Understanding Creationism: Definition and Relevance in Scientific Discourse

[Phobos]

To accept creationism, which in truth is merely the recognition that the Earth has a creator,

That's fine. There's no conflict with the theory of evolution there. I suppose the confusion is over the term "creationist" which frequently refers to Young-Earth Creationists (YEC). YEC beliefs do conflict with science in big ways. Granted, there's a wide variety of creationists and many are not YECs. Many creationists even accept evolution.

does not mean you have to discard astronomy, geology, physics, etc.

YECs do discard many aspects of those sciences. The age-of-the-Earth issue alone is a major conflict.

We do however discard the evolutionary theory even if only on the basis that Darwin was a total bigot with hitlerian beliefs.

Wow. Nice gross misrepresentation. Are you referring to "social darwinism" (something which Darwin specifically disapproved of) or something else? Please give examples of his bigotry & Hitlerian beliefs.

Even if Darwin was the worst person in the history of the world, that is irrelevant to the theory of evolution, which is a collection of work from a large number of scientists. The theory stands on its overall body of evidence, not on the personality of one of its historical experts.

We are also advised in the scriptures to 'avoid foolish oppositions of science so-called' because that is man's idea on the works of God just as religion is man's idea on the word of God. But yet we have faith.

So you automatically reject any science that conflicts with your interpretation of the scriptures instead of perhaps reconsidering your interpretation of scriptures even though you believe that both are works of Man?

 

[loseyourname]

We do however discard the evolutionary theory even if only on the basis that Darwin was a total bigot with hitlerian beliefs.

Actually, Darwin was a mildly religious deist who despised the application of his theory of biology to the social sciences. Besides, Neo-Darwinism bears little resemblance to Darwin's original theory. For one thing, he knew nothing of the units of heredity that he postulated. It took Mendel to figure that one out, and Watson and Crick to establish what the genetic material actually was. Darwin also used Linnaeus' system of classification based on morphological relationships, which has since been discarded in favor of a taxonomy based on molecular systematics and cladistic analysis. Darwin only proposed the theory of natural selection as the mechanism by which species evolve. We now know that natural selection is only one of the mechanisms by which evolution takes place. There is also symbiosis as well as a great deal of neutral mutation and, during times of mass extinction in particular, the proliferance of particular alleles based purely on chance after bottlenecks.

One last thing. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection was not Darwin's theory alone. It was developed independently by both Darwin and Wallace. You may want to rethink your attack.

 

[Ian]

Let me give you a quote from Darwin's work. (1871)

"With civilised nations, the reduced size of the jaws from lessened use, the habitual play of different muscles serving to express different emotions, and the increased size of the brain from greater intellectual activity, have together produced a considerable effect on their general appearance in comparison with savages"

I am not attacking Darwin, just making a simple statement, because I am in part one of those 'savages' he was postulating about. I find the fact that he thought some races to less emotional than others quite abhorent, i.e., he was of the opinion that some are not human as he thought himself to be.

Nonetheless, the whole 'Creationism' issue (with specific relation to Faith in God) has been hijacked by others who have their own agenda. The original disagreement concerned the education of our children, not how things came about on the Earth and universe. As a christian my basic tenet with regard to others is 'love your neighbour as you love yourself'. This simply means to respect the views of others but certain individuals wish to remove from the schools cirriculum the teachibng that we have a Creator.

I do not have a 'beef' with anyone over the issue of creation; Nereid in his post said that he had a beef with creationists and perhaps me also but the argument from the true Creationists point of view is one of the preservation of what we have faith in thought the teaching of our children.

I personally do not believe that the Earth is 5000 years old as some other Christians do, but I do not believe that it came by anything other than by God's hand.

 

[loseyourname]

Okay. Then you have not discarded evolutionary theory. Why did you initially say that you did?

The reason that school children are not taught that there exists an intelligent creator to the universe, at least in science classes, is that such an idea is not scientific. The reason that idea is not taught in other classes is because it is a religious idea and public schools are not allowed to teach religious beliefs in accordance with the separation of church and state. At least that is the case here in the states. I have no idea how things work in the UK.

If you want your children to learn Christian ethics and Christian metaphysics, then I suggest you teach these to them yourself. It is not within the province of the public school system to do so.

By the way, would people quit referring to Nereid as he?

 

[Phobos]

Darwin only proposed the theory of natural selection as the mechanism by which species evolve. We now know that natural selection is only one of the mechanisms by which evolution takes place.

And even Darwin knew that more than Natural Selection was at work.

From the intro of the Origin of Species...
"Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification. "

 

[Phobos]

I am not attacking Darwin, just making a simple statement, because I am in part one of those 'savages' he was postulating about. I find the fact that he thought some races to less emotional than others quite abhorent, i.e., he was of the opinion that some are not human as he thought himself to be.

Completely understandable, but check this out...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html

.. but the argument from the true Creationists point of view is one of the preservation of what we have faith in thought the teaching of our children.

The debate certainly is heated up over the issues of what schools should teach.

 

[Ian]

Phobos,
Intersting link! I guess we ought to learn the lesson that anything is defensible but providing concrete proof is quite another matter. However, I would really like to know how Darwin examined and measured the emotions of others.

Loseyourname said,
'Then you have not discarded evolutionary theory. Why did you initially say that you did?'

I think it is quite clear that there is an element of evolution to the nature around us, and I would be foolish to discount it. But concerning the teaching in schools here in the UK (with regard to faitgh), it is much the same as in the US, it is decided by the majority and I am in a minority of 1.

Oops, sorry Nereid (he/she etc.) - bad habit from the days of Adam. It won't happen again.

 

[loseyourname]

I think it is quite clear that there is an element of evolution to the nature around us, and I would be foolish to discount it. But concerning the teaching in schools here in the UK (with regard to faitgh), it is much the same as in the US, it is decided by the majority and I am in a minority of 1.

To be fair, I think you might find that a majority of US citizens believe in creationism of one form or another. Statistics I've seen seem to indicate that at least 90% of the population professes some form of belief in God. I can guarantee that the majority in certain states and certain regions disbelieve in any form of macroevolution.

Evolution is not taught because it is popular; it is taught because it is true. The reason no elements of faith are taught is because it is not the business of the public school system to do so. It would be a breech of the separation between church and state.

 

[Nereid]

Let's talk about the teaching of science and the role of religion ...

In a theocracy - AFAIK, Iran is the only one today, now that the Taliban's Afghanistan is gone - the state will carry out the instructions of the religious authorities concerning what is to be taught in state schools. In addition, the state may prescribe the curriculum of private schools. This may include any and all aspects of science, including a complete ban on the teaching of any science whatsoever.

In private, religious schools - in non-theocracies - the state may specify what is to be taught, and how ... or it may choose to not make any such specifications. Perhaps the most relevant aspect of this - in the countries of the EU, the US, Canada etc - is the extent to which the state sets exit criteria, or curricula, for all schools. For example, if there is a public exam (or equivalent) which universities, colleges, employers, etc use to certify completion of secondary school education, then this affects what is taught in private or religious schools. So, for example, if parents who send their kids to a religious school also wish for them to go on to have good university education, ... (links easy to state) ... then they will likely insist that at least sufficient coverage of evolution is given in science classes to give their precious a good shot at entry to the best universities.

In state schools - in secular countries - there can be no alternative; any move to exclude coverage of only evolution (as part of the biology curriculum, or geology) can only be a deliberate attempt to subvert 'the separation of church and state'. Note that there's nothing 'religious' about this, it's pure politics.

 

[Phobos]

A simple bumper-sticker-like slogan may do...teach science in science class.

 

[Ian]

She hit the nail on the head!

Let's talk about the teaching of science and the role of religion ...
...Note that there's nothing 'religious' about this, it's pure politics.

The Creationists (christian and non-christian) have both attempted to smash a nut with a hammer, but have cracked the anvil instead. Neither is there anything 'political' about it, it is pure 'religion'.
This in essence is to see the conflict through both pairs of eyes. I personally see the separation of church and state in the US and UK as the same as Stalin's or Mao's separation of church and state. We have our belief in the same way as many have a Republican, democrat, Labour, conservative, Liberal belief etc.

 

[Nereid]

She hit the nail on the head!


The Creationists (christian and non-christian) have both attempted to smash a nut with a hammer, but have cracked the anvil instead. Neither is there anything 'political' about it, it is pure 'religion'.
This in essence is to see the conflict through both pairs of eyes. I personally see the separation of church and state in the US and UK as the same as Stalin's or Mao's separation of church and state. We have our belief in the same way as many have a Republican, democrat, Labour, conservative, Liberal belief etc.

Thanks Ian.

So you personally would wish to live in a (christian) theocratic state (= nation)?

 

[loseyourname]

I personally see the separation of church and state in the US and UK as the same as Stalin's or Mao's separation of church and state.

You have personally seen Christian churches persecuted and shut down and the believers imprisoned by the US and UK governments?

 

[Ian]

No I haven't, and it wouldn't be allowed in our places. Look, this thread is really about the 'creationist' issue and I don't want to hijack a debate that has gone for five pages.
But since you ask, yes I would like to live in a 'theocratic' state but not the kind of state that would be run by the Christians who have control over the churches today. They have raised the 'militant church' which espouses the highest authority as the clergy/pastor/pope etc. They are named as the 'Church of God' in the bible and are only one part of the 'body of Christ', but they are certainly not the highest authority that the bible speaks about.

 

[Nereid]

Thanks Ian, yes we really should try to stay OT, and not stray OT

Well, we were talking about creationism, and as it's part of the Earth sub-forum, I guess that means alternative views of geology. If that is indeed the case, then I think we're done; no one is proposing any YEC (or similar) ideas, and all those who've spoken have said (paraphrasing; oversimplifying?) that they think it's not really science, and has no data to support it.