Welcome to Fractal Forums

As a lot of us on this forum have some scientific background, I'd like to open this side discussion thread on what we could do to counter the ever growing popularity of creationism/intelligent design. Here in Europe it's not as developped as in the US, but I fear this dangerous mixture of religion and science when I think about the education of our children.

Thoughts?

PS: if you are a creationist you can of course participate in the discussion, that's gonna be fun :)

 :) there are a few videos (some in italian) about this subject > http://www.youtube.com/user/antiteista83

You have opened up a can of worms. :)

I am strictly an evolutionist.  Personally, I don't feel that creationism has any place in public schools due to its lack of scientific incentive.

That's a fascinating subject.
I highly recommend Dawkins' last book on that matter : "The greatest show on earth : the evidence for evolution".
Excellent book ! The creationists should meditate on it.

I agree, but I think this can has to be opened! with keeping silence, the problem won't disappear.
Any thoughts? - Yes, a lot! But now (at work) no time for phrasing. Only that:

I am nothing strictly. My belief in science is just as limited as my belief in 2000 year old books.
But especially evolution theory has still enough weaknesses, to make it easy for those charlatans to call it wrong.

greetings
taurus

As a Recovering Catholic I have strong anti organized religious tendencies and have a formal education in the Science of Electronics Engineering Technology. I lost my belief in doG and Religion long ago, creationism simply doesn't stand up to scientific fact, no way do I believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, that's just plain crap. Intelligent Design, whose intelligence whose design besides mankind is not all that well designed or intelligent to begin with. Evolution is the only thing that makes sense to me, fortunately evolution has gifted mankind with the ability to reason and decide for ourselves what we believe individually. Unfortunately organized Religions pressure the masses to believe in a Deity and not in their own Individually gained knowlege of themselves and their world. This is one of those debates I generally avoid, you believe one way or the other and not much is going to convince you to change, just like Right to Life/Pro Choice or Politics, you go with what you believe for your own reasons, it's the Yin and Yang of Life.

I live in the US, and I'm embarrassed by the teaching of creationism here. Democracy is a very good thing, in my opinion, but it produces a bad result in this case. The folks who decide what's taught in the classroom are, in many geographic areas, elected by a populace which is strong on religion and weak in science. The decision-makers' educational choices cause the next generation of voters to be strong on religion and weak in science!

I have no idea how to break this cycle.

I agree 100%, I grew up in Kansas, talk about Bible Thumping bassakwards thinking is what Kansas is famous for. Major fighting to get teaching of Evolution stricken from Primary schools and even High School, they are still trying all these years later, it's ridiculous. Luckily we moved to Georgia when I started HS and I went to a school big on science, who knows how brainwashed I might have been if I stayed there in Oz.

Obviously creationism is a bit of a pernicious cancer - and it's not just certain areas of the US that are suffering.
In the past Islam used to teach that science and reason were to be acknowledged, respected and believed but in many places around the world the strong scientific respect/investigations of the former Muslim Empire has given way to what is essentially creationism.

Born into the Christian Faith (Church of England) when I was 5/6 years old I went to Sunday school but that lasted about 2 Sundays - I immediately realised that the Sunday school treacher expected us kids to believe the literal truth of the Bible stories she told us even though it was obvious to me that they were allegorical - though of course I didn't know that term at the time - what was worse was that it was obvious that she didn't believe in the literal truth of them either.
Note that I give the above explanation in hindsight - at the time the overwhelming effect was to think that the Sunday school teacher was an awesome dude (I had more faith in Father Christmas being real than in the stories she told being "gospel truth").

Such Bible stories I then learned I learned from my parents (in particular my mother who is still an avid Songs of Praise fan though nowadays can't get to church herself) - as moral guides *not* literal truths which is of course as it shoud be.

Now like my dad I still acknowledge the moral teachings of many religions but abhor fundamentalism of whatever brand (including scientists who are closed-minded when it comes to things like climate chage/no climate change or big bang/steady state or single universe/multiverse etc.)

If you check creationist groups versus anti-creationist/Darwinian/Evolutionist groups on Facebook things perhaps aren't as bad as they seem ;)

Question from Humanity to God: Why ?

Answer 1: Because I could.
Answer 2: Why not ?
Answer 3: It seemed like a good idea at the time.
Answer 4: I needed some company.
Answer 5: I'm sorry, it just sort of happened.
Answer 6: I can't remember.
Answer 7: You created me, how the hell should I know ?

Anyone taking things too seriously should contemplate the Buddhism - 'Everything matters, nothing matters".

Now it's time to take a pill and go down the rabbit-hole again.....
Not literally, I'm stable without the pills now ;D

I wouldn't say that I have any personal religion.  I just take philosophies from various religions that I feel will make me a better person.  I really just want to be content.  That being said, I probably borrow Buddhist philosophies more than anything else.  They seem to teach the greatest level of acceptance.

While their is an active Ku Klux Klan in Indiana around my area, I have found that most people don't really talk about religion that much (but the ones who do are raving fanatics :crazyeyes:).

I will you leave with this quote:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
— Epicurus

Its hard to build a better person, when religion keeps getting in the way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D85yrIgA4Nk&feature=player_embedded

It's interesting to see that this post immediately leads to ads from the Scientology Church at the bottom of the page...

But back to the subject. I'm somewhat surprised by the vehemence of some of the "anti-creationist" posts. Hypothetically speaking, both creationism and evolution are theories. Nobody was there in the beginning, so both theories could still be valid, albeit I do agree that creationism seems a bit more farfetched  :dink:. So what if some people feel better believing in creationism? If you feel that strong about opposing it, it's almost as if you're afraid that your own beliefs will be undermined by creationism... I'm not opposed to teaching creationism, as long as it is explained it as it is: A story in a book that's thousands of years old which cannot be compared to modern scientific research.

To be honest, I'm much more concerned about another another religion then the one(s) that promote creationism. It's called the environmental movement (yes, while we're opening cans, let's open another one  ;D). The dogmatic belief of an increasingly large part of the population in a model that's a serious simplification of reality scares me like h*ll, especially since there are many scientists that are advocating this religion. Mind you, I'm not saying that we shoudn't try to be economical with our resources, but we should stop believing that we -as mankind- are capable of unbalancing the environment in such a way, that nature will never be able to recover.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the problem is the way that things are advocated. If it involves fanaticism, it should be contested. Maybe we should look at the dangerous mixture of fanaticism and religion or science.

Just my tuppence worth...

PS: A little variation on bib's initial post: If you're a treehugger, you can of course participate in the discussion. But let's keep the discussion fun ;D

I don't think that creationists can ever be convinced. Ultimately, they are longing for a deep and significant order in a world of frightening chaos. Creationism gives them a place within a grand (divine) plan. Science only tells them that they are mostly still animals. (Philosophy might be a way out, because that says we are what we make of ourselves.)

Just like creationists can quote examples of species that stretch the idea of gradual evolution beyond its limits (the bombardier beetles are a favourite example), so can evolutionists point to examples of outright flawed designs (human eyes with a blind spot, for example - an intelligent designer would have reused the much older and better squid eye design).


My personal stance on intelligent design is this: we humans have already bred "unnatural" new species through selection. We have already begun to take that to the next level by direct manipulation of genetic information. Fairly soon now, we ourselves will be intelligent designers. That doesn't mean that we are gods (nowhere near omniscience and omnipotency), but it does mean that the concept of intelligent design does not require a god at all.

If I may take a detour into science fiction, let me speculate that in the past 450 million years or so, since life has existed on planet earth, if there had already been an earlier civilization of intelligent beings on earth, chances are that not a single one of their artifacts would have lasted through the millions of years. We'd never find proof of their existence (no rock, no metal can withstand erosion that long - the oldest human artifact is a measly 12000 years old, and needed special preservation for the last 5000 years). But if they had messed with the genes of their contemporary species, and created animals with traits that were a significant advantage for survival, then the descendants of those engineered species might have evolved, adapted, remained fit for survival through the ages, and might be the one kind of "artifact" that can possibly endure millions of years.


I want to stress that this is science fiction. I am not claiming that any of the known species on earth are the result of genetic manipulation. All I am saying is that I personally think that the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design (if limited to non-godly designers) are actually not mutually exclusive.


Just for the record, my personal religion is based on just two unprovable beliefs:

1. That the world can be explained.
2. That the world should be explained as best we can.

(I am not the inventor of this religion. It's called science.)

In a totally unscientific way, I do believe in some sort of personified higher being: I feel gratitude that I am allowed to live a life in this fascinating world. I don't know towards whom I am feeling this gratitude, and I try not to make any assumptions about that entity. But my gratitude is real, so I must acknowledge this contradiction in my personality.

the reason why there is vehement objections to creationism is that its religion straying onto other folks turf. I've often said "I have no problem with teaching creationism is science class ... as long as they allow evolution to be taught in sunday school". Now that would create vehement protest from the religious.

As for enviromentalism being a religion, we'll you can find zealous adherants to any philosophy. Personally I blame greenpeace for global warming. Because they don't pick their battles, they seem uniformly apposed any development, nuclear power, genetic engineering, cell phone towers. If they can make you scared of it, they're against it. Global warming is a real problem backed by real science, but its all to easy to dismiss AGW proponents and eco-whacko-fascists because greenpeace is against everything.

Why I've been writing this Hobold made an interesting post about possible pre-historic advanced civilizations. A favorite speculation of mine.
Actually I'd think their footprint would be in the ice-cores we are drilling, a large unexplained increase in C02 would be indicative of a previous advanced civilization.
The other footprint would be completely novel and unprecedented sequences in the DNA of some remarkably useful species, like the babel-fish.

Madman- "Hypothetically speaking, both creationism and evolution are theories."
Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact, it has been demonstrated repeatedly countless times, the evidence is right in front of us in breeds of dogs, fruits bred for their size, crops etc.
The 'theory of evolution by natural selection' IS a theory.
However, to quote the united states national academy of sciences "The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory)"

"Nobody was there in the beginning, so both theories could still be valid"
You are misrepresenting evolution, which is not a theory about how life or the universe originally began.

Environment:
"The dogmatic belief of an increasingly large part of the population"
Nonsense, it is a scientific prediction, supported by 98% of climate related scientists, the reason people may sound stubborn is BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT
"we should stop believing that we -as mankind- are capable of unbalancing the environment in such a way, that nature will never be able to recover"
Straw man, no environmentalist says that nature will never recover.
However, we are capable of bringing huge economic and structural collapse upon ourselves if we don't make some pretty big changes.
- One whole country has started evacuating already due to rising sea levels  (no they weren't rising prior to industrial civilisation), Kiribati. Some of their population will be arriving in my city over the next few years.
- All countries in the world accept man made global warming as evidenced by their statements and commitments in climate summits, however they haven't agreed on solutions
- A big concern is that political wrangling is preventing action, this is from the most recent climate summit- http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/13/climate-leadership-cancun (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/13/climate-leadership-cancun), and worse, intentional derailment- http://www.fastcompany.com/1708469/wikileaks-cables-reveal-uss-bad-behavior-in-climate-negotiations (http://www.fastcompany.com/1708469/wikileaks-cables-reveal-uss-bad-behavior-in-climate-negotiations)
- The greenland icesheet has shown an eightfold increase in shifts since testing began in the 70s, if it destabilises and slides into the sea we could be facing a 5m increase in sea levels

Unfortunately Madman, it isn't very fun, it is a worry

Hobold- "creationists can quote examples of species that stretch the idea of gradual evolution beyond its limits (the bombardier beetles are a favourite example)"
http://ncse.com/cej/2/1/bombardier-beetle-myth-exploded (http://ncse.com/cej/2/1/bombardier-beetle-myth-exploded)

I was hesitating about opening the can, now I'm glad I did. There are so many talents in our community that it would have been a shame to keep focusing on our stupid fractals ;) when there are so many crucials topics.

Let's keep this thread about creationism, and if one wants to continue the environment discussion, please create another thread.

Hobold I have to disagree with some of your opinions - I'm essentially with Tglad, but in particular:

> If you feel that strong about opposing it, it's almost as if you're afraid that your own beliefs will be undermined by creationism

No, the problem here is that if creationism really starts taking hold then for one thing eventually study of anything related to evolution is going to disappear and I consider that a very serious undermining of potential future benefits to humanity plus forcing *any* religious belief on others as part of the standard education system is *wrong* and *evil* IMHO but that is how most creationists (of all denominations) think things shoud be.

However I will add that *everything* beyond "I think therefore I am" has to be taken on faith and is therefore just a belief.

My belief is that there is a God, but this God is not the Creator but the *sum of all things* and in terms of good/evil is entirely neutral but fits the ideas that "the Kingdom of Heaven is within you" and "God is everywhere" because I believe *Existence is a Multifractal* and it contains infimite copies of itsef within itself - for example we'll always find that our "fundamental particles" (whatever they are at the time) are made of even smaller ones that last for even shorter periods of time.
As for morality, I take that from the account of Jesus' life - for example he taught "God is Love" - and from various other religious teachings not necessarily Christian, such as Buddhism.
Like Stephen Fry and my dad I would call myself a Humanist rather than simply an Atheist.

I might have an easier time tolerating creationists, because I am not confronted with them on a day to day basis. But I have had my own clash with a theology teacher in primary school. The only reason why I got out of that relatively unscathed was because my father was a self taught botanist and zoologist with a bit of local fame in the area. When he spoke up and demanded a good scientific education for the kids, the debate ended right there.

What I wrote above was meant to reveal a fundamental weakness in the theory of intelligent design: intelligent design does in no way imply a godly creator. The intelligent designers can realistically emerge from evolution. The history of life on earth is easily long enough for that to happen more than once. Whenever a creationist tries to use the concept of intelligent design as an existence proof for god, he is failing at basic logic.

However, the concept of evolution through selection also has limitations. There are a few episodes in earth's history (as documented by the fossil record) of extremely rapid appearance of new species. And there are precious few examples of currently existing species that have ... "fragile" traits. Fragile in the sense that they cannot be traced back along a continuous and gradual path of predecessors that each were useful, effective, and efficient for the individuals so endowed. The pure and simple concept of evolution is apparently contradicted by the laws of statistics there, because even 450 million years are not long enough that such an unlikely chain of events could realistically occur.

Let me repeat that this does not mean a god were necessary to close the gaps in the theory of evolution.


As for the creationists who try to use the language of science to discredit the scientific method ... look around yourself. We bent the world to our will. Not with ideologies, but with technologies. The quest for ever more knowledge has been extremely successful. Which church today, which formal belief system can match the sheer creative power of modern science? (Yes, we got more effective at warfare, too. But how many of those were holy wars? How many of the inventions/discoveries were holy inventions/discoveries?)

And yet, no man-made artifact can compare to the world itself, the greatest creation of all. Exploring the world, understanding it, is the pillar of science and an act of worship at the same time. Scientists (their stereotype, at least) may not be part of formal churches, and they may not believe in any made-up definition of deity. But scientists, in their quest for the final answer, for the ultimate truth, will inevitably come closer and closer to whatever god there may or may not be.

In not sure many evolutionary biologists today think that evolution is an exclusively gradual process. Species may find themselves in isolated ecosystems with unexploited niches, in such circumstances evolution is quite rapid. I think the term is 'punctuated equilibrium', most of the time evolution is gradual but then changing environment and catastrophes cause bursts of rapid evolution. Mammals would not have become the dominant land animals they are today were it not for the demise of dinosaurs leaving unexploited niches for mammals to fill. The earth is a wonderful evolutionary laboratory, generally stable but with occasional rapid changes to ecosystems caused by ice-ages lowering sea levels and allowing land bridges for species to mix from separate continents and fight it out for the evolutionary winners. Were it not for climate changes in Africa our ancestors would not have had to come down from the trees an onto the savannah and walk upright and consequent rapid evolution to exploit this new upright condition.
Thus I have a problem with the application of statistics to evolution, poisson distribution is a bad model for circumstances when the 99th percentile is constantly being selected for, as in the case of novel niches to be exploited.