BLoggins02

What, in your opinion, will it really take to finally put this creationism stuff to rest? How long did the heliocentric theory take to be universally accepted, to the point where denying it today pretty much marks you as a fruitcake?

LaFlavor

wait...being a creationist doesn't mark you as a fruitcake?

sensate

I think you answered the question yourself. Time. It will take time and I think that basically we are winning.

bluefugue

It's been 150 years. We have fossils, DNA evidence, comparative anatomy, observations of natural selection in the wild -- a body of evidence covering numerous disciplines, accumulated over decades of painstaking research.

None of this persuades creationists because they are capable of viewing the evidence in a different light. Their epistemological priorities are different, and the existence of biology poses no scientific problem for them because they already have a theological answer to it. No inference of evolution will ever convince them. The only thing, in terms of evidence, that will put creationism to rest for good will be the *direct* observation of macroevolution in the wild, and I mean *real* macroevolution, with major morphological changes, new structures, etc. Such observation would require at least tens of thousands of years, probably much more -- a span of time that dwarfs all of recorded history ten times over. And even were this to be achieved, it would be possible to be skeptical on the grounds that human interference somehow affected the outcome, or the evidence was faked, or whatever.

The only way creationism will go away is if its root cause (fundamentalist religion) disappears. It will be the diminishment of this idea (which shows no signs of diminishing at the moment) that will end the debate, rather than any new scientific evidence of evolution.

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>

x-member

I my opinion, theists must first realize that disproving evolution does not, by default, prove the existance of their god. Once that realization has taken place, I think they might look at the issue with a more rational mind. However, it strikes me that they desperatly want to show evolution to be false as though their faith depends on it.

For fairness I should also point out the evolution does not disprove the existance of a god either.

Jon

BLoggins02

This may be true, but for Christian fundies, it's hard to explain why Jesus needed to come down and die for our sins when their was no Adam and Eve to impart original sin upon us in the first place.

Evolution-&gt;No Adam and Eve-&gt;No Original Sin-&gt;No need for redemption-&gt;No need for atonement-&gt;No need for Jesus Christ-&gt;No Need for Christianity

Notice I said fundies, not all Christians would take this to be some incredible blow to their faith

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: BLoggins02 ]</p>

pseudobug

Honestly, I don't think some of the fundies would/will ever change given ANY AMOUNT of evidence. Their faith will blind them to all evidence no matter how staggering it might be.

HEre is what one a creationist said:
The guy who said this is Kurt Wise, a paleontologist who earned a PhD at Harvard studying under Gould.

The quote is an excerpt from an article by Richard Dawkins in <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html" target="_blank">Secular Humanism</a>.

BLoggins02

Ahh yes but Kurt Wise doesn't sound like the creationist who would try to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools.

[rant]
I really don't have a problem with people believing in Creationism. Not everyone wants to know how the world works, and would prefer to go on believing what makes them comfortable.

The problem I have with creationism is when people, under the guise of "scientific creationism" and "intelligent design" attempt to undermine scientific education in America (or anywhere for that matter).

I think creationists believe the reason we get so worked up is because we're defending this thing called "evolution". This isn't entirely true. What we're defending is our scientific responsibility to explain observed facts in a method which is both consistent with evidence and also actually imparts some use on the world. Claiming that God magically created us then put all the evidence here to test our faith may fit the facts, but it doesn't explain anything or help humanity solve it's problems. Using evolutionary theory to advance our understanding of virii, diseases, and genetics DOES help humanity.

In short, if you want to prove that evolution is false, come up with something that better explains the facts, is testable and falsafiable, and actually provides science and humanity with useful tools to better our collective situation on this planet.

If you want to prove evolution is false simply to make the world compatible with your religion and in no other way care about benefitting humankind, go away, we really don't want to hear it. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
[/rant]

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: BLoggins02 ]</p>

bluefugue

One tack some anti-evolutionists take is the idea that evolution should not be taught in public schools, because it is in fact a *religious* teaching. It is religious because it teaches the origin of life without God; therefore it has a theological (or anti-theological) bias; therefore under the First Amendment it should not be taught.

Of course, if we follow this argument, we must extend it to all of science. The scientific method does not allow God as an explanation because it cannot be tested. So, this "atheistic" bias of which evolution is accused, also extends to meteorology (why assume rain isn't just God crying?), astronomy (why assume the planets aren't being pushed around their orbits by angels?), psychology (why assume that mental illness isn't caused by demons?), etc.

So, bang goes science. Of course, public schools over the past century or so have traditionally kept science in their curricula because it is so damn useful -- though occasionally it takes a Sputnik-sized kick in the butt to make us shore up our science education. I suspect even most creationists (many of whom like to type their screeds on very scientific computers) would blanch at the idea of removing *all* scientific education from our public schools -- but this is precisely what a consistent reading of the "atheistic bias" in science would demand.

And really, you can go even further. Is there not an "atheistic bias" in history, as well? Why do we assume that historical events have mundane, human causes and effects, rather than being caused by miraculous intervention? Why do we learn that Rome fell because of German invasions and governmental disintegration; instead of because the empire was considered sinful in God's eyes? Does not the omission of literal Old Testament readings in history classes show as much of an unconstitutional bias *against* Christianity as their inclusion would show a bias *for* Christianity?

So, history too has an "atheistic bias," and must be stricken from our public schools in accordance with the First Amendment.

Heck, if we keep this up, maybe kids can just have recess 6 hours a day. But wait -- isn't there an "atheistic bias" in relying on one's own legs, rather than a shove from Yahweh, to propel one on the swings?

atheist_in_foxhole

The debate with the young earth fruitcakes will end when we come in contact with intelligent alien life that has a recorded history of more than 6,000 years.

Of course, the YEC's will probably call them "demons" and find some buybull verse to back it up.