Creationism in Public Schools

[Geneviev]

Or trying to be more honest. It depends.

No. No, no, no. No.

Just... no.

You really should not keep holding on to this thing. It is not in any way honest by virtue of its inherent nature, and it does you no favors to keep to it.

I'm not sure of it now anyway.

[Neutraligon]

Those that haven't lied are willfully ignorant. ID is simply another form of creationism, with no more science then creationism.

Amazing how many Christians seem to have no issue accepting/ (or in the case of most scientists in the field) promoting evolution/geology/astronomy/etc.

At least intelligent design tried to be more scientific.

It didn't that is the point I am making. There is nothing scientific in ID because it fails in the most basic of things, to follow the scientific method. Since it fails in following the method, it cannot be scientific. What is worse is that t least simple creationism does not attempt to claim to be more scientific, unlike ID, meaning that ID actually undermines science more then creationism does.

[Salandriagado]

This is a pattern with them. Their arguments turn out to be wrong a lot. And a lot of the time, the way that they're wrong is that they misrepresent actual science and what science says.

And that is why I say that they lie and mislead. Because they do.

So I'll say it again - and I really hope it gets through even though suspect it may not - ID does not deserve to be placed on a pedestal, or held up as a "reasonable" alternative to Creationism. I get that stepping away from Creationism may be uncomfortable for you, but ID is not where you want to stop. You'll find, in time, that it has all the same problems Creationism had.

I would hope that the people who lie are only a small group in intelligent design, but even if they're not, it's the only alternative to YEC that is still Christian.

No it isn't. Apart from all of the other examples already mentioned in this discussion, the Pope disagrees.

Also, it continues to not be an alternative to YEC, it's just YEC LARPing as something else.

[Salandriagado]

Those that haven't lied are willfully ignorant. ID is simply another form of creationism, with no more science then creationism.

Amazing how many Christians seem to have no issue accepting/ (or in the case of most scientists in the field) promoting evolution/geology/astronomy/etc.

At least intelligent design tried to be more scientific.

No it didn't. What hypotheses did it test? What predictions did it make? What experiments did it do to test those predictions? How did it modify its hypotheses to account for that new evidence. The answer to all of those questions is "it didn't", because it's not science, it never tried to be science, its YEC in a lab coat.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I would hope that the people who lie are only a small group in intelligent design, but even if they're not, it's the only alternative to YEC that is still Christian.

No it isn't. Apart from all of the other examples already mentioned in this discussion, the Pope disagrees.

Also, it continues to not be an alternative to YEC, it's just YEC LARPing as something else.

*flings nerf ball at biology teacher*

“I cast God of the Gaps Missile!”

[The Free Joy State]

Theistic Evolution exists. I have my problems with it, but it is real.

It's not Christian.

No true Scotsman.

It's not Christian.

I’ll take ‘which way do Catholics lean’ for a thousand, Alex.

According to Pew, most Christian congregations lean to evolution either helped or allowed for by God.

I'm personally in the (not much lesser represented) natural evolution statistic, but...

[Geneviev]

At least intelligent design tried to be more scientific.

No it didn't. What hypotheses did it test? What predictions did it make? What experiments did it do to test those predictions? How did it modify its hypotheses to account for that new evidence. The answer to all of those questions is "it didn't", because it's not science, it never tried to be science, its YEC in a lab coat.

Then I was wrong.

[Page]

Theistic Evolution exists. I have my problems with it, but it is real.

It's not Christian.

The Catholic Church and most mainstream Protestant organizations believe in "theistic evolution" I don't know about the Orthodox churches, but YEC is a fringe belief within Christianity.

[Geneviev]

It's not Christian.

The Catholic Church and most mainstream Protestant organizations believe in "theistic evolution" I don't know about the Orthodox churches, but YEC is a fringe belief within Christianity.

It's more common with Christians who believe the whole Bible.

[Page]

The Catholic Church and most mainstream Protestant organizations believe in "theistic evolution" I don't know about the Orthodox churches, but YEC is a fringe belief within Christianity.

It's more common with Christians who believe the whole Bible.

Virtually all Christians believe in the whole Bible, it's more so a question of how literally it's taken.

[Geneviev]

It's more common with Christians who believe the whole Bible.

Virtually all Christians believe in the whole Bible, it's more so a question of how literally it's taken.

That's what I meant.

[The Free Joy State]

Virtually all Christians believe in the whole Bible, it's more so a question of how literally it's taken.

That's what I meant.

That's possibly something to do with it:
Percentage of Americans who believe the Bible is the literal word of God: 24%.

Percentage of Americans who believe in creationism: 18%.

Of course, correlation is not causation.

[Salandriagado]

The Catholic Church and most mainstream Protestant organizations believe in "theistic evolution" I don't know about the Orthodox churches, but YEC is a fringe belief within Christianity.

It's more common with Christians who believe the whole Bible.

I don't know about exactly how many of the tiny handful of such people who actually exist think such, but I also don't know why anybody should care.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Evolution is Creationism.

Pope Frank said it best: "God isn't a magician."

[The Black Forrest]

Evolution is Creationism.

Pope Frank said it best: "God isn't a magician."

Ok. I need to test your statement. How do I test for your god?

[Geneviev]

It's more common with Christians who believe the whole Bible.

I don't know about exactly how many of the tiny handful of such people who actually exist think such, but I also don't know why anybody should care.

I was just saying it's not a fringe belief in certain denominations of Christianity.

[Salandriagado]

I don't know about exactly how many of the tiny handful of such people who actually exist think such, but I also don't know why anybody should care.

I was just saying it's not a fringe belief in certain denominations of Christianity.

No, you were making a statement about the group of people "Christians who believe the whole Bible". The number of such people who exist is fucking tiny, and thus their beliefs are fucking irrelevant to whether or not something is a fringe belief.

[The Natufian Nation]

I am speaking here as a biologist who also has religious affinities. There are so many directions I could go in talking about evolution, which is one of my areas of study, but I will try to keep with the topic of the thread.

No, public schools should not be teaching creationism or its rebranding known as Intelligent Design. Creationism is not a science and is clearly a religious doctrine. The US courts affirmed this in Kitzmiller v Dover, 2005.

Furthermore, evolution is one of the most successful explanatory theories in all of natural science and within biology, I think the words of Theodosius Dobzhansky best captures its significance, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

You have as much of a chance of showing lifeforms are derived from special creation instead of change over time (evolution) as you do showing that sickness is caused by demons and not organic pathogens.

THAT SAID, I think a lot of the hostility towards evolution from people with religious inclinations can be defused by making the point that as a scientific theory, evolution makes absolutely no religious claims whatsoever. It is entirely possible to recognize the validity of evolution and maintain a belief in God in some form. Even in the Catholic Church, the encyclical Humani Generis states evolution is not incompatible with Christian faith. When you quit using the Bible as a history book, there is a lot of exciting work being done in theology that incorporates evolution. In process theology, as one example, evolution is actually essential to understanding the divine nature. But that is for a religious class, not a science class.

Thanks, everyone

This post should be highlighted for how well written, thoughtful and unbiased it is. I’m not being sarcastic at all. Really, thanks for posting this.

You're welcome and thanks for your comment, Nanatsu no Tsuki. I appreciate the feedback!

[The Natufian Nation]

I wasn’t saying you did. I’m just pointing out that their rejection is their shortcoming.

Yes.

On that we agree.

My main point was that it would still be a tall order to convince them that evolution doesn't make claims about religion when they rather specifically made it so their religion would be directly affected by scientific concepts. Yes, it is their fault. That doesn't make things easier.

Yes, I think you are spot-on about that. It is difficult to get creationists to see this but I would try to put it as succinctly as I could like this:
The science of evolution is not making any religious claims as such. Any conflicts they may perceive is a result of a religion that makes scientific claims which are false. But if they can focus on religion as a message of meaning and purpose instead of an account of history and the natural world, there is an opportunity to develop a deeper theology than the Thomistic heritage from the middle ages and move the conversation forward. Right now we seem stuck in this baffling willfull ignorance about the method, scope and reliability of science.

[Geneviev]

Yes.

On that we agree.

My main point was that it would still be a tall order to convince them that evolution doesn't make claims about religion when they rather specifically made it so their religion would be directly affected by scientific concepts. Yes, it is their fault. That doesn't make things easier.

Yes, I think you are spot-on about that. It is difficult to get creationists to see this but I would try to put it as succinctly as I could like this:
The science of evolution is not making any religious claims as such. Any conflicts they may perceive is a result of a religion that makes scientific claims which are false. But if they can focus on religion as a message of meaning and purpose instead of an account of history and the natural world, there is an opportunity to develop a deeper theology than the Thomistic heritage from the middle ages and move the conversation forward. Right now we seem stuck in this baffling willfull ignorance about the method, scope and reliability of science.

Even if evolution itself isn't making religious claim, it does contradict the beliefs of Evangelical Christians. To make them more open to evolution, it would be necessary to change the religion itself, and that is not possible, especially for Evangelical Christians. They depend on the truth of the Bible and it will not be possible to change that.

[Neutraligon]

Yes, I think you are spot-on about that. It is difficult to get creationists to see this but I would try to put it as succinctly as I could like this:
The science of evolution is not making any religious claims as such. Any conflicts they may perceive is a result of a religion that makes scientific claims which are false. But if they can focus on religion as a message of meaning and purpose instead of an account of history and the natural world, there is an opportunity to develop a deeper theology than the Thomistic heritage from the middle ages and move the conversation forward. Right now we seem stuck in this baffling willfull ignorance about the method, scope and reliability of science.

Even if evolution itself isn't making religious claim, it does contradict the beliefs of Evangelical Christians. To make them more open to evolution, it would be necessary to change the religion itself, and that is not possible, especially for Evangelical Christians. They depend on the truth of the Bible and it will not be possible to change that.

They are very willing to accept that parts of the bible are written in parable, why can't the creation myth be part of the bible written in parable? Does being parable make it less "truth"?

[Geneviev]

Even if evolution itself isn't making religious claim, it does contradict the beliefs of Evangelical Christians. To make them more open to evolution, it would be necessary to change the religion itself, and that is not possible, especially for Evangelical Christians. They depend on the truth of the Bible and it will not be possible to change that.

They are very willing to accept that parts of the bible are written in parable, why can't the creation myth be part of the bible written in parable? Does being parable make it less "truth"?

The parables were introduced as parables or with a simile to make it clear that they were parables. Genesis is not written in that form. If you believe that the whole Bible is true, you also have to accept Genesis as fact.

[Godular]

Yes.

On that we agree.

My main point was that it would still be a tall order to convince them that evolution doesn't make claims about religion when they rather specifically made it so their religion would be directly affected by scientific concepts. Yes, it is their fault. That doesn't make things easier.

Yes, I think you are spot-on about that. It is difficult to get creationists to see this but I would try to put it as succinctly as I could like this:
The science of evolution is not making any religious claims as such. Any conflicts they may perceive is a result of a religion that makes scientific claims which are false. But if they can focus on religion as a message of meaning and purpose instead of an account of history and the natural world, there is an opportunity to develop a deeper theology than the Thomistic heritage from the middle ages and move the conversation forward. Right now we seem stuck in this baffling willfull ignorance about the method, scope and reliability of science.

Aye, entirely too many are willing to let their church do all their thinking for them. I have heard some folks rather literally admit to exactly that thing. Left me somewhat flabbergasted at how easily someone would just up and throw away their free will like that.

They also used 'liberal' as a swear word. Bit of a tangent, that, but seems rather telling.

Even if evolution itself isn't making religious claim, it does contradict the beliefs of Evangelical Christians. To make them more open to evolution, it would be necessary to change the religion itself, and that is not possible, especially for Evangelical Christians. They depend on the truth of the Bible and it will not be possible to change that.

Then such is their problem. If their faith is based on such a flimsy foundation they should maybe see about revising their outlook. Science does it all the time.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

They are very willing to accept that parts of the bible are written in parable, why can't the creation myth be part of the bible written in parable? Does being parable make it less "truth"?

The parables were introduced as parables or with a simile to make it clear that they were parables. Genesis is not written in that form. If you believe that the whole Bible is true, you also have to accept Genesis as fact.

This despite the fact that geological evidence contradicts Genesis on several points. I’d call that willful ignorance, really.

[Geneviev]

Even if evolution itself isn't making religious claim, it does contradict the beliefs of Evangelical Christians. To make them more open to evolution, it would be necessary to change the religion itself, and that is not possible, especially for Evangelical Christians. They depend on the truth of the Bible and it will not be possible to change that.

Then such is their problem. If their faith is based on such a flimsy foundation they should maybe see about revising their outlook. Science does it all the time.

Their religion doesn't allow that. They will always have to deny evolution and anything else that contradicts the Bible.

The parables were introduced as parables or with a simile to make it clear that they were parables. Genesis is not written in that form. If you believe that the whole Bible is true, you also have to accept Genesis as fact.

This despite the fact that geological evidence contradicts Genesis on several points. I’d call that willful ignorance, really.

They get their information from a different source.