Support NeoGAF

[Jeffahn]

I'm just gonna post the whole piece 'coz it's not too long:

"A bill calling for "balanced treatment to the theory of scientific creationism and the theory of evolution" was introduced in the Mississippi Senate and referred to the Committee on Education on January 10, 2005. Introduced by Senator Gary Jackson, who represents the 15th Senate District, SB 2286 defines "scientific creationism" as "the belief, based on scientific principles, that there was a time in the past when all matter, energy and life, and their processes and relationships, were created ex nihilo and fixed by creative and intelligent design," and would, if enacted, require "instruction in scientific theories of both evolution and scientific creationism if public schools choose to teach either." Only K-12 instruction would be affected by the bill. In both its title and in particular choices of phrasing, SB 2286 seems to be modeled on Lousiana's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction," which was held to be unconstitutional in the Supreme Court's 1987 decision in Edwards v. Aguillard."



The Bill

The Story

Anyways, the most fashionable creationist/ID argument these days appears to be the "you need faith to belive in evolution, therefore it is a 'religion' and must be given equal status with creation science" (pp) ignoring completely the fact that evolution is based on science while creation science is based on a mish of fairytales, myths and lies.

 

[Saturnman]

:lol

 

[teiresias]

Are they going to give equal time to the belief that the world is carried on the back of a turtle?

 

[border]

Are they going to give equal time to the belief that the world is carried on the back of a turtle?

They will have to give it a serious-sounding name first, like they did with creationism. Perhaps "The Theory of Celestial Tortoise Conveyance"...

 

[karasu]

boohoo

 

[bishoptl]

Introduced in Mississippi? *jaw drops*

 

[Minotauro]

The term "scientific creationism" makes me want to bash my head in with a ball peen hammer.

 

[Saturnman]

What's the difference between Creationnism and Intelligent Design?

 

[explodet]

What's the difference between Creationnism and Intelligent Design?

One has one word, the other has two.
Other than that, you got me.

 

[Saturnman]

Is it like the difference between Evolution and Natural Selection? It seems like it.

 

[Manabanana]

Equal treatment!!?! Are you fucking kidding me? How can you spend more than an hour on creationism?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

When I was a kid, nobody took creationists seriously. I was raised with religion, but not to the exclusion of sense.

Somewhere along the line, the creationists started picking up steam. Upsetting.

 

[Teflar]

Intellegent design (at least how it was explained to me) states that the world is created with a certain order to it (Phyisics?) and is too structured to have just happened randomly. You can believe in evolution and still believe in ID too.

Creationism (New Earth) says that the world was created 5000 years ago by God in six days ala Genesis.

Creationism (Old Earth) says that the earth is really 4.2 billion years old, but also still holds that it was created by God in six days, its just that "God Days" (tm) are longer then Human Days (c).

I think ID and Old Earth creationism overlap in some areas as well.

 

[Azrael]

Creationism = the belief that the universe was created exactly as described in Genesis

Intelligent Design = the belief that scientific observation of the universe supports the conclusion that it was created by a sentient being

As an agnostic I believe in neither and don't believe that either should be taught in public schools, but they're not exactly the same either. Evolution and Intelligent Design aren't contradictory per se: you can accept Darwinian Evolution and believe the process was initiated by "God" instead of random chemical reactions, which is the position of most educated Catholics. Evolution and Creationism are contradictory however.

 

[Lucky Forward]

They just started teaching Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/19/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

 

[madara]

Equal treatment!!?! Are you fucking kidding me? How can you spend more than an hour on creationism?

I made the mistake of saying that to my Step mom few months back. She pointed me to answersbookstore.com where they can go on and on for hours on dvds and books about now science is not factual as it seems etc. I havent checked it out as Im to scared too, haha. Its funny because I was on same side as she was I just said that I dont think school needs to do more then spend one day on it in science class. Bring in a guest speaker and be done with it as I think religion is a personal thing. Well she went nuts(and she darn wells knows I believe in god) as most heavy rightwingers due.

Anyhow interesting topic but I dont think your going to get a fair mix opinions here. Most here have their own agenda. Its like some my gay friends, which admit to mentality of "they hate me so I automaticly dont believe in god and laugh at creationism by fault."

 

[DarthWoo]

Are they going to give equal time to the belief that the world is carried on the back of a turtle?

Now that I think about it, terrapin refers to turtle, and of course terra refers to the Earth. Which language were they derived from?

 

[SteveMeister]

Since both creationism and intelligent design rely on faith in a supreme deity, they have no place in a science classroom. Period.

 

[explodet]

Now every time I think of Intelligent Design I'm going to think about that dumb Star Trek episode.
Damn TV, it ruined my imagination. Just like it ruined my ability to... to um..uhh.
Oh well.
*watches cartoons*

 

[Jeffahn]

After the last topic on this I did a lot of reading up on this (bored at work) and was quite surprised about how much I knew about evolution just from reading books and dcoumentaries.

Anyways, the most surprising thing I learnt was the astonishing lengths the creationist/ID movement would go to obtain evidence to support their psoition; reading through literally thousands of scientific papers in a quote-mining exercise, and then acting all surprised when the authors of the papers responded by wholeheartedly endorsing evolution and rejecting creationism/ID.

Just follow some of the link sfrom http://www.ncseweb.org to see what I'm talking about.

 

[Spike Spiegel]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/madara32/Goddess.jpg

Where'd that pic of Teela come from? That's awesome.

 

[Teflar]

Edit: That Teela pic is awesome..

My link doesn't seem to be working :\

 

[Teza]

Can anyone here offer a powerful argument as to why 'creationism' (in all its various forms) should be rejected? Somehow I doubt it. I'd expect feeble references to 'science' or 'rationality' instead.

I don't have the time to argue this fully. For now, all I'm going to do is throw a few big ideas around.



1. Human beings aren't always 'rational' or 'logical'.

2. Is empiricism rational?

3. When is rationality illogical?

4. Are rationality or logicality 'virtues'?

5. If they are, they are virtues which compete with other virtues. When should they lose out?

 

[G4life98]

what is there to give equal time to...

Creationism = God did it
Intellegent Design = aliens did it

what more is there to say...

 

[Dilbert]

Can anyone here offer a powerful argument as to why 'creationism' (in all its various forms) should be rejected? Somehow I doubt it. I'd expect feeble references to 'science' or 'rationality' instead.

I don't have the time to argue this fully. For now, all I'm going to do is throw a few big ideas around.



1. Human beings aren't always 'rational' or 'logical'.

2. Is empiricism rational?

3. When is rationality illogical?

4. Are rationality or logicality 'virtues'?

5. If they are, they are virtues which compete with other virtues. When should they lose out?

....................................................

 

[Lucky Forward]

I don't have the time to argue this fully. For now, all I'm going to do is throw a few big ideas around.



1. Human beings aren't always 'rational' or 'logical'.

2. Is empiricism rational?

3. When is rationality illogical?

4. Are rationality or logicality 'virtues'?

5. If they are, they are virtues which compete with other virtues. When should they lose out?

I don't have time argue this either, so I'll throw out some answers:

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Never.

4. Yes.

5. In matters pertaining to love.

 

[Jeffahn]

Can anyone here offer a powerful argument as to why 'creationism' (in all its various forms) should be rejected? Somehow I doubt it. I'd expect feeble references to 'science' or 'rationality' instead.

I don't have the time to argue this fully. For now, all I'm going to do is throw a few big ideas around.



1. Human beings aren't always 'rational' or 'logical'.

2. Is empiricism rational?

3. When is rationality illogical?

4. Are rationality or logicality 'virtues'?

5. If they are, they are virtues which compete with other virtues. When should they lose out?

Creationism is rejected as posing as science and being taught as a scientific. This is because it has no basis in science and is based on a religious dogma.

1. I take it you're referring to the creationist/ID brigade here.

2. In absolute relative terms it is and will always be the most rational.

3. Never, axiomatic this.

4. They are the only thing that keep you alive.

5. They should lose out in science when they have no scientific basis.

You're basically trying to creat the impression that creationism is under attack when this is not tyhe case. You can still teach creationism where it belongs -in the house of the creator.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

....................................................

i need you wake up here -jinx- DONT GO INTO THE LIGHT YET!! just answer the questions and hopefully the big bad man will go away.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Can anyone here offer a powerful argument as to why 'creationism' (in all its various forms) should be rejected?

Do a search on this forum for about eight million other threads on evolution and you will find all the information for which you're looking. That is, if you're willing to read about it instead of curling up inside your bible.

 

[xsarien]

Can anyone here offer a powerful argument as to why 'creationism' (in all its various forms) should be rejected?

You first. Tell us what evidence there is that creationism should be accepted as anything more than religious dogma.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Dammin Jeffahn you dropped the football.

 

[Dilbert]

i need you wake up here -jinx- DONT GO INTO THE LIGHT YET!! just answer the questions and hopefully the big bad man will go away.

That was the sound of me counting to 20 slowly, hoping that the anger at his idiocy would go away. It's not helping, but at least I've confirmed that I still have all my fingers and toes.

 

[Chony]

So, evolution works, and is scientifically proven no?

Do these religious people not watch TV, enjoy living to 80+, traveling across the world, putting a robot on mars, etc. only to say this one thing in science is false. My dad believes in the old earth, but still that humans are only 6008 years old. I explained to him about carbon dating (and AMS), and all of the principles upon which they rely with respect to chemistry (as a former chemistry major I feel I explained fairly well). And in the state we live in (Washington) a man was found (Kennewick man) that is over 9000+ years old. Granted their have been human and quasi-human remains to 100,000+ years, this was close to home, and is found very recently using the most modern and proven (by use of tree rings and the like) that carbon dating is fact. My dad just quotes how science is always changing, and improving and disproving earlier scientific fact (Einstein > Newton etc.). I of course refute this with religion changing to accomidate science. Soon his religion should meld into the fact that yes there is evolution, yes there was a big bang, etc, etc, etc. Only that god started it all, and all that followed was god plan. (This is how I feel anyways)

Edit: This also follows chaos theory (not string theory) that since the Big Bang set up the initial conditions, and thenceforth all reactions of subatomic particles are reacting in a predictable way. When mixing two chemicals you can predict the outcome. When you hit a ball with a bat you can predict the outcome with physics. The uderlying principle to physics and chemistry is math. With math you could potentially predict anything. And since our know world is built on math, it is undeniable to believe in a fate as we know it. Of course the math is far to complex to predict anything, and people feeling that they are not in control never goes well, and this is an oversimplified statement, and I really don't understand how the brain works besides basic neurons (taking psychology now), actions and reactions, etc. I have lost my train of thought.

 

[DrForester]

Are they going to give equal time to the belief that the world is carried on the back of a turtle?

curse you for making me remember soul music.

 

[Teflar]

curse you for making me remember soul music.

I was thinking Disc World...

 

[Mama Smurf]

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

Edit: This also follows chaos theory (not string theory) that since the Big Bang set up the initial conditions, and thenceforth all reactions of subatomic particles are reacting in a predictable way. When mixing two chemicals you can predict the outcome. When you hit a ball with a bat you can predict the outcome with physics. The uderlying principle to physics and chemistry is math. With math you could potentially predict anything. And since our know world is built on math, it is undeniable to believe in a fate as we know it. Of course the math is far to complex to predict anything, and people feeling that they are not in control never goes well, and this is an oversimplified statement, and I really don't understand how the brain works besides basic neurons (taking psychology now), actions and reactions, etc. I have lost my train of thought.

Except that in the sub atomic world, with outcomes designated by probabilities rather than hard facts. It was disproved quite some time ago that given a complete knowledge of every particle, and it's velocity, charge, mmass, spin, etc, you STILL wouldn't be able to fast forward and rewind history.

Not sure if this holds enough influence to dispel the notion in the macroscopic world, however. Although I'm sure the matter has been investigated.

 

[Teflar]

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0552140295.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Huh, haven't read that one. To Borders!

 

[SpoonyBard]

The Soul Music animated series is pretty good too, and the DVD should be pretty cheap.

 

[Belfast]

Can anyone here offer a powerful argument as to why 'creationism' (in all its various forms) should be rejected? Somehow I doubt it. I'd expect feeble references to 'science' or 'rationality' instead.

I don't have the time to argue this fully. For now, all I'm going to do is throw a few big ideas around.



1. Human beings aren't always 'rational' or 'logical'.

2. Is empiricism rational?

3. When is rationality illogical?

4. Are rationality or logicality 'virtues'?

5. If they are, they are virtues which compete with other virtues. When should they lose out?

I'm too lazy to argue this fully, I'm just going to throw some bullshit questions out there and wait on some responses so that I can pretend to tell them they're wrong after I figure out what to say. Forget supporting my initial position. Instead, I'll let others figure it out for me.

 

[Teza]

Why do I make Jinx so angry?

 

[Teza]

Incidentally, I wasn't intending that people respond to each of my 'points'. They weren't propositions inviting direct responses. They were merely food for thought. I was suggesting - politely, of course - that people are rejecting 'creationism' (which is not a monolithic theory, btw) on the basis of the most superficial understanding of the problems.

Doesn't anyone have anything more profound to say than the 'creationism != science' line? What are the difficulties with empiricism, for example? Empirical science is often associated with rationality. Rationality and logic are often conflated. And yet there are deep, deep problems with each of these suppositions.

But hey, I'm probably expecting too much.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm not willing to debate anyone on the point unless they're willing to look at the basis for their belief beyond mere religion.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Why do I make Jinx so angry?

the anger at his idiocy

 

[Teza]

Incidentally #2, I'm not a 'creationist' (however that is defined). I've already said in a previous thread that I'm an atheist.

But if we want to reject creationism, we should do so properly - in part by understanding the full implications of our position.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I wasn't aware that *not* teaching creationism in a school's science curriculum was rejecting it. Merely putting it in its proper place.

 

[Flynn]

Why the heck not?

While we're at it The Flat Earth Society has some lesson plans ready as well.

 

[Seth C]

So really, where did that Teela picture come from?

 

[Teza]

I wasn't aware that *not* teaching creationism in a school's science curriculum was rejecting it. Merely putting it in its proper place.

Is 'acceptance/rejection' a binary choice, or is there a continuum of choices? In other words, can there be degrees of 'rejection'? I think so.

Further, what is the purpose of a 'science curriculum'? Prima facie, it is on the one hand a method of teaching students about 'scientific' techniques (procedures). On the other hand, it serves to disseminate knowledge about the way the world is (content). (Obviously, this isn't a clear division, but it'll do for now.)

This latter function can easily bring it into conflict with 'creationism'.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

Leaving the evolution VS creationism debate aside, the fact is that the sole argument for ID is "it's too complex, therefore it must have been designed by a supernatural intelligent being", which runs counter to methodological naturalism, which is one of the most basic pillars of the scientific method.

In other words, even if you ignore the facts that...

- All the most common examples of ID (such as the spermatozoid's flagellum and the human eye) have been falsified.

- 99.9998% of all scientists who got their degree and work in a field related to evolution (i.e. biologists, biochemists, and paleontologists) accept the theory of evolution.

- The almost totality of ID proponents are Christian fundies, and those who aren't are usually making lots of money by selling various books and other merchandise about creationism and ID.

- ID doesn't actually explain anything, all their arguments either attempt to falsify evolution (as opposed to attempting to support ID), or are based on the "argument from ignorance" logical fallacy.


...intelligent design can't be called science, even by the vaguest meaning of the term. It's not "bad science" or "science based on shaky grounds"; by its very definition, ID isn't science at ALL, and has no place in a science classroom.