International creationism

[Roland]

As Gnu said, evolution is a theory and belongs into science class, creationism (the version taking genesis literally) is superstition and belongs into religion instruction at best*.

What is the problem ?

* I've been to a catholic highschool, our biology teacher was a priest (yeah, I know the funny connotations), and taught evolution. In religion Genesis was presented as metaphorical (if that's the proper word in english).

[MarkG]

i think i've met creationists for the first time on apolyton

[Robert]

i think i've met creationists for the first time on apolyton

I've met evolutionists and atheists for the first time on apolyton
Most non-christians I know doubt evolution in one or another way, and most non-christians I know think there "is something".

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Rogan Josh, are you and your wife French?

No. I am British and my wife is German. We live in France (hence the French flag) and both work in Switzerland.

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Now, a creationist biology graduate student is lacking in the first two departments: critical and analytical thinking.

But this has nothing to do with creationism per se. If he believed that horses breathed ammonia, or whales spoke cantonese, or the citric acid cycle could only work via magic, he would not be suitable for a PhD either...

That is not true, on a number of levels.

First of all, Creationism cannot be disproven. This is a matter of principle, because if one brings an omnipotant God into the picture all things are possible (by definition). So this is entirely different from your ammonia-breathing-horses (which can be disproved).

Secondly, believing in creation is a religious belief - not a scientific one. The PhD student can observe the scientific data and deduce exactly what that data imply. They can even make models (based on data) which would allow them to make predictions about what sort of fossils one would expect to see, and go and test those models. (Actually this is a bit of a sore point, since evolutionary biologists seem remarkably lax in their scientific method...) But that does not mean they have to believe these models to be a true description of what happened!

In other words, they may adopt a philosophy which is different from yours without denying the data or giving up critical thought. This philosophy is in no way contradictory to the scientific method, so by denying them their PhD because if it would be inherently wrong.

Let me give you a more transparent example. In my line of work, it is often useful to ask what string theories or M-theory imply about low energy physics. We have absolutely no direct evidence that these theories are correct, but often they manifest themselves at low energies exactly as we see things in experiment. But that could just be coincidence (or even theorist bias). If I were to believe is some totally different theory at high energies which was contradictory to the String Theories I would not be regarded as a nutter. Even if that theory at first sight (ie. taking simplistic alogorithms for low scale extrapolation) contradicted low energy data.

This is somewhat different from the evolution/creation case of course. On the one hand, the creation case is stronger because it can never be disproven, whereas the high-energy theory of physics will one day be know. On the other hand, creationism should not be thought of as a scientific theory at all since it makes no predictions - it is completely useless when confronting the data. But that does not make it 'wrong'.


On the topic of GR. It is not that scientists think it is wrong - just that it is not applicable everywhere. We have known for a long time that it does not work at very small distances. If one tries to use it to calculate the gravitational effects in an atom it will give the wrong answer. We would need a theory of quantum gravity for that. The recent speculation about GR has been initiated by the data which seem to imply that the universe in accelerating outwards. Some people claim that this is really due to GR being wrong at very large distances. (I would disagree with this view.) But they still think it works fine for the distances in between these two extremes.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
But pray tell, how many scientific theories are there that have been conclusively overturned in the last 200 years? Not even Newtownian mechanics are disproven, just redefined to cover a statistical sample instead of individual molecules.

I can think of lots of theories in particle physics which had just as much evidence as Darwinian evolution, but have now been disproven. As I mentioned earlier, it often turns out that theories predict the same things, so what we thought was evidence for a particular theory was really only evidence for a class of theories.

Even the Standard Model of particle physics (which was the best tested theory ever) has been disproven by the discovery of neutrino masses.

[MarkG]

scientific theories are disproven by other scientific theories.
there has not been any scientific model that was disproven by saying "god made this way"

[Roland]

"We would need a theory of quantum gravity"



Sorry, just reminded me of Sokal....

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MarkG
scientific theories are disproven by other scientific theories.
there has not been any scientific model that was disproven by saying "god made this way"

No. Scientific theories are disproven by data. Not by other theories.

[MarkG]

whatever. but it's data which were "produced" in scientific labs under scientific experiments driven by scientific theories

[Saint Marcus]

I find it hard to beleive that there are those that hold Monkspider's opinions, and do not embrace Christianity

hilarious!!! Some christians are so misguided it's funny!

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
aaaaw, come on, I wasn't talking to you. I think you are perfectly aware that we have been using 'you' in the third person.

I know. I was being tongue in cheek but left out the 'cute' smilie.

I sometimes forget how text can be lacking in intent/delivery. Its the reason for many a misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What is the basis of your skepticism?

I have no skepticism, I believe evolution occured and is occuring. I've never said otherwise. I just don't like the idea of calling people with other ideas stupid on the 'face value' of them having other ideas or disagreeing with the prevailing scientific view.

[Lincoln]

The evolution/creation debate is fruitless because each side is defining the words differently. For once, I even agree with Boris. A "creationist" believes the world was created. Pretty simple really. But for some reason people insist in calling them all fanatical right wing fundamentalists who believe the world is flat. Moderation really is a virtue. Galelio was a "creationist" in case anyone forgot. The issue is not evolution it is the origin of the universe and the life that is within it. If one believes this came about as a result of design he is a creationist. Logic is on his side regardless of the slander he receives from those who have an undying faith in accidents and the magical abilities of matter turning into meaningful information.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Logic is on his side regardless of the slander he receives from those who have an undying faith in accidents and the magical abilities of matter turning into meaningful information.

Hey, I remember that meaningful information debate! It was fun for awhile, but ultimately it left a sour taste in my mouth. Slander indeed.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The evolution/creation debate is fruitless because each side is defining the words differently. For once, I even agree with Boris. A "creationist" believes the world was created. Pretty simple really. But for some reason people insist in calling them all fanatical right wing fundamentalists who believe the world is flat. Moderation really is a virtue. Galelio was a "creationist" in case anyone forgot. The issue is not evolution it is the origin of the universe and the life that is within it. If one believes this came about as a result of design he is a creationist. Logic is on his side regardless of the slander he receives from those who have an undying faith in accidents and the magical abilities of matter turning into meaningful information.

the problem is that it is now accepted by most people that if you are a "creationist" you do not accept the theory of evolution.

This may be an incorrect definition but it is the one people use.

[Capt Dizle]

If evolution is a fact what a curious method for God to use in creating the universe.