Death to Creationism

[Severian]

In my bored internet wanderings I found myself at the Death to Creationism site ( http://www.deathtocreationism.com ) and I noticed the statement "DTC is a joint project between Sayonara.info and www.ScienceForums.net".

 

I must confess, I am a little uncomfortable with this. I realise that it is not 'Death to Creationists' but I still think the title is too strong to be associated with a science site. Science makes no statement about creationism at all. While I am not a creationist, and I disagree with the creationist philosophy, it is up to them to believe what they want to believe, and, as a scientist, I don't feel it is my place to argue with them. (I can argue with them all I want of course, but not in my professional capacity.)

 

What was the intention behind this?

[RICHARDBATTY]

I think maybe it was born of frustration. The amount of time spent moderating threads that just constantly repeat, this is correct and factual because the bible says so would wear anyone down. But at least they didn't find a creationist site and do the same back. I understand your point but they are entitled to there opinion. They just chose to create an appropriate place to express it.

[ed84c]

i do not see the logic behind not deleting all of the threads titled, similarily to "DTC", any other threads which had such disrespect other peoples beliefs would certainly be deleted. The intellectual arrogance, from both sides, is what is the frustrating thing here.

 

(me = evolutionist incase you were wondering)

[Mokele]

It was created as a location to house answers for all the common creationist objections so we wouldn't have to waste time dealing with crap like "there are no transitional fossils".

 

Frankly, there's nothing wrong with the name, IMNSHO. Creationism (in the "evolution doesn't happen" sense) is a useless, factually incorrect and irreparably flawed concept, and the sooner it goes the way of the Humoral Theory of medicine and geocentrism, the better.

 

Mokele

[bascule]

I just wish that the fact that the world's largest Christian church (the Catholics) wishes to dispel the Creationism myth would be enough to keep those who don't embrace Creationism from wasting their time supporting it.

 

I consider myself an amateur memetic pathologist and love seeing viral false information definitively put to rest by the likes of Snopes, MythBusters, Penn & Teller: BULLSHIT!, etc. I have no problems with people using strong language against pathological memes, since I believe they need to be stopped (because, among other things, they waste time that could be better invested in spreading symbiotic memes)

[Aardvark]

Science makes no statement about creationism at all.

 

Yes it does. Science states that creationism is completely wrong. Evolution is the explaination for lifes development and diversity.

 

 

it is up to them to believe what they want to believe' date=' and, as a scientist, I don't feel it is my place to argue with them.[/quote']

 

People have the right to believe rubbish, but they don't have the right not to be mocked, ridiculed and argued with. It is quite right and approriate for people to point out the manifest flaws in their ideas.

 

Why would you think it 'not your place' to argue with them? Don't you believe in free speech?

 

 

What was the intention behind this?

 

Presumably to disseminate truth and have some fun mocking the idiots who try to spread creationist rubbish.

[RyanJ]

I don't really have a problem with tha name but it does not really mean "death to the creationists" it just means an end to creationism which should happen.

 

Just one persons oppinion but its also Sayonara³'s title here at the forums:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/member.php?u=52

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Severian]

Yes it does. Science states that creationism is completely wrong. Evolution is the explaination for lifes development and diversity.

 

No it doesn't. Science uses the assumption that the laws of physics don't change with time (or' date=' at least, only change in a predictable way). There is absolutely no reason why the universe couldn't have been created by an omnipotent (or very powerful) being 6,000 years ago, with every particle in exactly the same position it would have been if it had evolved from a big bang 13.7 billion years ago. If this was true, you would [b']never[/b] be able to distinguish it from a big bang originated universe - all the results of all experiments would be the same.

 

Of course, this is very much against the principle of Ockham's razor, and I don't believe it for a second. Even worse, the creation statement itself is non-predictive. One cannot derive any testable result from it, so it is not scientific. This means that science can make no statement about ID whatsoever. However, being non-scientific does not mean it can't be true.

 

Why would you think it 'not your place' to argue with them? Don't you believe in free speech?

 

I do argue with them, but I don't do in the context of my job. I am a professional scientist and it would be wrong to use my qualification as a claim that I have a 'superior' viewpoint. I am trained in science, but as I pointed out, science says nothing about ID. In this light, I also don't think it is right for scienceforums.net to capitalise on its perceived science expertise to comment on an area which science can say nothing about.

[Phi for All]

No debates here over evolution vs creationism, please. Let's answer this question and move on.

 

Severian, the distinction we MUST make here is that science is not interested in matters of belief or faith, and concerns itself solely with testable, falsifiable theories. As for whether or not an omnipotent being created a world that simply looked billions of years old, that's the part that defies physics as we know it and is truly the point around which all the controversy revolves. If omnipotent creation is allowed as a scientific possibility then the doors are open wide for every believer who wants to theorize about their Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

 

The staff at SFN must redouble their efforts to be sensitive to the faith of others, but allowing omnipotence into the hard science sub-forums would be counterproductive.

 

DTC is simply an attempt to educate those who continue to misunderstand the differences between evolution, big bang, abiogenesis and the hunt for witches in general. We cannot continue to spend so much time trying to open the eyes of those who wear blinders by choice.

[Mokele]

Ok, we *really* need a freaking sticky that specifies an agreed-upon terminology for this stuff. This is, what, the 6th time in a week that problems have arisen because of one person defining "creationism" as "a divine creation of the universe/life/humans, probably via naturalistic mechanisms" while another defines it as "the moronic idea that evolution isn't real".

 

Seriously, did we learn *nothing* from the Darth Tater episode? No debate can proceed productively unless the definition of terms used by both sides is identical.

 

Mokele

[Phi for All]

Ok, we *really* need a freaking sticky that specifies an agreed-upon terminology for this stuff.

I suggest we clear out the other posts on the "Welcome Creationists" sticky (in Evolution AND Religion) that you and Dak wrote, add a terminology clarification post and then CLOSE the thread.

[Mokele]

Perfect place for it! Now to figure out the terms to be used.

[Dak]

how should we descide upon the terminology? stick with the common usage, take a vote, look them up in some dictionary, leave it to the admin/mods etc?

[Phi for All]

Let the watchword be that anything that is incapable of being falsified is outside any judgement by science and will therefore be ignored. Not ridiculed, not condemned, not supported, not encouraged, not allowed, just very simply IGNORED.

[Severian]

Let the watchword be that anything that is incapable of being falsified is outside any judgement by science and will therefore be ignored. Not ridiculed, not condemned, not supported, not encouraged, not allowed, just very simply IGNORED.

 

I completely agree with this, and this is what I was getting at. Of course, these things can(?) be discussed in the philospohy and religion forum, but since they have absolutely nothing to do with science, they shouldn't be tolerated anywhere else on the boards.

 

The other option would be to just move anything about creationism/ID into the religion forum (or maybe have a crackpot ID forum like we have for pseudoscience?).

[Phi for All]

The other option would be to just move anything about creationism/ID into the religion forum (or maybe have a crackpot ID forum like we have for pseudoscience?).

When Dave gets the time, we had decided to have two forums, Pseudoscience (for talks about aliens or telepathy) and Speculations (for theses that might actually have some scientific merit but disagree with current accepted theories).

 

At that time the Physics forum will get an overhaul as well, implementing some of the feedback and suggestions you Experts have been asking for. I suggest we PM Davesbird and ask her to crack the whip (or prod or whatever).

[Mokele]

The other option would be to just move anything about creationism/ID into the religion forum (or maybe have a crackpot ID forum like we have for pseudoscience?).

 

Actually, for a while I was moving any explicitly creationist thread (like "where are all the transitional fossils") to psuedoscience automatically. These seemed more religious and less crackpot, plus I've been busy.

 

Mokele

[Dak]

^ good ideas.

 

 

a few suggestions, as youll be tinkering with the wealcome thread.

 

Theories/models:

 

And explanation of an observed phenomena or process, which is consistent with observations made of that phenomena/process, and which is supported (and initially based upon) a collection of scientifically supported hypotheses.

 

the first 'and' should read 'an'.

 

what evolution is (and isn't)

 

[...]

 

By the way, the correct scientifically term for the all the events stretching from the creation of the universe to the creation of contemporary species is 'natural history'.

 

scientifically

 

Before you post, please...

 

Read the forum rules.

 

read things you need to know.

 

...Read the Science Forums ettiquette ?

 

And you may find the common accronyms thread and the vbulletin FAQ helpful ?

 

 

---

 

 

maybe a little bit addressing the differenses and similarities between 'micro'evolution and 'macro'evolution?

 

 

---

 

 

and if your going to lock the thread, maybe a bit about how someone could comment on the thread, if they have any thing to add/comment on?

 

 

(all the links still work by the way, just in case you were planning on testing them)

 

as for the definitions, based on common usage and wikipedea, i'd suggest something along the lines of:

 

creation -ism/-ist: a beliefe that a deity/deitys created stuff; litteral, or at least semi-litteral, belief in the book of genesis; incompatable with the theory of evolution.

 

theistic-evolution(ist)/intelligent desighn(er): evolution, as dun by mr god. some discrepancies with ToE; can range from a completely different version of ToE to a very slightly changed ToE. for example, 'other animals evolved but humans were created as-is by god'

 

evolution(ist): evolution, as defined by sciense. Note that saying stuff like 'god set it up this way' or 'god keeps it happening', or even 'god guided our evolution so that humans would exist and be special' doesn't nessesaraly conflict with the ToE; so, for example, Phi would be an evolutionist, even tho (i think) he believes that a higher forse created the universe in such a way that evolution would happen (appologies if that is incorrect).

[Douglas]

I must confess, I am a little uncomfortable with this. ?

Yeah, lot's of people have an agenda.....you gotta live with intolerance...........why not let people believe what they want to believe.

[Dak]

I must confess' date=' I am a little uncomfortable with this. ? [/quote']

 

Yeah, lot's of people have an agenda.....you gotta live with intolerance...........why not let people believe what they want to believe.

 

What was the intention behind this?

 

from the D2C site:

 

About "Death To Creationism"

Welcome to DeathtoCreationism.

 

What this site is:

This site is an informational resource that endeavours to highlight the serious problems with creationist teachings. It does this mainly by rebutting the most commonly used creationist arguments and misinformation.

 

What it is not:

This site is not a place for people who simply want to attack others for holding particular religious beliefs. DTC takes issue with people's arguments and logic, not their faith.

 

This site is not an anti-religion forum. DTC does not support discrimination or prejudice.

 

Who runs this site?

This site is owned and operated by Many Islands, and is run with the assistance of ScienceForums.net.

 

Our contributors and columnists are scientists from a range of disciplines, from all parts of the world.

 

What does DTC actually object to?

DTC objects to the use of fallacious and intellectually dishonest argument. We are not an anti-religion organisation, and condemn hate speech of all kinds.

 

in my understanding, its not aimed at creation or creationists per se, but aimed at the tactic, employed by certain creationists, of using/spreading bull-****, intelectually dishonest, and plain out-right incorrect logic/facts, in an attempt to promote creationism and/or to supress acceptance of the theory of evolution.

 

I'll admit that the name is a tad unfriendly, but the intention -- as clarified in the 'about us' link -- is nothing to do with peoples right to have/spread a certain opinion, but more about taking umberage with people who lye to/misinform other people to spread afformentioned opinion.

[AL]

Yeah, lot's of people have an agenda.....you gotta live with intolerance...........why not let people believe what they want to believe.

Why equate disagreement with intolerance? No one's saying let's hurt Creationists or persecute them, and everyone is well within their rights, including the Creationists who run publications and websites dedicated to defeating evolution.

[Phi for All]

Why equate disagreement with intolerance? No one's saying let's hurt Creationists or persecute them, and everyone is well within their rights, including the Creationists who run publications and websites dedicated to defeating evolution.

I totally agree with this. If someone on this board says, "I have studied evolution (and gives factual information) and have found it conflicts with my spiritual beliefs", then they will have no problems here at SFN.

 

But when someone says, "Evolution denies God because abiogenesis claims the Big Bang created man from apes", they are spreading false information about what science means by its theories. And when they continue to use such examples after being corrected ad infinitum, perhaps it's time for a specific site to take over those duties. Voilà! DeathToCreationism.com.

[Velocity517]

I myself am a creationist believer, but in my mind that does not mingle with science. There should be and generally is a definitive line between Religion and Science. Both theories (Theory of Creationism & Theory of Evolution) are simply Theories. Thus each has many pieces of evidence and also many holes. In my own mind they are considered incomparable because one is a theory of Religion and the other of Science. This is why the debate has not been and probably never will be dissolved completely.

Just my thought.