Creationism Vs. Evolution

[The Alma Mater]

And seriously, can we not respect the opinions of other people?

Opinions ? Certainly.
Opinions presented as fact or as accepted scientific theories, while they are neither ? Opinions that were deliberately contrived to achieve a political goal ?

No. Not so much.

Should we ?

[Bottle]

And when religious people stop using Comic Sans arguments, maybe there will be any reason to care about what they have to say.

If you're implying I'm religious, I would like to point out once again that I'm not, and am in fact, a nihilist. So...if you were implyign that, maybe you should stop assuming things? It makes you look very un-scientific and like a fool.

I'm sorry, but being told that I look "unscientific and like a fool" by somebody who continues to use red italics for his oh-so-important pronouncements is like being told I look silly by a man who is wearing his soiled boxers on his head.

And seriously, can we not respect the opinions of other people? A lot of posters in this topic remind me of the Catholic Church in the Dark Ages in terms of how much hate they harbor for anyone who dare think differently than them. Irony much?

I don't hate people who think differently. I do have great contempt for people who don't think. However, unlike the Church of the Dark Ages, I don't believe in burning such people alive, or imprisoning them for life, or torturing them until they understand the scientific method, or banishing them from their homelands, or stripping them of all their rights and property, or murdering their families, or raping them repeatedly, or out-right murdering them to keep them quiet.

Nice valid comparison, though.

[The Alma Mater]

Maybe starting at middle school level there could be a selective mini-course not only about Creationism and evolution but about world religions, along with atheism, all of which would encompass these beliefs and much more. I think that has the potential to raise awareness and allow at a young age to help see where others are coming from.

To avoid confusion, let us stop using the word creationism, but call it "Genesis" instead.

[Farnhamia]

Maybe starting at middle school level there could be a selective mini-course not only about Creationism and evolution but about world religions, along with atheism, all of which would encompass these beliefs and much more. I think that has the potential to raise awareness and allow at a young age to help see where others are coming from.

I fixed that for you. Evolution no more belongs in a religion class than creationism does in a science class. Anyway, teaching about creationism will necessarily include mention of evolution.

[Bottle]

And seriously, can we not respect the opinions of other people?

Opinions ? Certainly.
Opinions presented as fact or as accepted scientific theories, while they are neither ? Opinions that were deliberately contrived to achieve a political goal ?

No. Not so much.

Should we ?

Forgive me, but why SHOULD we always respect other peoples' opinions?

I've met guys who are of the opinion that all lesbians need to get raped to turn them straight. I've met gals who are of the opinion that all black men are stupid animals who should be performing manual labor and nothing else. I've met people who are of the opinion that drinking garlic tea will cure cancer, so the state has to take custody of their children in order to provide the kids with decent medical care.

Plenty of opinions don't deserve respect.

I respect the rights and freedoms of PEOPLE. I respect anybody's right to be wrong about anything and everything. You've got the right to be a pig-ignorant bigoted sonofabitch, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to try to beat you up, or take your stuff, or imprison you, or harm you for being ignorant. I'm going to make sure you get the same legal rights as anybody else. That's the kind of respect that everyone gets from me, even Creationist who are actively and intentionally harming our society and increasing the suffering in the world.

But why should I respect their opinions? Their opinions are wrong. Their opinions are useless, even counterproductive. They have every right to hold those opinions, and no right whatsoever to demand respect for their wrong opinions.

[The Alma Mater]

Opinions ? Certainly.
Opinions presented as fact or as accepted scientific theories, while they are neither ? Opinions that were deliberately contrived to achieve a political goal ?

No. Not so much.

Should we ?

Forgive me, but why SHOULD we always respect other peoples' opinions?

He asked can. Not should

[DaWoad]

unless it can't? Unless it's simply a ploy to make it seem like they're a lesser risk due to a change in lifestyle. Moreover a vast majority of people in jail even per capita are religious.

And the vast that are out aren't. But the vast majority that are out are life focused in that and the vast majority that are in are death focused. Don't talk me about this, I'm one of those guys those dad's cell number used to be didn't have anything to do with his cell phone and one of of the things that got him out was faith.

Sorry, can you rewrite that somehow I'm incapable of making sense of it? Moreover, anecdotal experience is valueless when defending a point about anything other than personal preference.

[The Chaos Heart]

If you're implying I'm religious, I would like to point out once again that I'm not, and am in fact, a nihilist. So...if you were implyign that, maybe you should stop assuming things? It makes you look very un-scientific and like a fool.

I'm sorry, but being told that I look "unscientific and like a fool" by somebody who continues to use red italics for his oh-so-important pronouncements is like being told I look silly by a man who is wearing his soiled boxers on his head.

So, really, it's at the point where you're going to be a dick about the font I use? Can you bring nothing up against my statement?

And seriously, can we not respect the opinions of other people? A lot of posters in this topic remind me of the Catholic Church in the Dark Ages in terms of how much hate they harbor for anyone who dare think differently than them. Irony much?

I don't hate people who think differently. I do have great contempt for people who don't think. However, unlike the Church of the Dark Ages, I don't believe in burning such people alive, or imprisoning them for life, or torturing them until they understand the scientific method, or banishing them from their homelands, or stripping them of all their rights and property, or murdering their families, or raping them repeatedly, or out-right murdering them to keep them quiet.

Nice valid comparison, though.

I wasn't specifically calling you out. I said "posters in this topic". Also, no, you're not, but it's the lack of respect I comparing it to. Posters in this topic seem to be out to make any religious person feel like a scum bag for believing what they believe. I ask again, if they aren't harming anyone, why are you so rude to them, just because they think differently?

[Bottle]

Maybe starting at middle school level there could be a selective mini-course not only about Creationism and evolution but about world religions, along with atheism, all of which would encompass these beliefs and much more. I think that has the potential to raise awareness and allow at a young age to help see where others are coming from.

I think that topic would be far too broad, and couldn't be covered correctly anyhow because you can't teach evolution without teaching science, and that requires its own entire class.

What might be good is to have an elective course on the political and social impacts of evolutionary theory, starting before Darwin and continuing to the modern day, and discussing how and why evolutionary theory has been rejected by certain religious sects.

[The Chaos Heart]

Opinions ? Certainly.
Opinions presented as fact or as accepted scientific theories, while they are neither ? Opinions that were deliberately contrived to achieve a political goal ?

No. Not so much.

Should we ?

But why should I respect their opinions? Their opinions are wrong. Their opinions are useless, even counterproductive. They have every right to hold those opinions, and no right whatsoever to demand respect for their wrong opinions.

Opinions are only "wrong" if they defy fact. Otherwise, no, they are not wrong. They're just...opinions.

They have every right to recieve respect for their opinions, in that, they deserve not to be treated like scum for their opinion (well, those poeple you talked about are another story). So long as a person's opinion doesn't harm an individual or group, they shoudl be treated with respect. Most religions do just that. So why all the hate?

[The Alma Mater]

@The Chaos Heart - the following is what people mean when they state they want "creationism in the classroom":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

Hopefully it will clear up the confusion

[The Alma Mater]

But why should I respect their opinions? Their opinions are wrong. Their opinions are useless, even counterproductive. They have every right to hold those opinions, and no right whatsoever to demand respect for their wrong opinions.

Opinions are only "wrong" if they defy fact. Otherwise, no, they are not wrong. They're just...opinions.

They have every right to recieve respect for their opinions, in that, they deserve not to be treated like scum for their opinion (well, those poeple you talked about are another story). So long as a person's opinion doesn't harm an individual or group, they shoudl be treated with respect. Most religions do just that. So why all the hate?

So if shown that creationism is harmful, we do not have to respect it ?
Great Can we start with their denial that mutations take place, which has produced some very nasty diseases ?

[Bottle]

I wasn't specifically calling you out. I said "posters in this topic". Also, no, you're not, but it's the lack of respect I comparing it to. Posters in this topic seem to be out to make any religious person feel like a scum bag for believing what they believe. I ask again, if they aren't harming anyone, why are you so rude to them, just because they think differently?

Ahhhhhh, you stopped. Much better. Now we can get somewhere!

To answer your questions:

1) Creationists who presume to declare their personal myths to be of equal value to the mountains of research and science that have gone into evolutionary biology are being outrageously and profoundly offensive from the get-go. They are like the dude who shows up at a nice dinner party and immediately takes a shit in the punch bowl. You are chastising the people who are laughing at the dude who just shit in the punch bowl.

2) Creationists absolutely do harm people, and a great many of them, in my country. They harm children all over the country, of course, by pushing religious dogma into secular classrooms and by undercutting essential science education. But they also harm adults, by causing critical damage to some of the most important industries in America.

At one time, America was poised to be the world power in biomedical sciences, and given current economic trends in other areas this would be a crucial point of strength for a country that is already struggling in many other areas. It's actually pretty shocking, how far behind American students are compared to students from China, Germany, and even BRAZIL in many subject areas. (Not meaning to talk shit about Brazil, but look at their GDP and look at ours...we have no excuse.)

America is also far behind where it should be in terms of research and development in the biological sciences, thanks in large part to the efforts of Creationists and religionists and their political activism. These advances would save lives. Creationists directly hamper life-saving research in countless fields. (For example, if Creationism is embraced, then animal testing cannot possibly provide us with any information about how a drug will act on the human system. So we can no longer test any treatment or drug on animals, ever. Enjoy your untested medications!)

Finally, the "teaching" of Creationism is nothing short of teaching students to not think. It is a means of teaching students NOT to use empirical study, critical thinking, or any of the skills that are essential for success in the modern, educated workforce. It harms the economic potential of literally millions of young Americans.


Short version: I make fun of Creationists because they are rude, and I believe rudeness should always be called out. I also take the time to eviscerate Creationists and Creationist apologists because they are a direct danger to my way of life and the safety and health of myself and my loved ones.

[The Chaos Heart]

@The Chaos Heart - the following is what people mean when they state they want "creationism in the classroom":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

Hopefully it will clear up the confusion

"The scientific community states that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes."

Well, there you go. Not a science. I understand what you mean now perfectly, and yeah, this should not be taught in school as a "science" because it simply isn't. It defies all aspects of the scientific method. Where would it be taught? Well...it seesm to be based soley around Christianity, so I would say in a Christian theology class. But in a science class? No.

[Bottle]

But why should I respect their opinions? Their opinions are wrong. Their opinions are useless, even counterproductive. They have every right to hold those opinions, and no right whatsoever to demand respect for their wrong opinions.

Opinions are only "wrong" if they defy fact. Otherwise, no, they are not wrong. They're just...opinions.

I'm glad you agree with me! See, we are making such progress.

[The Chaos Heart]

I wasn't specifically calling you out. I said "posters in this topic". Also, no, you're not, but it's the lack of respect I comparing it to. Posters in this topic seem to be out to make any religious person feel like a scum bag for believing what they believe. I ask again, if they aren't harming anyone, why are you so rude to them, just because they think differently?

Ahhhhhh, you stopped. Much better. Now we can get somewhere!

To answer your questions:

1) Creationists who presume to declare their personal myths to be of equal value to the mountains of research and science that have gone into evolutionary biology are being outrageously and profoundly offensive from the get-go. They are like the dude who shows up at a nice dinner party and immediately takes a shit in the punch bowl. You are chastising the people who are laughing at the dude who just shit in the punch bowl.

2) Creationists absolutely do harm people, and a great many of them, in my country. They harm children all over the country, of course, by pushing religious dogma into secular classrooms and by undercutting essential science education. But they also harm adults, by causing critical damage to some of the most important industries in America.

At one time, America was poised to be the world power in biomedical sciences, and given current economic trends in other areas this would be a crucial point of strength for a country that is already struggling in many other areas. It's actually pretty shocking, how far behind American students are compared to students from China, Germany, and even BRAZIL in many subject areas. (Not meaning to talk shit about Brazil, but look at their GDP and look at ours...we have no excuse.)

America is also far behind where it should be in terms of research and development in the biological sciences, thanks in large part to the efforts of Creationists and religionists and their political activism. These advances would save lives. Creationists directly hamper life-saving research in countless fields. (For example, if Creationism is embraced, then animal testing cannot possibly provide us with any information about how a drug will act on the human system. So we can no longer test any treatment or drug on animals, ever. Enjoy your untested medications!)

Finally, the "teaching" of Creationism is nothing short of teaching students to not think. It is a means of teaching students NOT to use empirical study, critical thinking, or any of the skills that are essential for success in the modern, educated workforce. It harms the economic potential of literally millions of young Americans.


Short version: I make fun of Creationists because they are rude, and I believe rudeness should always be called out. I also take the time to eviscerate Creationists and Creationist apologists because they are a direct danger to my way of life and the safety and health of myself and my loved ones.

Before I respond, are you as well refering to the Creationist Science linked above, or all religious people?

[DaWoad]

Another point to bring up here. This is a debate forum, if you bring up a point such as "creationsim and evolution should both be taught in science" you cannot and should not expect people to say "ah well you're welcome to your opinion" and leave it at that because
a) that would be boring as all hell
and
b)by making a statement in a debate forum you are claiming it to be a fact in a way that mentioning it IRL you wouldn't be.

[Norstal]

Watching a non-scientist debating against a neuroscientist is like watching a midget vs. B-2 Spirit bomber fight.

It's entertaining and very, very messy.

[Little Italy-Pornolia]

Not necessarily evolution, but more like mutation. If there is a mutation in the organism's DNA or genetic code, then that organism (whatever it's intelligence level might be) will attempt to "make itself at home" with its new features. It is not necessary for a mutation to be an evolution, it could also impair the organism's abilities or chance at surviving in the wild, in that case it is called Devolution. But if the organism is able to relocate itself to take advantage of all its features, it might just be called "evolution".
Anyhow, it is always suposed to be called Mutation. The fact that it is a "theory" is that in science, the definition of theory is different than that of everyday life. As wikipedia.com explains: A scientific theory is a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions. Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. The "theory of evolution" is the framework that best explains observed changes of species over time and best predicts the new observations that continue to be made in evolutionary biology and related sciences.
The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a hypothesis, a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. However, In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous. A theory is hypothesis corroborated by observation of facts which makes testable predictions. In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory.

[Norstal]

Not necessarily evolution, but more like mutation.

I'm sorry but I stopped reading there. Because mutation is evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Because if an organism changes in traits, whether it be anatomical, behavioural, or biological, then it undergoes evolution.

[DaWoad]

Not necessarily evolution, but more like mutation. If there is a mutation in the organism's DNA or genetic code, then that organism (whatever it's intelligence level might be) will attempt to "make itself at home" with its new features. It is not necessary for a mutation to be an evolution, it could also impair the organism's abilities or chance at surviving in the wild, in that case it is called Devolution. But if the organism is able to relocate itself to take advantage of all its features, it might just be called "evolution".

you're making a couple of mistakes
1-evolution isn't about a creature seeking out a neich to fit it's new set of mutated legs, it's about a creation having, via a mutation of some sort, a greater chance to reproduce that it's peers. it reproduces, DNA is hereditary therefore the mutation is found in each of its offspring. They have the same advantage, are more likely to reproduce and, so, eventually the whole species has the extra mutated legs (very simplified
2-organisms don't "evolve" like Pokemon. It's a generational and species thing, not an individual thing.
3-if a mutation is harmful, that creature will die/be less likely to reproduce and the harmful mutation will breed itself out given a long enough period of time. There's no such thing as "devolution"

[Mike the Progressive]

Are there even any creationists on this forum?

To paraphrase my priest, the whole purpose of the book of Genesis is to provide an idea of the relationship between God and man. If you are seeing anything else or thinking it is about something else entirely, you're sadly missing the point.

[The Alma Mater]

Are there even any creationists on this forum?

There are. And even if there weren't, these topics attract people who register a nation, make a single post in favour of creationism, and then vanish.
Some sort of organisation

[Tekania]

Maybe starting at middle school level there could be a selective mini-course not only about Creationism and evolution but about world religions, along with atheism, all of which would encompass these beliefs and much more. I think that has the potential to raise awareness and allow at a young age to help see where others are coming from.

I fixed that for you. Evolution no more belongs in a religion class than creationism does in a science class. Anyway, teaching about creationism will necessarily include mention of evolution.

Have to beg to differ with you, some creation theologies do in fact include evolution.

[Norstal]

Are there even any creationists on this forum?

There are. And even if there weren't, these topics attract people who register a nation, make a single post in favour of creationism, and then vanish.
Some sort of organisation

Sounds like what Scientologists would do tbh.