What is the next step for the creationist movement?

[silkworm]

I think it would be worthwile if we try to predict the next step in the creationist movement, so we can brace ourselves and protect America's children from growing up to be ignorant.

 

Where do they go from here? It started out as the Bible and God made the world in 6 days to some unknown intelligent creature designing things because everything is too complicated to have happened by accident, which seems to me like their best shot at weaseling their way into science classrooms. But I'm worried I'm missing something.

 

And ideas?

 

The only thing they can do to make it a sure evolution is really challenged is if they all become biologists and really do find a better way to explain things, but that is both highly unlikely and not going to give creationist friendly answers.

[ecoli]

I'm getting sick and tired of this bash the creationist bs... you know, many of us are quite rational and civil people. I'll think you find that many creationist are as against ID in the science classroom as any evolutionist. I feel that creationism is one answer to how the world was created, albeit a non-scientific one, but an answer nevertheless.

 

Granted, I know that the ID proponents don't think like I do, but that doesn't mean that SFNers have to use terms like 'IDiots' or other such language. You think that you're making fun of creationists, but you're actually making yourselves look bad, at least from my prospective.

[starbug1]

I think it would be worthwile if we try to predict the next step in the creationist movement

 

what's your prediction?

[cosine]

I'm getting sick and tired of this bash the creationist bs... you know' date=' many of us are quite rational and civil people. I'll think you find that many creationist are as against ID in the science classroom as any evolutionist. I feel that creationism is one answer to how the world was created, albeit a non-scientific one, but an answer nevertheless.

 

Granted, I know that the ID proponents don't think like I do, but that doesn't mean that SFNers have to use terms like 'IDiots' or other such language. You think that you're making fun of creationists, but you're actually making yourselves look bad, at least from my prospective.[/quote']

I have to agree with Ecoli here. It is quite clear what SFN's stance on ID and creationism in general is. We don't delete creationist threads with pride, but with a solemn regret that the deletion is a necessary contradiction to free speech, sacrificed to keep a degree of order to the forums. There is not a need to revel in it.

[Helix]

I'm getting sick and tired of this bash the creationist bs... you know' date=' many of us are quite rational and civil people. I'll think you find that many creationist are as against ID in the science classroom as any evolutionist. I feel that creationism is one answer to how the world was created, albeit a non-scientific one, but an answer nevertheless.

 

Granted, I know that the ID proponents don't think like I do, but that doesn't mean that SFNers have to use terms like 'IDiots' or other such language. You think that you're making fun of creationists, but you're actually making yourselves look bad, at least from my prospective.[/quote']

 

 

I agree with ecoli too. Even though I am pro-evolution, it isn't worthwhile to harshly denounce the creationists for their views. After all, they believe they are telling the truth, just as the evolutionists do. Our enegry should be focused on anaylzing their theory and see if if holds water, which in my view it doesn't, but they are still entitled to believe in it.

 

And I'm not saying you're doing all of this Silkworm, your thread wasn't that harsh. I'm speaking generally; that SFN doesn't need to claim "Death to Creationism" to be scientific.

[silkworm]

All I know is that ID is a creationist movement. I do believe that there are good people that happen to be Christians and also believe in creation, but also have the sense to stay out of areas that either they know nothing about or have nothing to do with them because they've chosen to ignore it. I also do well to not confuse the origin of life on this planet and the way that life changes, but that's a point lost in the movement.

 

I also know that this defiant and ridiculous attitude they're promoting against valid scientific education is not good for any of us, and if by some miracle they do get what they're after we're on a slippery slope to the dark ages. I also know it is very far from uncommon for anthropology professors to receive death threats and other harassment exclusively from the demographic I'm talking about, and I know one personally and he's obviously been pretty freaked out and defensive for it for years. Do you think he deserves that sort of hassle for doing his job and research that may end up helping us all significantly? Are you aware of any other demographic that participates in violence against scientists and obstructing science?

 

I'm very interested in these people never gaining any ground against science, and to be honest I was very worried that the law would not be considered in these matters until the decision yesterday because of the way my beloved America has gone since 2000.

 

The point of this thread is that, ironically, their argument has evolved and will evolve further, but I can't think of a form for it to take that isn't incredibly desperate and from where I sit at this moment with the non-denominational ID movement appears to be the best shot they can make and I was wondering if others have any thoughts of another way they may be coming.

 

Now, I have no problem at all with ecoli. I think he's intelligent and he doesn't appear to want to harm himself for being a scientist. He has a religious belief, and although it is one that I don't share, him and I agree on one very important thing: ID does not belong anywhere near a science classroom. That's the only thing that is important.

 

Now to somehow claim that I am out of touch with creationists and the ID movement and their affects I'll have to ask you to please look slightly over to your left under the silkworm and next to where it says Location, it says Kansas. It was here that I was born and raised, and, although it appears the ID movement is in the minority here, in small town communities like the one I grew up in evolution and all natural science are treated very harshly. This attitude of dismissing science for being evil is contagious in these communities as well because it provides excuses for not paying attention or trying, and it creates more ignorant people, so in the end everyone gets screwed. I have personal experience there, this sort of movement has robbed me personallly, and you could say that I do have a vandetta. But that does not make me unreasonable, I just want them to stop and I'm wondering if there is something coming that I need to brace for that I don't see yet.

 

Also, with this ID movement the term belief for many of the followers of the movement is used very very loosely. Being personally related to and knowing many others closely it has been my experience that these people do not believe anything except for what they are told and participate for nothing more than the insurance policy for paradise and to hold on to a fictional way of life, and they don't care or think about much at all. We do have dedicated whackos that go here and there, but when you're dealing with one who is using canned phrases you can be most certain that he is defending a way of life that he feels is either missing or in jeopardy and not his actual position. With that said, I believe that this person has a right to his delusion, as long as he leaves me and those I care about out of it.

 

I'm not saying that about ecoli or Helix or any other creationist, but I am saying it about the recycled culture that supports the ID movement.

[ecoli]

@silkworm... sorry if I seemed like I was attacking you personally. I was just pointing out that the attitude of "small town", pro-ID, people is the same one I see reflected in this forum (by some, but not all). Just like many statements of "death to creationism" and similiar language meant purely to defame creationism without showing it any respect, I see in the religious fundie community where they show no respect towards evolution and ignore the many argument for it.

 

I'm not asking for anyone to change their actual opinion, and just asking that people change their overall attitude to something slightly more respectful. I ask that we not lower ourselves to the level that some here claim creationists and IDers to be at.

 

I think we should show people that on SFN, we use scientific or logical arguments, and we don't have results to petty slander. Sometimes, when you believe in a topic, you don't see that sometimes your side can stoop just as low as the other. It's a natural, and forgivable fault, but one I think we should try to keep in check.

 

At any rate, I apologize for causing this thread to go off topic, and I recomend that we continue talking about the OP... something I have no objection whatsoever to talk about, as long as the above conditions are adhered to.

[silkworm]

I think we should show people that on SFN' date=' we use scientific or logical arguments, and we don't have results to petty slander. Sometimes, when you believe in a topic, you don't see that sometimes your side can stoop just as low as the other. It's a natural, and forgivable fault, but one I think we should try to keep in check.[/quote']

 

I do definitely agree with this, and it has also been my experience that I have spoken with many supporters of evolution who did not understand it, and just supported evolution because they hate religion. That I feel is also wrong and wish everyone who hasn't earned the right to an opinion to stay out of it.

[Severian]

The thing which annoys me about creationists/ID is the unwillingness to accept that what they believe is a belief and not a scientific theory. But if they do accept that, then I have no problem with them.

 

They can even point out that the definition of 'scientific' is a bit arbitrary and I would have no problem. For example, if the universe was constructed instantaneously 6000 years ago, with every particle in exactly the same position (and with the same properties) that it would have been in after 13.7 billion years of evolution, then one could not perform any experiment which would be able to distinguish between creation and more usual post-BB evolution. The difference is that the ID/creationist pov is non-predictive - its entire content is in a boundary condition. So while standard cosmology can explain many features of the universe we see around us, ID can only state them as prerequisites of a boundary condition. Since one of the definitions of a scientific theory is predictivity, ID is not science.

 

Having said that, predictivity is a human placed constraint on science. There is absolutely no reason why the universe couldn't be non-predictive (ie. contain features which cannot be predicted) so our restriction of 'science' to predictive phenomena is an arbitrary restriction designed to enable us to actually do something useful (make predictions).

 

I think ID has been so successful in subverting minds (even some 'scientists' minds) because many 'sciences' seem to have forgottten this requirement for predictivity. This is particularly true in fields like evolutionary biology because it is so difficult to make predictions which can actually be tested. So you can make a prediction that two specied have a common ancestor, but finding fossil evidence for that common ancester is very difficult.

[Helix]

I'm not saying that about ecoli or Helix or any other creationist, but I am saying it about the recycled culture that supports the ID movement.

 

 

Woah, there. I'm not a creationist by any means and I agree that they are misguided. All I am doing is defending their right to be wrong.

[Phi for All]

STOP!

 

Before preceding, please get the terminology straight. Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT synonymous. At SFN, we make the distinction that creationism is a religious belief, albeit one that denies lengthy evolution. ID is different in that it is a movement designed to bring creationism into the public schools mislabeled as science.

 

Any application of the scientific method to prove or disprove religious beliefs is misguided and unworthy. Science deals with the observable and anything that defies observability should be given a healthy amount of skepticism and otherwise should be ignored by science.

 

Any use of the phrase IDiots or other bashing of ID is not intended to support ridiculing someone's religious beliefs, only the inclusion of those beliefs in a public school curriculum. Please help support this distinction.

[silkworm]

So am I just supposed to pretend to ignore the fact that ID is promoting creationism by a sneaky method or can I call it what it is?

 

It's a creationist movement, even if all creationists are not involved. It is what it is and that is its base. It has morphed into a more legally friendly argument but it has the same agenda, and that is one of a creationist movement. This is turning into strike two for the movement to teach creationism in America's schools.

 

I'm wondering if there is something legally more friendly that I should be worried about.

 

Sorry Helix, I misinterpreted. I thought you may be a creationist who says evolution is God's method.

[Phi for All]

So am I just supposed to pretend to ignore the fact that ID is promoting creationism by a sneaky method or can I call it what it is?

Bashing another's religious beliefs is against forum policy. Pointing out where creationism contradicts scientific reasoning is not. Pointing out that ID is creationism in a white lab coat is also not against policy.

 

The fact that ID is promoting creationism is irrelevant. The fact that ID proponents are trying to have creationism taught alongside real science in public schools is the real issue, and I just want the distinction made here so no one is breaking forum policy.

[brad89]

Anyway, relating to the prediction of the next movement, silkworm, here is my prediction. People will stop being so agressive and start trying to figure out which theory is correct. I will admit, I feel a bit like a hypocrit, on repeated accounts I have poked fun at creationism, and now I feel oh so horrible and am sorry. Good, settled.

 

Anyway, my real prediction is that people will stop thinking alongside things and just come to open space. Try to test each one and see which one is right. It will be tough to do, but given time and effort it will probably work. Personally, I see the best evidence towards evolution is the fact that two species divided, put under certain conditions, then reunited again as two different species has happened on repeated accounts.

 

In a nutshell, stop looking at one idea as wrong and one as right, and looking as 'well, they are both credible, lets just figure out which one is right'. In other words, not pointing fingers, finding out which fingers point the right direction. I am sick and tired of religion pointing fingers at other religion because of a book!

[brad89]

although it appears the ID movement is in the minority here, in small town communities like the one I grew up in evolution and all natural science are treated very harshly. This attitude of dismissing science for being evil is contagious in these communities as well because it provides excuses for not paying attention or trying, and it creates more ignorant people, so in the end everyone gets screwed. I have personal experience there, this sort of movement has robbed me personallly, and you could say that I do have a vandetta. But that does not make me unreasonable, I just want them to stop and I'm wondering if there is something coming that I need to brace for that I don't see yet.

 

Perhaps tell them that science is not evil, as they need to use it to prove their religious beliefs. "Religion without science is blind." They follow their beliefs in ID for a logical reason. Science is logic. However, the logic does become flawed. So now we need to find a new logic.

 

Science is not evil. Science is done by people when they don't realize it. If you ask a question and strive to find an answer, that is science. Maybe it isn't always done in the orthodox method, but it qualifies as science. The people who claim science is evil use it every day.

 

ie. hypothesis- if I put bread in a toaster, and turn the toaster on, then at a later time relative to now, I will have toasted bread. Conclusion- yep, that is definitely what happens. Predictive ability- yeah, if I do that later all the same way, I will have toast again.

 

It's a creationist movement, even if all creationists are not involved. It is what it is and that is its base. It has morphed into a more legally friendly argument but it has the same agenda, and that is one of a creationist movement. This is turning into strike two for the movement to teach creationism in America's schools.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Teaching creationism in school is like begging for death. Death to logic. ID lacks predictability because it claims there are forces outside of the laws of physics that can interfere, create exceptions in them, which means that it is unpredictable. We cannot come to any conclusion on such a theory. It needs to be stopped now before it gets any bigger.

 

This attitude of dismissing science for being evil is contagious in these communities as well because it provides excuses for not paying attention or trying

 

Actually, I still disagree with this thought. I don't disagree with what you said, because that is a common thought that even I believe. I mean the logic this statement contains. Even if ID were a correct theory, that isn't an excuse to just sit on it. There still needs to be thinking on the subject. You need to ask questions either way, otherwise society becomes raw gullibility. Personally, I believe that humans are naturally gullible towards many thoughts, but such natural thought is no excuse to not question things.

[Sayonara]

I'm speaking generally; that SFN doesn't need to claim "Death to Creationism" to be scientific.

And SFN does nothing of the sort.

 

The phrase "Death to Creationism" is a reaction to the approach taken by some creationists that relies on recruitment by misleading rationale.

[ecoli]

And SFN does nothing of the sort.

 

The phrase "Death to Creationism" is a reaction to the approach taken by some creationists that relies on recruitment by misleading rationale.

 

Thereby incorrectly grouping all creationists into the crazy, fundimentalists who were propenents of introducing ID into the classroom. This simply isn't the case.

[Sisyphus]

Generally, when I say "creationist," I mean someone who takes the Bible as literal truth. The Earth is 6000 years old, etc., and all that stuff which contradicts science, and puts up as science that which is not, like all the theories about dinosaurs still being alive in Africa, the "ice canopy," and all that fun stuff. I think most people mean the same thing when they use the word. I think that's an accepted definition, and if you're going to try to co-opt it for some other use, you should at least not get all touchy when others use the common definition. For my part, I'll just avoid the word entirely, since it's obviously the cause of much confusion.

[PhDP]

He said "some creationists". It's obvious all creationists aren't fundamentalists claiming the earth is 6 000 years old. There's such a wonderful amount of diversity within the division Creationisticus, from the "primitive" Young Earth Creationisticus to the recent, highly derived and "more evolved", Intelligent Designistus...

[Sayonara]

Thereby incorrectly grouping all creationists into the crazy, fundimentalists who were propenents of introducing ID into the classroom. This simply isn't the case.

Look! Look! It's the first ever post on Death to Creationism!

 

A catchy name that piques people's interest should never be taken as one's entire philosophy. Anyone who presumes that it is, is then a victim of their own shortcomings.