Creationism/Evolution

[Sophia]

In the end though we all want the same thing

Not really. For example, Sarah Palin wants creationism to be taught as science. I don't.

[MasterWuuf]

I'd prefer to see both options shown, with neither treated as something only 'stupid' people would believe.

[Sophia]

I'd prefer to see both options shown, with neither treated as something only 'stupid' people would believe.

That depends on the situation.

A fair, evenhanded treatment of both options as philosophies is perfectly reasonable. That is, discussing what people believe and why they believe it, and showing their evidence for it, which may not necessarily be "scientific."

However, as science, only beliefs that have achieved general acceptance in the scientific community should be taught. This means that evolution via natural selection, with its ample DNA and fossil evidence, is in, and creationism/ID/flying spaghetti monster/any other view without scientific evidence are out. This is not meant to trample on anyone's religious faith: science courses should have absolutely nothing to say about issues like whether or not God exists etc., because there is simply no proof either way. That kind of thing isn't what I'm talking about. My point is simply that if one view has ample scientific evidence and the other does not, it is "stupid" to accept the view that does not over the one that does.

[Gambit37]

Oh no! I'm staying out of this one too!

[Sophia]

Oh no! I'm staying out of this one too!

Isn't posting to stay you're staying out of something automatically mean you're in it (in some small way) and thus not staying out of it, even though you're saying you're staying out of it?

[Gambit37]

Yes! No! I don't know!

[MasterWuuf]

This means that evolution via natural selection/creationism/ID/flying spaghetti monster/any other view without scientific evidence are out.

hee, hee Might as well spit on ALL of them, if we're going to include creationism with 'flying spaghetti monsters' and other views without scientific evidence.

I believe in creationism, and I believe there's plenty of evidence to back that belief, but suggested that both sides of the creationism/evolution theories might be in order.

Not trying to get an evolution, or a creationism, discussion/aggression/obsession debate going either.

Gambit, you sure know how to state things safely, don't you?

[Sophia]

evolution via natural selection ... without scientific evidence

Wait, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

There's scientific evidence all over the place. The current theory of evolution has plenty of holes, sure, but so does most science-- that's just more stuff we have to find out.

both sides of the creationism/evolution theories might be in order.

Overzealous atheists might say otherwise, but, sure, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that says anything about the presence or absence of some creator. It merely describes a process-- a putting together of things bit by bit rather than the finished product appearing instantly.

Not trying to get an evolution, or a creationism, discussion/aggression/obsession debate going either.

Well, I'm probably not going to change any minds that have already made up no matter how much evidence I can present in a single thread here. But you know how it goes:

http://xkcd.com/386/

[Adamo]

http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc7u6_NPt ... re=related
http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=rq64qX7bN ... re=related

[Roquen]

Supreme Court Ruling
Emerson vs. Board of Education

From the majority position:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

Full text is here: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html

[Gambit37]

Not trying to get an evolution, or a creationism, discussion/aggression/obsession debate going either

Uh, no, Sophia did that already. It was rather the point of the thread!

[Roquen]

I'll dive in:

MasterWuuf, I certainly don't think you or anyone else that believes in creationism is stupid because of that belief. However, as I mentioned in the Obama thread, I strongly believe that every person on this planet should live by the following:

“My rights end where someone else’s begins.”

So ignoring all legal issues, I consider that notion of teaching creationism is public schools to be “wrong”.

Assuming that creationism was taught, which flavor? Wikipedia lists five:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

All of them? And what about Jewish, Islamic, etc creation beliefs?

This sort of thing is better from a parent anyway, somewhere out in nature to inspire the approp. awe. If it was taught in school is just some other boring thing to ignore as one stares out the window.

[Joramun]

I'll step in.

The difference is that Creationism is a belief, like the divinity of Christ or the Noodliness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Now, Evolution is a name for a set of observations :
- the similarities and differences among species
- the similarities and differences among individuals in a specie
- the similarities and differences among parents and children
- the existence of fossils of extinct species
- etc.
linked together by a logical process, that is now grounded by hard evidence :
Evolution, and the fact that DNA now accounts for the process of passing on the specific (as in specie) traits and the mutations and crossing (differences)

Site me any observation or logical process behind creationism ?
Moreover, is their any way to disprove creationism ?
No, because it's not grounded on observations.
If it can't be disproved, it's not science, it doesn't derive by logical analyses, it shouldn't be taught as science.

Now, how and why so people think creationism is stupid ?
That's because creationism is simply a compound of denial and refusal.
It denies a gigantic amount of evidence and observations. It refuses to find a logic behind those observations, and in the same way it refuses debate: you can't debate something that's not supported by logic.
It's even worse than pretending to be doing math and assuming 1+1=3. You can justify anything by assuming nonsense.

So I wouldn't say it's stupid. But it shouldn't be taught at all.
Creationism is a belief, a creed, not something that is taught, but something that is conditioned through rehearsal and brainbashing, preferably during childhood when people can be persuaded of anything. But for some reason, unlike Santa Claus, people seem to be clutching to it.

Maybe because of religious fanaticism, for which there actually is an evolutionary explanation: members of a group believing in a set of common (stupid or not) values or creed are more likely to cooperate, have sex, and defend each other against external threats, insuring a better rate of survival and breeding.

So, I say to all atheists, agnosticist and faithless scientists: Let's all band together (and have lots of sex). Yes we can !

[Trantor]

So, I say to all atheists, agnosticist and faithless scientists: Let's all band together (and have lots of sex). Yes we can !

I'm in. When do we get naked?

As a very rational person (I'm a mathematician, after all), the very concept of religious belief is rather curious to me. In my opinion, religious belief only exists because people need something to hold on to, something they can always rely on no matter what happens. Humans can't understand everything around them, and they can't stand that feeling, especially when it comes to the unanswerable questions "Why I am here? What is the purpose of life, or the universe?" But hey, I might be wrong; maybe there is a god. I'll never find out, at least not during my lifetime. What comes after that, I will check out when it is time.

That said, I don't look down on religious people, in fact, I envy them, because they have a warmth and a purpose in them that will always be there for them that I will never have. Also, I think Christianity stands for some very good things. I would consider myself a "moral Christian", I think concepts like forgiveness, tolerance and respect towards others are very precious.

Creationism, however, is unacceptable to me. Like philosophy, religion is about personal beliefs, ethics and morals. Science is about hard facts and theories that can be backed up by evidence. To me, this is a contradiction.
In fact, I actually think that Creationism defeats the being of Christianity. Creationism tries to close your eyes before scientific evidence and does not even tolerate another view. This non-tolerance is very un-Christian to me, like so many other parts of Christian fundamentalism that I just don't understand, and I'm just glad that (almost) nobody in Europe has a high opinion of Creationism.

[Lunever]

Well, first lets get it done - personally insulting a couple of regulars here by stating that I do perceive people clutching to creationism as being utterly stupid. The least thing I can do is to explain why.

Like the creatonists, I do believe that Darwin's evolution theory does not hold all answers to life and its developement. "Believe" in this instance means "based on the information I have processed / the experiences I've made, I have come to the conclusion that this is a possibility with a high probabilty".

Neither the big bang theory nor evolution theory necessarily exlude the existence of a prima causa, of God, for they describe processes, not from what origins these processes had started, which might or might not be God. (Even the big bang might have had a "before", depending on how we imagine time).

The evolution theory absolutely makes sense - everyone with a wake mind can perceive, that life is able to adapt, and everyone not blind to reality can't deny that life is sometimes cruel and does bring forth such things as selection - some just don't make it, and some don't make it without procreating and multiplying their diversified DNA.

Yet, we while we already have translated the DNA code of many species including humans into raw data, so far we only understand small parts of the syntax. Many parts have been declared as being without function by biased scientiest for quite a while, until it slowly occured to science, that they might have quite important functions we simply do not or not yet understand. So it is a bit early of denying the posibility that while DNA-based organisms might evolve according to the Darwin theory there might still be a directed programming component in the DNA that makes organisms develop toward predetermined goals even if the path to that goals might be modified by evolutionary processes. Might be, might not be, but anybody saying how this is, how it has to be to fit into some scientific or religious paradigm, draws conlcusions from so far non-existent data. Which is anyones personal decisions, so long as he/she does not feel the need to force other people into sharing that unfounded guess.

So far, I'm rather with some creatonist views, so why do I nonetheless label them stupid? Because it is ridiculous to substitute things you perceive to be scientific guesses with religious guesses. Just because some human some time ago used figures for the beginning of the world in a way he and his fellows in his timeframe could understand, they force-equalize those metaphorical figures (being a metaphor for a very long time on the brink of what a mortal can imagine) with geological age, same goes for squeezing half-truthes about DNA into some biblical frame, so people who don't know jack shit about how DNA is build and encoded get the mere feeling that this solely made-up construct is scientifically valid.
Heck. that's what all of this is basically about - a bunch of weirdos being utterly incapable of understanding one of the basic tenets of civililsation, art and philosophy/religion - which is the metaphor. The metaphor is the way mortals can perceive the incomprehensible. If you deny God and his prophets the ability to speak in metaphors by stating that everything the latter have written is literal truth, you deny God the possibility of being incomprehensible to a mere mortal, you even try to force that high being, which would be our very creator if you do believe in him/her/it, to be somehting you little stupid creatonist can completely understand and even define according to your own preferences. That's pretty much abusing the Name.

So yes, science might not hold all wisdom, but sticking to the letter (instead of the spirit) of just one of the manyfold metaphorical grasps of the divine throughout the cultures and history of mankind is stupid, and trying to make such a world-view become relatively more valid by abusing political parties (like the repulicans) and via them the government and the public education system to spread this view among those who are to young and to inexperienced to have a reasonble will saving throw is what I call corruption.

[MasterWuuf]

Not trying to get an evolution, or a creationism, discussion/aggression/obsession debate going either

Uh, no, Sophia did that already. It was rather the point of the thread!

Oops. I didn't notice that. I read the first post on the page that popped up, saw it quoting someone else, and figured it was past the first page.

[MasterWuuf]

I'll dive in:

MasterWuuf, I certainly don't think you or anyone else that believes in creationism is stupid because of that belief. However, as I mentioned in the Obama thread, I strongly believe that every person on this planet should live by the following:

“My rights end where someone else’s begins.”

So ignoring all legal issues, I consider that notion of teaching creationism is public schools to be “wrong”.

Assuming that creationism was taught, which flavor? Wikipedia lists five:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

All of them? And what about Jewish, Islamic, etc creation beliefs?

This sort of thing is better from a parent anyway, somewhere out in nature to inspire the approp. awe. If it was taught in school is just some other boring thing to ignore as one stares out the window.

I guess I'd be more for the 'parents should teach at home' idea, as well.

I don't call people stupid. That tends to be one of those 'close the books and minds on communication' kind of words.

I think most people simply mean someone is ignorant.
Clearly, some mean 'intentionally' ignorant.

Oh well, I have friends on both sides of this issue.
Ummm...the Obama/Palen debate, as well. (I've noticed it always goes there )

[Gambit37]

I said I'd stay out of it, but I'll at least share something:

As a child, I was brought up in a Catholic household, by a very strictly Catholic mother. I became an altar server at age 7, and continued with that until -- can you believe -- I was 23!?

Yet despite this, I didn't really believe what I'd been fed. I'd always found the whole Bible story rather absurd, and no different from the fantasy fiction I read as a child and teenager. Eventually, I stopped serving and going to Mass and it was the best thing I ever did: I finally felt free to be myself, not something my mother had wanted (she wanted me to be a priest!).

These days I could be best described as agnostic with some kind of spiritual tendency. I share the views of David Attenborough:

In a December 2005 interview with Simon Mayo on BBC Radio Five Live, Attenborough stated that he considers himself an agnostic.[27] When asked whether his observation of the natural world has given him faith in a creator, he generally responds with some version of this story:

Code: Select all

My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.

He has explained that he feels the evidence all over the planet clearly shows evolution to be the best way to explain the diversity of life, and that "as far as I'm concerned, if there is a supreme being then he chose organic evolution as a way of bringing into existence the natural world."

Indeed, it was Darwin's observations of the parasitic wasp that convinced him of the case against an all powerful creator.

[Adamo]

Joramun wrote:

Now, how and why so people think creationism is stupid ?

Trantor, give me please two numbers from 0 to 100 (which you think is about the thrue):

- what is the percentage of Bush white supporters in Louisiana, who believes, that evolutionism is just an unprooved theory and that a creationism is an equal theory (therefore, both can be tought in schools)?
- what is the percentage of academic math teachers in Germany, who believes, that evolutionism is just an unprooved theory and that a creationism is an equal theory (therefore, both can be tought in schools)?

- what is the percentage of people, who agrees, that a human`s soul can be possessed by demons, which believes, that the universe has been physically created in 7 days about 6000 years ago?
- what is the percentage of people involved with NASA Earth Science Enterprise projects, wchich believes, that the universe has been physically created in 7 days about 6000 years ago?

Trantor wrote:

I don't look down on religious people, in fact, I envy them, because they have a warmth

oh really? maybe in Germany, but definitely not in Poland; as far as I`ve seen, many of them are stupid, angry, intolerance racists. There are some positive exceptions, of course.

Gambit wrote:

As a child, I was brought up in a Catholic household, by a very strictly Catholic mother.

well, in some way, you`ve been forcing to believe. That never works.

[Des]

I used to be open-minded about Creationism and Intelligent Design, but after getting involved in a discussion on a different internet forum this changed. I ended up reading a lot of Creationist websites featuring so-called scientists such as Walter Brown and Barry Setterfield. After this I became totally satisfied that both BCT and ID are a pile of smeg and not worth another nanosecond of my time.

I now agree with the Angry Aussie http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lqVCcfD5Ry4

P.S. Very impressive post by Lunever

[PaulH]

The 'arguments' I have seen are rather circular. As soon as a none creationalist makes a point about evidence that backs up any one of any sound and accepted scientific theorems the creationalist simply says, "Well, God made it look that way".

[Paul Stevens]

Well, God made it look that way

That's right, she did. And she did it so
that we would think that all of this took
place without her help. Modest lady, she!
Miraculously modest. Not at all like the
God in the Christian Bible.

It will be exciting to find out how she put all
of this (space, time, quarks, God, integers,
and other things) together. Perhaps the
modest lady will provide clues to this
puzzle in the afterlife, if I am very good.

Around Madison, Wisconsin, by the way, it
would seem that Mr. Obama is being treated
like the saviour. People refuse to take down
the campaign signs in their yards.

[Trantor]

Trantor wrote:

I don't look down on religious people, in fact, I envy them, because they have a warmth

oh really? maybe in Germany, but definitely not in Poland; as far as I`ve seen, many of them are stupid, angry, intolerance racists. There are some positive exceptions, of course.

You misunderstood me. I didn't mean that religious people are more friendly and open to others (in fact, many of them are the contrary, as you correctly said). But these people are more positive towards themselves. If they are depressed, if everythin goes wrong in their lives, they still have some hope in them that comes from their belief. They are sure that everything will be fine eventually. It is this blind hope, this optimism that I am jealous of.

[Bit]

Whoever made this universe - he stole it and made a lot of silly bugs removing the copy protection

[Roquen]

But for some reason, unlike Santa Claus, people seem to be clutching to it.

Santa Claus does something (deliver's gifts), were god does exact what is expected of him/her (nothing).

From "The Devil's Dictionary":

CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

IDIOT, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling.

[cowsmanaut]

if we want evidence to something other than "natural selection" we simply need to look to our lovely elephants. I've mentioned this before since we've had this discussion before.. but the idea of accidents determining a survival of the fittest seems a bit off to me. This is not to say I think creationism is any part of it either. I'm not suggesting the hand of god is dealing out new forms for the sake of the species.

However, imagine, you are an elephant, and you encounter a band of ravage humans who run out and kill your buddy, cut off his tusks and then leave.. and then next month, someone else comes and get's another friend of yours doing the same thing. Now the lion.. he'll eat the meat... but the humans kill only to take the tusk and leave. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to get the concept and elephants are pretty smart.

Not only are they seeing elephants developing into maturity without tusks, but also on a more societal front, the females are mating with those males as opposed to those with the big tusks as before.

So imagine, you are a small berry eater, you forrage the ground to get to berries, a new predator appears in the area on a migration perhaps having killed all it's food in it's area or perhaps being pushed by natural changes in the weather or environment. This guy keeps killing you when you are on the ground.. you are a piss poor climber but those who manage to get to higher ground survive.. you desperately wish you could climb better because the ground is looking more and more scary to you. well, your wish could be manifested physically over time. Evidence is present that the mind alters the physical and in most cases the changes can be small.. but is not that the evidence in the evolution theory.. your nails could get longer generation by generation. it's not as if the needs are changing here.. the predator is here to stay as long as there are things to eat.

Let's say you instead of staying and getting climbing skills you leave the area, but the berries you want don't grow here, instead there is a different berry but it gives you an upset stomach, well, it's all you can eat, so you suffer the runs, well, you are aware that you have to eat it so your body starts to adjust, but you still have the runs until you die, your child on the other hand adapts to have it less often and so on.

It's not a simple matter of accidents.. it's a need being met by the body. Evidence is shown in people building up tollerances to chemicals, or even other things like heat, or cold, or air loss. This can be shown over a matter of a few years let alone a lifetime.

Take alone with this, the idea of genetic memory. You can claim you do not believe in genetic memory, but the truth is it's everywhere. The genetic code which tells a dear how to walk within a few short moments of birth. Or to find the teet. The suggestion to lay perfectly still until a predator is gone, or what a predator sounds like. Birds can recognise the shape of a predator bird and yet are quite happy to sit next to some other species of bird. How do they know the difference? How is this information given from birth? What about the idea of deja vu.. so many have this idea that they've been in a place before that has been around for ages, or perhaps past lives.. It could be a strong memory from an ancestor. This idea has made it into that assasin game, but it's not as if they drew it out of nowhere and ran with it.

Let's look at something else, instructions past death.. a chicken with it's head cut off will continue to run around. The motor skills to run require a sequenced firing of electrical impulses (assumedly sent by the brain) to the muscles in the thigh, calf, feet, toes, in the right sequence you keep your balance, in the wrong sequence you don't.. A worm, you can cut in half and the body continues in the two halves. each independent. Where's the brain? Why should we assume all the knowledge and memory is stored there? Think more of the brain as a CPU, but the body as a hard drive. So if you die with the thought, keep running and the body does so because nothing told it anything else.. imagine the possiblity that if you doing the nasty and one other driving thought is in your head.. "man I wish I could climb better" then that desire might be passed down. So long as it was a sincere need. Who knows though.. perhaps your child might want to be a fireman because you were thinking of good old fireman brown and his rippling muscles while fat farmer bob was getting busy..... predetermined destiny? (ok the last part was a joke)

So, I have scientific evidence to back up my ideas.. proof of their own sort. However, you don't hear it taught in schools.

So back to the topic of what's taught, I say the evidence for anything should be shown, that the ideas of the world can be presented and the children, teens, young adults, can make up their own minds. It is after all what we do anyway.. The parents will present to their child their own ideas and not share the alternate ideas because it's what they think is real.. give the bloody kids a chance to see all sides and use their head. Let us not say, oh no.. that's simply not worth talking about and leave it that. It's the same idea as telling the kids not to learn about sex in school. They get what little info the can on the subject and run with it.. and in many cases it can be bad info.. where as if you teach sex ed, they get a lot of info, they hear about the conceptions of others and the ideas (wives tales) in a safe environment. It's possible for them to ask questions and make intelligent decisions.

So, I don't say teach just creationism, or just darwinism, etc.. teach about all the ideas, present their cases and the proof and let the kids fully understand. This is how they make good decisions.

moo

[Sophia]

So, I have scientific evidence to back up my ideas.. proof of their own sort. However, you don't hear it taught in schools.

That's because these ideas are misinterpretations that have already been discredited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

[Roquen]

I've always preferred "survival of the more adaptable" over "survival of the fittest" as a one-liner. But it's also "survival of the most sexy". Humans (on the whole) are getting taller and less hairy, this has no utility for us.

[PaulH]

Yes, the sexy thing is true. I think the average male Dutchman is now 6ft 2!!!

[Paul Stevens]

That's because these ideas are misinterpretations that have already been discredited.

Better be a bit careful about this. Certainly many
such ideas have been discredited but not all.
Strange things are being discovered about experiences
having effects on future generations. It ain't
one hundred percent DNA.