Sarah Palin, the creationist debate and what our children should be taught about the big bang...

Today has been a momentous day for science as the "big bang" machine at the CERN laboratory was switched on. It all raises huge questions about how the universe began, and has got scientists - and millions of others - very excited indeed.

Funnily enough, the story of this "time machine" and its quest for how existence began feeds very nicely into another big story. Yes, it's her again, the possible future Vice President of America, Sarah Palin.

It's Palin's openness to "creationism" which I want to discuss. This has got lots of people - including those scientists again - similarly excited. Religion and politics are a heady enough mix. Once you add education too, you're flying.

My colleague Oliver Kamm has written an excellent post on Palin and creationism, but not really from an educational point of view. That's where I come in.

There's little doubt that Palin, as evidenced by the birth of her son, Trig, and her daughter Bristol's pregnancy, is pro-life. Back in 2006, when she was running for Governor of Alaska, her "local" paper, the Anchorage Daily News reported that "much of her support comes from social and Christian conservatives." That report added that she believed creationism "should be discussed in schools." In fact, it also quoted her as saying "teach both...don't be afraid of information."

This is what fires people up. It's not that Palin says only creationism - a belief that the world was entirely God's work, and evolved much as is laid out in the Bible - should be taught in schools. Nor is it that she would have any direct influence on school policy if she made it to the VP's office. What many people actually find inflammatory is that Palin, the daughter of a science teacher, says that creationism and evolution can be taught as different sides of the same debate. That's a tough call.

Parents always have to think what they want for their child's education. Let's assume that it's the best teaching, using the most advanced methods, which are updated when possible. But what if this is contradicted by your religious beliefs? It can sometimes be hard to be religious - possibly more so in the UK then the US, as Tony Blair found out. Often, once people accept that you have a religious faith, they either expect you to have lots of other very strange beliefs and to defend them (they ask why there are no dinosaurs in the Bible, for example), accuse you of hypocrisy, or, more patronisingly, think you are a bit simple. The Sarah Palin creationism debate is a perfect example of this.

The major problem is that evolution can be proved (or at least explained), but creationism can't. It's akin, say some, to allowing children to debate if the world is flat or round, and giving both sides equal credence. And says Massimo Pigliucci, who blogs for Live Science (and he is certainly not alone on what he thinks) it's superstitious nonsense, which says something about the very core of education.

Teaching children right or wrong leaves little scope for middle ground. There are lots of other issues on which compromise can happen, but others where it simply can't. Is creationism one of these?

Update: Read about the British science expert who says that creationism and evolution should be taught alongside each other in lessons. He says children's beliefs should not be ridiculed.

Comments

[empraptor]

WW Terry:

I stopped reading your comment at the following sentence - "And this came about by pure chance?"

Please feel free to comment again when you have understood the theory of evolution.

[empraptor]

thought following link would be relevant to the discussion.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides

ribonucleotides have been formed in laboratory settings under conditions suspected to have existed billions of years ago on earth.

[Andre Zweck]

Curious how little the people commenting on this know - how many have studied biology at all? There are in fact some scientifically sophisticated arguments for ID and related concepts - read Michael Behe's work, William Dembski & Doug Axe's papers and I doubt many would be quite so certain about the doctrine of chance, at a molecular level.

[WW Terry]

Ah, the intellectuals. If only they could loosen up and stop being so full of themselves. Just look around no matter where you are and see the complexity of everything you see. And this came about by pure chance? The inner dependence like why do we have diseases? To cull out the general population so that in theory only the best survive. Otherwise we humans would be standing elbow to elbow, sickly and in perpetual misery. Modern medicine rather than helping us has done the oposite by keeping hundreds of millions of sickly humans alive with many of those reproducing and spreading illness, diseases, and stupidity throughout the world. From millions in the early 19th Century today we have about 7 billion people with billions more on the way as we breed ourselves into worldwide famine and disaster. Way to go.

[HoraceSunGod]

How long after we introduce creationism into our science classes before we drag out the medieval models of the flat Earth where the Sun revolves around us, and the stars are just points of light. Maybe we can get the deluxe models with the sea monsters near the edges.

Maybe in Health class we can go back to blood letting and bad spirits in our blood.

We can all shake sticks at the microwaves at 7-11 because we don't understand how it works, and must be filled with demonic spirits.

Or - maybe, we can all be intelligent, and keep science in science class, and math in math class - and religion in mythology class.

[Eugene Primoff]

I'm amazed by the huge number of people who confuse "faith" with facts and who blather on about "intelligent design". The latter is self contradictory but it takes an IQ to understand that. Faith in your mate, friends, country and your political system may make sense but faith in superstitious baloney is just silly. Many people have no idea about science. It is not a belief or faith that people espouse. It's a method of finding truths that can be verified with experiments or proof when the latter is possible. As many of you know, Kurt Godel had some interesting things to say about
proof. Science is always testing truths and if new evidence contradicts them, science makes the adjustment. Religious faith never makes an adjustment. Evolution has been validated many times and in many ways. It's an area that is currently undergoing rapid expansion and producing many exciting results about human history. For example, for a small fee and the submission of your DNA using a simple kit from the lab, you can find out more about your ancestry than from any other source. They isolate your mitochondrial DNA (female ancestry) and your Y chromosome (male ancestry-if you're a male) and from these produce a time annotated map of your real ancestors' travels. The National Geographic Society is one of the organizations that provides this service.

[empraptor]

"Wherever the Bible deals with science it is correct."

How about I say this without any examples to illustrate my point: Wherever the Bible deals with science the Bible is wrong.

Why some people think an old non-scientific literature like the Bible should have any bearing on science is a mystery.

[Jas]

Wherever the Bible deals with science it is correct. Evolution has been wrong so many times that it is now no more than an unproven faith. The zygot long ago established as a fraud alongside Piltdown man and the Celocanth is still taught in schools or is in the text books. Why? DNA the building block of life certainly doesnt support evolution.

[empraptor]

@LES

You wanted to know how amino acids came about in absence of life. Following links tell of 22 amino acids found in reanalysis of Stanley Miller's volcano experiments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7675193.stm

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/old_scientists_never_clean_out.php

"Yes, I know that Miller's reducing atmosphere is no longer considered to be an accurate representation of the ancient earth's atmosphere. However, the experiment still supported a key idea: that the synthesis of these organic compounds did not require any kind of guiding hand, but would naturally emerge from unassisted chemical reactions. Furthermore, the authors of this paper argue that while it was not a good model of the global atmosphere, it might still model local conditions in isolated areas."

[empraptor]

@LES

Read the whole paper, please. The passage you are quoting is part of an introductory section that refers to a previous work on Cit+ phenotype.

If you would take the time to figure out why I posted a link to the article, you'd see that I am giving an example of a mutation that is beneficial to an organism - which someone here wrote is not possible without giving any reason.

---

"By the way, the experiment did not produce amino acids suitable for life (think of left and right handed acids)."

Please read the article. They weren't trying to create amino acids from nonorganic materials.

[Les]

@empraptor
You quote an article which purports to support evolution by mutation.
This article is a very weak choice. Viruses are known to exchange genetic material widely. See the first and second paragraphs on p.2 and the following quote, commenting about the possible source of the observed change:
"He hypothesized that
some complex mutation, or multiple mutations, activated cryptic
genes that jointly expressed a citrate transporter, although the
genes were not identified."
NOTE: "activated cryptic
genes" - no new genes!!!
This experiment will yet be peer-reviewed.
Using intelligence to isolate and nurture a population to achieve a goal is not going to prove evolution - the experiment was actually a good experiment in Intelligent Design!
It would be interesting to see how this population changed when exposed to an oxygen rich - i.e. normal life environment.
This also reminds me of the very famous experiment to produce amino acids where a completely artificial and unreal environment was set up which was necessary to produce the amino acids and then a completely different environment immediately introduced to ensure that the original conditions did not destroy them - as it necessarily would!
By the way, the experiment did not produce amino acids suitable for life (think of left and right handed acids).
Excuse me if I make things a bit too simple for you.

@rap
"But by implying all mutations are detrimental you are defining the word to serve your ends. This is circular reasoning."

Not so. It is a fact that mutations are all detrimental(and no new info). Some may have slight benefits which outweigh temporarily the damage e.g. sickle cell anaemia, but it is nasty damage nevertheless.
Another example would be a beetle on a windy island. Some of the population loses the key gene for wings. So it cannot get blown out to sea - great! BUT it has lost info - it is not evolution, it is devolution - and no new info.
Alas for you - evolution is in trouble - but you do not want the only alternative - though He wants you!

[empraptor]

@JT

Read following for an example of a mutation that is beneficial for an organism.

"Historical contingency and the evolution of a key
innovation in an experimental population of
Escherichia coli"

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf

[Johnathan Thomas]

I am truly amazed how many of you have drank the Kool-Aid of believing Evolution is Science rather than Faith.

Science: "Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)

Faith: "Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith)

Someone point out one single case in all of history where scientists have "observable physical evidence" of genetic mutations that "evolved" an organism to be genetically better than its parents. The only examples that evolutionists use are not genetic mutations - they are mutations in the existing genetic makeup. There are plenty of examples where the mutation is bad - Down's Syndrome, etc. There is not a single example of where it has been good.

Evolution "is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea." - which is Faith. Evolutionists WANT it to be science, but it is not.

[empraptor]

@BS

"Evolution is a religious belief. It is the belief that there is no God; therefore everything we see happened by accident."

I'm awed by supreme stupidity of this sentence. Are you trolling?

If you think evolution is a belief that there is no god, then you should go back to school.

Just because evolution conflicts your world-view doesn't mean it conflicts with other Christians' world-view.

[Benjamin Schwartz]

Evolution is a religious belief. It is the belief that there is no God; therefore everything we see happened by accident.

There is NO working theory of evolution. Scientists cannot even give a working example on how a human right now can evolve further to include more genes and procreate.

The more scientists know (i.e. Human Genome project), the less working knowledge they have of how Evolution could possibly work.

[empraptor]

@LES

Mutation is not damage to the DNA. It is a change.

Yes, majority of them will be detrimental to the organism.

But by implying all mutations are detrimental you are defining the word to serve your ends. This is circular reasoning.

Mutation in the context of this argument is change in genetic material, regardless of its effect.

Vast majority is detrimental. As you say, error correcting mechanisms cut down on number of mutations that would otherwise happen.

But mutations do happen despite those mechanisms. This is why organisms clone themselves, have sex, etc. Increase numbers, increase variety. Detrimental mutations have lower probability of being passed on. Beneficial mutations have higher probability of being passed on.

There have been and will be repeatable experiments to demonstrate that evolution works.

Which is why evolution is taught in science classes.

If you want creationism taught in public schools, I suggest you try to push through a theology or philosophy curriculum.

[Les]

@gypsey
I am amazed at the ignorance of some of the correspondents who nevertheless think that they 'know' stuff.
Your point 2 first.
Evolutionists thought that there were hundreds of vestigial organs. Now-a-days they do not think there are any - repeat - any.
Your point 2.
All life is made from the same materials. No one has ever been able to suggest any sensible alternative life structure from known elements.
Given that life is based on the interaction of the same atoms and molecules it is to be expected that a molecule like DNA (indeed sometimes it is RNA, and all the myriad of related systems in a cell) should be used in all living things.
A simple analogy would be PCs and Macs both use the same code at base. Note that intelligence was needed to produce both.

A question which never seems to be addressed is: Where does information come from?

Information begets information. Information does not come from nowhere.
The possibility of the evolution of DNA is so ridiculous as to be risible. See a book "In the Beginning was Information" by Professor Werner Gitt.
It is a scandal that evolutionary propagandists like Dawkins (neo-Darwinists) point to mutations of DNA for the development of new characteristics and species.
The opposite is true.
Mutation is damage to 'letters' in a DNA chain. These never - repeat - never lead to new genes only damaged genes. If it was not for the safeguard of gene pairing we would all be very sick people. This would be like the Florida panthers who can hardly produce any viable offspring because of genetic failure due to a small isolated population over time.
Please don't anyone start on Darwin's finches or viruses or sickle cell anaemia - look them up, you will find they are no longer upheld - even by arch-propagandist Dawkins! There is no new information - only less, or gobbledegook.

[empraptor]

"I always find it amazing how many bigots come out when such an issue is bought up.

I think people should keep an open mind about both theories. I think that creationism should be taught alongside evolution. Not to be taught as fact but more as an alternative theory."

Creationism isn't a scientific theory. It's a stillborn hypothesis. People keep saying we can't disprove the existence of an intelligent creator-of-life. They should realize the burden is on them to come up with the evidence if they want Creationism to be considered a science. And before you spout nonsense that has been repeated, please do make sure you aren't using logical fallacies to construct an invalid argument.

Is it being a bigot to want our kids to not waste their time in their science class? For them to not grow up incompetent should their career depend on their knowledge in biology?

And is it being a bigot to not want your particular religion forced upon our kids?

Why don't I start a religion in which everything is predetermined by an uncountably infinite set of gods who constantly destroy the universe every infitesimal time unit and recreate it in exactly the state it should be in the next unit of time according to their plans. Let's declare that evolution is an illusion because everything is predetermined. Life exists because the gods will the particles that living beings are composed of to move as if they were alive. Will public schools down the line have to give equal time to that notion as well?

Oh, I know. I'll just omit the word "gods" and say it's not really teaching kids an aspect of my religion. I'm just motivated because evolution and Creationism leads astray the faithful followers' kids. It creates discord in the families, you see.

Followers of my religion - they can't possibly expected to talk to their kids and work out their own family/religious problems. It's the school's responsibility to teach them that evolution and Creationism aren't the only viable answers so that the parents don't have to deal with this headache. Thanks. I knew you'd understand.

They're all theories after all. They should all be given equal time. Right?

[Gipsy]

Here's the questions that I've asked before in other discussions with creationists, and the only answer I ever get is 'because God gave us free will'. How does that answer these questions???

1. If God created all animals from scratch, one at a time, then surely we would all have completely seperate DNA. And yet humans share 22 percent of their DNA with mice, for example, and all animals have about 11 percent of DNA in common.

2. If God created humans from scratch, why do we have left over bits and pieces that are no longer necessary? Like the appendix, Paranasal Sinuses, Vomeronasal Organ, Extrinsic Ear Muscles, Toes (except the big toe which is needed for balance - none of the others are necessary), Palmaris Muscle, Subclavius Muscle, Male Nipples, Erector Pili (ie goosebumps) and Body Hair in general, and of course the good old Coccyx (tailbone).

[j]

"It shouldn't be "God created the world in a week" creationism but rather that of Intelligent Design - that something bigger had to have a hand in creating it because its so complex"

We could do that Ben, as long as we include a discussion of why an intelligent designer would have included cerebral palsy, cancer, motor neurone disease, muscular dystrophy, autism, brain damage, learning disability, - well we could all go on. I'd love to understand the nature of an intelligent designer who was behind all of that wonder...

[Ben]

I always find it amazing how many bigots come out when such an issue is bought up.

I think people should keep an open mind about both theories. I think that creationism should be taught alongside evolution. Not to be taught as fact but more as an alternative theory.

And it should be creationism in the most open sense. It shouldn't be "God created the world in a week" creationism but rather that of Intelligent Design - that something bigger had to have a hand in creating it because its so complex. As to what/who that designer is should be left to the kids/parents to decide upon.

In the end if evolution really is the complete scientific truth then when it's taught alongside creationism it will trump it.

[RS]

Issac Newton quotes

To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me.

To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing.

The design of God was much otherwise... not to gratify mens curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own Providence, not the Interpreters, be then manifested thereby to the world.The folly of Interpreters has been, to foretell times and things by this Prophecy, as if God designed to make them Prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the Prophecy also into contempt.
The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the Prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify mens curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own Providence, not the Interpreters, be then manifested thereby to the world.

[empraptor]

@JON

"God has always been."

Oh great. Push the "unexplainable complexity" onto this one thing. THAT explains EVERYTHING. What a joke.

Is the Creationist creation-god the Judeo-Christian god? I kept reading in the comments that it is not an exclusively Christian thing.

So is Creationism in your opinion a Christian concept? Do you seek, by promoting Creationism in science classes, to turn children of other religions into Christians?

No way I'm letting people like you force a religion on my children. No way I'm letting my children turn into incompetent doctors or scientists.

And why Creationism? While you're ruining our education system, why don't you go ahead and give equal time to every category of creation myths there are? Ones with multiple gods. Ones where gods don't create the universe or life but only humans. Ones where only a select group of people descend from gods. Etc.

Stop making kids incompetent. Teach them useful things. Public schools don't get government funding so that they can force religion on the kids.

[Simplicio]

@JON
> Because for man to have simply
> evolved, A NUMBER of improbable >results would have to have occurred,

Except that you don't know if they are improbable, which converts your reasoning into a fallacy : you assume that it is improbable, then use that assumption to "prove" that it couldn't have evolved.

But this kind of fallacy cuts both way. I can state that man evolving has a probability of one because obviously we are here. Any and all statistics "deduced" from a sample of size 1 are pure and complete garbage. And so far we have only one Earth and only one timeline.

> especially for something SO
> complex as man.

Since in physical systems complexity is defined as the probability of the state vector, saying that man is complex is equivalent to saying that he is improbable, which you have yet to prove.

Therefore again you are assuming your own conclusions.

[empraptor]

@JON:

What is the probability of a card chosen at random being the Ace of Spades? 1 in 52.

But let us have culling and reproduction of the cards. Turn over 40 of the cards at random. Eliminate 26 of the cards that are least like the Ace of Spades. Clone each card that is left.

Repeat this process enough times and probability of randomly choosing Ace of Spades from the resulting deck approaches 1.

The complexity argument has been repeatedly shot down.

Creationists try to come up with an example of proteins and organs that they claim is too complex or looks too much like a designed component.

Then eventually a slightly simpler form of the component is found in other organisms that have a different/lesser effect that benefits the organisms.

Humans are apes. Is it so hard to see that we share common ancestors with other apes?

[Jon]

>> Then how do Creationists explain how the creator-of-all-life came into being?
God has always been.

>> How can I believe in creationism and not reject evolution?
Both Creationism and Evolution try to explain the beginnings and development of life here on Earth; it does NOT address life outside of Earth. So, one can believe that the Creationists are right in how life began (it was brought to Earth), and the Evolutionist is right in how life developed after that (it evolved via survival of the fittest).

>> I assure you, it is not impossible for an intelligent being capable of culture and civilization to have evolved on Earth.
I agree. It is not culture and civilization that makes it improbable. It is the complexity of the human body. The improbably results upon improbable results that would have had to occur for all the systems that make up our immune system, etc. This improbability holds true even if evolution is not random.

[empraptor]

@THE ECONOMIST

"Life does not stem from non-life. Never has, never will..."

Then how do Creationists explain how the creator-of-all-life came into being? You are implying that this intelligent being that created life is itself alive. How did it come into being if life cannot be formed out of non-living materials?

"life" is just a word. There is no firm definition for what is considered living and what is not. You are just playing games with words if you say things like "life cannot come from non-life".

It has been shown organic compounds can form from non-organic compounds in an environment devoid of organic compounds.

Organic compounds have been detected in space. Space is littered with the stuff.

Why is it so hard to see that among the countless galaxies observable and not, of the countless star systems in each galaxy, on planets with large amount of water and organic material can form groups of chemicals that process energy and reproduce themselves?

[The Economist]

Life does not stem from non-life. Never has, never will...

[empraptor]

@THE ECONOMIST

How does Frankenstein play into this issue?

You can believe in creationism - that some intelligent being created all life - but also that evolution is the means by which it accomplished the feat.

I personally don't know much about Creationism, but I've heard some people believe in Creationism yet understand and accept evolution. So I would guess that one does not necessarily contradict the other. Or at the very least there are some people who have found a way to work around the supposed contradiction.

[samiam]

The egotistical inflation and delusions of grandeur are so thick on this post its suffocating to even glance at the comments. But about the post I will only say this. Say what you will about evolution and creationism but the fact remains that science is observable in nature. You can't evaluate creationism on the basis of a BOOK (the bible) and faith which is intangible. Also keep in mind that the book that creationist zealots follow so religiously (pun intended) was written by people with their own agendas over many different periods of time. Common sense has to kick in at some point or else you are just asking the blind to see which clearly wont work.

[Trudi]

Stephen Gilbert - before you comment and make rude remarks about the author, maybe take the time to see who it is - I'm guessing Sarah Ebner is a she, not a he. Or don't they teach you that kind of thing in Journalism 101?

[The Economist]

"I believe in creationism, does that make me ignorant???"

No.

But if that means you reject Evolution or failed to understand it correctly - then yes, you are ignorant in this area of study.

How can I believe in creationism and not reject evolution? Last time I checked Frankenstein was (is) fictional...

[empraptor]

@JON

I've had to argue about this at length with a friend of mine. I assure you, it is not impossible for an intelligent being capable of culture and civilization to have evolved on Earth.

Evolution is not random. If you think the process of evolution is random, you've simplified it into something that it is not.

[Jon]

>> The arguments you repeated here uses a logical fallacy - straw man - to defeat a false, simplified representation of evolution.

You’re referring to the probability that any PARTICULAR result is improbable and statistically impossible, but since a result has to occur, even the result that did occur is statistically impossible? So, why not man??

Because for man to have simply evolved, A NUMBER of improbable results would have to have occurred, not just one improbable result. Furthermore, it is NOT destined that the result BE complex. Since the result does not HAVE to be complex. The improbability of A complex result holds true, especially for something SO complex as man.

[Stephen Gilbert]

Right when I got to the part.. let me find it.. yes. here it is, this part:

"creationism - a belief that the world was entirely God's work, and evolved much as is laid out in the Bible"

I laughed and stopped reading because the author clearly didn't know what he was writing about. To simply limit creationism to the bible, or specifically the Christian religion, one shouts to the world his ignorance and fails to realize the fact that several world religions have creation accounts. He also fails to realize other theories of creationism, for example, the alien astronaut theory. (which is really weird, but none the less fits into the spectrum of Creationism)

Before you write, Research. Surely you learned this in Journalism 101? or are you just a High School Graduate with a relative in the company.

[Gustavo]

The bottom line is that non-scientific hypotheses, like Creationism, should NOT be taught in a science class. Save that kind of stuff for a theology or world religions course. Even better, save it for the one place it fits best: Church.

[P Timings]

In your article you say evolution can be proved or at least explained. If it can be proved then maybe you would like to do so. Many scientists today dont beleive in evolution for the simple reason that it cannot be proved and is unworkable. Please note the following quotes from Evolutionists past and present on the origin of life.
The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is at present still an article of faith (Mathematician J W N Sullivan)
The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop (Biochemist George Wald)
If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated spontaneously on earth this simple calculation (the mathmatical odds against it) wipes the idea entirely out of court.(Astronomers Fred Hoyle and N C Wickramasinghe.
Therefor we need to see which fits the facts and not be prejediced againt them.
The Evolution model says life evolved from non life by chance chemical evolution.
The creation model says Life comes only from previous life originally created by an intelligent creator.
Facts found in the real world. Life comes only from previous life, no way to form complex genetic code by chance.
The book of Genisis says that God created birds animals etc according to teir KINDS.Psalm 104v23 says How many your works are o God all of them in wisdom you have made the earth is full of your produtions. 1st John 4V8 says God IS love. Which do you prefer mindless evolution or a God whose purpose is to make this earth a paradise where obeidient humans will live forever.see Revelation 21v1-4

[empraptor]

"it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE for something as complex as man to simply have ... Evolved."

Then you have not understood evolution. You are just repeating lines created by Creationists. Some commenter here mentioned people against Creationism should read the Bible to understand the opponent's view.

I ask you to do the same. If you studied evolution and statistics, you will see why it is NOT impossible for humans to have evolved.

The arguments you repeated here uses a logical fallacy - straw man - to defeat a false, simplified representation of evolution.

[Brian Jones]

Evolution is a Religion, No I dont count myself as a Evolution believer and Yes I do have Science and Engineering Degrees from a top 5 School.

[Jon]

>> Leave creation myths in churches. In science classes teach science.

You don’t even understand the argument do you?

SCIENCE PROVES that Evolution is NOT the entire answer. It is SCIENCE that disproves Evolution is the entire answer. Science is the vehicle that disproves Evolution to be the entire answer.

I just said the same thing 3 different ways. How thick do you have to be NOT to understand that it is NOT just religion, but SCIENCE that gives Creationism credence?

Creationism does NOT state that evolution does not exist, nor does it state that God is the "Creator". It simply recognizes that something, God, aliens seeding the earth, an asteroid carrying life colliding with the earth, or SOMETHING else other than Evolution, because according to SCIENCE, it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE for something as complex as man to simply have ... Evolved.

[empraptor]

"I believe in creationism, does that make me ignorant???"

No.

But if that means you reject Evolution or failed to understand it correctly - then yes, you are ignorant in this area of study.

I can't believe anyone wants their kids to think that Creationism is science. Don't they want their kids to be able to perform their job properly should they deal with biology/mediciine?

[The Economist]

I believe in creationism, does that make me ignorant???

[Herb]

hey folks, i wish i could just ignore the " post" button and move on, yet i have something on my heart i wish to share:
first of all if you wish to debate religion in school, hey that's great do it in a sociology class

second: after 2 thousand years of NO scientific evidence of the existence of god, the burden of proof is still on you, yes, you christian.

third, if creationism where to be taught(?) what then would you say, about hindoesm,boedhism and all those other " religions" who believe and pray very hard, for theyre beliefs to be true, you wouldnt want to discriminate against them and just start teaching the "science" of reincarnation?

ps, this post may be offensive so my apologies beforehand :)
ciao

[empraptor]

"Abiogenesis is a materialist fairy tale far more risible than talking snakes and asses! Despite its veneer neo-Darwinism is the worship of Mother Nature's inanimate ability to intricately design and beautify - and woe to he who threatens to shake this sacred cow!"

Mother nature?

Mother nature designs and beautifies nothing. There is no mother nature. There is no design.

If you had adequate basic education in science and understood it, you wouldn't put that kind of horse manure in other people's mouths.

[One again anothe r moron writes an ignorant post voide of facts]

Evolution cannot be proven, that's an ignorant statement. And the big bang theory opposes many of the laws of physics that they try and say support evolution. Haha, entertaining as always.

[charles soper]

Abiogenesis is a materialist fairy tale far more risible than talking snakes and asses! Despite its veneer neo-Darwinism is the worship of Mother Nature's inanimate ability to intricately design and beautify - and woe to he who threatens to shake this sacred cow!

[bahbaby]

Those who don't believe in evolution should have no problem being administered antibiotics from strains manufactured in the 1960's

[Grabbag]

It is unfortunate that a majority of people today, in the western world haven't read or studied the Christian Bible (or only from the viewpoint of a skeptical professor). Read the book of Job sometime. The Bible doesn't act as a detailed treatise about how everything happened or why.

Sometimes the Old Testiment refers to 'Giants.' Who are they? It is not clear. The book of Job, for example, refers to creatures that could be lizards, dinosaurs, or other things. It is interesting that the "scientific community" accuses people of religious faith of having closed minds. That works the other way, too.

[RevK]

Let's talk about the millions of PBS $$$ that Carl Sagan used to teach, "We owe our existence to a random collision of gaseous clouds."
THAT'S SCIENCE??

Has anyone even read a science book? The latest version here in California goes into great detail explaining how we should reject religious notions for why everything exists -- but proceeds to "explain" that everything exists as a result of "serendipity!"
THAT'S SCIENCE??

[empraptor]

Oh NO. Not this again.

If you want to teach kids something in a science class, don't teach Creationism. Because that ain't science.

Do you really want your kids to grow up thinking Creationism is as useful as evolution is? If they decide to become a doctor or work in a field of biology, how do you think they will fare without solid understanding of evolution?

Take antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What will your kids do with the belief that this new strain of bacteria was created at the beginning of time? They can't do jack with that kind of belief. They certainly aren't going to come up with an explanation of a plausible process of how they came to be and how to reduce the chances of new antibiotic-resistant strains cropping up.

Physics classes don't give equal time to Aristotelian physics because it's horribly wrong even at non-relativistic speeds. Why the hell should a SCIENCE class teach a creation story that doesn't match observation?

Leave creation myths in churches. In science classes teach science.

[jahtom]

Hello

I believe that effectively both should be taught in shcool that way kids can have debates over their belief. As the article says Evolution theory can be explained (but can also be disproved) as Creationism cannot be proved, but neither disproved.

Like Montaigne said "mieux vaut une tete bien faite, qu'une tete bien pleine" ("better a well made head, than a full head".)

Our kids have lost ability to think for themselves, and believe the first lie they are taught. So let them think for themselves and argue over their belief.

This will hopefully make them come back on their true origins...

Amen....

[Rob]

Thank god, gravity is a Law!

[dunuke]

Folks that believe that the Bible is a made-up fairy tale should try reading it. The best debaters, generals, and politicians study their opponents well before arguing or going to battle. Evolutionists have been convinced that the "THEORY" is fact, while creationists rarely understand the scientific backing of Genesis. You cannot defend what you do not understand. To the evolutionists, I say "Truly, what proof!" To the creationists, I say, "Learn to defend your position!" To any who believe they have the answer without understanding the basis for the opposite point of view, I say "How ignorant are you?"

[mogulus]

You can never prove that God did not create the universe USING evolution.

the moment the government orders my children cannot be taught that this is a possibility is the moment I yank them out of public school and put them into a privately funded institution of my own choosing.

Those who deny God's existence stink of ignorance and egotism. to deny science stinks only of ignorance.

If given a choice, i'd choose the latter anyday.

[Steve D'Emidio]

For the record dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. Two animals described in the book of Job, named leviathan and behemoth, cannot be anything BUT dinosaurs.

[Jon]

>> >> You have a theory on one side, backed by many years of study and research based on the scientific method,
… and proven to be false by an even OLDER field of study … MATH …
>> and a loopy …
… to an atheist …
>> made-up tale on the other, supported only by …
… the bible which contains countless foretelling which have come to pass.

[Jon]

>> However, [Evolution] is a theory with an enormous sum of evidence (evidence that has proven to be factual) in its favor.

There is a number of circumstantial evidence that if you remove Creationism, can ONLY be explained via Evolution. But it requires you to remove Creationism from the start. Secondly (and I know I am repeating myself for the third time) but simple, statistical, UNBIASED math proves that Evolution is NOT the entire answer. It is IMPOSSIBLE for something as complex as man to have simply Evolved.

>> Carbon dating is a nearly flawless form of dating matter that has yet to fail us …

On the contrary, it HAS failed us. We have discovered that material exposed to smoke from a fire skews the result of carbon dating significantly (just to name one).

[Whatever]

Good grief, there's a bunch of blithering idiots on here. The word "Creationism" really does bring them out, doesn't it?

Face it - there is no "two points of view" on this topic. You have a theory on one side, backed by many years of study and research based on the scientific method, and a loopy made-up tale on the other, supported only by the irrational fantasies of a pack of Stone-Age idol-worshipping simpletons.

[b]

This article and many of the comments are ludicrous. Where is your article about Obama's religious beliefs? Palin has never said anything about not believing evolution. Just more MSM hate trying to get your favorite little socialist elected.

[Regardt van der Vyver]

I don't care what you believe, but please, if you don't know. Just find out what Jesus did, and why he did it... don't lose focus of the real issue at hand.

[alphonse]

Accusations do not count as factrs. Please cite the older sources for Palin's beliefs, she's already denied them.

[Mike]

"The problem with evolution is that it can be falsified on every level and that is demonstrated not in creationists responses but by reading the peer review to almost every major new find that evolutionists drag up. Evolutionist simply cannot debate the issue in a forum where fair and equal treatement is given to the opposite side; if that were ever to happen evolution as a belief system would die. If the God-haters are right how about a fair and equal debate?"

I think you should learn how to spell basic words and take a few elementary school grammar lessons before you criticize the intellectual state of others.

[Jon]

>> Creationism is based on RELIGEOUS BELIEFS.

There ARE Creationists who believe that the "Creator" was God. But that is NOT what Creationism is based on. In fact, the root of Creationism is founded on simple statistics. Since it is IMPOSSIBLE for something as complex as man to simpley have evolved, then there has to be another answer ... hence Creationism.>> Creationism is based on RELIGEOUS BELIEFS.

There ARE Creationists who believe that the "Creator" is God. But that is NOT what Creationism is based on. In fact, the root of Creationism is founded on simple statistics … Since it is IMPOSSIBLE for something as complex as man to simply have evolved, then there has to be another answer ... hence Creationism. Creationism recognizes ALL possible “Creators” including God, aliens seeding our planet, happenstance life falling on earth via an asteroid, etc.

So no, it is not “based on RELIGEOUS BELIEFS”.

[John]

The problem with evolution is that it can be falsified on every level and that is demonstrated not in creationists responses but by reading the peer review to almost every major new find that evolutionists drag up. Evolutionist simply cannot debate the issue in a forum where fair and equal treatement is given to the opposite side; if that were ever to happen evolution as a belief system would die. If the God-haters are right how about a fair and equal debate?

[Mike]

The thing is, most respectable scientists acknowledge that evolution is a theory. However, it is a theory with an enormous sum of evidence (evidence that has proven to be factual) in its favor.

Most creationists however, will blatantly disagree with what they can see in front of them. Some even dispute basic facts such as the age of the Earth. Carbon dating is a nearly flawless form of dating matter that has yet to fail us, but they still can't let go of what an outdated book that has lost much through multiple translations from it's original texts has to tell them. Maybe their neurons just aren't making the proper connections (basic high school neuroscience, founded on the same method currently being used to cautiously step towards a definite explanation of evolution).

In general, the educated in this matter are quite humble, no scientist worth his or her salt would claim evolution to be more than a theory, and no creationist that doesn't want to look like an ignorant fool would claim creation to be the absolute answer.

[captkidney]

I find it interesting that you had to cut up her quotes into so many parts to get the wording you wished for. If I remember correctly, she said that " you don't have to teach both". Fact check .org shows backs this up. Palin is pro information and debate. I'm not saying you fudged the facts: I'm calling you liars.

[Louis]

Evolution is a THEORY based on interpretation of scientific observation. Creationism is based on RELIGEOUS BELIEFS. Theories can be intillectually argued. Beliefs cannot.

[Jon]

>> The basis for creationism is that science cannot prove evolution to an extent that religiously biased people can accept.

Not exactly. The problem with Evolution is that simple, statistical, unbiased math PROOVES that it is IMPOSSIBLE for something as complex as man to simply have ... evolved. It's atheistically biased people who can't accept what science has proven, that evolution is NOT the entire answer.

[Justin]

Creationism can be mentioned, but should not be taught alongside secular science in schools. The reason for that is that you don't want some jaded 30-year old nonbeliever teaching your children about the bible. It's sure to be wrong.

I think it's worth pointing out that so many people (like Barn above) get suckered into believing secular scientists because they don't do any research themselves. The same as picking up a talking point from your favorite political analyst and not really having any depth or knowledge to support it.

Dude is talking about evolution proved true by the fossil record, dating of rocks and expanding universe. Evolution (in the context opposite creationism) is nothing->slime->man. How does an expanding universe prove that nothing turned into slime, which them turned into man? With the rocks and the fossils, there is some circular reasoning used and always presuppositions built into it. They assume that radioactive isotope have a half-life that is constant throughout all eternity and ALL conditions. That's not at all a certainity (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/acceleration.asp ). Last thing, it's all about interpretation of the data. No matter what secular science finds, it will ALWAYS support evolution, because they will make it so. If I want to know what your mom's maiden name is, I'm not going to trust a google search over your word. Same with this. Why trust what man didn't see and can't ever prove, when you can simply ask the One who was there and created it?

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much. Who determined its dimensions and stretched out the surveying line? What supports its foundations, and who laid its cornerstone as the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4-7)

[Kirk]

Evolution can be proven? That depends on how it's defined. "Evolution" has such a flexible definition it's practically a useless word. Creationists acknowledge genetic filtering (natural selection) and mutations, but what is observed is DEvolution. The idea of universal common descent is as much a religious belief as Special Creation. In other words, common descent evolution is the Creation Myth of materialistic naturalism.

[Bob]

The basis for creationism is that science cannot prove evolution to an extent that religiously biased people can accept. There is a large number of creationists who refuse to accept modern rock dating methods and still cling to the absurdity that the earth is 6000 years old.

If you look back in history there were times when man attributed hurricanes, volcanos, rainbows and other natural phenomena to some type of god. This is way of thinking that still exists. I am sure that primitive peoples somewhere would look at an airplane flying overhead or a radio an hear human voices coming from it and think that a god is somehow more responsible for them in their scientificly limited way of thinking.

GO REDS

[Greg]

"09:00 Math
10:00 Practical Voodoo
11:00 Magic
12:00 Lunch
13:00 Conjuring
14:00 Creation Myth
15:00 Science

Spot the odd ones out"

Kurt,
I guess that you don't know that the Christian church started the study of science in medieval times, and that NOT ONE SCIENTIFIC FACT HAS EVER REFUTED ANYTHING IN THE BIBLE. However, scientific LAWS make it impossible for the THEORY of evolution to be true.
How sad it must be to have nothing to look forward to.

[Dave]

The teaching of creation & evolution should be together. Nobody saw any one of them happen, they believe it happened. Evolution would not hardly exist if was not supported by taxpayer dollars. To believe we were created by a loving God is more understandable than that we came from a rock.

[James Farnsworthington]

An evolutionist once said (and I am paraphrasing) to believe in evolution only entails supporting the notion that it is possible to line people shoulder to shoulder, around the globe, and they all simultaneously solve a Rubik's cube.

What Palin was saying is that debate can never hurt. Only those afraid of the outcome are afraid of debate. I believe that God started the ball rolling and his design has evolved.

[pretty much says it all]

Andrew Ryan, protecting people from tyranny is hardly the same as telling 78% of the population that their beliefs are not acceptable. So, who is the victim of tyranny again?

[Jsmith]

If evolution can be proved, why hasn't it been? I don't know whether it happened or not, but last time I checked it was still a theory.

[cp]

"superstitious nonsense"

Being so dismissive of the belief systems of others is utter nonsense. The human mind requires an explanation for everything. If it does not have one, it will make up a plausible explanation. To say that a belief system is nonsense is to arrogantly dismiss the science of the brain. A plausible explanation is not nonsense, if it is shared by a significant minority of people. It is as real to believers as the answers provided by science are to Massimo Pigliucci.

[Dave2]

Tom, you're full of it. Scientific theories do not graduate into something else when they get enough support. They just become "extremely well-supported, undeniably true theories".

You don't understand how the word 'theory' works in science.

[e skelton]

Christians assume with their usual arrogance that it is a choice between them alone and science. I am willing to have my children taught both Darwinism and the Native American creation story (so that they will keep an open mind).

[Tom]

I never knew "evolution can be proved". Then why have we not changed it to the Evolution Facts?
The truth is, no one knows what happened, and evolutionists believe in evolution, the same as religious people believe in intelligent design of a sort.
And who said creationsim cannot be explained? If you were sure about that why not allow it to be taught? Then once the teachers fail to explain it, the students would find out for themselves.
The recent Big Bang experiment has proved, if anything, that the Big Bang theory was not that simple. After years of preparation, and untold amount of dollars spent, the machine lasted only a few weeks. No worlds have been created, no lives formed. And you still believe that all these could have happened by chance! You have a great deal of FAITH in chance! Even if anything comes out of the Big Bang experiment, it can only be an "Intelligent Design Big bang" as events in the machine could hardly meet the criteria of "chance" - intelligent humans designed it.
In many other areas of science when there is no definitive answer, usually all the various theories and arguments are taught and allowed to be debated. Yet when it comes to the most important question of our origin, science wants to answer the question before the facts are known. In my opinion, that is wrong. Evolutionists have nothing to fear (actually, evolutionists are scared of the Intelligent Design). Science actually benefits where there is debate and challenge, not censorship.

[Clive Harris]

Evolution is 'just' a theory? Read this, it might make you a little wiser:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/nov05.html

So, Sarah not the BigBang did it!

That is about Big Band promising self and Sarah a lot ( in case nobody gets it). Emergency spendings in budget - that what it is about.

They ( the extorters)love your lines for a change

So, Sarah not the BigBang did it!

That is about Big Band promising self and Sarah a lot ( in case nobody gets it). Emergency spendings in budget - that what it is about.

They ( the extorters)love your lines for a change

[Philip]

Hello Friends,

Creationist Video - 2.5 hours - I found really interesting: "http://www.halos.com/videos/ut-1987-full-320x240-273k.htm" - has this ever been refuted by Evolutionists in 20+ years?

With Christian best wishes,

Philip.

[Catch]

The answer to the original article seems pretty straightforward, and has been noted in many of the posts. Creationism is a religious belief, and should be treated as such. Evolution is a scientific theory, and should be taught as part of a science curriculum. Teaching of creationism as a "scientific theory" is inappropriate. The arguments for pursuing this, some presented in these posts, demonstrate to anyone with a training in science that the proponents have no idea of what is meant by "science" or "theory". They should just stick to their religion classes.

[John Klaus]

Evolution has expanded our knowledge of the physical world by application of the scientific method. Creationism represents the long and deeply held beliefs of a religious faith on the origin of life and the universe.

Jesus taught that we all have a moral obligation to support and care for one another, particularly the least among us, and represents our foundation for societal norms, laws and governance. Science teaches us how the world works and has brought us all the technologies we enjoy, including the ones that allow us to provide ourselves with food and shelter.

Treating evolution and creationism as competing 'theories' (creationism is not a theory, if you think it is, you do not understand the scientific method) is not being fair, it is an attempt to compare apples and oranges. Teaching religious creationism in a science class is just as inappropriate as teaching scientific method during a religious service.

Religion and morality can provide guidance as to how we use the knowledge gained through science but it can only suppress, not change, the factual knowledge uncovered by scientific investigation.

Frankly this is all obvious to anyone willing to invest even a little time in objective, rational thought. The argument is built on a foundation of ignorance.

[peter whitehead]

Evolution is proved by many things; eg we need new flu vaccinations each year because the flu virus evolves rapidly.
Anyway, without an understanding of the fossil record, which can only be explained by evolution, earth science cannot find oil fields. Creationists who use fossil fuels are contradicting themselves. At least the Amish are consistent.

[Soreofhing]

It's frightening to read here the utter poppycock that Creationists believe.
I suppose that in the far distant future people will look back and scoff at those ignorant beliefs in the same way that we now look back and stifle a guffaw at the beliefs of the cave men.

[David]

Can science create living cells from dead matter? No they can't even in the most favourable lab conditions. Can we seriously believe that life from non life happened by accident?

[DONALD brose]

We should also teach on an equal basis that the moon is made of green cheese? Get real folks. Evolution is fact with endless evidence. Creationism is a religious belief with no evidence. Teach truth not myth. Teach science!

[Freswith]

One sneeze and we will have a Hillbilly in the White House.

The prospect appalls me!

[Robert Johnson]

I am keeping an open mind until our brilliant scientists discover who created, or privided the materials for the 'big bang'! Surely everyone believes in evolution to some extent as even our scientists and all the knowledge and inventions we enjoy today are elvolved from past generations.
I don't see how both theories cannot co-exist until science can prove otherwise, and that's a long time off yet. Keep an open mind everybody!

[Stuart Greig]

Your argument of flat earth versus round earth is flawed. Unlike creationism, the flat earth theory can be disproven.

[Philip]

"It's distressing that 8 years into the 21st century, there are so many people who have not entered into the 20th century yet and are still fighting the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Posted by: Eric G. | September 20, 2008 at 05:01 PM"

Hello Eric,

What is your opinion of this pro-Creationist video (quite long - about 2.5 hours - watched it today and quite interesting) " http://www.halos.com/videos/ut-1987-full-320x240-273k.htm "?

Best wishes,

Philip.

[Andrew Ryan]

This means you: "In a democracy, the majority rules"

Ever heard of the phrase 'protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority'?

[Eric G.]

It's distressing that 8 years into the 21st century, there are so many people who have not entered into the 20th century yet and are still fighting the Scopes Monkey Trial.

[Wallace Brand]

What a tempest in a teapot. Sarah Palin said she did not advocate creationism taught as a part of the cirriculum, but only that debate in the classroom should not be stifled if someone wants to bring up creationism. That is only a reasonable advocacy of First Amendment rights.

[Azul]

RetRead, this isn't about personal beliefs, it is on trying to push them onto others. Being Craetionist is perfectly fine, but as long as the public isn't taught a proofless idea. Creationism is strictly religious, which like I said, violates separation of Church and State. Also, what about other religious ideas on the creation of the universe and development of humans? If you represent one religion with the state, you have to represent them all. Otherwise, again, the separation would be a dead law, and America would basically turn fascist, perhaps slowly, but surely due to religion mixing with affairs that should belong to the unbiased state.

[Diouf]

Evolution can be proved enough to be accepted by scientists of any faith and any country. The problem with the proof of Creationnism of any one Religion, is that at some point it collides with the proof of another Creationnism from another religion, hence leading ultimately to a war. Science is a domain where truth and proof evolves, from Galileo to Newton to Einstein. What is proved true today may be proved approximate tomorrow. But there again, this is not the case with Creationnism. There is no history of improved proof. There is instead an history of varying faith and compromise with science. First Christians thought that the Earth was flat, then they changed their mind for scientific reasons. Then they though the Earth was at the center of the Universe and burnt people of an opposite opinion, and finally changed their mind, for scientific reasons. Why should it be different for Creationnism ? Religious beliefs regarding the Universe have been following science for centuries, even if only approximately.

[Kurt]

09:00 Math
10:00 Practical Voodoo
11:00 Magic
12:00 Lunch
13:00 Conjuring
14:00 Creation Myth
15:00 Science

Spot the odd ones out