# what many creationists think of science and the public education system **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 16, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394 "2010-04-16T21:13:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/61 "2010-04-21T02:17:06Z")
> [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > Statisticly, roughly 85% of Americans are Christians, which of course is a bit off, but it is clear that majority of Americans don’t downright believe in the **Theory** of Evolution. What the…? You mean to tell me that it’s just a THEORY? And all this time I thought it was true! I’m going to become a creationist now! I just hope the theory of gravity is still considered to be… \ ---
**Author:** ![Ace309](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ace309/32/1050_2.png) [@Ace309](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace309)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/62 "2010-04-21T02:48:04Z")
> [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > But I mention this education related opinion of mine to show that it shouldn’t be legal to universally teach one seperate side of an issue, especially one that clearly divides the nation. I know that atheists love their science, oweing to the general concept that it only contains ‘Fact’, yet this is unfortunately untrue. I am not denying the existence of the truth of science, but am simply stating that, for better or for worse, fact only becomes so by an agreeance of all parties that it is so. And the simple fact is, our country doesn’t agree, which is why we creationists are in an uproar about a state funded worldview. You’re reasoning from the first principle that “fact only becomes so by [consensus].” That principle is demonstrably incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Cyningablod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Cyningablod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyningablod)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/63 "2010-04-21T03:08:25Z")
HF: Thanks for the comments. My responses: > [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > Cyningablod, your falling into the very common trap of creating a decieving juxtaposition. Your taking somthing that athiests don’t believe “The world belongs to the Devil”, and quite naturally expecting the ridicule of it when aligning it with christians, a group of whom atheists are already pre-disposed to ridicule. > > Now unfortunately I have to more or less parrot the widely-used christian retort of, ‘you have taken that out of context.’ Now, as I’m sure many of you will not hesitate in telling me, your sick of hearing this. But, don’t feel too bad, because I’m sick of saying it, so the feeling is mutual. Apart from what I described in my OP, you simply don’t _know_ what my experiences are with the statement in question. So I’m at a loss to understand why you think I’m taking it out of context. I have 30+ years of broad, diverse, and direct/personal observation of what American creationists say, when they say it, how they say it, and why they say it. But this is a minor point. Moving on… > [@](#): > > Now when you said, “The way a large number of creationists interpret all this, the way they make sense…” you left out the fact that while the large body of creationists believe your quoted statement, “The world belongs to the Devil”, they don’t simply say that and leave it be. Creationist scientists have done plenty of their own research which they will say backs up their belief, so to act like that statment is the pillar of creationist reasoning is really quite absurd. I didn’t describe the statement as “the pillar of creationist reasoning”. I described it as a fall-back position of many (not all!) creationists in the face of their nearly-constant losses in the public forum. Creationists have NOT, in fact, done plenty of research to support their claims. How could they? How would one devise a scientific experiment to support the idea that “God created the world”? Even with a loose, non-overtly-Christian hypothesis of “intelligent design”, what exactly would one test? _How_ would it be tested? How could the study be replicated? This is one of the (many) unanswerable challenges that creationists faced in the _Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover ASB_ trial. Creationism/intelligent design simply isn’t science. It can’t be. Religious doctrines and scientific experimentation fundamentally don’t mix. I’m aware that there are a small few practicing scientists who are creationists, and that there are even a handful of creation science “journals” in which “research” is published, but it’s rather telling that these papers are not always subjected to peer review. And when they are, it’s not actual **peer** review: it’s review _by fellow ideologues_. Mainstream scientists are NOT invited to critique creationists’ studies/papers/whatever. There’s a strong reason for this; misguided and deluded as they may be, creationists aren’t fools: they know better than to submit their “research” to _ **actual** _ scientific scrutiny. I’m reminded of a childhood chum of mine, who, after telling me a very tall tale and swearing to it as the truth, made a little disclaimer: “Don’t tell my mom, or she’ll say I’m lying.” This is exactly the approach that creation “scientists” take vis-a-vis their “research” before an audience of actual scientists: “_Don’t tell a real scientist about my work, or she’ll reveal it as bunk_.” > [@](#): > > Yet, as to pertains to legal educational matters, I would certainly say that creationists have no right to be the only view taught in schools, just as much as I would say that evolution has no right to be the only view taught. Although this will begin to lead into my view, of which most would claim extreme, that there should be no state run education, so if you(or anyone for that matter) would like to disagree with that idea let me know. This talk of “views” has you confused. Science education doesn’t traffic in the currency of “views”. Biology class isn’t like a history class, or a course in philosophy or literary interpretation, where reasonable men and women can differ in their analyses. We’re not talking about the pros and cons of capitalism vs. socialism here, or something similarly debatable. In science education there are no grey areas in which one’s pet _Weltanschauung_ informs the conclusion. We’re talking about hard science. And between science and metaphysics, only the former belongs in the science classroom. In other words, you shouldn’t fall into the trap of thinking that dialogue in the science classroom follows the same patterns and standards as dialogue in the humanities classroom. It just ain’t so. But let’s assume for a moment–for the sake of argument–that it did. Let’s say that the curriculum of a biology class is properly (somehow) as open to analysis, discussion, debate, and variant interpretation as say, a class in comparative religion. You state that evolution shouldn’t be the only “view” taught (there’s that word again)…OK, fair enough, which other “view[s]” should be taught? Lamarckian evolution? Intelligent design? Christian Biblical creationism? Islamic creationism? What about $cientology’s creation doctrine? How 'bout that of the Zoroastrians? Nordic or Anglo-Saxon origins myths? Where do you draw the line? Does the fact that the majority of Americans believe in the Bible necessarily mean that it’s more likely to be right, than any of these others? (I think I know what you’ll answer, here, but [you’d be wrong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).) The whole “teach-the-controversy” rhetoric is just foolish. We don’t offer a glimpse into alchemy in chemistry classes, nor astrology in astronomy classes, nor numerology in math classes. Only SCIENCE belongs in science class. > [@](#): > > I know that atheists love their science, oweing to the general concept that it only contains ‘Fact’, yet this is unfortunately untrue. I am not denying the existence of the truth of science, but am simply stating that, for better or for worse, fact only becomes so by an agreeance of all parties that it is so. Wait…what? Fact is established only by democratic consensus? Hoo boy, I don’t even know where to begin, with that one. (Actually, I do, and I’ve included a link below to a good starting place.) > [@](#): > > And the simple fact is, our country doesn’t agree, which is why we creationists are in an uproar about a state funded worldview. Like I said, athiests claim that their worldview is fact, yet they fail to see its just as much a state funded ‘fact’ as Noah’s Ark was a state funded fact 100 years ago. The American public’s view on evolution (which is generally quite ignorant and misguided anyway, but that’s another issue) has no bearing **whatsoever** on its standing as a scientific theory (or “theorum” as Dawkins calls it, to suggest its dual standing as theory and fact). But you seem to think that fact is determined by majority vote, so I’m not sure that you’ll see the flaw in your line of thinking here, either. > [@](#): > > Now the reverse claim to this I’m sure will be that times have changed, and everyone knows evolution to be the truth now. Yet I feel I must mention, somthing that athiests are slow to admit, your guys are the minority here on planet earth, and more specifically, USA. Statisticly, roughly 85% of Americans are Christians, which of course is a bit off, but it is clear that majority of Americans don’t downright believe in the **Theory** of Evolution. So? What is the significance of this fact? That the majority of Americans are scientifically illiterate, and stronger education in biology is called for? I’d heartily agree. But your argument here is totally fallacious: it’s just an appeal to popularity. Again, your main thesis reduced to its essence seems to be that popularity of an idea = that idea’s truth. It just ain’t the case. Not in science, not in the humanities, not in anything. Never has been, never will be. It’s a classic fallacy: [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html) ---
**Author:** ![Hold\_Fast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58f4c7/32.png) [@Hold\_Fast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hold_Fast)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/64 "2010-04-21T03:09:22Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You’re falling into a trap of your own: you’re confusing “Christian” with “Creationist.” The single largest Christian denomination in the world, the Catholic Church, has no problem reconciling evolution with their faith in Christ. Thats not a universally accepted catholic idea. I tend to think that that was just a PR move by the papacy. The theory of evolution just doesnt jive with the bible. The order that the bible claims that species were created is different then what evolutionists believe the order was. > [@Miller](#): > > That’s not what he’s saying. He’s offering that as an underlying philosophy to explain the consistent and deliberate rejection of independently verifiable fact by Creationists in favor of their religious dogma. The evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming and almost entirely airtight. To someone not already indoctrinated in Creationism, it’s mindboggling that one could so blithely overlook this mountain of facts and evidence all pointing towards evolution as the mechanism by which species arise. Per the OP, the reason for this is “the world belongs to the Devil.” We are, of course, well aware that there are additional justifications beyond that, but he’s arguing that this is the bedrock assumption on which those justifications have been constructed. I am more then aware that you, and more then likely, he as well, understand that there are additional justifications beyond that. Yet thats really not the way he presented it. The way a large number of creationists interpret all this, the way they make sense of the overwhelming legal and educational tide against them, is NOT to reason that: > [@Cyningabod](#): > > “Gee, maybe all these biology and education experts and government officials are right; maybe evolution IS good science, after all!” > > "Oh no no no. For that would mean the crumbling of their ideological edifice. > > The way the majority of them interpret their astounding, perpetual, and overwhelming losses in the scholarly and legal forum is as follows: > > “The world belongs to the devil.”" What he’s saying here is cleary inferring that, like I said, creationists rest their beliefs on “The world belongs to the Devil”. And I have to tell you that this idea is not, the “bedrock assumption on which those justifications have been constructed.” This is really just an attempt to paint Christians as morons by slapping a overly simplified idea onto them that is absurd by all at first glance. > [@Miller](#): > > Well, that’s certainly an… _interesting_ idea. But not really germane to this topic. But you misunderstand the reason evolution is illegal to teach in schools. It’s really got nothing (directly) to do with “only teaching one viewpoint.” It’s got to do with the first amendment to the Constitution. The government cannot be in the business of promoting a religion. Therefore, it is illegal to teach Creationism in schools, because Creationism is a religious dogma. Evolution is not a religious dogma. It’s a biological mechanism, whose existence is irrefutably established by physical evidence, and laboratory testing. It is not a philosophical viewpoint, it’s a description of the physical world. On this certain subject we could argue for hours I’m sure, but for brevity’s sake I’ll try to stick to a couple simple points. Athiests love to wave the banner of the first ammendment as evidence that the founding fathers would take theri side. Yet even the slightest research can refute this. Now I could line up a scores of quotes that show the weight that the founding fathers put into Chrisitanity, but again, for brevity’s sake, I’ll simply name some facts. The first ammendment in no way says thats religion cannot be prommoted government, it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What this IS saying is that the state cannot restrict or interfere with religion in any way. You see, its the atheist community that slaps “Seperation of Church and State” onto the first ammendment. The phrase of which, I feel I should mention, is not written in any legal document of that time–if ever for that matter. God is invoked four times in the Declaration of independance. Now does that sound like seperation of church and state? If you want to disagree with the founding fathers, by all means go for it, but don’t fool yourself into thinking they’re champions of modernist values. > [@Miller](#): > > Why not? …Well you sure seemed to have a problem with only one side being taught when it was christianity… > [@Miller](#): > > Personally, I’m a fan of science because of it’s demonstrated utility. Thanks to science, I can type on the internet, drive my car, play video games on my cell phone, and not be dead from gall stones. I can see that science actually does stuff, and produces results. Religion? It makes some people happy, and that’s certainly valuable, but aside from a few rather nice aesthetics, I haven’t ever derived much personal benefit from religion. Accept it or not, every single founding father would have told you that without religion of some form life would be meaningless; so thanks to religion you have a great country to live in. For better or for worse, religion over the course of human history has brought out both the very best and very worst of what humans are capable of. Ha, but you can take what you want from that. > [@Miller](#): > > I can’t say I agree with you there. A fact is a fact, regardless of who knows it. What evolves (heh) is our understanding of the facts, which is never going to be perfect. The problem comes when you have two competing understanding of what the facts are. How do you resolve which is most correct? Perhaps if we had some system of evaluating information, testing it, and establishing which view of the facts is most accurate? Oh, wait. We do. It’s called science. Well I can see that I have to restate that I am not bagging on science. Yet somhow, miracuously, both sides do all the same tests, examine all the same data, and yet come up with two different sets of opinions. Theres an interesting documentry by Ben Stein that has quite a few interviews of scientists who began to think that evolution was very improbable after looking at the same data as their contempories and were promptly fired. So as much as you want to flaunt “scienitific fact” out there your gonna have to come to terms with the fact(heh) that our country doesn’t even agree on that, and that it should be illegal for it to fund one specific side. > [@Miller](#): > > There’s that trap again. 85% of the US may be Christian, but that doesn’t mean that 85% of the US is Creationist. Remember, Christian does not equal Creationist. A [recent survey](http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/evolution-big-bang-polls-omitted.html) found that 55% of Americans don’t believe in evolution. Still a majority, sure, but not nearly as one sided as you would have us believe. And the high level of support for Creationism in the US is an anomaly among Western nations. Creationism gets very little play in Europe or Asia. Globally speaking, the Christian brand of creationism is a pretty small minority. Yes…which is why I said “ **which of course is a bit off** , but it is clear that **majority** of Americans don’t downright believe in the Theory of Evolution.” > [@](#): > > I understand Creationism is much more popular among Muslims, though. So, you got that going for you. I can see I messed up the quoting pretty badly, so no one needs to point it out. You COULD be helpful however and tell me how to not make the future mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Hold\_Fast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58f4c7/32.png) [@Hold\_Fast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hold_Fast)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/65 "2010-04-21T03:34:58Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You’re falling into a trap of your own: you’re confusing “Christian” with “Creationist.” The single largest Christian denomination in the world, the Catholic Church, has no problem reconciling evolution with their faith in Christ. > > That’s not what he’s saying. He’s offering that as an underlying philosophy to explain the consistent and deliberate rejection of independently verifiable fact by Creationists in favor of their religious dogma. The evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming and almost entirely airtight. To someone not already indoctrinated in Creationism, it’s mindboggling that one could so blithely overlook this mountain of facts and evidence all pointing towards evolution as the mechanism by which species arise. Per the OP, the reason for this is “the world belongs to the Devil.” We are, of course, well aware that there are additional justifications beyond that, but he’s arguing that this is the bedrock assumption on which those justifications have been constructed. > > Well, that’s certainly an… _interesting_ idea. But not really germane to this topic. But you misunderstand the reason evolution is illegal to teach in schools. It’s really got nothing (directly) to do with “only teaching one viewpoint.” It’s got to do with the first amendment to the Constitution. The government cannot be in the business of promoting a religion. Therefore, it is illegal to teach Creationism in schools, because Creationism is a religious dogma. Evolution is not a religious dogma. It’s a biological mechanism, whose existence is irrefutably established by physical evidence, and laboratory testing. It is not a philosophical viewpoint, it’s a description of the physical world. > > Why not? > > Personally, I’m a fan of science because of it’s demonstrated utility. Thanks to science, I can type on the internet, drive my car, play video games on my cell phone, and not be dead from gall stones. I can see that science actually does stuff, and produces results. Religion? It makes some people happy, and that’s certainly valuable, but aside from a few rather nice aesthetics, I haven’t ever derived much personal benefit from religion. > > I can’t say I agree with you there. A fact is a fact, regardless of who knows it. What evolves (heh) is our understanding of the facts, which is never going to be perfect. The problem comes when you have two competing understanding of what the facts are. How do you resolve which is most correct? Perhaps if we had some system of evaluating information, testing it, and establishing which view of the facts is most accurate? Oh, wait. We do. It’s called science. > > There’s that trap again. 85% of the US may be Christian, but that doesn’t mean that 85% of the US is Creationist. Remember, Christian does not equal Creationist. A [recent survey](http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/evolution-big-bang-polls-omitted.html) found that 55% of Americans don’t believe in evolution. Still a majority, sure, but not nearly as one sided as you would have us believe. And the high level of support for Creationism in the US is an anomaly among Western nations. Creationism gets very little play in Europe or Asia. Globally speaking, the Christian brand of creationism is a pretty small minority. > > I understand Creationism is much more popular among Muslims, though. So, you got that going for you. > [@Cyningablod](#): > > HF: Thanks for the comments. My responses: > > Apart from what I described in my OP, you simply don’t _know_ what my experiences are with the statement in question. So I’m at a loss to understand why you think I’m taking it out of context. I have 30+ years of broad, diverse, and direct/personal observation of what American creationists say, when they say it, how they say it, and why they say it. > > But this is a minor point. Moving on… > > I didn’t describe the statement as “the pillar of creationist reasoning”. I described it as a fall-back position of many (not all!) creationists in the face of their nearly-constant losses in the public forum. > > Creationists have NOT, in fact, done plenty of research to support their claims. How could they? How would one devise a scientific experiment to support the idea that “God created the world”? Even with a loose, non-overtly-Christian hypothesis of “intelligent design”, what exactly would one test? _How_ would it be tested? How could the study be replicated? This is one of the (many) unanswerable challenges that creationists faced in the _Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover ASB_ trial. Creationism/intelligent design simply isn’t science. It can’t be. Religious doctrines and scientific experimentation fundamentally don’t mix. > > I’m aware that there are a small few practicing scientists who are creationists, and that there are even a handful of creation science “journals” in which “research” is published, but it’s rather telling that these papers are not always subjected to peer review. And when they are, it’s not actual **peer** review: it’s review _by fellow ideologues_. Mainstream scientists are NOT invited to critique creationists’ studies/papers/whatever. There’s a strong reason for this; misguided and deluded as they may be, creationists aren’t fools: they know better than to submit their “research” to _ **actual** _ scientific scrutiny. I’m reminded of a childhood chum of mine, who, after telling me a very tall tale and swearing to it as the truth, made a little disclaimer: “Don’t tell my mom, or she’ll say I’m lying.” This is exactly the approach that creation “scientists” take vis-a-vis their “research” before an audience of actual scientists: “_Don’t tell a real scientist about my work, or she’ll reveal it as bunk_.” > > This talk of “views” has you confused. Science education doesn’t traffic in the currency of “views”. Biology class isn’t like a history class, or a course in philosophy or literary interpretation, where reasonable men and women can differ in their analyses. We’re not talking about the pros and cons of capitalism vs. socialism here, or something similarly debatable. In science education there are no grey areas in which one’s pet _Weltanschauung_ informs the conclusion. We’re talking about hard science. And between science and metaphysics, only the former belongs in the science classroom. In other words, you shouldn’t fall into the trap of thinking that dialogue in the science classroom follows the same patterns and standards as dialogue in the humanities classroom. It just ain’t so. > > But let’s assume for a moment–for the sake of argument–that it did. Let’s say that the curriculum of a biology class is properly (somehow) as open to analysis, discussion, debate, and variant interpretation as say, a class in comparative religion. You state that evolution shouldn’t be the only “view” taught (there’s that word again)…OK, fair enough, which other “view[s]” should be taught? Lamarckian evolution? Intelligent design? Christian Biblical creationism? Islamic creationism? What about $cientology’s creation doctrine? How 'bout that of the Zoroastrians? Nordic or Anglo-Saxon origins myths? Where do you draw the line? Does the fact that the majority of Americans believe in the Bible necessarily mean that it’s more likely to be right, than any of these others? (I think I know what you’ll answer, here, but [you’d be wrong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).) > > The whole “teach-the-controversy” rhetoric is just foolish. We don’t offer a glimpse into alchemy in chemistry classes, nor astrology in astronomy classes, nor numerology in math classes. Only SCIENCE belongs in science class. > > Wait…what? Fact is established only by democratic consensus? Hoo boy, I don’t even know where to begin, with that one. > > (Actually, I do, and I’ve included a link below to a good starting place.) > > The American public’s view on evolution (which is generally quite ignorant and misguided anyway, but that’s another issue) has no bearing **whatsoever** on its standing as a scientific theory (or “theorum” as Dawkins calls it, to suggest its dual standing as theory and fact). > > But you seem to think that fact is determined by majority vote, so I’m not sure that you’ll see the flaw in your line of thinking here, either. > > So? What is the significance of this fact? That the majority of Americans are scientifically illiterate, and stronger education in biology is called for? I’d heartily agree. But your argument here is totally fallacious: it’s just an appeal to popularity. > > Again, your main thesis reduced to its essence seems to be that popularity of an idea = that idea’s truth. It just ain’t the case. Not in science, not in the humanities, not in anything. Never has been, never will be. It’s a classic fallacy: > > [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html) Alright, I’d love to deal with all these statements, but I kind of need to hit the hay, so I’m just gonna make it quick with a couple things. You, as well as miller, apparently skipped a few things that I wrote. Your statments, “Wait…what? Fact is established only by democratic consensus? Hoo boy, I don’t even know where to begin, with that one.” “Again, your main thesis reduced to its essence seems to be that popularity of an idea = that idea’s truth. It just ain’t the case. Not in science, not in the humanities, not in anything. Never has been, never will be. It’s a classic fallacy” is really quite frustrating, seeing as to how I clearly stated I am not saying that there isn’t a scientific truth out there outside of demacratic consensus. Yet, the actual things that we humans take into our head and hold as ‘truths’ are a demecratic consensus, regardless of their **actual** verity. 1500 years ago the human race thought the world was flat. A ‘Fact’, established by democratic consensus, proved by the most brilliant minds of the day. This really wasn’t my main thesis at all, but I can see its the thing you took most offense too. But buddy, like I said, truth to you and me will always be a democratic consenus. Like I’ve been saying however, you think your right, and I think I’m right, and the country is very nearly split down the middle, so if we get back to the educational issue, it should illegal to shove your view–because thats precisely what it is–down the throats of half the country. ---
**Author:** ![Cyningablod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Cyningablod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyningablod)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/66 "2010-04-21T03:38:50Z")
Hold Fast: When quoting only specific sections of someone’s post, make sure you close each section that you’re quoting with this: [/QUOTE] That way, you can comment on each section, one at a time. Keep in mind also that when you close a quoted section this way, to start another quoted section, you have to use the exact same code, only without the forward slash: [QUOTE] Quick summary: To start a quoted section, use the word quote in all caps, surrounded by square brackets. To close a quoted section, do the same thing, only with a forward slash ( / ) right before the word. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/67 "2010-04-21T03:40:46Z")
I fixed up your post for you. For future reference, you need to end the quoted portions of your post with a close quote tag, like this: [/quote] The quoted portion should start with an open quote tag, like this: [quote] When text is surrounded by both tags, it will appear in a quote box, > [@](#): > > Like this. ---
**Author:** ![Hold\_Fast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58f4c7/32.png) [@Hold\_Fast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hold_Fast)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/68 "2010-04-21T03:47:02Z")
> [@Cyningablod](#): > > Hold Fast: > > When quoting only specific sections of someone’s post, make sure you close each section that you’re quoting with this: That way, you can comment on each section, one at a time. Keep in mind also that when you close a quoted section this way, to start another quoted section, you have to use the exact same code, only without the forward slash: > [@](#): > > Quick summary: To start a quoted section, use the word quote in all caps, surrounded by square brackets. To close a quoted section, do the same thing, only with a forward slash ( / ) right before the word. Ah, alright thanks. And I’ll try to get back here tomorrow, so be sure to rip into me good guys, lol. Also, I couldn’t help but notice a reoccurring theme in all this that I feel I should mention, which can be summed up by Admiral Ackbar–“It’s a trap!” ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/69 "2010-04-21T04:33:43Z")
> [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > Thats not a universally accepted catholic idea. I tend to think that that was just a PR move by the papacy. The theory of evolution just doesnt jive with the bible. The order that the bible claims that species were created is different then what evolutionists believe the order was. Of course it’s not universal. But it’s still official church policy, which is a pretty strong indicator that it’s the majority view among the layity. And, by the same measure, Creationism isn’t universal among protestants, either. In fact, looking at Christianity on a global scale, the vast majority of Christians believe in evolution. It’s really only in the US that a very slim majority of them embrace Creationism. And also, a PR move? Seriously? Since when has the Catholic church ever been willing to change its beliefs to fit public sentiment? And weren’t you just arguing a few posts back that Creationist outnumbered non-Creationists? If that were true, why the hell would the Vatican care about PR with non-Creationists? Lastly, keep in mind that evolution does not jive with a _literal_ reading of the Bible. The vast majority of Christians worldwide are not Biblical literalists. Biblical literalism is a recent, and largely American, phenomenon. > [@](#): > > What he’s saying here is cleary inferring that, like I said, creationists rest their beliefs on “The world belongs to the Devil”. And I have to tell you that this idea is not, the “bedrock assumption on which those justifications have been constructed.” This is really just an attempt to paint Christians as morons by slapping a overly simplified idea onto them that is absurd by all at first glance. More absurd than Creationism? That’s a pretty tall order. > [@](#): > > On this certain subject we could argue for hours I’m sure, but for brevity’s sake I’ll try to stick to a couple simple points. Athiests love to wave the banner of the first ammendment as evidence that the founding fathers would take their side. Yet even the slightest research can refute this. Now I could line up a scores of quotes that show the weight that the founding fathers put into Chrisitanity, but again, for brevity’s sake, I’ll simply name some facts. Well, let’s save that for another thread, as we can only deal with so many misconceptions at one time. Instead, I’ll simply stipulate that what the Founding Fathers may or may not have felt about Christianity is not germane to the current status of federal law. The founders were very wise, far-sighted men, and they established a system of government that was capable of growing and changing to meet the needs of an evolving society. We are not the same country we were in 1776. It would be absurd to think that we could be governed by exactly the same laws. That being said: > [@](#): > > The first ammendment in no way says thats religion cannot be prommoted government, it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Actually, it does, right there in the first part of your quote: “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion.” Which is to say, the state cannot say, “This religious idea is true.” Nor can it say, “This religious idea is not true.” The state has no business weighing in on religious matters one way or the other. It is to remain neutral on the subject. > [@](#): > > What this IS saying is that the state cannot restrict or interfere with religion in any way. You see, its the atheist community that slaps “Seperation of Church and State” onto the first ammendment. Actually, it was Thomas Jefferson who first applied the phrase to the first amendment. Allow me to quote: > [@Tom Jefferson](#): > > Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that **their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.** Bolding mine, natch. Whether Jefferson was one of the “atheist community” is, as I said above, a subject for a different thread, but for the purposes of this debate, I’m willing to let you claim him, if only for the amusing way it undercuts your prejudices. > [@Hold Fast](#): > > The phrase of which, I feel I should mention, is not written in any legal document of that time–if ever for that matter. God is invoked four times in the Declaration of independance. Now does that sound like seperation of church and state? The Declaration of Independence isn’t a legal document. Its contents have no bearing on how we run this country. And note that those same founders who signed the DoI conspicuously failed to insert any mention of God into the Constitution, the document that describes the actual laws under which this country was to be run. How do you explain this curious omission? > [@](#): > > If you want to disagree with the founding fathers, by all means go for it, but don’t fool yourself into thinking they’re champions of modernist values. Considering how many of them owned slaves, that’s not a mistake I’m likely to make. > [@](#): > > …Well you sure seemed to have a problem with only one side being taught when it was christianity… No, I have a problem with one side being taught as science, when it is demonstrably unscientific. > [@](#): > > Accept it or not, every single founding father would have told you that without religion of some form life would be meaningless; so thanks to religion you have a great country to live in. For better or for worse, religion over the course of human history has brought out both the very best and very worst of what humans are capable of. Ha, but you can take what you want from that. I have absolutely no beef with religion in general, or Christianity in particular. You are falling into the second trap common of Creationist: you are confusing support for evolution with opposition to Christianity. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of scientists who work in fields that touch evolution (which is pretty much every scientific field) are theists of one stripe or another. In the US, most of them are Christians, even. > [@](#): > > Well I can see that I have to restate that I am not bagging on science. Yet somhow, miracuously, both sides do all the same tests, examine all the same data, and yet come up with two different sets of opinions. It’s not that miraculous if one side is cheating. Hate to break it to you, but there’s a long and well-documented history of creationist scientists lying and falsify research in order to arrive at their preconceived conclusions. > [@](#): > > Theres an interesting documentry by Ben Stein that has quite a few interviews of scientists who began to think that evolution was very improbable after looking at the same data as their contempories and were promptly fired. That would be interesting… if it were remotely true. Unfortunately, [it is not.](http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth) > [@](#): > > So as much as you want to flaunt “scienitific fact” out there your gonna have to come to terms with the fact(heh) that our country doesn’t even agree on that, and that it should be illegal for it to fund one specific side. Why? > [@](#): > > Yes…which is why I said “ **which of course is a bit off** , but it is clear that **majority** of Americans don’t downright believe in the Theory of Evolution.” A difference of thirty percent is a lot more than “a bit.” And science should not be a matter of public vote. The facts say what the facts say. The refusal of the body politic to recognize that does not invalidate those facts. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/70 "2010-04-21T04:46:05Z")
The quote tag doesn’t _have_ to be in all caps… ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/71 "2010-04-21T16:49:04Z")
**Hold Fast** , what is the meaning of the word “science”? ---
**Author:** ![rolandgunslinger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/cdc98d/32.png) [@rolandgunslinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rolandgunslinger)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/72 "2010-04-21T18:32:35Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And here comes the standard Christian “help I’m being oppressed” line. People disagreeing with you, pointing out where you are wrong and asking for evidence is not religious intolerance. Pot meet kettle. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/73 "2010-04-21T19:10:27Z")
> [@rolandgunslinger](#): > > Pot meet kettle. Non sequitur meet cottage cheese with pineapple chunks. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/74 "2010-04-21T19:16:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Non sequitur meet cottage cheese with pineapple chunks. No, he’s right. Well.. half right. People routinely disagree with **Der Trihs** and ask for evidence of his more bizarre assertions. But **DT** does not call that sort fo attack on him “religious intolerance” or even “intolerance.” He simply refuses to provide cites, or moves the goalposts. ---
**Author:** ![Cyningablod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Cyningablod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyningablod)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/75 "2010-04-21T19:16:48Z")
> [@](#): > > You, as well as miller, apparently skipped a few things that I wrote. Your statments, > > “\*Wait…what? Fact is established only by democratic consensus? Hoo boy, I don’t even know where to begin, with that one.” > > “Again, your main thesis reduced to its essence seems to be that popularity of an idea = that idea’s truth. It just ain’t the case. Not in science, not in the humanities, not in anything. Never has been, never will be. It’s a classic fallacy\*” > > is really quite frustrating, seeing as to how I clearly stated I am not saying that there isn’t a scientific truth out there outside of demacratic consensus. Yet, the actual things that we humans take into our head and hold as ‘truths’ are a demecratic consensus, regardless of their actual verity. 1500 years ago the human race thought the world was flat. A ‘Fact’, established by democratic consensus, proved by the most brilliant minds of the day. OK, I gotcha. You’re saying that truth value itself is not determined by majority consensus, but the _labels_ of “truth” or “fact” are. Right? Fair enough; that’s not an Appeal to Popularity, after all. But refresh my memory please: What exactly is your point here? That just because society has been mistaken in the past with respect to what we call “fact”, that we should forgo any such absolutes in public education? Are you seriously implying that the theory of evolution is just another thing we’re mistaken about, like a geocentric solar system model, or a flat earth? If that is what you’re saying, then you are woefully, WOEFULLY undereducated about evolution, and the evidences for it. (I don’t find this surprising, though; I have NEVER met a creationist/ID advocate who actually really understands what evolution is, or is knowledgeable about the many lines of evidence that show its scientific factuality [facthood?]. Creationism rests upon a foundation of scientific ignorance.) > [@](#): > > This really wasn’t my main thesis at all, but I can see its the thing you took most offense too. But buddy, like I said, truth to you and me will always be a democratic consenus. Like I’ve been saying however, you think your right, and I think I’m right, and the country is very nearly split down the middle, so if we get back to the educational issue, it should illegal to shove your view–because thats precisely what it is–down the throats of half the country. Yeah, I understand your position now, HF, but here’s the problem: The evolutionary “view” (there’s that word again, that keeps tripping you up) that you describe and insist is just a view, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, is NOT just another “view”. It’s solid, demonstrable, experimentally-verified science. (Creationists have tried for 150 years to destroy it, and it’s now stronger and more evidentially-supported than ever.) The “debate” over evolution that you’re referring to isn’t actually a real debate. It’s just a matter of half the country refusing to acknowledge scientific truth. We don’t stop teaching important factual subjects to our children in public schools, just because x% of people aren’t comfortable with those facts. What you need to do, instead of arguing against the teaching of evolution in schools, is educate yourself on _WHY_ scientists and scholars advocate its teaching. Check out the [FAQ at talkorigins.org](http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html), or read U of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne’s excellent pop-level book, _Why Evolution Is True_. From there, assuming you have a decent background in biology (maybe AP credit in high school, would be sufficient), you should read Richard Dawkins’ _The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution_. If you do this–if you take the time to learn about why we know evolution to be an accurate model of species development–you will see that the issue of public disagreement over it, fades away into utter irrelevance. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/76 "2010-04-21T19:59:01Z")
> [@Cyningablod](#): > > The story of my metamorphosis from a Bible-believing youngster growing up in a fundamentalist-creationist home to a science-loving skeptical rationalist is long and tortuous ( **and** torturous), and I won’t repeat it here. I grew up with a similar background in the rural woods of East Texas. What shattered my religious belief was going to college and learning of the evidence for evolution. I sometimes think that if my religious belief had not been so hard and tight, whether that belief would have been flexible enough to adapt to my college education and remain intact. But as it was, “shattered” is the only word to describe it. ---
**Author:** ![Cyningablod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Cyningablod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyningablod)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/77 "2010-04-21T20:01:29Z")
This gets back to the very basis of my OP. For either **Perciful** or **Hold Fast** : How do either of you–assuming you are both creationists or anti-evolutionists of some sort–explain the court decisions in _Edwards v Aguilar_ and _Kitzmiller et al v Dover ASB_? Why is evolution taught in very nearly all public schools (and even most private schools), all over the Western world? Surely you have some theories on the phenomena. If evolution is just rubbish, why is it so popular with scientists and education experts? Why do our nation’s leaders insist that it–and only it–be taught in schools? Why do attempts to wedge creationism or ID into the classroom almost always fail? 'm very curious to hear what you will answer. I’m hoping you can give me something more nuanced than “The world belongs to the devil.” ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/78 "2010-04-21T20:48:49Z")
> [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > But I mention this education related opinion of mine to show that it shouldn’t be legal to universally teach one seperate side of an issue, especially one that clearly divides the nation. How far do you want to take this? For every possible issue, there are multiple sides. For every ‘x’, “‘x’ is true” is one side, and "‘x’ is false is another. Should every claim taught also have it’s opposite taught too? Should children be taught that 2+2=4 and that 2+2=5? That Niel Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon in 1969 and that Michael Jackson was the first person to walk on the moon in 1983? Doesn’t it make more sense to teach children what the current evidence shows is most accurate and not worry so much about what the majority believe? ---
**Author:** ![Cyningablod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Cyningablod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyningablod)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/79 "2010-04-21T21:01:23Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I grew up with a similar background in the rural woods of East Texas. What shattered my religious belief was going to college and learning of the evidence for evolution. > > I sometimes think that if my religious belief had not been so hard and tight, whether that belief would have been flexible enough to adapt to my college education and remain intact. But as it was, “shattered” is the only word to describe it. Yep. If I hadn’t taken my Christian faith as deadly bloody serious as I did, I probably wouldn’t have lost it. In my case, it was actually an astronomy class, in which the evidences for the age of the earth were discussed, that was the crack in the dike, for me. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394/80 "2010-04-21T21:56:20Z")
You know what baffles me? It’s the extreme fundamentalists who are always complaining about “moral relativism” in the first place, and then they turn around and talk about truth as relative. You know what you call someone who considers there to be an absolute truth, and tries to found out what it is? A scientist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-many-creationists-think-of-science-and-the-public-education-system/536394.md?page=5)