Creationism Vs Science
The so called controversy has reared it's head yet again. This time, not in the ole USA but in Britain.
It seems that Professor Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, was forced to step down for appearing to advocate the teaching of creationism in schools. It turns out that he was urging science teachers to explain to students why creationism is bad science.
However the intelligent design brigand jumped on his comments, twisted them to make it seem that they had the support of the Royal Society. Reiss tired to clarify his statement but it was too late. I imagined that internal politics had kicked in and Reiss stepped down for "causing damage to the Society's reputation."
So the Royal Society is taking the same approach as other science bodies to ignore the whole creationism/intelligent design balderdash. Let the fanatics rant and rave, gnash at the teeth, froth at the mouth and sooner or later people will recognise them for the nuts they are. Remember the old adage, never argue with a fool, people won't be able to tell you apart.
At this point I should make it clear that creationism is a literal belief in the creation story of the bible, not just a belief in god.
Thing is, I agree with Professor Reiss. As the Professor pointed out, one in ten British students come from a home where they are taught Creationism. In America I believe that it is somewhere around one in two, or one in three (actually I believed it was around one in five, but looking at the polls has reversed that opinion).
By ignoring them, creationists are not going to go away. In fact, in places like America where voting is voluntary, they're just going to become more powerful, because they're fanatical enough to keep people like me from enjoying the levels of power they themselves have enjoyed for centuries. Right wing christian groups in America have stated that an atheist will never be president. Look at the trouble a Mormon had in the presidential selections.
We need to sit down with the kids and explain in a rational debate why creationism is bad science. Wait, now I'm telling lies. Creationism is not a science. It's a philosophy that is incompatible with science. Again, I'm talking about literal creation myth, not a belief in god.
At the beginning of the year I had called around to my parents early in the morning to drop something off when I spied my parent's neighbour who works in Maitland walking towards the bus stop. Since I was on my way home to Maitland I offered her a life. The neighbour is friends with my parents and they go to the same church. She knows I'm an atheist and she asked about my views on the whole creationism debate that was happening in the USA.
I told her about a book I had read years ago on philosophy. It had a chapter called God does exists, followed by a chapter called God doesn't exist. The first chapter was about how a logical person had to believe in god as science was flawed because there was never an ultimate answer. No matter what the answer to a question was, it always raised more questions which eventually could not be answered where as a belief in god meant the ultimate answer was always god.
For example, the question "Where did the Earth come from?"would be answered by science as "It formed from the protoplasma of the forming sun" This leads to "Where did the protoplasma come from?" To which the answer is "From the big bang""What caused the big bang?" "Cosmic dust rubbing together" "Where did the dust come from?" "....Don't know.
The same question "Where did the Earth come from?"Is answered by belief in god as "God made it" "Where did god come from?" "God is a Omnipotent being and has always existed."
The next chapter used the same argument to prove that a logical person could not believe in god. Because science was always advancing human knowledge, each answer gives us a new set of questions to research, study and eventually form answers to. Where's a belief in god stagnates human development because the answer is always god and therefore we don't need to look any longer.
I believe this example illustrates perfectly the differences between creationism and science. And this should be explained to children who struggle to assimilate their beliefs with their science education. And once we remove the elephant of creationism from the room, people of all faiths can work together to explain the mysteries of the universe and continue to advance humanity.
References:
http://www.theherald.com.au/news/world/world/general/scientist-quits-in-creationism-uproar/1275760.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/leading_theistic_evolutionist.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/royal_society_on_creationism_v.html
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2008/09/intelligent-design-and-popular-culture_16.html
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2008/09/17/catholic_church_to_hold_debate_on_god_an
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2008/09/17/creationism_biologist_quits_job
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7619670.stm
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/michael_reisss_big_mistake.php
http://www.judgingpbs.com/dfp-slide2.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/oct/05101705.html
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm
It seems that Professor Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, was forced to step down for appearing to advocate the teaching of creationism in schools. It turns out that he was urging science teachers to explain to students why creationism is bad science.
However the intelligent design brigand jumped on his comments, twisted them to make it seem that they had the support of the Royal Society. Reiss tired to clarify his statement but it was too late. I imagined that internal politics had kicked in and Reiss stepped down for "causing damage to the Society's reputation."
So the Royal Society is taking the same approach as other science bodies to ignore the whole creationism/intelligent design balderdash. Let the fanatics rant and rave, gnash at the teeth, froth at the mouth and sooner or later people will recognise them for the nuts they are. Remember the old adage, never argue with a fool, people won't be able to tell you apart.
At this point I should make it clear that creationism is a literal belief in the creation story of the bible, not just a belief in god.
Thing is, I agree with Professor Reiss. As the Professor pointed out, one in ten British students come from a home where they are taught Creationism. In America I believe that it is somewhere around one in two, or one in three (actually I believed it was around one in five, but looking at the polls has reversed that opinion).
By ignoring them, creationists are not going to go away. In fact, in places like America where voting is voluntary, they're just going to become more powerful, because they're fanatical enough to keep people like me from enjoying the levels of power they themselves have enjoyed for centuries. Right wing christian groups in America have stated that an atheist will never be president. Look at the trouble a Mormon had in the presidential selections.
We need to sit down with the kids and explain in a rational debate why creationism is bad science. Wait, now I'm telling lies. Creationism is not a science. It's a philosophy that is incompatible with science. Again, I'm talking about literal creation myth, not a belief in god.
At the beginning of the year I had called around to my parents early in the morning to drop something off when I spied my parent's neighbour who works in Maitland walking towards the bus stop. Since I was on my way home to Maitland I offered her a life. The neighbour is friends with my parents and they go to the same church. She knows I'm an atheist and she asked about my views on the whole creationism debate that was happening in the USA.
I told her about a book I had read years ago on philosophy. It had a chapter called God does exists, followed by a chapter called God doesn't exist. The first chapter was about how a logical person had to believe in god as science was flawed because there was never an ultimate answer. No matter what the answer to a question was, it always raised more questions which eventually could not be answered where as a belief in god meant the ultimate answer was always god.
For example, the question "Where did the Earth come from?"would be answered by science as "It formed from the protoplasma of the forming sun" This leads to "Where did the protoplasma come from?" To which the answer is "From the big bang""What caused the big bang?" "Cosmic dust rubbing together" "Where did the dust come from?" "....Don't know.
The same question "Where did the Earth come from?"Is answered by belief in god as "God made it" "Where did god come from?" "God is a Omnipotent being and has always existed."
The next chapter used the same argument to prove that a logical person could not believe in god. Because science was always advancing human knowledge, each answer gives us a new set of questions to research, study and eventually form answers to. Where's a belief in god stagnates human development because the answer is always god and therefore we don't need to look any longer.
I believe this example illustrates perfectly the differences between creationism and science. And this should be explained to children who struggle to assimilate their beliefs with their science education. And once we remove the elephant of creationism from the room, people of all faiths can work together to explain the mysteries of the universe and continue to advance humanity.
References:
http://www.theherald.com.au/news/world/world/general/scientist-quits-in-creationism-uproar/1275760.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/leading_theistic_evolutionist.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/royal_society_on_creationism_v.html
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2008/09/intelligent-design-and-popular-culture_16.html
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2008/09/17/catholic_church_to_hold_debate_on_god_an
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2008/09/17/creationism_biologist_quits_job
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7619670.stm
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/michael_reisss_big_mistake.php
http://www.judgingpbs.com/dfp-slide2.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/oct/05101705.html
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm
posted by Renegade79 at 7:08 am
9 Comments:
Ooooo I've gotta weigh in on this one.
As far as I can tell, neither evolution nor creation offer "good science".
Both sides have their raving lunatics. Let's ignore them for a moment.
There are actually level-headed, "normal" scientists on both sides of this particular divide.
Both do all they can do in the absence of a repeatable past ... they interpret available data on the basis of a set of assumptions.
Inevitably, their conclusions are vastly different.
Neither can apply scientific methods to prove their conclusions (hypothesise, test, repeat, conclude), because neither can adequately test nor repeat the past, however long or short it might have been.
Even recent "big bang" simulation attempts are fundamentally flawed ... there are too many "intelligent" people "creating" whatever it is they're creating.
As far as I can tell, neither evolutionists nor creationists have anything more to offer than a philosophical position. They should both accept the shortcomings of their respective theories and get on with life.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.
First of all, you claim that evolution can not apply scientific method to their conclusions - hypothesise being one of them. Except that's how the theory came about. Darwin sailed off in his little boat observed the natural world. Noticed behavioural and structural differences on similar species and the differences in their environment and made a hypothesis as to why there were differences.
There is other evidence to support evolution. It happens all the time around us. As their environment changes, creatures adapt. Viruses, bacteria, rabbits etc.
Then there is the fossil record. Carbon dating, DNA evidence, behavioural studies etc.
Granted none of this is conclusive evidence, but it is compelling and it is mounting up.
And there are flaws in evolutionary theory. But flaws don't make it bad science. It's how people react to the flaws. If they investigate them, make new and better hypothesis, adapt their theory then they are good scientists. However egos often prevail (in any area) and they don't, but it doesn't make it bad science, only bad scientists.
The same can not be applied to creationism (remember it's the literal translation of the bible) because the moment you adapt it it's no longer creationism but science being conducted by someone who believes in god.
Evolutionary processes are definitely evident in the world around us.
There's no denying natural selection (which, incidentally, only ever decreases the amount of data in the gene pool of a given species, making it more of a devolutionary process).
There's also no denying the fact that mutations happen (although I think you could count on one hand the number of naturally occurring, observable mutations that have been found to actually benefit a species).
The fossil record is great if you can explain the absence of intermediary species (e.g. there should be thousands of reptile-birds), the fact that many fossils are preserved over multiple layers of sedimentation where the lower layers supposedly formed millenia before the higher layers, and the fact that similar-looking sedimentation patterns have been shown to form in minutes under the right conditions.
Carbon dating is cool too, until you realise how dependent it is on a good guess about how much carbon was there in the first place, and how much was lost by means other than decay. Similar deficiencies exist in other dating methods.
I find all of this "evidence" rather un-compelling personally. Observable evolutionary phenomena actually give us very little information with which to conclude anything about our past, and our analysis of the fossil record, ice cores, etc., depend entirely upon our assumptions about what they should tell us.
e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
vs.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1816
I'm not a scientist, but I see smart people looking at the same data and drawing different conclusions that make as much sense as the assumptions they bring to the table.
To suggest that a scientist who believes in God is somehow disqualified from drawing useful conclusions about our origins is arrogant and at odds with the open-mindedness you have demonstrated in our previous discussions here.
The only difference between a [non-raving] creationist and an evolutionist is their worldview. If all worldviews have equal value (as I think you believe), they all deserve equal expression.
For the record, I am a non-raving creationist. On the scale of things, I don't see it as an important issue, but I'm yet to see a good scientific reason to be persuaded that evolution theory is much more than a creation story without a creator.
I'm not saying that a scientist who believes in god is disqualified from drawing conclusions. In fact I have taken great pains not to say it.
What I am saying is that creationism, the LITERAL translation of the bible, is not science! It does not advance human understanding, it can not be refuted. If you test it and draw a conclusion that some part of it is wrong, and you therefore change your theory, your theory is no longer creationism because it is no longer a literal translation of the bible.
In fact this is how evolution theory began. Darwin was a christian who observed the world and came to the belief that the literal translation was wrong and put forth his own theory.
As for creationism being a world view, your right it is. But that still does not make it science. It should not be taught in a science classroom.
Now as it is a world view then it should be taught, as philosophy, along with all the other current creation beliefs.
Science and christian belief can coexist. Even if the big bang and evolution all turn out to be turn does not mean it could not have been set in motion by a god (doesn't mean it was either). Existence of god will never be proved or disproved by science.
I like evolution.
I do not like creationism.
Why? Well it is like the difference between a good teacher and a bad one. A student will ask a question about evolution that a teacher doesn't know. The answer will be "lets find out by...".
A question asked by a student will get another answer from a good creationist teacher - "beautiful mystery of faith".
Both cannot answer the question, but given time only one will arrive at an answer that will BE an answer.
Evolution is more human, uplifting, growing, exploring and dynamic. Creationism, when not reduced to a 'god of the gaps' (the non-literal-bible-god) is simply hitting your head against a brick wall.
Human attempts to explain creationism in the real world invariably fail when explored, for example the numerous straw men of 'irreducible complexity'.
Evolution has even disproved (or evolved) some of its own tenants in an effort to explain real phenomena. You can't to the same to the bible because you can't disprove god's word - the real world must be wrong (i.e. the value of pi must be *exactly* 3).
It seems you've both drawn a connection between fundamentalism and creationism. I'm not surprised; the loudest proponents of creationism tend to be fundamentalists.
But there is more to creationism than feeble attempts to use the first 12 chapters of Genesis as a science textbook.
I'm not one of those people who believe in over-reaching with what was, and is, a mixture of historical and poetic literature.
But I am inclined to side with those scientists who have the same knowledge, credentials and raw data as others, yet conclude that the earth is young and could not have formed by chance.
Why? Because I believe in a creator God. It doesn't mean I think Genesis 1-12 should be taught in our science classes, but it does inform my position on material that does belong in those classes, e.g. fossils, sedimentation and ice cores.
If our science classes only feature the hypotheses and conclusions of evolutionists, they deny our students the right to engage with the facts with an open mind and draw their own conclusions. How does this strengthen our education system?
If scientific material offered by scientists who believe in creation should not be taught in our science classrooms, I see no reason for material offered by evolutionists to be allowed either.
When it comes to our origins, neither side can prove anything. Both are informed by their belief or lack of belief in God. Lack of belief is not somehow more scientific; it is just different.
Lindsay, your assertion that those who believe in creation are happy to leave questions unanswered in the name of faith and its mysteries is offensive and uninformed.
There are thousands of scientists who believe in creation and spend their lives probing the depths of the universe and its many unknowns. Many study its origins and publish their findings in journals that are sufficiently open-minded. There are also abundant resources made available to science teachers and the general public that leave no excuse for "simply hitting your head against a brick wall".
Most sources define creationism as the fundamentalist belief of he literal translation of the bible, particularly American and British courses, so yes I have drawn a connection between creationism and fundamentalism.
I understand that there are christians out there who believe that god created the universe and may not buy into evolution and big bang but have a more practical view then creationists.
It was not my intention for this post to became a creationism Vs evolution, but why creationism is not a science, even when it's dressed up in its Sunday best as "Intelligent design". But my own beliefs came to the fore and well....
Hi Luke, I do admit sometimes I am biased.
I am biased because if given two sides of an argument that is not resolved, people are inclined to believe that both are equally valid. The key word is equally. You will see this in the media when they feel they have go give a 'balanced' panel, you will find three qualified people and one looney who thinks the earth is flat.
Before you put words in my mouth and say that these are SCIENTISTS who believe in creation, I would ask where are their credentials when they argue for intelligent design - biology or theology or world literature and arts.
For the other type, the physicists who can't explain the last tiny piece of their theory and go "god", well I believe I referenced the 'god of the gaps' in my last post. In my world view I prefer 'x' as shorthand for an unknown variable and not 'god' - considering we have no real world measurement of god then it could be 'gods' or 'goddess(es)' or such (or 42).
Ah but if it is 'god', because we have the bible, then we come full circle. We have 'faith', and we have the association of science with the bible.
"If scientific material offered by scientists who believe in creation should not be taught in our science classrooms, I see no reason for material offered by evolutionists to be allowed either."
This scientific material (I assume intelligent design here, if not please reference for me) HAS been disproved - evolution can prove otherwise - when I.D. said look how complex this eye is, how could it evolve naturally? Evolution scratched its head and came back and said look, here is a fossil record (or real life examples) showing how light receptive skin cells evolved over time into the modern eye.
"When it comes to our origins, neither side can prove anything. Both are informed by their belief or lack of belief in God. Lack of belief is not somehow more scientific; it is just different."
Lack of belief is more scientific. It is dispassionate, they do not have an emotional interest vested towards a pre-determined outcome (weather conscious or subconscious. They are not equal and opposite, belief and non-belief and it is not a sliding scale. Does god accept 50% devotion? No.
"Lindsay, your assertion that those who believe in creation are happy to leave questions unanswered in the name of faith and its mysteries is offensive and uninformed."
Remember my argument in previous post discounted the 'god of the gaps' this should mean that by definition they do not want to answer questions beyond and explanation of how it could have been god (and not anything else, unless that 'else' was caused by god in a flow on effect). If accounting for the ever-shrinking god under a body of knowledge surely you may have to admit that eventually god may get so tiny as to eventually be 'solved for x'.
Lindsay, if you doubt that there are scientists with credentials who believe in creation, I suggest you spend some time here:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/21/65
Information on the authors of each article is easily available. Knock yourself out.
By "scientific material" I mean explanations for geological, palaeontological, etc. phenomena that are offered by those who are convinced that the earth is young. I haven't suggested that the biblical account of creation be taught as science, only that students be allowed to choose how to interpret the data that is available.
Finally, you seem to be oblivious to the fact that your lack of belief in God is, in fact, your belief set. It can just as easily be said that those who don't believe in God have an "emotional interest vested towards a pre-determined outcome" when assessing data. Inevitably, they'll be drawn to whatever conclusions make the most sense in the absence of a supreme being.
Again, I find your ongoing assertion that scientists who believe in God check their brains at the door and keep a "too hard" basket under their desks ridiculous.
I believe in God. It doesn't mean I don't want to know all that I can about the world.
Post a Comment
<< Home