Creationism growing in European schools - Page 2

sz_matyas · 06-10-2007, 01:18

The problem with the theory of evolution is that the version taught in most high schools has been shown false (mainly because a number of the key observations were based on falsified data, such as the classic white versus speckled butterfly population shifts in England during the rise of the industrial revolution). Unfortunately, much of the major publications on this have been within the past 10 or so years, or more recently than most high school science textbooks.

To combat this, there have been a number of permutations of the theory of evolution, neo-darwinianism, punctuated equilibrium, etc. None of these have been falsified, yet they are mutually contradictory. As these don't have the classic experiments to back them up, ID is saying that they have just as much proof for their side and can show the mathematically impossibility of almost all of these new permutations (this is not creationism, it's based on the concept of irreducible complexity and allows for the source to be anything including creation, aliens, guided luck, but says that there comes a point when random mutations would fail).

One key fact you seem to be missing is that ID wasn't started by christians nor was that it's original goal. Christians have joined the movement relatively lately because of it's success in challenging evolution as mathematically impossible. Also the original source of life in ID isn't clear other than it has to be an intelligence. Obviously people who believe in god are going to stick their beliefs in, while in evolution they really can't. This brings in the fringes to what is a fairly sound idea and lets the press and ill informed jump out and have a field day against solid science.

Perhaps ID shouldn't be promoted in schools because of the fact that the fringes are trying to control the debate, but it should at least be put before the choices of individual school boards to look at. Remember people didn't squash all research in quantum theory simply because of the Hindu movement to claim it as their own and that it validated their religion. I feel that ID should be given the same fair shake.

Matrix · 06-10-2007, 01:24

Interesting. Good point, sz_matyas.

So it's actually creationism rather than ID that should not be put in as science.

romeothemonk · 06-10-2007, 01:37

Krys,
I thought that as a man that championed the greek ideals of philosophy that you would jump at the ideals put forth by greek thinkers well before the birth of Christ.
In fact from a metaphysical state the most important questions include:
Where did we come from?
Where are we going?
How do I handle death?
Is there an afterlife?
In my copies of Plato, he acknoledges a creator. Socrates spent a good portion of his teachings on death.
In the purpose of education, both sides should be presented such that people can draw their own conclusions.

My best statement in this matter comes from John Milton's "Areopagitica": "Do not restrict the writing and teachings, for all that you need to do is present the truth, and it shall triumph" (Paraphrased heavily)
I believe in creationism, however, both ID and evolution should be taught to show that it is an unsettled issue.

mauer · 06-10-2007, 03:08

So far the anti ID people have only come up with "They're dummies and we're right"....lol

Very respectable indeed.

sz_matyas · 06-10-2007, 05:45

I definately think that ID should be put in as science (and the major scientific journals should end their boycott of scientists who had thrown their lot in with ID and the creationists that came with that).

Personally I believe in creationism with discrepencies from mainstream ID on key points. That being said, much of my core beliefs on this matter are not appropriate for the science classroom. What is appropriate is the major flaws and current falsifying data to evolution, given that using extrapolation techniques espoused by it's proponents lead to physical impossibilities when applied to other areas over the same data (example: the cooling rate of the earths core driven backwards in time allows the earth to form; however applied to the magnetic fields of the earth, their strength at the point of formation would form an impossibility to earths formation, therefore a different formula is applied for magnetics and cooling in classical darwinism. Some major branches have corrected this problem, but have others as a consequence).

As a result it is important to have alternate accepted view points presented along with data against them. They should not necessarily be treated as equals, as much less work has been put into the study of ID to expose its flaws. Giving them equal weight would allow any crackpot to present his theory and require it be given it's time in the sun (which is happening in a number of areas unfortunately). Still, the truth should ultimately win out if given a fair shake.

socralynnek · 06-10-2007, 09:57

The essential elements[9][10][11] of a scientific method[12] are iterations[13], recursions[14], interleavings, and orderings of the following:

* Characterizations (Quantifications, observations[15] , and measurements)
* Hypotheses[16] [17] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)[18]
* Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[19] from hypothesis and theory)
* Experiments[20] (tests of all of the above)

-----
from wikipedia (Scientific Method)

I don't say Creationism or ID are rubbish.
I say, it is not scientific and therefore it must not be taught in biology classes (only in philosophy or so).

If all people would have said in the past: "The world is like we believe it is and all other evidence for it being different is just false trails to hide the truth" we wouldn't be talking here. Computers would surely have never been invented.

ID and creationism are not based on what we really can observe and try to challenge by experiments/further investigations. The point is: It might even be true (although almost everything points another way), but we wouldn't get anywhere in science if we'd say: There are flaws in our current theory, although it explains almost everything we see, so the complete opposite must be true. That has nothing to do with logic.

I don't condemn anyone believing in ID or creationism. But that is where it belongs: Belief, Religion. Not science.
(And challenging current theories is a good thing, but an argument against the current state of ToE does not mean ID is more likely)

Furiey · 06-10-2007, 10:50

When I was at school, creationism (we didn't have the term ID back then) was taught as part of religious education, which in my day was basically Christian Bible studies as different religious beliefs didn't get a look in until around the age of 13. It was also taught if you went to Sunday School or the wednesday evening classes at the local church (which I did). I went to a church school in my younger years so learnt about creationism before I learnt about the theory of evolution, but it was never presented as science, it was always presented as this is what we believe as Christians.

I'm happy for Creationism to be taught as belief, it worries me a lot when people try to class it as a science and present it alongside scientific theories which are based on logic. It is a completely different process, a belief does not have to be justified with facts, it just is. Perhaps us Europeans look back to the days when religion did hold sway in Europe, stifling research that didn't fit in with the religious beliefs of the day. The earth went round the sun?

Hmmm, I think I just rambled on when I could have said I agree with the above post.

Markstar · 06-10-2007, 12:09

It's funny, in my head I always think that it's not worth discussing this subject with religious people, but then I end up doing it again and again. Thankfully, others here already pretty much made my point, so I'll only add this:

My girlfriend is a biologist, with one specialty in genetics. But, she is also very religious (at least for a European, who, as Matrix stated, a very liberal and most of them only go to church on Christmas. She is one of the very few younger people who actually go to church quite regularly, like twice a month or so). But even for her, Theory of Evolution is a well-know fact in the sense that creatures (plants, animals (<- and yes, humans are animals, too!!!)) evolved and were not put on earth by a god. I think this is a good read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

However, I will make two statements which might be offending to some:
- You can't reason with people who believe in Creationism. A friend of mine (yes, a friend! ...but also an American) replied, after I had asked him about the Dinosaurs: "God put them there to test our faith and to give us puzzles". Now, while I'm sure that's not the official policy, it sure illustrates the problem: An ignorant person can disqualify science in thousand different ways and they will be immune any argument that goes against their belief.
- Creationism is just a new way for the churches to stay in power (= collect tons of cash from poor fellas who donate to the church). In that sense the church is much like Microsoft: You will never hear MS saying: "[i]Well, we know now Windows was a bad idea and the world would be a better place if everyone would just switch to Open Source programs". Even now, when the majority of people is unsatisfied with Vista, MS still goes out and tells everyone that Vista was a great success, instead of admitting that after such a long development circle, the end result could (and should) have been much better.
The church is the same: They hold on to their view on the world as long as they possible can until there is no more way around it. For them, the earth was flat and only when people started to come back at the other side, they finally "revised" their position.

Imo the behavior is very similar to the ongoing sacrifice of human rights in the name of the "fight against terror" (not only in the US). Civ 4 players know the phrase: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. While it does sound a little cheesy and out of place in the modern (and seemingly complicated) times, I do find it is still true today, maybe even more than ever. While politicians use fear to pass more laws restricting the rights and justify spying on people, the church creates fear and doubt (of science) to strengthen its own position.

- People are stupid, that's why they fall for that crap.

- That, and the fact that many people who believe in God do so because they are simply afraid of the alternative: That they'll just die and rot away, only leaving their children behind.

Socrates · 06-10-2007, 12:34

@ Romeo : Yes I'm very attracted to Ancient Greek stuff, but that doesn't mean I consider it the end of it all. After all, many movements existed in that society, you just can't agree with them all (fucking sophists

). And yet I humbly agree I know very little about it, if you check CFC, you'll see I've used the title "Researching Philosophy" for years : all I know is that I know nothing (all hail Socrates, down with the sophists

). Last point, I have my hero as my avatar (with shades

) ; don't think I'd become an emissary of Satan if suddenly I changed my avatar to hellish stuff. I'm just a Frenchie behind his PC.

Where did we come from?
Species-wise, very probably from Lucy and big apes, and then from primary mammals, and then from single cells.
Where are we going?
To Mars if I believe Bush.

I don't know, SURPRISE !
How do I handle death?
In any case, you don't need to think about it. Just prepare to die. We'll all get the same treatment, it's not because you believe in Heaven that there is a Heaven. If you're a good man and if there is a Heaven, you'll end up there. If you're a good man and if there is no life after death, you'll die and rot, and jump into total void, just like before your birth. So, no need of believing, just act good.
Is there an afterlife?
SURPRISE ! You won't ever know before dying anyway. And you won't know it if there is nothing.

I have no problem with teaching creationism and ID in religious class. That's where it belongs. There is no God in science. Just like there is no study of cow digestion in mathematics. Differences between creationism and the ToE is so huge that one must be complete crap. When you know that the former is supported by people with an agenda, the case is clear... ID is the same, people with an agenda and goals.

That's just moisture to me. You can believe what you want. But don't throw your agenda on the Youth, they didn't ask for it.

grahamiam · 06-10-2007, 15:40

Creationism and ID are not science, so they should not be taught in science class. I have no problem having them taught in a Philosophy class, though. Also, I disagree with the article that creationism is an American creed. It existed long before the USA existed.

06-10-2007, 01:18	#11
sz_matyas Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Madison, WI. Posts: 555	The problem with the theory of evolution is that the version taught in most high schools has been shown false (mainly because a number of the key observations were based on falsified data, such as the classic white versus speckled butterfly population shifts in England during the rise of the industrial revolution). Unfortunately, much of the major publications on this have been within the past 10 or so years, or more recently than most high school science textbooks. To combat this, there have been a number of permutations of the theory of evolution, neo-darwinianism, punctuated equilibrium, etc. None of these have been falsified, yet they are mutually contradictory. As these don't have the classic experiments to back them up, ID is saying that they have just as much proof for their side and can show the mathematically impossibility of almost all of these new permutations (this is not creationism, it's based on the concept of irreducible complexity and allows for the source to be anything including creation, aliens, guided luck, but says that there comes a point when random mutations would fail). One key fact you seem to be missing is that ID wasn't started by christians nor was that it's original goal. Christians have joined the movement relatively lately because of it's success in challenging evolution as mathematically impossible. Also the original source of life in ID isn't clear other than it has to be an intelligence. Obviously people who believe in god are going to stick their beliefs in, while in evolution they really can't. This brings in the fringes to what is a fairly sound idea and lets the press and ill informed jump out and have a field day against solid science. Perhaps ID shouldn't be promoted in schools because of the fact that the fringes are trying to control the debate, but it should at least be put before the choices of individual school boards to look at. Remember people didn't squash all research in quantum theory simply because of the Hindu movement to claim it as their own and that it validated their religion. I feel that ID should be given the same fair shake. __________________ \"All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it\" H. L. Mencken

06-10-2007, 01:24	#12
Matrix Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Tampere, Finland Posts: 4,828	Interesting. Good point, sz_matyas. So it's actually creationism rather than ID that should not be put in as science. __________________

06-10-2007, 01:37	#13
romeothemonk King Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Yankton, SD. Posts: 1,310	Krys, I thought that as a man that championed the greek ideals of philosophy that you would jump at the ideals put forth by greek thinkers well before the birth of Christ. In fact from a metaphysical state the most important questions include: Where did we come from? Where are we going? How do I handle death? Is there an afterlife? In my copies of Plato, he acknoledges a creator. Socrates spent a good portion of his teachings on death. In the purpose of education, both sides should be presented such that people can draw their own conclusions. My best statement in this matter comes from John Milton's "Areopagitica": "Do not restrict the writing and teachings, for all that you need to do is present the truth, and it shall triumph" (Paraphrased heavily) I believe in creationism, however, both ID and evolution should be taught to show that it is an unsettled issue. __________________ I am not crazy cause I take the right pills..................................... Everyday

06-10-2007, 05:45	#15
sz_matyas Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Madison, WI. Posts: 555	I definately think that ID should be put in as science (and the major scientific journals should end their boycott of scientists who had thrown their lot in with ID and the creationists that came with that). Personally I believe in creationism with discrepencies from mainstream ID on key points. That being said, much of my core beliefs on this matter are not appropriate for the science classroom. What is appropriate is the major flaws and current falsifying data to evolution, given that using extrapolation techniques espoused by it's proponents lead to physical impossibilities when applied to other areas over the same data (example: the cooling rate of the earths core driven backwards in time allows the earth to form; however applied to the magnetic fields of the earth, their strength at the point of formation would form an impossibility to earths formation, therefore a different formula is applied for magnetics and cooling in classical darwinism. Some major branches have corrected this problem, but have others as a consequence). As a result it is important to have alternate accepted view points presented along with data against them. They should not necessarily be treated as equals, as much less work has been put into the study of ID to expose its flaws. Giving them equal weight would allow any crackpot to present his theory and require it be given it's time in the sun (which is happening in a number of areas unfortunately). Still, the truth should ultimately win out if given a fair shake. __________________ \"All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it\" H. L. Mencken

06-10-2007, 09:57	#16
socralynnek Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USS Defiant Posts: 3,827	The essential elements[9][10][11] of a scientific method[12] are iterations[13], recursions[14], interleavings, and orderings of the following: * Characterizations (Quantifications, observations[15] , and measurements) * Hypotheses[16] [17] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)[18] * Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[19] from hypothesis and theory) * Experiments[20] (tests of all of the above) ----- from wikipedia (Scientific Method) I don't say Creationism or ID are rubbish. I say, it is not scientific and therefore it must not be taught in biology classes (only in philosophy or so). If all people would have said in the past: "The world is like we believe it is and all other evidence for it being different is just false trails to hide the truth" we wouldn't be talking here. Computers would surely have never been invented. ID and creationism are not based on what we really can observe and try to challenge by experiments/further investigations. The point is: It might even be true (although almost everything points another way), but we wouldn't get anywhere in science if we'd say: There are flaws in our current theory, although it explains almost everything we see, so the complete opposite must be true. That has nothing to do with logic. I don't condemn anyone believing in ID or creationism. But that is where it belongs: Belief, Religion. Not science. (And challenging current theories is a good thing, but an argument against the current state of ToE does not mean ID is more likely) __________________ Being without a signature since November 2004.

06-10-2007, 03:08	#14
mauer King Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,033	So far the anti ID people have only come up with "They're dummies and we're right"....lol Very respectable indeed.

06-10-2007, 10:50	#17
Furiey King Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Bedfordshire UK. Posts: 1,031	When I was at school, creationism (we didn't have the term ID back then) was taught as part of religious education, which in my day was basically Christian Bible studies as different religious beliefs didn't get a look in until around the age of 13. It was also taught if you went to Sunday School or the wednesday evening classes at the local church (which I did). I went to a church school in my younger years so learnt about creationism before I learnt about the theory of evolution, but it was never presented as science, it was always presented as this is what we believe as Christians. I'm happy for Creationism to be taught as belief, it worries me a lot when people try to class it as a science and present it alongside scientific theories which are based on logic. It is a completely different process, a belief does not have to be justified with facts, it just is. Perhaps us Europeans look back to the days when religion did hold sway in Europe, stifling research that didn't fit in with the religious beliefs of the day. The earth went round the sun? Hmmm, I think I just rambled on when I could have said I agree with the above post.

06-10-2007, 12:09	#18
Markstar King Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Germany. Posts: 1,746	It's funny, in my head I always think that it's not worth discussing this subject with religious people, but then I end up doing it again and again. Thankfully, others here already pretty much made my point, so I'll only add this: My girlfriend is a biologist, with one specialty in genetics. But, she is also very religious (at least for a European, who, as Matrix stated, a very liberal and most of them only go to church on Christmas. She is one of the very few younger people who actually go to church quite regularly, like twice a month or so). But even for her, Theory of Evolution is a well-know fact in the sense that creatures (plants, animals (<- and yes, humans are animals, too!!!)) evolved and were not put on earth by a god. I think this is a good read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html However, I will make two statements which might be offending to some: - You can't reason with people who believe in Creationism. A friend of mine (yes, a friend! ...but also an American) replied, after I had asked him about the Dinosaurs: "God put them there to test our faith and to give us puzzles". Now, while I'm sure that's not the official policy, it sure illustrates the problem: An ignorant person can disqualify science in thousand different ways and they will be immune any argument that goes against their belief. - Creationism is just a new way for the churches to stay in power (= collect tons of cash from poor fellas who donate to the church). In that sense the church is much like Microsoft: You will never hear MS saying: "[i]Well, we know now Windows was a bad idea and the world would be a better place if everyone would just switch to Open Source programs". Even now, when the majority of people is unsatisfied with Vista, MS still goes out and tells everyone that Vista was a great success, instead of admitting that after such a long development circle, the end result could (and should) have been much better. The church is the same: They hold on to their view on the world as long as they possible can until there is no more way around it. For them, the earth was flat and only when people started to come back at the other side, they finally "revised" their position. Imo the behavior is very similar to the ongoing sacrifice of human rights in the name of the "fight against terror" (not only in the US). Civ 4 players know the phrase: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. While it does sound a little cheesy and out of place in the modern (and seemingly complicated) times, I do find it is still true today, maybe even more than ever. While politicians use fear to pass more laws restricting the rights and justify spying on people, the church creates fear and doubt (of science) to strengthen its own position. - People are stupid, that's why they fall for that crap. - That, and the fact that many people who believe in God do so because they are simply afraid of the alternative: That they'll just die and rot away, only leaving their children behind.

06-10-2007, 12:34	#19
Socrates Emperor Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,946	@ Romeo : Yes I'm very attracted to Ancient Greek stuff, but that doesn't mean I consider it the end of it all. After all, many movements existed in that society, you just can't agree with them all (fucking sophists ). And yet I humbly agree I know very little about it, if you check CFC, you'll see I've used the title "Researching Philosophy" for years : all I know is that I know nothing (all hail Socrates, down with the sophists ). Last point, I have my hero as my avatar (with shades ) ; don't think I'd become an emissary of Satan if suddenly I changed my avatar to hellish stuff. I'm just a Frenchie behind his PC. Where did we come from? Species-wise, very probably from Lucy and big apes, and then from primary mammals, and then from single cells. Where are we going? To Mars if I believe Bush. I don't know, SURPRISE ! How do I handle death? In any case, you don't need to think about it. Just prepare to die. We'll all get the same treatment, it's not because you believe in Heaven that there is a Heaven. If you're a good man and if there is a Heaven, you'll end up there. If you're a good man and if there is no life after death, you'll die and rot, and jump into total void, just like before your birth. So, no need of believing, just act good. Is there an afterlife? SURPRISE ! You won't ever know before dying anyway. And you won't know it if there is nothing. I have no problem with teaching creationism and ID in religious class. That's where it belongs. There is no God in science. Just like there is no study of cow digestion in mathematics. Differences between creationism and the ToE is so huge that one must be complete crap. When you know that the former is supported by people with an agenda, the case is clear... ID is the same, people with an agenda and goals. That's just moisture to me. You can believe what you want. But don't throw your agenda on the Youth, they didn't ask for it. __________________ Sent from my Debian

06-10-2007, 15:40	#20
grahamiam Emperor Join Date: May 2004 Location: USA, East Coast. Posts: 2,673	Creationism and ID are not science, so they should not be taught in science class. I have no problem having them taught in a Philosophy class, though. Also, I disagree with the article that creationism is an American creed. It existed long before the USA existed.