Evolution versus Creationism

[peter grimes]

... BirdJaguar's post raised a red flag for me:

Most people do not need to know about or accept evolution to live a good life. Typically the problems come when religion and science spill over into the social realms of education and healthcare and people want to perpetuate their particular positions at the expense of someone elses.

I'm don't consider education and healthcare to be social realms beyond the legitimate reach of science. I don't care what your religious beliefs are, but if they try to rewrite text books that my kids will be taught from in such a way as to imply that evolution is only one possible explanation for the diversity of life, then I will object loudly and repeatedly. Likewise, if someone's religion prevents me from filling a prescription at a pharmacy, or someone refuses to vaccinate their kids (who go to school with mine, and ride the same subway as us) I will raise holy hell.

I can't stand the fact that 1/5 of my tax dollars goes straight to the US Department of Defense [defense against what???], but I'm not able to conscientiously object, and withhold my portion of the social contract. Why should those who disagree with me, on religious grounds, be able to withhold their end?

EDIT:
I missed something important in the end of BirdJaguar's post - the qualifier "at the expense of someone else's". Nobody suffers from the truth except those who may be hurt by it. The fact of evolution doesn't hurt any human being on the planet - if anything, it only serves to unite us more profoundly than cultural (or social) mechanisms possibly could. It is a scientific fact that every human alive today is genetically related to every other human who has ever lived: how can that possibly be something not worth promoting?!

 

[Flying Pig]

Most people do not need to know about or accept evolution to live a good life. Typically the problems come when religion and science spill over into the social realms of education and healthcare and people want to perpetuate their particular positions at the expense of someone elses.

You mean religion. Science is something that any reasonably rational man can accept; religion is something that no reasonably rational man can; so only the one should ever influence the life of everyone.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You mean religion. Science is something that any reasonably rational man can accept; religion is something that no reasonably rational man can; so only the one should ever influence the life of everyone.

No I meant it exactly as I stated it. In addition, your second sentence is wrong. There is no need for people, rational or not, to understand and accept science if it is not part of their vocation. Furthermore, many reasonable and rational people accept religion as useful and valuable. Thirdly, your on-going, knee-jerk reaction to all things religious tags you as more irrational and less reasonable than most.

 

[Flying Pig]

To disagr with a given religion is understandable, even logical ,while to disagree with science is generally proof of stupidity; so only one should be applied to everyone.

 

[Birdjaguar]

To disagr with a given religion is understandable, even logical ,while to disagree with science is generally proof of stupidity; so only one should be applied to everyone.

Curiously, you do not seem to read what I have posted. I have not used either "agree or disagree" in either of my posts. I have used "understand and accept". They mean something very different.

 

[Cutlass]

No I meant it exactly as I stated it. In addition, your second sentence is wrong. There is no need for people, rational or not, to understand and accept science if it is not part of their vocation. Furthermore, many reasonable and rational people accept religion as useful and valuable. Thirdly, your on-going, knee-jerk reaction to all things religious tags you as more irrational and less reasonable than most.

I disagree. They may not need to master it. But there can be any number of decisions made by people who do not work in the sciences that could be affected by a basic knowledge.

 

[AngryZealot]

I disagree as well. Democracies only work as long as the citizens are educated. If sufficient people don't realize that creationism is a load of garbage, it only increases the chances of an anti-science buffoon ending up on, say, an educational board.

 

[BasketCase]

Nobody likes my analysis?

Errrrr......the reason I didn't say anything is I disappeared offline for four days. This may sound really wierd, but I actually have a life.

So here goes: I figure your analysis assumes a little too much. Creationism and evolution/genetics/astronomy don't have to conflict with each other at all.

The problem is this: assuming that some hypothetical god/God/gOd snapped his fingers and created the Universe, exactly what did he create??? Did he conjure up the Earth, ready-made with Adam and Eve already on it? Or did he just create the basic Universe with its one particular set of physical laws? It's kind of like gardening: you can buy full-grown potted plants--or you can buy the seeds.

Did God create everything full-blown? Or did he merely plant the seeds and then sit back and watch the Earth and the human race evolve from the seeds.....? We don't know. Yes, there's a lot of religious books that said "six days", but that could be a great big monstrous typo.

 

[BasketCase]

I use "G"od when talking about the Christian god. It's a name, not a title. Just like "A"llah is referring to the Muslim god.

"G"od does not (to me) require the three omnis. It's just the name used.

so if i post teh way a lot of internet people do and leave out the capitals and punctuation then what do i actually mean when i say god

when i use the word god do i mean a god or the god or the cristian god or the muslim god

CFC is so much fun.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Most people do not need to know about or accept evolution to live a good life. Typically the problems come when religion and science spill over into the social realms of education and healthcare and people want to perpetuate their particular positions at the expense of someone elses.

I disagree. They may not need to master it. But there can be any number of decisions made by people who do not work in the sciences that could be affected by a basic knowledge.

I disagree as well. Democracies only work as long as the citizens are educated. If sufficient people don't realize that creationism is a load of garbage, it only increases the chances of an anti-science buffoon ending up on, say, an educational board.

If you wish to add additional parameters to the scenario, go right ahead. Adding a democracy requirement will, of course, change the situation.

Education is important in a democracy and a better educated populace generally improves things, but it is not necessary to live a good life. Creationism isn't "bad garbarge", it just isn't science. Creationists often masquarade their beliefs as science in order to re-establish its declining credibility in an ever more secular world. It is a difficult and somewhat desperate struggle for them. The problem though is not the belief; it is the effort to impose it upon others that has created problems.

There are billions of people in the world who are doing just fine without an understanding of science or evolution, but in spite of how much you feel it is important, they have little need of it.

 

[sanabas]

Creationists often masquarade their beliefs as science in order to re-establish its declining credibility in an ever more secular world. It is a difficult and somewhat desperate struggle for them. The problem though is not the belief; it is the effort to impose it upon others that has created problems.

I mostly agree with that, and with your last couple of posts. Even if those creationists weren't trying to impose their views on others, I think they'd still run into problems. If they simply didn't understand evolution, and didn't accept it was relevant, that wouldn't be a problem. Same as most people don't understand how their TV or microwave work, and don't accept that how either one works is important to them. No worries, they can still watch TV, they can still microwave stuff. Same as plenty of parents are clueless when it comes to calculus or trigonometry, and wouldn't care if their kids didn't learn it at school.

But what the creationists do isn't quite like that. They don't simply not accept evolution as relevant, they don't simply ignore evolution as not relevant to them. They DO accept that the stuff evolution talks about is both important and relevant. That's why they crusade about it so much. They just don't understand it. If it was simply irrelevant, there'd be no need to object to it being taught. I haven't heard of anybody objecting to trigonometry or calculus being on a school syllabus, no matter how pointless they think it is for their kid's future career. It's irrelevant, plenty of what you learn at school will be irrelevant, just get the marks you need to go on to the future you want, and you can ignore all those x's & y's for the rest of your life, no worries. If they took that view of biology, there'd be no intelligent design controversy in the U.S. education system. The cntroversy arises because they DO see evolution as important, they do see their mistaken belief as being very relevant.

 

[sanabas]

But surely birdjaguar you accept that a basic understanding of how the natural world works is beneficial?

Beneficial yes, but not actually neccessary. I'm a big fan of people learning how to think. But I'll admit that plenty of people can have happy and successful lives apparently without learning to think critically, without having much interest in developing their mind.

A similar case can be argued about people who are ignorant of science holding progress up by asking for things like the LHC to not be switched on or for a complete ban on stem cell research. Such people are dangerous to society and the best way for them to be combated is for the majority to understand the facts as science has demonstrated them, not as religion wishes them.

But again, those issues come from not understanding, but still thinking it's important. If they simply ignored the debate on stem cell research, if they simply ignored stories about the LHC, if they simply trusted what their doctor said when it comes to various viruses and infections, then their lack of understanding would be irrelevant. The lack of understanding only becomes an issue when they also see the topic as relevant.

 

[Flying Pig]

Frankly, why is someone's view which is blatantly wrong worthy of the same respect as one which is tried and tested?

 

[sanabas]

It's not.

But quite often, someone having a blatantly wrong view about a topic that has almost no effect on their job or daily life isn't actually going to be detrimental to them.

I know how a TV works, I've dismembered one to make a Jacob's ladder. I know how a microwave works, I know the glass door looks the way it does because there's a Faraday cage there. But not knowing that stuff, or even having some blatantly wrong knowledge about that stuff, would make zero difference to anything else in my life.

It's not that the person who is wrong has a view worthy of the same respect (they don't.)

It's not that the peson who is wrong has a view that should be promoted, that they should try and spread their view to others (they shouldn't.)

It's that a lot of the time, a person can look at a topic, simply decide that's not something they need to know, and they can continue on in ignorant bliss without it causing problems.

 

[Flying Pig]

However, in a democracy, everyone has the right to make their views influence the way that the county is run; so people have a moral duty to have an informed view of the world.

 

[mdwh]

I don't know if it's important for a lay person to "accept" or "believe" evolution, although if they actively believe it to false, and especially if they believe Creationism/Intelligent Design, then they have replaced their reason with faith.

Also, if they have any say on what is taught in schools (I don't think they should - scientific knowledge is not a matter for popular vote - but nonetheless there can be a political influence, e.g., the push to get ID taught in US schools), then they had most certainly understand what the science is about.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes, there's a lot of religious books that said "six days", but that could be a great big monstrous typo.

I'm more worried about God needing the 7th day to rest.

Why would God need rest?

 

[Flying Pig]

Great point. If we are to read the Bible, we need to consider that almost all of it is so close to a prable that it can't be read at face value.

 

[Smidlee]

I'm more worried about God needing the 7th day to rest.

Why would God need rest?

Both the number 7 and rest referrers to completeness. The same idea where it written that Jesus is sitting down at the right hand of the Father, thus redemption has been fully complete.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Both the number 7 and rest referrers to completeness. The same idea where it written that Jesus is sitting down at the right hand of the Father, thus redemption has been fully complete.

Doesn't explain why God would need rest. Which was my question. Jesus sitting down at the right hand is not the same as God needing a break to rest. I understand that the writers of the Bible really digged the number 7 and had something special in mind for that day, but they didn't expect people to question what they wrote, so they weren't being the most vigilant in making the story consistent.

So, why did God need to rest the 7th day?