The balance of creation
It wasn’t long ago that Don Arthur pointed out that
educators in the United States are constantly hounded by right-to-lifers, evangelicals, and creationists demanding that their opinions on scientific topics be given the same weight as those of mainstream researchers.
Don noted that these activist claim that “balance” demands that their point of view be put forward by journalists, even if it is unsupported by evidence. He went on to ask,
How long will it be before anti-abortion activists in Australia try to bully editors into presenting unsupported assertions as if they were reputable scientific claims?
The anti-abortionists have already started, with their false claim that 100 000 abortions are carried out each year.
And now it appears that the creationists are about to join in:
Schools should teach the biblical creation story alongside evolutionary theory, Family First chairman Peter Harris said yesterday.
And why should they teach the biblical cretion story in science class? In order to achieve “balance”:
Of course we’d like to see a balanced approach to education, and… all options and all viewpoints, world viewpoints, should be put forward and people should be entitled to make their own decisions.
If this meant teachers would point out to their class that some people put a fairy story ahead of science and reason, then I wouldn’t have a problem, but Harris wants biblical creationism to be placed on equal terms with real science.
If we’re going to teach kids long outdated theories as if they were legitimate science, where do we draw the line? Do we teach them that the world is flat? Or that phrenology and social darwinism are legitimate?
If Harris wants to indoctrinate kids into his crazy religious beliefs, he can do it in an Assemblies of God school. And even then I’d have doubts about whether it should attract a public subsidy, on account of its failure to teach an adequate syllabus.
[...] Currently at 49 comments, I am haphazardly voicing my creationist viewpoint over at Kick & Scream, a nice left-wing website.
According the majo [...]
[...] Dogma First at the moment) their true colours seem to be showing. Robert Corr got into the act twice and Tim Dunlop and DoDo, The Manic Preacher have al [...]
Oh dear. Luckily our centralised education system means the creationists can’t get ahold of local school boards like they do in the US.
He doesn’t want to see “all options” put forward equally at all, and that is the big lie at the the heart of these arguments. At least he is being honest and calling it biblical creation instead of gussying it up with the fraudulent “Intelligent Design” name.
In Georgia (of course) apparently science books teaching evolution have to have stickers on them reading “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” Those stickers are cool if we can also put stickers on bibles reading “This book contains material on God. God is a theory, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”
Of course, these days it’s dishonest to even claim evolution is “just a theory”. As an evolutionary ecologist myself, I can guarantee that it’s accepted as a paradigm…scientists gave up arguing about whether evolution is real or not a century ago, and have since been quantifying and experimenting with it. It’s old news, the battle’s been won, only the creationists haven’t realised it yet. Evolution is as much a theory as gravity is.
The strangest thing of all, most creationists actually believe in evolution but refuse to admit it. Ask them these questions (1) Do you believe we have genes that code for certain traits? (2) Do you believe those genes are passed down through generations – ie. do you look like your parents? (3) Do you believe that some traits might be worse for you in some environments than others – people with Sweedish skin wouldn’t last long in the Sahara? If you answered yes to those three questions, congratulations, you believe in evolution!
first of all i’m a creationist. i just wanted to make a point about something gjw raised.
believing in those three points raised by gjw does not mean your an evolutionist. I would consider it necessary to believe in addition of information by mutation of DNA to be one of the cornerstones of belief for an evolutionist. This is what the theory rests on. Can mutations add information to genes? I think the other one is probably the age of the earth.
If you are going to talk to about creationists and evolutionists and what they believe, at least take the time to construct meaningful arguments. As a creationist of course I believe in DNA and genetic traits passed betweens generation and that some traits are better in some situations then others. I haven’t been convinced, however, that everything started billions of years ago in a primordial soup, or that information can be added through mutations.
“Theory” doesn’t mean “any idea that just popped into my head”. Theory means a worked through, challenged, agreed, worked through, challenged , agreed coherent body of thought.
If we teach a fundamentalist christian view of “creation” – we should also teach a less fundamentalist christian view, of which there are many. More relevantly we should also teach the australian aboriginal creation stories. Why not Hindu stories, Bhuddist and so on. Heck we legally recognise Scientology as a religion, we could whip in Zenu and space beings.
Hey the Blue Mountains west of Sydney were created by the 40 day flood in the noah’s ark story.
And the Mount Gambier crater was created when Goliath was felled by David.
God have mercy on your soul Robert.
We don’t teach French in biology classes. There is a big difference between saying ideas about religion should be discussed in school and that they should be raised in a biology class. Of course, if you are going to do that, then evolutionists should teach their point of view in religious ed. Or, perhaps more to the point, anthropologists should be mandated to put their point of view. That’d learn ‘em.
I actually think we should leave creationism out of biology because it respects the views of the pupils. Little Joshua and Ruth who believe in literal creation, should not be embarrassed by the spectacle of a secular biology teacher trying to raise their religious viewpoint in a science class.
It is more humane to let their sleeping beliefs lie. And presumably, as soon as it becomes a voluntary class, like R&J would be out of there anyway. It’s too hard otherwise since evolution is THE cornerstone of the discipline. So we are really talking about Noah being raised in a classroom of astonished secularists.
Come to think of it, there are some pragmatic advantages to that…
Your comparison of anti-abortionists with creationists is a bit contrived Rob.
Good point FXH. What words mean in science and what they mean in common usage are not always the same. Theory (as in Theory of Evolution) = Law. Hypothesis (in science) = theory (in common usage.)
If you are still not convinced, reflect on the fact that planes fly only according to the “Theory of Aerodynamics.”
Ahem. What is wrong with teaching creationism in schools? Many, many people believe it to be fact, myself included. Both side are being just as bad as each other on this issue, so you really cant justify saying “fairy story ahead of science and reason”. You speak of indoctrination, but if you only teach one sde, or teach one side in a biased fashion to the other, then you are just indoctrinating the students in the other direction. Its a bit more than a tad hypocritical. Kids need to see both sides in an equal light in order to make an informed decision. Neither alternative should be treated as fact, merely two possible explanations for how we got here. If you are suggesting that our schools censor or repress creationism as a legitimate explanation, then Im afraid I will have to disagree.
Remember that just because you think its a fairy story does not mean it is, and just because I think its the correct explanation does not mean it is. Opinion, thats all either side has.
So I ask again, what is the problem with teaching creationism in schools?
The point, Nic White, is that it’s not about the “two sides“, unless you’re talking about the scientific side on one hand, and the multitude of various creation myths of all the world religions on the other. If people are demanding that “equal time” be given to the Genesis account of creation, then surely equal time has to be given to the Rainbow Serpent of Aboriginal peoples and the cyclic view of Hinduism as well. Both equally strong explanations as the Judeo-Christian one. Before long, biology class turns into religious studies. This is not what it was intended for – it was intended to teach science, and science it shall teach, not “equal time” for every fundamentalist religion’s mythology.
And, in response to thewaya who said: I would consider it necessary to believe in addition of information by mutation of DNA to be one of the cornerstones of belief for an evolutionist. – Well, I took this as a given…okay then, point (4) – Do you believe in cancer, radiation sickness, and birth defects? Congratulations, you believe in genetic mutation and hence evolution! As for the age of the earth…well, it’s amazing the mass of evidence you can put together and still have people hopelessly cling to religious mythologies. Enough said.
Creation has absolutely no place in a science class. None. It is insane to think that it ever should.
If you want to teach biblical creation then do it in a religious education class or at sunday school. And you better have a good freaking argument why only biblical creation should be taught if you want to do it at a public school.
“it’s not about the “two sides”, unless you’re talking about the scientific side on one hand, and the multitude of various creation myths of all the world religions on the other.”
I am.
You cant stand in a science classroom and teach evolution as absolute fact, like it basically is, and you cant act as if there are no alternatives. Evolution is a theory, backed up by little scientific evidence and relies on faith, creationism is a theory, backed up by little scientific evidence and relies on faith. Believe me, you would get the same argument from me if creationism was taught as absolute fact in classrooms. Neither have been proven, neither ever will be proven, you just have to know the facts, the ideas, the theories, and decide which is more plausible, or if you even care.
Creationism, its its most basic form that pretty much every religion goes with, is that there is this thing called “God” or whatever other name you want to give him/her, but universally know as God, created the world, animals and humans from scratch. Different faiths put different twists and variations on it but its essentially the sme sort of thing. And from a science classroom perspective thats all that matters. On one hand you have the idea of the big bang and evolution from single celled animals to apes to humans, and then you have the idea that it was all made at once with a design by a supernatural being. Those are the two sides you teach, the variation on the creationism story is what is for the religious class.
This way the kids get a choice without having one way rammed down their throats, whichever side it may be. There cant be a propper choice without having alternatives, and there must be a reasonable opportunity for those alternatives to be considered. Its the same with politics. If you were raised in a right-wing house, you will probably grow up right-wing, not good. If your parents are cool enough to show you both sides and encourage you to look around and make your own decisions, then you could go either way.
If the shoe was on the other foot I wonder who would be complaining. I know I sure would be.
You cant stand in a science classroom and teach evolution as absolute fact, like it basically is, and you cant act as if there are no alternatives. Evolution is a theory, backed up by little scientific evidence and relies on faith, creationism is a theory, backed up by little scientific evidence and relies on faith.
Nic, this is simply not true. There is an abundance of scientific evidence for evolution. It is a fact and requires no faith to accept it. If you want to start researching the topic for yourself a good place to start is http://www.talkorigins.org/
Secondly, it is possible to accept evolution and God. It is not either/or, many people do it comfortably.
Thirdly, “creationism” in this context is not just the vague idea that God created stuff. Creationists want it taught that God created the world in six literal 24hr days sometime less than 10000 years ago in exactly the same form as we are today. When we talk about “creationists” we don’t mean “religious people” we mean those people who insist on their narrow literal Christian interpretation being taught as having equal scientific validity as evolution and the immense age of the Earth. It doesn’t.
CL: If you’ll notice, Don Arthur’s post was about “right-to-lifers, evangelicals, and creationists”, of whom he took right-to-lifers as the focus for his post. I took creationists as the focus for mine.
Nic: You said, “the variation on the creationism story is what is for the religious class.” Exactly, keep it in the religious class. Don’t go imposing it on everyone else. If parents want their kids to learn faith, they can send them to a religious school or teach them in their own time. Faith should not be presented as empirical fact in a science class.
If it was, then should we give Holocaust deniers equal time in history class? After all, they’re arguing a ludicrous position against well-settled facts.
By the way, I am not talking about people who believe God set off the big bang or set the evolutionary chain in motion. I don’t have a problem with that, as they don’t deny science. I’m talking about people who believe in the biblical creation story as literal truth. They should keep their crazy beliefs away from other people’s children.
Robert the problem with that is that its just your viewpoint, and many people have different ones. You think “They should keep their crazy beliefs away from other people’s children.” Whos to say thier beliefs are “crazy”? Are mine “crazy”? Im sure there are a great number of people out there, many of those with no religious affiliation, who believe the theory of evolution to be a “crazy belief”. You see your point appears to be that creationism should be banned from being taught in classrooms because you dont agree with it. Well, I dont agree with certain things that get taught in schools, but you dont see me trying to ban them.
This is a very scary paralell to the whole gay marriage thing. Conservatives want to remove choice by banning it and generally oppressing the minority gay population’s civil rights. You could even liken it to abortion, in fact thats probably a better paralell. Look at it this way, it cannot be scientifically proven (allbeit yet) when the baby is considered to be “human” and therefore aborting it would be murder. So everyone has a different idea about when its OK to, if at all. You could say that its based on faith and personal opinion. This isnt really much different to evolution vs creation. So by banning abortion you are removing the choice of the mother to let her belief about when the organism inside her is truly human. You shouldnt be allowed to do that. How does this compare? Kids are being indoctrinated with the theory of evolution in the classroom, assuming they recieve little or no other input on the subject outside of said classroom, they are much much more likely to not be able to make an informed decision about which side they want to go with. Im sorry Robert but I simply cannot in good concience condone this.
Amanda, to your first point, I disagree entirely. If I thought that evolution required no faith to believe and it could be accepted as fact, then theres no doubt I would believe it. But we would still be having this discourse. As it happens I have found an absence of anything approaching proof for the theory, and I have found just as much evidence for creationism.
To the second, well if they have both sides to look at, whats to say they cant decide to combine them?
Thridly I think we are arguing the same thing. If creationism was to be taught in schools I would want it to be “the vauge idea that God created stuff”. Whether the kids want to mix evolution with it or not, or to decide the earth is however old, thats their decision.
Im just saying give them a choice, because at the moment, they really dont.
If we’re going to teach kids long outdated theories as if they were legitimate science, where do we draw the line? Do we teach them that the world is flat? Or that phrenology and social darwinism are legitimate?
We’re still teaching them Keynesian economic theory, which is at least as outdated and irrelevant as Creationism. The major difference is that the left-wing forces in the education system like those myths, along with the Global warming myths and the Black Armband myths. It’s not simply a case of fact vs fiction as long as they continue to teach the fictions they prefer.
Nic, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Yobbo, comparing Keynesian economics to Creationism is just silly. For a start, Keynesian economics is taught because it’s still generally useful. When I was taught, we were told that Keynesianism was a bit of a dinosaur, and that more recent theories would be taught if we went on to further study.
It’s like teaching Newtonian physics in middle school — you are warned that it’s not a perfect model, and you go on to more complex physics in senior school and again in university.
Creationism is nothing like that. It doesn’t explain anything. It’s what you fall back on because you know there must be some explanation but you just can’t come up with a decent one.
Ok, one last thing: I don’t think kids should be taught, as Nic put it, “the vague idea that God created stuff” in a public school. If you want God and religious education, go to a religious school. There are plenty of groups that cater for after-school religious education, too.
Ahem. What is wrong with teaching creationism in schools? Many, many people believe it to be fact, myself included.
Bwahahahahahahaha! Bwahahahahahaha! Hahahahah! Snigger! Hahahah. Niggle. Hee. Heh,
You’re not fucking serious, are you?
Ok Robert.
One thing: The point idea “if you want God and religious education, go to a religious school. There are plenty of groups that cater for after-school religious education, too” completely skirts around my point. Going to a religious school costs more and many families simply cant afford it, no matter how much of a shift there has been to private ecucation recently, and what about parents who are staunch atheists like youself? Such students dont have a chance in hell of getting both sides of the coin, so really your solution just doesnt cut it.
Graham, Im not even going to bother responding to that.
Nic, the point is that there simply isn’t room to present every belief about an issue. For example, why shouldn’t a high school economics class teach Marxism as well as Keynesianism as well as laissez faire nonsense? And, as I asked before, why shouldn’t Holocaust deniers be given equal time in our history classes? There’s simply not enough time to teach every crazy theory ever invented — nor is it justifiable to give equal time to propositions that are just plain wrong. And Creationism is one of them.
I see your point, but I very much doubt it would result in a slippery-slope. Being that there are really, as I said before, only two sides, time isnt a huge factor – but I understand your point of view.
Perhaps there is another way that both sides can be incorporated in schools enough to give the students a chance at an informed opinion. So long as they have that chance and neither side is treated as absolute fact youll get no qualms from me.
The “because its wrong” argument doesnt work either, because its still a matter of personal belief/opinion. If you want to get into why you think its not a matter of personal belief/opinion, then thats a whole new kettle of fish, and we both know once you open that the steam’s just going to burn everyone.
Nic, do you really think personal beliefs and opinions belong on the school syllabus? Surely not… and if people want to indoctrinate their kids with Creationism and can’t afford a Christian school, there’s always Sunday School.
Sunili you’ve missed my point by a country mile.
The remains of the dinosaurs were put on Earth by God the prankster to test our faith, correct?
I think I failed that test.
Nic, is the point Sunili has missed by a country mile that Creationism is a scientific theory supported by evidence to the same extent as (if not a greater extent than) Evolution?
What point? I get the part about presenting a “fair and balanced” viewpoint but, firstly, Creationism is very much a “we report, you believe” CNNNN approach anyway, and if you’re going to admit it’s belief/opinion I don’t see how it even compares with a scientific ‘theory’. What kind of a choice is one between a ’scientific theory’ and a mythological one?
Sigh, I know I shouldn’t have got involved in this. I think I should wear mittens when something like this comes up!
Sunili my point was that both sides are belief/opinion, you cant say absolutely that one is better than the other, its only which one you prefer, which one you see more evidence for or which one fits with your ideals better.
All good if you get the balancing to create an informed choice bit.
Well, gee, Nic, that’s a great point. The moon might be made of cheese, it just depends whether you believe the evidence or not. Should we put “moon = cheese” on the syllabus? In the interests of balance and “informed choice”, of course.
I think we have reached critical mass here, cant see this going anywhere but round and round. Ive made my point, youve made yours, Ill agree to disagree if you do. I dont really want to carry this into a second day.
Postmodernism claims another victim…
There can be no balance. There is to be a lot more evidence supporting evolution than creationism – what evidence for the latter is little more than wiry puritans dogging the steps of paleontologists tut-tutting at the nitpicking between the Gould and Dawkins camps, regarding such disagreement as a massive refutation of the whole concept, rather than the typical rough and tumble of the practitioners of scientific method.
Never mind that the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth a lot better than some shaggy dog story involving a Rube-Goldberg take of how things came to be. Never mind that the scale of time that the earth really has been existance is more than ample for all of evolution’s missteps and mistakes to cover its tracks,
rather than the laughable six millennia that is the whole span of time that humanity has been sufficiently literate to record a history in words that can often be misinterpreted – like the Bible.
I guess you keep your God small so you can appear relatively large in comparison. Creationism is no more than a pretentious anthrocentricism that actually betrays how pathetic your 6000-year old God is compared to the full majesty of a Universe billions and billions of years old. For all we know a nearby star could go supernova, causing a shock wave of gamma radiation that would wipe out all trace of life, and the Universe would not even care, aside from noting the slight blip in entropy.
That is why I laughed at you earlier. We are both small, but at least I’m not deluding myself about my significance.
Any questions, Monkey Boy?
You’re incredibly presumptuous and if you think you understand me thats laughable. You are incorrect in your assumptions regarding myself on so many counts I dont know where to begin, so I wont waste my time in doing so.
The one YOU see more evidence for? Maybe you should try looking out of both eyes.
Selah!
(now, back to work…)
I despise creationists for their fundmental intellectual dishonesty. I thought of holocaust deniers too but didn’t want to bring in Godwin’s law. When a holocaust denier tells us that it’s impossible to burn a body in a certain amount of time, it’s not to engage in any kind of enquiry or search for veracity, it’s to create the one scrap of doubt that’ll lead some people to assume everything else must be wrong. They’ll trade a dollar of doubt for a thousand bucks worth of bullshit and call it equal.
Just like to suggest people get their massively bunched gluteus maximi over to Pharyngula
Remember a little while back when John Howard was rabitting on about Australia’s classrooms being value-free? Here’s his quotes:
Mr Howard said: “People are looking increasingly to send their kids to independent schools for a combination of reasons. For some of them, it’s to do with the values-driven thing; they feel that government schools have become too politically correct and too values-neutral.”
He said the “increasingly antiseptic view taken about a whole range of things” was “a reflection of the extent to which political correctness overtook this country. Particularly through the teachers’ unions, which I think are a bit out of step.”
I think the point that Howard was making was that there’s too much balance and political correctness- too much weighing up of differing opinions, and not enough calling a spade a spade. The argument that the creationists are running seems to be the ultimate in political correctness – there are no facts, just theories about how the world was created.
Just a thought.
1. I never insulted anyone else for holding a belief, and I was respectful to everyone else’s opinions.
2. I never insulted anyone else’s intelligence, directly or indirectly.
3. Diference in opinion does not stop me liking or respecting anyone.
4. I never tried to convert anyone or anything ridiculous like that.
Perhaps if everyone else does the same…
I have nothing more to say.
As it happens I have found an absence of anything approaching proof for the theory, and I have found just as much evidence for creationism.
Just as much evidence that the world is 6000 years old as it is billions of years old? You have nothing more to say otherwise I would ask you to present that evidence. If true, you could be in the running for a Nobel Prize.
Evolution is a fact. A fact People debate the mechanisms of evolution but evolution itself is a scientific fact. If people think it is a “crazy believe” they are wrong. That’s cool, you’re allowed to hold any opinion you want, but it is wrong. Demonstrably. Overwhelmingly. Without question. Wrong.
You can choose to believe Tuvalu single handedly won the Second World War, if you want. But don’t try to teach it in modern history class.
apropos of nothing, i am right now reading stephen jay gould’s book about evolution and the burgess shale, called wonderful life. it’s pretty great.
I’m against abortions, especially those undertaken in the 2nd and 3rd tri-mester.
I think creationism is discredited primitive bunk.
I also think that religion is primitive bunk but acceptable as long as it does not forcefully impose itself.
It makes me uncomfortable when George Bush talks about God, but I don’t get histerical about it because
(a) There are enough checks and balances in the American political system
(b) It’s all hot air. In the great scheme of things he’s effectively a secularist.
(c) He’s no more dogmatic in his beliefs than most of his secular detractors – Greens, Pinks, Arabists
Creationism should not be taught in schools for the same reason that schools should not teach one and one makes three.
Further, if evolution is ever discredited (which I doubt) I would hope that schools discontinue teaching that as well.
The problem here has become abundantly clear, and this includes you, Nic White: People have trouble tolerating creationists when the creationists constantly display that they simply don’t have a clue about what evolution actually is. They are still trapped in Mary Baker-Eddy land. Someone, somewhere, has told them that “there’s no evidence for evolution” and they have blindly believed them, without bothering to look at the last century’s worth of scientific data. Since the time of Darwin we have seen new species involve (a species of snake and a few species of bird come to mind). The last century has been a time of intense debate within the ecological and evolutionary biology communities (as Graham mentioned debate regarding the adaptationist program). Not debate about whether evolution exists or not, but debate about the internal mechanics of it: How fast does mitochondrial DNA mutate? Is this variable between taxa? Is phenotypic plasticity or genotypic fixation a more common response to unpredictable environments? What forces drive directional selection and disruptive selection? But creationists wouldn’t know about any of that, because they refuse to learn the science out of religious paranoia, and instead cling to an explanation of the natural world that quite frankly, I find boring. Once you’ve read Genesis 1 once, what more is there to discover?
It all comes down to the fact that science is science, and it’s what’s taught in science classes. Physics, Newtonian or otherwise, is taught in physics. In chemistry, students learn about the interations between objects that can’t possibly be seen, but whose properties appear to follow broader rules that stand up to scientific tests. And in biology, they teach the natural processes that actual real, live, working scientists like myself (as opposed to religious leaders) are involved in studying.
Scientists don’t study creationism. How possibly could we? God’s already said it all in Genesis 1. Instead, we study evolution, and so that’s what should be taught in science classes in school.
If you remove from the discussion the idea that science teaches critical thinking and analytical thought, open discussion between peers and encourages innovation. If you remove this from the equation you still come down to one inalienable fact – Science is testable. That is the fundemental difference between it and religous dogma.
I find it amusing how certain people always go back to their same stupid idea – “there’s no difference between Religion and Science. They’re exactly the same.” Well, no they’re not.
When it comes to Science, you can have all the evidence in the world to support your theory, but you only need one piece of evidence to disprove it. Where in Creationist theory can you apply that idea?
As Carl Sagan, neatly explained once, you can exclaim that there is a dragon in your garage and I will set out to disprove it. I say I can’t see it, you say it’s invisible. I spray paint inside the garage to see if it sticks to it, you say paint won’t stick. I will use a thermal imager to find it’s heat, you say it has no heat, and so on and so forth. Torre mentioned those dinasour skeletons. Well, I guess they were put there by God to deceive us right?
There is nothing we can ever say to disprove your ideas of Creationism. How on Earth can you expect it to be taught alongside Evolutionary Theory? And don’t tell me that it’s because it is just a theory and not fact. Nothing is fact in the absolute sense of the word in so much as everything in the universe is absolutely knowable. A fact is only a theory that has been observed in the past as true or can be predicted to a certain probability in the future. Gravity is a theory which has been accepted as fact, but if I let a ball roll off a table 1000 times can I GUARANTEE that it will do the same thing another 1000 times? Most people would say yes, but do you KNOW that it will fall 1000 times perfectly? No. But we have principles and equations to guide us. Remember, you only need one instance to disprove it completely. But as yet, over the hundreds of years since Newton, no one has – thus it is accepted as a fact. Can you say any of this about Creationism (or Aboriginal creation stories, or Hindu, or Budhist, etc)?
That is not to say that I have a problem with Religion as a concept, I am religous myself. But when Religion starts to step on the toes of Science, such as with Creationism, then things get hairy. As Amanda rightly points out, religion has it’s part to play in our world (in Religion classes, as opposed to Biology class), and so does Science. They are not opposing ideas – Creationist assumes that they are. Religion is there to help us with what Science cannot – faith, hope, helping the poor in our community (which is why I am still enthusiastic about my own faith).
Please do not place Creationism or any type of Religous Dogma against Science. They are two completely difference areas and you are do a disservice to all of us if start a conflict on these grounds.
Re: the theory/fact thing. It is true that nothing is ever 100% and even if it is only 99.99999999% certain it can’t be called “a fact”, but I say evolution is a fact because the evidence is no overwhelming it would be foolish not to accept it as true. I like this quote from HJ Muller (quoted on talkorigins) “If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.”
I agree Amanda that we can accept evolutionary theory as fact in so much that we can 1) operationally define the process, 2) there is overwhelming evidence linking thousands of species over prehistory through this process and 3) it is the simplest and most intuitive process explaining the evidence at hand (ie. Occams Razor).
Have we observed every living creature from every species that has ever lived on this Earth to verify this fact absolutely? No. But we have observed it to a degree and explained it as process so much, that in the absence of a better/simpler explanation it can be accepted by all.
Really the best thing to do is let people home school their kids if they don’t want them to learn evolution. As another plus, it saves taxpayers money too.
gjw: mutations does not equal addition of information. this is a crucial point. creationists, such as myself, believe that all mutations always result in a loss of information never a again. so for instance people could ‘evolve’ to be less hairy by having the gene of hair growth mutate to be less effective. very bad example I know, sorry I’m rushing. birth defects, cancer, etc. none of them show an addition of genetic information. i’m probably not explaining myself very well.
also I’ve been thinking and it is also probably that there are people out there who believe that a process of evolution could take place but isn’t where life began. i’m not one of them but I guess that would mean they just disagree with the long age of the earth. interesting…
Fighting God-policy
After yesterday’s debate on The Balance of Creation over at Rob Corr’s, I was interested to find this post in my Nation LiveBookmarks folder this morning. Katrina vanden Heuvel outlines the systematic infiltration of Creationism into US education pol…
If you want God and religious education, go to a religious school.
Um, no. I went to a religious school and got taught evolution. And I think if we can expect our government to give funding and accreditation to religious schools, then we can expect religious schools to teach proper science. That includes proper sex education, while we’re at it.
thewaya said: mutations does not equal addition of information. this is a crucial point. creationists, such as myself, believe that all mutations always result in a loss of information never a again
As far as I’m aware, it is not a question of addition of information nor a loss. A mutation is merely a change or set of changes in the ATCG nucleotide chain. A mutation can either have an increased, reduced or neutral effect on the gene’s capacity to perform certain functions: encoding proteins, replication, RNA transfer, etc. This in turn can affect the functions of the organism.
Of course, that is my basic understanding. Talk to a molecular biologist for the details. The point is that the relationship between genetic mutation and evolutionary theory is far wider than TheWaya’s narrow field of vision.
Here’s another question which I ask in all seriousness. I would like to hear the positions of our Creationist friends on the discovery of Homo floresiensis, the species of human discovered a few months ago in Indonesia. You probably know about it already, but the crucial point is that it co-habitated with humans as little as 13,000 years ago.
What is the common Creationist position on this discovery? I am quite curious and would like to know.
I’m not sure if the admins want this to be a discussion of the creationism vs evolution, i was trying to illustrate my position, so sorry if this is going off topic.
JC: in regards to genetic mutation, we are yet to see any example of a mutation of the ATCG chain in which an addition of information took place. rather all mutations have been relocations of existing information or destruction of information.
i think the real ‘kicker’ is that yes there is a small, small chance that a random mutation could produce new information (like those monkeys on typewriters sort of thing or in the same way a cup of water could spontaneously boil), but even given that (and it hasn’t been observed yet) the time periods needed to see that occur are larger then even the so-called age of the Universe. I used the term so-called because it brings me to the other part of creationism. The young-earth. As a biblical creationists I believe the earth was created about 6000years ago in 6 days. current dating methods are incorrect as they are based on assumptions that aren’t true. For some good explanation of this you can check out this site. i reckon the dating is the real big argument in terms of life from evolution or God debate.
one last question before I address your next comment, why did you call my ‘field of vision’ narrow?
in regards to Homo floresiensis, this article explains my position pretty well. There are more articles here.
one last point to make, my position on teaching biblical creation in public schools that it shouldn’t happen. if the teacher doesn’t believe what they are teaching it is non-sensical for them to teach it. someone posted a link to talkorigins earlier, if you’d like some balance you can read a website called trueorigin.org, though I must warn you that the person writing the website can be a bit ‘passionate’, his data and analyse is good, but I don’t like it when people insult the other side like he does.
The Debate Rages On
Those evil right-wing, fundamentalist American Christians want everyone to learn biblical creationism not evolution. My viewpoint? It makes no sense for secular people to teach biblical creation.
I think that there are a multitude of different views here, and i could say they are hot air because the lack the ability to be proven totally and completely? But i wouldn’t. Why? Because they are people’s individual beliefs. So my bagging them doesn’t mean squat, and ignores the fact that each person has a right to their own beliefs, and to speak of and practice them. And yes i include evolution in this. The fact that this site exists shows many people have different personal beliefs, and not only is endless argument pointless as none are likely to change them, nor should they, as they are entitled to believe or not believe what they wish.
The problem in the USA is not the spread of ‘right wing Fundamentalist Christians’, it’s the erosion of the rights to free speech, free assembly in whatever form it is, and other civil liberties. When we ignore these we start a slippery slope towards all countries becoming Guantanamo Bay. Hence the right to freedom of religion is as equal as all other essential human rights. Thus it matters not whether creationism or evolution is right, as people should believe what they want without influence, and will i believe what they want(ie ppl won’t always believe just what is considered to be factually correct, they’ll believe what they want to). Thus to not teach creationism in schools is presenting an influence on what beliefs or not people form, and this is a slippery slope to the erosion of civil liberties. Eqaulity should exist, both should be taught in equal quantities as only this cannnot bias people towards particular beliefs. To not teach creation, or evolution for that matter, is discrimination as it says the rights to freedom of information and religion without influence do not matter unless your beliefs lie on a particular side of the fence. And despite what some have said, creationism has much content to be taught, ie the bible and historical material. However i don’t think it should be taught full stop in the science curriculum. Both should be taught in ’small tastes’ at the start of a course much as happens in RE and then kids make up their own mind which they want to go on and study(ie like elective subject choices). The same should happen in RE as well. That way the equality of the differing beliefs of all is respected. After all, those parents who are concerned about their kids being taught views they don’t approve of, be they creationist or evolutionist, can always opt out(take their kids out) of such classes. Which in itself blows the argument for teaching only creation or only evolution out of the water.
Bravo Wombat. You said much of what Ive been trying to say much better than I did. I completely agree with you.
That’s fine by me. It was the guy who came in to try and convince us that creationism was fact that convinced me that it was a crock of shit.
i think robert and wombvat are both making the same point: creationism can be taught in religious classes, and evolution in biology. my main objection (to the creation/evolution debate) is that “creationists” (the hard-core variety) don’t make good points in their attempts to cast doubt on the science. i checked out the website thewaya linked, and it looks good, but is flawed (e-mail me with your questions, if you like – they are really quite simple).
regardless, they cannot be put in the same class, together. and i don’t think anyone here has disputed that.
Graham: if you were referring to my comments, I apologise I wasn’t trying to convince anyone that creationism was fact, I know that on the internet that is basically pointless. I was just trying to correct a mistake I saw posted in regards to what believing in evolution meant.
gjw’s post made it seems that us creationists didn’t really know what we believed. that because we believed in DNA and genetic mutations the logical conclusion was that we believed in evolution.
to me it sounds like wombat is calling for evolution to be considered an ‘elective subject’ much like Religious Education. an interesting concept indeed.
Leif I couldn’t find your email address, I’d like to know what the flaws were in the sites I linked to.
I agree that Creationism and Evolutionary Theory cannot be taught in the same class. From what I gather, most people here don’t have a problem with that.
Thanks for the links TheWaya. I found the Answers in Genesis site very enlightening. I think I am becoming a fan of Carl Wieland’s work. Of course I found a very informative rebuke of his work here. In the end, it’s those who have the best arguments that should win. Hopefully, this will be the case, whoever that may be.
I find Creationists’ zeal for disproving Evolutionary Theory heartening (as opposed to their insistence that it be compared to Creationism itself). Seeing them gallantly striving for that one piece of proof that tears down all those higly regarded theories. It encourages discussion and keeps Scientists on their toes, which can only be good. Paleoanthropologists should be able to handle their own in this respect and so long as the Scientific discourse is respected I have no problem with it. This is of course how the community filters out it’s rubbish, the product of which the rest of the world gets to digest. Alarm bells get raised when the discourse is disrupted by people and institutions of power who try to stifle discussion or enforce a viewpoint irrespective of the common Scientific consensus (GWB and FF should take notes).
That brings us to Homo Floresiensis, I will observe how the paleoanthropological community sort out this one. I will be waiting on every issue of New Scientist, Nature and National Geographic with bated breath.
A discussion of creationism would be a very short class indeed.
“OK, children. God did it. Class dismissed.”
In the end, it’s those who have the best arguments that should win. Hopefully, this will be the case, whoever that may be.
The side with the best arguments has already won, evolution is accepted as fact by the scientific community at large and any one with an open mind who reviews the issue. Just because some find it contradicts their religious dogma and refuse to accept it does not change that. The creationists are well organised, well funded and very noisy, that doesn’t mean they have a leg to stand on.
JC makes a lot of good points. And I think it is true that in the majority of public discourse creationists need to focus on illuminating the flaws in evolution as opposed to “forcing” creationism down people’s throats.
people don’t really want me to go on about creationism I know but to address Amanda’s point: a discussion of creationism would be a lot longer then just “God did it”. For instance there could be teaching about how from perfect beginnings we have devolved to our current states, where all the different types of dogs/cats/sheep have come from, and how the evidence supports history as the Bible tells it.
Of course once again I repeat, I am not in favour of forcing anyone to teach biblical creation, I think it does make sense however to encourage a real discussion about evolution and its critics. I’ve had some students telling me about evidence for evolution that has long been discredited, such as peppered moths and Embryonic Recapitulation. It makes it seem like our students are being indoctrinated with evolution rather then being taught science. In physics I always asked questions and was encouraged to prove for myself what we were being taught. High school biology seems a bit lacking in this respect.
At one time humankind believed that we had 152 ‘vestigal’ organs, now that list is virtually non-existant, we once believed the world was flat, we once were sure that Newtonian physics ruled the universed. We’ve been proved wrong before, I’m pretty sure it can happen again.
For instance there could be teaching about how from perfect beginnings we have devolved to our current states, where all the different types of dogs/cats/sheep have come from, and how the evidence supports history as the Bible tells it.
Religion in other words, not science. There is no scientific evidence the world is 6000 years old and abundant evidence it is billions of years old. No matter how much hand waving and lying the clowns at Answers in Genesis come up with.
i admit that two of those examples were religious based, sorry bad choices. but working out where all the different types of animal breeds came from is pure science. it relies upon genetic inheritance and mutation.
people seem averse to me providing evidence for creationism so I won’t post all the scientific evidence for creation. one point I will make however is that we are all looking at the same evidence it is just a matter of pre-conceptions, assumptions and interpretations. For instance, rock strata layers, long-age believers would say that these were layed down over millions of years layer by layer. young-agers, like myself, can demonstrate how the exact same sort of strata can occur through a global flood. we are looking at the same rocks but our explanations are different.
young-agers, like myself, can demonstrate how the exact same sort of strata can occur through a global flood
How? No creationist I have ever read has been able to do so in a scientifically valid way.
I think there are two parts to this, one does the old-age solution work, and two, does the young-age solution work.
I’ll start with the young-age solution. Stratification has been seen to rapidly occur as a result of a catastrophic event, for example, after Mt St Helens blew pumice deposits that would usually be intrepreted as been laid down over millions of years were created in mere years. Also see the the island of Surtsey.
Now in regards to the long-age explanation. First of all, I am yet to see any real evidence for the long time periods needed for these theories, please provide some evidence if you have it. Secondly, many observed rock formations contradict the long-age account of what happened. And other phenomena contradict an old earth.
I apologise for people who don’t want me to ” try and convince us that creationism was fact “. I am just responding to Amanda’s points. If you’d prefer, I’m quite happy to continue this via an email correspondence.
Amanda the problem with your involvement in this discussion is that you are just as bad with your attitude as the hardcore creationists you seem to despise so much. So much for being open-minded.
Obviously, Nic I disagree.
Being “open minded” doesn’t mean accepting every point of view as equally valid. It means being able to make up your mind on the facts and be willing to change according to the facts. If the facts change, my opinion will change. I made up my mind based on the facts, I used to be inclined to the Intelligent Design point of view but unfortunately the arguments do not stack up . The facts indicate an billions of years old earth and evolution by natural selection (a point of view perfectly compatiable with most mainstream Christian beliefs, by the way, even the Pope accepts evolution as a fact.) The AiG people who keep being referenced make the facts fit their theory and not the other way around, which is why they are at best fringe not mainstream.
“The Earth revolves around the Sun” is one statement, “The Sun revolves around the Earth” is another. The former is supported by evidence, the latter is not. Therefore saying the latter is untrue is not closed minded. Ignoring all the evidence and believing the latter is (or believing the former based on dogmatic assertion too.)
I do not “despise” anyone, but it is is true I think creationism and allied pseudosciences pose a danger to quality education and science.
Amanda: I would like to discuss the facts that indicate the billions of years. Creationists, like AiG, would argue that it is evolutionists who make the facts fit their theory. Also, I think that whilst there is no reason for anyone to respect/believe the viewpoint of creationists, the way the discussion often goes is that creationists are vilified with name-calling and general nastiness.
I have said that I’m not trying to force my view on anyone, I’m trying to put the facts out there and have a discussion as to their interpretation.
Cool, thewaya, and you’ve done it very reasonably and politely. People from every point of view are guilty of vilifacation and general nastiness. We are all humans after all and unfortuantely humans are very quick to fall into that.
One of the reasons I do not trust AiG as a source is the fact they reference from such as small circle of the available evidence. An article here or there, an out of date book, a fringe publication. The evidence for evolution is consistent across the breadth of scientific disciplines and can be confirmed using various methods. I see no such rigor in creationist writings.
A few points on what you raised earlier (I thought I had posted this but doesn’t seem to have turned up, apologies if you’re getting it twice.) Rocky Mountains , addressed and accounted for. Lake Eyre, salt can be leached out by rainwater, runoff etc there could be any amount of it at any time. Stursey, still checking up on that but it would not appear to be created of strata of different types of material and therefore not overly relevant.
I think you’re right we should probably shut up shop now, we are just going to turn in circles. But I’m sure you know what it is like to be passionate about the issue. ;-)
Sorry, Rob!
What is evolution? A racehorse? Everyone seems so excited.
Amanda, you need not be too concerned. Creationism as an alternative to Evolutionary Theory has not penetrated the scientific concensus on the issue. And it can’t really.
Remember, the attempted invalidation of Evolutionary Theory (which is good) is very different to the validation of Creationism – at least in scientific terms. People can very well do the former, but it is disingenuous to do the latter (since it cannot be tested).
So please continue (though this thread is getting a little long. We might break the record for Rob). Although, I feel that I cannot do the evidence supporting evolution justice so I will not wade into. You have my support Amanda (just don’t have an anurism), and TheWaya, you have my respect.
But I will say this. By all means challenge the mainstream discourse on evolution (that’s great), but do not in doing so, push a contrary argument which is unscientific and can never be tested. Then you will really start a shit fight.
Can I just say from the most ring wing christian in the blogosphere that creationism has NO biblical basis.
Genesis 1 is about WHY and for WHOM the Earth was created.
God did not go into detail on how he created the Earth. It is not important.
Darwin’s book got support from major writers of the Fundamentals papers from which the word fundamentalist came from.
They saw no contradiction between what Darwin stated and the bible.
My own point of view is that people who support evolution frequently ignore the problems in its base however it is a nice theory.
I don’t really want to get into a discussion about creation vs evolution, as I have found most of those internet debates just going in circles really. if anyone wants to email me about it I’d love to talk privately.
one more note to Homer, God most certainly did go into detail about how he created the Earth in Genesis. Just because you choose not to believe it doesn’t make it not true. There is no reason to interpret Genesis 1 as anything apart from literal history. Why take it any other way if there is no evidence for any other explanation? i think the biggest thing that would rock my faith in the literal history of Genesis would be proof of an old earth. If the earth isn’t really 6000 years old then Genesis can’t be literal history. Of course if the Genesis isn’t literal then that opens a whole other bag of worms. For instance, evolution requires death to create new forms of life. The Bible tells us that death came about because of sin. Yet sin didn’t enter the world until after humankind was created and chose to sin. But evolution has death before humans.
whether or not Darwin got support from the major writers of the Fundamentals is incidental to whether or not he was right. Some parts of the Church has and in some cases still does support unbiblical teaching.
JC: in regards to whether or not evolution can be tested. even if there is evidence of ‘modern day’ evolution (which I have yet to see), this doesn’t validate the theory that all life on earth has a single ancestor. Evolution as the beginning of all life is unscientific and can’t be tested. Creationism can be tested as if there is evidence that shows Genesis to be incorrected then Genesis must be incorrect.
lastly, can someone explain to me according to evolution where it all began. how did the first group of cells occur? If I take as given that there was a big bang, the earth kinda comes together, its hot and there’s liquid or something. from all that rock, water and whatnot, how did the first cells form? via email is fine ju_rike@hotmail.com .
Slack Bastard and Creationists
I know I haven’t posted much recently this is because I am a slack bastard. The blogging community will think even less of me for my next trick, pasting someone else’s comment as a post on my site. I don’t…
I’d like to know where the various non-Biblical creation stories fit into all this. Who are we to categorically say that the creation myths of Hindus, Buddhists, Aborigines, etc., are all false, without having considered all the evidence, pro or con?
For example, the Haida people of North America’s northern Pacific coast believe that the universe was created by a Raven, and that all humans are descended from a man who was released from a giant clamshell. (Which has interesting similarities fo the $cientologist creation myth, but I digress.)
Both the Haida myth and the Biblical creation story were created by primitive, pre-scientific cultures. So how can anyone say that one is objectively true and the other is demonstrably false?
well I’d have to know more about each creation story but I think the key is if there is evidence that contradicts them. It is very probable that other cultures have creation stories that are very close to the truth. Of course they also lack some important details.
I can say the Biblical creation story is objectively true because the evidence supports it.
However, if the only evidence you can offer for the Biblical creation story is the Bible itself, then you’re reduced to a circular argument:
“Non-Biblical creation stories are false, because they’re non-Biblical. Therefore, they’re false.” Etc.
What other physical, tangible evidence is there for the supposition that God created the entire universe and then (except for a brief interlude 2,000 years ago) failed to manifest Himself in any other way? I suppose it all boils down to whether you believe the Bible is literally the Word of God, or not. I happen to believe that the Bible was written by superstitious human beings who — to paraphrase the song “Dear God” by XTC — created God, not the other way around.
You are, of course, entitled to your faith. But just because the scientific theory of creation and evolution does not have *all* the answers, doesn’t mean it therefore has *none* of the answers. If you compare how far our scientific understanding of the universe has progressed in, say, the last 150 years, and project the same rate of scientific discovery into the future, it’s quite possible that 150 years from now we *will* have all the answers.
Or, who knows? Maybe we’ll invent a special telescope that will be able to see into Heaven, where God lives. And a communication system that will allow us to communicate with Him. If that happens, I will of course adjust my beliefs to fit to the scientific evidence — rather than the other way round, which is, if you’ll excuse my saying so, the modus operandi of creationists.
vaara: sorry for the miscommunication, when I said evidence I wasn’t only referring to biblical history, I meant observable facts. For instance, if a creation story said that there was a global fire which encircled the earth for years, you’d expect to be able to find some sort of evidence of this. with biblical creation places like AiG have lots of info on how the evidence all around us fits in.
i 100% agree that our understanding of the universe has progressed at an astounding rate and that in the future it will as well. Some of my creationist buddies even expect humans to realise the reality of the evidence against old-earth and evolution, and to move on to something else.
In regards to a communication system to contact God, there is a great one called prayer. The line is never busy, its a free call and calls are never dropped. Lots of things can interfere with the reception however. Takes some effort to find a quiet time to ‘tune in’. :)
And should I add, God’s a damn good listener?
The only problem with prayer is that it operates on a one-way basis. For every “answered prayer” there are thousands, if not millions, of unanswered ones. Otherwise there would be no disease, no war, no poverty, etc.
Imagine if the Internet operated along similar principles… i.e. if all our emails and forum postings and blog comments instantly went to a mute yet omniscient deity the instant we clicked “Send” — with a 99.999% certainty that our passionate, carefully crafted messages would be ignored.
Heck, I’ve never prayed in my life, yet I’ve been damned fortunate. More so than many people who pray constantly, I shouldn’t wonder. If God really hates me because I’m an atheist, He hasn’t done a very good job of showing it! :)
now we really are going off topic! :)
i think that the confusion abour prayer arises because people seem to think that answered prayer = get what you want. It doesn’t work that way. If it did that would basically make us all gods. Our requests are never ignored, God hears them all and answers them all. Often not in our timing, often not the way we want them to be, but they are answered. Prayer is about creating a relationship with our creator not about getting what we want from a psuedo-Santa Claus.
by the way, God most definetly doesn’t hate atheists. Perhaps all your “good fortune” is His way of trying to show you that someone “up there” is looking out for you. People who pray constantly often aren’t, and really shouldn’t be, in it for good stuff. I know its a cliche, but God does work in mysterious ways. :)
sorry Mr Corr, if this is too wildly off-topic. :)
Oh crap. Here we go. Let the shit-throwing begin.
even if there is evidence of ‘modern day’ evolution (which I have yet to see), this doesn’t validate the theory that all life on earth has a single ancestor
No, in so much as any theory can be validated by a finite sample of evidence. That’s what I was referring to when discussing what makes a “fact”. I’ve already gone through this (and am not gonna do it again). But Evolutionary Theory can be invalidated. Find me a piece that doesn’t fit and Science will have to answer it.
Creationism on the other hand cannot be invalidated. Unless, you would like to show us how.
“Evolution as the beginning of all life is unscientific and can’t be tested.”
It is a chemical process involving the supposed combination of complex amino acids into simple RNA strands, therefore it can. If scientists can produce a detailed process from amino acid to bacteria, then test away dude.
As a high-school student in an average Australian school, I can only imagine what kind of chaos the implementation of creation as an alternative to evolution would create.
Firstly, my school is a secular school. Religious theories have a place in religion classes and possibly philosophy, but have no place in other classes because they rely on the assumption that there is a god. In a secular school we are taught theories and facts that are valid whether god exists or not; this way, they are useful to all students.
Creationist theory in the ‘young-earth’ sense also relies on the fact that carbon dating is completely flawed, fossils throughout history have been created to ‘test faith’, and that the timeline of history as we know it is completely wrong. Secular schools teach that all of these assertions are incorrect, as there is overwhelming empirical evidence to disprove them: science classes explain the carbon dating method and the creation of fossils, history classes teach us a timeline based on evolution. If the 6,000 year earth theory is stated with equal weight as the evolutionary theory, then our teachers are going to have to spend a reeaallly long time explaining how it’s equally valid that people sprung up and 500 years later were building pyramids and all that stuff you were taught about the stone-age and ancient Mexican and Sumerian cities is equally likely to be wrong because it’s also a valid assertion that the world didn’t exist then… Our lessons would be contradictory, and certainly a lot less enjoyable.
Simply put, I attend a secular school because I am happy being taught facts that do not rely on the existence or non-existence of god to be valid. If I want to learn about Creationism, I can easily attend Sunday School, borrow a book from the library, log onto the internet, or simply pick up the bible. Believe me, it isn’t that hard.
What I think it all comes down to is the desire for religion to gain air-time in the minds of the youth. Creationist think evolutionary theory is ludicrous and ignores god, and can’t stand the fact that much of the youth is being taught evolution without any mention of the ‘right story’ or the ‘alternative’. If I were a creationist, I’d believe kids should be taught what was right (creation). I’m an evolutionist, so I believe kids should be taught what is right (evolution). The simple fact is that theories that rely on the existence of god to be valid should not be taught in non-religious schools, and that is why creation has no place anywhere other than religion studies. I’d hope that even those who believed in creationism would agree with the right of secular schools to remain secular.
Excuse the long post but as a student I can’t help but be passionate :-).
Natasha: I 100% agree with the right of secular schools to ‘remain secular’, I think it would be foolish to force them to teach creationism. In regards to carbon dating, there are some serious issues with the assumptions underlying this technique if you’d like to discuss them further please email me (ju_rike@hotmail.com). Another point is that creationists definetly do not believe fossils were place to ‘test our faith’. There have in fact been many instances of rapid fossil formation, and a global catastrophic flood could have created the exact fossils we currently see.
JC: Evolution as the basis of life needs to show how those ‘amino acids’ turned into bacteria, please provide a link or explanation that makes this point.
I’m not sure what this means, so have scientists shown how this occurs? I haven’t read anything of this nature. Especially in regards to from “big bang earth” to life. Biblical creationism can be easily invalidated, proof of an old earth, proof of increasing information in the genome, etc.
Thewaya — I’m aware of the inaccuracies of Carbon Dating, however these inaccuracies only prevent exact dating, and can still give us a general idea of the age of something.
Having done a bit of research, I understand creationists generally believe that fossils were created during the flood (and not to test faith). If this were true, there would be all kinds of creatures scattered through-out the strata; however, different levels tend to contain different sets of creatures. How do creationists explain the non-random distribution of fossils?
I’m glad you agree that religious theory should not be present in secular schools. However, this is what the leader of the Family First party is arguing for, and the reason we’re all so worked up. I’d imagine religious people reacting in the same way if politicians were calling for theories attempting to disprove the existence god or theories attempting to disprove creationism to be taught alongside Bible Analysis in a religious school. It’s not fair, and it doesn’t make sense.
Some replies and responses;
Graham; Like I said I’m not about trying to convince ppl creationism is true as this misses the point, as regardless of whether it is or isn’t ppl should have the right to equally be informed on all religions and based on this choose their own beliefs, and be able to live them out and discuss them without being slagged, whatever these beliefs are. I.e. rather than being about what set of beliefs is true, the debate should be about the rights of all to their own beliefs, equal rights.
Waya; what I’m suggesting is much like I had in yr 7 where we learned Chinese and French and then chose which language to go on and study, or like in VCE where you can choose different History subjects to study-i.e. Australian or 20th century history. I’m suggesting that like in my language classes, at an age where students can understand the material and are ready to make decisions based on it(whatever they are), say yr 7, that they are taught evolutionary theory for one semester of the year, and creationist theory for the other half of the year (and any other world views could be included so long as the time given to teaching each view remained equal) and then let the students make up their mind which they want to go on and study in further detail. This goes back to what u were saying JC, yes creation and evolutionary theory can’t be taught in the same class, but the principle still stays that for the sake of rights ppl should have the right to choose whatever world view they want, and this includes being equally informed of all potential choices without bias so their decision is not in any way influenced. Hence u teach 1 each semester separately and let the student decide what they go on with.
Amanda; ur comments on creationism teaching being a short class of; ‘OK. God did it. Class dismissed.’ Not only show laziness and total ignorance of creation theory but absolute bias. I reckon even staunch evolutionists would be angry with it as showing such bias sends the credibility of your assertions on the subject right down, and taints the credibility of evolutionary theory with it. Firstly you could think and write a little harder. Secondly even anyone who’s never opened a bible knows that creationary theory is based on it, and hence they know it is based on more than ‘God did it.’ If you were saying you didn’t believe in creation or that the things it is based on are crap, that would be one thing, and probably fine, but to say it is based on nothing when it obviously isn’t is lazy and most critically shows your bias against creationism, which is critical as this topic should be analysed from a point of view that removes all people’s personal biases, to ensure it is as productive as can be, rather than encouraging such biases to the detriment of any conclusions formed on the subject matter.
Secondly, Amanda it’s not about ‘whoever has the best arguments winning.’ Why? Firstly as arguments and their quality are subjective and will be assessed differently by one person from the next, so a great argument gives no guarantee that that argument is based on fact, or that people will support it, and I would have thought ‘winning’ an argument means gaining general support for it. Also to say it’s about ‘winning’ is absolute and ignores that regardless of who ‘wins’ ppl still will, and have the right to, believe in whatever(regardless of what that is) they want. The ‘religious dogma’ argument is ridiculous as even if religion is dogma it doesn’t lessen the right of people to believe it, after all, even if creationary theory were proven to be untrue, this carries little relevance as beliefs are personal subjective decisions, and there will always be people who will believe things other than what facts indicate. Your comments indicate that you have little respect for the rights of people if they hold creationary beliefs, and therefore you do not respect the right of people to believe different to what you see as factually appropriate. You’re entitled to your opinion but regardless of it, or the facts, people have the right to believe whatever they want without having their beliefs slandered as ‘dogma’ by those who are entirely biased against their beliefs, and their beliefs alone.
Re your saying there is no evidence that the world is 6000 years old, then what evidence is there that it isn’t. And naming the people at Answers In Genesis ‘clowns’ is pathetic given you cannot possibly know such people personally enough to be able to make such an assertion. And as I’ve said before, such comments indicating vicious anti creationism bias do nothing for the credibility of your arguments. This isn’t a personal thing, I’m simply saying while you demonstrate it, regardless of whether your points are right or not, few people are likely to respect them or take them seriously.
Again, re ‘no creationist I have ever met being able to do so in a scientifically valid way’, you show your bias again. But most critically, what is scientifically valid? Again that’s a subjective issue as each person’s standard of scientifically valid is different. And given your previously demonstrated bias, how can you expect your view of ’scientifically valid’ to be even remotely near fact, and anyone to take it as so. And as I’ve said before, regardless, there is little relevance as the issue is rights, and such things, even if they were fact and downgraded creationism, do not remove the right of people to be informed about it, make their own decisions as to what they think about it, without your obvious biased influence. In this respect I second what Nic has said about your attitudes.
Facts are absolute; therefore anyone who makes up their mind solely on them cannot be open-minded. Being open minded doesn’t mean accepting every point of view as equally valid yes, but it means accepting the right of all people to have any view, even if it is different to yours, seen to be contrary to the facts and not valid, all of which you fail to do. And re AIG ‘keep being referenced the facts to fit their theory and not the other way around’ what do you think you are doing? Given your freely demonstrated bias and shown need to prove only your view is correct (the actions of an absolutist, not an open minded person) I think I and anyone else here is entitled to question whether you are altering information to suit your case. Some of us would like to remain middle ground, remove our views and bias from the debate, and simply accept that all people have rights to equal information on all religions, and to choose as they see fit, and live according to their beliefs without discrimination because of them. Unfortunately you don’t.
Again re pseudoscience, the definition of what is and isn’t is subjective, so it’s worth here is limited, and given your bias I think people who aren’t biased are likely to take your definition of creationism with a grain of salt. Again re ‘quality’ education and science, again subjectiveness, so again given your bias, of course your statements will say creationism has no quality. And again, the relevance is little as it affects neither rights nor the need for equality.
JC; I think your views, or should I say threats, probably put your credibility on the issue even below Amanda’s, which is sincerely disappointing. Like waya said vilification is no appropriate way to handle the issue. And yes creation theory can never be tested, but that’s the point, it’s not about facts, it’s a belief, like evolution, and all other world views. And they therefore do not need to be provable for people to have the right to be informed about all religions, and choose as they see fit, and you need to respect that.
I agree with you varra, you’ve hit the nail on the head; no one can say with surety that their belief is true and another person’s is false. Not only does this indicate self serving bias, but regardless of whether beliefs are true or false does not lessen the right of people to believe in them. I in my comments haven’t excluded all world beliefs, I’ve just dealt with creation and evolution as no one has yet brought up other beliefs. But at the end of the day like I’ve said the principle is rights and choice, and people (particularly children, who are vulnerable to the influence of others and tend to make decisions based on what they know, which comes from what they are taught) should be equally informed of all world views and left to make up their own mind as to what they want to believe. Like you said, people are entitled to their faith, I have no problem with those professing and practicing beliefs different to my own, I only have problems with people such as Amanda who believe that because of what they believe, no one is allowed to have different beliefs, and that no other beliefs other than what they subscribe to are valid, or that people could have the right to adopt them.
Natasha; re religious theories having no place in classes other than philosophy and religion classes, you’ve entirely missed the point. The point is that we as adults should not by trying to ‘push our own barrows’ influence the decisions of younger kids on world views. Hence where religious beliefs are taught is irrelevant, what is critical is that one world belief is taught others are taught equally as well, given that schools are the main source of learning for children on these types of subjects, and have a major impression on the views they adopt. Hence all I want to see is schools where creation, evolution and other world views are taught, and therefore children are equally informed without bias, and left to make their own decisions on these subjects. As far as I’m concerned given the importance of the subject and of the principle of the right of people to be equally informed and choose their own beliefs, if this takes a long time, so be it, so long as equal time and weighting is given to all world views discussed.
I think your whole discussion about ‘religious’ and ’secular’ schools is missing the point and unnecessarily divisive. It misses the point as in ‘religious’ schools there will always be people who believe in evolution, and in ’secular’ schools there will always be people who believe in creation, and in both cases there will be people who believe in a myriad of other world views. Hence we cannot define schools as ’secular’ or ‘religious’ and we are being discriminatory to say that the right of people to be informed on all world views depends on whether they go to a ’secular’ or ‘religious’ school. Now I know you will say ‘religious’ people should be able to choose to go to ‘religious’ schools and those who believe in evolution should be able to choose to go to ’secular’ schools but this misses one critical point. That being it is the future decisions of world views of kids that is on the table, yet they do not choose what school they go to. So obviously if parents, for whatever reason send their kids to a ’secular’ school and if this type of school only teaches evolutionary theory, then of course they are far more likely to believe in evolution than anything else. And I still think it’s wrong if the roles are reversed and kids in a school are only taught creation theory. In both cases their parents, and we as the wider community, have applied bias according to our own views and inappropriately influenced the decisions of children growing up on what they want to believe. Schools should not be ’secular’ and ‘religious’ schools, they should be schools, where education is taught, and this education covers all viewpoints on a subject not one. Put it this way would you say a history class was giving a true representation of history or showing inappropriate bias if it only discussed Asian History, or Nazi Germany, or the Cold War, and no other parts of history. Because like it or not segregating schools to teach only one world view, regardless of what that view is, is as biased, discriminatory and wrong as that. I don’t think what you believe is the key point; it’s regardless of what you believe that you believe in the right of people to choose their own world views without bias or influence, and not be discriminated against for their choices.
Religion should be inclusive. We need to accept that the right to freedom of religion, like rights to free speech etc, is a basic tenet of a free society, and the only other option is to slide down a path to living in military (i.e. Pakistan etc) or religious (i.e. Taliban rule in Afghanistan) dictatorships, both types of oppression which I’d think most people would prefer not to live under. However this right to freedom of religion is in name only if we bias the choices of impressionable kids to the point where many world views are excluded from their decision making. Statements such as yours are divisive and start the whole ‘creation vs. evolution’ debate that’s going on here. I think such a debate misses the point, as regardless of what you believe, you should believe education should teach a broad span of material on a subject, not a narrow minded bias pushing view. But most of all you should believe in the right of people to hold their own world view without discrimination, and as a part of this, the right of them to be informed of all world views, and not be discriminated against, either by labeled ’secular’ or ‘religious’, or by having pressure or criticism or their decisions influenced. We all have equal rights, and all need to learn that even if we do not believe in world views different to our own, we have to, for the sake of appropriateness, equality and a free society, believe in the right of people to be informed about, believe and speak of, world views different to our own.
Sorry for the long post but there’s so much to cover in this issue…
Creationism is a world view of *religious people*, and it’s simply unnacceptable for ‘world views’ that rely on the existence of god to be taught in secular schools. If someone is interested in Creationism, there are an infinite amount of sources from which to get informed *outside the classroom*. It seems evident that Creationists are simply angry about missing out on the chance for more converts to their primitive and medieval world-view, at the expense of students everywhere. Creationist theory does not help you get into uni. Creationist theory doesn’t serve a purpose in any profession outside the church. Students should not be indoctrinated into any kind of religious world view in secular schools, and whether you like it or not, Australia *does* have this division, it’s called Seperation of Church and State.
If you have such a problem with this, Wombat, send your own kids to a religious school or undermine their evolution classes at a public or independent school but don’t presume you and your religion know what’s best for everyone else.
Interesting to read this discussion after being offline for a couple of days.
Firstly, Wombat, you rock. If you have a blog Ill read it.
Just one thing, Natasha your most recent reply has shown what I can only interpret the ignorance of your age (really sorry to say this because I hated it when people said it to me). You are seeing the whole thing very simplistically,
“It seems evident that Creationists are simply angry about missing out on the chance for more converts to their primitive and medieval world-view, at the expense of students everywhere.”
As you can see from the discussion here, thats not our motives. It may be the motives for some, but not for those who have posted here. Saying that creationism is a “primitive and medieval world-view” is really just your opinion, and you dont seem to have any respect for anyone who doesnt agree with you. Youre just going to offend someone and destroy your credibility.
As for “Creationist theory does not help you get into uni. Creationist theory doesn’t serve a purpose in any profession outside the church. ” your statement is simply wrong. You may not have come to realise it yet, but school is NOT just a device for getting into university. Equally imporant are the life skills you gain from it, in fact Id go as far to say they are MORE important. So saying that something is useless because it wont get you any closer to the holy grail that is university entry (note: sarcasm) just doesnt hold water. School teaches you to think, to question, to make up your own minds on things and to lay the foundations for the rest of your life. Whether you get a university place out of it or not, you should be much better for it, if you take advantage of it. Saying that because something doesnt help you professionally it shouldnt be taught in schools cant help but display your ignorance. Once you are out of high school you may understand this.
i’m sorry but apart from a dubious come very poor intrepretation of Genesis 1 whee is your evidence?
My reply to the Darwinists is there appears to be more factions within that theory than there is in the Anglican denomination!
School teaches you to think and question? That’s hilarious.
Anyway, when did a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible teach someone to think and question?
Homer: i’d like to know why you think the creationist interpretation of Gen 1 is dubious. also, if you check out sites like AiG and truthorigins there is quite a bit of evidence out there for it.
Torre: it may seem strange to outsiders but yes us fundamentalists most definetly encourage open and frank discussion out biblical interpretation.We are called to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”. Fundamentalism means measuring up what everyone else says against what God says, which means questioning everyone elses interpretation of what God says to make sure it is right.
I don’t know what school you went to, but mine, Oxley College, sure did encourage my questioning nature.
The bible is literal truth, correct? Indisputable fact. So you question what other people say by measuring it with a rock solid indisputable yard stick and say if they’ve got it right or not. This encourages you to think and question? Or maybe just question other people, find out their view and then tell ‘em if it fits with the good book or not. There’s a slight difference.
Mount Lawley SHS, for the record. A couple of the teachers encouraged folks to think for themselves. The rest encouraged them to shut the hell up.
Natasha; Without criticizing any ignorance of age that may exist (I’d be a hypocrite as that was me in high school) I must say your views on the subject are narrow-minded and ignore the majority of what I’ve been saying. Creationism is a ‘religious’ world view but this doesn’t mean the teaching of it in schools in unacceptable. That’s as wrong as me saying evolution is unacceptable to be taught as it relies on a ‘big bang’ or Hinduism as it relies on a caste system etc. I wouldn’t say any of these things as all would be wrong, why? As it is wrong to discriminate against a religion because we do not believe in it or understand it, and your singling out of creationism in this case, and not any other religions, shows your bias on the subject. I as an adult accept that there are a myriad of world views, and even the ones that I do not understand or think are a crock, does not lessen the right of others to believe in them, and does not give me the right to treat them as invalid. What you are doing is being narrow minded by thinking your world view is the only appropriate one and excluding the right of others to believe in other views. And before you say ‘I never said that’ the facts are if you exclude the right of people to be equally informed of all world views, then you are biasing their decisions to the point where they are virtually excluded from believing in many world views. You need to respect that regardless of your personal views, people have the right to be equally informed of, and make choices regarding all world views, and not be slandered or discriminated against. In this sense it shows you are narrow minded as there are a myriad of world views, not just ‘religious’ ones. I have not ‘pushed’ a ‘religious’ barrow, I have simply said that young people deserve to be educated of all world views, religious or not, so they can choose their own world view without having this biased by the actions and personal beliefs of others.
In this sense whether creationism is a ‘primitive’ or ‘medieval’ world view is irrelevant. I could criticize all world views in particular areas, but this would not lessen the right of people to be equally informed about and believe in any of them, regardless of what these world views are. And by saying ‘creationists are angry for about missing out on the chance for more converts’ you show you’ve either read little of, or understood little of, what I have wrote. I have not called for the teaching of creationism exclusively or over any other world view. This would be exclusive, I have called for inclusiveness, for the equal teaching of all world views in schools, sufficiently informing students to be able to choose which they study further. This includes other world views besides creationism, so your criticisms of creationism ignore that this issue is about rights as much as it is about world views.
‘Students should not be indoctrinated into any kind of religious world view’ again shows your bias, you really should research some world views and see how few are religious as then you’d see how irrelevant such a biased view and comment is. But since you brought it up, what’s the fastest way to indoctrinate someone into believing in any world view? Teach that world view exclusively (alone without others) so that the student will be biased into believing that world view over all others. Hence I have called for the equal teaching of all world views, and then let the student make up their mind regarding which they want to study further. This inclusive policy is the exact opposite of indoctrination, and is in fact the best safeguard against ensuring one sided teaching of world views (teaching one world view only) doesn’t ‘indoctrinate’ people into believing in a particular world view. It’s about arming people with enough information about all world views to equip them to decide for themselves which they want to believe in. And again as I’ve said the whole thing of ’secular’ and ‘religious’ schools is irrelevant. Why? because secular schools will always have people who believe contrary to secular views, and religious schools will always have people who do not believe in creationist views, so you cannot ‘box’ people’s world views according to the type of school that they attend. Furthermore, regardless of whether a person attends a ’secular’ or ‘religious’ school they should have the same rights to equal information of, and choice of, all world views, as people in all other types of schools. Young people should not be more or less informed depending on what type of school they go to, their rights to be informed should be equal regardless of what type of school they go to. Besides which is we start ‘boxing’ schools in this manner all we will have is ’secular’ schools indoctrinating students into believing in evolution, and ‘religious’ schools indoctrinating people into believing in creationism, and all other world views not even getting a hearing. We want to ensure that all schools teach all world views in an equal manner, and then the chances of indoctrination anywhere will be severely reduced.
I don’t presume ‘my religion’ know what’s best for me or anyone else. I have removed my personal views from this debate and simply said that all students should be informed of all world views so their choice of which they follow is unbiased. It is you who is letting your personal views guide what you say here, by ignoring the validity of any other world view besides your own, or the right of people to be equally informed about, and to believe in it. I have proposed an inclusive policy that accepts these rights of people across all world views; it is you who seems to be acting exclusively and in an absolutist manner, not me. And for me to send my kids to a ‘religious’ school because of my own beliefs would be wrong. This is as much indoctrination as the kind you decry, and again if a parent of a particular world view (that could be any world view) sent their child to a type of school that only teaches this world view they believe in, they would be unfairly biasing their children’s decision of their own personal world views. Hence I want to be able to send my kids to a school that teaches all world views in equal amounts so regardless of my personal bias they are informed to believe what they want without the personal views of me or anyone else influencing the world view they decide to adopt. Such a policy is a safeguard against parental bias affecting decisions of young people that should be theirs and theirs alone. What, do we want a society where people simply believe what their parents did because their parents ensured this is all they were taught? Surely this cannot be healthy. This goes back to the rights of the person being educated being paramount, as with the tenet of the right to freedom of religion in a free society. Unless the person being educated is informed of all world views so their choice of world view is not biased or unduly influenced, then this tenet ceases to exist and society slides down a slippery slope to no longer being truly free. We need to accept that people have the right to believe in any world view they want, and therefore have the right to be educated of all potential world views when making this decision. Nothing you have said has even addressed these rights, let alone come close to making a case that they are invalid and should be ignored.
Homer I’m not sure if you’re referring to my evidence. As I keep restating, it is the rights of all people to be equally informed of all world views when choosing which they adopt.
Torre; I covered this responding to Natasha, but the point is not any creationist teaching, fundamentalist or otherwise, it is the teaching of one world view only, regardless of what that world view is, as only this indoctrinates people and teaches them not to think or question. Equally teaching all world views and letting the student then choose which they study further, as I have proposed, does not bias a student towards believing in creationism or any other world view. It equally informs them of all world views and in doing so ensures their choice of world view isn’t biased. And what, you think school doesn’t teach you to think and question? Regardless of whether you think it does or doesn’t, it should. Why as since it forms so many years of people’s early development and teaches them learned behaviour, if it doesn’t teach them to think or question, then by the time they leave school they will have been dissuaded from thinking about or questioning any issue. Teaching students of all world views gives them a significant breadth of material to analyze and compare, and hence helps them to think and question all world views. Whether the bible isn’t literal truth or not isn’t relevant, as I’ve said time and time again, whether any world views are true or not does not lessen the right of anyone to believe in them, or increase our right to influence which we are taught, and therefore what they believe. Besides which what I’ve proposed teaches all world views rather than an absolute teaching that portrays any as absolute truth.
I think most people here have missed that I have been discussing these rights. Never have I talked of any exclusive teaching of ‘religious’ or ‘creationist’ values as some (i.e. Natasha, Torre) seem to suggest. Rather I propose an inclusive policy equally teaching all world views and letting the student decide which they want to go on and study, without biasing this decision. Most people have not even addressed the issue of these rights. I’d like to hear them do so, and if anyone would like to present an argument for why people don’t have the right to freedom of beliefs, and to be equally informed of all world views and not have their choice of world view biased, or to not be criticized or discriminated against as a result of their choice of world view (regardless of what that world view is) then I’d like to hear it.
P.S. Nick-I don’t have a blog but may create one in the future, it’s always possible.
P.S.S. Sorry for the long post-this is certainly a very complex topic so takes a long post to discuss it.
wel I believe the bible is the literal truth and I don’t believe in creationism.
However there are holes in evolution and as I said previously there are a terrible lot of factions amongst the Neo-Darwinist who ironically enough are as religious people as I have met!
You don’t have to believe in creationism, as I’ve said time and time again our personal views in this discussion are irrelevant and should be kept out of it. I would hope that in removing such biases that we would all, regardless of our world view, see that a basic tenet of a free society is freedom of religion, or not religion for that matter, and hence that we would see it is appropriate for young people to learn of all world views, because they have the right to be appropriately informed when choosing their world view, and not to have that choice unfairly biased towards any world view by an education system that teaches only one world view, or by the personal views of their parents, teachers or other people, and that they also have the right to choose a world view that they believe in without being slandered or discriminated against for it.
I would hope that in a free society, regardless of our world views, we respect these rights and see the need for them to be protected, particularly in the education system, where the rights of the young in society, given the duty of care of teachers and the education system as a whole -ie to equip a student to make their own decisions, not influence them by only presenting one view(hint Amanda the teaching of one world view will ‘indoctrinate’ people, not the teaching of many as I have proposed), is paramount.
OK Wombat I was gonna just let it go but … I have never said (nor would I, because I don’t believe it) that one “world view” should be taught only. Of course children — and everyone else for that matter — should be exposed to a plurality of beliefs and opinions. I have never said otherwise. I have no idea where you get that interpretation from anything I have said. I have no objection to a parent teaching their children whatever they want, or a church preaching whatever they want. What individuals chose to believe about the origins of the universe or any other issue is no business of mine.
However. The issue here is about teaching creationism in school science classes and that is my business. As it should the education of our children be the business of every citizen. Six Day/>10,000 year creationism does not pass the test as good science. A simple google search will bring up the evidence I base this on (also the case against it.) I am opposed, very much and don’t apologise for it, to it being given equal weight as a scientific theory as that of evolution. I don’t believe it is simply a matter of “opposing world views,” creationism is a religious doctrine and not science. I do not want to start that debate up again I am only trying to simply express where I am coming from. [strong] Please disagree,[/strong] I wouldn’t dream of stopping you but don’t expect “the opposition” to softpeddle either. These are my principles and, well, to quote a famous creationist, I can do no other. The cut and thrust of Internet debate can lead to intemperate remarks and others which could have been better expressed on all sides. This immediacy is a blessing and a curse, I guess. I use my real name and my personal email address is linked to every comment and I am perfectly happy to be responsible for everything I have ever said in a public forum like this.
Eeh. Stupid mark ups. I clearly haven’t evolved the ability to tell the diff between < and [.
Regardless if I think it does or doesn’t teach people to think and questions school should? Damn right it should. That was never in dispute.
Well, I have nothing more to say than to urge every person who reads this to go out and read the November 2004 issue (ie. the current issue) of National Geographic.
TheWaya and Nic White will love the cover page. It reads – “Was Darwin Wrong?” Well, I’m about to find out. I am going out to get my copy now.
Nat Geographic
AiG response.
Torre: you’ve got in 100% correct. :) The Bible contains the facts, full stop. It provides a yard stick to measure everything else by. It’s like if we were talking about whether it rained yesterday, sure free-thinking is encouraged in discussing it but ultimately the truth is it either did or didn’t. I’m really bad at analogies so that might have made no sense. What I’m trying to say is having an ultimate truth source doesn’t prevent free thought and discussion. The Bible encourages to people to test what they believe to make sure it is right. I’m not sure I understand how the Bible as a factual reference impinges on my freethinking…sorry to hear about those teachers, perhaps if we’d pay them more we’d get a better deal! :)
Homer: I’d love to e-mail you (or you e-mail me) to discuss why Gen 1 isn’t literal. If you have time/inclination my address is devonwhittle@gmail.com I definetly agree some evolutionists are more ‘religious’ then anyone else I know of!
Actually, I did HSC Bio and there is a section in the syllabus about creationism. There’s also about two paras in the standard textbook we used (I did HSC in 1999). I fact I remember an in class exam question about creationism like ‘what other theories other than evolution are there’. My sister is doing HSC Bio right now and her text is the same.
So storm in a tea cup.
Wombat, in your obsessive crusade to give all opinions (however wacky they may be) equal weight, you’ve demonstrated to everyone your considerable ignorance regarding what are commonly thought of as elementary human rights. We all have a right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, without persecution, yes. This does not equate, however, to a right to force government-funded schools to teach our own half-baked theories on any given subject. We have a right to education, yes. School should provide a foundation for self-education. Teach the kids to read and write by all means. Encourage curiousity. But let them take command of their own Bible Studies.
We all retain the right to publish whatever we like, and people retain the right to believe our thoughts if they choose to do so. Offering that choice in government schools, however, is plainly ridiculous and an assault on common sense. What makes it “common” sense? The fact that evolution is accepted as fact by a vast majority of us. This is a democracy, after all.
Honestly, people like you and Nic — so desperate to be politically correct and all-inclusive in everything you say and do — are striving for nothing more than a permanent state of confusion in the world as everybody is taught to believe that there is no such thing as insanity. That regulation is unethical in any way imaginable because some people don’t like it. That not only is there no such thing as black and white, but we’ve done away with shades of grey as well. It’s all the same. Nothing is better than anything else.
You are the poster boys of the weak (not open) minded.
Sorry guys. I lost interest in this discussion about 10 posts back. I just don’t have anything more of value to add.
On a lighter note – how far are we from the covetted “longest ever thread on Kick & Scream” prize?
JC: yeah me too. :) It’s funny on every website I visit, the minute evolution vs creation is discussed comment numbers seem to explode!
ps. Thou shall not covet. :P
You say you want an evolution
You may have seen this Gallup survey which shows what, to me anyway, is a surprisingly high number of Americans who give little credence to the theory of evolution: Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin’s theory…
i may be going over old ground but here’s a question for those who want creation taught: where is your evidence, you have a book proposeing the theory (same as the eveolutionists) but where are the phyiscal facts? and where in the bible does it explain things like fossils (my bet not one mention of fossils). if you want to teach creation then you need to come up with evidence that doesn’t involve the bible, you can use it as a base for your theory but not the proof.
and if we are going to teach creation why not lemark’s (i think that’s the spelling) theory which states that animals willed changes (the girafe will it’s neck longer so it could reach the upper branches). makes sense to me.
Amanda; Firstly, whether you stated any words against teaching a plurality of beliefs in schools or not is irrelevant, as it has been stated by people in this thread, so I am simply using my democratic right to challenge their views. Whether you are of this opinion or not is up to you.
Secondly, yes what people choose to believe should not be our business, I agree. So therefore, do you not agree that we shouldn’t influence what people choose to believe? Well unless we teach a plurality of world views in schools we are influencing this decision. This is why I propose we teach more than one world view in schools, not because of any beliefs I have, but because I believe children should be given information that they can dissect and make their own decision about what world view they adopt, not have bias and influence placed on them. Why is the teaching of creationism or any other world view your business? Sounds to me like you just want to make it so so you can impose your beliefs on impressionable young minds. Regardless, your bias shines through once again.
How does creationism not pass the test of good science? And even if it did, given your demonstrated bias against creationism, would anyone in their right mind believe such a statement when you make it? Creationism is not in itself part of science, but it is one of many world views, and world views are a part of science. World views refer to how people see the world, on issues primarily such as how it was created or came into being, how it exists etc. Creationism clearly is a potential view on this topic, and such should be taught within it. If we were talking about rat dissection for example, it’s a fairly black and white topic without much debate as to the correctness of its information, then I would never support the teaching of many views. But world views is a subjective topic, and hence is any part of science that covers it. Why? As we are dealing with how the earth came into being a long time ago, so given that pass of time, many people are going to have different views on the subject. And even in spite of what appears in science to be absolute fact, people are always going to have different beliefs, as is their right. What we shouldn’t do is force feed them our biases, or bias them by force feeding them one world view. In such subjective topics, we should give people a range of information; in this case a range of potential world views, and let them make up their own mind. And if creationism or other world views (which you surprisingly ignore) were crocks, then students would see this. In fact it would give you many more evolutionists with absolutist doctrines on world views, so I don’t know why you’re complaining. The only reason could be that you may fear the teaching of other world views pushing people away from evolutionary beliefs. But this is what I mean; your personal beliefs here, as with mine, are irrelevant, and we should not let them influence the decisions of young people on world views. They have a right to be informed, so we inform them of all world views. It is the only true way to remove undue influence and bias from this process, and ensure people’s choice of world view isn’t biased. It’s as clear as that.
Torre; I have no idea what you are saying, that sentence made no sense, clarify and I’ll answer your question if you want.
Amanda; I support evolution being given equal teaching time as creationism in religious classes. I only happen to be discussing creationism as it seems to be this that people want removed from school teaching. If the boot was on the other foot and this was happening to the teaching of evolutionary theory, my response would be exactly the same. Because I believe the principle of equally informing people of all potential views on a subject in order to not bias their decision making based on it, applies regardless of what class is being taught. There is no proven fact that says evolution has more basis than any other world view, as none of us were there when the world started, so we cannot say beyond all reasonable doubt that creation or evolution or any other world view is correct (hence the need to present them all and let people make up their own minds) But regardless of whether we could, that does not justify removing the right of people to be equally informed of all potential world views. If the teaching of all world views is done properly, then no validity is given more to any one view than another. But of course is we do not teach all world views, then we are straight away giving more validity to one world view than others, which is the type of bias we should keep out of the teaching of world views.
Ian: For a start as I have said, we cannot know whether any world view is ‘half baked’ or not as we weren’t there when the world started. World views are not a black and white subject where everything must be proven. It’s about arming people with information of all the world views available and letting them choose what they believe. And we can’t judge if world views are credible or not as we will judge according to our personal views and biases. And again, what right to we have to remove the right of people to be equally informed of all world views? None. The only true foundation of self education is to inform kids of all the information available on a particular subject and let them view each as they see fit. This is what the teaching of all world views will do. And we are letting kids ‘take command’ as we are not biasing what world view they choose, and letting them make up their own minds. To not teach all views is for us to take command of teaching world views and impose our bias and influence on the choosing of world views by people, which is exactly what we shouldn’t do. Why is offering that choice in government schools wrong? Your use of ‘we’ and ‘publish whatever we like’ and ‘evolution is accepted as fact by a vast majority of us’ shows your view of this choice being wrong is only due to your personal views and bias. It is exactly because of this behaviour that we need to teach all world views in schools, to stop the undue influence of people’s personal bias on the choosing of world views by others. It’s strange that although most evolutionists think non evolutionists are ‘nuts’, people of other world views seem to be far more accepting of people believing what they choose to, but it is in fact evolutionists who want to limit teaching to their own beliefs only as they cant stand In any case such personal bias should not influence the teaching of world views, hence the need to teach more than one people believing different to them. And I think you’ll find many people believe in world views other than evolution, otherwise other world views wouldn’t exist.
Its not about anything being better than anyone else, its about recognizing world views are beliefs about the world, so they are subjective, and people have the right to believe what world view they want, and as such be equally informed of all world views, so they are equipped, without bias, to make their own decisions as to what they believe. Of course there is black and white, just not when it comes to world views, as these are beliefs about the world, and beliefs are subjective. Some people here need to remember that.
You don’t equip people to make informed decisions by giving them a whole bunch of theories and saying here: decide. You do it by giving students the abiltity to criticise, rationalise and be discerning. It is not biased or anti-pluralist to teach students that evolution has more basis in fact than any other “world view”. Otherwise we would be theaching “Stork Theory” in sex education classes.
Wombat: I can’t say I had the time to read all of your looong post, however I think I picked up the main points. Assigning your perception of my views as evidence of my age doesn’t add to this debate: my views on this matter are well considered and firm, and will stay with me until adulthood.
The creationist ‘world-view’ your speak of is a religious approach to the world, despite your attempts to transform it into a scientific theory. Religious world views, of any spirituality, have no place in a class where students conduct empirical research and study empirical facts. Religion is not, and will never be, a science. It is not empirical. It has absolutely no place in a science class.
When I spoke of Creation theory as primitive and medieval, I was discussing the theory in a scientific sense. Any religion is valid as a belief, a way to live, a way to find peace, but it cannot be confused with a science. I do not have a problem with religion. But I will not entertain the notion that belief should be taught as scientific fact in a place of learning. Evolution is not a belief, it is an empirical theory, it can be confirmed or denied by science, and it is the only theory that belongs in a science room. You’ve misunderstood my comment ‘Creation theory does not get you into uni,’ etc. – my contention was as above: creation theory is irrelevant to science and empirical learning.
I don’t think anything more needs to be said on the matter from me.
Or anyone else. Excellent post.
my views on this matter are well considered and firm, and will stay with me until adulthood.
Thats what they all (including me) say. Seriously.
The rest Ill let slide because this needs to end.
I thought I’d better make everyone sure, since you’d never guess from his condescending, holier-than-thou tone, that Nic only turned eighteen yesterday. Sorry, that’s not quite right, I at least had guessed it, before deciding I must have been mistaken, since he started talking about Natasha being too young to know anything and how she’ll change before adulthood (he knows from experience). Man, I can’t believe I was that frickin’ gullible.
Wombat, each of your posts is about a hundred times longer than it needs to be, if you filtered out all the repetition and mindlessness. We get your point, already: it’s all subjective, and anyone who thinks otherwise is biased and not concerning themselves with what’s best for humanity. If that’s honestly how you feel, well then, that’s great! Great.
It doesn’t change the fact that you’re a complete idiot who couldn’t run a farm (”Wait! What do the geese have to say about us milking the cows to satisfy our bias towards the humans and their affinity for cows’ milk?”), let alone a country. Don’t you dare come back at me with anything longer than 200 words this time, either.
Hi Ian. Would you like to take this outside? Would be great if I actually had an email address or something of yours.
Just been wandering the place a bit. Thought I’d drop by this thread to see where it was left – but you people ARE STILL GOING. Jesus (sorry God)!
Took a skim through the (sometimes loooong) posts, and realised you’re all going over the same stuff. TheWaya and I argued over this a week ago.
While I’m at it. Concise is not a word in your vocab is it Wombat? Secondly. Settle down Ian – no need to make it personal. Thirdly. Are you really 18 Nic? Jeez, I feel old. Where’s my minibar?
[Shit-storm stirred. Exit stage left]
Nic, considering I’m a few months away from being 17, I’m not really expecting to turn into a rabid creationist in a little over a year (especially after this debate!). Happy 18th ;-)
Creationism as Science! Give Me a Break!
This post is late by blogging standards, but I’ve only just stumbled across the link, and it’s too good to ignore. Robert Corr’s sparked a torrid debate regarding the teaching of creationism as science at schools. It’s simple really; when…
What concerns literalist believers (as opposed to true believers) is that the weight of evidence favours true believers over fundamentalists. Peace, brothers and sisters, and remember the parable of the talents. Use your God-given brains and stop demeaning His creation by treating the Bible like a recipe book. Among other things, God created mystery, allegory and metaphor. A set of religious beliefs that denies the full wonder of God’s creation is nothing short of blasphemous. 6,000 years? He did way better than that!
Sorry everyone, but I undestand the basic question has not been answered by Creationists.
How was the earth created in 7 days? How did life become the way it is now in 26280000 days (6000 years)
Saying that “The Bible has the answers” is untestable. So its useless unless you just want me to open my jaw & leave it there until you stop talking.
And its a printed work that ended 2000 years ago. Hasnt God got an update? Did she go “thats it, thats all I have to say, you guys take it from there”.
So, basically
HOW DID GOD CREATE THE EARTH ONLY 6000 YEARS AGO? All I have seen is ‘its not important’. Baw-baw – thats just not acceptable. And why should it be.
If a circular arguement is presented as the only evidence “the Bible said so so therefore it is true”, then
—
Thewaya – if you’re still reading:
First – thank you for dealing with a touchy subject in a calm, polite manner.
Second -your statement way back when-
“…mutations does not equal addition of information . . . all mutations always result in a loss of information . . . so for instance people could ‘evolve’ to be less hairy by having the gene of hair growth mutate to be less effective.”
is just not in line with scientific knowledge at this point. Remember, genes (to simplify ridiculously, since I’m no expert) really code for proteins. There is, in a very real sense, no hair growth gene, just a gene (really, genes) that end up making things involved in hair growth. A mutation causes a change in the resulting protein – one which may have a wide range of effects, from nil to catastrophic to useful (say, a slightly more effective enzyme). And it gets much more complex – a minor change in an enzyme may have huge results depending on what role it plays in the development and functioning of the organism. Additionally, over the last few decades, people have discovered that genes are a lot more complex than we realized. It turns out that DNA can be ‘read’ in different ways, with bits spliced together to form different proteins, that genes can ‘jump’ around, and that certain kinds of genes shape the basic body plan of the developing organism – genes that turn out to be largely shared between such different creatures as us and and the fruit fly! It’s a truly marvelous world that science has revealed, and one that you are free to enter, if you wish – these astounding discoveries aren’t locked away in secret files or written in inpenetrable code (or even scientific jargon) but easily available through any number of popular science books, magazines, web sites, etc. And none of this contradicts a belief in God (although one which I don’t have) – something that science, by its makeup, simply can’t address.
At work, early in the morning the radio is usually on a religious station that offers a “creation minute,” a debunking of some bit of science that supports evolution. These debunkings are always flawed – they disprove old, discarded ideas, misunderstand what the science is saying, etc. This is just annoying – it dishonors both sides. The show misrepresents science, and by attacking strawmen, unintentionally suggests a lack of faith.
And nic – it’s can’t, a contraction of can + not, with the apostrophe indicating the missing letters. While cant actually is a real word (jargon, hypocritically pious speech), no one’s gonna confuse them – the problem is that for some people (probably fewer as time goes by) it’ll sugest that your writing is the product of a less-educated mind, and less worthy of consideration. Unfair, I know . . .
WMPBR: God created the earth 6008 years ago via his Word. He spoke and it came into existence. Obviously this isn’t testable as it way back all those years ago. I’m not sure what other sort of answer you can expect to get, its like asking the question “How did Jesus rise from the dead?”…
Dan S.: interesting points about DNA, though I’d like to see some evidence of new traits occuring in new generations. Any links would be great. Also the kicker would be a demonstration of how the first forms of life occured, any links once again would be nice.
Finally, if you look under Rob’s other post about creationism I’ve started commenting about why evolution does in fact contradict a faith in the Christian God.
It seems to me that the Creationists are basically afraid of Evolution because it calls into question the very foundations of their belief systems.
Perhaps they are afraid that it suggests that Christianity is, essentially, a lie.
BTW – I’m an athiest.
“God created the earth 6008 years ago via his Word. He spoke and it came into existence”
What, thats all? Why only 2 sentences? My question was serious, folks… but since you have decided to give a comic answer, I will give a comic reply…
“All of Earth’s experience are this Word thing. And its 6008. Good.
Oh, thats right. You want to be taken seriously, mmmm. My word, yes, all this evolution stuff is just a theory, coz the explanation is God verbalised (in English I guess, I mean, God’s American right?) and it just …. happened.
And John Howard singlehandedly will keep interest rates down.
Oh, no sorry, I’m being sarcastic. The world’s existance summed up in 2 sentences (so far, of course, you can expand if you wish) and I just accept it. You may be happy if I believed it too as you present it.
BTW I am interested. How can God, being all male, white (probably, what skin colour would he/she/it be) leave his Word-creating Earth (Bill Gates?) that has mitochondria, obturator externus’s and fossils + species WE dont know that exists (therefore did God make them if we dont know they exist?) and say his words & not say anything else since…
Yes, this is God you are talking about who so convincingly created the whole Universe (I guess) 2.6million days ago or approx.
does not send an update.
Since you know how to explain your position, and since this is so convincing, that you must be in personal contact with him/her/it, can you ask him/her/it about any updates since the 6th century AD when Mohammadism came about (Islam). I guess that was the last update.
What sort of God creates a planet & solar system & just … leaves? Dog God maybe.
Am I religios or athiest or agnostic or fundamentalist? No, labels are boring. Unless God wants me to have one, then he/she/it is not worthy of having the title of God & ought to reture on some marvellous superannuation.
Getting the Fundamentals Right
I, being a “fundie”, have been diligently replying to a number of posts on kick&scream abo
Michael, the point you have raised is one of incredible relevance and should be commended. As a christian, and one who believes in creation at that, i am able to see that if evolution were to ever been proved beyond reasonable doubt then it would surely shatter the very foundations of the ‘religion’ of christianity.
Thankfully evolution has not been proved to a point beyond contention.
True, there has been much research in the field of evolution, but such is case in the of creationism also. both sides have the same evidence to interpret, ie the physical world which can be studied, and both have their own theories which they desire to prove. To discover which has more weight it is necessary to apply the given evidence to both models and see which is able to better explain the evidence.
If this debate is still continuing then i would be more than happy to list some of the evidence i have discovered in my search, but to put all of it may take some time and there have already been some dissatisfied people who seem to dislike lengthy posts.
I have a final point of question that may need clarification (if the debate is still going) is the type of evolution in question macro-evolution, or micro-evolution. I ask because there is a world of difference between the two and without a clear understanding, arguments can meld between the two and become horribly confused.
Neo
My understanding is that the only people who try and make out there substantive differences are the creationists. The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. Evolution 101: Macroevolution. Also read the wikipedia article on Macroevolution – the two main theories it discusses have no substantive differences to microevolution.
Perhaps you can provide some evidence to show that there are major differences between micro and macro evolution?
Except that it has. It is an accepted and applied scientific theory. The only people who are not accepting it are creationists. I highly recommend that you read the Berkeley site on evolution. There are screeds of evidence for evolution but not a single shred for creationism. Anyone is welcome to believe in creationism, but they are being foolish if they believe it is backed up by evidence. Remember, gaps or flaws in evolutionary theory do not validate creationism – evidence must stand up on its own.
I believe their is a god that did create the universe, reason being that even if there was a big bang who created the shit that went bang?
There is an old saying “it takes a lot of faith to believe there isn’t a God”
Take a look at the ocean, the sky, the animals. How can you think that beauty like that happened by accident.
How he did it can be debated till the cows come home but what is the scientific explanation for the “Stuff” being their in the first place?
You have fallen into a great trap JP. You believe in God, because you can’t believe in “stuff” just being there. Why then can you believe in God just being there? There is no scientific explanation for your God.
Well, it would seem that the debate is alive and well.
The first thing i would like to take a look at is that of the idea of: There is no scientific explanation for your God.
Essentially this is the age old debate that if God created everything, who created God? This question has been in existence for centuries, and is more a question of philosphy than science (or at least it used to be, but in our society, which is only exiting modernism, things still must be proved, thus it becomes an issue of science)
Perhaps you have heard of the concept of causality. This concept stipulates that everything that exists has a cause. For example a car has a cause, that is a factory; the factory has a cause, that is other factories and machines to build it and so on.
The point is that you can follow this idea as far back as the beginning of existence itself. but there you hit a snag and this comes because if everything needs a cause then, what started it all?
‘Stuff’ cannot have just been there because it had no cause. Now if something has no cause then it cannot be said to acutally exist. This is because if something does not have a beginning then it never began and if it never began then it never came into existence. If that is the case then the entire universe does not exist because it never began due to the lack of a cause.
For the universe to exist then, an catalyst is required. That is, an uncaused cause. Now we of the Christian propensity would say that this uncaused cause which started everything is God. However for evolutionary theory, there is nothing. Thus to the evolutionary mind, how can anything be said to exist properly?
Neo
After having read the sites suggested that define macro and micro evolution it would seem that micro evolution has been branded as a mere sub category of macroevolution.
However this may be the worng way to look at it. Their theory indicates that ‘microevolutionary’ processes occur and that these, coupled with other things, combine to create macro evolution. Sure this would work, if microevolution were able to translate to macro. But it cannot.
Ok, quick definition as i see it: macro is the idea of an original cell or creature or whatever evolving to what we have today, that is many different species.
Micro is small variations and changes within any given species for example, skin colour in humans.
Back to my point: Micro evolution cannot generate the mutations required for the generation of new information that is required for the creation of new specie types. There has never been a case of a beneficial mutation. This is due to the fact that ‘mutations… cause “noise” during the transmission of genetic information, in accordance with established scientific principles of the effect of random change on information flow, and so destroy the information.’
But what about the ‘gene duplication’ concept i hear you ask, well it is true that it allows for random mutations to occur without destroying the thing that is mutating due to the fact that if a bad mutation occurs then there is still a good copy of the gene to ensure the thing survives. but all this does is allow for the perpetuation of something that mutated badly, it does not prove that beneficial mutations have occured.
In short mutations decrease the amount of information in the gene pool, causing life to degenerate. This fits fantastically the idea that God created the world perfect, man sinned and brought the consequence of death into the world, which set off the process of mutations causing degeneration
Neo
Alright, party’s over. Thanks for coming, but can you continue this (tedious and circular) discussion elsewhere?