Creationism vs. evolution

[HumptysHamhole]

Cervaise - The irony, of course— and it is real irony, not the watered-down Alanis-style pseudo-irony— is that the hardcore fundamentalists’ active efforts at obstructing the teaching of evolution in school in a detailed and thorough manner are a big contributor to these popular misunderstandings.

Very true. I think that popular evolution turns up more on TV and books and magazines than it does in schools, but we must be vigilant if we are to defend biological evolution with integrity. I think that his includes making a strong distinction between the hard science of biological evolution and popular evolution. I also would like see statements that make a strong distinction between biological evolution and social, pshychological evolution. I include in this realm for instance the Selfish Gene theory and the Meme Theory. The former which attributes human values to biological evolution and the latter which uses the concepts of biological evolution to explain sociology. These concepts for instance get mixed up in people’s minds as a part of standard biological evolutionary theory rather than (in the case of the Selfish Gene) as a metaphor to explain evolution or (in the case of Memes) a sociological theory with no direct genetic component.

To discuss the particualrs of Memes and the Selfish Gene please see the threads under *Comment on Cecil’s * – it has been discussed enough in those threads to throw this one way. By the way I think those theories have merit but they are often argued for by appealing to the science of biological evolution because biological evolution is backed up by much stronger evidence. My concern is for biological evolution as a science not to get highjacked by other less supportable theories. It has enough trouble facing down creationists without being bogged down with extraneous theories by its supporters.

[raindog]

Aeschines said,

As to what “spin” people put on evolutionary theory, sure, you’re free to argue. But the core of the theory is as solid as anything. The details may be wrong, but we know that life forms on Earth evolved from other life forms. Jesus did NOT snap his fingers and call them into being.

With all due respect, we do NOT, in fact, KNOW this.

Certainly there has been a sincere effort to reconcile the theory of evolution with the theory of creation. Many people have concluded that the two theories can co-exist and are not in direct conflict. Curriculum such as “intelligent design” and others seek to reconcile the two.

There is still a large segment of the poplulation who see this as relativism and cannot, and will not, reconcile the opposing ideas.

For my part, I do not see a way to reconcile the two. And a hybrid theory, that treats the creation account as a myth, is unnacceptable to me. My personal feeling is that the evolution theory has so many holes in it you could run a God inhabited galaxy through it. I would imagine that strict evolutionists, particularly atheists, would hold my views in similiar derision.

There is nothing more fundamental than the origin of life, and how we got here. I would imagine that most creationists would marvel at science and all that’s it’s accomplished. But the existence of God, and how/why we got here is at the core of many people’s beliefs. And while science has made extraordinary strides in understanding our universe, the case for evolution is fairly weak in relative terms.

I agree that creationism should not be taught in schools. Religion is a family’s business, not the schools. I think it would be appropriate to note to the class that the concept of creationism is one that millions subscribe to, and that further questions about it should be directed to parents. (who may in turn defer to their pastor)

OTOH, a parent should be able to “opt out” their child to an evolution class that they see as flawed science at best and a travesty at worst. Here too, the school could give the basest of overviews and make note that millions subscribe to evolution. (and their parents have opted to handle that at home.)

Perhaps that way everyone gets what they want; Christians who believe in evolution leave their children in class and supplement that education with their feelings/beliefs. Atheists and others get the “straight stick” curriculum with no additional “spin”, and those who believe that the origin of life is a topic best handles at home get just that.

[Faldage]

@the raindog

There is nothing more fundamental than the origin of life, and how we got here. I would imagine that most creationists would marvel at science and all that’s it’s accomplished. But the existence of God, and how/why we got here is at the core of many people’s beliefs. And while science has made extraordinary strides in understanding our universe, the case for evolution is fairly weak in relative terms.

If you’re suggesting that the theory of evolution concerns itself with the origins of life, you’re wrong. Evolution is about how life changes over time, but is not particularly concerned with the origin of life from non-life.

If I were a science teacher who was required to include creationism in my curriculum I would start by defining science. Next I would present the theory of evolution and the idea of creationism and ask the students which qualified as a science.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@the raindog

With all due respect, we do NOT, in fact, KNOW this.

Well, one of the problems in your stated position (aside from the attempt to divide everyone into two distinct groups; Christians and Atheists, when many people can calim to belong to neither) is that evolution can’t be summarily dimissed as being a discussion of an inherently unknowble subject. Evolution is supported significantly by other sciences like paleontology, geology and astronomy (which collectively demonstrate that the Earth and universe are extremely old; older by far than biblical accounts). You can claim that evolution is not absolutely 100% proven, but that strikes me as inherently silly, since the given alternative (biblical creation, intelligent design or something similar) has no evidentiary basis at all.

A parent could try to keep their child ignorant of certain sciences (in addition to paleontology, geology and astronomy, you’d have to rule out advanced biology and even paleoanthopology/ancient history, as these contradict strict biblical literalism). I’m not sure what the value of this approach is. I suppose the child could lead a happy and fulfilling life without knowing anything about evolution. If you never travel more than five miles from home, you could casually believe the world was flat, too.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@the raindog

With all due respect, we do NOT, in fact, KNOW this.

Sorry, but yes we DO “know” this. It is a fact, not an opinion, that species evolve from other species. There is not a glimmer of doubt about this among educated people.

Certainly there has been a sincere effort to reconcile the theory of evolution with the theory of creation. Many people have concluded that the two theories can co-exist and are not in direct conflict. Curriculum such as “intelligent design” and others seek to reconcile the two.

“Intelligent Design” is psedo-scientific creationism. It is purely religion, not science. There is no formal theory or definition of “Intelligent Design.” It has no place in legitimate science. Those who promote this stuff (cough Behe) do not actually submit any research or findings for peer review. There is no scientific method involved. They just take this stuff directly to a gullible, paying audience via lectures and books.

There is still a large segment of the poplulation who see this as relativism and cannot, and will not, reconcile the opposing ideas.

I have no idea what you’re talking about with this, how you define “creationism” or what you believe yopu mean by “relativism,” but just let me say that evolutionary theory does not and cannot address any questions of theism or the origin of the universe. Science can and has indisputably debunked Biblical creationism.

For my part, I do not see a way to reconcile the two. And a hybrid theory, that treats the creation account as a myth, is unnacceptable to me.

It’s not a “hybrid” theory. The Genesis story of creation simply has no reference or relevance whatsoever in science. There is no need or attempt by scientists to reconcile anything. That’s a problem for creationists only and good luck with that because reality is a huge, huge problem for your creation myth (and it is a myth by genre and by historical validity. Whether that’s “acceptable” to you is of no account. Reality is reality)

(My personal feeling is that the evolution theory has so many holes in it you could run a God inhabited galaxy through it. I would imagine that strict evolutionists, particularly atheists, would hold my views in similiar derision.

Let’s hear some of these “holes.” If you can really falsify evolution or identify a genuine “hole” there’s a Nobel prize in it for you.

There is nothing more fundamental than the origin of life, and how we got here.

This sentence has no semantic meaning. What do you mean by “fundamental?” maybe you meant to say “fundamental question?”

I would imagine that most creationists would marvel at science and all that’s it’s accomplished. But the existence of God, and how/why we got here is at the core of many people’s beliefs. And while science has made extraordinary strides in understanding our universe, the case for evolution is fairly weak in relative terms.

Non-sequitur and the last sentence is factually incorrect anyway. Once again: the existence of God, the origin of the universe and even the origin of life have nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Evolution only tells us what happened after life began.

I agree that creationism should not be taught in schools. Religion is a family’s business, not the schools.

Agreed.

I think it would be appropriate to note to the class that the concept of creationism is one that millions subscribe to, and that further questions about it should be directed to parents. (who may in turn defer to their pastor)

Why would that be “appropriate” to note to the class? It has nothing to do with science. Should teachers tell kids that some people still think the earth is flat or that some Hindus believe their ancestors live on the moon? Yes, some people are ignorant and believe silly things but there’s no reason to insult those people in classrooms. It would not be responsible to mention Biblical creationism in schools without also stating that is a categorically false belief.

OTOH, a parent should be able to “opt out” their child to an evolution class that they see as flawed science at best and a travesty at worst. Here too, the school could give the basest of overviews and make note that millions subscribe to evolution. (and their parents have opted to handle that at home.)

Parents do not have a right to deprive their children of a complete education. They have no more business “opting” them out of a science class than out of a math class. The ignorance of the parents is no excuse. If I think the sun revolves around the earth should I have the option of pulling my kid out of an astronomy class? If I think 2+2=56 should I be able to pull her out of a math class?

Kids need a full and accurate education regardless of the ignorance of their parents.

Perhaps that way everyone gets what they want; Christians who believe in evolution leave their children in class and supplement that education with their feelings/beliefs. Atheists and others get the “straight stick” curriculum with no additional “spin”, and those who believe that the origin of life is a topic best handles at home get just that.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, and no this is not a good option because it deprives the child of a proper foundation in science. This will be particularly harmful when the kids gets to college and find out that everything they think they know is complete nonsense.

[Kinthalis]

I’d just like to add: F’ing Brilliant Diogenes, Bryan, Faldage Can such eloquence be taught?

[raindog]

I’d just like to add: F’ing Brilliant Diogenes, Bryan, Faldage Can such eloquence be taught?

One would hope not…

[Kinthalis]

@the raindog

One would hope not…

For your sake, of course

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Kinthalis

I’d just like to add: F’ing Brilliant Diogenes, Bryan, Faldage Can such eloquence be taught?

Thanks for the compliment but really, we’ve just had a lot of experience with this topic. We see the same arguments over and over again and know how to respond.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

BTW, welcome, Raindog.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

@the raindog

I would imagine that strict evolutionists, particularly atheists, would hold my views in similiar derision.

I, for one, do not hold your views with derision. I do, however, hold your reasons for those views with derision. Very few, if any, “special creationists” (or even IDists) have actually taken the trouble to study evolution from evolutionary biologists. Instead, they take the word of chemists and lawyers and mathematicians and theologians and who knows what else who themselves have a poor grasp of evolutionary theory. And, as a result, they get many of the fundamentals, and virtually all of the details, wrong. They build up a caricature of evolution and rail against that.

My personal feeling is that the evolution theory has so many holes in it you could run a God inhabited galaxy through it.
[…]
And while science has made extraordinary strides in understanding our universe, the case for evolution is fairly weak in relative terms.

And these are perfect examples of what I mean. There is much claim as to alleged “holes” in the theory, or the “weaknesses” of the the theory, with little explication. On the other hand, if one were to actually study the material available in support of evolution - well, one would have to devote one’s life to doing so. It’s not a simple, straightforward topic (though the essence of such mechanisms as natural selection may seem profound in their simplicity!), and the evidence that it happens is overwhelming.

[netscape_6]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Parents do not have a right to deprive their children of a complete education. They have no more business “opting” them out of a science class than out of a math class. The ignorance of the parents is no excuse.

Ignorance in your opinion;)

[raindog]

The thrust of my post was simply that there was at roughly 3 different ways a parent could come down on this subject, namely:

1)That evolution is a scientific fact, and that creationism is a complete falsehood. To teach creationism is a travesty.

2)That creationism explains the origin of life (and the evolution of life), and that the theory of evolution is flawed science. To teach it as fact would be a travesty.

3)That both creationism and evolution can co-exist peacefully and with some “tweaking” are not in conflict with each other. I would imagine that the parents who feel this way supplement the teachings in school with their perceptions of the origin of life and how it evolved. This is seen as a family issue and is done at home.

My proposed solution would:

1. Teach evolution in the fashion the scientific community wishes it to be taught. One poster mentioned , I believe, that the theory is essentially watered to appease the creationists. Teach it straight! Don’t water it down one bit.

2)Do NOT teach creationism at all in the schools. That is the parent’s responsibility.

Those solutions would certainly appease, the parents in groups in one and three above would it not? My last proposal would simply allow those parents who believe that evolution is flawed science to opt out their kids, plain and simple. The reason I suggested that the schools make passing mention of each theory is to allow the children to know that alternate theories exist. (Although any responsible parent would do that)

In the end, though, the teaching of evolution is best done at school and only evolution should be taught there. Further, creationism, if it is to be taught, and should only taught at home by parents.

And that’s what I suggested. Diogenes the Cynic, would you not agree with that?

Here is the OP:
**
"The question for debate is - since creationism is really a religious belief and is not backed by any science or factual evidence, why should it be considered as valid to be taught in public schools? Aren’t those who “believe” in creationism essentially trying to impose their beliefs on others at the expense of the doctrine of separation of government and religion?" ** (Italics mine)

Ironically, Diogenes the Cynic is suggesting that my children not be allowed to opt out of a class that may be anathema to our most closely held beliefs.

I don’t think, in this thread anyway, that it’s the creationists you should be worrying about…

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Kinthalis

I’d just like to add: F’ing Brilliant Diogenes, Bryan, Faldage Can such eloquence be taught?

I’m afraid not. Our eloquence may seem impressive, but that’s only because the non-eloquent types all died off from exhaustion and frustration at endless creationism threads.

Yes, it’s natural selection in action. Survival of the flippest.

[raindog]

BTW, welcome, Raindog.

Thanks! Pleased to meet you.

[Kinthalis]

@the raindog

Ironically, Diogenes the Cynic is suggesting that my children not be allowed to opt out of a class that may be anathema to our most closely held beliefs.

I don’t think, in this thread anyway, that it’s the creationists you should be worrying about…

Ahhh, but Evolution is not a ‘beleif’. It is Science. Hence, it SHOULd be taught in the science curriculum.

Using Diogenes’ hypothetical:

What if there was some other religion that held 1+1 = 3. For whatever reason this is what they very specifically beleived, should they be allowed to remove their kids from match class in order to prevent them form learning that 1+1 is in fact equal to 2?

Do you not see that answering the question with “Yes” would be harmful to their education?

[Zagadka]

@the raindog

I don’t think, in this thread anyway, that it’s the creationists you should be worrying about…

Difference is, evolution is a science, not a belief.

One other way of looking at it; do you “opt out” of history courses that discuss ancient history, or any class that mentions pre-history man? Or are those religious beliefs, as well?

[raindog]

Darwin’s Finch said:
I, for one, do not hold your views with derision. I do, however, hold your reasons for those views with derision. Very few, if any, “special creationists” (or even IDists) have actually taken the trouble to study evolution from evolutionary biologists. Instead, they take the word of chemists and lawyers and mathematicians and theologians and who knows what else who themselves have a poor grasp of evolutionary theory. And, as a result, they get many of the fundamentals, and virtually all of the details, wrong. They build up a caricature of evolution and rail against that.

I sincerely appreciate your civility. But in fairness, I didn’t explain my reasons! So, with all due respect, you don’t know what level of attention I’ve given to the subject, or how I came to believe what I believe. I am not the type to take anybody’s word for most things, certainly not something as important as this.

My post was focused on how the theory should be taught in school, and it is/was not my intent to debate the validity of creationism or evolution.

On the other hand, if one were to actually study the material available in support of evolution - well, one would have to devote one’s life to doing so.

This is true. It is also true that one could spend a lifetime studying the material supporting creation. Whatever one comes to believe as “truth”, I think we would both agree that something more that a cursory review is in order.

[Kinthalis]

@the raindog

This is true. It is also true that one could spend a lifetime studying the material supporting creation.

You mean the bible? Because that’s the only… eh… evidence?

Still I agree with your final solution except on that last point about opting out.

[raindog]

Kinthalis said: Ahhh, but Evolution is not a ‘beleif’. It is Science. Hence, it SHOULd be taught in the science curriculum.

And I suggested that it be taught in the science curriculum.

Using Diogenes’ hypothetical:

What if there was some other religion that held 1+1 = 3. For whatever reason this is what they very specifically beleived, should they be allowed to remove their kids from match class in order to prevent them form learning that 1+1 is in fact equal to 2?

Do you not see that answering the question with “Yes” would be harmful to their education?

Indeed it would be the moment you can make it as clear as 1+1=2. Diogenes the Cynic made a similiar point with his reference to 2+2 equaling 56. But in all fairness, even the most ardent evolutionist wouldn’t purport to make a concept as complex and weighty as evolution as something that could be distilled down to 1+1=2. A moment ago, Darwin’s Finch noted that you could spend a lifetime digesting the science that supported evolution. I can tell you that I got my arms around 1+1=2 much faster than that.

C’mon guys, play fair…