Anti-Science party politics

[swansont]

I think that creationism should definitly be taught and fairly represented in the public schools, because it is a major belief. Kids should decide for themselves whether creationism or evolution, or something else is correct. The more differing opinions, IMO, the better it is for science, because we need people who question the validity of theories and try to prove them wrong. I feel that I would think this way without believing in creationism myself. But I'll admit I'm strongly biased.

A fair representation would represent a compete trashing of much of it, so I don't think the religious right would go for that. In the US, teaching it "as is" is unconstitutional under the first amendment, so it really doesn't matter how popular a belief it is.

 

And, quite frankly, "teaching the controversy" is one really stupid position. Students do not have the expertise to make that sort of determination, and if one were to do it for this, why not for a flat earth, or astrology or any number of topics? Let's teach them that wearing seatbelts is a bad idea, because some people think it's better to be thrown from the car. Should we teach that magic is possibly real? That would certainly spin the religious right up a bit. The position of teaching young-earth creationism is simply enabling a tool to allow people to indulge their confirmation bias and avoid thinking or realizing that their ideology is at odds with reality.

[Phi for All]

I think that the seed "gap" is from translation.

Here is a translation by Hebrew scholars showing that it's not.

 

In fact, Judaic scholars also reject young earth creationism because the original text does not support it. How many of your creationist sources use the original Hebrew?

 

I fail to see how my second link falsifies my first one.

Because your first link says that "most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools", and your second link says, "about 90% of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools". How can you fail NOT to see that? Do I listen to CBS News, which has more journalistic credentials, or do I listen to Answers in Genesis, a creationist website? Who would run more unbiased polls about this, in your opinion?

 

 

I believe that while events happened in the Bible as recorded, the days may have been long periods of time.

That's progress. Now you're not a young-earth creationist. So answer this, could God have been patient enough to use a slow process like evolution, taking billions of years to develop our present environment? The Bible really doesn't refute that if days are in reference to vast periods of time.

[John Cuthber]

Considering that some Christians take the idea of creationism seriously I think it indeed should. All we ever learned in (protestant) Religion (which is a kind of mandatory school subject in Germany), at least in the school years 5-10 that I attended it, was alternating between the topics "sects are evil" and "drugs are evil". Learning a bit more about the Cristian faith would have been great.

Did they notice that Christianity in general, and Protestantism in particular, are sects?

[Brainteaserfan]

Here is a translation by Hebrew scholars showing that it's not.

 

In fact, Judaic scholars also reject young earth creationism because the original text does not support it. How many of your creationist sources use the original Hebrew?

 

 

Because your first link says that "most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools", and your second link says, "about 90% of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools". How can you fail NOT to see that? Do I listen to CBS News, which has more journalistic credentials, or do I listen to Answers in Genesis, a creationist website? Who would run more unbiased polls about this, in your opinion?

 

 

 

That's progress. Now you're not a young-earth creationist. So answer this, could God have been patient enough to use a slow process like evolution, taking billions of years to develop our present environment? The Bible really doesn't refute that if days are in reference to vast periods of time.

Key word: SUBSTITUTE. There is a difference!

 

As to no evidence and another reason why it would benefit everyone to teach it in the schools: there are tens of thousands of homeschooled kids learning thru such sources as Apologia textbooks (a very common set around me). If schools also taught some level of creationism many of those kids may use better textbooks used in schools that actually have some respect for creation because it will better prepare them for the tests. I have the campbell bio, and the apologia biology, and the former says at the beginning, "core theme, evolution." Then, these kids will instead use the far other side of the spectrum. Somehow, all of the apologia books make a very convincing argument for creation, even when double checking facts online.

 

To answer your question, phi for all, I don't think that God is in any way bounded by time so he could have done it in seconds. However, He could have taken billions of years. However, I believe that after the sun was there, they were probably literal days. But my opinion is easily changed.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[JohnB]

Just a quick point. People say that the Bible is true until they are put to the test, and then the bits they don't like can suddenly be ignored. Polls that say "X% believe the Bible is true" are worthless.

 

Proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95hH1H5qK08

 

And a question for those who think that "Creationism" should be taught as a science subject. Whos creationism? Only the christian one or can we include the creation stories of the Umupsala people from the banks of the great, green, greasy Limpopo river as well? If you argument is that creationism is an "alternative theory", then surely you would support all alternative theories being taught and not just the one that you personally prefer?

[jeskill]

So many politicians are anti-science for the sake of budget cuts...

 

So true!

 

I almost feel like the anti-science rhetoric is part of a positive feedback cycle right now. Reduction in science education (or increase in anti-science sentiments in the general public) --> anti-science sentiments in politicians --> anti-science policy --> further reduction in science education or increase in anti-science sentiments in the general public --> etc.

 

I have no scientific evidence to back up said positive feedback loop. Call it pessimism + foxnews overload.

 

 

Key word: SUBSTITUTE. There is a difference!

 

As to no evidence and another reason why it would benefit everyone to teach it in the schools: there are tens of thousands of homeschooled kids learning thru such sources as Apologia textbooks (a very common set around me). If schools also taught some level of creationism many of those kids may use better textbooks used in schools that actually have some respect for creation because it will better prepare them for the tests. I have the campbell bio, and the apologia biology, and the former says at the beginning, "core theme, evolution." Then, these kids will instead use the far other side of the spectrum. Somehow, all of the apologia books make a very convincing argument for creation, even when double checking facts online.

 

With all due respect, how can you double check "facts" about evolution when you don't have a solid understanding of what evolution is? This is not meant to be a slight on your intelligence at all -- I'm just saying that your level of understanding of the theory of evolution, based on what you've already posted, suggests that you have not been taught the basics. This severely limits your ability to effectively compare creationism and evolution.

[swansont]

So true!

 

I almost feel like the anti-science rhetoric is part of a positive feedback cycle right now. Reduction in science education (or increase in anti-science sentiments in the general public) --> anti-science sentiments in politicians --> anti-science policy --> further reduction in science education or increase in anti-science sentiments in the general public --> etc.

 

I have no scientific evidence to back up said positive feedback loop. Call it pessimism + foxnews overload.

 

It's not like adopting a position that improves your chances of being elected is a rare thing. Romney and Pawlenty had to flip-flop on global warming because that position would not hold up well with the GOP's target voting population.

[Brainteaserfan]

With all due respect, how can you double check "facts" about evolution when you don't have a solid understanding of what evolution is? This is not meant to be a slight on your intelligence at all -- I'm just saying that your level of understanding of the theory of evolution, based on what you've already posted, suggests that you have not been taught the basics. This severely limits your ability to effectively compare creationism and evolution.

True!

 

Just a quick point. People say that the Bible is true until they are put to the test, and then the bits they don't like can suddenly be ignored. Polls that say "X% believe the Bible is true" are worthless.

 

Proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95hH1H5qK08

 

And a question for those who think that "Creationism" should be taught as a science subject. Whos creationism? Only the christian one or can we include the creation stories of the Umupsala people from the banks of the great, green, greasy Limpopo river as well? If you argument is that creationism is an "alternative theory", then surely you would support all alternative theories being taught and not just the one that you personally prefer?

I might have to try that!

[Phi for All]

Key word: SUBSTITUTE. There is a difference!

The AIG poll got to 90% by combining the answers for teaching both AND for substituting creationism for evolution. My point is that they are not a good poll source because of their obvious bias.

 

As to no evidence and another reason why it would benefit everyone to teach it in the schools: there are tens of thousands of homeschooled kids learning thru such sources as Apologia textbooks (a very common set around me). If schools also taught some level of creationism many of those kids may use better textbooks used in schools that actually have some respect for creation because it will better prepare them for the tests. I have the campbell bio, and the apologia biology, and the former says at the beginning, "core theme, evolution." Then, these kids will instead use the far other side of the spectrum. Somehow, all of the apologia books make a very convincing argument for creation, even when double checking facts online.

I think, by your use of the words, "respect for creation", that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is, and how science treats religious beliefs. "Creation" and "creationism" are NOT interchangeable ideas. Creationism is a very specific, literal interpretation of every word of an allegedly inerrant Bible that has led some to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, which is COMPLETELY at odds with what science has observed. That is why science, Judaism, Catholicism, and the vast majority of the other 9000 sects of Christianity, has a big, very vocal problem with "creationism".

 

"Creation", the belief that God created the universe by whatever mechanism, whether by the Big Bang or some omnipotent instantaneous hand-waving, is a matter of faith that requires no natural evidence due to the unobservable deity aspect. Science can only shrug when matters of faith are being discussed. Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with creation. Period. It's a rigorously documented scientific theory that predicts changes in allele frequency in a population over large periods of time. It does NOT predict how we got here.

 

Creation and creationism are both based in religion and should be taught only in religious schools, not in state-funded public schools in a country where that is prohibited by its Constitution. And that's why it's dangerous for political leaders to use it for campaign purposes. As JohnB points out, many people might say they believe in a literal, inerrant Bible, but how many realize they're breaking God's Law by wearing a cotton/polyester blend shirt, or by not having a beard? My favorite is from Deuteronomy 25:11-12, that says if I'm having a fight with a guy and his wife tries to intervene by grabbing my crotch, I'm bound by law to cut off her hand and show her no pity, according to the creationist's literally-translated, inerrant Bible.

 

To answer your question, phi for all, I don't think that God is in any way bounded by time so he could have done it in seconds. However, He could have taken billions of years. However, I believe that after the sun was there, they were probably literal days. But my opinion is easily changed.

I don't want to be the one who changes your opinion. Only YOU should have that power, if the opinion is going to be any good.

[Brainteaserfan]

The AIG poll got to 90% by combining the answers for teaching both AND for substituting creationism for evolution. My point is that they are not a good poll source because of their obvious bias.

 

 

I think, by your use of the words, "respect for creation", that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is, and how science treats religious beliefs. "Creation" and "creationism" are NOT interchangeable ideas. Creationism is a very specific, literal interpretation of every word of an allegedly inerrant Bible that has led some to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, which is COMPLETELY at odds with what science has observed. That is why science, Judaism, Catholicism, and the vast majority of the other 9000 sects of Christianity, has a big, very vocal problem with "creationism".

 

"Creation", the belief that God created the universe by whatever mechanism, whether by the Big Bang or some omnipotent instantaneous hand-waving, is a matter of faith that requires no natural evidence due to the unobservable deity aspect. Science can only shrug when matters of faith are being discussed. Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with creation. Period. It's a rigorously documented scientific theory that predicts changes in allele frequency in a population over large periods of time. It does NOT predict how we got here.

 

Creation and creationism are both based in religion and should be taught only in religious schools, not in state-funded public schools in a country where that is prohibited by its Constitution. And that's why it's dangerous for political leaders to use it for campaign purposes. As JohnB points out, many people might say they believe in a literal, inerrant Bible, but how many realize they're breaking God's Law by wearing a cotton/polyester blend shirt, or by not having a beard? My favorite is from Deuteronomy 25:11-12, that says if I'm having a fight with a guy and his wife tries to intervene by grabbing my crotch, I'm bound by law to cut off her hand and show her no pity, according to the creationist's literally-translated, inerrant Bible.

 

 

I don't want to be the one who changes your opinion. Only YOU should have that power, if the opinion is going to be any good.

I'm not going to discuss whether the bible is literal right now because the moderator wants us to stay on topic (honestly though, if no other discussion is going on, I don't see the problem).

If what John posted is true, then it's probably irrelevant what polls say, so I'll drop that. I don't really see anything else to discuss if I'm not going to give evidence for creation. Thanks for discussing this with me, I've definitely learned something!

[Phi for All]

I'm not going to discuss whether the bible is literal right now because the moderator wants us to stay on topic (honestly though, if no other discussion is going on, I don't see the problem).

If what John posted is true, then it's probably irrelevant what polls say, so I'll drop that. I don't really see anything else to discuss if I'm not going to give evidence for creation. Thanks for discussing this with me, I've definitely learned something!

Creationism is a big part of why there is an anti-science political climate in the US. It's not off-topic to talk about creationism. As I said before, creation in a religious sense is NOT a scientific topic. Creationism is different, it's a literal interpretation that claims the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that's something that science has buildings full of evidence against.

 

You can believe that God created the universe. You can believe the Bible is the word of God. But you can't show scientifically relevant evidence that the world is only 6000 years old. Many have tried and it's all been refuted.

[swansont]

Creationism is a big part of why there is an anti-science political climate in the US. It's not off-topic to talk about creationism. As I said before, creation in a religious sense is NOT a scientific topic. Creationism is different, it's a literal interpretation that claims the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that's something that science has buildings full of evidence against.

 

You can believe that God created the universe. You can believe the Bible is the word of God. But you can't show scientifically relevant evidence that the world is only 6000 years old. Many have tried and it's all been refuted.

 

And, to further tie this back to the topic, you can't teach either one in pubic schools in the US, regardless of the whims of the local majority. The first amendment prevents this.