h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

That's the whole point Runner. If Creationists just went about like they believed in something for the sake of religion then who is anyone to argue?

But the "creation science" corner want their beliefs recognised as scientific fact. They fall at the first hurdle. A golden rule is science is you cannot prove a positive with a negative. In other words creationism seeks to debunk evolution which it thinks proves it's own "theories". It doesn't.

Ste

I've said this somewhere else, but it bears repeating:

People who want to close their eyes to the evidence of reality, and stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalala I can't hear you" when someone tries to point out that reality, should be, and are, perfectly free to do so. You may choose to believe the moon is made of green cheese and that cats can speak Italian, and I won't argue with you.

It's an unfortunate but unavoidable fact that such wilfully ignorant people are still able to take advantage of the comforts of a technological society which is only possible because of people who are not still clinging to primitive superstition. But such parasites have always been with us, and there's nothing ethical you can do about it.

However, the mere freedom to believe what they want to believe is not enough for the Creation Science lobby. They want their beliefs taught in schools.

Now I for one am all for religious education. The message of most religions is "be nice to other people", which is laudable, and it's interesting to see the many and varied myths and stories which cultures around the world have used to dress this rather basic message up. (It's a bit sad that some seem to include restrictions on precisely which people you're supposed to be nice to and how, and differing definitions of what consitutes "nice", but we're an imperfect species...)

The study of religion is worthwhile, in that it
(a) gives fascinating insights into the human mindset and our apparent need for the psychological crutch of a supreme being(s) and
(b) shows you what other people believe and therefore forewarns you of their likely prejudices and mores.

However, not even formal study of the Creation story is enough for these people. Oh no - they want their particular cultural myth taught in SCIENCE classes. They want OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN taught their primitive superstition, not just alongside, but if possible INSTEAD OF accepted scientific fact.

This is criminal negligence. To take a young, impressionable mind, who has the potential to be the next Pasteur, Curie, Einstein, or Crick, and to try to impress upon it that the scientific community are a bunch of self-serving conspirators and that the mountains of evidence should be disregarded in favour of the translated scribblings of men who lived two thousand years ago is inexcusable.

If all Creationists were doing was saying "this is what I believe", then everything would be fine - sensible people could nod and smile indulgently. But their crucial extension to that is "...and this is what must be taught to children AS FACT - and scientists must be labelled liars and frauds". It is their (depressingly often successful) insistence on interfering with the education of others that makes them more than merely a loony fringe cult within Christianity.

There is an issue of parental choice. Time and again parents CHOOSE to send their children to schools which foster Creationism. Such schools are popular because they get often get good results in exams. It is easy to see why - such schools have a central ethos of respect for others and commitment to hard work. This often translates into good results, and parents of course want the best for their children so they want them to go to a "good school". I'm not against faith schools - I went to one myself, for precisely those reasons. But to then compromise the quality of the education children receive for the purposes of a religious agenda is a grotesque perversion of the education system, and should be fought wherever it is found.

In conclusion, a quotation.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why YOU dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen Roberts

H.

Evolution is just a theory. (Right?) As far as I can tell, in general a theory can't be 'proved', but it can hold in many situations. It could only be disproved by finding at least one counter example.

eg Newton's theories were just theories which fitted the world as it was perceived at the time. Now we know that while those equations hold, they aren't perfect, and we have the new theory of relativity and stuff. Also still just a theory which may be correct, but not perfect.

Couldn't the same be said for evolution? It's a theory and scientific evidence may still point to it as a possibilty. But it is still just a thoery until a counter example or a better theory comes along.

Maybe one day we'll be able to prove/disprove it, but for now isn't it just a theory, which happens to fit what we can see?

Couple of points - firstly, while I confess to being somewhat pedantic, you can prove a positive by a negative - proof by contradiction (a mathematical proof applicable in certain situations). But if we are talking about proofs, we all have to be pedantic...so correct me if I'm wrong.

Secondly, I am having difficulty believing that there are people who believe the world was created in 6 standard earth days. But then again, I was brought up to believe that QPR are the best football team in London. I guess what this debate really goes to show is that it's amazing what you can get people to believe if you bend their twig early enough. What I have a big problem with is people who knowingly come to believe this (adults) despite a lifetime of cause and effect. Perhaps if you truly want to believe, the brain will generate it's own (dubious) logic.

Garentee:

That's is so FUNNY! "Just" a theory?

Brilliant.

"for now isn't it just a theory, which happens to fit what we can see?"

YES! THAT'S THE POINT. It fits what we can see.

And Creationism is a theory which flies in the face of what we can see, and the only evidence for it is some old book.

You can tell the difference between a scientific theory and a load of old superstitious nonsense by this simple test: Is the theory falsifiable?

Evolution is a scientific theory, because ONE (count 'em) fossil of say, a rabbit, in pre-Cambrian strata would disprove it.

Creationism is a load of superstitious nonsense and NOT scientific (in fact specifically ANTI-scientific) because there is no way you can disprove it. Offer any evidence against it and your Creationist simply say "ah yes, but God made it like that to test my faith".

How about this? Maybe God made it like that to test your INTELLIGENCE, and you stuck to the Creation theory, which means you flunked.

H.

Runner:

Yes, it is possible to prove a negative. For instance, it is possible to prove that there are no even prime numbers larger than two. But you're right, that's getting pedantic!

Secondly: believe it. Go here: http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-100a.htm and read what people say about Old Earth Creationism being an unnacceptable compromise, and that the ONLY acceptable position is a 100% literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation - both of them.

H.

I agree that a major problem is creationists (and other religious folks) who insist on their views being made a part of public education.

Here in the Houston area (Texas, USA), a small town insisted on a prayer being read over the PA system before footbal games at a public school stadium. In spite of court rulings about separation of church and state, they claimed this as "free speech", somehow thinking that "free speech" as guaranteed by the US Constitution also meant their right to force others to listen. As the story developed, the question of "which religion's prayer" came up, given the diversity of this area - everything from Fundamentalist to Muslims, to non-religious folks. One resident's answer was, "Easy, just see which religion has the majority of the population." Exactly wrong.

The state government for the entire State of Kansas (USA) at one point directed that creationism be taught in all public schools. This led to widespread ridicule and I think companies leaving to avoid this kind of "education". In any case, the officials were eventually voted out and thier successors stopped the nonsense.

The frightening thing is that so many people see no problem in pushing their religious beliefs into public schools (unlike the Catholics and others who spend their own money, which is fine). As a non-religious person, I feel like the US policy of separation of church and state - very successful so far - is being threatened.

Hoovooloo,

I followed your reference. I liked the way the author stuck to his logic, but of course it was based on the Bible being true, and authored by God (and the classical interpretation of God at that). Personally, I'm scepical about stuff written yesterday, like newspapers, which purport to be true. How a document written up so long ago in a now extinct language by person or persons unknown can be taken as literal baffles me. However, if creationists do nothing but forces evolutionists to strengthen their argument or come up with a better explanation, so much the better. After all, the goal of all of us is to seek the truth, right? Or is that another supposition?

R.

Hi Runner,

Yep, a lot of people feel that is the case, and get frustrated when Creationists insist that there is a scientific basis to their beliefs. Hence Hoovooloo's increasingly short-tempered responses above . (No offence intended H.)

Gif

D'oh!

That was a reply to post 20. Blimmin' conversation went to a second page without telling me again, mumble gumble mumble ...

Gif

"Increasingly short-tempered responses"... That implies they were once long-tempered... shurely shome mishtake?

-MRD

I'll try to be as long tempered as possible...

Runner: I posted that link in response to you saying you had difficulty believing such deliberately, defiantly ignorant people exist. How these people can be so wilfully ignorant baffles me too, believe me.

As for the potential positive effects of Creationists in forcing biologists to improve their arguments: nonsense, sorry.

The system of Peer Review () within the scientific community is what forces scientists to strengthen their arguments. Historically this system has been *extremely* successful in rooting out better and better approximations to the ideal of some objective truth.

All Creationists do is force scientists to try, repeatedly, to explain in tiny little words the same long established, *desperately* simple principles in an effort to stop the Creationists polluting the minds of children with their primitive superstition and potentially perverting the course of mankind's progress. It really is that serious, in my opinion. I cannot see a single positive effect of the Creation science movement, other than filling the pockets of certain of their gurus. They waste the time of scientists, who are expected to defend their profession against the most ridiculous of counterclaims, they waste the time of educationalists and legislators with their demands for equal status of myths with established facts in science lessons, and they attempt to portray serious professional people as frauds and charlatans - which is ironic, when you think about it...

H.

I'll try to be as long tempered as possible...

Runner: I posted that link in response to you saying you had difficulty believing such deliberately, defiantly ignorant people exist. How these people can be so wilfully ignorant baffles me too, believe me.

As for the potential positive effects of Creationists in forcing biologists to improve their arguments: nonsense, sorry.

The system of Peer Review () within the scientific community is what forces scientists to strengthen their arguments. Historically this system has been *extremely* successful in rooting out better and better approximations to the ideal of some objective truth.

All Creationists do is force scientists to try, repeatedly, to explain in tiny little words the same long established, *desperately* simple principles in an effort to stop the Creationists polluting the minds of children with their primitive superstition and potentially perverting the course of mankind's progress. It really is that serious, in my opinion. I cannot see a single positive effect of the Creation science movement, other than filling the pockets of certain of their gurus. They waste the time of scientists, who are expected to defend their profession against the most ridiculous of counterclaims, they waste the time of educationalists and legislators with their demands for equal status of myths with established facts in science lessons, and they attempt to portray serious professional people as frauds and charlatans - which is ironic, when you think about it...

H.

While I agree with some of the points made in your argument, I find the notion that the scientific community only needs to justify itself to itself (or only considers validation by peers relevant), and screw the rest of you idiots, somewhat arrogant. It's this self-imposed detachment from everyday people that allows smooth (and plain) talking characters like evangelical creationists to gain popularity in the first place. Cults and revolutions aren't started in the classroom; they are started in the street.

I am generally easy-going and believe in freedom of speech and agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I would appreciate it if people would stop referring to my beliefs as 'primitive superstition' and 'nonsense' and such- I am not saying anything against what other people believe so it would be nice if they could do the same.
Anyway, hardly anything is provable. Who's to say cats can't speak Italian? (I do not personally believe this, but then I'm not a cat so I wouldn't know). Or whether Italy even exists? If you put a cat in a box with some annoying chemicals, will it end up being alive, dead, Italian of all three at the same time? I love philosophy :P
Obviously if we thought like that all the time we'd go mental. The world is a very weird place, but humans insist on trying to be normal. Such is life...

If you join a debate about creationism and evolution, you must expect people to express their views about these things. If you do not wish to read such things, you should not join such a debate. Just because you aren't willing to discuss these issues doesn't mean that nobody else should.

-Xanthia

Creationists frequently bring out the "freedom of speech" card when they feel threatened. It's quite funny really. People are having an open debate saying what they feel like saying and then the creationist will turn around and claim that they are being "silenced" or having on of their fundamental rights threatened.

This is not the case at all, everyone can say anything. They have simply just lost the argument in quite a dramatic fashion.

Ste

Good grief!
Did I say I was feeling 'threatened' or was unwilling to discuss these issues? I too was presenting my views on this subject, i.e. that it would be great if everyone was nice to each other fo a change (and you can get nailed to trees for saying things like that...)
Honestly
And when did I ever say that the evolution theory was wrong? I said it once and I'll say it again- it's all down to doublethink (these people need to read more books)
Oh, whatever.
-TPV

> "Did I say I was ... unwilling to discuss these issues?"

> "I am not saying anything against what other people believe so it would be nice if they could do the same."

Discussing things automatically implies saying things against what other people believe. Even "It would be great if everyone was nice to each other" is saying something against "it would be deathly boring if everyone was nice to each other".

--

> "when did I ever say that the evolution theory was wrong?"

When did anyone ever say that you ever said that evolution theory was wrong? And when did you ever say that anyone evr said that you ever said that evolution theory was wrong? And when did I ever say that you ever said that anyone ever said that you ever said that evolution theory was wrong. And...

-Xanthia (infinite loop carefully avoided)

Sorry, I thought we were having a debate here. That involves disagreeing and pointing out why you think the other person is wrong. People can believe what the hell they want to, makes no difference to me, but when those beliefs trample upon an elegant work of science (one that I have a deep interest in) I want to challenge those opinions.

In my last post I was talking about creationists generally, as your post reminded me of past arguments, It wasn't a personal attack, sorry if any misunderstanding occurred.

Doublethink eh? There is no doublethinking involved with the vast majority of religious folk who believe in God as a creator through the medium of evolution. It's quite logical and reasonable, not for me but so what?

Ste