International creationism

[Saint Marcus]

I believe the pope even accepted the big bang...few catholics are hard core creationists.

[Boris Godunov]

The Catholic Church does allow that evolution may be true, stipulating that if it is, it is certainly the Will of God. How they can then still use Old Testament justifications for their dogma seems paradoxical, but there it is.

[Ramo]

Last I heard, Hawaii's education system was turning towards creationism (or perhaps away from "evolutionism," gah I hate that word).

[Ramo]

Yeah, yeah, I know this is also somewhat OT, but apparantly, a school board in Georgia recently incorporated creationism into its curriculum.

[Saint Marcus]

sad

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Jon, of course they would pass you. As long as you passed the class where evolution was taught, you could theoretically get a PhD. The problem is more fundamental: If you still believe in creationism, you are not PhD material... You have obviously not learned to think critically, to evaluate sources and theories. As such, you should not get a PhD.

Hmmm.... so you would refuse to give someone a PhD because of their religious beliefs?

That is very sad. I hope you never reach a position of authority.

[St Leo]

If you can't explain the origin of life, how can you explain the evolution of life?

If Physics cannot explain the origin of the Universe, how can it explain its development? Exactly.

The "Origin of Life" is easily explained with chemistry and statistics just like life's development is easily explained with the evolutionary sieve.

[Ironikinit]

For the purposes of this thread, let's use a standard definition of creationism. That is:

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

A web search tells me that there are such things as Muslim and Hindu creationism systems, but as yet no one has reported running into practitioners.

As an aside, the Theory of Evolution does not address in any way the idea of the existence of deities of the deist (watchmaker) sort or even an interventionist god (that may have guided evolution). It does, however, discredit all origin myths that I've heard. Evolution is not the only field of study that does so, at least in the case of the book of Genesis. Archeology and geology, to name two, do as well. Edit: somehow I missed Kepler's post. Sorry to be redundant.

Rogan Josh, are you and your wife French?

[Boris Godunov]

Wouldn't the Muslim system be identical to the Judeo-Christian, since Islam states it is the continuation of those religious philosophies?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Come to think of it, I actually reject your assertion in itself. I don't have to understand something to form the conclusion:

No, you don't. You can form any conclusion you wish. It does mean that you are unlikely to have a correct conclusion if you don't understand it.

If the experts in the field say one thing, and the hoi polloi disagree because of religious dogma, I have to conclude that the hoi polloi are stupid. There isn't much else to it.

They are stupid for disbelieving a theory based on religous dogma, not for not believing in the theory.

So, for example, if Rogan Josh says that matter + antimatter != 0 because of a charge symmetry difference, and I respond with "Ben Franklin said that all man are created equal, therefore Rogans assertion that matter is not equal to antimatter must be false, and his entire claim is crap", that would label me as eminently stupid.

You would be stupid for discounting RJ based on your Ben Franklin reply, not for disbelieving what RJ said.


If I didn't believe in evolution because it didn't make sense to me it does not make me stupid. Being doubtful is very different to being stupid! However people are calling those who do not believe in evolution stupid, when in fact all they are being is critical. Would you blindly accept RJ's statement? I'd hope you'd want to know a bit more about it before you call someone else stupid for not believing it.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
It seems to me that those who purport to believe in evolution often don't know what that entails. Highlighted by those who say things like "We are no longer evolving", or "We are the most highly evolved species".

Well correct, but this is more of a statement on the state of education rather than the integrity of the theory of evolution. Let's face it anyway, at the level we have studied evolution, and the knowledge we have that it is a working theory, saying that evolution is false is like saying that clocks don't work via an electronic/mechanical mechanism but rather by a divine timekeeping force. Come on, you can see it on so many levels. And before the creationist rant about 'microevolution', the same applies to eukaryotic as well as prokaryotic cells. The rules do not change, only the effects mutation have...

[Dauphin]

I believe the theory, its not the theory I'm questioning, but the lack of tolerance of those who do not believe it.

Are you so hard on people who don't believe Big Bang theory, but rather believe some other possibility is waiting to be found?

[Ramo]

I'd be hard on people who believe General Relativity is a conspiracy on the part of the physics community to discredit Christianity, if such people existed.

I have no problem with skepticism, but it irks me when people use false-science to promote their political/relgious views.

[Provost Harrison]

The harshness comes because they have stuck to their line without properly assessing the arguments. And in the case of a proper impartial assessment, I can't see any way how creationism can seem more feasible, let alone be a defensible position...

There's just nothing in it, it's myth and relies on nothing but faith. Why is faith given credence when it is just a state of mind? To quote Nietzsche 'A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith proves nothing'...

[Boris Godunov]

I personally don't care if someone chooses not to accept evolution as fact, that's their right. What I won't accept is their attempt to foist creationism on public education, or discredit evolution in it, because of their religious agenda. Evolution isn't an agenda, it's the accepted scientific model, and us such, there is no question it should be taught in school science courses and at the exclusion of all theories that aren't accepted by the scientific community. The same goes for teaching scientific geology as opposed to young-earth "geology."