’t all be wrong, can we?
September 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
@291. Alfie:
No. You’re not an idiot, just innocent.
You did a question as someone that doesn’t know anything about plate tectonics, that’s why I was teaching you that.
I’ve already said why those 7 “scientists” aren’t actually acting as scientist.
What’s up with creationism debate? It doesn’t need any evidences to make people believe in and discuss about it. Is faith, not science. They’ve grown inside a bubble where the Bible was the truth and they’re afraid to be wrong, because they will have to fit all the trascendent questions wich answers were imposed by faith. I understand why the’re discussing taht even without any kind of evidences.
All creationist arguments are: “I don’t understand that, so it must be God’s will”. That’s a destrutive argument because is denying the posibility to wonder what reallity is hidden behind. Not creating any positive way to progress. What they want is to stop research in any way not help to understand better the world. Scientific research is uncovering all the lies of religion.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Dan: Your right.
evolution is a theory. Yet they teach it anyway. ( they do at my school). So is creation. Why should we teach one and not the other?
September 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
And why are people saying the evolution is theory like it’s a bad thing?!? Isn’t a theory something that has been tested and retested and holds water?
September 16th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
The “theory” of evolution is a bit understated. The fact that evolutions exists in many different species has been proven. But to my understanding, human evolution has some details which have not been able to be proven beyond all doubt by science, yet. The scientific community would not accept an idea such as human evolution if it was not already subject to extensive research and testing. A theory is not just some crazy idea some guy made up and told us all to believe.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Are you talking about my world wide flood question? That marine fossils found above sea level were found there because the shifting of tectonic plates and not because of a world wide flood? I thought about that but i didn’t know if the Himalayas and the Grand Canyon were once submerged in the ocean or not. At least during the period when those sea creatures existed. That is a good explanation but is that the case? I mean if research was done would we find that not only were the Himalayas once submerged in the ocean but it was during the time that all of those sea creatures existed and the age of the Himalayas fits the time period of the existence of those creatures?
“All creationist arguments are: “I don’t understand that, so it must be God’s will.”
That’s all of their arguments? I haven’t heard that one yet…and trust me I’m looking, I’ve read a lot of BS but some stuff that really makes me think but so far it hasn’t been “I don’t understand that, so it must be God’s will.”
I guess I just don’t know if ALL creationists are the same and that there is NO science to creationism and that everyone who buys into creationism grew up being taught to believe it….because I’ve even found instances where that isn’t true.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
sorry to be off topic, but I must say I am impressed (somewhat) with the arguments on both sides of the story, and great idea for who ever made/suggested this “Your View” topic.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
No it should not plain and simple, it is not based in science and separation of church and state should be upheld, no religion in schools or all of them.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Jb has recommended that the following link should be proof that the earth is 4.7 billion years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
However if the earth’s crust is sub ducting into the mantle at the rate of 100mm per year and the earth has a circumference of 25,000km the whole surface would sub duct and be renewed every 25 million years, with this happening at the interface of 14 plates the renewal would be every 1.7 million years.
As the extinction of the dinosaurs is purported to have happened 65 million years ago these two scientific theories don’t add up.
The evolutionists should be less fundamentalist and try to open their minds rather than accept the current sci-fi dogma that will be discounted in a few years time.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
dischuker, (288),
“…what do you denounce as foolish that was the mainstream 100 years ago?”
Nothing will be denounced as foolish or be laughed that was soundly based on the best evidence available at the time, be it 1000 years ago or 10 minutes ago. It will be derided, however, if it flew in the face of that better evidence by refusing to accept or denying it. Hence we do not mock the ancients for beieving the earth was flat and the centre of the universe. We do rightly roll around the aisles, though, if somebody insists on that today.
GUS1965, (304),
Do we, do you, know the crust has always subducted at a constant rate? I certainly don’t know. Just asking, because if you or nobody else doesn’t know, then your assumption isn’t valid.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
joseph campbell put it best when he stated that religous doctrine should never be interpreted as fact but as a metaphor towards living a better life. As such these metaphors overlap within all religons teaching the same lessons through differing stories. For instance the ritualisation of easter is not so much about jesus dying and being reborn, as it is a lesson in the need to adapt to change. In life there will be times when you must allow your old self to “die” and be reborn again as something new. This was true of the pagan rite of oestre that christianity grafted easter too and also existed in greek myth with the death and rebirth of adonis. and so on. There is a basic spiritual need in all of humanity to believe in something greater then yourself but unfortunatly this has been hijacked by those who will only accept religous dogma as fact. So creationism should be taught as a belief that exists alongside evolution and that can also be adapted to evolution, but we also need teachers like Campbell to teach how religon functions and why blind faith must always be questioned.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
chris, (306),
Perhaps the only main group of people to disagree with you will be those millions and millions who live by belief and blind faith.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
305. Anon…GUS1965, (304),Do we, do you, know the crust has always subducted at a constant rate? I certainly don’t know. Just asking, because if you or nobody else doesn’t know, then your assumption isn’t valid.
****
I don’t know either, but I do live in an area where the Pacific plate meets the North American plate. A long, long stretch of it is on view. One thing that is quite obvious is that is that it didn’t all move at the same rate. You can look at it and see the evidence.
I walk by parts of it every day. I see greater parts of it every time I go the 1/4 mile to the beach.
It’s fascinating. I wish we could post photos, my camera is due back from repair any day (it was sent Thursday), because I could post pix of the plates, and what they’re doing.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I believe that schools should stay off of the subject of evolution, creationism, ect. Until high school where students should have the OPTION to learn about different religions or the scientific explanation. Faith is a major part is some peoples lives so they shouldn’t be forced to listen to anything that would challenge their beliefs but at the same time they should have the option to.
Mostly so they don’t have something thrown into their face but so they can explore and pick out what they believe as an individual.
Oh, and yeah, Obama 08
September 16th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I agree with jfrater on this; it should be taught in school, but only in classes like sociology and religious education. Science class is for science ,so why should religion play a part in it?
September 16th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Absolutely NOT! Creationism is a load of utter BULLSHIT and should be avoided at all costs!
If the creationists get their way, the Scientologists will want their way next!
It is about time for religion to be put in a museum and looked at with faint scorn, if looked at all…
Creationism has no place in education, and nor does religion!
September 16th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I concede that creationism has a place in education, when limited only to religion or sociology classes.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Interesting question. A similar one came up in school just a few days ago because we’re studying the origins of Judaism in our World History class and we’re getting a lot of our information from the Torah. As a class we agreed that it’s okay to teach the history as long as nobody is trying to preach religion to each other. I’m Jewish, but I prefer to call myself an atheist because I don’t buy in to God. Also, I go to a public school.
I always get wary about this stuff. I think the story of creationism is interesting and they should tell it to us so that we know it exists, but they cross the line when they try to feed it to us as fact. I think I would start cutting class if they tried to teach it to us in science.
September 16th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Yes, we should teach Christian creationism in school. Right where it belongs: in a survey of religions course. The cosmogenies of all major world religions should be discussed in turn. A particular idea shall not be given precedence, and none of the ideas should be asserted as fact.
It is not science, nor is it a scientific theory. Therefore, it does not belong in a science class. However, I do feel schools should do a better job at teaching evolutionary theory, because I feel like most people here that are for the teaching of creationism alongside evolution don’t have clue what evolution is, how it proceeds, or what support is offered for it.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Most important is: readin’, ritin’ n rithmetic. Leave religion for Sunday (or Saturday)
September 16th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
This response is written assuming that by “creationism,” one means the belief that the events of Genesis 1 are factual and exact. (I believe in God, but I am of those too small to fathom the cause of the beginning of the world.)
Education is about gaining knowledge. For aeons, people have come up with explanations of how things came to be. In science class, students learn current theories and ideas about the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Current scientific consensus is (generally) that the theory of evolution and the big bang theory are probably valid.
My grandfather was taught in school that dinosaurs possibly existed, but they probably didn’t.
Our knowledge of the world is constantly changing.
An all-powerful being creating the world in six days seemed a good explanation to ancient occupants of the earth. This is History, but it is also Religion, because it begins the Jewish and Christian holy books.
Maybe we should allow the idea that perhaps there is a Being greater than ourselves to be proposed in schools (of course, alongside the idea that there is not a Being greater than ourselves, or that It died, or that It is actually many Its).
Christianity and Judaism (to the completely unbiased individual) are simply two of the ideologies that have shaped the human past. Why we should seek to omit all mention of them from our schools, I do not know.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Also, it would be arrogant to assume that our current set of truths are absolute.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I always knew my biology teacher was full of shit for teaching two theories of the origin of life. Every kid who came out of his class is now a stark raving insane fundamentalist preaching the wages of sin.
Oops, forgot my dad taught biology at my high school.
I believe they shouldn’t teach algebra. I think we can all agree that subject was a complete waste of time and a giant load of crap. A squared times B squared equals nap time. Algebra has never contributed anything of substance to anyone’s life, this I know and will fight anyone who says different.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Alfie:
Read my previous post about the NSF’s steve list and the list of scientists online supporting creationism…
Dischuker:
Again you miss the point my dear. You have every right to an opinion. However, your opinion has no meaning or value except to yourself, as you are uninformed about the topic at hand. Evolution is not an easy topic to understand. I’m not sure you even know what science is, or scientific theory. Perhaps you should attempt to educate yourself before forming a tedious opinion and inflicting it on others, hmm?
September 16th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Shelby m:
“My grandfather was taught in school that dinosaurs possibly existed…” How old exactly was your grandfather?
“An all-powerful being creating the world in six days seemed a good explanation to ancient occupants of the earth. This is History, but it is also Religion, because it begins the Jewish and Christian holy books.”
Wrong. It is firstly not history (which should not be capitalized fyi); on the contrary it is a historical creation story. Story, not history.
Secondly, how does that seem like a good explanation to you (the six day story) when there are tomes of evidence that seem to imply a different origin of the earth and universe?
If you do really feel it to be a good story, by all means include it into history or social studies classes. I’m afraid you are mistaken as to what science really is.
I can see you are attempting to be very deep (i.e. ” For aeons, people have come up with explanations of how things came to be.”) but this is about scientific endeavor, and how religion is trying to masquerade as science.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
It all depends upon what you mean by “taught in schools?”
If you mean as an “alternative scientific theory,” then the answer is clearly NO. Creationism is not science as science is defined. Evolution is the sole accepted “scientific theory.”
If you mean taught as a fact of society that not everyone, for religious reasons, accepts the Theory of Evolution such as in a comtemporary Socialogy class, then I see no issue with that.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
What I WOULD like is for teachers to be honest about the shortcomings in the theory of evolution (i.e. “Darwin’s Black Box,” the mathematical impossibilities), be clear about the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and just be honest that maybe scientists don’t have all the answers on this yet. In my public high school, I did an independent study on the inadequacies of evolutionary theory, and it drove me to creationism. Also, when students would bring up creationism and ID during biology class, my high school biology teacher welcomed the talk. I honestly don’t know if he was an evolutionist or creationist, but he valued open conversation about the topic. When the students bring it up, it should be discussed, whatever class. Parents can always teach more about creationism at home, too.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
“easter is not so much about jesus dying and being reborn, as it is a lesson in the need to adapt to change.”
I have a feeling you don’t know nearly as much about Christianity as you think you do, my friend. But the belief that Jesus literally died on the cross and was resurrected and that action literally paid the price required by all the sins of the world, is whole point of Christianity. Without it…the rest of it doesn’t matter. Ya you can hold the belief in creationism steadfast. You can follow the teachings of Jesus to the best of your ability, and go to church every single Sunday but your own righteousness ultimately will not matter once you die.
There are metaphors in the Bible, but truth is….if the Bible is really going to mean anything deeper than what you get from a self help book, the interpretation has to be literal. Just so you know….the real Christians won’t buy your metaphor crap…maybe others will.
I don’t know if you care or it this comment fits in this discussion but I felt like saying something.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Someone mentioned the word “falsiable”. For some scientists, the test of a theory is not whether it can be proved true, but whether it can be proved false. Creationism simply cannot be proved false. Evolution can. JBS Haldane and Richard Dawkins both stated that evolution can quite simply be proved false by the discovery of a pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil.
I have to “come out” as a thinking Christian with an open mind and a sense of humour, if you allow that such a creature exists. I believe that God created the world. I believe that God did that in a scientific way. I believe that the first two chapters of Genesis speak spiritual truth, not scientific truth. I believe that God is “bigger” than any scientific truth.
(I hope that my previous comments on this site will support my claim to be “thinking”, to have and “open mind and a sense of humour”. I struggle with Christian belief. I doubt, therefore I am. I don’t understand how anyone can have such a simple faith as some people seem to display. I also believe that, while I am so imperfect, I have no right to shove my beliefs down anyone else’s throat. I’ll discuss with you if you want to, but I won’t preach. (Hopefully not.))
September 16th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
steffie:
perhaps you never read the preface to your science texts, but the entire point of science is admitting we’ll probably never know everything, and that scientists try to find a paradigm that works. But just because science doesn’t know everything does not mean it is wrong. Just the opposite; in science if something is misproved once then it is discarded or amended, and scientific theories that are thought to be “right” like gravity can still be proven wrong. Just because we don’t know everything does not we are wrong about everything. Got it?
RideTheLightning:
Your beliefs seem adequate to your purposes but this posting is about how science cannot be invaded by your beliefs. Because if they are beliefs, then they are not science. Science is fat.
Astraya:
I applaud you for being a soul of faith and moderation. Thank God someone with some grains of sense.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
sorry typo: Science is fact, not fat…
September 16th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Randall:
Perhaps it would be best to not actually “yell” at the imbeciles. Then they seem to think that they are actually making a point, or have a valid opinion if you debate it so heatedly. It’s probably better to instruct rather than engage in heated duels, as it would not be appropriate for uninformed idiots to rise above themselves or fool themselves into thinking that they know what they are talking about.
But of course, you seem to dislike advice on your debating style, so please ignore me if you would like.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
RideTheLightning: Yes–absolutely right on with your point about Easter. To me, Xianity is meaningless and a sham if the resurrection isn’t literally true. In the context of the creationism issue, whether one believes in literal creation or not doesn’t matter when it comes to salvation–the confession of Jesus as savior is paramount. Although for me personally, my faith is rooted in a literal understanding of creation.
Anne: yes, I know that (though I admit I never read the preface of my high school textbooks!). That is not the attitude I usually encounter when the issue is evolution, though. The attitude I usually find is, “We know evolution is the answer, and if it’s not, well, the answer certainly isn’t creationism or ID.”
Astraya: well said.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
creationism stay out of school because their are so many forms of the creation theory, and if the christian theory comes in then people will want the hindu, or islamic, or scientologic forms taught as well creationism in any form should be taught at and only at home and not at any class in school. additionally i believe that anyone that does believe in a creation theory should not be allowed to argue in any science or history class, when i went to high school this one kid would argue for the whole class with the instructor, in any class that even slightly contradicted his ideals
September 16th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Yes, Creationism should be taught. Why wouldn’t it be? If there is more than one “theory” then why wouldn’t it be taught?
September 16th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Matt: Because, as has been said many times already, creationism is not a *scientific* theory. There is an explicit difference between how you conceive a “theory” and how science conceives a theory. A scientific theory is a framework of axioms that work in conjunction to produce testable and falsifiable predictions. Creationism is not a framework of axioms; it is, instead, a single axiom, namely “God created the world and all the creatures in it in the forms by which they now appear.” This axiom cannot itself produce testable predictions, the confirmation of which can lend support back to the axiom. Furthermore, even if it could produce testable hypotheses, it cannot produce any falsifiable predictions, because any result can be integrated someway into the axiom, rather than properly interpreted as either strengthening or weakening the axiom. Creationism is, therefore, not science, and cannot be presented as an alternative to a scientific concept, in this case evolution.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
The above post was directed at “Maff, #330,” not “Matt.”
September 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
May I again suggest for any who struggle to understand evolution that you read ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ (Richard Dawkins). It points out that evolution is perfectly logical, while the instant creation of large and complex organisms is not. It explains how evolution works in tiny stages which add up eventually to major changes. It confronts and answers all objections that are being expressed here.
If you cannot be bothered and don’t accept that something organic can change dramatically in form over a few hundred thousand or even million years, then think about something that does just that physically over the course of 70-80 years or so, from its very conception to its end, from micro to macro. It’s called YOU.
By the way, my literary suggestion is to improve your understanding, not to change your belief. Also, if you shy away from reading Dawkins, as some believers do, perhaps you should ask yourself why.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
“What I WOULD like is for teachers to be honest about the shortcomings in the theory of evolution (i.e. “Darwin’s Black Box,” the mathematical impossibilities), be clear about the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and just be honest that maybe scientists don’t have all the answers on this yet.”
I agree that the shortcomings of evolution should be presented in a more accessible way. However, firstly, the concept of irreducible complexity you cite (Behe’s work “Darwin’s Black Box”) has been soundly refuted in the academic texts and is considered a non-issue. Furthermore, a discussion of the “mathematical impossibilities” you describe is both disingenuous and a mischaracterization. Any speculations made about the probabilities involved in the chance of life progressing by evolution are simply that, because there are no figures to work with. How do you quantify the probability that life will arise one way or another without 1) a series of different “trials” of life that arose by a method other than evolution, or 2) a great number of different “trials” with which to access probability. As it happens, we know of only one trial (Earth) and the vast majority of evidence suggests that evolution was the nature by which the complexity of life emerged. Secondly, even if such a thing could exist, “impossibility” is a mischaracterization. “Improbability” is the more appropriate term. Although it might be theoretically “improbable” that life progressed by evolution, it is not impossible, particularly since we have documented evidence where the mechanisms of evolution in fact influenced living systems in a way that could produce changes in ability of a group of organisms to reproduce with members of similar groups (the process that inevitably produces new species and the linchpin of macroevolution).
Also, I believe that the distinction should be made between micro- and macroevolution. However, it should be made properly, insofar as the two categories are only categorically separated by the focus of study (microevolution is the study of evolutionary mechanisms, where macroevolution is the study of related groups of organisms). However, it should be (properly) stressed that functionally, microevolution and macroevolution are not different from one another. Macroevolution is essentially the compounded effects of microevolution that produce a reproductive rift within a species that eventually results in the production of an entirely new species.
“In my public high school, I did an independent study on the inadequacies of evolutionary theory, and it drove me to creationism.”
Interesting. So you thoroughly studied all the evidence in favor of evolution (by which, I’m sure you mean the mountains of books and journal articles that outline in detail that evidence), and then looked at the missing pieces of the puzzle, and decided that since evolution doesn’t yet have all the answers (instead, only a vast majority of answers), that creationism was the superior alternative. That doesn’t sound like informed reasoning to me, it sounds as if you were set on accepting an account of life that jives with your worldview. A truly rational solution would have been to withhold judgment, though that still in a way flies in the face of the overwhelming power of the body of evidence in favor of evolution.
“Also, when students would bring up creationism and ID during biology class, my high school biology teacher welcomed the talk. I honestly don’t know if he was an evolutionist or creationist, but he valued open conversation about the topic. When the students bring it up, it should be discussed, whatever class. Parents can always teach more about creationism at home, too.”
Sounds like a good teacher. I certainly hope he was knowledgeable to correct any misconceptions you had about evolution. I agree with your final statement, though I would removed the words “more about” from the sentence.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
steffie:
“What I WOULD like is for teachers to be honest about the shortcomings in the theory of evolution (i.e. “Darwin’s Black Box,” the mathematical impossibilities), be clear about the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and just be honest that maybe scientists don’t have all the answers on this yet.”
I agree that the shortcomings of evolution should be presented in a more accessible way. However, firstly, the concept of irreducible complexity you cite (Behe’s work “Darwin’s Black Box”) has been soundly refuted in the academic texts and is considered a non-issue. Furthermore, a discussion of the “mathematical impossibilities” you describe is both disingenuous and a mischaracterization. Any speculations made about the probabilities involved in the chance of life progressing by evolution are simply that, because there are no figures to work with. How do you quantify the probability that life will arise one way or another without 1) a series of different “trials” of life that arose by a method other than evolution, or 2) a great number of different “trials” with which to access probability. As it happens, we know of only one trial (Earth) and the vast majority of evidence suggests that evolution was the nature by which the complexity of life emerged. Secondly, even if such a thing could exist, “impossibility” is a mischaracterization. “Improbability” is the more appropriate term. Although it might be theoretically “improbable” that life progressed by evolution, it is not impossible, particularly since we have documented evidence where the mechanisms of evolution in fact influenced living systems in a way that could produce changes in ability of a group of organisms to reproduce with members of similar groups (the process that inevitably produces new species and the linchpin of macroevolution).
Also, I believe that the distinction should be made between micro- and macroevolution. However, it should be made properly, insofar as the two categories are only categorically separated by the focus of study (microevolution is the study of evolutionary mechanisms, where macroevolution is the study of related groups of organisms). However, it should be (properly) stressed that functionally, microevolution and macroevolution are not different from one another. Macroevolution is essentially the compounded effects of microevolution that produce a reproductive rift within a species that eventually results in the production of an entirely new species.
“In my public high school, I did an independent study on the inadequacies of evolutionary theory, and it drove me to creationism.”
Interesting. So you thoroughly studied all the evidence in favor of evolution (by which, I’m sure you mean the mountains of books and journal articles that outline in detail that evidence), and then looked at the missing pieces of the puzzle, and decided that since evolution doesn’t yet have all the answers (instead, only a vast majority of answers), that creationism was the superior alternative. That doesn’t sound like informed reasoning to me, it sounds as if you were set on accepting an account of life that jives with your worldview. A truly rational solution would have been to withhold judgment, though that still in a way flies in the face of the overwhelming power of the body of evidence in favor of evolution.
“Also, when students would bring up creationism and ID during biology class, my high school biology teacher welcomed the talk. I honestly don’t know if he was an evolutionist or creationist, but he valued open conversation about the topic. When the students bring it up, it should be discussed, whatever class. Parents can always teach more about creationism at home, too.”
Sounds like a good teacher. I certainly hope he was knowledgeable to correct any misconceptions you had about evolution. I agree with your final statement, though I would removed the words “more about” from the sentence.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
SlickWilly: “Creationism is … a single axiom, namely “God created the world and all the creatures in it *in the forms by which they now appear*.”
There are many forms of creationism, even within Christianity. Some assert the above, others allow for development (eg by evolution) within the created universe.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:12 am
astraya: No, God-directed evolution is different, because it allows common descent. That concept is mutually exclusive of creationism. If you believe that animals evolve, then you are not a creationist.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:37 am
We disagree. Fine.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Do you have a basis for your disagreement, or are you simply upset that I told you that you were wrong?
September 17th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Do we need to teach any type of creationism in the first place? Why not skip that and go to more important stuff like mathematics and language arts.
Let the parents at home teach that stuff.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:38 am
1) I am right.
2) You are wrong.
3) I’ve got far too much else to do with my time than to engage in extra research and type a lengthy argument when you’ve already made up your mind.
So I repeat:
1) There are many forms of creationism.
2) Some of these deny evolutionary processes.
3) Some of these allow evolutionary processes.
Goodbye from this discussion.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:24 am
astraya:
1)You are wrong
2)Slickwilly is right
3)It’s funny that the “preciousness” of your time seems to be the tidal variety–when forcefully disagreed with, you become indignant and storm off, or imply that the person disagreeing with you is unreasonable. I’ve seen this before from you, myself… though we won’t resurrect old and irrelevant arguments here.
So *I* repeat (pace Slickwilly)
1) There are NOT many forms of creationism
2) creationism pure and simple DENIES evolutionary processes
3) a creationism that “allows” evolutionary processes is, by definition, NOT creationism.
Goodbye and have fun storming off the next conversation when you’re contradicted.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:43 am
DO NOT teach “Creationism” (the religious doctrine definition) in public school. For the Bible believing Christian, Romans 16:17-18 and I Corinthians 1:10 forbid
having non-like-minded believers teaching religion to them or their families.
DO NOT teach “Darwinism, Evolutionism, Materialism, Atheism, or Non-Human Secularism” (the religious doctrine definition). Teaching the D.E.M.A.N.S. religions or
religions of any kind have no place in public tax payer funded schools.
Parents or guardians not the public institutions should teach a child’s religious beliefs.
DO teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution (the non-religious definition) or intelligent design (the non-religious definition) that is testable and
observable science. If textbooks, scientists, teachers or administrations blatantly continue teaching what turns out to be scientifically false or deceptive or
protecting of their religion, remove the textbook, unfund their work, change the curriculum, fire them or close the school.
STOP tax payer funding of public schools or colleges that are religious organizations or that teach religion as science. In this free country they are always welcome
to open a private funded parochial school to teach their religion if they so choose. Just do not ask the public tax payer to support their religion masquerading as
science teachings.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:48 am
There are very many forms of creationism – about as many as there are people who believe in creationism. You refer to “creationism pure and simple”, which implies that there are other forms – perhaps less “pure and simple”. Only simple people believe that creationism is simple. I believe that it is complex. So do many other people.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Ridethelightning:
I simply had to answer your sanctimonious post, as I find it helps my breakfast digestion to find something, every morning, that irks the hell out of me.
“I have a feeling you don’t know nearly as much about Christianity as you think you do, my friend.”
Naturally, you know better. An arrogant belief in one’s OWN interpretation of christian doctrine is always the path to a fall, “ridethelightning.” (by the way, nice moniker. Something a stoner would spray paint on his van, I’m thinking).
In point of fact I believe totally with the poster whom you responded to (Chris, was it?) and I can assure you I DO know a great deal about Christianity. “My friend.”
You see, you don’t have a corner on the market of judging what Christian belief ought to be. This may come as a shock to you, but give yourself a few minutes to digest it, and reason might return to your addled brain, and you’re realize that you’ve behaved badly, and can thus apologize and go home.
“But the belief that Jesus literally died on the cross and was resurrected and that action literally paid the price required by all the sins of the world, is whole point of Christianity.”
WRONG. Granted, it is a question central to the mainstream of belief, and is certainly a basic tenet of catholocism. But the metaphoric reading of Christ’s death on the cross is just as valid and in NO WAY negates the ACTUAL point of Christianity, which is Christ’s MESSAGE. (in fact if anything, the metaphoric reading enhances his message). Now, no fundamentalist Christian and only some Catholics would agree with me on this–and we might even say that they’ve got numbers on their side. But majority rule doesn’t call it when the question is spiritual truth, “ridethelightning.” And in fact I know a great many Christians who agree with me. They simply do not see the necessity for, and many do not believe in, a bodily resurrection. Me, I’m inclined to think A) god doesn’t break his own physical rules, so he would leave physical death as physical death… and this is supported by B) I don’t see the necessity of a literal bodily resurrection. It isn’t necessary to have that, in order to accept a life after death, if that life is the life of the spirit.
Naturally, one can argue, also, that all this bodily resurrection stuff was simply taken up, rabidly, by early believers because, of course, it promises a “get out of death free” pass… which we’d ALL like to have. But preaching the resurrection of the physical body is the same as preaching the survival of the EGO. Which is not what Christ was about.
But this is no place for theological arguments, so enough.
Of course the idea of Christ dying on the cross to expunge the sins of the world is also attractive—but is also clearly metaphorical. But again, I have no wish to get into a lengthy argument about this. You are clearly someone who thinks “metaphor”=falsehood, which is a silly reading of the word and in fact simply wrong. (In fact metaphor usually leads us TO truth, not away from it).
“Without it…the rest of it doesn’t matter.”
Unbelievable. So Christ’s message doesn’t matter? None of what he said mattered? None of his earth-shattering lessons for humanity mattered? Then why didn’t he just go straight from baptism to climbing on the cross? Would have saved himself a lot of trouble.
“but your own righteousness ultimately will not matter once you die.”
In fact it will. If you grasp the understanding that death is death only for the individual, for the ego, for the body, and that resurrection is of the spirit… and it matters how we live life and how we treat one another while here, and how we find eternity within the life we’re given.
But again, that’s my reading and the reading of a lot of other people. YOU feel we’re wrong. *I* feel you’re wrong. But we’ll both end up in the same place, so I’m content in letting you have your comforting belief, while I keep to my more challenging and somewhat more profound one. I won’t tell you, as you told the original poster, that you know nothing about Christianity, or less than you think, or what have you.
“if the Bible is really going to mean anything deeper than what you get from a self help book, the interpretation has to be literal.”
RUBBISH. The bible, like all other such central texts of the spirit, can be a key to LIFE itself, if one finds the truth in it. This is FAR more than some “feel good” nonsense, it is the essence of life and living itself.
But see, it takes balls to approach the message of spirituality from that angle. It’s easier to just say “well the Bible promises me eternal life, and if I don’t get that promise, then it isn’t worth shit!” Which is why so many people lose their faith and leave christianity… it’s why, in fact, christianity has been losing ground for the last few centuries. Which is a shame because there remains the core truth to it that was always there–the same truth which resides in all religions, and is most closely echoed in buddhism. If we could all start living along the lines of that truth, you can bet your ass the world would be a better place. But it’s hard. Far easier to cling to a fairy story that doesn’t require tough work.
“Just so you know….the real Christians won’t buy your metaphor crap…maybe others will.”
“REAL” Christians? I see. And you, of course, have the right to say who and what a “real” christian is. Uh huh.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:19 am
327. Anne O’Nemus: It’s best to just take the insults at half there face value (or double it if the offending ‘imbecile’ was particularly idiotic). Sometimes, I picture Gilbert Godfrey yelling the insults instead (a la Hollywood Squares “YOU FOOL!”- no offense meant, Randall) and it makes much more sense to me.
Ridethelightning: “But the belief that Jesus literally died on the cross and was resurrected and that action literally paid the price required by all the sins of the world, is whole point of Christianity.” No, the belief that Jesus literally died on the cross…is the whole point of Christian guilt. The whole point of Christianity is obeying the 10 Commandments (the leftovers from Judeism) and to do all the nice things Jesus said, like love your neighbors equally, be nice, be generous, etc.
I hate people who think they are the Christian spokesperson. I’ve met a lot of you and none of you have ever actually been the Christ-Christians I so hope to meet someday. Being Christian is hard and I don’t mean that facetiously. To call yourself a Christian, you must obey the Commandments, not feed into the seven deadly sins, and obey what the Bible tells you (which is impossible in today’s society).
September 17th, 2008 at 6:33 am
randall: how are you going to say that this isn’t the place for a lengthy theological discussion and then go on and write at such length.
to borrow some of your language, you are in over your head here. this is my area of expertise.
“But the metaphoric reading of Christ’s death on the cross is just as valid and in NO WAY negates the ACTUAL point of Christianity, which is Christ’s MESSAGE.”
1 Corinthians 15:3-6 “3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.”
If this didn’t ACTUALLY happen, not metaphorically, any of these witnesses had the ability to come forward and disprove Paul’s writing. The burden of proof falls to the person saying this isn’t true. How can you explain away something like this with a plausible alternative other than saying, 2000 years later that it never was true?
“And in fact I know a great many Christians who agree with me. They simply do not see the necessity for, and many do not believe in, a bodily resurrection. ”
Then, no you don’t know any Christians who agree with you. it is the same thing that you were arguing earlier. if you allow for God to have controlled evolution then you are not a creationist, was your argument. my stance, if you do not believe in the bodily resurrection then you are not a Christian.
“Of course the idea of Christ dying on the cross to expunge the sins of the world is also attractive—but is also clearly metaphorical.”
how is this clearly metaphorical when the entire sacrificial structure of the old testament points to this being the means by which God forgives? you are pushing this metaphor idea too far when it just doesn’t fit.
“So Christ’s message doesn’t matter? None of what he said mattered? None of his earth-shattering lessons for humanity mattered? ”
you got it. Christ said he WAS God. if he wasn’t he was not a good teacher. he was an outright liar or a crazy man.
“In fact it will. If you grasp the understanding that death is death only for the individual, for the ego, for the body, and that resurrection is of the spirit… and it matters how we live life and how we treat one another while here, and how we find eternity within the life we’re given.”
Isaiah 64:6 “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.”
we have no goodness to offer God apart from Him. this is the entire story of redemption. if we were good enough to stand before God without an advocate the cross was totally unnecessary. however, one of the major themes that run through the Bible is humanities NEED of a Savior. think about it for a second, if there is an all-powerful, sovereign, absolutely holy, creator of all things…are you really going to stand before him and offer your life, or mine, as acceptable? what have we done that is worthy to be in the presence of such greatness?
September 17th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Cedestra:
Gilbert Godfried!?
(!)
Actually he is pretty funny sometimes. I think of myself as more the Don Rickles type though.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:01 am
wow. I got into this one a bit late-and I could only read the first 20 or so comments… so please don’t harass me if I repeat what others may have wrote befor eme…
Creationism should be taught in schools. yes. as should Greek Mythology. and Norse Mythology.Native American Mythology and Egyptian as well. Christian Mythology is no different. It does not belong in any Science Curriculum as an alternate “theory” of the beginnings of life or the universe, but it does belong in some humanitarian courses, such as Religious studies or Ethics.
I know this sounds weird coming from an atheist-but I also think that any believer of any religion should strive to educate themselves concerning other religions from the past and those currently surrounding them, as a way of expanding their knowledge base.
RTR
September 17th, 2008 at 7:02 am
p.s. eve’s got great tits in the pic, Jaime! nice choice. I always thought of Durer’s eve…
RTR
September 17th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Until the Cambrian Explosion is fully explained with evidence to prove it, evolution is just a theory.
My 2 cents.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Dischuker:
You thought THAT was length, for me? I thought I was practicing restraint and brevity.
Now, no… this is not the place nor the thread for drawn-out discussions of this nature. Did you think “ridethelightning” was speaking properly, or do you think he/she was speaking from hubris? I lean to the latter.
“to borrow some of your language, you are in over your head here. this is my area of expertise.”
Hardly. Unless you were in fact a graduate in good standing of some accredited and prestigious theological seminary, you are simply someone who’s read their bible and knows the scripture well enough to find your favorite little quotes quickly. But you’re still simply interpreting it as you see fit.
I’ll grant you something, Disc. The stories of the resurrection being witnessed have always bothered me too. I’m not one to dismiss them out of hand, as I believe that ancient peoples were only a little less likely than we moderns to fairly accurately record what they had seen with their own eyes. But then there’s more to it than this, and if you claim to be so expert in these matters, then you should know that.
The gospels that we have today are NOT products that were written during or even directly after Christ’s death. In fact, without going into all the history and textual archeology of this, the evidence is that they were heavily altered to fit into four different “versions” of the story of Jesus which filled differnt purposes, and that they come from probably two original sources that are utterly lost to us in their actual form. It’s interesting, however, to note that concurrent or even older versions of the gospel—such as the Gospel of Thomas—agree with the standard biblical gospels in regards to many key events and even more to things Christ said–but make no mention whatsoever of his bodily resurrection—a key event, you’d think, that would have been included had it actually occurred.
In any case, Corinthians that you quote is simply a second or third hand reporting of Paul’s, who was not there. I would leave it to an expert on the text to comment on the veracity of Corinthians or Paul’s other material, as I don’t claim to be knowledgeable about it… but my understanding is that his material is no more sancrosanct, in terms of historicity, than the gospels.
“if you do not believe in the bodily resurrection then you are not a Christian.”
Wrong, Dischuker, and arrogant, which is in fact unbecoming of a Christian. You do not decide who is and isn’t a proper Christian. That’s the sin of the Pharisee. I’d suggest you think about it a bit.
The fact is that focus on the resurrection has come and gone in Christianity since its founding. It gains ascendancy, in fact, at times when the religion is in need of converts or feels threatened. It’s an attractive doctrine (who wouldn’t be attracted when you’re promised eternal life, and to escape physical death?) which was useful when the young faith was struggling against powerful competitors—but it falls out of focus (even in Christian art) when this is no longer a concern. There are vast periods of Christian art when the symbol of the cross and Christ ON the cross are barely even present… for instance during the early Gothic period. Clear indication that it was far less vital to the mind of believers at the time, and theology of that period reflects this.
Interesting, that so vital a point has had a very tidal importance… coming and going with the needs of the church.
“you got it. Christ said he WAS God. if he wasn’t he was not a good teacher. he was an outright liar or a crazy man.”
NO, Dischuker… that’s the opinion of someone lacking in profundity and a metaphoric imagination. What Christ was saying was that we are ALL god, and we can ALL BE CHRIST. Precisely as the buddha said, that we can ALL attain buddha consciousness, as Christ attained such consciousness (the buddha preceded him, remember, by several hundred years).
We are ALL consciousness, we are all the light that has the same source, and in THAT sense we never die, because that consciousness never dies. God is the consciousness, and God is everything. And so WE too are god, and the consciousness… WE are Christ and can be LIKE him if only we become aware of ourselves and wake up (i.e., be “born again”) TO that consciousness. Get it?
September 17th, 2008 at 7:58 am
randall: then let’s lay some cards on the table…
“Hardly. Unless you were in fact a graduate in good standing of some accredited and prestigious theological seminary, you are simply someone who’s read their bible and knows the scripture well enough to find your favorite little quotes quickly. But you’re still simply interpreting it as you see fit. ”
i am. Masters of Divinity with Biblical Languages from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, Tx.
so, yeah, i have a little more accreditation than someone “simply interpreting” the text. however, this isn’t required. this was one of the great problems that led to the reformation. the heirarchy protecting the “truth of the scriptures” from the common man, even to the point of downright encouraging them to NOT read the Bible. if God has revealed Himself to man, then he has revealed Himself to ALL men.
regardless of what Christian art finds as intruiging, we need to look at the primary source of faith, practice and doctrine, the Bible.
“What Christ was saying was that we are ALL god, and we can ALL BE CHRIST.”
you don’t like it when you are misrepresented on this site. show me where Christ said what you suggest. i’ll show you where he said quite the opposite.
John 6:51 “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
John 10:28-30 “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
John 14:8-9 “Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us. Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”
and these are just from the book of John.
forgive me if i sound arrogant. i never thought that would offend you. i was trying to have a very frank discussion. i will strive to be softer, although, no less forceful with the truth.
the Bible commands us to speak the truth with love (Eph 4:15), leaving either one out is simply not being faithful to what i have been taught by my mentors or the Scriptures themselves. again, i apologize.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:36 am
this is a reply to Anne O’Nemus’s reply to my comment way up at Sept 16 8:22 pm and Sept 16 8:33 pm
‘“My grandfather was taught in school that dinosaurs possibly existed…” How old exactly was your grandfather? ‘
— My grandfather went to elementary school in the 1930s. I don’t know if his education was typical, but I do know that that is what he was taught. I should have thought that example out a bit more, but my point was that what is “truth” now might not be “truth” in the future.
‘“An all-powerful being creating the world in six days seemed a good explanation to ancient occupants of the earth. This is History, but it is also Religion, because it begins the Jewish and Christian holy books.”
Wrong. It is firstly not history (which should not be capitalized fyi); on the contrary it is a historical creation story. Story, not history.’
— I’m sorry, I should have worded this more clearly. The point I was actually making is that this particular theory of the beginning of the world is a piece of history – people believed this is true for thousands of years, the idea is a part of our past. Also, thanks for the FYI.
‘Secondly, how does that seem like a good explanation to you (the six day story) when there are tomes of evidence that seem to imply a different origin of the earth and universe?’
—It doesn’t seem like a good explanation to me. I said, “An all-powerful being creating the world in six days seemed a good explanation to ancient occupants of the earth.” I am not an ancient occupant of the earth.
‘If you do really feel it to be a good story, by all means include it into history or social studies classes. I’m afraid you are mistaken as to what science really is.’
—I didn’t suggest that creation be taught in science. I didn’t really go into where it should be taught. My thoughts were more nebulous. I’m not mistaken as to what science is.
‘I can see you are attempting to be very deep (i.e. ” For aeons, people have come up with explanations of how things came to be.”) but this is about scientific endeavor, and how religion is trying to masquerade as science.’
—I’m not trying to be very deep. I’m sharing my view on the topic: “Should Creationism Be Taught In Schools.”
—Again, I’m not suggesting that creationism be taught in science class.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:37 am
“i am. Masters of Divinity with Biblical Languages from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, Tx.
so, yeah, i have a little more accreditation than someone “simply interpreting” the text.”
Granted. Nevertheless you are still simply interpreting it… as you see fit.
Pointedly, you failed to answer my statements in regards to the question of the precise historicity of the gospels… which, you should know, as a theologian, are not as literally reliable as many automatically assume them to be. Far from it.
“regardless of what Christian art finds as intruiging, we need to look at the primary source of faith, practice and doctrine, the Bible.”
Oh no. You don’t get off that point that easily. This wasn’t simply a matter of Christian art producing imagery at its whim. Art of that period was not taken lightly and was the direct product of dominant and prevalent theology of the day. The simple fact is that the dominant christian paradigm has, in the past, not at ALL emphasized the crucifixion and the resurrection. It has been, in fact, emphasized at times when it served the purpose of the church to do so… and then later became a standard tenet *on account of this*—one might say and presume via tradition–i.e., when we start something, and keep doing it or saying it again and again, it becomes tradition, and we then tend to assume, much later, that we *always* did it that way or said it that way, or looked at it that way. When in fact we did not.
…Christ was saying was that we are ALL god, and we can ALL BE CHRIST.
“you don’t like it when you are misrepresented on this site. show me where Christ said what you suggest. i’ll show you where he said quite the opposite.”
And we can go round and round in circles on this, quoting scripture, boring the piss out of everybody.
Do you think I make this shit up, Disc? My interpretation is NOT my own—it’s supported by and better stated by many theologians and scholars. (Jay G. Williams is just one of them. Take a look at “Yeshua Buddha” for instance: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=tEir06s7R-4C&dq=yeshua+buddha&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=TBo0gPiqEK&sig=g1lY_dldK7xOTdBsRrVzNuXK_1c&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA19,M1)
If your interpretation of scripture was so iron-clad as to be unquestionably correct, we wouldn’t have various sects within Christianity, now, would we? We wouldn’t have theologians and scholars who voice opposing opinions.
EACH of your scriptural quotes CAN be interpreted in precisely the way I have offered, as OTHERS far more qualified than I am, have offered.
YOU are speaking arrogantly, and far too self-assuredly, in assuming that YOUR interpretation, whether found on your own or communicated to you via an education at a seminary, is the only *correct* interpretation. I suppose the question is, in your educational career, did you seek to be educated, or did you seek to be indoctrinated? *Were* you educated, or were you indoctrinated?
September 17th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Randall,
I respectfully disagree with you. Not because someone told me differently, but simply because the Bible says differently. So here are a few scriptures. I won’t type them all out but I encourage you to at least look them up and read them for yourself, even if you choose to not believe them or find a way to interpret them in an attempt to nullify what they say.
Cedestra~ This is for you too
After this you can reply and I’ll read it but I won’t reply back. I don’t try to talk people into belief, but I am always prepared to tell you why I believe what I believe.(1 Peter 3:15)
We cannot save ourselves through our own works. Following the Ten commandments is important but it won’t bring you salvation
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit;
——————————————————–
Again we cannot save ourselves and no one has or will save themselves- Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Sin brings death but there is a way to life – Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord
Why Jesus came – John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Since we cannot save ourselves God provided one and only one way to receive salvation – Romans 10:9-10-
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Jesus was crucified, raised from the dead, and is the only way to salvation -Acts 4: 10-12(look this one up!, it’s worth it)
So, since we can’t save ourselves through our own work, through our own efforts and the only way to salvation is to believe that Jesus was crucified and was resurrected, I’d say that the rest of it doesn’t matter without it.
BUT once you receive salvation it’s so very important to follow closely the teachings of Jesus.
Mark 12:30-31
30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’31The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’There is no commandment greater than these.”
I don’t know maybe you think that a Christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus. I view it differently, either way, the Bible is crystal clear that there is only one way to salvation.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:52 am
351. JB:
Please, don’t talk in my name.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Lest anyone else think this silliness between me and Dischuker is going off-topic, let’s bring it back to topic.
Here we have, on the one hand, the problem which causes Creationism to exist in the first place: that some, for various reasons, feel a powerful need to interpret scripture in a literal sense (nevertheless it is, even then, their OWN interpretation. Scripture is far too vague and imprecise to ever say so authoritatively WHAT is says and doesn’t say, without splitting SOME kind of hair). We can guess as the psychological need, within some, to do so–i.e., why they have such a need for a literal interpretation—but in any case, it brings about, within them, a conundrum. For we live in a modern, rational world of science, where answers via the mystical and the spiritual are not enough for us, when it comes to matters that are physical and testable and realizable by our brains. I cannot see or know what is beyond death, or whether there is a god or not. I can only find the answers to those questions from within, via the spirit, and from the thoughts and words of others who have dealt with these questions before me. The bible is one place to go for this, but it is not the only place.
However, when it comes to matters that CAN be tested and CAN be seen, visualized, studied, understood, and can be reasoned out by my rational mind–then, we know, in our modern world, that such things are the demesne of SCIENCE. As such, we have learned a great deal using our rational minds, certainly in the last 100-200 years, but also in the context of the last 2500 years, for it was the ancient Greeks who first brought us the rational mind and taught us the methods (albeit crude) of science–of study and experiment. We should be proud of this heritage. 2500 years ago, we were smart enough, as a species, to have already produced men like Democritus, who knew that all matter could be reduced to unseen particles he called atoms. Or like Anaximander and Empedocles, who had already begun to see, rudimentally, the mechanics of Evolution. It’s amazing. We are capable of figuring things out, we humans, when we use our brains and use reason and rationality, and the tools of science.
But the extremist Christian has a problem here. Here he is, steeped in a modern world where science answers many of our questions—but he, you see, wants them answered by god. He was content to let some questions go… but then when Evolution raised its head… well… in his literalist mind he could not abide us humans being the product of the divine spark.
Never mind that the divine spark may be a metaphor for evolution itself—for the evolution of life culminating in our intelligent, self-aware species, perhaps a reflection of god. No… the exremist Christian has to have his bible story LITERAL. He can’t take it any other way. And why? Because without it his faith tumbles like a house of cards. And being of the dictatorial state of mind—as many such people often are—he cannot abide the rest of us having our answers given to us via science. He MUST have his way, lest, again, it all comes back on him and he loses his religion.
Never mind, again, that his faith should be built on firmer ground than words and stories. Never mind that nowhere does evolutionary theory deny or even challenge god. What is challenged is the extremist Christian’s worldview, that without his literal scripture, his life makes no sense and becomes atheistic.
This is the REAL battle we’re up against—a battle of small-minded and primitive-minded intellectual bigots (as opposed to racial or ethnic bigots) against the foundations of biology, and in turn science in general. Because you can trust that if they got their way and somehow repealed evolution and drove it from biology, that they wouldn’t stop there. Astronomy and Cosmology would be next, and Geology—for all these sciences also contradict their narrow and rigid worldview. Our civilization is built on rationality, but they would want it driven back to a subordinate role, far beneath their own scriptural interpretation of reality.
THAT is why creationism is not only wrong but should NOT be introduced into schools. It is not, in fact, even a product of religion, in the sense that religion is a spiritual faithfulness connected together by ritual and shared tradition. Rather, creationism is simply the product of small-minded bigotry and barbarism—a desire to run away from the abyss where god may or may not be there, but in any case we must face the hard questions mostly devoid of his guidance. We are growing up, as a species, which one would think a proud father (god) would WANT. I know I want that of MY children. He would want the same of us. But the problem with growing up is, you have to find your own answers, on your own… in the dark sometimes. It’s just the way life is. But some children are timid and even cowardly… and refuse to face life. They’d rather stay put, safe in the womb, denying life and clinging to their childish biases and limited ideas… because it’s safe and comforting to do so.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:04 am
sorry, in that previous post of mine, in the fourth paragraph, it should be:
“in his literalist mind he could not abide us humans NOT being the product of the divine spark.”
September 17th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Dischuker, thanks for the points you are making. You write it out much better than I could.
I have a question, maybe it applies to this creationism topic: What would Jesus (and I guess first-century Jews in general) have believed about the creation? And do Jesus’ beliefs on this topic affect what Christians today should believe on this topic? I know that seems silly, because evolutionary theory wasn’t around yet (or was it??), but if I believe Jesus is all-knowing God, and he would’ve believed in literal creationism, then maybe that’s what I should believe today…
September 17th, 2008 at 9:52 am
steffie- this might answer your questions
September 17th, 2008 at 9:53 am
sorry here http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-jesus-say-he-created-in-six-days
September 17th, 2008 at 10:13 am
steffie:
A) Evolutionary theory, in a very real sense, predates Jesus. The Ionian Greeks of the 5th and 6th centuries, B.C., had already begun to figure it out via observation and philosophy. Also, the ancient Hindus, prior to Christ, already believed that the universe (and the earth) were in fact billions of years old.
B) the link ridethelightning sent to you is nothing more than a typical piece of fundamentalist circular logic.
Use your brain, Steffie, instead of falling back on fear.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I think jfrater has the right idea. The argument by creationists is to teach multiple points of view on the subject, but I don’t see any particular reason to teach them as if there were only two viewpoints. Why not have a science class and, separately, a religion class, which could include Abrahamic cosmology alongside Norse, Igbo, Shinto, Taoist, etc. cosmologies?
Teaching both isn’t the problem, aside from the issue of pretending there are only two possible viewpoints; the problem is representing science and religion as the same kind of thing. The two rely on incompatible worldviews; the first is naturalistic, the second supernaturalistic.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:19 am
ridethelightning:
“I respectfully disagree with you. Not because someone told me differently, but simply because the Bible says differently.”
NO, “ride.” Because you INTERPRET it the way you WANT to interpret it. Because it comforts you and saves your worldview from crumbling.
“So here are a few scriptures. I won’t type them all out but I encourage you to at least look them up and read them for yourself,”
And I encourage you to stop behaving like this and to start thinking like an independent, rational, modern human being who has nothing to fear from science, and everything to gain–including a slightly better understanding of god’s plan.
It’s very funny (and telling) “ride,” that you answered the original post with arrogance, snideness, and dismissive language… but when challenged by me, you fail to answer me directly, and put on a pretend “reasonable christian face,” a face that masquerades at “just trying to get us to read scripture and see it your way.”
September 17th, 2008 at 10:34 am
astraya:
“1) I am right.”
No, you’re not. This is evidenced by the fact that you failed to produce an argument.
“2) You are wrong.”
No, I’m not. Evolution deals with the progress of life. Creationism, as an alternative to evolution on the progress of life, posits a contradictory axiom to that of evolution. You cannot be an evolutionist and a creationist at the same time. There is plenty of room within evolution to posit that God created life, but that then is not creationism. If you want to believe otherwise, you’re making a semantical argument.
“3) I’ve got far too much else to do with my time than to engage in extra research and type a lengthy argument when you’ve already made up your mind.”
With all due respect, this is a cop-out. It tells me that not only do you not hold the convictions of your own beliefs (far enough to at least try to defend them), but you most likely haven’t even thought them through that well, otherwise you would have something to say.
“So I repeat:
1) There are many forms of creationism.
2) Some of these deny evolutionary processes.
3) Some of these allow evolutionary processes.”
1) Not in the context of this discussion.
2) It does deny evolutionary processes.
3) Creationism as a “theory” on the progress of life does not allow evolutionary processes.
The forcefulness of your response is telling. I imagine you don’t like to be challenged to think through your own beliefs, lest you find some inconsistencies. Easier just to ignore them. Sartre called this “bad faith.”
“There are very many forms of creationism – about as many as there are people who believe in creationism.”
Ahhh, I see. You’re ascribe your own definition to creationism. The definition relevant to this discussion be damned, eh? In fact, definitions in general be damned. Everybody has a different definition of creationism eh? Interesting how the evolution/creation controversy is even an issue then. Evolution has a single accepted definition. As an alternative to evolution, creationism has a single accepted definition. If you argument to begin with is that you have a problem with this strict interpretation of creationism, that is what you should have argued, not “OMG, you’re wrong, and I’m right, so suck on it.”
“You refer to ‘creationism pure and simple,’ which implies that there are other forms – perhaps less ‘pure and simple.’”
No, he wasn’t saying “creationism pure and simple” as opposed to “creationism complex.” He was saying that invariably, creationism comes down to the single previously stated axiom. Hence, it “purely” and “simply” implies that God created all organisms in the forms by which they now appear.
“Only simple people believe that creationism is simple. I believe that it is complex. So do many other people.”
Perhaps you could elaborate. How does your conception of creationism imply that it is complex? I’m not saying that you’re wrong. Anything involving God becomes immediately complex. I’m just interested to see whether or not you even know what you’re talking about.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Bravo, Randall! 100% agreed.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:47 am
SlickWilly did you even read the opening post by Jamie?
September 17th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Slickwilly:
Nice job, and good to “see” you again, pal.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Nauplius:
Far be it for us to contradict Jamie, but yes, in this instance he was factually incorrect. There are not “many forms of creationism.” It is a single dogma. Either you accept evolutionary biology, or you deny it. There’s no middle ground. Evolutionary biology does NOT say that god doesn’t exist or that he did not bring the universe into being, etc. In fact it does not address the question of god at all. Therefore, no “theological evolutionary theory” (i.e. one that says evolution is god’s plan) is a form of creationism. To be creationist is to DENY evolutionary theory. Period.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Nauplius: I did. Did you happen to read my post carefully?
The only reason this thread exists is because of the controversy of Christian fundamentalists trying to get creationism taught in science class, as an obvious alternative to evolution. This is implied in Jamie’s answer to his question. Within the context of this discussion, then, there is only one form of creationism – that which opposes common descent. Although “creationism” can be interpreted in a broader sense, if there were not one agreed-upon definition, the debate would be a non-issue. As it stands, the debate is present because there is a single consensus definition of creationism. If you want to argue that there are many forms of creationism that different sects are trying to impose into the science classroom, then you are blatantly wrong.
Furthermore, if you want to get to the heart of the matter, there truly is only one kind of creationism: that an all-powerful supernatural entity created the universe through the use of its all-powerful supernatural abilities. There can be debates *within* creationism as to how far the creator went in affecting the universe, but that doesn’t make it a different form of creationism, anymore than debates about individual and multi-level selection imply different forms of evolution. They speak to the same end, as does any debate about whether or not the creator itself affected evolution.
Please use a little common sense and your god-given intelligence next time. I assure you, I am not your average lunkhead. I do, indeed, pay attention. It would behoove you to do the same.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Randall: creationism is not “rejection of evolution” – it is the idea that a prime mover (namely God) created everything. If you had simply looked at Wikipedia you would have seen that I am not “factually incorrect” – you are:
Young Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Progressive creationism
Intelligent design
Theistic evolution
You may be interested to know that only “young earth creationism” posits that the earth is 10,000 or fewer years old. The rest accept the scientific age of the earth. Oh – for the record, the ones I mention here are only the “Christian” types – there are others as well.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Randall, (358),
You have phrased it as might a Dawkins with spiritual input. Congratulations. A nice, rounded entry.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Jamie:
You know I love you man, but shades of difference don’t make a red flower yellow. The basic idea behind all creationism is to deny the fundamental tenets of mainstream science and attempt to circumvent them in order to further a particular religious agenda.
I do not even, frankly, see much evidence in the links you posted that any of these DO concede biological evolutionary theory. Rather, they seem to be trying to attack or work within other aspects of modern science–cosmology and astronomical physics, for instance. Or they scrape away at evolution rather than assailing it directly.
None of this changes the underlying tenet of creationism – that science should accept and modify itself to the notion that a mystical force (prime mover if you like, but in any case, *god*) is responsible for the universe, or life, or both, or what have you. NONE of this has any place in science.
And really, when you talk about creationism in schools, I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to assume that what’s meant is a creationism that simply denies evolutionary biology. That’s what the largest fight is about. I don’t buy for a moment that these so-called “other forms of creationism” have any other point but to support that view or in some way work alongside it or at least mirror it in some way, in an attempt to follow another strategy to getting god inserted into science. Whatever road these are taking, they all lead to the same place.
Sorry, Jame… but either someone accepts science for what it is, and accepts that mysticism and religion have no place in it—or one doesn’t. This isn’t MY definition, it’s simple logic. You can believe anything you like about the ULTIMATE cause of… anything–life, the universe, yesterday’s New York Times—but when you start trying to INSERT that belief into the structure of the science that actually describes how something works and so on—then you are violating a basic scientific principle.
Anyway, look, I don’t want to argue with you, because you’re good people. But the point is simply semantic. Semantically you’re correct. That’s the best I can do.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Dischuker:
Why are you still making internet noise? Just because you happen to be very well-acquainted with a set of nonsensical fables does not mean you are qualified to give a scientific opinion. What’s more, you repeatedly fail to address my issue with you: is that you admit openly to not being well-versed in science and yet you feel that with your lack of any understanding that it is your opinion that should be inflicted on America’s future. Please stop talking because this is a forum for rational souls.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:42 am
ridethelightning:
What the devil are you talking about? In case you haven’t noticed, this is a forum about education in America, not church. Leave the sermonizing, and only bring up valid topics dear.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Might it be nutshelled as:
Creationism: the supernatural inevitable and inseparable.
Cannot exist without a supernatural Being. The mere possibility of an alternative where a supernatural Being MIGHT not be involved is unacceptable, Perhaps even blasphemous.
Evolution: the supernatural irrelevant to, and beyond the subject. The existence or not of a supernatural Being makes no difference.
?????
September 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am
jfrater:
And Jamie, sorry I said you were “factually incorrect.”
September 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Jfrater:
I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to go with Randall on this.
Young earth creationism: This is obvious. They deny evolution, pure and simple.
Gap creationism: This conception of creationism does not explicitly deal with the progress of life. Instead, it is a theory on the origin of the recognized cosmology. It does not address the efficacy of evolution, and so cannot be raised as evidence that creationism jives with evolutionary theory. It can postulated within the theory, but it provides no evidence that the two ideas are compatible.
Progressive creationism: It explicitly states in the introduction that they deny common descent. That means they deny the core of evolutionary theory.
Intelligent design: Again, this is obvious. It is explicitly presented as an alternative to evolution. Hence, it rejects evolution.
Theistic evolution: Theistic evolution postulates an idea similar to progressive creationism, in that God affected the different species, rather than accepting the exclusionary idea that evolution progressed by natural genetic mechanisms and random drift. This is the really the only case that can be made for a Christian creation-esque idea can be reconciled with evolution, but only insofar as it is maintained that evolution can progress without the intervention of the indefinable powers of an indefinable mover. If such axiom is denied, then it becomes creationism against evolution. If such axiom is accepted, it no longer constitutes true creationism and indeed undermines the Biblical conception of God that drives it.
As you said, these are the articulated forms of Christian creationism. However, other forms outside of Christianity still reflect the same fundamental principle I outline in my above post. It simply changes the nature of the prime mover. In this way, non-Christian forms of creationism can be broken down to the same fundamental axioms that constitute Christian creationism. In this way, there truly is only one kind of creationism.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:54 am
@dopphopper
generally, evolution is taught in the higher grade levels, I’m not talking about any grade below 9th or 10th in the USA, I’m talking about high school educational levels. Obviously a 3rd or 4th or 5th (possibly) grade kid is going to catch on, so giving them an option for either would be pointless. Some of us have dreams of the educational system actually teaching in a progressive manner, starting out from the base and opening options up as the student progresses, but that rarely happens. It’s all a strict regimen of “learn it like this and no other way” ideology. Which is fine at beginning levels of learning, but fails at higher levels. Introducing both at younger ages and then eventually showing both sides and finally splitting off into two different course studies would be a good fit once in high school levels. Personally, I’m against creationism, but I don’t believe it should be left out of studies. You have to know the subject in order to create a worthwhile argument.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:56 am
My mistake, this line:
Obviously a 3rd or 4th or 5th (possibly) grade kid is going to catch on,
should be:
Obviously a 3rd or 4th or 5th (possibly) grade kid is not going to catch on
September 17th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Ridethelightning: “After this you can reply and I’ll read it but I won’t reply back. I don’t try to talk people into belief, but I am always prepared to tell you why I believe what I believe.” Which puts you up a notch in my mind. Then I saw lots of “…” (I Corinthians 15: 32) type of stuff and thought, “No, I get what he means, I don’t need him to relate it through the Bible.” There’s many ways of interpreting the Bible and I can chew up and spit those passages out any way I like. I won’t, though, I’ll leave that be.
Randall: I really didn’t want/mean to insult you. Maybe this will explain what I mean AND cheer up your day a tad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozEIsWWngJo
September 17th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Cedestra:
I remember that… funny.
And please… I wasn’t REALLY insulted. I love the attention. 
September 17th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
357. JB
Sorry is this better?
September 17th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Randall: Yeah, I know you’s got thick skin. Gave me a chance to post that video, though
384. not That JB- I’d actually suggest the moniker “JB>”. You can be JB from the alternate, evil universe and sport a goatee (like Mr. Spock in Star Trek).
September 17th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
384. not That JB:
XD
Ok, better now
September 17th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
edit: “…natural *selection*, genetic mechanisms, and random drift…”
September 17th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
“Many races believe that the Universe was created by some sort of god or in the Big Bang. The Jatravartid people, however, believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. They live in perpetual fear of the time they call “The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief”. The theory of the Great Green Arkleseizure is not widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI.”
Douglas Adams
—————————–
If you are going to teach one religious view, then you have to teach them all. Christians do not have the monopoly on creationist theory. Most of the first nation tribes have differing versions as to how we all came to be. Every religion on the planet has a view as to the origin of everything. Singling out the Christian version as the only version to be taught is highly prejudicial.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
randall: you have created a conundrum. you demonize as foolish, lacking intellect, possibly dangerous and ignorant of the real world my set of beliefs and then ask me to explain myself without using any of the tools by which my beliefs have been chiseled.
the vast majority of the Christian faith interprets Scripture literally, where it is appropriate. i’m sure you know that there are many genres contained within the Bible; history, narrative, wisdom literature, apocalyptic, etc. this is why there are mountains of books out there about proper interpretation of each individual genre. you can go on calling me a person who literally believes the Bible, gasp!, but that goes without saying as I have already aligned myself with historic, orthodox christianity.
walk with me through a quick argument…
presuppose in my position of a creator, benevolent, sovereign God. if this all powerful supernatural being is out there, He can interact in any way He sees fit with the natural order, including but not limited to miracles.
to attack one of the necessary contingencies, i.e. creating the universe, is trying to chop down a tree by pulling leaves.
use your scientific rational and go to the heart of the issue. you flirt around with one foot on each side. either there is this God or there isn’t. you can’t keep denouncing all things supernatural and then retreat to knowing things “via the spirit” within.
but here is the interesting thing, we are in the same position but you fail to recognize it. if your belief in science and rational as the means to define your world fails, you are left with nothing and that is a terrifying place. your identity crumbles and then what do you have. i have already supposed this in an earlier comment. i know that if my lens for interpreting the world, i.e. Christ as Savior, becomes smashed, i have nothing. this is called faith.
when i stand before God on that final day, i will offer Christ as my reason for acceptance. if that is not good enough then come what may. all my proverbial eggs are in his basket.
this is why, i believe, there is just as much passion on your side of the fence. if the scientific/rational fails to supply with answers where do you guys go?
now please understand me, i by no means reject science. but in the realm of the unknown, i will give all latitude to the glorious God revealed by the Bible and the created order.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
religon is in a constant state of evolution itself. Take the immaculate conception for example. Mary didn’t start out as a virgin. Its derived from a mistranslation of a section of Isaiah which foretold of the coming of the son of god. The original hebrew refers to a young woman being his mother, but when this was first translated into latin,young woman was replaced with virgin, which was inaccurate. Around 300 CE cults worshipping the virgin mother began to spring up and it wasn’t hardwired into mainstream Christianity until the 5th century. But the worship of the virgin goddess has existed in all cultures since the dawn of man, as has the image of the mother with child. So christianity evolved to fit with pre-existing forms of worship. The bible constantly has new translations emerging telling the same stories in different ways. Its evolving.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
and many thanks to Randall for so eloquently defending my earlier comment. Thank god there are people out there who genuinely question the world around them.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
You swine! I was going to mention the great green Arkleseizure!
September 17th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
All I can say at this point is thank goodness S_R isn’t here anymore.
Wait, I can say more. Dischuker…
“if your belief in science and rational as the means to define your world fails, you are left with nothing and that is a terrifying place.”
Everything has a rational explanation, whether we know it yet or not. This is why science is so scary to fundamentalists. The fewer the mysteries, the less room there is for God, in their eyes.
If conventional wisdom/science fails to explain something- why would my life be empty? Why would that be so terrifying? Furthermore, if miracles started to happen- say if some dude claims to be the second coming and can prove it by raising the dead, walking on water, pooping solid gold chicken mcnuggets, whatever- I’ll be more than happy to rethink my thoughts on creation and the existence of God.
I’m not empty inside because I don’t think the bible holds all the answers, Disc.
Produce one shred of supporting evidence outside the bible for Genesis- like a fossil of a pit bull in the jaws of a T-Rex, or some sort of genetic data indicating that humanity can trace itself back to 2 people, then we can discuss including that in school along side of Evolution. Otherwise, it’s a belief supported by a certain number of followers of a certain religion, and it has no place in the public school system. If you must spread this belief, do so in the home or in church.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
393 actually there is a great deal of evidence that proves we are all descended from a single mitochondrial Eve, but no Adam. But far from supporting creationism this reinforces the theory of evolution. Look it up for more details.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Dischuker:
See, Disc, you’ve given yourself away… because at the end you always fall back on this answer, that we non-believers (I am in fact no atheist, sir, I simply don’t agree with your interpretations and your style of Christianity) face an abyss, emptiness, if all we have is science.
See… what that translates into—though you may not see it or ever admit it to us, let alone to yourself–is that you cling to your faith out of *fear.* You are AFRAID of that abyss. Well I for one am not afraid of it. I face it. I find courage in facing it. I find courage in being a part of the universe when I face it. Even if god is there, but he’s indifferent, or if (as I believe) my ego as it were does not survive after death—I find courage in facing the abyss, whereas you and your sort (so it seems) cling to a rigid, hard-structured worldview of literalism to stave off the abyss. Deadly afraid of it, you cannot face it–and cannot imagine anyone else being WILLING to face it.
But we are. I know that even if the universe is callously indifferent to me, I am still a part of it—part of a grand, unbelievably beautiful and unimaginably profound existence the essence of which we can only hope to begin to understand. Science is the light into that abyss, a way of the universe to look at itself through life, the understand itself. If god is there–and I do believe he is—then I believe that is how he wants us to face this. Courageously, standing up for ourselves and using every gift of our intellect he gave us.
“…then ask me to explain myself without using any of the tools by which my beliefs have been chiseled.”
Chiseled is an apt metaphor. Set in stone. Rigid. Unbending. Unadapting.
“the vast majority of the Christian faith interprets Scripture literally, where it is appropriate.”
This is simply not so. Show me where the vast majority interprets it thusly. I was raised in a Presbyterian church. We had no literal teachings offered to us. We were, in fact, invited to THINK about the bible and interpret it ourselves. We were taught, instead, to THINK and to stand for ourselves, that it was a PERSONAL matter, our relationship with god. Evangelical Baptists, of course, are taught differently. More’s the pity, perhaps.
“presuppose in my position of a creator, benevolent, sovereign God. if this all powerful supernatural being is out there, He can interact in any way He sees fit with the natural order, including but not limited to miracles.”
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You embody in god—embody is a good word here–an anthropomorphized essence. Perhaps god is nothing like that. Perhaps that is not the way to understand god–as simply the watchful parent or whatever humanized metaphor you choose. Perhaps god is something far more profound and does not “interact” with us or his creation the way we envision “interaction” on a human level of understanding.
“use your scientific rational and go to the heart of the issue. you flirt around with one foot on each side. either there is this God or there isn’t. you can’t keep denouncing all things supernatural and then retreat to knowing things “via the spirit” within.”
I don’t see where I do this at all. I denounce YOUR version of the supernatural—your literal, rigid reading of it. That does not make me wrong, or contradictory—except in YOUR eyes.
“but here is the interesting thing, we are in the same position but you fail to recognize it. if your belief in science and rational as the means to define your world”
But it isn’t that. Science and rationality are simply tools to understand creation, the universe, life… they are NOT my religion–which is where you go wrong. I acknowledge something beyond which I can see and study and physically “know.” I merely say, however, that it is NOT the domain of science to comprehend this thing or things, nor should that thing or things that is “beyond” be inserted into science.
“fails, you are left with nothing and that is a terrifying place.”
As I’ve already said, it isn’t terrifying to me. It is to you, because you are afraid.
The mystery of creation is beyond me. I only “know” that I am a part of it, and thus I am here to try to comprehend it and live the life I am given to the fullest, if possible. All we truly have is our rational minds, and then, along with that, our sense of the spirit. The two do perhaps, distantly, fold together. But in the closer sense, they are unconnected and unrelated. They do not belong together, because one deals with the mundane, the see-able, the know-able, the test-able. The other does not.
But whatever the outcome of this, I am not afraid of it. When I am gone, my brother and sister beings, humans, animals, plants, and whatever else is out there–will still be there… and perhaps forever. Life will continue to be reborn… and I will rejoin the conciousness, then, perhaps, that is behind it all.
“your identity crumbles and then what do you have.”
The ego, Disc, is a dangerous thing. It’s speaking for you now.
“i know that if my lens for interpreting the world, i.e. Christ as Savior, becomes smashed, i have nothing. this is called faith.”
Well that isn’t really what I would call it. I would find faith to be a more profound thing. I find what YOU are saying to be… very sad. I pity you, in fact.
“this is why, i believe, there is just as much passion on your side of the fence. if the scientific/rational fails to supply with answers where do you guys go?”
Again, you make the mistake of assuming that science is our religion. It is not.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I just re-read Jamie’s introduction:
“There are many forms of creationism – the belief that God sparked the big bang leading to the eventual formation of the universe as we know it, to the belief that God literally created everything in 7 days.”
Appeal to authority!!!!
September 17th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
No.
Creationists should learn to stay out of people’s lives and stop trying to brainwash other people’s kids into being idiotic theists.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Would like to point out that in science classes, we often learn about old/mistaken/etc views; e.g., in astronomy we learned about the geocentric view of the solar system, and of course we talked about spontaneous generation in biology. Depending on the specific definition of creationism, it’s not necessarily untrue either – just unprovable.
Would also like to point out that all of the old/mistaken/etc views we learned about were from western civilization. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but at least treat similar subjects on equal footing.
Meta-discussion note: What happened to the “No Ad Hominem” rule?
September 17th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Yeah… sure… if they’re going to teach EVERY OTHER religion’s beliefs as facts too. This shouldn’t even be up for discussion, you don’t teach kids lies in school, that is sick.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Evolution is a theory, much like any other philosophical or
theological argument.
The theory of evolution is a scientific one. So is the theory that the earth goes round the sun, or when I break a glass it will(probably)smash into little pieces.
The argument is – is evolution a strong theory? Does it stand up to very ’strong’ scientific theories, like the two mentioned above?
Do I believe the earth goes round the sun?
Yeah. But I don’t KNOW that. Do I know the universe is 13.7 billion years old? Of course not. But I’m happy to go with it. Should creationism be taught in schools? As long as the kids know that it’s a theory and not a fact, I personally don’t think it’s a big deal.
Just leave them open-minded, that’s all that really counts.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Creationists just want to force their beliefs on kids, it’s nothing about the other arguements.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
@400 Ray Bees. Evolution is no longer a theory. Ask any college level professor in the biology or archaelogy departments. It’s now considered scientific fact. We simply ,still call it a “theory,” despite overwhelming scientific evidence that indicates fact.
Yes, you do know the earth revolves around the sun. Not only that, you know it for a fact. Here’s how you know. You’ve obviously been on this planet for longer than a year. You’ve experienced this amazing phenomenon called seasons? That’s caused by REVOLUTION. The Earth moves through space by around the sun by the gravitational pull. Fact.
There’s no theory about creationism. It’s invented sociology made to appear as scientific fact. Creationism education has absolutely no place in a science class. PERIOD! End of story and discussion. It barely qualifies to be recognized for study in sociology/anthropology classes.
Now, just so all you creationists don’t jump all over me claiming I hate God or that I’m some sort of athiest. 1. Catholic. 2. Catholic grade school education. 3. Altar boy. 4. Thought I was going to have Holy Orders for a long time in my life. So, bite me if you think I’m an athiest. I’m a Catholic who thinks.
@ Randall, I didn’t read your complete remark, but most of it enough to know it’s a futile discussion. I’ve had this discussion too many times. They will never bend to rational thought. Having faith is one thing, but being blinded to reason is not what God intended regardless of what you believe in. It’s too bad some people have no capacity to think for themselves. They always claim we are athiests and don’t believe in God. We always try to point out simple facts that do nothing more than beg the question. Facts are separate from beliefs and they can’t separate those two points. The bottom line is regardless of your beliefs, they are just that. Beliefs. There is no proof, at this time, there can never be proof that would satisfy even some. People will believe what they want no matter what. They have nothing more to add to the discussion, they are out of thoughts and ideas. I’d simply let it go at this point. Take solace in the words below.
Therefore, I’m going to leave with a quote from one of the most brilliant minds ever to have existed.
*************************************************************
“To have to recourse to God … in explaining the arrangements of nature and their changes is … a complete confession that one has come to the end of his philosophy, since he is compelled to assume someting of which in itself he otherwise has no concept in order to conceive of the possibility of something he sees before his very eyes.” — Immanuel Kant
*************************************************************
Really, really think on that. This creationism brainwashing is simply not necessary.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
@ FallenMorgan
“Creationists should learn to stay out of people’s lives and stop trying to brainwash other people’s kids into being idiotic theists.”
I totally agree. They should totally allow other people’s kids to be INTELLIGENT theiests!
@ CK2005, I also agree with you. “you don’t teach kids lies in school, that is sick.”
So true, shame on those teachers teaching the earth is billions of years old! What lies! They should be fired!
September 18th, 2008 at 12:08 am
TINK, (403),
““Creationists should learn to stay out of people’s lives and stop trying to brainwash other people’s kids into being idiotic theists.”
I totally agree. They should totally allow other people’s kids to be INTELLIGENT theiests!”
… And INTELLIGENT agnostics and atheists? Or not?
Let’s have your answer.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Heroajax, (402),
If you are still reading.
You appear to be a remarkably fortunate Catholic, at least insofar as the environment in which you were born and brought up. I would guess you may be in a pretty small minority worldwide.
My Chilean wife is a Catholic and a biologist, who also thinks, as you do. In Chile Catholics must not *think* about matters touching in any way on belief. Nor do you act contrary to edicts. She has been ostracised by her church for falling in love and marrying me (a divorced non-Catholic Englishman of no further interest to them.) No communion for her. And they call theirs a loving God! I sometimes wonder whether they deny the several convicted Chilean priestly paedophiles communion. Please don’t bother to tell me about confession ritual. I know.
My wife finds considerable difficulty reconciling her religion with her science. Nevertheless she retains her faith as a personal sentiment. Formal organised religion for her now essentially consists of weddings, funerals and the like, nothing more.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Further to my 396. I hadn’t read everyone’s 370ish. Needless to say, I’m with Jamie.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:54 am
How curious that those like dischuker with unshakeable religious faith always KNOW that life is totally hollow and meaningless without their Christian belief. I wonder how. Do they have access to the minds, perceptions and sensibilities of the likes of me? Or if they were to see me moved by a Bach cantata, would they conclude that I really believed in God but could not admit it to myself? I wonder.
Randall is correct. It takes courage to question, to accept the answers that come as honest personal revelations, and to stand alone and on your own two feet, whatever the consequences. But it is also exhilarating and liberating.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:41 am
I have to say, for me it is a flat out NO.
I was educated in a Roman Catholic environment (it was technically a convent, in the UK) and even in an institution such as that the teachers believed it would be ridiculous to mention creationism in anything other than Religious Studies and Theology lessons.
As always, I can only offer my opinion, and my honest opinion is that creationism is a ridiculous theory that is, unfortunately for those who believe it with some degree of genuine consideration, mostly adhered to by those exhibiting either blind faith or bare-faced ignorance.
As a theologian myself (I’m agnostic btw, not for lack of trying to believe!) I read the book of Genesis as an allegorical tract concerning the omnipotence of God and his role as creator and sustainer in the universe. It is not a blue-print and/or captains log as to how long the process took and in what order!
Maybe I was lucky in that I went to a very liberal catholic school, but if any teacher had tried to tell us that creationism was true and that the world is 6000 years old and all us gals came from Adams rib….. we would’ve laughed in their face and told them to GTFO. But not all students are that informed or that willing to question their teachers.
The ‘allegory’ of biblical creation should certainly be addressed in theology lessons should that be the kind of topic the school wishes to cover, but at NO POINT should it enter the science lab or the anthropology room. It is, as with the rest of the bible, a parable, a myth, a story and should be treated as such.
Having said that, if a school DOES ‘teach’ it as a viable theory it MUST be taught alongside the theory of evolution, otherwise what you have on your hands is intellectual abuse, vicious propaganda and a blatent abuse of power.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Creationism should be taught in schools only when evolution is taught in church.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:33 am
@Anon, I’m sorry, but not surprised, to hear what’s happened to your wife. I would suggest you wife might enjoy a philosophy class called “Theory of Knowledge.” One thing I discovered is there is a huge difference between faith and knowledge. I don’t know anything about God anymore than anyone else on this planet does or ever has. Yes, that includes the Pope. He has no more knowledge of God than I do. He has more knowledge of Catholic philosophy, certainly, but not of God. As an additional rectification, I also found quite a bit of interesting content in the Discovery Channel’s “Egypt: Land of Religions.” From that you’ll see just how “original” Catholicism is.
From this philosophy class I was able to rectify my faith with my knowledge. I also discovered that it’s not necessary to resort to religion to determine right and wrong. Virtually any philosopher who has ever lived will be able to provide reasons to act in a good manner and never resort to fear of God. Sigh, I so hated that answer when I was in school. You know the one … “because it’s just God’s will.” Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Yeah, exactly. Frustrating!
I believe God exists and I have faith in that. However, here’s the rub even within the Catholic dogma. If, according to the Catholic religion (and all Christian ones) you truly believe, then you believe God made us in his own image, to be like him, act like him, etc. The rub is this, God gave us free will. We choose to do what we want to do. That was God’s gift to us. Having faith and knowledge are two completely different things. Unfortunately, to many zealots in the world take the wrong attitute toward science. If God doesn’t want us to know something, rest assured, he’ll do something about it. I feel, God wants us to make all these new and amazing scientific discoveries. If you’re a parent, you’d know this. You want your children to grow up to be successful, rich , etc. Basically, better than you right? Why would God want less from his children?
The other problem is “perfection.” Supposedly, we are made to be perfect, however, one basic principle of philosophy is that something can never create something better than or equal to itself. Ever.
It’s too bad your wife is not welcome in her Church anymore. I would suggest this then. I would suggest then, that curch is completely violating the Catholic philosophy of forgiveness. Show me in the bible where it says you’re wife can’t marry another? It seems to me her version of Catholicism is similar to the version that brought about the Inquisition? If God does not want her in his house rest assured, the lightning bolt will come down and destroy her. If that doesn’t happen, then I’d say God’s cool with her being there to worship him. After all, he accepted a “prostitute” didn’t he?
Hope that helps a bit.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:35 am
405. Anon…She has been ostracised by her church for falling in love and marrying me (a divorced non-Catholic Englishman of no further interest to them.) No communion for her. And they call theirs a loving God!…
****
Anon, it’s the Church which ostracized your wife, not God. Big difference. I’m sure it’s a difference of which she is keenly aware, and which makes the pain of being ostracized that much more painful. The Church knows what a powerful hold they have over the faithful, and how terrifying it is for them to “fall”.
But that is the Church! God, if God exists, is not the God any of the churches want us to believe in; an angry, selfish, bratty, vindictive little dictator.
The Church does itself more harm than good by clinging to these outdated views of life, ways of dealing with “breaking the rules”.
Love is the highest of the virtues, that the Church would punish her for obeying the first, the highest virtue tells you who is right, who is wrong.
God doesn’t enter into the equation anywhere. This is all man-made.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:36 am
astraya: See comment 379, and Randall’s 374. Jamie is only superficially correct in the intro to the list, as has been argued in these two posts. Jamie is not an authority on the topic. If you’d like to debate with me, we can talk about it further and I can show you why you’re still mistaken.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Big Bang is the new creationism, neither of them is the real truth. Stop bragging about your imba science and pretend to know everything. The people who thought Earth was flat were as confident as you.
Big Bang is more up to date, so it must be thaught. We can tell children that people used to believe that Earth is flat, because nobody believes it anymore, but creationism is still believed in.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
No, we shouldn’t.
We don’t want children turning into fucking idiots who can’t think for themselves.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
She has been ostracised by her church for falling in love and marrying me (a divorced non-Catholic Englishman of no further interest to them.) No communion for her. And they call theirs a loving God!
Anon – all Catholics understand the view of the church as to the sanctity of marriage, and the consequences of divorce etc. On this basis, surely if one makes a conscious choice, one can hardly complain about the consequences (regrettable though the circumstances might be)?
My wife finds considerable difficulty reconciling her religion with her science.
You mentioned that your wife is a biologist; is there a particular aspect of her work that she finds difficult to reconcile to her religion? I ask because, given the topic at hand (creationism), there is no material conflict between the Catholic Chuech and mainstream science.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
* bah…typo in last sentence : “Chuech” := “Church”
September 18th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Jamie is only superficially correct in the intro to the list, as has been argued in these two posts. Jamie is not an authority on the topic.
Slick – and I would wager that nobody on LV is an “authority” (for what it is worth). But, to be fair to Jamie (and without meaning to put words into his mouth), I think that the designation “Creationism” perhaps has a more specific pertinence to Americans; even (the late, great) Stephen Jay Gould propounded that Creationism is almost wholly prevalent amongst American Protestants who hold Genesis (the entire Old Testament, in fact) as representing the literal “truth”. No more, no less.
As a non-American I can state that my own understanding of the term Creationism has – rightly or wrongly – been somewhat broader than how the term is being “defined” here. However, I’m happy to learn something new every day…
September 18th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I’m in highschool in Canada, and was taught the evolution theory in biology and creationism in a world religions class. The religion class was set up so that we were learning about the history and beliefs of several major religions. Whether or not you believed them was left to your own interpretation, it was simply this is what the christians believe, this is what the budhists believe etc. Personally, I found it interesting to learn about the different ideas people have. Just because i learned about it doesn’t been I have to accept it as the absolute true.
September 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
RE the meaning of creationism: what’s important is not finding the “true” definition, since definitions are by nature arbitrary; instead, the important thing is to have an acknowledged consensus. Therefore, Wikipedia’s first sentence in the Creationism article: “Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.”
I’d say the key phrase in that definiton would be “created in their original form”.
(Will somebody address my point about teaching old/mistaken/etc views? Argue or agree, something.)
September 18th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Sorry Heroajak, but all scientific theory, is just that, a theory.
It is not fact. A fact is something that is something you can prove. Like – there is infinite prime numbers, for example.
There is nothing in science you can can prove in the same sense.
You could not prove, for example, that you exist. It is overwhelming evidence, not proof. How much evidence evolution theory has is the keystone to any debate.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Ray Bees. Sorry. You’re just wrong in this case. You need to really do some research and update your status on where evolution is now. It’s moved far beyond theory and now is bordering on scientific Law. Yes, right up there with gravity, motion, acceleration, etc. There is simply no more debate as to whether or not we evolved, there are simply extremely few questions as to what very specifically happened to us as Homo Sapiens. That’s it. That species evolve is fact, not theory.
We’re not talking about existence. Don’t change the subject. We’re discussing evolution. That’s as much fact as the fact the Earth revolves around the sun which I pointed out to you before. Existence is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one and is beyond the scope of the original question. Go. Read. Learn.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Kiwiboi has just touched on what I was about to say. It is significant in this unfortunate side-debate that SlickWilly and Randall are from the USA and Jamie and I aren’t. Many terms gain specific connotations in different parts of the world. The word “democratic” is has a specific meaning in the USA (and is therefore often spelled with an upper-case “D”) while it has a wider (or different) meaning in other parts of the world (North Korea, for example). Similarly with “republican”. In the USA, it is possible to be “Democratic” and “republican” (hopefully you are), or to be “Republican” and “democratic” (again, hopefully you are). In Australia “liberal”, “aboriginal” and “republican” have specific connotations.
SlickWilly and Randall are no doubt engaged in this debate in their home or work communities. The specific issue there is one particular form of what you might call “small-c creationism”, namely what you might call “large-C Creationism” for convenience. Jamie and I (and kiwiboi), removed from the immediate vicinity of this debate, can take a wider or more academic view of the subject.
Randall: Thank you for your unsolicited pyschological assessment, about which you are also wrong. Please carefully consider your own behaviour on this site.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Heroajax, segue and kiwiboi,
Thank you all for your kind and thoughtful responses to my posting.
I should point out that it was provided as an example of another, but significant, part of the Catholic sphere of influence, in contrast to the experience of Heroajax. It was not in any way intended as a cry to an *agony aunt*! We have absolutely no problems. We both know exactly and confidently where we stand, and, furthermore, understand and mutually respect our considerable differences in this area, a situation which probably strengthens our relationship, if anything.
As for your kind advice, it has no direct bearing for me on account of my base *position* as explained (somewhere in LV, if not in this topic!). For me a separate supernatural *overlord* (God, if you will) makes no sense. God (for want of a longer, unnecessary explanation) is everything integrated, or nothing. By the same token, consider the entirety of our physical perceptions, our intellectual concepts, or what we can intelligently imagine at this stage of our collective development. Then extend that to what its actual full, infinite dimensional extension might be. This is all for the benefit of some of we humans on one tiny piece of stardust? Including for my special benefit? No. Sorry.
Anita knows this to be my sincere conclusion. I also mention it as a further answer (to kiwiboi). As a biologist and scientist, she too has had her eyes opened to such cosmic realities, as also to elements of evolution which in no way comfortably *square* (I would say if they can at all) with what she has been brought up to believe. Virtually everybody in Chile is born Catholic (or evangelical). Therefore most of our friends with a similar scientific education either avoid the issue altogether, or admit themselves faced with similar dilemmas when we hold discussions. Many are consequently agnostic or even atheist, although most tend to remain *cultural* Catholics.
segue: Despite my own view, my comment about *their loving God* was intended as the church heirarchy’s perception of God, not mine or Anita’s at all. If God indeed *is* (which would be *nice*) then I haven’t the slightest doubt that Anita is one of the jewels in His crown. (And she believes He will have to welcome me for my uncompromising honesty!)
As to Anita knowing the church *rules*. For sure. But she had no choice in being brought up as a Catholic, any more than being born a Chilean. That mere unavoidable fact meant certain potential situations in life were always liable to present an agonising choice. As a secular, free-thinking Briton, such considerations have never even entered my reckoning. Eventually one did for her, me! Never mind the church, our committment almost caused her parents to disown and reject her. In fact I think her attitude to the church’s attempts to control her life (and those of others) is one of disillusion, disappointment and distance, not of agony and search for reconciliation. I might best describe her as a sincere personal Catholic and a lapsed official one.
Here in Chile we have a wave of what is called *femicide*, essentially the killing by males of their partners, about 50-60 cases a year, many involving married couples. Birth out of wedlock is one of the world’s highest rates, around 62% (including, just, one of our young nieces!). This presents the official Catholic view of the family as sacrosanct and indivisible except by death (irony not intended) as both cruel and ineffective. Yet the attempts by secular governments to ease these problems are frequently resisted and condemned as *immoral*. Both Anita and I find this a triumph of rigid (if sincere) belief over humanity.
A contrasting footnote. I would add that I could hardly admire the Church in Chile more for its valiant and often successful attempts to ameliorate and resist the brutal excesses of the former military dictatorship. Several brave priests were murdered as a result.
Sorry to everyone else about this detailed, tangental reply, but the kindness of those who replied deserved no less.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
And now for something completely different.
(And mercifully shorter.)
A thought. A great number of people believe in astrology, or take it seriously. Despite that, we do not teach it alongside psychology and other studies of human behaviour and suggest that pupils should choose between them.
Much the same applies to alternative medicines. This is more difficult, since there are integrated elements of traditional and modern medicines. However various aspects of *alternatives* exist which are in direct conflict with the modern mainstream discipline. For those, you go to their practioners, or to Prince Charles.
I would suggest that the reason is because they are *fringe* concerns, despite their significant numbers of deeply convinced adherents. I would suggest the same holds true for creationism.
There is no need to avoid any aspect of a subject insofar as it affects the history and development of the mainstream, in fact quite the reverse. But that is strictly as far as fringe subjects should go, no further.
September 19th, 2008 at 12:15 am
SlickWilly @ 412: Thank you for your kind invitation, which I decline.
September 19th, 2008 at 12:21 am
No.
To quote a very close friend of mine with whom I share many beliefs.
“things like intelligent design and creationism should be offered in either religion a or philosophy class. but if there’s no proof, then it’s simply not science and shouldn’t be in science class. evolution and creationism aren’t the only two theories about how species develop. if we allow one in that has no scientific backup, it sets a precedent that could turn “science” education into a mashup of opinions, groundless theories, and meaningless speculation just for the sake of not offending anybody.”
September 19th, 2008 at 12:34 am
@ ANON (404)
…. my answer is…. sure! As long as we can all learn from each other and not resort to belittling others thoughts, beliefs, or reliance on science, why not have intelligent agnostics and atheists… the more the merrier!
September 19th, 2008 at 2:15 am
I also mention it as a further answer (to kiwiboi). As a biologist and scientist, she too has had her eyes opened to such cosmic realities, as also to elements of evolution which in no way comfortably *square* (I would say if they can at all) with what she has been brought up to believe. Virtually everybody in Chile is born Catholic (or evangelical). Therefore most of our friends with a similar scientific education either avoid the issue altogether, or admit themselves faced with similar dilemmas when we hold discussions.
Anon – ok, then maybe there is some dysfunction in the Catholic Church in Chile (about which you and your wife would obviously know much more than an outsider such as myself). I say this because – again, restricting myself to the topic at hand – the Catholic Church has no issue with mainstream evolutionary theory.
As an aside, and as you and I have discussed before, it was a Catholic priest who firstly propounded the ‘Big Bang’ theory, and the “Father of Genetics” (Mendel) was also, of course, a Catholic priest. And there are other such examples.
I might best describe her as a sincere personal Catholic and a lapsed official one.
Indeed…a not uncommon situation for countless Catholics, unfortunately. Judaism holds no monopoly on internalised guilt…
I would add that I could hardly admire the Church in Chile more for its valiant and often successful attempts to ameliorate and resist the brutal excesses of the former military dictatorship. Several brave priests were murdered as a result
Tragic. Whilst I am an admirer of Margaret Thatcher, her friendship with and defense of Pinochet was a disgrace.
In any case, Anon, thanks for your thoughtful response to my earlier comments.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:18 am
A great number of people believe in astrology, or take it seriously. Despite that, we do not teach it alongside psychology and other studies of human behaviour and suggest that pupils should choose between them.
Anon – if astrology was a part of a fundamental belief system and (more importantly) if there was a meaningful demand for it to be in the curriculum, then we could be having this discussion about astrology. Unlike Creationism, however, astrology fails on both counts, thank God (sorry, I couldn’t resist)…so I’m not sure the analogy holds.
September 19th, 2008 at 8:45 am
No, which is the only acceptable answer
September 19th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I’ve given my answer: No, in the public schools, fine in religious schools and “Sunday Schools”.
This is in reply to Anon. Thank you.
I only wanted to be sure Anita was okay. Your comment just hit a soft, hurt part of me, and my reaction was to comfort Anita.
September 19th, 2008 at 8:54 am
NO- Definately not. I/m not supporting either side of the debate, this opinion is based purely on the observance of what has developed within this one forum. The volume of response, the amount of passion displayed, and the polarity of the comments are somewhat alarming. Especially considering that this is a small site (relatively- No offense), and the users here are very intelligent and informed.
To actually legislate a new education curriculum on such subject matter would make every elementary, middle and high school a prospective riot zone. Every day. The debate would no longer be in the “safe” environment of a website. Because this is a policy that deeply affects our individual beleif core system. And it also directly involves Our children,. Add to that, the disastrous current economy,and the very heated political debates of the election AND a controversial war. It is a very volatile formula waiting for a spark.
So again, I say definately NO.. There would be no open minded, cooperative communication between parents and teachers to assimilate this kind of change. The demographic involved are the very folks that have murdered over disputes at little league and soccer events. Have had fistfights over pTA status, etc., etc.
For me it’s not so much a question of the curriculum, we just aren’t up to it, as a species.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Interesting question……where do we put creationism? Why not history class since it was laced through most of the curriculums in our public schools for at least 2/3 of their history. It was not taught as a theory back then though but accepted as a fact without question. Yes, that is the perfect spot for it-history -taught right alongside of all the other defunct civilizations who have removed such foolishness from their consideration. Nothing to fear from evolution, no responsibility, no consequences, no…. anything. If that does not inspire the next generation to aspire to noble thoughts and deeds higher than their own selves why are we surprised? Could someone please quote the “Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state” from the Constitution and not the local papers of the last 15 years. And if that is what those “old guys” wanted why did they chisel the Bible in stone all over their buildings and memorials for us to read? I guess it is a good thing we finally figured out what they really meant 150 years after they died. I tried to accept evolution when I was taught it in college in the seventies. Unfortunately I lacked the faith to believe a theory that is so incomplete and fragmented that even Darwin refuted it before he died. They should teach it in kindergarten because five year olds would see through it quicker. But do not teach them creationism because they just might find it makes much more sense and make up their minds the “wrong” way. This is definitely a history item- put it in there and let the people decide.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
How might this topic have evolved had it been suggested we teach Greek mythology as an alternative alongside evolution? People *at one another’s throats*, as here?
September 19th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Anon: Topics do not evolve. They are created!
September 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
astraya, topics evolve. Just read the posts at the beginning of any list and at the end…surely an evolution has taken place!
September 19th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
segue: I was being tongue-in-cheek! I thought you would know me better by now!
September 19th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Heroajax, I think we have our wires crossed a little. My
point is that ALL scientific laws or theories are based on statistics. You do an experiment 100m+ times and get the same results, yeah, it looks pretty conclusive. Especially if you have maths to back it up. This is certainly the case with quantum physics, even though no-one can really explain why it works so well.
You have to understand where scientific thoeries arise from.
They come from either experimentation or sometimes a flash of insight.
They are, then, subjected to generations of testing and modification, again and again, until we are here today. Even then no ‘fact’ is secure, statistical evidence is the real
messenger to scientists. Your argument is the kind of thinking that holds back new, and unusual, discoveries.
I do agree evolution is the most probable theory. I don’t think, however, people can just turn up and dismiss the views of others, when the point has validity.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
astraya, so was I!
LOL!
It was just a great opportunity. I couldn’t pass it up.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Derr! (I think you Americans say “Duh!”)
Sorry. How embarrassment!
September 19th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
astraya,
Indeed. The original topic itself was indeed created. Long Live the Great Deity, Jamie! May his ListdiVersity flourish.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Anon: In another discussion I said “Credo in unum Jamie Frater omnipotens, factorem coeli listarum”.
September 19th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Only in a religion class.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Yes. It should be. Those who do believe in creationism have to sit through classes teaching about evolution, so should the ones who believe in evolution should have to sit through creationsim. So it’s fair to shove evolution down students’ throats but when it comes to creationsim its wrong? I believe all forms of creation should be taugh in equal shares and the students should choose for themselves.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Ellana,
Creationism, even though it is considered a theory, is an extremely weak theory for explaining the abundance and diversity of life on this planet. Evolution has masses of evidence and also theories that go into precise detail about how exactly life mutates, is selected, how genes are passed on, and so on and so forth. Creationism attempts only to explain how life came into being. In no way does it attempt to explain HOW life has diversified and progressed. What would you teach children after the first week? In fact, if you did some research, you will find that one of the leading advocates of ‘creation science’, Dr Duane Gish (author of the book ‘Evolution: The fossils say No!), explicitly states that humans can NEVER know HOW life was created because the processed the ‘creator’ used are no longer in use! This is an incredible admission! For a leader of a scientific field to state that no further knowledge can be gathered about the subject is basically saying that the field is totally redundant.
The students can choose for themselves? Democracy doesn’t apply to facts! You cannot put a white rabbit in front of some students, and get them to vote on the colour, and if 60% vote that the rabbit is black then the rabbit suddenly turns black! You must teach the students the strongest possible explanation for the diversity and abundance of life on Earth, and at this point in time, creationism is the WEAKEST explanation for this fact. Evolution through natural selection is the only explanation that goes into HOW life has mutated and diversified throughout history.
September 20th, 2008 at 1:26 am
To develop a point that Matt Howard has just written and combine it with an earlier one of my own, creationism in fact gets its major exposure ONLY when placed in the context of evolution.
A good example again is ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ by Dawkins. Much of his text is taken up by carefully explaining step by step how, when compared with biological creationism of any kind, only evolution makes sense in a scientific context (i.e., where the supernatural is discounted for practical purposes). It is worth adding that although Dawkins presents this from a personal atheistic point of view, his book is not written to ram evolution aggressively down throats. Rather he sets out with a view to persuasively defending it against prior attacks by creationists. As I pointed out earlier, this is the kind of context where consideration of creationism is not only valid, but virtually unavoidable.
Since evolution is now accepted by almost every major Christian religion, the minority which finds it anti-religious would appear to be fighting as much against their co-religionists as against *the ungodly*. If, as Catholics and others here claim, evolution doesn’t (or needn’t) threaten fundamental belief, what’s the problem? It would appear that evolution may be either be seen as a process which denies God, or one which is part of His workings. That could be said about much else besides. In fact, short of God manifesting and agreeing to submit to standard scientific methodology, the existence or otherwise of such a deity can never be proved or disproved. What can be threatened, however, are rigid, dogmatic, ingrained institutional statements about that deity. Therein lies the rub.
Some questions. Do those who hold evolution to be a likely explanation preach it as a religion? Is one damned if one doesn’t believe in evolution and saved if one does? Is Darwin personified as an alternative to Jesus Christ, a kind of anti-Christ devoted to explicitly spreading the message that religion is a lie? Did he in fact ever do that historically? That, only slightly exaggerated, is the picture of evolution creationists are trying to spread. And as a do-as-you-would-be-done-by question: Do the scientifically convinced demand that churches be closed and not allowed to present their religious messages? Some, like Dawkins, do in fact draw an atheistic conclusion from evolution, it’s true. But they might equally well do so from a study of geology, astrophysics, philosophy or a variety of other *cosmic* disciplines.
As Matt Howard succinctly puts it, there is little point in teaching creationism as such because there is so little to teach. Its drive is essentially derived from its opposition to evolution. Ironically, science itself is capable of testing the efficacy and resistance of evolution far more rigorously. It has done and continues to do so, both in the detail and the whole. This explains why creationists are so often obliged to quote minor disagreements within evolutionary science as their *evidence* in contra! They then trump these with their standard, unanswerable, watertight, intellectual proof: You are wrong and now you admit it. We told you so!
September 20th, 2008 at 3:31 am
Hi Anon,
I agree with your post, especially your points about religion ‘endorsing’ evolution, especially Catholicism, and admitting it is compatible with their religious beliefs. Creationism is also not as virulent in other countries as in the U.S, even in countries with historically higher numbers of religious violence and belief. Case in point; Ireland.
I am also opposed to the introduction of creationism as an ‘alternative theory’ due to the dangerous precedent it would create. It would mean that not only biology would have to teach both competing, if substantially different in strength, theories, but history, psychology and nutritional science would have to introduce competing theories also. History teachers would have to teach holocaust revisionism. Psychology teachers would have to teach Astrology. Nutritional science would have to teach every celebrity fad diet as well as conventional nutritional information.
The fact that creationists hide behind a cloak of democracy still doesn’t disguise the fact that they are trying to promote their own individual beliefs and force them onto others via the science classroom. If creationists are so adamant that the objective of their cause is to promote the fair teaching of competing theories, why then is there no furor about the above cases where other competing, and extremely weak, theories not being taught? Why aren’t they attacking historical syllabuses? Why aren’t they challenging teachers who promote conventional nutritional information?
As Anon rightly states, creationism derives it arguments by trying to disprove evolution, not prove creationism. Intelligent design in totally identical. They rely on concepts such as irreducible complexity in order to disprove evolution, most claims of which have been totally debunked and explained by evolutionary science. In short, even if there are two competing theories to explain certain phenomena, only the strongest and most explanatory should be taught in the classroom. In this sense, creationism and Intelligent Design fail.
September 20th, 2008 at 4:25 am
If, as Catholics and others here claim, evolution doesn’t (or needn’t) threaten fundamental belief, what’s the problem?
Anon – there is no problem.
As earlier comments would seem to have confirmed, we – in talking about “Creationists” – are talking about those who hold the Genesis to be a literal truth; which certainly excludes Catholicism et al. from the discussion.
It would appear that evolution may be either be seen as a process which denies God, or one which is part of His workings.
No. One may also maintain a position of indifference to anything other than what the science tells us – moreover, this is probably the majority position of mainstream science.
Is Darwin personified as an alternative to Jesus Christ, a kind of anti-Christ devoted to explicitly spreading the message that religion is a lie?
A non sequitur, perhaps? Darwin was never an atheist and I’m not sure he would have liked you offering this absurd premise.
As Matt Howard succinctly puts it, there is little point in teaching creationism as such because there is so little to teach. Its drive is essentially derived from its opposition to evolution.
I think the drive is perhaps more profound than a mere opposition to evolution (though the term “Creationist” certainly focuses on this key aspect of their beliefs).
What I think we must be careful to avoid in discussions such as this, is to confuse Fundamentalist views of evolution/Creation with those of folk that hold a belief in God but are non-Fundamentalist…the latter being the vast majority, I would think.
Speaking of which, in an earlier comment (#417) I stated that the term “Creationist” likely has a particular meaning for Americans (and which probably accounted for the mini-debate over the accuracy of the introduction this list). Interestingly, an eminent scientist (a particle physicist from Cambridge Univ. who is also an ordained Church of England minister) writing in The Times (London) this morning makes the same point in discussing Creationism/evolution :
Here’s a sampler :
“I am certainly not a creationist in that curious North American sense, which implies interpreting Genesis 1 in a flat-footed literal way and supposing that evolution is wrong. The irony of this notion of creationism is that it not only involves many scientific errors, but is also the result of a bad theological mistake.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4790446.ece
September 20th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Hi kiwiboi,
You make some really good points, especially about the ‘drive’ of creationism being deeper than merely trying to counter evolution. However, whether or not the ‘drive’ of creationism is opposition to science, their methodology of proving that creationism is real is based firmly around disproving evolution, not proving creation. I also agree that to label everyone who believes in creation a ‘curious North American’ creationist would be a mistake. Many theologians also profess a deep respect for evolution and totally accept it as compatible with religious beliefs.
However, why Anon and I specifically discuss the ‘curious North American’ creationists, and make a distinct point of targeting them for criticism, is that they are the primary advocates of teaching literal creationism in U.S science classrooms. It is this minority that are the fiercest opponents of evolution being taught exclusively in schools.
It would certainly be a mistake to confuse this minority with rational, highly educated scholars who still profess a belief in religion. Yet this is a debate that applies to only genesis-believing creationists and evolution advocates. It is therefore imperative to only discuss the creationists who literally interpret genesis because the debate centers around these people. If this was a debate between theistic evolution vs atheistic evolution then by all means we would have to distinguish between the various ‘types’ of creationists, however, it isn’t.
September 20th, 2008 at 5:11 am
However, why Anon and I specifically discuss the ‘curious North American’ creationists, and make a distinct point of targeting them for criticism, is that they are the primary advocates of teaching literal creationism in U.S science classrooms.
Hi Matt – I understand this. However, the interesting issues raised by Anon have been (to me, at least) more general than just pertaining to the US education system.
Another thing I find interesting is that in other, similarly controversial topics on LV, the Americans tend to throw the Constitution or “rights of the minorities” into the mix; this hasn’t been so prevalent with this one…
If this was a debate between theistic evolution vs atheistic evolution then by all means we would have to distinguish between the various ‘types’ of creationists, however, it isn’t.
Which is why it was important to stress the distinction, given that the term “Creationist” has a particular meaning to Americans.
September 20th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Hi kiwiboi,
“Another thing I find interesting is that in other, similarly controversial topics on LV, the Americans tend to throw the Constitution or “rights of the minorities” into the mix; this hasn’t been so prevalent with this one…”
Yeah, that is another interesting point. I’m surprised as well that this hasn’t been brought up by creationists, due to the emphasis that they put on ‘democratically’ teaching all competing theories in the science classroom.
Just a side note, I think this has been an awesome topic, one of particular interest to me. I guess it’s just really cool to be able to talk to Americans about this issue, due to it occurring in their ‘back yard’. Being an Aussie citizen, I guess I am quite partial to advocating creationism should not be taught in a science class, but some American’s have raised interesting points on LV about this subject. By the way, I’m a Pom, only living in Aus, so don’t be to harsh on me kiwiboi:P:P
September 20th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Matt – heh, I’m (as you probably guesses from the handle) a kiwi…but I live in London. Where in the UK are you from?
BTW…before you take me for a Fundamentalist or the Pope’s Fanboy…I’m totally against Creationism being taught in any science curriculum that is funded with my tax dollar (or “pound”, as the case may be).
September 20th, 2008 at 5:40 am
Ahhhh a Cockney wannabe hey?:P Originally from the green, fertile lands of Salford. In other words, an uneducated Northerner:) But I’ve lived in Aus since I was a kid, currently go to uni here too.
I deduced from the eloquence of your posts that you weren’t a fundamentalist. I happen to be an atheist, and strongly believe that a coherent dialogue between church and science is the only way to stop things like creationism being sneaked into the science class. Oh, and a little off subject, but I couldn’t help but think of this vid when I noticed you were a Kiwi:)
September 20th, 2008 at 5:52 am
Ahhhh a Cockney wannabe hey?:P
Matt – hardly! Though my kids have strong sarf-London accents (I’m about 10 mins south of Wimbledon).
Originally from the green, fertile lands of Salford.
A Manc ??!! Heh. As the catchphrase (from Soccer AM goes) : “Northern Boys Luurve Gravy!!”
Are you a Red or a Blue (or, perhaps, neither)?
BTW, Matt, our esteemed fellow LV’er Anon is also a Pom (though he is hiding out in the depths of Sth America at present!).
Loved the vid.
September 20th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Oi! Mancunian to be precise! Nowt wrong with gravy either:P And I’m redder than Lenin. Was well gutted last weekend after the Scousers beat us:( Ah well, got Chelsea to come next, I think they are still reeling from the European Cup:P:P:P
I’m pretty new here so I’ve still gotta get to know the regulars, so to speak.
That vid is currently my fave on YT:D
September 20th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Matt – I’m a proud season ticket holder at the mighty Fulham. I’ve seen the Reds many times; that Ronaldo is something else…though Nani tormented the hell out of our right-back last time we met at the Cottage!
Good luck tomorrow; Chelsea might be on the Fulham Road…but there’s only “One Team in Fulham!”
September 20th, 2008 at 7:13 am
@ Matt Howard & kiwiboi:
>”Another thing I find interesting is that in other, similarly controversial topics on LV, the Americans tend to throw the Constitution or “rights of the minorities” into the mix; this hasn’t been so prevalent with this one…”
>Yeah, that is another interesting point. I’m surprised as well that this hasn’t been brought up by creationists, due to the emphasis that they put on ‘democratically’ teaching all competing theories in the science classroom.
I actually answered this way upthread. There are competing values in the Constitution. Protection of minority viewpoints is certainly the basis of many of the protections in the Bill of Rights (especially the right to free speech, which is broader here than just about anywhere). Part of that protection of minorities is the guarantee that the government shall never establish a religion. The Supreme Court has determined that requiring that creationism (of ANY kind) be taught as science in the public schools is government establishment of religion. Ergo, it may not be so taught. Creationists don’t bring up the Constitution because it forbids precisely what they (in this country) want to achieve; the law is (as we say) “well-settled” against them.
September 20th, 2008 at 7:42 am
I really feel sorry for people who don’t BELIEVE.
September 20th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Part of that protection of minorities is the guarantee that the government shall never establish a religion.
ndat – thanks for the helpful information.
As for the “minority” part, I was intrigued to find the following results from a Gallup Poll in the US as recently as 2001 :
A. those who believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so : 45%
B. those who believe that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process : 37%
C. those who believe that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process : 14%
Recognising that polls have limitations, it seems that only 7 years ago the majority view of evolution included the hand of God.
You Americans are an odd lot!
September 20th, 2008 at 8:03 am
oops – sorry for the excessive bold tags…should’ve ended after “14%”
September 20th, 2008 at 8:58 am
G, (458),
Don’t be so bloody patronising. Get a life.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:08 am
kiwiboi and Matt Howard,
Great Scott! I’ve only been asleep (and getting ready for the day, and eating breakfast) for the last seven hours, but the subject has run right away from me. Looks like I might just about catch up and tie up any misunderstandings and loose ends by the time the next kip comes around!
I will just add briefly here that in the first post following mine, kiwiboi has misunderstood or misrepresented me (sincerely, take as read) on several points. I’ll try to get back on that and anythiong else later between work breaks.
Meanwhile I’m going straight across now to other websites to find out how Charlton and Fulham got on. I’m more pessimistic about our likely result than yours!
September 20th, 2008 at 9:11 am
G, 458,
Let me make that clearer. Keep you smug life out of others’ lives, who don’t want and don’t need your sickening sanctimony.
September 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
G@ 458 sounds exactly like Sally Fields in The Flying Nun series, back in the early 60’s.
Anyone else remember that sickeningly sweet drivel?
September 20th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Why should the theory of evolution be taught as the only possible answer, it may be the most likely answer but that doesn’t mean it is absolute truth. There are different forms of creationism theories, they should be mentioned in schools in social studies or religious studies as we do not know how the earth came to be, all views should be shared rather than one view (creationism or evolution) being forced upon children as the only possible truth.
Let people come to a decision as to what they want to believe. If there is no God and therefore no creationism is it doing any harm to believe there is? God can never be proven or disproven but everyone is entitled to belief, I have mine, they may differ from yours but I respect everyones view and opinion and don’t try to force people to believe the same things as me because at the end of the day that doesn’t accomplish anything and it doesn’t matter whos right and whos wrong.
September 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Rose, (465),
Read carefully above and you will discover that this topic is not about how the Earth came about. Nor is it basically about whether there is or is not a God, or even how life itself initiated. It is about how life develops once it exists and how biodiversity has filled the planet. There is no serious rival to evolution by natural selection. Creationism has a place in the historical context of our prior viewpoints, the piecing together and interpretation of scientific evidence, and our realisation of evolution. It also plays a part in (marginal continuing) socio-religious resistance to acceptance of evolution. As has been reiterated various times above, it is not, however, a mainstream theory and should not be taught as such.
Nothing will stop people believing what they will except repression of information. Nobody here is remorely proposing repression of information on creationism, least of all by not teaching it in non-specialised schools.
September 20th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Rose:
As mentioned before, and mentioned again and again and again, Evolution is not a theory; it is fact. It is a fact that organisms change and mutate over time, and then pass their genetic material onto their descendants. The THEORY that explains how this occurs is natural selection. It is like saying that you don’t believe in gravity. Gravity is the fact, it is a sample of the world’s data. However, the theory that explains gravity is the curvature of space-time caused by an object with mass.
You cannot put a white rabbit in front of a classroom full of school children and let them ‘decide’ whether it is black or white. The same goes for teaching evolution in a science classroom. You cannot let children ‘choose’ whether to believe that organisms mutate over time, as it is an undeniable fact.
I agree that creationism should be taught in school, and that it’s proper place is a social studies or religious class. In no way should it be let near a science class though.
Just to make it clear to you, a theory is not a glorified guess. It is not a belief in the way that believing in God is a belief. A theory is and argument, or structure of arguments, that seek to explain and interpret facts.
September 20th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Hey Anon,
Mate, I operate in a different time zone! kiwiboi said you live in South America, so I’m not exactly sure if I’m in front or behind!
September 20th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Should Creationism Be Taught In Schools?
Teach creationism in a class called “The History of Human Stupidity”.
September 20th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
In my highschool creationism and every other major regilion’s belief about how the world began was taught to us. However, it was taught in a social studies classroom and it was presented as a belief not a fact. In my opinion it should continue to be taught like that, so people can gain a better understanding of the worlds religions not as a fact in a science class. (America is falling far enough behind in science as it is.)
Oh ya and for everyone saying that since evolution is a theory and creationism is a theory they should both be taught, thats bs evolution is a theory based on observing the natural world. Creationism is something thought up before many scientific leaps by a bunch of old guys to explain to the younguns how the earth was created so it didnt seem like they didnt have all the answers.
September 20th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Intelligent design SHOULD be taught in schools.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Hi Matt, (468),
Sorry, squire, I’ve been off the air for a good while. Visitors mainly.
As a ref., I was just going for the UK soccer results at my 462, so that will have been posted some bit after 12 midday here. Right now it’s quarter past midnight as I type. I’ll feed in the exact time as I finish and submit. (Submit? Never!)
It’s all a wee bit complicated because of Summer Time hour movements. (My ex-home in southern England was the next village to the one where the parliamentary mover and shaker for that system had lived.)
Essentially we are always between three and five hours behind the U.K. Right now it’s five. Soon there will be a short interim period of four. Then we shall be on our southern summer gap of three. Timing phone calls around the changes needs a bit of prior thought.
Hope that tangle of figures from a confessed dysmathic makes sense!
0.25
September 20th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Laura Mackey,
Care to explain your argument?
September 20th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Laura, 471,
Intelligent design already is widely taught in dressmaking, woodwork and engineering classes, inter alia.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
i think part of a teachers job as an educator is to teach all sides or possibilities of a story or event. So it should be taught as a possibility of how we got here.
September 20th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Alex,
Do you agree then that teachers should teach Astrology to budding Psychologists? After all, it is a theory that explains human behavior. Or should nutritionists teach every single celebrity fad diet to Dietary Science students?
We have discussed this before. The science teachers job (in regards to biology) is to explain in the best possible way HOW life has come to be so unbelievably diverse. Creationism simply cannot do this. As has been discussed in this thread previously, simply because creationism is a theory does not mean that it is comparable to evolution. Theories range for ludicrous to incredibly strong. Creationism is simply not strong enough to explain in any detail how life mutates and evolves. If teachers should teach all sides or possibilities, no matter how weak or strong, would you agree with them teaching the ‘theory’ that aliens landed on Earth, created all species, then left?
September 20th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Matt, (476),
Last sentence. Nice one.
September 21st, 2008 at 4:54 am
Why do you need to teach it in school?
There are places called CHURCHES.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:13 am
Of course not……its not even a question. Creationists talk about how there should be a choice in the matter, but they already have a choice…its called Sunday School.
If they won’t agree to teach cell division and mitosis and its role in creating advanced life forms over millions of years in a Church, then why should we be forced to teach Intelligent Design in a science class?
September 21st, 2008 at 6:14 am
Uh yes, in the Bible study…
If we gonna teach Creationism in Science class, we may as well teach Alchemy in Chemistry class too.
September 21st, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Creationism is not science and should never be taught in a science class. In order for a theory in science to be credible, such as the theory of evolution, it must be proven and it must not be able to be disproved. The fact of the matter is that nobody has been able to disprove the theory of evolution therefore it stands up as the best theory we have for explaining how life has come to be as it stands now. People can say there is a God or is not a God but no one will ever be able to disprove it either way because there is no proof either way. Therefore, creationism should not be taught in a science class. As for teaching it in a philosophy class, or religion studies class, well that is quite different. However once you start teaching creationism, a christian view, then why not start teaching other religion’s views of the origins of life? Once that starts then it gets into religion and choosing to teach one view versus teaching to not teach a different view. The main point is that it should NEVER enter a scientific classroom.
September 21st, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Yes, I think it should be taught in schools. There are many historically significant events that have only occured due to the fundamental belief that there is a ‘god’ and he created the universe etc. Why tell half a story?
Um… not in a science class though.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
People do not understand that there are already places that teaches religion, and its called a Church.
Scientific studies within schools, religious studies within churches.
How hard is it to see this simple division? Why mix and match?
September 21st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
kiwiboi, (428),
55 comments ago! I don’t think I shall ever catch up with you and Matt on the soccer front, let alone creationism!
Anyway, here’s a merciful quickie:
“Tragic. Whilst I am an admirer of Margaret Thatcher, her friendship with and defense of Pinochet was a disgrace.”
Have you followed the LV ‘Top 10 British Prime Ministers’ thread? I’ve been doing a tad of revisionary commenting there recently (stop dissembling, Anon; a bloody great heap). Your remark above reminded me of that unholy alliance, which in turn triggered off memories of the poll tax. If you’re interested, you’ll find what I know and my view of their covert anti-Argentine alliance in comment 62 of that topic.
I’ve caught up on the soccer interaction above. So Matt and and I only managed tepid draws, and you … well, sorry about that. Lucky I did’t put any dosh on my cloudy crystal ball vision of our results! At least the Charlton website treats ours as a tepid draw, but I’m relieved and reckon that if one’s heroes won all home fixtures and drew all aways, things could be worse. Your clobbering of the current league leaders is looking better all the time. The only points they’re short of so far, I believe.
September 21st, 2008 at 10:38 pm
kiwiboi and Matt,
I’m ready to hit the sack, but one first small on-topic point before I do. When I noted that creationism got its main drive from opposing evolution, I wasn’t intending to imply that it had (or has) no strength of conviction, was weakening of becoming redundant otherwise. Not at all. But as far as I can make out, evolution has provided the stimulus for a *fight the good fight* crusade. As others have noted, there isn’t really a great deal to be taught about creationism. It’s largely take it or leave it. God dunnit. God dunnit well. Yes? Of course, there is also coverage of the range and variety which we of ecology call biodiversity, it’s true. But without evolutionary relationships, that’s hardly much more than a stamp catalogue. Early systematic naturalists, who were effectively religious to a man, and often monks or priests, had nothing but the belief that God *intelligently designed* each and every different organism (taxon, as we would now say) to go on. They were therefore largely limited to differentiating, naming and describing what was newly discovered. This ultimately resulted in the supreme binomial system of Linnaeus (a believer in creationism, by the by). They were taxonomists pure and simple. Further than that they might describe how organisms lived in the wild (early ecolgists), and what uses could be made of them (herbalists, etc,). But of evolutionary relationships, cladistics and the like, nothing. With the arrival of evolution, creationism at last had lots of details to get its teeth into as an attempt to break down its upstart rival piecemeal as well as wholesale.
September 21st, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I should of course add that there has always been recognition of the fact that fishes are like other fishes, birds like other birds, conifers like fellow conifers, and so on. How could it be otherwise? So when it comes to classification there is no fundamental clash between evolution and creationism. However, I would suppose there are bound to be subtle differences of interpretation, since evolutionary methods can lead to different interpretations of systematic relationships compared with traditional taxonomy, as based largely on interpretive observation. Whether classification is also part of the battleground I wouldn’t know. Well, whether or not not, it certainly is BETWEEN evolutionists!
September 21st, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Sorry, for *we of ecology*, read *we of science* in 485.
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:34 am
Hey Anon,
Both draws ‘ey! Bloody 80th minute by Chelsea as well!
Just a side note as well, creationism has been designated in this topic as the prime antagonist to evolution, but what of Intelligent Design? I, for one, think it is a far more interesting topic to debate than just ‘plain ol’ creationism’, namely due to the juicy pseudo-scientific rhetoric that I.D advocates tend to throw around in the hopes of adding credibility to their cause.
I guess creationist advocates would have a response in arguing that I.D, as well as being a vague secularization of Biblical creationism, would be more than sufficient to fill up a semesters worth of classes, due to it having more ‘theories’ so to speak, i.e. Irreducible and Specified Complexity.
So I guess do you guys agree that I.D has a place in the classroom? Do you think it is more legitimate than creationism? Does it have the same scientific rigor as evolution? I’ll throw in my two-cents after some more comments:)
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 am
Hi Matt,
I’ve hardly got time to think, and more and more non-LV stuff piling up all the time. But herewith a kind of interim reflex response without too much thought.
First off, it occurs to me that maybe we need Creationism with a large C and creationism with a small c, like Cconservatism in the UK! (I always recall how in pest biology the larva of the June bug or cockchafer was described as a *C-shaped grub*, so perhaps that could be the logo.) kiwiboi was probably correct in assuming I was considering the small c as much as the big one, or perhaps mixing and matching. I have in mind to comment on that IDC too, if everything doesn’t run away from me meanwhile.
Taking the Big C. Oh dear, can’t use that, it’s something else – Big John ‘The Duke’ Wayne’s last antagonist, etc. Well OK, taking the Capital C then, I understand separation of church and state in US education is one of the major issues here. Would that also not apply to I.D., since one cannot have I,D. without an I.Der (without an idea?)?
I would also note that in his seminal ‘The Blind Watchmaker’, Dawkins adddresses I.D. as much as any other contradiction of evolution as the basis of life. Obviously he takes on the lower case and the upper case combined there.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Teaching creation in schools is teaching people to think irrattionally.
Instead we could be teaching children about Why people are hungry, but we’re not. We’re telling them humans can walk on water instead.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I think dischuker finally shut up…a job well done Randall.
I as a rule try to avoid engaging creationists and other like-minded narrow-thinking pedantics, for if you give them a good argument, they will come back with many more nonsensical, logically invalid arguments and attempt to engage you forever, probably in a charade to prove to themselves there is actually _A_ argument.
But you Randall, have kept at this man doggedly until he has fallen silent; dare I presume that perhaps you have gotten to him? I wish to applaud you quite wholeheartedly for your efforts. Who knows; this man as a religious leader in his Texan community might actually rethink his ideologies, and thus, your valiant fight, Randall, might transmute itself from the digital to the real world, an online discussion that might have real effects on his religious following.
Truly, a job well done. If only there were more of you.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:24 am
Matt,
I bet Chelsea were just relieved to stop the rot after the European Cup trauma. I reckon they were one helluva sight more choked about that penalty shoot out than you ever could be over the weekend equaliser! As a neutral I was simply glad any Blighty team got it after the previous year’s 3:1 cock up.
Perhaps back to the I.D., Little and Large C grindstone tomorrow. Who knows?
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:40 am
Hey Anon,
Yeah, I guess the shootout left more of a long lasting sting:P Still, 80th min equalizer is still a bit of a blow. Totally agree with you about any English team winning it…except the Scousers or City:P
Hey Anne,
I agree that debating the finer points of creationism is rather tedious, but it’s so tempting when one of these lot get online and type something along the lines of “well god created teh world in like 7 days so all u unbelievers are going 2 hell so u better get straight wit jesus god bless blah blah blah” to just launch into a massive spiel about evolution, the scientific method etc etc. I guess Richard Dawkins says it all when he argues that creationists don’t even care if they get beaten in an argument, all they care about is being given the platform to debate on the same level of evolutionary biologists, philosophers etc. To paraphrase Dawkins again, debating them is giving them the oxygen of respectability. But I still enjoy it:P
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:48 am
I as a rule try to avoid engaging creationists and other like-minded narrow-thinking pedantics
Anne O’Nemus – not on the evidence of your postings in this topic, you don’t.
Diskhuker is a longstanding participant on LV, and irrespective of whether or not you choose to concur with his beliefs/views, he is not only entitled to express them, but he tends to express them clearly and without any rancour.
On this particular topic Diskhuker’s views are interesting because he is expressing the “minority” view and – not least – because he is able to offer the perspective of one who holds a formal qualification (Masters degree) from a theological institute.
Though you congratulate Randall for “a job well done”, if you read the exchange between him and Diskhuker you will notice that there is no particular invective directed at the other from either of them; they are mature enough to carry on a conversation despite their differences (and even allowing for things to heat up occasionally).
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:03 am
As others have noted, there isn’t really a great deal to be taught about creationism. It’s largely take it or leave it.
Anon – I think the bigger issue is that if you accept Creationism, then this belief requires you (or leads you) to accept much more; this is related to an earlier point that I made about Creationists’ beliefs being “more profound than a mere opposition to evolution”. If we were to accept Genesis literally, then evolution would be the thin edge of a very thick Fundamentalist wedge insofar as school curricula are concerned.
Nonetheless, as Stephen Jay Gould (sorry to refer to him again) stated…”Religion is too important to too many people for any dismissal or denigration of the comfort still sought by many folks from theology.”
Also : “But I also know that [religion] represents a subject outside the magisterium of science. My world cannot prove or disprove such a notion, and the concept of souls cannot threaten or impact my domain.”
Whilst Gould was not specifically talking about Creationists (with a capital ‘C’) his is a respectful and balanced perspective, in my opinion. He, himself, was agnostic and would, of course, have resisted Creationism as an inclusion in the science curriculum…until the evidence compelled him to change this view (a scientist to the end!)
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:37 am
kiwiboi:
But rules are meant to be broken, eh?
As Matt Howard brought up Dawkins, known to many as “Darwin’s Rottweiler” (an apt discription) I will bring up another one of Dawkins’ comments, something along the line of: I don’t have to be studied in leprachaunology to know that leprachauns are a fable. Thus, regardless of whether dischuker is well-versed in theology, theology is only the study of a large collection of fables that, at the end of the day, are just that: fables. And when discussing science, they are invalid.
“…allowing for things to heat up occasionally.”? I read quite a few variations with the word “bullshit” on Randall’s behalf. But I suppose that I just have better manners than you, and think of this as a little hostile. And you will admit, maybe Randall DID get to him.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 am
regardless of whether dischuker is well-versed in theology, theology is only the study of a large collection of fables that, at the end of the day, are just that: fables.
Anne – in your opinion.
It is obviously something that Disk (and others) feel differently about. Why not participate in a discussion rather than throw childish insults around.
And when discussing science, they are invalid.
Again, in your opinion. Otherwise…what is all the Creationist fuss about?
I read quite a few variations with the word “bullshit” on Randall’s behalf.
This clearly demonstrates your lack of familiarity with LV. For Randall the term “bullshit” when applied to an LV regular can be akin to a kiss on the cheek.
But I suppose that I just have better manners than you, and think of this as a little hostile.
Perhaps you do. Or perhaps you are new to LV and have no clue about the people you are talking about.
And as for Dawkins…whatever his views on “fables”, his opinions in this regard are no more valid than yours or mine; his expertise is in science, not religion. Personally, I find the “Darwin’s Rottweiler” nickname rather foolish, as Darwin himself was not an atheist (as is Dawkins).
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
kiwiboi:
I’m not exactly sure which side of this argument you’re alighting on, but I feel I should point out that I do not believe creationism has much, at all, to do with “theology” per se. It is a kind of theology, I suppose, to put forth a literalist interpretation of the bible–or to put it more accurately, one might argue a kind of theology *from* a literal interpretation–but in point of fact I find creationism to be less theology than simple intellectual bigotry. It is, in short, an anti-science movement or idea which attempts to make use of a twisted and distorted “science” to further its own ends–but those ends, in fact, have as their desired result the nullification of science—or at least any science that challenges, in any fashion, a literalist interpretation of the bible.
Nor is this limited only to Genesis–Genesis speaks specifically to the creation of the earth and life, yes, but there are many other elements that “creationists” intend to be taken as literal fact–including the flood, the sun standing still at Joshua’s command, and so on. So it’s not correct to characterize this as a literal interpretation of Genesis alone. They are, in fact, intent upon a literal interpretation of the *entire* bible.
I’m not sure I understand this implied distinction between “American” creationism and that which exists (so you and others seem to be saying) overseas. As Slickwilly and I have both argued, creationism is creationism. Regardless of degrees of difference, all creationism has, at its center, an intent to involve mystical/religious/theological concepts with science–to, in essence, insert them *into* science. This goes for Intelligent Design as well as any other “form” of creationism. I find Intelligent Design no more palatable and no less offensive than “ordinary” creationism. They both, at heart, mean to push a religious dogma onto an established science, where it clearly does not belong.
Sorry if I’m missing where your stance is on this, I just felt I needed to state all this to be clear.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Kiwiboi:
My goodness what a high horse we are on today! And how sour the grapes too! What are you trying to accomplish?
btw religious views ARE invalid in scientific discussion; surely this must be quite self-evident, otherwise you have been napping during the entire span of this thread…
Admitting yourself to be far more familiar with listverse than I, so I prostrate myself at your worthier feet… I must surrender my views to yours.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
And kiwibio, I find a childish insult to be more along the lines of sillypants, poobrain, poopyface, or snotbrain. I certainly hope those vitriolic insults were not used by myself, but if I did, then I apologize and you are not a stinkybutt.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Sorry if I’m missing where your stance is on this, I just felt I needed to state all this to be clear.
Randall – as I stated in #452, I’m totally against Creationism being taught in any science curriculum. Similarly, I also made the point that Creationism is the thin end of the Fundamentalist wedge (which is what it seems you are also saying). As for Creationism not being theology though, I can’t agree; it’s taught as an article of faith in legitimate theological colleges – doesn’t make it correct or agreeable, but it *is* a theological concept. However, whilst I might not agree with your interpretation, theology and bigotry are not mutually exclusive – if it’s bigotry to you, then so be it.
Regarding the nuances of “American” Creationism, this is most certainly the case. I quoted both Stephen Jay Gould and an eminent Cambridge University Particle Physicist who both made the same point. It seems that Creationism in the American fundamentalist scheme of things equates to denial of evolution; this need not be the case as, for example, Roman Catholic dogma propounds – a dogma that is also most definitely not “anti-science”.
Sorry if I’m missing where your stance is on this
Understandable. My defending of Diskhuker’s presentation of his viewpoint possibly made it sound as if I was agreeing with him (which I wasn’t).
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
My goodness what a high horse we are on today! And how sour the grapes too! What are you trying to accomplish?
Anne – I’m trying to explain to a low-intellect purveyor of cheap insults that he ought to have the maturity to respect the views of other participants in a discussion even when he disagrees with their views.
religious views ARE invalid in scientific discussion
Really? So what is all the Creationism fuss about then?
I certainly hope those vitriolic insults were not used by myself, but if I did, then I apologize and you are not a stinkybutt.
See above; the part about “low intellect purveyor of cheap insults”.
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Kiwiboi:
Perhaps you never had to learn the meaning of “sarcasm” in your classes? How old are you dear? You must be very young to not understand sarcasm or irony.
“low-intellect purveyor of cheap insults”? See above comment about sarcasm.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:09 am
If I may cut across the personal debating current here, some practical fundamental thoughts have occurred to me which someone familiar with the American education system may be able to elucidate. Again, I hope it hasn’t been dealt with already above and missed by me.
Creationism to be taught in schools. O.K.
1) Can somebody cite standard textbooks, please.
2) Who are their authors and other recognised authorities on the subject? Where did they study and what are their qualifications? What higher institutions and universities list Creationism?
3) Presumably there must be a considerable teacher training system which accords with state standards, and enough qualified personnel to teach throughout the U.S. I would be interested in details of this.
4) How is the syllabus to be set out and arranged?
5) I was not taught competing theories in any subject at school, and cannot think offhand of any such in any education system. To show how far I ggo back, an explanation for the arrangement of the land surfaces was still unknown. The geography master briefly included theoretical possibilities that the Earth may have expanded, or what we have might be the result of the moon tearing out of Earth’s fabric. Presumably with the acceptance of plate tectonics, these are either redundant, or get a passing mention as previous historical hypotheses. They do not *compete*. Of course Creationism would have to be taught in a totally neutral way, not as an aggressive *this is right, the other is wrong* proposition.
6) Who is to teach? Those who believe Creationism, or the same who now teach evolution, and who may well not?
September 24th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Anon: I could ask you the same of the Hindu caste system – something I studied in school. How about Social Studies? Comparative Religion? Just because there aren’t textbooks on the things people believe doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a curriculum in a social studies class that describes the beliefs of an extremely large proportion of society.
As for 6 – do you not think it possible to teach something you don’t believe? Is it not possible to say “some people believe the earth is flat” when you think it is a squashed sphere?
I don’t believe in a literal 7 day creation but I could happily teach it and even write a syllabus around it for a Social Studies class. Just as I could for the belief that Mohammed was a prophet which I also don’t believe.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:28 am
The resounding stupid and knee-jerk reaction in this topic makes me angry. I don’t care if you delete this comment or not, I’ve had a bad day.
Jamie’s proposal is very logical and reasonable. Seems like only a handful of people got off their high horse long enough to actually consider it, though.
Repeating what J said won’t do any good; you’re not listening to the topic creator, you won’t listen to me.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Tsiamon: thank you for supporting my initial statement
September 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I am an atheist, but personally have no problem with creationism being taught in school. AS LONG AS, other religious creation ideals can be taught as well. I am a firm believer in the seperation of church and state, but can see the logic behind teaching religion in schools. It frankly applies to, and has a direct effect on everyone. I’m with those of you who say it should be taught as a social study, but it would just as unfair to teach only evolution as it would be to only teach creationism as the only other theory. Allah, Jaweh, God, the same entity, so instead of closing our minds, let’s expand them. Take everything with a grain of salt and let the youth decide for themselves. I was raised to believe I could always make my own decision and had the authority to create my own ideals about the world. At the same time, I also agree that it should be taught to older youth, that are not as impressionable and would be able to maturely make up their own minds. Just stating my opinion, and it looks like I’m riding the fence a little. With that, nothing is black and white, everything is gray, the more we try to fight that the worse things will get. Have a good day, and great discussions.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
poeple may think creationism is from a book of crazy fables, but evolution is just as crazy. there are so many flaws in evolution, i will list one or two though:
evolution says we came from little cells and not much DNA, yet science also tells us that over bred dogs like yellow labs have so many problems not only becasue they are bred with close relatives but also becasue the DNA is DECREASING not increasing like evolution says its suppossed to be.
also , with the evidence for how old our earth is, there is not near enough time for even a tiny cell to evolve just by chance! The DNA is made by a protein structure that is so complex that computers can not even hold the amount of information contained in them, if evolution was true then our earth would be so old we couldnt even write it in numbers.
one of my thoughts also is if we chnged from mokeys to humans, then why are there still monkeys!!!??? if we evolved from them, then why are they still here and not turned into humans?
If birds came from lizards, then why dont we ever see any bird/lizard fossils?
Evolution just does not make sense and takes just as much faith to beleive as it does creationism.
September 24th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
509. hmm…If birds came from lizards, then why dont we ever see any bird/lizard fossils?
****
Pterosaurs (pronounced /ˈtɛrəsɔr/, from the Greek πτερόσαυρος, pterosauros, meaning “winged lizard”, often referred to as pterodactyls, from the Greek πτεροδάκτυλος, pterodaktulos, meaning “winged finger” /ˌtɛrəˈdæktɨl/) were flying reptiles of the clade or order Pterosauria.
The above from Wiki. There’s more. There are also many more examples of bird/lizard fossils of different species. They are easy enough to find if you *want* to know about them. If you’d rather remain in the dark, that’s easier yet.
September 24th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
separation of church and state – the government stays out of the church , not the other way around.
September 24th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
what a waste of time fighting over the internet lol
September 24th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
In a religion class, sure. Definitely not in a science or history class. It’s a touchy subject and we need to respect that. All theories regarding the formation of the Earth should be treated as such, and not as fact.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I blieve that if we expect the world to be tolerant of our views, then all views must be shown a modicum of respect. I believe that Creationism and Evolution should be taught, not as absolutes, but as options and the decision how to believe should be left up to the individual.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
If you teach one you have to teach all the major religious view points. Yes teach them, outside of science class obviously, anyone who thinks it should be is either in denial or a fanatic(not that that is a bad thing), but only teaching christian creationism, which is what i assume we are all talking about, would be like only teaching the point of view of one philosopher in a philosophy class. You have to give all the points of view to be able to make a decent choice or idea. None or as many as is reasonable is the only way to go. Maybe parents don’t have a moral responsibility to give their children enough information to make a choice but schools do.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
jfraster,
I almost added, but considered superfluous, that there was the option of Russian and Spanish languages in our pre-university upper school. The reason? We chanced to have masters proficient in those languages. Random one-offs, not part of the British general education system, as similarly, I presume, your Hindu caste system course.
My assumption here is that you are proposing this as a serious contender for general education. Or not? If so I consider my questions are not unreasonable. Besides which, you treated what were essentially intended as practical interested inquiries on my part, relevant or not, as an attack on your proposal. They only required measured replies. I thought those aspects might have been overlooked.
You gave one: there are no text books, but it doesn’t matter. That was all I needed.
My point about who teaches, believers or non-believers (or both), is amply illustrated in our present tiny sample segment of opinion. Feathers flying! This is not a take-it- or-leave-it subject such as flat earthery or Greek mythology. For those a general modern consensus exists, and anyone who was upset by presentation because they still followed those former core beliefs would be considered a crank. I recall a social studies exercise at school around election time where pupils were divided along party lines with some seniors as candidates (essentially cons. and lab., with the usual odd nut cases standing for the *no more school party*!). It generated such bitterness that it was silently abandoned on some pretext or other. I forsee something similar here. How will you teach Creationism and evolution *neutrally* in any place where the former is a fierce core belief and Dawkins is denounced from the pulpit as *Darwin’s Rottweiler*?
I would further suggest that your teaching of the status of Mohammed nowadays would necessarily be hugely influenced according to where you were teaching for the same reason. In some places your very life would depend on that.
With respect, a tangerine is also *a squashed sphere*. It has what might be described as two subplane surfaces, but a FLAT citrus fruit????? (Unless run over by a vehicle!) Not in any botany class I ever attended!
September 24th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
hmmmm, (509)
“one of my thoughts also is if we chnged from mokeys to humans, then why are there still monkeys!!!??? if we evolved from them, then why are they still here and not turned into humans?”
Go away and take a few elementary biology lessons and then come back to this site. When you cross a bulldog with a boxer and get a mongrel, do all bulldogs and boxers then suddenly furiously breed together so there are none left and all you have is bulldog x boxer mongrels. For Pity’s Sake get hold of a bit of elementary commonsense.
That’s all of your pathetic post I’m prepared to waste time on. It others care to oppose your magistral stance in favour of Creationism, they are welcome. Or perhaps some who favour it being taught will welcome you to their cause.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:48 am
kiwiboi,
This is a rather hasty reply, but you’ve touched on the matters several times, and I need to offer some sort of interim reponse faut de mieux (perhaps!).
Nothing makes me feel more uncomfortable than being in the presence of radical disbelievers whose prime mission in life is to tear apart the essence of Christian theology aggressively before all and sundry, regardless. (Naturally I except where rough and tumble debate has been specifically invited, as per this topic and others on LV.)
However, there is one extremely common demoninator (I’m leaving in that unintentional malapropism, it’s too good to lose!) linking most I know or have encountered. They did not arrive at their atheism (or perhaps I should better say anti-Christianity) by a slow, painful and deliberate lifelong mental process of personal questing. They are almost invariably folks who are bitterly disillusioned. The turn around from ingrained faith to disbelief was quite abrupt and clearly very unsettling. For them, all the eternal promises inculcated by formal religion since their earliest days have turned out to be hollow. They see a vast waste of youthful time spent on ritual that is now meaningless in depth. I have to say that the majority (though not all) have also been brought up as Catholics, or at least under Catholic influence (as was such an uncle of mine).
My approach is the reverse. I silently suffer the often near-hysterical verbal attacks on scientists such as Dawkins and priests who question biblical dogma by several of our dear religious friends. (That *dear* is sincere, not ironical, by the way.) It’s the exact counterpart of my previous paragraph. They assume that because I’m a nice, caring, thoughtful guy and a great and dear friend, I must automatically follow the same line as they do. How could I possibly agree with the wicked Dawkins? It never occurs to them to *dip their toe in and test the water* on my views before assuming my certain concurrence and then uninhibitedly spouting vehement hatred. Here in Chile, people have asked Anita whether I’m Catholic. When she replies in the negative, the response without waiting for more tends to be, “Well, it doesn’t matter so long as he believes in God.”. Sincerely arrived at atheism is usually not an option for *decent* people outside of scholarly, intellectual and marxist circles in Chile. In a very true sense it is incomprehensible and goes hand-in-hand with that old faithful warhorse, *without belief life would be utterly meaningless*. So I keep mum. Firstly, I have no wish to put valued friendships with their many, many other positive facets needlessly at risk. Secondly, what purpose would confrontation serve? Thirdly it scarcely concerns me. Fourthly, my own father became religious towards the end of his life, Anita is religious, her mum and family (my in-laws) are ultra-religious, and so are many others in our widest circle. Her kindly mum, at least, has a pretty good idea of my convictions (or lack of, if you prefer), but adores me anyway. What purpose is served by bulldozing in and upsetting, undermining and challenging people’s beliefs? Beliefs that bring comfort, and make sense of the world for others, if not for oneself. Why do that, unless there is actually something at stake, as here? Then is the time to stand up and be counted.
As opposed to your own interpretation, Darwin, it seems to me, and based on all I have read, appears to be an atheist sensu stricto at least, if not sensu lato (Randall hates Latin tags!). He also slowly and painfully questioned the nature of religion, starting rather later than the point when he saw himself as destined for the church, which was a commonplace social position for a naturalist in those days. He also kept his views largely to himself, unlike the more ebullient and confrontational Huxley. (Sorry, I carelessly wrote Hooker instead of Huxley higher up the thread here, or somewhere in LV.) Darwin was still talking of a Creator and Creation during the latter part of the Beagle’s voyage in 1836. However, the traumatic death of his beloved daughter later on finally stripped him of belief in a benevolent, *personal* God. He continued to support church good deeds financially, but did not accompany his family on Sundays. He was well aware of the fierce religious conflict his theory of common descent would and did engender. As a publicly timid and cautious personality, he needed the forceful Huxley (and Hooker!) to back him before the world, and even so delayed publication for a good while, partly out of fear of the anticipated storm. His own expressed view considered Chritianity a separate issue. It is notable that although his conclusions were attacked by religious authorities, to my knowledge Darwin did not feel the need to comment that ‘Origin of Species’ either contradicted Christianity or might be compatible. He simply avoided that question. Ultimately he claimed himself to be an agnostic. Apparently he considered total atheism too extreme, since it fails to account for the basic unity and order of the universe. But that does not indicate belief in a supernatural deity. It is also well known that he agonised over the difference between his own view and that of his dearly loved wife, Emma, who was a devout, unquestioning believer. No dialogue there, as between Anita and myself, I guess! To the personal aspect would have been added the public odium That Book will have attracted from religious authorities.
His resolve was also reinforced by the independent formulation of common descent theory by Alfred Russel Wallace. This is interesting in the context of the topic, since Wallace and Darwin came to a virtually identical conclusion without the faintest idea of each other’s work. Darwin (shocked!) wrote, “I never saw a more striking co-incidence. If Wallace had my M.S. sketch written out in 1842 he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as Heads of my Chapters.” Of course, evolution was an idea whose time had come. Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus, had encapulated the principles instinctively, and it had also been incorporated in the ideas of Lecrec, Buffon and Lamarck. This all goes to show just how strong the concept of evolution was from its *birth*.
kiwiboi still,
I sincerely trust you didn’t take my *demonisation* of Darwin higher up the thread to be in any way part of my own personal thinking! I was painting him, in slightly exaggerated form agreed, as extreme Creationists can do. Darwin’s name *stands* for evolution and so he inevitably takes the bouquets and the brickbats. I’m quite sure too Darwin wouldn’t like to be thought of like that. I totally deplore it. He is one of my heroes, along with the neglected Wallace. Indeed, I find it repulsive that a BBC programme, Great Britons, which placed Churchill at the head, apparently had Princess Diana voted into third place – above Darwin, Newton, Shakespeare, Thomas More, Queen Elizabeth I, Keats, Elgar, Arthur Wellsley, Captain Cook … Well, if I were to go on with all famous Brits who should be placed ahead of that sad, unfortunate victim of a rigid hereditary system, I’d be here till Kingdom Come!
On the point of most religions *officially* accepting and incorporating evolution, this is perfectly true. However I don’t have the slightest doubt that many we know from those religions (even in the UK) cannot and do not accept the principle of common decent: i.e. that we are all descended from the original *spark of life* on the planet. (Even though we ourselves follow a similar development from fertilized egg to adult.) Some perhaps even jib with Wilderforce at the idea we are in any way actually linked to the simian branch. That is if they actually look such implications in the face. I suspect many are in fact creationists by default, which is why I have accepted such a broad base for the definition.
I’ve ended coughing up more than originally intended. Inspired by a good day’s botanising out in the field locally in gorgeous spring weather, perhaps.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Last para but one. I appear to have confused *common decency* with *common descent*!
September 25th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Lecrec, who he? (4th para from end).
September 25th, 2008 at 5:24 am
One of the google ads showing at the top of the page is for:
“Diversity in America
Immigration, religion, lifestyle Offering a place for everyone
http://www.america.gov“
September 25th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Nothing makes me feel more uncomfortable than being in the presence of radical disbelievers whose prime mission in life is to tear apart the essence of Christian theology aggressively before all and sundry
Anon – I totally agree. Firstly, if somebody chooses to contribute to such a debate by way of presenting the religious “side” in a reasonable manner, then I believe that they should not be subject to gratuitous ridicule.
They are almost invariably folks who are bitterly disillusioned. The turn around from ingrained faith to disbelief was quite abrupt and clearly very unsettling.
And I guess the same works in reverse; as they say…”there’s none so irritatingly pius as the converted”.
How could I possibly agree with the wicked Dawkins? It never occurs to them to *dip their toe in and test the water* on my views before assuming my certain concurrence and then uninhibitedly spouting vehement hatred.
An unfortunate position to be in. I only until recently paid anything other than cursory attention to the writings of Stephen Jay Gould, and I am now a great supporter of his views. To me (at least) he seems to be saying “I am a scientist and the only religious dogma I will hold as a truth is that which is also (or is proven to be) science”. Now, there’s a guy with a sound perspective, in my opinion. And he elegantly acommodates the religious types.
What purpose is served by bulldozing in and upsetting, undermining and challenging people’s beliefs?
Well, none, in my view; if nothing else, respect for the beliefs and values of others comes into play. Though I accept that if someone’s beliefs infringe upon my own space or freedoms, then I would get upset. Of course, topics such as this one on LV will always being out the worst in both “sides”.
As opposed to your own interpretation, Darwin, it seems to me, and based on all I have read, appears to be an atheist sensu stricto at least, if not sensu lato (Randall hates Latin tags!).
Firstly, I love Latin tags – but, then, I’m the product of a solid Catholic education and still like to read Ancient Roman histories/stories etc. Randall, e contra, apparently leans more towards the Ancient Greeks.
As for Darwin, my original comment to you probably sounded a little harsh; which was not what was intended. I have to confess to not having read much of Darwin’s actual works in the original, though I have read derivative works and a biography. In terms of what he, himself, stated, he was not an atheist but an agnostic. However, he was – as you will know – a genteel type of person and possibly had his own reasons for not wanting to admit even to himself that he might actually be an atheist. His wife’s sensibilities probably come into this, as well as his own upbringing (not to say, his daughter’s demise, as you mentioned).
So, reading your comments, I guess we agree on this one. And, why not…
Coincidentally, I came across this last weekend :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4772296.ece
Re your comments on Alfred Russel Wallace; if I remember correctly, didn’t Darwin actually offer to wait for Wallace to publish his own work before publishing his own? If so…what a guy!
I sincerely trust you didn’t take my *demonisation* of Darwin higher up the thread to be in any way part of my own personal thinking! I was painting him, in slightly exaggerated form agreed, as extreme Creationists can do.
Of course not. Looking back, I can see your intent.
Indeed, I find it repulsive that a BBC programme, Great Britons, which placed Churchill at the head, apparently had Princess Diana voted into third place – above Darwin, Newton, Shakespeare, Thomas More, Queen Elizabeth I, Keats, Elgar, Arthur Wellsley, Captain Cook
Yes, I said the same to my wife. And, as everybody knows, Johnny Haynes is the greatest Briton
Seriously though, I’m a Newton fanboy; he’d top the list for me. Then Shakespeare. Third would be the ITV Controller (name unknown) who took that bloody Cilla Black off of the box a few years back!
On the point of most religions *officially* accepting and incorporating evolution, this is perfectly true. However I don’t have the slightest doubt that many we know from those religions (even in the UK) cannot and do not accept the principle of common decent
Undoubtedly true. As the great Pliny wisely stated : Multi famam, conscientiam pauci verentur !
September 25th, 2008 at 8:06 am
kiwiboi:
“I love Latin tags – but, then, I’m the product of a solid Catholic education and still like to read Ancient Roman histories/stories etc. Randall, e contra, apparently leans more towards the Ancient Greeks.”
You betchyer ass, I do, kiwi-boy.
per aspera ad astra, baby! (irony is neat isn’t it?) The Greeks were leading us there. The Romans, on the other hand, had no talent for science and little talent for poetry. They were great engineers and administrators is all. Therein we see the never-ending tug-of-war in our natures.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Absolutely not.
We shouldnt pollute the minds of our children any more. They do not deserve to be taught ignorance.
If a child wishes to learn creationism, then they have sunday to attend church and learn it there.
But in public schools? No, that would be sacrilage.
September 25th, 2008 at 9:38 am
kiwiboi,
Gorra lorra respect fer yew now! All I can say is ‘Blind Date’ looks pure gold besides a lot of the pukey *Reality* crap they push out here in Chile nowadays! Ah, nostalgia rules OK.
I think we should stay off soccer. I’d hate to see blood spilt over who was/is the greatest Brit. (Beckham, no!). But if so, my own would be Stan Mathews. On several occasions I was lucky enough to get to witness the Great Man in the flesh mesmerising several of our full backs like rabbits before a snake, and from the touchline barrier to boot! Bloody Stoke refused to sell him to Charlton when he was sought out by our great Jimmy Seed. Ah yes, and I’d nominate Sammy Bartram as well, the finest goalie never to have been seriously selected for England.
However, avoiding soccer, my nomination would be Jack Hobbs, with W.G. as second string.
The full relationship between Darwin and Wallace is not widely known. Cognoscenti have tended to become very partisan in modern times.
Firstly, from memory, I believe Darwin’s preference was for a joint publication. He possibly, subconsciously at least, felt that would help to divert some flak from him. Wallace was a much tougher cookie and accomplished loner. However, Darwin’s advocates, above all Huxley, ultimately persuaded him that his much earlier recognition of common descent, and long development of the subject, together with his mass of accumulated data, gave him a clear and moral lead. He himself wrote, “I should far rather burn my whole book than any man shd think I had behaved in a paltry spirit.”
For his part, despite being pushed onto a back-seat, Wallace bore no resentment, virtually worshipped Darwin, and the two remained firm friends until the end of their days, communicating from time to time.
To put icing on the cake, unlike the Darwin camp, Wallace came from a humble background and suffered a series of financial misfortunes (such as loss of a large number specimens for sale and unfortunate investment advice more than once). At one time he was quite near scraping the bottom of the barrel. Knowing this, Darwin, Huxley and the rest arranged with their government cronies for Wallace to receive a very comfortable annual life pension. That is incredibly touching. (Oh, that someone would do the same for me!)
September 25th, 2008 at 9:43 am
For all you who so vehemently object to creationism on the basis that science is so rock solid that anything they say must be truth and fact…I feel sorry for you. If the Bible were just stories and fictional, why then hasn’t there been anything to disprove any part of it. In fact, everything you claim as fact to support evolution is so off basis. Just as a quick example because I don’t have much time, I’ve never heard any good scientific explanation as to why they find fossils of petrified trees extending through the different layers of the earth that are “SUPPOSEDLY” millions and millions and millions and millions of years old. So I guess that was just one old freaking tree that petrified slowly as the earth aged. And why was the amount of dust on the moon directly in line with the age that creationism advocates. I don’t know about you, but to me there is just more pointing toward an intelligent design rather than some random chance that matter collected (from nothing mind you) and then bang, the earth was there. Then over some unfathomable amount of time, some magical organism developed out of inorganic rock and just mutated into everything that we see around us. Now, if you can teach that to your kids and say that you aren’t filling their minds with garbage, you have issues. But that’s all I’m going to say because I’m bordering the rule about preaching, but so is everyone else.
Yes, the it should be taught as absolute fact and truth. It may help with the way things are going. Reinstill moral values in our kids.
September 25th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Randall,
As botanists, our main genus of study derives from Greek and pre-Greek common useage. Our secondary genus is a splendid and imaginative concoction by Linnaeus from a branch of relevant technical Latin terminology. We would as gladly employ argyrophylla or haematanthos as specific epithets as pulchellum or citrina. I guess we get the best of both worlds combined mongrelly (although ne’er the twain must mix in combinations)!
September 25th, 2008 at 10:08 am
I don’t believe in any particular religion, but I can’t help but laugh at the people suggesting to “not teach the lies of creation, but only the facts of evolution.”
Do you realize we don’t have ‘facts’? We don’t have proof, it doesn’t exist. It’s a theory. Many students I’ve talked to don’t even know the first thing about evolution. They just walk around thinking “someone could prove it if I asked, I just don’t feel like asking”.
It’s not like math, which can be proved – as most seem to think. There is no proof. And the theories swing wildly from side to side. Would you like a fairy tale? Read some of the suggestions about how life started on this earth. I promise you it is no more believable than creationism.
Heres a popular one, it goes roughly along the lines of “A random object randomly collided in a random atmosphere, at the right random time, with random gases involved, and randomly started a reaction, which randomly lead to an organism, which randomly was able to live off the random environment, and randomly was about to randomly evolve into another slightly-similar-random organism… oh, but we don’t have proof of macro-evolution, so this random event happened a random number of times to randomly create all the different species we currently have… oh, which all randomly live in perfect harmony ..randomly.. with each other…”
You look at a fork and say “created”, and then look at a human body and say “random chance”.
Please, everyone just do some research. REALLY read into the theory of evolution before you start sucking it all up as fact. There are other options out there, and they may not be too far past evolution in the “never in a million years” category.
Remember kids – just because your science teacher told it to you, doesn’t mean it’s true!
September 25th, 2008 at 10:27 am
juststories:
Talk about an ironic choice for a moniker…
“If the Bible were just stories and fictional, why then hasn’t there been anything to disprove any part of it.”
Do you know the first thing about science, “juststories” and the idea of Burden of Proof? It isn’t the job of science to go around disproving the mystical. No matter what evidence, thoroughly-illustrated proofs, theories, and laws science could raise, YOU and YOUR kind could simply say, “well god can negate all that and do as he likes.”
If, however, you don’t employ that old, wheezy trick, then much that the Bible says happened can be disproved. Various physical laws can be brought up to show that it was impossible for Joshua to cause the earth to stand still, for instance.
The Bible, however, actually says very little that can be addressed scientifically. In the broad sense, yes–it says god created the earth in six days, yadda yadda yadda… but there really isn’t much of a SPECIFIC nature that science can deal with. What it comes down to, in fact, is INTERPRETATION. SOME people want to interpret the Bible literally, and thus say that god really DID create everything in six days. Others say that’s simple myth-making and/or is metaphorical or what have you. Science can only say that physical laws say otherwise, and we have sound theories for how the universe and life on earth DID come about.
“In fact, everything you claim as fact to support evolution is so off basis.”
You have not the slightest shred of evidence to support such a statement. You are merely saying it in order to have something to say. You’re grossly wrong, however, and are clearly scientifically illiterate.
“Just as a quick example because I don’t have much time, I’ve never heard any good scientific explanation as to why they find fossils of petrified trees extending through the different layers of the earth that are “SUPPOSEDLY” millions and millions and millions and millions of years old.”
Do you have the slightest notion of how fossilization works? Clearly not, or you wouldn’t ask such an unbelievably retarded question–LET ALONE then state you’ve never heard a good scientific answer for it, which is itself patently absurd. At any rate, this one’s so simple I can’t believe I even have to waste my time on it:
To begin with, these are never whole trees, but stumps or partial trunks. Now then. Let us say we have a tree, and just for fun let’s say it is covered over by a landslide or by volcanic deposition. (Can you follow the big words, “juststories?”) That tree needn’t begin fossilization immediately. It could even survive if only partially covered at first. The sediment AROUND it does not fossilize—it simply lithifies in time due to pressure and other mechanics. At any rate, our tree might be killed eventually… but it could conceivably remain upright and then be covered over by later, continuing deposits of sediment. Under the right conditions (and lithification does require very specific conditions–that’s why fossils are rare) our tree will become a fossil, lithified… or “petrified” as we say. Now, in the case you raise, it simply could show a localized, rapid sedementation. Happens all the time, there’s evidence for it in many spots–but it is NOT the rule, and in fact most sedimentation is far slower. The mere fact that it occasionally happens faster does not prove a young earth AT ALL. It is simply an exception to a general rule, and the far more general rule is that sedimentation is slower–and there IS proof of this.
Surprisingly, all of this only takes a little brain power, a little willingness to THINK, “juststories.” If you would employ that god-given brain of yours to do said thinking from time to time, you’d find these simple answers yourself rather than forcing strangers on the internet to show off their own brains and knowledge to your detriment.
“And why was the amount of dust on the moon directly in line with the age that creationism advocates.”
This is an oldie that’s long since been debunked and was NEVER correct in the first place. I’m really getting angry now… instead of being an ignorant idiot, “juststories,” how about looking up answers for yourself?
The FACT is that the dust (we in the sciences call it regolith) on the moon IS NOT of an amount that is in line with creationism. The moon’s dust layer is actually IMMENSELY THICK. But what creationists, who are generally morons OR expect others to be morons, have asked, “well if the moon dust has been piling up for billions of years it must be very thick, but the Apollo spacecraft only sank in a few centimeters and the astronauts even said it was only a few inches thick! So the moon must be very young!”
As I said… morons.
Go to the beach, “juststories.” Now… stand in the sand. How far do you sink? With all the effort in the world (without actually digging) you sink but a few centimeters at most. And yet we know the sand is very deep, which is confirmed if you do dig.
Same goes for the moon. The FACT is that the regolith on the moon’s surface is VERY deep… but due to pressure from layer to layer, only the very top layers are loose enough to “sink into.” IN FACT, the thickness of the regolith is ENTIRELY in keeping with a notion of a 4.5 billion year old moon.
“I don’t know about you, but to me there is just more pointing toward an intelligent design rather than some random chance that matter collected (from nothing mind you)”
No, wrong… nobody says it was from “nothing.” Again–you clearly know ZIP about basic science. I am not further inclined to educate you when you could take the goddamn time to go poke through some books and find the correct answers yourself. But like all creationist followers, the truth is you don’t WANT to find out for yourself. You simply want your bigotry confirmed.
“Then over some unfathomable amount of time, some magical organism developed out of inorganic rock”
Again, NO… WRONG. It was not out of “inorganic rock.” It was out of ORGANIC material.
“Now, if you can teach that to your kids and say that you aren’t filling their minds with garbage, you have issues.”
Rather, it’s the contrary, “juststories.” If you can teach your kids a fairy tale WITH NO BASIS IN SCIENCE, then you are doing them harm AND, yes, filling their minds with garbage. You are condemning them to a life of barbaric ignorance. Proud? I’d say you should be ashamed.
“Yes, the it should be taught as absolute fact and truth.”
Why, when there is not the slightest scientific evidence to support it? Is our culture to be about SCIENCE, “juststories,” or BARBARIC IGNORANCE? Thank god you and your kind AREN’T the ones to decide that question.
“It may help with the way things are going. Reinstill moral values in our kids.”
Ah yes… by leaving them ignorant fools for whom science is an enemy. Yeah, that’ll help. Ignorance always made socities better, didn’t it? (In fact, just the opposite. Ignorant societies are doomed to failure and inevitably were also filled with terror, injustice, and misery).
September 25th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Uli:
“Please, everyone just do some research. REALLY read into the theory of evolution before you start sucking it all up as fact.”
Physician heal thyself, Uli. You CLEARLY have NOT done ONE IOTA of research about evolution—you have clearly simply read creationist nonsense and pretended that you “researched” the question. I suggest YOU “really read into the theory of evolution” — by actually reading things written by scientists who are expert in it—rather than simply swallowing religious bias and then claiming you “know” enough to lecture others.
All this is illustrated by your illiterate repetition of the old line that “evolution is just a theory!” Implying that theories are just ideas with no support, and mean nothing until proven the way a mathematical theorem is proven. When of course this is nonsense and totally inaccurate, and it is simply dead wrong to compare mathematic “proof” to scientific “proof,” the two being apples, on one hand, and oranges on the other. Scientific theories are proven by overwhelming and/or mounting evidence, experimentation, and empirical study or observation. We have exactly such an overwhelming quantity of evidence for evolution—as we have for other “theories,” like the “theory” of gravity and the “theory” of celestial mechanics—which governs how physical bodies move in space and affect one another.
Off your soapbox, Uli. If you’re going to hop on one, I suggest you come better prepared rather than assume the rest of us numbskulls who will simply buy your nonsense.
September 25th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
You’ll like this one Anon
September 25th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
kiwiboi,
Hahahahaha. Where do you folks find these wonders? Singularly appropriate at this very moment in time, I should say. Even as an atheist I’d prefer to put my trust in the Almighty rather than Dubya (failing Darwin)!!!!
September 25th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Glad to see two more intimidating eggheads (Juststories and Uli) full of carefully thought out and tightly argued detail lining up behind the teaching of creationism. The clan is gathering (but WHAT is it gathering?, you may ask. Answer: wool-gathering).
I’m beginning to perceive a new creative option: S.D. (Stupid Design). What we read here surely indicates that life is indeed, as evolution suggests, a lottery of trial and error, and in no scientific way supports I.D., wherein we should presumably all be turned out as Einsteins and the like.
If these brainchildren are indeed the products of the existing teaching of creationism, it appears to me the debate should take a new turn. Does it mean creationism is unteachable, and thus this topic is totally redundant? Or does it indicate a crying need to teach creationism to bring some of these people up to a minimum standard of intellectual competence in defending it?
September 25th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
517. Anon
hmmmm, (509)
“one of my thoughts also is if we chnged from mokeys to humans, then why are there still monkeys!!!??? if we evolved from them, then why are they still here and not turned into humans?”
**Go away and take a few elementary biology lessons and then come back to this site.
****
**510. segue
509. hmm…If birds came from lizards, then why dont we ever see any bird/lizard fossils?
**Pterosaurs (pronounced /ˈtɛrəsɔr/, from the Greek πτερόσαυρος, pterosauros, meaning “winged lizard”, often referred to as pterodactyls, from the Greek πτεροδάκτυλος, pterodaktulos, meaning “winged finger” /ˌtɛrəˈdæktɨl/) were flying reptiles of the clade or order Pterosauria.
****
Anon, this one was too easy *NOT* to answer! Of course, I could have chosen any of perhaps 6 or 8 off the top of my head, but this one popped into my brain first, so I used it.
I gave my answer to this question hundreds of posts ago, and have been following it ever since. No one has budged an inch on either side. Odder, new voices have been added, voices who have obviously not bothered to read any of the older posts, because they have restated the exact same argument, almost word for word!
I don’t mind others having a different point of view, I just wish they’d be original about it, not parroting some hand-outs. I admire an intelligent difference of opinion. There are a few here who fit the bill, but they are in a sad minority.
–
September 25th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Australian banknotes don’t have God or Darwin. Where does that leave us?
September 25th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Hi segue, (534),
Surely no more than proving S.D. over I.D.?
I have nasty, sneaking suspicion however that if S.D. triumphs in any species, that species goes extinct.
Ah, yes, a whole new can of wriggly worms for this topic. Extinction.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
astraya, (435),
Down under?
September 25th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Chilly?
September 25th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Come December we might even get Father Christmas popping in here with his 2 kurus worth (I’m assuming St Nicholas as Turkish) straight from the flying sledge.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Con carne
September 25th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Noooooooo! I thought it was over! After railing against the mouth-breathers who continue to vomit forth the tired rhetoric that ‘evolution iz just a theery an that’, more crawl out of the woodwork. It’s too boring to repeat. For any creationists who want to post here, please read the above posts in order to differentiate theory, fact and guess.
Randall: Well said! I am not expecting a reply from ‘juststories’. Confront one of these science-phobic creeps with actual science and they run off. One thing I have noticed though, and I’m not going to go into the science of evolution as Randall and Anon have so eloquently explained (falling on deaf ears though, I suspect), is that there is a rather delicious paradox that crops up whenever creationists try and attack evolution.
First of all is the double standard of science. Again and again creationists will shove supposed scientific data (and I use this term loosely here) in Evolutionary Biologists’ faces and say ‘LOOK AT THIS, PROOF!!!’. The century and a half of evolutionary evidence that has been collected by biologists is totally dismissed, yet in the same breath ANYTHING that can be interpreted (usually sourced from Creation Science advocates) as scientific evidence that works against evolution is paraded around like the Ark of the Covenant. A true pseudo-scientist operates in this fashion; collecting evidence that helps their case, and dismissing infinitely stronger evidence that contradicts their case.
Secondly, it is the concept of faith. Time and time again creationists point to the inconceivability of evolution. They attack it for being unrealistic, for going against all logical concepts. They dismiss it because according to them, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creationism…WHAT?! These are the people for whom faith is the foundation of their existence! They pride themselves on having unshakable faith in a creator, and then attack evolution for supposedly asking the same of them (yes, to thinking people evolution is not a matter of faith, but bear with me:) Why then is there this double standard? Do creationists agree with having faith, or do they laugh in the face of faith? Which one is it folks?
September 25th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Anon: I have never understood why Australia is “down under”, compared to, say, S Afr, NZ, Chile or Argentina. Of course, from where I stood on a regular basis during childhood, Australia was “on top” and everyone else was “down under”.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
yes, it’s the “theory” of evolution, as in “never been proven” yet it is taught as fact, at least explore the other theories. just another reason we’re homeschooling our kids, I don’t trust public schools to get it right
September 25th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
smurfygirl: AGAIN someone confuses what a theory is! Get it straight. Evolution happened. Organisms mutate over time, they change, and their biological makeup is passed onto their descendants. This is a fact that HAS BEEN PROVEN, both through the fossil record and through direct observation. It has been accepted by the scientific community for over 150 years. The THEORY, that is the mechanism that explains and interprets evolution, is natural selection.
I feel sorry for your children. You are obviously completely misguided about even the most basic of scientific concepts.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/09/25/universe-dark-flow.html?dcitc=w01-101-ae-0002
This might not be apropos to the subject at hand, but maybe it is.
My “theory” is that God is sucking our universe through a cosmic straw. I would provide biblical verses supporting this, but a dinosaur ate my bible.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
And while I’m here, what’s up with that drawing at the top? That chick seems to be enjoying whatever it is that guy is giving her.
Looks like Timothy Leary did some cover art for a XXX romance novel.
September 25th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
logar:
Your ‘theory’ is soooo wrong. Everyone knows that God doesn’t even need a straw, ok? All God is doing is giving the Universe a cosmic hickey, alright? Geez, after all, I know this to be true, and your ‘cosmic straw’ is just a ‘theory’. I think all theories that explain why God is sucking the universe should be taught, ok? Everyone should choose. Geez, what a stupid idea, God sucking the universe with a straw. You un-believer.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Oxford Dictionary definitions p.p. as relevant to this topic:
“theory, (n.) … Exposition of the principles of a science (often … independent of the phenomena to be explained); collection of results designed to illustrate principles of a subject …”
“hypothesis, (n.) Supposition made as basis for reasoning … or as starting point for investigation …”
“belief, (n.) “… thing believed, religion, opinion, intuition …”
O.K.? Got those straight, have we?
September 26th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Yeah but evolution is still only a theory:P
September 26th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Australian banknotes don’t have God or Darwin. Where does that leave us?
astraya – with Kylie or Rodney Rude
September 26th, 2008 at 1:05 am
The Greeks were leading us there. The Romans, on the other hand, had no talent for science and little talent for poetry. They were great engineers and administrators is all. Therein we see the never-ending tug-of-war in our natures.
Randall : As a response, let me share this philosophical gem that I found this on the ‘net a few weeks ago :
A Greek and an Italian were sitting down one day debating who had the superior culture.
The Greek says, “We have the Parthenon.”
The Italian says, “We have the Coliseum.”
The Greek says, “We had great mathematicians.”
The Italian says, “We had the Roman Empire.”
And so on and so on for hours.
Finally the Greek has a spark of inspiration and says , “We invented sex.”
The Italian nods slowly, then replies, “That is true, you did invent sex, but it was Italians who introduced it to women.”
September 26th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Seriously, though, Randall, I have no argument with what you say about the Greeks. It’s a matter of preference.
The Romans were utilitarian, and were happy to borrow from the Greeks or the Gauls or whoever; if the Spaniards had a better sword, you betcha life that the next time you confronted a Roman Legion, they would be armed with Spanish swords. And, of course, the same goes for much in the way of literature, art, architecture etc. etc.
Moreover, the Romans had no compunction about doing it. And this is, in no small part, one of the reasons I am so taken with them.
I think, too, that there was a nationalistic cohesion about the Roman Empire that is also attractive – it had Rome as an obvious epicenter. The Greeks, on the other hand, were somewhat more geographically and historically disparate – not a negative factor, of course, as this likely accounted for much of the diversity and richness of Greek culture.
In any event, my comments here about the Greeks could be way off base; they are based largely on what I’ve read; regrettably, I’ve never studied the Greeks in any meaningful or formal manner.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:05 am
Matt Howard & logar:
The Great Cosmic Blow Job, perhaps?
September 26th, 2008 at 5:26 am
kiwiboi:
The joke was funny—even as it made my blood boil.
“…the same goes for much in the way of literature, art, architecture etc. etc.”
Which is just it; the Romans were borrowers, appropriators. They were not as good at actually creating things on their own.
But really, my dislike for the Romans runs more to their philosophy of life, as it were. And my feelings on this can be summed up in two ways, as to why I prefer the Greeks vastly over the Romans (or anyone else for that matter):
1) There’s that scene in Zorba The Greek, where, you know, the mine has failed, the sluices have fallen, everything’s destroyed, the business is ruined. And the narrator says this to Zorba—in essence, he gives Zorba a run-down of all the ills they face now–and I don’t recall the exact words, but it might as well have been, “the business is ruined, the house has burned down, the dog died, my wife has left me… what do we do now?”… that kind of thing… and what does Zorba say, in response?
“We are Greeks! We dance!”
Okay? Do you get me?
Then, in “The Greek Way” or “The Echo of Greece”—I can’t remember which one now—I think it was “The Greek Way”—Edith Hamilton illustrates just one major point of difference between the Greeks and the Romans, starting from the famous poem by… now I’ve forgotten… anyway, it was a Greek… Archilochus or some such name, I can’t remember. Anyway, the poem is about how, while fighting barbarians during an attempt at colonization, the poet had to run away (lest he be killed) and leave his beautiful new shield under a tree, which one of the barbarian enemy had picked up and was waving in triumph. The Greek poet’s attitude towards this? “Oh well. I saved my skin. I can buy a new shield, just as good.”
Now, Edith pointed out that a Roman, of course, never would have said that. The Romans, blood-drenched and rigidly honor-ridden as they were, said that it was sweet to die for one’s country. But the Greeks, Edith said, didn’t think it was sweet to die for anything.
In short, they (the Greeks) were realists and were having none of the nonsense the Romans trucked in, who were more naive and rigid of mind. The Romans made a sport of death and violence and gore—which the Greeks would have found repugnant. The Egyptians, the Persians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians–and the Romans too—all the ancient peoples leaned more to the death instinct, and followed the path to despotism–even the Romans turned this way despite their dalliance with Republic and liberty. But never the Greeks. The Greeks were all about the life instinct. What mattered to them was beauty, thought, pleasure, and the sublime subtleties and moderations of life. Subtlety and moderation were concepts totally lacking in other ancient cultures, and even the Romans didn’t totally get them.
“I think, too, that there was a nationalistic cohesion about the Roman Empire that is also attractive – it had Rome as an obvious epicenter.”
I never find nationalism of any sort attractive, I’m afraid. To me it’s one of the chief enemies of civlization. I see what you’re saying in regards to the Romans–they were superior in this sense, to the Greeks—that they could maintain unity over a vast empire, whereas the Greek city states couldn’t get along long enough to hold together small leagues and alliances. I agree that that petty bickering of the Greeks was a flaw in their character, and certainly led to their downfall. On the other hand, it is exemplary of the basic belief in independence and liberty that the Greeks had–they ever wanted to be their own masters, not hand power over to a centralized authority. They would find our modern nation-states hard to swallow, as entities. Even for all our democracy, they wouldn’t like it. Whereas the Romans, I’m sure, would be deeply impressed by the British Empire and the Pax Americana, and feel right at home in each.
“The Greeks, on the other hand, were somewhat more geographically and historically disparate – not a negative factor, of course, as this likely accounted for much of the diversity and richness of Greek culture.”
Right… a product of the Greek geography, as you say. The sea was the unifier in Greece, not the land.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:29 am
Has anyone of you people heard of Entropy?
Its a proven fact.
If I have a stack of cards, half black and half red and shuffled them until I died, and then 100 generations after me did the same, you’ll never get the cards back into order.
If I have a jar of just two differnt types of sand and they were in an ordered layer and then shook them, for 200 million years, I would never get them into order.
But, this is essentially what evolutionist and “Big Bang” theorist would have our school kids to believe.
The base conditions of life cannot be replicated in a lab and Carbon Dating is so flawed that I would have more trust in schools teaching about unicorns than an insanly unlikely idea that we came from apes (and no, there is no positive proof, just a convenient “missing link”) and that a random spark for no reason at all blew up and created a universe so beyond our comprehension that we as humans have made up our own idea to erase accountability.
Please, become informed on these to ideas before you assume this highly complex AND organized universe camse from random ideas and circumstances. In the end here, BOTH “theories” require a huge deal of faith…
September 26th, 2008 at 6:49 am
oh dear….i sigh deeply
September 26th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Randall – interesting points on the Greeks. You know, the very things that you refer to as typifying the Greek attitude to life etc. are surely the same factors that so “endeared” them to the Romans – maybe they recognised the Greek joie de vivre as something they knew – and regretted – was not in their own make-up? Who knows.
I think, also, some of the very factors that deter some people from any sense of empathy/identification with the Romans are possibly the same things that make them fascinating to me; I have a very broad appreciation of literature and the arts…but I can get just as much fascination with a well-oiled piece of machinery or an expertly-crafted set of financial accounts.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:00 am
iamscience:
First… change your name. It’s absurd. You AREN’T science, moron. You and your ilk are the farthest thing from it.
This is proven by your ridiculous and clumsy repetition of the old and fully-debunked creationist nonsense about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics (the source of the “argument” you bring up, but you weren’t even smart enough to cite it–most likely because you were unaware of it).
From just ONE web site that addresses your silliness:
“Here is the simple argument (that creationists make): A biological evolution that converts bacteria into humans, with an obvious increase of order and complexity, would violate the Second Law which says “things become more disordered through time, not more complex, as evolution insists.”
And here is why it’s wrong: The Second Law is not violated by either mutation or natural selection, which are the major actions in neo-Darwinian evolution. If an overall process of evolution is split into many small steps involving mutation followed by selection, each step is permitted by the second Law, and so is the overall process.”
For further detail and elucidation, go here:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/thermo.htm
The amusing thing about the crap you spew (actually it’s not amusing at all but is really quite disgusting in its ignorance) is how you exhort others to “become informed,” when YOU yourself are clearly so unschooled in basic science that you can’t even present ideas to support your beliefs that couldn’t be knocked down in less than a minute’s worth of my time.
Your ignorance is further proved by your other ridiculously wrong remarks, namely that:
“The base conditions of life cannot be replicated in a lab”
WRONG. In fact it’s an old an easy experiment to replicate–the production of organic compounds within a contained vessel.
“Carbon Dating is so flawed…”
And you offer not one shred of supporting evidence for this absurd statement—when in fact carbon dating is proven quite reliable, statistically—MOREOVER it is NOT the only form of radio-isotope dating used…
“insanly (sic) unlikely idea that we came from apes”
When in point of fact even the sparse hominid fossile record indicates a clear lineage–though of course you’re speaking clumsily, in that the idea is NOT that we “came from apes,” but that all of the great apes are primates, as are we, and we therefore share a common ancestor. If you’re going to mock science, “iamscience,” I suggest you use more precision, elsewise you come off sounding stupid even MORE quickly… oh, and as an aside–none of this is to further mention the extremely close genetic similarity between humans and our nearest relatives, chimpanzees—whom, again, we did NOT descend from, but are simply related to. We share, again, a common ancestor, going back several million years.
In short, “iamscience,” you’re an uninformed, close-minded bigot who actually hates science. We can only hope that in time your kind will go away forever. That is, if we have any hope for our civilization.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:04 am
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html
IAMSCIENCE: Read the above link. The entropy “problem” you bring up is so extensively debunked as to be laughable. Creationists, in their closed-minded worldview, take a flawed understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, then wrap it in metaphors that have nothing to do do with anything, and expect people to buy into it. Sorry to disillusion you, buddy.
As for the Big Bang theory… while it is not understood exactly why it happened, or even exactly how, there is solid evidence supporting it.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Creationists do not ever come up with evidence to support their “theory.” All they every try to do is try to throw seeds of doubt into rigorous scientific research by either ignoring or attempting to discredit evidence that has been observed, repeated, and interpreted in the most reasonable way.
I can come up with a myriad of evidence supporting evolution… Can you do the same with Genesis? Until then, keep it out of school.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:53 am
#536. Anon
Hi segue, (534),
Surely no more than proving S.D. over I.D.?
I have nasty, sneaking suspicion however that if S.D. triumphs in any species, that species goes extinct.
Ah, yes, a whole new can of wriggly worms for this topic. Extinction.
****
Well, if *THIS* proves no more than S.D. then so do all fossils?
I refuse to entertain that absurd idea for a sub-nanosecond.
Extinction, OTOH, is an ongoing and ever increasing disaster. Cause?
Mankind, as you well know, as you and I have discussed at length.
Speaking of extinction: Looks as if the American financial market, the free-market as we have known it, is headed for extinction within hours.
A Presidential campaign (with one candidate going into meltdown before our eyes), and a major financial crises all at once! Life is always interesting.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I love Randall so much. He’s such an angry guy. Just full of name calling and matter-of-fact speech. By the way, thanks for asking me to change my name, but since I am a scientist in real life, it kinda works well for me…argh, so fierce, lol.
Logar, I would invite you to look up a guy who is on your side named Rober Hazen, entropy is not debunked at all, in some ways it supports your idea, but in the end it proves complex systems cannot just randomly occur. That’s a fact and I gave 2 easy (compared to the idea of the complex nature of our universe and existence) examples. Imagine if I went into detail about the complex nature of sand and how these simple compound elements evolve into highly complex systems such as dune systems or even something as base as glass.
I never said i was for OR against the Creationism idea, but i love the assuming that evolutionist will go into when some one disagrees with them (right Randall?).
Alas, no ones mind here is going to be changed, there are so many holes in Evolution and a big bang theory that those “gaps” are easily overlooked to support your own theories.
The so called solid evidence your talking about is the heat in the galaxy as well as the expansion of our observable universe, so we MUST assume (yes assume) that it is all the result of an explosion.
If there were infact a true myriad of evidence, it would no longer be a theory, again, if Darwin was correct and there were a natural selection, then no doubt we would have evidence – but even 3 years ago the Smithsonian took down their evolution exibit due to “lack-of-evidence”. Evolution needs to explain the gaps in order for it to truly be fact, there would need to be a constant trend in the order and selection, in grad school, the real issue we encountered in this was that there should be strictly humans only OR strictly apes – and since we dont have an intermediary, we would need to evaluate if in our present day, if there are any apes that can make a conscience decision to re-arrage its make-up (something humans can’t even do) or alter its position in the chain for the better of its species (which is laughable that even developed humans have not gotten the grasp of yet).
Like it or not, again, both Creationism and evolution and the mystical big bang require faith, sorry to impart some fanciful nature on you, but as a scientist (though only of astronomy) even faith is needed at times.
I want to make one last example: Take a look at the clothes your wearing right now – is your shirt complex? How about your shoes, with the laces and the sole. How about your tie patterns and even your socks. Each and every one of those items came from a pattern. A designer sat down and thought how nice this type of pattern or this type of material would be for whatever specific item (lets stay with the shirt here) it was. As we all know the shirt didnt decide for itself what it was going to look like or how functional it was, there was a designer who drafted a bluprint, who sent it off to be “created” and from there you have this complex shirt, woven, colored, functional.
But would this shirt have been the same if a million tons of TnT were placed in the shirt factory and then blown up?
But a shirt compared to our nature is so simple!
How about if I walked into a printing press with a million tons of TnT & every letter of the alphabet and blew the TnT up? Think I would get an encyclopedia? This is essentialy, at its base concept what the “Big Bang” assumes.
Logar your statement – As for the Big Bang theory… while it is not understood exactly why it happened, or even exactly how, there is solid evidence supporting it – contradicts it self. If there is ample evidence (which there is not) then the gaps of understanding would be few and far between. We understand why cars move, its a fact – therefore there is solid eveidence we can re-create cars in multiple environments.
Take care guys and please, especially my pal Randall, stop being so angry! So what millions of people disagree with you AND me, its an opinion you guys hold and good job for you. But still, the evidence is lacking…but until you really can come up with this “myriad” of evidence, keep it out of school as well.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:17 am
“iamscience”:
I see now. You claim to be a scientist.
I have one simple answer to that claim. Bullshit.
Without (once again) describing my own qualifications, I shall again make it known that I certainly have the credentials to back up my statements. Moreover, I work at a MAJOR and VERY LARGE university and know MANY scientists from a multitude of disciplines–including some very close friends (and a former girlfriend or two) AND including those who are qualified, credentialed experts in various biological sciences.
Now… in short, “iamscience,” you are no scientist. You don’t speak like one, you don’t write like one, you don’t act like one, and it’s evident you don’t think like one. If you DO possess some sort of degree in the sciences (which I highly doubt) it’s almost certain it’s from some low-class, fifth-rate (if that) institution… but as I say, I find even this to be frankly unlikely.
The fact is that people of higher education–particularly those who have specialized and followed the sort of professional path in the sciences as, say, friends of mine have, or Slickwilly (Listuniverse contributor) has—the fact is that such people invariably express themselves both thoughtfully and reasonably, and certainly with intelligence, wit, and erudition. This is true not only of those in the sciences, but of others of us who have gone far in the world of higher education, such as Jamie Frater, the manager of this site, his brother kiwiboi, and (he says immodestly) myself—as well as others here (segue, anon, astraya, etc.) I don’t know all the credentials of these people, but I know them from how they express themselves.
You, however, reflect NONE of these qualities and factors that would for a moment suggest that you are being truthful in your statement.
Rather, what you come off as, clearly, is a barely-literate loudmouth who has indulged in some perfunctory “research” (of a very poor nature) to further his own limited, dogmatic notions and conclusions. Undoubtedly a layman who is trying to make himself sound important and authoritative, because he knows he’s losing an argument with people that he can’t fool.
September 26th, 2008 at 11:03 am
IAMSCIENCE:
“Logar, I would invite you to look up a guy who is on your side named Rober Hazen, entropy is not debunked at all, in some ways it supports your idea, but in the end it proves complex systems cannot just randomly occur.”
Read my post again. I never said that entropy has been debunked, but rather the fallacious use of entropy as an argument against evolution. Did you read my link?
“I want to make one last example:….”
You again prove my point. You use an example that has nothing to do with entropy or the second law. From Talkorgins.com
“Failure to understand that in thermodynamics probabilities are not fixed entities has led to a misinterpretation that is responsible for the wide- spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks.
Thermodynamics is an exact science that is based on a limited number of specific mathematical concepts. It is not explainable in terms of qualitative metaphors. In order to understand the relationship between probability and the second law, the reader must be familiar with the relationship between probability and entropy. Entropy is a mathematically defined entity which is the fundamental basis of the second law of thermodynamics and all of its engineering and physical chemistry ramifications.”
Pretty please, IAMSCIENCE, educate yourself, and quit using foolish “examples” that have no application to the subject at hand, let alone the subject on which you purport to speak.
Your insistence that only case-hardened facts be taught in school would pretty much rule out virtually everything from History to Science. All we can teach is the best theory that we have at the moment, and leave out religious dogma.
Your understanding of the Big Bang theory leads me to believe that you are not, in fact, an astronomer at all. First off, there are dozens of variants. None of which, that I am aware of, involve a huge explosion spitting out planets, encyclopedias, or shirts- or any other complex system for that matter. Do I need to go into with you? At some point most basic atoms formed, mostly hydrogen, with some helium and others. If you are curious about how heaver elements were formed, or about astronomy in general, IAMSCIENCE, I recommend this site:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=345
Who here ever said that the Big Bang theory is a fact? Nowhere do I contradict myself. My argument is that, although there are some aspects that remain unexplained, the Big Bang theory is the best we have, as far as I can tell, and is supported by observational evidence (for example, cosmic background radiation), and soon- experimental evidence. We don’t know what gravity is exactly, or its mechanics, but that doesn’t mean we can’t teach it.
As for your not taking one side or the other… if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck….
September 26th, 2008 at 11:33 am
“iamscience”:
I had entirely missed that you were (apparently) claiming to be an astronomer, and only caught note of it while reading logar’s reply to you.
This is even MORE absurd. I’d be willing to bet MONEY that I have a far greater claim to calling myself an astronomer than YOU do, given the fact that A) I was schooled in it, B) I actually WORK as an astronomer part-time at a local observatory and planetarium and C) have actually written on the topic at various times in the past, and had those writings published.
Whereas YOU, again, do NOT speak or write in ANY way like an astronomer, scientist, or scholar. The very fact that you clearly don’t even understand the proper application of the second law of thermodynamics indicates that you are none of these things and certainly don’t deserve the title, regardless of whatever slim justification you may have for claiming to be one of them.
Of course, one may also point out that even if there were some justification to you calling yourself an “astronomer,” (though again I hasten to point out that I do not for a moment believe you *are* one, in fact) being one does NOT qualify you in the least to speak on matters in the biological sciences. Certainly not in the manner of challenging basic and VERY well established tenets of that science.
REAL scholars and scientists are never that arrogant, blockheaded, or clumsy in the dissemination of their opinions.
Your arguments, such as they are, are the worst kind of half-baked, less-than-half truths, distortions, and smoke-and-mirror examples of the typical kinds of creationist tricks. Bottom line of which is, you fail to believe that complexity can issue from simplicity. But while blowing hot air right and left about this, you offer not ONE slice of actual evidence that supports your belief (or lack thereof).
September 26th, 2008 at 11:35 am
sorry, should be “heavier” elements
September 26th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Randall, maybe what iamscience meant to say was “AstroLOGY” not “AstroNOMY.”
Would make more sense, given the content of his posts.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Science teaches theories that have been usually supported with reliable evidence. Religion teaches stories that primitive man made up when they still thought that the sun revolved around the Earth.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
logar:
Agreed, yes.
September 26th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
segue, (560),
Ah, I by no means intended that S.D. was the ONLY cause of extinction. Far from it. Bad luck has been vastly underplayed by natural science commentators. For example, being a (highly successful) endemic species of Krakatoa, or a very geographically limited species in a meteorite strike-path, or falling victim to the immigration of a voracious new predator, or to be unfortunate enough to be around during a major extinction event, and so on, and so on.
Mankind just happens to be the looming major extinction event of the moment. Unlike previous such happenings, we are eliminating or locking away the refugios and destroying or cutting off the natural re-establishment pathways that much (wingless and unwinged-seeded) life traditionally requires to re-establish by adaptive radiation after such a trauma passes. That is the big current difference. The liklihood, assuming our continued presence when things settle down, is that only organisms which can thumb their noses at us, particularly pest species, will continue to evolve with full vigour after vulnerable life forms have succumbed to our explosive populating, exploitation and pollution of the blue planet.
Nevertheless, returning to the lesser contributory factor of S.D., it has been noticed that sets of rather wierd, quite primitive fossils have evidently died out quickly for no obvious reason. Some have suggested these are *failed trial species*, rather like prototype machines that never make it to the healthy production stage. Their similars surely exist today as well, but S.D. is too harsh a label by far for me to stick on the likes of totally adorable beasts like the panda and the koala (or indeed the *Alice in Wonderland* dodo). The two former have condemned themselves to spend virtually all their waking days chewing and trying to digest essentially indigestible fibrous vegetation almost lacking nutritional value. It’s a wonder they still find time and energy for nookie (an indispensible necessity for continuation of the species!). What is worst, their diet is so critically limited that should their few chosen species go extinct, so would they. But my preferred label for them would be E.D. (Eccentric Design).
Instead I would reserve S.D. exclusively for creatures with an immense innate capacity for intelligence, but which behave and think stupidly, and also post stupidly on the internet. Know what I mean?
September 26th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
569. Anon…Instead I would reserve S.D. exclusively for creatures with an immense innate capacity for intelligence, but which behave and think stupidly, and also post stupidly on the internet. Know what I mean?
****
Sic ut, amica
September 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Iamscience, (and the rest of you thinkalikes),
RUreallyscience?
A few thoughts in deliberately homespun mode that may perhaps make sense to the non-technical reader.
Right, we don’t have enough proof for evolution? How much do we need? A wee bit more? A lot more? Or every single minute link and branch from the first twitch of life on the planet to Einstein? (For sure, even then creationists would still buck their way out. They have to, or abandon their faith. They’ve placed themselves in that extreme, inflexible position.)
The fact is we never will. You know that. I know that. Every scientist knows that. So does every creationist, which is why it remains their favourite *weapon*. Each fossil we get is a lucky strike.
Despite much overwhelming, solid, circumstantial evidence as to how the process functions, full speciation is not going to evolve before our eyes during the earthly tenancy of Mankind either. Not, that is, unless science finds some hitherto unknown artifical way of speeding up the reproductive process beyond belief. Creationists wouldn’t accept that either. They’d simply call it *artificial*. What else? Our best shots are to simulate the incredibly complex process as best we can by computer programmes, and piece together from past evidence.
That is why evolution must and always will remain a theory in human scientific terminology and assessment. Which does not make it a fragile, untrue or untenable theory. Very far from it. What the label *theory* does is to say implicitly: “This is not presented an absolute, incontestable Truth, like creationism. It is subject to whatever modification may be required by new, incoming evidence, and will even be replaced if a STRONGER SCIENTIFIC alternative challenges and displaces it, but ONLY then.”
As a self-confessed but non-biological scientist (I’m a botanist, by the way), you ought to know full well that theories are destroyed by conflicting evidence, not by someone’s arbitrary demand for more evidence.
Were we to suddenly find ourselves confronted by a five-ton Dumbo the flying elephant with ears for wings, well Whoopee, out with boring evolution, in with exciting supernatural creationism! (God made the rules, so only He could break them). No other explanation. And whatever next? *Gladly* the cross-eyed bear, maybe?
Just suppose aliens which reproduced by corporal division were to land momentarily on Earth and by chance happened on a fertilized human egg, a howling new-born baby and Alfred Brendel playing Beethoven’s 32 Variations on a Theme of Diabelli. That’s all the evidence of life they have time to gather before having to take off in a panic for some reason. When they arrive *home*, an analysis shows that all these three amazingly different and apparently unconnected organic samples have near-identical genetic make-up. By a brilliant cognitive leap, a group of their scientists proposes that these are three stages in the remarkable continuous evolutionary growth of a single, strange, unknown life-form. But there are huge objections from *fundamentalist* aliens. Rubbish. Where did the arms and legs come from in the first place? How did that little pink bawling bundle get to be so big and hairy, and be enabled to make that astonishingly complex set of synchronised sounds it apparently interprets from those black and white hieroglyphs? And where did the curious lifeless square machine that makes those interesting and apparently organised noises come from? Perhaps that’s how they communicate: their language. By chance another alien spaceship crashlands on Earth some time later and collects a five-year-old kid roaming around some woodland near his home. It is repaired and takes off again immediately. The boy exactly fits into the profile the scientists have suggested, but their theory is still rejected because there is nothing to connect the egg to the arms and legs, and not enough to connect the clumsy little boy with the big, piano-playing adult.
Get it?
Oh, and Iama bin Scientist, have you read and absorbed The Origin of Species (Darwin), The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins( and The Diversity of Life (Wilson), inter alia? If not, go away and do so, and then place your arguments in the context of their infinitely patient and learned explanations if you can. If you have read them, ditto.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Randall, Matt Howard and logar,
Paul Hogan (he of ‘Crocodile Dundee’ fame) had a TV comedy programme filled with typical Oz humour. I recall he once did a skit on science fiction entitled ‘Sucked off in space’.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:50 am
iamscience:
your fully misunderstanding of what entropy is and it’s role in evolution mades me laugh so much.
Please, I want more!!
I’ve been wondering about the reasons that leads to that strict creationism. Not to inteligent design theories that accept evolution but those that presume the universe was created 10000 years away. I think that inteligent design have hard issues that can make tremble most religions. Here it comes:
Supose an inteligent force that controls evolution. That the entire universe is made to finish in a great masterpiece. The problem comes when asking ¿wich is our role in it?.
Nowadays we’re starting to realize that humankind is a back end in evolution. Is a wrong design or a good one in the wrong place. That means that we’re not any kind of “chosen ones” by the Lord. Cocroaches or water bears are much better designed than humans. So, why must He have any special interest in us? WE’re kind of a bizare experiment that went wrong. So He doesn’t have any special interest in us.
So, if you believe in inteligent design, even believing in a God, you’re against “christian-like” religions that believe humans being made in God’s image.
That’s why Christianity want to impose again the literal lecture of the Bible and the dismiss of all scientific knowledgment (including the computer you’re all using). It’s clear for them that science is going to uncover soon the last lies or “mysteries” that holds their religion.
JB
September 27th, 2008 at 5:52 am
*years away? XD
I mean years ago, sorry
September 27th, 2008 at 6:18 am
logar – you said “maybe what iamscience meant to say was “AstroLOGY” not “AstroNOMY.”
If that is true he has an OLOGY, ergo he’s a scientist
I’m coming to this discussion rather late (574 points too late), but it seems to me that many people debunk evolution because it is still a theory and there is no proof. Now forgive me if this point has been made before, but is religion not just a theory?
What proof is there for the creationist argument other than ‘evolution is not possible?’ What PROOF is there of there being any basis for religion; it is faith-based, not proof-based?
As I said, I apologise if this point has been raised earlier in the thead.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:45 am
I believe the time has come to go over to the positive offensive concerning creationism. I mean *offensive* purely as a direct examination of its implications, in contrast to purely defending evolution against non-specious and ill-founded attacks, nothing more. Christian creationism alone is deeply fragmented by belief, something which evolution, as a basic mechanistic theory, is not.
Please note that this is not only totally on-topic, but is also fundamental in a practical sense. It concerns the very basis of how protagonists perceive creationism should be taught, and what sort of agreement and common ground they might find in any actual curriculum.
I’m not sure how many aspects my few rather nebulous initial ideas might end up as. But as the subject is somewhat complex, I’ll try to divide into one facet per post, to avoid info. overload.
So, let’s start off here with what I understand to be the perfectly reasonable base creationism I understand to be espoused by Christians such as kiwiboi, for example. (And also many major religions, as he notes.) This accepts the working principles and every reasonable aspect of evolution as we understand it.
Off we plunge into the deep end with the very origin of, and reason for (if any), life itself.
No empirical proof exists to guide us here. To date we have failed to create reproductive life in the lab. Nor have we discovered any undeniable traces of it beyond the bounds of our planet. All is speculation, hypothesis and faith. Therefore, to a reasonable extent (i.e. anything that does not clash with or contradict later and actual scientific evidence), any one of the following is as tenable as the rest. It may well be that we shall never have more to go on.
Avoiding any sub-branches (unless others feel the need to raise them), there appear to be four essential approaches here:
1) Avoid making statements about the subject altogether for lack of worthwhile evidence.
2) Life began as a spontaneous accident. Conditions chanced to be right and a complex organic brew was sparked into reproductive division. There are views that limit this to the Earth, and others which suppose the same accident might happen spontaneously anywhere in the Universe, given the same conditions. This hypothesis tends to go hand-in-hand with the concept that everything is accidental, from energy and matter to the very dimensions and fundamental laws of nature. There is no *intelligence* in this set-up, either natural or supernatural.
3) Life is obligatory whenever conditions to initiate it arise, but for innate, natural reasons. The analogy is the comparison made above about the orderly and obligatory formation of snowflakes and other crytals whenever certain sets of conditions are present. This viewpoint inevitably tends to support the supposition of life as widespread throughout the vastness of time and space. Speculation often focusses on whether *other* life would follow the exact pattern of our own, or might hold the capacity to be radically different. This natural system may be held by atheists and agnostics. It is also embraced by such as myself, who sees unification and potential for *intelligence* behind everything. Perhaps that philosophy might reasonably be described as Universal Gaia, of which we ourselves are a tiny, insignificant element. But perhaps a significant element, excusing the oxymoron, because we may actually be the sensory mechanism by which that Universal Gaia perceives itself, as our own brains and senses work for our ourselves. Sorry about that personal claptrap. Couldn’t resist throwing in my tuppence worth of speculation!!!
4) The initial spark of life on Earth was created by God. Then followed evolution as we know it, its ultimate flowering and purpose being the ascent of man and his recognition of that same original Creator. This takes on board much of the science of the previous. Atheists must reject it, and agnostics perhaps doubt it though. Its essence is faith. However, presumably if life is also accepted as being widespread throughout the Universe, Christianity, or belief systems which bind unarguably with it, must also be obligatory. Is Man therefore still the sole centre of God’s intentions in that case? The lead-offs from that question are pretty mind-boggling!
I, for one, have no objection whatever to all of these alternative viewpoints bing put forward in the mainstream. Otherwise just (1) only, please.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:03 am
My brain got left on the pillow today!
I forgot, how could I?:
6) Evolution is a false idea. God created all the organisms we see on Earth today, but allowed for a touch of random variation, including hybridisation. This has happened so we might produce big, fat juicy cherries, lush, tender sirloin steaks, giant show daliahs, great danes and chihuauas for our delectation and appreciation of His works. This extreme faith-based view also contains the apparently more reasonable proposition of punctuated creationism, which I shall be considering later, as it is more a development after life had already come into effect.
I.D. should also be mentioned here. It seems to fall somewhere rather vaguely across or between my (3), (4) and (5). It too requires further consideration.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:05 am
D’Oh!
5) not 6). I can’t even count today, let alone explain theories if the origin of life, or get any work done at this rate.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Forget my 5).
I forgot I had qualified as *reasonable and accepting evolution* in post 576. Pure creationism isn’t. Maybe I’ll get there in the end. Look, I’m harried by shortage of time. I’ve got to stop and get other things done. Man cannot live by philosophy alone. At least, this man can’t!
September 27th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Anon, interesting points. I personally feel that the way we should approach this choice is the one made by most schools today – to go with the choice for which the evidence is forthcoming and supports the argument. In this case evolution is the route to take, and until evidence is found for creationism (presumably for a specific faith’s idea of said) we must continue to deny it a place in education.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Chickensoup, (580),
Thanks for the response. I hope to follow on with your point on evolution. Essentially my exposition and consequent questions are, and will be, on how creationism might be taught (or whether indeed it even could be taught!). I.e. rather than strictly whether or not it should be taught where it is in conflict with evolution theory. My view on that has already been made decisively clear above. The opening post was no more than a partial review of the situation at the point life initiated on earth. (Although it actually became virtually a full review thanks to my cock-ups in 577-579!)
September 27th, 2008 at 11:55 am
kiwiboi,
Best draw a discreet veil over our two home-but-not-dry results today. Two pre-Christmas gifts from us, and the end-product of your curious mixture of ex-Charlton players across the board, turncoat ex-Fulham and turncoat ex-Hammers players. “Best draw …”, I began. A draw would have been a fine thing!
September 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
David, (575),
“If that is true he has an OLOGY, ergo he’s a scientist”
Oh shit, I could have majored in mythOLOGY and called myself a scientist too! As it is I’m stuck with botany and taxonomy instead of botOLOGY and taxonOLOGY. Curses!!!
(Botology sounds as if it might be fun. Kind of a study of teeny, weeny bikini lower-rear-half coverage, maybe? Or would it just amount to what most people here would call *kicking ass*?)
September 27th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Anon – I’ve just got home from the match; gutted. I know it’s usually a favoured cliche of a biased fan…but we truly did gift the Irons their victory today.
Sorry about the Addicks’ result; and at the Valley too. Bummer.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Anon.
And let’s not even go there with scientology.
I suppose you could say you are a phytologist, but the problem there is no one would know what you do. There must be a big overlap between biology and taxonomy; but I suppose if you called yourself both you’d be accused of tautology.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
David,
Ah, but I was taut all sorts of fings at skool, so I must ‘ave been into tautology straight away. Right?
I guess Creationists would know. I’m a fightologist to them! Yeah!
September 27th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
And definitely not an apologist
(I’ll get me coat)
September 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Just peeped in at the ‘Black President’ issue. Ugh! Anger, bitterness, contempt, insults. And that was just folks typing out their nicknames on the headings! Hardly anything could better illustrate my recommendation to stay off subjects in education where fierce, partisan, extreme current core-feelings are involved.
Iamscience,
Re. your comments to Randall over on that same topic, should you still be looking in here, or contemplating further comments:
No, it doesn’t really much matter if your spelling, syntax, technical know-how and means of expression are not up to scratch, provided you are a certain type of *scientist*. I.e. a lab. technician, lens polisher, or suchlike.
But let’s take scientists whose opinions are weighed and evaluated by more than they spout over a beer or six to cronies, or who are free as anyone else to post crap on the internet. That is to say in places where peer review is totally lacking and probably means some kind of smoke-ridden, low-dive live-show where frustrated males congregate to peer at strippers’ tits and bums. Otherwise perhaps even ‘Burke’s Peerage and Gentry’. I mean scientists who publish papers and contribute to scientific literature. Those whose views are actually taken into account by others who happen to be learned and competent in the same fields. Then, I regret to have to inform you, the ability to put across well-thought out, orderly and structured ideas clearly, fluently and accurately will indeed mark you out one way or the other. (Strictly speaking, one way only. Shit a scientific turd and you’ll find no reputable journal or other publication will care to sniff it.)
September 27th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Anon: Hey wow! Under “Amazing twins”, with reference to the physic twins, I said “I’m physic, too. I predict that someone will bomb a mosque in Iraq, that the upcoming US presidential election will be bitter and divisive and that Randall will be rude to someone”. Two down, one to go! (Gotta check the latest news from Iraq. Shoulda said “A western target somewhere in Middle East/Western Asia. Then I coulda claimed the Islamabad hotel bombing”.)
September 27th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
astraya,
Gorrit! September 10. I had absolutely no idea whatever. Honest to Darwin. Hadn’t even looked at the site. We must be psychicologists as well then. Hahahaha.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:02 am
kiwiboi,
Seems like you didn’t have enough Irons in the fire yesterday. The Premiership website tells me they hammered you last year at The Cottage as well.
Being turned over by the Owls at home is an unpleasant regurgitation of 1989-90 for us. It was a stamp in our passport to a lower division then. Urrr …
September 28th, 2008 at 1:26 am
@ me (comment 13)
In science the term “theory” means something that is testable and can be proven. Basically, the opposite of what people think it means.
“In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, “theory” is not in any way an antonym of “fact”. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
September 28th, 2008 at 7:10 am
paulyt,
“In science the term “theory” means something that is testable and can be proven. Basically, the opposite of what people think it means.”
You left just one important word out of that otherwise perfectly wrapped-up definition, *uninformed*. As in “… what uninformed people think it means.”
September 28th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Regardless of the actual nuts and bolts of teaching creationism (and whether I manage to continue pumping out any more about those), a profound paradox lies at the very heart of this entire question. I’m not sure the paradox has been fully recognised and addressed.
So far as I can recall, no one from any quarter has seriously suggested above that creationism must be taught alongside evolution as a science. The proposals for its inclusion are always within social studies or (comparative) religious studies.
What’s the implication? Inevitably, that creationism does not amount to an investigative subject with a capacity for inclusion within the scientific curriculum. (Creationism here is intended in its fullest *fundamental* Christian meaning, not simply as the initiation of life before evolution.) The argument for its inclusion is telling: it is held to be true by a very significant number of people. A representation of them are certainly reading and commenting here on LV.
But what is an absolutely basic plank of creationism? Essentially that the idea of evolution is directly opposed to it and is a false, contradictory theory which can be disproved reductively (by creationists and their fellow travellers). This very stance of its followers means creationism cannot logically be separated from evolution into a separate *compartment*. Furthermore, by constantly and aggressively challenging evolution, a science, creationism inevitably places itself in loco scientiae as well. If someone decides to enter a courthouse in order to challenge a witness, no matter who they are, or what their motive, they become, de facto, part of that legal process.
Now it may be argued that social or religious studies are weighty enough headings to satisfy those who would like creationism to be aired. So let’s reverse the situation. Can you conceive creationism being taught among the mainstream sciences and evolution finding itself offered as a social study? Where would that leave it terms of prestige and trying to argue on a level field against creationism? Evolutionary proponents would obviously be totally and justifiably outraged.
The truth is that religious studies are based on faith and belief with a goodly mixture of often vague historical events, dogma and parable. Social studies deal with the culture, customs and practices of people. Neither is a science in any strict investigative sense.
So why don’t creationists DEMAND their subject be taken seriously as a universal science? Why aren’t they outraged at it being regarded merely as a limited, localised culture based fundamentally on faith and belief, plus whatever shortage of hard evidence to the contrary they can assemble? Or taken from another angle, why would they be pleased to simply have the subject taught at all, almost anywhere and at any price within the education system?
I know my interpretation, which in fact has already been tendered by someone above. Provide your own to taste.
When I typed a simple *No* in my first posting, I believed much of these factors were so glaringly obvious they hardly needed stating. How wrong I was. How hard does human pure knowledge have to struggle to advance smoothly on all fronts at times.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Anon, well said!
Even throughout 13 years of Catholic school, I was not taught to believe in the literal creation story. I was taught evolution.
When Crick & Watson discovered DNA and what it meant, we were taken to the auditorium and shown a film with them talking about the impact on science.
If Roman Catholic schools can embrace science to that degree, what is wrong with all the rest?
September 28th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
segue,
I suppose the answer is they’ve hung all their clothes on one peg, and were that peg to be sawn off …
September 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Ahhhhhhhhhh, well yes, but what an awkward and time consuming way to go about the entire issue.
Thankfully, my children are finished with the school system!
September 28th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Thought for the day
Put simply, biological evolution is a flexible study of natural organisms and how they develop, in particular with regards to their interaction with, and adaptation to one another and the systems in which they live. Its aim is to account for their dynamic existence, development, behaviour and interactions over all biological time, based essentially on verifiable data. If any explanations fail to fit observed phenomena they can (must!) be changed for other explanations that don’t run counter to actuality.
Full Creationism states a rigid, inflexible explanation for life and all organisms. It shoehorns all unavoidably observable or accountable phenomena into that explanation. If forced to change any point of dogma, the replacement is then also shoehorned into the same explanation.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
astraya and kiwiboi
“Australian banknotes don’t have God or Darwin. Where does that leave us?
astraya – with Kylie or Rodney Rude”
or Sir Les Patterson?
September 28th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
They’re all the same person, aren’t they?
September 29th, 2008 at 5:48 am
We should put Chairman Rudd on our bank notes,
September 29th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I think creationism is a load of hooey. Its about as real a David B.’s sex life.
September 29th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
They’re all the same person, aren’t they?
astraya – well, I wouldn’t get off Kylie to get on Rodney Rude
September 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
“astraya – well, I wouldn’t get off Kylie to get on Rodney Rude”
Nor, I more than suspect, would Sir Les!
We recently had one of those idiotic Great and Greatest (Chileans) public-voting TV programmes. One of the best exposés of its idiocy was to list those Chileans who actually do appear on our banknotes besides the ones who had been voted top. Not TOO far off the equivalents of Sir Les, Kylie, Croc Dundee et al., the latter. Hahahaha.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
kiwiboi,
Along with the devastating news in the paper this morning that we had lost a couple of our dearest friends when their light plane crashed near the coast yesterday, there was something relevant to our sporting exchanges here. I thought it might tickle you. Not that you wouldn’t know, but that it was reported from the other side of the world in far-away Spanish-speaking South America.
Detail roughly as noted in our sports supplement:
*Andy Murray, Nº4 tennis player in the world, lived and learned his tennis in Spain, where he became a big fan of Barcelona (and why not?). This Saturday he attended the match in West London between “el” Fulham and “el” West Ham, which West Ham won away (sorry, they didn’t need to remind you THAT far away from home!). The fans were chanting “Who’s Rafael Nadal?” and “Andy Murray, the hammer of Nadal.”. Murray was seen to be looking highly amused.*
P.S. Beware Carlos Villaneuva when you tangle with Blackburn. He’s quite a handful.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
There’s also a rumour that Sir Les and Dame Edna are the same person!
True: when Dame Edna (then Mrs Everidge) started performing, she wore Margaret Whitlam’s (then wife of the Prime Minister) second-hand dresses, being the only ones (s)he could find that were large enough.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
PS Over dinner one night, I asked a better-educated-than-average, further-travelled-than-average American colleague what he knew about Australia. His answer was something like “Kylie Minogue, INXS, the Great Barrier Reef and Dot and the Kangaroo”!
September 29th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Hmm. Just checked. Mrs Everage (note to self: check the spelling first) first appeared in 1955, way before Mr Whitlam was elected.
September 29th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
astraya,
Following his nightly *top-up*, Sir Les surely copiously waters those magnificently cultivated gladdies the (now) ennobled Dame E.E. later picks. The watering of course being fortified by efficaceous, soluble, growth-promoting waste compounds.(Alas, even the national flower is from the land of the hated Springboks!)
“His answer was something like …”
Wot, no M. Dundee Esq., barbie, Ayre srock, koala, abo, Puff the Magic, boomerang, strides, Kennie Rosewall, The Sinney oprouse, Fosters, snags, Sir D.B., platypus, Lilian Thompson, Outback, Mel Gibson (or is he bloody US?), bludger, Ned Kelly, norks, Flynn of the Errol ilk, Veggiemite, Dame Nellie, galahs, anorerest?
G’day.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:33 am
No, none of those.
Mel Gibson is Australian when he wins Academy Awards. He isn’t when he makes anti-Semitic comments in the hearing of police.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:57 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”
September 30th, 2008 at 5:37 am
Anon – thanks for the reminder about our loss to Wet Spam. Actually, my sone was asking what they were singing at one point and, though I’ve been to many hundreds of matches over the years, I couldn’t work it out. As you say…Andy Murray (A Hibs supporter) was sitting in the away end, and they were singing to him. Personally, I find him too sullen and sulky to be likeable.
And thanks for reminding me about our loss (prior to the Irons) to Blackburn! An 85th minute goal sunk us! But I’ll be sure to watch out for Carlos Villaneuva next time around (thanks for the tip).
Finally, condolences on the loss of your friends. Doesn’t life have a stange way of putting a complete damper on things from time to time…
September 30th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Anon: Am I losing my Australianity after 2 1/2 years in Korea? Wtf are “nork” and “anorerest”? And how do you know about them if I don’t?
September 30th, 2008 at 8:44 am
astraya,
Perfect answer for Mel Bigotson. As a Pom on another end of his bitter ‘n’ twisted attitudes, I’ll go along with that. A bit like Hitler being a decent German when building autobahns and VWs, eh?
I fear “anorerest” was my rather over-deliberate attempt to follow the rules of Sinney Strine pronuncuation for “and all the rest”.
I’m tempted to leave your “nork” question open to see whether any others might answer. If I indicate delicately that it would usually only be referred to in the singular during discussions about Amazons, and there is a magnificent exemplary illustration of a pair at the head of this topic, nuff said, I trust!
“Norks” may be found in a slim volume entitled “Teach Yourself Australian”, published in 1986. The word (not the objects) may since have gone rapidly out of currency (that same volume ridicules such archaisms as *trouser snake*, *siphoning the python* and *Technicolour yawn*, for example). Or perhaps it’s simply very regional, I can’t say.
Not many have had the fortune of my informal schooling. A medic from Melbourne doing the Earl’s Court Grand Tour, who actually introduced me to the tart I married first time around. He was even our bestie. (Imagine ‘is weddin’ earbash, didno where to put meself!) He also introduced me to the seminal ‘Let Stalk Strine’, which set me off on the linguistics trail (combined with his personal tutorials). A small piece of philosophical poetry from it is still one of the few I can recite from memory almost word-for-word:
How d’ya know if yer reely reel,
Or if yer only dreamin’?
Yer cuts off the end of yer nearest toe
And waits fer the sahnd of the screamin’
September 30th, 2008 at 9:09 am
kiwiboi,
Apologies. I wasn’t being deliberately insensitive, or trying to rub your nose in it, believe me. To be honest I’d completely forgotten you’d already had a tangle with Blackburn so early in the season. I still haven’t quite got over that crew buying themselves the Championship a decade or so back. But then everyone does nowadays, and it’s the last break there’s been from The Usual Suspects.
Perhaps we can categorise A.M. as per Mel Gibson above. He’s ours when he’s bringing home the bacon. Britain needs a real tennis hero too badly to be choosy. I suffered with another sports freak friend in rainy Devon when that nice, gentlemanly (wotsis name?) just lost out to the Croatian giant at Wimbledon. Besides, Nadal whinged afterwards when our Fena Gonzales thrashed him once. Of course, he stated, he would naturallly have won easily if he hadn’t been carrying an injury. So no contest for my sympathies between those two. Like that (racist word censored) Alonso saying he wants Massa to win because he doesn’t want Hamilton to win!
I’ve only seen Murray once on TV here. He was losing and drooping. I though, gorblimey another wet, and switched off to avoid suffering. A good long time later I switched on again to see what match was on next, and there he was, large as life, fighting like a bloody tiger. He ended up wiping the other guy off the map.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:32 am
kiwiboi,
And thanks for your condolences.
Life’s a pack of cards, and we’re not the dealer. One can only play one’s hand cautiously or recklessly. The sad thing and irony is that although flying has its risks (hardly more than road travel statistically), Sergio was one of the most careful and safe pilots on earth. Not only that, he had flown with us in that very (and quite new) machine to Santiago for its regular service but a few weeks back.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Whether presupposed conclusions or basic theories to which there is no absolute proof of, the teaching of evolution has been responsible for many things most of which in my opinion have not been to the betterment of society as a whole. Since the theory denies any greater power it promotes the thought that we are not ultimately responsible for our own actions and deeds. The excitement regarding this is that since we are not ultimately responsible then anything that we can imagine to do is both morally and ethically ok. The reason that many of you do not want creation taught is that it ultimately makes you responsible for your own actions. The fact that it promotes absolutes is against everything that you are for. As for the claims of dumbing down people many of the greatest minds in history were creationist, much of the increase in knowledge in regards to science, medicine, law, government, and everything that you claim for yourselves came from the minds of men who firmly believed in God as the Creator of the earth. Their accomplishments in micro evolution, which can be proved, is what has allowed many of mans many accomplishments. Those of you who claim tolerance are often the first to be intolerant especially when it comes to anything of a Christian nature, which was the very basis of the freedoms that you are allowed today. I say teach both in school. The facts for both are in the same evidence, it is just how one determines to look at it.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Anon: Oh. I move in far too genteel circles for that. I did a google search for both words. “Nork” brought up references, but none of them (that I scrolled through) to that/those. “Anorerest” brought up no references, not even this page.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Anon: I’ve really got to look more carefully. It was right there on wiki:
Nork may refer to:
Nork, Armenia
Nork, Surrey
Nork Deddog [which redirects to Warhammer 40,000, a tabletop war game, without explaining the connection]
New Orleans Rhythm Kings, an influential early 20s jazz band based in Chicago
Nork is slang (originally and principally Australian English) for breast
Nork is a slang word for North Koreans [I have never heard this, and I must be very careful about which of the last two meanings I am intending]
Nork can be an abbreviated reference to Northern Rock
Nork is also a slang term for a gun produced by Norinco
September 30th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
astraya,
The North Korean thing is an amazing co-incidence. I swear I knew nothing about that or any of the others either! I suppose you talking about a lovely pair of Norks south of the Korean boundary might not go down too well. However, comments to the effect that the Norks could do with a bit of support might well meet with greater approval.
Since my context was unquestionably Australian, I guess there’s no contest from your other seven. I wonder if a pilgrimage excursion exists from Earls Court to Nork in Surrey? At least it’s not far from the Epsom Derby.
Like I said, anorerest was merely a silly invention of mine.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Anon: Off at a tangent. In the first season of “Gilligan’s Island”, the professor (high school teacher really) and Mary-Ann(e) were minor characters and the lyrics of the song ran “the movie star and the rest”. The characters grew in popularity and their roles were expanded, and the lyrics were changed to “the movie star, the professor and Mary-Ann(e)”.
My wife isn’t a nork. She’s a souk.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
OhWell,
You are sosososo wrong, and so stupidly wrong at that. Like most of your kind you ignore the glaring facts right before your eyes. You believe all that’s needed is to make some sweeping religious holy-Joe statement with the magic word Christian in it to carry all before you.
Belief in Christianity and/or creationism makes you responsible for your own actions, eh? So you go on crusades to slaughter Moslems (who also believe in a Creator). You burn people at the stake. You condemn scientists to death as heretics because they tell you something you don’t want to hear. You hunt *witches*. You destroy the lives and culture of Amazonian indians in the name of *saving their souls*. You fly aircraft against buildings to kill a few thousand people. (Oh yes, they aren’t atheists, THEY believe in a Creator just as sincerely as you do. They even believe He told them to do it.) You live in Northern Ireland and murder others because their Christian view is slightly different from yours. You are an Iranian cleric and you deny the Holocaust. I’m weary, need I continue?
Oh, and of course, we atheist scientists have no morality or responsibility for our own actions whatever. We go around stealing, murdering, raping, lying, cheating and generally raising Cain for self-indulgent fun, don’t we?
Incidentally, regarding any roots of knowledge founded in the heart-era of monotheism. When the Greeks began to map out geometry, botany, philosophy and various other -osophies and -ologies for us, monotheism, let alone Christianity didn’t exist. They believed in a set of gods on mountaintops. So presumably that historic theistic background holds equal spiritual meaning for you as well?
Intolerance? Huh! Name a mainstream religion or church school that science, or evolutionary scientists in particular, have attempted to shut down or prevent from preaching or teaching whatever is seen fit. Now try to deny that certain religious movements have worked hard to have the teaching of evolutioon banned. Intolerance? Huh! You people don’t know the meaning of the word except as a brick to throw at others.
So what’s your precise, detailed curriculum for teaching creationism then? Some of us would be so interested in the alternative explanations for various phenomena evolution explains so elegantly. Or do you need reminding of a few?
September 30th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
astraya,
“My wife isn’t a nork. She’s a souk.”
“… Like Webster’s Dictionary, she’s Morocco bound.”
So clearly you have to bargain rather than argue with her!!!
September 30th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
OhWell, (617),
“Their accomplishments in micro evolution …”
You people have me clutching my sides till it hurts, with tears rolling down my cheeks. Oh what a fine pick-me-up is a good laugh.
Try to imagine the reaction from your side were any evolutionary scientist to write here or elsewhere:
“And now I’m going to tell you about our accomplishments in micro creationism, which can(‘t) be proved …” Oh, oh, oh. I just love it.
You will naturally be well aware that Sharia law is the product of a deeply religious system basically steeped in creationist belief. In its extreme form it advocates execution for homosexuality by men and adultery by women, often in the form of slow death by public stoning. Have you seen that nightmare video of the woman being executed publicly in Afghanistan? God believers did that, OhWell, not amoral atheists, God believers. Perhaps better known still is the amputation of the hands of thieves. Those who believe deeply in that system of justice wish to impose it on the rest of the world. That includes you by the way, OhWell. But presumably you find that ethically inspired prospect far more acceptable than having profane, godless evolution scientists in control of your destiny?
September 30th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
OhWell,
And as a final kick up the arse for you:
“Since the theory (evolution) denies any greater power …”
Since when and where? You’re just too fucking idle to bother to read what even some Christians have pointed out above, aren’t you? Every time someone like you comments, further proof is provided of Stupid Design (S.D.). Don’t waste your time or anyone else’s. We have more than enough already.
Ah, well …
September 30th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
As I typed that, I was vaguely aware a) that there was such a word, and b) what it meant. She may not be a souk by the Moroccan definition, but there are times when she’s a little bazaar.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:17 am
Nork in Surrey? At least it’s not far from the Epsom Derby.
Anon – hey, you’re talking about my (adopted) stomping ground now. I live in a village adjacent to Sutton (and about 5 minutes drive from Epsom).
October 1st, 2008 at 4:34 am
Have you seen any norks there?
October 1st, 2008 at 4:37 am
astraya – yep, but we pronounce it with a ‘D’; funnily enough, all the ‘norks’ are Ockers
October 1st, 2008 at 5:06 am
Fuck no, we need to work towards eliminating all forms of religion in society.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:43 am
kiwiboi: That was unnecessary!
October 1st, 2008 at 9:05 am
#626. astraya …but there are times when she’s a little bazaar.
****
How convenient! You can do all the shopping without leaving home.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:09 am
624. Anon
OhWell, (617),
“Their accomplishments in micro evolution …”
You people have me clutching my sides till it hurts, with tears rolling down my cheeks. Oh what a fine pick-me-up is a good laugh.
****
You have to give him/her/it credit for being able to put together a better sentence than could S_R! Which only makes them funnier!
October 1st, 2008 at 10:51 am
segue,
And I do need a bit of light relief right now, as you know.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:51 am
kiwiboi: That was unnecessary!
Harsh but fair, astraya! Harsh but fair
October 1st, 2008 at 11:17 am
astraya and kiwiboi,
I was inclined to keep my head *down under*, out of this Commonwealth sparring contest.
However, there are certain circular consequences too delectable to avoid.
All ockers love knockers, for example.
The other from Surrey that occurs to me is Dork King! (Surely I’m not the first to pick up on that?)
Hmmm, what with Nork too, maybe that county isn’t as genteel as is generally supposed. Personally I blame those brokers in the *belt* there. They say all dirty jokes either originate in the barrack room or the Stock Exchange.
I see there is an Australasian snapper called the dork fish. Don’t like the sound of that one little bit. Could belong alonga the blue-ringed whatsit. I bet there’s an individual dork fish called Germaine Greer! (Apropos, fergot to put her on the memorable Strine list, astraya.)
kiwiboi,
Surrey is home to one each of the world’s most famous botanical and horticultural institutes, with which I have been (and am still am to a degree) personally involved. Orchid locating on the downland is a fond memory, particularly the autumn lady’s-tresses. We have friends living there and I even spent the initial month or so of my first marriage temporarily in a little Wendy shack deep in Surrey woodland while we house-hunted. Much of my cycling led out that way too. Ah, Happy days!
October 1st, 2008 at 11:58 am
#634. Anon
segue,
And I do need a bit of light relief right now, as you know.
****
I do, dear Anon. I hope you and Anita are comforting each other. This is not something one gets through alone.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:14 pm
IAMSCIENCE, OhWell, juststories = Kent Hovind writing from prison.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Sedulous,
I earlier thought to suggest that juststories might actually be justsostories = Rudyard Kipling writing from India.
Yours is MUCH better. A fine, upstanding example OhWell might well have quoted in support of (quote):
“The reason that many of you do not want creation taught is that it ultimately makes you responsible for your own actions.”
Hahahahahaha. The laughs just get better and better.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Koylie Minogue once said (something like) “The more successful you become, the bigger the knockers get”.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Sedulous! Fabulous suggestion, just hilarious!
October 1st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
astraya,
Lovely quote. Of course, more money for better plastic surgery, doancha know. She might even have added a contradictory, “But you also must avoid making boobs.”
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
Anon – I came across this article on (horror!) botany-fraud in The Times this morning, and thought you might be interested :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4863866.ece
Then again, given your background, you probably have some knowledge of this fascinating, albeit odd, affair…
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
kiwiboi,
Very much obliged for your *update*. I’ve printed it out and folded it into my treasured copy of ‘A Rum Affair’! (Bought in 2000 at the moment of its issue in Penguin paperback.)
Although already old at the time, R. B. Cooke, a kindly, gentle man, was a distinguished raiser and grower of Himalyan primulas and the like when, as young plant traveller in Turkey, I met him at his Northumberland home. The intro. was through mutual friends. We had long chats on several occasions (not about H.H., though!). I also once found myself alone in the presence of (I hesitate to say *met*!) the formidable Sir George Taylor, Tibetan plant hunter extraordinary, and later one of Kew’s foremost directors. It was a brief but awesome experience I really gained little from. If HE slagged off H.H., I doubt there’d be serious argument.
Having a rather unorthodox cv *evolution* (Oh, if only someone would *create* me an honorary Dr!) I loved the possibility of having H.H. up my sleeve for any moment when high-prancing academics might try to come the old acid. (Although happily, I think those days are well past for me.) It’s such a splendid parallel to Piltdown Man as well.
Anyway, should you ever want to hear tales of evil deeds and back-stabbery aplenty in academic botany, I’m your man.
October 4th, 2008 at 5:16 am
Yesterday was the Festival of the Opening of Heaven, also called National Foundation Day and Dangun Day. It is an ancestry story rather than a creation story.
“Dangun’s ancestry legend begins with his grandfather Hwanin or Hwaneen, the “Lord of Heaven”. Hwanin had a son Hwanung who yearned to live on the earth among the valleys and the mountains. Hwanin permitted Hwanung and 3,000 followers to descend onto Taebaek Mountain, where Hwanung founded Sinsi. Along with his ministers of clouds, rain, and wind, he instituted laws and moral codes and taught humans various arts, medicine, and agriculture.
A tiger and a bear prayed to Hwanung that they may become human. Upon hearing their prayers, Hwanung gave them 20 cloves of garlic and a bundle of mugwort, ordering them to eat only this sacred food and remain out of the sunlight for 100 days. The tiger gave up after about twenty days and left the cave. However, the bear remained and was transformed into a woman.
The bear-woman was grateful and made offerings to Hwanung. However, she lacked a husband, and soon became sad and prayed beneath a Sindansu (“Divine Betula”) tree to be blessed with a child. Hwanung, moved by her prayers, took her for his wife and soon she gave birth to a son, who was named Dangun Wanggeom.
Dangun ascended to the throne, built the walled city of Unknown, but nearly Pyongyang (present capital of North Korea), and called the kingdom Joseon – referred to today as “Gojoseon – Old/Ancient Joseon” so as not to be confused with the Joseon kingdom which occurred much later. He then moved his capital to Asadal on Mount Baegak (or Mount Gunghol). Fifteen hundred years later, in the year Kimyo, King Wu of the Zhou Dynasty enfeoffed Jizi to Joseon, and Dangun moved his capital to Jangdangyeong. Finally, he returned to Asadal and became a mountain god at the age of 1,908. ”
Yeah, right.
My wife tells me that this is taught in Korean schools – in history class.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:03 am
astraya,
As a schoolboy, I’d have been quite delighted to be told that. A groan of despair, however, had I opened an exam paper and read:
“Describe in your own words the Korean creation story. Outline its significance and relevance in the divided nation’s two present-day cultures. (500-1000 words)!!!!!
October 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am
astraya, my Baltimore catechism is child’s play in comparison!
What has always intrigued me is that every culture has a creation story.
Cultures totally cut off from any outside influences, ever, have creation stories. They can be massively different, yet there is a thread of sameness underlying every story.
Why?
October 4th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Stop! Stop it with your crazy English-Australian stuffs! What the Hell is a Pom? Nork? This sketch is entirely too silly.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Yes, we should teach creationism in school. We should teach creationism, but at the same time wonder why our schools continue to lag behind schools in other countries. The fact that we are even posing this question would be absolutely hilarious if it weren’t so sad.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
648. Cedestra
Pom: An alternative word for British used by speakers of Australian English, New Zealand English, South African English and Afrikaans
Nork: North Korean
Hey! It’s all in fun! This list was getting *way* too heavy and, might I add, too absurd. We all needed a break, and playing around with language is harmless enough. Surely you have some idioms of your own to add to the mix? Please do!
I am a collector of words, and the more I know the happier I am. Besides, collecting words is better than, say, stamp collecting. Costs nothing, and requires no storage space!
October 4th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
NO Way!
I would agree that it would benefit children the learn in a social science class (or religious studies) ALL religions. As long as it is done on a factual and historical basis.
That would have to include the fact that the christain bible is NOT a historical document and that there is not proof of the life of jesus.
There are no historical accounts of him ever existing and if my tax dollars are to go to this type of education it would need to be based on archaeological, historical fact.
Of course if this were to happen you can bet the fundamentalist would never allow the truth to be taught. Which is very sad, people need to start learning self-accountability and stop blaming their lack of responsibility on the will of something that does not exist.
October 4th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
650. segue: Thanks for the clear-up! Naw, I was joking around. They just throw all those silly words around and I feel left-out, being from the Boston area (which has it’s own sets of idioms, believe you me).
I keep forgetting the proper question to this debate, which is “should Creationism be taught in schools?”. If it’s not to be implied from the question that “in schools” means the science classroom, then I agree it should or could be. Creationism, in all flavors and creeds, should be taught in schools, preferably voluntarily, in theism-based classes, not scientific ones. So long as that distinction is made and everyone’s creationistic stories are given fair play, then why not?
October 4th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Yes, just so we can all laugh at the people who think it’s real. No im joking but they should know of it but they should also know it’s not true. I dont mean this agressively by the way.
October 4th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
See, this is exactly the problem with teaching anything to do with religion in a public school.
In the first place, in the U.S. the Constitution guarantees separation of Church and State.
In the second place, once you start with “Creationism”, you open the door to being obligated to having to teach all of the various religions creations stories.
That’s why I firmly believe that the proper place for children to learn about their religion is at home, at church and, if the parents choose, at a religious school, but not ever, under any circumstances, in any class no matter what you call it, at a public funded school.
October 4th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I’m short of time, and really the point’s already been well covered above, but here goes again. Even if you did consider teaching full blown creationism, it would always, ultimately boil down to the same conundrums.
Calling creationism a myth or a pre-scientific cultural paradigm for a perceived but not yet understood reality would certainly offend all those multitudes who still believe it to be more true than evolution. Teaching it in any forum at a lower scientific level than evolution OUGHT TO offend those who believe it to be more true than evolution (if not, why not?). Teaching it as a mainstream science alongside evolution as an alternative would be, well…
So how are you going to package and present it? Above all, how will you confront or anticipate the spat between the science of evolution and the (fundamental) creationists, which the latter insist on keeping perpetually stoked up?
It seems to me to be a no-go situation akin the La Fontaine fable of the miller, his son and their donkey. Impossible to please anybody, let alone everybody.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Cedestra,
I think you’ll find an explanation for most of those recondite words in Wiki. For example, astraya (619), pulled out eight wikid meanings for Nork/nork, number six down being the one I referred to originally. This is genuine (utterly useless!) education for me, I tell you, as I hadn’t heard of the other seven before!
October 5th, 2008 at 5:46 am
kiwiboi started it! (#531)
October 5th, 2008 at 5:48 am
BTW, totally off-topic. I went to a street fair in Seoul yesterday. There were about a dozen booths showcasing various countries of the world. Australia was represented by furry animal toys, Chile by wine and New Zulland by kiwifruit, kiwifruit and more kiwifruits. Nothin’ but …
October 5th, 2008 at 8:05 am
astraya,
Kiwifruit plantations were all the new-agro rage here in Chile a few years back. Full of vitamins and all that stuff. Bottom fell out of the market. Couldn’t get rid of ‘em for love nor money. Don’t know why, or what that means?? Maybe we should co-operate to create a kiwifruit wine industry. Could be very good for the health!!!
October 5th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Yes, along with the rest of Mythology
October 5th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Anon:“Describe in your own words the Korean creation story. Outline its significance and relevance in the divided nation’s two present-day cultures. (500-1000 words)!!!!!
There is a signifance in the divided nation! The mountain in the story is Taebaeksan. There is a mountain in SK named that, and, naturally, SK scholars contend that the story refers to that one. NK scholars contend that the mountain in the story must be Baekdusan, in NK, as that is the tallest mountain on the peninsula and an area of outstanding natural beauty. NK scholars also contend that Kims Il-sung and Jong-il are direct descendants of Dangun. If Dangun is the original ancestor, then everyone is descended from him!
October 5th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
segue, (647),
“What has always intrigued me is that every culture has a creation story.
Cultures totally cut off from any outside influences, ever, have creation stories. They can be massively different, yet there is a thread of sameness underlying every story.
Why?”
I’m not so sure it actually is all that surprising. In fact, ironically, it perhaps even strongly backs the idea of evolution!
The parallel, in a way, is Darwin and Wallace coming to evolution almost word-for-word without the faintest idea of each other’s parallel ideas. Even beforehand there were strong stirrings in that direction. In other words, western human culture, intellect and knowledge had reached a point where the conclusion could hardly avoid being drawn. The arrival at quite sophisticated astronomy at much the same moments in their history by several organised societies is another example.
Probably no other being than a human wonders where it comes from. Elephants know they are delivered from the back end of other elephants! But elephants do indeed wonder where they go to, or wonder why they stop living. A bull may attempt to copulate with a dead cow in bewilderment and unacceptance of her lifelessness. Elephants revisit the bones of their dead (elephants’ graveyard). They are well aware well in advance they are about to be culled, and frightened to hear the dreaded distant sound of a helicopter. An orang outan has been filmed gazing rapturously at a flower, just as we do. Most animals fight their own mirrored reflection as a rival, but chimps work out that when they put their hands to their head, so does the *other* chimp, so it must be them. They then experiment with other movements to prove the concept.
Clearly, given speech communication humans rapidly built on these awakenings of individual and collective self-awareness. Curiosity is a sine qua non of intelligence. So the questions of where did everything come from, where did we come from, where do we go when we *stop*, would surely have arisen quite early on.
Of course, the *primitives* had no more fundamental knowledge of the ultimate secrets of the universe than we do, and no knowledge at all of the vast amount we now know. *The people* will have turned to their savants and leaders for answers. Now a persistent thread in human behaviour to this day is the incapacity of those in whom we put our trust to admit doubt or lack of knowledge. To some extent that is because their power resides in their *certainty*, and also because the rest of us won’t let them. As young children need to believe their parents are omnipotent, we prefer a rigid brittle support like Dubya to a flexible, bendy one like Carter. And if they are confident and assertive, we somehow keep trusting them against our better judgement and past experience (WMD!). Leaders are also cunning at knowing how to fabricate information and manipulate others without leaving themselves open to being caught out. That’s how they get to become and remain leaders. And the rest of us don’t like admitting we’ve been fooled either (Hans Christian Andersen, ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’).
So here we have the set up of people beginning to ask life’s fundamental questions, and expecting an answer from their sages and leaders. The latter, in turn, would surely not be slow in realising this as an instrument of great power over their subjects. The founder(s) might be presented (invented) as a demigod, the sun, a set of gods on mountaintops, one or more magical beasts based on those already known, or whatever. We might be a handful of mud they flung down, part of them, anything. But if the sage can claim not only to have the answer, but actually to be in communication with the creator(s) as an intermediary, Wow, what power to hold over the rest (of us).
It surely seems quite logical that this moment would tend to arise at more or less the same stage of social development in any society, and very approximately in the same form. Golding parables this in ‘Lord of the Flies’.
Apropos of the extremely honest and valuable human capacity to confess that one does not have an answer, or is only hypothesising. Dawkins notes that whenever this circumstance arises in discussions or disputes between scientists about some aspect of evolution, creationists round on them and say, “Ah, there you are you see, you don’t know (or don’t agree), do you? That proves you are wrong. We know, we are utterly sure and without doubt, therefore we are right.”
October 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
astraya,
Interesting, the Korean mountain conflict. The cradle of civilization is very full indeed of extremely impressive mountains, a modest number of which I’ve botanised (there are several Mount Olympuses alone). But it was the grand-daddy of them all, Ararat, that the ark had to be cast up on.
October 6th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
662. Anon: Actually, that was pretty much the answer I expected. Having done so much reading in evolution and social anthropology, it really was the only answer that made any sense.
And thank you for including the level of sentience , whatever it is, of some of the higher animals; elephants, primates, certainly whales and dolphins.
I have some ideas about them. Maybe too odd to be true, but certainly too odd to be tested in our technology.
Sorry to have taken so long to reply, but I was unable to access LV all day today.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:10 am
segue,
Yes, there are several very readable books devoted to animal behaviour across the board (everything from dragonflies nonchalantly munching their own living tail-ends to chimpanzees communicating in our human language by signals). And of course, there is dear old Desmond Morris carrying the science from us to them! (My elder daughter’s main university tutor was Desmond’s twin brother, Pat, an authority on small mammals.)
I suspect this is an uncomfortable subject for us to look into too deeply generally speaking, as we have to compete so much with the rest of life in order to survive, let alone flourish. Apart from the major factor of eating not a few, both domesticated and wild, we are now displacing and stressing so many others by our expansion and activities. As there is usually little or no blood spilled in the latter process, we tend to be less concerned, but actually it’s just as devastating for the species concerned. Imagine arriving back at your house one day and finding it and the entire neighbourhood occupied by dominant aliens!!!
October 7th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Anon:
because I live in a protected Marine Sanctuary, I have developed an extremely strong tie with the marine mammals I see here on an ongoing basis; sea otters, seals of several varieties, elephant seals, dolphins, whales…as well as the enormous variety of life of the tidal pools and the never ending variety of sea birds.
I agree with you, this is an uncomfortable subject for us to look into too deeply generally speaking, but in my particular case, the looking (at least on a surface level), is mandatory! If we see a sick seal or otter, it is up to us to report it immediately to the right people…and we all know exactly who the right people are.
It’s breath-taking to watch a pod of dolphins racing through the waves, jumping for the sheer joy of it! The whales are more languid, as befits their size, but to see a mother with her calf, is to see love.
It’s all confusing, Anon. I know these creatures are intelligent, but how intelligent?
The larger sea creatures are obviously highly intelligent, but what does that mean? It may have no connection to the type of intelligence you and I possess. It may be so foreign that we have no chance at all of ever decoding it.
Funny, I have imagined arriving home and finding it, and the entire neighborhood, occupied by dominant aliens. It was a recurring childhood dream. As I got older, the fear of the dream left me, and I eventually left with the aliens.
I don’t know what that says about me, but I do know what it says about my family life!
October 7th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I just couldn’t bear for there to be “666″ comments….
October 7th, 2008 at 11:55 am
segue,
Interesting theme.
My guess is that there are common blocks of *shared* intelligence, but other forms that exclusive to the creatures concerned. Sometimes this will have to do with different senses. For example, a whole load of dog-communications are based on their infinitely superior sense of smell. From our perspective that can even appear disgusting at times, but obviously not to them.
After all, we have similar shared and exclusive factors with other human cultures. You and I might discuss the internet, geography and food in a matter-of-fact way with a moslem terrorist, but we totally fail to get inside the *terrorist* part of his mindset.
Part of the problem is vocalisation. Creatures that can mimic our speech to perfection do not have advanced enough intelligence to understand what it means. Those that understand and respond to our speech lack the ability to vocalise back to us. When he filmed mountain gorillas, David Attemborough carefully explained the *etiquette* that has to be observed if you wish to be accepted as part of their group. That is sophisticated body-language. I discovered by chance long ago that if you close your eyes to a cat, and vice-versa, it’s a sign of mutuak trust and confidence. As a rule we can only intepret and monitor the body language and vocalisations of other creatures by the effectiveness it has on the reactions of others of their own kind. For example, there is an African monkey that makes one sound for a snake, and everyone immediately shins up the nearest tree. There is another for an eagle, when they all hide down on the ground. There are various others, each with an appropriate reflex response, including, I believe for a (DEF?) leopard, causing them to run like hell and hope!
By teaching them sophisticated sign language, we have got into pretty deep conversartions with captive apes and dolphins, which have revealed intellectual capacities way above our expectations.
But fish????
October 7th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
jamie and Cyn,
URGENT.
Anita eliminated a fistful of spam half-an-hour or so ago. Just as it went from the screen, I’m dead certain I caught a glimpse of the subject, “SHOULD CREATIONISM BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS”. Unfortunately we couldn’t stop it being wiped or recover the posting.
Has anyone managing the site being getting in touch with me directly about that topic on our e-mail? (If so, please repeat.) Otherwise it’s worrying, as there should be absolutely nothing to connect this subject and the name Anon with who I actually am.
If there is no logical explanation, and it happens again, I’ll be in touch.
Please communicate about this direct to our e-mail. Thanks.
October 7th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Anon: you are subscribed to this post – which means that when someone replies here, you are sent an email. I suspect that is what was in your spam folder.
October 7th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
jfrater,
Thanks for the speedy and valuable reply. Got it! Until very recently we had a mouse with a wandering cursor, so that unwanted info would beam up from time to time. I must have unknowingly activated the *Notify me of follow up comments* in lieu of *Submit* command at some point.
Sorry for the problem and thanks for putting my mind at rest. Please *deactivate* the *notify me* command if you can. It wasn’t intended or needed.
We now have a new well-trained and disciplined e-rodent (no more Oz walkabout)!
October 7th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
More Oz bashing! Et tu, Brute?
October 7th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
asraya,
Nothing like a bit of provocation to check if anyone is still out there! We only rib the ones we love, don’t we?
Besides, how could I resist a reference to one of my all-time favourite films?
Ultimately, too, the behaviour of the previous mouse was much more akin to its owner’s than that of the present incumbent, believe you me!!!
October 8th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Absolutely not.
October 8th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
668. Anon: I had to go back and reread the post of mine to which you were replying, just in case I had actually mentioned FISH!
It was possible, since I’ve been getting so little sleep for the last couple of weeks (short term problem, will be corrected by Monday or Tuesday). Nope, no fish.
I was discussing oceanic mammals only.
Your references to differences in ways of communicating are well known to me. I’ve read deeply into Attemborough and Fossey and their fellows. I’ve always found the entire debate fascinating, and more…why do we expect them to learn our language? Why don’t we decode their language? Yes, yes, yes, I know. We’ve done some of that. You’ve given examples with the monkeys calls, and those are both apt and valid. I’m thinking more along the lines of decoding the “songs” of the humpback whales, the chatter of the bottlenose dolphins, the roars of the elephant seal.
Maybe, even with all of the computer software available to us, decoding the language of another species is out of the question…but maybe it ought to be tried.
Remember the scene in “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”?
The aliens had sent a tonal message , it was replayed to them on a keyboard, through giant speakers.
When the aliens realized the humans were smart enough to at least respond, they replied by blasting a new message.
Decoding the language of whales or dolphins, might be something along the same lines. Tonal in nature. There are a few human languages which are tonal. Perhaps it is something similar with our aquatic cousins.
Or am I so tired I am just babbling on senselessly?
October 8th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Along with The Magic Faraway Tree….
Humans will be alot better off when they get over this God delusion…
There will come a point in time when mankind looks back at this era and chuckles at itself.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
segue,
Yes indeed, the whole subject is so fascinating, not least the possibility of other forms of communication, as you describe. One factor, if and when we significantly decode the language of any species, would be how much common ground there might be between us, except at the most basic levels (fear, hunger, threat, mutual trust etc.). Birds might have sophisticated means of maintaining flight distance that would only make sense to qualified human pilots, for example!! Rather like the Inuits and their (how many?) words for the different conditions of snow.
Another intriguing aspect is the possibility of channels of communication quite unknown and possibly even inaccessible to us. It has always intrigued me how huge shoals of fish and enormous flocks of starlings wheel and shift in complex, compound mass movements as if one organism. The only way we can do that is as formal, learned artistic, athletic or military manoevres or displays which have to be built up and practiced intensely for a long time beforehand. Humans have no means of moving in instant, synchronised perfection en masse, for all our incredibly sophisticated ways of communication. Telepathy has been suggested. Who knows? Sometimes it has been possible to experiment by reductive means to find out which sense(s) is/are responsible for the transmissions (i.e., when the right one is blocked off, the communication fails). But there must be a limit to that. Maybe in time behaviourists will be able to implant sophisticated electrodes to indicate which sectors of creatures brains are functioning at these times. Whether any advances of that kind will lead to our being able to communicate with them is another matter. Hey ho. Back to Pavlov!