Coming out as creationists: fear.

[Woberts]

and yet there is not a shred of real evidence that any of it is true.

Yeah, there is. Anyway, what evidence do you have?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's nice that science can hide behind word definitions. It's an excuse to pass supposition off as "almost" fact.

Riiiight, because when people want to "hide something" they use words that literally indicate that what they're saying isn't necessarily certain and intentionally use language designed to assure people that their conclusions are tentative and it's possible that they are wrong.

Makes perfect sense. How dare those sneaky scientists use words indicating uncertainty in order to... Indicate certainty??

 

[Deeje]

Riiiight, because when people want to "hide something" they use words that literally indicate that what they're saying isn't necessarily certain and intentionally use language designed to assure people that their conclusions are tentative and it's possible that they are wrong.

Makes perfect sense. How dare those sneaky scientists use words indicating uncertainty in order to... Indicate certainty??

But it isn't taught with uncertainty...is it? When students are taught evolution it is implied as proven fact. That is what is dishonest.

 

[Deeje]

Yeah, there is. Anyway, what evidence do you have?

I rest my case.....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But it isn't taught with uncertainty...is it? When students are taught evolution it is implied as proven fact. That is what is dishonest.

Evolution IS a fact, it has been directly observed multiple times. The THEORY OF EVOLUTION isn't a fact, but contains observations and facts, that lead to the tentative (though scientifically uncontested) conclusion that all forms of life descended from common ancestry. In the exact way that GRAVITY is taught as a fact, but the THEORY OF GRAVITY is taught as a tentative explanation of the causes and effects of gravity.

Do you understand?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I rest my case.....

So, nothing, then.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Was that a response or a reaction? I have stated that it is evolutionary science that has what it believes are "almost facts".....which has nothing to do with infectious diseases or magnetic imaging. If you are going to comment on my post, at least understand what was said.

I get what you're trying to say. But that evolution is a theory does not weaken its scientific standing. Also MRIs aren't a theory, but magnetism is. Predictability is a big part of science, and evolution makes predictions that see come to fruition. ID not so much.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is a whole other explanation in Genesis......that is also where the devil pops up.

Would this be the Jewish Satan or the Christian Devil? They aren't the same character, after all.

 

[Laika]

Well...at least in my country I have the impression that there are people out there (lay, ecclesiastical...it doesn't matter...) who believe in Creationism, but are too afraid of admitting it publicly, out of fear of being ridiculed.
Statistically speaking, I think almost nobody in the society I live in would say they're proud to believe in creation...the only people who did were a couple of JW's.
Or maybe in the US the Creationist pride is more vivid...while in Europe it's repressed?

Evolution: true or false?

Voted "Yes", but it does depend on the context as well. Dissenting from the prevailing views of a society and your peer group is hard because people usually inherit ideas from their social environment rather than thinking about them clearly. Certain ideas are simply taken as self-evident and those who challenge them face ridicule and humiliation. For example, Flat-Earthers get a great deal of ridicule over a "settled" issue, but most of us can't really tell people how we know the world is round based on our own direct experience (except pointing at a photo of the earth from space or at the fact globes are round). We can all regurgitate a few facts from the media or half-remembered recollections from the classroom but that is not the same as knowing something to be true or proving it. Dissenting from Scientific views gets complicated because people confuse Science as a source of authority and Science as a method of gaining knowledge; the former does not allow dissent, the latter does and requires it.

Using science as a method means not simply regurgitating facts and figures from a textbook but is also a way of seeing the world and re-interpreting what we see. It encourages and necessitates dissent for its social advance and for individual process of learning. We don't begin with a blank slate but inherit preconceptions and it is up to us to evaluate and change them if they are deficient. I can safely assume there are some charlatans amongst creationists (as with any group) but I think the majority are simply trying to reconcile the logical requirements of their faith with science. Neither creationists nor "evolutionists" should be afraid to express honestly held opinions, especially if it is in the context to trying to improve their understanding. Unfortunately, this is not how society works and people may lose out because honest questioning is stigmatised as evidence of mental inferiority. That should be wrong but its too common and easy to seriously address, especially as beliefs serve as a way to identify who is in the "in-group" we belong to and those who are in the "Out-group" we consider a threat.

 

[SomeRandom]

I rest my case.....

I'm confused, what does this prove exactly? That nature photography exists? That animals exist? That nature can be pretty?

 

[Polymath257]

You know, I have no problem with theories per se. What I object to is this particular theory and it's implications. Other theories do not remove a very important component in the big scheme of things.....an all powerful "First Cause".

Germ theory, theory of gravity, string theory or any other explored scientific idea, does not impact on the human psyche in any way like the ToE. Destroying God is a big deal. It impacts on human thought and attitudes towards so many things. It alters perceptions of everything.

Whether the science affects your notion of a deity at all is irrelevant to the truth of that science.

I can prove gravity by dropping Newton's apple. I can prove germ theory by the spread of epidemics and the simple use of a microscope to identify a pathogen.

Actually, no you can't. Simply dropping an apple doesn't demonstrate Newton's law of *universal* gravitation. You need to consider the exact rate of acceleration of that apple, compare that to the distance to the moon, then look at the acceleration of the moon in its orbit. You need to then do similar comparisons for each of the planets orbiting the sun, and for the moons of the various planets orbiting their planets. And that doesn't prove *universal* gravitation is correct. it only shows some cases.

Identification of a pathogen is also not so straightforward. In addition to that microscope, you need to conduct experiments showing that pathogen is always (!) present in the epidemic disease, that introduction of the pathogen will cause the disease, that the disease doesn't occur without the pathogen, etc.

In both, the amount of investigation required to actually demonstrate the claim is quite large. And, in fact, the general claim is never proven in either case: only specific examples.

But similar work is required to prove evolution: you need to go and look at geological strata, look at deposition rates, look at how to tell different rates of deposition. You need to learn about radioactive decay and its properties, then use what you've learned to date those strata. You have to learn when it works and why.

Then you have to do field work to find fossils, or to demonstrate how genetics works. This gives information about how living things can change as well as how they *have* changed.

Finally, you can assemble the entire picture to see that life *has* changed over geological time; that the species alive today were NOT present in the past, but that similar species were, depending on how far back you go.

And guess what? That is evolution! That biological species change over geological time. It is a fact, just like gravity and germs.

Provable or not, scientific theories are usually harmless and for the most part beneficial.....but not this one. You can't lose this one among the innocuous or beneficial ones. This one changes the whole ball game. It leads people completely off one path and down another. Most people have no idea where that path leads. I believe that they will regret being talked into it.

Sorry, but if the scientific evidence shows that a religious concept is wrong, that is just too bad for the religious concept. Testability wins over mere belief without evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

But it isn't taught with uncertainty...is it? When students are taught evolution it is implied as proven fact. That is what is dishonest.

if something is 99.9% certain based on scientific evidence, then it can be taught even though there is a .1% chance of being wrong.

In the case of evolution, the chance of being wrong is far less than .1%

 

[ecco]

Other theories do not remove a very important component in the big scheme of things.....an all powerful "First Cause".

Everything must have a "first cause", right? What is the "first cause" of your god?

 

[ecco]

... there are people out there ...who believe in Creationism, but are too afraid of admitting it publicly, out of fear of being ridiculed.

Creationism is instilled in children from before they can walk. I can excuse a belief in creationism in people under age 30. Childhood indoctrination is dificult to overcome.

However, if someone over age 30 still believes in creationism, it is due to willful ignorance. I have no problem ridiculing people who are willfully ignorant - regardless of the subject.

 

[Stevicus]

Since the mainstream usage of the term "Creationism" is what it is, people are definitely ridiculed for adhering to it. And they should expect to be ridiculed for it, unless they are far more insulated than they should be.

I strongly suspect that for many that is in fact a major draw; there is appeal and a hint of stoic acceptance of "martyrdon" in the expectance of ridicule "in the name of God".

Yeah, although I think most people tend to take a live and let live approach to it, unless someone starts getting in other people's faces with their beliefs and makes a big issue out of it. Like when they try to pressure school boards into changing science curricula to suit their religious beliefs - that's when the ridicule comes out, since their actions could have a detrimental effect on society.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It's nice that science can hide behind word definitions. It's an excuse to pass supposition off as "almost" fact.

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

Scientists are very upfront with their definitions.

I am glad I was raised to speak English as a first language because it is one of the most convoluted languages in existence. You can get away with a lot in English. If I tried learning to read and write it as an adult, I think I would give up out of sheer frustration.

When someone tries to change someone's argument by using a different definition than the one they are using, that is dishonest. You don't get to change the meaning of the words that people are using and call it an honest argument.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Was that a response or a reaction? I have stated that it is evolutionary science that has what it believes are "almost facts".....which has nothing to do with infectious diseases or magnetic imaging. If you are going to comment on my post, at least understand what was said.

Science has facts and theories, not "almost facts". Facts are the data from experiments and observations. Theories are the testable and verifiable explanations for those observations.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But it isn't taught with uncertainty...is it? When students are taught evolution it is implied as proven fact. That is what is dishonest.

Evolution is a fact. It is also a theory. It is a fact that species share a common ancestor, and it is a fact that species changed over time. The theory of evolution explains how those changes occurred.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You know, I have no problem with theories per se. What I object to is this particular theory and it's implications. Other theories do not remove a very important component in the big scheme of things.....an all powerful "First Cause".

Germ theory, theory of gravity, string theory or any other explored scientific idea, does not impact on the human psyche in any way like the ToE. Destroying God is a big deal. It impacts on human thought and attitudes towards so many things. It alters perceptions of everything.

I can prove gravity by dropping Newton's apple. I can prove germ theory by the spread of epidemics and the simple use of a microscope to identify a pathogen. Provable or not, scientific theories are usually harmless and for the most part beneficial.....but not this one. You can't lose this one among the innocuous or beneficial ones. This one changes the whole ball game. It leads people completely off one path and down another. Most people have no idea where that path leads. I believe that they will regret being talked into it.

Really? Germ theory also has no mention of God(s) in it. Gravitational theory, also no mention of God(s). No mention of God(s) in string theory either. Just like the theory of evolution. So, I have to wonder what you're talking about.

Science can't deal in things that aren't demonstrable - like God(s). Come up with a test to find your God and you'll be getting somewhere. As I've pointed out so many times before.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah, although I think most people tend to take a live and let live approach to it, unless someone starts getting in other people's faces with their beliefs and makes a big issue out of it. Like when they try to pressure school boards into changing science curricula to suit their religious beliefs - that's when the ridicule comes out, since their actions could have a detrimental effect on society.

I see that as a failure from wider society, personally.