Creationists launch new attacks on evolution

[Wybren]

Over here, in public schools, the kids get one lesson of religious education a week, your parents put on a slip who you belong to and then you go to that class each week for your dosing of RE, as a kid I was a bit of a RE hopper, that is to say I would go to which ever one was giving out the most confectionary but in all the time I spent going to RE not once did any of them talk about creation, nothing from the old testament was discussed, only the stuff relating to Jesus. Anyway a few years ago I had to do a job at a religiously run private school and we were in the library and in the part where there should have been books on evolution and such there were only books on creationism, and I thought, why, if public schools have to give RE lessons, why doesn't anyone get all hotand bothered about if private schools dont teach anything about evolution?

 

[Vladd67]

I used to work with a Jehovah's Witness who claimed evolution was a theory that no one really believed in anymore, and that cattle and sheep etc were put on earth for the sole benefit of feeding man, that they have always been domesticated, and that animals such as lions etc were put here to clearup the parts of the animals man left behind. I listened to this slightly open mouthed and just couldn't begin to point out where he was wrong. Was going to ask him his views on prehistoric cave paintings showing man hunting some nasty looking cattle but the phone rang and the moment past.

 

[Nik]

IIRC, we've three concurrent life-time bans from the JWs...

Our then boss-cat, a large Siamese, took against JWs and would attack on sight. The third and final incident related to my curt deconstruction of their door-stepper's beliefs. As I added, I grew out of religion at age of six (6) having seen through the glaring flaws, internal errors and self-contradictions. What was keeping him, a grown man, from grasping the utterly obvious ??

 

[kyektulu]

Sorry to disillusion you, Nik, but:

The Flat Earth Society -- Home

I have never seen these people before... they cant be serious, just how stupid can someone be.... we despreately need to reintroduce natural selection...

 

[j d worthington]

I have never seen these people before... they cant be serious, just how stupid can someone be.... we despreately need to reintroduce natural selection...

Reintroduce? It's never been away. The problem with natural selection is that it is generally a very slow process, and seldom (if ever) individual-oriented but rather species-oriented....

And DG: as pointed out, "theory" does not mean the same thing in science as it does in common parlance; quite the opposite, in fact, much as "space" means one thing to an architect, another to a psychologist, and another to a physicist. All originally related, but by no means the same.

And no, using common parlance, evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact -- as much so as gravity -- which has been observed over and over again (including speciation, an aspect creationists so often argue has never been observed). It is backed by every kind of evidence there is, while creationism has only one thing to support it: the claims of its supporters... which vary from faith to faith (and often within the same faith).

 

[Pyan]

Darwin propounded a theory of evolution, in 1859 - it's since become an accepted fact. Just because it was published as a theory doesn't make it less true - you might as well call the fact that the earth goes around the sun a theory, because Copernicus proposed it as such in 1514...

 

[Harpo]

Sorry to disillusion you, Nik, but:

The Flat Earth Society -- Home

Their forum is largely populated with silly funsters

 

[LJonesy]

I find that all this Creationist bashing is incredibly cheap, and as someone said here earlier "To mock a view is the weakest form of denial and implies there is nothing more worth arguing... I'd also say that mockery cheapens the mocker at having to stoop so low: everyone is entitled to their honestly-held belief and view, even if "clearly" absurd." Is there no respect? I've clearly seen very little here, what justification could there be for this kind of behaviour? As far as i can see, all this Creationist bashing seems not to be on a scientific level, but on an emotional level (consider the constant "this creationist cr*p" that's been said)

And let me put out this now: Perspectives on creationism are as varied as the people in the world. If you ever think that all Christians believe the same creationist theories, or the same thing for that matter, then you really need to stop and think a moment.

 

[Pyan]

Give me a respectable theory, and I'll show respect in criticism of it.
However, cherrypicking from the Bible and presenting those ideas as a truth which should be taught in schools as a credible alternative to science - I'm afraid that's not worthy of respect, IMHO.

 

[Urlik]

I was lucky at school in that my RE teacher was rather intelligent and had read the OT in Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew
he explained that in one of those languages, can't remember which, the word for day was similar to the word for age and that the "days" of creation were in fact ages of unspecified length.
a theory of Creation that is a lot closer to the observed facts than the Creationist version that ignores facts to stay faithfull to a reinterpretation of a translation of a translation of a reinterpretation of a translation of a translation (add more reinterpretations and translations as you feel appropriate)

 

[Wybren]

My mother has a degree in comparative religions and she says there are many words that have been corrupted from the original and what we understand them to mean, was more than likely not what was written in the first place, echoing Urlik a bit but what is currently in the Christian Bible what you'd get if you'd photo copied something from a photocopy of a photocopy repeated, and that the original was a translation of an already translated and incomplete text.

LJonesy I don't think anyone here was talking about christians or people who believe in creationism on the whole, they are talking about the fundamentalists who take the christian bible literally and are inflexible and unbending and unwilling to consider alternate views.

 

[Drachir]

I used to work with a Jehovah's Witness who claimed evolution was a theory that no one really believed in anymore, and that cattle and sheep etc were put on earth for the sole benefit of feeding man, that they have always been domesticated, and that animals such as lions etc were put here to clearup the parts of the animals man left behind. I listened to this slightly open mouthed and just couldn't begin to point out where he was wrong. Was going to ask him his views on prehistoric cave paintings showing man hunting some nasty looking cattle but the phone rang and the moment past.

The last time I was visited by a JW I invited her and her "apprentice" into my home. We had a fun time discussing religion from a scientific point of view. I haven't seen them since and that was five years ago. I guess I am on the "He's going straight to Hell list."

 

[Drachir]

I find that all this Creationist bashing is incredibly cheap, and as someone said here earlier "To mock a view is the weakest form of denial and implies there is nothing more worth arguing... I'd also say that mockery cheapens the mocker at having to stoop so low: everyone is entitled to their honestly-held belief and view, even if "clearly" absurd." Is there no respect? I've clearly seen very little here, what justification could there be for this kind of behaviour? As far as i can see, all this Creationist bashing seems not to be on a scientific level, but on an emotional level (consider the constant "this creationist cr*p" that's been said)

And let me put out this now: Perspectives on creationism are as varied as the people in the world. If you ever think that all Christians believe the same creationist theories, or the same thing for that matter, then you really need to stop and think a moment.

Quite frankly, some viewpoints are not worthy of intelligent consideration. If someone tells me that pixies live at the bottom of my garden or the Moon is made of green cheese I don't think I need to give it much credibilty. As far as I am concerned Creationism falls into that category. No matter how believers try to dress up Creationist beliefs it comes down to one thing; stubborn and inflexible belief in what is written in the Bible. I can accept that Creationists are entitled to hold these religious beliefs, but I certainly don't want them trotted out as an alternative to rational scientific thought.

 

[dustinzgirl]

I entirely agree that non-one knows the answer to the most fundamental question of all: why life, the Universe and all that exists. I also agree that it is entirely possible that humanity will become extinct without ever finding the answer to that puzzle. So it is possible that some all-powerful being kicked off the Big Bang, setting the initial conditions to ensure that life would develop and evolve. However, that doesn't really provide an answer, it just poses more questions about how such a being came to exist.

However, my blog wasn't about that: it was about the Creationists who believe that everything we see now was created by God in its present form, and that humanity did not evolve from earlier animals, because that's what it says in the Bible. Such beliefs are, and always will be, totally incompatible with the evidence-based rational thinking which led to the development of the theory of evolution.


In science, a "theory" is a lot more than just a neat idea which might possibly be true: that's called an "hypothesis". A theory is an hypothesis which has been pored over by many scientists, tested, checked and validated as the best explanation currently available for a particular phenomenon. There are no "facts" in science; our body of knowledge is entirely made up of theories. The concept of gravity is a theory too, but it would be unwise to think that it might therefore be safe to step off a cliff.

Big Bang, also a theory.

And sorry, a theory is just a statistically proven hypothesis. I worked with marketing statistics for a while, and a lot can be done with numbers....statistical evidence that supports a theory is just...statistical evidence that supports a theory. It is NOT fact.

If you apply our very small numerical understanding of the universe to the wider variances that a hypothesis about the universe would have to consider to be considered pure and validated---oh wait, nobody can, has, or will do that.

Therefore, I rely highly on spiritual intuition, which has served me well. And my spiritual intuition says that they are all---creationists and evolutionists---full of poop. Swimming in it.

Actually gravity is NOT a theory. It is a law. That is why we call it the Law of Gravity.

And, the bible does actually say that God made the earth, then animals, then man, then woman. Probably because He needed someone to babysit the man. Therefore, there are very strong indications of the relationship between evolution and the bible. Since evolution says that the earth was made, then animals came out of primordial goo, and then man evolved from animals, and then women came along to babysit all the men.

 

[The Procrastinator]

Interesting post, Dusty. Firstly let me say that the Theory of Evolution has little to do with statistics. It exists as a best explanation of facts, the fossil record and biological diversity, and whoever can come up with a better one is welcome to do so. Creationism is not an attempt to do so, it is an attempt to give meaning to human existence, an entirely different agenda. Biblical Creation is a story that means different things to different people. As meaningful as it may be to individuals, whether interpreted literally or figuratively, it should not be seen as factual in a scientific sense. But I digress - your post just sent me running to the bookshelf to look up the creation in the Bible, because I hadn't looked at the order of Creation in years, and you reminded me that women came last, thereby implying that women are the pinnacle of creation. No arguments there. But isn't this interesting:

Day one: The heavens and the earth - light. Day and night.
Day two: The sky
Day three: Oceans, seas and dry land. Vegetation of all kinds.
Day four: The sun and the moon.
Day five: Sea creatures and birds.
Day six: Land animals. Human beings.
Day seven: In the hammock, taking a well earned break.

Note that the sun/moon was created after light, day/night, and vegetation. Intriguing! Btw I am not trying to start a religious argument here. It says what it says, and presumably that meant something to the people that first came up with the idea. A repudiation of solar/lunar deities? They would've been pretty common at the time.

 

[dustinzgirl]

If you dig even further into Genesis, you will note that not once does it refer to the snake as Satan. I think the snake is either a phallic representation or an older god. God, in the biblical sense, never denies the existence of other gods, He simply states that we do not worship other gods. So, the idea of other gods as celestial beings is consistent, in my humble POV.

Light exists without stars, stars are just concentrated gases that emit light in a manner we can categorize, the Sun is a star, thus light could have existed without the concentration of gases that make the Sun, thus light could have existed before it formed into the Sun. The moon has a few theories behind it, one being that it is actually part of the earth. The sky itself as the atmosphere could not, by definition, exist without both the Sun and the moon since our orbit basically creates the atmosphere and we need the Sun for the orbit and the moon for its gravitational pull to have an atmosphere as far as I am aware. Thus, both biblical and astronomy can be consistent with each other.

If people would get over the argument and look at the variables, evidence from our human history (which is not all describable by scientific discovery), and try to listen to each other and accept the possibility that science does not negate religion and religion does not negate science, and add in the fact that we know very little about our own history and even less about the larger universe (multi-verses, dimensions, ect), then perhaps we could get down to finding the truth, instead of arguing about speculation and theoretic evidence.

If I combined all the histories of all the cultures across the world and even the small snippets we have of older cultures (Australian and African aboriginals) then I could make a strong theory that gods do exist (possibly in alien form) and are able to travel interdimensionally and across multiple universes.

But, everything I say is speculative fiction anyways.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

Big Bang, also a theory.

Yes, that's right. But one supported by some very strong and consistent physical evidence. While Creationism is supported only by a myth invented by Bronze Age people who had no knowledge of the structure of the universe.

And sorry, a theory is just a statistically proven hypothesis. I worked with marketing statistics for a while, and a lot can be done with numbers....statistical evidence that supports a theory is just...statistical evidence that supports a theory. It is NOT fact.

I specifically made the point that science deals with theories, not facts, so we agree again there. In principle, any theory is open to revision or disproof if contradictory evidence is discovered. However, in practice some theories are so soundly backed by observational evidence that they are highly unlikely ever to be replaced. Evolution is one of those.

Therefore, I rely highly on spiritual intuition, which has served me well. And my spiritual intuition says that they are all---creationists and evolutionists---full of poop. Swimming in it.

The trouble is, it's different kinds of poop. In evolution, the poop is evidence gathered by observation. In creationism it's fantasy.

Actually gravity is NOT a theory. It is a law. That is why we call it the Law of Gravity.

Before Newton came up with his theory, no-one had any idea why things fell down when you dropped them. Why not up, or sideways? The theory that bodies with very large mass attract each other not only explained this, it also mostly explained the movements of planets, moons and other objects. One of the great breakthrough moments in human knowledge. This is indeed one of the theories which became so soundly established that it was given the title "Law"; but it was eventually realised that it does in fact not produce a complete explanation for planetary movements; it took Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to do that. So Einstein's work has actually superseded Newton's. See: Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Anthony G Williams]

Day one: The heavens and the earth - light. Day and night.
Day two: The sky
Day three: Oceans, seas and dry land. Vegetation of all kinds.
Day four: The sun and the moon.
Day five: Sea creatures and birds.
Day six: Land animals. Human beings.
Day seven: In the hammock, taking a well earned break.

That's Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 Man was created "from the dust of the ground", with vegetation being planted later, in Eden. The birds and the beasts came later still.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

Light exists without stars, stars are just concentrated gases that emit light in a manner we can categorize, the Sun is a star, thus light could have existed without the concentration of gases that make the Sun, thus light could have existed before it formed into the Sun.

You've lost me there...

If people would get over the argument and look at the variables, evidence from our human history (which is not all describable by scientific discovery), and try to listen to each other and accept the possibility that science does not negate religion and religion does not negate science, and add in the fact that we know very little about our own history and even less about the larger universe (multi-verses, dimensions, ect), then perhaps we could get down to finding the truth, instead of arguing about speculation and theoretic evidence.

I never said that science negates religion - in fact I specifically pointed out that most Christians are not Creationists, and are very happy to accept the theory of evolution.

If I combined all the histories of all the cultures across the world and even the small snippets we have of older cultures (Australian and African aboriginals) then I could make a strong theory that gods do exist (possibly in alien form) and are able to travel interdimensionally and across multiple universes.

No, that would be an hypothesis

 

[Drachir]

If I combined all the histories of all the cultures across the world and even the small snippets we have of older cultures (Australian and African aboriginals) then I could make a strong theory that gods do exist (possibly in alien form) and are able to travel interdimensionally and across multiple universes.

That kind of hypothesis could just as easily be applied to the existence of Santa Claus. Rather than a proper hypothesis supporting the existence of gods what you would really have is evidence that people may be biologically predisposed to believe in gods, which is a theory that is currently held by many scientists. God Part of the Brain: Biological Origin of Spiritual Beliefs
In addition, using cultural data to prove the existence of gods would be problematical as much of the information gathered would be completely contadictory and there would be no way of measuring or verifying most of the data.