Creationism/Intelligent Design

[Rubystars]

In the USA, and in a few other countries, there is a movement to teach creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution in public schools. This is mostly a social battle, as there is no controversy within the scientific community at all.

There is, however, a political drive to try to influence schoolboards to teach a religious point of view alongside the scientific one.

Creationism (usually the young earth variety) is what used to be pushed. Now it's morphed into an argument for 'Intelligent Design', which is a cloaked version of the same thing, just stated in more neutral language. It argues that there is empirical evidence for an intelligently designed universe, but usually doesn't directly state the nature of that intelligence.

In the interest of 'fairness' many schoolboards have tried to accomodate creationism, but this 'fairness' is really not fair at all. Evolution has multiple lines of empirical evidence to support it, while creationism has... a religious basis. They should not be presented as equally scientific or equivalent and opposing positions because they're simply not.

I might as well explain my position before we get started on debating this. I am a Christian, however, I accept evolution. While I believe that evolution was guided by God, I don't think that such guidance can be empirically demonstrated, therefore I don't subscribe to ID which tries to do exactly that. We can subjectively infer design, but we can not objectively demonstrate it. There is such a concept in science which is called methodological naturalism. Regardless of religious belief, a scientist must work as if he were an atheist, looking for natural explanations to natural phenomena. When they reach into the supernatural for explanations, they are no longer doing science at all.

Another big beef I have with the so-called 'scientific creationists' besides their lack of methodological naturalism, is that they go about their "science" backwards. They start with the conclusion they want, and then scrape around trying to find pieces of evidence to fit it or support it. The way science works is that you start with the evidence, testing different hypotheses along the way to see where that evidence leads you, without firm commitment to a particular outcome.

[AFPheonix]

This was one of my biggest problems with being a Bio/chem major while attending church. People's eyes would glaze over and they'd mutter, "oh well I'm glad SOMEONE'S interested in that....", or their eyes would light up and try to talk Creationism. I'd try not to engage them, because really, you can't reason with someone who won't believe what's clearly obvious, or who uses God and supernatural events as trump cards.
The science behind Creationism is so flawed, too, it's terrible. Anyone with half a brain can tell you why it's all total crap, too. However, a lot of people at churches will just eat this crap up and beg for more, so they can go confront evil science people. It doesn't matter how much you debunk this for people, they'll just keep throwing out crap science scenarios and give you this smug look.

I remember when I was in Junior High, a guy named Dr. Chittick, associated with the Creationism Institute came through to do a seminar. Egads, the lies he told. Terrible. And people just unquestioningly believed him. http://www.icr.org/
Here's the website for the group he's affiliated with. Hurts my brain just looking at it.

Frankly, the creation story, along with every OTHER creation story (perhaps including FSM) belongs not in a science classroom, but in a philosophy or comparative religion class.

[Rubystars]

.

I actually had a bit of a written debate with Cynthia Carlson, another creationist, wherein she admitted that I would still go to heaven even if I was an evolutionist. I wonder if she was taken to task for that opinion by the ICR.

I set up this page a while back, but I haven't updated it in a long time, so I need to fix some errors in the text and some typoes and such.

http://www.geocities.com/wendyschris...evolution.html

It includes an email exchange I had with an ICR creationist, Cynthia Carlson.

I had a talk.origins post of the month as well, although my views have evolved somewhat since I posted that. The tone of the piece came off as if I thought of Scripture as being completely symbolic, which I definitely don't, but I wasn't really thinking that through at the time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan03.html

I had gotten pretty involved in the whole debate for a while, although I've taken breaks from it. I found that when I got involved in forums like talk.origins and others that they often tried to attack me for not being an atheist as well as a social liberal like them, and tried to make me feel as if they were right and I was wrong rather than simply having different philosophies. It's frustrating because theism/religion itself can't be proven or disproven empirically and they should respect the fact that I don't agree with them.

I am, in many ways, a conservative Christian, and I wasn't treated very kindly by a lot of people in the EvC community, so I pulled back for a while. I am still very interested in the debate itself though, and I do enjoy a good debate with a YEC now and then. The most frustrating thing for me is how some people will lure people into accepting evolution as compatible with faith (which it definitely is) but then once you accept it will immediately start attacking that same faith in an attempt to make you into clones of themselves.

[protege]

Another big beef I have with the so-called 'scientific creationists' besides their lack of methodological naturalism, is that they go about their "science" backwards. They start with the conclusion they want, and then scrape around trying to find pieces of evidence to fit it or support it. The way science works is that you start with the evidence, testing different hypotheses along the way to see where that evidence leads you, without firm commitment to a particular outcome.

I think that's the problem many people have with it. Religious nuts are well-known for bending the truths to fit their own agendas...so why is this any difference? Sure, they may uncover evidence that goes against their beliefs, but do you really think they'll let that be known? They'll make such evidence "disappear" as they try to arrive at the answer.

Also, keep in mind that the Bible itself was written thousands of years ago. In those days, technology, and one's education wasn't nearly as advanced now. As such, man's understanding of things was rather limited. He had no idea where he came from or why certain things happened...and, dare I say it, God was an attempt to answer the questions.

Early Christians weren't alone in thinking like this--many early civilizations assigned "gods" to nearly everything in daily like--the sun god, rain god, etc. simply because they couldn't understand what was causing things.

Even so, I don't really think Creation can be proven...simply because there's not enough evidence compared with Evolution.

[Rubystars]

I think that's the problem many people have with it. Religious nuts are well-known for bending the truths to fit their own agendas...so why is this any difference? Sure, they may uncover evidence that goes against their beliefs, but do you really think they'll let that be known? They'll make such evidence "disappear" as they try to arrive at the answer.

In fairness this isn't confined to creationism or even religion. All pseudoscientific pursuits, such as reflexology, etc. use the same techniques to cover up the fact that their 'science' is really not science.

Also, keep in mind that the Bible itself was written thousands of years ago. In those days, technology, and one's education wasn't nearly as advanced now. As such, man's understanding of things was rather limited. He had no idea where he came from or why certain things happened...and, dare I say it, God was an attempt to answer the questions.

If you substitute God into every gap in your current knowledge, that's called a God of the gaps philosophy, which leaves your concept of God vulnerable to advancing knowledge. A much more reliable philosophy is one in which you believe in the ability of God to work through natural processes, no matter what is discovered.

Early Christians weren't alone in thinking like this--many early civilizations assigned "gods" to nearly everything in daily like--the sun god, rain god, etc. simply because they couldn't understand what was causing things.

There are still a lot of people who say these things have supernatural powers to them. There is a grain of truth in such things. Natural forces are very powerful and greatly affect our daily lives. One thing about Christianity and monotheism in general is that it acknowledges that all of these forces have power, but that all that power is subservient to one God. Therefore you don't need to come up with a god for every natural force, you just have to see God's hand in such forces or in their origin.

Even so, I don't really think Creation can be proven...simply because there's not enough evidence compared with Evolution.

Creation itself can't be proven and it can't be disproven. Creationism, as advocated by various YEC organizations such as AIG, ICR and CSE, can definitely be disproven. In science, you can disprove things but you can't prove them. Proof is for math and liquor. You can, however, build a good solid case for something. Once a concept such as evolution reaches the level of 'theory', it can be treated as 'fact', just as the Cell Theory, the Nuclear Theory, and the theory of gravitation.

[Barefootgirl]

Great topic, I love this one!

I wouldn't say I am particulalrly conservative but I am a Christian and believe that evolution is "how it all happened". I also accept that the Bibilical accounts of Creation were written by smarter people and priests to expain the world around them to a bunch of prehistoric goat-herders...but here's my problem. Why does the Biblical Creation story follow the scientific theory so closely? Whats the order of creation in the Bible? Light, the land, the Sun and Moon (OK, this is a bit out of order), the continents, plants, animals, man. Its a bit disturbing, to be honest. Was it just good luck? Did the ancient Hebrew writers just observe and guess?

I don't believe in pan-spermia or alien civilisations or any of that crap, but i do find it extremely interesting and thought-provoking.

[squall]

Well one thing they never mentioned was dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures, even the ice age ones. If you read the Bible word for word, basically they never existed. Where I strayed away from the Bible as any kind of an accurate and truthful document, was the issue of evolution, age of the Earth, all those things. If the Bible can be wrong or forgetful about such things, then it can also be wrong and fictional in alot of other ways. The Bible would have you believe that the Earth is 6000-8000 years old or something like that.

What I can't stand about the people that follow the intelligent design theory is that they want to get the all the schools in the country to teach intelligent design. In Georgia, I hear they are close to making a required curriculum on it. Never mind that there are other religious groups in the country and people who choose not to believe in any religion, let alone Christianity. But some of these people feel that they have the moral high ground and are entitled to shove it down everybody's throats.

[AFPheonix]

They do mention leviathans and other creatures in say, the book of Job.

What it does say is that god created animals. It doesn't mention any other species by name, so I gather dinosaurs are just kind of in there.

I do think the book of Genesis as we have it now is an amalgam of several creation stories. If you read it carefully, it seems to start going over ground it had already covered, especially after the first, monumental chapter. Also, the writing style varies widely from that first chapter and onward into the stories of Noah et. al.

[rahmota]

Well most of the good comments have already been taken. SO I'll just weigh in on the side of evolution as it is the only theory or statement of how all of things got to where they are. There ought to be a law saying that ONLY scientifically based evolution should be taught in schools.

BFG: Why does the bible follow so closely the real world order. Simple logic of how things worked in the old ways. You needed light or fire to create something. The moon was just cold fire. Order was formed from the orderless lumps of clay when they made pots so why not the world the same way? A lump of meat created flies (according to the ignorance of the time) which brought life. The writers of the bible (of which there where many it would seem) used simple observational skills coupled with simple logic of the time and got lucky in creating a story that in the big picture got most of the gross aspects correct. Just not much in the real nitty details.

[tendomentis]

I'd like to weigh in with the ever un-popular "apparent age" theory of the universe. To those who already know this theory and are rolling your eyes, please feel free to skip my post as I certainly am not posting it to offend you.

For those who don't know what it is...

The apparent age theory states (in a nut shell, so forgive any undue paraphrasing) that the universe appears as old as it is because it was created with all semblance of order that would support its existence. I.e., as "Adam" and "Eve" were "created" fully adult, any observer of Adam and Eve ten minutes after their creation could examine their bodies, fingernails, hair growth, bone structure, etc, and determine scientifically that they had been in existance for a period of time greater than ten minutes. Any use of any element of the universe to determine the age of the universe will result in an age consistent with the age of the universe that was intended.

Another metaphor would be a DVD. You can load the DVD, skip to the last chapter, and as far as the characters in the "universe" of the movie know, everything that had happened in the previous chapters of the movie (but you didn't view) STILL happened. The bad guy is about to win because of stupid decisions made by the good guys in chapter 4, but as far as you are concerned it never really happened.

Simplistic, I know. But an apt metaphor nonetheless. Not a popular theory on either side of the debate as it more or less removes the need for the debate at all (and no one feels "victorious" as a result). This takes the "true" age of the universe to a philosophical discussion instead of a scientific.

I tend to hold to any theory that has been scientifically demonstrated as valid, but with the acknowledgment that the facts are such because that is how they were "created" to be.

[AFPheonix]

"Apparent age" has not reached theory status. That is merely a hypothesis. More importantly, it's a hypothesis that is unlikely to be proven.

I guess since people rolled their eyes enough at these brainiacs who said that God planted fossils in the ground as a test of faith, they had to come up with a different way to phrase it.
I think it's stupid, and frankly, I don't think I'd want a God like that who'd fuck with my head in that kind of manner.

[tendomentis]

"Apparent age" has not reached theory status. That is merely a hypothesis. More importantly, it's a hypothesis that is unlikely to be proven.

I guess since people rolled their eyes enough at these brainiacs who said that God planted fossils in the ground as a test of faith, they had to come up with a different way to phrase it.
I think it's stupid, and frankly, I don't think I'd want a God like that who'd fuck with my head in that kind of manner.

I apologize as I DID misspeak when I identified it as a theory. Hypothesis is a much better description. I doubt very much it COULD ever reach theory status as this hypothesis can not even be scientifically tested.

I, personally, don't see it as God "who'd fuck with my head", but merely God acting as a God of order. Just from a philosophical standpoint, nearly everything that a "higher being" (i.e. God) could conceive of would not make sense to us lower beings, therefore it would always feel like that higher being was "fucking with our heads".

Do you think that doctors are, in the same manner, "fucking with our heads" when they tell us we have to receive a series of vaccinations in a certain order before we travel to medically unsound countries? Just because a person with a limited scope of knowledge/perception can't understand why something is done a certain way does not make it incorrect or malicious.

Bear in mind that these are all just my own musings on the subject at hand, so take them for what little they're worth.

[Rubystars]

Why does the Biblical Creation story follow the scientific theory so closely?

If you believe in it, you could say that the authors were inspired by God. However, I would advise caution in one way. We are dealing with belief, and the Bible does not need scientific justification. The Bible's topics are spiritual and it is not a science book. Revelations from nature can help to strengthen faith, but they don't objectively demonstrate that it is correct.

I, personally, don't see it as God "who'd fuck with my head", but merely God acting as a God of order. Just from a philosophical standpoint, nearly everything that a "higher being" (i.e. God) could conceive of would not make sense to us lower beings, therefore it would always feel like that higher being was "fucking with our heads".

If God made the earth and universe to appear older than they really are, that implies dishonesty. I don't see how "appearance of age" or "apparent age" creationists can talk about that topic and then say that God is Truth. I believe in a truthful God who wouldn't lie to us.

Oh, and I actually did hear a group of people talking about how Satan may have planted fossils one time. My mouth dropped open I was so shocked. Before I'd heard them, I'd thought that kind of thing was a bad joke, but apparently people really do believe in stuff like that. I thought about bringing my trilobite to scare them with but thought better of it.

[Rubystars]

Well most of the good comments have already been taken. SO I'll just weigh in on the side of evolution as it is the only theory or statement of how all of things got to where they are. There ought to be a law saying that ONLY scientifically based evolution should be taught in schools.

Evolution as a scientific theory must include things that make it falsifiable. Such a law would be going too far because beds of fossils could be found which included human remains in places they shouldn't be, like Cambrian rocks, or birds could lay eggs that puppies hatch out of. You might laugh but either of these things would be scientific evidence that evolution was false.

It is currently a very well-established theory which has passed the tests it's been put to and made accurate predictions. Evolution predicts that a bird's egg will never hatch a puppy, and that human fossil remains will never be found in Cambrian rock.

The ability to make predictions and falsifiability are two hallmarks of a valid scientific theory. Creationism has neither of the two, which is a major factor in why it's not even a scientific hypothesis.

A better law would be to only allow those theories which have been scientifically established and are accepted by a large portion of the scientific community. That would leave out most pseudosciences by default and would only allow for evolution by default.

That still wouldn't address the question of private schools, which can teach whatever they like, within reason, and I don't believe that the government even should dictate what private schools can or can not teach.

[Banrion]

Maybe I went to a "progressive" school, but I highly doubt it. Nevertheless, we were taught both, just in different classes. SCIENCE classes taught evolution, while SOCIAL STUDIES taught about creationism. Our entire sophomore year of social studies was about religions, all of the major global religions, past & present.

These aren't ideas that should be presented in a school atmosphere as something in direct opposition to the other. While logically if presented that you must pick A or B, they cannot co-exist, there is a way to present the material without making a child choose their religion or their biology grade. The teen years are confusing enough, there is no reason to throw these kids into a spiritual debate in school, especially PUBLIC schools where religion should not play a part in education.

Looking back now, after all the arguments of recent, this is a fine way to present both ideas, without the school supporting one over another, or forcing one idea on a student. Just like in real life, both ideas exist simultaneously. If you believe in creationism, you just learn the stuff your science teacher wants, just the facts as presented, with an understanding that it is being taught as something that SOME people believe. If you are more for evolution, you learn the creationism beliefs as presented regardless of your personal holding, and recognize it for what it is, something that SOME people believe. I promise you it can be done, I'm pretty sure that not a single person in my social studies class is now a faithful Pagan-Catholic-Muslim-Jew-Buddist-Mormon-Communist, yet we studied ALL of these and their beliefs.