[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Vinyl Turnip
I couldn’t have said it better.
What harm would there be, really, if schools were required to teach the “stork theory” of human reproduction alongside the mainstream science-centric view? Or perhaps dental schools could include a course on the Tooth Fairy in their curricula. **Really, what does it matter whether we know how electricity works, or just assume light bulbs are powered by magic?[/**QUOTE]
I don’t know about you but I don’t want the people who work on powerlines to think electricity is magic. What are they going to do when the power goes out during a storm, sprinkle some fairy dust?
I think these are bogus arguments. Most die-hard creationists believe in what they call “micro evolution”, or small changes within species, which can easily explain why you don’t want to use antibiotics carelessly. Additionally, they understand the concept of a species and that if it’s gone, it’s gone. They also understant the interdependence of different species within an ecosystem and that when one speceis goes it can affect the whole ecosystem.
As for the OP: Most kids learn the Adam and Eve story as kids and really don’t learn about evolution until they’re in school, so in a sense we’re already there. But we don’t teach ID because it’s not science. It’s that simple. Frankly, though, this:
[quote[People who support evolution in these debates, however, frequently act as if a belief in ID is tantamount to Armageddon. If you believe in ID, then you’re a stupid, ignorant savage who will lead mankind into a new dark age of superstition, fear and barbarism.[/quote]
is a strawman. People do get passionate about not teaching ID, but I think it’s a rare poster, if any, who come off like you claim.
nameless the initial assumption would be the same either way. With no ‘God’ we have a universe trillions of years old, and we will have to study it as if it’s a universe that is a trillion years old.
If ‘God’ created the universe 6000 years ago, but in a way it would exist as if it were trillions of years old, our study of it would still have to be as if it were trillions of years old.
So in terms of scientific study there is no difference, the universe is trillions of years old.
The only different mode of study is to look for flaws in ‘God’s’ creation, or clues ‘God’ may have left that it really is not trillions of years old.
Have you ever run into creationists attacking the peppered moth experiment? That’s a pure case of microevolution - in fact, it might not be evolution at all, just selection. (The distribution of genes changes, but I’m not sure if the union of the genome changed.) It is true that the standard creationist rant today accepts “microevolution,” but I’d wonder if the average creationist does. In any case is an influenza virus moving from poultry to man a case of microevolution or macroevolution?
I don’t see how specially created man could be considered as much a part of nature as evolved man. I can imagine an ID philosophy that states that because all species have been created, they are special and should be protected - but I haven’t seen any in practice.
Is anybody contending a trillion+ age for the universe? I thought mainstream estimates were in the 14-20 billion year range.
Why does it matter? Species have been going extinct for hundreds of millions of years. Preserving them is arguably counter to natural selection, unless you define “natural selection” to include all human activity, which I tend to support. In any case, species that can’t adapt themselves to their environment die; that’s how it works. You’ve mixed in an environmentalist message and it doesn’t really belong.
What’s the difference between evolution and selection, and what is the “union of the genome”? But no, I’ve never heard of the creationists attack on the peppered moth data.
Is there any evidence that creationists discount the existence of species jumping viruses? BTW, a virus isn’t generally considered a living thing, so I’m not sure it’s appropriate to talk about them in evolutionary terms anyway.
Anyway, the OP is correct in that most people simply don’t need an understanding of evolution in their everyday lives. And a good thing, too, since most people who do accept evolution usually have a flawed understand of what it is anyway, in my expereince.
And most people who do accept medicine have a flawed understanding of what that is, too.
I don’t think the argument you labeled as a strawman above is one. I do think the seeds of a return to the Dark Ages can be sown with succumbing to the IDers. I do believe that ID proponents are stupid, and that their ascendancy can’t be stopped soon enough.
I think I see what you’re saying. In my experience, however, young-earth type ID adherents won’t come to that conclusion–that if the Earth appears to be 4.5 billion years old we should treat it as such. They instead denounce the means used to obtain that age. In an incredibly ignorant and unscientific way.
At any rate the real issue is the means by which biodiversity occurs–be it by the hands of God or by mutation and natural selection. I think I know where most of us fall. I also refuse to give up on the idea that everyone in this nation can and should know how they came to be.
Interesting sidenote–I actually saw a talk by ID advocate Phillip Johnson. He did a lot of hand-waving to cast aspersions on the peppered moth studies, going so far as to say some of the famous photos had been doctored and that moths had been glued to the trees. It was hard to follow his point–intentionally so, I believe. I wish I had taken notes on what he was saying; I was just so flabbergasted at the time that I can’t remember exactly what his claim was.
The problem is that “Last Thursdayism” doesn’t give us any useful information whatsoever. If we take the scientific foundation in one hand and the assumption that God created the world 6000 years ago complete with all evidence of great age and evolution intact, we find that the “equation” is exactly the same even without the latter hypothesis. So we can safely ignore the idea that everything is 6000 years old. Which is, basically, what we already do. To those of us who don’t have a vested interest in the existence of the literally true Christian God, that’s not a problem. For those who do have that vested interest, the mere fact that we’re not giving a proven irrelevancy equal time is evil.
In the same vein, I could demand that all physics education include the idea that God personally controls gravitational attraction between objects, but he does so with a “macro” of sorts that’s indistinguishable from every piece of data we have about gravitation. Should that be taught because I say I believe it? Expand my hypothetical followers to several million. Now should it be taught because we say we believe it?
Which doesn’t even really have anything to do with ID. ID proponents claim that there are distinguishable characteristics to evolution which suggest that an intelligent designer is involved. This is not the same thing as saying that rudderless evolution and intelligent design are identical in effect or evidence.
There would be no harm in teaching the “stork story” as a story in the public schools. There would be immense harm in teaching it as a scientific theory on par with actual scientific theories. For example, in my high school chemistry class, the teacher started by telling us about alchemy and how that isn’t science. There was no harm in telling us that. She did not attempt to put it on a par with actual chemistry.
OK-- I wasn’t doubting it, btw, I’d just never heard about it. But, how is anyone’s daily life affected by not believing in that particular study? I think the jump from “some people don’t believe the peppered moth study” to “some people don’t believe bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics” or “some people don’t think viruses can jump from one species to another” is tenuous at best. Do creationists routinely dismiss those last two things? And I’m not talking about people who believe only God can cure illnesses and that medicine is interfering with God’s work, but your average, everyday evangelical creationist. Does anyone have evidence that a belief in creationism actually does makes people doubt those things?
Yep, that’s it! Man, what an ass. He claimed during his talk that evolution had no mechanism to account for a gain of information or functionality, ergo, God. I was all like, “Ummm polyploidy? Gene duplication followed by divergent mutation?” I’m having a mild stroke just thinking about it.
Funny thing is that you can not prove these don’t exist.
I think you just pointed out a flaw in the scientific method. We make assumptions that X caused Y through observation, but yes a ‘god’ of physics could just be doing it. But if such a ‘god’ is consistant we can use that theory to orbit spacecraft, so either way we are OK.
Well I didn’t say my theory fits all.
Then why don’t you let us know. How do you know that you are not in some ‘Matrix’ existance where your reality is not computer generated, and no one but yourself exists in your reality? (Yes I know in the movie the matrix people interacted).
