The Threat of Creationism

[Mickdrew]

This puts the creationist vs evolution debate in its proper context, and holds much truth even though the essay was written 30 years ago. I must confess that while I have never considered myself a militant follower of science, I could not suppress the idea that we are fighting against an inexhaustive army of ignorance which threaten to dim the bright future ahead. I found myself more unnerved by creationism while listening to this than I can remember previously.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This puts the creationist vs evolution debate in its proper context, and holds much truth even though the essay was written 30 years ago. I must confess that while I have never considered myself a militant follower of science, I could not suppress the idea that we are fighting against an inexhaustive army of ignorance which threaten to dim the bright future ahead. I found myself more unnerved by creationism while listening to this than I can remember previously.

Creationism is hardest upon religious people, mistakenly pitting them against science and reason; but its hard on society in general. There are no winners from such a confrontation between religion and science except for those who peddle creationist materials. Misconstruing what research means and how study works, creationism insinuates that satanic conspiracies are the source of evolutionary discoveries. It swats at invisible enemies. This can only result in damage to religious people and society as a whole. The danger is not that creationism will spread but that it will continue to polarize religious people against an invisible agent that is not really attacking. What we have is a false immune response in society, analogous to an allergy.

 

[psychoslice]

I think people like Buddhist have a mature way of seeing their belief systems, unlike Christians.

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
Dalai Lama

 

[George-ananda]

I'll admit to not have spent the 28 minutes but that was 32 years ago and nothing terrible has happened or will happen. And old-school creationism has lost ground since then.

 

[Deidre]

Science shouldn't be threatening to someone of faith, nor should faith be threatening to a scientist. And I'm of the belief that the two can peacefully coexist, not forcing a scientist or a believer to have to choose. Although, I'm not a believer in creationism, I identify as a Christian.

 

[Zosimus]

This puts the creationist vs evolution debate in its proper context, and holds much truth even though the essay was written 30 years ago. I must confess that while I have never considered myself a militant follower of science, I could not suppress the idea that we are fighting against an inexhaustive army of ignorance which threaten to dim the bright future ahead. I found myself more unnerved by creationism while listening to this than I can remember previously.

Well, it's these types of viewpoints that make me think that neo-Darwinism is more of a religion than a science.

 

[Mickdrew]

I'll admit to not have spent the 28 minutes but that was 32 years ago and nothing terrible has happened or will happen. And old-school creationism has lost ground since then.

I hope they have lost ground since then.
Does this mean you agree that this pushback against creationism is the right thing to do?

Well, it's these types of viewpoints that make me think that neo-Darwinism is more of a religion than a science.

I've never heard the term "Neo-Darwanism" before.
It could be because the term "Darwanism" itself is a misnomer. I am not defending "Darwanism", but the scientific theory of Evolution (or pretty much science in general).

Wishing for science in school to not be undermined does not make it a religion.

Science shouldn't be threatening to someone of faith, nor should faith be threatening to a scientist. And I'm of the belief that the two can peacefully coexist, not forcing a scientist or a believer to have to choose. Although, I'm not a believer in creationism, I identify as a Christian.

I sincerely hope more believers take on your mindset

 

[George-ananda]

I hope they have lost ground since then.
Does this mean you agree that this pushback against creationism is the right thing to do?

I don't see where a pushback is even necessary. If people want to believe in old-school creationism it is not hurting anyone else. I think any argument that they can possibly hold back science is overblown to say the least. I do not in the least feel threatened by creationism.

 

[Mickdrew]

I don't see where a pushback is even necessary. If people want to believe in old-school creationism it is not hurting anyone else. I think any argument that they can possibly hold back science is overblown to say the least. I do not in the least feel threatened by creationism.

Fair enough

 

[psychoslice]

Science shouldn't be threatening to someone of faith, nor should faith be threatening to a scientist. And I'm of the belief that the two can peacefully coexist, not forcing a scientist or a believer to have to choose. Although, I'm not a believer in creationism, I identify as a Christian.

Yes there is truth in what you said, but it doesn't make what is impossible truth.

 

[Skwim]

I don't see where a pushback is even necessary. If people want to believe in old-school creationism it is not hurting anyone else. I think any argument that they can possibly hold back science is overblown to say the least. I do not in the least feel threatened by creationism.

It's hurtful when creationists try to push their agenda into public high school classrooms, particularly when it's promoted as a viable alternative to evolution. It is also an injustice to one's children to claim that religious myth trumps science. Obviously, in the first case it's imperative that a "pushback" take place, and, in fact, has.


.

 

[Deidre]

Yes there is truth in what you said, but it doesn't make what is impossible truth.

What do you mean by ''impossible?''

 

[Zosimus]

I've never heard the term "Neo-Darwanism" before.
It could be because the term "Darwanism" itself is a misnomer. I am not defending "Darwanism", but the scientific theory of Evolution (or pretty much science in general).

You've never heard the term Neo-Darwinism before? Or is it just that you cannot spell it?

Out of curiosity, do you live under a rock?

The term neo-Darwinism was first used by George Romanes, a Canadian-English evolutionary biologist and physiologist, in 1895. The term is found in the Encyclopædia Britannica, although perhaps I shouldn't expect you to know what that is either.

The late Lynn Margulis, an American evolutionary theorist, defined the term thus: "Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims they do."

 

[Kartari]

Hi George & Skwim,

I don't see where a pushback is even necessary. If people want to believe in old-school creationism it is not hurting anyone else. I think any argument that they can possibly hold back science is overblown to say the least. I do not in the least feel threatened by creationism.

It's hurtful when creationists try to push their agenda into public high school classrooms, particularly when it's promoted as a viable alternative to evolution. It is also an injustice to one's children to claim that religious myth trumps science. Obviously, in the first case it's imperative that a "pushback" take place, and, in fact, has.

I agree with Skwim here. In some public elementary and high schools in certain States (and some private schools which accept public money), creationism is being taught in science classes (not just in religion classes). In Kansas for instance, there's been an ongoing battle to the present day over teaching creationism alongside of evolution in order to present creationism as an equal, if not superior, alternative view. The problems inherent with this outlook should be obvious, but for starters, creationism is NOT science. Creationism has no business being taught in any science class. An evidence-based theory of evolution has no place being compared with Christian mythology in a science class. Doing so not only confuses children into perceiving creationism as valid science, but also helps to conflate science and religion, leading to the wrong belief that science is a form of religion. We have enough ignorance in the world as it is, and this only adds to it.

I'm not opposed to people having faith. If someone wants to believe in a magical creation and to teach their own children likewise, that alone is their own business. But when they cannot discern the difference between faith and science, and furthermore make sometimes successful attempts to push their beliefs onto the public at large, there is a HUGE problem.

All of us need to understand the difference between good science and religion. This is fundamental to having a quality education. And all of us need to have respect for the religious faith or lack thereof of others, and not impose our faith onto others or their children.

The Evolution Controversy
Map: Publicly Funded Schools That Are Allowed to Teach Creationism

 

[gnostic]

Science shouldn't be threatening to someone of faith, nor should faith be threatening to a scientist. And I'm of the belief that the two can peacefully coexist, not forcing a scientist or a believer to have to choose. Although, I'm not a believer in creationism, I identify as a Christian.

I am not opposed to Christianity, but to creationism.

I am not an opponent to religion and science coexisting as long as both sides recognise that religion is not science and science is not religion. That there boundaries between the two, because they are separate.

What I do oppose is the ignorance and fear advocated by the creationists. I also opposed the misinformation and misrepresentation of what is science and what isn't science; creationists have the habits of twisting words of what science doesn't say, and resort to propaganda and fear campaigns.

It is nothing more than utter stupidity, when creationists keep repeating the same motto, like "Evolution is just a theory"; this just show that creationists don't understand scientific theory is.

Equally stupid is whenever they equate evolution with atheism, or even science with atheism. This is simply scare tactics and propaganda, again misrepresenting both evolution and atheism.

Atheism is no more evolution than theism is evolution.

Evolution is science, or more precisely biology. Atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, deism, theism, etc, are all related to the issue of the "existence of a deity or deities".

• Theists accept the existence of personal god,
• atheists reject such existence,
• pantheists believe in believe that the universe is god, but there are no personal transcendent god,
• and the agnostics are uncommitted because there are not enough information.

They ignored the facts that are many religious Christians and Jews, even here at RF, have already accepted evolution as the accepted explanation to biodiversity, as the result of Natural Selection, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift or Mutation.

They (creationists) ignored the fact the leader of the biggest Christian sect, Roman Catholic Church, accepts evolution. They ignored the fact that Charles Darwin was always a Christian, though he was a nonconformist Christian, and agnostic much later in his life; he rejected that he was ever atheist.

 

[gnostic]

I don't see where a pushback is even necessary. If people want to believe in old-school creationism it is not hurting anyone else. I think any argument that they can possibly hold back science is overblown to say the least. I do not in the least feel threatened by creationism.

Actually it is hurting children education.

Creationism should not be taught in science classrooms of public schools, because creationism (as well as Intelligent Design) isn't science.

If you want to children to learn creationism, then take them to Sunday school, or enrolled them in theology subject.

 

[George-ananda]

It's hurtful when creationists try to push their agenda into public high school classrooms, particularly when it's promoted as a viable alternative to evolution. It is also an injustice to one's children to claim that religious myth trumps science. Obviously, in the first case it's imperative that a "pushback" take place, and, in fact, has.


.

My point was that I see it as a gnat sized problem that the anti-religionists like to exploit as some great sized problem.

 

[Quintessence]

My point was that I see it as a gnat sized problem that the anti-religionists like to exploit as some great sized problem.

Well, we humans like making mountains out of molehills. And we also love fixating on the extreme and shocking examples, then gossiping up a storm about it. These things make life interesting, and make for good stories. I mean, who wants to tell stories about the Biblical literalist creationists minding their own business? That's boring. No drama. Pfft.

 

[Skwim]

My point was that I see it as a gnat sized problem that the anti-religionists like to exploit as some great sized problem.

Are you suggesting that the supporters of evolution and against the teaching of creationism are " anti-religionists"?


.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

My point was that I see it as a gnat sized problem that the anti-religionists like to exploit as some great sized problem.

Considering that some of the most powerful anti-creationism in science classrooms speakers and dover trial witnesses are self-identified Christians, I can safely say this isn't something that just concerns 'anti-religionists' (whatever that means.)