›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

What use is creationism?

OmnutiaOmnutia
edited May 2009 in Politics
If you think of the theory of evolution as a tool for making predictions and measurements about the biological world, where does this leave the theory of creation?

Is the attempt at putting creationism in schoolbooks aimed to just be for people who aren't going to need to use biology? If you are taught that creation is a theory on par with that of evolution, how does that effect your ability to work when you reach higher level biology?
«13456

Comments

  • StarfoxStarfox
    Are you talking about the creationism/intelligent design that Texas et al. are always trying to put into science textbooks, or creation as in deism?
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    The former, creationism as a feasible scientific method. The latter is more to do with mythology.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    creationism as a feasible scientific method.
    Well, seeing as how that's impossible, I'd say the discussion is over.

    The problem with creation "theory" is that it is not theory. It is not a predictive model, whereas evolution is. Creation "theory" is an answer to a question, rather than a set of tools for discovering said answer.
  • chaosof99chaosof99
    The theory of creation neither has scientific merit nor would it serve any useful purpose if it were to be put into textbooks. It would only be there so theists can say "God could have done it".
  • RymRym
    Are you talking about the creationism/intelligent design that Texas et al. are always trying to put into science textbooks, or creation as in deism?
    It doesn't matter: they're functionally identical, non-falsifiable, and entirely non-predictive. Neither has any value beyond raw supposition.
  • StarfoxStarfox
    No, the first is provably wrong. Earth is not 6000 years old.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    No, the first is provably wrong. Earth is not 6000 years old.
    Oh, you're just saying that because you place your faith in so-called "evidence" and "empirical investigation." That's no different than placing faith in God, so we should teach both! Stop being so closed-minded.
  • VentureJVentureJ
    edited May 2009
    Earth is not 6000 years old.
    The biggest argument I hear for this issue is that Carbon dating is an unreliable process. Why? Why do they believe that?
    Post edited by VentureJ on
  • DkongDkong
    edited May 2009
    Oh, you're just saying that because you place your faith in so-called "evidence" and "empirical investigation."
    The biggest argument I hear for this issue is that Carbon dating is an unreliable process. Why? Why do they believe that?
    I wouldn't call it "evidence". It's facts, supported by reasoning. Intelligent design is just plain old chickenshit.
    Post edited by Dkong on
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited May 2009
    Facts aren't supported by reasoning. Proper reasoning, however, is supported by facts.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Intelligent design is just plain old chickenshit.
    That's just the atheist liberal media bias telling you what to think. Check your sources!
  • DkongDkong
    edited May 2009
    Check your sources!
    "Intelligent design is the assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
    That alone is enough to make me call bullshit.
    Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
    Inb4 wikipedia isn't a valid source.
    Facts aren't supported by reasoning. Proper reasoning, however, is supported by facts.
    Er...yeah. Lol. I fucked that one up.
    Post edited by Dkong on
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    "undirected process such as natural selection."
    A phrase such as that highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection.
  • AprecheApreche
    None. None use.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    None. None use.
    It's like, how much more useless could this be? and the answer is none. None more useless.
  • DkongDkong
    edited May 2009
    "undirected processsuch as natural selection."
    A phrase such as that highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection.
    I think they mean undirected as in "undirected by a god or higher being".
    Correct me if I'm wrong.
    Post edited by Dkong on
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    "undirected processsuch as natural selection."
    A phrase such as that highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection.
    I think they mean undirected as in "undirected by a god or higher being".
    Correct me if I'm wrong.
    Perhaps; whatever the case, it's still foolish.
  • seansandseansand
    The biggest argument I hear for this issue is that Carbon dating is an unreliable process. Why? Why do they believe that?
    That conclusion if is obvious and inescapable, provided that your number one assumption is that everything you read in the Bible is true. That's certainly the case for most of the religious people I know. Their religion says that the Earth is 6000 years old, but carbon dating and other radiometric dating all say that the Earth is billions of years old. Therefore, that means that radiometric dating is unreliable. QED.

    I think that for them, it's really as simple as that.
  • ΣπεκωσποκΣπεκωσποκ
    I had a discussion on this topic with my friend today, after reading the opinion page of the local paper (the nutjob ideas in those letters are funnier than the comics) and seeing the "rebuttal" to the rebuttal of a crazy creationist letter. Our conclusion was that creationists are insecure about their beliefs in the face of reality, and cover that up with hostility and aggressiveness towards evolutionists. I thought that was also a reason that the pinhole fallacy is so often used by creationists (a pinhole error in creationism really would destroy it, therefore they think evolution the same way), and why so many creationists claim to have "defeated" evolution, while so few evolutionists ever attack creationism unprovoked.

    You can see the same behavior in other aspects of fundamentalist religious beliefs (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) too. I think (hope) that this kind of aggressively defensive behavior is an indicator of the last gasp of the creationists, and that we will be free from the stranglehold of static unreasonable fundamentalist religion in a generation or two.
  • JasonJason
    edited May 2009
    If they want to yell and scream that science is wrong, just take away the things science has given them: Microwaves, computers, cell phones, penicillin, nuclear power, television, sanitary food... you know, the little things. They can have their beliefs. I'll keep my modernity.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    "undirected processsuch as natural selection."
    A phrase such as that highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection.
    Natural selection is, in fact, undirected. It's nonrandom, but it's also undirected. Does that make sense?
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited May 2009
    I think some people need to understand what "undirected" means, and, in fact, what "random" means.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    On Monday and Tuesday this week, my wife's sister visited us from Vermont. She is a psychology professor at a small college there and she was here on a trip with three of her students to present a paper at an American Chemical Society function.

    The paper was about how human infants can respond to humor and the evolutionary benefit of humor in child rearing. My sister-in-law's students had their set-up close to a group of students from South Dakota who had a paper on the benefits of using leeches for drug rehab. One of the South Dakota people came over to my sister-in-law's group, read through some of their stuff, and said, "All of this is clearly flawed because you rely on evolution."

    I found this hilarious because (1) this is just what you'd expect from someone from South Dakota, one of Steve's wonderful red states that supports freedom so much, and (2) they deny evolution, AND they want to treat people with leeches - maybe they want to get rid of computers and go back to counting on their fingers and toes as well.
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    (2) they deny evolution, AND they want to treat people with leeches - maybe they want to get rid of computers and go back to counting on their fingers and toes as well.
    While the denial is stupid, there are still some medical uses for leeches and even maggots.
    Linkage.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited May 2009
    (2) they deny evolution, AND they want to treat people with leeches - maybe they want to get rid of computers and go back to counting on their fingers and toes as well.
    While the denial is stupid, there are still some medical uses for leeches and even maggots.
    Linkage.
    I knew someone would say this, but it's not really the point. The point was the funny (at least I thought it was funny) confluence of the anti-evolution types advocating leech treatments. Whether the leeches work or not, leech therapy sounds like something out of luddite-land. It's the same type of funny thing (again, at least I think it would be funny) if the anti-evolution types were advocating lighting your home with gas lamps. Just like the leeches, the gas lamps would work, but they kinda sound like a step backwards.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    (2) they deny evolution, AND they want to treat people with leeches - maybe they want to get rid of computers and go back to counting on their fingers and toes as well.
    While the denial is stupid, there are still some medical uses for leeches and even maggots.
    Linkage.
    I knew someone would say this, but it's not really the point. The point was the funny (at least I thought it was funny) confluence of the anti-evolution types advocating leech treatments. Whether the leeches work or not, leech therapy sounds like something out of luddite-land. It's the same type of funny thing (again, at least I think it would be funny) if the anti-evolution types were advocating lighting your home with gas lamps. Just like the leeches, the gas lamps would work, but they kinda sound like a step backwards.
    True hilarity always ensues when someone thinks they are being funny and gets pwned instead. It becomes even more funny when the person who got pwned tries to explain their joke and only ends up making themselves appear stupid!

    It doesn't matter if something sounds "like a step backwards" if it works it works! What's next, going to tell us that using a paper and pencil to solve math equations is a "step backwards" because we have pocket calculators to do it for us?

    Thanks Joe, you put a smile on my face today!
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited May 2009
    It doesn't matter if something sounds "like a step backwards" if it works it works!
    So, when are you going to start using leech therapy?

    Did you ride a horse to work today? If not, why not? Horses work just fine, don't they?
    What's next, going to tell us that using a paper and pencil to solve math equations is a "step backwards" because we have pocket calculators to do it for us?
    When was the last time you actually solved an equation? Weren't you the one who thought that a quadratic equation has to be solved by calculus? Weren't you the one who had a really hard time understanding that you can't divide by zero?

    Weren't you the one who thought this joke was funny? Weren't you the one who actually admitted that he has brain damage? Really, considering your history of saying very stupid things on this board, without even getting into things like the time you couldn't explain why you thought Newt Gingrich was so great, the rape-kit debacle, the advocacy of slavery, the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories, etc., you don't have room to call anyone else stupid.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • SaraiSarai
    I hate to state the obvious in light of all the other discussion, but I think creationism is just an attempt by bible-bashers to save face while not fully accepting the theory of evolution.

    I don't really think it will have a long term influence on kids when they move on to higher education because most people above middle school form their own opinions of what they think is true. Besides, there will always be things that you are taught at school by a teacher who didn't quite excel at their bachelors in education that are a little off. If you are wrong later, you will probably be corrected, and if you don't accept the correction - well, then you're probably religious :)
  • gomidoggomidog
    So, when are you going to start using leech therapy?
    If he gets fluid under his skin from an impact, like cauliflower ear, leeches are a viable option that hid doctor might recommend. Just saying.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    I found this horrible article where someone attempts to defend creationism vs. evolution. Don't these people understand that you can not compare the two? One is based on science and the other is based on faith.
Sign In or Register to comment.