Am I overeacting to Creationism?
 

Creationism to me is a social issue.

I got myself into this mess when I decided to resume my casual studies on evolution and natural selection. I was shocked to see that this field of science is under direct attack by complete morons. The more I read the more outraged I became at the ignorance manifesting itself around this subject. It scares me see the Creationism movement permeating our political and social landscape.

"You know it's still called the theory of evolution. But they teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs." - John Tory, leader of the Ontario Conservative party.

Every time I hear stuff like this my jaw drops and steam comes out of my ears. I want to tell myself that this is just a phase and all will pass but really feel like this is symptom of a much greater issue: ignorance is running rampant in our society.

I'm at a loss of what to do about it.

The questions I'm pursuing concerning the Creationism movement are:
Is the pursuit of science obstructed?
Is this a case of blind leading the blind or a form social and political manipulation?
Will we see the rise of creationist astronomy, geology, physics?

I think the whole "Theory of Evolution vs. Creationism" is a non-starter. It's comparing the sciences to philosophy or religion.

It would be like starting up a discourse/debate on "Cell Theory vs. Preformationism" and using it as a way to decide how we move forward in human medicine.

Um, no. I refuse to believe that we all, at one point, floated around--intact but miniature--in either Adam's testicles or Eve's ovaries. I'd expect any doctor or surgeon working with me to refuse to believe that as well.

Let's leave philosophic exploration where it belongs: outside the sciences. The exception, of course, is when you can use actual evidence and eventually bring it into the fold of worthwhile scientific inquiry.

That said, staunch and influential Creationists are harmful in that they create ignorance around something important: the continued understanding of human (and other) biology.

When Creationism enters politics, it can have direct and noticeable effects on government funding and school curriculum, so, yeah, I think this is a very real problem.

Yeah, you're making too much of it.

I wish it were that simple. Creationism is social, it's religious, it's philosophical, and it's political. It's "don't you dare let your reality touch my precious fantasy" across the entire spectrum of human interaction.
Do something about it. If something as stupid as creationism comes out of the mouth of someone around you, go ahead and try to fix the person's incredible intellectual dishonesty and ignorance by refuting the simplistic fallacies and misrepresentations.
The conservative leader's name is John Tory? That's interesting. Is the liberal leader's name Matthew Progressive? :confused:
Seriously, if people are going to try and force ignorance on you, you're entitled to force truth on them. Don't be quiet if someone starts in on creationism. Speak up. If you can't answer a question, come back here and post it. I give you my personal guarantee that anything and everything a creationist says can be refuted with real, verifiable science. Some people do it for a living:
http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/gra...o/av169_lg.jpg
The questions I'm pursuing concerning the Creationism movement are:
Yes. The more time biologists, geologists, physicists, and other scientists have to defend very basic science to morons, the less time they get to spend on the good stuff, like curing diseases or creating a grand unified theory.
The creationist leadership is probably well aware that what they're selling isn't science. Yes, it's manipulation of the stupid by the corrupt.
It's already those things and more. How do you think astronomers respond to the idea that the entire universe is 6,014 years old? How do you think geologists respond when some moron suggests one 40-day flood carved the grand canyon? How do you think a physicist would respond to the idea that the universe blinked into existence because a mythological god wished it?

Creationism is an affront to all science (except maybe aceology and numismatics).

I would say that Creationism is not necessarily a social phenomenon. Creationism is an issue, ultimately, of fundamentalist religious thought.

What is a related social phenomenon is the adoption of fundamentalist modalities of thought-- as well as fundamentalist exegetical tropes-- into social philosophy and politics. That, I think, is really what's at issue here. If someone wishes to espouse Creationism as a religious precept, I may call that poor exegesis and simplistic religious philosophy, but I will also certainly call it their right to believe whatever they choose.

What presents such a monumental problem is the exportation of this idea into the public domain, in such a way that we are now forced to debate not merely whether our schools should teach religion alongside science, but whether that religious stance then ought to be only one specific religious idea out of many (as the literalist interpretation of Genesis generally cited by these Creationists is not the sole Christian reading, let alone the sole Jewish reading, let alone the sole Muslim reading).

Once again, I can't help noting that it is precisely because of problems with religious doctrines putting themselves forward as "objective," when they can't even claim to be universal amongst their own religion, let alone the other religions that share the same sacred texts, that Jefferson was so firm on needing a wall of separation between Church and State.

There is, IMO, nothing wrong with religion...provided that it occupies the space of religion. Religion is a tool for people to attempt to connect to God, to share in a community of spirituality and ethics, to advance their own spiritual awareness. If one is treating Scripture like a lesson in cosmological science, geology, physics, biology, etc., then one is simply abusing it: that is not what it was created to be, and it is deeply irrelevant to the enterprise of religion.

Science, on the other hand, was created precisely to attempt to create a paradigm to explain the physical universe in systematic ways, to explain the nature of physical phenomena via a common, mathematically-based language of direct observations and reproducible experimental results. It is uninterested in ethics, creating community, God, and people's spiritual awareness, and in fact lacks any capacity for working with any of those things.

I really cannot understand why individuals who espouse fundamentalist beliefs cannot simply explain to their children that their religion teaches something different, and while their kids might need to learn science to progress in coursework, they need not believe that any of it is true. And, frankly, nobody is forcing all kids to attend public school: if fundamentalist parents don't like public school, they can always send their kids to private religious school, or home-school them.

I was once told "If you don't like God's creation, don't live in it". I explained that their own Bible made killing myself against the rules, and they didn't know how to answer.

Hey, I thought the term "creationism" had been replaced by "Intelligent Design".....

I'd never dream of going into a church and attempting to disprove or contradict everything they teach. It's not my place.

I have been to the one in santee
Creation and Earth History Museum, Santee, California

What I say to these sorts of arguments, though, is that if your religion depends on a factual basis, then you must not have much faith.

(It's a losing argument to point out that their religion, if it's based on facts, is based on false facts. They've got a self-confirming little universe built, and anything outside it is automatically invalid. They "know" their Book is "true", and so the only facts that can also be "true" are those that confirm what the Book says.)

The counter to that, RB, is the fideism argument. Most church bodies have officially rejected fideism, even though nearly all the followers believe in it by default. I've had all the debates a thousands times and I'll have them a thousand more times.

To my knowledge:

Creationism=A super power [God] designed the entire World, etc, etc.

It's the answer to how everything happened.

Intelligent Design=A super power has time and time again led the process of evolution, etc, etc.

It's the answer to why everything happened.

Intelligent Design+Evolution=Perfectly compatible and viable.

Creationism+Evolution=I DIDNT COME FROM NO MONKIES

That does make us wonder what you do for a living.

Intelligent Design is just Creationism in disguise: Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i suppose it's a matter of what context you're in exactly. if you're in a place where the folk who believe that stuff are a significant political power, then it's a socio-political matter. if you're not, it can be kinda quaint that people think that way i suppose. so i dont see this as a question that's interesting enough to warrant much debate at the conceptual level---but in particular situations, things can get quite complicated sometimes quite fast around creationism or id or whatever it will be repackaged as in the future. the problem is that it's hard to imagine winning arguments with these people because their entire position comes from an assertion of control over premises/axioms---so just as it's unlikely that you are going to argue a pentacostalist out of thinking that there is a holy spirit and that speaking in tongues is normal and that we are all hurtling toward armageddeon, so it's unlikely that you're going to be able to argue a creationist-type out of thinking as they do because for each of these folk the question is how did god create the world and how many days did it take and not how do the various notions of evolution square with physical evidence. you aren't in the same conversation with these folk. they're talking about something else, a different language game.

that's what makes them a problem when they get political power.
seems to me the conflict then really is not so much about creationism/id/whatever, but in keeping these folk away from political power.

Debating creationists is more of a hobby. Only a few of us can make the big bucks doing it and I don't have the patience to write a book.

RB, mythology is a context and religion is a context and science is a context. Creationism/Intelligent Design is an intellectual abomination with no legitimate context. It's entirely outside of context. It's wrong, incorrect, and ultimately damaging to both of the contexts it tries to skirt.

One thing to be aware of here is that if we don't treat this issue with a little urgency, it'll spread. You can dismiss it as a _______ issue, but the problem is that fundies are trying to make it everyone's problem. They are all complete morons, but reason doesn't always trump populism. This ideology needs to be struck down. They may have the right to believe whatever they want, but it has no place in schools or government. If children need to be taught creationism, they can learn it at home or at church.

Intelligen Design is just Creationism in sheep's clothing. Get that shit out of here, too.

How is something like this (and the points he brings up) not a problem?




(The Big Valley Creation Science Museum is in Alberta, Canada.)

Here we have him using math to discuss the Intelligent Designer's use of math and the impossibility of evolution:


There's more, but I'll spare you.

The points he brings up are logical fallacies. God of the gaps. We don't have the knowledge, so we're going to assume GOD. This is the worst.

He addresses that too.




"You evolutionists are calling upon the god of the gaps!"

Come to Jesus.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one. I like how he blatantly says "we use god to explain..."

He's so cocky about it because he's so sure he's right. I mean, duh, right?

And this guy is just one example.

It's like back in the day when astronomers necessarily distanced themselves from astrologers. It might seem obvious when it comes to the scientific view of Creationism, but the issue is with how we educate children on the topic of the natural sciences (earth science, biology, physics, chemistry, etc.) and top politicians making funding and policy decisions based on whether they believe the earth is 10,000 years old, give or take a few years.

Yeah, we need the same decisive action today. We need a clear separation from creationism because otherwise, they will latch on and we'll never shake them loose.

LEAVE JESUS ALONE!!!

Way too late. This has been going on since the 80's at least. I was being taught creationism in the 80's and early 90's. Naturally I fought evolution as a teenager even though I studied it as a child. By the time I was...9? I had already decided on evolution as a viable way to explain the patterns we see in biology, then my grandfather picked up on that and decided to have me read creationism books. Being a child, I absorbed it like everything else.

Once I graduated high school I had done a 180 back to evolution. It's irrefutable.

The trouble (for me) was a belief in God coupled with spiritual experiences that no one in my family seemed to understand, and the imagined concept of science vs God. At this point in my life however, I see no more conflict between those topics. That's just me though.

I'll have no part of religious wars other than to tell someone to get out of my face with that shit. I'm pretty much the same with atheist views as well. Society will do as it will. I'm just along for the ride.

I discussed it with a creationist friend once. He simply stated, "I don't believe in evolution, it doesn't make sense" as we finished lunch. I calmly and politely asked if it had ever been explained to him by a scientist and he said that he hadn't. I said, "would you like me to explain it to you to the best of my ability and see what you think?" and he said yes as another friend (who probably would have been condescending about it) tried to jump in and another told him to wait and see how I did.

I had this walk back to give my best effort, and we had all had a few beers.
from: Main St to: Broad St - Google Maps

In this short trip, I explained how random mutation leads to favorable and unfavorable genetic traits, and that those traits that increase an individual's chance of procreating offspring who survive to sexual maturity are considered to be selected for, and those who hinder it are said to be selected against. Over a grand time scale, these little changes add up, and a basic intro of how speciation occurs when previously compatible groups develop in different enough environments that their set of genes is incompatible with the other group(s.) Through billions of years of changes, a little bit at a time, we went from self-replicating molecules in the primordial sand to celled organisms, to multi-cell organisms. We're separated from apes by tends of millions of years, you can't expect a monkey to have given birth to a human or vice versa because it can't work that way. I pandered to his religion a bit since debating that is none of my business, and said something like "Isn't it a more beautiful testament to the awesome power of God and his infinite wisdom to say that he set the universe in motion, planets and stars came together, and eventually his "forming us out of clay" was the spark that started life in the primordial ooze that started life as we know it," than if he just pointed his finger and wea appeared?

He looked at me with a bit of bewildered, and said "wow, nobody ever explained it to me like that. I think you're right."

A few weeks later he was discussing philosophy and theology with someone and I overheard him say "Yeah, I think God created us, and he used evolution to start life and get it to where it is today." I had a shit eating grin on my face like a parent whose kid just won the spelling bee.

I'm surprised you pandered like that. Looking back do you think it was necessary or enabling?

point is .....it was effective

cant argue with results (although somehow, I think someone will...)

Debating the existence of god, which cannot be proved or disproved, isn't worth distracting from explaining the merits of evolution, which can be (for the most part) proved, over creationism, which is total bullshit.

MSD, nice.

yea, and because you don't know how a CPU works, you shouldn't use a computer?
If Plato is too much for you, a comic book cant teach you to read?
If you are afraid of the freeway, a footpath wont get you there?
If not for the "distraction" his friend could very well have had his thoughts clamped into the " I didn't come from no monkey " mindset.
I say bravo, in the end you broadened his horizons, no matter the technique used.

This thread has been more than illuminating. Thank you all for responding!

We live at a strange time where the abundance of information available is resulting in junk food for people's minds. Why bother understanding a scientific concept when people's opinions of it are readily available? Opinions are so much more interesting absorb and only take a few moments. It's come to a point where people's opinions of scientific ideas outweigh science.

Just look at the top two Scientific blogs of 2008 (http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog/): one trashes religion that other denies global warming. These are opinion oriented blogs that bastardize science.

What's truly shocking to me is the amount of effort some people put into supporting their opinions - the anti-vaccination campaigns are a great example of this - where they could have been educating themselves on the issue and truly obtaining knowledge.

Pharyngula is opinion-oriented, yes, but it does not bastardize science at all. One need not appease religion to be a good scientist. In fact, I'd argue that appeasing religion is why we're where we are right now in regards to creationism and evolution. Some religion deserves bashing, and creationism - which, btw, is what Pharyngula targets most - is definitely one of those aspects.

Honestly, if you want to know what kind of crazy stuff is out there regarding the spread of creationism, Pharyngula is a great blog to read. Case in point: Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Intelligent Design

I've come to the conclusion that people peddle pseudoscience for attention. The power of authority is earned through clever word use rather than hard work. These people have no interest at all in pursuing scientific inquiry and debate only gives them ammunition. The only way to deal with such individual is to take away their audience; attacking their arguments directly is often ineffective.

So I'm thinking that the best strategy is character assassination or appealing to the audience. With character assassination undermining their authority will cause followers to jump ship. The only issue here is that followers will simply seek another source of misinformation unless we catch them before they get there. When appealing to the audience we are using our debate with the pseudoscientist for access to his audience thus giving us an opportunity to educate them.

Yeah, Mantus... sadly... some people want to be believe in some ancient magical zombie superheroes because that's all they've got left in their minds. Creationism allows them to have this magic in their everyday lives... because it Big G created everything in their world. Interactive fantasy?

Something I've been thinking about lately is how little purpose life has to a lot of people. They want the hour-a-week drama associated with a religion because their lives are essentially no different than the battery-people in The Matrix movie. When you're stuck in the daily grind of the Average Joe, life really has no purpose other than to make money-money to feed your debt and spin in place. I think people wanna feel like there is some kinda action in their future... whether in this life or the next. Instead of getting lost in video games or gambling away their house or callus-inducing masturbation or alcoholism... they choose Jesus, perhaps the most dangerous drug of all. Life is all about finding your own purpose and some people suck at that.

Religion is dangerous because for all the good it teaches, it may have the user relinquish an unhealthy portion of their ownership of their life.

Granted, I'm not a genius and I do know that religion really does work for some people. A portion of The Faithful, though, have these issues.

The thing to remember is that the powers that be within Christianity have a long and very successful track record of appropriation. However, coupled with that, they have a recent history of having their belief system appropriated by the forces of liberalism, commerce, and science.

So what you have is a history of being able to take things and make them your own: think of the appropriation of pagan observances and making them into convenient Christian observances. (What, you thought the Christmas tree was Christian?) Then you have the 20th-century practice of essentially secularizing these same observances: they become about family, materialism, and pleasure more so than atonement or other such goal.

So what you get is a very frustrated set of Christians who feel they are being squeezed out. Well, perhaps they are. But this makes them feel as though they are being persecuted for their beliefs, and I'm sure many of them think the recent trends are transgressions, and so they react in their own Christian ways.

So you get Creationist fundies who attack the ideas of evolutionary theory because they don't mesh with the Bible. But I doubt this is their only plight. They are also concerned with putting the "Christ" back into "Christmas" and reminding children that Easter isn't to celebrate the Easter Bunny and his chocolate bounty.

For centuries, Christians held a cultural hegemony over many parts of the world. And over the course of just one century, much of that was undone by pragmatism, commercialism/capitalism, and the scientific method.

Unfortunately, this desperation leads them to mix physics with metaphysics, which only muddies the waters of truth.

Creationism has an impact on wider society. It will be interesting to see what happens down the road. Maybe the LHC will be a turning point. :)

Is it wrong that I got all excited when you said chocolate bounty?

Heathen.

But He died for our chocolate bounty!

just to say the obvious, most of christianity is not of the literal interpretation of the bible camp. most accept that the origin story is an allegory or is metaphorical and so can accomodate both an acceptance of one or another notion of biological evolution with belief in a god. the fundamentalist/literal interpretation school has a real problem--which is also why they create such problems when they are politically mobilized & in a position to exercise power---which is that their *particular* and quite odd interpretation of genesis makes god/biological evolution into an either/or. and it is a measure of their political reach that the "issue" is framed in those terms. and it is as an enactment of the effects of that reach that this thread is most peculiar, that the question moved so quickly off the *particular* beliefs and actions of the creationist squad and onto a question that pit science against christianity.

it ain't so simple.

it also ain't so easy to simply assume that folk who accept this nonsense do so because they're stupid people. back in my wayward youth i passed through a charismatic group for a little while and remember great emphasis being placed on "being like unto a child" in matters of faith. personally, i find this emphasis more than a little strange. but in that case it fit in with a system that saw itself as "touched by the holy spirit" and all that, so in a space of direct experience of some manifestation of their faith, one that by-passed mediation. so there's a circuit inside of at least some of the creationist groups that explains how and why their positions are as they are (obviously what i just noted isn't a complete one) that doesn't require you assume people are fucking idiots. i say this because if there is a political conflict here, it makes no sense to underestimate your opponent.

I wish that were the case. I wish we were dealing with some tiny fringe group. We're not. It's a majority of Americans and a growing number of Europeans.
On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution

there are particular denominations that adhere to the literal interpretation thing. most don't.
and there are alot of catholics. for these same groups, catholics aren't christian. go figure.

Which denominations teach the creationism myth doesn't matter to me. That it's accepted by a majority of the people in my country over good, solid science certainly does. "Most of Christianity" in the US absolutely does fall into the literal interpretation camp. As you said above, these opponents can't be underestimated.

Creationism as an incarnation of anti-intellectualism or whatever is dangerous in that it hinders scientific development. It's the responsibility of every person that values science to defend it.

Pew Forum: Public Opinion on Religion and Science in the United States

this is a more helpful poll based on a larger sample.

i'm not at all saying "yay creationism" btw--not at all. what i am saying is that the viewpoints are particular--if you look at this poll, the lowest levels of acceptance of the notions connected to natural evolution are amongst evangelical protestants. this isn't exactly shocking, is it?
and there are alot of these people in the united states.
but the point nonetheless remains that a majority of people accept some version or another of darwinian-style evolution.

within the scientific community, however pew chose to define it, the numbers are overwhelming in the opposite direction, btw. over 80% accept evolution as an explanation.

it's curious that you use the same language as the christians who accept "creationism" to denounce it: that it is an abomination for example. that's a big sin. bad bad bad.

a curious thing in the polls though: belief.
as if accepting the theory of evolution and accepting the idea of some god mucking about doing stuff are equivalent...how'd that happen? so you get basically a poll about matters of faith. how exactly did evolutionary theory get reduced to a matter of faith? what does it mean to "believe in" evolution?

the problem is that in significant areas of the united states, the way these questions are framed remains dominated by christianity, directly and indirectly. it is an indicator of just how non-secular the united states really is. compare the polls in the us to those in any other industrialized country on this question: the differences are pretty shocking.

my main point is that so far as i am concerned i don't particularly care what people imagine about the world around them so long as the more wacky beliefs--creationism among them--don't acquire a degree of political power. people believe all kinds of stuff. so i see this as a political matter more than as a social matter--only important as a function of mobilization of a particular sector. so the solution, if you like, is to undercut that political power and let the evangelicals slide back into a richly deserved political irrelevance. but so far as the actual beliefs go, while i in principle agree with you, will, i don't really care about it as a problem. i am concerned with the political frames that enable such lunacy to take hold are, because they're part of the process that enables political power to be obtained & held....so it's like that more.

I know you're not saying yay Creationism, and to be honest the last thing I want to do is adopt the Bush "you're either with us or against us" policy, but this particular subject is near and dear to my heart (brain). You being an enlightened cat, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.
This worries me more than the other number, to be honest. I'd hate to have someone working on a cure for cancer or a safer method of transportation to stop because they've concluded "god did it". I don't have a problem with scientists believing in god the same way I don't have a problem with oncologists smoking, but when they're so fundamentalist that they deny something as well established with verifiable, sound science as evolution, wouldn't you agree that could cause problems?
Well, being a bit snarky, I was using it ironically. Like if I called Creationsim the devil and science god. It's just my liberal elitism.
How would you propose best undercutting them politically? It seems pretty clear that they do have political power and that power is leading them to introduce this to children in public schools, which is my main gripe. It's not constitutional at all, and I figured Edwards v. Aguillard put the issue to rest, but it hasn't as the creationists have tried to hide their religion under the brown paper bag with two holes cut out of "intelligent design". I can keep it out of schools in my area because I know people, but there's not much I can do with the Texas Ed board.

I don't think I was pandering at all. I explained something concisely and clearly to someone who had never heard the whole story, and it made sense to him. The important thing is, he accepted that evolution works and that it's how we got to where we are.

I'm sorry, I've work to do and stopped to this reply but I wanted say my point of view:
Yes. Not so drastic, but it is!
Expecially when media strikes fears or doubts into people's mind a bunch of fools comes into the department asking silly questions.
Sometimes by reason, sometimes not.
When there was chernobyl radiobiology and nuclear department was literally invaded by guy that asked to measure the radioactivity of their homemade vegetables or thinks like that. When there was spreading a voice about black-hole creation in LHC a bunch of curious guy came to the Dean of the department that puntually asked we PhD student to answer the questions... and so on... :P

However the most curious thing about Creationism and Science I've ever heard was from a Full professor in Nuclear Physics Varsaw. He was a fully creationist believer, like believing in a 6000 years old Earth, retending that the science that HIMSELF was doing and confirming the billions age of the Earth was only a faith test by God.
I mean, you are a Nuclear Scientist, the ratio between U235 and U238 are because of differents decay times that in billions of years create a disproportion. One of the main proof of anciety of the universe is your main study subject, and you turn your head pretending that all you're studying are bullshit that God deliberatly crafted for somewhat sadistic reason?

Some people are truly ignorant and with a better education can understand the point about Science, but some others simply don't want to listen even if they are major world expert only to don't face the brutal truth.

You can't argue with a true believer, you can only produce facts to shield those around you from their bullshit.

Sure.
My point was only that this mechanism is sociological and psycological and cannot be fought only with teaching and facts. He cannot be fought at all I think.

This professor obviously had more scientifical facts in his mind than what you can teach in school and college to anyone (I mean, an entire life of on-the-edge Scientific Research, is not exactly what you can teach to the avarage joe) and anyway refuses to watch at all the proofs he had to growth his religious unbelievable beliefs (Come On, Earth made by god 6 thousands years ago? Not even the Pope beliefs that anymore!!).

Before knowing him, I was thinking that this was the consequence of an "returning analphabetism" (we say in Italy), but now I think is also a matter of personal demands.
Ignorance must be fought, but this type of thinking will NEVER disappear becouse no metter how many proofs you bring or how many intelligent or educted a person can be:
If he need it to wake up smiling, he will think it.

And I see nothing so wrong with it...

Hmmm - this is a false argument. Saying a majority *believe* in creationism because they don't believe (or don't have an opinion) on evolution doesn't add up to me.

It is like saying I don't like oranges, so I must like apples!

Read the poll I liked. The options are "believe in evolution", "do not believe in evolution", and "no opinion either way" (with no answer at 1% falling within the margin of error). No opinion and don't believe are both incorrect, so I feel my concern is a legitimate one.

And this isn't as unimportant as whether one likes or dislikes apples, this is about how many people understand and accept reality. Not liking apples is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but not accepting the theory of evolution or not even having an opinion on it are errors. Those 61% of people polled are in err.

I'm almost more concerned about the 36% with no opinion either way than the creationists. These people are most likely not religious fundamentalists, yet they're ignorant of one of the most well researched topics in the past few centuries, and the basis of biological science.

I did read the poll. "Do not believe in Evolution" does not equal "Believe in Creationism". That's the point I was making.

It makes more sense to say those that "Do not believe in Evolution" = "Dumb Asses", which is what your last post says.

Question is, what does the poll have to do with the OP?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Being agnostic on very, very basic and well understood science is a good indicator of whether or not someone is "dumb", though I'd not use that word. I'd probably use a word like "educated", but I'd be implying high school diploma level education.

Regarding what the poll has to do with the OP, the main reason to actively disbelieve evolution involves a supernatural (read: creationist) belief. It's not like there are alternative, scientific theories to evolution.

I hate to repeat. But that professor I cited is scientifically more educated than, most probably, every single person in this whole forum. Surely is scientifically much more educated then the 99.9% of the people, and yet choose to assume a fundamentalist position that probably only less then 0.1% of the people in the occidental world assume (Not even priest think about 6 thousand years old Earth with Garden of Eden and all the metaphorical stories).

Sometimes (probably most of the time) is a matter of "education", but sometimes not. Sometimes is just a matter of being happy in a peculiar psicological and sociological environment that form personal believing. Is not a "wrong" way of living or thinking, is only thinking about happiness and without going to this extremes (a Dean of nuclear physics that think that universe was made in a Week 6000 years ago) everyone build is own illusions to follow his own personal pursuit of happiness.

He's been ill-educated by his church. I'd argue, on the issue of creationism/evolution, he's less properly educated than the majority of people that have posted in this thread.

Why you think is only a matter of education? Why your values are better then theirs?

He knows his deals about evolution and genetics, probably more then any graduate-degree science student. He knows the theories, the experimental proofs better then you can read at any divulgative-level Dawkin's book.

Hell: we are scientist, common people to get the answer google up and read the sketches of the simplification of what another people told them about a scientific article and call themselfs "educated", we read the article and watches the references say ourself "so much to learn, so little time". (only joking)

Just because he is in fact so well educted that cannot accept science-thruth as the only possible thruth and in particular evolution as scientifically demonstrated and verifiable such as benefits of liver transplants or theory of relativity.

In fact for the well used Popper-ian epistemology theory of evolution isn't in fact a science because is verifiable (and also at this there are doubts) but not falsificable...

If I must be sincere, this creationist professor was MUCH MUCH more scientifically precise than you talking about evolution so I cannot accept your second statement.

Ill-educted by church? Possible, but in Poland there wasn't much space for church back in the old day of URRS* and in the hard edge post-war/cold-war communism.
Anyway it doesn't mean so much: I was a catholic cathechist now I am an atheist scientist, because I've learned, thinked and readed so much, and I feel the scientific thruth more elegant and complete then the religious one, so making me happier, and I simply changed point of view.
For example what changed my view of realty and metaphysics forever, slowing twisting me from a christian with "some" doubts to an atheist, is the deep understanding of quantum mechanics, thing that most atheist (or pretending so) cannot even imagine.

That professor surely learned, thinked and readed as much (and surely more then) me (and I think also you), and choose with all the possible awareness (and I think more then most) that christian reality make HIM happier.

The important thing is not to found a belief on prejudice (as you are doing now) and ignorance (as many creationist do).
You must fight both ignorance (teaching science and evolutionism more deeply as you can) and prejudice. The latter is harder to be teached, but consist not pretending that your point of view is the only possible right one.

*EDIT: Pardon me. URRS is an Italian Term, I meant Soviet Union...

Once again someone is trying to marry "faith" with "intelligence," and find some correlation. Faith is not a matter of reason, and therefore has nothing to do with intelligence. There are brilliant believers, and mind numbingly stupid atheists.

Values are entirely irrelevant. Facts are facts.

With a proper education, evolution is presented in a case as iron clad as gravity or the speed of light. It's when things interfere with that proper understanding that you get people like Ray Comfort or the nuclear physics professor that you made up because your argument can't stand on its own. Instead of allowing themselves to objectively view the fact, the verification of those facts, and the testable pattern that those facts create, they allow religion to bleed in, to undermine science with faith.

Why don't we do this: list every piece of evidence for creationism and, if you can find anything. Without even having a degree in biology, I'll debunk it completely. When that happens, we can lay the idea that creationism is anything but religion trying to invade science's space to rest.

Edit:
Let me make one thing clear: you can be a scientist that believes in god, in fact about 8-10% of scientists do, but you cannot be a scientist and subscribe to the theory of creationism (6,000 year old earth, people living with dinosaurs, no evolution). They are mutually exclusive in the same way that you cannot have an abstinent porn star.

I told you one think that, if reciped and not passed through can be change your life:
Science itself isn't a FACT, only a big theory about facts and about the correlation between them.

At Last, as I told you, theory evolution isn't like Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation or Maxwell's Equations: isn't falsificable, is hardly verifiable, is discussed the validity itslef among the itself scientific community.

This thing, that you don't know or you haven't understood properly that professor knew it very well, that put his choice, regrettable and discutible of course, much more aware then yours.

For my point of view awarness is the only thing that matter in the life of a person so in fact the choice of the professor is more right then yours, even if I find ontologically ridicule the creationism (by for many of the creationist current, dinosaurs never existed) and the atheism idea is what I've married long ago.

It's okay that you can't list any evidence for creationism; no one can. Creationism isn't science, it's religious faith that's trying to be sold as science. It's wholly different in every way from the real, factual, demonstrable, testable world.
I never claimed that science was a fact. I will, however, be happy to define science as the process by which we systematically understand with workings of the universe by use of observation and experiment, both of which have been applied to evolution and have demonstrated it to be our best understanding. And there are no alternative theories to evolution for the diversity of life.
Newton's universal law of gravitation is out of date. You may want to read up on Einstein's theory of general relativity. It's falsifiable because it's incomplete.
Evolution hasn't been falsified yet, but that's simply because all data collected, every observation and experiment, supports it. That doesn't mean it's not falsifiable, though.

My very favorite thing about evolution is how verifiable it really is. Every time we've seen speciation, evolution is being verified. Every time we find a fossil, it's further verification of evolution. Every experiment ever run about evolution has demonstrated that evolution is our one best answer as to how biodiversity works.
Your professor isn't real, so in order to counter him, I will make up a professor.

Professor A is smarter and more correct than all other professors. Professor A says that evolution is real and is the best explanation for speciation and the diversity of life on Earth. Professor A says that creationism is just religion masquerading as science.

I guess we can put the discussion to rest.
What's your definition of awareness?

Science at work.

HowStuffWorks "How do scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones?"

How smart... =_='

You Falsifiable don't mean that "has been falsified", means that "can be falsified", that is what popper mean for Science.
Newton's Gravitational Law has not been falsified with general relativity, General relativity has put some stricter conditions of applicability (that doesn't mean falsify) to Newton's DYNAMICS, giving to the attraction between object not character of a direct interaction but character of a geomerty. The Gravitational force is, until now, the Newton one, instead there are some try of differents parametrizations.

How can you falsify something based on stocastic and chaotic mutations?
There is some sort of experiment that can you tell "no, this can't be casual"?
No, there aren't, and because theory of evolution can't make any quantitative predictions, can't be falsifiable.
When you study General relativity you calculate that time slow down in a system accelerating, and you can verify relativly easly: you make a satellite with an atomic watch and see if and how times slow with the earth gravitational attraction (and so acceleration), and if this measure is accurate within the prediction of Einstein, General Relativity is, in this applicability frame, right, otherwise is wrong.
General Realitivity is, in this field, is verified because the GPS works.

I don't deny It.
But evolution isn't a FACT, is only a theory that in some famous epistemological system isn't even considered scientific.
As every theory you have to believe it, or refuse it.
You believe in LQG or String Theory (or you think that conceiling General Relativity and Quantum Theory is an impossible task)?
I cannot blame you by choosing one of the three option, even if the third is not a scientific choice but perfectly understandable.

You insult me pretending that I'm lying only because I met a person different from your expectations.

How funny. -_-'
I tell you that instead of professor A you can put my name (but I'm no professor, only PhD student), but that doesn't mean that I have not to respect people that have religious beliefs over their scientific knowledge pretending that they cannot be smart or even exist... -_-

I was being snarky.
Evolution isn't just mutation, it's also natural selection.
Of course you can. Nearly every scientific theory intentionally ignores outside variables so that a general system can be described. That doesn't make the system untrue. Evolution, as a theory, has a lot of variables involved, and many of those variables aren't taken into account, but the theory can still be applied to reality to make predictions. And has. Applying his knowledge to the theory of evolution, Dr. Ernst Mayr predicted that speciation occurs with faster genetic evolution. It turns out his prediction was correct. Entire trees of evolution have been created and then tested to demonstrate the path of a species evolution. It most certainly can be used to predict.
Then I'm arguing with your Warsaw nuclear physics professor by proxy? What is it we're doing here if you understand and accept evolution as reality? Is this just a debate about whether or not evolution is a science, because if it is we probably have other threads for it. This thread is about the problem of creationism, or religion pretending to be science.
I'm not well educated in the field of physics. My last class was to get my general electives back in college, and was really only physics 101 What I do know, however, is that science isn't something you "believe in", it's something you either understand or don't understand. I may not understand PhD level physics, but I do understand evolutionary biology. I can make a prediction right now that I wouldn't be able to without the theory of evolution: if global climate change causes a new ice age, humans with the genes that favor more fat and resilience to cold will be able to adapt better to the cold, and will be more likely to reproduce, creating more cold-friendly children. Any genetic mutation during however long the ice age is that is beneficial will be more likely to survive and give the human(s) a better chance at adapting completely or holding out until the ice age ends.

Now, how could I make such a prediction without evolution?
My point was that even if your professor is real, he doesn't demonstrate anything. It's either an appeal to authority fallacy or a red herring. Whether he exists or not, he's moot to the discussion because he can't be verified.

And you know wrong, pleased to tell you.
Science is in fact more or less entirly opinable.
Think that my PhD thesis will be, to put that easy, to demonstrate that energy conservation principle isn't true under certain conditions (I not the first, that comes from Bohr but Pauli stopped him!)...

In edge science you have to believe in an intuition, if you attain of what you measure you can't do real science, you do only base technics with a scientific flavour.

In fact LQG (Loop Quantum Gravity) and String Theory are both attempt to unify General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics starting from differents basic assumptions, but for both there isn't feaseble experiments that falsify one from another.
For now you can only believe in an assumption or an another or, since both assumptions sound reasonable enough, only on what theory sound to you more elegant, if you prefer seeing the space-time as "stringy" or "loopy" (or maybe "non of above"). Saying that one of them is the "fact" is only a science-fundamentalist assumption, like fanboys telling personal prefers as "facts".

At the same way pretending that evolution is a fact due to uncertain and unprecise prediction is fanboyism not science. Evolution is a theory, probably the best about biological differentiation, but is a theory.

Creationism is surely not science, must not be though about science, but pretending to eradicate it as the flat-planet beliefs have been eradicated, for now, is utopia (or distopia).
Because
I- scientific robustness of this theory isn't so strong as you believe.
II- people need, sometimes, to believe is what make them living better, screw the Science! And for some reason some people feels not so good without thinking about been projected by some God as his image and resemblance.

Science is a process, not a theory, not a fact.
Newton's gravitational law has been falsified through experiment. The most famous example is the case in which Newtonian theory failed to correctly predict the positions of planets relative to Earth and the Sun, and applying Einstein's relativistic model predicted those positions correctly.
Evolution predicts that allele frequency within populations will vary and that certain gene expressions will tend to be selected for, selected against, or have no impact on the propagation of those genes by sexual reproduction depending on their benefit to the organism. If predicts that those organisms most able to adapt to change in their environment will tend to survive and reproduce at a higher frequency than those unable to adapt. These predictions have been observed to be true.

I think we're moving off topic, Raghnar, and I take partial responsibility for that.

Can be also seen dynamically as process.

The perihelium of mercury was corrected thanks to general relativity.
As I said that was not a correction to the Newtonian FORCE (that basically remains mM/r^2, eveinf writing in covariant form) but to the newtonian dynamics.

EDIT: Yes, true, we are OT, stopping now! Sry! ^^'

Calling those who believe in God (approx 3/4of the world) morons isnt exactly a very productive way to address a debate.

Nor are creationalism and evolutionism mutually exclusive ideals.

3/4 of the world are not creationists, SF. And I don't think anyone means to call all creationists morons, though many are. They're simply wrong. They are in err. Creationism is religion being applied to the wrong field.
They are mutually exclusive. Creationism teaches that speciation is a myth, that all species as they are now have been that way since the earth was created by god, whereas evolution demonstrates and explains speciation.

1- Last statistic I red was saying about 95% of the world believe in some god. Anyway that means putting in also the buddhist and so on, that mopstly don't really believe in any god but have a strong spiritual way of thinking life.

2- Evolutionism is mutually exclusive with every driven-type of biological generation. If you believe in darwinian evolution then you can't believe that god put evolution in order to create man as it seems, as evolution is a pure stocastic process even if is leaded by natural selection. There are various type of creationism and everyone is incompatible with darwinian evolution (but not everyone totally incompatible with science), from the 6000 years old earth, to the intelligent-design/evolution-type process that lead to the man as his apex (and the concept of evolution apex is that is totally out of darwinian evolution way of thinking.).

[QUOTE=Willravel;2730768]3/4 of the world are not creationists, SF. And I don't think anyone means to call all creationists morons, though many are. They're simply wrong. They are in err. Creationism is religion being applied to the wrong field.
[QUOTE]

And so we see that evolutionalism is a religious belief to the same degree protestantism is, and just as arrogant.

You cannot possibly know or DISprove that the universe has an intelligent creator nor that man has a universal soul.

Yet you feel able to claim such idea's are "wrong"

In fact, all that you can see is that they are not proven by the feeble, vainglorious and tottering tautology of human science... a world of knowledge that claims to answer everything, and yet is so pitiful that it cannot explain how even the human mind itself works. That fact that people cannot tell if something is true or not does not make false.

Evtolusionalism isn't a word, and science isn't a religion.
Disprove that the Trix Rabbit didn't create the universe.
Something which is contradictory is wrong. If I say "All bips are blue. This bip is not blue." even though bips are entirely theoretical, and thus cannot be tested, what I've said is wrong. Creationism is inherently contradictory, therefore it's wrong.

The arrogance of science of religion is very well demonstrated by the above.

Truth is universal and fixed, it is independant of human understanding.

The rational view is that the universe was created one way or another, and that no human knows or understands how. It is equally unknown if their is a God who is the Creator, or if everything we are in an accident of chaos. To believe that humans evolved from single cell organisms is as credible as the earth being 6000 years old... both are unknowable an human science is but a weak and myopic fumbling in the dark.

The evolutionalist believes that the nature of truth is affected by their own comprehension of it.

Religion shows us that man is part of something larger than himself, that the earth revolves around the sun

The pathological scientist will tell us that all of the stars and all of creation revolves around himself, and sneer at anyone who questions his "scientific proof"

Well, no, not necessarily. Being created suggests a creator and there's no evidence of a creator, despite what creationists claim. There was something before the big bang, and it was likely a singularity of some sort, which predated time and space. Because it existed "before" time, you don't need to worry about "well what created that?". It's actually neat.

Anyway, because we don't know something yet, like the precise happenings of the big bang, does not mean we'll never know, in fact it seems we're getting closer. I won't say that we absolutely will know, but it's not necessarily unknowable, after all we know things now that were considered unknowable in the past.
This is where science and religion part ways. Scientifically, there's no accounting for a creator so the idea is simply moot. Religiously, though, there's a role for the creator that has nothing to do with evidence or science, it's supernatural. This is where the issue of creationism has all sorts of problems, as it's taking the unscientific and trying to apply it to science. It'd be like applying general relativity to the book of Genesis. It makes no sense.
You're incorrect. There's overwhelming evidence that complex life developed from simply life in the past over a long period of time through mutation and adaptation. Whether or not you find it credible doesn't matter. The evidence is there and it's been verified.
There's no such thing as an "evolutionist". It's a made-up word to try and make it seem like science is broken down into denominations like religion. That's not how it works, at least with the theory of evolution.

And evolution is independently verifiable. It can be verified independent of any human bias because of the scientific method. The "nature" of evolution is not affected by the scientist.
This is also wrong. Scientists don't sneer, and religious people think that the creator of the universe has a personal relationship with them. In trying to paint scientists as self-important, you skip the fact that it's actually the opposite.

your view is completely illogical

A simple example is this:

I might be wearing a red shirt or a white shirt right now. It is untestable for you, it is unknowable for you.

It does not mean that for someone to say I am wearing a white shirt is "wrong"

To believe something which is not proven by the current level of understanding or evidence which you have is "wrong" is without logic.

Scientists delight in being proven wrong. It's because it is then they've learned something.

That's misrepresenting creationism, SF. Please reread my example. If, by definition, something is contradictory, even if only in theory, then it is wrong. Something contradictory cannot be demonstrated to be. If there were no red shirts in the world and you said you were wearing a red shirt, you would be wrong.

I'll give you an example of creationism's inherent contradictions.
1) Creationism is science.
2) The scientific method did not lead to creationism and has not been used to verify creationism.

This is an inherent contradiction. Here's another:
1) In creationism, the universe was designed for people to live in.
2) The vast, vast, vast majority of the universe would kill humans almost instantly, which no creationist denies.

Ouch. And another:
1) In creationism, infinity is impossible.
2) In creationism, the universe was created by an infinite god.

There are literally thousands of contradictions in creationism. There are logical incompatibilities between the claims of creationism. There are no such incompatibilities with, say, the scientific theory of evolution.
That's a strawman.

I wouldn't say scientists delight in being proven wrong. Scientists are people, and many of them can be decidedly less than pleased if their pet theories are challenged by other theories. I don't know that the scientists who develop pharmaceuticals are delighted when clinical trials show their treatments to be ineffective.

The scientific community can be just as protective of the status quo as the most devout religious person. Pythagoras allegedly had someone drowned for proving that the square root of 2 was irrational (I realize that he was a mathematician, but whatever). Einstein was notoriously apprehensive about the notion that the universe might not be deterministic He didn't have anyone killed, but he wasn't exactly enthused.

The nice thing about good scientists is that they tend to be slaves to experimental evidence, so things tend to work out well for scientific progress.

Creationalism is not a science, it is a belief or faith

Science is a religion, and a rather depressing one in my opinion.

The scientist is rather like a frog hopping up a staircase, and at every step being convinced that it has reached the top. This is a rather well known metaphor I believe - but the scientist is incapable of learning from experience, and will always believe that his current view is the complete one.

The fact that evolution can occur, that is that species can adapt through the "survival of the fittest" and the passing on of characteristics through generations that are compatible with the environment is a hypothesis which is supported by the crrently available evidence when viewed through the cultural and intellectual bias of current society. That is all.

It is not a universal theory of everything, it does not answer the important questions, and no one today can say that future discoveries will not disprove it.

If you dont like to talk of God, one theory is that "evolution" is encouraged and influanced by extra-terrestial beings who are physical but more advanced than humanity. There are folk stories and theories which support this.

Today, the available evidence does not suggest this is the strongest theory

But I am humble enough to admit that I dont KNOW and that nobody KNOWS all of the facts and evidence, and that something in the future may emerge that makes this theory the strongest one, on the evidence available then.

The dogmatic scientist cant accept that.

There are two things which we can say certainly

There ARE universal and unchanging truths
Human beings cannot KNOW these things, only make judgments based on their limited knowledge and intellect.

Strange, I don't know where you get your well-known metaphors, but they fail to describe any scientist I've ever met.

Fair enough. I admit I was being bombastic. What I mean to say is that finding out they're wrong about something is a part of the scientist's job (as far as lab research, etc., is concerned). The Creationist cannot be proven wrong, because everything the believe is True and Right.

There is no "process of elimination" for the Creationist. They were handed down something that is unchanging regardless of evidence or discovery of fact.

What about the changing kind?

That's the problem, though, creationism is being sold as science even though it's not.
I believe you just contradicted your statement above. You suggest that science and belief/faith are different, so different that creationism absolutely is not one and absolutely is another, and yet here you suggest they are one and the same.

Please make up your mind.

Also, you should meet some scientists before declaring universal truths about them. I suggest starting by googling "Neil deGrasse Tyson" into the Youtube and watching a few hours of him speaking. He's a good example of a scientist.

I agree with you. It's as if creationists have turned around the relationship between evidence and conclusion, so that the conclusion defines interpretation of any possibly relevant evidence. God exists and actively tests his faithful, and the existence of fossils proves this. It's confirmation bias at its most insidious. They've put the cart before the horse and have convinced themselves that the cart can pull the horse.

And that is called Scientific Method. :\

I want to know where you find this illuminating metaphors about scientists, they describe exactly the opposite of the avarage scientist.

There is no evidence that relates to the act of creation - thats the point.

I'm still hanging off of this idea. I don't get it.

"Science" is a religion. "A system of exploration and knowledge" is a religion.

This essentially means we are all parishioners of this religion. Many of us are born at, live beside, and die on the altar of this religion.

We have lifespans longer than 30 years because of it.
We are able to communicate with loved ones over thousands of miles at the push of a button because of it.
We are born with fewer and fewer defects, and have increased chances of living to reproductive ages because of it.
Most of us don't die from simple infections anymore because of it.
We can control and eliminate pain because of it.

I could go on.

What's so depressing about that?

Creationism cannot be taught beside evolution because it isn't the same field. Evolution is a continuing study that requires scientists to produce research and results that are peer reviewed and rejected or accepted as an outcome of that. Just like any other scientific endeavour. This is why we don't teach time travel, teleporatation, resurrection, and biological immortality in scientific curricula (yet?).

Creationism isn't subject to scientific scrutiny because it is accepted as unchangeable fact, even when the facts don't exist.

That's the problem here. We tend to prefer to teach facts when it comes to the sciences.

The depressing thing about science is its arrogance, the way it dismisses anything that does not fit into its narrow frame of reference, the way its followers feel able to call anyone who believes in God as a morn.

And again you state that the facts dont exist regarding creation. This is false - yet again the same error.

The fact that something cannot be tested or known by you does not make it false, does not make it not a fact.

You do not know how the universe was created, so you call my view "not factual"

The reality is that it may or may not be a fact and you dont know. The problem with science is you believe you ability to know determines whether something is true or not.

Never mind, point has been made.

As far as I can tell, creationism has absolutely no scientific merit. Why would you expect a scientist to do anything other than dismiss it? It isn't an instance of arrogance when a scientist refuses to accept creationism as scientifically valid, it's an instance of a scientist doing his/her job.

I'm not sure why some creationists get all in a tizzy about scientific legitimacy. I'm not even sure why you're all worked up, Strange. They're two different ways of looking at the world. It can't be a matter of wanting mutual understanding and respect; the very methods most creationists use to belittle science show a not only a profound lack of understanding and respect for science, but also an extreme lack of self reflection. I'm fairly certain that most of the general criticisms of science typically offered up in these discussions also apply to religion. Arrogance? Check. Overstated certainty? Check. Inability to acknowledge the validity of competing world views? Check.

I think what really gets creationists is that science is a much more compelling force in which to put blind faith than creationism is. Placing faith in a 6000 year old Earth doesn't help you invent that 46 inch plasma TV.

Whether it is "scientifically valid" is not the same as whether it is true!

That is exactly my point, science must accept other standards than those of its own rather weak methodology

You mean like the words of a talking snake or a burning bush?

There are many many examples of individuals claiming to receive communication from non physical beings.

Because science cannot explain it, the views of these millions of eye witness accounts are dismissed as fraud or fantasy

Science does not evaluate things neutrally, it only accepts evidence that fits in with its own paradigm.

No. It is science's rigid set of standards which make is so useful.

Fortunately, there's been plenty of research into this (more than you know), and it's been VERIFIED that people seeing and hearing things that aren't there is a symptom of schizophrenia
Science absolutely, positively, truly can explain it. It's not a dismissal, as if without rigorous testing, it's demonstrated as "fraud or fantasy" after careful study and experimentation. No such testing is employed by pastors and priests, therefore their explanations are unsupported by such testing.