What is so dangerous about Creationism? [W:346, 410]

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

What should be asked is 'what harm will come if it's NOT taught' - all other taught material serves a purpose of some type. Grammar and spelling - so you can communicate well with others and comprehend what you read/hear. Math - so you can count, cover the basics, use a ruler and so on. Science - to learn how the world WORKS, how animals work ,and how we work - cause and effect, investigate and explore. History - to learn the valuable lessons that our past has to offer so we an be aware and avoid making the same mistakes twice .. . so on.

Everything else we teach has a multi-faceted purpose and a reason. A benefit to the overall education of every individual. Future applications and uses.

What's the purpose of TEACHING creationism? What is it doing - other than instructing pupils about the view that SOME religions have (not all - but some)?

It's sole purpose is to provide some small measure of religious-based education . . . and nothing more. It doesn't further one's education. It has no groundation in science itself other than it gives a story about how we came to 'be' . . . so - what's it's PURPOSE?

My view, based on my many years in the church - is that religious people want desperately to have it taught because it is their instruction and mission - religiously - to minister to the 'uneducated' . . . every. single. opportunity. to get into anyone's untouched 'mind' that 'god is the creator of all' and all those biblical stories. It is considered a MUST - honestly - for some. The some go about it as if it's a sin not to do exactly that. toe the RELIGIOUS it has significant meaning and reason. You can easily see this with every religious parent who puts in their two-cents on why they want it mentioned in science class. . .it's personal and religiously motivated.

Ergo - common sense dictates it should not be permitted unless it's being taught in part of a religious-education curriculum because ONLY in that climate does it serve a further purpose.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

nota bene said:

You are overgeneralizing about what all evangelical Christian fundamentalists want to teach and how to teach it.

Click to expand...

Well, I was referring to those evangelical Christian fundamentalists who want to teach Creationism in science class.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

ric27 said:

I have an open mind. Maybe God was the reason for 10 lightning strikes at the same spot *hypothetical miracle*, maybe he wasn't. Whereas many may say since there is no God, he can't be involved, even if I can't come up with an explanation. The possibility of a supernatural event does not preclude searching for a natural explanation.

Click to expand...

The thing is the scientific method cannot rely on "hypothetical miracles" in order for it to be considered science.

Science demands repeatability.

Repeatability means that under the same conditions the same effects of the natural physical laws of our universe will take place and the same results will follow.

Trusting in miracles is inherently against repeatability.

For one, miracles are the suspension of natural physical laws in order to further a divine will. That is miracles, in regards to science, are outliers and not the norm.

Secondly, miracles require a divine will to enact. We need a divinity who is in the mood to enact miracles. That means that miracles are not part of the natural physical laws of the universe but rather a characteristic of a divine personality. And so because science takes into account natural physical laws, miracles have no place in science.

Thirdly, it assumes the existence of a divine will to control such natural physical laws in order to suspend them to perform miracles. Which means we need scientific proof of a divinity, and in order to have that we require observation and repeatability of the divine will, which we do not have.

So suggesting a divine will as a first cause to the natural processes that created life is bad science as well. Which is why it still should not be taught as science.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

Imo, there is nothing dangerous about it. It doesn't really matter to me that some people in creationism or young earth theories, as it doesn't affect legal policies, and their belief doesn't change reality.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

It's dangerous because we already teach science like **** in this country. If we add mysticism to the science curriculum, students will only get worse at science because they won't have even the most basic understanding of what science is. Global warming skepticism and evolution skepticism should be taught in science classes. I'm not talking about promoting alternative theories and such, I'm talking about the fact that science places a burden of skepticism upon us. Test, retest, retest again. That's a part of science. It is how science grows. There should always be a sort of "tentative" acceptance of a well supported theory.

If we place creationist "theories" into a science classroom, we undermine the very foundation of science. There is no way to test or retest the "theory" that God created anything. Neither through experiment nor logical analysis. There is no evidence-based support of these theories. In fact, they require the opposite: a lack of evidence is used to support the theory.

Now, if someone wishes to believe in these things, that is their choice. If they wish to teach their children these things, more power to them. If they want to even lie to their children and tell them that this is science, so be it. They are free to make their children as ignorant of science as they wish them to be. But they do NOT have a right to force that ignorance upon the rest of the country.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

Verthaine said:

Creation Stories
If we are going to teach "Creationism" in science class,do we do ALL of them,or just the one with the most believers?
If you allow ONE, you should allow them all,even the ones from fiction?
They have just as much scientific evidence backing them up as does the Judeo-Christian Creationism.

If we allowed to teach "Creationism" in science class,might as well teach the "alternative histories" of novelist Harry Turtledove and others.

For some strange reason,I don't think a lot of "Creationists" in this country want their children that Hopi Creationism is just as valid as "Judeo-Christian Creationism"

Click to expand...

This is the dimena. There are hundreds and so as a supposidly non-secular nation which comes first or how do we teach all of them

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

samsmart said:

The thing is the scientific method cannot rely on "hypothetical miracles" in order for it to be considered science.

Science demands repeatability.

Repeatability means that under the same conditions the same effects of the natural physical laws of our universe will take place and the same results will follow.

Trusting in miracles is inherently against repeatability.

For one, miracles are the suspension of natural physical laws in order to further a divine will. That is miracles, in regards to science, are outliers and not the norm.

Secondly, miracles require a divine will to enact. We need a divinity who is in the mood to enact miracles. That means that miracles are not part of the natural physical laws of the universe but rather a characteristic of a divine personality. And so because science takes into account natural physical laws, miracles have no place in science.

Thirdly, it assumes the existence of a divine will to control such natural physical laws in order to suspend them to perform miracles. Which means we need scientific proof of a divinity, and in order to have that we require observation and repeatability of the divine will, which we do not have.

So suggesting a divine will as a first cause to the natural processes that created life is bad science as well. Which is why it still should not be taught as science.

Click to expand...

I have zero issues with science and faith. Read the bible as a curiosity a few times and I haven't found anything that has been scientifically dis proven. Nor do I have an issue with evolution, though defining terms is important. I think it is clear that species can and do change and adapt to their environment. Change can also be forced upon a species as in selective breeding for characteristics or the insertion of genetic coding. Of course, the latter requires "intelligent design", though since we're only human, "semi-intelligent design". I don't believe in what I will call *radical evolution* as in the spontaneous conversion of functional limbs and tail into wings and flight control surfaces. I don't believe that has been proven, but if it IS proven, I still don't see that the Bible says it can't happen. The Bible says God created and nothing changes.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

ric27 said:

I don't believe in what I will call *radical evolution* as in the spontaneous conversion of functional limbs and tail into wings and flight control surfaces.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone believes in that, least of all scientists.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

Tucker Case said:

I don't think anyone believes in that, least of all scientists.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Most evolution is done in extremely incremental stages.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

ric27 said:

I have zero issues with science and faith. Read the bible as a curiosity a few times and I haven't found anything that has been scientifically dis proven. Nor do I have an issue with evolution, though defining terms is important. I think it is clear that species can and do change and adapt to their environment. Change can also be forced upon a species as in selective breeding for characteristics or the insertion of genetic coding. Of course, the latter requires "intelligent design", though since we're only human, "semi-intelligent design". I don't believe in what I will call *radical evolution* as in the spontaneous conversion of functional limbs and tail into wings and flight control surfaces. I don't believe that has been proven, but if it IS proven, I still don't see that the Bible says it can't happen. The Bible says God created and nothing changes.

Click to expand...

Well, there's a mistake that many advocates of Creationism make.

Many times, they try to make the theory of evolution somehow equate to scientific theories of cosmogony, such as the Big Bang theory, and they are far two different things.

The theory of evolution is one of biology. Theories of cosmogony are of physics. And they are two pretty separated fields of science.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

Creationism is not Science. There is no evidence or facts to support it. If Creationism were in school then it should be mandatory to show Avatar as a non-fiction documentary of space colonization.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

samsmart said:

Well, there's a mistake that many advocates of Creationism make.

Many times, they try to make the theory of evolution somehow equate to scientific theories of cosmogony, such as the Big Bang theory, and they are far two different things.

The theory of evolution is one of biology. Theories of cosmogony are of physics. And they are two pretty separated fields of science.

Click to expand...

Not to sway too much.....

Check out, the 10 plagues brought on Egypt to force the release of the Hebrew slaves was for a very long time, thought by the non-believe community to be myth. Archaeological discoveries however now seem to point to the Santorini sp? eruption as having occurred at the same time as the exodus and suddenly there are scientific explanations for all of the plagues and their sequence.

Faith doesn't require God to produce a rock in mid-air if rolling one down from the mountain will have the same result. But the same scientific community who can now accept the Biblical account of the exodus as fact because they have a scientific explanation for the miracles, will call healing the blind or raising the dead myth. Why, because they don't have a scientific explanation for why or how it happened. Who knows, maybe it will be explainable by science some day. But maybe it won't. And so science takes the position that because science can't explain it, then it can't exist. I call that close minded.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

And yet the proverbial "missing link" has yet to be found.

What I find so amusing the the artifical "tension" created between "creationism" and evolution. I am a Christian who champions the teaching of evolution. Silly to deny what measurably is.

But also equally silly to discount what remains unexplained.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

ric27 said:

Not to sway too much.....

Check out, the 10 plagues brought on Egypt to force the release of the Hebrew slaves was for a very long time, thought by the non-believe community to be myth. Archaeological discoveries however now seem to point to the Santorini sp? eruption as having occurred at the same time as the exodus and suddenly there are scientific explanations for all of the plagues and their sequence.

Faith doesn't require God to produce a rock in mid-air if rolling one down from the mountain will have the same result. But the same scientific community who can now accept the Biblical account of the exodus as fact because they have a scientific explanation for the miracles, will call healing the blind or raising the dead myth. Why, because they don't have a scientific explanation for why or how it happened. Who knows, maybe it will be explainable by science some day. But maybe it won't. And so science takes the position that because science can't explain it, then it can't exist. I call that close minded.

Click to expand...

That's not being close-minded. That's being skeptical.

There are many scientific-minded atheists who are actually open to the possibility of the existence of a divinity. All they would like is some scientific proof of a divinity.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

samsmart said:

There are many scientific-minded atheists who are actually open to the possibility of the existence of a divinity. All they would like is some scientific proof of a divinity.

Click to expand...

Not even proof. Just scientific evidence supporting the potential existence of a divinity would be better than what exists.

What we have now, though, is nothing more than the hypothesis that a divinity exists, with no evidence to support said hypothesis. As such, we are in a state where the null hypothesis must tentatively be accepted until such time as it can be rejected based on evidence.

By scientific evidence I mean actual data, not some individuals obviously biased interpretation of phenomenon (which is what we currently see passed off as evidence, for example, the shape of Bananas).

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

samsmart said:

That's not being close-minded. That's being skeptical.

There are many scientific-minded atheists who are actually open to the possibility of the existence of a divinity. All they would like is some scientific proof of a divinity.

Click to expand...

Tell ya what - should you be able to show me with convincing proof that I am wrong, then I will have to change my mind. I just don't think you can do it.

The definition of being open minded....YES!, open minded is really fairly simple. Don't reject a possibility if you can't prove it to be incorrect

Yet, close-mindedness on the other side says, "I can't really explain it with science yet, but I reject the possibility of something beyond my science....

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

ric27 said:

Tell ya what - should you be able to show me with convincing proof that I am wrong, then I will have to change my mind. I just don't think you can do it.

The definition of being open minded....YES!, open minded is really fairly simple. Don't reject a possibility if you can't prove it to be incorrect

Yet, close-mindedness on the other side says, "I can't really explain it with science yet, but I reject the possibility of something beyond my science....

Click to expand...

No, it is not being close-minded. Rather, it's being skeptical.

Skepticism means looking at the evidence and deriving from that evidence the most likely assertion from it. Skepticism also means being highly critical of evidence and the interpretation of it.

And scientists are quite vigorous in their skepticism of scientific theories. This is why scientists have something called "peer review" in which scientists review each others work to ensure independent verification.

This is also why scientists make repeatability such an important part of their scientific method to derive what the natural physical laws of the universe is. When a scientist performs an experiment and gets a result, any other scientist must be able to perform the same exact experiment and get the same result. When this happens, we all know that the experiment is an example of the natural physical laws at play.

But when only that first scientist can get that result, doubt about the veracity of the experiment comes about. It could be perfectly innocent, such as an unknown variable in the first experiment that wasn't recorded. It could be malicious, such as the scientist being fraudulent about his results in an effort to become a celebrity.

Also, it is difficult to prove a negative. It's difficult to prove that something wasn't caused by one theory over another.

Which is why we tend to look at the evidence and from that evidence derive a cause and base a theory on that.

And I should point out that scientific method wasn't develop to convince you of anything. Rather, the scientific method was developed to objectively study the natural physical laws of the universe through observation and repeatability of the universe around us. And if that fails to convince you, that's not the fault of the scientific method.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

samsmart said:

Well, there's a mistake that many advocates of Creationism make.

Many times, they try to make the theory of evolution somehow equate to scientific theories of cosmogony, such as the Big Bang theory, and they are far two different things.

The theory of evolution is one of biology. Theories of cosmogony are of physics. And they are two pretty separated fields of science.

Click to expand...

Again, Please remember there are two types of evolution (I am a pro evolution scientist) Physical and Natural. The real problem is that the creationist know nothing about the functioning or definiton of either and so go off on speculative fights of fancy in trying to equate one with the other. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE.
If they want to be on a level playing field with us they will have to step so far outside their comfort zone and to be in place that is a foriegn to them as the landscape of mars would be to us. Instead they remain fixed in a belief that evolution (all types) are based on a rejected philosophy over 150 years old.
Almost NO evolutionary Biologist, Chemist, Physist, Astronomer or other scientist accepts the Darwinian model as sacred truth any more. Science has moved on with knowledge and technology. Creationist are still struggling with concepts of a flat earth and what is the center of the solar system in comparason.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

ThePlayDrive said:

Well, I've met two types of people who are exceptionally passionate in their hatred of creationism:

1. The scientist - This is usually someone who studies evolution in some form or another and considers creationism a threat to the research and education that they advocate for. For this person, evolution and related topics are personal to them and so those who question their beliefs and knowledge inspire strong emotions.

2. The militant atheist - This is usually someone who takes religion very personally and therefore, despises it. They usually look down upon all religious people, but particularly those who take the Bible or other religious texts literally and espouse "evangelical" or extremely conservative beliefs. I suspect that they are passionately against religion because of the personal hatred they have from it that developed out of their own experiences.

In other words, the most passionate against creationism are the ones with the most personal relationship to it and its opposition.

Click to expand...

Gotta disagree with you here man. Its not a threat. Science has rules and methods of doing things. It has procedures and creationism does not follow these rules or procedures and therefore cannot be concluded to be a scientific discipline. Most of us aren't that close minded.

When Creationist can meet the rigour of science I will be glad to welcome it. IT can't so right now I won't.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

samsmart said:

I wouldn't mind schools teaching a basic "Religion and Philosophy" class in public schools. I think the curriculum would focus mostly on the tenets of various religions, and be akin to a history class. And it could be quite basic, just to introduce students to various religions to make them aware that they exist.

Click to expand...

But the problem is where do your stop? Do you know how many creation theories there are?

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

ric27 said:

Tell ya what - should you be able to show me with convincing proof that I am wrong, then I will have to change my mind. I just don't think you can do it.

The definition of being open minded....YES!, open minded is really fairly simple. Don't reject a possibility if you can't prove it to be incorrect

Yet, close-mindedness on the other side says, "I can't really explain it with science yet, but I reject the possibility of something beyond my science....

Click to expand...

If I told you I believe in unicorns, would I be correct until you've proven that unicorns don't exist? The burden of proof is on me, for suggesting the existence of unicorns, not on society to prove that they don't exist.

Does god exist? Possibly. We don't have any evidence for it yet, so therefore we can not go off the assumption that there is one.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

nota bene said:

And yet the proverbial "missing link" has yet to be found.

What I find so amusing the the artifical "tension" created between "creationism" and evolution. I am a Christian who champions the teaching of evolution. Silly to deny what measurably is.

But also equally silly to discount what remains unexplained.

Click to expand...

There never was and never will be a missing link. This would imply that a very large step was taken in the evolutionary time line and that almost never happens. We will continue to find fossils which show the "baby steps" we and all creatures have taken to get where we are.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

Tucker Case said:

Not even proof. Just scientific evidence supporting the potential existence of a divinity would be better than what exists.

What we have now, though, is nothing more than the hypothesis that a divinity exists, with no evidence to support said hypothesis. As such, we are in a state where the null hypothesis must tentatively be accepted until such time as it can be rejected based on evidence.

By scientific evidence I mean actual data, not some individuals obviously biased interpretation of phenomenon (which is what we currently see passed off as evidence, for example, the shape of Bananas).

Click to expand...

The best explanation of science i as a person of faith and a scientist have ever heard come from a PhD theology student when I was in college. Science is mans search for God using our intellect and practical knowledge.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

mak2 said:

I am a Christian but I am not literalist. I believe the Bible is the flawless word of God, but I dont believe it really says the Earth was created in 7 days. Time means nothing to God and a day might be any period of time. Otherwise, there is not much difference in the Bible and threoy of evoluton.

But I dont beleive creationism should be taught in school. I took my kids to Church.

Click to expand...

Theists would also have a point that God could have accelerated the processes and got it all done in 7 days. Carbon-dating is based on the rate of radioactive decay only when no one interferes with it. Besides, modern physics claims that time is relative and its speed of forward movement can be changed.

Re: What is so dangerous about Creationism?

wolfman24 said:

Gotta disagree with you here man. Its not a threat. Science has rules and methods of doing things. It has procedures and creationism does not follow these rules or procedures and therefore cannot be concluded to be a scientific discipline. Most of us aren't that close minded.

When Creationist can meet the rigour of science I will be glad to welcome it. IT can't so right now I won't.

Click to expand...

I don't mean a "threat" in the sense of it being a legitimate scientific theory that can disprove evolutionary theory or anything similar. I mean a "threat" in the sense that its very presence threatens the ability of scientific community to successfully educate the population. It's like when I, someone who knows a lot about education, sees a public figure advocate a position on education that is entirely illogical and get frustrated because their myth threatens public knowledge and acceptance of the truth.