Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools

[Askthepizzaguy]

Unfortunalty a modern science called "Geology" has already proved that there were natural materials existing far beyond that date. Pity.

When one has unrelenting devotion to religious faith, one has equally unrelenting doubt in knowledge and proof. As such, religious people will always question the existence of knowable truth, but never question the existence of revelation.

[Jolt]

When one has unrelenting devotion to religious faith, one has equally unrelenting doubt in knowledge and proof. As such, religious people will always question the existence of knowable truth, but never question the existence of revelation.

Simply put, people with unrelenting devotion to an unproven mythical being, have unrelenting doubt about proven facts? It's the same as having doubts that the sky is blue, that humans have feet, that humans have children.

[rvg]

Simply put, people with unrelenting devotion to an unproven mythical being, have unrelenting doubt about proven facts? It's the same as having doubts that the sky is blue, that humans have feet, that humans have children.

Doubting the obvious is okay. After all, without the tinfoil hatters and flat earthers the world would be a less exciting place to live in. Now, feeding this garbage to children, THAT is a problem.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The existence of knowledge is as much an assumption as your existence, and the existence of the universe.

Yes, we must assume they exist, but they are self-evident. They require no further evidence than their existence. That is why when people question objective truth, knowledge, reason, logic, evidence, sense, and understanding, I question why they bother questioning.

Without knowledge there is no reason. Without reason there is no logic. Without logic, we are precisely as well-off dead as we are alive, so we should not lock anyone up for murders, nor bother to procreate.

One questions at that point why we bother breathing, if nothing matters and nothing is true or provable or knowable. I say, be bold. Question whether you can know. But you will never know that you can never know, because THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Ah, but this is where it gets slippery. You mentioned logic, but logic is based on the assumption that the measurable is repeatable, and that 1 + 1 will always = 2. This is actually a pretty big assumption, and it's what all modern science is based on.

1,000 years ago the existence of God would have been considered even more obvious. "Man is the measure of all things".

Ultimately the stance of the religious fundamentalist is as logical as your own, it simply has a different start point. You assume that your careful measurement of the natural world is accurate, they assume their holy text is accurate. You demand that the Holy text eqate to the natural world, or be proved false, and they demand that your conclusions from measurement equate with their holy text, or be proved false.

They have the advantage because they can refute any measurement you produce by declaring that it has been altered by God.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ah, but this is where it gets slippery. You mentioned logic, but logic is based on the assumption that the measurable is repeatable, and that 1 + 1 will always = 2. This is actually a pretty big assumption, and it's what all modern science is based on.

1,000 years ago the existence of God would have been considered even more obvious. "Man is the measure of all things".

Ultimately the stance of the religious fundamentalist is as logical as your own, it simply has a different start point. You assume that your careful measurement of the natural world is accurate, they assume their holy text is accurate. You demand that the Holy text eqate to the natural world, or be proved false, and they demand that your conclusions from measurement equate with their holy text, or be proved false.

They have the advantage because they can refute any measurement you produce by declaring that it has been altered by God.

If there ever comes a time when 1+1 does not equal 2, then the fundamental nature of the universe will have changed. There is no evidence this has ever happened or ever will, and even if it did, that means nothing.

All my arguments pertain to THIS universe as it always has been and always will be. You HAVE TO THROW OUT any argument which pertains to a different universe, because it's irrelevant to this one.

Focus on this universe, because that's the only place our arguments matter. What you are saying in effect is that I could be wrong, but the nature of reality would have to change.

That's the same as saying you cannot refute my arguments, and that they are correct.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If there ever comes a time when 1+1 does not equal 2, then the fundamental nature of the universe will have changed. There is no evidence this has ever happened or ever will, and even if it did, that means nothing.

All my arguments pertain to THIS universe as it always has been and always will be. You HAVE TO THROW OUT any argument which pertains to a different universe, because it's irrelevant to this one.

Focus on this universe, because that's the only place our arguments matter. What you are saying in effect is that I could be wrong, but the nature of reality would have to change.

That's the same as saying you cannot refute my arguments, and that they are correct.

It was only proved that 1+1=2 about twenty years ago, actually. That's not the point. The point is this:

The God about which we are talking is claimed to be all poweful, he can therefore change the nature of this reality whenever he wants to and leave no evidence it has happened, which makes your arguements irrelevant.

We get around this problem be saying that he doesn't, because he is a just God and does not lie.

[Askthepizzaguy]

It was only proved that 1+1=2 about twenty years ago, actually. That's not the point. The point is this:

The God about which we are talking is claimed to be all poweful, he can therefore change the nature of this reality whenever he wants to and leave no evidence it has happened, which makes your arguements irrelevant.

We get around this problem be saying that he doesn't, because he is a just God and does not lie.

The God of which you speak would have to contradict his own laws, making him a liar.

I don't believe in such a God, and my arguments are quite relevant.

The rule is, if you have to alter the laws of the known universe to make your opponent's argument irrelevant, then they are quite relevant.

[Mangudai]

Question: What hypothetical observations would disprove darwinism?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Darwinism? You'll have to be more specific.

The theory of evolution has many, many examples of proof, ranging from the geologic to the biological to the chemical, to modern observations regarding breeding new species of plant life, to the FACT that species die every year by the thousands, yet many many more remain. That suggests that new species are being created, otherwise there would have been unknown trillions of species at the beginning of the world, "4004" years ago.

New species have come into existence during humanity's existence, by our own doing. And it happens naturally as well. Artificial selection is real, and natural has been observed.

Viruses and bacteria mutate and become different strains. Mutations in genes occur. Biological links between species have been found. There is a logical progression of life from the simple to the complex, in our geological history.

The evidence is overwhelming. Creationism has no evidence, and if all the evidence was poofed into existence by a magic genie in a bottle, then science has no meaning.

I tend to disbelieve that science has no meaning, because progress has always been achieved by the rational mind using logical methods, and standing in the way of that progress has always been the superstitious, the phobic, the mystical, supernatural, religious, who disbelieve the rational and favor what cannot ever be proven.

Science has led to dead ends, but those dead ends proved that other avenues were possible. Even the dead ends helped us understand. Religion has never brought about one one-thousandth the amount of progress that reason has.

[Jolt]

The theory of evolution has many, many examples of proof, ranging from the geologic to the biological to the chemical, to modern observations regarding breeding new species of plant life, to the FACT that species die every year by the thousands, yet many many more remain. That suggests that new species are being created, otherwise there would have been unknown trillions of species at the beginning of the world, "4004" years ago.

New species have come into existence during humanity's existence, by our own doing. And it happens naturally as well. Artificial selection is real, and natural has been observed.

Viruses and bacteria mutate and become different strains. Mutations in genes occur. Biological links between species have been found. There is a logical progression of life from the simple to the complex, in our geological history.

The evidence is overwhelming. Creationism has no evidence, and if all the evidence was poofed into existence by a magic genie in a bottle, then science has no meaning.

I tend to disbelieve that science has no meaning, because progress has always been achieved by the rational mind using logical methods, and standing in the way of that progress has always been the superstitious, the phobic, the mystical, supernatural, religious, who disbelieve the rational and favor what cannot ever be proven.

Science has led to dead ends, but those dead ends proved that other avenues were possible. Even the dead ends helped us understand. Religion has never brought about one one-thousandth the amount of progress that reason has.

Phew. And I was beginning to think that you were one of the guys who thought Dinossaurs were placed beneath the Earth by "god" to "test our faith". Such people irritate me beyond imagination (Mainly because I have excavated things from beneath the Earth myself, as an archaeologist)

[Askthepizzaguy]

Phew. And I was beginning to think that you were one of the guys who thought Dinossaurs were placed beneath the Earth by "god" to "test our faith". Such people irritate me beyond imagination (Mainly because I have excavated things from beneath the Earth myself, as an archaeologist)

I'm one of the Org's most outspoken blasphemers, and a heretic among heretics. I doubt anything that is supernatural, not proven, or not sufficiently proven, and I even doubt that all proof is foolproof. However, I believe evidence and repeated results and removing alternate conclusions, over preaching that there is a man inside an invisible box who watches everything that we do and sends us to burn inside eternal hellfire forever when we die.

I don't mind tests of faith, but when this God places everything on this planet in such a way that the results are counter-intuitive, I have to wonder why he considers suicide an unforgivable sin. It seems logical that if God is testing our faith by misleading us to the wrong conclusions, the biggest leap of faith of them all would be to kill oneself and see what happens.

As such, suicide bombers should be considered the most faithful of them all.

Hence my problem with faith. (Or, one of many)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The God of which you speak would have to contradict his own laws, making him a liar.

I don't believe in such a God, and my arguments are quite relevant.

The rule is, if you have to alter the laws of the known universe to make your opponent's argument irrelevant, then they are quite relevant.

I agree, but I'm not trying to convince you of this, I'm merely expalining the mindset. There is a better answer to the proposition. You see, God is also omnipresent, in time and space. If God created the Universe 6,000 years ago and then, well backfilled the rest of history makes no difference than if he started with the big bang. Not only would there be no way to tell the difference, there would be no difference because God is timeless. As such he can start the universe at any temporal point and then go back and do the bits that came before.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Question: What hypothetical observations would disprove darwinism?

It's a good question.

Well, bearing in mind that Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species is now just a thread in a much more complex Theory of Evolution, I shall assume you mean the latter.

As noted above, there are many scientific disciplines outside biology that provide evidence, so one might be able to argue for say, evidence that invalidated the dating of rocks (ie some evidence that showed us stratification theory was wrong, or that our physics were wrong when measuring radioactive decay) might shake the usefulness of the fossil record.

The Theory of Evolution has been modified many times by observations - not least because Darwin had no knowledge of genetics. The Creationists tend to use this as an argument that the whole thing is utterly flawed, whereas it is quite normal for science. This replicates each philosophy - a creationist will distrust anything that does not emerge fully formed and free from doubt - a scientist welcomes revision of ideas - their evolution, if you will.

However, to be brief and flippant, I would say apply the same standards as the advocates of Creationism do. They constantly argue that no-one has seen a fish evolve into a frog, therefore, evolution is bunk. (Macro-evolution as they term it - I haven't seen any arguments that micro-evolution doesn't happen).

So, when a moose spontaneously appears out of thin air fully formed - ie we get to see creation in action and an observation that does not fit evolutionary theory - I might start questioning evolution.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

More likely, I might start questioning whether it's wise to drive country roads under the influence.

[Mangudai]

It's a good question.

Well, bearing in mind that Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species is now just a thread in a much more complex Theory of Evolution, I shall assume you mean the latter.

As noted above, there are many scientific disciplines outside biology that provide evidence, so one might be able to argue for say, evidence that invalidated the dating of rocks (ie some evidence that showed us stratification theory was wrong, or that our physics were wrong when measuring radioactive decay) might shake the usefulness of the fossil record.

The Theory of Evolution has been modified many times by observations - not least because Darwin had no knowledge of genetics. The Creationists tend to use this as an argument that the whole thing is utterly flawed, whereas it is quite normal for science. This replicates each philosophy - a creationist will distrust anything that does not emerge fully formed and free from doubt - a scientist welcomes revision of ideas - their evolution, if you will.

However, to be brief and flippant, I would say apply the same standards as the advocates of Creationism do. They constantly argue that no-one has seen a fish evolve into a frog, therefore, evolution is bunk. (Macro-evolution as they term it - I haven't seen any arguments that micro-evolution doesn't happen).

So, when a moose spontaneously appears out of thin air fully formed - ie we get to see creation in action and an observation that does not fit evolutionary theory - I might start questioning evolution.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

More likely, I might start questioning whether it's wise to drive country roads under the influence.

A thoughtful response, but not really adequate. I know a place in Wyoming where you can find terradactyl fossils in a layer of rock above my own footprints. Radioactive dating has a lot of controversy, especially C14 dating...

I'm not arguing against Darwinism or for Creationism. Darwinism is supported by a mountain of confirming evidence. What I'm really challenging is Popper's philosophy of science, based on the idea that scientific theories are falsifiable.

So, when a moose spontaneously appears out of thin air fully formed - ie we get to see creation in action and an observation that does not fit evolutionary theory - I might start questioning evolution.

That might do it... but I wonder if there could be an observation which would refute just Darwinism and not all of thermodynamics.

[HoreTore]

Sure. If course, only when and if it's accepted as a plausible explanation by the majority of the scientific community, just like evolution is.

That's how science works; we teach what know now, and when something better comes along, we swap instantly(relatively) for the improved shiny thing. It's flowing, not set in stone.

That day isn't going to come, however.

[Sigurd]

A thoughtful response, but not really adequate. I know a place in Wyoming where you can find terradactyl fossils in a layer of rock above my own footprints.

This argument is used frequently by the supporters of a young earth i.e Creationists.
That you find fossils, not only pterodactyl, in high layers could be the result of glacier activity or floods. I understand Wyoming has glaciers. Those babies gnaws at the ground, creating new landscape. Any host of nature forces can change the norm. In the Oil business, the knowledge of how this works helps us find trapped petroleum.

What is Creationism anyway? Isn't it a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter 1? To support the idea of a young earth, you must trust that the non existent original manuscripts of Genesis never was tampered with, that one day as written is 24 hours and not a undefined period of time.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well the 6,000 years comes from the genealogy Biblical characters. One thing I have wondered about is how they calculate lifespans, and how we know how quickly they dropped.

[Tribesman]

Well the 6,000 years comes from the genealogy Biblical characters. One thing I have wondered about is how they calculate lifespans, and how we know how quickly they dropped.

One usual explanation for that is that when the Jewish scriptures were written for the egyptian library the timespan didn't add up with recorded Egyptian history so they added lots of years to the lifespan of the characters to get rid of the contradiction .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well the 6,000 years comes from the genealogy Biblical characters. One thing I have wondered about is how they calculate lifespans, and how we know how quickly they dropped.

Largely by the ages recorded in Genesis I would imagine, until you get to Moses, at which point the supposed date locks into history pretty clearly. Except of course it doesn't, because Exodus doth not jive with secular history.

[Vladimir]

If we wish to disagree that facts exist, we start to question whether or not anything can be "true" or whether anything "exists". Which is fine, I can have that discussion, I've had it enough times. And I know, because I remember, because I was there, and there is proof of it, and the conclusion that "I think therefore I am" is justified.

Nothing exists. Everything is just fluctuations in a vacuum.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Nothing exists. Everything is just fluctuations in a vacuum.

Even a vaccuum has physical properties which affect both space and time. And if matter is a fluctuation of a vaccuum, then the vaccuum contains something, even in the abstract, which makes it no longer a vaccuum. And if there are fluctuations in spacetime, then there must first be the concept of existence.

Otherwise you couldn't be sitting here talking about it. Or standing, or whatever. The fact that I can discern the difference between sitting and standing is yet one of the infinite examples of there being reality around me.

Only by blinding yourself to reality can one say that it does not exist, and then one is stating that they do not exist, which is the same as saying "this statement is false". There's an inherent flaw in your reasoning, which negates the validity of your assertions.

One cannot say that they do not exist, unless they exist.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

cognito ego sum was an attempt to get over the problem of subjective knowledge, since then no philosopher has suceeded in extending that statement in any way, neither further than ego or sum.

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's a fact that if we don't exist, we aren't having this discussion either, so why are we wasting our time talking about it?

On the other hand, if we do exist, then I am correct. In either case, in 100% of the possible outcomes, it makes ZERO sense to argue with anyone that we do not exist.

Case closed.

[drone]

Even a vaccuum has physical properties which affect both space and time. And if matter is a fluctuation of a vaccuum, then the vaccuum contains something, even in the abstract, which makes it no longer a vaccuum. And if there are fluctuations in spacetime, then there must first be the concept of existence.

Otherwise you couldn't be sitting here talking about it. Or standing, or whatever. The fact that I can discern the difference between sitting and standing is yet one of the infinite examples of there being reality around me.

Only by blinding yourself to reality can one say that it does not exist, and then one is stating that they do not exist, which is the same as saying "this statement is false". There's an inherent flaw in your reasoning, which negates the validity of your assertions.

One cannot say that they do not exist, unless they exist.

All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves.

Here's Tom with the weather.

[Askthepizzaguy]

All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves.

Here's Tom with the weather.

Okay, if that's the case, I dare you to shoot yourself. After all, what could possibly be the harm in it?

And WHY are we persecuting people for being mass murderers? There's no such thing as consequences if we aren't real. And for that matter, why bother breathing, or arguing with me about existence?

Because it's fun? No, it's nonexistent, remember, so there's no such thing as fun. There's no such thing as anything. Which is odd, because you people keep insisting on debating this point. Why are you engaging in the effort to accomplish anything, when nothing exists?

The point is, I can prove that you don't believe a word you just said, or else you wouldn't bother getting up in the morning and eating food. Just stay asleep, you're dreaming anyway.

I wouldn't mind entertaining the amusing notion that we aren't here, but those who claim to be a proponent of such theories are hypocritical when they bother talking.

[Vladimir]

You just like the attention, don't you?

[Askthepizzaguy]

You just like the attention, don't you?

I do like the attention, but that's not pertinent to the validity of what I am saying.

I'm not a talkative person in real life, so this is my outlet for expressing myself.

[Ronin]

All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves.

Here's Tom with the weather.

The world is like a ride in an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it, you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time and they begin to question, is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, "hey - don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride..." ...It's just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money. A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.


Bill Hicks rules!

[Banquo's Ghost]

Nothing exists. Everything is just fluctuations in a vacuum.

So it is true then.

Existence sucks.

[Jolt]

A thoughtful response, but not really adequate. I know a place in Wyoming where you can find terradactyl fossils in a layer of rock above my own footprints. Radioactive dating has a lot of controversy, especially C14 dating...

I'm not arguing against Darwinism or for Creationism. Darwinism is supported by a mountain of confirming evidence. What I'm really challenging is Popper's philosophy of science, based on the idea that scientific theories are falsifiable.


That might do it... but I wonder if there could be an observation which would refute just Darwinism and not all of thermodynamics.

I know loads of places where you can find material culture in layers which weren't the original ones. As Sigurd well said, that is the result of geological processes which alter the original position of the material culture, and that itself is also scientific evidence.

As for controversy in C14 dating, I'm unaware any such controversy exists. Unless you mean the needed calibration so the C14 dating can give a more accurate date, that isn't really a controversy. It's a matter of trial and error to find the right calibrations, and many labs already have quite accurate calibrations.